"Where are yesterday’s gods?"

Dick Morris, Bill Clinton's one-time PR guru who changed his tune after 9/11, has a rather predictable prescription for what he perceives as the President's political woes: follow Clinton's example and bring back the permanent campaign:

In modern American democracy, every day is Election Day. Every week, every day, a new poll comes out judging the president’s performance and popularity. Our polling obsession makes our presidential system much more akin to a parliamentary one. When an incumbent president’s job-approval ratings sink below 50%, he becomes like a British prime minister who has just lost a vote of confidence in parliament. Unlike his Anglo equivalent, he needn’t resign, but if his ratings don’t improve he might as well leave for all the good he can do.

An incumbent who is bleeding with ratings under 50 attracts the sharks, who impose their own agenda on his administration, and invites defections from his own party, compromising even his control of Congress. As his low ratings breed even lower ones, he comes to embody two metaphors that come from the Nixon Administration: He twists slowly in the wind — a helpless, pitiful giant.

It was thus with Bill Clinton in the aftermath of his 1994 defeat, when he had to tell the media that he was still relevant, so obvious was his powerlessness. And it threatens to become this way with George Bush unless the President wakes up and realizes that the American presidency is a job you have to win each and every day to govern with power.

Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush - who quite obviously is not a pollster - vehemently disagrees, and in the process, I think, misses the point:

Morris does make a semi-correct case: that a President must use the bully pulpit of the White House to sell his program again and again to the American people. But to act like it is always September in an election year is to allow the means to overwhelm the ends. President Bush doesn't want (or need) good polling results - he needs to advance his agenda....

A President's time is a precious commodity - he can only do so much at any given time and he can't afford to be drawn into debates on the opposition's issues. President Bush could have spent the last four months offering a point by point defense against every absurd charge thrown at him vis a vis the War on Terrorism - and thus got bogged down in an endless debate. Or, he could have done what he did - let them blow their smoke and huff and puff until the right psychological moment to re-affirm original principle and in the process make his opponents look small and petty-minded.

Noonan's first sentence above neatly summarizes Morris' critique. If only he'd stopped there.

1) Morris' argument is that advancing the President's agenda is a function of good polling results. There is, in other words, a synergy between the two that gets smothered if he isn't out on the permanent campaign trail.

2) Morris' argument was not that Dubya get in a defensive crouch, endlessly rebutting each and every crazy accusation hurled against him. That's what surrogates are for, as the masterful Clinton "instant response" operation amply demonstrated.

3) If Mr. Bush only occasionally enters the fray - whether or not at "the right psychological moment" - he raises the stakes for each sortie to appalling levels. And, more to the point, it constitutes a more or less perpetual mindset of "playing from behind."

Hey, there was no bigger foe of Sick Willie than I, but you can't deny the success of his permanent campaign template. He survived and thrived in the midst of multiple scandals any one of which would have crippled any of his predecessors.

My biggest criticism of the President last year was precisely that he didn't follow the Clinton model. From the end of major combat operations in Iraq in May 2003 until Super Tuesday last year when John Kerry clinched the Democrat nomination - a period of ten months - Bush was nowhere to be found. He was, to employ a pun of questional contextual taste, "AWOL". He abandoned the political field to his enemies, who proceeded to pound the living bejesus out of him, steadily beating down his poll numbers until, despite the capture of Saddam Hussein in December of '03, he was tied with, or a little behind, a pompous-assed, sphincter-mouthed extremist stiff (essentially Al Gore without the twang), where he remained for the ensuing six months.

That GDub forged ahead after the GOP convention and eventually hung on at the wire - hell, that he wasn't blown out in the spring and summer, rendering the fall garbage time - was a function not of "right psychological moments," but the manifest awfulness of his opponent. If he'd been facing an adversary of any significant degree of savvy, quality, and discipline - i.e. Hillary Clinton - the son, as it were, would have followed in the father's one-term footsteps.

But there is another factor that neither Morris nor his lilliputian barrister appear to have considered: the nature of Bush's agenda and his very style of governance.

To put it grandiously, Dubya is the polar opposite of Bill Clinton. Clinton tried for big ticket initiatives (the tax hike, HillyCare) in his first biennium and got indirectly crucified for them in the 1994 midterms, after which he became poll-obsessed and, as a consequence, never attempted anything bold again. And the result of that was, not surprisingly given the slavish obeisance of the media, that he enjoyed a broad but shallow popularity that he clung to like a life preserver in the scandal hurricanes that finally engulfed him.

GDub couldn't be more different. He has never paid the polls any heed, governed from day one (as Ronald Reagan once put it) as though he were never running for president again, and sought big-ticket initiatives that were popular with the people, as opposed to the left-wing establishment (the war, tax cuts, constitutionalist judges, and yes, Social Security reform). He hasn't tried to get out in front of where he guessed the people were going; he has charted a course and gotten the people to follow him.

In a political landscape like the one that has existed since at least 1992, that means constant, full-scale political combat, in which Mr. Bush has only periodically engaged. And with the media arrayed against him as vehemently as they were in Clinton's back pocket, that means poll numbers that will, absent "rally around the flag" national emergencies like post-9/11, never be as outwardly dazzling as those of Mr. Bill.

This President will never govern by focus group. But even maximizing his public relations efforts - which he should be doing - won't make a dramatic difference in his approval numbers, even adjusting for the built-in bias.

But history will little note nor long remember where Bush rated in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup/ABC/WaPo/NBC/Wall Street Journal/CBS/New York Times/Associated Press/Ipsos/Pick-A-Number survey in June of 2005. It will, however, recognize a transformation of the Middle East for the better.

Not a bad legacy for the man dispossessed of the obscene vanity that is the only legacy his predecessor will ever have.

One Hand Clapping, The Other Grasping For OBL

The puerile malevolence of contemporary Democrats is always competing with their comical pathos. This morning the pathos has nosed ahead again.

Last night Captain's Quarters brought us, "courtesy" of the New York Times, the dumbest controversy ever:

So what happened to the applause?

When President Bush visits military bases, he invariably receives a foot-stomping, loud ovation at every applause line. At bases like Fort Bragg - the backdrop for his Tuesday night speech on Iraq - the clapping is often interspersed with calls of "Hoo-ah," the military's all-purpose, spirited response to, well, almost anything.

So the silence during his speech was more than a little noticeable, both on television and in the hall. On Wednesday, as Mr. Bush's repeated use of the imagery of the Sept. 11 attacks drew bitter criticism from Congressional Democrats, there was a parallel debate under way about whether the troops sat on their hands because they were not impressed, or because they thought that was their orders.

Rarely has wishful thinking so completely overpowered common sense. In the space of two paragraphs, the Times raises a question, provides its own correct answer, and then veers away from the latter in its reflexive fetish to portray universal opposition to and loathing for George W. Bush. Doesn't logic at least suggest that if "clapping, foot-stomping, and hoo-ahs" ordinarily accompany every speech that the President gives to the troops, there must have been orders given to refrain from doing so on this occasion?

Apparently, there are no Vulcans working at the "Grey Whore":

Republicans moved quickly to respond to what was becoming a significant embarrassment.

In what parallel universe, one might wonder (just to indulge the Star Trek motif). Get a load of what the Times regards as "responding to a significant embarrassment":

Captain Tom Earnhardt, a public affairs officer at Fort Bragg who participated in the planning for the president's trip, said that from the first meetings with White House officials there was agreement that a hall full of wildly cheering troops would not create the right atmosphere for a speech devoted to policy and strategy.

"The guy from White House advance, during the initial meetings, said, 'Be careful not to let this become a pep rally,' " Captain Earnhardt recalled in a telephone interview. Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, confirmed that account.

In other words, the assembled soldiers were ordered not to interrupt their Commander-in-Chief with enthusiastic applause. And, as Morrissey sagely observes, if those orders hadn't been given and the address had "become a pep rally," the "see what we want to see" press scribes would have accused the White House of ordering the troops to cheer, because as we all know, even the President's strongest, most vigorous supporters really hate his miserable guts.

"Slow news day?" No, just Bushophobia as Touret's Syndrome.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have "stumbled" across the mother of all "V-8 moments" in the GWOT: Let's catch Osama bin Laden!

Tonight in his speech, President Bush plans to bring up Osama bin Laden:

"The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11 ... if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi ... and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden."

Bush doesn't get it. There's an easy way to make sure we don't "yield the future of the Middle East" to bin Laden: catch him.

That's it. I mean, that's the entire post. Most of the comments were longer, although not markedly more intelligent.

Well, hot damn, why didn't we think of that? Yeeeeehaw, let's throw a posse together and bring in the varmint! Git-R-done!

Except, of course, that by most reliable reports he's now based in Iran, and sending in even the number of special forces personnel and equipment the operation would require would run at least some risk of sparking a war with the mullahgarchy. Which would be just fine with me, but presumeably not our close, dear friends on the other side of the aisle, who are getting the vapors on a Noahic scale over a minor guerrilla war just next door.

And, as well, once bin Laden was in custody that would still leave Boy Assad, the mullahs and their nukes, Zarqawi, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the remnants of al Qaeda, et al to be dealt with.

And leave us not forget that the Dem-igod, Bill Clinton, had three separate opportunities to take bin Laden into custody in the mid-'90s and turned them all down, begging legal technicalities.

Oh, and then there's the celebrity/rock star status that the Extreme Media would instantly bestow upon the 6'4" bloodmister. Crap on a shingle, if you think that the EM is "humanizing" "Uncle" Saddam, they'd be building golden statues of OBL, the man who gave George Bush a black eye and effortlessly eluded capture for years afterwards.

So what is the real calculation behind this proffered "manhunt mandate"? Let's visit the comment I posted at GOP Bloggers last night....

....which I see is not up yet. Felgercarb. Nevertheless....

....it's not complicated: the Democrats have never been able to marshall a majority of public opinion against the GWOT, the way their late-'60s/early-70s antecedents were able to do vis-a-vie Vietnam. 9/11 is simply too stark a monument to the utter failure of the very foreign policy nostrums they demand we return to (which is why they go ballistic whenever the President reminds us of the actual and proper context of this conflict). Since they can't make people forget 9/11 they have to figure a way around it.

However, that can't happen absent external events that are by definition out of the Left's control. All they can do is squawk and agitate and demand and demagogue.

This explains their demand to close Gitmo, since turning loose all those jihadis would make another mass terrorist attack here at home much more likely, and the Democrats could use such an attack to discredit the war, and the President, that "failed to prevent it." And it explains this call to capture bin Laden (as though we're not, and haven't been, trying to do precisely that), since bagging the al Qaeda chieftain and architect of the 9/11 attacks would be used by the Donks, in the context of 9/11, to proclaim the war "over" and its continuance a "threat to national security."

One does wonder, though - if the troops that captured bin Laden didn't break out in clapping, foot-stomping, and "hoo-ahs," would that mean they opposed what they were doing, or had been under White House orders not to gloat....?

What They Voted For

From Mark R. Levin in The Corner:

"How soon some of our liberal friends forget. Among others, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Jay Rockefeller voted for the October 11, 2002 congressional joint resolution authorizing the president, on his discretion, to go to war. Here, in part, is what the resolution said:

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq:

"Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

"Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations ... [emphasis added]

And not a single news person bothered to ask any critics of the President's speech last night how they can square their offense at the President's linking terrorism to the war against Iraq when they did the same exact thing."

Well, of course not. That would indicate that they are objective and after the truth. We all know better than that, don't we?

Just A Big Ego

For a writer who is usually too moderate and soft-spoken for my tastes, Peggy Noonan was in rare form today as she took a rhetorical howitzer and blasted away at the culture of hubris inside the Beltway.

My favorite passage was her powerbombing of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), whose head is evidently swelling like a tin of Jiffy-Pop on a hot stove:

This week comes the previously careful Senator Barack Obama, flapping his wings in Time magazine and explaining that he's a lot like Abraham Lincoln, only sort of better. "In Lincoln's rise from poverty, his ultimate mastery of language and law, his capacity to overcome personal loss and remain determined in the face of repeated defeat - in all this he reminded me not just of my own struggles."

Oh. So that's what Lincoln's for. Actually Lincoln's life is a lot like Mr. Obama's. Lincoln came from a lean-to in the backwoods. His mother died when he was 9. The Lincolns had no money, no standing. Lincoln educated himself, reading law on his own, working as a field hand, a store clerk and a raft hand on the Mississippi. He also split some rails. He entered politics, knew more defeat than victory, and went on to lead the nation through its greatest trauma, the Civil War, and past its greatest sin, slavery.

Barack Obama, the son of two University of Hawaii students, went to Columbia and Harvard Law after attending a private academy that taught the children of the Hawaiian royal family. He made his name in politics as an aggressive Chicago vote hustler in Bill Clinton's first campaign for the presidency.

You see the similarities.

Ouch. If a nice lady like Peggy Noonan leaves you in need of smelling salts and butterfly bandages....

Well, it's like a steel mill in my hometown when I was growing up. It was called the E.T. Pybus Company, and it was located at the bottom of Fifth Street on the banks of the Columbia River. The street ended in a boat launch ramp, leading to the popular slogan of their radio ads:

"If you've passed the E.T. Pybus Company" - SPLASH! - "You've gone too far!"

Ms. Noonan's version is, "Is it no longer possible in American politics to speak of another's greatness without suggesting your own?"

Perhaps; but apparently in inverse proportion to one's proximity to the levers of national power.

What Today's Taiwan and 1939 Poland Have In Common

As Bill Gertz wrote in Sunday's Washington Times, they're both tripwires for global war.

China is building its military forces faster than U.S. intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting fears that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next two years, according to Pentagon officials.

U.S. defense and intelligence officials say all the signs point in one troubling direction: Beijing then will be forced to go to war with the United States, which has vowed to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.

Unlike in the past, they've now got the means to do it, too:

In the past, some defense specialists insisted a Chinese attack on Taiwan would be a "million-man swim" across the Taiwan Strait because of the country's lack of troop-carrying ships.

"We left the million-man swim behind in about 1998, 1999," the senior Pentagon official said. "And in fact, what people are saying now, whether or not that construct was ever useful, is that it's a moot point, because in just amphibious lift alone, the Chinese are doubling or even quadrupling their capability on an annual basis."

Asked about a possible Chinese attack on Taiwan, the official put it bluntly: "In the '07-'08 time frame, a capability will be there that a year ago we would have said was very, very unlikely. We now assess that as being very likely to be there."

While that sobering thought is sinking in, you might want to review my past posts on the burgeoning ChiComm military threat (click here, here, and here). Interestingly, this threat, which has been building for years, is being discussed in the "mainstream" with increasing frequency, for the straightforward reason that it is reaching the point of no return:

China is building capabilities such as aerial refueling and airborne warning and control aircraft that can be used for regional defense and long-range power projection, General Hester said.

It also is developing a maneuverable re-entry vehicle, or MARV, for its nuclear warheads. The weapon is designed to counter U.S. strategic-missile defenses, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The warhead would be used on China's new DF-31 long-range missiles and its new submarine missile, the JL-2.

Work being done on China's weapons and reconnaissance systems will give its military the capability to reach 1,000 miles into the sea, "which gives them the visibility on the movement of not only our airplanes in the air, but also our forces at sea," General Hester said.

Beijing also has built a new tank for its large armed forces. It is known as the Type 99 and appears similar in design to Germany's Leopard-2 main battle tank. The tank is outfitted with new artillery, anti-aircraft and machine guns, advanced fire-control systems and improved engines.

The country's air power is growing through the purchase of new fighters from Russia, such as Su-30 fighter-bombers, as well as the development of its own fighter jets, such as the J-10.

General Hester compared Chinese warplanes with those of the former Soviet Union, which were less capable than their U.S. counterparts, but still very deadly.

"They have great equipment. The fighters are very technologically advanced, and what we know about them gives us pause for concern against ours," he said.

Missiles also are a worry.

"It is their surface-to-air missiles, their [advanced] SAMs and their surface-to-surface missiles, and the precision, more importantly, of those surface-to-surface missiles that provide, obviously, the ability to pinpoint targets that we might have out in the region, or our friends and allies might have," General Hester said.

The advances give the Chinese military "the ability ... to reach out and touch parts of the United States - Guam, Hawaii and the mainland of the United States," he said. [emphasis added]

We're moving beyond sinus-clearing to bowel-evacuating. Such a buildup suggests that the ChiComms have ambitions beyond "reunification" with Taiwan. And, sure enough....

China's rulers have adopted what is known as the "two-island chain" strategy of xtending control over large areas of the Pacific, covering inner and outer chains of islands stretching from Japan to Indonesia.

"Clearly, they are still influenced by this first and second island chain," the intelligence official said.

The official said China's buildup goes beyond what would be needed to fight a war against Taiwan.

The conclusion of this official is that China wants a "blue-water" navy capable of projecting power far beyond the two island chains.

"If you look at the technical capabilities of the weapons platforms that they're fielding, the sea-keeping capabilities, the size, sensors and weapons fit, this capability transcends the baseline that is required to deal with a Taiwan situation militarily," the intelligence official said.

"So they are positioned then, if [Taiwan is] resolved one way or the other, to really become a regional military power as well."

What could Beijing be after with such an enormous, deadly military machine? Well, Mr. Gertz doesn't quote the Pentagon as equating Red China and Nazi Germany for nothing:

For China, Taiwan is not the only issue behind the buildup of military forces. Beijing also is facing a major energy shortage that, according to one Pentagon study, could lead it to use military force to seize territory with oil and gas resources.

The report produced for the Office of Net Assessment, which conducts assessments of future threats, was made public in January and warned that China's need for oil, gas and other energy resources is driving the country toward becoming an expansionist power.

China "is looking not only to build a blue-water navy to control the sea lanes [from the Middle East], but also to develop undersea mines and missile capabilities to deter the potential disruption of its energy supplies from potential threats, including the U.S. Navy, especially in the case of a conflict with Taiwan," the report said.

Where did the Red Chinese obtain the technical know-how to make this "great leap forward"? Simple - they stole it from us.

Chinese spies in the U.S. are busy stealing whatever information, military or otherwise, they can get their hands on, and are under orders to gather information "no matter how trivial," a top defector says.

Speaking by phone to the Washington Times' intelligence-savvy reporter Bill Gertz, Chen Yonglin, until recently a senior political officer at the Chinese Consulate in Sydney, Australia, said, "The United States occupies a unique place in China's diplomacy."

He said that all Chinese government officials are ordered to gather information about the United States.

In fact, Chen said that most Chinese government activity in the United States involves information-gathering carried out by military-related intelligence officers or civilians linked to the Ministry of State Security.

And he also revealed that Chinese owned companies work hand in hand with their military complex – perhaps more disturbing in light of China’s bid for American oil giant Unocal.

"I know that China once got a heavy load of confidential documents from the United States and sent it back to China through the Cosco ship," Chen said, referring to the state-owned China Ocean Shipping Co. The information was "very useful" to China's military and related to "aircraft technology," he added.

I don't wonder. Given the stubbornly Sinofilic foreign policy that administrations of both parties have maintained vis-a-vie the PRC, even after the Tianenman Square massacre and the end of the Cold War when it no longer made the remotest sense, plus Bill Clinton's practically pawning off U.S. military secrets to Beijing for re-election campaign cash in 1995 and 1996, the ChiComms have had greater access to our "military-industrial complex" than the poor, sadsack Soviet commies could have ever dreamed of. Red Chinese military advances that were expected to take twenty-five years or more are now off (our) drawing boards and coming into actual deployment against us.

Chen delivered a number of other revelations, including these two most interesting tidbits:

*Beijing is trying to influence Australia's government through high-level political visits and favorable trade and by offering contracts on energy-related products. Their goal, he explained, is to force Australia to become part of a China-dominated "grand neighboring region" in Asia and to "force a wedge between the U.S. and Australia."

*Beijing is following the strategy of former leader Deng Xiaoping, who urged China to "bide our time, build our capabilities" - military as well as economic and political. "What that means is that when the day is mature, the Chinese government will strike back." He added that the danger of a war over Taiwan is growing. "That is possible as Chinese society is getting more unstable," he said. "Once any serious civil disobedience occurs, the government may call for a war across the Taiwan Strait to gather [political] strength from people."

Dismayingly - and tellingly - Chen hasn't exactly been welcomed with open arms by either the Aussies or ourselves:

Despite his insider information, Chen has been treated as a pariah by Australian authorities. Upon learning of his defection, Australian authorities refused to meet with him and instead contacted the Chinese authorities to inform them. Press reports indicated that the Australian government feared embracing Chen lest it draw the ire of communist China and harm trade relations.

Chen also requested asylum from the U.S. embassy. He was similarly rebuffed. [emphases added]

Frustrated and/or frightened yet? You should be. I wrote back in March of...

...the complete unwillingness of the West, bordering on a mass Stockholm syndrome, to even recognize, much less publicly acknowledge, that there is a ChiComm problem of any kind, never mind a burgeoning threat that could plunge the world into Armageddon. Adolph Hitler's bid for world power, which was also clearly telegraphed, was similarly ignored by Western democracies that simply did not want to confront unpleasant possibilities, thus making those possibilities virtual certainties.

Our defense establishment is finally beginning to do its part to sound the alarm before it's too late:

Michael Pillsbury, a former Pentagon official and specialist on China's military, said the internal U.S. government debate on the issue and excessive Chinese secrecy about its military buildup "has cost us 10 years to figure out what to do."

"Everybody is starting to acknowledge the hard facts," Mr. Pillsbury said. "The China military buildup has been accelerating since 1999. As the buildup has gotten worse, China is trying hard to mask it."

Richard Fisher, vice president of the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said that in 10 years, the Chinese army has shifted from a defensive force to an advanced military soon capable of operations ranging from space warfare to global non-nuclear cruise-missile strikes.

"Let's all wake up. The post-Cold War peace is over," Mr. Fisher said. "We are now in an arms race with a new superpower whose goal is to contain and overtake the United States."

I fear Mr. Pillbury's "everybody" is not all that comprehensive. Ask yourselves this: if the domestic and international Left is apoplectic, and the isolationist Right squeamish, over a minor guerrilla war in Mesopotamia, what are the chances of their closing ranks in support of another land war in East Asia with a "new superpower" brandishing a brand-spanking new, nuclear-armed, U.S.-financed military with the capability of wiping out not just America, but by some estimates, a third of humanity?

As this issue continues to grow in public prominence, expect to hear the chant, "Let Taiwan go," or some such equivalent, as our governing class goes into appeasement overdrive to duck a confrontation that perhaps not even George W. Bush is willing to take on.

And then head for the hills, because, as the Poles did and the Taiwanese will find out to their chagrin, some confrontations are inevitable - and delaying them renders eventual resistance much bloodier, and perhaps...futile.

The Many Faces of Hillary Clinton

Not that I think it will slow down her march to the presidency much, if at all, but I am duty bound to pass on this anti-military action from Senator Thunder Thighs:

During his speech at Fort Bragg Tuesday night, President Bush urged young Americans to consider a career in the military, saying "there is no higher calling than service in our armed forces."

But if Senator Hillary Clinton has her way, it's going to be even harder for the military to meet its recruitment goals.

In a statement posted to her official Senate Web site, Clinton blasts the Pentagon for "infringing on the privacy of high school students" by trying to find out if any of them might be good candidates for voluntary military service.

In an apparent blast at the armed forces, Clinton declared, "It is critical that we do everything we can to make sure that our most sensitive personal information stays out of the wrong hands."

The Pentagon - "the wrong hands"?

Her words, ladies and gents. Rather curious for someone who scored a seat on the Armed Services Committee as a means of building up credibility on national security issues. If she were any other Dem I would take one look at such dizzying zig-zagging and dismiss her presidential ambitions as something not to be taken seriously.

But this is Hillary CLINTON we're talking about. And the normal rules of politics do not apply to her or her weak-tickered, lothario hubby.

Still, it doesn't hurt to file blurbs like this away for future reference. Who knows, they might still make a difference.

Or she might co-sponsor a bill to reinstate a military draft. Amazingly enough, that would be her most logical next step.

If so, don't be surprised if she suckers a Republican into being her fall guy co-sponsor.

Chuck Hagel better turn off his cell phone for the next few weeks.

UPDATE: I'm guessing Mrs. Clinton won't like this report....

Half-Wit Response

Well, this was to be expected, but the sheer ignorance of the Democratic leadership in general, and Nancy Pelosi in particular, is still somewhat breathtaking. In her response to Bush’s excellent speech, she said:

"The President's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments," House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said. "He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."

Why on earth would the Democrats choose such a dim bulb to be their leader in the House? She is upset that Bush mentioned 9/11 in a speech about the War on Terror? To borrow an expression used frequently by my teenagers…DUH!

Then there’s her brilliant counterpart in the Senate:

"The President's numerous references to September 11 did not provide a way forward in Iraq," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said. "They only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al-Qaida remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America."

Bush’s comments very clearly showed his resolve and what he expects to do in Iraq, just like he has been saying since this whole thing started. It’s not his fault that the Democrats do not grasp what we’re fighting for, or more accurately, do not CARE what we’re fighting for, as long as they can find some opportunities to trash the President and our military.

Of course they don’t want the public to be reminded about 9/11. That might strengthen public resolve and therefore our mission in Iraq, and THAT could lead to victory for America and therefore reflect positively on her President. Can’t have that, can we? Wouldn't it be refreshing to have someone on the Left actually stand up and support the President and our troops in a time of war? Wishful thinking, I know.

Honestly, these people make me nauseous. I agree with Jim, if I had to listen to them for more than a minute or two I might have to take up drinking.

JAS ADDS: Sorry to butt in again, Jen, but I just can't he'p it.

Let's take Crazy Nancy first:

"The President's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments..."

No, they put his arguments, and the war, in its proper context. Which you can tell by her ensuing sentence:

"He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."

If there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq, she wouldn't be so desperate to detach one from the other. [Andrew McCarthy and Brother Hinderaker do the Saddam-al Qaeda connection rundown yet again] And what's this "sacred ground" shinola? Can't be very "sacred" to her ideological fellow travelers in Gotham who are intent on constructing that "Blame America first" museum where the towers once stood. Pity no reporter asked her about that.

As to Dirty Harry....

"The President's numerous references to September 11 did not provide a way forward in Iraq..."

Remembering Pearl Harbor didn't provide a quicker way up Monte Cassino or Mt. Suribachi in World War II, either. But Pearl Harbor is what got us into that war, just as 9/11 got us into this one.

"They only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al-Qaida remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America."

And which party is it, Senator Reid, that wants to close down Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay and turn loose bin Laden's minions who are characterized by the following?

Many of the orange jumpsuit-clad detainees fight their captors at every opportunity, openly bragging of their desire to kill Americans. One has promised that, if released, he would find MPs in their homes through the internet, break into their houses at night, and “cut the throats of them and their families like sheep.” Others claim authority and vindication to kill women, children, and other innocents who oppose their jihadist mission authorized by the Koran (the same one that hangs in every cell from a specially-designed holder intended to protect it from a touching the cell floor – all provided at U.S. taxpayer expense). One detainee was heard to tell another: “One day I will enjoy sucking American blood, although their blood is bitter, undrinkable….” These recalcitrant detainees are known euphemistically as being “non-compliant.” They attack guards whenever the soldiers enter their cells, trying to reach up under protective facemasks to gouge eyes and tear mouths. They make weapons and try to stab the guards or grab and break limbs as the guards pass them food.

These are the animals, Senator, for whose well-being and "dignity" the black hearts of you and your party so cynically bleed, and whose apocalyptic wrath you would unleash on the American civilian population in the name of "restoring a good name" to a US of A whose reputation was just fine until you and your co-horts went into maximum overdrive to systematically trash it, to the gleeful delight of our Islamist enemies. Probably the only Muslim entity that wasn't thrilled with your quislingism was al-Jazeera, and only because the American press is threatening to put them out of the enemy propaganda business.

I don't call these people half-witted (though their malevolently obsolete ideology makes that a default condition); I call them disloyal. I call them political mercenaries who have functionally seceded from the Union and will passively ally themselves with any enemy who can ancillarily tow them back to power over it.

Mark this down well: libs want Gitmo closed to enhance the chances of another mass terrorist attack on our soil, so that they can convincingly claim the GWOT is pointless and counterproductive and should be abandoned, and on that platform take back power in 2006 and/or 2008.

The path to a left-wing Democrat resurgence is soaked in American blood. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the logic of their own rhetoric leads to no other rational conclusion.

UPDATE: Cap'n Morrissey shoots some newspaper editorial skeet.

Deconstructionism

Okay, here it is, a day late but hopefully not a dollar short.

First, the dry summation:

In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld the ability of New London, Connecticut, to seize people's homes to make way for an office, residential and retail complex supporting a new $300 million research facility of the Pfizer pharmaceutical company. The city had argued that the project served a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution because it would increase tax revenues, create jobs and improve the local economy.

A group of homeowners in New London's Fort Trumbull area had fought the city's attempt to impose eminent domain, arguing that their property could be seized only to serve a clear public use such as building roads or schools or to eliminate blight. The homeowners, some of whom had lived in their house for decades, also argued that the public would benefit from the proposed project only if it turned out to be successful, making the "public use" requirement subject to the eventual performance of the private business venture.

And the group of homeowners were right, of course. As the good Cap'n put it...

This does a tremendous injustice to the property owners of New London and everywhere in the United States. This puts the entire notion of property rights into jeopardy. Now cities can literally force people off their land in order to simply increase their tax base, which is all that New London accomplished in this smelly manuever.

The gents at Powerline - who are, after all, lawyers - expressed no astonishment at this ruling, saying that it was, in fact, a long time coming:

The Court's decision is disappointing, but hardly surprising. Indeed, if you are the least bit surprised by the decision, I would suggest that you haven't been paying attention. As Justice Thomas makes clear in his brilliant dissent, the Court's decision is simply the incremental extension of its wayward "public use" jurisprudence.

Takings similar to New London's have occurred for years all over the United States. In 2000, for example, the property of a profitable car dealership in Richfield, Minnesota was condemned by the city on precisely the same grounds as the plaintiffs' homes in Kelo and given to Best Buy for the construction of its corporate headquarters. The Minnesota Supreme Court split 3-3 and thereby affirmed lower court rulings sustaining the public use prong of the takings requirement. For the past hundred years the Supreme Court's case law has taken an extremely broad and ahistorical reading of the public use component of the takings clause.

However, TKS's Jim Geraghty - who, aside from being a dead ringer for Sportsradio KJR's Steve Sandmeyer, is not an attorney in the slightest - grasps how Kelo is a crystalization point for the judicial imperialism issue:

Folks, this Supreme Court decision is as mind-blowing as anything I've seen on the political arena in a while. I was on NRANews via phone a little while back (sorry for the lack of heads up) and the second-amendment crowd has always been very interested in property rights and individual rights. Well, Cam and company are fired up about this — maybe the most since last year's election. I think this decision is going to be a political earthquake, since the blogstorm is already building.

This is a huge political opportunity to the figure, Republican or Democrat, who grasps its power to homeowners (or even renters who want to own a home someday) and who leads the fight to overturn this, by Constitutional amendment if necessary.

Which is, of course, pointless, since that very same SCOTUS would simply "reinterpret" any such Amendment to suit its interventionist whims. In another post the same day, the aforementioned Mr. Morrissey hybridized the previous two angles:

Here are the echoes of protest and warning that have gone unheeded until, perhaps, we are too late to stop the worst of its damage.

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, in 1916: “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what judges say it is . . . .”

Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone, in 1936: “ . . . the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint.”

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in 1930: “As the decisions now stand, I see hardly any limit but the sky to the invalidating of those rights if they happen to strike a majority of this Court as for any reason undesirable.”

Justice Robert H. Jackson, in 1953: “Rightly or wrongly, the belief is widely held by the practicing profession that this court no longer respects impersonal rules of law but is guided in these matters by personal impressions which from time to time may be shared by a majority of Justices. Whatever has been intended, this Court also has generated an impression in which much of the judiciary that regard for precedents and authorities is obsolete, that words no longer mean what they have always meant to the profession, that the law knows no fixed principles.”

Justice Felix Frankfurter, in 1949: “Because the powers exercised by this Court are inherently oligarchic, Jefferson all of his life thought of the Court as an ‘irresponsible body’ and ‘independent of the nation itself.’ The Court is not saved from being oligarchic because it professes to act in the service of humane ends. As history amply proves, the judiciary is prone to misconceive the public good by confounding private notions with constitutional requirements, and such misconceptions are not subject to legitimate displacement by the will of the people except at too slow a pace.”

Justice John M. Harlan, in 1970: “ . . . the federal judiciary, which by express constitutional provision is appointed for life, and therefore cannot be held responsible by the electorate, has no inherent general authority to establish the norms for the rest of society. It is limited to elaboration and application of the precepts ordained in the Constitution by the political representatives of the people. When the Court disregards the express intent and understanding of the Framers, it has invaded the realm of the political process to which the amending power is committed, and it has violated the constitutional structure which it is its highest duty to protect.”

As my reader writes, the high court has elevated itself to the point it is highly reminiscent of, "L'etat, c'est moi" ("I am the State!), the reply given by Louis XIV to his parliament when they dared to challenge his authority.

Echoes a commenter at Instapundit:

Some of the luster attached to dirt has been severely diminished for the small investor class. I've made a few dollars in real estate and now I'm going to have to look elsewhere. Having the capriciousness of government looming over my property takes all the safety out of the equation. On an even more serious note, the three pillars of prosperity for emerging nations are free markets, rule of law, and private property rights. We just got busted down to third world status. [emphasis added]

That ain't hyperbole, ladies and gents. Just take a gander at the aforelinked dissent of Justice Thomas, of which this is but one morsel:

The Court has elsewhere recognized “the overriding respect for the sanctity of the home that has been embedded in our traditions since the origins of the Republic,” … when the issue is only whether the government may search a home. Yet today the Court tells us that we are not to “second-guess the City’s considered judgments,”... when the issue is, instead, whether the government may take the infinitely more intrusive step of tearing down petitioners’ homes. Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not. [emphasis added]

This dissent has persuaded no less than Jude Wanniski that Thomas is the best choice the President could make for the next Chief Justice. For my take, I'm just glad my house is sufficiently out in the boonies that the developers will take another decade at least to build out this far.

Perhaps the best postscript to this latest exercise in quasi-crypto-communism was mentioned widely in the blogosphere today, but will be put into words by my email correspondent George Meredith:

Free Star Media, LLC

For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the Kelo v. City of New London decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire, seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged.

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

# # #

Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC

Breyer's, Kennedy's, Stevens', and Ginsburg's domiciles should all be next. After all, there's more than one strain of justice, and the poetic variety is one most Americans, including this one, never get tired of.

UPDATE: A Cornerite (Mark Noonan didn't say which one) had what may be an even better suggestion.

The quickest way to reverse Kelo is to find some conservative town in Utah somewhere to shut down an abortion clinic in order to make room for a Wal-Mart.

It is, when all is said and done, still all about just exactly whose ox is the one getting gored. As long as libs are the ones benefitting from this brand of soft fascism (via, they hope, enhanced tax revenue) and their victims are "little people" who can't fight back (and whom they still claim to represent!), Utopia is a wonderful thing. From the business end of it (hint: often requires generous amounts of lubricant...), the view is quite a bit different.

The aforementioned Mr. Geraghty has a prediction about that:

This will get reversed, either through constitutional amendment or through another case when the court's ideological makeup has changed. But in the meantime, I think you will see this leading to violence, when people are being involuntarily forced from their homes. It happens even in the best of circumstances when there's a clear public good like a road or a dam... Citizens will resist violently when they're getting forced out for an office park, a parking garage, a Starbucks...

As with everything else in this media-dominated age, it's all about publicity. And thanks to the Kelo decision, the good guy side of the judicial nomination issue just may have gained enough to overcome John McCain's "Memo of Understanding" sellout.

Let "Remember Kelo!" be the right's battle cry in the SCOTUS wars to come.

And keep the bulldozers on hot standby - and aimed at Olympus.

Bush Brings It

The full text of the President's speech tonight can be found here.

These were, IMHO, the money grafs:

We have more work to do, and there will be tough moments that test America’s resolve. We are fighting against men with blind hatred — and armed with lethal weapons — who are capable of any atrocity. They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality. They take innocent lives to create chaos for the cameras. They are trying to shake our will in Iraq — just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They will fail. The terrorists do not understand America. The American people do not falter under threat — and we will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins.

America and our friends are in a conflict that demands much of us. It demands the courage of our fighting men and women … it demands the steadfastness of our allies … and it demands the perseverance of our citizens. We accept these burdens — because we know what is at stake. We fight today, because Iraq now carries the hope of freedom in a vital region of the world — and the rise of democracy will be the ultimate triumph over radicalism and terror. And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens — and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there … we will fight them across the world — and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.

Very nice. Kind of the rhetorical equivalent of pouring cheap beer into Uncle Teddy's martini snifter. Expect the Fifth Column to be sputtering even more stridently, and know that somewhere, Karl Rove is grinning from ear to ear.

Can't help adding a caveat, though: what about Iran and Red China? Is winning half a war and ignoring the other half, while our ultimate enemy is slipping in behind us, really sound national security strategy?

Maybe that's in the next speech.

I hope.

UPDATE: The Cap'n has reaction to the reaction. Love the line about, "Oh, goody. Charles Rangel is on the tube now. Time to get a beer." I'm a teetotaler myself, but if I had to listen to Rangel or any other member of the anti-war crowd for any stretch of time measured in more than seconds, I think I'd have to take up drinking. Between the hate speech, shrill stridency, and the policy equivalent of the August network TV lineup (wall-to-wall reruns, and not good ones, either), well, isn't that what they make TV bricks for?

I mean, come on, seriously, turn the whole kit & kaboodle in Iraq over to the EUnuchs? That's like going to the gym to lift weights and having an armless guy spot you on the bench press.

On the other hand, it's kind of a novelty to close my eyes and picture John Kerry speaking in a gravelly Brooklynesque accent. Though not trading in the Perrier for a long-necked bottle of Colt-45 - I don't think Lurch could ever get that hammered....

G-Dub, Born-Again (heh) Deficit Hawk

As the President is finding out on the bloated highway bill, few, if any, are buying it:

Ten days ago, according to White House sources and individuals who attended the meeting, White House Chief of Staff Andy Card called a meeting with interested parties (mostly supporters) on the highway bill, which has been held up for close to two years in negotiations.

President Bush is on record as saying it will veto the larded legislation in its current form, which is reaching upwards of $300 billion in taxpayer-funded pork projects....

Upon hearing from Card that the President remained committed to a veto, members of Americans for Transportation Mobility (ATM), a coalition of more than 50 interest groups and companies, did not take the news well. "They pretty much told Card a veto wasn't going to matter, and dared him to let the President do it," says an attendee at the meeting. "There are other bills the President should have vetoed before this one, and he didn't. If he wants to be embarrassed and have that veto overridden, let him try." [emphasis added]

This would explain the following two comments that hew very close to that defiantly profligate line:

"President Bush doesn't need a veto fight right now," says a Capitol Hill lobbyist. "He's going to have a tough go on the Central American Free Trade Agreement [CAFTA], and Social Security is stalled out. His people need to tell him to swallow hard and sign the highway bill."

"You look at something like the highway bill, and their legislative people should have been all over this months, years ago, working with us," says a lobbyist working for a corporate ATM member. "They can't just pull us in at the last minute and say that it's their way or nothing. In this case, they were doomed to fail, and, frankly, they seemed surprised by what they heard from us, which was surprising to us. They should have known we wouldn't roll over."

I seem to remember an old saying about picking one's spots. With the proximity of so many other, bigger-ticket issues on the same policy buffet, making a big stink over a highway bill that was always going to be an appalling mess doesn't look, from a big-picture standpoint, like a spot worth picking any fight over.

More to the point, if you come into office, like Bush43 did, with no reputation for frugality (like, to cite an obvious example, Ronald Reagan), then you have to earn it once you get there. But the President never even made the pretense of exercising fiscal restraint in his first term, signing every spending bill that came before him, including such appropriations Roman orgies as the reinstatement of farm subsidies and the prescription drug entitlement that he personally muscled through Congress, to no great political benefit to remotely offset the predictable run-away liability burden it's adding to already-tottering Medicare. Now he belatedly seeks to clamp down somewhere, in more or less token/symbolic fashion, and settled on the highway bill. And both lobbiests and legislators on both sides of the aisle, far from being chastened by this sudden attempt at presidential leadership, are having more than a few hearty guffaws at his expense.

Far from being "limited" to "only" $284 billion, this transportation- justified monstrosity should be zeroed out altogether. Since when is a little less waste a monument to fiscal sanity, much less integrity?

But such is George W. Bush's niggardly stret cred where federal spending is concerned that he can't even sell a modest nibbling 'round the edges to members of his own party.

Good thing the tax-cut-fueled economic boom is throwing off its usual blizzard of additional tax revenue to rapidly shrink the federal deficit, just as it did in the late '90s. Because with a decade of entrenchment in the perquisites of Beltway power, and a two-term presidency marked by the biggest spending level in real terms since LBJ's Great Society, it's difficult to see the Republican Party standing for smaller budgets and limited government again any time soon.

"an inability to play hardball"

Whose fault is the continued obstruction of John Bolton's UN ambassadorial nomination? According to Deborah Orin of the New York Post, some of the blame rests at the feet of the man who appointed him:

In a column in today's New York Post, Deborah Orin wonders what has stopped the White House from standing on the roof tops and bragging about ambassadorial nominee John Bolton's great victory at the U.N., when he led the successful fight to get the U.N. to reverse its notorious "Zionism is racism" resolution?

Orin, the Post's Bureau Chief, contends that Bolton's success in this case proves that he is anything but too abrasive to represent the U.S. at the U.N.

She cites as the kind of ammunition the White House could use, a letter from the the Anti-Defamation League, which praised Bolton when he accomplished what was deemed to be impossible in 1991.

Wrote ADL chief Abe Foxman in a letter backing his stalled nomination as U.N.:

"We will long remember him as a man of principle and integrity who, as assistant secretary of state for international organizations, played a leading role in the successful U.S. effort to repeal the infamous 'Zionism is racism' resolution."

What could possibly make as ostensibly bold, feisty, and combative an operation as the Bush43 White House so weak-kneed about touting such a record of Turtle Bay accomplishment? Oh, you're not gonna like this next graf....

Orin attributes the White House's obvious reluctance to exploit what could be a decisive ace in the hole to their fear it might make Bolton appear to be too pro-Israel in a body noted for its anti-Israel sentiments.

{*sigh*} You just knew the word "fear" was going to be in there somewhere. But this "fear" makes no sense at all - isn't the whole point of sending a man like John Bolton (as opposed to simply quitting that den of thieves, thugs, and dictators) to speak out boldly for genuine UN reform? How could Bolton possibly do that and at the same time have to tiptoe through the anti-Semitic tulips? And why would the Bushies expect him to? Criminy, now the "neocons" are suddenly worried about appearing too pro-Israel? Either Bush has gone loopy or Ms. Orin has.

Bill Kristol doesn't go quite that far, and manages to raise some eminently practical points:

Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol calls it incompetence and an inability to play hardball.

"They've let the Democrats demonize (Bolton) and done nothing about it," he told Orin. "He has a record at the U.N. and it's a very good record, but no one knows it. They've let the Democrats block him without paying a price." Kristol says.

Kristol wonders why the GOP hasn't run ads in Florida demanding to know why Democratic Senator Bill Nelson, up for re-election in 2006, is opposing a U.N. nominee who wants to get tough on Fidel Castro, and who reversed the U.N.'s appalling "Zionism is racism," policy. That, he says, would be bound to get Nelson's attention, given the clout of Cuban-American and Jewish voters in the state.

Orin ends by recommending a recess appointment, sentiments echoed by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts last Friday. And they are far from the only prominent voices on the right making this recommendation.

I guess the upcoming July 4th recess will tell the tale. There'll be no better opportunity to stick Bolton up the Dems and clear the decks for the expected SCOTUS battle royal. If the President still won't do it, whether out of fear of "world opinion" or pointless obstinancy or sheer masochism, then maybe he's become a hobbled waterfowl after all.

Open Borders & Homeland Security Don't Mix

Oh, isn't this little news nugget just a dandy sinus-clearer:

Liberals who objected to the passage of the Real ID Act of 2005 two months ago will be happy to know that federal immigration officials have uncovered twelve illegal aliens who managed to obtain licenses to transport hazardous materials thanks to lax standards under the old system.

In one case, a man from the terrorist hotbed of Pakistan - who had been ordered to leave the U.S. nine years ago - was found to be driving a tanker truck filled with gasoline for Exxon, the Knight Ridder news service said. [emphasis added]

"This is a national security issue," said Elissa Brown, the special agent in charge of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's office in Chicago, where six men were taken into custody. "Illegal aliens should not have the freedom to transport hazardous materials throughout the United States," she told Knight Ridder.

One year my high school marching band entered a competition in Spokane, WA. We did alright, but another band (I forget which one, which is okay since it was twenty-three years ago) outclassed every other band in the field. When they were announced as the winners over the Joe Albi Stadium PA system, our bass drummer cracked, "Nooooooo shit; God, what was your first guess?" Everybody on the field heard him, and everybody burst out laughing.

God bless Agent Brown, but that was a "Nooooooo shit" statement. Only this one is no source of merriment.

Pity she can't convince the President of the critical necessity to tighten up our immigration policies. Because if there's any area where Dubya's credibility on the GWOT is nakedly vulnerable, that issue is his achilles heel.

Call to Duty

Amidst all the trappings and patriotic flourishes of a nation at war, from Fort Bragg President Bush will address a wobbly nation concerning the big picture in the Middle East, the War on Terror and HOW supporting the democratic movement in Iraq will ultimately result in a VICTORY over Islamic tyrrany and terrorism.

Polls show, to the delight of anti-war Democrats and the cut & run MoveOn crowd, that the American people are skeptical and impatient with the War in Iraq; however, those same polls indicate that Americans do NOT want the USA to leave the Iraqis to the "mercy" of foreign Jihadists, Saddam loyalists and Iranian/Syrian agents-of-influence eager for a time line for withdrawal of US troops so they can establish a beachhead for international terror training grounds in Iraq. According to Rumsfeld, abandoning Iraq before the completion of the mission "would throw a lifeline to terrorists."

Since the "time line" idea has been effectively refuted by military strategists and experts that know of what they speak, President Bush should trumpet the underreported successes and tell us what steps we're going to take to complete the transfer of power to the Iraqi government while emphasizing the keys to victory and our return home, is first, the competence and capability of the Iraqi security forces to replace coalition forces and second, the inclusion of the Sunni insurgents in the political process thus reducing the insurgency's numbers from 20,000 to a managable 5,000 criminal thugs and foreign Islamic extremists.

"Today we're at a critical moment in the history of this proud nation." GW was talking about Iraq with Prime Minister Ibrahim al Jaafari at his side in the Rose Garden..but the USA is facing a "moment" too..We have undertaken the bold task of reshaping the Middle East, draining the swamp of extremism and depravity that breeds the lethal form of terrorism that attacked us on 9/ll..If we don't show unyielding resolve in Iraq, the region will be plunged into the darkness of the likes of Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and Osama binLaden...the riches of Iraq will be used against the USA and the free World...OR the CIC can rally patriotic hearts in this Country to stand firmly behind the Iraqi people and WIN a decisive battle against the forces of evil thus convincing the powers that be in the region that the SOLDIERS and the American PEOPLE are NOT GIVING UP!!

Tonight Americans will be called to decide: Are we weak kneed quitters? OR..is this still the home of the brave?...duty, honor, country!!..which is it?

The Emily Latella Brigade Storms Gitmo

Remember the Democrats' anti-military/anti-Gitmo crusade? Well, a few House Donks actually went down to Camp X-Ray and looked around for themselves, as they've been invited to do ever since the place opened, and now they say that "conditions have dramatically 'improved'":

During a tour of the U.S. prison for suspected terrorists on Saturday, House Republicans and Democrats, including one who has advocated closing the facility, said the United States has made progress in improving conditions and protecting detainees' rights.

"The Guantanamo we saw today is not the Guantanamo we heard about a few years ago," said Representative Ellen Tauscher, D-CA.

Or even a few days ago, for that matter....

After getting a classified briefing from base commanders, the House delegation ate lunch with troops - the same meal of chicken with orange sauce, rice and okra that detainees were served....

No word on whether the Dem contingent threw their meals on the mess hall floor, grabbed serving spoons and metal trays, and did their Hawkeye Pierce immitation, beating the trays, dancing around the tables, and shouting, "They want something else! They want something else!"

They then toured several of the barbed-wire camps where detainees are housed, viewing small cells, dusty recreation yards and common areas.

From behind one-way mirrors, lawmakers watched interrogators grilling three individual terror suspects. None of the interrogators touched detainees.

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, D-TX, is one of many Democrats who have called for an independent commission to investigate abuse allegations and have said the facility should close. She said she stood by that position, but acknowledged, "What we've seen here is evidence that we've made progress."

Rough translation: "Hey, we were wrong about this place. Boy, I'm dumber than a chia pet; thank Gaia I have a safe seat."

Other red-state Dems, particularly over in the Senate, do not, however, which is why the PR "all-clear" can probably be sounded on the drive of the organized numbnuttery for this "independent" commission "that at best w[ould] duplicate investigative work that has already been done and at worst replicate the 9/11 Commission at its lowest, most politicized moments."

Shows what a little Pentagon pushback can accomplish, such as SecDef Rumsfeld's reminder on Meet the Press yesterday that the aggressive interrogations of terrorists at "that hellhole" have helped prevent new attacks and, thus, saved American lives. Summarized Double-H:

[General] Abizaid's strong performance on Face the Nation yesterday, as well as Rumsfeld's string of appearances, seems to indicate that the Pentagon has figured out it cannot allow the left's propaganda on the home front to go unanswered in the MSM. Good. The best antidote to Vietnam Syndrome is trustworthy information.

It's damnable that whenever the U.S. armed forces have to fight anyplace, it's guaranteed to be at least a two-front war, with the second front being at home versus the DisLoyal Opposition. But modern war, not unlike proverbial charity, appears to have to begin at home.

Pity that that front is the only one on which the good guys are limited to playing defense. I guess that's what happens when one is stuck with weak, unreliable allies.

Meanwhile, the DO is "moving on" to the next attack. Wherever and whatever it is, they'd better hope that one of these pitched propaganda battles finally sticks (i.e. gets massive "outside" help from the enemy to prop up a Vietnam gimmick they can't keep inflated even with all their hot, fetid air); otherwise, as Michael Barone opines and Hewitt echoes, "The political consequences of the Democrats' decision to press for a cut-and-run strategy in the face of virulent jihadism [may end up being] certain disaster next November."

But at least Shield Jackson-Lee will still have her lonely seat.

[HT: CQ]

Easy on a Sunday...All Day

What do you get when you pour morning worship, quality matrimonial time while the kids are out at an afternoon Awana camp car wash fundraiser, and stumbling across a six-hour Blue Collar Comedy Tour marathon on Comedy Central?

A day of rest. Which, on any other day of the week would be "I couldn't get my lazy ass off the couch and into the den."

Checking my "Domestic Policy" folder, Deroy Murdock has an excellent summation of the Democrat positions on Social Security that can be distilled down to a trifecta:

1) Do nothing and let Social Security bankrupt the country;

2) Pay for unreformed Social Security by runaway hyperinflation;

3) Pay for unreformed Social Security by taxing the country into a permanent depression.

But God forbid personal accounts....

Ruben Navarrette, Jr., casts the educracy's brain-dead resistance to any and all educational reform as a lopsided generational standoff.

And Diane Ravich pursues the educratic outrage of "ethnomathematics."

I meant to get to last week's Kelo lightning bolt hurled from the summit of Olympus, but Larry the Cable Guy's story about his moley sister was just too captivating. I'll try to post something on that, as well as today's typically incoherent Ten Commandment rulings, later today.

UPDATE: The "McLieberman" attempt to resurrect the cold, deadening hand of "Kyoto Lite" was snuffed again by the full Senate last week, proving, I suppose, that the upper chamber isn't completely useless after all.

How Long Will Just Hate "Speech" Be Enough?

Over at Powerline, Paul Mirengoff has a Hollywood friend who saw the light and abandoned his Democrat ways. Apparently he has seen first-hand what Karl Rove was talking about, to wit:

I'm intrigued by the liberal furor over Karl Rove's remark about the difference in reactions to 9/11. As my old grandfather used to say, "You throw a stone into a pack of dogs and the one that barks the loudest is the one you hit."

Everything Rove said is absolutely true. I entertained at a 50th anniversary party for a well-known feminist leader about 10 days after 9/11. Much of the liberal elite of the Twin Cities was present. I was wearing a little flag pin that elicited considerable mockery. In a post-performance conversation with 3 prominent DFL activists, they all agreed that 1) America had it coming 2) much of the rest of the world cheered the attacks and that was not a bad thing; 3) the attack was purely a "criminal" matter that required the issuing of indictments, but surely not a war, and finally and most horrifically, a direct quote, "At least we got rid of Barbara Olson."

This from the “loving, tolerant” Left. As is readily seen by Jim’s compilation regarding the liberals’ response to 9-11, there really is no argument that Rove’s analysis is completely correct. And how about that media coverage, huh? From The Washington Times:

Major news outlets that largely ignored the controversial comments of the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate last week immediately reported on a fiery speech by White House adviser Karl Rove, giving the story front-page prominence and the lead of newscasts.

Early yesterday morning, NBC’s Today show, the CBS Morning Show, and ABC’s Good Morning America all featured the Democratic outrage over Mr. Rove’s comments that after September 11 liberals “wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers” while conservatives “prepared for war.”

Okay…but didn’t Dick Durbin say something controversial just the week before…? You’d never know it from the mainstream media.

On June 14, Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin compared the military’s interrogation techniques at the prison camp at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to that of the Nazis and other murderous regimes. Yet CBS did not broadcast a single story on the Illinois Democrat’s comments. Today and Good Morning America and those networks’ nightly news programs didn’t air anything about it until the senator apologized after a week of complaints by Republicans, the Anti-Defamation League and veterans groups.

Heck, they aren’t even *trying* to hide their bias any more, are they?

JAS ADDS: Michelle Malkin glommed a slew of lefty "greeting" messages to a Huff & Puff post on Dick Cheney's alleged hospitalization for heart problems before dear old Arianna deigned to clean up the mess:

Hasn't he had his "last throes" of chest pains yet?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 24, 2005 10:28 PM

***

I wonder how many regular readers to this pathetic, self-important blog are hoping that Cheney comes out with a sheet over his head...?

Posted by: Eric at June 24, 2005 10:32 PM

***

His heart is listening to all the lies coming out of his mouth. It can't take much more of this drivel.

Posted by: Fred Colton at June 24, 2005 10:33 PM

***

I wish the evil zombie would stop leaving his underground bunker. Surely, there's a medical ward where he lurks below the surface, near Washington, D.C.

Posted by: Citizen Milenko at June 24, 2005 10:37 PM

***

You bet we losers want him dead. And I'm glad to be a loser. If I were a winner, I'd have to be around the kind of assholes who like Bush and Cheney.

Posted by: Medina at June 24, 2005 10:37 PM

***

"Last throes," does one suppose? Here's hoping.

Posted by: HopingAgainst"Hoffman" at June 24, 2005 10:37 PM

***

You're all assuming he actually still has a heart. I don't think so. I think it was replaced by a teflon pump a long time ago. Therefore he can no longer feel any pain.

Posted by: Don P at June 24, 2005 10:42 PM

***

"I wonder how many regular readers to this pathetic, self-important blog are hoping that Cheney comes out with a sheet over his head...?"

Actually, Eric, I was thinking more along the lines of a stake through his heart.

Posted by: Chuck Feney at June 24, 2005 11:08 PM

Victor Davis Hanson wonders, as I have, where all this runaway hate rhetoric of the left will lead once just violent speech no longer provides libs a catharsis:

As a result, the bar is lowering. In today's climate, Alfred Knopf has already published a novel about killing the president. Charlie Brooker writing in the Guardian in London prayed for another Lee Harvey Oswald to take out George W. Bush. Comedians, New York plays and art exhibits also bandy about assassination.

Each time a public official evokes Hitler to demonize the President, the American effort in Iraq or its conservative supporters, cheap rhetorical fantasy becomes only that much closer to a nightmarish reality where the unstable, here and abroad, act on the belief America really is Hitler's Germany.

We will all soon reap what the ignorant are now sowing.

You know, another difference between Bush's America and Hitler's Germany is that before the latter was destroyed and its true hideous nature fully exposed, it wasn't, well, Hitler's Germany, and Hitler himself wasn't Hitler, as those terms are understood today. Thanks to the hideous efforts of the domestic and international Left, far too many people here and abroad look upon the former as equivalent to the latter "pre-emptively," and wouldn't be too awfully apologetic after its - and/or its leader's - downfall when the hideous nature attributed to it/him was proven to be utterly, and hideously, false.

Words have consequences. It is imperative that the consequences of the Left's hate speech be redirected to its sources before they can impact beyond the infliction of partisan aggravation.

The Legend of Karl the Great

For all the "evil" genius the Democrats petulantly attribute to Bush political guru Karl Rove, it always makes me wish that he was even half the svengali they say he is. That way he could just wave his magic wand, or employ some Jedi mind tricks (which only work on weak minds, as Star Wars geeks will recall), and Donk obstructionism on...well, everything, give or take an issue, would evaporate, and America (and the world) could live happily ever after.

I don't know that he's necessarily a "genius" at all. Rather, not unlike the late Lee Atwater, he is the rarest of creatures, a Republican political strategist who (a) knows his opponents and (b) isn't afraid to push the buttons that activate their weaknesses.

Jen covered what Rove said about the questionability of Dem priorities at a Wednesday New York Conservative Party fundraising event. My reaction to it was twofold: (1) elation that finally, some Republican outside the grassroots was firing back; and (2) fascination that the other side reacted precisely as I - and, evidently, Karl the Great - would have expected.

Now, then, what did Rove really say that blew lefty doors off? He contrasted liberal and conservative reactions to 9/11. He cited conservative strength and seriousness versus liberal weakness, feckless pacifism, and moral cowardice. And he drew a line of progression between that post-9/11 lib pathos and the outright sedition of Dick Durbin a week earlier.

To listen to the Donk wailing and gnashing of teeth, you'd think Rove had burned Hillary Clinton in effigy or something.

White House adviser Karl Rove should either apologize or resign for saying liberals responded to the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes by wanting to "prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Democrats said Thursday.

Apologize for what? Criticizing them? My, how highly they think of themselves. Meanwhile, I can't recall anybody on the Republican side in any official capacity who ever called for Dick Durbin's resignation.

Back to the hysterics...

Adding to the rancor, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, suggested that Republican charges that Democrats were undermining the war on terror with their criticism of Administration policies amounted to an act of desperation.

"The President wanted to go to Iraq in the worst possible way and he did," Pelosi said. "The President is on the ropes."

That, of course, is not "criticism of Administration policies," it is dishonest fantasizing and wishful thinking. Indeed, it is precisely what Rove was describing.

Obviously the Dems' fax machines were were on maximum overdrive:

"Karl Rove should immediately and fully apologize for his remarks or he should resign," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-NV, said in a statement. "I hope the President will join me in repudiating these remarks."

Ah, yes, in just the way, no doubt, that Dirty Harry "immediately and fully apologized" when he called the President a "liar" and a "loser" and Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan a "partisan hack" and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas "illiterate." Obviously Senator Fife is "feeling lucky."

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean called on Bush to "show some leadership and unequivocally repudiate Rove's divisive and damaging political rhetoric."

{uncontrollable eye-rolling} This from the man who called Senator al-Durbini "courageous" the other night.

During a Senate hearing on Iraq in which Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other military leaders testified, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY, read Rove's statement and urged them to reject the remarks.

"I would hope that you and other members of the Administration would immediately repudiate such an insulting comment from a high-ranking official in the President's inner circle," Clinton said.

Insulting? How is the truth insulting? Although I shouldn't be, it's still hard not to be astounded that any Democrat said anything at all after the Durbin episode and the way the entire Left circled the wagons around him. After all, there are several orders of magnitude between referring to liberals as soft on terrorism - which they are, unless somebody can come up with a convincing alternative conclusion to their demands that Gitmo be shut down - and Dickbar's sliming of U.S. soldiers as Nazis, gulagists, and Pol Pot clones.

It goes back to an observation I made early in the Clinton dark age: liberals not only think themselves above criticism, but can't understand how opposition to them can even exist, and therefore act as though it has no right to exist either.

That imperiousness earned Mrs. Clinton a sharp rebuke from, of all people, her "adopted" state's GOP governor, George Pataki:

"I think it's a little hypocritical for Senator Clinton to call on me to repudiate a political figure's comment, when she never asked Senator Durbin to repudiate his comments," Pataki told reporters, after she complained that he sat idly by as Rove blasted liberals for being soft on terror at a New York Conservative party function Wednesday night.

She never responded when asked to respond [about Durbin]," Pataki complained. "She never responded to Howard Dean's insult to every single Republican, saying that they never earned an honest day's living.

"She never responded to Senator Reid's unfair criticism of the President - he called the President a loser and a liar. He's never apologized - she never requested that."

"She never called for an apology or clarification when Moveon.org called for moderation and restraint in response to the terrorist attacks."

Pataki concluded: "So, when she does that, I'll be glad to listen to her call for me to ask someone to apologize."

Worlds without end, halleluliah amen.

I've commented before that for Democrats, the truth is deadlier than any lie. Their reaction to Karl the Great should tell you why.

And if that doesn't, this compilation from the RNC should:

Liberal Third Party Groups Urged Restraint, Blamed America:

Immediately After 9/11, MoveOn.Org Petition Urged “Moderation And Restraint” And Use Of “International Judicial Institutions.”

*“We, The Undersigned, Citizens And Residents Of The United States Of America … Appeal To The President Of The United States, George W. Bush … And To All Leaders Internationally To Use Moderation And Restraint In Responding To The Recent Terrorist Attacks Against The United States.” (MoveOn.Org Website, “MoveOn Peace,” Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)

*“We Implore The Powers That Be To Use, Wherever Possible, International Judicial Institutions And International Human Rights Law To Bring To Justice Those Responsible For The Attacks, Rather Than The Instruments Of War, Violence Or Destruction.” (MoveOn.Org Website, “MoveOn Peace,” Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)

*“[W]e Demand That There Be No Recourse To Nuclear, Chemical Or Biological Weapons, Or Any Weapons Of Indiscriminate Destruction, And Feel That It Is Our Inalienable Human Right To Live In A World Free Of Such Arms.” (MoveOn.Org Website, “MoveOn Peace,” Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)

Just After 9/11, Liberal Filmmaker Michael Moore Derided “Terror And Bloodshed” Committed By Americans. (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “All Hail Moore,” The New York
Times, 6/26/04)

*Just After 9/11, Moore Blamed America’s “Taxpayer-Funded Terrorism” And Bush Administration For Terrorist Attacks. “We abhor terrorism – unless we’re the ones doing the terrorizing. We paid and trained and armed a group of terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s who killed over 30,000 civilians. That was OUR work. You and me.…Let’s mourn, let’s grieve, and when it’s appropriate let’s examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in.” (Michael Moore Website Archive, “Death, Downtown,” Posted 9/12/01, http://www.michaelmoore.com/, Accessed 7/27/04)

*Michael Moore Said U.S. Should Not Have Removed Taliban After 9/11. Moore: “Likewise, to bomb Afghanistan – I mean, I’ve never understood this, Tim.” (CNBC’s Tim Russert, 10/19/02)

Liberal Donor George Soros Claimed America Should Have Treated 9/11 Attacks As Crime, Responded With Police Work. “War is a false and misleading metaphor in the context of combating terrorism. Treating the attacks of September 11 as crimes against humanity would have been more appropriate. Crimes require police work, not military action. To protect against terrorism, you need precautionary measures, awareness, and intelligence gathering – all of which ultimately depend on the support of the populations among which terrorists operate. Imagine for a moment that September 11 had been treated as a crime. We would have pursued Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but we would not have invaded Iraq. Nor would we have our military struggling to perform police work in full combat gear and getting killed in the process.” (George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy, 2004, p. 18)

*Soros Said The Execution Of 9/11 Attacks “Could Not Have Been More Spectacular.” “Admittedly, the terrorist attack was a historic event in its own right. Hijacking fully loaded airplanes and using them as suicide bombs was an audacious idea, and the execution could not have been more spectacular.” (George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy, 2004, p. 2)

*Soros Said War On Terror Had Claimed More Innocent Victims Than 9/11 Attack Itself. “This is a very tough thing to say, but the fact is, that the war on terror as conducted by this Administration, has claimed more innocent victims that the original attack itself.” (George Soros, Remarks At Take Back America Conference, Washington, DC, 6/3/04)

Liberal Democrats Urged Restraint, Blamed America:

*Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): “‘The Time For Peace Is Now,’ [Kucinich] Declared Optimistically July 11, Two Months To The Day Before Terrorists Hit The Pentagon And The World Trade Center. … Sitting In His Capitol Hill Office Last Week, Near A Window Where He Could See The Smoke Rising From The Pentagon On Sept. 11, Kucinich Insisted He Is More Optimistic Than Ever That People Worldwide Are Ready To Embrace The Cause Of Nonviolence.” (Elizabeth Auster, “Offer The Hand Of Peace,” [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)

*Kucinich: “Afghanistan May Be An Incubator Of Terrorism But It Doesn’t Follow That We Bomb Afghanistan …” (Elizabeth Auster, “Offer The Hand Of Peace,” [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)

*Representative Neil Abercrombie (D-HI): “Only Now Are We Trying To Figure Out What Is Islam. Maybe If There Was A Department Of Peace, They Would Be Able To Say, ‘Uh-Oh, We’ve Got Some Problems With These People,’ … I Truly Believe That If We Had A Department Of Peace, We Would Have Seen [9/11] Coming.” (Ethan Wallison, “War A Challenge For Peace Caucus,” Roll Call, 10/1/01)

*Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA): “I Am Convinced That Military Action Will Not Prevent Further Acts Of International Terrorism Against The United States.” (Eddy Ramirez, “California Congresswoman Alone In Vote Against War Powers Resolution,” [University Of California-Berkeley] Daily Californian, 9/17/01)

*Al Sharpton Said That The Attacks On The World Trade Center Are Evidence That “America Is Beginning To Reap What It Has Sown.” (Adam Nagourney, “Say It Loud,” The New York Times, 12/1/02)

*Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) Claimed Osama Bin Laden Could Be Compared To “Revolutionaries That Helped To Cast Off The British Crown.” “‘One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown,’ Kaptur told an Ohio newspaper, The (Toledo) Blade.” (Malie Rulon, “Lawmaker Compares Osama, U.S. Patriots,” The Associated Press, 3/6/03)

*Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) Said The United States Would “Pay Every Single Hour, Ever Single Day” That Bombs Were Dropped In Afghanistan. “‘How much longer does the bombing campaign continue?’ Biden asked during an October 22 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. ‘We’re going to pay every single hour, every single day it continues.’” (Miles A. Pomper, "Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01)

*“The Bombing Campaign, [Biden] Said, Reinforced Existing Stereotypes Of The United States As A ‘High-Tech Bully …’” (Miles A. Pomper, "Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01)

*Governor Howard Dean (D-VT) Said Osama Bin Laden Not Guilty. Dean: “I Still Have This Old-Fashioned Notion That Even With People Like Osama, Who Is Very Likely To Be Found Guilty, We Should Do Our Best Not To, In Positions Of Executive Power, Not To Prejudge Jury Trials.” (“Dean Not Ready To Pronounce Osama Bin Laden Guilty,” The Associated Press, 12/26/03)

*Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) To High School Students: “How Would [Muslims] Look At Us Today If We Had Been There Helping Them With Some Of That Rather Than Just Being The People Who Are Going To Bomb In Iraq And Go To Afghanistan? … War Is Expensive Too … Your Generation Ought To Be Thinking About Whether We Should Be Better Neighbors Out In Other Countries So That They Have A Different Vision Of Us.” (Gregg Herrington, “Senator Asks Students To Ponder,” The [Vancouver, WA] Columbian, 12/19/02)

*Senator John Kerry (D-MA): “[W]ar On Terror Is Far Less Of A Military Operation And Far More Of An Intelligence-Gathering, Law-Enforcement Operation.” (The Iowa Brown & Black Coalition Presidential Forum, Des Moines, IA, 1/11/04)

*Kerry: “[W]hat We’ve Learned Is That The War On Terror Is Much More Of An Intelligence Operation And A Law Enforcement Operation.” (NPR’s All Things Considered, 3/19/03)

And let's not leave out the principle architect of our pre-9/11 vulnerability:

[Understanding the terrorists] was exactly the advice offered by ex-President Clinton, delivered in an address to Georgetown University less than two months after the attacks.

"First of all, terror, the killing of noncombatants for economic, political, or religious reasons has a very long history - as long as organized combat itself," Clinton lectured. "Those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless."

Then the ex-president catalogued the terrorist abuses perpetrated by Europeans and Americans on Jews, Muslims and people of color.

"Indeed, in the first Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it, and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the Temple moun[t]," he noted.

"Here in the United States, we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery and slaves were, quite frequently, killed even though they were innocent."

The U.S. "looked the other way," Clinton charged, "when significant numbers of Native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human and we are still paying the price today."

By the time Mr. Clinton was done with his terrorism history lesson, [his conclusion] was clear[:] America got what it deserved on 9/11.

And Democrats call what Karl Rove said "outrageous" and demand his apology and resignation? After spending the past nearly four years pissing on the graves of the three thousand Americans slaughtered in cold blood by our enemies, the seventeen hundred more that have willingly given their lives since, and in the faces of the servicepeople who are even now fighting the jihadis in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere to prevent any more such attacks on our homeland?

Boys and girls, Rove was too easy on you. If any of you had mirrors and an ounce of integrity, you would all apologize, individually and collectively, and not just resign your offices, but disband your entire misbegotten party as the threat to national security that it is.

Michelle Malkin thought this concise peroration a fitting last word:

Soldiers get their lives endangered but no one is supposed to say jack. Liberals get their feelings hurt and scream bloody murder.

It's enough to make you a bit cynical.

And what hurt their feelings was nothing more than a recitation of the truth.

"...and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

Karl the Great pointed the way. Removing the "Dis" from "DisLoyal Opposition" is up to them.