Funny You Should Ask

California Yankee asks:

"Just how stupid do the New York Times, CNN and the Associated Press think the American people are[?]"

Mr. Yankee (along with two other Redstate regulars--strieff and haystack)accuses the media outlets of trying to pull a fast one in their reporting on a Senate resolution opposing the President's plans to send more troops to Iraq. Says he:

"The biased media wing of the Democratic party was so shocked that Reid's Democratic majority in the Senate could not pass a motion to cut off debate on “a resolution of irresolution,” criticizing the revised strategy in Iraq, that it misleads lies stating that by voting against the motion to end debate, Republican Senators block debate. Just how stupid do the New York Times, CNN and the Associated Press think the American people are."

After leading with the accusation, Mr. Yankee follows with the snark:

"First, a little civics lesson. As you have surely heard by now, yesterday there was a 'Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 470; A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq.'"

Mr. Yankee may recite his civics lessons correctly, but he flunks on basic reading. Even though he correctly copied the description of the Senate vote, he doesn't seem to grasp its meaning.

The issue at hand was whether or not the Senate should begin debate on S. 470, not to end debate on the measure. Senate Republicans, with just two exceptions, held ranks and prevented the Democratic leadership from moving the measure to the floor.

So, in fact, the New York Times, CNN, and the Associated Press are all exactly correct: Senate Republicans did block debate on the Iraq resolution by voting not to allow the measure to come to the floor. Mr. Yankee misleads his readers by substituting the vote to to keep debating whether to let the measure come to the floor for the debate over the resolution itself.

How stupid do the New York Times, CNN, and the Associate Press think the Ameican people are? A little less so than Mr. Yankee does, apparently.

UPDATE: Unlike his colleagues, Mark Kilmer gets it:

"The Republican blocked the Warner-Levin anti-Bushie sense of the Senate resolution (S.CON.RES.7) from a floor vote..."

Mr. Strieff also comes around and starts talking sense:

"Upfront I think the Warner-Levin Resolution is a monumentally bad idea. The resolution takes Congress into an area in which it has no authority whatsoever, to wit, the conduct of military operations, and even less competence than in most areas in which it legislates. Its non-binding nature brands it as a political stunt."

Given all this, it becomes something of a mystery why Senate Republicans are fighting the resolution so fiercely.

Err Pelosi

Redstate regular California Yankee posts about Speaker Nancy Pelosi's demands for access to military aircraft:

"Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants 'routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district:'

"'The sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration, said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time."'"

The chorus chimes in.
mbecker, with a suggestion of assassination:

"I think flying military is an excellent idea...as long as they throw her out at Angels 30."

The Gadfly, with a little red-baiting:

"I think she just knows it's What Comrade Stalin Would Do and she's just following in his footsteps."

A Clinton/Gore bashing lie from Gary Aldrich's "Unlimited Access" repeated by blackhedd:

"Doesn't this remind you of how Clinton, Gore...and their wives and daughters were all in the habit of referring to military personnel as 'trained pigs'?"

(Comically, Mr. blackhedd bungles the tale. According to Aldrich, the "trained pigs" slur was allegedly directed at Secret Service agents, not military personnel. However, when telling tales about the Clintons or Gores, one may say or write anything.)

And Moe Lane delivers an unintended double irony:

"A certain irony there, mrbill: Given that if you had read the whole post all the way through you'd have noted that Hastert's own practices were already referenced and the differences between what he did and what Pelosi's doing was already noted.

"So, can we all be more careful about this in the future? Much obliged."

Why a double irony?

Because Mr. Lane, Mr. Yankee, and the rest of the gang failed to exercise the care Mr. Lane advises.

The boys once again fall victim to their own eagerness to believe the worst. They failed to notice that the Washington Times was distributing taffy. The Times turned a request for information from the House Sergeant-at-Arms into a demand from Ms. Pelosi.

The Sergeant-at-Arms issued the following explanation:

In December 2006, I advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to Speaker Hastert for security and communications purposes following September 11, 2001.

I told Speaker Pelosi that Speaker Hastert used the Air Force plane for travel to and from his district, however, I was uncertain of the rules and guidelines governing use of the plane. I offered to call the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense to seek clarification of the guidelines.

Subsequently, several members of the Speaker’s staff and members of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms met with representatives from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the U.S. Air Force liaison office to discuss the rules and guidelines which governed Speaker Hastert’s use of a plane. Several questions were posed to the Air Force and we are awaiting a response.

Correction? Retraction? Update?

Don't hold your breath.