Ok this is going to cause a lot talk:

There is no doubt that we are faced with a profound evolution of dogma. The Fathers and theologians of the Middle Ages could believe that the whole human race had, in substance, become Catholic and that paganism existed only on the margins, but the discovery of the New World…has radically changed prospects. The second half of the last century has fully affirmed the understanding that God does not let all of the unbaptized go to hell…The great missionaries of the 16th Century believed that the unbaptized were forever lost, and this explains their fervor. After Vatican II that conviction was finally abandoned, which precipitated a kind of deep double-crisis: on the one hand, it affected the missionary’s motivations — why you should try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved, even without it? But another issue also emerged: faith becomes problematic when it is compulsory, in how it is lived in a life. …the Christian himself it is linked to the demands of the Christian faith and its morals. But if faith and salvation are not interdependent, even faith becomes unmotivated.

Benedict’s words are all over the net today and I suspect Catholic blogs and twitter will be going on and on about it for weeks.

Many years ago after the initial invasion of Iraq George Bush flew to the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln  and gave a speech behind a banner on the ship that proved to be so consequential to the MSM that a decade after it happened it was worth a story at US News and world report:

If there’s one day in particular Bush could choose to rewrite, it might be May 1, 2003.

It was a sunny day off the coast of San Diego. Congress had authorized what would become the Iraq war a few months earlier, in October 2002. The invasion had begun in March 2003. On May 1, President Bush had landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln in the co-pilot’s seat of a Navy fighter jet.

After landing, Bush changed out of his combat suit and stepped up to the podium, surrounded by a crowd as receptive as the one in Dallas last week.

Having marched U.S. troops through Iraq and deposed of Saddam Hussein’s regime (and his statue), Bush called Operation Iraqi Freedom “a job well done.”

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” Bush said, the infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner hovering over him. “In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

Now at the time of that statement it was very true, we had successfully invaded Iraq, overthrew Saddam and even managed to hold democratic elections that had the potential to change the middle east forever.

Alas as time went by things got complicated

Instead, the speech and the banner became a symbol of the unpopular war, which would last another eight brutal years. The image came to encapsulate not just the war, but the mistakes of the Bush administration as a whole,

In fact the MSM used that speech to pummel Bush for a decade (oddly enough that same MSM hasn’t touched Obama & Biden for declaring Iraq a success when pulling out and letting it crumble to pieces but I digress).  Google “Mission Accomplished” speech and you’ll see a cornucopia of Bush critique that continues to this day.

Compare that to Hillary Clinton this week, who said this to Chris Matthews on MSNBC:

“We didn’t lose a single man” is quite a statement considering what happened in Benghazi, fox called it a gaffe but Thomas Lifton disagrees:

Sorry, Fox, it’s not a gaffe, it’s a tell. To Hillary Clinton, the four male officials and warriors don’t matter at all. They are at best an inconvenience. If they were alive, they would have to be dealt with, but because they are dead, they can be forgotten, rendered unworthy of memory.

Red State called out Chris Matthews:

If you want to know why Chris Matthews simply let this baldfaced lie go unchallenged, the answer is simple. Matthews is a deeply corrupt Democrat apparatchik who abandoned even a shallow pretense of being a journalist nearly two decades ago. His wife is running for Congress and she is totally dependent upon the Clinton fundraising network to finance that bid for office. In fact, Matthews is so in thrall to Clinton that even the left wing media have started to notice.

and even Politico noticed the omission albeit obliquely:

Clinton may have been referring strictly to the U.S.-backed overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, which indeed saw no loss of American lives and cost just around $1 billion. But her comments ignore the 2012 attacks at the U.S. mission and CIA outpost in Benghazi, which killed four people including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

I mean cripes there was a movie made about it:

In many ways this is much worse than President Bush’s speech, after all she is saying this not directly after the fall of Libya before all that followed took place but years AFTER not only Benghazi but all the other grief as Ed Morrissey notes at hotair:

Yes, they certainly do ignore the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. But these remarks ignore a lot more than that. Qaddafi’s Libya was a brutal dictatorship, but one that had been cooperating in some part against radical Islamist terrorist groups, and had a functioning military that kept them on the run. Decapitating the regime without any way to influence developments on the ground did not result in “a functioning state.” It resulted in a failed state. The government that held two elections cannot even claim all of Tripoli as under its control, and its writ runs nowhere else in the country.

Most stunning of all, Clinton seems unaware that ISIS is taking up blocs of territory in Libya now, too. So have al-Qaeda affiliates like Ansar al-Sharia — the group that sacked our Benghazi consulate nearly four years ago, thanks in large part to security decisions made by State under Hillary’s leadership. We didn’t give Libya a chance — we destroyed Libya, and left nothing but a viper pit of terror networks to replace it. And Hillary thinks this is a success story.

Now given that this was said on camera, in the middle of a presidential campaign during a cable network town hall you would think that her statement would be all over television…

…you’d think wrong as MRC notes

Tuesday’s NBC Today didn’t deem it newsworthy. Instead, the only mention of the town hall events was correspondent Kristen Welker touting how both Democratic contenders used the opportunity to hurl their “sharpest attacks” at Donald Trump…

…On ABC’s Good Morning America, correspondent Cecila Vega followed the same pattern…

…On CBS This Morning, co-host Gayle King used the town hall to illustrate how “Hillary Clinton says she feels good about her campaign and the votes that she has received.” A soundbite followed of Clinton proclaiming: “I’ve gotten 5 million votes, 600,000 more than Trump, 1.6 million more than Bernie Sanders, so I feel really good about where I am in this campaign and, of course, the number of delegates that I have won is also considerably higher than Senator Sanders.”

Why are we seeing this, because we’ve reached the point were the Hillary Nomination is now inevitable and the media, despite their fears have gone all in.

Closing thought, a year ago I thought the Dems would dump Hillary as her legal situation would be untenable (silly me thinking the Obama Chicago team would enforce the law) but I ended my post with this caveat:

The moment they can get a viable candidate in they will throw Hillary under the bus so fast it will make your head swim.

But if they can’t, If worst comes to worst they’ll fight for Hillary in what will be a campaign so dirty even people as jaded as me will be surprised.

That is coming, the only comfort is that Donald Trump will likely fight back just as dirty.


I’m back trying to get that elusive $61 a day for DaTipJar.

I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar

Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. We are currently 116.3 subscribers at $10 a month to make our goal every day without further solicitation but the numbers are even more interesting:

If less than 1/3 of 1% of our February readers this month subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

If less than 2/3 of 1% did, I’d be completely out of debt and able to attend CPAC

If a full 1% of our February readers subscribed at $10 a month I could afford to travel across the country covering the presidential race this year in person for a full month.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

Choose a Subscription level