Yesterday the London Guardian reported:
Sarah Palin apparently had second thoughts about crossing an Israeli checkpoint on Monday to visit Bethlehem during a three-day visit to Jerusalem.
The former governor of Alaska pulled up to the checkpoint run by the Israeli border police to the south of Jerusalem in a white people carrier, with her husband, Todd, her assistant and Israeli guides.
None of the occupants left the car nor did they speak to the police officers at the checkpoint, according to photographers at the scene. They then turned around and drove away. A spokesman for the Israeli police said there was no incident at the checkpoint and a spokesman for the Israeli army said that Palin’s group had not co-ordinated a visit to the occupied Palestinian territory.
Palin’s group then stopped at a nearby Greek Orthodox monastery before returning to her hotel in the centre of west Jerusalem from where they later continued their tour of the city.
Tourists need to carry passports to cross checkpoints into the occupied Palestinian territory and Israelis are not normally permitted to enter areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority, such as Bethlehem.
From the checkpoint Palin would have been able to see the high concrete walls that separate Bethlehem from Jerusalem.
Lets examine what happened; The car arrived at the checkpoint, no one got out, no one tried to talk to the police or anyone, there was no incident, and the Palin camp never even co-ordinated a visit to the area. In other words: There was no plan to go there, they didn’t go there, and even when they drove up to the checkpoint to see the wall that separates Bethlehem from Jerusalem, they didn’t change their plans or try to get in.
Yet the media considers this a story. Why? Because the media, who had no idea what the plans were, decided that the fact that the car arrived at the checkpoint is evidence that Governor Palin really wanted to go through the border but changed her mind at the last minute. Apparently the Guardian now knows what Governor Palin thinks.
I’ll give the Guardian a little credit for pointing out the fact that “Palin would have been able to see the high concrete walls that separate Bethlehem from Jerusalem” something Ben Smith conveniently decided was irrelevant to his report yesterday.
Today SarahPAC’s Tim Crawford told Politico:
“Governor. Palin was never scheduled to go to Bethlehem.”
“They had always planned on viewing Bethlehem from the Separation Wall,” Crawford said of Palin’s visit to Israel with her husband Todd. “They did that, then drove past the checkpoint on the way out.”
“Their guide is not licensed or insured for tours of Bethlehem,” he added.
Of course neither the Guardian nor Andy Barr found it important to point out that on Sunday Governor Palin herself said that she would not be visiting Nazareth or Bethlehem, as the Jerusalem Post reported:
Palin expressed regret that she would not be able to visit Nazareth or Bethlehem during her brief stay in Israel, but promised that she would soon come back for longer.
However, Andy Barr, who as usual didn’t care to listen to what Governor Palin says, is not happy with this or with the explanation by someone who knows what he’s talking about. Apparently it conflicts with the anti-Palin narrative required in all Politico pieces, so Barr, naturally, ignores it and continues the nonsense:
The account relayed by Crawford contradicts stories from the British press, which widely reported that Palin had intended to visit Bethlehem before turning around at the checkpoint.
The Guardian wrote on Monday that Palin “apparently had second thoughts about crossing an Israeli checkpoint.”
According to Barr, when there’s a report by the media, regardless of whether or not they have a clue about which they speak (they don’t), it should be deemed more reliable than a statement made by the Governor herself or by someone that actually works for Governor Palin and thus, knows what he’s talking about. This is so even if said media outlet has a record of fabricatingthings when it comes to Governor Palin.
To Andy when someone writes “apparently” and presumes what one is thinking it becomes true. In which case, Andy, I wonder what your bosses will have to say about this little nugget that has been “widely reported” today:
Apparently Andy Barr has second thoughts about having affairs with the girls (interns?) at Politico.
There is an “apparently” and a “thoughts” in there, so this should be taken quite seriously, no?
I have to say, I’m starting to really feel sorry for Barr, it’s obvious the guy has totally lost it.