ADMIN EDIT: Alrighty folks, this is going no where and devolving quite quickly. Locky time. NB me if you've any complaints - Nebhead.


You'd think Murdoch would be walking small now, guess not. Now we just need the Cato Institute to explain that Brieviks fascism OBVIOUSLY makes him liberal. And so it begins....

FOX News Resents The Norway Shooter Being Described As 'Right-Wing'

Glynnis MacNicol

Late on Friday night the New York Times ran an updated story on the terrible shootings in Norway and revealed that the alleged shooter Anders Behring Breivik had been "characterized by officials as a right-wing extremist, citing previous writings including on his Facebook page."

From that point it was merely minutes before the conservative media shifted into high gear in an attempt to push back against the description

On Friday night former Bush Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told (a fairly reasonable) Martha MacCallum that “It's just hard to imagine one shooter could have killed 80 of these children...this kind of behavior is very un-Norwegian to say the least. And the speculation that it’s part of right-wing extremism or something like that, I think that has less of a foundation at this point, than the concern that there is a broader political threat here.”

Indeed. On Saturday The Blaze ran a comparatively subdued post questioning whether the Osla gunman could really be considered 'right-wing':

"The more one digs, the more one finds that Anders Behring Breivik holds the views of a racist, bigoted, zealot that really can’t be fit into a neat box...That’s certainly a mixed bag. And some of that information would seem to hint at a possible extreme leftist position, perhaps anarchism, would it not? It certainly doesn’t reflect the views of a conservative Christian, as he claimed to be."

Probably it's fair to say that no violent lunatic reflects the views of the group he claims to belong to.

However, as per usual, Fox & Friends takes that cake.

The network's morning show, which gave Donald Trump a regular segment during the height of his Obama birther claims, spent endless hours last summer on the outrage of the Ground Zero Mosque, and back in 2007 pushed the report that Obama was a Muslim who had attended a Madrassa (until they were forced to 'correct' it), devoted an entire segment to wondering why the media was so quick to paint Breivik as a right-wing extremist.

"Is this guy a psychopath, or is he emblematic of a huge Christian movement we've been ignoring?"

The WSJ meanwhile, thinks Breivik may have had legitimate concerns, but his alarming way of deal with it has done damage to the reputations of people with legitimate concerns about Muslims. I came to that op-ed through a tweet pondering whether the WSJ also felt Timothy McVeigh had had legitimate concerns.

Fox & Friends clip below.

Well, go figure; murdering liberals for being traitorous cultural Marxists MAKES you a liberal. Who knew? Fortunately the former American UN Ambassador ensured we stay focused on "the concern that there is a broader political threat here" rather than being distracted by "speculation" Brievik is a right wing terrorist. Most disturbing? That a US Ambassador who instrumental in US rejection of the International Criminal Court feels obliged to DEFEND not only the right but right wing EXTREMISTS by disputing, despite a mountain of evidence, that Brievik is one. That so many supposedly mainstream conservatives desperately dismiss right wing terrorism as "mere" pychopathy is a deeply alarming suggestion we DO face "a broader political threat", that Brievik was right to call himself the first of many, each disavowed by an extreme right embarrassed by their methods but in agreement with their goals. Sure, Brievik's a nut; so was Mohammed Atta, but no one suggested we should ignore those espousing his beliefs even after 911 because his terrorism was solely a product of mania unconnected to any ideology.