James Fallows is outraged over this item in the Washington post by Jennifer Rubin that said in part:

Some irresponsible lawmakers on both sides of the aisle — I will point the finger at Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and yet backed the Gang of Six scheme to cut $800 billion from defense — would have us believe that enormous defense cuts would not affect our national security. Obama would have us believe that al-Qaeda is almost caput and that we can wrap up things in Afghanistan. All of these are rationalizations for doing something very rash, namely curbing our ability to defend the United States and our allies in a very dangerous world.

Fallows says the following:

No, this is a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too tedious to reserve judgment about horrifying events rather than instantly turning them into talking points for pre-conceived views.

he closes by referring to the piece as “false and hysterical”

Strangely enough he didn’t have a bad thing to say about this piece by Max Flecher called Al-Qaeda’s problem with Norway

It’s natural to wonder whether al-Qaeda, the world’s most famous terrorist organization, might have been involved. But why would the group target Norwegian government infrastructure? Last year, after several immigrants to Norway were arrested plotting terrorist attacks on behalf of al-Qaeda, Thomas Hegghammer and Dominic Tierney wrote “Why Does Al-Qaeda Have a Problem With Norway?” for TheAtlantic.com. Here are some snippets:

There are several theories about why Norway would be on al-Qaeda’s hit-list — but they raise more questions than answers.

Somehow neither this article nor the one it quotes manages to earn the epithet “false & Hysterical”.

I’m sure the fact that it appeared in the Atlantic has nothing to do with it.

One can critique the lack up an update by this time (although it’s possible that like I was yesterday she is away from a pc, after all some of those other posts might have been scheduled) but the False & Hysterical business and the demands for an “Apology to the world” seems to be yet another example of what the Anchoress has been describing:

The press is running with the “right-wing Christian Fundamentalist” narrative with almost unseemly enthusiasm. Those very words appear in the very first sentence in this New York Times report.

Is he a “fundamentalist Christian,” though? In what way is this a verified as fact? I’m seeing it all over the place, but while his ideology is pretty clear, I’m not seeing (yet) where he is pronouncing himself a Christian, fundamentalist or otherwise; I’m not reading about church-affiliations. I’m sure if he has written anything that will emphasize his faith, we’ll be seeing it. He may very well be a “fundamentalist Christian”, but as of right now, I see nothing in the press to back it up beyond they’re saying so.

He’s apparently a Mason, though I have no idea what that has to do with anything. Someone, I’m sure, will find it relevant.

Strangely enough I seem to remember when home-grown jihadists have been arrested in the US, the press has studiously avoided mentioning religion but now the left seems to be going all in. As Clayton Cramer puts it:

But it does seem plausible that this guy was the equivalent of Timothy McVeigh.

I do think it will be interesting to watch how leftists who make excuses for Islamic terrorists (being victims and all that) will make no such excuses for this guy.

Also I suspect you will not see anyone Christian groups giving out cakes or naming schools after this fellow, I expect to see stuff more like Pam Geller:

SIOA and SIOE declare our sympathy for the victims and relatives of the victims of the heinous mass murders in Norway. We denounce the attacker and reiterate our dedication to the defense of free societies and opposition to all vigilantism and violence. Attempts to link us to these murders on the basis of alleged postings by the murderer mentioning us are absurd and offensive. Our work is and always has been wholly focused upon defending humane values and freedoms. There is no way that any sane person could possibly conclude that committing mass murder of children would advance the principles for which we stand. And if he was not sane, then any imputation of responsibility to us falters on that basis. Islamic jihadists and supremacists routinely invoke Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence, and thus those teachings are and should be rightly held up to scrutiny; by contrast, our record of support for human rights and the dignity of all human beings is consistent and unbroken. This murderer should be punished to the full extent of the law; any attempts to tar freedom fighters with his actions is deplorable.

This would be the same Pam Geller that my caller on the show today tried to use to link the killer to the tea party.

One might almost think there is a factor of relief that after so many false starts they finally managed to find a story that fits the template they have stored for years. There is odd oddity however:

he didn’t belong to any known factions in Norway’s small and splintered extreme-right movement and had no criminal record except for some minor offenses, the police official told the Associated Press.

Althouse has an interesting take:

A Facebook page matching his name and the photo given out by the police was set up just a few days ago. It listed his religion as Christian and his politics as conservative. It said he enjoys hunting, the video games World of Warcraft and Modern Warfare 2, and books including Machiavelli’s “The Prince” and George Orwell’s “1984.”

So, this is the information he wanted you to find. Assuming he set up this page and he is the murderer, these statement could either be precisely true, deliberate misinformation, or something in between.

The man knows about Machiavelli. What would Machiavelli post on Facebook before embarking on a massacre?

ADDED: Of course, disinformation is a big theme in Orwell’s “1984.” I’m tempted to say that the cues that his statements are lies are so strong that they suggest paradoxically that he is not lying.

I find it kinda odd that the facebook stuff was only set up a few days ago, usually people like this are all over the net, perhaps as the Anchoress suggested:

what I can’t help wondering as I look at these pictures of 32-year old Anders Behring Breivik is: were these professionally-done headshots meant for this moment? Did he have them done in anticipation of seeing them splashed all over the world and included in history books?

Did he mean to look as posed as possible for posterity?

My guess? I’m figuring this fellow has his own manifesto and we will almost certainly hear it at his trial, we still don’t know if he was working with anyone or not, but I’m used up my allotted quantity of speculation, but I suspect that the anti-anti’s will be running wild on this for a long while.

Update: Charles Johnson posting with tweets from CAIR as his credible source. I never thought I’d see the day

Update 2: Michelle Malkin has a question for Mr. Fallows:

More to the point, to whom and for what shall Rubin or I apologize? To Mullah Krekar? Ansar al Islam? To the other jihadi groups and operatives who supported and applauded the attacks under the assumption that it was a fellow Islamic militant?

That’s a good question, I wonder if he has a good answer.

Join me today on WCRN as I welcome Yid With Lid at 10 a.m. on DaTechGuy on DaRadio 10 a.m. EST.

We will be talking about the president’s relationship with the Jewish community, the left and Judaism and of course the budget talks etc.

You can listen live at wcrnradio.com. You can tweet us at #wcrn or #daradio and can call in at 508-438-0965.

I’ve talked about the Bill Sparkman story on and off, just to remind you, Sparkman was a man found dead in KY a couple of years ago. The initial reports suggested Murder and things written on his body suggested an anti-tax agenda etc by the killers.

Many on the left jumped at this saying things like “The body should be sent to Glenn Beck”.

It however turned out Sparkman had in fact killed himself and in death purposely attempted to convert his suicide into a murder to disguise it.

The initial assumption of murder was logical, but the facts trumped the initial logical assumption.

That brings me to the Killings in Norway Yesterday. As you know when they broke I assumed an Islamic attack, there were plenty of signs of trouble in Norway and in fact two groups claimed credit for it. Logical assumption. While I was visiting an elderly friend most of yesterday I was thinking about how I would deal with these events today on the show. The one fly in the ointment, initial reports also suggested the camp shooter was disguised as a policeman, that screamed ethnic Norwegian since one of the issues with the Islamic population was a lack of assimilation, but not knowing how many Islamic officers there were, I filed it in the back of my mind.

I woke up this morning to find out two things:

1. 80 kids were shot in Norway 80, that’s about as bad as it gets.

2. For once it wasn’t an Islamic terrorist, in fact it looks very much like an Ultra Nationalist.

It seems I committed the Bill Sparkman error in reverse, It was of course a logical conclusion to believe Radical Islam had committed this attack as they are involved in the vast majority of such attacks worldwide, but vast majority by its very definition means that there is a small minority where they are not involved.

It’s an important lesson, as we might well remember, our German friends and those who collaborated with them in the 30’s and 40th didn’t need a belief in radical Islam to slaughter millions. Murders and killers and their causes predate radical Islam and will exist long after the Islamists are in the dustbin of history. There will always be a new group of killers, alone or with followers with a new agenda and a new excuse to kill.

Now am I sorry for getting it wrong? Yup, as I said, I jumped the gun and I should have known better. Am I sorry for suspecting radical Islam, nope, Radical Islam has a long track record in these matters, and as reported there were specific threats of this nature this very week Let’s remind everyone of this early report:

Weasel Zippers spots an interesting twist:

Update at 10:14 a.m. ET: Although the source of the blast is unclear, Al-Jazeera TV notes that Norwegian prosecutors on Tuesday filed a terrorism charge against Mullah Krekar, founder of the Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam.

Unless you want to start calling Al-Jazeera “Islamophobic” then one must conclude there were rational reasons to assume it was another Islamic attack.

Additionally I found the most intriguing update on the matter was this one. It speaks volumes: emphasis mine

Then the police announced that they had arrested a 32-year-old suspect who, they emphasized with what seemed like relief or even joy, was a tall, blond ethnic Norwegian (one police spokesman even called him an “ethnic Norwegian Norwegian,” a turn of phrase that Norwegians would describe as “smør på flesk” – i.e., putting butter on bacon, or, as we’d say in English, gilding the lily). They insisted that the suspect (although they described him not as a suspect but as a “perpetrator”) had no connection to a terrorist group, though when asked about other connections he might have, they seemed to dodge the question.

Now tell me why did the police emphasize with relief and joy that the suspect was not Islamic? Does it make the horrible murder of 80 children more palatable? Does it make the destruction in Oslo any less severe or bloody?

No. What it does is it allow them to kick the can down the road on an actual problem that they are still going to have to deal with and would rather not.

If it turns out that this guy is specifically Anti-Islamist as well and targeted his political foes because they were weak on the subject then he is evil AND stupid. Like Scott Roeder (the murderer of abortionist George Tiller) he not only forgets that an evil act does not justify another evil act but by his actions he gives support and cover to the very evil he opposes.

Now Gates of Vienna notes a few things concerning this attack:

Now that the suspect is in custody and has been identified as an indigenous Norwegian, the latest reports refer to him as a “right-wing extremist”, presumably linked to some ultra-nationalist group.

Yet his attacks targeted the Socialists, the most anti-Israel of the major parties in Norway. Based on the affiliation of the people he killed, some websites go so far as to describe him as a “Zionist”.

To make matters even stranger, his Facebook page is quite innocuous — unless you consider The Prince subversive. And it was only set up a few days ago.

So I have no idea what the real story is. When the Scandinavian Gang of Five wake up in the morning, they will no doubt sift the latest Norwegian-language accounts, and possibly find something worth reporting.

However — assuming that the young man is not really a “Zionist” — his being a “right-wing extremist” does not rule out a jihad connection. Not at all.

Although Gates is correct that it doesn’t rule it out, it does make it extremely unlikely and sans credible connections I have to assume this to be wrong. (Yes it’s possible that by dismissing Gate’s suggestion I’ll make the same mistake twice, but this time I’ll risk it).

So to summarize, I jumped to a conclusion before all the facts were in, it was a logical conclusion that most rational people would have come to, but it was still wrong. It’s my bad and my Mea Culpa. It is my mistake and I own it.

However, those who choose to use this mistake to deny the dangers of radical Islam are making a bigger one. Just ask Molly Norris.

Update: Christian Fundamentalist? Please, name me the Christian church that has endorsed these actions and then you can cry Fundamentalism.