The proliferation of media has lessened the importance of the Times; so have the newspaper's mistakes (which include too great a kinship with the Democratic National Committee). To be sure, there are some unmissable individuals in the paper, such as John F. Burns in Iraq. But, seemingly every day, journalists and others are discovering that they don't have to consume the whole deal.

As the fallout from yesterday's blockbuster National Intelligence Estimate story continues, it's been interesting to watch the right-wing response, given how wedded prominent conservatives are to the military option in Iran, and how shamelessly they've repeated the fear mongering that led us to invade Iraq.

I've been keeping an eye on the National Review Online, which has provided much entertainment so far. The tone of the subheds on two of the lead stories pretty much sums up everything; a visibly hurt Victor Davis Hanson wonders, "Are they now to suggest that Republicans have been warmongering over a nonexistent threat for partisan purposes?" Michael Ledeen, displaying the thoughtful skepticism that has long been the hallmark of right-wing hawks, says, "If this NIE is true, the evidence would have to be awfully good. And evidence of that quality has been in famously short supply."

Today, a special 9/11 edition: the specter of your campus Muslim Students Association. In a long article under the heading “Campus Jihad” and the headline “Terror On Campus,” Candace de Russy goes after the MSA, approvingly linking to a description of the student group as “a hate group and part of the Islamo-Fascist movement.” She directly quotes one Stephen Schwartz, executive director of something called the Center for Islamic Pluralism, calling MSA an “‘octopus-like’ web of groups [that] is a key lobbying organization for Saudi Wahhabism.” First of all, let’s pause and consider the reaction if someone described an analogous nationwide campus religious group — say, Hillel — as “octopus-like.” It’s a smear, and it shouldn’t fly.

de Russy goes on to sample liberally from a new NYPD intelligence unit report, “Radicalization in the West” (pdf):

Mona Charen, writing on National Review's blog, complains about the directness of a Washington Post headline this morning:

The Post’s headline on its Cheney series this morning (in the print, not online edition) is stunning: “The Unseen Path to Cruelty.” I admit that I haven’t read the entire article (life is too busy and too short to spend valuable time reading 200,000 word Post articles) but I’ve read enough to understand that today’s installment concerns the treatment of detainees. “Cruelty?” That is much too freighted a word to appear in a news headline.

Or is it?  There are some limits to engaging in media criticism based solely on headlines.

Actual Data on Iraq Deaths on Both Sides [Michael Ledeen]
From the great Jules Crittenden . (via Istapundit [sic], without whom modern life is hardly worth it) Bottom Line is that we're killing terrorists at a ten-to-one rate...

We've known for some time that John Derbyshire is among the stupidest of the stupid over at National Review Online.  Until now, I thought that his sadistic desire to witness suffering in his fellow humans was restricted to brown people.

Turns out, he thinks the hostage crisis in Iran would have been a little more worthwhile with some flagrant brutality inflicted against his fellow Brits:

Once again, it's me and Ralph Peters on the same wavelength, deploring the cowardice of the British sailors and marines kidnapped by Iran. When it happened, I said I hoped the ones who'd shamed their country would be court-martialed on return to Blighty, and given dishonorable discharges after a couple years breaking rocks in the Outer Hebrides (which, believe me—I've been there—have a LOT of rocks). Now, I confess, I wouldn't shed a tear if some worse fate befell them.

The only coherent response I get to these sentiments is: "How do you know what they've been through? How would YOU stand up?" To which the obvious reply is the one Dr. Johnson gave in some similar case: "I may criticize a carpenter who makes me a bad table, though I cannot make a table myself. It is not my job to make tables."

...I nurse a quiet hope that if put to the test, I would stand up as well as any Marine. Whether or not I would, however, is irrelevant. Whether or not I could stand up well to torture, I expect Marines to.

And in any case, there was no evidence of torture or mistreatment in any of the filmed cases I have seen. They look just fine. You can't fake that. The girl sailor had that headscarf on within hours. From what I've heard of torture, even weaker cases can hold out for a few days.

As for the argument that these people might have buckled under threats to hurt their comrades, I should think a soldier's answer would be: "They are soldiers, same as me. They know the risks of service, and they'll answer for themselves."

...

It should be assumed that everything the Iranians say is a lie. If they say: "Do this, and we won't harm your mates," and you do it, they will harm your mates anyway. Of course, this kind of truth is much harder to get across to young people who have been brainwashed from elementary school to believe that their own culture is corrupt, evil, and false, while the cultures of Third World barbarians are morally superior...

Ignoring Derbyshire's completely moronic beliefs on withstanding torture (didn't Khalid Sheikh Mohammed earn respect from interrogators for lasting a little over two minutes during waterboarding?), how should this petulant rant from a career chickenhawk be described by a reasonable observer? He's clearly wishing harm would befall his former countrymen (Derbyshire loved England so much he emigrated to the US and took American citizenship) who have only today been released from captivity. He seems to think that they didn't earn their release, sort of like you don't earn being a year older until someone gives you your birthday spankings (with one to grow on!).

And we've known for some time that Derbyshire doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground where torture is concerned.

But maybe Derbyshire has a point. He never served his country in uniform, he doesn't put his life on the line to protect the homeland, he knows nothing of combat or captivity, and he's so completely full of shit his high school nickname was "The Walking Lower Intestine," but I'm sure that if he were to be captured and imprisoned by a less-than-friendly power, brave and noble as he is, he'd make them shove red-hot pokers up his arse, wedge spikes under his fingernails, and kill all of his companions before he'd dishonor Mother England by wearing a headscarf.

Is it wrong for me to hope he someday gets the chance to prove himself?

In addition to BenAdler's thoughts on the hucksterism behind "Planet Gore," I'd like to add to The Editors' thoughts on Jonah "I'm Really Worth Listening To, Really!" Goldberg's new whiny tirade about the Left today.

Goldberg is feeling pissy because he thinks the Left, that massive and always-unified bloc of fifth columnists and diletantes, doesn't spend enough time trying to discredit left-wing extremist footnotes like Ward Churchill.

Conveniently, this highlights an interesting phenomenon I've noticed a number of right-wing commentators perpetuating.  There seems to be this school of thought that argues it's better to wildly promote and give countless hours of free exposure to radicals who in no way represent responsible thought or any widely-followed political ideology, than to simply marginalize and ignore them.