Right Wing Nut House

They weren’t expecting a huge crowd in downtown Lebanon yesterday to mark the one year anniversary of the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. The demonstration organizers averred that they would have been pleased if 50,000 Lebanese citizens had marched for democracy and justice - justice for the perpetrators of the assassination who to this day are walking free, beyond the reach of the Lebanese courts or any international tribunal. This was one of the reasons given by the March 14 Forces who organized the demonstration as to why the turnout would probably be so disappointing.

As it played out, nearly 1 million Lebanese poured into Martyr’s Square to both remember the beloved former Prime Minister and show their support for democracy, independence, and bringing Hariri’s killers to justice.

It was spectacular proof that the forces for democratic change who pulled off the astonishing feat of forging a broad based coalition that swept to victory in the Parliamentary elections last summer still have a deep wellspring of support among the people of this tragic, divided land.

But the demonstration also highlighted the monumental problems still facing the country’s leaders as they seek to overcome decades of bloodshed, hate, and suspicion and achieve stable, democratic government free from foreign influence.

Not all of Lebanon was represented at the demonstration in Martyr’s Square. The forces of Hizballah, the Amal Militia, and Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement held their own, separate remembrances honoring Hariri. And herein lie the seeds of Lebanon’s weakness as well as the potential for disaster. Despite all the uplifting rhetoric, Lebanon is still a country divided not just by religion but also by forces with dual loyalties to Beirut and Damascus. It is a country where many if not most of its citizens sees itself at war with the State of Israel. And it is a country where the very idea of nationhood is tied up in a complex web of expectations and dreams that vary from group to group, region to region, and sect to sect.

The number one problem facing Lebanon today is the same problem it has faced for more than a quarter century; the pervasive and pernicious influence of Syria on the everyday affairs of the nation. Like a parasite that feeds off its host, Syria has invaded the nervous system of Lebanon and has spread its tentacles into every corner of society. Simply getting rid of the Syrian army and the outward accoutrements of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s secret police did not solve the problem. Like removing a leech from the body and not removing the head, Syria’s influence on the politics, the economy, and the security services of Lebanon remains to poison the blood and sicken the host.

There are no easy solutions to the problem of Syrian influence. That’s because groups like Hizballah, despite protestations to the contrary by their leader Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, rely on Syria for weapons and as a conduit for aid from their allies in Tehran. On this day honoring the slain former Prime Minister, Nasrallah highlighted what he says Hariri told him; that “Lebanon cannot be ruled from Damascus nor can it be ruled against Damascus.” He further recalled that Hariri had believed that Lebanon was in a state of war with Israel, regardless of whether actual clashes took place.

Those clashes are in fact taking place with Israel as “The Resistance” (as Hizballah insists on calling itself) continues to launch attacks in the disputed Shebaa Farms region. Israel still patrols the Farms, using it as a buffer region to keep the terrorists from killing innocent civilians. It is a major bone of contention between Lebanon and Israel and as long as Hizballah’s 10,000 militiamen are armed with rockets, Israel will refuse to give it up.

In this vicious circle of violence, Hizballah uses Israel’s presence on Lebanese territory as an excuse to keep its weapons despite a UN Resolution (1559) calling for the group to disarm. Recently, the issue of Hizballah’s weapons became a domestic political football as the terrorist group, along with their religious allies, boycotted Lebanese cabinet meetings, demanding that instead of being called a “militia” which would have necessitated their disarmament, they be referred to as “The Resistance.”

For nearly three months, the cabinet was crippled as crucial business had to be deferred. Finally, earlier this month, a compromise was brokered by Prime Minister Fuad Siniora and the Shiite parties returned to the table. But the lesson was clear; Hizballah must be reckoned with as a political force as well as a military one. The hard fact is that Hizballah has 26 members who have been elected to parliament. And their influence over large swaths of the country is undeniable. How to separate Hizballah from their weapons without tearing the country apart will be the number one challenge facing the government of Lebanon for the foreseeable future.

For within that issue lies so many of Lebanon’s internal problems. Secularization versus Islamic law. War or peace with Israel. Politics practiced with guns or words. And unity versus a kind of tribalism that would guarantee a weak, divided Lebanon constantly being pulled this way or that by its more powerful neighbors in Damascus and Tel Aviv.

As far as unity is concerned, Hizballah isn’t the only headache facing the country’s political leaders. There is also the out sized personality and political wild card represented by the Free Patriotic Movement’s Michel Aoun.

A former Prime Minister, the charismatic Aoun recently returned from exile and has stirred up a witches brew of political trouble. Initially participating in the coalition of anti-Syrian parties that kicked Assad’s army out of the country, he left the coalition in a huff when it became apparent he would not play a leading role. In what has become a hallmark of his career, he then flipped and joined pro-Syrian parties in a coalition during the round of elections last summer. He has since been angling for the Presidency, campaigning to replace what most observers agree is a Syrian puppet Emil Lahoud in that office.

The real problem is the Maronite Auon’s unnatural alliance with the Shiites in Hizballah. If Aoun had agreed to his reduced role in the March 14 Forces, Hizballah may have been isolated and been forced to accede to both UN Resolutions and a reduced role in politics. As it is, Aoun’s personal ambition for the Presidency has complicated matters enormously and it remains to be seen even if he is named President, whether he will be able to unite the factions and strengthen the country.

Another political problem is the coalition itself. It is under stress from all sides as the peace brokered prior to last summer’s elections is fraying around the edges. There simply is no dominant personality for all sides to rally around and look to for leadership. Rafiq Hariri’s son Saad could emerge as that leader except that President Assad of Syria realizes that also. Hariri’s security in Lebanon has become so problematic that for the last six months he has lived in self-imposed exile.

In a stirring speech at the demonstration yesterday, the young Hariri issued a clear call for unity:

We meet here today in March 14 square, there are no Muslims and there are no Christians, there are only Lebanese screaming ‘Lebanon first.” There is no place amongst us for criminals … there is no place among us for the symbols of the security apparatus.”

One of those symbols was the target of the crowd’s wrath yesterday; President Emil Lahoud. It is widely believed that Lahoud had a hand in the assassination of the elder Hariri as well as other high profile killings that occurred last summer including a popular anti-Syrian journalist. In fact, the UN Commission set up to investigate the Hariri assassination and headed up by prosecutor Detlev Mehlis discovered calls made by a known conspirator in the assassination to Lahoud’s office both immediately before and after the killing. But Lahoud is a powerful politician with his own base of support. His refusal to resign continues to complicate the politics of reconciliation that many observers believe is vitally necessary if Lebanon is to survive and prosper.

Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri has called for a Commission of National Dialog which will bring together all segments of Lebanese society in an effort to come to grips with the numerous problems that weigh so heavily on the future of this divided land. Perhaps the energy and hope contained in the one million beating hearts who demonstrated in the square yesterday will be enough to motivate Lebanon’s leaders to take advantage of that opportunity for dialog and redouble their efforts to achieve unity.

It’s clear that the people haven’t given up hope. It remains to be seen whether the country’s leaders can rise above their differences - both petty and pervasive - in order to fulfill the dream of a Lebanon at peace with itself and the world.

Not content with demanding that the free nations of the world outlaw the caricaturing of the prophet Mohamed, the “moderate” Muslim group Organization of Islamic Council (OIC) is now trying to piggyback their grievances on the bodies of 3,000 dead Americans.

They are trying to tell us that the Cartoon Controversy is the Muslim world’s 9/11:

The publication of cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Mohamed has had the effect of the September 11 attacks on the Islamic world, argued Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Conference.

Muslims are offended by the cartoons, Mr. Ihsanoglu told High Representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union (EU) Javier Solana; currently on tour in the Middle East.

“It is unfortunate that the Islamic world took the satirical drawings as a different version of the September 11 attacks against them,” said Mr. Ihsanoglu. “I hope,” he added, “the EU will adopt a new ruling to fight against Islamophobia.”

This is the same group that wants the United Nations to pass a resolution outlawing “contempt” for religions and impose sanctions on countries and institutions that don’t toe their line against free speech:

The Muslim world’s two main political bodies say they are seeking a UN resolution, backed by possible sanctions, to protect religions after the publication in Scandinavia of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad.

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of Organisation of the Islamic Conference, said in Cairo on Sunday that the international body would “ask the UN general assembly to pass a resolution banning attacks on religious beliefs”.

The deputy secretary-general of the Arab League, Ahmed Ben Helli, confirmed that contacts were under way for such a proposal to be made to the UN.

“Consultations are currently taking place at the highest level between Arab countries and the OIC to ask the UN to adopt a binding resolution banning contempt of religious beliefs and providing for sanctions to be imposed on contravening countries or institutions.

I don’t know about you but I’m getting sick and tired of other nations trying to tell me that this or that happening to them is somehow to be equated with the most brutal and deadly terrorist attack in history.

We’ve had Spain’s 9/11 (which was also supposed to be Europe’s 9/11), Great Britain’s 9/11, Indonesia’s 9/11 to name a few. We’ve also had 9/11 used as a metaphor for any number of idiotic issues with the Cartoon Brouhaha only the latest. It makes me wonder if the people trying to piggyback their pet issues and agendas on the ghost of 9/11 ever wonder how totally ridiculous they look.

The OIC wasn’t content with comparing their “plight” to 9/11; they had to throw in references to the Holocaust also, a curious idea since so many of them are Holocaust deniers:

“In Europe unfortunately Muslims have taken the place of Jews during World War II. There is a need for a UN legislation and clarification of existing conventions,” he said.

Ihsanoglu asked for adopting a code of conduct for the European media. “The code of conduct should take into account the sensitivities of the Muslims and defamation in any form or manifestation and the core beliefs of the religions including mocking and criticizing prophets, and it should be considered an ethical offense in the European media code,” he said.

(HT: LGF)

Who do we have to thank for this kind of nonsense? The left in Europe and America of course. The kind of moral relativism that can equate the horrors of Holocaust atrocities with the extinction of snail darters can easily morph into Muslims saying that the mocking of their prophet can equal the death of 6 million human beings. After all, it’s how it makes them “feel” that matters.

I think we should call for a moratorium on the use of both 9/11 and the Holocaust to describe anything but events that are realistically similar in both numbers and impact on history. Don’t hold your breath, though. The world’s “victims” have the media playbook of the left down cold and can manipulate their emotions as easily as a child can be manipulated by fairy tales.

The dilemma faced by CTU and the President of the United States - whether they should prevent the gas attack on the mall or allow the attack and track the terrorists to their hideout in order to find the rest of the nerve gas - may have seemed far fetched, as unlikely a scenario that was ever used in the 5 year history of the show.

Think again. The fact is, President Roosevelt and George Marshall had to make literally dozens of such decisions during World War II thanks to the extraordinary work of American signals intelligence in cracking the Japanese Imperial Navy’s JN-25 staff code. But there was a cost to breaking the code and gleaning Japanese intentions in the Pacific; if the Japanese got even a hint that we were reading their traffic, they would change the code and we would be in the dark again. Hence, while we were able to plan a response to Japan’s attack on Midway Island and the Aleutians in 1942 based on the decoded intercepts, other Japanese moves that we were able to determine in advance were not countered because of the fear that the Japanese would get suspicious. In short, we would become victims of our own success and American sailors and Marines paid the price.

It must have been difficult for the brass to make those choices. But in the end, it was the right choice. Even after the Germans told the Japanese we had broken their naval code, the Imperial Navy arrogantly refused to believe it and kept the code anyway. And virtually every historian of World War II agrees that these code breaking activities shortened the war and saved lives.

Of course, the situation at the mall was a little different. Or was it? Although the potential victims at the mall were civilians, that gut wrenching conversation between Audrey and Fat Hobbit Lynn about whether to stop the gas from being released (see below) shows pretty much what kind of war we’re fighting. I daresay the 9/11 passengers on Flight 93 may have understood even though Audrey and Jack didn’t.

Yes the situation was contrived. But I would be curious to know whether or not the readers think CTU and the President made the right decision or whether you think Jack and Audrey were right?

I would bet that it breaks close to 50-50.

SUMMARY

Following the killing of Rossler by his 15 year old sex slave, Jack and CTU found themselves in quite a pickle. With Ivan the Terrorist set to call back and arrange a meeting so that Rossler could give him the chip that would allow for remote detonation of the nerve gas cannisters, it was time for Jack to think and think fast.

Actually, long time Jack fans knew what was coming before Rossler hit the floor with a satisfying thud - Jack would take the pedophile’s place. In fact, the entire show has been laced with this kind of predictability. Are the writers running out of ideas? Or do we just know Jack so well that nothing he does anymore can surprise us?

With the terrorists shopping the gas to “various sleeper cells” around the country (Holy Crap! You mean there are actually terrorists here in the US? Don’t tell the Democrats!) Fat Hobbit Lynn gives Jack the go ahead to try and pass himself off as Rossler in order to infiltrate the terrorist gang. Jack, being the manly man that he is, will need considerable assistance from the dynamic geek duo of Chloe and Fat Geek Edgar in order to make the chip switch and be convincing.

Back at the ranch, President Jellyfish has reverted to form. After what appeared to be an infusion of much needed testosterone last week from the Nutzo First Lady (who seems to have plenty to spare) he and Mike realize they can stonewall the Cummings caper rather than go through with the “limited hang out route” they were planning before Cummings rather convenient and some would say enormously helpful “suicide.”

The tin foil hats were out in full force all week at the show’s websites as there was wild speculation about Cummings. Was he murdered? His death certainly solved a lot of problems, didn’t it? Even innocent Evelyn, the First Lady’s Lady in Waiting, got in on the fun with a little speculation about foul play in Cumming’s suicide. Definitely a loose end to keep an eye on.

Of course, Cumming’s suicide also changed the political dynamic of whether or not to go public with his treason. With typical decisiveness where his own political hide is concerned, Logan okays a press statement at odds with the one he and Martha had come up with. Instead of full disclosure, there would be a cover up. Incensed, Martha threatens to go public anyway. Jellyfish boldly suggests she start with Cumming’s wife who had come to collect the body.

Jack goes to his meet with the terrorists and with Chloe’s expert assistance, switches the chip in the remote. Even though there is a tracking device in the chip itself, it was still predictable that Jack would be shanghaied and forced to go with the terrorists. Reluctantly, Jack accepts the gracious offer of a ride from the thugs and ends up at the absolutely best named terrorist target in TV history; Sunrise Hills Mall.

I bet half the towns in American have a “Sunrise Hill” mall or some variation with the words “sun” or “Hill.” Kinda creepy, no?

CTU’s dilemma begins. Take down the terrorists or not? We’ll call this exchange Audrey vs. Lynn I:

AUDREY: Lynn, we have got to stop them before they get inside.

LYNN: We move in now, Erwich will know we’re on to him and we won’t be led to the other cannisters.

AUDREY: Are you talking about letting them go through with this? Sacrificing the lives of all those people?

LYNN: I’m talking about accepting the damage of what one cannister can do vs. what the other 19 can do.

AUDREY: THIS IS INSANE!

Indeed. Fat Hobbit Lynn calls the President to get the go ahead to lay off the terrorists. And in another sickening display of wimpishness, Logan, like the squirming worm that he is, seeks to pass the buck back to CTU:

JELLYFISH: What’s your recommendation?

LYNN: Bill and I agree that the greatest good would be served if we allow them to release the single cannister of Centox nerve gas.

AUDREY: And I believe sir we have no right to sanction the deaths of innocent people. We should take our chances interrogating the men and find the location of the other cannisters.

(Pause as Jellyfish freezes like a side of beef that’s been locked in cold storage for a year)

LYNN: Mr. President, we’re running out of time. We need your decision, sir.

JELLYFISH: This is a field op. It’s up to you.

BILL: With all due respect Mr. President, it is not. We don’t have the legal authority to make this decision. Only you do.

Bleeccchhhh! * Spit * * Spit * (HT: Misha).

The clock is ticking because the terrorists have made their way into the mall, offed the security guard, and have placed the gas into the ventilation duct. All they need now is the code to punch into the remote and arm the cannister. And once Jellyfish gives his reluctant okay (threatening dire consequences if the plan doesn’t work) Fat Hobbit Lynn orders Jack to give the code to the terrorist.

We sympathize with Jack’s quandary. When he gives the terrorists the wrong code, the Fat Little Hobbit comes out in Lynn and he looks and sounds like he’s ready to do battle with the ourks. Jack is in trouble again - both with CTU and, as it turns out, the terrorists who don’t like mistakes. The remote won’t arm so they cold cock Jack and with the help of their terrorist brethren, make alternate plans to set off the cannister.

As the terrorists are fiddling with the nerve gas cannister, we are treated to another gut wrenching conversation between Audrey and Lynn (II):

AUDREY: The President is not looking at the children whose death warrants he just signed.

LYNN: Do you realize how many more people could die if they don’t lead us to the rest of the cannisters?

AUDREY: They could. That’s theoretical right now. Those children will die within minutes. Look at them! LOOK AT THE MONITOR!

BILL: Audrey! That’s enough.

AUDREY: No, it’s not. Lynn, you tell me. If you were in Jack’s shoes, would you follow through with that order, stand by, and watch as they murdered all those people?

LYNN: This is war! There are going to be casualties! If those are the orders of the President…YES!

AUDREY: I hope that’s not true - for your sake.

What she said.

As the terrorists prepare to release the gas, Ivan orders Jack’s death. Even though handcuffed to a table, Jack disarms his would be executioner and clamps his thighs around the thug’s neck, breaking it with a sickening crack. Hearing the struggle, terrorist #2 flees while Jack struggles to free himself. He’s too late. Some of the gas has escaped into the ventilation system. Cornering a plainclothes mall security man, Jack orders him to evacuate the mall and heads to the food court to either turn off the motors running the ventilation system or take advantage of the daily special at Too Wong Fu’s Sushi Palace.

Seeing that he’ll probably get lousy service at Mr. Too’s, Jack goes for the motors and turns them off. But not before several people are affected by the gas including a little girl that Jack rushes out to the mall parking lot and expertly administers the antidote. For such a tough guy, it’s apparent that Jack cares for women, children and dogs which probably makes him one of the most eligible bachelors in Los Angeles.

Terrorist #2 meanwhile finds a magic car. After breaking into what appeared to be a 1994 Chevy with electronic ignition, the terrorist is magically transported back to the 1970’s into the interior of what might be a 1974 Dodge Charger and is able to “hot wire” the car’s ignition. (Note to readers under the age of 30: This cannot be done on any car except maybe that old Chrysler Fury III sitting in your grandpa’s barn).

Tracking terrorist #2 back to the hideout, Ivan, who knew right away that CTU would be following, observes the arrival of the TAC Team and orders #2 to kill himself. (Does anyone else notice that there have been almost as many suicides this year as terrorists offed by Jack?) Ivan drives off into the afternoon sun leaving Jack, CTU, and the President in a dither as to what should be done.

BODY COUNT

Terrorists off the security guard. Jack plinks a terrorist. And the body count at the mall, according to Mike, stands at between 10 and 20. We’ll take the low number unless and until we hear differently.

JACK: 10

SHOW: 44

Make sure you leave a comment about whether you think CTU/Jellyfish was right in letting the terrorists release the gas or whether you think Audrey/Jack were right.

UPDATE

Check out this comment thread at Polipundit for some good speculation. Also, both Lori Byrd and Dave Barry agree with my analysis from last week: Faster please.

Al Gore is once again visiting overseas so it’s time for him to perform his specialty; over the top, exaggerated, hysterical anti-American rhetoric with a healthy dose of Bush bashing to boot.

I wrote here about the ex-Vice President and TV mogul wannabe and his trip to Sweden where the inventor of the internet daydreamed about what the world would have been like if only he had been elected in 2000 instead of George Bush.

Not to be outdone, this time Gore is in Saudi Arabia groveling at the feet of the Sheiks of Araby by pandering to their most base notions of the United States and feeding their paranoia about Washington:

Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed “terrible abuses” against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

Gore said Arabs had been “indiscriminately rounded up” and held in “unforgivable” conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida’s hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

Please note that our Creepy Veepy is talking about the round up of Muslim dissidents that occurred following 9/11. If your memory is a little hazy, let me refresh it for you. It was a great time. We rode our horses through Dearborn, Michigan lassoing any Arab who dared show his face, penned them up in cattle cars, and then drove them to that secret detention center in Utah where rabid Mormons tried to convert the prisoners to Christianity.

Or…the ex-model for the book Love Story is lying through his teeth.

Were Arabs detained following 9/11? Why yes they were. According to this Arab-American website, the number could have been 1200, with 725 held on immigration violations, another 100 held for unrelated criminal charges, and 360 detained for possible links to terrorism. And according to the US Census Bureau, there are about 3 million Arab Americans in the United States.

Some kind of “indiscriminate roundup” eh?

But our prevaricating almost-President wasn’t finished. He then proceeded to ask one of the swarthy gentlemen in the front row to turn around and raise his robes so that he could deliver a heartfelt lip-to-butt smooch, all the better to prove his anti-American bona fides and kick the Administration in the groin at the same time:

“The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake,” Gore said during the Jiddah Economic Forum. “The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States.”

Absolutely. “Dear Saudi Arabia: Please send us more hijackers that fly planes into our buildings. We ran out more than 4 years ago and have yet to receive any replacements. Best Regards, Algore”

And then what did our courageous Hamster-In-Chief do when several of the attendees asked about US support for Israel? Did he point out that Israel is an American ally by virtue of it being the only democracy within ballistic missile distance? Did he offer strong support for the brave Israeli people facing the prospect of increased terrorism from those “Hamas reformers?”

Several audience members criticized the United States for what they described as “unconditional” U.S. support for Israel, saying U.S. diplomats helped Israel flout U.N. resolutions that they enforced when the measures targeted Arabs.

Gore refused to be drawn into questions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“We can’t solve that long conflict in exchanges here,” Gore said.

“Duck and cover” used to be the byword in the 1950’s when we schoolkids saw the bright flash of a nuke going off nearby. Protozoa Brain has adopted the saying to explain why he felt it necessary not to talk some “truth to power” with regards to the Saudis and their nauseating support for Palestinian terrorists.

I’m not the only one who has noted how Brave Sir Alfred has chosen foreign venues to launch his attacks. Tigerhawk:

Procedurally, Gore’s speech is repugnant. It is one thing to say such things to an American audience in an effort to change our policy. Whether or not one agrees with Gore on the substance, if he wants to change American policy to let in more Saudis the only way he can do that it is to campaign for that change among influential Americans. It is, however, another thing entirely to travel to a foreign country that features pivotally in the war of our generation for the purpose of denouncing American policies in front of the affected foreign audience.

And Scott Johnson has a few choice words for the Saudis:

I want them to know that Gore’s impulse to defame his country before a foreign audience for fun and profit does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of citizens of my country. I want them to know that the American people support the enforcement of America’s immigration laws, especially against those suspected of having a possible terrorist connection. I want them to know that when 15 of the 19 perpetrators of September 11 were found to have been Saudi citizens, the American people wanted the Saudi government to take responsibility for its role in the attack on the United States and take every action necessary to ensure that it never happens again.

I really wish Al would go back to delivering speeches here in the United States where no one pays any attention to him. That way, when he makes a fool of himself, people won’t confuse him with someone who has anything important to say.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin rounds up blogger reaction and gives us the zinger of the day:

The notion that Saudis are entitled to unfettered visas to work, study, and do business in this country–the notion that entry into America is an entitlement and not a privilege–cost 3,000 innocent lives on Sept. 11, 2001.

How much did the Saudis pay you to forget, Al?

Youch!

Pat Curley:

Gore’s never been a particularly smart man; remember he flunked out of both law and divinity school. It may be as simple as the notion that “By hurting my enemy (President Bush), I’m helping myself.”

The man will go to his grave cursing George Bush.

Cross Posted at The Wide Awakes

IMPORTANT UPDATE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST

It’s enough to tax the patience of Job. I swear that being a Republican and a Bush supporter is getting harder almost by the day. Unless one is a blind, robotic partisan, this has got to trouble you:

The more than 18-hour delay in news emerging that the Vice President of the United States had shot a man, sending him to an intensive care unit with his wounds, grew even more curious late Sunday. E&P has learned that the official confirmation of the shooting came about only after a local reporter in Corpus Christi, Texas, received a tip from the owner of the property where the shooting occurred and called Vice President Cheney’s office for confirmation.

The confirmation was made but there was no indication whether the Vice President’s office, the White House, or anyone else intended to announce the shooting if the reporter, Jaime Powell of the Corpus Christ Caller-Times, had not received word from the ranch owner.

One of Powell’s colleagues at paper, Beth Francesco, told E&P that Powell had built up a strong source relationship with the prominent ranch owner, Katharine Armstrong, which led to the tip. Powell is chief political reporter for the paper and also covers the area where the ranch is located south of Sarita.

Armstrong called the paper Sunday morning looking for Powell, who was not at work. When they did talk, Armstrong revealed the shooting of prominent Austin attorney Harry Whittington, who is now in stable condition in a hospital. Powell then called Cheney’s office for the confirmation around midday. The newspaper broke the story at mid-afternoon–not a word about it had appeared before then.

Secrecy about the NSA intercept program? Understandable. Secrecy about the Vice President of the United States accidentally shooting someone and putting them into intensive care? Un.Conscienable.

And please don’t insult my intelligence by trying to make any other excuse than it was politically expedient to withhold the information. In fact, one wonders if the fortuitous set of circumstances had not unfolded as above whether or not the public would ever have found out about the incident.

This Administration’s mania for secrecy is getting on my nerves. There’s just no other way to describe it. I’m not talking about secrecy relating to national security matters. I’m talking about things like holding back documents requested by Congress looking into the Katrina mess. I’m talking about withholding corrected census information from Congress, forcing the legislators to go to court in order to do the people’s business. And these are but two examples. There are some - liberals to be sure - who believe the very concept of “open government” is at risk under this Administration.

Secrecy is corrosive. There is a reason why we have “sunshine laws” and the “Freedom of Information Act.” As recently as 30 years ago, many Congressional hearings were held in camera with no press, no public, and thus no accountability. And the Executive Branch of government was shrouded in secrecy with many of its deliberations completely off limits to Congress.

Now clearly there is a both a body of law and tradition that argues for some kind of executive privilege. But reforms that were instituted following the Watergate affair designed to open government and shine a light on its workings have steadily eroded in the intervening quarter century by both Republicans and Bill Clinton. The fact is, open government is a nuisance, an inconvenience to lawmakers and Presidents alike. But with this Administration, their efforts seem to have gone beyond eating at the edges of the law and have in fact, been directed at gutting the very concept of open government.

But hadn’t the pendulum toward “open government” swung too far in one direction and is the Bush Administration now simply bringing it back into line?

This is certainly true as it relates to national security matters. You simply cannot have the same culture of open government in a time of war than you can or should have during a time of peace. Anyone who argues differently probably doesn’t think we’re at war in the first place.

But there is absolutely no denying the fact that this Administration’s penchant for secrecy has gone far beyond the national security arena and has entered areas where the only excuse for maintaining control of information is domestic political concerns.

One can understand the Administration’s political concerns where a hostile press and maniacal political opposition is concerned. But there are times when the only honorable recourse is to take your political lumps and move on. Political calculations that inhibit the public’s legitimate right to know interfere with the people’s business and engender a feeling of distrust that is unhealthy in a democracy.

Back in 2002, Democrat Henry Waxman was joined by several Republicans on the Committee on Government Reform in asking that the President’s Executive Order that placed Presidential documents off limits to historians and others be rescinded.To this day, that Executive Order stands. If someone could tell me how this contributes to preserving the national security of the United States, I’m all ears. Instead, it is just one more example of needless - some would say reckless - disregard by this Administration for the very idea of “open government.”

Perhaps this Cheney incident will start a debate about secrecy in government and this Administration in general. I would welcome such a debate - if the tin foil hat crowd would stay out of it. Unfortunately, as with most political back and forth these days, the left will make sure to pile on for their own political reasons, blind and oblivious to the damage they do to civil discourse and our republic.

UPDATE

The virulence with which my readers have taken me to task over this post requires a response.

First, there is no “conspiracy” at work here. There isn’t even a “cover-up” although if the story had never come out I’m sure the Administration would have been pleased as punch. This is a simple matter of the Administration withholding bad news to lessen political damage, a stupid, clumsy move given the reaction in the press that any intern in the press office could have told them would occur.

I am amazed that many of you do not see why this was not only idiotic, but wrong. To allow political calculation (the probability of negative press) to override the need to to be absolutely transparent on something like this where, if the Vice President was any other American, would have necessitated an investigation by the police is not in keeping with the idea of open government, something that most of my post was on and that none of my worst critics bothered to mention.

I understand that we are at war. I understand the need for secrecy in national security matters. I even can understand and sympathize with the Administration in not allowing the loony left and the media in their unreasoning hatred of all things Bush to take information and turn it into political hand grenades to toss into the Oval Office in an attempt to “get” the President.

But you must understand the cost of this secrecy - less accountability, less openness, and in the end, less democratic government.

Because what is democratic government in the end but free people making decisions that are best for themselves, their communities and their nation? And doesn’t it just seem logical that in order to make those decisions that we have as much information as humanly possible?

This was the idea behind the open government reforms of the 1970’s. As conservatives we should welcome the opportunity to have transparency in government. Simply put, without it, we are less free.

I could have done without the name calling and insults. I’ve come to expect better than that from most of the commenters on this site.

RM

As a conservative, I’m used to the left mis-representing and even being deliberately misleading about the principals and beliefs most of us on the right hold. Hence, we’re tarred with the epithet “racist” because we disagree with the special pleaders in the civil rights lobby who advocate quotas and other “remedies” that are at odds with the very idea of equality. For the sin of disagreeing with the racialists on public policy matters, we’re called Kluxers and worse.

And let’s not forget the casual use of the terms “Nazi” and “fascist” to describe any number of imagined transgressions by conservatives against the liberal credo, despite the fact it is laughingly apparent that those who use those pejoratives wouldn’t know a Nazi if Hitler himself came up and kissed them full on the mouth. (I suppose now I will be branded a homophobe because I wouldn’t relish the idea).

That said, I was interested to read Glenn Greenwald’s latest effort to “explain” conservatism to the rest of us. Not that Mr. Greenwald ever has much original thinking in his diatribes. As Alexandra von Maltzan pointed out yesterday, Greenwald’s writing is little more than a tired echo of what conservatives can read on a daily basis at Kos or any other lock-step lefty blog where Bush Derangement Syndrome reigns supreme and, if you can believe their breathless rhetoric, the republic itself will fall by sometime tomorrow. Or is it next Thursday? Hard to keep track…

But what made this overly long and repetitive piece by Greenwald so fascinating was an almost slavish devotion to superficiality. Now, in defense of Greenwald, he makes an excellent point about blogging that should be a lesson to us all:

One of the principal benefits of the blogosphere — with its daily posting and unedited expressions of thought — is that it reveals one’s genuine underlying views in a much more honest and unadorned fashion than other venues of expression. For that reason, the true sentiments of bloggers often stand revealed for all to see.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve wanted to take back things I wrote in the heat of passion or that didn’t quite come out the way I intended. But blogging means feeding the beast. And the monster that resides on this website rarely allows for the kind of reflection that I give articles that appear at The American Thinker or other places.

But Greenwald’s piece would not, could not benefit from any kind of reflection or self-criticism due to it shallowness of thought and lazy logic. Perhaps it would have been better if Mr. Greenwald had consigned this piece to the dustbin of blog history and not hit the “publish” button at all.

There is so much jaw-dropping idiocy in this screed that while I was reading it my mandible hit the floor and began to dig. There is no way I could cover all of it so allow me to take some “highlights” and illustrate my thesis: that Greenwald’s critique of Bush supporters is so depthless, it’s in danger of sliding off the monitor and disappearing into the ether:

Now, in order to be considered a “liberal,” only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a “liberal,” regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more “liberal” one is. Whether one is a “liberal” — or, for that matter, a “conservative” — is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

Greenwald then goes on to cite the cases of Andrew Sullivan, Bob Barr, and Senator Voinovich who have come under heavy fire from conservatives for “straying.” The only trouble is, the people who want to kick these folks out of the Conservative Book Club and take away their memberships to Augusta National have about as much sway in the movement as Greenwald himself.

Brent Bozell (who fills the same role for conservatives that David Brock’s Media Matters does for liberals) comes in for special criticism for coming down on Andrew Sullivan’s supposed lack of conservatism. Andrew may be an hysteric about some things, but he’s certainly an independent cuss and is no one’s lap dog. Bozell’s criticism of Sullivan had much to do with Andrew’s apostasy in supporting John Kerry in “04 - something many conservatives who are as angry at George Bush as Andrew is will not forgive him for.

It is very hard for Mr. Sullivan to claim common cause with conservatives when he proclaims his support for someone who by any yardstick was considered one of the top three liberals in the United States Senate. Nevertheless, most criticism of Andrew that I’ve seen has been his comparing the stress techniques used against terrorists with the worst kinds of torture used by Hitler and Stalin. Andrew has been brave and correct in taking the US military and the Bush Administration to task for any number of transgressions against human rights committed against the detainees in our custody. But his hysterical denunciations of the mildest kinds of interrogation techniques were over the top and uncalled for.

Is Andrew Sullivan a conservative? As far as I’m concerned, he can define himself any way he chooses and we are free to agree or disagree. I look upon Andrew as our crazy conservative uncle whose rants show an independence of thought that is vital to any ideological movement. He will continue to be flayed by those whose shallowness matches Mr. Greenwald’s in seeing his disagreements with the Administration as something akin to treason. But for Greenwald to posit the notion that Sullivan is no longer considered a conservative because of gadflies like Bozell is loony.

Barr and Voinovich? To equate criticism for some positions taken by either of those two worthies with the desire to drum them out of the conservative ranks reveals more about liberals than it does conservatives. As “proof” that Barr is about to lose his Haliburton board membership. Greenwald links to a story where one man - ONE MAN - criticizes Barr for his damning the Bush Administration over the NSA intercept program.

But nobody said anything in the deathly quiet audience. Barr merited only polite applause when he finished, and one man, Richard Sorcinelli, booed him loudly. “I can’t believe I’m in a conservative hall listening to him say [Bush] is off course trying to defend the United States,” Sorcinelli fumed.

Bob Barr is about to handed his walking papers by…by…Richard Sorcinelli?

This isn’t shallow nor is it even disingenuous. It is a lie. Or out and out stupidity. Not even a high school essayist would dare take one example of something and then make a sweeping statement of fact using that example as its sole means of support.

More surface critiquing by Greenwald:

People who self-identify as “conservatives” and have always been considered to be conservatives become liberal heathens the moment they dissent, even on the most non-ideological grounds, from a Bush decree. That’s because “conservatism” is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as “liberal” is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers to a set of beliefs about government

Greenwald offers nothing except the cage rattling of Bozell and that well known and influential conservative leader….(um, whassis name? Oh! Yeah…Richard Sorcinelli) as proof for the entire thesis of his article.

His critique of Bush’s conservatism is a little better. He correctly points out that Bush is a big spender (Welcome to the club, Glenn. Conservatives too numerous to mention have been saying that for 4 years). Beyond that, he seems to think that conservatives are not questioning Bush on his use of the power of the federal government.

I realize that when writing such long, interesting (?) pieces it is difficult to read much of anything else. But the fascinating thing about conservatism these days is in the vigorous debate that has gone on between Constitutional absolutists and war mongers; between those who advocate the forging of a true conservative governing class and those who want conservatism to remain at arms length from government. And the reason these and other vital debates are taking place between conservatives is because liberals refuse to engage at any level on any serious issues. It’s hate Bush all day, all the time, and may the devil take the rest.

Greenwald’s transference of his Bush hatred to Bush supporters is par for the course. Here’s another head shaker:

The blind faith placed in the Federal Government, and particularly in our Commander-in-Chief, by the contemporary “conservative” is the very opposite of all that which conservatism has stood for for the last four decades. The anti-government ethos espoused by Barry Goldwater and even Ronald Reagan is wholly unrecognizable in Bush followers, who – at least thus far – have discovered no limits on the powers that ought to be vested in George Bush to enable him to do good on behalf of all of us.

What planet is this guy from? Without one iota of proof, Greenwald tars Bush supporters with the blanket statement that there are “no limits on the powers that ought to be vested in George Bush to enable him to do good on behalf of all of us…” So silly. So shallow. Unsupported by any facts or even a whiff of fact. But it does seem to prove Alexandra’s main point against Greenwald; that there is no difference between Mr. Greenwald and the Koskids, DU’ers or any other lefty site where Bush is blamed for everything from Tsunamis to mine disasters.

But then, Greenwald always has hyperbole and contradiction to fall back on:

And as excessive as the Bush Administration’s measures have been thus far — they overtly advocate the right to use war powers against American citizens on American soil even if Congress bans such measures by law — I am quite certain that people like John Hinderaker, Jonah Goldberg and Jeff Goldstein, to name just a few, are prepared to support far, far more extreme measures than the ones which have been revealed thus far. And while I would not say this for Jeff or perhaps of Jonah (ed: didn’t you just now say it?), I believe quite firmly that there are no limits – none – that Hinderaker (or Malkin or Hewitt) would have in enthusiastically supporting George Bush no matter how extreme were the measures which he pursued.

Um…’kay. In the world that sane, rational people inhabit, one would expect just one, tiny shred of proof that the statement above is anything but the wild eyed rant of a maniacal Bush hater. And to say in one sentence that people like Hinderaker, Goldberg, and Goldstein are “prepared to support far, far more extreme measures” than any we’ve seen only to say in the very next sentence “while I would not say this for Jeff or perhaps of Jonah…” is a laughable example of the one side of Greenwald’s brain not knowing what the other is saying. At the very least, it shows slopping thinking.

Greenwald goes on to say that because Michelle Malkin wrote a book in defense of the internment of Japanese during World War II that she (and Hinderaker and Hewitt) would gladly start the round up of Muslims and march them off to camps today if given half a chance. Perhaps if Greenwald had offered one - just one example where any of those bloggers had advocated such a position, his rant would at least start a discussion. But he doesn’t so it’s impossible. It’s just more red meat for the denizens of the fever swamps who keep predicting the end of the republic but are continuously frustrated by the resilience of the old girl to the machinations of both liberal loonies like Greenwald as well as cuckoo conservatives.

I apologize for the length of this post. I could go on but I’m sure I’ve already lost most of you. The point of this is to show that liberals like Greenwald will always refuse to engage conservatives on any meaningful level because in the end, their arguments are so shallow that to get beyond the Bush Derangement Syndrome is impossible. I can’t think of a serious conservative who has not had major disagreements with Bush about a host of issues. Yes there are fawning acolytes. But there are far more serious conservatives who support the President generally but oppose him vehemently on issues ranging from the way the war has been prosecuted, to our policy on detainees, to our on again-off again liberation policy in the Middle East, to the power wielded by some social conservatives, to even some aspects of domestic security. If Greenwald would read something besides the “me too” screeds on Kos and Atrios, he might even educate himself about why conservatives keep winning elections.

UPDATE 2/13

Greenwald responds to his critics here. He takes me to task specifically for pooh-poohing the idea that Andrew Sullivan has had his Conservative Mastercard yanked by his many and vociferous critics.

With a perfect sense of timing (akin to my bitching about the boss as he walks into the room behind me), Sullivan makes Greenwald’s quote about him his “Quote of the Day” saying that the piece is “diagnosing the current situation accurately.”

No one likes to be criticized. And both Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Greenwald should know by now that the majority of people who read what we write are fierce partisans who see the political internet as a battlefield - take no prisoners and attack relentlessly. But I think Mr. Sullivan is being overly sensitive for this reason: The overwhelming number of conservative bloggers who read what he writes still consider him a man of the right. One would hardly call Gregory Djerejian, someone who has absolutely skewered the Administration over prosecution of the Iraq War, a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. Nor would too many people call John Cole a liberal for his sharp attacks on the Administration over torture.

I believe the point I made is valid; that conservative “apostates” may be criticized and called all sorts of names. But no one is seriously suggesting that they’ve changed their stripes and defected to the left. Those that do - a very small subset of loudmouthed yawpers - cannot and should not be confused with the vast majority of conservatives whose minds function above a 5th grade level.

Read the rest of Mr. Greenwald’s reply where he fleshes out a few of his thoughts from his original post that I still believe was an exercise in superficial and shallow thinking.

.

I really hate it when other people make me look like a fool.

Most who know me are aware that I need no help in that department. I am quite capable of looking like a fool all by myself without so much as a “by your leave” from anyone else, thank you. Hence, when others, by their actions, show me to be either naive or just plain wrong, I really hate it.

First of all, it requires the obligatory mea culpa post full of angst-ridden questions like “How dare they?” Or perhaps “Am I really that stupid?” This is followed by a flood of comments from readers along the lines of “I don’t like saying “I told ya so’ but I told ya so,” and other deep thoughts. In the end, I give the lie to the old adage “There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers” by proving that if the interlocutor is clueless, no answer on God’s green earth is dumb enough to justify being wrong in the first place.

I have been dead wrong about the Cartoon Controversy. I haven’t been just a little off target or slightly misguided. I have been four square, 100%, dyed in the wool, hugely mistaken about both the issues at stake and my analysis of so-called “moderate Muslims” whose almost virtual silence on these matters has made me look like an imbecile while trying to defend them.

I really hate being made to look like an imbecile by people I’ve stood up for. In short, my call for forebearance and understanding on the cartoon issue has been tossed back at me with a sneer and a kick in the ass by many of the Muslim leaders I counted on to calm the situation. This is no longer an issue of trying to separate the jihadists from the so-called “moderates.” At bottom, they are both using each other and the controversy itself to advance their own agendas while at the same time, viciously attacking the very concept of free speech as we in the west understand it.

When radical Muslims like President Ahmadinejad of Iran start echoing the arguments made by what passes for moderate Muslims in Great Britain, it is time for everyone who supported the notion that the cartoons were making it more difficult for moderate Muslims to marginalize the fanatics to admit they were wrong.

Ahmadinejad is trying to pressure Europeans to address Muslim “sensitivities” by making it illegal to criticize Islam. He is trying to do this through the “moderate” Organization of Islamic Council (OIC) who know a good thing when they see it:

Iran has demanded an emergency meeting of the 57 Muslim countries comprising the Organization of Islamic Council (OIC), which announced it would call on the European Union (EU) to pass laws to counter hostility to Muslims.

“The OIC member countries expect the EU to identify islamophobia as a dangerous phenomenon to be scrutinized and combated as is the case with xenophobia and antisemitism,” the council said in a statement to AFP Saturday.

Europe had to create “appropriate mechanisms of surveillance and to look again at its legislation with the aim of preventing in the future repetition of recent unfortunate events,” the statement said.

By piggybacking their victimhood claims on the back of the cartoon controversy along with the radical’s call for suppressing free speech, we see an instance where the fanatics and “mainstream” Muslims scratch each other’s backs in order to advance their own agendas.

Thanks for that kick in the groin, guys.

Not to be outdone, the Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, the most important mosque in holiest city in Islam, has said “thanks but no thanks” to western apologies for the cartoons and instead, has called for the arrest and trial of the cartoonists:

Speaking to hundreds of faithful at his Friday sermon, Sheik Abdul Rahman al-Seedes, the imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, called on the international community to enact laws that condemn insults against the prophet and holy sites.

“Where is the world with all its agencies and organizations? Is there only freedom of expression when it involves insults to Muslims? With one voice…we will reject the apology and demand a trial,” Al Riyad, a Saudi daily newspaper, quoted al-Seedes as saying.

Al-Seedes said the cartoons “made a mockery” of the Islam and the Prophet and called them “slanderous.”

Sheik Abdul Rahman al-Seedes is not some obscure radical preaching from the hinterlands of Islam. He is one of the most important leaders in the Muslim world. To “reject” the meek apologies of the Europeans and call for criminalizing free speech goes beyond the pale. Charles Johnson has noted that the US has taken the Syrians and Iranians to task for stoking the fires of this controversy but have been unconscionably silent about our Saudi friends.

Don’t expect that to change anytime soon.

More suggestions from “moderates” on what the West can do with their free speech comes from the President of the semi-free, military dominated government of Indonesia:

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono reiterated that many Muslims consider the cartoons an insult to their faith, but he called on Muslims to forgive those who have sincerely apologized.

“Reprinting the cartoons in order to make a point about free speech is an act of senseless brinkmanship,” he said in a commentary in the International Herald Tribune.

“It is also a disservice to democracy. It sends a conflicting message to the Muslim community: that in a democracy it is permissible to offend Islam. This message damages efforts to prove that democracy and Islam go together.”

How very big of President Yudhoyono. He forgives us while accusing the west of “brinksmanship” for practicing free speech and then showing how really clueless he is about the idea of freedom by saying that it is undemocratic to offend Islam.

If I got a dollar every time I’ve read over the past three weeks of some Muslim “leader” giving lip service to the idea of free speech and then undercutting it by saying it should be illegal to criticize Islam, I’d be able to buy a new laptop.

Since my original postings on the cartoon controversy, we have learned about how both the Syrians and Iranians are using it to deflect attention from other problems. We have learned that western Muslims are using the controversy to advance their own agendas by playing upon the timidity and meekness of European governments. And we have witnessed the depth of hatred that the fanatical jihadists have for us and the contempt with which they view our most cherished freedoms.

What good does empathy and forbearance do in the face of such calculated calumny? To be considered whatever the Muslim equivalent of a “useful idiot” is does not sit well with me. It’s a mistake I will not repeat.

In fact, if the moderates want to impress me, they can start by coming out and laying into President Ahmadinejad for his constant denial of the Holocaust. That would be a pretty good start toward initiating a useful dialog that would lead to a better understanding between Islam and the West.

I will be appearing on the CBC’s “High Definition” show this morning at 10:30 AM Central time. You can catch the streaming broadcast here:

Click on “Ottawa” to listen.

The show is about the impact that “24’s” Jack Bauer has on American society and also features MSNBC’s Craig Crawford.

The show was taped last week and I have no idea how it will turn out. The host, Don McKellar, is a Canadian actor and liberal activist. Mr. McKellar was nice enough during the taping as was Craig Crawford who was a good sport about my article fisking him about his “24″ comparison with the Bush Administration.

Tune in and let me know how much of an idiot I made of myself…

UPDATE

The show was great - I was so-so. McKellar did a great shtick with the recorded voice of Jack Bauer making it appear as if he was talking to him - and being tortured by him. Great stuff!

I understand it will be broadcast several times on Sirius Radio this week. If someone can let me know, I’ll be glad to post the times.

Ann Coulter is in trouble again.

The most unpredictable mouth in America has once again proved that idiocy is not a mental state confined to the left wing in American politics. Calling Arabs “ragheads” while joking about her “ethical dilemma” regarding whether or not to kill Bill Clinton when she had the chance is simply the latest in a very long line of over the top - some would say out of control - thoughts that have spewed forth from her brilliant, eccentric mind.

In the end, this is Coulter’s dilemma. And the great trap she has set for herself as she has climbed the ladder of success to achieve fame and fortune. In this celebrity, media soaked age where the ravenous appetites of the news nets, “lifestyle” shows, and political talk radio are constantly demanding more and more controversy, more and more outrageous personalities to fill the time and attract more audience, the danger for any one personality like Coulter is that yesterday’s jaw droppers and head shakers can’t be repeated. She must come up with entirely new derogatory sobriquets to call her political opponents and ever more outrageous metaphors to describe her political pet peeves. By definition, she must go “over the top” on nearly a daily basis.

This way lies madness. Once people like Coulter start down this road it can only end in one way; you become a caricature of yourself. The barbs that once zinged your opponents with razor sharp wit causing even your political enemies to chuckle will lose their edge and end up as simple, hurtful, name calling more akin to playground epithets and hardly worthy of approbation except by your most rabid fans.

Hence, jokes about Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades morph into daydreaming about assassinating a President. And spot on, uproariously funny critiques of racialsm and the stupidity of identity politics segues easily into ethnic slurs. She has little choice if she wishes to remain atop the rickety pyramid of notorious celebrity she has carved out for herself. To do less would disappoint her numerous acolytes whose immaturity allows for giving her standing ovations when she casually refers to Arabs in a politically incorrect way.

The left, of course, is already all over the “raghead” comment, calling it “racist.” I constantly marvel at such ignorance (even though we should all be used to it by now). To say that Arabs make up a separate “race” is imbecilic. The racial origins of Arabs, Persians, Afghans, and people in Northern India are, in fact, Caucasoid (um…that means “white” my lefty brethren). They are more closely related to the Swedes than any of the Negroid sub-groups in southern Africa. But since the left never lets the facts stand in the way of their constant drive to twist the English language into doing its political bidding, I guess it really doesn’t matter. In a similar way, we’ve seen media savvy Muslims these past couple of weeks charge that the Cartoon Intifada is actually western “racism” directed against the “Religion of Peace.”

I guess you can’t accuse the fanatical jihadists rampaging through the streets, burning and murdering, of not having read the media Bible as written by the hard western left. After all, they seem to have more in common than either probably realizes.

Coulter’s speech at the CPAC Conference, while well received by the audience, laid an egg with righty bloggers. A sampling of reaction:

Joe Gandleman:

The problem is: she’s indicative of the rapid decline of issue-based political discourse in this country. Political opponents are described as evil enemies versus competitors with different ideas and approaches. It’s anti-PC that sells exceedingly well on radio and cable talk shows and on college campuses in particular — but people roaring in laughter at the undercurrent of zingers that jokingly suggest assassination is what’s troubling (and particularly because these same folks would be up in arms if someone such as Michael Moore suggested the same thing about people on their side).

Okay…sorry Joe. You’re not a “righty” per se but I liked your analysis, although disagreeing with your thoughts that Coulter has contributed to the “rapid decline” in sane, political discourse. The existence of Ann Coulter was not necessary for that to happen, not since the left announced that “the personal is political” back in the 1980’s.

Jeff Harrell: (CPAC attendee)

We all think you’re really funny, okay? We all think you’re hilarious. You’re witty and funny and all that.

Reasonable people everywhere

Why stop at “reasonable people?” Even “unreasonable people” like me are upset.

Sean Hackbarth: (also blogging CPAC)

With Ann Coulter you should only expect a bad stand-up comedian with a conservative shtick. That’s what CPAC attendees got today. My expectations were low, yet she proceeded to go below them.

Tom Bridge:

Sad, isn’t it? That those talking in sensible tones will be forgotten for the loudmouths with braggadocio. What happened to the impassioned and dedicated work of smart and talented men and women on behalf of the duty of a grateful nation? Is it lost upon the masses in favor of the reptilian revenge driven brain? The five second soundbyte generation?

I think I’m going to go be ill.

You answered your own question, Tom. Those “loudmouths” suck all the media oxygen out of the tent with precious little left for the rest of us.

Little Miss Attila:

Wasn’t it James Joyner who coined the moniker “our Michael Moore”? I’ll never buy one of her books.

Great observation. Which brings me to my final point.

A cursory Technorati search a little more than 12 hours after Coulter’s remarks reveal dozens of lefty bloggers pillorying her for her remarks. This is to be expected. But the sample above from righty blogs (which I fully expect to grow massively as the day goes on) points up an enormous difference between right and left “partisans.” From Trent Lott, to Rick Santorum (and others who use the term “Nazi” to describe Democrats), to Pat Robertson, the right is pretty good at policing itself when its adherents go beyond the pale in political discourse and decorum.

Would that the Democrats had half that kind of sensibility.

Most recently, the funeral of Coretta Scott King, which turned into a political rally with partisan attacks on President Bush who had come representing the American people, was actually cheered by the left as entirely appropriate. And the casual, constant references to their political foes as fascists, Nazis, Klansmen, and the like has become so pervasive that there is not a writer on the left who can say anything about conservatives without using one of those disgusting epithets.

Until the left can police its rabble, they will not be taken seriously by the rest of the country. The day that Michael Moore is dethroned as an icon of the left due to the words and actions of liberals is the day that conservatives will accept criticism of Coulter and her ilk with more than a grain of salt.

UPDATE

Forgive me for not including James Joyner’s excellent analysis:

CPAC is attended mostly by the people who man the booths and by wild-eyed college kids hoping to see some famous conservatives in person. I understand wanting to have as much red meat as possible for this crowd. But Coulter is an embarrassment and her words continue to get quoted as representing what “conservatives really think.” The CPAC organizers should be ashamed for inviting her back year after year and giving her such a prominent stage.

On a side note, the commenters on Sager’s site are mostly siding with Coulter. Sad.

I’ll try and update this post every once and a while as the reaction pours in from the right.

Eric over at the excellent site Classical Values has a hip, literate, and spot on post about Coulter. He has an interesting take that may just surprise you:

For some reason, burka belittling is considered fair game, but making fun of male Arab headgear, well, that’s just not cricket!

And “raghead.” While I don’t think it’s racist (because turbans and keffiyeh scarves are by no means limited by race), “rag” has a certain implication that the people wearing them might not be able to afford anything better. Howard Stern used to say “towelheads.” Maybe that’s more fair and neutral. Nah, that’s insensitive too, as it implies kids playing dress-up games in the bathroom or something.

UPDATE 2/13

I must say I’m not surprised by the comments. Many on the right want me to lay off Ann and those on the left are typically stuck on me taking them to task for mis-using the term “racist” as it applies to the ethnic group made up of Arabs. Both responses are expected but still disappointing.

If you want the classy response of someone directly affected by the pejorative “raghead” please go here and read Aladdin’s take.

You might notice that I am now officially a member of the conspiracy to undermine the blogosphere.

If you look over to the right, you will see an ad for WHAT HAS TO BE THE BEST INTERNET JOB SEARCH COMPANY IN THE UNIVERSE! MONSTER.COM!

Pay no attention to that tingling at the base of your brain. It is the ultra-sophisticated mind control ray developed exclusively for PAJAMAS MEDIA by some of the more scientifically inclined members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. The ray enters your brain through the Medulla Oblongata, snakes its way into your Temporal Lobe (language), and ends up right smack dab in the middle of your Amygdala . This is the reptilian part of your brain and is responsible for certain autonomic functions like breathing and swallowing as well as reflexive and instinctive reactions like hunger, sex, and the “fight or flee” decision.

Do not be frightened. In a little while, you will hardly know it is there. You WILL however, get an overwhelming urge to have H & R BLOCK do your taxes as well as become instantly dissatisfied with your job which will cause you to immediately place an ad for a new job at MONSTER.COM.

And you will suddenly develop an overpowering and unstoppable urge to pledge your life, your fortune, and your sacred honor to PAJAMAS MEDIA.

All is well…All is well…