And Glenn, your hard work is clearly paying off.

Even “ALLAHPUNDIT” (one of Michelle Malkin’s flying monkeys at Hot Air) acknowledges Glenn’s growing influence:

Indeed, just as downplaying Al Qaeda has political advantages for a media opposed to the war and eager for it to end regardless of the consequences. If Hoyt’s lament sounds familiar it’s because Greenwald was beating his own wee drum about the same thing a few weeks ago. (I wouldn’t be surprised if Hoyt got the idea for this piece from Greenwald’s sycophants spamming him with GG’s Salon column on the subject.)

Malkin’s Hot Air is really singing the praises of Michael Gordon and the “typically excellent John Burns.” However, considering Malkin’s embarrassing attempts at “journalism” in Iraq no self-respecting journalist would consider that a compliment.

Hot Air concludes:

After four years of open warfare with Sunni insurgents, thanks to delicate diplomacy by military envoys and Iraqi politicians and the Sunni population’s own disgust with Al Qaeda’s Salafism and brutality, we’ve finally achieved something like a detente with some of the indigneous non-Salafist groups in Anbar and Baquba. And Hoyt’s complaint seems to be … that Bush isn’t doing enough to re-antagonize them by lumping them in with AQ in his speeches about who our enemies are. Good thinking.

Wow. I don’t know where to begin on that statement. I think I’ll just let it sit there and smell, as I back slowly away.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/08/nyt-editorial-pull-out-now/

What Glenn cites as the “worst journalistic sin of all” (failure of skepticism of government claims) is, of course, exactly the sort of press that the neo-cons, right-wing bloggers and Bush supporters desire.

Indeed, if the press does express skepticism, it will be charged with “not being on our side.”

Here’s how Roger Kimball viewed this skepticism:

Why is it that all the stories you read in Time-Newsweek-The New York Times-The Washington Post-Etc. or see on CNN-The BBC-CBS-NBC-Etc., why is it that all their stories about Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, etc., why is it that the presumption, the prejudice, the predisposition never goes the other way? Why is it that their reporters always assume the worst: that we're doing dirty at Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., and are primed to pick up and believe any rumor damaging to the United States?

To which Glenn Reynolds replied with this threat: “As I've warned before, if Americans conclude that the press is, basically, on the side of the enemy, the consequences are likely to be dire.”

The presumption that Reynolds and Kimball want reporters to take is that the government is telling the truth. They want reporters simply to repeat what the government says with the presumption that it is true.

If the press continues to express skepticism, they warn, the results could be “dire.”

http://instapundit.com/archives/023008.php

When I was young boy and spent summer days at a small community pool, we would sometimes get out of hand and a bit too rowdy for the lifeguard who finally got sick of our antics (that were, admittedly, designed to drive him insane).

After blowing his whistle and warning us until he was blue in the face, he would finally reach the point of total exasperation and yell, “alright, everybody out of the pool!”

We’d then have to sit in the hot sun looking at the cool water while contemplating our behavior that caused such a sweaty predicament.

Sometimes, like today and yesterday, when I come upon yet another endless “libertarian” comment thread totally unrelated to anything that Glenn wrote, I just want to stand up, blow my whistle, and scream:

“Alright, everybody out of the pool!”

But, instead, I just stop reading the comments.

That, of course, is exactly what right-wing trolls desire when they come here: to disrupt the thread – to guide the discussion away from Glenn’s post. They want readers to give up on the comments attached to what Glenn writes – which, when on topic, are the best of any blog I’ve seen.

Looking back, I’m not sure why we wanted to drive the lifeguard nuts, but I suspect it might be the same reason that so many of Glenn’s comment threads devolve into irrelevancy – boredom.

John Burns, in today’s New York Times, gives the administration’s talking points on the dangers of listening to those who advocate a troop pullout of Iraq in an article titled, “U.S. Envoy Offers Grim Prediction on Iraq Pullout.”

He quotes Ryan C. Crocker, the foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari and General David Petraeus to make the case against pulling out the troops. This article is solely about their views, allowing them to make the case that the benchmarks we used to have for Iraq are no longer operable.

He gives only one sentence to say that “some opponents” (who he does name) argue the contrary, that keeping Americans there provokes violence. He does not quote anyone with this view, nor does he elaborate or explain why they feel this way. He simply acknowledges that these unnamed, unquoted people exist.

So, what are the chances of John Burns writing the equivalent of this article for the unnamed “some opponents” of keeping troops in Iraq? Do you think he could find “someone” to speak on the record about their views?

Will be reading an article solely about their views any time soon? I’ll be wating.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/world/middleeast/10iraq.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin