Close Gitmo? One more thing

Have you noticed that none of the "Close Gitmo Gang" has any suggestions whatsoever for what we should do instead?

What should we do with the prisoners that are still there? Release them, even though we have good reason to believe that they will re-engage in attacks on U.S. troops and/or civilians? (What happened to "what did we know and when did we know it?"--remember that?)

Joe Biden (Democratic senator from Delaware) makes this statement in an interview on "ABC News".

"But the end result is, I think we should end up shutting it down, moving those prisoners," he said. "Those that we have reason to keep, keep. And those we don't, let go."

What a great clarification! What constitutes 'reason to keep'? Don't you think that is exactly what we are doing???

And if we close Gitmo, where do we put them? I'd rather have them in Cuba, than in my home state, where terrorists trying to free their comrades might kill innocent Americans in a prison break attempt (or hostage situation).

Should we close Gitmo and build an entirely new facility, with taxpayer money, move all the prisoners there (a risky undertaking, to be sure) and then close THAT facility down when people start lying about it?

And why does Biden think this move is necessary?

"This has become the greatest propaganda tool that exists for recruiting of terrorists around the world. And it is unnecessary to be in that position."

Well, the terrorists and Islamofascists hated us well before Gitmo was established. Remember September 11? The U.S.S. Cole? The first World Trade Center bombing? Somalia?

To suggest somehow that closing Gitmo would reduce the anti-American propaganda and create 'goodwill' with the terrorists is simple-minded tripe. How did this guy get to be a Senator?

I'm becoming more and more depressed about the lack of logic and reasoning power exhibited by the very people we have elected to help run our country. And how they are playing right into the terrorists' hands.

Gitmo Hysteria and Hyperbole

The Journal/Sentinel comes out again today with another "close Gitmo" diatribe. I love the title, "Fix Guantanamo and beyond." Beyond what? I suggest that the 'beyond' stands for beyond any humanly reasonable measures--for that is the standard that the United States is being held to by the MSM and the people, who, in general, oppose the war and just about anything the Bush administration sets out to do.

I won't do a 'blow by blow' of the article. You can read it here yourself.

But I would like to include, in full, an amazing email that was published on Powerline the other day. Here it is:

Messages from our readers last night carry some of the best commentary on recent events that I have read this morning. Regarding Time's "Inside the interrogation of Detainee 063" (Mohammad al Kahtanni), Dr. Brian Byer writes:

On the CNN web page I read the reactions of U.S. Senators Chuck Hagel and Dianne Feinstein to the report which appeared in Time magazine [click here for the CNN story]...As you know Mohammed al Kahtani was to be the 20th hijacker on United Airlines flight 93. This bloodthirsty murderer was captured alive and brought to Guantanamo Bay where our men and women sought to extract as much information from him as quickly as possible to prevent further attacks and learn more of his al Qaida associates. As reported by Time the methods used included shaving his facial hair, having him wear racy pictures around his neck, sleep deprivation with loud music, standing for prolonged periods, removing articles of clothing and making the once arrogant and still bloodthirsty terrorist wet his pants.

As I mentioned in my previous email, this is equivalent to what the average collegiate freshman athlete must endure from upperclassmen. It is also much, much less than what our elite Navy Seals, Army Rangers and Paratroopers experience during their bootcamps. Of course Amnesty International cares more about the comfort, dignity and well being of terrorists like Kahtani than any member of our special forces. I guarantee they will be crying about Kahtani's treatment which has been equivalent to a modest hazing at worst.

But what has really struck me to the quick and saddened by heart has been the comments from our elected Senators Hagel and Feinstein. Specifically Senator Hagel was quoted by CNN as saying the treatment of terrorist Kahtani was wrong, dangerous, very dumb, shortsighted, and not how you win Muslim people over to ourside. With these words Senator Hagel has betrayed the brave men and women who protect us from terrorists like Kahtani. He is placing American popularity in the world above the lives of innocent Americans like thousands who died on September 11th. I never thought I would see the day when a U.S. Senator would place the dignity and comfort of an al-Qaida terrorist above the lives of even a single American or an innocent Muslim for that matter. O how my heart weeps for the dedicated personnel who probed Kahtani for details about al-Qaida's plans and are now insulted and defamed on international television by a U.S. Senator for trying their hardest to protect innocent lives.

Clearly Senators Hagel and Feinstein have forgotten that the terrorist Kahtani was turned back from the Orlando airport in August 2001 while Mohammed Atta was there awaiting his arrival. How is it that they have forgotten that Kahtani planned to join Atta as the 5th hijacker on United Airlines Flight 93? How have they forgotten that Kahtani planned to use a boxcutter or similar instrument to slice the throat of any passenger or crew who resisted? How have they forgetten that Kahtani wished to shout praise to Allah as he and Atta plowed that aircraft full of innocents into New York Cities tallest skyscraper also crowded with innocents?

How have these U.S. Senators forgotten those who were incinerated on that day? How have they forgotten those who were so terrorized with fear and suffering that they jumped to their certain death rather than face the inferno of the Twin Towers? How is it that they have forgotten the brave who rushed to the rescue but never returned? How can they have forgotten about those who lost their lives in the Pentagon only a few miles from their plush Senate offices? How have they so quickly forgotten the brave souls who confronted their terrorist assasins and then lost their lives in a field just east of Pittsburgh? How is it that they have turned their backs on the dedicated men and women who have risked and lost their lives in the hunt to bring back alive evil men like Kahtani?

How do our Senators propose our troops pursue those who would slaughter our children, burn our cities and decapitate innocents? By giving quarter? By show respect and mercy? By providing cozy rooms, gentle questioning and frequent potty breaks to the relentless al-Qaida murderers and assasins? Even today Mohammed al-Kahtani eats a nourshing halal meal and breaths the warm Carribean air while the innocent blood of thousands still cries from the ground. When will they receive justice? When will our Senators fight for their dignity and respect rather than the diginty and comfort of the terrorists who designed their slaughter?

Please Sirs, I beg you to share with your readers the disgrace now being dumped on the memory of those who died, the diligent work of the men and women who have lost their lives defending the innocent and the forgotten deeds of our heroes who willingly enter the dangerous shadowlands of this world and hunt evil men like Mohammed al Kahtani. My heart can barely bear the suffering and disgrace America must endure by the thoughtless words of her own elected officials.

In his earlier message Dr. Byer provided this link to the Defense Department's press release yesterday on the information reported in the Time story. Please check out the press release.

Rapidly Approaching Saturation

Is it just me, or are things becoming more fast and furious? People's patience shorter and shorter?

I just read an article in BusinessWeek about camps for kids where there is no technology allowed (ohmigosh--no iPODs, IM'ing, internet, cell phones). People have to send their kids AWAY for this?

Of course, we do the same thing as adults. We have to go on vacation to 'relax'.

I wonder if we are heading toward implosion.

It will be interesting to see what our kids are like as adults. I predict that one of two things will happen.

1. They will just think this pace is 'business as usual' and will have no problems.
2. They will 'burn out' by the time they are 30, chuck it all and adopt a more bohemian lifestyle.

A survey I saw a few years ago in some women's magazine ask kids about their parents' careers (moms especially). Most moms predicted that the kids would say that they wished their moms didn't work. What kids actually said was that they wished their moms were less hassled and frustrated with their work.

Yikes.

James Murphy, a former Air Force pilot who has become a management consultant, has a new book on the market, Flawless Execution. In it he states, "As task saturation increases, performance decreases."

I think I'm rapidly approaching saturation... Wonder what will happen when I get there?

Would be funnier if it weren't so true....

By Chris Muir @ www.daybydaycartoon.com/Default.aspx

Check out http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/Default.aspx. This says it all.

Dangerous Naivete (or Deliberate Lies) of the Media re. Gitmo

Great article from John Hinderaker at The Weekly Standard on the unbelievable international media frenzy around the Koran abuse nonsense. You must read the whole thing.

Read the entire report here from Brigadier General Jay Hood on the investigation into the allegations of Koran abuse.

The bottom line?

There are five (five, count 'em FIVE) confirmed instances of 'mishandling' of the Koran (either intentional or unintentional) by Army guards. Mishandling--not destruction.

But here's the interesting part of the report. There were FIFTEEN confirmed instances of deliberate Koran abuse by detainees, including tearing up pages, urinating on the Koran, and trying to flush pages down the toilet.

You know, a couple of years ago, I was fascinated by the recent history of China, especially the rise of Communism and Mao and the Red Guard. I read "Life and Death in Shanghai" (a great book), "Wild Swans" and some other books written by Chinese women who had lived through the Chinese 'revolution'. It was amazing to me how such blatant propaganda took hold of an entire society and was readily accepted by so many people so quickly.

I was quite smug in concluding that such a thing would never happen in the U.S., because of our diversity, our free press and our independent culture.

This is really getting downright scary.

What OF Accountability?

Another incredible editorial from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, entitled "What of Accountability?" As you will see, "accountability" only applies to the military and the Bush administration, not journalists...("media accountability--the new oxymoron!")

Get this opening paragraph:

The parade of indictments of torture and other abuses at the Pentagon's overseas prison camps continues to march relentlessly before us. And if our collective outrage over these abuses has faded and dimmed over the months, so has the notion that the men and women responsible for these affronts should be held to account for their failures. In fact, this lack of accountability is almost as appalling as the abuses themselves.

Hmmm....where do I start? Parade of 'indictments'? Are we talking definition #1 of indictments--"a written statement charging a party with the commission of a crime or other offense, drawn up by a prosecuting attorney and found and presented by a grand jury" or definition #2 "an accusation of wrongdoing"?

If definition #1 applies, then having the 'men and women responsible for these affronts' indicted would certainly mean that they have been held accountable for their 'failures'. ('Affronts' and 'failures'? Isn't this kind of "sissy talk" if we are referring to torture and abuse?)

If definition #2 applies, then we are talking about ACCUSATIONS. And shouldn't journalists also be ACCOUNTABLE for investigating the source of the accusations to determine whether they are credible? Especially when getting it wrong has serious consequences(just ask Newsweek)!

It goes on...

Likening Guantanamo to the infamous string of forced labor camps that existed for many years in the Soviet Union was extremely far-fetched. Hyperbole of the first order, in fact. It's apparent that some detainees' stories have been exaggerations because it is, sadly, in the interests of some to have U.S. conduct portrayed in the worst possible light. (But NOT the Journal Sentinel, of course! --comment mine)

Still, the real light has been bad enough. Given the number of verified incidents of abuse, some accountability beyond the lower rungs should have been brought to bear.

Okay, so, first of all, how have these verified incidents of abuse been uncovered? After all, this is the American Gulag, where torture is rampant, prisoners are worked to death in labor camps and countless people are disappearing (definition of gulag)--with the complicity of our highest government officials. What deft reporter uncovered this scandal, in a world-altering scoop? Is there a new 'Deep Throat'? No....what do you know--the intrepid press has discovered these abuses documented in Defense Department documents!

So, let me get this straight, because right now my head is spinning a little bit. Our government is documenting instances of abuse in publicly available documents, making them available to the press and then prosecuting those responsible. But we have a "lack of accountability which is almost as appalling as the abuses themselves"? Isn't documenting the alleged abuse, investigating it and prosecuting those involved considered assigning accountability? If not, what is, exactly?

And since when is a lack of accountability as appalling as abuse itself? Is not being held accountable the same as being tortured? Hmmm, I know if I were given the choice, which option I'd go for....

The J/S goes on to quote the highly unbiased (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) Physicians for Human Rights, who issued a 135-page report on systematic torture practiced by the US since 2002 in Cuba, Afghanistan and Iraq. Let's see, the President and VP of this organization, Dr. Holly Atkinson and Dr. Frank Davidoff are contributors to the following: DNC, John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton. I don't think they have any bias whatsoever. (BTW, if you want to read more about their position on the war in Iraq, check this out. I would like to comment on this article, but I think they deserve a blog of their own.)

An interesting choice of a group to quote. Of course, these people also stated in an article from 2002 on their website:

The US and allies must prepare for and develop a plan to prevent or stop reprisals by Saddam Hussein against Iraqi citizens in the midst of a conflict. This should include prevention of and preparedness for the burning of Iraqi oil fields and other elements of a scorched earth policy, as well as a chemical or biological attack against Iraqi citizens, in addition to those in neighboring countries.

Chemical or biological attack? With what? Hmmm, they were wrong about WMD, could they be wrong about torture?

Sorry, couldn't restrain myself.

Back to the J/S editorial....

Psychological mistreatment may seem pale by the side of the sexual sadism that was depicted in the photographs that emerged from the now-infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. But the techniques of psychological torture, the doctors warned, "can be just as harmful and are often more long-lasting than physical torture."

Hmmm. Can it be as long-lasting as, say, having your head cut off? Having your body set on fire and dragged through the streets behind a car? Being blown to smithereens by a suicide bomber?

The next source quoted is the NYTimes May 20th article about the deaths of two Afghan suspects at the U.S. military prison in Bagram. (How come these guys never quote The Weekly Standard, or The National Review?)

"Like a narrative counterpart to the digital images from Abu Ghraib, the Bagram file depicts young, poorly trained soldiers in repeated incidents of abuse. The harsh treatment, which has resulted in criminal charges against seven soldiers, went well beyond the two deaths," The Times noted.

So, now I'm wondering. Gulag, torture, prisoner abuse. Wow. This must really be out of control. So, if torture and abuse is rampant, there must be a lot of casualties associated with our military prisons. How many incidents of abuse have been documented? How many have led to prisoner deaths? Well, according to Time magazine's May 31st article, "What's Going on at Gitmo?":

HAVE ANY DIED THERE? Although the U.S. military has recently acknowledged that more than 30 detainees died in custody in Iraq and Afghanistan from August 2002 to November 2004, there have been no reports or allegations of detainee deaths at Guantanamo. (emphasis mine) According to the Pentagon, prisoners there have attempted suicide 34 times and have committed several hundred acts classified by the military as "self-injurious manipulative behavior," but none have died as a result. A Saudi man who tried to hang himself in 2003 ended up in a coma for several months but ultimately regained consciousness and learned to walk again.

Now, I'm not advocating mistreatment of prisoners, but NO ONE has died at Guantanamo. And in two years of conflict, there have been thirty (30) deaths? Thirty? Don't you think if there was widespread, malicious intentional torture of prisoners, sanctioned by military leadership, there would be more than 30 deaths?

A July, 2004 USA Today article stated that there had been 94 total alleged cases of abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ninety-four. Okay, no deaths at Gitmo, 30 deaths in two years, 94 alleged cases of abuse.

But here's the number you'll never see in the J/S...this is out of 50,000 prisoners. The 50,000 prisoners number was taken from the Army inspector general's office report and is from July 2004. So, presumably, there have been more prisoners since then. And still no deaths at Gitmo. The report goes on to state that almost half of those cases of alleged abuse had occurred where the terrorists were taken prisoner (presumably in the heat of battle) and not in the prison system itself.

Now, I don't know about you, but I have never found myself in a combat situation. But I can well imagine that if I had been shot at, or watched my buddy blown up by a suicide bomber, and I had the opportunity to capture one of these guys, I would make doggone sure that he was not in a position to do me any bodily harm. And I think I would be a lot more worried about putting him out of commission than being held 'accountable' by some liberal human rights-watch group for prisoner 'abuse'.


And the total number of allegations (allegations--not indictments) of abuse related to interrogations? Interrogations. Which, if there was a mandate on torture from the top, is when you would expect most of the abuse to occur. Eight. Eight. Hmmm. Not a strong indictment for a widespread policy of abuse.

So, if anything, I think that our military has performed quite remarkably, given the circumstances.

And, if that weren't enough, even though there have been relatively few incidents, there have been investigations and criminal charges filed against the soldiers involved. So, aren't these people being held accountable for their 'failures' and 'affronts'? (J/S term, not mine)

But we haven't charged "officials at the highest levels of government, from the White House to the Defense Department, whose actions and failures placed the ill-trained soldiers where they were and created the environment that led to the abuses."

Okay. Charge them with what? Is the J/S seriously advocating that we prosecute the President of the United States for the actions of a SMALL minority of our thousands of troops deployed across the globe? Well, before you start to chuckle, you should realize that they are in good company.

Because, in fact, Amnesty International Executive Director William Schultz is advocating that foreign governments arrest U.S. officials for their complicity in torture. So, if the J/S and Amnesty International get their way, maybe France will capture President Bush on his next trip across the pond and hold him for a war crimes trial. Wouldn't that be great? (This is the one thing that might make me actually wish that John Kerry had been elected president).

Kenneth Anderson addresses this issue and more in a great article"An American Gulag? Human Rights Groups Test the Limits of Moral Equivalency".

He makes an interesting point...

If you really believe, as Amnesty does, that Guantanamo is a Stalinist gulag, then you ought really to believe that its authors are the genuine Stalinist article--criminal leaders of a world-class criminal regime. After all, it is Stalins, Berias, and their henchmen who produce Stalinist gulags. Likewise, if you are Human Rights Watch and you really believe in the moral equivalence of Sudan and the United States, then surely you ought to regard U.S. leaders as nothing more than wicked criminals, to be arrested, and their regime isolated and sanctioned, if not actually invaded. Surely you should be urging the virtuecrats of Brussels and all of Europe to break off trade relations with the United States. You should be arguing for a breakup of NATO to isolate the human rights abuser, and perhaps even urging Europe to create the military might necessary to confront the deep evil of the U.S. regime. That's what morally serious people should be doing, after all, in dealing with Sudan and its leaders. We should be contemplating all that and more against the regime in Sudan. And if you really believe in the moral equivalence you rhetorically trumpet, then that's what a principled organization would demand regarding the United States, too.

So, do the editors at the J/S really believe that officials at the top of our government are bloodthirsty war-criminals? Tromping on human rights and condoning torture and abuse of innocent prisoners? Blood dripping from their jowls? If so, then they should be calling for more than 'accountability'....they should be calling for the overthrow of our very government. If it is that serious, it is that serious....

The conclusion of their editorial...

Osama bin Laden's terror gang inflicted serious damage on our country, and the war in Iraq is killing and maiming our young men and women.

No, the terrorists (not the 'war in Iraq') are killing and maiming our armed forces. And killing and maiming Iraqi civilians. Who would all be dead, if we capitulated to the thinking of the J/S editorial board and turned tail and abandoned the Iraqi people. What's more, at least 12 of the former detainees who have been set free have resumed terrorist activities. So...if we have so much concern over the deaths of our young men and women, wouldn't we advocate keeping these guys locked up as long as possible? Or depriving them of a few hours sleep to learn whatever we could about how they might be planning to attack our people? Or is their freedom more important than human life? (I guess some human lives--those of terrorists and murderers--are more valuable than other human lives--our 'young men and women').

But another kind of damage occurs when we evade our moral and legal responsibilities and allow some of our country's deepest and most cherished values to be trivialized in waging the war on terror. In failing to call to account all those responsible for torture, we are inflicting that kind of damage on ourselves.

Well, I always thought that some of "our country's deepest and most cherished values" included love of country, respect for the truth, support of our troops, and the presumption of innocence. (Note the surprising absence of 'self-loathing' or anti-American sentiment, or even 'Bush-hating' as a cherished value). I would believe our men and women (young AND old) before I would believe the word of terrorists (who are apparently the sources of most of the allegations)--who are explicitly instructed by Al Qaeda to lie to rile up the Islamic world against the U.S.

But Al Qaeda should write a new chapter in their instruction manual--no need to ask their devotees to deliberately lie about their abuse at the hand of the Great Satan in order to whip up anti-American sentiment. Whipping up anti-American sentiment over the thinnest of allegations has become the core competency of the American media (including the Journal/Sentinel). Al Qaeda can sit back and focus on killing more Americans and Iraqis.

"Mission Accomplished".

Hypocrisy, Hype and Hysteria over US Treatment of Terrorists

Charles Krauthammer has an excellent column on the continued braying by the MSM on the 'abuses' at Guantanamo, entitled Gitmo Grovel: Enough Already. An excerpt:

The most inflammatory allegations have been not about people but about mishandling the Koran. What do we know here? The Pentagon reports (Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, May 26) -- all these breathless "scoops" come from the U.S. government's own investigations of itself -- that of 13 allegations of Koran abuse, five were substantiated, of which two were most likely accidental.

Let's understand what mishandling means. Under the rules the Pentagon later instituted at Guantanamo, proper handling of the Koran means using two hands and wearing gloves when touching it. Which means that if any guard held the Koran with one hand or had neglected to put on gloves, this would be considered mishandling.

On the scale of human crimes, where, say, 10 is the killing of 2,973 innocent people in one day and 0 is jaywalking, this ranks as perhaps a 0.01.

Moreover, what were the Korans doing there in the first place? The very possibility of mishandling Korans arose because we gave them to each prisoner. What kind of crazy tolerance is this? Is there any other country that would give a prisoner precisely the religious text that that prisoner and those affiliated with him invoke to justify the slaughter of innocents? If the prisoners had to have reading material, I would have given them the book "Portraits 9/11/01" -- vignettes of the lives of those massacred on Sept. 11.

He goes on...

Why this abjectness on our part? On the very day the braying mob in Pakistan demonstrated over the false Koran report in Newsweek, a suicide bomber blew up an Islamic shrine in Islamabad, destroying not just innocent men, women and children, but undoubtedly many Korans as well. Not a word of condemnation. No demonstrations.

Even greater hypocrisy is to be found here at home. Civil libertarians, who have been dogged in making sure that FBI-collected Guantanamo allegations are released to the world, seem exquisitely sensitive to mistreatment of the Koran. A rather selective scrupulousness. When an American puts a crucifix in a jar of urine and places it in a museum, civil libertarians rise immediately to defend it as free speech. And when someone makes a painting of the Virgin Mary, smears it with elephant dung and adorns it with porn, not only is that free speech, it is art -- deserving of taxpayer funding and an ACLU brief supporting the Brooklyn Museum when the mayor freezes its taxpayer subsidy.

Does the Koran deserve special respect? Of course it does. As do the Bibles destroyed by the religious police in Saudi Arabia and the Torahs blown up in various synagogues from Tunisia to Turkey.

So...we have people who are more concerned about someone dropping a book than killing hundreds of innocent Muslims? The Islamic religious extremists (terrorists) kill innocent civilians (9/11, beheadings, bombing mosques, suicide bombings, etc.), yet WE are the 'evil empire' and the 'gulag contenders'? Because one of our soldiers may have dropped a copy of the Koran while being spit upon or urinated on by a detainee? Get real.

And the recent report by Amnesty International is a hoot. From a quote in the Pakistan Daily Times, Irene Khan, the head of Amnesty International, says,

Our answer is simple: if that is so (that the allegations are unfounded), open up these detention centres. Allow us and others to visit them.

I don't think comparing Gitmo to a gulag is going to help your case, Irene. Can you imagine Amnesty International 'inspectors' wandering around Gitmo, wringing their hands over the torture of detainees--forced to live in small cells with no cable television (worse yet, we could force them to watch FoxNews!!!)

I see an emerging pattern here...

a. Someone hears an allegation, made by a known enemy of the U.S. (or its current administration).
b. They go public with that allegation, without an iota of fact-checking.
c. The administration states that the allegation is false and unfounded.
c. The left immediately demand that the administration PROVE that the allegation is unfounded.
d. Over time, everyone forgets that the allegation was untrue...

I heard people on a NPR talk show a few weeks ago, who absolutely believe that our soliders DID flush a Koran down the toilet and that the government is covering it up.

Sound familiar? I suppose next we will hear that Elvis has hijacked a truck full of Korans and is destroying them with laser beam weapons captured from aliens detained at Area 51. C'mon Rumsfeld, PROVE it isn't true.

Better yet, let's ask the anti-war people to PROVE that there were absolutely NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the war. That oughtta keep them busy for awhile. In the meanwhile, they should get out of the way. We have a war to win.

Equal Protection for Bibles

Great article in The Opinion Journal (Wall Street online) by Ali Al-Ahmed on "Hypocrisy Most Holy".

He makes several excellent points:

With the revelation that a copy of the Quran may have been desecrated by U.S. military personnel at Guantanamo Bay, Muslims and their governments--including that of Saudi Arabia--reacted angrily. This anger would have been understandable if the U.S. government's adopted policy was to desecrate our Quran. But even before the Newsweek report was discredited, that was never part of the allegations.

As a Muslim, I am able to purchase copies of the Quran in any bookstore in any American city, and study its contents in countless American universities. American museums spend millions to exhibit and celebrate Muslim arts and heritage. On the other hand, my Christian and other non-Muslim brothers and sisters in Saudi Arabia--where I come from--are not even allowed to own a copy of their holy books. Indeed, the Saudi government desecrates and burns Bibles that its security forces confiscate at immigration points into the kingdom or during raids on Christian expatriates worshiping privately.

Maybe the Christians need to start rioting in the streets.

"Who cares what makes these people angry?"

A must-read from Jonah Goldberg on the reaction of the "Muslim Street" (notice how that term has disappeared from the MSM lexicon?) to the Newsweek article.

I couldn't agree more.

And if I hear one more comment about the Crusades, I'm going to lose my lunch.

Get over it.

Some Further Analysis (no pun intended) on Toiletgate and the Media Meltdown

Just when you think the situation with the American media can't get any worse, we get this exchange at the briefing of the White House Press Corps today:

Q Scott, you said that the retraction by Newsweek magazine of its story is a good first step. What else does the President want this American magazine to do?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it's what I talked about yesterday. This report, which Newsweek has now retracted and said was wrong, has had serious consequences. People did lose their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged; there is lasting damage to our image because of this report. And we would encourage Newsweek to do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region.

And I think Newsweek can do that by talking about the way they got this wrong, and pointing out what the policies and practices of the United States military are when it comes to the handling of the Holy Koran. The military put in place policies and procedures to make sure that the Koran was handled -- or is handled with the utmost care and respect. And I think it would help to point that out, because some have taken this report -- those that are opposed to the United States -- some have taken this report and exploited it and used it to incite violence.

Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not telling them. I'm saying that we would encourage them to help --

Q You're pressuring them.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm saying that we would encourage them --

Q It's not pressure?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, this report caused serious damage to the image of the United States abroad. And Newsweek has said that they got it wrong. I think Newsweek recognizes the responsibility they have. We appreciate the step that they took by retracting the story. Now we would encourage them to move forward and do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done by this report. And that's all I'm saying. But, no, you're absolutely right, it's not my position to get into telling people what they can and cannot report.

Scott McClellan has the patience of a saint. Excuse me, didn't the questionner ASK him what the President would like Newsweek to do? And then when Scott answers, he asks him 'who died and made you king'?

And anyhow, what's wrong with the President asking for Newsweek to help clean up its own mess? Why NOT report the extraordinary measures taken to respect the religious practices of the prisoners at Gitmo? (Although I always say, if I'm going to be accused of something, despite bending over backwards to the contrary, I might as well let 'er rip and give them their money's worth.).

However, this begs the question--why should there have to be external pressure applied to news organizations in order for them to retract something if they find that it was ill-founded? And then help mitigate the damage from their erroneous reporting? I would think that news organizations would want the public to know that they do NOT need any external pressures to keep their house in order (can anyone say congressional investigation?).

I, for one, do not want to see any encroachments on freedom of the press, but that carries a serious responsibility for the press to police itself. With Dan Rather, Jayson Blair, Eason Jordan and now this, the news industry seems to be on a path of self-destruction--unable to help itself from repeating the same offenses over and over. This would imply a systemic problem.

What is the root cause? Perhaps:

-Under pressure to 'scoop' each other, journalists/editors have become careless.
-Given the competition for public attention, the 'titillating' stories get immediate coverage with no thought to the consequences.

-There is a lack of political diversity in the news organization, leaving no one to play 'devil's advocate' when these types of stories arise. This is proven out by the immediate reactions in the blogosphere who find logical errors and other reasons to question these stories which apparently have never occurred to the editors.

-A certain pervasive smugness derived from being 'in the know' leads the elite media to spend insufficient time questionning their own accuracy and underlying motivation for certain news stories.

For a good analysis and discussion of the growing public mistrust of the media, check out Winds Of Change.

If media outlets want to improve their credibility, they need to bring in some independent analysts to review their internal processes for 'vetting' articles. Anonymous sources should be used sparingly and then, only when corroborated by other independent means.

Jay Rosen has a great analysis of the sourcing issues with the Newsweek debacle.

I'm sure there will be more to come on this intriguing topic.

NEWSWEEK Lied, People Died....

I will blog more later about the role of NEWSWEEK (now dubbed Newsweak and "Toiletgate"--"Loogate" in the UK-- by the blogosphere) in aiding and abetting the enemy, but my husband asked an interesting question last night...

If an Islamic country had flushed Bibles down the toilet, do you think Christians would be rioting and killing people in response?

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it? He should start his own blog.

UPDATE: Just another random thought. I am as happy as anyone to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to trashing the MSM, however...is it really OUR fault that the reaction of the Islamic world is to riot and kill each other over an alleged desecration of the Koran?

We tend to be very narcissistic here in the US and think that we somehow can control the actions of the rest of the world, simply by being inoffensive. I think that is a naive (and dangerous) view.

UPDATE: Lots of good stuff out on the blogosphere. I'll keep updating.

Check out this one..."Guns Don't Kill People...Reporters Kill People". And this one..."Newsweek Told Koran Flush Story Was 'Slam Dunk'"

Austin Bay also has some great commentary.

UPDATE: Newsweak retracts.

Great comment from Cliff Kincaid, of the Accuracy in Media website:

Ironically, noted Kincaid, Newsweek assistant managing editor Evan Thomas has been teaching a course at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government on "the ethical, moral and practical issues that recur in news delivery."

Kincaid commented, "It looks like he flunked his own course."

Any Fraud is Bad Fraud...

The Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel misses the point *AGAIN* in their editorial on voter fraud, "What's the Fraud Threshold?". If voter fraud were found to favor the Republicans, I suspect that ANY level of fraud would exceed the threshold. But somehow, to date, there is not sufficient evidence for them to conclude that fraud has actually occurred. Too bad no one captured the fraud ACTUALLY occurring on videotape (of course, tape can be doctored!!!)

Here's what the interim report from the Fraud Task Force said:

Based on the investigation to date, the task force has found widespread record keeping failures and separate areas of voter fraud.

Here's what the J/S editorial said:

Investigators have found widespread record-keeping glitches and spotty instances of fraud.

Hmmm...I think that Ricardo & friends need a new thesaurus!

The J/S editorial goes on...

The task force has developed evidence of more than 100 instances in which residents are suspected of voting twice or of using somebody else's name or a fake name to vote. It also found more than 200 felons who voted despite being barred from doing so.

But here's a little tidbit they left out....

"The number of votes counted from the City of Milwaukee exceeds the number of persons recorded as voting by more than 4,500....To date, the investigation has concentrated on the 70,000+ same-day registrations." (emphasis mine)

Here is the actual interim report for your reading pleasure.

I'm sorry, but I can't believe the Journal/Sentinel is quibbling over 'how much fraud is too much'. (Well, I guess I can believe it).

But, as the interim report states,

These findings impact each other. Simply put: it is hard to prove a bank embezzlement if the bank cannot tell how much money was there in the first place. Without accurate records, the task force will have difficulty proving criminal conduct beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

And, of course, this is the crux of the problem. The system was not designed to have an audit trail worthy of follow up and prosecution for fraud, NOR does it make any sense to try to develop such a system. The problem is not to prove and prosecute voter fraud AFTER THE FACT (the old 'locking the barn door after the cows have escaped' option). The point is to PREVENT voter fraud from happening so that everyone's vote DOES count. Requiring people to register before elections and present some form of photo ID is a much better option than depending upon the tenacity of the poll workers (those great senior citizens who selflessly devote hours to staffing the polls so that the rest of us can vote!)

Failing to prevent voter fraud disenfranchises ALL voters (even the ones that voted for Kerry!!)

Read additional commentary here from Powerline and Michelle Malkin.

Once more, Wisconsin is in the news for all of the wrong reasons. And the Journal/Sentinel is on the wrong side of the issue.

UPDATE: Great comments and a history of news on the Wisconsin voting fraud situation from Sean at everythingiknowiswrong.com.

In the words of Mark Twain...

"The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

A lot of discussion going on right now about the future of the newspaper and traditional media. Are they in their last, dying gasps?

Excellent post from Powerline on the general decline of newspaper circulation.

Charlie Sykes also talked about this on his radio show yesterday on WTMJ.

Since many newspapers have been inflating their circulation numbers, (Journal Sentinel included), it is difficult to tell how much decline is attributable to the correct circulation and how much is attributable to people becoming fed-up with their bias, or turning to other outlets for news and information.

Most of the callers on Charlie's program mentioned the internet as a key contributor to the decline in newspaper readership. They cited the following reasons that they use the internet as a primary source (as opposed to the paper):

-The internet is more visual and interactive (and therefore appealing to younger customers)
-The internet is more timely (get news as it is happening)
-The internet allows links to the source material and other related stories
-The internet allows you to be selective (if all you want to read is the sports, why buy the whole paper?)
-The internet is 'free' -- or relatively so, after you've purchased a computer and pay for broadband/ISP access

It will be interesting to see how newspapers evolve in response to this threat. But I believe it is too early to sound the death knell. Remember, years ago when people were predicting that movies on demand and online entertainment would mean the demise of books? Remember predictions that movie theaters would disappear due to the rise of Blockbuster and NetFlix?

The Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel ran Jonah Goldberg, from National Review, today. In his column, "Bloggers are latest media darlings", he contends that newspapers are not 'down for the count' and predicts that the Internet will be absorbed by traditional media. He cites examples of how the blogosphere is beginning to consolidate:

Big media outlets are starting blogs and buying up the best bloggers. Independent bloggers are joining forces to achieve economies of scale for advertising and editorial direction.

Just this week, some of the best bloggers created a small consortium called Pajamas Media. It's not inconceivable that consolidation will continue to the point where bloggers become new online newspapers.

I can't find an online version right now...will add one if it becomes available.

I think the bottom line is this: Choice is good. Competition raises the bar. The gauntlet has been thrown to the newspaper industry. It will be interesting to see how they respond to the challenge.

Political Correctness Reaches New Heights

The much-awaited decision has come down from Marquette University over the naming of their sports team/mascot. As you may know, years ago, the Marquette Warriors was deemed offensive to Native Americans, so the name was changed to the Marquette Golden Eagles. (I'm surprised PETA didn't protest it as being offensive to eagles).

A couple of alumni offered to donate a cool $2M to the school if they changed the name back to the Warriors. Now, I can see that a Native American sports mascot might be offensive (Willie Wampum WAS pretty tacky), but they certainly could have made it a more 'generic' warrior. How about an ancient Greek warrior? (Our local high schools have Spartans and Lancers as their mascots. Since those guys are all dead, none of them can protest.)

So...what is the final decision? The Marquette Gold! The Marquette Gold? Yes, Gold. They have selected a COLOR as their mascot.

From the Marquette University website:

Further, data collected in an online survey last fall of opinions and attitudes indicated that even 10 years after its introduction, the Golden Eagles nickname, logo and mascot have not generated with the Marquette community a strong sense of pride or identity. In the survey, the terms respondents most often used to describe the Golden Eagles nickname are boring (57 percent), weak (55 percent) and common (52 percent).

So, they think "Gold" is not boring, weak or common?

Cheesh. What will be next? The Milwaukee Puce? The Madison Magentas?

Update: Great posts from Marquette Warrior....read the "Trustees Turn Chicken" post.

Next: Alchemy 101

Pamela R. Winnick writes an eye-opening article, "A Textbook Case of Junk Science" in the latest issues of The Weekly Standard.

If this doesn't make your head spin, nothing will:

SEVERAL CENTURIES AGO, some "very light-skinned" people were shipwrecked on a tropical island. After "many years under the tropical sun," this light-skinned population became "dark-skinned," says Biology: The Study of Life, a high-school textbook published in 1998 by Prentice Hall, an imprint of Pearson Education.

"Downright bizarre," says Nina Jablonski, who holds the Irvine chair of anthropology at the California Academy of Sciences. Jablonski, an expert in the evolution of skin color, says it takes at least 15,000 years for skin color to evolve from black to white or vice versa. That sure is "many years." The suggestion that skin color can change in a few generations has no basis in science.

Pearson Education spokesperson Wendy Spiegel admits the error in describing the evolution of skin color, but says the teacher's manual explains the phenomenon correctly. Just why teachers are given accurate information while students are misled remains unclear.

But then there's lots that's puzzling about the science textbooks used in American classrooms. A sloppy way with facts, a preference for the politically correct over the scientifically sound, and sheer faddism characterize their content. It's as if their authors had decided above all not to expose students to the intellectual rigor that is the lifeblood of science.

But wait, there's more...

A study commissioned by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation in 2001 found 500 pages of scientific error in 12 middle-school textbooks used by 85 percent of the students in the country. One misstates Newton's first law of motion. Another says humans can't hear elephants. Another confuses "gravity" with "gravitational acceleration." Another shows the equator running through the United States. Individual scientists draft segments of these books, but reviewing the final product is sometimes left to multicultural committees who have no expertise in science.

I, for one, plan to peruse my son's science textbook when he gets home tonight from school.

"Higher" Education, Indeed

Unbelievable post from Powerline about a recent appearance by Ann Coulter and the reaction from the loony left...

I have a son who is a sophomore in high school. He will be looking for a college in the next year. I cannot imagine subjecting him to this kind of atmosphere. What is wrong with these people? Whatever it is, I believe that it severely hampers their ability to provide an education for our future generations. I think that they are taking the term 'liberal arts' education literally!

The post is too long to include here....just go read the original. The heading is "Katie Kieffer Reports" and there is an earlier post entitled "Hateful Speech Revisited".

It reminds me of the hysteria of the Red Guards in Communist China. Never thought that it would happen here...

EMP: WMD of Choice?

Scary article in WorldNetDaily about possible Iranian plans to knock out the U.S. telecommunications and power grid by detonating a nuclear bomb up in the atmosphere high above the U.S.

Iran is not only covertly developing nuclear weapons, it is already testing ballistic missiles specifically designed to destroy America's technical infrastructure, effectively neutralizing the world's lone superpower, say U.S. intelligence sources, top scientists and western missile industry experts.

The radical Shiite regime has conducted successful tests to determine if its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, can be detonated by a remote-control device while still in high-altitude flight.

Scientists, including President Reagan's top science adviser, William R. Graham, say there is no other explanation for such tests than preparation for the deployment of electromagnetic pulse weapons – even one of which could knock out America's critical electrical and technological infrastructure, effectively sending the continental U.S. back to the 19th century with a recovery time of months or years.

The implications of such an attack are daunting....think about your daily life and how dependent we have all become on electricity, computers, refrigeration, heating/air conditioning, telephone lines, etc.

Graham describes the potential "cascading effect" of an EMP attack. If electrical power is knocked out and circuit boards fried, telecommunications are disrupted, energy deliveries are impeded, the financial system breaks down, food, water and gasoline become scarce.

As Kyl put it: "Few if any people would die right away. But the loss of power would have a cascading effect on all aspects of U.S. society. Communication would be largely impossible. Lack of refrigeration would leave food rotting in warehouses, exacerbated by a lack of transportation as those vehicles still working simply ran out of gas (which is pumped with electricity). The inability to sanitize and distribute water would quickly threaten public health, not to mention the safety of anyone in the path of the inevitable fires, which would rage unchecked. And as we have seen in areas of natural and other disasters, such circumstances often result in a fairly rapid breakdown of social order."

"American society has grown so dependent on computer and other electrical systems that we have created our own Achilles' heel of vulnerability, ironically much greater than those of other, less developed nations," the senator wrote. "When deprived of power, we are in many ways helpless, as the New York City blackout made clear. In that case, power was restored quickly because adjacent areas could provide help. But a large-scale burnout caused by a broad EMP attack would create a much more difficult situation. Not only would there be nobody nearby to help, it could take years to replace destroyed equipment."

Yikes. If we didn't have enough to keep us awake at night...and, of course, how will we 'prove' to the world that this threat exists BEFORE it is used against us? Some stern words from the U.N.? A visit from Jimmy Carter? John Kerry's 'global test'?

Michael Barone on Christianity vs. Secularism

Michael Barone, one of my favorite pundits, has a great article on Christianity vs. secularism at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-4_25_05_MB.html.

I find it amazing that many liberals have an almost uniform knee-jerk reaction to discussions of the role of faith , citing all of the horrible deeds by Christians in world history. Their most recent example??? The Crusades. No credit is given at all for current history--where people of faith seek practical ways to show the love of Christ for their fellow man all over the world--by building villages, digging wells, providing food, clothing and shelter, teaching children, supporting local churches, providing health care, and so on.

But, as Michael points out, the religions of secularism and communism have been responsible for much more recent atrocities.

The real question is whether strong religious belief is on the rise in America and the world. Fifty years ago, secular liberals were confident that education, urbanization and science would lead people to renounce religion. That seems to have happened, if you confine your gaze to Europe, Canada and American university faculty clubs.

But this movement has not been as benign as expected: The secular faiths of fascism and communism destroyed millions of lives before they were extinguished.

And what pinnacles of human progress hath secular humanism brought to life in the United States? In a recent conversation, a colleague stated that he thought we had 'evolved beyond' the Ten Commandments....oh, really? Which ones?

Not Your Father's CBS (or NBC, ABC, NPR...)

Very interesting post by George Will at townhall.com on the future of the mainstream media, based on trends in demographics and the burgeoning resources on the internet, cable news and satellite radio....

Check it out.

Biz Week Cover Article on Blogs!!!

Blogging is becoming mainstream!!! See the cover article of BusinessWeek.

It will be interesting to see how the business world adapts to the blogosphere. The internet actually became a great 'leveler'--where two guys and a server could start competing with large, international corporations. It was interesting to watch the early winners and losers in the internet space...wonder if blogging will be the same way.

Check out the entire issue.

It always seems to come down to $$$$

No matter how highly principled our opponents to the war in Iraq...as the layers are peeled back, it always seems to come down to whose palms are being greased. Gotta love this post from Instapundit...

CANADIAN SCANDAL UPDATE:

The Canadian company that Saddam Hussein invested a million dollars in belonged to the Prime Minister of Canada, canadafreepress.com has discovered.

Cordex Petroleum Inc., launched with Saddam’s million by Prime Minister Paul Martin’s mentor Maurice Strong’s son Fred Strong, is listed among Martin’s assets to the Federal Ethics committee on November 4, 2003. . . .

Yesterday, Strong admitted that Tongsun Park, the Korean man accused by U.S. federal authorities of illegally acting as an Iraqi agent, invested in Cordex, the company he owned with his son, in 1997.

I remember a lot of talk about a "coalition of the bribed," but I'm not sure this was what people meant. . . .

Was it Worth it?

Another editorial by the Journal/Sentinel on the war in Iraq. No surprises here.

It was two years ago today that U.S. troops moved across the border from Kuwait into Iraq and began the campaign of "shock and awe" that quickly led to the downfall of Saddam Hussein. The people of Iraq have been rescued from the predations of a cruel dictator, but the postwar occupation of Iraq has not been an unqualified success.

Define unqualified success. A war where we drop a few bombs, dust ourselves off and proclaim victory? No, Clinton tried that--his policies led to the 9/11 attack on U.S. soil. A war where there are no casualties? A war where everything (including the behavior of a highly unpredictable enemy) is planned, down to the minute? (I know highly rehearsed theatrical performances where everyone is 'on the same page' that could never achieve the level of an 'unqualified success' as defined by the J/S).

Actually, given all of the liberal hysteria at the outset of the war (there were going to be hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties, Saddam was going to unleash biological and chemical weapons--that he didn't have--on our troops, the 'Arab street' was going to rise up against America in unprecedented fury, and our imperialist arrogance was going to bring on more 9/11-style attacks)--NONE OF WHICH HAS COME TRUE--I think 'unqualified success' is a pretty good description.

I suspect that the Iraqi people, who are no longer subject to random torture and death might have a different definition of 'unqualified success'. Here's a post from Instapundit who quotes a post from an Iraqi blogger. Follow the link to read his entire post.

TWO YEARS LATER, WAS THE IRAQ WAR WORTH IT? Iraqi blogger Husayn Uthman writes:

So you ask me, Husayn, was it worth it. What have you gotten? What has Iraq acheived? These are questions I get a lot.

To may outsiders, like those who protested last year, who will protest today. This was a fools errand, it brought nothing but death and destruction. I am sheltered in Iraq, but I know how the world feels, how people have come to either love or hate Bush, as though heis the emobdiement of this war. As though this war is part of Bush, they forget the over twenty million Iraqis, they forget the Middle Easterners, they forget the average person on the street, the average man with the average dream.

Ask him if it was worth it. Ask him what is different. Ask him if he would go through it again, go ahead ask him, ask me, many of you have.

Now I answer you, I answer you on behalf of myself, and my countrymen. I dont care what your news tells you, what your television and newspapers say, this is how we feel. Despite all that has happened. Despite all the hurt, the pain, blood, sweat and tears. These two years have given us hope we never had.

Egyptian blogger Big Pharaoh comments: "I believe it should be published in newspapers worldwide. Reading about Husayn's feeling is special because he lost his cousin in the Hilla terrorist bombing."

posted at 12:17 PM by Glenn Reynolds

Was World War II an 'unqualified success'? If so, on what basis? I fear that, had the J/S Editorial Board been in charge during World War II, the Hitler party would still be in power and the Jewish race would have been exterminated from the face of the earth.

But there's more from the J/S...

Brushing aside the qualms of the United Nations, the Bush administration led an invasion of Iraq with the avowed purpose of ridding that country of weapons of mass destruction. The existence of the weapons had been attested to by the CIA and was endlessly cited by President Bush and others. Two years later, it has become a virtual certainty that those weapons did not exist at the time of the invasion.

Okay, where do I start? First of all, the J/S Editors seem to ignore the stunning New York Times article (quoted here in an earlier blog) that seems to suggest that WMD did exist and were carefully spirited out of the country during the early weeks of the war. Of course, you won't read ANYTHING about that in the pages of the Journal/Sentinel or on their editorial page.

Next, WMD was NEVER the sole reason for invading Iraq (which one might forget in the constant liberal drumbeat about WMD). President Bush had this to say in his radio address on March 15, 2003:

As diplomatic efforts continue, we must never lose sight of the basic facts about the regime of Baghdad.

We know from recent history that Saddam Hussein is a reckless dictator who has twice invaded his neighbors without provocation -- wars that led to death and suffering on a massive scale. We know from human rights groups that dissidents in Iraq are tortured, imprisoned and sometimes just disappear; their hands, feet and tongues are cut off; their eyes are gouged out; and female relatives are raped in their presence.

As the Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel, said this week, "We have a moral obligation to intervene where evil is in control. Today, that place is Iraq." (emphasis mine)

We know from prior weapons inspections that Saddam has failed to account for vast quantities of biological and chemical agents, including mustard agent, botulinum toxin and sarin, capable of killing millions of people. We know the Iraqi regime finances and sponsors terror. And we know the regime has plans to place innocent people around military installations to act as human shields.

Read the text of the entire radio address here.

Third, even IF the WMD did not exist (a virtual impossibility, since Saddam used them on his own people--but let's make the argument, just for fun), EVERYONE on the face of the planet (including Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, the beloved United Nations, etc.) thought that they did.

People simply have to operate on the best information they have at the time to make decisions. "Analysis paralysis" is not a good characteristic for a world leader.

The Monday Morning Quarterback is always secure in his smug satisfaction that he is smarter, more savvy and more sophisticated than those folks actually out on the field, taking the hard knocks and making the split-second decisions (good and bad) required to win...but no one seriously would put the Monday Morning Quarterback out on a field during an actual game. Because we all know that would spell disaster.

Let's MOVE ON beyond this eternal harping about the causes for the war and look FORWARD to the policies that will help the future of Iraq become an 'unqualified success' for the people in that country and in the region. And recognize the value of President Bush's stubborn belief that ALL people in the world deserve independence and freedom from tyranny.

I believe that history will be the judge...

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. - John F. Kennedy

Update on Ward Churchill & "Academic Freedom"

I could not have said it better myself, so I won't. From Belmont Club.

To Newsweek's Paul Tolme, University of Colorado outgoing President Elizabeth Hoffman's problems with Ward Churchill were all about preserving Free Speech in a nation grown increasingly intolerant.

... earlier this year, ethnic-studies professor Ward Churchill ignited a fierce debate over academic freedom because of a 2001 essay in which he called victims of the September 11 attacks "little Eichmanns." Hoffman and many members of the faculty defended Churchill's right to his opinions while outside of campus, and Colorado lawmakers called for his dismissal. ...

Hoffman seemed particularly concerned about the Churchill situation. ... "We are so deeply divided as a country." This division, she says, threatens the foundation of liberal higher education. "The modern research university is a big and complex place," she says, "but it ultimately is about the generation of new ideas and the transfer of those new ideas to students. ... What's tricky is sheltering new ideas without alienating the legislatures that control state budgets.

Two ideas are striving for primacy in Hoffman's construct. The first is her idea of the academy as a conservator of every specimen of mental life, the counterpart of a biological repository containing bacterial and viral samples; some virulent and some extremely beneficial. The second is the idea of the academy as a transmitter of ideas. In her words, "the modern research university is a big and complex place, but it ultimately is about the generation of new ideas and the transfer of those new ideas to students."

Logically, the chief problem inherent in this duality is less about 'sheltering new ideas' from a public reluctant to support them than about reconciling conservatory and scholarly functions with the pedagogical ones. Just as modern medicine trains physicians to distinguish between poisons and therapeutic drugs, the difference often being simply the size of the dose, the modern university must above all train its students to discerningly choose from the garden of concepts it so carefully cultivates, not simply engage in "the transfer of those new ideas to students" as if they were so many hotdogs in a cafeteria line.

Ironically, the public glare focused upon Ward Churchill's ideas in the aftermath of his "little Eichmanns" essay provided the scholarly scrutiny that the University of Coloardo itself neglected to supply. Did the US government actually specify a 'blood quantum' for Native Americans? Did US troops really distribute smallpox-impregnated blankets to tribes and with what precautions to themselves? Did Professor Churchill really provide the content of books on which his name appears or did he swipe it from some other scholar? Those are questions which have been dissected at length by persons "outside the campus" and even by "Colorado lawmakers". That they were not raised or even contemplated by academic departments at the University of Colorado constitutes a failure of its most basic mission. Universities not in the business of asking these these questions are arguably not institutions of higher learning at all. That neglect, not the discussion which her University went so far out of its way to avoid, "threatens the foundation of liberal higher education".

posted by wretchard at 11:43 PM

Where Have All the Weapons Gone?

Very interesting story in The New York Times. Apparently, there was a highly organized effort to remove materials from Iraq's key weapons installations immediately after the fall of Baghdad. These were not guys running down the streets, carrying TVs, but cranes and trucks removing equipment from about 90 key sites in Iraq.

This comes from an analysis of satellite photography by two United Nations commissions--the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Monitoring, Verfication and Inspection Commission (so cannot be branded by the left as 'more Bush lies').

Dr. Sami al-Araji, the Iraqi deputy ministery of industry, said that the missing material included:

...equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's dormant program on unconventional weapons.

and then later in the article:

The first wave came for the machines. The second wave, cables and cranes. The third wave came for the bricks.

The NYT article goes on to say...

In its most recent report to the United Nations Security Council, in October, the agency said it "continues to be concerned about the widespread and apparently systematic dismantlement that has taken place at sites previously relevant to Iraq's nuclear program."

Agency inspectors, in visiting other countries, have discovered tons of industrial scrap, some radioactively contaminated, from Iraq, the report noted. It added, however, that the agency had been unable to track down any of the high-quality, dual-use equipment or materials.

The disappearance of such equipment," the report emphasized, "may be of proliferation significance."

The monitoring commission has filed regular reports to the Security Council since raising alarms last May about looting in Iraq, the dismantlement of important weapons installations and the export of dangerous materials to foreign states.

Read the article here. So, why isn't this front-page news? And how many folks do you think will be lining up to apologize to President Bush when we find out that Saddam DID have WMD??? (Don't hold your breath--it could be hazardous to your health!!!)

The Fugitive

Amazing story from Atlanta, where a petite, blonde widowed mother (with a little help from a Friend) accomplished what the entire Atlanta criminal justice system could not. I heard Ashley Smith on NBC's Today Show this morning describe how she read from The Purpose-Driven Life to Brian Nichols, the fugitive who had killed several people and eluded Atlanta police for hours.

Read the article here.

An Oxymoron: The "Best" of Dan Rather

While the "best" of Dan Rather might seem an oxymoron, check out The Media Research Center's post here.

One of most amazing things about Rather is the fact that he appears to be completely unaware of his own bias (either that or he is a bald-faced liar).

I'm biased. I know and admit I am biased. Fortunately, no one has asked me to put myself in a position where I have to represent myself as UNBIASED, because, frankly, it would not be possible. In fact, I don't think I know anyone who is NOT biased.

But isn't it reasonable to expect that people in the news media (not the editorialists or commentators, but the 'hard news' folks) reign in their personal opinion and present the FACTS as clearly and unadorned as possible, so that the viewer/listener/reader can make up their own minds? Isn't it total arrogance for the mainstream media to believe that they have to tell us what to think? As if we are incapable of coming up with our own valid opinions based on reality?

And knowing that the public is becoming more and more skeptical of the media, don't you think they would bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of bias?

Saddam Capture: The Michael Moore Film Version?

Here's the latest credibility-buster from the MSM.

Check out the UPI story here about the "former US Marine" who claims that the capture of Saddam Hussein was fictionalized by the U.S. Army.

A former U.S. Marine who participated in capturing ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein said the public version of his capture was fabricated.

Ex-Sgt. Nadim Abou Rabeh, of Lebanese descent, was quoted in the Saudi daily al-Medina Wednesday as saying Saddam was actually captured Friday, Dec. 12, 2003, and not the day after, as announced by the U.S. Army.

"I was among the 20-man unit, including eight of Arab descent, who searched for Saddam for three days in the area of Dour near Tikrit, and we found him in a modest home in a small village and not in a hole as announced," Abou Rabeh said.

"We captured him after fierce resistance during which a Marine of Sudanese origin was killed," he said.

He said Saddam himself fired at them with a gun from the window of a room on the second floor. Then they shouted at him in Arabic: "You have to surrender. ... There is no point in resisting."

"Later on, a military production team fabricated the film of Saddam's capture in a hole, which was in fact a deserted well," Abou Rabeh said.

Abou Rabeh was interviewed in Lebanon.

Then check out this site, where a number of fact-finders weigh in:

His story is a load of bull. Saddam was captured by Task Force 121, which is composed mainly of Delta Force (more information available here). No marines participated in the capture of Saddam Hussein.

Also an interesting example of the blogosphere at work. Perhaps UPI should hire a few bloggers to 'fact check' for them!

Support from where? (Not the British press!?!?)

The cover story of The Independent tomorrow here - "Was Bush Right After All?" Read the whole thing.

Then, if you aren't already smiling enough, check out this site: I am not Saddam Hussein.

Ward Churchill--An Equal Opportunity Cheater

I know I shouldn't devote any more time or energy to this guy, but it's kind of like driving past a train wreck. Horrible--but you just have to keep looking. Apparently, the only 'freedom' that Ward is interested in is the freedom to help himself to others' work.

Read the article here from the CBS4 Denver News website about the latest antics from Ward Churchill. Be sure to click on the video (on the right side of the page, entitled "CBS4 Video: Churchill's Aggressive Response To Artwork Controversy").

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's editorial "Triumph for free speech" lauds UWW for allowing Churchill to speak. Check out Ward's support for free speech and freedom of the press in the video clip.

I wager that he will self-destruct shortly.

More original art from Ward here.

...With a little help from their friends

Gibran Tueni, one of the leaders of the opposition in Lebanon and the editor of Lebanon's largest newspaper, An-Nahar, gave an amazing interview to Fox's Jennifer Griffin last Thursday (March 3rd) on Special Report with Brit Hume.

I was waiting for a transcript (and even emailed FNC for one), but they don't seem to be releasing one. So, with the aid of my trusty VCR, here it is (could be a blog 'exclusive'...who knows? Just remember you read it here first!!!)

Jennifer:
In his State of the Union address, President Bush vowed American help in spreading freedom throughout the Middle East. A leader of Lebanon's opposition, Gibran Tueni, editor of Lebanon's largest newspaper, says that was a turning point for their movement to get Syria out of Lebanon.

Gibran:
Huge impact. A huge impact. You know, really, people felt very happy when President Bush was re-elected. Believe it or not, we had a headline that day which was on eight columns--one word--Bush. Like that. You know why? Simply because, we think that is the first time that an American president is speaking clearly about democracy and is serious about implementing democracy in the Middle East.

Really, the Lebanese were always cautious about the American policy in the Middle East. The Lebanese always thought that the Americans bartered them with the Syrians. Lebanese are still cautious and afraid that one day or another, you will have a Syrian/American agreement, you know, and Lebanese will pay the price.

What helped a lot also, I think, really, is that this is the first time that we felt that maybe we are not going to pay the price alone. Because at the time we were outspoken, but you were killed.

Jennifer:
Lebanon is not the only place in the Arab World where people once too scared to express themselves are speaking up. The gun is quickly being replaced by the ballot box and free speech. Iraqis and Palestinians have just voted in their first free and fair elections. And now the Lebanese are throwing off the yoke of Syrian occupation.

Gibran:
If President Bush is serious about talking about democracy in the Middle East, you have a democratic state here. Just help us to preserve the democracy. We are not asking, you know, for the six feet of Marines here. We don't need it. We know how to deal by ourselves.

Jennifer:But they need a little help from their friends.

Imagine the impact. A free and democratic Middle East, whose citizens feel a debt of gratitude to the United States for our support....

The Significance of January 30th

Great editorial from Bill Kristol in The Weekly Standard on the notion that the January 30th Iraqi election will prove to be a "turning point", affecting politics in the Middle East for years to come.

History is best viewed in the rear-view mirror. It's hard to grasp the significance of events as they happen. It's even harder to forecast their meaning when they're only scheduled to happen. And once they occur, it's usually the case that possible historical turning points, tipping points, inflection points, or just points of interest turn out in the cold glare of history to have been of merely passing importance.

But sometimes not. Just four weeks after the Iraqi election of January 30, 2005, it seems increasingly likely that that date will turn out to have been a genuine turning point. The fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, ended an era. September 11, 2001, ended an interregnum. In the new era in which we now live, 1/30/05 could be a key moment--perhaps the key moment so far--in vindicating the Bush Doctrine as the right response to 9/11. And now there is the prospect of further and accelerating progress.

He quotes Walid Jumblatt, the Lebanese Druze Muslim leader (quoted on this site in an earlier post), saying,

It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. . . . The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it.

Next in line is Claus Christian Malzahn of Der Spiegel, in his article "Could George W. Bush Be Right?"

President Ronald Reagan's visit to Berlin in 1987 was, in many respects, very similar to President George W. Bush's visit to Mainz on Wednesday. . . . The Germany Reagan was traveling in, much like today's Germany, was very skeptical of the American president and his foreign policy. When Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate--and the Berlin Wall--and demanded that Gorbachev "tear down this wall," he was lampooned the next day on the editorial pages. He is a dreamer, wrote commentators. Realpolitik looks different.

But history has shown that it wasn't Reagan who was the dreamer as he voiced his demand. Rather, it was German politicians who were lacking in imagination--a group who in 1987 couldn't imagine that there might be an alternative to a divided Germany. . . . When George W. Bush requests that Chancellor Schröder--who, by the way, was also not entirely complimentary of Reagan's 1987 speech--and Germany become more engaged in the Middle East, everybody on the German side will nod affably. But . . . Bush's idea of a Middle Eastern democracy imported at the tip of a bayonet is, for Schröder's Social Democratic party and his coalition partner the Green party, the hysterical offspring of the American neocons. Even German conservatives find the idea that Arab countries could transform themselves into enlightened democracies somewhat absurd...

Just a thought for Old Europe to chew on: Bush might be right, just like Reagan was then.

And finally...Kurt Anderson in New York Magazine...

Our heroic and tragic liberal-intellectual capaciousness is facing its sharpest test since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Back then, most of us were forced, against our wills, to give Ronald Reagan a large share of credit for winning the Cold War. Now the people of this Bush-hating city are being forced to grant the merest possibility that Bush, despite his annoying manner and his administration's awful hubris and dissembling and incompetence concerning Iraq, just might--might, possibly--have been correct to invade, to occupy, and to try to enable a democratically elected government in Iraq. . . .

It won't do simply to default to our easy predispositions--against Bush, even against war. If partisanship makes us abandon intellectual honesty, if we oppose what our opponents say or do simply because they are the ones saying or doing it, we become mere political short-sellers, hoping for bad news because it's good for our ideological investment.

It is too early to declare victory. The Middle East has a long and tortured history. There will doubtless be multiple setbacks and struggles ahead. But to quote Alexis de Toqueville:

"Patiently endured as long as it seemed beyond redress, a grievance comes to appear intolerable once the possibility of removing it crosses men's minds."

Perhaps the greatest gift of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush is their shared conviction that freedom is a possibility for all people and therefore allowing that dream to cross the minds of people everywhere.

Historic Change Sweeping Middle East

Amazing events unfolding in Lebanon....from AOL News. Check out the great pictures!

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said he expected Syrian troops to pull out of Lebanon in a few months, as hundreds of Lebanese protesters returned to central Beirut on Tuesday demanding Syria quit their country.

Syria has 14,000 troops in Lebanon, but its dominant role in the country has come under increasing pressure as a result of mass demonstrations sparked by the assassination last month of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri.

Two weeks of unprecedented protests forced the pro-Syrian cabinet of Prime Minister Omar Karami to step down on Monday, piling pressure on Damascus, and left officials with a complicated search for a new premier.

''It (withdrawal) should be very soon and maybe in the next few months. Not after that,'' Assad told Time magazine in an interview published on its Web site on Tuesday. ''I can't give you a technical answer. The point is the next few months.''

Meanwhile, Mark Steyn weighs in:

Consider just the past couple of days' news: not the ever more desperate depravity of the floundering "insurgency", but the real popular Arab resistance the car-bombers and the head-hackers are flailing against: the Saudi foreign minister, who by remarkable coincidence goes by the name of Prince Saud, told Newsweek that women would be voting in the next Saudi election. "That is going to be good for the election," he said, "because I think women are more sensible voters than men."

Four-time Egyptian election winner - and with 90 per cent of the vote! - President Mubarak announced that next polling day he wouldn't mind an opponent. Ordering his stenographer to change the constitution to permit the first multi-choice presidential elections in Egyptian history, His Excellency said the country would benefit from "more freedom and democracy". The state-run TV network hailed the president's speech as a "historical decision in the nation's 7,000-year-old march toward democracy". After 7,000 years on the march, they're barely out of the parking lot, so Mubarak's move is, as they say, a step in the right direction.

Meanwhile in Damascus, Boy Assad, having badly overplayed his hand in Lebanon and after months of denying that he was harbouring any refugee Saddamites, suddenly discovered that - wouldja believe it? - Saddam's brother and 29 other bigshot Baghdad Baathists were holed up in north-eastern Syria, and promptly handed them over to the Iraqi government.

And, for perhaps the most remarkable development, consider this report from Mohammed Ballas of Associated Press: "Palestinians expressed anger on Saturday at an overnight suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that killed four Israelis and threatened a fragile truce, a departure from former times when they welcomed attacks on their Israeli foes."

No disrespect to Associated Press, but I was disinclined to take their word for it. However, Charles Johnson, whose Little Green Footballs website has done an invaluable job these past three years presenting the ugly truth about Palestinian death-cultism, reported that he went hunting around the internet for the usual photographs of deliriously happy Gazans dancing in the street and handing out sweets to celebrate the latest addition to the pile of Jew corpses - and, to his surprise, couldn't find any.

Why is all this happening? Answer: January 30.

And from Powerline:

We're in a period right now where I can't wait to check the news every day. Events, especially in the Middle East, are moving in what would have been considered an impossibly hopeful direction just a few months ago. The Bush administration believed that if the door to democracy and reform were opened in Iraq, much of the Arab world might follow. This was always a big gamble--one that we supported in part because, as we've often said, no one has proposed a competing plan to deal, long-term, with the problem of Islamic terrorism.

Right now, President Bush's gamble is looking very good indeed. Something like 50 million people have been liberated in Afghanistan and Iraq. Positive developments are occurring before our eyes in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. It's way too soon to proclaim the administration's strategy a success; indeed, we may not be sure in our lifetimes whether the strategy that underlay the Iraq war was a sound one. But right now, it sure is fun to read the headlines.

Of course, not everyone agrees. MSNBC's Question of the Day is: "Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria: Is the Bush Doctrine working?" Currently, 35% say "yes," while 65% say "no." These folks seem to have a high standard for what constitutes "working," which I suspect tells us more about MSNBC's readership than about the geopolitical merits of the administration's strategy.

The Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel has a great editorial on this topic, marred only by its puzzling reference to Warren Christopher. I guess they couldn't bring themselves to give any credit for the spread of freedom to You-Know-Who....

Traumatic Times for the Dems

Great article by Noemie Emery in The Weekly Standard, "Election Shock Treatment".

With things looking up for a change, this has been a rough patch of time for the Democrats. They have been suffering from Election Shock Treatment; which means the success of the Iraqi elections has shocked them into the realization that they may have to seek treatment, because of the trauma induced by the growing suspicion that President Bush has been right all along: right in the decision to go into Iraq; right in the decision to hang tough in Palestine; right in the belief that Muslims and Arabs may also want freedom; that elections there can be held, and succeed.

Liberals are always hot for democracy once the struggles are over: It's in the struggles themselves they slip up.

It is one thing to refuse to give credit to Bush for the remarkable events unfolding in the Middle East, but liberals take it a step further. Jumping on the bandwagon now after fighting tooth and nail against the very policies that got us here is almost too much to bear.

Claiming credit in retrospect for things you opposed at the time is a new high in chutzpah, or, if not that, in delusion. But delusion is what people retreat to when reality is much too traumatic. "Here's the great fear that I have," said comedian Jon Stewart once the Iraq elections were over. "What if Bush, the president, ours, has been right about this all along? I feel that my world view may not sustain itself, and I may, and again I don't know if I can physically do this, implode."

In light of the incredible events of the past week, it is even more true.