There is a “story” up at Daily Kos called I read the right-wing blogs, so you don’t have to. This fellow reviews certain right-wing blogs and finds their coverage of the hurricane wanting. One of his complaints is that some of the right-wing blogs are simply ignoring the hurricane. He characterizes these blogs’ attitude as:

If there is a problem, ignore it. Many blogs simply did not want to talk about what is doing on — instead they concentrate on defending the war in Iraq, or talking about the craziness of social security.

As an evident example of this, the Kossack offers up: Instapundit. No, I’m not kidding:

Glenn Reynolds links to story that claims the L.A. Times edited a story to say that George Bush never met with Cindy Sheehan when in fact he met with her before his many months ago before his vacation, but not in Crawford.

It’s hard to believe this is his lead story.

The implication is that Glenn Reynolds is not talking about Katrina and relief efforts on his blog. A more blatant version of “The Big Lie” you will never see. It’s almost all he has talked about for several days running. He organized a blogosphere-wide donation effort and documented the links in this massive post. He did far more good for the victims in one day than this carping Kossack ever will.

I take this a little personally since it was my link that the Kossack is discussing here. This was Glenn’s “lead story” for all of two minutes, from 10:01 a.m. Eastern time to 10:03 a.m. Eastern time. He puts up a lot of posts, Kossacks. And lately, most of them have been about Katrina. So trying to stop lying for half a second, mmkay?

UPDATE: Link to Kossack post now fixed.

Once again, the Los Angeles Times has edited a wire story in a way that distorts the truth. As edited by the L.A. Times, an AP story yesterday on Cindy Sheehan’s Crawford protest states:

Although two top administration officials talked to Sheehan the first day, the president never did — though he said that he sympathizes with her. He ended his vacation Wednesday to monitor federal aid to hurricane victims on the Gulf Coast.

(My emphasis.)

Saying that Bush “never” met with Cindy Sheehan makes her cause seem more righteous, and Bush’s behavior more callous. But, of course, the president did meet with Cindy Sheehan in June 2004 — and Sheehan praised him shortly thereafter as sincere and sympathetic.

The story should not say that Bush “never did” meet with Sheehan. Rather, it should say that “the president never did during her Crawford stay.” And guess what? That’s what the original AP story said — before L.A. Times editors got their hands on it.

The phrase “during her Crawford stay” appears in versions of the story running in the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and the Contra Costa Times, just to name a few:

While two top Bush administration officials talked to Sheehan the first day, the president never did during her Crawford stay — although he said that he sympathizes with her. His vacation ended Wednesday, two days early, so he could monitor federal efforts to help hurricane victims on the Gulf Coast.

Why, the phrase even appeared in the version originally published on the L.A. Times web site on August 31.

Why were these four words omitted from the version that ran in the print edition of the L.A. Times? Did the editors not have enough space for four words that tell you the whole truth?

UPDATE: Welcome to Instapundit readers, and thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link. I hope new readers will blogroll the site and/or bookmark the main page, and return often.

UPDATE x2: I have added a link to my L.A. Times op-ed above, so that nobody can pretend that I’m claiming Cindy Sheehan supported the war when she met with Bush previously. She didn’t — and I make clear in the linked op-ed that she didn’t. And, contrary to the bleating of some carpers (like this guy), I have never once claimed she did.