Simple wonderful. The Times has a story ripe with anonymous sources who discussed a secret operation allowing strikes against Al Qaeda in countries around the world without permission by those countries, and includes all sorts of “no comments” by people who are named. Secret Order Lets U.S. Raid Al Qaeda in Many Countries

The United States military since 2004 has used broad, secret authority to carry out nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks against Al Qaeda and other militants in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere, according to senior American officials.

These military raids, typically carried out by Special Operations forces, were authorized by a classified order that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed in the spring of 2004 with the approval of President Bush, the officials said. The secret order gave the military new authority to attack the Qaeda terrorist network anywhere in the world, and a more sweeping mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States.

More than a half-dozen officials, including current and former military and intelligence officials as well as senior Bush administration policy makers, described details of the 2004 military order on the condition of anonymity because of its politically delicate nature. Spokesmen for the White House, the Defense Department and the military declined to comment.

Now, like the operation to shut down the flow of terrorist money that the New York Times exposed, this is one of those ops where you say “well, sure, that makes sense, I figured they had to be doing something like this, and I’m sure Al Qaeda was sure, too.” It’s common sense. But, was it really necessary for the Times to do this just for a story? Hell, FDR would have censored the Times, and, probably have tried the reporters for treason if they had done this under his watch. And, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details

Apart from the 2006 raid into Pakistan, the American officials refused to describe in detail what they said had been nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks, except to say they had been carried out in Syria, Pakistan and other countries. They made clear that there had been no raids into Iran using that authority, but they suggested that American forces had carried out reconnaissance missions in Iran using other classified directives.

Super! Now Iran has an idea that American forces have operated in Iran. Before, they certainly knew that agents, spies if you will, worked in Iran. Now they can keep a better eye on their borders and specifically look for American soldiers.

The 2004 order identifies 15 to 20 countries, including Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and several other Persian Gulf states, where Qaeda militants were believed to be operating or to have sought sanctuary, a senior administration official said.

And now these countries have just been given specific intelligence of the operation, and can keep a stronger eye on potential incursions. The countries can file formal and informal protests with and against the United States. And real people, real Americans, can die from this article. Thanks, Grey Lady! The blood will be on your hands.

One thing to note in the story, and that is that the operations were not just “go get ‘em!” The Times does show that folks were careful at all levels, making serious considerations before the go code was given. And, the story shows that the program worked.

This headline from CNN certainly has to be a contender for the funniest of the week: Palin knocks Obama over months-old coal comments. Coming from an arm of the liberal media who has delved into Bush’s TANG service and drunk driving incidents, decades old, as well as McCain’s cancer from years ago, whether he co-operated with the North Vietnamese (decades ago), wondered if he had an affair years ago, followed up with the unverified smear that he called his wife a c…, well, you know, a long time ago, etc and so on, this has to be one of the dumbest headlines in a while

Campaigning in coal country just two days before the presidential election, Sarah Palin is highlighting an interview Barack Obama gave to the San Francisco Chronicle in January in which the Democrat suggested coal plants would be bankrupted by his cap-and-trade proposal.

Audio of Obama’s comments began bubbling up on major conservative blogs over the last 24 hours, and Palin wondered why voters were only now hearing about the remarks. The insinuation that the Chronicle had been hiding the coal comments from the public brought about shouts of “Liberal media!” from the crowd.

See? It was way back in January 2008! It’s like it was a different decade!

I’d ask “what is with the MSM,” but, we all know the answer: in da tank

Herewe have the McCain campaign’s execrable Michael Goldfarb slinging around accusations of anti-semitism–a favorite pastime, as we’ve seen this year, among Jewish neoconservatives. I’ve never met Rashid Khalidi, but he is (a) Palestinian and therefore (b) a semite, so the charge of anti-semitism is fatuous. Khalidi is also a respected academic, the sort of person who is involved in foundation work that John McCain, for one, was willing to support financially. I’d say that if we have a bigot here, it’s Mr. Goldfarb who, if he’s intent on calling people antisemitic–or any other epithet–should be required to provide chapter and verse, which he does not do on CNN. (I’d also like to know on what basis CNN’s Rick Sanchez can stipulate that Khalidi is antisemitic.)

Oooh, we have the fun “neoconservative” word crop up, something I doubt the majority of Lefties can even define, and don’t you love the “accusations of anti-semitism?” We have been treated to a constant call of racism charges ever since Obama broke his promise about running for president to run for president. First they were against Camp Hillary and her supporters, now they are against Camp McCain and his supporters. Remember

• If Obama Loses: Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.
• Veiled racism seen in new attacks on Obama
• Even if you vote for Obama, you’re still probably a racist, according to Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree

And those are just a few of the hits. When Palin was hung in effigy, not a peep. If Barry is hung in effigy, Racism! If you bring up Bill Ayers? Racism. Bring up Jeremiah Wright? Racism. Pflagher? Racism. Call Barry a socialist? Racism. Everything is racistunless you prostrate yourself at the feet of Obama. I’m surprised Joe Klein didn’t deem that bringing up Khalidi was racist. But, it was “bigoted.”

Anyhow, Klein could have at least taken the 5 minutes it takes on the Internet to research Khalidi himself. According to Discover the Network

• Former PLO operative
• Has justified as legitimate Palestinian “resistance” that results in death of armed Israelis
• Rejects the possibility of a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Well, as a former member of the PLO, Khalidi certainly can’t be an anti-semite, right? Does that answer a bit of your question of how Rick Sanchez can stipulate that Khalidi is antisemitic, Joe? Why do Liberals members of the Credentialed Media have such a tough time doing research nowadays?

PS: Khalidi also fits right in to the mold of trotting out the “racism!” charge like other Leftists, as he did over the illegal immigration battle.

One would think that with a title like Obama Avoids Partisan Rhetoric, Focuses on Unity, the Washington Post would have a flowery “gee, ain’t he just swell!” article to follow the headline up. The flowery part is there, but, it subtlety makes the point that Barack H. Obama is not Mr. Unity

On Barack Obama’s march through the red states, there is no inclination to examine the philosophical differences between the political parties.

There’s no point, he says. “We’re all in this together,” the Illinois Democrat assures the crowds who flock to his events, including one Sunday in the Colorado capital that drew between 75,000 and 100,000 supporters. “We don’t have the luxury of relying on the same political games and the same political tactics that are used every election to divide us . . . by who we are or what policies we support.”

And people are buying the kool aid in massive amounts. What, exactly, has Barack H. Obama done to bring everyone together? Can anyone name one thing he has done that crosses Party lines? That is acceptable to both Left and Right, even the closer to center Right? Anything? How does he work with those on the other side of the aisle, not withstanding his voting with the party line 97% of the time? Are there any of the “policies we support” that are acceptable to Republicans and Conservatives?

You know, at least with Kerry, I could find a few things that I liked. I thought his policy stance on the environment was wonderful, better the Dubya’s. Personally, I liked that Kerry was a beach kinda guy, and liked hockey. He may have been a bit pompous and elitist, but, at least he tried to connect with the inner sports guy, despite a few foul ups, such as the “Lambert Field” gaffe. But, with Obama, I can’t find anything. Like with Kerry, I have read all his policies. Cannot agree with anything. Can you? I can’t connect with Mr. Hope and Change on a personal level, because he seems divorced from modern day Americana. I’m not looking for a dynamic authoritarian leader, which seems to be what the Obamazombies want.

But, I digress

“Policies we support” might seem an important distinction as voters face this historic election, but it appears Obama would prefer the examination not extend beyond him and his Republican rival.

And, guess what, WP? You have contributed to this non-examination of Barack H. Obama, in what I call journalistic malpractice..

Yet, in his recent speeches in early-voting states that went for President Bush four years ago, Obama never mentions a future in which Democrats run Washington. Instead, he seeks to reassure voters that what comes after Nov. 4, if he is successful, will not be a revolution but more of a reconciliation.

“Together, we cannot fail,” he says. “Not now. Not when we have a crisis to solve and an economy to save.”

Obama, in his short tenure in the Senate, has rarely crossed Democratic orthodoxy, and McCain says his opponent cannot point to a significant issue on which he disagrees with the Democratic congressional leadership.

Words, just words. It’s easy to talk the talk, but, Obama has never walked the walked, and, if he wins, will not walk the walk, either.

There is no “together,” though. People have different opinions. And, based on the thuggery by his campaign and his supporters, if you disagree with The One, you will be destroyed. Personally. Change you can be silenced by.

It was atrocious enough when the New York Times came out with their “just wondering” story in March about John McCain’s past bouts of cancer and whether it could return. Now, with 17 days to go till the election, the Washington Post does them one better. Questions Linger About McCain’s Prognosis After Skin Cancer

In May, the presidential campaign of 72-year-old cancer survivor John McCain tried to put to rest doubts about his health by allowing a few reporters to inspect his medical records, but the effort has failed to quell questions about his odds of surviving an eight-year tenure in the White House.

One loosely organized group of physicians has been claiming in Web-based videos, op-ed columns and newspaper ads that McCain’s risk of dying from a recurrence of the skin cancer he had treated eight years ago may be as high as 60 percent.

However, data on cancer survival rates compiled by the federal government suggest that people in McCain’s situation have no more than a 10 percent chance of dying from melanoma over the next decade.

Yet, questions linger. Say, I wonder when the WP will do a story on the potential for Barack Obama to get lung, throat, and/or mouth cancer from his smoking?