NPR tweeted the Declaration of Independence, and you’ll never guess what happened next!
Well, for the Union cause, anyway. Gettysburg had been won the day before, and most recognized that the fall of Vicksburg was the turning point in the war. Union victory was almost inevitable at that point, though it would take almost two more bloody years.
This is a great speech, given on the 150th anniversary, by “silent” Calvin Coolidge. He may be the most underrated president.
Glenn Reynolds has a roundup of links and thoughts:
Yes, I keep repeating this stuff. Because it bears repeating. In Iraq, Obama took a war that we had won at a considerable expense in lives and treasure, and threw it away for the callowest of political reasons. In Syria and Libya, he involved us in wars of choice without Congressional authorization, and proceeded to hand victories to the Islamists. Obama’s policy here has been a debacle of the first order, and the press wants to talk about Bush as a way of protecting him. Whenever you see anyone in the media bringing up 2003, you will know that they are serving as palace guard, not as press.
Worth noting that the Nobel Committee embarrassed itself beyond redemption as well.
[Update a while later]
More of Obama’s foreign-policy mess: Venezuela, the Syria next door. Because he never met a dictator he didn’t like.
An interesting history from Yuval Levin.
In one case we have a politician shot by a deranged nutcase for no discernible political reason, and in the other we have an attempted assassination of dozens of congressmen for a clearly articulated one. And yet observe the coverage.
Not to mention, of course, the completely baseless smearing of Sarah Palin at the time.
Sarah Hoyt is worried that we are losing the war to save it.
I’ve been very concerned about this myself for years. Before 911, in fact; I’ve been concerned about Islam since the 80s. Whenever I hear people say “There’s no military solution to this,” I always think that of course there is. But it’s one that could be pyrrhic.
The Times has added an online correction on this coruscating inaccuracy, reducing the likelihood that they’ll get sued over their libelous bilge. I obviously approve of the decision to alter this grossly inaccurate content, but the fact that their essay was approved as fit to print in the first place last evening is quite revealing. A central piece of their argument was rooted in fantastical left-wing folk lore, repeated so frequently by people who populate institutions like the New York Times editorial board that it morphed into a “fact.” The new version of the editorial still mentions Palin’s map, which is totally unconnected to anything of relevance on this subject. A bizarre non-sequitur. Their utterly wrong, unsupported implication remains intact. How about deleting the entire piece? Also, having made a change to their virtual copy under intense criticism today, will the Times showcase an apology and retraction in tomorrow’s print edition?
Don’t bet on it. Palin should sue them. This is a classic case of reckless disregard for the truth.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Cool, she may do it:
Sarah Palin indicated on Thursday that she might sue the New York Times over editorial that suggested she was in some way responsible for the 2011 shooting of then-Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords.
“Commonsense suggestion by a journalist, am talking to attorneys this [morning] and exploring options,” she said. “[By the way], wonder WHY someone would no longer be in public eye? Think constant libel & slander have anything to do with it?”
I’ve often wondered if much of her erratic behavior since her election loss was a result of all of the vile abuse she’s had to take from the media, and the Left. But I repeat myself.
Are running our lives.
And in many cases, ruining them.