Naiveté, Frêre Jacques, and Dubya Wows ‘Em (Me, Anyway) at the UN

Here are two opposing views on the “interrogation techniques” debate currently raging in Washington and elsewhere. First, Thomas Sowell, writing at Real Clear Politics (Suicidal Hand Wringing):

When you enter a boxing ring, you agree to abide by the rules of boxing. But when you are attacked from behind in a dark alley, you would be a fool to abide by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. If you do, you can end up being a dead fool.

Even with a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon and the prospect that its nuclear weapons will end up in the hands of international terrorists that it has been sponsoring for years, many in the media and in the government that is supposed to protect us have been preoccupied with whether we are being nice enough to the terrorists in our custody.

The issue has been brought to a head by the efforts of Senators John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham to get us to apply the rules of the Geneva convention to cutthroats who respect no Geneva convention and are not covered by the Geneva convention.

[…]

No one has suggested that we disregard the Geneva convention for people covered by the Geneva convention. The question is whether a lawless court shall seize the power to commit this nation to rules never agreed to by those whom the Constitution entrusted with the power to make international treaties.

The much larger question -- the question of survival -- is whether we have the clarity and the courage to go all-out in self-defense against those who are going all-out to destroy us, even at the cost of their own lives.

Sowell is absolutely, positively, correct. The fact the US observes the Geneva Conventions didn’t spare Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker from being tortured before they were beheaded after terrorists captured them in Iraq. No sane American believes things will suddenly and miraculously change if McCain & Company have their way. However, a small but very vocal contingent of naïve Americans support Senator McCain’s position. Columnist Eugene Robinson is one such person. Here’s Robinson, writing in today’s WaPo:

It's past time to stop mincing words. The Decider, or maybe we should now call him the Inquisitor, sticks to anodyne euphemisms. He speaks of "alternative" questioning techniques, and his umbrella term for the whole shop of horrors is "the program." Of course, he won't fully detail the methods that were used in the secret CIA prisons -- and who knows where else? -- but various sources have said they have included not just the infamous "waterboarding," which the administration apparently will reluctantly forswear, but also sleep deprivation, exposure to cold, bombardment with ear-splitting noise and other assaults that cause not just mental duress but physical agony. That is torture, and to call it anything else is a lie.

Excuse me, Mr. Robinson, but you’re confusing duress with torture. And given the Armed Forces use these techniques in SERE training, Special Forces training, and SEAL training, are you saying that we’re torturing our own people? You are, you know. So, should we stop? I think not.

There’s a huge difference between sleep deprivation, exposure to cold, and the like and real torture. No one is advocating we bring out the drills and the blowtorches; no one advocates throwing captives off of second story buildings or out of helicopters. What is being advocated is effective interrogation of non-uniformed illegal combatants that pose a mortal danger to the US and the West, in general. You are naïve to the frickin’ extreme if you cannot see the difference.

Brendan Miniter, assistant editor of the WSJ’s Opinion Journal, has more on this subject in “When Miranda Met Osama.” (via Real Clear Politics)

Oh, Jacques, Mon Ami! Bryan, writing at Hot Air:

Only France could manage to lose a war in which it did not fight.

Just ahead of the big Iranapolooza at the UN, France announced that it no longer supports sanctions against the Islamic Republic and that there is in fact now a split on the Security Council on the question of whether Iran has to freeze its enrichment programs as a precondition to entering talks. This abrogates France’s previous support for sanctions, and gives the Russians and Chinese an out on sanctions both clearly were reluctant to support. Like its backdoor support for Iraq in the run-up to that war, France’s move combined with its veto power on the UNSC all but guarantees that either a) Iran gets nuclear weapons, or b) there will be a nasty war to make sure that Iran doesn’t get nuclear weapons.

This is, in part, a response to Chirac’s position that “…he had never seen a situation where sanctions were effective at ending disputes.” Well, no, sanctions aren’t all that effective, especially if you and members of your government actively subvert them. Frêre Jacques is also concerned French troops in Lebanon might be targeted by Hezbollah should France support sanctions against Iran. Looks like a doctrine of pre-emptive surrender, to me. That’ll work.

The initial reactions to Dubya’s UN speech are beginning to come in. I didn’t watch it, but after reading the speech I am impressed with what he said, as are Mary Katherine Ham and The Political Pit Bull. Allah has video highlights and a brief commentary. The full text of the speech is here. It will be interesting to see how the usual suspects (the Beeb, the Guardian, NYT, et al) respond. No, check that. I can visualize their response without even trying…

This Is Becoming a Habit...

Another late night, another late start…it’s almost a note-for-note replay of yesterday, except it’s after noon and I just poured my first cup! I take small comfort in the fact that I didn’t sleep past noon; 1130 still seems pretty danged decadent. So. A short post with today’s photo; and more to follow later.

Here’s a lil something I found last evening. Anne Applebaum in today’s WaPo… “Enough Apologies:”

Instead, Western politicians, writers, thinkers and speakers should stop apologizing -- and start uniting.

By this, I don't mean that we all need to rush to defend or to analyze this particular sermon; I leave that to experts on Byzantine theology. But we can all unite in our support for freedom of speech -- surely the pope is allowed to quote from medieval texts -- and of the press. And we can also unite, loudly, in our condemnation of violent, unprovoked attacks on churches, embassies and elderly nuns. By "we" I mean here the White House, the Vatican, the German Greens, the French Foreign Ministry, NATO, Greenpeace, Le Monde and Fox News -- Western institutions of the left, the right and everything in between. True, these principles sound pretty elementary -- "we're pro-free speech and anti-gratuitous violence" -- but in the days since the pope's sermon, I don't feel that I've heard them defended in anything like a unanimous chorus. A lot more time has been spent analyzing what the pontiff meant to say, or should have said, or might have said if he had been given better advice.

This needed to be said, particularly in the mainstream press. I’ve been looking, and I haven’t seen another editorial in the same tone. I’m sure they’re there, but I haven’t found it/them. The blogs, of course, are another story.

Today’s Pic: Street Scene in Prague, Czech Republic. Taken during the Great European Divorce Tour, June 1999. (I apologize for the quality; all pre-2001 pics were taken with a one mega pixel grab-shot camera.)

The Pope and Islam

Here’s a short editorial from The Telegraph (UK) in its entirety:

The Pope quotes a barbed medieval criticism of Islamic violence in the course of a scholarly discourse, and Muslims all over the world go into uproar; churches are firebombed. The Prime Minister's wife delivers a playful slap to a cheeky teenager, and six detectives rush to question her.

We are living in a world that has lost not only its sense of proportion but also its ability to discriminate.

In the case of Cherie Blair – who aimed a slap at a 17-year-old fencing champion while both of them giggled – it is hard not to conclude that it served her right. In her role as a trendy human rights lawyer, she has helped foster the nosy paranoia that led the Child Protection in Sport Unit to call the police. That said, however, Mrs Blair was clearly guilty of nothing more than a sense of humour.

By contrast, it is not immediately apparent how much blame to attach to Benedict XVI for the worldwide furore over last week's lecture. On reflection, the answer must be: not very much. Presumably, the Pope regrets quoting the Byzantine emperor's opinion that aspects of Islam were "inhuman". Moderate Muslims have been upset by it, and Benedict reiterated yesterday that he was sorry that they had taken offence. But he is even more sorry that this offence has been exacerbated by the deliberate manipulation of his words by Islamic firebrands and their slick media operation.

The combination of grievance-nurturing multiculturalism and instant headlines is having a disastrous effect on the worldwide Muslim community. There seems to be no limit to its spokesmen's willingness to voice outrage; and their messages are then picked up by fanatics who mount appalling attacks on Christians in Muslim countries. When was the last time a Muslim leader apologised for such atrocities?

The truth is that barbaric attacks happen weekly. No wonder that Benedict favours an urgent dialogue with Muslims on the subject of religious violence, rather than the usual touchy-feely exchange of compliments.

Well, he has started a dialogue now, albeit not quite in the way that he intended. And it is essential that it continue. A self-abasing apology from the Pope would have postponed that discussion yet again.

We suspect that Western public opinion is not displeased that Benedict has said the unsayable. Now it is time for other churchmen to tell their Muslim counterparts that, in addition to dishing out criticism, they must learn how to take it.

“There seems to be no limit to its spokesmen's willingness to voice outrage; and their messages are then picked up by fanatics who mount appalling attacks on Christians in Muslim countries.” While there were no “appalling attacks” on Christians in London, there were threats. If you haven’t seen the photos Joee Blogs put up of the demonstration yesterday outside of Westminster Cathedral, do go. Amazing stuff, and most certainly not in a good way.

The Daily Mail (UK) reports:

A notorious Muslim extremist told a demonstration in London yesterday that the Pope should face execution.

Anjem Choudary said those who insulted Islam would be "subject to capital punishment".

[…]

Choudary's appeal for the death of Pope Benedict was the second time he has been linked with apparent incitement to murder within a year.

The 39-year-old lawyer organised demonstrations against the publication of cartoons of Mohammed in February in Denmark. Protesters carried placards declaring "Behead Those Who Insult Islam".

Yesterday he said: "The Muslims take their religion very seriously and non-Muslims must appreciate that and that must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the prophet.

"Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment."

This sort of stuff is so out of hand, so over the top, so excessive and so antithetical to western liberal thought I simply cannot find words to describe it. One just has to wonder about Mr. Choudary’s motives. Is he purposefully inciting violence? Are his rhetorical excesses designed only to intimidate and silence critics? What? I’m not buying the “outrage” thing…I think there’s much more than that in play. But this I also know: there are elements within British society that are more than willing to confront the likes of Choudary, and I do not mean in a civilized, reasonable way. Choudary should be damned careful about what he says in the future. As a matter of fact, if I were he I’d go underground immediately.

The moderate Muslims had better find their voice, and the sooner, the better. Allowing the extremists to continue in the manner described above bodes ill for the umma as a whole. Serious ill. Silence indicates approval, or at the very least, acquiescence. This cannot be allowed to continue.

Confederate Yankee has similar thoughts:

If practitioners of the Muslim faith think that they can exert their will unchecked through the most violent of means without facing an earthly reckoning beyond their comprehension, they are sadly mistaken. Our rational beliefs have had us regarding Islam as a possible threat to be dealt with surgically, but not one yet worth acting against generally with our full military might.

One act of sufficient scope and horror would change the calculus of the equation. Islamists seem to sincerely believe that nations shaped by Judeo-Christian beliefs are soft, and that we will fall quickly if they act with sufficient aggression and callousness against those they see as infidels.

Islamic leaders should reconsider the ramifications of the widespread Jihad they call for against the West. If they provoke us sufficiently, the same reason that has had us hold ourselves in check to date will dictate that that restraint we have practiced is counterproductive to our continued existence, and Islam will not see another century.

We are not weak, but reasoned, and the Muslims of the world crying for violent Jihad against would be wise to note the difference.

Words to the wise. CY is thinking more on global terms, granted. But big explosions often begin with a little spark.

Sigmund, Carl, and Alfred has a good essay on this subject, too. He closes with:

The deliberate and concerted effort to vilify the Pope and Christendom as fundamental and basic tenet of Islamic identity is a deliberate attempt by dysfunctional political and religious leaders to create and subjugate a society that cannot function.

Much of the Islamic world has painted itself into a corner. The vicious hate that has been brought to the fore cannot be hidden away at will and pulled out when necessary, to be used as a tool to intimidate, as it was during the cartoon riots.

And that’s just the summation of his clear and thoughtful analysis. Recommended.

Finally…I trust The Anchoress on all matters Catholic. In addition to her own thoughts she has assembled an extraordinary collection of links on and about this explosion of Islamic intolerance, hate, and idiocy. Just keep scrolling.

Plane Pr0n

Well. Here it is waaay past noon and I just poured my second cup. I’ve only done the most basic items in my morning routine, to wit: made the coffee, answered the overnight e-mail, and responded to blog comments. I’ve yet to even look at the news and haven’t made the rounds of my favorite blogs. Today’s excuse: it was cold last night, down into the mid-40s. So…it was just a lil bit chilly in the house this morning, perfect sleeping weather. I took advantage.

Today’s Pic: Plane Pr0n, of a sort. Lou put up a photo of Capt. Jeff Donnithorne, USAF, standing by an F-15 in a Kuwaiti hangar the other day, so here’s an F-16 in a hangar…in response! That’s Capt. Buck Pennington standing alongside SN3 in front of the F-16. The bird is the personal aircraft of the 522^nd Fighter Squadron’s (Fireballs!) commander.

I’ll be back later…

“Hail! to the victors valiant…” (and More)

I didn’t post following the conclusion of yesterday’s rout in South Bend; it was simply too painful. OK, maybe not “painful,” but certainly a disappointment. A major disappointment. Michigan brought game into South Bend yesterday and they owned Notre Dame, totally. ND’s season may not be over at this point in time, but the hopes of a national championship have been dashed. It’ll be a blessing if ND doesn’t fall out of the Top 25.

YouTube is a wonderful thing, particularly when it comes to the profusion of home-grown military videos they have encouraged or facilitated. Mike claims VAW-116 has way too much time on their hands. Me? I think they’ve put that time to excellent use. BZ, VAW-116!

There’s a bit of a buzz around the ‘sphere on a potential al Qaeda nuclear strike on the US during Ramadan, which begins the end of this month. I first read of this last week but decided not to post on the subject because I don’t believe in fear-mongering…we have more than enough of that these days. However. Abu Dawood, the leader of AQ in Afghanistan, has supposedly warned all Muslims to leave the US prior to the strike and singles out New York and Washington, particularly. And the warning identified the AQ member who’s supposedly in charge of the operation, one Adnan G. El Shukrijumah. The government has a five million dollar bounty on El Shukrijumah. Gateway Pundit has a video of El Shukrijumah, in addition to the pictures featured on the FBI’s web site.

I doubt seriously if AQ or any other terrorist organization, for that matter, has the capability to detonate a nuclear device in the US or anywhere else. I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a “dirty bomb,” however. As the Wikipedia article mentions, the principal effects of a dirty bomb would be terror and panic, not mass casualties. One would also assume “terror and panic” includes severe economic repercussions. I shudder to think of what would happen to the economy if a dirty bomb were to be detonated at the corner of Wall and Broad in NYC. Or in the vicinity of Capitol Hill in D.C. And then there are the unknown ripple effects on each and every one of us as individuals, effects on the body politic, and the effect of such an action on the world-wide umma. All bad. Really, really bad.

My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has more, as does Wizbang.

John Yoo, Berkeley law professor and former Bush administration deputy assistant attorney general, has an excellent op-ed (How the Presidency Regained Its Balance) in today’s NYT. Excerpts:

FIVE years after 9/11, President Bush has taken his counterterrorism case to the American people. That’s because he has had to. This summer, a plurality of the Supreme Court found, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that Congress must explicitly approve military commissions to try suspected terrorists. So Mr. Bush has proposed legislation seeking to place the tribunals, and other aggressive antiterrorism measures, on a sounder footing.

But the president has broader goals than even fighting terrorism — he has long intended to make reinvigorating the presidency a priority. Vice President Dick Cheney has rightly deplored the “erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job” and noted that “we are weaker today as an institution because of the unwise compromises that have been made over the last 30 to 35 years.”

[…]

To his critics, Mr. Bush is a “King George” bent on an “imperial presidency.” But the inescapable fact is that war shifts power to the branch most responsible for its waging: the executive. Harry Truman sent troops to fight in Korea without Congressional authority. George H. W. Bush did not have the consent of Congress when he invaded Panama to apprehend Manuel Noriega. Nor did Bill Clinton when he initiated NATO’s air war over Kosovo.

[…]

A reinvigorated presidency enrages President Bush’s critics, who seem to believe that the Constitution created a system of judicial or congressional supremacy. Perhaps this is to be expected of the generation of legislators that views the presidency through the lens of Vietnam and Watergate. But the founders intended that wrongheaded or obsolete legislation and judicial decisions would be checked by presidential action, just as executive overreaching is to be checked by the courts and Congress.

The changes of the 1970’s occurred largely because we had no serious national security threats to United States soil, but plenty of paranoia in the wake of Richard Nixon’s use of national security agencies to spy on political opponents. Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution, which purports to cut off presidential uses of force abroad after 60 days. It passed the Budget and Impoundment Act to eliminate the modest presidential power to rein in wasteful spending. The Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act required the government to get a warrant from a special court to conduct wiretapping for national security reasons.

These statutes have produced little but dysfunction, from flouting of the war powers law, to ever-higher pork barrel spending, to the wall between intelligence and law enforcement that contributed to our failure to stop the 9/11 attacks.

Hoo-Boy, but does the Left ever hate Mr. Yoo. I can’t think of anyone, save Dubya, Cheney, and Rummy, who attracts more ire than John Yoo. Yoo is widely and thoroughly disparaged for his alleged “torture memos” written during his tenure at Justice, among other things. The Left’s reaction to today’s op-ed is, therefore, quite predictable. TalkLeft is typical of the Lefty opinion of Mr. Yoo; read at your own risk. Some of us, however, think Mr. Yoo is quite correct and are hugely appreciative of his work, both now and in the past.

One thing puzzles me about Mr. Yoo, however. Why Berkeley, for crying out loud? Of all the possible places a conservative could teach, Yoo chose Berkeley. The man just has to be a closet masochist… (Please note: my tongue is firmly in my cheek.)

Today’s Pic: The Rio Grande Gorge, just outside of Taos, NM. Taken from the Rio Grande Gorge Bridge, which is something of a tourist attraction, believe it or don’t. It’s kinda scary out on that bridge when a semi or two rumbles by, too, coz the damned thing moves up and down more than a few inches. Not at all good for an acrophobic like myself. May 7, 2004.

Wow.

Michigan is destroying Notre Dame…34-14 at the half. And it would have been worse, had not Brady Quinn and Charlie Weiss engineered one of their patented last-drive-in-the-half TD marches. Quinn was 7-for-7 on that drive, but that was the first successful series in the half.

Looks like a long day in South Bend. ND has put together great comebacks in the past, but with the way Michigan is playing I’m very doubtful ND will be able to do it today. ND is simply getting outplayed in all respects.

{sigh}

If This is Saturday...

…it must be Portales FOOTBALL! We’re an hour away from THE game (ND – UofM), so I have a bit of time to put up a couple of pics and deliver my weekend greetings.

Today’s Pic(s): Two exposures of the same sunset. And the photos simply do NOT do justice to the reality. The mountains seemed to be literally on fire; would that I could capture the moment. Taken in Red River, NM. May 6, 2004.

I might be back later…

Ah, So What....?

The man is right, ya know:

Kinky Friedman says he favors legalizing marijuana to keep nonviolent users out of prison. If Texas elects him governor, he says, he'll try to get locked-up pot users released to make room for more violent criminals.

"I think that's long overdue," Friedman told The Associated Press in an interview Wednesday. "I think everybody knows what (U.S. Sen.) John McCain said is right: We've pretty well lost the war on drugs doing it the way we're doing it. Drugs are more available and cheaper than ever before. What we're doing is not working."

There are several areas where traditional conservatives and I part company, the “war on drugs” being just one. I tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal…to a point. But that’s neither here nor there. Back to Mr. Friedman:

As for Friedman, he said he doesn't like being called a politician.

"I don't mind being called a flip-flopper," he said, a description Perry's campaign has placed on him. "I think we actually could use a flip-flopper as governor because a flip-flopper is a human being open to change, and God knows change is what we need now."

He acknowledged that the Texas governor's authority is limited compared with executives in other states but said he would use the bully pulpit to cajole legislators. He doesn't trust them, he said, adding: "I do not trust the media either."

"Right now the lobbyists are leading us. We have a lack of leadership, a vacuum," he said.

One of the Texas governor's few powerful roles is in appointing state board members, and Friedman said he would replace as many as he could, including regents at the University of Texas and Texas A&M.

"You clean house," he said. "You get the old farts out of there. You put a bunch of young people in and you put a bunch of people who care about Texas. It's pretty simple."

I’m gonna vote for him. Seriously. I don’t think I have any Texas readers (other than the googlers and the drive-bys), but just in case: here’s Kinky’s web site. The man makes quite a bit of sense, and I’m all for the (vanishing) American tradition of citizen-politicians, as opposed to the professional pols. Kinky fits the bill.

Charles Krauthammer has a short and sobering op-ed in today’s WaPo, wherein he claims the decision to launch military action against Iran is but a year away. The costs of military intervention will be high, indeed, but the costs of not acting are much, much higher. It may come as no surprise that I agree with Mr. Krauthammer.

Falling gas prices… Most folks have noticed, me among them, that gas prices are falling. I filled up out at the base yesterday and the price of premium unleaded has fallen from $2.99 to $2.60-something in the past two weeks or so. There are several good opinions in the ‘sphere today on this subject, and the Good Captain is typical:

Why will the prices fall so low? It comes from the speculation involved in commodities trading. Over the past couple of years, traders have built a lot of catastrophe into oil prices, betting on future disruptions of serious scale due to bad weather, war, diplomatic difficulties, and bad economic conditions. However, it turns out that most of the risks either have fizzled or were overstated -- and now the market is somewhat flooded in oil.

Supply and demand. Basic market forces at work, and all that. One of the greater goods of falling gas prices is defusing of one of the Democrat party’s powerful arguments for change, an argument that relies more upon emotional string-pulling than rational thought. But, I digress. PowerLine and Austin Bay have more…Colonel Bay has some particularly good links in his post.

E. coli cases traced to bagged spinach… The AP reports:

WASHINGTON - Consumers nationwide should not eat fresh bagged spinach, say health officials probing a multistate outbreak of E. coli that killed at least one person and made dozens of others sick.

Eight states were reporting a total of 50 cases of E. coli, Acheson said Thursday.

The death occurred in Wisconsin, where 20 people were reported ill, 11 of them in Milwaukee. The outbreak has sickened others — eight of them seriously — in Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon and Utah. In California, state health officials said they were investigating a possible case there.

The outbreak has affected a mix of ages, but most of the cases have involved women, Acheson said. Further information on the person who died wasn't available.

Wow. Not good. I usually eat a couple of bags of spinach a month, but not raw. I stir-fry the stuff in a mixture of sesame oil and a tablespoon or two of soy sauce. I suppose stir-frying is enough to kill those nasty lil critters… If you’re in the habit of eating spinach salads I’d quit for a while, if I were you.

Finally…Oriana Fallaci is dead. The West has lost a powerful voice in the fight against Radical Islam. Dr. Rusty Shackleford and Michelle Malkin have more (Malkin, particularly). RIP, Ms. Fallaci.

Today’s Pic: Everyone loves Puppy Pics, right? I’m putting this one up because of his expression, which illustrates perfectly the way I’ve been feeling of late. Interpret that as you wish… Photo taken in February, 2004.

It's Been a Bit...

I’m obviously flexible in my definition of “a bit,” as in yesterday’s close: “Back in a bit…” Well, it has been a bit, now, hasn’t it?

I was watching the History Channel last evening— Modern Marvels: Copper and later American Eats: Beer — when I see this little message in the lower right hand corner of my screen; something to the effect of “You can buy/download this episode tomorrow at the iTunes Store.” I thought: “now, that is pretty cool.” I’m somewhat at a loss as to exactly why one would want to own an hour-long TV show on the history of copper and its applications (teachers, maybe?), but the concept turned me on. Turned me on enough that I decided to go check out iTunes; I wanted to see what the Ts&Cs for downloading the show are, i.e., do you own it forever, or is it only good for a limited number of plays? How large is the file? What does it cost? You know, stuff like that. Enquiring minds wanna know…

So I shuffle off to the iTunes store, and after a couple of false starts and some mucking around, I find the TV Shows link. I clicked the “begin shopping link.” And was stopped dead in my tracks by this:

I did what any normal person would do: I lied. “O yessir, Mr. Jobs, I do in fact have iTunes, you just can’t see it!” Didn’t work. I clicked “I have iTunes” but received an error message from Firefox, something on the order of “You can’t get there from here.” And thus ended my adventure in iTunes land. I find it mildly highly off-putting that I have to download iTunes to browse the store. Just sayin’.

Here’s some news about which I have mixed emotions: Air America files for denies filing for bankruptcy. If AA does file for bankruptcy, I’ll admit to more than a little schadenfreud. But it’s not because the business failed, it’s simply because I seriously dislike that smart-ass Al Franken and the hysterical Randi Rhodes. Seeing those two lose their regularly scheduled gigs would be very good news, indeed. And that’s putting it mildly. But I’d hate to see AA go under, thus: mixed emotions. There’s already talk of reviving the Fairness Doctrine, and AA’s demise would only increase the Left’s calls for “Fairness.” That’s a fight that doesn’t have a lot of traction right now, but if and when AA goes down, you can be sure the Lefties will move “Fairness” to the front burner. Mixed emotions.

Speaking of Liberal Humor… I sorta did, by mentioning the not-funny-at-all Al Franken, who’s simply bitter. But Lefties do have a sense of humor, even though one rarely sees it outside of the Daily Show. Which leads me to this video from Jon Stewart & Co, which IS funny. Brit Hume ran this clip yesterday as the close to “Special Report,” and I laughed my a$$ off. I just had to share it…

Amir Taheri, writing in yesterday’s New York Post (Lies They Loved at Harvard) on Ayatollah Khatami’s address at Harvard:

Throughout, he presented himself as former president of "Iran," rather than of the Islamic Republic - although, legally speaking, there is no state known as Iran. He also insisted on describing himself as hich-kareh - someone with no official position at all - hiding the fact that he is a member of at least 11 organs of the Islamic Republic, including the all-important Assembly of Experts.

Khatami altered more than his identity: He edited Islam into a lovey-dovey cult that abhors the use of force, is uncomfortable with capital punishment, would never fight except in self-defense and actively welcomes other faiths.

He never mentioned his ideological guru, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini - knowing that this would revive memories of the hostages seized by the late mullah. Nor the current "supreme guide," Ali Khamenei - who is, according to the constitution in force in the Islamic Republic, the world's only truly legitimate ruler.

And there seemed to be a small issue of accurate translation, that is, what Khatami said in Persian (Taheri’s word, not mine. I know they speak Farsi.) wasn’t exactly what his translator relayed to the audience. I’m not all that surprised.

Thomas Sowell, writing at Real Clear Politics, simply nails one of my biggest hot buttons:

Are we talking world-class chutzpa or what?

The self-infatuated idea that nobody could disagree with you for honest and informed reasons is far more dangerous than any influence that donors' money may exercise.

Far more is involved here than cheap-shot journalism. It is the audience for such journalism that is the real concern.

Our whole educational system, from the elementary schools to the universities, is increasingly turning out people who have never heard enough conflicting arguments to develop the skills and discipline required to produce a coherent analysis, based on logic and evidence.

The implications of having so many people so incapable of confronting opposing arguments with anything besides ad hominem responses reach far beyond Wal-Mart or think tanks. It is in fact the Achilles heel of this generation of our society and of Western civilization.

Mr. Sowell is taking the NYT to task in his essay, but his larger point is just SO true. Enough said.

Today’s Pic: My Ol’ Drinkin’ Buddies. Tuesday’s post about being at work in SFO brought to mind all the great times I had with these three lovely ladies, so I thought I’d post ‘em. Left-to-right: Catherine, Yrs Trly, Corey, Amy. Catherine and Amy were work buddies; Corey works for the INS in SFO and was, at one time, Amy’s roomie. Santa Fe - May, 2005.

Placeholder, Part (What EVAH)

Another late start…such is the life (?) of an Old Guy who stays up way too late and sleeps in as a result. I’m still making the rounds and enjoying the coffee. In the meantime…

I’m still finding/reading posts about 9/11. Steeljaw Scribe has one such post that is unique: a first-person account of what it was like to be in the Pentagon on 9/11, along with tributes to shipmates lost in the attack. Powerful writing. (h/t: Mike)

Just sayin': The BEST reason to switch to Beta-Blogger: uploads and posting are much, much quicker than the "old" Blogger. Really. It's amazing how much faster posting becomes.

Today’s Pic: Glassware in a window, Tucson, AZ. January, 2004.

Back in a bit…

Similarities...

or, "Why I read Lileks, Part XXV:"

If I really ran a political site I would end up disappointing everyone, since I am a mess of superficially contradictory opinions (hands off regulating cable because of adult content; stop marking slut dolls to my little girl) and old-style liberal notions, like the primacy of individuality over race. I have zero objections to homosexuality but balk at redefining marriage. I recycle and abjure waste and live light as possible and dislike Hummers but I’m unimpressed by environmental scaremongering. I believe women are the intellectual equal of men but emotionally and psychologically different. (I don’t want to outweigh the firefighter who attempts to carry me down the steps, and I don’t want a 37-year old man leading my daughter’s Girl Scout troop. No Harvard jobs for me!) I would rather hang out with Iggy Pop than Frank Sinatra. I love the 50s but, if I lived there as a 20-something I'd be the sort of person who annoys me now, railing against the very symbols of artifice I prize today. I hate the 60s, but know full well I would have been a pretentious stoner antiestablishment wannabee until the pose cost me money. I think light rail is a money pit sinkhole beloved by New Urbanists, but support public subsidies of large-scale bus systems to move inner-city people to wherever the jobs may be. I dearly love the inner city but don’t care if people move to the burbs for nice houses and good schools. (I support the public schools. I support school choice.) For that matter I support the New Urbanists, except when they get high-mindedly pissy about people’s free choices. I believe in God, but I’m not throwing away my Coop books because he had a hot time at a Black Mass. I can’t stand everything Islamicists stand for, despair of the tide that seems to swamp a religion for which I have, despite my efforts, no empathetic connection whatsoever, but I celebrate the first Muslim in space. I dislike most TV, most modern music, and most movies, but love the big messy hot throbbing blob of Western pop culture, partly because I connect with part of it like a dog biting on a live wire, and partly because the loud rude crass mess spells freedom, and that is the root word at the heart of the American experiment. We can always learn ! from others, but they’ve much to learn from us. Unless they have a 200+ year track record of expanding rights and unimaginable prosperity as well. Did I forget to mention, forget to mention Memphis? Home of Elvis and the ancient Greeks?

What he said. The similarities are amazing. Well, except for the Sinatra/Iggy Pop thing. I suppose this makes both James and I Libertarians, but who's labeling?

Some Trivial and Not-So-Trivial Stuff

Yesterday wasn’t the time for political point-scoring exercises or personal reflections on the order of “where were you on 9/11,” and I tried to refrain from doing either. Successfully, too, I might add. I may be old-fashioned (ed: may?), but I considered yesterday as a day for remembrance, sorrow, and quiet reflection. But today’s another day.

I’ll give the Loony Left a demi-pass today, primarily because I don’t feel like revisiting some of the tripe I read yesterday simply to retrieve links. Instead, I’ll refer you to Outside the Beltway’s collection of comments on, and links to, some of that Lefty tripe, just in case you're interested. I know most of you aren't, but still... Mr. Joyner and I read mostly the same stuff and generally had the same reaction: “can’t you just let it rest for one day?”

And now the “where were you?” story. I emerged from BART’s Montgomery Street station, three stories underground, just after 0600 hours and began the short walk to 44 Monty and work. With an interim and usual stop at Starbucks, of course. I was one of about three people in line in Starbucks when an older man came in and said (announced is more like it), loudly, “They flew a plane into the World Trade Center in New York!” A simultaneous chorus of disbelieving “NOs!” came from customers and baristas alike. “It’s true!” the man said, “I just saw it on TV!” We all went silent. I paid for my coffee and croissant, exited Starbucks, entered my building directly next door and took the elevator five stories up to work in our Site Operations Center (SOC).

The SOC is manned 7x24 and is the only life in our offices that time of day. The night shift was finishing up their work, completing logs, and generally just being busy. I was greeted with the usual banter but cut it short. “Put CNN on!” I said to one of the SysAdmins sitting in the front row, “…and put it on the big screen.” Fifteen seconds later the four night-shift guys and I were watching the Twin Towers burn. Incredulously. Silently. I heard someone murmur “Holy Shit!” It was somewhere around 0630.

The next hour and a half was a blur, interrupted only by those horrific moments when we watched the towers fall. The day shift began arriving, and our VP of Operations (my boss and close friend) burst, and I DO mean burst, into the SOC about the same time. The outgoing night shift supervisor, the day shift supervisor, my boss and I all put our heads together and began implementing the disaster recovery plan, which essentially transferred all operations from the SOC to an off-premises location. The incoming day shift began packing up to leave for the off-premises location. We worked out a communications strategy and then sent folks on their way. The outgoing night shift was put on notice to check in late in the afternoon to find out whether they were to come in or remain in disaster recovery mode. The VP and I remained behind in the SOC to “hold down the fort” and take any calls that might come in from clients. We didn’t need to bother…it was the quietest day I ever spent at work, period. We didn’t receive a single client call all day.

Later on, sometime around mid-morning, our CEO made the decision to send everyone home and shut down business for the day. If that sounds strange, consider the fact that we were located in SFO’s second-tallest building, after the Trans-America Tower. We considered ourselves to be a prime target if there were to be any follow-on strikes. And in the atmosphere of fear and uncertainty that was 9/11/2001, I think the decision was a good one. By 1000 hours there were only three of us left in our facilities.

The only other significant thing I remember about the day was taking a call from TSMP sometime in the late morning. I thought that was pretty strange, as we weren’t generally on speaking terms at that point in life. But we spoke for about ten minutes, another indication of just how extraordinary 9/11 was. I don’t recall a single thing that was said.

And that’s how I spent 9/11/2001. It was a long, sad day.

Where were you?

Reader Bec provided this link (Reasons for Optimism, Part V) in the comments to yesterday’s post, and it’s superb. Shrinkwrapped is a very good blog; I don’t go there nearly often enough. The many, many links within “Reasons for Optimism” point one to excellent essays and other points of view on the War Against Radical Islam. I confess right here I haven’t read them all as yet. But I will. Thanks, Bec!

You know I don’t like Keith Olbermann, Dear Reader. I’ve made that plain enough in the past and have linked to Olbermann Watch at least twice in recent memory. Well, Krazy Keith’s irrational and over-the-top comments last evening managed to draw the ire of Ann Althouse, who is about as moderate as they come. Ann methodically and accurately skewers the Odious Olbermann for his mixed metaphors, turgid writing, and insipid delivery. She’s actually better at it than Johnny Dollar.

Today’s Pic: Inside the SOC. Yrs Trly sitting with two of my shift supervisors, along with a SysAdmin leaning in to speak with us. April, 2002.

9/11

I thought about today a lot, beginning sometime yesterday afternoon and lasting well into the wee small hours of this morning. Five years. It’s not that long a time, yet it is. I’ve read what the pundits have to say about this anniversary and I find most of what’s been said to be lacking both in substance and meaning. And I cannot find words of my own, words that are adequate, words that express the full range of my emotions, words that express sorrow and, at the same time, express the resolve to persevere, the resolve to win this existential conflict.

I did read one op-ed that resonated with me. I’ll give you the final two paragraphs of Christopher Hitchen’s essay in today’s WSJ:

One must have a blunt answer to the banal chat-show and op-ed question: What have we learned? (The answer ought not to be that we have learned how to bully and harass citizens who try to take shampoo on flights on which they have lawfully booked passage. Yet incompetent collective punishment of the innocent, and absurd color-coding of the "threat level," is the way in which most Americans actually experience the "war on terror.") 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 first duty, therefore, is one of solidarity with bin-Ladenism's other victims and targets, from India to Kurdistan.

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.

Indeed.

Update 9/11/2006, 1440 hours: When I said “I’ve read what the pundits have to say about this anniversary and I find most of what’s been said to be lacking…” I meant op-eds and essays by the professional pundits, i.e., those that are paid to write. There’s much good out there in the ‘sphere, and Lori Byrd, writing at Wizbang, provides the best compendium of links I’ve seen today. The woman is awesome.

Why We Win

USAF Fighter Chicks.

And DO NOT pass up the comments, coz there are some great links there, plus a guest appearance by one of the Chicks herownself!

Title? We Don't NEED No Steenkin TITLE!

I’m beginning to like this girl… a lot. Mary Katherine Ham, writing at Townhall.com, discusses the ABC/Disney Path to 9/11 flap and provides a number of links to other voices on the Right side of the blogosphere. A very good update on the brouhaha. And now the $64.00 question: will I watch it? Hell, no. I couldn’t care less about any Hollywood made-for-TV “docudrama.” Period.

Almost forgot (heh)…the Left are collectively off their meds about this whole thing, in a big way. I’ll not link to any of them; if you want to read any of their bleats and whines, you can find them at memeorandum. Sometimes I find their whining amusing. But on this subject they’re over the top.

Pretty scary stuff: In The Times (UK), “Can the West defeat the Islamist threat? Here are ten reasons why not.” Normally I dismiss defeatist rhetoric, but David Selbourne, the author of this op-ed, makes several points that ring true. Examples:

1) The first is the extent of political division in the non-Muslim world about what is afoot. Some reject outright that there is a war at all; others agree with the assertion by the US President that “the war we fight is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century”. Divided counsels have also dictated everything from “dialogue” to the use of nuclear weapons, and from reliance on “public diplomacy” to “taking out Islamic sites”, Mecca included. Adding to this incoherence has been the gulf between those bristling to take the fight to the “terrorist” and those who would impede such a fight, whether from domestic civil libertarian concerns or from rivalrous geopolitical calculation.

2) The second reason why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated is that the strengths of the world community of Muslims are being underestimated, and the nature of Islam misunderstood. It is neither a “religion of peace” nor a “religion hijacked” or “perverted” by “the few”. Instead, its moral intransigence and revived ardours, its jihadist ethic and the refusal of most diaspora Muslims to “share a common set of values” with non-Muslims are all one, and justified by the Koran itself.

Islam is not even a religion in the conventional sense of the term. It is a transnational political and ethical movement that believes that it holds the solution to mankind’s problems. It therefore holds that it is in mankind’s own interests to be subdued under Islam’s rule. Such belief therefore makes an absurdity of the project to “democratise” Muslim nations in the West’s interests, an inversion that Islam cannot accept and, in its own terms, rightly so. It renders naive, too, the distinction between the military and political wings of Islamic movements; and makes Donald Rumsfeld’s assertion in June 2005 that the insurgents in Iraq “don’t have vision, they’re losers” merely foolish. In this war, if there is a war, the boot is on the other foot.

[…]

5) The fifth disablement is to be found in the confusion of “progressives” about the Islamic advance. With their political and moral bearings lost since the defeat of the “socialist project”, many on the Left have only the fag-end of anti-colonial positions on which to take their stand. To attribute the West’s problems to our colonial past contains some truth. But it is again to misunderstand the inner strength of Islam’s revival, which is owed not to victimhood but to advancing confidence in its own belief system.

Moreover, to Islam’s further advantage, it has led most of today’s “progressives” to say little, or even to keep silent, about what would once have been regarded as the reactionary aspects of Islam: its oppressive hostility to dissent, its maltreatment of women, its supremacist hatred of selected out-groups such as Jews and gays, and its readiness to incite and to use extremes of violence against them. Mein Kampf circulates in Arab countries under the title Jihadi.

Point number one is self-evident. One sees it everyday in phrases like “the so-called war on terror,” and in actions such as the NYT’s outing of the NSA telecommunications monitoring program and the financial surveillance program. Additionally, the radical Islamists have powerful geopolitical enablers in Russia and China. Selbourne’s first point is very difficult to refute.

Point number two is debatable, but I am beginning to believe Selbourne is correct here, too. I’ve commented in the past that I’m trying to hold on to the belief that it’s only the radical elements of Islam that are the problem. It’s a little like whistling past the graveyard, no?

Point number five is irrefutable. “Progressives” may be the Number One problem, given that the Progressive community is the major source of dissent on the approach the West should take and the major source of opposition to the current war. The Progressives’ cries of “Negotiate!” are so wrongheaded as to be laughable, yet they persist in thinking the radicals are “reasonable” and can be persuaded. Add in the fact that the media are largely “progressive” and thereby set the tone of the public debate and you have a very serious impediment to the West’s success. The Progressive Academy is also indoctrinating the next generation with its doctrine of cultural relativism that forces “acceptance” of ALL cultures, even those that will destroy you. This is profoundly disturbing.

Selbourne’s other seven points are thought provoking, too.

So, should we throw up our hands and surrender? NO! Emphatically, no! I believe to my core that Western values of personal freedom, equality, and tolerance are superior to Islamic values of submission, intolerance, and suppression of “heretical” thought. We in the US have successfully integrated Muslims into our culture. So far American Muslims, unlike their European cousins, have been able to integrate and co-exist within our culture. I believe Selbourne may be viewing the British/European experience as the bellwether for the West; I don’t think it is and most certainly doesn’t have to BE the model. Additionally, there are examples of “successful” Islamic countries (e.g., Turkey and Malaysia) that are friends of the West and have no Islamic Imperial designs or aspirations. Further, it’s my personal opinion that Islamic radicalism’s strength is in the illiterate and economically deprived masses mired in poverty. The West can solve illiteracy and poverty.

As for the radicals waging war upon us, the solution is also pretty straight-forward. Kill them. One doesn’t reason or negotiate with mad dogs, one simply destroys them. The issue is finding the will to act. And Selbourne is correct in the larger sense that we in the West are lacking in will. It won’t always be so.

Today’s Pic: R. C. Gorman sculpture of a Navajo woman. In the courtyard of the R.C. Gorman gallery, Taos, NM. May, 2004.

The Weekend...

Today’s editorial in the WSJ (Five Years On - There have been far more victories than setbacks since September 11) is a must-read. Excerpts:

Today, there is less confusion than before about al Qaeda's purposes, particularly after its vengeful turn on fellow Muslims in Casablanca, Riyadh, Amman and Baghdad. But there remains a great deal of doubt about our own purposes. There is doubt whether the methods employed by the Bush Administration to defeat al Qaeda have worked, or been won at too high a moral and diplomatic price, or backfired by giving would-be jihadis fresh reasons to hate us. There is also too much doubt whether broadening the focus of the war to rogue regimes hasn't been a colossal distraction. And there is a deeper, creeping doubt whether the goal of "convincingly defeating" our enemies is even plausible.

So it's worth taking stock of what has--and hasn't--been achieved in five years. We presume that bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, are alive, probably in the Pakistani hinterland. But we know that Mohammed Atef, the mastermind of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in East Africa, was killed in Afghanistan in an American air strike. We know that Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, one of the masterminds of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, is in U.S. custody, as is Abu Zubaydah, who allegedly planned the failed millennium attacks. We know the U.S. captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the al Qaeda operations chief and mastermind of September 11, as well as his successor, Abu Farraj al-Libbi. We know the U.S. killed al-Libbi's senior deputies, Haithem al Yemeni and Abu Hamza Rabia. We know that Midhat Mursi, author of al Qaeda's explosives manual, is dead.

This is not an exhaustive list.

[…]

The last year has seen some setbacks, which go far to explain the overglum mood surrounding the current anniversary. Yet it is by no means clear that those failures owe to some flaw in the overall U.S. strategy as opposed to tactical mistakes and the simple fact that we are fighting a determined, resourceful enemy that is itself adapting to our moves. The victory for Hamas, the troubles in Iraq, the uncertain outcome in the recent war in Lebanon, and above all the renewed aggression of Iran all pose major challenges. Mr. Bush's party may pay a price for those setbacks in November, though the President has begun to fight back, as he shows in our interview today.

You get a two-fer here. Be sure and read the interview with the President, as well. Coz there’s interesting things in there, like this: “Intriguingly, the president broke a little news on the subject of Iran, acknowledging that he personally signed off on the U.S. visit this week by former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami. The trip has angered many conservatives because Mr. Khatami presided over the nuclear weapons development and cheating that Mr. Bush has pledged to stop. Why let him visit?” The answer is there. And more.

Another good editorial: “Rosen: Liberals Fly Their Colors.”

Just recently, there was another flag flap, this time at Carmody Middle School in Jefferson County. Eric Hamlin, a geography teacher, gave equal prominence in his classroom to the flags of the United States, Mexico, China and the United Nations. Understandably more sensitive to Colorado law in the wake of the North High incident, administrators at Carmody instructed Hamlin to remove the foreign flags. He refused and was suspended for insubordination. After a few days, a compromise was reached, all was forgiven and permission was granted to display the foreign flags on a "temporary" basis as a learning tool, consistent with a specified exception in the state statute.

[…]

He said he was concerned that by giving special treatment to the U.S. flag, "we're sending the message that America is No. 1, everything else is below that." Of course we are! Hamlin might disapprove, but I suspect most Americans want precisely that message to be sent in our government schools.

Hamlin said displaying the flags of other nations promotes "tolerance," one of the themes of his course. "The flags should be able to celebrate diversity," he added. This is a fashionable term in educratic circles these days, a first cousin to "cultural relativism" and "moral equivalence."

[…]

We've had this debate before over the treatment of patriotism in our schools. Patriotism: love of country - our country. That doesn't mean blind obeisance. You can teach about our misdeeds without obsessing about them. The point is: Americans have so much more about which to be proud than ashamed. And that's exactly how it ought to be presented in our schools.

Ah, diversity! Mr. Hamlin’s approach is simply back-asswards. I’m all for inclusion, I don’t have a problem with diversity, and tolerance is a virtue every child should learn. But I sure as Hell reject cultural relativism, and I’m all about patriotism. Mr. Rosen’s editorial is correct: “most Americans want precisely that message to be sent in our government schools.” And if a teacher, instructor, or professor feels s/he cannot deliver that message then they have no business teaching in an American public school. Find a madrassa somewhere. No, maybe that isn’t an option. Because, as near as I can tell, cultural relativism or tolerance just aren’t core values in a madrassa. Get the point?

Today’s Pic: Adobe mission church in Abiquiu, New Mexico. June 6, 2004. Abiquiu was the home of Georgia O’Keeffe, renowned New Mexico artist. The church was built in 1888.

Now We Know...

…why Disney/ABC caved on The Path to 9/11. Scott Ott has the real story, as usual:

(2006-09-08) — Top Senate Democrats, outraged over inaccuracies in the upcoming ABC mini-series The Path to 9/11, today said that in addition to yanking the network’s broadcast license, if the show airs Democrats might also withhold from ABC News the daily distribution of Democrat talking points.

A spokesman for Disney-owned ABC News said that while the network could weather the revocation of its broadcast license, thanks to the proliferation of cable and satellite TV, the loss of the Democrat talking points would force the news division to hire dozens of new reporters to fill the void in its newscasts.

Hey. It’s all about the bottom line, ya know. Those new reporters would be expensive.

Fixed.

Today’s Pic: Native American vendors on the plaza, Santa Fe, NM. June 3, 2004. One can find some fairly good bargains here, but it helps to shop with someone who knows their stuff. And the ex-girlfriend really knew her stuff when it came to turquoise, pottery, and the like. Me? I was just in it for the “color.”

So. Regarding my inability to post pics for the last day or so… The eternal lesson applies here: “when all else fails, read the book.” When it comes to issues with computers in general and Blogger specifically, the real trick is finding the book, or the appropriate book, anyway.

From the “Known Issues for Blogger in Beta” blog:

Some users are unable to upload images on the beta due to a fix made yesterday, 9/6. The solution for this particular problem is to clear your browser’s cache. Alternately, force-reloading the posting form (CNTL-F5 on Windows) should also solve the problem. (As a note, we appreciate your patience as we work through the hiccups and problems with image uploading in general.) — latest update on Thursday, September 07, 2006

Labels: images, posting

Clearing my cache worked. Too bad I didn’t find the book yesterday. But Hey! Old dog, new tricks and all that.

Back in a few.

Tempest. Teapot. 1984. Plus Newt!

Well, now. THIS is getting maximum exposure in the ‘sphere… Bubba Goes Ballistic on ABC about Its Damning 9/11 Movie. Left, Right, and Center, everyone has something to say! The NY Post leads with:

WASHINGTON - A furious Bill Clinton is warning ABC that its mini-series "The Path to 9/11" grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden - and he is demanding the network "pull the drama" if changes aren't made.

Clinton pointedly refuted several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post.

I just love it when the Left gets their knickers in a twist. Here’s the ever-strident and profanity-laden Shakespeare’s Sis, unexpurgated:

As Digby notes: “The reason this matters so much, and why Democrats are so apoplectic at the way ABC has handled this material, is that popular culture has a way of inculcating certain concepts into people's minds, especially young minds, far more effectively than talking head programs or earnest debates among political bloggers and columnists. This is the kind of thing that could taint the debate for generations if it takes hold.” And, more importantly, it’s being done not as a rewrite of history, but as a “first draft while the immediate events [are] still being debated.” All ABC’s protestations about how this isn’t “a documentary” don’t mean fuck-all when they’re simultaneously claiming that it’s based on the 9/11 Report.

This is totally, totally unacceptable. Disney is deliberately interfering with elections, and if they air this steaming heap of shit, their broadcast license should be immediately revoked.

An awesome display, eh? And somewhat ignorant of how the broadcasting biz actually works, too. Disney is a studio, and as a content provider, doesn’t have a “broadcast license.” Disney owns the ABC network, true. Doubtless Disney also owns one or more stations (I’m speculating: I don’t really know), and those stations’ licenses could be revoked for reasons other than being politically incorrect. But, Hey! Details…

On the Right, Confederate Yankee has a good post on the subject, with lots of links. Excerpt:

The mini-series is a dramatized account based on "a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and personal interviews," according to ABC spokesman Jonathan Hogan. Parts of The Path to 9/11 are speculative, and ABC freely admits that the film is a dramatization of known events, a very common approach to films ranging from Schindler's List to Bonnie and Clyde.

Despite this common cinematic treatment, Democrats at all levels are actively campaigning to have ABC's mini-series altered or pulled from the air, using tactics ranging from accusations that the film is inaccurate, to threats of retribution against ABC and others involved with the project. It is transparent Stalinism, an attempt to muzzle the freedom of speech of those who do not march lock-step with their ideals, radiating from the top down.

Former President Bill Clinton is demanding that the ABC drama be pulled from the air unless the script is revised to meet with his approval.

The Democratic Party's National Director, Tom MacMahon, released a scathing attack on the film to Democratic supporters, encouraging them to bully ABC into taking the drama off the air, and was caught openly threatening to pull ABC's broadcast license if the network did not acquiesce to his demands. This is an open attempt to blackmail a broadcaster by the officers of the Democratic Party.

[…]

Sitting Democratic members of Congress are also calling for the film to be censored. Democrats are unabashedly seeking to given themselves the power of Orwell's Ministry of Truth written about in 1984, and are actively stating their intention punish ABC for thoughtcrimes by threatening the networks broadcast license.

Their behavior is shameful.

No self-respecting American should concede a political party the ability to limit our Freedom of Speech. Hillary Clinton once stated, "we have a right to debate and disgree," but it is painfully apparent that Democrats feel that right applies to them, and only to what they would allow you to see.

What he said.

The Anchoress has some good advice for Clinton, specifically, and Democrats, in general (along with lotsa good links):

When it comes to this film, The Path to 9/11, it seems to me Clinton and his pals would be wiser to simply let the thing play, than to do the freak. People will watch the movie, shrug and say, “well, that’s pretty much what we always thought,” and they’d forget about it the next day. By panicking and demanding revisions to the film, and by sending out his usual minions to talk the thing down, Clinton is just making the whole thing a much bigger story. He is creating red headlines on Drudge and turning this film into a national incident. A stupid move. For such a smart man he’s never understood Gertrude’s economy of language in Hamlet when she said, “the lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

Too late, Anchoress. The Dems have already made asses out of themselves. Again.

And rumor has it that Disney/ABC has caved to pressure and will “edit” the film:

The Ostroy Report has learned from a reliable source connected to ABC that an unnamed ABC executive said that former President Bill Clinton called Disney President and CEO Robert Iger this week to voice his anger and frustration over the network's plan to air a six-hour movie, "The Path to 9/11," on Sunday and Monday, and that Iger agreed to make certain changes requested by Clinton. According to this ABC source, the film is currently being edited. In seeking confirmation, our call to Iger's office went straight into voicemail. We will update our story if and when we hear from a Disney official. Disney is the parent company of ABC.

The Chicago Tribune says:

ABC toned down a scene that involved Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel "Sandy" Berger, declining to give the order to kill bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified. "That sequence has been the focus of attention," the source said.

The network also decided that the credits would say the film is based "in part" on the 9/11 panel report, rather than "based on" the report, as the producers originally intended.

Hmmm. Welcome (back) to 1984. Ministry of Truth, indeed. I’m revolted.

I probably devoted way too much space to the foregoing and not nearly enough to Newt Gringrich’s op-ed in today’s WSJ. The Speaker offers up a prescription for victory in the war against Islamic Fascism, drawing parallels between the situations faced by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and George Bush in the current war.

By the summer of 1862, with thousands of Americans already dead or wounded and the hopes of a quick resolution to the war all but abandoned, three political factions had emerged. There were those who thought the war was too hard and would have accepted defeat by negotiating the end of the United States by allowing the South to secede. Second were those who urged staying the course by muddling through with a cautious military policy and a desire to be "moderate and reasonable" about Southern property rights, including slavery.

We see these first two factions today. The Kerry-Gore-Pelosi-Lamont bloc declares the war too hard, the world too dangerous. They try to find some explainable way to avoid reality while advocating return to "normalcy," and promoting a policy of weakness and withdrawal abroad.

Most government officials constitute the second wing, which argues the system is doing the best it can and that we have to "stay the course"--no matter how unproductive. But, after being exposed in the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, it will become increasingly difficult for this wing to keep explaining the continuing failures of the system.

[…]

The first and greatest lesson of the last five years parallels what Lincoln came to understand. The dangers are greater, the enemy is more determined, and victory will be substantially harder than we had expected in the early days after the initial attack. Despite how painful it would prove to be, Lincoln chose the road to victory. President Bush today finds himself in precisely the same dilemma Lincoln faced 144 years ago. With American survival at stake, he also must choose. His strategies are not wrong, but they are failing. And they are failing for three reasons.

(1) They do not define the scale of the emerging World War III, between the West and the forces of militant Islam, and so they do not outline how difficult the challenge is and how big the effort will have to be. (2) They do not define victory in this larger war as our goal, and so the energy, resources and intensity needed to win cannot be mobilized. (3) They do not establish clear metrics of achievement and then replace leaders, bureaucrats and bureaucracies as needed to achieve those goals.

This is a good, solid piece of writing. It’s very, very good. Mr. Gingrich has an acute understanding of the problem, and his proposed solutions are sound. The only deficiency I see in his proposals is moving the bureaucracy. Hercules’ labors were trivial, by comparison. Be that as it may…I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I’ll vote for this man should he decide to run for president.

Update: STILL can’t post a photo. {sigh}