Right Wing Nut House

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT! IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

Want to have some fun at the expense of our friends on both the left and the right?

I’m pleased to announce A BRAND NEW LINK FEST!

It’s called “THE CARNIVAL OF THE CLUELESS.”

Each week, I’ll be calling for posts that highlight the total stupidity of a public figure or organization - either left or right - that demonstrates that special kind of cluelessness that only someone’s mother could defend…and maybe not even their mothers!

Everyone knows what I’m talking about. Whether it’s the latest from Bill Maher or the Reverend Dobson, it doesn’t matter. I will post ALL ENTRIES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED OR NOT.

Of course, that won’t stop me from making snarky comments about those that I disagree with, but hey! Ya pays your monies and ya takes your chances, eh?

THE DEADLINE TO ENTER THIS WEEK’S CARNIVAL WILL BE MONDAY, AT 10:00 PM EDT. Please send only recent posts - something that’s fairly topical - perhaps no more than 2 weeks old.

PLEASE SEND ALL ENTRIES VIA EMAIL TO: elvenstar522-at-AOL-dot-com (substitute the ambersand for “and.” Also substitute .com for “dot com) Someone once told me to never overestimate the intelligence of your audience. Hence the remedial email course.

ATTENTION ALL MY LEFTY TROLLS: I’d appreciate it if you spread the word about this. Who knows…maybe you’ll convert me!

UPDATE

Just so there’s no confusion:

1. I’ll accept posts on individuals such as columnists, politicians, religious, TV personalities, other bloggers, even your next door neighbor (as long as you don’t use his name!).

2. Posts on organizations will also be accepted. The Vast Right (or left) wing conspiracy doesn’t count nor do generic groups like “Christians” or “moonbats.”

Ferdinand the Cat has been kind enough to include the Carnival in his easy to fill out Carnival submission form. You can go here and take advantage of that excellent service.

Frank Rich was, at one time, drama critic for the New York Times. Apparently the smell of the greasepaint and the roar of the crowd finally got to the moonbat because the Times editoral staff eventually realized he’d gone ’round the bend and decided to change his assignments - or at least have Mr. Rich ease off on skewering the New York theater community.

The logical place to move someone who’s burned out on watching things like the 25th revival of Oklahoma is…where else? the Op-Ed page. Apparently, Mr. Rich has always wanted to grow up and write about politics and government.

Given that Mr. Rich knows less about politics than he does about the theater, perhaps the Times should have made him their Restaurant Critic. At least then he would have been well-fed and could have saved his readers the unpleasant experience of up-chucking after reading him. After all, how unappetizing can you make a restaurant review? Considerably less nauseating than the gibberish he writes when scribbling earnestly about politics.

One would think that a knowledge of history would be a prerequisite for writing about politics and government - at least in this day and age. The great Time-Life reporter Theodore H. White wrote that the best political writers used to come from the sports pages. Sports writers with their colorful metaphors and a familiarity with making personalities come to life turned out to be perfect political reporters.

Maybe Mr. Rich could have been transferred to the sports page so that he could have gained a little experience before taking the plunge and writing about politics. Alas, I doubt whether the Times had a beat that covered Tiddlywinks. Or Bridge. Or perhaps, “Go Fish.”

From what I can tell of this article written for the Sunday New York Times, Mr. Rich should certainly give up writing about politics and make another career move; this time, he could write fiction. For children. He’d be a perfect modern day “Mother Goose.”

In fact, the only thing missing from his current column is “Once upon a time…”

Mr. Rich’s piece is a fairy tale about both the past and the present. The recent revelation of Deep Throat’s identity is Rich’s hook:

This confusion of Hollywood’s version of history with the genuine article would quickly prove symptomatic of the overall unreality of the Deep Throat coverage. Was Mr. Felt a hero or a villain? Should he “follow the money” into a book deal, and if so, how would a 91-year-old showing signs of dementia either write a book or schmooze about it with Larry King? How did Vanity Fair scoop The Post? How does Robert Redford feel about it all? Such were the questions that killed time for a nation awaiting the much-heralded feature mediathon, the Michael Jackson verdict.

Richard Nixon and Watergate itself, meanwhile, were often reduced to footnotes. Three years ago, on Watergate’s 30th anniversary, an ABC News poll found that two-thirds of Americans couldn’t explain what the scandal was, and no one was racing to enlighten them this time around. Vanity Fair may have taken the trouble to remind us that Watergate was a web of crime yielding the convictions and guilty pleas of more than 30 White House and Nixon campaign officials, but few others did. Watergate has gone back to being the “third-rate burglary” of Nixon administration spin. It is once again being covered up.

First of all, two thirds of America can’t remember what they had for breakfast last week much less what happened 33 years ago. And why don’t the American people “remember?” Could it be that they’re too busy learning about other, more multiculturally acceptable topics than something as mundane as American history? No, of course not.

And who, might I inquire, is “covering up” Watergate today? Could it be Mr. Rich’s own employer, the New York Times? Or perhaps even the biggest media benificiary of the scandal The Washington Post? Didn’t see any replays of folksy Sam Ervin or monotonal John Dean on T.V. either. I guess it was the press that’s covering up Watergate again. For shame!

Then Mr. Rich says something both curious and unintelligible at the same time:

Not without reason. Had the scandal been vividly resuscitated as the long national nightmare it actually was, it would dampen all the Felt fun by casting harsh light on our own present nightmare. “The fundamental right of Americans, through our free press, to penetrate and criticize the workings of our government is under attack as never before” was how the former Nixon speech writer William Safire put it on this page almost nine months ago. The current administration, a second-term imperial presidency that outstrips Nixon’s in hubris by the day, leads the attack, trying to intimidate and snuff out any Woodwards or Bernsteins that might challenge it, any media proprietor like Katharine Graham or editor like Ben Bradlee who might support them and any anonymous source like Deep Throat who might enable them to find what Carl Bernstein calls “the best obtainable version of the truth.”

How would resucitating the scandal shed light on the Bush Administration or, as Mr. Rich poetically puts it our “own present nightmare?” And who has been “intimidated” or “snuffed out?” (A curious choice of words given Eason Jordan’s nightmarish scenario of the military deliberately targeting jourrnalists).

By implication, Mr. Rich has not been intimidated which, of course, makes him far superior to any other journalist who cowers in the shadows simply regurgitating White House press releases. What’s that you say? Are you trying to tell me that the media is generally opposed to the President and his policies and have exhibited the most unreasoning and harsh criticism ever let loose against a Chief Executive. Nope. Not according to the ex-drama critic.

Mr. Rich then takes a little trip…off the deep end:

This is the kind of lapdog news media the Nixon White House cherished. To foster it, Nixon’s special counsel, Charles W. Colson, embarked on a ruthless program of intimidation that included threatening antitrust action against the networks if they didn’t run pro-Nixon stories. Watergate tapes and memos make Mr. Colson, who boasted of “destroying the old establishment,” sound like the founding father of today’s blogging lynch mobs.

Gosh…maybe I should take down my autographed poster of Chuck Colson in a bathing suit. I wouldn’t want to be too obvious about my allegiance to the “founding father of today’s blogging lynch mob.” And as far as Mr. Rich is concerned…well, there’s never a rope around when you need one.

Now we get to the nub of Mr. Rich’s concerns. Evidently, the MSM doesn’t run full blown biographies of its guests prior to their appearances:

Such is the equivalently supine state of much of the news media today that Mr. Colson was repeatedly trotted out, without irony, to pass moral judgment on Mr. Felt - and not just on Fox News, the cable channel that is actually run by the former Nixon media maven, Roger Ailes. “I want kids to look up to heroes,” Mr. Colson said, oh so sorrowfully, on NBC’s “Today” show, condemning Mr. Felt for dishonoring “the confidence of the president of the United States.” Never mind that Mr. Colson dishonored the law, proposed bombing the Brookings Institution and went to prison for his role in the break-in to steal the psychiatric records of The Times’s Deep Throat on Vietnam, Daniel Ellsberg. The “Today” host, Matt Lauer, didn’t mention any of this - or even that his guest had done jail time. None of the other TV anchors who interviewed Mr. Colson - and he was ubiquitous - ever specified his criminal actions in the Nixon years. Some identified him onscreen only as a “former White House counsel.”

Imagine that! Indentifying a former White House counsel as…as…A former White House counsel! Shocking! And Mr. Colson’s prison term was marked by something else Mr. Lauer never mentioned. A jail cell conversion to evangelical Christianity for which Mr. Colson has been praised from one end of the country to the other. Guess even Mr. Rich forgot that little tidbit. Or that people can change. Why look at Rich himself. From hysterical drama critic to hysterical political commentator. Now there’s a conversion!

And, by the way. “Former Nixon media maven” Roger Ailes was tangentially involved in the 1972 campaign. To call him a “media maven” of Nixon shows poor research on the part of Rich. But then, when you’re Drama Critic of the Times, all you have to read before you write a review is the program.

Mr. Rich then tries a little drama writing of his own:

In the most recent example, all the president’s men slimed and intimidated Newsweek by accusing it of being an accessory to 17 deaths for its errant Koran story; led by Scott McClellan, they said it was unthinkable that any American guard could be disrespectful of Islam’s holy book. These neo-Colsons easily drowned out Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, both of whom said that the riots that led to the 17 deaths were unrelated to Newsweek. Then came the pièce de résistance of Nixon mimicry: a Pentagon report certifying desecrations of the Koran by American guards was released two weeks after the Newsweek imbroglio, at 7:15 p.m. on a Friday, to assure it would miss the evening newscasts and be buried in the Memorial Day weekend’s little-read papers.

Tom McGuire did my leg work for me here:

Oh, dear - the “neo Colsons” include CNN, which cited the Pentagon assertion before rebutting it; the Washington Post, which implicated Newsweek in their lead paragraph; and the NY Times. Have the neo-Colson’s swept the board? (Read Mr. McGuire’s entire screed. He like, uses facts and things. You know, the kinds of stuff Mr. Rich usually forgets to include in his columns).

And in the most painful passage of his entire review, er column, Mr. Rich tries his durndest to connect you-know-what-with-you-know-who:

THE journalists who do note the resonances of now with then rarely get to connect those dots on the news media’s center stage of television. You are more likely to hear instead of how Watergate inspired too much “gotcha” journalism. That’s a rather absurd premise given that no “gotcha” journalist got the goods on the biggest story of our time: the false intimations of incipient mushroom clouds peddled by American officials to sell a war that now threatens to match the unpopularity and marathon length of Vietnam.

Just a little perspective, please. When every student who ever enrolled in a journalism class since 1974 has daydreamed about being the next Woodward and Bernstein and when both newspapers and TV stations put a more tangible root to the rumor that “Gotcha” journalism was in by creating and funding entire departments of “investigative reporters” I would say that anyone who says Watergate spawned more ambush journalism was pretty much spot on.

Secondly, the “marathon length” of the Viet Nam war was nearly 8 years (combat operations from 1965-72). If the Iraq war is a marathon, let me run in it. Being an old, fat man it’s probably the only marathon that I could finish. How in the wide, wide, world of sports did we get an analogy of the length of the Viet Nam war with Iraq? How does 8 years compare with 2 years? Isn’t 2 years like 4 times shorter than 8 years? I nearly flunked math but even I can tell the difference between 2 years and 8 years.

Perhaps Mr. Rich is thinking in terms of a musical comedy. If that’s the case, we can forgive him. After all, a musical usually only has three acts. And reading Mr. Rich’s column is like sitting through a very bad production of Bertold Brecht’s incomprehensible Three Penny Opera. After “Mack the Knife,” you just want to pick up and go home.

UPDATE

Pat over at Brainsters has some good thoughts:

I looked at Rich’s column as a potential post for Lifelike, but skipped it because it was too predictable. You could read similar stuff over at the Daily Kos diaries any time. The press is in the back pocket of the Republicans, nobody ever asks the president about the Downing Street Memo, they’re all a bunch of neocons (although keeping with the Watergate theme, Rich refers to them as neo-Colsons). Hilariously he accuses the Bush Administration of releasing bad news on the Friday before Memorial Day; Tom checked his calendar and notes that it was the Friday after Memorial Day.

And Eric over at Classical Values tells us bloggers we’ve obviously got some serious work to do:

Much as I hate to admit it, Rich is right. What I want to know is, precisely how did he find out about the “ruthless program of intimidation”? Who leaked? Where the hell did that sneak find out that bloggers have been using the full weight of the federal government to threaten antitrust actions against the major networks? That, of course, is exactly what we do! Like Bush’s hubris, blogger misuse of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division outstrips Nixon’s by the day.

While it’s been tough work destroying the old establishment, by writing such exposes of the blogosphere in such a blatant and challenging way, Frank Rich highlights an embarrassing point: obviously the blogosphere has not been tough enough or thorough enough!

She arrived around dinner time, a white furrball of a kitten with a tiny little spot of black off center on the top of her head. She peered out anxiously from the bars of the cat carrier as my other two adult cats, Ebony and Aramas, circled the carrier warily, sniffing the unfamiliar odor and looking at me as if to say “WTF is this?” (Cats, of course, do not use such vulgarity. When speaking, I’m sure that they are earthy without being crude.)

The mewling kitten did not engender the maternal feelings in Ebony that I had hoped for nor did Aramas seem very accepting either. Both were hissing at the little creature who must have been wondering where its mother and litter mates had gone to. Finally, we opened the door to the carrier and Snowball stumbled out into her new home. The two adults took one final look at the tiny thing, and gave what in the cat world must be the ultimate insult; they contemptuously turned their backs on Snowball and wandered off to continue their 23 1/2 hour daily nap.

I’m sure they’ll get used to each other eventually. I’ve been kept by cats for nearly 35 years and have seen this drama play out several times. For the next few days , they will do their best to ignore each other - except when they think the other one isn’t watching. Then they will study their new housemate with an intensity bordering on fanaticism. I’ve seen cats watch a sleeping new arrival for hours, just looking at the interloper with a gaze that would freeze the blood of any lesser creature. What can they be thinking? Are their brains being rewired so that they accept the newbie with the same indifference that the adults treat each other? Perhaps they are making up their mind about whether to make a delectable little snack of the kitten and are thinking of how to prepare the repast. Shall I shred it first and then munch or perhaps have it al dente with a little catnip seasoning?

There will be the inevitable tussles at the food station. Our two adults have grown old and fat and in order to keep their weight down we now feed them twice a day rather than leave food out all day for them. So dinner time should get interesting. Aramas has already gulped down the Purina Kitten Chow we left out for Snowball, reveling in the milk flavored nuggets. In truth, he mostly enjoyed the novelty, I think. Until things settle down, we’re going to have to feed poor little Snowball on top of the kitchen counter, a bad move since when a little older, Snowball will have to be retrained not to get up there. The two adults have long since decided it’s entirely too much work and undignified to boot to be jumping on top of counters. Truth be told, they haven’t made any jump higher than the height of the litter box in years.

It’s amazing to watch as Sue falls under the spell of the new arrival. Like the Sirens of Sirenum kittens have a remarkable effect on humans. To watch a grown woman possessing uncommon common sense and will of iron melt like a stick of butter at a Fourth of July cookout whenever the creature whimpers piteously about this or that confirms my belief that cats are indeed bewitched. They first worm their way into your heart. Only later, after you’re their prisoner, do they begin your training. “Feed me this” or “Don’t feed me that.” “Clean the litterbox, clown!” “Move your feet I want to lie here.” And of course, “You may pet me now.” (Cats manage to control even this manifestation of affection as they direct your hand to exactly where they want to be stroked).

I, of course, am immune to all of this nonsense. Well…perhaps not immune. Maybe it’s just that my chains have been lengthened down through the years and I don’t notice my bondage quite as much. And I suppose I’m as enamored of our new kitten as Sue is. I’ve been wanting a little one for more than 10 years and seeing the tiny eyes, the cute little kitten mouth, and the indescribably delicate and forlorn look on the creature’s face causes my heartstrings to tug. But I’m trying to resist the magic spell being cast by what our ancestors in the middle ages referred to as “The Devil’s Familiar.”

I can tell you that at this point, resistance is futile.

Captain Ed of Captains Quarters is a passionate man. Upon seeing that the Senate was going to pass a resolution apologizing to the American people for filibustering anti-lynching laws during the last 100 years, the Captain let it all hang out:

The more I think about this story, the more incensed I become. The Gang of Fourteen stood in front of the American people and proclaimed that rescuing the filibuster amount to “saving the Republic”, and the other thirteen stood there and endorsed that point of view from Robert Byrd, of all people.

What I would like to know is what lives the Senate saved through the filibuster? What overarching principle has the filibuster ever protected that would counter the cost of the innumerable victims of lynching that the filibuster allowed? The only principle the filibuster has ever protected, as far as I see, is naked partisanship and in the case of lynching, racial oppression and terror. And yet, these same modern-day Senators stood with a man who used the filibuster to keep blacks from voting and justified its use against confirming judges to the appellate court.

I too was nauseated at the sanctimoniousness exhibited at that press conference. The shameless preening before the cameras by those Senators - both Democratic and Republican - reminded me of a gaggle of peacocks strutting in the barnyard hoping to get laid. Pretty good for a peacock, but unbecoming a bunch of United States Senators.

My beef with the so-called compromise rested on the assumption that elections mean something:

The idea that a minority should be able to dictate to the President on judicial nominations or anything else for that matter, goes against the very idea of free and fair elections. Why bother to have an electoral contest when the losers can act like winners? What’s the penalty for being, like the Democrats have been, obstructionists?

The penalty is that you lose elections. And looking at Congressional and Senatorial elections, the Democrats were slaughtered. Especially in the Senate where Republicans picked up 4 seats, the Democrats entire electoral strategy failed miserably. But wait! Here come the Republican RINO’s to the rescue. It’s enough to turn one’s stomach.

I believed at the time that the compromise was a betrayal of the electoral process. I still believe it.

That being said, I have to agree with those who say the Captain went too far this morning. At the same time, his critics - including the Commissar - are acting like the Republicans are the obstructionists:

The compromise, you see, was not about approving five judges, moving on, and getting the people’s business done, it was about “protecting the filibuster” and facilitating lynch mobs.

In his sarcasm, the Commissar doesn’t realize that he’s half right. The Compromise was about protecting the filibuster - protecting it in language so broad and hazy that the Democrats will not only have a right to filibuster just about any Supreme Court nominee that comes down the pike (any nominee that would shift the balance of the court, that is) but there’s nothing in that agreement that restrains Democrats from blocking any future judicial nominee except their word that they’ll do so only in “extraordinary cicrumstances.”

I guess what it comes down to is ideology. Does a President have the right to name judges who relfect his basic ideology? The fact that I’m even asking that question is unbelievable. Of course he does! Evidently, conservative judges are unpalatable to the Democrats. If so, let them fight for getting judges confirmed who relfect their ideology the way its been done for 217 years - at the ballot box, not in the cloakroom of the Senate.

The Captain’s rhetoric comparing the filibuster over civil rights and anti-lynching legislation to filibustering judicial nominees was rhetorical overkill. But his critics need to take a look at what’s being done here in the name of “compromise.” The Republican Senators who eagerly crowded around the microphone at that press conference echoing their Democratic colleagues that “the Republic was saved” were being used. This is just the preliminary bout, a meaningless scrap between unranked fighters. The Main Event takes place later this summer when, by many reports, Justice Rehnquist will retire.

The Democrats will not, cannot allow, an anti-abortion judge to be confirmed. And since there will be two judicial nominations to deal with - one to replace the Chief Justice and one to fill the vacancy - they will filibuster. They will fight it tooth and nail. Too many of their supporters see that one issue as of paramount importance. To believe otherwise - to think that some magic bullet “compromise” will somehow prevent this is delusional.

Oh, the Democrats will couch their opposition in other terms. “Extremist,” “out of the mainstream,” and “activist” have been their favorites so far. But the sticking point will be abortion. The reason is simple; if the President gets one ant-abortion judge confirmed the balance of power on the court will shift and the anti-abortion judges will be in the ascendancy. While I would personally oppose the repeal of Roe V Wade the President was reelected by the majority of citizens knowing full well his opposition to a woman’s right to choose. The idea that he would pick judges that didn’t reflect that position would be a betrayal of the majority of people who voted for him.

The “compromise” will be history before then. But the consequences for the inept Republican leadership that allowed it in the first place will come into focus when the possibility arises that the Supreme Court will have at least one vacancy until after the next election in 2008.

UPDATE

The Captain has drawn back a bit from the precipice:

Perhaps I should refrain from blogging when I get pissed off … but if you read this carefully, you will not see me calling the Gang of 14 lynchers or racists. Their self-aggrandizing rhetoric about saving the Republic, especially coming from the only member of the Senate to have filibustered the Civil Rights Act and vote against both black Supreme Court justices, is something I find appalling considering the history of how the Senate has used the filibuster in the past. And given that history, its use in keeping Brown off the appellate bench — given her childhood and its relation to the lynching that the filibuster allowed to continue — is particularly repellent. And I’m still waiting for an example of some greater good accomplished by the filibuster that makes up for all of its victims.

On the other hand, at least the compromise resolved that particular injustice, which may be the only positive aspect of it from either a Constitutional or historical point of view. I’m mindful of Beth’s admonitions, but as the Post article shows, you can’t talk about the filibuster in honest terms without pointing out its application in keeping the federal government from interceding on behalf of black Americans for decades. Next time, I’ll try to temper my irritation before I post.

Been there…done that.

And Beth…Well, Beth once again reminds us why we listen when she writes:

You know, there’s a reason why the DU and Kos and other such moonbat sites exist; it’s because of the hysterical rhetoric spewed by those ON MY SIDE. (You’re not off the hook either, moonbats–your s**t is every bit as ridiculous, and happens ALL the time.) Quit acting like a bunch of f**king amateurs. This is NO WAY TO WIN AN ARGUMENT. No way to ensure conservatives are elected or even respected. It’s disgusting, and I’m tired of it.

Let me head that off right now: All I’ve got to say to those people is PISS OFF, amateurs. Come on over here and call me a racist or a liberal and you’ll probably not just find your comment deleted–you might be banned as well. I don’t put up with idiots, period.

John Hawkins has a list of his top 20 Americans of all time and is inviting bloggers to come up with their own catalog of influential Yanks. Hawkins is responding to the ludicrous list voted on by people nationwide and plastered all over the Discovery Channel. Any list that contains Oprah Winfrey and Bill Clinton in its top twenty can be safely ignored. As John says, the list “tells you all you need to know about how well America’s public schools teach history.”

I wouldn’t blame it entirely on the schools but rather on a lack of curiosity by most Americans about their past. This phenomenon has been commented on since the beginning of the Republic and I doubt that it will ever change. We are a nation that has never dwelt on the past but rather looked to the future. And people in this day and age who constantly try and remind us of the past tend not to be very popular except when the reminder is used to evoke patriotic feelings toward the present.

All this being said, here are my top twenty Americans. And unlike Mr. Hawkins, I will not chicken out (lol) by not ranking them:

1. George Washington

“Father of our Country” is more than just a saying, it’s a literal truth. No George Washington, no America. Period.

2. Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson may have been the most brilliant American ever. His list of abilities, of interests, and accomplishments are absolutely staggering. John F. Kennedy, entertaining a group of Nobel Prize winners at dinner summed it up best. He quipped ” that so much talent had not been present in the room since Thomas Jefferson dined alone. … ”

3. Martin Luther King

For his “I Have a Dream” speech alone King would be in the top five. Simply put, that speech changed America and the effects of it are being felt to this day. A little commented on ability of King’s was that he was also a terrific organizer. He was tireless. He was focused. And he was perhaps the second most important American of the 20th century.

4. Franklin Roosevelt

FDR’s communication skills were rivaled only by Reagan. He changed the way government interacts with its citizens forever. This was not always for the best but we’re talking about influential Americans. No one American had more influence on present policy and politics than FDR.

5. James Madison

Madison could have been ranked higher if his Presidency had been more effective. As it was, he got us embroiled in an unnecessary war with Great Britain that almost tore the young country apart. He was, however, the primary author and the main defender of the Constitution. He, along with Hamilton made that document a reality.

6. Abraham Lincoln

Could any other man have kept the Union together? Doubt it. Also responsible for modern Republican party.

7. Teddy Roosevelt

TR pretty much made the modern Presidency. Also, many of his activist attitudes toward government were a harbinger of his cousin FDR’s policies. He gets the top 10 ranking for being such a dominating figure in his time.

8. Benjamin Franklin

Where to rank Franklin is a puzzle. He wasn’t really a politician. But we have Franklin to thank for putting America on the map. His popularity in France was largely responsible for the absolutely vital alliance between that country and the newly minted United States. Without French help, independence would probably have remained elusive. And without Franklin, no French treaty. Also, Franklin was instrumental in steering the colonies toward independence in 1775-76.

9. Henry Clay

For nearly 40 years, Clay dominated first in the House and then the Senate. Beginning with the Compromise of 1821 almost till his death in 1852, the triumvirate of Clay, John C. Calhoun, and Daniel Webster kept the country from flying apart at the seams over slavery. No Congressman before or since had so much influence on events.

10. James Watson

James Watson and Englishman Francis Crick discovered the secret of life, the DNA molecule from which so much science and medicine is derived today it’s impossible to catalog. Next to the Englishman Ernest Rutherford’s discoveries about atomic structure, there has been no more influential scientists in history.

11. Albert Einstein

I may get an argument about that last statement from Einstein fans. But the fact is, Einstein’s enormous achievements lie in the theoretical while Crick/Watson’s discoveries have a wealth of practical applications. Clearly though, Einsteins theories on light, on gravity, and most importantly on energy changed the modern world.

12. Susan B. Anthony

No women’s vote without Anthony? No, which is why she’s not ranked higher. However, that said, her leadership and more importantly, her inspirational writings on women’s suffrage changed the course of history.

13. Ronald Reagan

I know, I know…all my conservative friends are probably upset that I didn’t rank the Gipper a little higher. Frankly, I think we’re all a little too close emotionally to Reagan to truly measure his greatness. He can be credited with starting so many things - fall of communism, a conservative revolution, a change in the way people look at government - but the tote board of his actual accomplishments is still unfinished. I think he’ll eventually be ranked higher. But for the moment, he stays where he is.

14. Orville and Wilbur Wright

Not only were the Wright brothers responsible for the first powered flight, the machine they built had so many original ideas in it that it can be truly be said the world has seen nothing like it up until that time. The story of flight is one of the most interesting things you’ll ever read. To Conquer the Air: The Wright Brothers and the Great Race for Flight is the most fascinating book I’ve read in 20 years.

15. Dwight Eisenhower

Successful D-Day invasion without Eisenhower? Probably. But Ike’s gifts were on display after D-Day. He managed the final year of the war masterfully, keeping together one of the most unlikely coalitions in history; two ultra-capitalist states and one ultra-socialist state. That plus Ike’s Presidency that saw the birth of NASA, which assured civilian control of the space effort (a move that guaranteed the computer age) as well as the construction of the Interstate highway system put him on the list.

16. Thomas Edison

Edison isn’t ranked higher because his inventions were really improvements on other people’s work. That said, he was an original thinker and represents culturally the iconic American tinkerer. He was also a shrewd businessman and marketer.

17. Andrew Jackson

Jackson’s Presidency was the culmination of the first truly populist movement in American history. An inveterate Indian hater, his policy toward the tribes was unconscionable. However, he more than anyone else was responsible for expanding the power of the executive in relation to Congress.

18. Mark Twain

Before Samuel Clemons, there was no such thing as American literature in the eyes of the rest of the world. Not only that, his books have worn extremely well down through the years. His influence on the American novel is huge. Besides all that, he’s my personal favorite.

19. Daniel Boone

Boone is important in real life as well as legend. His pioneering of Kentucky opened the west to the rest of America. His cultural identity as a hunter-hero is equally important. All countries need legends. He was our first.

20. John Adams

Only because he’d be upset if I kept him off this list. Actually, Mr. Adam’s reputation has enjoyed a boost recently thanks to the wonderful biography by historian David McCullough. His importance to the cause of American independence is well known. But his ineffectiveness as President coupled with an unreasoning hatred of Jefferson caused our young republic enormous problems. But then, the last 15 years of his life, he and Jefferson exchanged personal correspondence that, when read today, is a remarkable record of the thinking of two great Americans.

What? No Alexander Hamilton? The short answer is not on this blog. Hamilton was a schemer. And while his policies as Treasury Secretary were very influential, any good he did must be tempered by the realization that he constantly tried to manipulate those around him - including Washington - to do his bidding. To my mind, he’s the most unattractive major figure in American history.

UPDATE

I am either the bravest or the dumbest blogger on the planet.

After looking at Hawkin’s trackbacks, I see I’m the only one who actually ranked my picks. In doing so, I got an eerie feeling of deja vu. The last time I ranked my picks for something was when Hawkins did a post on Best Star Trek Characters of all Time.” My response allowed every trekkie in the world to not only disagree with me but call me nasty names to boot.

Please be nice to me, oh gentle readers. I bruise very easily…

Based on this report’s antecedents and the fact that it was leaked, can there be any doubt that it is nothing but a political hack job, cobbled together by a minor Beltway Bandit who was directed as to what to find, rubberstamped by some disgruntled members of the former administration, and leaked to cause embarrassment and thus exact a measure of revenge on their current political opponents? Of course there isn’t.

Owen Johnson, CIA (Ret.), on an intelligence report leaked to Bill Gertz of the WA Times saying that intelligence analysts “missed” the military buildup of China over the last decade. (Via Powerline)

Somewhere, there’s a perfect world where intelligence analysis and politics are entirely separate. A place where politicians and policy makers do nothing except make policy and analysts do nothing except analyze.

This is not a perfect world.

The bottom line is, our intelligence system is a mess, an alphabet soup of competing bureaucracies scrambling to protect their turf and all jostling for the attention of the President. Presidential attention means that your views are listened to. Being listened to by the President means having the power to shape the agenda. Shaping the agenda means you’re a player. Being a player in Washington is an ego trip of the highest degree, something most of the permanent bureaucracy strives for all their lives.

In a town where status is determined by such arcane nuances as how long you can keep someone on the phone without picking up, how big one’s office is, and whether or not you’re invited to the cocktail party du jour, being a player in the policy game is pretty heady stuff. Generally speaking, someone who’s “in” can have their secretary place a call and keep the recipient waiting for minutes. And if someone of lower rank or not on the “list” is unlucky enough to call you, the game can become even more ridiculous. You can choose to keep the poor schmuck waiting forever or you can have your faithful, underpaid secretary take a message. Some sadists do both.

Of course, the chances of getting back to you are directly related to a very specific but unwritten set of circumstances. What’s your title? Who’s your boss? How much good can you do me? If I help you, how much good can I do you? Can I afford to offend you?

And this is the drill for people on their way up. I can imagine what it is for people who’ve already arrived at the top of the ziggurat.

There are exceptions to every rule but this game occupies Washington bureaucrats and is a source of endless speculation and chatter at Washington social events. It’s the #1 game in town.

The #2 game in town is the “stab in the back” game. This game is directly related to #1 in that backstabbing is an art form played to the hilt by those who are usually “out” against those who are “in.” Occasionally, it’s played by someone who’s “in” against someone who’s an “in” wannabe.

Jealousy is the #3 game in Washington.

This Bill Gertz piece in the Washington Times detailing apparent intelligence failures relating to the Chinese military buildup is, according to ex-CIA analyst Johnson, a perfect example of game #2. Johnson’s email to the Powerline boys is an eye opener. The Gertz article quotes unnamed sources criticizing analysts for the failure in intelligence. As it turns out, Johnson takes exception to this because he was one of the primary China hands at the CIA during the time in question. He says he didn’t “miss” anything and I believe him. Especially when he writes what happened to this “missing” intel:

But as often happens, a legitimate debate among analysts was misused by many during the 1990s to either try to inflate the Chinese threat or to downplay it or ignore it for political reasons. This latter group was lead — not by some “close-knit fraternity” of analysts out to fool the government — but by Bill Clinton himself. Clinton went so far as to declare certain collection activities against China as “off-limits” and also put certain topics off-limits as well. In practice that meant, while we knew what was going on, we were not allowed to say some things, or to officially report certain obvious conclusions. Parenthetically, I say this not to justify anything that was “missed” because nothing mentioned in the Washington Times article — and I dare say in the leaked report — falls into those categories. I say it to point out that the former U.S. official who said the report should help expose that “self-selected group” that supposedly fooled the Government by suppressing evidence out of a desire to have good relations with China must be talking about him/her/itself. The quote by this former official is a fairly apt description of Clinton’s China policy, which owed nothing to any group beyond Clinton’s own band of cronies. If anything, it was Clinton who was attempting to fool the rest of us.

That deserves at least a “wow.”

The fact that Mr. Johnson is willing to put his name to this criticism speaks volumes. It reinforces his credibility tenfold. And if you read Johnson’s entire missive, you’re left with the unsettling feeling that politicians - both Republican and Democratic - are fully capable of “fixing” intelligence so that it meets a policy goal.

In this context, the Downing Street memo is thrown into an entirely different light as is the pre-9/11 intel on Bin Laden and al Qaeda.

I always thought that the 9/11 Commission was a waste of time. It’s obscene partisanship in the face of real world problems that needed to be solved was a slap in the face to the nearly 3000 Americans who lost their lives on that horrible day. And their recommendations, well-intentioned as most of them may have been, were mostly cosmetic in nature, simply adding a whole new layer of Washington bureaucratic “players” to the mix.

As for the pre-war intel on Iraq WMD’s, while there were warning signs that something may have been amiss, I can’t get the picture of George Tennant, then CIA Director, sitting in the family quarters at the White House and telling the President that WMD intel was “a slam dunk.” If you’re George Bush and your CIA Chief tells you something like that, I don’t see how you can possibly ignore it.

Tenant should have been fired a lot sooner and left in disgrace rather than given a medal. I said so at the time and I’ll say it again. The intelligence failure with regard to WMD can be laid directly at his doorstep. He not only missed the big one (9/11), but his screw up with Iraqi WMD was the cause for the biggest embarrassment that the US government has ever had to endure.

I can guarantee you that things are no better today than they were on September 10, 2001. Whether they’re worse or not we won’t know unless or until we’re hit again by al Qaeda or some other group. Since most terrorism experts say that this will happen sooner rather than later, it’s probable that we’ll have to endure another exercise in futility like the 9/11 Commission as well as more backstabbing and finger pointing.

Owen Johnson’s email will not change the culture at any of the intelligence gathering agencies into which we pour at least $50 billion annually. But it may wake a few people up to the problems that occur where politics and intelligence come together.

I hope that Powerline post receives the widest possible circulation.

UPDATE

Gary at The Owner’s Manual thinks that the revelation about Clinton’s China policy could hurt Hillary in ‘08:

Those who believed Clinton was in China’s pocket may be exonerated. Hillary’s run for the White House could stumble over the revelations in a retired CIA China expert’s email to the folks at Powerline.

It’s a pleasant thought but somehow I doubt if that revelation will receive much play in the media. Gee…I wonder why?

It’s been a truly frightening experience watching the disintegration of the left over these last few years. Right before our eyes, the old “New Left” coalition of academia, the media, the intelligentsia, and the pulpit has dissolved into a ranting, raving, raging bunch of paranoid lunatics whose hyperbolic rhetorical flourishes regarding culture and politics are rapidly condemning its adherents to social oblivion.

It’s one thing to use rhetorical excesses and exaggerations to score political points. It’s quite another to actually believe and try and justify language that on any other planet where intelligent life exists would land the interlocutor in a windowless room with padded walls.

Think about it for a second. Do so many on the left really believe that George Bush can be compared to a man who gassed 6 million human beings, deliberately started a war that killed 80 million more, and brought a nightmare of oppression and murder to most of the rest of the inhabitants of Europe? After all, these are people who proudly claim to be members of a “Reality Based Community.”

The answer is yes, they really do believe that George Bush can be compared to Hitler. A large segment of them also believe, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, that the 2004 election was stolen by the President and the Republican party. Many of them are convinced that the electronic voting machines - the very same machines they lobbied for following the 2000 election debacle - were hacked by the President’s corporate allies and vote totals showing a Kerry victory were altered to give the President the election.

Is it a sign of desperation? Has the hard left, never really in the mainstream but nevertheless extraordinarily influential, been marginalized in our political debates to the point where lashing out with surreal analogies and apocalyptic warnings of impending doom is the only way it can get attention?

We make fun here of some of the truly batty things said by such luminaries as Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Ted Kennedy, and the various toadies and hangers-on that inhabit the fevered environs of Moveon and the Democratic Underground. In truth, however, these bloviations are symptomatic of something much more serious.

They represent a loss of faith - faith in the ultimate victory of ones ideas, faith in the correctness of ones perceptions or worldview, and perhaps even a loss of faith in the country that has nurtured them.

The left has always approached things with a mildly attractive, wide-eyed innocence, as if the world were new and the ideas that sprang forth from their fertile minds could shape mankind in a way that would eliminate “injustice” from which all other evils - poverty, racism, war, and now, of course, terrorism - flowed. And while many of their proscriptions against racism and especially poverty have turned into a nightmare of bureaucratic oppression, there was still the hope that these things could be fixed with a little tinkering. Much like their European brethren who are still not apologizing for 50 years of support of murderous communist regimes because they believe that communism can still work with the “right people” running things, our domestic left believes in the illusory notion that government can solve problems that have plagued the planet since the time of Adam with the right combination of laws and regulations.

While not necessarily delusional - no one disputes that improvements in the lot of the poor and justice for minorities who’ve been discriminated against can’t be accomplished - the worldview espoused by the left has always been tinged with a sense of unreality. It’s as if human nature itself can be improved upon with a little societal fiddling. Hence, the belief that “conflict resolution” and “multicultural studies” for children can somehow rip out the hard wiring in the human brain and replace it with the software of love. A noble undertaking for certain, but one doomed to failure by the exigencies of the nurturing process. If children could be kept in school 24 hours a day such an experiment would have a chance of success. But since children spend twice as much time with their peers and parents as they do with teachers and school administrators, any fundamental change in human behavior is sabotaged by the influence of others.

So after nearly 40 years of intellectual dominance, the left is seeing its previously unchallenged ideas and ideals ripped to shreds by both the intrusion of reality and the attack of the right. It’s hard to tell which has been more devastating. One could argue that 9/11 exploded so many leftist myths about the world that they have yet to recover any kind of equilibrium and instead, have retreated into name calling and apocalyptic warnings of disaster (not for the United States, but for the rest of the world if US power remains unchecked!). Similarly, with the rise of the new media, previously untouched bastions of liberalism such as the mainstream press and even academia have felt the sting of criticism and the embarrassment of having patently false assumptions explode in their faces.

Lately, an effort has begun to reverse this trend. There’s a move afoot to emulate the rise of the right over the last quarter century by funding think tanks, encouraging “progressive” scholarship, recruiting attractive, articulate candidates for office at all levels of government, and generally sowing the seeds that will hopefully start bearing fruit in the near future. With George Soros behind this activity you can be sure it will be well funded.

But is it, in one of the more overused words of my youth, “relevant?”

It could be, if the left embraces the idea that the defense of the United States during this time of war is the “Ur” issue with the American people. They can whine all they want to about how the President has turned the issue to his political advantage but the fact remains that the President didn’t make national defense such an overarching issue with the American people, Osama Bin Laden did. And the fact that the left is in full throated denial of that singular reality is why the American people are paying less and less attention to them and why their candidates are not taken seriously for high office.

It remains to be seen also whether or not the left can jettison some of the more unsavory characters who inhabit the outer reaches of the fever swamp of conspiracy theories and childish notions of theocratic regimes and Hitlerian nightmares. The right, of course, has its own problems with charlatans and self-appointed holy men and this may prove to be a political problem in the future. But when the left applauded Michael Moore’s portrayal of the terrorist beheaders in Iraq as the moral and actual equivalent of the American revolutionary minutemen, the American people stopped listening and began to laugh.

There’s no doubt that liberals have a long, hard road to travel before they achieve any relevance in the national debate. It remains to be seen whether “tweaking” their message to include soothing words to people of faith and a new found hard headedness in foreign policy will be enough to overcome a constant case of foot in mouth disease that takes them on ever increasing flights of hyperbole and rhetorical nonsense that the American people have already judged to be extreme and just plain wrong.

UPDATE

Van Helsing and I were on the same wavelength this morning:

Many grown adults who continue to cling to the adolescent ideology of the Left need to lean on irony. But even if they can look you in the face and tell you that 9/11 was about the “haves and have-nots” without smirking, there’s not much chance they’ll give up their Club Med vacations for stints at terrorist training camps, if only because deep down most of them know that their point of view is a fashion accessory, and if The New Yorker changed its editorial policy, their professed beliefs would quickly follow suit.

But teenagers don’t have the balance and perspective that comes with accepting yourself as a total fraud. When they adopt a pose, they are likely to think it’s real. So when you force-feed the young a constant diet of anti-American propaganda — as our media and schools do — the troubles and confusion that often accompany the adolescent years can result in a very dangerous sociopathology that might last into adulthood with disastrous results.

He then documents the strange case of one Adam Gadahn, American moonbat turned jiahdist. Read the whole thing. It’s an eye opener.

Also, check out this excellent post from The New Editor about “The Sandbox Left.”

Cross Posted at Blogger News Network

This week’s Watchers Council vote is in and once again, The House ended up in the winners circle. My post “Remembering Why I Love History” finished first in the Council category.

Finishing second was an eye-opening post by the Sundries Shack on Hillary Clinton’s rhetorical dive off the deep end in a fundraising speech. “In a Perfect World, We’d Never Let Her Run” illustrates why this lamp throwing harridan is unfit to be President of the United States:

I’m very intolerant of people who can’t tell the difference between George Bush and Fidel Castro, Adolph Hitler, or Josef Stalin. I wish I could make a time machine and drag them back to hear the screams of children gassed to death, to see women raped and slaughtered, to witness the last minutes of human beings worked to death in labor camps just so they’d never, ever forget what a real dictatorship is.

I’m serious about this. The speech Hillary Clinton made ought to disqualify her from ever running for elected office in this country ever again. And I’m not talking about a legal prohibition either, so just settle down and put away your “fascist” signs. I’m saying that we, the people, ought to shout down that sort of dangerous and idiotic nonsense the very moment it’s uttered and vote them down so hard that their ears ring.

Amen to that, Jimmie.

Another good post from the Council this week was from E-Claire who blogged the tongue-in-cheek San Francisco 49ers training film that was a hot item in the Shadow Media last week. It’s called “SF Stages Gala Offendapalooza.”You may recall that the video purported to give lessons to rookies on how to act in certain situations in the moonbat capitol of the world. Of course, every minority interest group in the city wanted to horn in on the publicity generated by the racy film by condemning it from their own “special perspective.” Here are a couple of those perspectives and who the film actually “demeaned:”

“…women”

Now, these are professional sex workers engaged in the profession of ..er, sex work. They were hired by the team for the job of showing their boobies on tape, a little fakey girl-kissing, some poorly acted ‘admiration’ of Reynolds’ unit, and rather more giggling and simpering than I thought necessary. But, hey—that’s a personal taste thing. heh, heh heh heh heh heh… she said “taste”… *BANG* heh, heh heh … whe said “ba..ow!”

“bisexual community”
Nobody ever takes the bisexual community seriously, so I won’t either. Nevertheless, I am offended for the bisexual community; just on GP.

The Smarter Cop in “Who’s the Dummy, Again?” sees Kerry channeling Danny Kaye:

Folks, I have a feeling that this is just the tip of the iceberg. What we’re dealing with is a really small man with a Walter Mitty-sized imagination.

Ayup.

In the Non Council category, Winds of Change won with a powerful post “THIS is a Gulag:”

In addition to the most common category of camps that practiced hard physical labour and prisons of various sorts, other forms also existed.

–Psikhushka the forced medical treatment in psychiatric imprisonment was used, in lieu of camps, to isolate and break down political prisoners. This practice became much more common after the official dismantling of the Gulag system.

One thing to remember about the psychiatric prisons is that at the same time Mikail Gorbachev was recieving the Nobel Peace Prize, it’s estimated that more than 25,000 perfectly healthy political dissidents were languishing in these “hospitals.” Obviously these poor souls must have been sick if they couldn’t recognize that they were living in a workers’ paradise.

The hospitals, now closed, will be a blight on Russian medicine - as much as the Nazi medical experiments were on German medicine - for years to come.

If you’d like to submit a post to the Council for next week’s vote, go here and follow instructions.

THE PRESIDENT AND HIS DOG SPOT. THE PRESIDENT IS THE ONE HOLDING THE LEASH

The President’s 15 year old Scottish Terrier “Spot” was arrested today and charged with aiding and abetting torture as well as other “crimes against humanity.” The human rights organization Amnesty International, that had threatened to arrest the President, the Secretary of Defense, and other current and former Administration officials if they traveled to foreign countries, urged the arrest of the canine saying “no one in the Administration is guiltless.”

William Schulz, President of A.I. in America applauded the action saying that “In a conspiracy like this, you have to start at the outer edges and work your way toward the middle. One slip and everyone feels safer.”

When told that his statement sounded like “Deep Throat’s” admonition to Bob Woodward in the movie All The President’s Men Schulz would only say “I am not Deep Throat. You must have the wrong fellow.”

Schulz added that “If we can’t get the big fish, we’ll go for the small fry. This dog is one of the President’s most loyal supporters. He was in the White House at the time these crimes were being planned and carried out. The fact that he didn’t speak up and protest these actions is just as bad as if he committed the acts himself.”

When asked if this action would lead to more donations and publicity for the human rights group, Schulz denied any connection. “I’m insulted that anyone would think such a thing. We are not trying to increase donations to our hotline at (800) 555-0011 nor are we seeking additional publicity or did we ask to appear on Lary King Live tonight at 9:00 pm eastern.”

A.I. President Irene Kahn applauded the action adding “Mr. Spot will now face the justice his master has so far escaped.” Kahn also pointed to the fact that dogs were routinely used to scare prisoners at Abu Ghraib and that the President’s pet “could act as a stand-in for dogs all over the world who deliberately bark, snarl, and drool in order to frighten innocent terrorists.”

Spot will be held at Prince George’s County Animal Shelter until his trial. No bail has been set and the dog had no comment to reporters assembled outside the shelter as he was led into the facility. Spot could be heard whimpering piteously as shelter personnel hustled him into the building.

The President had no comment however, a spokesman speaking on condition of anonymity, said he was taking the arrest well but that Mrs. Bush was considering military options to rescue the beloved pooch. “She’s ready to send in the Seals.” the source said.

In a totally unrelated development, the Internal Revenue Service announced it was looking into the tax exempt status of Amnesty International’s American chapter.

Michelle Malkin has a link to a Wall Street Journal piece by International Freedom Center President Richard J. Tofel in which he seeks to calm fears regarding the 9/11 memorial turning into an orgy of anti-Americanism:

Then there will be the Memorial Center, a museum devoted to the events of September 11 itself, with exhibit space roughly equal in size to that at the International Freedom Center. The Memorial Center will tell the stories of the day–of heroism and sacrifice, of rescue and service, of courage and resolution, of memory and loss. It is the Memorial Center that will contain the iconic artifacts of September 11.

That is necessary, but not sufficient.

Why not? Why isn’t a simple memorial to the memory of those who perished on that terrible day enough? What possible addition could one make to such a memorial that wouldn’t seek to horn in on the sacred homage we owe to the nearly 3,000 of our countrymen who lost their lives in what Norman Podhoretz has called the “opening salvo” of World War IV?

This, from Martin Palous, a founding member of the Czechoslovakian human rights group “Charter 77″ along with Vclav Havel:

“9/11 is a story of courage, hope, and freedom: the courage to make the decision to go into the buildings to save someone, the hope to start anew after disaster, the wish to base our society on free will in the context of a pluralistic public sphere. It was a moment of truth in the story of freedom, and it connects the United States with democratic revolutions around the world, which share this quality of believing in the possibility of new beginnings.” Out of the tragedy of September 11 came a renewed civic spirit, and the International Freedom Center will work to sustain that. This is work that can unite people of goodwill everywhere…”

Very poetic but hardly the point. Mr. Tofel quotes Palous and indicates he’s one of the “35 scholars of freedom” who are advisor’s to the IFC. Since one of the driving forces of the IFC is Tom Bernstein, head of Human Rights First, an anti-Bush, anti-American group that would love to turn the memorial into a paean to all of the sins, both real and imagined, in America’s history, one wonders how much of Mr. Palous’ “advice” is going to be taken and how much from Mr. Bernstein and his Moveon crew.

Then Mr. Tofel gets to the nub of the matter:

To be sure, the International Freedom Center will host debates and note points of view with which you–and I–will disagree. But that is the point, the proof of our society’s enduring self-confidence and humanity. Moreover, the International Freedom Center will rise above the politics of the moment. It will not exist to precisely define “freedom” or to tell people what to think, but to get them to think–and to act in the service of freedom as they see it. And it will always do so in a manner respectful of the victims of September 11.

Why do moonbats think that every statement made in praise of America or in America’s defense needs to be “balanced” with some opposing point of view while the statements of America’s enemies and detractors need to be left standing alone so that we can better understand why the murderous thugs we’re fighting oppose us?

It’s loony.

This has got to be nipped in the bud now. Go here and contact the people on this list. Let them know that 9/11 is sacred ground and should be perhaps the one place in the country reserved to honor America, not denigrate her.

UPDATE

Jacob Laskin at FrontPage has an extraordinary article outlining the controversey. A sample:

In remarks posted on the International Freedom Center’s website, (historian Eric) Foner explains that the memorial will require a “critical eye,” and stresses that, “There have been many points in our history where freedom has been restricted, and has gone backwards.” What relevance this has to a September 11 memorial is unclear, but it does suggest that leftists like Foner intend to use the memorial to project their view of American history as an unabated stretch of oppression and intolerance.

This is almost too unbelievable to be true. I wonder if people who donated to this project knew what they were giving money for?

I needn’t have asked:

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this message, coupled with the center’s less than diverse assemblage of advisors, has enticed the moneyed left to bankroll the center’s memorial. Sponsors include the Open Society Institute, the grant-making arm of leftist financier George Soros. Another sponsor is the left-wing Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The fund’s interest in the memorial is easily deciphered: its administrators have long maintained that the greatest threat to the post-911 world comes from the United States. As the fund’s Peace and Security Program has understatedly put it, “At the start of the 21st century and in the wake of September 11, 2001, there exists a pressing need to examine the content, style, and tone of U.S. global engagement and to ensure that they reflect an understanding of the reality and implications of increasing global interdependence.”

Open Society Institute is also funded by the Heinz Foundation. Maybe they’ll have a little space highlighting the 2004 election that was “stolen” from Senator Kerry?

And Kevin at Wizbang weighs in on Tofel’s damage control:

Unfortunately for us the thoughtful response amounts to little more than, “trust us.” There’s lots of quotations, but very little on specifics. Surely the vagueness with which he describes the IFC content is by design, as reactions to the revelations provided by Burlingame were nearly instantaneous and vociferous.

Lime Shurbert has more including a letter from a soldiers mother sent to Mr. Tofel. One word of advice to Mr. Tofel: Don’t get the mothers of soldiers mad at you.