Right Wing Nut House

I saw a great “Frontline - World” program last night on the progress of democratic reform in Lebanon featuring some extraordinary interviews by correspondent Kate Seelye with various members of the opposition. From statements made on the show plus more recent meetings of the opposition coalition, the Qornet Shehwan Gathering, the picture that’s emerging is one of a mostly united opposition working hard to paper over their political and sectarian differences in order to defeat the Syrian-backed candidates arrayed against them in the upcoming elections which will begin on May 29.

First, if the United States is under the expectation that Hezballah will disarm and not take part in the political process, we’re going to be sadly disappointed. Despite Hezballah’s terrorist activities against Israel and their acting as Syria’s enforcers during the recent occupation, they’ve become a political force to be reckoned with through both their numbers and their representation in Lebanon’s Parliament. With 12 seats in the 128 seat legislative body, Hezballah is well positioned to play a part in any post election government. And how that government will take shape will have to be hammered out in meetings like the one held yesterday under the auspices of the Qornet Shehwan Gathering and the Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir:

Some Christian politicians within the group had already sealed electoral alliances despite opposition from Sfeir and others who were hoping a refusal to participate would force a change in the election law.

But Sfeir denied there was any conflict within the gathering.

The patriarch said: “It is all rumors being circulated in the media to break up the unity of the opposition.”

Sfeir added: “I am sure that the Lebanese will unite despite the electoral process, which might politically separate them briefly.”

The “election law” dates from the year 2000 and was forced down the throat of the Lebanese by Syria. The law is an anathema to Christians because it favors other religious minorities:

The reason other sects are not strongly in favor of helping the Christians in their campaign to reform the electoral law is twofold.

First, the 2000 election law benefits the old, well-established political parties. Although the major politicians may not be the most popular representatives of their constituents, they have a wider range of support. The way the law is written, it is better to have 100 supporters in every city in the South than it is to have 1,000 voters in the same place.

Obviously, given that the government is a major employer in every city in Lebanon and given that Lebanese politicians designate employee status, old politicians have a wider range of support. This is particularly true in the case of Speaker Nabih Berri whose main source of power is in the assignment of government jobs.

Jumblatt’s power base was affirmed in 2000. He now only has problems in Baabda-Aley, but could gain seats in the Bekaa and South through deals with Hezbollah.

The good news is that the Christian minority will not call for a boycott of the elections. Like good democrats, they’re going to wait until after the election and then work within the coalition to radically reform the Lebanese political system. As it stands now, various jobs in government - the President, the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the House - are reserved for specific religious minorities. Also, legislative districts are drawn to maximize sectarian advantage. The Christians want to change this as it puts them at a disadvantage. They do have some support for this:

Following a meeting with U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman, Sheikh Abdel-Amir Qabalan said the best electoral law would be based on the single-district system and proportional representation. Qabalan said adopting a system of smaller districts, or qadas, will only promote sectarianism and hamper the country’s development.

“Adopting the mohafaza system with proportional representation allows the Lebanese to elect their representatives,” he said, adding that Parliament did not adopt the 2000 electoral law in order to “marginalize any Lebanese faction,” but only to avoid delaying the elections.

“We want to live in harmony and coexistence with different Lebanese sects,” he said.

And the old Druze warlord Walid Jumblatt along with Rafik Hariri’s son Said have also become part of this loose coalition, although Jumblatt is trying to align himself with Hezballah:

During a question-and-answer session with his supporters, Jumblatt tells a man in the crowd that he wants to cooperate with Hezbollah. He tells Seelye that Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization and that one solution to the problem of disarming Hezbollah is to integrate their militia into the Lebanese army. In his vision of a new Lebanon, Jumblatt supports modernizing the country by abandoning the traditional political system, which is based on religious affiliation.

He may get an argument on this integration of Hezballah with other members of the coalition who see Hezballah as too close to the Syrians. And at the very least, the United States (as well as others in the opposition) would like to see the Hezballah militias disarmed:

With Hezbollah embedded so deeply in the current political and social fabric of Lebanon, attacking the organization now could plunge the country back into chaos. Meanwhile, Hezbollah leaders have made several overtures to the United States. After September 11, for example, the group quickly criticized bin Laden’s attack. In recent interviews, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah has said that his organization is not a threat to the United States.

Hezbollah’s status is in flux, its future unclear. A few key questions remain to be answered: What will be the likely effect of this U.S. pressure? Can Hezbollah withstand the diplomatic onslaught, rally its allies, and sustain its position? Will the U.S. government launch an all-out assault? Or might Hezbollah be willing to pay a price — that of disbanding its military activities — for its survival, in order to grow even larger as a powerful political party in Lebanon?

Good questions those. And this makes Hezballah something of a wild card when it comes to determining the shape of the Lebanese government. If they forsake their militia role for a purely political one, will they continue to receive support from Assad in Syria? Or the mullahs in Iran?

As for the overall pace of reform, there’s a debate going on now as to how much, if at all, America is helping speed the process. There are some who believe that reform movements should steer clear of American assistance lest they be tarnished by our unpopular policies. But there are others who see George Bush’s commitment to democracy as one of the biggest catalysts for change. Here’s American scholar Michael Hudson (no fan of the President or his policies);

“There is a really substantial stirring for change in societies throughout the Middle East that we have not seen before,” he says. “People are talking, debating, and organizing everywhere, and even members of the ruling elite see that the time has come for real change.” He calls for a serious debate on whether the American government’s Arab reform promotion policies are having any impact, noting that this is not a black and white case where Washington is either presciently honorable or deviously duplicitous. Is there a causal relationship between Washington’s reform promotion policy and the changes taking place in the region? At the least, he believes, President George W. Bush has enjoyed lucky timing, and has tapped into forces and calls for change that were already under way in the Middle East, even though he may have had nothing to do with fomenting those forces.

Clearly Lebanon is at a crossroads. It’s very encouraging that for the moment, the opposition seems to be on the same page. But once the election is held and the grasping for power begins, it will be interesting to see whether or not the “earthquake” that rattled Lebanon following the assassination of Rafiq Hariri will provide enough momentum so that Lebanon’s many factions can safely traverse the rocky road in front of them and achieve the freedom and democracy the people devoutly wish for.

As I write this, dozens of reporters and perhaps thousands of bloggers from lefty sites are desperately, frantically searching for evidence that U.S. military personnel desecrated the Koran to apply psychological pressure to Muslim prisoners. They’re combing the archives of foreign newspapers, calling GI’s who served at detention facilities, milking their sources for all they’re worth, and wearing out search engine bots hoping to find the “smoking toilet” niblet that will propel them to moonbat stardom.

I have bad news for the Bush Administration and all of us smugly self-satisfied righty bloggers, basking in the glow of one more MSM scalp dangling from our lodgepoles; they’re going to find something.

I can picture it now. Some poor schlub of a corporal being interviewed on “60 Minutes,” his faced blacked out and voice disguised so that he can avoid “retribution” telling us in that ridiculously altered “voix changé” that he personally saw some red-neck Major/Captain/Colonel wave the Holy Koran in front of some poor, suffering terrorists face and then deliberately try and flush the book down the crapper.

I say try because it’s evident that Newsweek reporters Isikoff and Barry don’t use toilets very much. The only book that’s going down your garden variety “necessary” are the kinds of books you find in a box of Cracker Jacks. I’m dating myself here but Cracker Jack used to have a “surprise” in every box and one of the surprises was a “Joke Book” that had two or three really bad puns in it. The book was about the size of a matchbook and you were usually terribly disappointed you didn’t get the ring or the super small compass.

So after this truly startling and upsetting piece of information is “revealed” we’ll have to endure a month or two of moonbat crowing, solemn and sanctimonious editorials from the New York Times, and probably a round of Congressional hearings.

In the meantime, the benighted 10th century peasant savages, stirred into a frenzy of anguish by their holy men and holy warriors, will once again take to the streets and pick up where they left off last week. There will be head bashings and beatings and burnings and the usual posing before news cameras, complete with signs in very bad English saying something like “Amerikins Hands up Our Koran Holy!”

Of course, the irony of the protest will escape these feeble-minded, dirty necked galoots. Simply put, there is no othe religion on the planet today that shows less respect for the symbols and saints of faiths that differ from theirs.

The Palestinian gunmen holed up in the Church of the Nativity seized church stockpiles of food and “ate like greedy monsters” until the food ran out, while more than 150 civilians went hungry. They also guzzled beer, wine, and Johnnie Walker scotch that they found in priests’ quarters, undeterred by the Islamic ban on drinking alcohol. The indulgence lasted for about two weeks into the 39-day siege, when the food and drink ran out, according to an account by four Greek Orthodox priests who were trapped inside for the entire ordeal….

The Orthodox priests and a number of civilians have said the gunmen created a regime of fear.

Even in the Roman Catholic areas of the complex there was evidence of disregard for religious norms. Catholic priests said that some Bibles were torn up for toilet paper, and many valuable sacramental objects were removed. “Palestinians took candelabra, icons and anything that looked like gold,” said a Franciscan, the Rev. Nicholas Marquez from Mexico.42

These devout Muslims also urinated and defacted in the church - a church that Christians believe sits on the site marking where Jesus Christ was born.

An isolated incident?

Did any Buddhists riot and murder when the Taliban Muslims blew up the irreplaceable giant Buddhist statues in Afghanistan?

When all Christian services and even the wearing of a cross were banned in Saudi Arabia? When Christians are murdered while at prayer in churches by Muslims in Pakistan?

Have any Jews rioted in all the years since it was revealed that Jordanian Muslims used Jewish tombstones in Old Jerusalem as latrines? Or after Palestinians destroyed Joseph’s Tomb in 2000 and set fire to the rebuilt tomb in 2003?

It is quite remarkable that many Muslims believe that an American interrogator flushing pages of the Koran is worthy of rioting, but all the torture, slaughter, terror and mass murder done by Muslims in the name of the Koran are unworthy of even a peaceful protest.

So the moonbats will have their triumph, a fat lot of good it will do them. If they’re so desperate to “get” Bush to the point that they’re willing for people to die to help quench the fires of hatred that burn so hotly in their tortured souls then there’s not much you can say to them that will deter their quixotic quest to…what? What do they want?

The left wants a 9/10 world. They want the way the world used to be not the world as it is today. The psychic anguish they’re experiencing as a result of the toppling of their comfortable, fantastic worldview following 9/11 has left them emotionally adrift and psychologically battered. All of their assumptions regarding international order and how the United States should relate to other countries have taken the same route as their mythical Koran - they’ve been flushed down the toilet.

A few - a very few- voices on the left have tried to cobble together a set of principles consistent with traditional liberal values and a hard headed, realistic approach to the War on Terror. Senator Joe Lieberman comes to mind as does Christopher Hitchens. There are others; solitary figures groping in the dark trying to make their way in this Brave New World of radioactive mullahs, nutty NoKo’s, and fanatical jihadists hell bent for leather on killing as many Americans as Allah will grant them the favor to do. So far, their efforts have been met with contempt by their fellow liberals. And they have yet to come up with coherent policy prescriptions to counter the Bush Administration’s neo-realpolitik outlook on world affairs.

Judging by the single minded determination of their brethren on the left who will not be deterred from their seek and destroy toilet mission, it may be a while before they’re taken seriously by anyone.

Whew! It’s a good thing we live in a neo-fascist, semi-theocratic military dictatorship. Otherwise, poor Karl Rove would be going to jail for about 10,000 years. As it stands, Karl’s getting a free pass because his boss, Der Fuehrer Adolph…er, George Bush controls the government, the press, the judiciary, and just about anything else that isn’t nailed down or shut tight. So of course, Rove’s boss would protect his “architect” with all the power of the state at his disposal.

I mean, here’s a perfect example.

Newsweek getting “caught” like this has Karl Rove’s stink all over it. Am I the only one who sees this pattern at work?…one that is destroying the credibility of the press? Not that the press hasn’t made its own mistakes (thanks NY Times/Jason Blair)…but when it comes to “big news” stories where The White House gets to shout “How dare you!” because sources turn out to be shady (even though the facts of the story are never refuted)…

Come on, folks…who’s going to benefit most from living in a country where when CBS or Newsweek says the people in power have done something bad those people can do their best Ronald Reagan imitation and say “There they go again.”

Imagine that! Rove using the rope-a-dope on the press. Cleverly drawing them into his spider web where he can watch them hang there, twisting, slowly…slowly in the wind. I must say, I didn’t see this one coming. Looks like I’ll have to get my tin foil hat adjusted again, dang! This is what I missed last September when the TANG story broke on CBS. I had to send the damn hat back to the factory to have it reinvigorated with anti-protons to repel the Rovian waves emanating from the White House:

The right wing better watch how far they want to take this. Perhaps Bush was able to destroy the original Killian memos to ensure that the truth about his National Guard service will never see the light of day. But he is not powerful enough to destroy the proof of these prisoner abuses, if they indeed occurred (and I think they did). Somebody will talk, somebody will release the Guantanomo version of the Pentagon Papers, and the credibility of the right wing will take another substantial hit.

Maybe the moonbats should start using reverse-reverse psychology. You know..like Maxwell Smart used to catch the KAOS spies.

Max: I know

99: I know you know.

Max: I know you know that I know.

99: I know you know that I know that you know.

Max:

99:

Max: Sorry, 99.

Or would somebody rather play politics with this? The way Craig Crawford reconstructed it, this one went similarly to the way the Killian Memos story evolved at the White House. The news organization turns to the administration for a denial. The administration says nothing. The news organization runs the story. The administration jumps on the necks of the news organization with both feet — or has its proxies do it for them.

That’s beyond shameful. It’s treasonous.

Now that’s more like it. Line ‘em up against a wall and shoot ‘em! Just one thing though…what’s treasonous about it? I mean, do you think it’s treasonous that the press is so easy to bamboozle? Or is it treasonous that the “Administration” (it was actually the Pentagon that Isikoff sought confirmation from…we think) in the person of some low level flunky doesn’t know everything about every scrap of paper that passes through the halls of government?

I’d go for the former. That way we can hang Rush Limbaugh from a sour apple tree and give the hot shot to Ann Coulter.

One thing’s for sure. I don’t care what anyone says, I’m keeping my hat on tight - at least till 2008. If Karl Rove wants to try and control my thoughts, he’ll have to pry this thing from my cold, dead fingers.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

Even his enemies concede that Newt Gingrich is a visionary. Listening to him give a speech or engage in a colloquy with Brian Lamb of C-Span, one is astonished at the sheer volume of ideas that spring forth from his inquisitive and overactive mind. The concepts and strategies that he espouse run the gamut from “wise use” stewardship of the environment to pondering the future of democracy in Russia and everything in between, in the margins, and outside the lines.

I was first exposed to this jaw-dropping exercise in rapid fire conceptualized rhetoric at a breakfast meeting of some long forgotten business trade association where, at that time, second term Congressman Newt Gingrich appeared to speak on behalf of the Reagan Revolution, then barely one year old and in considerable trouble. The economy had gone south, spending was out of control, and the President’s tax plan was in trouble.

Gingrich was late as he blew into the room, all smiles and apologies. There were about 15 of us working through a plate of stale danish and tasteless muffins, exchanging desultory comments about the weather when the Congressman sat down at the head of the long table and said “Okay, where do you want to start?” Someone asked him about interest rates and he was off.

Forty-five minutes later I was a convert to the cause. I had never heard anything like it. Thoughts and images poured off him like rainwater from a roof. There was simply no stopping him. Like a great blues guitarist, he went from one intellectual riff to another with perfectly logical transitions and bridges.

It was exhausting. And it was exhilarating.

We had a million questions to ask. But in the end, Gingrich was out of time and had to leave before he could answer any of them. And therein lies the problem with the man and why, sadly, I have to urge someone I admire and respect to do something that for him is unthinkable.

Please don’t run for President, Newt.

I’m hardly breaking any news here by saying that Newt Gingrich has wanted to be President since at least the time he first set foot in the Capitol. In fact, one of the things that I think attracts people to Newt is the bright light of personal ambition that illuminates so much of what he does. He’s that rarest of breeds, a visionary who seeks power not for power’s sake, but to make his vision a reality. To that end, he’s been accused of being ruthless, uncaring, a megalomaniac, and just plain dangerous. In truth, some episodes in Gingrich’s life reveal a man with those attributes and worse.

The Newt Gingrich at that breakfast had just been recently remarried. He separated from his first wife Jackie in 1980. Jackie was his high school math teacher who he married at age 19. As it turned out, Jackie developed cancer and had to go into the hospital for treatment:

After the separation in 1980, she had to be operated on again, to remove another tumor While she was still in the hospital, according to [Lee] Howell (former press secretary), “Newt came up there with his yellow legal pad, and he had a list of things on how the divorce was going to be handled. He wanted her to sign it. She was still recovering from surgery, still sort of out of it, and he comes in with a yellow sheet of paper, handwritten, and wants her to sign it.

Gingrich barely survived the election in 1980. The incident at the hospital, along with an incomprehensible intransigence regarding child and spousal support almost cost him the election. But it didn’t seem to dim the light in his eyes or bounce in his step as he and other young, back bench Republican conservatives began to plot the overthrow of the welfare state.

A favorite tactic of this group of young turks was to utilize “Special Order” speeches. Given after the legislative day is over and when the House chamber is virtually empty, Gingrich, Robert Walker from Pennsylvania, Vin Weber from Minnesota, and others, would take the floor and hold forth on a variety of issues. Oftentimes, they would turn these “speeches” into fascinating colloquy’s between one or more of the members that would range from historical dissertations on policy, to rancorous partisan attacks. Gingrich especially seemed to wield the sharpest knife of the group as he used the Democrats own words to reveal what R. Emmett Tyrell has called liberalism’s “riot of conceits.”
(more…)

I was going to call this episode “Love Boat Night on 24″ but seeing as the subject matter of the hour was so extremely serious, I didn’t want to jump the shark. But when you think about it, many of the episode’s most important moments had to do with love. Tony and Michelle. Jack and Audrey. Heller and his son. Even Tony’s sacrifice for poor Chase when he tried to save his live could be considered a supreme act of love. The question all of them were asking was is love enough?

On this night, the answer would have to be no.

SUMMARY

The missile is on its way and we find out it’s a cruise missile with an 1800 mile range. The fact that it looked absolutely nothing like a cruise missile (which in configuration resembles an airplane more than a missile) doesn’t bother me. I’ve already gone past the point of trying to match reality to TV drama so let’s just continue to suspend belief for another two hours shall we?

Marwan, smug and confident, awaits the inevitable grilling by Jack. What follows is a classic confrontation between the not so good and the very, very evil. And to those wondering why we just can’t invite Osama Bin Laden to lunch and hash out our differences, I give you Habeeb Marwan:

Jack: You and I both know all I want to do right now is kill you. But I have my orders. You win. I’ve been instructed to ask you what you want.

Marwan: What I want is already happening.

Jack: The death and destruction is a means to an end, Why don’t we just skip to the end?

Marwan: To the end?

Jack: Everything you did today you did for a reason, for your people. What do you want to change?

Marwan: I have no desire to have a political discussion with you..

Jack: You tell me where the missile is headed, you help me stop it and I’ll guarantee you’ll talk to the President. Believe me, he’ll have no choice but to listen. You have a chance to get what you want.

Marwan: I already have agent Bauer. After this day, elected officials and the American people will know that they can’t intervene in our lives, in our countries with impunity. Besides, your President sees me in only one dimension - evil.

Jack: As you see us?

Marwan: Yes…and vulnerable.

I think the writers did a very good job of capturing the logical irrationality (?) of the terrorist. Many on the left in this country think that if we could only find out what the terrorists “want” that they’ll somehow leave us alone. The left believes that if we withdraw from the world and apologize for being such meanies, the Marwan’s of this planet will go away. It’s not enough. Marwan isn’t out to “change” anything. He’s all about killing. He’s managed to rationalize it by tying it to the impotent rage felt by Arabs as they see the west represented by America pay their kleptocratic leaders for access to the lifeblood of human civilization - oil. But Marwan’s satisfaction is not in getting America to stop intervening to protect itself. His satisfaction comes from killing Americans…a lot of them.

Realizing he’s getting nowhere, Jack starts to take Marwan back to CTU for some proper interrogation. Out of the blue, a rocket is fired from unseen attackers and World War III breaks out. Pinned down, Jack and Curtis can only watch helplessly as Marwan is spirited away, once again outsmarting CTU and the American government. I think the writers had Marwan captured just so they could stage that conversation with Jack. Good writing. Good theater.

Following Marwan’s escape, CTU’s focus returns to trying to intercept the missile. When searching Marwan’s cell phone records, who do they find on there but our old friend, moonbat Richard Heller, the Secretary of Defense’s son. Chloe breaks the news to Buchanan and Tony who wonders if they should inform Richard’s sister:

Tony: Chloe - Does Audrey know about this?

Chloe: No. This is more of a management conversation, don’t ya think?

Tony looks at Chloe in disgust and just shakes his head. That’s our Chloe!

Back in the Presidential bunker, Jellyfish meets the Congressional leadership and immediately runs into trouble. Speaker Ashton who, according to Palmer, has confused his own personal ambition to be President with doing what’s best for the country, questions whether Jellyfish is really in charge. If he only knew….

Tony and Michelle have a sit down where Tony goes for the gold, telling Michelle he wants to get back together but not if they’re working at CTU. Michelle balks because she can’t imagine life without these nice, relaxing days at headquarters where the guys and gals at CTU prove that saving the country can be fun. Before Michelle can answer, reality intrudes once again and they’re off to follow up a lead supplied by Richard Heller.

Richard has been dragged kicking and screaming into the infamous holding room where Audrey convinces Jack that before he begins his torture routine she be allowed to talk to him. Jack relents and Audrey pleads with her brother to tell what he knows. Richard keeps claiming he doesn’t know anything at which point the Secretary, who’s been absent for several hours, makes an appearance. After informing Richard he’s going to let Jack use “every piece of equipment they have”, Heller shames his son into finally revealing the truth. He likes to have sex with men. Turns out Richard met a swinging couple at a bar. And while Richard was playing slap and tickle with the man, the woman made a phone call to Marwan who was able to connect to Richard’s phone and listen to all his subsequent conversations thus finding out when the Secretary was going to visit and enabling Marwan to plan the kidnapping.

I thought the Secretary handled the news of Richard’s (bi?) sexuality quite well. And given that Richard screwed the pooch by not revealing this information during his earlier interrogation, I thought the Secretary was more understanding than he probably should have been.

Maybe he was just relieved Richard wasn’t a terrorist.

Meanwhile back in the Presidential bunker, Novik realizes Speaker Ashton could try and make a move to remove Jellyfish unless he were convinced the Spineless One was in charge. So Palmer, Jellyfish and Novik cook up a little Kabuki dance where Jellyfish pretends to order Palmer around in front of Ashton. The subterfuge works but begs the question: Why can’t Jellyfish pretend to be in charge all the time?

After finding out where the swingers live by tracing the cab they took to an apartment complex, Jack and Tony make ready to pick them up. On his way out, Tony and Michelle, as predicted here numerous times, kiss and make up. This was actually a no brainer, of course. The real question comes next week. Will they be able to enjoy their retirement…together?

And Jack and Audrey have a conversation where Audrey almost relents and acts like a human being toward Jack. She’s torn but I’ll be extremely disappointed if those two make it back together. Too much water under the bridge, too much ugliness.

The swingers, who evidently really, really like to have sex together are about to leave the apartment to go and meet Marwan when the woman hears the copters and sees the cops gathering outside the complex. After casually shooting her lover, she starts to make her escape. Jack busts into the apartment and after finding the man, calls on everyone to search the perimeter. Everyone but Tony who’s been taken hostage by the woman. At a time when a nuclear missile is in the air and headed for an American city, Tony gives up his gun to save Chase? Not only doesn’t it do any good, but one would think at that point that everyone is expendable. Wrong move.

Jack finds Chase’s body and informs CTU of the probable hostage situation involving Tony. As teams of agents fan out over the complex to look for their one last link to Marwan, Michelle hears of Tony’s capture and almost loses it. But being the professional that she is, she snaps out of it and issues terse orders for everyone to “move it.” Brave words to mask the fear underneath.

BODY COUNT

Bad night for CTU tactical.Four go down during Marwan’s rescue and Chase gets it during the woman’s escape. And Richard’s boyfriend bites the dust just minutes after making love to the swinger woman.

At least he died happy.

Jack: 42

Show: 232

Chloe: 1

LOOSE ENDS

Many, many loose ends to be tied up in the last two hours. Chief among them of course is the identity of the mole. One more piece of evidence for the mole could be the fact that Marwan had people outside waiting to rescue him. If they were there before CTU arrived to capture him, why didn’t they open fire then? This means they must have arrived after Marwan was captured.

This mole business is a huge problem for the writers because it appears now that neither the SoD or Audrey could be the mole. It appears that neither one of them knew about Richard’s homosexuality which would mean they couldn’t have set him up in the bar. I believe now that there’s a real chance the writers will not give us a mole; that the numerous American mercs working with Marwan, the transponder code for the football, and all the other clues that we’ve been speculating about over the last many weeks may in fact be left as is with no mole at all.

If that happens, I’ll be extremely disappointed in the writers. They’ve got to know there are literally millions of people tracking these loose ends. So either next week’s two hour finale is going to rock our world or it’s going to be a huge bust.

DON’T FORGET TO VISIT HERE ON SUNDAY FOR OUR SPECULATION FEST “24″ TILL 24!

I no longer am surprised at anything I read from the “Reality Based Community.” I mean, how can you talk to people who actually believe voting machines were hacked by the Republican party and vote totals changed? How can you take people like that seriously? How can you be rational with someone who really believes that the religious right is about to take over the country and establish a theocracy?

Where does this impulse to be so goddamned dramatic come from? Because that’s what we’re talking about here. Real life evidently holds no drama for the moonbat. Or at least not enough drama that they can refrain from foisting their impossible conspiracy theories and irrational hatred of their own country on the rest of us. They’re like high school drama queens who never grew up. They need attention and they’re willing to be outrageous as possible in order to get it.

Witness the left’s reaction to the Newsweek retraction. Is it true that American interrogators desecrate the Koran in order to psychologically injure their subjects? I don’t know. The only people who are saying so are those who were in the damn prisons in the first place! Are they, like incarcerated American criminals, all innocent? Evidently the moonbats think so. They’re certainly much more willing to believe them than they are their own military and government.

And suppose the allegations were true? (I happen to believe they are true.) This isn’t torture. And I doubt whether it makes the terrorists cry. So what’s the problem?

We’re concerned about the feelings of people who would just as soon lop off an American’s head than give you the time of day?

Am I missing something here? Against the Geneva Convention? Maybe it’s about time we started to look at a document that’s going on 80 years old and was drawn up at a time when the Secretary of War Henry Stimson disbanded the code breakers because “gentlemen shouldn’t read other gentlemen’s mail.” Why should we be hamstrung by the Geneva Convention when our enemy isn’t? Because we’re Americans? Get Real!

And that’s the difference here, the chasm that separates left from right. There are those of us who believe we’re in a war for the survival of the United States of America. And then there are those who don’t. They believe if only we can seek to understand the murderous, beheading thugs that we’re fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other nations where Islamofascism raises its ugly head, then they can’t help but fall in love with us. Or maybe we should address the root causes (barf!) of terrorism.

That’s easy. The root cause of terrorism lies with the religion of Islam itself. It exists in the 10th century. It’s never had a “reformation” which sought to bring religion into balance with the rest of society as those movements did in the west. Poverty is not a root cause of terrorism. Some of the poorest countries in the world are Christian countries in Central and South America. The poor in those countries don’t grow up and strap bomb belts on themselves and blow up school children. Instead, they become communists - dangerous but managably so. Give me your garden variety Marxist and I’ll show you someone who’d rather talk you into somnolence than blow you up. At the very least, they want to live to blow up someone else which would rule out flying planes into buildings.

I have no doubt that some interrogators have gone over the line both in doling out physcial torture and psychological stress to the Taliban and al Quaeda prisoners kept at Gitmo and the irreconcilable Saddamites and foreign fighters in Iraq. These people are not muggers. They’re not sex offenders. They’re not even wife murderers. The overwhelming majority are guilty-as-sin-dyed-in-the-wool bloodthirsty terrorists. And if by making them a little uncomfortable, or experience a little pain, or humiliation, or cause them psychic distress, I SAY GO FOR IT! If it gets them to talk, all the better. If not, at least they’ll suffer a tiny portion of the hurt, distress, and emotional harm they’ve caused others.

That’s not revenge. That’s justice.

So what’s the first reaction of the left to the revelation that the Newsweek story was, in effect, made up? Why they rush to Newsweek’s defense of course! And they do it better than any terrorist or enemy of the United States could ever do themselves:

I’ve found four reports — with more easily found — to back up Newsweek’s sources on the desecration of Korans belonging to Guantanamo detainees. (OH! How exciting for you!)

I see this incident this way: Newsweek has good sources for its allegations, but has backed off because it finds itself in a dicey, ill-founded public relations nightmare.

Newsweek has foresaken journalism to save what it perceives as its own hide.

And then there’s this curious juxtaposition:

If the situation were reversed, just imagine — if it’s even possible — the reaction in this country. Just pretend for a minute: Jerry Falwell being felt up by female Moslem prison guards and then having to watch while a Bible gets flushed down the toilet. Can you say Holy War?

Does this moonbat actually believe that Christians would riot if a bible were thrown in the toilet? I mean, has this guy been asleep for the last 25 years…or more? Here’s one example. Do you remember the awful riots that broke out when this photo appeared at that gallery in Cincinatti?

Do you recall the screaming Christians, blood flowing from their Ginsu knives, rampaging through the streets, murdering, pillaging, raping (well, maybe not raping…).

You have to try to be that clueless.

And that picture is just one example of course. The disrespect shown by secular humanists in this country toward Christian symbols, the Christian faith, and people who practice that faith is so profound that it got Christians out of the pews and into the voting booths. But rioting? Only in the paranoid fantasies of the moonbats.

The Newsweek imbroglio will subside; but not until Newsweek and their allies in the press and leftist websites redouble their efforts to find the “proof” that interrogators did indeed disrespect the Koran. I have absolutely no doubt they’ll find that proof.

The only question I have to them would be…now what? You’ve won a small point that will ignite more riots and result in more bloodshed. Proud of yourself now? Your hatred for your own country has now carried you into the waiting arms of the enemies of everything you purport to stand for.

How can you sleep at night?

UPDATE

Kevin at Wizbang boils the controversy down to its barest of bones and in so doing, rips the moonbat’s “fake but accurate” theme to shreds:

Andrew Sullivan, citing Daily Kos blogger SusanHu finding other allegations of Koran desecration, misses the point of the Newsweek Koran story by a country mile. The point is not that such allegations existed; it is that Newsweek reported that a US government investigation had (or would) conclude that such event took place.

No one (to my knowledge) is arguing a few detainees (and/or their lawyers) hadn’t made allegations concerning Koran desecration, yet Sullivan implies that those charges somehow lend credence to Newsweek’s shabby reporting. Sullivan then gets swept up in the “look at all the other prisoner abuse stories” mentality that presumably led Newsweek to run with such a poorly sourced report.

Well and truly said.

Everybody.

In hopes that my speculation does not elicit more groans, here is an offering:

Now for my favorite part: Jack puts a bullet in Marwan’s head. No reason, just because.
ROCK ON — Comment by Diamond

MOLE: I still say it’s Sec. of Defense Heller himself, somehow as a ruse for making the case for more DoD security funding. The previews of next week show moonbat dopey son Richard Heller, we knew he’d be back. But a possible nefarious connection with Richard and Marwan is so obvious, how could that possibly be?

NUKE: Hey, I said DC.

Comment by The MaryHunter

Speculation: Jack buys the farm, because he is distraught that he cannot hang on to a woman.

Next season, Chloe realizes she likes being a bitch with a gun and takes over as head of field operations. Edgar goes to a fat farm and loses weight so he can be a field operative as revenge for the killing of his mon and be with Chloe (we find out during next season that he secretly likes being beaten down by Chloe because she treats him like his mommy did). Tony and Michelle get back together for no other reason than no TV show is perfect. The mole is….the guy with the red Star Trek shirt and fake phaser in the background because he is angry about the network no re-upping Star Trek Enterprise. –

Comment by Hector

Oh well…maybe I’ll try posting the contest a little earlier on Sunday.

Don’t forget…next Monday is the night! A two-hour season finale!

There’s news from the nuclear minor leagues. Apparently both North Korea and Iran seem hell bent on breaking into the majors any way they can. First, this from the New York Times:

The Bush administration on Sunday warned North Korea for the first time that if it conducted a nuclear test, the United States and several Pacific powers would take punitive action, but officials stopped short of saying what kind of sanctions would result.

“Action would have to be taken,” Stephen J. Hadley, President Bush’s national security adviser, said on the CNN program “Late Edition.” Asked earlier on “Fox News Sunday” about recent reports that intelligence agencies have warned that North Korea could conduct its first test, Mr. Hadley added: “We’ve seen some evidence that says that they may be preparing for a nuclear test. We have talked to our allies about that.”

But he cautioned that North Korea was “a hard target” and that correctly assessing its intentions was nearly impossible.

What kind of “action” would be taken? Japan, who’s direcly under the gun of the nutty NoKo’s and their certifiably insane leader Kim Jong Il, may take the issue to the Security Council:

On Sunday afternoon, senior administration officials said that concerns about baiting North Korea helped to explain why Mr. Hadley did not specify what kind of penalty was possible. Instead, Mr. Hadley noted that “the Japanese are out today already saying that those steps would need to include going to the Security Council and, potentially, sanctions.”

He appeared to be referring to comments by Shinzo Abe, the secretary general of Japan’s governing Liberal Democratic Party. Returning to Japan from a recent trip to Washington - where he met Mr. Hadley, Vice President Dick Cheney and others - Mr. Abe said Japan faced the most direct threat if North Korea proved that it could detonate a nuclear weapon.

“If North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons becomes definite,” Mr. Abe said on Asahi TV, and North Korea “conducts nuclear testing, for instance, Japan will naturally bring the issue to the U.N. and call for sanctions against North Korea.”

Unfortunately as I’ve pointed out here, China has gone on record saying that UN sanctions against North Korea (and probably Iran) are not the answer. That means that if Japan and the US take the DPRK to the UN, China will almost certainly veto any sanctions resolution. And given the timidity of the International Atomic Energy Agency and their nuclear enabling leader Mohamed ElBaradie it’s doubtful any sanctions would be forthcoming even if China abstained on a sanctions vote. The IAEA under Mr. ElBaradei has taken the attitude that “if we can’t see it, it doesn’t exist” when it comes to the North Koreans. Even a DPRK test of a nuclear weapon would probably not move that agency to recommend sanctions.

On the good news front, the North and South are about ready to re-open talks at the staff level in order to facilitate a meeting between high level officials later this year:

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and South Korea resumed working-level talks on Monday in the DPRK, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA)reported.

The inter-Korean talks, reopened in the southern border city of Kaesong after a 10-month suspension, were attended by two delegations led by Kim Man-gil, deputy director of the Secretariat of the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland from the DPRK, and Rhee Bong-jo, South Korea’s vice-minister of Unification, the report said.

For his part, according to Seoul-based Yonhap News, Rhee called on the north side to normalize suspended inter-Korean relations and rejoin six-party talks over the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.

“We told the North Korean side that if it comes out to the dialogue table, we’ll make important proposals for practical gains in talks aimed at resolving the nuclear issue,” the chief South Korean delegate told reporters.

With both South Korea and China now urging resumption of the six-way talks, Kim may be threatening to test a nuclear weapon in order to pressure the two nations to grant him major concessions before the talks could resume. Tech transfers from South Korea and more food and fuel from China would probably be on the table.

Meanwhile, the radioactive mullahs are quaking in their slippers now that France, Germany and Great Britain have sent them the dreaded “toughly worded letter” about resuming their not so secret uranium enrichment program. This hasn’t phased the mullahs that much. They’ve just warned the Europeans that they have one last chance to make a deal:

Iran said Monday it will give the European Union a last chance to salvage a nuclear deal at talks on May 23 before it resumes atomic work which Washington fears is part of a weapons program.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told the official IRNA news agency that Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani would meet the foreign ministers of France, Britain and Germany on May 23 to try to reach an 11th-hour compromise.

But Iran has become frustrated with the talks and said it would restart making nuclear fuel, an action that would marshal the Europeans behind U.S. attempts to haul Tehran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

Iran said it would give ministerial level talks one last shot before announcing the return to making atomic fuel.

The Iranian parliament has already voted to go ahead with an accelerated enrichment program that most experts agree would allow the mullahs to have a weapon by year’s end. But according to the Lebanon Daily Star, they may continue to delay the start up of the enrichment process - if they get some satisfaction from the Europeans:

Iran said Sunday it was postponing its threatened resumption of sensitive nuclear activities, but insisted the climbdown was merely a temporary gesture ahead of “last chance” emergency talks with European officials.

The move came hours after a defiant Iranian Parliament voted to oblige the government to develop a nuclear fuel cycle - which would include the controversial process of enriching uranium.

Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Hassan Rowhani, warned that long-term nuclear negotiations could not continue without Iran first resuming uranium work.

“We cannot continue the negotiations with the Europeans without having resumed some of our activities,” Rowhani told state television, adding Iran’s decision to resume conversion of uranium - a precursor to enrichment - was “still valid.”

Clearly Iran wants some kind of concession from the Europeans on enrichment. They may wish to present the Europeans with a fait accompli regarding some kind of enrichment (there’s a way to enrich uranium that would be slower and have a lower yield of bomb-grade uranium) which might satisfy the appeasers in Germany and France. The mullah’s goal has to be to split the Europeans off from the Americans. Even picking off France would be a victory and probably result in a failure to impose UN sanctions if we took the Iranians before the Security Council.

We’re now poised on the razor’s edge. Will it be confrontation? Or will we be able to get the rest of the world to stand with us and prevent two states - Iran and North Korea - from getting these enormously destablising weapons? I’m not confident that a confrontation with Iran can be avoided. North Korea however, is so desperately poor that given the right incentives and some pressure by the Chinese and South Koreans, we may be able to roll back Kim’s mad nuclear scheme that has bankrupted his country.

Post Script: For a good laugh, check out the North Korean website. I definitely want to get me some of them badges!

The real joke? Click on the link marked “shopping.”

For a little more than a year now, the opponents of the war in Iraq have sought desperately to undermine our efforts there by using the Abu Ghraib prison scandal as a metaphor for the immorality of the conflict in general. Since they couldn’t attack the idea that deposing one of the truly bestial tyrants of the 20th century was the right thing to do, they’ve had to discredit the military and the Administration by attacking the way Americans see themselves and how they want the rest of the world to see us.

They’ve succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.

In the process of trying to discredit the war in the eyes of the American people, the media and their allies on the left have made common cause with some of the most despicable human beings on the planet - Islamic terrorists and their supporters around the world. Make no mistake. The constant barrage by the mainstream press of hair raising stories telling of widespread and systemic torture by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan are being used by people who, as I write this, are using these reports to recruit people into the insurgency to kill American soldiers.

And Newsweek is concerned that they caused a riot? When will they become concerned that there is a direct correlation between printing stories told by terrorists, their lawyers, and family members of terrorists about torture being the rule rather than the exception and getting American soldiers killed?

There’s no getting around this fact. And by taking Newsweek to task for one exaggerated, suspect story we’re all missing the point. Abu Ghraib, like the Watergate mess, has become a catchall phrase, media shorthand for the immorality of our efforts in the War on Terror. There’s been absolutely no effort to put these charges - both real and imagined - into any kind of context. How many stories in the New York times have you seen where an effort has been made to separate legitimate methods of coercive interrogation (so-called “stress techniques) from the gruesome hijinks and fraternity pranks of the apparently ill-disciplined and out of control rabble that ran Abu Ghraib? Even the legitimate complaints of actual, physical torture by the Red Cross are filled with uncertainty and qualifications.

The fact is that both the status of prisoners and the idea that we’re not treating these stateless murderers like we treat muggers or jewel thieves is what’s sticking in the craw of both the press and their leftist apologists. James Bennet inadvertently makes this point in his article in yesterday’s New York Times:

This surge in the killing of civilians reflects how mysterious the long-term strategy remains - and how the rebels’ seeming indifference to the past patterns of insurgency is not necessarily good news for anyone.

It is not surprising that reporters, and evidently American intelligence agents, have had great difficulty penetrating this insurgency. What is surprising is that the fighters have made so little effort to advertise unified goals

In other words, we can’t understand the insurgents because they’re not acting like the Viet Cong. This is nuts. The insurgents are not concerned with anything except making headlines in American newspapers in order to convince the American people that our stated goal of bringing stability to that country is failing. The only possible way they can win is if we leave. And the American press, whether they admit it or not, have become the terrorists willing partner in this endeavor.

Rather than trying to glorify the insurgents (and by extension, terrorists around the world) as “freedom fighters” or “agrarian reformers” as they did 35 years ago in Viet Nam, the press has taken to portraying them as victims of torture somehow worthy of our pity. And because there’s been so little perspective offered, the press has been able to get away with this.

Yes there has been torture. Is it any more widespread than the mistreatment of German or Japanese prisoners in World War II during their interrogations? My guess would be that our enemies back then were treated much more harshly and on a more systematic basis than the stateless beheaders who fall into our hands today. The goals are the same; to get as much information as quickly as possible. And given the success of our efforts at Guantanamo Bay using stress techniques that the media has dubbed “torture,” it seems logical to assume that the comparatively mild measures used by interrogators today compare favorably with the less scientific, more physically abusive techniques carried out during WWII.

The Newsweek imbroglio won’t last long. Already there’s a theme emerging in various press accounts of the magazine’s semi-retraction that while this one story may be false, don’t forget all the incidents that are true:

But while the Pentagon is disputing the Koran incident, U.S. officials have confirmed numerous reports by detainees, especially at Abu Ghraib, about guards attempting to humiliate them with tactics that violate religious taboos of the Muslim faith. A senior Pentagon official has confirmed reports that female interrogators rubbed their bodies against the men, wore skimpy clothes, touched them provocatively and pretended to spread menstrual blood on them. The Newsweek item that triggered the violence also said the forthcoming report would describe “one woman who took off her top, rubbed her finger through a detainee’s hair and sat on the detainee’s lap.”

This is “torture?” If you go by standards set in American prisons I guess you could say yes it is. But by the standards of a war against stateless thugs?

We’ve not seen the last of the Koran incident. Here’s our intrepid reporter Mr. Isikoff:

“Obviously we all feel horrible about what flowed from this, but it’s important to remember there was absolutely no lapse in journalistic standards here,” he said. “We relied on sources we had every reason to trust and gave the Pentagon ample opportunity to comment. . . . We’re going to continue to investigate what remains a very murky situation.”

Not content to leave well enough alone, Mr. Isikoff will not rest until he finds something - anything - that will show how American interrogators show disrespect to Muslims. And if he thinks this last round of riots were bad, just wait until he gets the real story. Or at least one that the Pentagon can’t deny so easily.

Abu Ghraib will continue to haunt our efforts in the War on Terror. The press will see to that. Is there any hope that this could change? Only a similar or, God forbid, more serious attack on American soil would convince the press that this is indeed a war of survival and that by coddling the enemy, they endanger each and every one of us.

UPDATE

I’ve got search engine bots all over my site this morning what with the Newsweek blogswarm and my updated info on Brooke Greenberg. So as a service to all my new visitors and to save you some time in your search for the best commentary on the Newsweek brouhaha, here’s some great links you can click on:

La Shawn Barber has a nice roundup of blogs big and small with her own take:

They’ll get what’s coming to them. The blogosphere has erupted in a righteously indigant swarm (The conservative side, of course. Liberal bloggers are busy defending the rag.), forcing mainstream media to pick up the story. I hope they lose advertisers, readers, and heads over this.

The Captain is incensed (aren’t we all…mostly):

Quite frankly, this is bullshit. They went to the Pentagon with a wild story about flushed Qu’rans and now they’re surprised when no one knew anything about it? Can you imagine what Newsweek would have written and published had the Pentagon told them to keep quiet about it? They would have turned it into another Abu Ghraib, complete with cover-ups and military censorship. It would have resulted in more silly Senate hearings, and even worse publicity than what Newsweek already generated, with more loss of life — and all for a story that sounded patently false from the very beginning.

Michelle Malkin has some thoughts on who Isikoff’s source may be with some links to the milblogs who are speculating about it.

You absolutely must go to Austin Bay’s blog and read his long, powerful diatribe against the press.

Mark Noonan has some words for Newsweek’s editor:

Mr. Whitaker, they weren’t victims of “violence”; they were victims of irresponsible reporting which always presumes the worst about the United States and it’s military forces. You’re correction is nice, but the correction wont carry as far as the initially broadcast lie…for a long time now, American soldiers will be contending with men who’s motivation to fight us stems from your magazine’s irresponsible report.

Wizbang has some contrary thoughts about Newsweek’s liability:

So, bring on the abuse, the sanctions, the penalties for Newsweek. Ban their reporters from covering events. Contact and boycott their advertisers. Pillory them in public. Blame them for the damage to our diplomatic efforts. Mock them. Deride them. Taunt them. Make them stand in the corner at press events while wearing silly hats. Use back issues as toilet paper.

But don’t hold them liable for the deaths. To do that is to excuse the real people to blame — the rioters themselves.

More great commentary at Powerline and good links as usual from Glenn Anderson. And more Instapundit here.

And for a little balance (and because the moonbat linked to a blog that links to me) here’s the one, the only Kos and his “All is well” meme.

Cross Posted at Blogger News Network

With a little more than 24 hours to go before this week’s exciting episode, it’s time for our 24 Till “24″ Speculation contest!

Leave your funniest, weirdest, most logical, or most outrageous speculation below. You can speculate on anything you’d like but here’s some questions to get you started:

1. What will be the fate of Tony and Michelle? I’ve been speculating for months that they’ll agree to “give it another try” only to have Tony die saving Jack’s ass.

2. More “Who’s the Mole” speculation. I hinted last week that there’s a possibility it could be Michelle. Did anything happen last week to give you an idea of who else it might be?

3. Where’s the nuke targeted? I say DC.

4. What will happen to Marwan? Will he escape? Will fat geek Edgar go postal on him for killing his beloved mother? Will he make a deal?

Okay you “24″ fanatics…give it to me. The best speculation will appear in my post around 4:00 pm central tomorrow.