Romenesko reports:

At least for now. Los Angeles Times publisher Jeffrey Johnson met with Tribune Co. execs on Tuesday, then returned to his paper and told colleagues that he’d reached “an understanding” with Chicago.

This is a good thing. Many have argued that severe reductions in the paper’s staffing would be the death of the paper. And with no L.A. Times to criticize, what would I write about?

Michelle Malkin is talking about boycotting CITGO. I’ll tell you, the second I heard on Brit Hume’s show that CITGO is wholly owned by the Venezuelan government, I resolved that as long as Hugo Chavez is in power, I will never give them another dime.

There’s a deal on treatment of terrorists. The details are unclear, but all parties sound pleased. McCain and company are on board.

I don’t know for sure whether I’ll like the deal — but the fact that Bush seems pleased is a good sign. And the fact that McCain seems pleased is good politics. After days of having the Democrats tell the country that President Bush needed to listen to war veteran McCain, it appears he has. That will be hard for the Democrats to spin.

Tom Harkin can “understand the frustration” of Hugo Chavez, who called George W. Bush “the devil.” Harkin adds:

We tend to forget that a few days after 9-1-1 thousands, thousands of Iranians marched in a candlelight procession in Teheran in support of the United States. Every Muslim country was basically on our side. Just think, in five years, President Bush has squandered all that.

Charles Johnson has photos of Palestinians who were “basically on our side.” Here is another from BusinessWeek. Here are some more; many more here.

This story reports:

[T]he West Bank town of Nablus, Palestinians cheered and distributed candy to passers-by, and Iraqi television played a patriotic song that began “Down with America!” as it showed the World Trade Center towers collapsing.

As this link shows, Palestinians celebrated in Lebanon:

Dozens of Palestinian refugees today fired into the air with joy at news of apparent anti-US terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, AFP correspondents witnessed.

Guerillas in military fatigues from various factions fired assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades into the air in the Ain al-Helweh refugee camp at the outskirts of the southern port city of Sidon, one correspondent said.

Camp residents, some still in pyjamas, interrupted afternoon rest to rush down to the streets and fire assault rifles into the air, they said.

At the Shatila refugee camp in Beirut, Palestinian fighters also went out to the streets as soon as they heard the news from their television sets to fire into the air with joy, an AFP correspondent said.

As did Lebanese:

“We’re ecstatic. Let America have a taste of what we’ve tasted,” said Ali Mareh, a Lebanese resident of Beirut.

“People are happy. America has always supported terrorism. They see how the innocent Palestinian children are killed and they back the Zionist army that does it. America has never been on the side of justice,” said Samir, a Lebanese.

Palestinians celebrated in East Jerusalem:

Palestinians who have often burned U.S. flags in protests during their 11-month-old uprising against Israeli occupation also celebrated in the streets of Arab East Jerusalem.

“I feel I am in a dream. I never believed that one day the United States would come to pay a price for its support to Israel,” said Mustafa, a 24-year-old Palestinian gunman.

Several dozen Palestinian youths gathered in Arab East Jerusalem to celebrate as well, honking out wedding tunes on their car horns. “We are so happy that America was hit. America is against us in supporting Israel,” Suleiman, one of the demonstrators, said.

Columnists were thrilled in Egypt:

Ahmad Murad, a columnist for the Nasserist weekly Al-Arabi, wrote, “In all honesty, and without beating around the bush: I am happy about [what happened to] America; I am happy about the great number of American dead.

. . . .

Acting Al-Arabi editor, Abd Al-Halim Qandil also insisted on his “rights,” saying: “Yes, we have the right to rejoice. This was the first step in a thousand-mile journey towards defeating America by a knockout.” Al-Arabi columnist Nur Al-Huda Zaki wrote: “I cannot hide my feelings; I cannot restrain my joy . . .

. . . .

Al Usbu’ columnist Muhammad Mustagab related what he felt as he watched the airliners crash into the World Trade Center: “[Those moments of] exquisite, incandescent hell were the most beautiful and precious moments of my life.”

The Egyptian weekly Al-Ahram ran this gloating quote:

Perhaps this crushing blow, and the scenes of jubilation from around the Third World, will act as a humbling experience once the dust has settled.

A Syrian writer described his feelings of ecstasy:

I felt like someone delivered from the grave; my lungs filled with air and I breathed in relief, as I’d never breathed before.

But he ultimately decided it was a bad thing that innocents died because of U.S. government policy (although hey! at least we got some Jews bloodsuckers!):

I can swear that among the victims in and around the World Trade Center are some who do not deserve mercy, because they belong to the suckers of the blood of the peoples. But a man cannot rejoice at the misfortune of others, or hate in light of the loss of life. My humanity, that the American and Zionist policy tried to numb and contaminate, ultimately conquers the hatred and enmity, and stands by mankind…

Well, good for him, then.

How could Bush squander all that?

See Dubya explains why it makes little sense that we would ship a guy to Syria to be interrogated and tortured. Bottom line: why would we trust Syria to accurately relay the results of the interrogation? I think the conclusion that the guy was simply deported is the obvious one.

Xrlq notes an interesting coincidence about who is opposing the president on post-Hamdan reforms.

Cathy Seipp has more on that church that the L.A. Times claims was targeted for a simple anti-war sermon. I laid this out in two previous posts (here and here), but Cathy — reminding us of a piece she had previously written about the sermon — makes it even more clear that the sermon was flagrantly anti-Bush:

Although Regas called his sermon “If Jesus Debated Senator Kerry and President Bush,” he didn’t imagine Jesus sitting there awkwardly on a third stool, like Ross Perot, but as a presence directly criticizing only Bush, never Kerry. . . .

. . . Regas’s Jesus scolded: “Pres. Bush, you have not made dramatically clear what have been the human consequences of the war in Iraq…and now the latest figures say 100,000 Iraqi fighters, women and children are dead.” And: “Jesus turns to Pres. Bush again with deep sadness. ‘Is what I hear really true? Do you really mean that you want to end a decade-old ban on developing nuclear battlefield weapons?'”

Leaving aside the odd notion of Jesus getting information by checking “the latest figures” (wouldn’t he just know?) or hanging around the water cooler (“is what I hear really true?”), Regas’s Jesus is quite a policy wonk. According to the sermon, Jesus is pro-choice, against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and disapproves of the Bush tax cuts. He’s in favor of good pre-natal care, “dignified jobs” (does carpentry count?) and affordable housing. I’m curious what he thinks of, for instance, gerrymandered voting districts. But maybe Jesus isn’t really into California politics.

Recall that the L.A. Times claimed that the IRS investigation was purely about the rector’s comments about the war. Cathy notes that the rector did indeed criticize the war . . . but it was hardly a nonpartisan prayer for peace, but rather a pounding of Bush as arrogant:

“How deeply the world longs for peace,” Regas continued preaching in his own voice, which sounds strangely like Jesus’s. “Jesus refuses to accept the violence of war as the necessary consequence of our tragic loss on 9/11. Maybe you are calling Jesus naïve…” . . . .

“How Jesus mourns the death of those 3,000 people killed on 9/11,” Regas continued. “But Jesus also mourns the death, devastation, and loss in Afghanistan and Iraq and Sudan and Israel Palestine…” Then he conjured up Jesus the Chastiser of White House Policy again: “At the time of the trauma of 9/11, you did not have to declare war. You could have said to the American people and the world, ‘we will respond but not in kind.'”

. . . .

“Mr. President,” Regas’s Jesus continued, “The consequences of arrogance, accompanied by certitude that the world’s most powerful military can cure all ills…” And blah-blah-blah-blabbity-blah. This Jesus is awfully wordy, not at all like the terse prophet you may remember from the Bible – which, if Regas had had anything to do with it, might have included lines like “Father, forgive their consequences, for their ignorance is accompanied by certitude.” Regas apparently thinks Jesus would sound rather like Cindy Sheehan blathering on to the Huffington Post, or maybe one of John Kerry’s speechwriters.

Recall that the L.A. Times also claimed that “[t]he sermon did not endorse either candidate.”

Oh, well. I guess the myth makes better copy than the whole truth.

This may be the stupidest damn thing I have ever read in the L.A Times — and that’s saying something.

Read as Pattt Morrison gleefully mocks the idea of national security — due to the grave, grave effects that a fence might have . . . on the environment.

If you build it, they will die.

I’m with you, Patttt. I’m looking at my personal experience here. We put up a chain-link to keep the neighbors out of our yard, and every living thing died within a two-mile radius.

Fences are just that dangerous, Pattttt.

I’m outsourcing any further fisking to you, my commenters. Let ‘er have it with both barrels.

To my readers:

It has been reported that your grandfather Felix, whom you were given your middle name for, was Jewish. Could you please tell us whether your forebears include Jews and, if so, at which point Jewish identity might have ended?

Yes, that means all of you. All of your grandfathers are Felix, OK?

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, it looks like you need to read this. These are relevant questions in this day and age.

P.S. Watch how Dana Milbank spins the controversy to make Allen seem like the bad guy.