The Warlike Harry

England’s royal family may be returning to its chivalric roots. Prince Harry, the third in line to the throne, is a military officer who has been fighting in hot combat in Afghanistan. His unit has killed some 30 Taliban.

[Who can identify the allusion in the title of this post? How else is that allusion appropriate, considering Prince Harry's earlier frivolous past?]

UPDATE: Because of the publicity, Prince Harry has been pulled from action and is back in England. Now al-Qaida is calling for his assassination.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Ken

    Prince Hal redivivus?

    I thought it was Arthur who was supposed to be “the once and future king.”

  • Ken

    Prince Hal redivivus?

    I thought it was Arthur who was supposed to be “the once and future king.”

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Pr. Lehmann

    O for a Muse of fire, that would ascend
    The brightest heaven of invention,
    A kingdom for a stage, princes to act
    And monarchs to behold the swelling scene!
    Then should the warlike Harry, like himself,
    Assume the port° of Mars° and at his heels, visage, bearing / god of War
    Leash’d in like hounds, should famine, sword and fire
    Crouch for employment.

    Henry V, Prologue

    Henry commanded his first troops at age 12 and received a serious battle scare in his face in his late teens. He was ambitious and not all that sane. It was nuts to try to conquer half of France in the first year of his reign but he did it. ;-)

    I think alluding to him via Prince Chuck’s son is pretty complimentary to the current Prince Harry, though I don’t know much about the current one.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Pr. Lehmann

    O for a Muse of fire, that would ascend
    The brightest heaven of invention,
    A kingdom for a stage, princes to act
    And monarchs to behold the swelling scene!
    Then should the warlike Harry, like himself,
    Assume the port° of Mars° and at his heels, visage, bearing / god of War
    Leash’d in like hounds, should famine, sword and fire
    Crouch for employment.

    Henry V, Prologue

    Henry commanded his first troops at age 12 and received a serious battle scare in his face in his late teens. He was ambitious and not all that sane. It was nuts to try to conquer half of France in the first year of his reign but he did it. ;-)

    I think alluding to him via Prince Chuck’s son is pretty complimentary to the current Prince Harry, though I don’t know much about the current one.

  • Bror Erickson

    I find inspiration in that. Harry is showing to the world what it means to be a man, one willing to fight, and if need be die for his country. Sure the tabloids have painted a pretty bad picture of the Royal family, and do their best on the two princes. I don’t think I care though that Harry will go dancing, or even get a little soused, so what if he has some girl trouble now and then. The truth is he is an upstanding role model for the youth of our world. Despite all his faults he is willing to give up the comforts of home (considerably more comforts than I have ever known), sacrifice, and give to his country, his society, his people, even putting his own life on the line. What more could a people ask of their prince. No one in England can make the argument that war is only for the underprivelaged, that the upper class refuses to make these types of sacrifices.

  • Bror Erickson

    I find inspiration in that. Harry is showing to the world what it means to be a man, one willing to fight, and if need be die for his country. Sure the tabloids have painted a pretty bad picture of the Royal family, and do their best on the two princes. I don’t think I care though that Harry will go dancing, or even get a little soused, so what if he has some girl trouble now and then. The truth is he is an upstanding role model for the youth of our world. Despite all his faults he is willing to give up the comforts of home (considerably more comforts than I have ever known), sacrifice, and give to his country, his society, his people, even putting his own life on the line. What more could a people ask of their prince. No one in England can make the argument that war is only for the underprivelaged, that the upper class refuses to make these types of sacrifices.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Pr. Lehmann

    Bror,

    Excellent points. Harry’s service on the frontlines is virtuous. Period.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Pr. Lehmann

    Bror,

    Excellent points. Harry’s service on the frontlines is virtuous. Period.

  • Reg Schofield

    I say , bravo!! In his willingness not to play “the royal card” and find a cushy post at home or whatever ,it shows that this young man has some character . Sure he has had run ins with the press but who as a youth wouldn’t if they had a photog following them 24/7 . By showing the world that he will not use privilege to hide behind, he is showing an excellent role model for the youth of the world to at least admire . May we pray for his safety and salvation of this young man.

  • Reg Schofield

    I say , bravo!! In his willingness not to play “the royal card” and find a cushy post at home or whatever ,it shows that this young man has some character . Sure he has had run ins with the press but who as a youth wouldn’t if they had a photog following them 24/7 . By showing the world that he will not use privilege to hide behind, he is showing an excellent role model for the youth of the world to at least admire . May we pray for his safety and salvation of this young man.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    The royals have always had a stint of service in the military, usually in the Royal Navy or Marines. Harry is unique only in that he’s apparently actually seeing combat.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    The royals have always had a stint of service in the military, usually in the Royal Navy or Marines. Harry is unique only in that he’s apparently actually seeing combat.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    I find it interesting that Drudge decided a bit of gossip was much more important than the safety of Harry’s unit. I thought conservatives got angry when the media leaked news giving away positions or otherwise endangering the troops. Or does it not count if it’s Drudge?

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    I find it interesting that Drudge decided a bit of gossip was much more important than the safety of Harry’s unit. I thought conservatives got angry when the media leaked news giving away positions or otherwise endangering the troops. Or does it not count if it’s Drudge?

  • http://thebookbeast.blogspot.com Darren

    It’s a line from my favorite movie, “Henry V” starring Kenneth Branagh!

    Oh, wait, you mean there was some play before the movie? Oh, well, what can you expect? I didn’t go to Patrick Henry for my edumacation :)

  • http://thebookbeast.blogspot.com Darren

    It’s a line from my favorite movie, “Henry V” starring Kenneth Branagh!

    Oh, wait, you mean there was some play before the movie? Oh, well, what can you expect? I didn’t go to Patrick Henry for my edumacation :)

  • organshoes

    It counts, tODD.
    It’s not liberal media that’s the problem. It’s media. Period. It’s journalism and journalists treating the very life of a warrior prince as cavalierly as they treat the lives of Britney and Lindsey.
    And no shame in them, nor shaming of them– whatsoever!–in having done it.
    Except among us more reasonable people, of course.
    By the way, one of the Queen’s own sons, prince Andrew, was a helicopter pilot in the Falkland Islands War, and was pretty much a career man in the Royal Navy.

  • organshoes

    It counts, tODD.
    It’s not liberal media that’s the problem. It’s media. Period. It’s journalism and journalists treating the very life of a warrior prince as cavalierly as they treat the lives of Britney and Lindsey.
    And no shame in them, nor shaming of them– whatsoever!–in having done it.
    Except among us more reasonable people, of course.
    By the way, one of the Queen’s own sons, prince Andrew, was a helicopter pilot in the Falkland Islands War, and was pretty much a career man in the Royal Navy.

  • http://gpiper.org/katiesbeer Theresa K.

    As a mom of a teen boy, my heart strings were pulled when I heard that he considered his brief unknown stint in Afghanistan to be the most normal experience he had ever had. Sounds like young men the world over have similar ideas of being normal:

    “Prince Harry revealed that he had not washed in four days and that he was enjoying a life of semi-normalcy among regular soldiers…Describing how he felt when he learned he was to be sent to Afghanistan, he said, “A bit of excitement, a bit of ‘phew,’ finally, get the chance to actually do the soldiering that I wanted to do ever since I joined, really.”

  • http://gpiper.org/katiesbeer Theresa K.

    As a mom of a teen boy, my heart strings were pulled when I heard that he considered his brief unknown stint in Afghanistan to be the most normal experience he had ever had. Sounds like young men the world over have similar ideas of being normal:

    “Prince Harry revealed that he had not washed in four days and that he was enjoying a life of semi-normalcy among regular soldiers…Describing how he felt when he learned he was to be sent to Afghanistan, he said, “A bit of excitement, a bit of ‘phew,’ finally, get the chance to actually do the soldiering that I wanted to do ever since I joined, really.”

  • organshoes

    What motivates you, tODD, to launch an attack on conservative hypocrisy in a thread about British nobility acting downright noble?
    Do we have to spell out everytime to you that we deplore useless, irresponsible reporting from every quarter? Do you think we’re so callous? And, if so, are we callous because we’re conservatives, or conservative because we’re callous?
    Can you tell I resented that question, its tone and its implication, not to mention its irrelevance?

  • organshoes

    What motivates you, tODD, to launch an attack on conservative hypocrisy in a thread about British nobility acting downright noble?
    Do we have to spell out everytime to you that we deplore useless, irresponsible reporting from every quarter? Do you think we’re so callous? And, if so, are we callous because we’re conservatives, or conservative because we’re callous?
    Can you tell I resented that question, its tone and its implication, not to mention its irrelevance?

  • Kirk

    It’s a shame that Matt Drudge couldn’t keep his trap shut about the whole deal. Hopefully his support of the troops will encourage some to boycott his tabloid.

  • Kirk

    It’s a shame that Matt Drudge couldn’t keep his trap shut about the whole deal. Hopefully his support of the troops will encourage some to boycott his tabloid.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Organshoes (@11), what motivated me to write my comment? The fact that I read the article Veith linked to above. I thought that commenting on the article in question was fairly germane, though of course comment threads like these do tend to take on a life of their own (as this one now has).

    I just thought it odd that no one had said anything about how we found out about Harry and his combat experience. I imagined — I suppose I was wrong to do so? — that if the New York Times had leaked this information, it might have angered a few people.

    After all, I remember how angry everyone got about the New York Times’ use of anonymous sourcing. Not Drudge’s, just that of the Times. And I sensed a trend there.

    “Do we have to spell out everytime to you that we deplore useless, irresponsible reporting from every quarter?” Well, I’m still waiting for a first time for people who deplore the Times so openly to similarly deplore the Drudge Report. From what I’ve read, it’s not “Media. Period.” that’s the problem, just liberal media. Feel free to prove me wrong by pointing out where New York Times foes have decried Drudge or the Washington Times.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Organshoes (@11), what motivated me to write my comment? The fact that I read the article Veith linked to above. I thought that commenting on the article in question was fairly germane, though of course comment threads like these do tend to take on a life of their own (as this one now has).

    I just thought it odd that no one had said anything about how we found out about Harry and his combat experience. I imagined — I suppose I was wrong to do so? — that if the New York Times had leaked this information, it might have angered a few people.

    After all, I remember how angry everyone got about the New York Times’ use of anonymous sourcing. Not Drudge’s, just that of the Times. And I sensed a trend there.

    “Do we have to spell out everytime to you that we deplore useless, irresponsible reporting from every quarter?” Well, I’m still waiting for a first time for people who deplore the Times so openly to similarly deplore the Drudge Report. From what I’ve read, it’s not “Media. Period.” that’s the problem, just liberal media. Feel free to prove me wrong by pointing out where New York Times foes have decried Drudge or the Washington Times.

  • Bror Erickson

    tODD,
    To tell you the truth, it made me quite angry to see that the Drudge report did it. I didn’t mention anything about my anger on the issue. But I did decide I will not be reading the Drudge report. It think that maybe the pinnacle of irresponsible reporting, and if the Drudge report wasn’t already there, it now sits at the bottom of the pond sucking scum with the “Enquirer.”

  • Bror Erickson

    tODD,
    To tell you the truth, it made me quite angry to see that the Drudge report did it. I didn’t mention anything about my anger on the issue. But I did decide I will not be reading the Drudge report. It think that maybe the pinnacle of irresponsible reporting, and if the Drudge report wasn’t already there, it now sits at the bottom of the pond sucking scum with the “Enquirer.”

  • organshoes

    I know what motivated your question; it’s what motivates the tone that I’m curious about.
    And so apropos of nothing.
    We were, after all, discussing the Noble Prince. And chances are, someone would have gotten ’round to dissing Drudge appropriately, without accusing anyone else of anything in the process.

  • organshoes

    I know what motivated your question; it’s what motivates the tone that I’m curious about.
    And so apropos of nothing.
    We were, after all, discussing the Noble Prince. And chances are, someone would have gotten ’round to dissing Drudge appropriately, without accusing anyone else of anything in the process.

  • Bror Erickson

    theresa k,
    Good on your boy! I know it is hard for mom’s, but in my opinion military service should be off limits to women (no offense to the fine women that do serve) and should be absolutely mandatory for all men, either before or after college. But you know you have a truly fine young man on your hands who wants to join of his own accord.
    Organshoes,
    I am not one to defend tODD, but he is right on this one. conservatives should be outraged that a rag that purports to be conservative would endanger a young man’s life like this, not to mention the lives of others in his unit. Also not to mention blowing this chance he had to do something brave and courageous for his country. I’ve seen a few interview with Prince Harry, and it has always bothered him that his unit should go to war without him. Now that he goes a supposed friend betrayed him.

  • Bror Erickson

    theresa k,
    Good on your boy! I know it is hard for mom’s, but in my opinion military service should be off limits to women (no offense to the fine women that do serve) and should be absolutely mandatory for all men, either before or after college. But you know you have a truly fine young man on your hands who wants to join of his own accord.
    Organshoes,
    I am not one to defend tODD, but he is right on this one. conservatives should be outraged that a rag that purports to be conservative would endanger a young man’s life like this, not to mention the lives of others in his unit. Also not to mention blowing this chance he had to do something brave and courageous for his country. I’ve seen a few interview with Prince Harry, and it has always bothered him that his unit should go to war without him. Now that he goes a supposed friend betrayed him.

  • Carl Vehse

    Before the Cranach lynch mob, in a pietistic fervor, strings up Drudge from the nearest tree, one might actually read what he said in his Feb. 28th breaking story:

    “Australian magazine NEW IDEA and the German daily BILD have broken world embargoes on the development.”

    The British newspaper, The Telegraph, confirmed this and gave more details:

    Australians angrily condemned the decision of a weekly women’s magazine to break the news blackout on Prince Harry’s deployment to Afghanistan.

    The story was published in Australian tabloid magazine New Idea last month but not followed up by other media.

    In an article on its website dated January 7, the magazine – nicknamed in Australia ‘No Idea’ – reported that Harry had seen front line action in Afghanistan despite opposition from the British government and members of the Royal family.

    New Idea said it could “exclusively reveal” that the “maverick prince” had already seen front-line action.

    The story was then picked up by a German newspaper [BILD] and, yesterday, the US-based Drudge Report website, triggering world wide interest.

    A transcript of the Jan 7 article and a Jan 15 New Idea article on Harry in Afghanistan, and their editor’s lame excuse for publishing these stories, can be seen at http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2008/02/omfg_exclusive.asp

    BTW, check out Harry’s cap at http://www.theweatherfront.com/daily-weather-blog/weather-beaten-harry-stars-stripes-usa-baseball-cap

  • Carl Vehse

    Before the Cranach lynch mob, in a pietistic fervor, strings up Drudge from the nearest tree, one might actually read what he said in his Feb. 28th breaking story:

    “Australian magazine NEW IDEA and the German daily BILD have broken world embargoes on the development.”

    The British newspaper, The Telegraph, confirmed this and gave more details:

    Australians angrily condemned the decision of a weekly women’s magazine to break the news blackout on Prince Harry’s deployment to Afghanistan.

    The story was published in Australian tabloid magazine New Idea last month but not followed up by other media.

    In an article on its website dated January 7, the magazine – nicknamed in Australia ‘No Idea’ – reported that Harry had seen front line action in Afghanistan despite opposition from the British government and members of the Royal family.

    New Idea said it could “exclusively reveal” that the “maverick prince” had already seen front-line action.

    The story was then picked up by a German newspaper [BILD] and, yesterday, the US-based Drudge Report website, triggering world wide interest.

    A transcript of the Jan 7 article and a Jan 15 New Idea article on Harry in Afghanistan, and their editor’s lame excuse for publishing these stories, can be seen at http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2008/02/omfg_exclusive.asp

    BTW, check out Harry’s cap at http://www.theweatherfront.com/daily-weather-blog/weather-beaten-harry-stars-stripes-usa-baseball-cap

  • TK

    Not that it matters, but just to clarify… I was referring to the Prince and not to my own son, who is only a sophomore in high school. Prince Harry’s quote just sounded so normal and so much like something that would apply to my son. Yes, mandatory service would be good, however I don’t intend to plant any ideas in my boy’s head. He can go if he chooses.

  • TK

    Not that it matters, but just to clarify… I was referring to the Prince and not to my own son, who is only a sophomore in high school. Prince Harry’s quote just sounded so normal and so much like something that would apply to my son. Yes, mandatory service would be good, however I don’t intend to plant any ideas in my boy’s head. He can go if he chooses.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Organshoes, I have lost your email address from the last time we talked off-blog. Can you send it to todd [AT] toddstadler [DOT] com? I think there’s some miscommunication going on here.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Organshoes, I have lost your email address from the last time we talked off-blog. Can you send it to todd [AT] toddstadler [DOT] com? I think there’s some miscommunication going on here.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Veith

    My post was on the substance of the information, not how it came out. I too deplore Drudge and the Australian gossip rag for leaking this, and I am AMAZED that the British media, usually the most gossip-fixated (especially when it comes to the royals) of all actually agreeing to keep this a secret.

    Congratulations to those who picked up the “Henry V” allusion. But there is a deeper parallel: How else is this Prince Harry like Prince Hal of Shakespeare’s play? (You might need to go back to “Henry IV.” Hint: it has something to do with Falstaff.)

  • http://www.geneveith.com Veith

    My post was on the substance of the information, not how it came out. I too deplore Drudge and the Australian gossip rag for leaking this, and I am AMAZED that the British media, usually the most gossip-fixated (especially when it comes to the royals) of all actually agreeing to keep this a secret.

    Congratulations to those who picked up the “Henry V” allusion. But there is a deeper parallel: How else is this Prince Harry like Prince Hal of Shakespeare’s play? (You might need to go back to “Henry IV.” Hint: it has something to do with Falstaff.)

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Anger at journalists who release classified information is now “pietistic fervor”? Sigh. I would have thought that even those mistress-keeping parsons that Spener reviled would have figured out that this is a bad thing. :^)

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Anger at journalists who release classified information is now “pietistic fervor”? Sigh. I would have thought that even those mistress-keeping parsons that Spener reviled would have figured out that this is a bad thing. :^)

  • Carl Vehse

    Anger at journalists who release classified information is now “pietistic fervor”? Sigh.

    No, lynching Drudge from the nearest tree was labeled “pietistic fervor.”

  • Carl Vehse

    Anger at journalists who release classified information is now “pietistic fervor”? Sigh.

    No, lynching Drudge from the nearest tree was labeled “pietistic fervor.”

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Carl (@22), I don’t know if you’re referring to me with your over-the-top bit about “lynching” or not, but your defense of Drudge (@17) that “one might actually read what he said in his Feb. 28th breaking story” doesn’t hold up to what appeared on Drudge’s site.

    I remember what I read — Drudge didn’t credit any external source for his story, which he posted just before noon ET, Feb. 28. Shortly thereafter, he branded the story a “**World Exclusive**”, an odd thing to do if you are crediting the story to a different source. All of this data can be verified from DrudgeReportArchives.com

    At no point on the 28th that I can remember or find in those archives did an article on DrudgeReport.com contain the phrase “Australian magazine NEW IDEA and the German daily BILD have broken world embargoes on the development,” as you claim.

    That another source may have actually published this information before seems to be the case. That said source obviously had no impact either on the world media or Harry’s military tour is also obvious. It was Drudge’s leak of this information that brought the Prince home.

    If holding media accountable for the deleterious impact they have on soldiers fighting abroad is “lynching”, so be it.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Carl (@22), I don’t know if you’re referring to me with your over-the-top bit about “lynching” or not, but your defense of Drudge (@17) that “one might actually read what he said in his Feb. 28th breaking story” doesn’t hold up to what appeared on Drudge’s site.

    I remember what I read — Drudge didn’t credit any external source for his story, which he posted just before noon ET, Feb. 28. Shortly thereafter, he branded the story a “**World Exclusive**”, an odd thing to do if you are crediting the story to a different source. All of this data can be verified from DrudgeReportArchives.com

    At no point on the 28th that I can remember or find in those archives did an article on DrudgeReport.com contain the phrase “Australian magazine NEW IDEA and the German daily BILD have broken world embargoes on the development,” as you claim.

    That another source may have actually published this information before seems to be the case. That said source obviously had no impact either on the world media or Harry’s military tour is also obvious. It was Drudge’s leak of this information that brought the Prince home.

    If holding media accountable for the deleterious impact they have on soldiers fighting abroad is “lynching”, so be it.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Correction — I found the phrase. The DrudgeReportArchives.com’s search engine doesn’t work, it would seem.

    The credit to New Idea and Bild appeared in an article on Drudge’s site stamped “Thu Feb 28 2008 11:37:52 ET”.

    Less than 40 minutes later (archived at 2008/02/28 12:19:38 EST), that sentence was erased, “**World Exclusive**” was slapped on the article, and — curiously — the article was then back-dated to “Thu Feb 28 2008 11:01:34 ET”.

    So it seems that, not only did Drudge get greedy about sharing his ignominious spotlight, but he also faked a time stamp to make it look like this article predated the one giving credit.

    Regardless, I didn’t read Drudge’s site in those 40 minutes that he gave credit to other sources. I read the article that appeared on his site for the rest of that day and into the next.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Correction — I found the phrase. The DrudgeReportArchives.com’s search engine doesn’t work, it would seem.

    The credit to New Idea and Bild appeared in an article on Drudge’s site stamped “Thu Feb 28 2008 11:37:52 ET”.

    Less than 40 minutes later (archived at 2008/02/28 12:19:38 EST), that sentence was erased, “**World Exclusive**” was slapped on the article, and — curiously — the article was then back-dated to “Thu Feb 28 2008 11:01:34 ET”.

    So it seems that, not only did Drudge get greedy about sharing his ignominious spotlight, but he also faked a time stamp to make it look like this article predated the one giving credit.

    Regardless, I didn’t read Drudge’s site in those 40 minutes that he gave credit to other sources. I read the article that appeared on his site for the rest of that day and into the next.

  • Carl Vehse

    The Drudgearchive saves a snapshot of the Drudge Report evey two minutes, 24/7, and records it to the Archive’s timeline only when the Drudge Report changes.

    It appears that the Drudge story snapshot taken at 11:43:20 ET on the Feb. 28 stated “Australian magazine NEW IDEA and the German daily BILD have broken world embargoes on the development. CNN has debated internally on the merits of reporting Harry at war.”, while the snapshot at 12:19:38 is missing those statements and has “the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.” attached to the preceding sentence. Also “**World Exclusive**” is included in the header of that story.

    It’s not clear why the story archived at 11:43:20 has an 11:37:47 ET time stamp and the story archived at 12:19:38 has a time stamp of 11:01:34 ET.. Perhaps the timestamps refer to when the stories were originally written.

    Other changes can be seen on the timeline. The claim of “World Exclusive” on Drudge’s main page starts appearing at 10:44:50 ET and continues through the 11:21:10 snapshot, but then disappears in the 11:35:16 and 11:43:20 snapshots and then reappears in the 12:19:38 snapshot.

    In any case, without further information, it may not be putting the best construction on things to arbitrarily accuse Drudge with the motive of being “greedy”, and that he “faked a time stamp.”

    As for the accusation that my reference to what Drudge wrote “doesn’t hold up to what appeared on Drudge’s site”, I accept tODD’s heartfelt apology: “Correction — I found the phrase.”

  • Carl Vehse

    The Drudgearchive saves a snapshot of the Drudge Report evey two minutes, 24/7, and records it to the Archive’s timeline only when the Drudge Report changes.

    It appears that the Drudge story snapshot taken at 11:43:20 ET on the Feb. 28 stated “Australian magazine NEW IDEA and the German daily BILD have broken world embargoes on the development. CNN has debated internally on the merits of reporting Harry at war.”, while the snapshot at 12:19:38 is missing those statements and has “the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.” attached to the preceding sentence. Also “**World Exclusive**” is included in the header of that story.

    It’s not clear why the story archived at 11:43:20 has an 11:37:47 ET time stamp and the story archived at 12:19:38 has a time stamp of 11:01:34 ET.. Perhaps the timestamps refer to when the stories were originally written.

    Other changes can be seen on the timeline. The claim of “World Exclusive” on Drudge’s main page starts appearing at 10:44:50 ET and continues through the 11:21:10 snapshot, but then disappears in the 11:35:16 and 11:43:20 snapshots and then reappears in the 12:19:38 snapshot.

    In any case, without further information, it may not be putting the best construction on things to arbitrarily accuse Drudge with the motive of being “greedy”, and that he “faked a time stamp.”

    As for the accusation that my reference to what Drudge wrote “doesn’t hold up to what appeared on Drudge’s site”, I accept tODD’s heartfelt apology: “Correction — I found the phrase.”

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    “It may not be putting the best construction on things to arbitrarily accuse Drudge with the motive of being ‘greedy’, and that he ‘faked a time stamp,’” said the man (@25) who labeled me a “pietistic” member of a “lynch mob”.

    The word “greedy” was a nod to the Bloggerheads article you linked to — I should have put it in quotes. I just thought it was funny that, in your defense of Drudge, you’d linked to an article that was derisive of him.

    So you’re right that I have not assumed the best about Drudge — my apologies to him. To be honest, this is where I am often not sure how to apply the 8th Commandment. At what point does one’s putting the best construction on things become merely delusional? And, of course, why do people who promote use of the best construction seem inconsistent in their use of it — not only labeling me “pietistic” but also dismissing the New Idea editor’s “lame excuse”?

    I still think you’ve misunderstood my response to your statement that, “Before the Cranach lynch mob, in a pietistic fervor, strings up Drudge from the nearest tree, one might actually read what he said in his Feb. 28th breaking story.” Primarily, I was defending myself from the implication that I was lashing out in ignorance, when I had, in fact, read Drudge’s article and seen no credit given to other sources. I then attempted to find those sources credit in the Drudge archives, but could not — at least, not using the search engine on that site. Finally, by looking at each archived copy, I was able to find it the one instance where he gave credit, before it was removed forever. If this is the level of trouble you expected people to go to when you breezily said, “one might actually read what he said”, you certainly didn’t indicate how difficult it was to find that version that appeared for 40 minutes, and was long gone from Drudge’s site when you wrote your comment.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    “It may not be putting the best construction on things to arbitrarily accuse Drudge with the motive of being ‘greedy’, and that he ‘faked a time stamp,’” said the man (@25) who labeled me a “pietistic” member of a “lynch mob”.

    The word “greedy” was a nod to the Bloggerheads article you linked to — I should have put it in quotes. I just thought it was funny that, in your defense of Drudge, you’d linked to an article that was derisive of him.

    So you’re right that I have not assumed the best about Drudge — my apologies to him. To be honest, this is where I am often not sure how to apply the 8th Commandment. At what point does one’s putting the best construction on things become merely delusional? And, of course, why do people who promote use of the best construction seem inconsistent in their use of it — not only labeling me “pietistic” but also dismissing the New Idea editor’s “lame excuse”?

    I still think you’ve misunderstood my response to your statement that, “Before the Cranach lynch mob, in a pietistic fervor, strings up Drudge from the nearest tree, one might actually read what he said in his Feb. 28th breaking story.” Primarily, I was defending myself from the implication that I was lashing out in ignorance, when I had, in fact, read Drudge’s article and seen no credit given to other sources. I then attempted to find those sources credit in the Drudge archives, but could not — at least, not using the search engine on that site. Finally, by looking at each archived copy, I was able to find it the one instance where he gave credit, before it was removed forever. If this is the level of trouble you expected people to go to when you breezily said, “one might actually read what he said”, you certainly didn’t indicate how difficult it was to find that version that appeared for 40 minutes, and was long gone from Drudge’s site when you wrote your comment.

  • Carl Vehse

    …you certainly didn’t indicate how difficult it was to find that version that appeared for 40 minutes

    I didn’t think it was so difficult to go to SEARCH DRUDGE at his home page and type in “Harry” and “Afghanistan”. The first two reports found are from February 28th – one is an International Herald Tribune news report and the second is the Drudge breaking story identifying New Idea and BILD as violating the world embargo.

    the man (@25) who labeled me a “pietistic” member of a “lynch mob”…. why do people who promote use of the best construction seem inconsistent in their use of it — not only labeling me “pietistic” but also dismissing the New Idea editor’s “lame excuse”?

    Note the distinction, tODD. You accuse me of labeling you as a “pietistic member of a lynch mob”, when, to the contrary, I labeled lynching Drudge from the nearest tree as pietistic fervor. I did not refer to you. Furthermore, I labeled the excuse, not the editor, as lame (Bloggerhead had similar comments about the editor’s excuse). This should be obvious from the New Idea January 15th statement — Maverick Prince Harry has joined his regiment on a covert mission to Afghanistan and his unit has already seen front line action. [emphasis added] — as well as New Idea substituting other material for the original articles from their website.

  • Carl Vehse

    …you certainly didn’t indicate how difficult it was to find that version that appeared for 40 minutes

    I didn’t think it was so difficult to go to SEARCH DRUDGE at his home page and type in “Harry” and “Afghanistan”. The first two reports found are from February 28th – one is an International Herald Tribune news report and the second is the Drudge breaking story identifying New Idea and BILD as violating the world embargo.

    the man (@25) who labeled me a “pietistic” member of a “lynch mob”…. why do people who promote use of the best construction seem inconsistent in their use of it — not only labeling me “pietistic” but also dismissing the New Idea editor’s “lame excuse”?

    Note the distinction, tODD. You accuse me of labeling you as a “pietistic member of a lynch mob”, when, to the contrary, I labeled lynching Drudge from the nearest tree as pietistic fervor. I did not refer to you. Furthermore, I labeled the excuse, not the editor, as lame (Bloggerhead had similar comments about the editor’s excuse). This should be obvious from the New Idea January 15th statement — Maverick Prince Harry has joined his regiment on a covert mission to Afghanistan and his unit has already seen front line action. [emphasis added] — as well as New Idea substituting other material for the original articles from their website.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Carl (@27), my point remains that it wasn’t simply a matter of merely “read[ing] what he said in his Feb. 28th breaking story”, but that one had to have visited the Web site at the proper time, since viewing the Web site after the citation was removed (as I did) would have led one to believe Drudge did not credit those sources. And, again, if one were to use “Bild” or “New Idea” as search terms, one would have come up with nothing when clicking on “SEARCH DRUDGE”. I’m obviously not saying it’s impossible to find the article — I did — but it wasn’t merely a matter of hopping over to his site, either.

    As to your distinctions, I had no idea the 8th Commandment hinged on such Clintonian parsing. When you lovingly referred to the comments pointing out Drudge’s deplorable actions as those of a “lynch mob”, did you refer to me or not? And if my actions were those you were labeling as “pietistic fervor”, how is it that you were not also labeling me as pietistic? I suppose you wouldn’t have complained if I’d labeled Drudge’s actions as “greedy” — my fault was in labeling the man?

    And I never said you labeled the editor as “lame” — I just thought that the best construction would involve you believing the editor when she said she didn’t know about the embargo, rather than saying it was a “lame excuse”.

    Anyhow, this is so much dancing around my main point that Drudge published classified material that endangered military personnel, leading to Harry’s premature removal from combat. You seem to have missed that.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Carl (@27), my point remains that it wasn’t simply a matter of merely “read[ing] what he said in his Feb. 28th breaking story”, but that one had to have visited the Web site at the proper time, since viewing the Web site after the citation was removed (as I did) would have led one to believe Drudge did not credit those sources. And, again, if one were to use “Bild” or “New Idea” as search terms, one would have come up with nothing when clicking on “SEARCH DRUDGE”. I’m obviously not saying it’s impossible to find the article — I did — but it wasn’t merely a matter of hopping over to his site, either.

    As to your distinctions, I had no idea the 8th Commandment hinged on such Clintonian parsing. When you lovingly referred to the comments pointing out Drudge’s deplorable actions as those of a “lynch mob”, did you refer to me or not? And if my actions were those you were labeling as “pietistic fervor”, how is it that you were not also labeling me as pietistic? I suppose you wouldn’t have complained if I’d labeled Drudge’s actions as “greedy” — my fault was in labeling the man?

    And I never said you labeled the editor as “lame” — I just thought that the best construction would involve you believing the editor when she said she didn’t know about the embargo, rather than saying it was a “lame excuse”.

    Anyhow, this is so much dancing around my main point that Drudge published classified material that endangered military personnel, leading to Harry’s premature removal from combat. You seem to have missed that.

  • Pingback: Answer to the Warlike Harry quiz — Cranach: The Blog of Veith

  • Pingback: Answer to the Warlike Harry quiz — Cranach: The Blog of Veith


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X