It’s a two-layer Stupid Cake today, folks. This one has to do with an apparent claim that while Barack Obama lived in Indonesia, he went to a radical Islamic school called a “madrassa”. As it turns out, that’s not the case whatsoever.

Insight Magazine, which is owned by the same company as The Washington Times, reported on its Web site last week that associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, had unearthed information the Illinois Democrat and likely presidential candidate attended a Muslim religious school known for teaching the most fundamentalist form of Islam.

Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, from 1967 to 1971, with his mother and step-father and has acknowledged attending a Muslim school, but an aide said it was not a madrassa.

And apparently a reporter went to the school in question and determined that it, indeed, was a fairly normal public school and in no way promoted fundamentalist Islam. But wait, that came from Hillary? Damn, starting the negative campaign a little early, and against a member of your own party. An extremely popular one, no less. Hold on a minute.

Insight attributed the information in its article to an unnamed source, who said it was discovered by “researchers connected to Senator Clinton.” A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim.

He called the story “an obvious right-wing hit job.”

Insight stood by its story in a response posted on its Web site Monday afternoon.

The Insight article was cited several times Friday on Fox News and was also referenced by the New York Post, The Glenn Beck program on CNN Headline News and a number of political blogs.

So far we’ve got the Washington Times, Glenn Beck, Murdoch’s Post, and FOX News. Not a good start in proving this is a legitimate news item. The blogs in question, of course, being folks like Michelle Malkin (who only links to Insight’s response) and the ever-lucid Free Republic. The comments from the Freepers, as always, are simply inspiring.

If it had been McCain they would have supported the story the to hilt. Probably adding that McCain was supposed to be the 20th hijacker due to his piloting experience. Then thrown in some BS about mass murdering innocent Vietnamese and trying to sink a US aircraft carrier.

I’m sure Mrs. C has proof to back up her allegations.
Then again maybe she was just hoping to plant the seed of doubt about Obama and take down Insight magazine at the same time.

Now, it’s times like these that the right seems almost hilariously detached from reality (at least these examples of it). Point #1 there ignores that the media almost never criticizes McCain for anything. For evidence, I point you at a recent article concerning McRage and Jerry Falwell.

McCain has reached out to conservatives he once crossed. Last May, he spoke at Falwell’s Liberty University in Virginia. In 2000, Falwell opposed McCain’s campaign for the GOP nomination and supported George W. Bush. At the time, McCain labeled Falwell and others on the right and the left as “agents of intolerance.”

Sweet Jesus, that is some harsh lambasting from the Communist News Network, I’ll tell ya. Look at the way they gently report exactly what McCain had said in a situation that duly called for it. Face it, McCain gets a pass no matter how many times he changes his mind on things, across the boards.

Anyway, Point #2 is fun as well. I’d love to know how Hillary could back up allegations she didn’t make in the first place, or alternately I would love to know how it’s possible to prove that you didn’t do something. I don’t carry around many papers confirming that I didn’t do things, though apparently I should start. It’s sort of the “Saddam better get rid of those arms he doesn’t have or else” logic.

I’d also like to know why on EARTH Hillary would go after Insight of all people. Until this story broke I hadn’t even heard of the publication. Given the scope of the story, wouldn’t it make more sense to go after someone with a larger readership? Why break a story to someone who will only get it exposure if someone ELSE picks it up?

More than that, as said before, Insight is owned by the same people as the rather-right Washington Times. It just doesn’t make sense. There’s no reason that a Democrat who is such an enemy of the right-wing press would go to an obscure member of such in order to smear another Democrat. It would be like Brownback sending The Nation a scoop on McCain.

Speaking of Insight, their response to this whole deal is a hoot.

And here is the larger issue: The New Media—including Insight—is surging forward in readership, influence and clout (that’s why our story was picked up by FOX News and talk radio). We provide hard-hitting, well-sourced and aggressive reporting—just as serious and fearless journalists of old used to do. How alone are we, in today’s media conglomerate world? The Washington Post should ask itself, does it wish to have serious journalists aggressively following up on our ground-breaking story or does it wish to carry water and curry favor for ambitious and aggressive politicians, and attack its competition rather than report?

Whew. They’re really upset by this. Poor guys probably thought they had a bombshell story and it turns out it’s all bogus. Bet that hurts like hell.

Also, I hate to break it to you guys over at Insight, but the reason Beck and FOX picked up on the story had nothing to do with your readership or anything else. It was because it was a story that looks like it could only soil a Democrat’s reputation, if not two at the same time. I wouldn’t get too excited.

If this doesn’t create a storm I’ll be fairly surprised. John Warner, R-VA, has been a supporter of the Iraq Fiasco for about as long as its inception, so for him to stand up and oppose the surge so bluntly is going to be something indeed.

DANA BASH: Well, today, we are going to hear from a very influential, a senior Republican, making clear that he does not support the president on increasing the troop levels in Iraq. That Republican is the senior senator from Virginia, the former Armed Services Chairman in the Senate, John Warner.

We are told that he is going to introduce a resolution late this afternoon along with at least one other Republican and a conservative Democrat, making clear that he believes that sending more U.S. troops into what he has called increasing sectarian violence is a mistake.

Opposition on all sides of him, will Bush yield? Of course not.

Just when I think the neocon squawkboxes can’t get any more ridiculous, they find a way to one-up me. Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard editor and general idiot, has come up with possibly the dumbest suggestion I’ve ever heard.

KRISTOL: They’re playing — they’re leap-frogging each other in the degrees of irresponsibility they’re willing to advocate. And I really think people are being too sort of complacent and forgiving almost of the Democrats. ‘Oh, it’s politics, of course. One of them has a non-binding resolution. The other has a cap.’ It’s all totally irresponsible. It’s just unbelievable. The president is sending over a new commander, he’s sending over troops, and the Democratic Congress, in a pseudo-binding way or non-binding way, is saying, ‘It won’t work. Forget it. You troops, you’re going over there in a pointless mission. Iraqis who might side with us, forget it, we’re going to pull the plug.’ It’s so irresponsible that they can’t be quiet for six or nine months and say the president has made a decision, we’re not going to change that decision, we’re not going to cut off funds and insist on the troops coming back, so let’s give it a chance to work. You really wonder, do they want it to work or not? I really wonder that. I hate to say this about the Democrats. They’re people I know personally and I respect some of them. Do they want it to succeed or not?

Billy Boy seems to view this as though it were a game of Risk. Just be quiet for a while, see if it works, and if it doesn’t then we’ll worry about it.

Of course, that argument doesn’t seem to count when it comes to any suggestions OTHER than “continue to escalate”. You know, they aren’t willing to give Maliki, Casey, or the ISG Report’s ideas a shot for six to nine months. No, Congress should sit down and be quiet whenever Bush does whatever he does and then at some time to be determined (by Kristol, I guess), THEN they can start with their opinions. Until another idea pops up.

Folks, “adding troops” isn’t new. Secondly, we’re rearing on four years in Iraq, five years in the “war on terror” and since 9/11. The Iraq Fiasco has had second chance after second chance. There have been ideas and proposals for years on how to “fix” it, and it hasn’t been fixed. Asking the Democrats to just sit by and wait until it screws up again and then undoubtedly telling them to shut up once more when the next idea comes out is a recipe for disaster.

I really do wonder if Kristol would tell the Republicans to be quiet and let it ride for a while if Bush suddenly relented and ordered 30,000 troops OUT of Iraq.

I figured this was coming, it’s good to see that my paranoia isn’t entirely without merit. Given that General Casey is guilty of the Unforgivable Sin (read: he suggested something Bush didn’t want to do), it’s hardly surprising that the neocons would start the attacks on him, and McRage is leading the pack.

Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain on Sunday said he might vote against Gen. George W. Casey’s nomination as Army chief of staff, saying he had “serious concerns” about the man who has overseen the Iraq war since 2004.

“I have very serious concerns about General Casey’s nomination,” McCain said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“I’m concerned about failed leadership, the message that sends to the rest of the military,” he added.

Yep, damn failed leadership. Now, the problem with this line of thought is that one thing Bush and his supporters have been saying for years now is that history will judge the Iraq Fiasco. The implication is that things look bad NOW, but when we all look back in a few decades it will be favorably.

So, unless I’m misunderstanding their argument, this means we can’t look at how things appear currently as an accurate metric of the success. Which means McCain’s comment about “failed leadership” is entirely resting on the prospect that the Fiasco, now bereft of Casey’s leadership, will succeed at some point thus retroactively label Casey as a failed leader because victory didn’t happen while he was at the helm.

Of course, I tend to misunderstand these guys.