Ve haf certain powers, Miz Maddow . . .

In the midst of bashing Pres. Bush over Iraq this evening, Rachel Maddow’s mic went suddenly dead, forcing her MSNBC show to go to commercial.

When she returned [and after paraphrasing a line from Macbeth], Maddow let it be known she was "such a conspiracy theorist" but didn’t dare tell the audience what she was thinking because "it would discredit me forever."

RACHEL MADDOW: Spreading peace and democracy.  That was the third try at made-up reasons we invaded. How’s that worked out?

It’s at that point that Maddow’s mic suddenly quit. For several moments, she can be seen speaking, with no sound at all. She begins to tap her mic, and a low-quality audio can be heard.

MADDOW: Are we back?  We’re not back? Well this is unusual. One, two, three, four, five. [Inaudible] conspiracy.

The show had to admit temporary defeat, and cut to commercial.  When it returned . . .

MADDOW: Before I was so untimely ripped from the broadcast.  It’s really weird: it’s not like I’m on a satellite feed or anything.  I’m in my home studio, in New York.  And what we lost was the hard-wired mic that pins me to the desk. It’s really weird: nothing like that’s ever happened before. I’m such a conspiracy theorist. I cannot tell you what I’m thinking right now: it would discredit me forever. But as I was saying before that thing happened . . .

Rachel, we didn’t want to hit the red button, really.  But on a night of national reconciliation, for you to have criticized Pres. Obama for saying a few kind words about Pres. Bush, then compounded things with your indictment of W’s war policy, well, our itchy finger just got the better of us

President Barack Obama’s decision to include, in his Tuesday night address from the Oval Office on the end to the “combat mission” in Iraq, a sentence respectful toward former President George W. Bush, appalled MSNBC host Rachel Maddow.

Anchor Keith Olbermann recited Obama’s graciousness toward Bush (“It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset, yet no one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops or his love of country and commitment to our security”) and then, obviously speaking for himself and the entire MSNBC team, proposed: “There are people who would support President Obama who would howl at hearing that said aloud more than once.” Maddow indeed howled, launching into an indignant rant:

To have in this speech, as combat operations are ending, to have…the President not only not addressing the circumstances in which we went to war, but these kind words for President Bush, describing his “commitment to our security” despite the recklessness with which President Bush discarded that national security in favor of this war of choice, which only diminished our security, and is responsible, probably, for the Afghanistan war still going on today, for the deaths of people who have died in Afghanistan after the time after which that war would have ended had we not gone to Iraq — not to mention all of the people who died in Iraq.

After finally taking a breath, she continued:

To talk about him having a demonstrated “commitment to our security,” having started this war on the terms on which he started it, I mean, it’s beyond restraint from President Obama and anybody in the pro-Iraq war, pro-Bush camp who doesn’t feel like they’ve been given the greatest political present they never deserved, was not listening to this speech.

From MSNBC’s Countdown at about 8:24 PM EDT, just after President Obama completed his August 31 speech carried by all the networks:

KEITH OLBERMANN: That one sentence in there, “It’s well known,” referring to President Bush, “that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset, yet no one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops or his love of country and commitment to our security.” There are people who would support President Obama who would howl at hearing that said aloud more than once. Once again, contextualize this in terms of the entire administration.

RACHEL MADDOW: Yeah, I’m, I think we shouldn’t get past how remarkable it is, how much the proponents of the Iraq war are getting off easy here. I mean, we’ve got Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton and these guys, like out now offering their suggestions on what ought to happen in Iraq next. Paul Wolfowitz, who said that the war would pay for itself, that we wouldn’t have to spend any money there.

And to have in this speech, as combat operations are ending, to have – as you point out Keith – the President not only not addressing the circumstances in which we went to war, but these kind words for President Bush, describing his “commitment to our security” despite the recklessness with which President Bush discarded that national security in favor of this war of choice, which only diminished our security, and is responsible, probably, for the Afghanistan war still going on today, for the deaths of people who have died in Afghanistan after the time after which that war would have ended had we not gone to Iraq — not to mention all of the people who died in Iraq.

To talk about him having a demonstrated “commitment to our security,” having started this war on the terms on which he started it, I mean, it’s beyond restraint from President Obama and anybody in the pro-Iraq war, pro-Bush camp who doesn’t feel like they’ve been given the greatest political present they never deserved, was not listening to this speech.

OLBERMANN: They won’t.

On Tuesday’s Situation Room, CNN’s Jack Cafferty revisited one of his favorite subjects of ire, the Catholic Church, and this time called for the ordination of women. Cafferty highlighted the advertising campaign of a British organization which demands that Pope Benedict XVI allow for such simulations of ordination, and mocked a Catholic priest’s defense of the all-male priesthood.

The commentator devoted his 6 pm Eastern hour Cafferty File segment to the issue of women’s ordination: "’Pope Benedict: ordain women now‘- that’s the message that will be plastered on London buses when the pontiff heads to England’s capital in a couple of weeks. A group called Catholic Women’s Ordination is spending $15,000 for 15 buses to carry posters with that message around London for a month."

Cafferty then moved to the opposing viewpoint, and wasted little time before bashing it and one of its defenders: "Father Stephen Wang says women are not barred from the priesthood because of sexism….Wang says that Jesus chose 12 men, and no women, to be his apostles, and he adds that men and women are equal in Christianity, but that gender still matters. Wang compares the role of a priest to an actor, saying no one would be surprised if he wanted a male actor to play King Arthur. He then admits the analogy is weak. That’s the most startling and profound thing he said in the message so far- terrible!"

CNN’s "belief" blog (yes, the network has one) ran an article on Monday which gave further excerpts from Father Wang’s recent column on the priesthood: "Men and women are equal in Christianity, he continues, but ‘this does not mean that our sexual identity as men and women is interchangeable. Gender is not just an accident.’ He [Father Wang] compared the role of a priest to that of an actor playing King Arthur…’No one would be surprised if I said I wanted a male actor to play the lead,’ he said, admitting the analogy was ‘weak.’ But, he said, ‘it shouldn’t surprise us if we expect a man to stand in the person of Christ as a priest, to represent Jesus in his humanity – a humanity that is not sexually neutral.’"

Cafferty later noted that "in addition to the bus campaign, the women’s group plans to hold a vigil the day before the Pope’s visit, and they plan to demonstrate outside the official London residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury." That may seem a bit off, as the Archbishop of Canterbury, as he is the honorary chief cleric of Anglicanism, but the commentator didn’t explain that the planned protest will take place when Pope Benedict is meeting with the archbishop. He added that "in 1994, then-pope, John Paul II, declared the Catholic Church has no authority to ordain women, and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is now pope, agreed with him."

After reading his "Question of the Hour," the CNN personality remarked to anchor Wolf Blitzer that "you could probably find people if you tried, Wolf, or even if you didn’t try very hard, who would tell you it’s way past time." Blitzer replied, "I know a lot of people agree with you on that, Jack- a lot of people out there."

Just before the top of the 7 pm Eastern hour, Cafferty read some of his viewer replies. Only one defended the Catholic position:

CAFFERTY: Joanne in Pennsylvania writes, ‘It’s past time! There is a great need for priests, especially in the United States. We don’t know for sure that Jesus only choose 12 men, since it was men who decided what texts went into the New Testament. I think it is tradition, and not doctrine, that has kept women from becoming priests.’

Guillermo writes, ‘I completely agree with Father Wang. Similar to babies being born from women only, the role of the priesthood was established for men only. As simple as Father Wang indicates it, the priest represents Jesus- a man.’

‘Y’ writes, ‘If I were a woman, I’d tell the Catholic Church to take a hike. Why be obsequious to these clowns? The golden days of white male dominance are over.’

Joe in Houston writes, ‘As an ordained minister of the Church of Apathetic Agnostics, I don’t believe there’s any way I could care any less.’

Anthony in New Jersey: ‘As a disavowed Catholic, I think the Church should just take down its shingle and declare moral bankruptcy. They demonize homosexuals, abuse children, and treat women like second-class citizens. They’re still in the Middle Ages, as our friends, the Islamic radicals. If a religion can’t teach tolerance and acceptance as their main precept, then they ought to just disband, and get out of the way of progress.’

Barker writes, ‘The Anglican Church is basically the Catholic Church, except you can have women priests and the priests can marry. It seems to have worked fine for the Anglicans and the Episcopalians for the last few centuries, and you don’t see all the scandals with them that you see with the Catholic priests.’

And Dick writes, ‘Oh my goodness, no! The only things that remain the way the Almighty intended are the Catholic Church and the white male-only country clubs in South Carolina.’

Cafferty has long had an axe to grind against the Catholic Church. During a March 19, 2009 commentary, he attacked the pope’s comment against the effectiveness of condoms in reducing the spread of HIV in Africa: "It’s time- it is past time for the Catholic Church to enter the 21st century, or at least try to drag itself out of the 13th century." Earlier in 2010, Cafferty devoted five commentaries over the course of 20 days to blasting both Benedict XVI and the Church.

Overall, CNN fares no better, with consistently slanted coverage against the Church. For example, during a March 26, 2010 segment, anchor Kyra Phillips endorsed the agenda of three guests who agitate for politically-correct changes inside the Catholic Church, including women’s ordination and the acceptance of homosexual behavior: "I think all three of you need to head to the Vatican and institute some change."

Chris Matthews almost got another tingle up his leg on national television Tuesday talking about how wonderful Barack Obama is.

So did Salon’s Joan Walsh,

In the opening segment of "Hardball," the host and his perilously liberal guests concluded by trying to figure out why conservatives don’t like the current White House resident.

In the end, and sadly predictable, the conclusion was the color of Obama’s skin.

But before that, the sycophantic praise and exultation for the object of their affection was literally breathless (video follows with transcript and commentary):

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: It’s about being an American, and the wonderful thing about this country is you can grow up to be basically what, you know, it’s a Great Gatbsy country, you can actually create your own identity and become a person. This guy Barack Obama, not to get too basic about it, did everything right.

JOAN WALSH, SALON: Yes.

MATTHEWS: He studied hard in school. He obeyed the law. He raised a family. He took care of his family. He was an excellent student. He was on the Harvard Law Review. He did everything. He went through the democratic process. He didn’t go out and make a lot of money on Wall Street. He gave himself to his community. This guy is almost pluperfect and they don’t like him.

WALSH: He is the American dream. He lived it, he embodies it, and somehow he did something wrong, I don’t know what it is, but it is a little to do with the color of his skin.

MATTHEWS: He didn’t show up at Glenn Beck’s House of Love, or whatever it is.

BOB SHRUM: They might have made him sit in the back row.

Did you hear Matthews almost panting when Walsh called Obama the American dream?

Makes you wonder if studio assistants had to come in and give him a sponge-bath during the commercial break.

Last year, we made some major changes on the back end of NewsBusters to help us keep up with demand as NewsBusters has grown in popularity. Those technical changes paid off and now we’re on the verge of completing phase two of these changes.

We occasionally make fund-raising requests from our readers, but know that this is one instance in which your help is absolutely essential. We literally cannot do it without you. We’ve set a goal of $30,000, which will cover the upgrade.

We need your help to reach this goal. Something you may not be aware of is that because the Media Research Center, NB’s parent company is 501c3 non-profit, we cannot take certain advertisements that would allow us to easily pay such expenses. That is where you, our loyal NB readers can help with a tax-deductible donation.

You can also donate to NewsBusters via PayPal – be sure to enter "NewsBusters" in the Description field at the top of the page!

Thank you for your continued support. It’s already paid off in spades as NB has become the go-to destination for conservatives who want to combat liberal media bias. We’re cited daily by such top radio talk show hosts as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, and many more.

This increased attention has meant more costs for our server expenses, though. Please take the time today to support NB’s continued expansion to meet the new political climate. You’ve come through for us before and we’re confident that you can do so again.

With 2010 the most critical year in America in our lifetime, we need to make sure that NewsBusters is ready to force the media to tell the truth about President Obama and other politicians.

Click here for more details on the new NewsBusters.org.

The editors of the mainstream media must think we all have very short memories.

Their latest schtick is to smear conservative talk show host Glenn Beck as a creepy Mormon who has no business influencing evangelicals.

Aside from the disgusting hypocrisy of Mormon-baiting one minute and then bashing Islamophobia the next, these news outlets are also hoping you’ve forgotten about their recent smearing of evangelicals like Sarah Palin, John Hagee, and James Dobson.

But hey, they shouldn’t be held accountable for their own religious bigotry on display in 2008. That was a whole two years ago, and anyway they had a Democrat messiah to protect.

For a flashback at how low the media stooped then, let’s review an editorial cartoon shamelessly bashing Pentecostalism that appeared on the Washington Post’s website on September 18, 2008:

This cartoon, which insults Pentecostalism as gobbledygook and portrays a God that spouts profanity, was so offensive Post ombudsman Deborah Howell was forced to admit "readers were right to complain."

And the bashing didn’t stop there.

On September 5, a week after Palin’s acceptance speech with McCain’s campaign, tax-payer funded NPR claimed many Pentecostals view Iraq as "a holy war," and then suggested the Alaska governor’s involvement in the church has "no doubt shaped her faith, and possibly, her view of world events."

Four days after that, CNN’s prime time show AC 360 asked if Palin’s colorful religion would "impact policy in Washington." That same day saw CBSNews.com run an article that painted Pentecostalism in exotic tones, and then sincerely asked if Palin believed in separation of church and state.

Not to be outdone, liberal website Salon.com brazenly posted the headline "What’s the difference between Palin and Muslim fundamentalists? Lipstick."

That’s how much respect the media had for Christianity two years ago.

Worse yet was Time magazine on October 9, 2008. Less than a month before the election, hard-hitting journalist Amy Sullivan wondered "Does Sarah Palin Have a Pentecostal Problem?" What followed was an entire article of unabashed religion-baiting:

Palin’s religious background must initially have been seen as a positive to McCain campaign vetters, who assumed that her faith would appeal to the conservative base of the party that has always been suspicious of McCain. But ever since she joined the ticket in late August, the Alaska governor’s various religious affiliations have caused headaches. First came reports that her pastor at the nondenominational Wasilla Bible Church was connected to Jews for Jesus, an organization that seeks to convert Jews to Christianity. Prominent Jewish leaders, including the co-chair of McCain’s Jewish outreach effort, have since demanded to know whether Palin also believes that Jews must be converted. The Bible Church became an issue again when Katie Couric asked Palin about the church’s promotion of a program to help gays "overcome" their homosexuality.

Note the subtle dig at the beginning – McCain chose Palin to appease the Republican party’s powerful base of evangelicals. That was another popular theme in the media then, and many news outlets exploited it for all it was worth.

On August 15, 2008, Washington Post writer Krissah Williams Thompson bragged that "Bush’s unpopularity has been an embarrassment to the evangelicals who overwhelmingly voted for him." Thompson went on to gush that McCain could "not afford to lose" the Christian vote and was forced into "fighting back" against Democrat advances on his base.

On June 28, Newsweek’s Lisa Miller echoed the narrative that "for decades, right-wing kingmakers used their sway with voters to pick candidates and set a national agenda." This was seen as the primary reason McCain picked Palin.

Indeed, the Los Angeles Times claimed that Palin helped McCain get a clutch endorsement from James Dobson, which would translate into "millions of evangelicals" deciding their vote.

Ah, harmless minister Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and one of the media’s favorite Christian punching-bags. When Dobson chatted with Palin during the election season, the Washington Post flippantly called him the "Christian Right leader" who ostensibly decided "how [his] God will be voting on election day."

It pained the media that devout Christians had such powerful influence on the Republican party.

During the presidential primaries in January, ABC News lamented that "the Republican contest was essentially about one thing: religion." Political commentators like Dobson, and vice presidential nominees like Palin, were too devout in their Christian beliefs and could not be trusted to handle policy decisions.

When audio of President Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright, broke into the national conversation, the media frantically compensated by attacking random pastors who endorsed McCain from a distance. On May 22, the Associated Press gleefully reported that McCain was forced to drop a routine endorsement from a church he’d never been a member of:

McCain actively courted Hagee, who leads a megachurch with a congregation in the tens of thousands and has an even wider television audience. Former Republican presidential rivals also sought Hagee’s backing.

The preacher has controversial views that were well-known before McCain accepted his endorsement at a news conference Feb. 27 in San Antonio shortly before the Texas presidential primary.

Obama’s longtime membership in a controversial church was not to be taken seriously. But McCain accepting endorsements as he passed through Texas was an embarrassment.

And yet suddenly, after so many years of complaining that conservatives were too evangelical, the media are worried that a new cultural leader, Glenn Beck, is not evangelical enough.

NewsBuster Tim Graham recently caught the Washington Post asking if Mormons are really Christians. Yes, that Washington Post – the same paper that printed a disgusting cartoon about Pentecostal gibberish. Suddenly, we’re supposed to believe it cares about doctrinal purity among evangelicals.

The New York Times on Monday printed an editorial from Ross Douthat that criticized Beck’s Mormonism for having too many "theological differences" from Dobson-esque Christianity. He went on to snicker that "neither serious evangelicals nor serious Mormons should be terribly enthused" about Restoring Honor.

Serious evangelicals? Like who? Sarah Palin, who was branded a witch-hunter? John Hagee, who was repeatedly called "controversial" for months? What about that theocratic control freak James Dobson who gets to decide how God votes – is he a serious evangelical?

If the media want to encourage evangelicals to follow respectable leaders, it would help if they identified evangelicals who are actually called respectable.

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos interviewed media darling and nominal Republican Meghan McCain on Tuesday’s Good Morning America and devoted the bulk of the segment to her love-hate relationship with Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol. Stephanopoulos devoted so much time to the Palin issue that McCain interjected, "For the record, my book is not just about Sarah and Bristol."

The anchor gushingly endorsed the McCain daughter’s new book, "Dirty Sexy Politics," at the beginning of the interview, which aired 42 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour: "It is savvy, it is saucy, and it’s just what you’d expect from the first daughter of a presidential candidate ever fired by her father’s campaign." He then labeled his guest a "fun writer" and first asked about her "firing," in which she actually sent away from the main stops of her father’s presidential campaign and did a bus tour in the battleground state of Ohio.

After four questions on her "firing," Stephanopoulos raised the issue of Mrs. Palin with McCain. She put all of her answers in the context of herself and her experiences, while the ABC anchor pressed her on the former governor of Alaska, with two negative follow-up questions about Palin and two neutral:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Since the campaign, you had said you didn’t want to talk about Sarah Palin. But you write about her quite a bit in the book. You say there were a lot of things you like about Sarah Palin, but you also point out that she snubbed your Mom’s efforts to reach out to the Palins, that she wasn’t much of a team player. You believe- you talk about doubts you had at the end where you thought she actually hurt the campaign."

MCCAIN: Yes, but I do clearly state at the end that we did not lose because of her, and I’m speaking out now because I do have conflicting feelings about her. I mean, she brought so much momentum and enthusiasm to the campaign. I mean, you saw the crowds double, and you saw a lot more women coming to rallies-

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you also write that she brought- quote, ‘drama, stress, complications, panic, and loads of uncertainty.’

MCCAIN: (laughs) It’s true. I mean, a lot of things happen, but I think that’s how campaigns are in general, no matter who comes, and- you know, I respect her, as a feminist or Republican feminist, and going out there and working for women, especially Republican women. It’s no secret that I’m more socially liberal than she is, but I’m here to say that two different kinds of Republican women can work together for the same cause.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you talked about this moment in the campaign where you’re being interviewed, and you almost got tongue-tied when you were asked about Sarah Palin. You said you had doubts about her. What are the doubts?

MCCAIN: It was a reflection on me, because she was so celebrated in the Republican Party, and it’s- again, no secret that I’m so unlike her, and I thought, how am I ever going to fit in? How am I ever going to do this? And it’s still something that I struggle with today because people so see me as sort of this rebel and this new Republican, which I take pride in, but a lot of, sort of, older Republicans seem to have a problem placing me.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you say there’s room in the party for both of you, but you want a Republican to win in 2012- you say that as well. Could she be your candidate?

MCCAIN: Anyone could be my candidate at this point. I really don’t like these hypothetical questions, but I think that so many candidates are doing or- you know, people that could be running right now, are making very smart moves. I think Mitt Romney is doing a lot of smart things right now. I think it’s going to be a very interesting election, no matter what happens (unintelligible)-

STEPHANOPOULOS: Would you vote for her?

MCCAIN: It depends [on] the situation. You know, I’d have to hear more on what happens in the primaries. As you’re well aware, anything can happen in the primaries, and I would have to see.

It was when Stephanopoulos brought up McCain’s spat with Bristol Palin over teen abstinence and teen pregnancy that the liberal Republican replied with her "my book is not just about Sarah and Bristol" line and added, "a lot of fun stories." The anchor replied, "I want to ask you about one of those stories in a second. But first, you say that at that point, the campaign seemed to be glamorizing teen pregnancy, that the campaign really wanted to suggest that a pro-life message was more important than the message of how to avoid teen pregnancy to begin with?"

McCain answered, in part, "I have a sister who is almost exactly- my little sister Bridget is almost exactly Bristol’s age, and I just know that I want teens in this country to be aware of what can happen when you have sex. You can die from sex in this era, and not necessarily- I just think that the pro-abstinence complete campaign isn’t necessarily the most effective one."

Stephanopoulos concluded the interview by asking his guest about another of her "fun stories" involving a visit to the White House where she was apparently "dis-invited" from a lunch at the White House with Laura Bush and her daughter Jenna. The anchor repeated his endorsement of McCain’s book at the very end of the interview: "Meghan McCain, it is a terrific book, it’s a fun book, it’s a revealing book about life in politics as well."

ABC has promoted Ms. McCain’s liberal flavor of Republicanism in the past with her appearance as a guest host on The View, where she slammed conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham, and profiled her support of same-sex "marriage" on World News.

NBC’s Richard Engel has done some good reporting from Iraq.  But scratch the reporter’s surface, and you find a political partisan eager to echo the anti-Bush party line.   Witness his exchange with Ari Fleischer on Morning Joe today.  Engel twisted the former Bush press secretary’s words, accusing him of alleging an Osama Bin Laden connection with Iraq.  Fleischer had palpably said no such thing.

The springboard was Fleischer’s citation of a 1998 OBL interview in which the terrorist boss said America was weak because it is unable to see through long wars.  Fleischer went on to argue that America’s resolve will be tested should things go badly wrong in Iraq or Afghanistan, thus putting under pressure the arbitrary dates that have been set for US withdrawal from those countries.

Engel jumped in to accuse Fleischer of claiming an OBL tie with Iraq.  Even after Fleischer made explicitly clear he was alleging no such connection, Engel obdurately pressed his point.

View the video and observe as Engel does his best Olbermann-Maddow impression.

ARI FLEISCHER: If either place blows up, Barack Obama will face a very tough decision, just as George Bush did with the surge.  What does he do?  Does America still leave?  Does America leave behind a worse Iraq in case the government is not able to hold it together.  We have so much at stake in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  I keep coming back to when you look at America of the 20th century.  One of the reasons there was a lasting peace in Europe and a lasting peace in Asia is because of American influence and because the American people were willing to let our influence last, especially through the deployment of military forces that stayed for decades in Japan, in South Korea.

One last point: Osama Bin Laden gave an interview in 1998, ABC News, and in which he said, on the air, that America is weak because America is not able to see through long wars. America does not ever want to stay–[inaudible] Somalia. And we will outlast America.  This is being tested. We’ll find out what will happen in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It’s a great struggle of what the American people are prepared to accept or not prepared to accept  . . .

RICHARD ENGEL: Just now you’re making the same comparison, that Osama Bin Laden is tied to Iraq.  Osama Bin Laden wasn’t tied to Iraq. You just talked about how Osama Bin Laden, we have to keep fighting in Iraq and stay the course in Iraq.

FLEISCHER: I’m not saying he was tied to Iraq. The point I was making with Afghanistan and Iraq is the American will to stay for long periods of time. That’s what’s being tested. I didn’t say he was tied to Iraq.

ENGEL: Why should it be tested in a war where you said was based on false intelligence?  Why should we be, you know, we’re going to let Osama Bin Laden win if we don’t stay for a long time in Iraq.  We went there for bad intelligence.

FLEISCHER: The question was, if things go bad in Iraq, will we withdraw the 50,000 remaining troops?  My point was that’s a future decision that President Obama will have to make, just as the withdrawal from Afghanistan–future decision.  If conditions are terrible in both places, and we withdraw, and they become even worse, it’s a fundamental decision President Obama will have to make. That’s the point I’m making: it’s about America’s will to stay, or to leave.

ENGEL: I’m just saying, this whole association that’s still out there in many people’s minds that Iraq was somehow associated with 9-11.

FLEISCHER: You’re stretching my point.  I didn’t say that. You’re stretching my point.

ENGEL: All right: that’s what I heard.

FLEISCHER [gesturing to rest of panel]: That’s not what anybody else heard.

I don’t see any shades of gray here.  It is simply impossible to interpret Fleischer’s statement as the allegation of a connection between Osama Bin Laden, Iraq and 9-11.  Impossible, that is, unless you’re a fierce anti-Bush partisan, as is apparently Richard Engel.

Washington Post columnist and incoming CNN prime-time talk-show host Kathleen Parker is still auditioning for liberal-media accolades. In Wednesday’s Post she offered another shovel of her frenzied distaste for prayer and G-O-D talk in public as she dismissed the Glenn Beck rally, especially the notion that Beck or Sarah Palin could blame the news media for hostility and bias. The media made these people rich, Parker insisted:

Oh, that’s right, The Media. Never mind that Beck is one of the richest members of the media. Or that Palin has banked millions primarily because The Media can’t get enough of her. But what’s an exorcism without a demon? And who better to cast into the nether regions than the guys lugging camera lights?

That’s an interesting line for someone whose assaults on Palin and other conservatives made her a millionaire CNN host.

But conservatives have never focused their media-bias complaints on "guys lugging camera lights," but the people who adore Obama and other liberals in front of the cameras. Parker also made her usual female-version-of-Scarborough complaints about how poor Barack Obama is the subject of juiced-up right-wing paranoia and conspiracy theories about his aggressive aggrandizement of government action:

And the darkness? Creeping communism brought to us by President you-know-who. Conspiracy theories and paranoia are not unfamiliar to those who have wrestled the demon alcohol.

Like other successful revivalists — and giving the devil his due — Beck is right about many things. Tens of thousands joined him in Washington and watch him each night on television for a reason. But he also is messianic and betrays the grandiosity of the addict.

Let’s hope Glenn gets well soon.

Don Surber ably put Parker in her place, that place where her talk-show partner Eliot Spitzer had demons of his own:

Ridiculing his alcoholism after agreeing to appear nightly on an hourlong show electronically beside a man whose sexual addiction and proclivities cost him his job as governor of New York is humorously ironic. Instead of picking at Beck’s speck, she might try dislodging that log in her broadcasting partner’s eye.