William F. Buckley Jr., Irving Kristol and Father Richard John Neuhaus, all dead now. Today, far more representative is potty-mouthed Internet entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart... With its descent to baiting blacks, Mexicans and Muslims, its accommodation of conspiracy theories and an increasing nastiness and vulgarity, the conservative movement has undergone a shift toward demagoguery and hucksterism.

 - - David Klinghoffer, Former National Review editor, August 1, 2010

It has become reflexive, I suppose, these distortion based attacks. The comment on Sunday certainly seemed uncontroversial. Indeed, it would have been unremarkable as an answer in most beauty contests in the last century or so. Variations are intoned in houses of worship the world over. "We pray that the blessings of peace come to every nation, including our own," speaks the pastor of our church. We pray for the victims of war. We remember civilians as well as soldiers. We mourn the loss of each of God's children.

Sunday's comment during a solemn news segment seemed innocuous and fitting, a moment for those taken from us. At the conclusion of her debut as host of ABC's This Week, Christiane Amanpour introduced the segment: "We remember all of those who died in war this week, and the Pentagon released the names of 11 U.S. service members killed in Afghanistan." It was one of thousands of such moments of respect for the fallen, a television news ritual hallowed by repetition.

Then the fire storm began. Tom Shales, TV critic for the Washington Post, attacked first. "Grand Duchess Amanpour," as he refered to her, had not restricted her remembrance to Americans. It was "a tribute not to American men and women who died in combat during the preceding week." Those of us who also remember civilians and allies seemed for a moment to have become suspect of ... well ... something. But he went on with a more specific accusation: "Did she mean to suggest that our mourning extend to members of the Taliban?" Newsbusters quickly joined in. Conservatives piled on. Even John McCain added his voice.

It was not the first time Amanpour had become a target of distortion. A few months after the invasion of Iraq it was becoming clear that preparations for the military adventure had allowed the 9/11 murderers to escape American capture at the Battle of Tora Bora. Amanpour was part of a panel on CNBC. She was asked why the press had not done its job, questioning the invasion before it was too late.

She responded with a degree of frankness unusual in news broadcasts. "I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did." Sounds about right in retrospect.

Fox News spokesperson Irena Briganti reported Amanpour's critique to conservative viewers this way: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."

The attacks on Amanpour do serve to remind us that Shirley Sherrod is not alone in standing against such bullying. The Breitbarts of the world have many names, for they are Legion.

Some of the avenues of attack are easier to anticipate than others. Right now, there are advance copies circulating of a reported memoir I wrote about my times as a drug addict and drunk. I’ve already been called a “crack addict” on Bill O’Reilly’s show, which at least has the virtue of being true, if a little vintage. Expect a return engagement with some added detail. I have a bit of an advantage in that my laundry is already hanging on the line, not to mention that with a face made out of potatoes, the Photoshopped picture of me will have to go a long way to make me any uglier than I actually am.

 - - David Carr, for the New York Times, July 7, 2008
     On efforts by Fox News to intimidate or silence critics

---

Far-left zealot David Carr, who uses his media column in The New York Times to push his insane view of life, called the questioning of Obama by the ABC guys "a disgusting spectacle." Carr, a former crack addict, apparently believes that anti-American rhetoric from associates of a presidential candidate is not worthy of discussion.

 - - Bill O'Reilly, for Fox News, April 22, 2008
     In an effort by Fox News to intimidate or silence one critic

Two weeks ago, conservative Andrew Breitbart put on his website a seriously doctored video of a Department of Agriculture employee speaking to a local Georgia gathering of the NAACP. Shirley Sherrod had been forced by her encounter with a white farm couple to re-examine lifelong racial resentments. She decided to give all she had in a desperate effort to help them save the family farm from foreclosure. Years later, she carried into her position at Agriculture a determination to help those of all races. The doctored video showed her bragging about using her government job to hurt white people.

Fox News picked up the doctored video as part of an ongoing campaign to show their conservative audience how black liberals are black militants, American Muslims are radical Muslims, and President Obama is promoting both dangerous groups in a pattern of anti-American policies. Nervous Agriculture officials forced Sherrod to resign.

When the white farm couple angrily defended Sherrod, Fox covered up, erasing their original story and denying Fox had run anything before she resigned. It was a clumsy effort, briefly documented here.

Conservatives defend Breitbart in several ways. Breitbart himself says he is innocent because his real target was the NAACP. “This story is about the NAACP falsely accusing the tea party of being racist,” is how he explained it to CNN. It is an interesting defense. It is okay to defame an innocent person if that person is merely collateral damage. “I did not ask for Shirley Sherrod to be fired. I did not ask for any repercussions for Shirley Sherrod.”

Brent Bozell, a conservative internet publisher, has another accusation, based on Sherrod's original undoctored speech. "I'm also waiting for Ms. Sherrod to publicly apologize," he says, "for accusing anyone opposed to nationalized healthcare of being racist." Bozell does not bother editing a tape to prove his accusation. Here is what she actually said: "You know, I haven't seen such a mean-spirited people as I've seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racism we thought was buried. Didn't it surface? Now, we endured eight years of the Bush's and we didn't do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President."

Most fair observers would agree that mean people were highlighted during the health care reform debate. Racism did surface. Bozell is allowed to take offense at the weird notion that the strange visceral Republican hatred of America's first black President comes from racism. But his claim that she painted every opponent of health care reform as racist is simply not true. This approaches paradox. It's a false accusation about a false accusation.

Let's get brave and go way out on a limb here. When a conservative falsely smears a civil servant as a black racist to support an accusation that the nation's preeminent civil rights group is made up of black racists, and other conservatives paint legitimate observations by that same civil servant as false cries of racism, their problems may have a common root. When it comes to racism, methinks Jack-the-Ripper doth protest too much.

Andrew Breitbart is going to be fine. He's done nothing wrong. I wonder if Ms. Sherrod, who is such a champion of transparency, will publicly disclose who is putting her up to this. And I also hope this champion of honesty will stop lying about Fox News. I'm also waiting for Ms. Sherrod to publicly apologize for accusing anyone opposed to nationalized healthcare of being racist. Last time I checked, that was more than half the country.

 - - Brent Bozell, July 29, 2010
     Conservatives make another accusation against Shirley Sherrod

---

You know, I haven't seen such a mean-spirited people as I've seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racism we thought was buried. Didn't it surface? Now, we endured eight years of the Bush's and we didn't do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President.

 - - Shirley Sherrod, March 27, 2010
     Not even close to what Conservatives like Bozell are accusing

Where is my faith? Even deep down ... there is nothing but emptiness and darkness ... If there be God — please forgive me. When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul ... How painful is this unknown pain—I have no Faith. Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal, ... What do I labor for? If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true.

Thus were the private musings of Mother Teresa. Her thoughts were revealed posthumously, during early stages of beatification, possibly leading to sainthood. Beatification is not a set of simple steps. It is a process involving investigation and a good deal of argument. The phrase "Devil's Advocate" originated as a slang term for Promoter of the Faith, a canon lawyer assigned to argue against sainthood. But Teresa's confession of non-faith was not publicized by the Promoter of the Faith. Rather, it was released by the one arguing in favor of sainthood, her postulator, Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk.

Noted atheist Christopher Hitchens seized on the revelation as proof of the essential fraudulence of Mother Teresa and, more broadly, of spiritual faith itself. Most Christians recognize her doubts in their own history. Many regard such feelings as a sign of spiritual humility. I carry in my wallet a prayer by the late Father Thomas Merton.

My Lord God, I have no idea where I am going.
I do not see the road ahead of me.
I cannot know for certain where it will end.

Nor do I really know myself;
and the fact that I think that I am following your will
does not mean that I am actually doing so.
But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you.
And I hope I have that desire in all that I am doing.

I hope I will never do anything apart from that desire.
And I know that if I do this you will lead me by the right road
though I may know nothing about it.

Therefore I will trust you always
though I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death.
I will not fear, for you are ever with me,
and you will never leave me to face my perils alone.
My friend and frequent critic, JMyste, instructs me on the virtues of agnosticism, but I remain a stubborn student. I suspect that in her most painful moments, Teresa's doubt was closer to Merton's faith.