Joust The Facts

Going Down Under For Honest Analysis

With all the hyperventilating over the NIE in the American media (see my rewrite of the Times frustrated editorial), it was refreshing to read a logical and fact-based analysis from Michael Costello in The Australian this morning, courtesy of Real Clear Politics.

TRUTH, like beauty, is apparently to be in the eye of the beholder. That's the only conclusion you can draw from the reaction to the US National Intelligence Estimate entitled Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the US, with a declassified summary of its conclusions released by President George W. Bush after parts were leaked to The New York Times.

The media coverage and most political reaction suggests the summary is damning of Bush's position on Iraq. I have two things to say about that. One is that people must be reading a different document from the one I am. The other is that the summary seems to me to ignore some significant considerations.

Lest you think that Mr. Costello is simply a sycophant he pulls no punches in writing of the administration:

Given the almost inconceivable incompetence, misjudgment and delusional pigheadedness of Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, largely unconstrained by Bush, the Republicans deserve a drubbing, and at the moment are more likely than not to get it.

President Bush was right to counter the selective leaks published by the NY Times and Washington Post in breathlessly damning tones last weekend by releasing the key findings summary.  They contradicted the impression the Times and Post sought to give their readers.  It's also why Senator Ted Kennedy was then reduced to calling for something he knew Mr. Bush couldn't do, releasing the entire classified document.  Mr. Costello makes a number of points, so read the whole thing.  As he concludes, he sees US electoral underpinnings for the increased violence.

The present spike in violence in Iraq is motivated largely by the desire of the jihadists and Iran to see Bush's Republicans lose in the congressional elections. There is a prospect also that in the lead-up to those elections the jihadists will seek to carry out another terror spectacular in the US. They and Iran know that it is in US ballot boxes that the struggle will be won or lost. If the Republicans are trounced, the battle of wills is over and we have lost not only in Iraq but most probably in Afghanistan and globally as well.

As I pointed out earlier today, the Democrats made a grave mistake when they let partisan political motives overtake rational thought in how to prosecute the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  They sound far too much like the enemy in their condemnation of administration policies and strategies.  Their proposals have been all over the map, including everything from more troops to immediate withdrawal.   This is not coherent, and the world knows it.  They would have been far better off supporting the President and the war in general, and if they saw problems they should have been ready with viable solutions that improved, not hindered, the cause.

Good Riddance

Bad apples can be found in all walks of life.  Good riddance, indeed.

An Unfortunate Connection

One of the Democrats' subtle but persistent problems is that terror leaders such as Ayman al Zawahiri keep releasing tapes.  Every time they do the American public gets to compare the words of terrorists to the accusationss and hyperbole of the Democratic party.  The comparison is rather unflattering.

"Can't you be honest at least once in your life, and admit that you are a deceitful liar who intentionally deceived your nation when you drove them to war in Iraq?"

sounds strangely and unfortunately similar to

One, the Bush Administration¹s case for war in Iraq was fundamentally misleading and deceptive, and not supported by the underlying intelligence.

And this one

"Bush, you deceitful charlatan, 3 1/2 years have passed since your capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, so how have you found us during this time? Losing and surrendering? Or are we launching attacks with God's help and becoming martyrs?"

sounds more than a little like

"While the world has been focused on the crisis in the Middle East, Iraq has exploded in violence. Some 6,000 Iraqis were killed in May and June, and sectarian and insurgent violence continues to claim American and Iraqi lives at an alarming rate. In the face of this onslaught, one can only conclude that the Baghdad security plan you announced five weeks ago is in great jeopardy."

The Democrats have hopes to pick up enough seats in the House and Senate to have control of Congress after these mid-term elections.  They may do it, but just imagine how good their chances would be if they didn't sound like the terrorists every time they criticize the President.  That association makes it very difficult for the American people to see them as solid on national security.

Will They Need 52?

The Senate, according to the NY Times, is "in play" this fall for Democratic hopes to retake control

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 —  Six weeks before Election Day, the Democrats suddenly face a map with unexpected opportunities in their battle for control of the Senate.

[...]

Democrats must win six Republican seats to regain a Senate majority, meaning they would have to win nearly every close race. Even the most optimistic Democrats acknowledge that such a feat would require a big anti-Republican wave, a lot of money and a lot of luck.

Still, a shift in the Senate was always considered a long shot this year. Some analysts now say, however, that there are enough Republican seats facing serious challenges to make it at least plausible.

But 51 Democrats in the Senate may not be enough.  One of those putative Democrats is likely to be Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who is currently polling ahead of the the anti-war netroots challenger Ned Lamont by 10%, 49%-39% in this recent Quinnipiac University poll.  Could Mr. Lieberman vote to continue Republican leadership in the Senate?

If you think about it, that scenario may not be so far-fetched.  Mr. Lieberman supports the war on terror as the administration has been waging it.  He has some differences with the Bush Administration, to be sure, but he does believe that aggressive offensive prosecution against terrorists in both Iraq and Afghanistan is necessary.  If he were to vote to give Democrats committee control, he would be putting power in the hands of a party which disagrees with him strongly on this issue, a party which did its best to push him out of the Senate, a party in which the most vocal elements have called for "redeployment" or "immediate withdrawal" or a "timetable" for withdrawal, a party which abandoned him for the staunchly anti-war primary opponent that narrowly defeated him, and a party whose members he counted as friends turned their back on him.

In an exclusive video interview with Pajamas Media, Senator Joseph Lieberman - the former Democrat now running as an Independent to retain his Connecticut senate seat - was asked by PJM’s CEO Roger Simon if he could forgive once close friends Chris Dodd, Al Gore and Teddy Kennedy, for endorsing his opponent Ned Lamont, the former Democratic Party vice-presidential candidate responded: “I can forgive … but I probably won’t forget.”

For that statement he gets accused of "throwing the party under the bus."  Well, if you're going to be accused of throwing the party under the bus anyway, and they disagree with you on the most important issue of the day, one that you feel strongly about, you might as well go all the way.  He's already parted company with the most liberal members of his caucus by joining the "gang of 14" that ended the judicial filibuster madness.

Of course,  Sen. Lieberman could vote with the party to try to earn his way back into their good graces if he does indeed win, but that would still leave him on the outside, looking in at quivering fecklessness in the war on terrorism. It doesn't seem likely that the rest of the party will stand up to their vocal base and become terror warriors overnight.

So they may need 52.

 

Entering The "Terrible Two's"

Joust The Facts is celebrating its second blogiversary today.  Okay, okay, hold your laughs applause.  I thought about doing what most parents seem to do when their children turn two these days, and invite a bunch of other two year-olds, have a pizza and ice cream party, whack a pinata, and give out "goody bags" at the end, then spend three to four hours cleaning up smeared frosting from the walls, floors, table, chairs and my hair, but then how many of my blog friends would find their way to New Hampshire with it being only 2006?

Still, I was tempted.  There are all kinds of higher profile blogger parties going on.  One guy might have been able to make the trip by "Shaggin' Wagon." "Golden Oldie."   This girl seems to have one in the "City That Never Sleeps" three or four times a year.  A bunch of bloggers got the royal treatment at the White House yesterday at the signing of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act.  This guy even shook hands with The Man, now he's buying drinks.

Yep, life as a blogger is just one big party.  It's too bad that's not what I spend most of my time doing.  That's right, there is the 11 hour per day full-time job, the one with on-call time.  Despite that rather consuming primary responsibility I've managed to crank out a post on most days, sometimes squeezing them in during lunch, or while waiting for xrays.  Some of them even readable, and once in a great while the post gets linked by a bigger fish.  Occasionally I look back at a post and seven ways to improve it pop into my head.  I hope I've been thoughtful, and stuck to facts and logical conclusions.

Gwendolyn has been an angel in putting up with my efforts here, and my daughters, the little jesters, seem to get a kick out of "Daddy's blogging."  I'll continue doing this as long as it's enjoyable, and my family puts up with it.  It's always fascinating to me which of my posts gets linked and which get the most traffic - it's rarely the ones I expect.  This one got a ton of traffic (for me anyway) and when you read it you can surely guess why.  And here's a link to my first post, two years ago today.  You can see why I keep returning to this "War on Terror" thingy.

So, thank you to everyone who links, everyone who comments, and everyone who reads Joust The Facts.  Even though I wish there were more of you, I value the visits and the feedback.

I'll try very hard not to turn into a "terrible two."

I Just Knew A Woman Wrote This Article

Too much testosterone kills brain cells

It's actually a discussion of the effects of using exogenous androgenic/anabolic steroids.

The Times Needs A Re-Write

The NY Times editorial board, puffing up its chest with outrage, is red-faced with outrage at, well, pretty much everything the Bush administration has done since the NIE was leaked and spun by them this past Sunday.  After reading the editorial, it occurred to me that it could use a rewrite, in redface.

It’s hard to think of a president and an administration more devoted to secrecy than President Bush and his team. Except, that is, when it suits Mr. Bush politically to give the public a glimpse of the secrets of course, in recalling the mysteries surrounding the firing of the White House Travel Office Staff, the puloined and perused 900 FBI files, the strange circumstances surrrounding the Death of Vince Foster, and Sandy Berger's need to relieve the National Archives of some classified documents, Mr. Clinton and his team.  And so, yesterday, he ordered the declassification of a fraction of a report by United States intelligence agencies on the global terrorist threat.

Mr. Bush said he wanted to release the document so voters would not be confused about terrorism or the war when they voted for Congressional candidates in November. But the three declassified pages from what is certainly a voluminous report told us what any American with a newspaper, television or Internet connection should already know. The invasion of Iraq was a cataclysmic disaster has been difficult, and Muslim jihadists have used it as a cause to rally around. The current situation will get worse if American forces leave, which is something we have avoided telling you until now, at all costs. Unfortunately, neither the report nor the president nor the Democratic party provide even a glimmer of a suggestion about how to avoid that inevitable potential disaster.

Despite what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, have tried to make everyone believe, have not emphasized what we think is one of the key findings of the National Intelligence Estimate, which represents the consensus of the 16 intelligence agencies, was indeed which is that the war in Iraq has greatly increased the threat from terrorism by “shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives.”  Instead they have chosen to emphasize other key findings, that the spread of democracy in the middle east would help our cause, and that Al Qaeda's structure and function have been badly damaged.

It said Iraq has become “the cause célèbre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.” It listed the war in Iraq as only the second most important factor in the spread of terrorism — after “entrenched grievances such as corruption, injustice and fear of Western domination," all of which were present long before Mr. Bush took office. And that was before April, when the report was completed. Since then, things have gotten much worse, though we're hard pressed to tell you exactly how. (The report was written before the killing in June of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The authors thought such an event would diminish the danger in Iraq. It has not. It may have, but it's early yet.)

Mr. Bush decided to release this small, selected chunk of the report, which contains classified national security information and which would not have been released at all had it not been illegally leaked to us, in reaction to an article on the intelligence assessment that appeared in The Times over the weekend. As a defense of his policies, it serves only to highlight the maddening circular logic that passes for a White House rationale. It goes like this: The invasion of Iraq has created an entire new army of terrorists who will be emboldened by an American withdrawal. Therefore, the United States has to stay indefinitely and keep fighting those terrorists. The invasion of Iraq was a necessary adjunct in the war on terror due to the risk of a belligerent dictator's potential to assist terrorists with extremely dangerous weapons in a post-9/11 world.  That the kicking the hornet's nest has made them angry is unsurprising.  Withdrawing now would only make things worse. (Ed: if the Times is going to speak to the administration's rationale, they should at least represent it in the administration's terms.)

By that logic, the more the United States fights, the longer the war stretches on until victory is achieved.

It’s obvious why Mr. Bush did not want this report out, and why it is taking so long for the intelligence agencies to complete another report, solely on Iraq, that was requested by Congress in late July. It’s not credible that more time is needed to do the job. We're hoping that we can spin it to help Democrats in November.  In 2002, the intelligence agencies completed a report on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction in less time. Mr. Bush also made selected passages of that report public in July of 2003, 10 months later to buttress his arguments for war with Iraq, most of which proved to be based on fairy tales. which are detailed here, and were felt to be accurate by Republicans and Democrats alike at the time.

Then, Mr. Bush wanted Americans to focus on how dangerous Saddam Hussein was, and on the obvious possible consequences of avoiding the conflict in a post-9/11 world, and not on the obvious consequences of starting a war in the Middle East. Now, he wants voters to focus on how dangerous the world is, and not on his opponents' and predecessor's utter lack of ideas for what to do about it.

9/27/06 1400: For another fisking of this editorial, check out L'Ombre de L'Olivier.

T.O. Cries Out

If this is indeed true he should not be playing again this season, for his own good.

DALLAS (AP) -- Flamboyant Dallas Cowboys receiver Terrell Owens tried to kill himself by overdosing on pain medication, police said, even putting two more pills into his mouth after a friend intervened.

A Dallas police report released Wednesday morning said Owens told his friend "that he was depressed." Details of the report were first released by WFAA-TV.

The friend, who is not identified in the report, "noticed that (his) prescription pain medication was empty and observed (Owens) putting two pills in his mouth," the police report said.

The friend attempted to pry them out with her fingers, then was told by Owens that before this incident he'd taken only five of the 40 pain pills in the bottle he'd emptied. Owens was asked by rescue workers "if he was attempting to harm himself, at which time (he) stated, `Yes."'

Terrell Owens has been a disruptive force on every team that has listed him on the roster, with his least disruptive production occurring early on in San Francisco.  There is no doubt that he is extremely talented, and were his head always in the right place every team in football would want him on their roster.  Some keep trying, like Bill Parcells in Dallas.  But if this story is accurate Mr. Owens needs greater help than he can find in the locker room and on the field.  Major depression with a suicide attempt isn't something that you cure, or even control, in a few weeks.

It will be interesting to see how the Cowboys play this.  Is it about what's good for the team, or what's good for Terrell?

9/27/06 1735: Stay tuned, this is gonna get interesting.  T.O. says it wasn't a suicide attempt.

DALLAS - Dallas Cowboys receiver Terrell Owens denied a police report that he attempted suicide, saying he became groggy after mixing painkillers with supplements.

[...]

Owens said Wednesday the confusion likely stemmed from an empty bottle of pain medication found by his publicist, who was with him at the time and called 911. He said the rest of the pills were in a drawer.

"I was non-responsive when she made that call," Owens said. "She made the call out of her judgment for my well-being."

And the police have changed their story.  That's very interesting.

When officially released by police, about half the document was blacked out, including the phrases "attempting suicide by prescription pain medication" and "a drug overdose," as well as the details of Owens having two pills pried from his mouth and Owens saying "Yes" when asked if he intended to harm himself.

"I was kind of out of it," Owens said. "I can barely even remember the doctors, much less the police officers asking me questions."

Hmmmmmm....

Must-See Video

Afghan President Hamid Karzai at HotAir, on global terrorism.  This man has passion.

The NIE Report, The NY Times, And Carrying Water

The furor began a couple of days ago.  Not having access to classified documents or classified sources, I declined to comment on the reporting of the NY Times and the Washington Post regarding the April National Intelligence Estimate.  These papers reported leaked classified information given to them, quite obviously, by a Democratic partisan.  Since those articles Democrats have been crowing about how the Iraq was a mistake, as they've been saying, because Islamic extremists have used it as a recruiting tool.

Well, now a declassified summary of the report is available.  Most of the news organizations have it posted as well.  As a result, it now is possible to analyze and comment upon the contents.  First let's look at the NYT and WaPo articles.  From the Times:

First Draft Discovered!

Iowahawk found the rough first draft of the Arizona 9/11 Memorial design.  Whew, I'm glad they went for a re-write.  Some samples:

• WHY DO THEY HATE US?  NOT "ME" US, I MEAN BUSH US.
• ASU HISTORY DEPARTMENT RULEZ
• CHICKENS COME HOME, ROOST, DUHHHH

The last was Ward Churchill's contribution, I'll bet.  Missing from the list due to space considerations: "9-11: REPUG PLOT TO WIN ELECTIONS."  Check 'em all out.

Winning Afghanistan

2004 Presidential runner-up John Kerry, Senator from Massachusetts, penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal today, admonishing the Bush administration to get their act together in Afghanistan. In it we find hysteria, false choices, straw men, and other rhetorical devices that failed Mr. Kerry in 2004, and so it's curious why he should believe they'll be more effective now.

If Washington seems to have forgotten Afghanistan, it is clear the Taliban and al Qaeda have not. Less than five years after American troops masterfully toppled the Taliban, the disastrous diversion in Iraq has allowed these radicals the chance to rise again. Time is running out to reverse an unfolding disaster in the war we were right to fight after 9/11.

"Time is running out to reverse an unfolding disaster?"  That sounds as dire a warning as Mr. Bush's/Mr. Kerry's/Mr. Rockefeller's/Mr. Clinton's/etc. warning about the dangers of having WMD in the hands of someone like Saddam Hussein. There's your dose of hysteria and scare-mongering. Democrats often accuse Mr. Bush of using the threat of terrorism to scare the public into voting Republican. The truth is that both sides try to scare the public, each in their own way, and each for their own purposes. Just think about the Social Security battle if you don't believe me.

When did denying al Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan cease to be an urgent American priority? Somehow, we ended up with seven times more troops in Iraq--which even the administration now admits had nothing to do with 9/11--than in Afghanistan, where the killers still roam free.

Who says that Afghanistan has ceased to be an "urgent ... priority?" There's your straw man. Afghanistan is now a NATO operation - you know, Senator, working with your allies and all that. That the Taliban are reorganizing and fighting back is unsurprising. That additional offensive operations will ultimately be necessary is similarly unsurprising. The question is, is Afghanistan in danger of falling back under the control of the Taliban? The answer is no. That is not to say that they can't still resist by murdering Afghani civilians with terrorist tactics.

Quite simply, we must change course--starting with the immediate deployment of at least 5,000 additional U.S. troops. That includes more special forces to defeat the Taliban, more civil affairs troops to bolster the promising Provisional Reconstruction Teams, more infantry to prevent Taliban infiltration from Pakistan, and more clandestine intelligence units to hunt al Qaeda on both sides of the border.

Would more troops be helpful? No doubt. Are they necessary? Well, Mr. Kerry states that the U.S. NATO commander made an "urgent plea" for more. But, as he notes later in the article, it's not the U.S. that is lacking in troops. And because the other nations have not pulled their weight, the U.S. must therefore pick up the slack and act more ... what's the word ... unilaterally.

Asked which of the 26 countries in the alliance were dragging their feet in Afghanistan, Gen. Jones replied, "All of them." Where allies have pledged troops and assistance, they must follow through. But we must lead by example. That's how you win hearts and minds, and show the world the true face of America--and that's how you win the war on terror.

Finally, Mr. Kerry sets up another straw man, and knocks him down as the editorial concludes.

We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. The U.S. must not cut and run from the real front line in the war on terror. We must recommit to victory in Afghanistan.

The Bush administration made a mistake by cutting and running in Afghanistan?  Who knew?

The veil over this entire piece is the unnecessary and detrimental war in Iraq, stealing troops and resources from the "real war." What makes Mr. Kerry think that it's necessary to lose in Iraq so that we can win in Afghanistan?

Of course, there is someone who disagrees with Mr. Kerry's pessimistic assessment.

And [Afghan President Hamid Karzai] dismissed suggestions that the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003 motivated militants to engage in violence.

"Iraq is not a complicating factor," Karzai said. "Those who hate us for whatever reason hated us before 2001" and the attacks that year on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon.

The Afghan president said it would take at least 10 years of dedicated international opposition to defeat terrorism.

Later, Karzai accepted an honorary doctor of laws degree from Georgetown University.

In brief remarks, he described advances in the social sector in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.

In contrast to the Taliban policy of denying education rights to girls, he said girls now account for 35 percent of total school enrollment in the country.

He said 80 percent of Afghans now have access to health services, compared with 9 percent under the Taliban.

Karzai expressed gratitude for the help and sacrifice of the United States on Afghanistan's behalf over the past five years.

(Cross-posted at The Right Place, where it doesn't seem to be publishing, so I've put it here.  When it shows up there I'll mutually link it, and possibly delete the body here.)

Boston U.'s Ronald Cass Discusses Clinton And Fox News

I do not hesitate to call Boston University my alma mater.

Clinton wasn't the President who ordered the armed forces to go after bin Laden without reservation, to get him "dead or alive." He wasn't the one who sent thousands of troops after al-Qaeda and nations that harbor and support terrorists

Instead, President Clinton responded to attacks on our troops in Somalia by withdrawing, and responded to attacks by al-Qaeda on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya by bombing the aspirin factory of an innocent pharmaceutical firm in Sudan. He reacted to al-Qaeda's bombing of the USS Cole by lobbing a few cruise missiles at empty tents in the desert. He turned down Sudanese offers to cooperate in tracking down and capturing bin Laden.

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded that - far from doing more than anyone to kill the brutal murderer who now is the international face of terrorism - President Clinton had flatly refused to allow the military or CIA to kill Osama bin Laden. Clinton's instructions were that bin Laden should be taken, if at all, alive not dead. CIA officials reported that this instruction cut the chance of success in half.

What is also interesting is the denigration and denunciation of Fox News as a "right-wing bullying" arm of the "propaganda machine."  Steve Grossman, a former DNC head under Mr. Clinton, stated  "I don’t think the American people should tolerate unfair and inequitable reporting,” Grossman said, adding that he thought Clinton came off as passionate.

To take those statements at face value would lead one to believe that asking the former president, in office for eight years, during which terrorist attacks occurred regularly and during which Al Qaeda, led by Osama Bin Laden, became the threat it proved itself to be, about the prospects and efforts to behead the terrorist organization is not a legitimate question.  It certainly is, and it is also reasonable to expect Mr. Clinton to be prepared with a calm, rational, factual answer to the question without taking offense.  That he was not, and was unable to keep his cool, speaks volumes, particularly about the kid gloves with which he's usually handled by other interviewers.

9/26/06 0615: Soccer Dad thinks the outburst was premeditated, an effort to paint all such questioning of Clinton's terrorism efforts as part of the VWRC, and in a two-fer, casting Fox News as the mouthpiece of the conspiracy.  He also makes this accurate observation:

BTW, if there had been a President Dole from 1997-2001, I don't things would have been much different. No one in the foreign policy establishment understood the growing terror threat prior to 9/11.

Fisking Bill

Welcome Real Clear Politics readers.  This is more a linklist than a post, but if you'd like more on this topic you can read this, or this.

I've been occupied today, and so it was left to more energetic go-getters to rip the shroud of truth from former President Clinton's interview on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace in order to expose the bodice of distortions and misrepresentations beneath.  Have a look:

• Jake Tapper at ABC News finds Mr. Clinton's claim that right wingers shouted "Wag The Dog!" in 1998 unconvincing.
• Byron York at National Review Online actually reads Richard Clarke's book, and finds that Mr. Clinton's distillation of the content is self-serving.
• Patterico does a little research and discovers that Chris Wallace has, in fact, asked similar tough questions of Donald Rumsfeld.
• Allahpundit has some questions - backed up with facts - for Mr. Clinton.  A sample:

6. The “entire military” was against using special forces to go in and get Bin Laden, thereby rendering Clinton powerless under the “Entire Military” exception to the Constitution’s commander-in-chief clause.

• Tigerhawk finds that Iraq is a problem distracting us from going after the real terrorists - 6 to 8 years ago.
• I'd like to point to this article from Mansoor Ijaz in the LA Times in December 2001.  Mr. Ijaz was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

That's enough for now.  I'm sure there'll be a slew of these showing up over the next several days.  It's Mr. Clinton's misfortune that the dot com boom during his administration makes retrieving the information that contradicts him that much easier.

9/25/06 0640:  Sure, they're popping up all over.  The "Right Wing" Wall Street Journal reprints their editorial originally published after Mr. Clinton's one effort at Bin Laden, from August 1998:

Yet the typically American error has not been using force recklessly but using it indecisively--whether Eisenhower stopping at the Elbe, or Kennedy and Johnson with piecemeal escalation in Vietnam, or Bush stopping with Saddam Hussein still in place. As for our current President, he talked tough on Iraq and even dropped a few bombs there. But in recent weeks he has been urging U.N. inspectors to stand down before Saddam. So we're glad to see him now striking back at terrorists and those who harbor them.

We only hope that there is some follow-through. Our bombing of a terrorist installation in Afghanistan and a chemical weapons factory in Sudan were in retaliation for terrorist bombings of the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam two weeks ago. It appears that Osama bin Laden, the Saudi financier of terrorism believed to be behind the embassy bombings, survived the attack on his Afghan base. But wrecking some of his infrastructure is useful in itself. More important, the raids send a powerful signal to the world that the United States won't let attacks on its citizens go unpunished.

Actually, only if there had been follow-through would it have sent the message that the United States won't let attacks on its citizens go unpunished.  But there wasn't follow through, and that message was never fully delivered.

In the same editorial Senator Jesse Helms is quoted giving advice that should have been heeded by the Democrats.  "Sooner or later, terrorists will realize that America's differences end at the water's edge, and that the United States' political leadership always has, and always will, stand united in the face of international terrorism."

9/25/06 1255: Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey's jibe at Mr. Clinton just popped into my head.

9/25/06 2230: Wizbang's Kim Priestap rounds up the thoughts of some others on Mr. Clinton's tirade.  For what it's worth, I suspect he came to the interview looking for an excuse to tar Chris Wallace and Fox as "right-wing propagandists."  It's always political, isn't it?

A Patriots - Broncos Flashback

With the New England Patriots meeting the Denver Broncos on Monday Night Sunday Night Football, here in week 3, it brought to mind their meeting last January in the playoffs.  (Actually, how could it not.  Every mention of this game is accompanied by discussion of that one.  This weekend they seem to be inseparable - Siamese games.)

And when that game is discussed it will always bring to mind for me the touchdown return of Denver's Champ Bailey, and with it the remarkable effort of New England's tight end Ben Watson, who ran down Bailey 98 yards after the pick.  Here's a taste of The Essence Of Sport, the post I wrote after that remarkable play.

Ben Watson, the second year tight end out of Georgia, had run a flare pattern to the left side of the formation, and Brady had rolled away from him.  He saw the pick, and then saw the speedy Pro Bowl corner head upfield, the pigskin under his arm, and a phalanx of blockers ahead of him.  Watson started to run.

Ryders In A Storm

Until 1999 I was not a Ryder Cup junkie.  I understood that it was a biennial competition between the best American golfers and the best European golfers, and that the golfers themselves took great pride in just making the team.  Captains were legendary also.  Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Tony Jacklin, Seve Ballesteros.  But it was match play, and Americans are not accustomed to match play formats.  Stroke play is the format for the Majors and the regular PGA events.  Oh, there's that tournament in Colorado that uses the Stableford system (don't ask), and the US Amateur tournament is match play (among others), but what you see on TV each week is stroke play.

So I wasn't a big fan of the Ryder Cup.  But that was before 1999.  That was before the matches came to Brookline, Mass., to The Country Club, and I scored a ticket for the Sunday singles matches.  That was the "Year of the Comeback," when a favored American team managed to dig themselves a 10-6 hole, then climb out of it on a remarkable crisp fall Sunday in New England.  They won 8 1/2 points on Sunday (12 singles matches are played, one point per match, each side wins 1/2 point on draws).  I had driven down and parked on Boylston Street just west of the Longwood Medical area, and then rode my bicycle the remaining distance to the club, arriving before the first match hit the first tee.  I bought the cheap Ryder Cup radio and listened to the live match feed.  I watched the practice range for a while as the players prepared, then wandered the course, finding some choice viewing areas.  I stayed the entire day, and I cheered along with the rest of the throng at the 18th green when the comeback win was certain.  It was, in a word, electric.

Well, if they want to win this year, the Americans will need a dose of deja vu.

If lightning is to strike again for the U.S., it will have to rally from the same deficit that Crenshaw's crowd faced at The Country Club. Seven years ago, Crenshaw watched his side win 8 1/2 of 12 points to stun the Europeans with the greatest comeback in Ryder Cup history. It was also the last time the Americans won the Ryder Cup.

This year the Americans have some relatively unknown rookies in the lineup, and some of the bigger names have been, shall we say, unimpressive thus far.  Let's see what happens.

9/24/06 1000: Not gonna happen.  Darren Clarke just rolled in a monster putt from off the green to go 4 up on Zach Johnson, and Europe is leading most of the matches, and by more thatn 1 up,

9/24/06 1020:  Paul Casey beat Jim Furyk 2 and 1, and made eight - count 'em, eight - birdies on the day.  That's some pressure playing.  He had a hole-in-one yesterday to nail down an afternoon foursomes match.

Myth Making, Narcissism, And President Clinton

Former President Bill Clinton is in the news.  He's busy pushing his Clinton Global Initiative, a project to get lots of rich people to donate lots of money in order to make everything better for everyone everywhere.  At least, that's what it seems to be.  He had a sit down with Chris Wallace for Fox News Sunday and ... lost his cool.  The topic of discussion turned to efforts to get Osama Bin Laden in the 1990's, and defensive anger reared up like he'd been accused of ... things he's already been accused of. You can see a snippet of video here, and there's a partial transcript here.  The show airs tomorrow.

I'm simply going to repeat what I wrote regarding the controversy over The Path To 9/11.

The truth is that no one - no one at all - from Reagan through Bush 43, including Bush 41 and Clinton, took terrorism seriously enough until 9-11.  That includes Mr. Bush's father, whose response to the December 21, 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103, with which I am unfortunately intimately familiar, was an inadequate legalistic approach to find and try the killers rather than to hold the state sponsor responsible and treat the attack as an act of war, as it was.  That attitude was carried forward by Mr. Clinton.

Only after 9-11 did the government change it's approach, and for that Mr. Bush is to be credited.  Those who point out that the current struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan only create more terrorists miss the point.  The previous approach, via arrests and trials, only tried to pick off the terrorists one by one after these terrorists had succeeded.  That is not vigorous enough a defense of the American people, as 9-11 showed.

Particularly feckless were Mr. Carter's four years.  He was really the first to back down, in the Iraninan Hostage Crisis.  You could, perhaps, even go back to Munich in 1972, when kidnapping and murdering Israeli athletes on German soil didn't lead to any international resolve against such terrorist acts.

Mr. Clinton, however, would like us to believe he did more, he worked harder, and he took it much more seriously than the facts suggest, particularly in "getting" Bin Laden.  He'd certainly like to be known as the President that took terrorism most seriously.  Well, sir, you had eight years after the first attack on the World Trade Center, in 1993, and your administration didn't get it done.  You may as well stop trying to create a superhero myth for your entry in future textbooks.  History will not look at your presidency as that of a successful terror warrior.  There were far too many failures to respond aggressively in your eight years.  It matters little what you say you did to "get" Bin Laden; it didn't work.  Your policy was to treat these attacks as criminal rather than as acts of war, and that was a mistake.

9/24/06 0710: You can add this article from the Washington Post, circa 2004, hat tip Ace, two the two I found above.

The compromise wording, in a succession of bin Laden-focused memos, always expressed some ambiguity about how and when deadly force could be used in an operation designed to take bin Laden into custody. Typical language, recalled one official involved, instructed the CIA to "apprehend with lethal force as authorized."

At the CIA, officers and supervisors agonized over these abstract phrases. They worried that if an operation in Afghanistan went badly, they would be accused of having acted outside the memo's scope. Over time, recriminations grew between the CIA and the White House.

It was common in Clinton's cabinet and among his National Security Council aides to see the CIA as too cautious, paralyzed by fears of legal and political risks. At Langley, this criticism rankled. The CIA's senior managers believed officials at the White House wanted to have it both ways: They liked to blame the agency for its supposed lack of aggression, yet they sent over classified legal memos full of wiggle words.

[...]

But Clinton also authorized the CIA to carry out operations that legally required the agency's officers to plan in almost every instance to capture bin Laden alive and bring him to the United States to face trial.

This meant the CIA officers had to arrange in advance for detention facilities, extraction flights and other contingencies -- even if they expected that bin Laden would probably die in the arrest attempt. These requirements made operational planning much more cumbersome, the CIA officers contended.

In fashioning this sensitive policy in the midst of an impeachment crisis that lasted into early 1999, Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, struggled to forge a consensus within the White House national security team. Among other things, he had to keep on board a skeptical Attorney General Janet Reno and her Justice Department colleagues, who were deeply invested in law enforcement approaches to terrorism, according to senior officials involved.

"Deeply invested in law enforcement approaches to terrorism," indeed.

 

A Media Milestone

It's likely that stories such as this one were prepared in advance, much like the obituaries of famous people.  And Code Pink probably had their protest placards painted a month ago, just waiting to break them out.

WASHINGTON - Now the death toll is 9/11 times two. U.S. military deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan now match those of the most devastating terrorist attack in America's history, the trigger for what came next. Add casualties from chasing terrorists elsewhere in the world, and the total has passed the Sept. 11 figure.

[...]

Despite a death toll that pales next to that of the great wars, one casualty milestone after another has been observed and reflected upon this time, especially in Iraq.

There was the benchmark of seeing more U.S. troops die in the occupation than in the swift and successful invasion. And the benchmarks of 1,000 dead, 2,000, 2,500.

Now this.

Unmentioned is the reason why the various milestones have been so visible - that the MSM and the Democratic party have been doggedly determined to use the deaths of these soldiers as a battering ram against the Bush administration's policies.  And death tolls from previous wars have not just been larger, but astronomically so.

The body count from World War II was far higher for Allied troops than for the crushed Axis. Americans lost more men in each of a succession of Pacific battles than the 2,390 people who died at Pearl Harbor in the attack that made the U.S. declare war on Japan. The U.S. lost 405,399 in the theaters of World War II.

This VFW reference sheet lists roughly 36,500 American deaths in the three years of the Korean War and roughly 58,200 in the Vietnam War, though different sources have slightly different numbers.  The battle of Okinawa in the WWII Pacific Theater alone took 12,500 American soldiers' lives.  While each death is a loss felt deeply, going strictly by the numbers there is clearly no comparison.

Boston Universiy political historian Julian Zelizer notes in the article that "If this becomes the subject, then something's gone wrong."  What's wrong is that the effort to defeat Bush politically has led the media and the ABAW left to use these deaths cynically and irresponsibly, as part of the argument against the war.  If the cause is just and necessary, then these military deaths are mourned but understood, and politically the number is just what it was in World War II, a number.

How Much Higher Could They Go?

Starbuck's is raising prices on their coffee drinks?

[Spokeswoman Valerie] O'Neil said the company decided to charge more because costs, including fuel and energy, are going up.

"It's not one specific thing. It's part of our ongoing evaluation of business costs," O'Neil said.

Starbucks' pricing varies based on the market, but the 5-cent price increase will be across the board, regardless of drink or part of the country, O'Neil said.

Currently, a tall, or 12-ounce, cup of Starbucks coffee costs between $1.40 and $1.65. Twelve-ounce lattes cost between $2.40 and $3.10, depending on the market, and a tall mocha costs between $2.70 and $3.40.

A venti double soy mocha latte with extra whipped cream will soon require submission of last year's W-2 form.  It's already a lot more expensive than a gallon of gas.

Neutral, Neutral, Biased

Three papers, three headlines.  The NY Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times all report on the deal between the Bush administration and the three reticent senators on the detainee treatment bill.  According to all of the stories the deal seems to be a true compromise, with both sides getting some, but not all, of what they wanted.  Waterboarding is ruled out, but most of the other CIA interrogation techniques would be allowed, and the language is such that they won't have to guess.  Classified information would be protected from defendants, unless it is specifically introduced at trial.  (Rep. Duncan Hunter is working on the House side to modify this one and protect even that information.)  But one of these papers declared definitively that "Bush lost."

The NY Times:

Republicans Reach Deal on Detainee Bill

The Washington Post:

White House, Senators Near Pact on Interrogation Rules

President Would  Have a Voice in  How Detainees  Are Questioned

The LA Times:

Bush Bows to Senators on Detainees

The subhead, of course, contradicts this view:

The White House agrees to new rules banning the most controversial CIA tactics but allowing a secret interrogation program to continue.

Who reads the story, or even the subhead, anyway.  Grab them with the headline, get that impression across.  The LA Times bete noir should have fun with this one.

Heeding Otter and Boon

Some Democrats listened to my advice yesterday, I'm happy to see.  Regarding Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez' undiplomatic diatribe against President Bush I wrote:

I would hope that those on the left would follow at a minimum the advice of Boon and Otter in National Lampoon's Animal House.

Boon: A vicious mother, isn't he?                
Otter: He can't do that to our pledges President.                
Boon: Only we can do that to our pledges President.

Charlie Rangel, D-NY, come on down: (hat tip, Karol)

WASHINGTON - I want to express my extreme displeasure with statements by the President of Venezuela attacking U.S. President George Bush in such a personal and disparaging way during his remarks at the United Nations General Assembly.

It  should be clear to all heads of government that criticism of Bush Administration policies, either domestic or foreign, does not entitle them to attack the President personally.

George Bush is the President of the United States and represents the entire country. Any demeaning public attack against him is viewed by Republicans and Democrats, and all Americans, as an attack on all of us.

Exactly right, sir.  And Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, belly up to the bar:

"Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference, referring to Chavez' comments in a U.N. General Assembly speech on Wednesday.

"Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had, speaking at the United Nations," said Pelosi, a frequent Bush critic. "He demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela."

I disagree with these individuals frequently on policy, but, like Otter and Boon point out, Chavez can't do that to our president.  Only we can do that to our president.

9/22/06 0900: Jay Tea at Wizbang discusses the Boston Globe's treatment of Chavez this morning, wondering why they haven't objected to the overtly Christian religious backdrop to his comments.

Here's To You, Big Papi

Red Sox DH David Ortiz, one of the bright spots during the second half slide, has set an all-time team record for home runs hitting his 51st tonight in the bottom of the first.  He passes Jimmy Foxx, old 'double x', who hit 50 for Boston in 1938.

Ortiz became the first player to hit home run No. 51 of a season at Fenway since Mickey Mantle did it for the Yankees exactly 50 years ago, on Sept. 21, 1956.

As Ortiz rounded the bases, the theme song from the movie "The Natural" boomed out of the Fenway sound system.

Congratulations, Big Papi.  Keep 'em coming.

Differences Patched Up

President Bush and the three reticent senators, McCain, Warner and Graham, finally agreed on language and provisions in the detainee treatment bill.

"I'm pleased to say that this agreement preserves the single most potent tool we have in protecting America and foiling terrorist attacks," the president said, shortly after administration officials and key lawmakers announced agreement following a week of high-profile intraparty disagreement.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, one of three GOP lawmakers who told Bush he couldn't have the legislation the way he initially asked for it, said, "The agreement that we've entered into gives the president the tools he needs to continue to fight the war on terror and bring these evil people to justice."

"There's no doubt that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved," McCain said, referring to the international treaties covering the treatment of prisoners in wartime.

It should be noted that the North Vietnamese' treatment of Sen. McCain didn't comply with the Geneva Conventions, even though they were a signatory.  Al Qaeda is not.  Still, CIA chief Michael Hayden seems happy with the language in the bill, which is promising.

"Much remains in the legislative process," he said in a written statement to the agency personnel. But "if this language becomes law, the Congress will have given us the clarity and the support that we need to move forward with a detention and interrogation program that allows us to continue to defend the homeland, attack al-Qaida and protect American and allied lives."

When does the howling from the Democratic side of the aisle begin?  Oh, wait, I forgot.  There's an election coming up.  My bad.

Furtive Glances - 'Truth To Power' Edition

Being in the OR has it's disadvantages, one of them being that when...

• ...pompous third-world Marxist dictators in need of Jenny Craig are given a diplomatic forum like a speech at the UN, they produce anti-American rants sure to include all of the talking points of the most left of lefty Americans.  And I miss it.

Chavez’s speech, which, following his well-received appearance at the UN the previous year, as widely anticipated, also went on to refer to U.S. President Bush as the “devil” on several occasions. “Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world,” he said.

Ace found some celebrations of this diatribe from the usual suspects.   I would hope that those on the left would at the very least follow the advice of Boon and Otter in Animal House.

Boon: A vicious mother, isn't he?                
Otter: He can't do that to our pledges President.                
Boon: Only we can do that to our pledges President.

9/20/06 2200: Read this great post by Sensible Mom.  Nailed it, she did.

At this point I don't care if Chavez's remarks help republicans or not.  I'm tired of third world nutcases coming to this country, insulting our President and our country and having members of the opposing party pretend it didn't happen. 

When will they realize this country matters more than their party?  When will they realize Chavez and his cronies, Castro and Ahmadinejad, are our enemies?  Enemies who are just as interested in dead democrats as they are in dead republicans.

• Speaking of anti-Bush rants, all I can say is that it's a good thing someone else is keeping track of what Keith Olbermann is saying.  Frankly, if the job were up to me it wouldn't get done.  Is he still on?

• Also via Allahpundit at Hot Air is this interesting tidbit.  It seems that the CIA methods - cold rooms, loud music, belly slapping, the sudden shirt grab - did produce results, and, according to the CIA agents themselves, did save lives.

Anti-”torture” absolutists like Sullivan adamantly deny that harsh tactics produce reliable information. It’s their way of avoiding the moral dilemma presented by a ticking time-bomb scenario. But they’ll have to face it now, because in four short minutes Brian Ross utterly explodes that particular article of quasi-religious faith as fantasy. Not only did they break Khaled Sheikh Mohammed; not only was the information he gave them valuable; not only did it save lives; but Ross’s sources include people within the CIA who are opposed to the practices.

"Saved lives."  The CIA needs to be able to do the job of assisting the President with national security.  I'm not for torture, but I'm also against dead Americans.  Some of these not-so-torturous techniques may need to be approved if we hope to prevent attacks.  Particularly since terrorists, who do not wear uniforms, who do not carry arms openly, who target civilians, who do not follow the Geneva conventions themselves, do not should not qualify for Geneva Convention protection,

Geneva Conventional Wisdom

The Guardian yesterday "revealed" the techniques in the CIA's bag of torture tricks.

The techniques sought by the CIA are: induced hypothermia; forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods; sleep deprivation; a technique called "the attention grab" where a suspect's shirt is forcefully seized; the "attention slap" or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage; the "belly slap"; and sound and light manipulation.

While unpleasant, I'm sure real torturers, like, say, Syria, are amused.

The Syrian-born Mr. Arar was seized on Sept. 26, 2002, after he landed at Kennedy Airport in New York on his way home from a holiday in Tunisia. On Oct. 8, he was flown to Jordan in an American government plane and taken overland to Syria, where he says he was held for 10 months in a tiny cell and beaten repeatedly with a metal cable.

As the US Congress is considering the bill to define acceptable and unacceptable methods it brings up once again the topic of the Geneva Conventions, specifically the third Geneva convention.  That one specifies the treatment of prisoners of war.

There has been an awful lot of talk about Article 3 of this Convention, but I think it's worth looking a little bit at Article 2 and Article 4.  Article 3, of course, specifies the proper treatment of prisoners of war, the one that, according to critics of the Bush administrations approach to the war on terrorism, has been violated.  It reads:

Laugh Of The Day

You've encountered them in every doctor's office, I'm sure.  We call it the "intake form," a summary of your medical history so that the physician seeing you knows what other medical conditions, treatments and history might influence the decision making.  Included in the form is a general review of systems, to help identify problems that might otherwise be forgotten.  This is a 'yes' or 'no' checklist, with space below to explain any 'yes' answers.  Kidney disease, weight loss or gain, GI problems, depression, just check off the problem, then explain it below.

A new patient came to my office today about a shoulder problem and, per routine, filled out the form before his visit.   He checked off 'yes' for 'depression or anxiety'.  The explanation caught me by surprise.

"Liberals depress me."

As Expected

UNIFIL will not be working to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon.

BEIRUT, Lebanon - The French general commanding U.N. peacekeeping forces in Lebanon said Monday his troops would not intervene to disarm Hezbollah, even as French President Jacques Chirac said the militant group should not keep a military wing.

[...]

"The disarmament of Hezbollah is not the business of UNIFIL. This is a strictly Lebanese affair, which should be resolved at a national level," he said.

Pelligrini's assessment underscored the constraints facing the beefed-up U.N. mission despite a tougher mandate and far greater manpower.

A "strictly Lebanese affair," eh?  They are at least patrolling the border with Syria.  Still, it's amazing that so little time has gone by before the French/UN troops have "transformed" their mission.

The U.N. cease-fire resolution that ended the 34-day war Aug. 14 stipulated Hezbollah eventually be disarmed, and Chirac said he wanted to see the resolution implemented "without reservations."

But in practice, neither the Lebanese army nor U.N. soldiers want to provoke a confrontation with the well-trained guerrillas in their southern heartland.

It sounds like there are, suddenly, reservations.

Nowrasteh Defends 'The Path To 9-11'

Cyrus Nowrasteh, the director of the two day ABC mini-series that aired last week, writes in the Wall Street Journal today defending his work.  Regarding his political ideology:

[I]n the rush to judgment, and the effort to portray the series as the work of a right-wing zealot, much was made of my "friendship" with Rush Limbaugh (a connection limited to two social encounters), but nothing of any acquaintance with well-known names on the other side of the political spectrum. No reference to Abby Mann ... or Oliver Stone, producer of "The Day Reagan Was Shot," a film I wrote and directed. Clearly, those enraged that a film would criticize the Clinton administration's antiterrorism policies--though critical of its successor as well--were willing to embrace only one scenario: The writer was a conservative hatchetman.

Regarding the reseach and verification that went' into the production:

I know, too, as does everyone involved in the production, that we kept uppermost in our minds the need for due diligence in the delivery of this history. Fact-checkers and lawyers scrutinized every detail, every line, every scene. There were hundreds of pages of annotations. We were informed by multiple advisers and interviews with people involved in the events--and books, including in a most important way the 9/11 Commission Report.

Regarding the McCarthy-ish response of the angry left-wingers who sent him death threats and investigated backgrounds:

The hysteria engendered by the series found more than one target. In addition to the death threats and hate mail directed at me, and my grotesque portrayal as a maddened right-winger, there developed an impassioned search for incriminating evidence on everyone else connected to the film. And in director David Cunningham, the searchers found paydirt! His father had founded a Christian youth outreach mission. ... In the era of McCarthyism, the merest hint of a connection to communism sufficed to inspire dark accusations, the certainty that the accused was part of a malign conspiracy. Today, apparently, you can get something of that effect by charging a connection with a Christian mission.

Death threats?  For a movie, a 'dramatization'?  The truth is that no one - no one at all - from Reagan through Bush 43, including Bush 41 and Clinton, took terrorism seriously enough until 9-11.  That includes Mr. Bush's father, whose response to the December 21, 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103, with which I am unfortunately intimately familiar, was an inadequate legalistic approach to find and try the killers rather than to hold the state sponsor responsible and treat the attack as an act of war, as it was.  That attitude was carried forward by Mr. Clinton.

Only after 9-11 did the government change it's approach, and for that Mr. Bush is to be credited.  Those who point out that the current struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan only create more terrorists miss the point.  The previous approach, via arrests and trials, only tried to pick off the terrorists one by one after these terrorists had succeeded.  That is not vigorous enough a defense of the American people, as 9-11 showed.

Ney Falls; Others To Follow?

This is a photo from an earlier speech.  Today he probably wishes he could use a different finger.

Rep. Bob Ney, a Republican from Ohio, has plead guilty in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.  Hey if there are problems, let the chips fall where they may.  If you've gone to Washington to work for the American people and you let yourself get sucked into a vortex of gifts, freebies, and influence, then we're better off without you.

I'd like to see a little balance in the reporting, however.  There are plenty of Republicans in the scandal's web, but there are also more than a couple Democrats who seem to have ethical issues here.  Investigate and prosecute them all, I say.  The Founders' concept of a citizen legislature is badly in need of revival.

And in the third place, no comparison can be made between the means that will be possessed by the more permanent branches of the federal government for seducing, if they should be disposed to seduce, the House of Representatives from their duty to the people, and the means of influence over the popular branch possessed by the other branches of the government above cited. With less power, therefore, to abuse, the federal representatives can be less tempted on one side, and will be doubly watched on the other.

The reference to "less power" refers to the fact that representatives must win an election every two years.  The problem is that incumbent return to Congress is far too assured, it's permanence counter to the intentions of the Founders, and lobbyists now seem to represent a fourth, also permanent, branch of government, one whose job is to tempt.  The only answer for this is the sunlight of disclosure.  And let the chips fall where they may.

Just let's not hear any "culture of corruption" grandstanding.  That's a double-edged sword.

Earlier:  Yet Another Reason Why Politics Is Not For Me

Something Is Obviously Wrong Here

Pope Benedict XVI angered Muslims earlier this week with a speech in which he discussed Islam, quoting a 14th century tome calling Islam "evil and inhuman."

As such, it distilled many of Benedict’s longstanding concerns, about the crisis of faith among Christians and about Islam and its relationship to violence.

And he used language open to interpretations that could inflame Muslims, at a time of high tension among religions and three months before he makes a trip to Turkey.

He began his speech, which ran over half an hour, by quoting a 14th-century Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, in a conversation with a “learned Persian” on Christianity and Islam — “and the truth of both.”

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread the sword by the faith he preached,” the pope quoted the emperor, in a speech to 1,500 students and faculty.

He went on to say that violent conversion to Islam was contrary to reason and thus “contrary to God’s nature.”

Eligible Receivers

Hello, Wizbang! readers.  Thanks for the link, "neighbor", and thank you to all who visited.

Practicing medicine in Massachusetts can be fascinating.  Every now and then I get an "undocumented" individual referred to my office by the local Medicaid clinic practice.  I used to think it was the doctors in that practice gaming the system illegitimately to get this non-eligible person enrolled in Medicaid, and it may have been that way a few years ago.  The Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr did a little research after receiving a tip, and found that it's not the doctors working outside of the policy anymore; it is the policy.

Look, I’m not asking for any special treatment. I just want to be treated like an illegal alien.

All I ask for is a free ride, no questions asked. I want to go through life belting out those famous lyrics from “West Side Story":

"Everything free in America!”

The latest evidence of the double standard benefiting illegals comes from the state’s Office of Medicaid. It’s a memo instructing the welfare bureaucracy how to handle illegals applying for Mass Health, which is, like everything else for the aliens, free.

“Documentation supplied by non-citizens should still be logged onto the MA21 QAC screen, however it will not be necessary for this information to be verified and the system will determine eligibility based off of the information that the applicant declared.”

In other words, the criminal will be taken at his word.

The memo continues: “NOTE, this change only applies to non-citizensUS Citizen/Nationals must continue to verify their citizenship and identity.”

In other words, you, or your grandmother, will not be taken at your word.

I distinctly remember a case from a couple of years ago.  A gentleman from a Caribbean island had arrived in the Lawrence, MA area only a couple of weeks prior, and showed up in my office with a lower extremity deformity with which he'd been living since he was a teenager.  It seems he'd been in a motorcycle accident as a teen, and as the fracture was mistreated on that island he ended up with a foot pointing the wrong direction.  He came to the US and presented at the local hospital ER, signing up for "free care" at the hospital, which then got him referred to a community orthopaedist who specializes in sports medicine for care of a complex and relatively high risk reconstructive problem, to be performed for free.  More good news: After this "free" surgery he could sue if there were any problems, with no limit on "pain and suffering" awards.  The kicker? Through his translator he told me he was planning to stay only until his leg was fixed.

It used to be the case that you could easily afford to "donate" your care in certain hardship cases - charity care - knowing that it wouldn't hurt the bottom line that badly and the help you might provide someone would be its own reward.  Now, unfortunately, margins in states like Massachusetts are quite slim, with high HMO and government payment penetration.  Thanks to Mr. Carr, I now know just how well the government is looking out for the physicians.  Can you say, "indentured servitude?"

Sorry ...

,,, for the light posting this week.  I'm in my busy season, and this week was particularly busy.  As a result of my practice in general, as well as some other developments that I'll be discussing in detail fairly soon, blogging has been limited.  When you're a one man show and occupied, then the show does not go on.

Tomorrow ain't looking too good, either.  Maybe a bit more in the evening.

Who's "Playing Politics?"

From Walter Pincus in the Washington Post this morning, a story on Democratic complaints that the NSA is actually daring to defend the terrorist surveillance program.

Democrats Call NSA's Input To Senate Panel Inappropriate

Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee are complaining that the National Security Agency has played politics in support of the secret program to intercept phone calls between alleged terrorists in the United States and abroad.

On July 27, shortly after most members of the committee were briefed on the controversial surveillance program, the NSA supplied the panel's chairman, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), with "a set of administration approved, unclassified talking points for the members to use," as described in the document.

Among the talking points were "subjective statements that appear intended to advance a particular policy view and present certain facts in the best possible light," Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) said in a letter to the NSA director.

[...]

Rockefeller and six Democrats on the panel wrote Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, the NSA's director, on Aug. 29 that they believed those statements "appear intended to advocate particular policies rather than provide guidance on classification." The letter added: "We believe that it is inappropriate for the NSA to insert itself into this policy debate."

All that those opposed to the program have done, to this point, is "play politics."  From the day the NY Times exposed (and likely compromised the effectiveness of) the program, the political opponents of Mr. Bush have been waving their hands in dispair and outrage, and many of the most vociferous opponents have no real hard information on the true nature of the program.

So let's look at what the NSA did here, because, perhaps, they're just playing politics with it also.  Or, maybe they, being knowledgeable about the nature of and results from the program, might just feel it's worth fighting for.  They gave a supporter in the Senate Intelligence Committee a few suggested talking points.  Let's have a look at the ones that Mr. Pincus listed.

"I can say the program must continue"

"There is strict oversight in place . . . now including the full congressional intelligence committees,"

"Current law is not agile enough to handle the threat posed by sophisticated international terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda"

"The FISA should be amended so that it is technologically neutral."

The first statement one either agrees with it, or doesn't.  If you agree, you'll say it anyway.

The second statement is either a fact or it's not.  If it's a fact - as is likely - there's nothing amiss in pointing it out.

The third statement is their assessment (ed: and mine as well) and is very likely the case given the quantum leap in communications technology since 1978.  Disposable cell phones?  Internet?  Anonymous mailers?

The fourth statement offers an opinion that makes a legislative reccommendation given these technological changes.  As opinion on making law, it is the one that should definitely not have been included, but it is a conclusion a senator familiar with both the law and the warnings about technological changes could easily come to himself.

So who's playing politics with the program?  Senator Rockefeller is.  You know, the same guy who doesn't have the guts, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, to stand by his pre-war assessment and statements.  Monday morning quarterbacking is not very becoming, Senator.

More 9/11 Links

I don't want to clutter the previous post with updates and links, so I'll simply refer you to my thoughts from this morning, if you'd like to read them.  There are, however, a host of other good writers expressing their thoughts today, and if you're looking for something more, check them out.

Christopher Hitchens, in the Wall Street Journal:

Anyone who lost their "innocence" on September 11 was too naïve by far, or too stupid to begin with. On that day, we learned what we ought to have known already, which is that clerical fanaticism means to fight a war which can only have one victor. Afghans, Kurds, Kashmiris, Timorese and many others could have told us this from experience, and for nothing (and did warn us, especially in the person of Ahmad Shah Massoud, leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance). Does anyone suppose that an ideology that slaughters and enslaves them will ever be amenable to "us"? ...

The second point makes me queasy, but cannot be ducked. "We"--and our allies--simply have to become more ruthless and more experienced. An unspoken advantage of the current awful strife in Iraq and Afghanistan is that it is training tens of thousands of our young officers and soldiers to fight on the worst imaginable terrain, and gradually to learn how to confront, infiltrate, "turn," isolate and kill the worst imaginable enemy. These are faculties that we shall be needing in the future. It is a shame that we have to expend our talent in this way, but it was far worse five years and one day ago, when the enemy knew that there was a war in progress, and was giggling at how easy the attacks would be, and "we" did not even know that hostilities had commenced. Come to think of it, perhaps we were a bit "innocent" after all.

There are a host of links to entries marking the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attack at Pajamas Media. 

Lorie Byrd provides an overstuffed link library at Wizbang.  Also at Wizbang, Jay Tea takes an idea I had toyed with and executes it, posting each event on that day in sequence, and with photos.  You're best off going to the main page, scroll down until you find the 8:46 AM post, then scroll up.  A similar presentation with different photos is at Mudville Gazette.  Scroll down until you find the first post in the series, then up.

Clifford May at National Review Online writes that five years later we're just getting serious, using similar words to mine this morning.

Prior to Sept. 11, 2001, few people were paying attention, and those who did misunderstood what they heard. Five years later, it would be useful if Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, Americans and Europeans, could spend less energy fighting one another and more defending their common civilization from its mortal enemies. If anyone has a better plan than the “updated” Strategy that Bush has offered, now would be a good time to reveal it.

John O'Sullivan, also at National Review Online:

And if dissent can be patriotic, it is not invariably so. After all, treason is the highest form of dissent. When “critics of the war” describe the terrorists as the equivalent of Minutemen in the Revolutionary War, or argue that the abuses at Abu Graib make Bush and Rumsfeld the equivalent of Saddam Hussein, they are crossing the boundary that separates even very strong dissent from a diseased partisanship that would prefer America to be defeated by terrorists rather than prevail under the wrong party. That partisanship is hardly distinguishable from hatred of country and gradually mutates into it.

CNN.com Pipeline and Fox News are both rebroadcasting their coverage from 5 years ago in real time, if you can stomach it.

The 2996 Blog Project, in which I was unable to participate, has links to tributes to each person lost on 9/11 - one blogger for each person.  As I post this the blog is down, due to excess traffic.

Finally, here's my post from last year, the first time I'd had a chance to write one.

A Transforming Dawn

As The Path To 9/11, the first part shown last night on ABC, illustrates, the world was not suddenly transformed on September 11, 2001 at 8:46 AM.  It just seemed that way.  Prior to September 11 Americans could go about their lives hearing, and reading, about bombs exploding in far away locations like Khobar, Saudi Arabia, and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, and they could be touched by the tragedy of a terrorist bombing of an airliner, like Pan Am 103.  The numbers of dead and injured were tallied, but those numbers were not so overwhelming to shock the public to realization.  If you were not related to any of the victims - and there weren't large numbers of them - then you could submerge acts such as those in your subconscious, and get away with it.

The fact is, before September 11, unless you knew of someone killed in these attacks then you may have only been marginally aware of the threat, as if it were a long forgotten fact learned in high school history class.  But the sinister activities and awful intentions of those determined to bring death to the  'infidels', as many infidels as possible, had been present for quite some time.

Most of America had the luxury, before September 11, 2001, of going about their lives, traveling on the subway, and on the train, and on airplanes without a second thought about the fidgity character sitting two rows ahead.  You could laugh off the xray screening of your bag, the rare occasions when screeners asked to check something inside, and chuckle when hearing that a gun, or a knife, had been confiscated at the counter.  A knife.  Why would you ever need a knife on a plane?  What a moron.

Then on a bright blue-skied Tuesday morning Americans were dragged out of the closet and into the light.  Nineteen men with boxcutters took over four airplanes and used them as flying bombs.  The full load of fuel, the mass of each plane, and the high velocity collision produced a horrific terror event on our soil, one that could not be brushed aside.  Two planes headed for New York City, and contacted each of the two World Trade Center towers.  A third plane took a U-turn and hit the outer ring of the Pentagon.  A fourth plane, Flight 93, crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after the passengers took matters into their own hands and started the fight back against this threat.

Americans who hadn't had such concerns before were made to realize that, yes, they could be threatened by this thing called terrorism, this fanatical evil that had replaced the souls of men.  Americans were now unequivocally aware of the threat, the threat that had been building for five, ten, fifteen, twenty years.  And Americans were ready to fight back.

It wasn't just Americans, though.  A French journalist declared "We are all Americans" on September 12, 2001.

In this tragic moment, when words seem so inadequate to express the shock people feel, the first thing that comes to mind is this: We are all Americans! We are all New Yorkers, just as surely as John F. Kennedy declared himself to be a Berliner in 1962 when he visited Berlin. Indeed, just as in the gravest moments of our own history, how can we not feel profound solidarity with those people, that country, the United States, to whom we are so close and to whom  we owe our freedom, and therefore our solidarity?

And we were glad to have the world join us.  Americans don't cower when challenged, and we didn't cower then.  We moved, together as a nation, to fight back against the evil.  The paradigm changed, however.  The Bush administration, instead of treating the acts and the perpetrators as criminals to be hunted and arrested, decided to treat the terrorists as a foreign army, and their sponsors and safe locations as part of the problem.

You would have thought, in those early weeks and months after September 11, that there would be near unanimity in backing that action.  After all, how could anyone expect America not to respond after such an attack?  But there were such voices.  Author Barbara Kingsolver:

TUCSON -- I cannot find the glory in this day. When I picked up the newspaper and saw "America Strikes Back!" blazed boastfully across it in letters I swear were 10 inches tall--shouldn't they reserve at least one type size for something like, say, nuclear war?--my heart sank. We've answered one terrorist act with another, raining death on the most war-scarred, terrified populace that ever crept to a doorway and looked out.

Representative Barbara Lee:

Last week, filled with grief and sorrow for those killed and injured and with anger at those who had done this, I confronted the solemn responsibility of voting to authorize the nation to go to war. Some believe this resolution was only symbolic, designed to show national resolve. But I could not ignore that it provided explicit authority, under the War Powers Resolution  and the Constitution, to go to war.

[...]

We must respond, but the character of that response will determine for us and for our children the world that they will inherit. I do not dispute the president's intent to rid the world of terrorism -- but we have many means to reach that goal, and measures that spawn further acts of terror or that do not address the sources of hatred do not increase our security.

Writer Jakob Levich:

No one who was forced to read 1984 in high school could fail to hear a faint bell tinkling. In George Orwell's dreary classic, the totalitarian state of Oceania is perpetually at war with either Eurasia or Eastasia. Although the enemy changes periodically, the war is permanent; its true purpose is to control dissent and sustain dictatorship by nurturing popular fear and hatred.

To paraphrase Billy Joel, we didn't start the fire.  Back in 2001 the opinions above were part of a miniscule minority fringe.  Over time, though, this bizarre mindset has proliferated, and I'd say inexplicably.  There is far too large a collection of individuals who trust the words of the terrorists over those of the administration.  They are so fearful of their own government that they are constantly looking for ulterior and sinister motives for its actions.

I'll be blunt.  To win this struggle will take an America with all oars rowing together, and in the same direction.  It's fine to distrust the administration on plans to reform Social Security; it's not fine to show such inexplicable distrust in a battle against an enemy who would just as soon cut your head off as talk to you.  So you don't think we should have attacked Iraq?  Okay, as long as you thought the same before March '03.  But it's too late for that.  We're there, and we need to be successful.  Regime change in Iraq was a policy established in 1998.  Saddam was unquestionably evil, and even if it was for what you consider the "wrong reasons" and was done militarily, isn't it likely that the Iraqis will be better off without him if a secure democracy can be established?  Why give up?  The people causing the trouble are the same ones who will continue to cause trouble if we leave prematurely.

As James Lileks has written, regarding The Path to 9/11:

Just so you know: 9/11 reset the clock for me. All hands went to midnight. I’m interested in what people did after that date, and if the movie shows that before the attack one side lacked feck and the other was feck-deficient, I don't worry about it. It's like revisiting Congressional debates about Hawaiian harbor security in November 1941. Y'all get a pass. The Etch-A-Sketch's turned over. Now: what have you said lately?

September 11 affected all Americans.  All Americans.  Every single one of 'em, from Cape Hatteras to Monterey.  But your clock was reset on that date.  We came together as a people, with all oars rowing in unison.  Why have so many, with such inexplicable distrust, not only stopped rowing, but dug their oars in to slow the boat?  Why is it that so many want to forget, and are willing to return to the mindset that allowed it to happen?

It's been five years.  For those individuals, has it really been that long?

Clift's Musings Amuse

Eleanor Clift is at her most head-shakingly obtuse in a column on MSNBC.com, via Real Clear Politics.  Curiously entitled "Hand-to-Hand Combat," the column is designed to advise Democrats on what should be their strategy to win the mid term elections.  Her first piece of advice is to avoid the suggestion in the title.

Sept. 8, 2006 - Let the talking heads and the lawyers debate the new U.S. Army field-manual rules about interrogation. Democrats should play rope-a-dope, absorb the blows and put the spotlight on President Bush’s empty rhetoric about winning the war against terrorism.

I'm curious, Ms. Clift.  Is it your position that we not win the war against terrorism, or is this just poorly phrased?   In addition, far be it from me to advise Democrats, but practically the entire Clinton administration has gone ballistic because an ABC miniseries allegedly makes them look weak and feckless in the struggle against terrorists.  Don't you think failing to address national security during a campaign could be seen as "weak" against terrorism?

Democrats have no power. It’s not up to them to draft the exit strategy.

No, you're right, it's not up to them to do that.  Scurrying around desperately in search of an "exit strategy" and not talking about winning, even if you define it differently, tells us enough.  But don't fret, Ms. Clift, you're not the only directionless pessimist out there on the left.

Republicans are trying to “seduce Democrats into a debate about the future as opposed to a judgment on the past,” says Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution. Democrats should keep from “getting snookered” into offering a detailed plan of their own. “There’s no good alternative in Iraq,” he says.

It's best not to offer any more plans when the leader of your movement, Congressman Murtha, was giggled back into silence after suggesting that troops be relocated from Iraq to Okinawa.  I mean, how could you top that?

Strangely, the column then drifts into a consideration of the Republican presidential nominee for 2008 in a section that's nearly as long.  Don't worry, that section doesn't advise confronting Republican ideas on national security intellectually either.  Let's pull out just one more segment relative to the initial premise.  Ms. Clift quotes a Republican pollster, Bill MacInturff.

But if they’re going to win back at least one house of Congress in November, they need to raise the comfort level among the American people with their party. Republican pollster Bill McInturff says it doesn’t take long in focus groups to get people talking about whether Democrats are resolved and tough enough.

By dodging the questions and refusing to take principled stands, by playing "rope-a-dope" on the tough questions on national security, Democrats demonstrate the lack of courage and resolve that makes folks wonder.

From The Medical Mailbag - 9/8/06 ...

Note: This is the first in an experiment.  I receive a daily newsletter from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery, and it contains usually four or five brief notes with links to an associated medical, medical economics, or medical legislative story.  They're often interesting, and often are stories that I don't see elsewhere.  I thought my readers might be interested in seeing these periodically.

CBO reports on costs of replacing SGR formula. 

In a report released yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) addressed the problems presented by the current SGR mechanism for setting Medicare’s physician payment rates, as well as the costs of replacing the SGR formula. Since 2002, spending under SGR has exceeded projections, and, in 2005, was $30 billion above the SGR’s cumulative target. The CBO said that the current situation of reducing payment rates for physicians will prompt doctors either to increase the volume and intensity of their services or to drop out of the Medicare program. According to the report, overriding  the formula with a 1 percent rate increase in 2007  would raise outlays by $6 billion over the next 10  years. Replacing the formula with an inflation index  would cost more than $200 billion over the coming decade. Given the aging baby-boom generation and increasing healthcare costs, CBO projects that if no changes are made, the percentage of Gross Domestic Product spent on Medicare could increase from 3 percent to 7 percent by 2030. A copy of the report can be accessed at:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7542/09-07-SGR-brief.pdf

I had a look at the report linked above.  There are few points well worth highlighting, and it confirms something I've pointed out to others.  Here's the gist of the paper; below the fold are the details.

CMS (Medicare and Medicaid) does not pay physicians based on any recognizable economic basis.  It doesn't determine the value of a service based on the amount of work required; it doesn't do it based on the level of expertise and the complexity required, except in relative terms; it certainly doesn't do it based on the worth to the patient.  CMMS determines the value of a service based on what it can afford to pay in the aggregate.

Family Man?

This should move the debate forward.

NEW YORK - Brad Pitt, ever the social activist, says he won't be marrying Angelina Jolie until the restrictions on who can marry whom are dropped.

"Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able," the 42-year-old actor reveals in Esquire magazine's October issue, on newsstands Sept. 19.

In the article he reflects on "fifteen things I think everyone should know."

Though Shiloh, the world-famous daughter of Pitt and girlfriend/earth mother Angelina Jolie, hogged much attention upon her birth in May, Pitt says he "cannot imagine life" without adopted children, Maddox, 5, and Zahara, 1.

That's tremendous, Brad.  And, to think, you've only been divorced once and had one child out of wedlock.  What a role model!  Of course, marrying the mother of the child could rectify that latter situation, but doing the right thing for your own family, and by extension (as a high-profile public figure) demonstrating a grasp of personal responsibility, isn't even in the same league as changing the world.

Furtive Glances - "Movin' Too Fast" Edition

This is what I get for having a 11 hour workday and kids.  A host of stories have been racing along at breakneck speed, and me unable to blog them in thoughtful and timely fashion.  Oh, well. There are plenty of others covering the stories, that's for sure.

• Let's start with a relatively simple story.  A bill passed the Senate today, establishing a public searchable database for earmarks - congressional pork.  Other bloggers have been very active in holding feet to the fire in pursuit of this.  The goal is to make the process more transparent, so that if a member of Congress tries to ship a large portion of the GNP back to his home state as local "projects," at least the public will know about it.  Originally the bill was brought by Senator Coburn (R) of Oklahoma - a physician no less - but was held up by secret 'holds' from Senator Stevens (R) of Alaska and Senator Byrd (D) of West Virginia.  The bloggers smoked them out, and Majority Leader Bill Frist finally got the bill to the floor today.  It passed unanimously, but that didn't take much courage.  It would have been awful hard to vote against.

The theory is that such exposure might embarass the member into some restraint.  The evidence would suggest that most members of Congress can't be embarassed, and so this is unlikely to work.

• A much bigger story involves the ABC miniseries, The Path to 9-11.  I haven't screened the show, as some have, but it is reported to contain a scene that is rather unflattering to the terrorism bona fides of Bill Clinton and his national security apparatus.  Former National Security Adviser Sandy "What do you mean you can't take documents from the National Archives in your pants?" Berger is shown failing to make the call to cap Osama Bin Laden when asked by CIA who were ready to pull the trigger.  Well, when the Clintons and their entourage got wind of the content they protested wildly, and have been badgering  ABC to edit the show to  eliminate this  scene.

Check out Memeorandum for all of the furor.  It seems ABC has caved.

After much discussion, ABC executives and the producers toned down, but did not eliminate entirely, a scene that involved Clinton's national security advisor, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, declining to give the order to kill Bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified because of the sensitivities involved.

"That sequence has been the focus of attention," the source said, adding: "These are very slight alterations."

In addition, the network decided that the credits would say the film is based "in part" on the 9/11 commission report, rather than simply "based on" the bestselling report, as the producers originally intended.

ABC, meanwhile, is tip-toeing away from the film's version of events. In a statement, the network said the miniseries "is a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews."

Some insist that this is a relatively accurate depiction of events, others not so much.  I have not the time to research it right now, but there are plenty of others out there doing so.  To me, though, it's irrelevant.  Anyone who could suggest that the Clinton administration took terrorism and the threat of radical Islamists as seriously as was necessary is living in a dreamworld.  By now pretty much everyone can run off the list of terrorist events that occurred during Mr. Clinton's term, and the weak and ineffectual responses to these acts - if there was any response at all.  Usually there was simply braggadocio and tough talk, but no action.  Here's an example, to refresh your memory.  Even the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center wasn't enough to convince them that the "wall of separation", established in 1995, was a bad idea.  How preposterous is that?

So cut the scene.  Or keep it.  It doesn't matter, because it doesn't change the facts, the ones that clearly show a lack of seriousness about this very serious problem.

• One more, because I'm getting tired now.  A newly released snippet of video on Al Jazeera shows Osama Bin Laden meeting with two of the 9-11 hijackers before the attack.  Those who insisted that there was doubt that Bin Laden was involved in ordering the attack can pipe down now.

9/8/06 0940: Jay Tea stopped by with a modification to Mr. Berger's middle name (see comments), and has a post over at Wizbang that nails another facet of the manipulative kerfuffle over The Path to 9/11.

Instead, the Democratic party is showing one area where it actually has some testicular fortitude -- if you say something (or even might be planning to say something) that threatens their heroes, that makes them look bad, they'll go straight for your jugular with all the power of the federal government they can muster. Constitutional principles (freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and so on) be damned.

If only the Democrats in Congress and the former Clintonistas currently badgering and threatening ABC had such courage and determination in the war on terror ...

9/8/06 1045: Michael Scheuer, on MSNBC (via Allah/Hot Air)

O‘DONNELL:  What—who then is to blame?  I think the American people want to know, then, who then is to blame for this? 

SCHEUER:  It can only be the policy-makers and the elected officials.…

O‘DONNELL: So what you‘re saying is that when you ran the bin Laden desk, you knew where bin Laden was. You knew that bin Laden was trying to attack the United States. You knew that bin Laden had the wherewithal and that the policy-makers in the Clinton administration and then the Bush administration did not heed your warnings?

SCHEUER: Not my warnings. I hate to make myself the center of anything, ma‘am. But the intelligence community as a whole had warned the administration repeatedly. And I think there‘s no lack of record of that. It just—the 9/11 Commission failed to find anyone responsible for anything. The CIA can‘t order an attack. Only the National Security Council and the president can order an attack. …

Tying Up The WOT Loose Ends

The President has been active lately on the terrorism issue, giving speech after speech.  Certainly some of it is politics.  November brings the mid-term elections, and with the work against Islamic terrorism taking longer and being more difficult than the short attention span American public could imagine, and with a steady barrage of Democratic and media figures accentuating the negative it is understandable that Mr. Bush would return to his strength.  Some of it, however, is also brought on by circumstances - the need to deal with the cards he's been dealt.

Gonna Fly, Now

Rocky makes a comeback!  No, not another movie, fortunately.  The statue of Rocky which was originally placed at the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, then moved to the outside of the Spectrum, Philly's indoor sports arena at the time, then eventually removed and crated, will be replaced on the ground level at the art museum steps.

PHILADELPHIA Sep 6, 2006 (AP)— Rocky Balboa is headed back to his old stomping grounds. The city's Art Commission approved a plan Wednesday to return a statue of the big-screen boxer to a site near the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, where Sylvester Stallone ran the stairs in the movie as the boxer in training.

By a 6-2 vote, the commission voted to move the statue, currently stored in a warehouse, to a street-level pedestal near the site of one of the 1976 movie's iconic scenes.

There was a fair bit of controversy regarding what to do with the statue of the fictional everyman hero after the filming of Rocky III was complete.

Not even Claes Oldenburg's "Clothespin" generated the passionate debate provoked by a 9-foot-tall bronze "Rocky" statue — arms raised in victory — commissioned by Sylvester Stallone for his 1982 Rocky III, a film series that seemed never to end. The bronze boxer stood at the top of the Art Museum's 72 step-entrance, and when the filming was completed, the actor left the statue in place as a gift to the city. City Commerce Director Dick Doran was thrilled with the gift saying Stallone had done more for the city's image "than anyone since Ben Franklin."

Cultural and museum officials were horrified, terming the statue an ugly "movie prop." The public flooded the newspapers and city Art Commission with tons of mail, pro and con. The debate raged for months. Polls showed Philadephians equally divided. "Put it near the Liberty Bell," wrote a Daily News reader. "Dump it in the Schuylkill," wrote another. Countless tourists and residents climbed the steps to see and be photographed next to Rocky. People who had never been inside the museum, at least, got close to the entrance. In the end, the Art Commission decided the Spectrum sports arena sidewalk was the logical permanent address for the fictional heavyweight contender.

I have to admit that, on several occasions when I was living just outside of Philadelphia, I felt the temptation to run the steps and raise my fists in the air at the top.  I resisted the temptation, thus avoiding the giggles and pointing from those around that usually accompany that act.  Perhaps enough time has passed that the only people who would be tempted to make the run are physically unable to do so.

And To Think, I Missed It

Katie Couric's first time piloting the ship of news at CBS was perky, apparently.

NEW YORK - After Katie Couric was introduced on her first night as "CBS Evening News" anchor by a Walter Cronkite voiceover, she delivered a fast-moving newscast that the legendary newsman might have found unrecognizable.

"Hi, everyone," she began. "I'm very happy to be with you tonight."

"Hi, everyone?"  Awfully perky, I'd say.  When am I ever going to get another chance to see Suri Cruise?  We can now look forward to incisive questions like this one:

"Things seemed to be going well in Afghanistan she said. "What happened? Why is it unraveling now?"

Unraveling?  Afghanistan has a democratically elected government, and NATO troops are currently decimating the remaining Taliban fighters.  She needs to remember: the opera is not over until the fat lady sings.

Hey, Welcome Back ...

... to Sensible Mom.  She, quite sensibly, took the summer off from blogging to hang with her children, but, school in session, she's back.  As always, her thoughts are, in a word, sensible.

Cutting The Head Off The Snake

Al Qaeda in Iraq's (or as James Taranto calls it, "Al Qaeda which has nothing to do with Iraq in Iraq which has nothing to do with Al Qaeda) #2 was captured several days ago, leading to the arrests or elimination of a number of other leaders in the organization.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi forces have arrested the second most senior operative in al-Qaida in Iraq, and the group now suffers from a "serious leadership crisis," the national security adviser said Sunday.

Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi, known as Abu Humam or Abu Rana, was arrested a few days ago, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie said, adding that his arrest also led to the capture or death of 11 other top al-Qaida in Iraq figures and nine lower-level members.

[...]

"We believe that al-Qaida in Iraq suffers from a serious leadership crisis. Our troops have dealt fatal and painful blows to this organization," the security adviser said.

There was, indeed, a sharp upsurge in violence, particularly in Baghdad, in July.  But in August, with the US and Iraqi military cracking down more aggressively on the perpetrators the number of innocent civilians slaughtered has dropped precipitously in August.  This decaptitation should lead to further improvements in the violence.  Will the violence end anytime soon?  Doubtful.  But if it shows steady decline, and if the Iraqi military becomes steadily more capable of handling the problems and tightening the screws on the terrorists, then this war can be labeled a success.

Even more important, though, is this observation:

"Al-Saeedi carried out al-Qaida's policies in Iraq and the orders of the slain al-Zarqawi to incite sectarian violence in the country, through attempting to start a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis — but their wishes did not materialize," al-Rubaie added.

A civil war "did not materialize," which is important, but more important is the realization, which seems to have escaped the anti-war crowd in the US, that inciting sectarian violence leading to civil war is a primary strategy of the opposition, and not the natural outcome of the "occupation."

As for the honor and courage of the resistance to the "imperial" occupying US forces, there's this indefensible observation:

Al-Saeedi had been hiding in a residential building, the security adviser said. "He wanted to use children and women as human shields during the arrest, which is why the operation was based on a very precise military plan to preserve the lives of women and children in the building," al-Rubaie said, adding that there were no casualties during the arrest.

9/3/06 2145: Speaking of progress in the war on terrorists ...

PASHMUL, Afghanistan - Warplanes and artillery pounded Taliban fighters hiding in orchards Sunday during a big Afghan-NATO offensive that the alliance said killed more than 200 militants in its first two days. Four Canadian soldiers also were killed.

Sort Of At Gunpoint

An American convert to Islam, Adam Gadahn, joins Al Qaeda #2 Ayman Al Zawahiri in "inviting" Americans to convert as well - and subtly warning us of the consequences if we don't.

CAIRO, Egypt Sep 2, 2006 (AP)— An American thought to be an al-Qaida activist appeared in a videotape with the terror group's deputy leader Saturday and called on his countrymen to convert to Islam and for U.S. soldiers to switch sides in the Iraq and Afghan wars.

The 48-minute video, posted on an Islamic militant Web site, had footage of al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, and of Adam Yehiye Gadahn, a 28-year-old American who the FBI believes attended al-Qaida training camps in Pakistan and served as an al-Qaida translator.

Kind of like the invitations that Fox reporter Steve Centanni and cameraman Olaf Wiig got.

The video included no direct threats of terror attacks.

Gadahn delivered a lecture on Islam and the "errors" in Christianity and Judaism. He also said the United States is losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and told U.S. soldiers they are fighting President Bush's "crusades."

"Instead of killing yourself for Bush … why not surrender to the truth (of Islam), escape from the unbelieving army and join the winning side. Time is running out so make the right choice before it's too late," he said.

"Before it's too late" sounds quite a bit like a direct threat, doesn't it?  Muslim teaching dictates that you "invite" the infidels to convert to Islam and follow the true path ... before you slaughter them. Some claim that this is not true, that true jihad is peaceful.  Others disagree.

Gadahn claims in the video that the Muslims are winning.  John Hinderaker at Power Line sees a parallel with an earlier totalitarian ideology.

I found Gadahn's reference to Islam as the "winning side" interesting. I think that today's Muslim imperialists have the same conviction that their victory is historically ordained that once sustained the Communists. Back in the days when I hung out with Communists, they used to say that the best motivation for a convert to their cause was a desire to be on the winning side. At that time, of course, lots of people believed that Communism was the wave of the future. Even some anti-Communists, like Whittaker Chambers, thought that Communism, in the end, probably couldn't be stopped.

Someone--if I could remember who, I'd credit him--wrote recently that the Islamic terrorism we are now experiencing is analogous to the Bolshevik and anarchist terrorism of the early years of the 20th century. If that's true, we have a long road ahead of us. Europe will very likely succumb to Islam in the years to come, for reasons of demography and spiritual and intellectual exhaustion. But Americans are no more interested in converting to Islam than they were in adopting socialism. And Americans not only are more stubborn about such things than Europeans, they are also better at reproducing.

Me?  Like Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting, "I'm holding out for something better."

9/3/06 1040: Speaking of Centanni and Wiig, the group that took them plans to force more conversions at gunpoint.  Nice.  Islam must not be an otherwise attractive religion, if its adherents have to threaten non-Muslims with death to get them to consider converting.

He Probably Isn't Pushing Very Hard

With a history that includes indulging some of the most repressive and militant regimes and factions in the world, call me a skeptic when it comes to headlines like this one.

Annan pushes Iran to compromise on nukes

TEHRAN, Iran - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan began meeting with Iranian leaders Saturday to press them to help cut off weapons shipments to Iran's Lebanese ally Hezbollah and to compromise in its nuclear confrontation with the West.

The UN under Mr. Annan has not been a forceful negotiator in previous situations like this. It's taken US leadership, in most cases, along with the threat of something more than diplomatic options, to move the ball.  We'll see how helpful the Secretary General can be.  I'll be satisfied if he simply doesn't make the situation worse.

More UK Terror Busts, Etc.

There were 14 more Muslim men arrested last night/this morning in Britain, in a continuing crackdown against home grown terrorism.

LONDON - Fourteen people were arrested in London overnight on suspicion they were involved in training and recruiting for acts of terrorism, police said Saturday.

Police said the arrests were not linked to last month's alleged plot to bomb U.S.-bound passenger jets or to the July 2005 attacks on London's transport network.

Twelve suspects were arrested at a Chinese restaurant in south London that caters to Muslims, the British Broadcasting Corp. said.

About 40 officers raided the restaurant shortly after 10 p.m. Friday, when it was packed with diners, the BBC said. Police would not comment on the report but said the raids followed months of surveillance and investigation.

They said the arrests stemmed from an investigation into terror training and recruitment but declined to elaborate.

So these arrests were for activities unrelated to the London airline bombing plot.  Apparently we can expect a continuing stream of these stories coming from the UK.

Peter Clarke, head of Metropolitan Police anti-terror efforts, said police and intelligence agents were now attempting to track thousands of people believed to be directly or indirectly involved in terrorism, according to comments made public Friday.

That's no longer just a few radicals if there really are thousands at work on these murderous plots.  Can you lay this directly at the feet of Islam itself?  Let me point you to a couple of other stories to help you make up your mind.  Karol Sheinin picked up a story from Italy tells the story of a 20 year old girl who was too westernized for her father, so an "honor killing" was the remedy.

"She was simply a daughter who did not obey", said the mother of the 20-year old dead girl, Hina Saleem. Hina was found buried, with her throat slit, in the garden of her family home in Brescia, Italy. The "honor" killing has rocked Italy.

The New York Times reports:

"She smoked and wore revealing, low-slung jeans like many young women. News reports said she had been living with an Italian man.

...

Her father and uncle have been arrested in the case. [A brother-in-law turned himself in on Thursday, and an unidentified fourth man, also of Pakistani descent, was arrested Friday and accused in the case, the ANSA news agency reported.]"

She simply would not obey.  So four men had to kill her.

I urge you to read the entire post for apologists efforts to excuse and diminsh such brutality.  Then there's this story, courtesy Kim Priestap at Wizbang:  A Saudi man who excuses his enslavement and sexual assault on his Indonesian housekeeper as "Muslim behaviors."

[Homaidan Al-Turki} denied in Arapahoe County District Court that he enslaved the woman and said authorities targeted him because of his religion.

"Your honor, I am not here to apologize, for I cannot apologize for things I did not do and for crimes I did not commit," he told Judge Mark Hannen.

"The state has criminalized these basic Muslim behaviors. Attacking traditional Muslim behaviors was the focal point of the prosecution," he said.

Prosecutor Natalie Decker said the trial had nothing to do with Al-Turki's Muslim beliefs.

"It has to do with what he did to her for five years," she said outside the courtroom.

Al-Turki was convicted this summer of 12 felony counts of unlawful sexual contact with use of force, one felony count of criminal extortion and one felony count of theft. He also was found guilty of two misdemeanors: false imprisonment and conspiracy to commit false imprisonment.

Mr. Al-Turki is certainly not the first to make a housekeeper an indentured servant and sex slave, but he is likely the first to excuse it as due to his religion.  "It's a Muslim thing, you wouldn't understand."  I'd like to understand.  Perhaps someone could explain to me how, due to religious teaching, it's okay to slit the throat of your daughter if she disappoints you?  How it's okay, due to religious teaching, to enslave a woman and use her as you would a piece of furniture?  How it's okay to plot to kill as many of your own countrymen as possible, the people you grew up with?  Because, really, I'm generally not dense, but I'm having a tough time understanding.

And The Hits Just Keep On Comin'

Twenty-two year old Red Sox lefthander Jon Lester's enlarged lymph nodes turn out to be a treatable form of lymphoma.  You have the prayers of Red Sox Nation.  Get well, dude, and then come back strong.  Hey, this guy did it, you can too.

9/1/06 1000:  What's next?  Locusts in Boston?  The plague?  40 days of rain?  Jonathan Papelbon, a young gun who's been a great closer for them this year, just left the game holding his right (throwing) shoulder.  As Marlin said in a trailer for Finding Nemo, after dealing with Dory's short term memory loss:  "Could a bigger fish swallow me?  I will gladly go on a hook!"

A Case Of Mistaken Identification

Oops.  I hope if Glenn Reynolds ever links Joust The Facts he'll at least get the name right.  Ken McCracken, call your lawyer!

Whose Fault Is It Anyway?

Today's Washington Post carries an editorial that could easily have been written any time over the last year and a half, at minimum, finally telling it like it is in the Valerie Plame /Joe Wilson / Uranium from Niger affair.

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.

Again, Mr. Libby, interestingly, is being charged with lying to cover up doing something that he, in fact, did not do, although the WaPo tries to have it both ways and tries to continue taking the charges against Mr. Libby seriously.  But, back to the real source of the problem.

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Finally seeing the light.  Mr. Wilson was, in fact, the liar in this farce.  That he was taken seriously and his charges trumpeted by the left - Mr. Corn? - speaks ill of their ability to sort fact from myth.

Unfortunately for the Washington Post they are late to the party.  Here at Joust The Facts we proclaimed the show a farce in one excruciating act a number of days ago.  Christopher Hitchens did so quite eloquently 3 days ago as well.

9/1/06 1611: Curt at Flopping Aces noticed the editorial, then delved into the Democratic Underground to catch the reaction to it.  'Scary' would be the word that pops to mind.