Yesterday, the left was beside itself with joy when a poll conducted by American Research Group showed that a narrow plurality of voting age adults – 48-43 – favored passing a resolution censuring the President. Since there was a margin of error of plus or minus 3%, that would make opinion on the matter just about evenly split.

Here is the exact question:

Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders?

If a pollster asked me a question like that, I would probably answer in the affirmative.

But of course, the question has little to do with what the NSA intercept program was actually about. First of all, as I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, there is a difference between authorizing “wiretaps” (listening directly to conversations) and the way that we think that the NSA intercept program worked. That’s because as I’ve also written numerous times (and will continue to do so till the cows come home) 1) we don’t know how the program worked and 2) the NSA program apparently captured thousands of private communications at a time, sloughing off the overwhelming numbers of them without ever having examined them. What was left over were conversations or other communications that either originated or ended up overseas. As for whether FISA warrants were sought and granted for these specific conversations is still, to this day, not clear.

While the Bush Administration has argued they don’t need warrants for these conversations, they have not said whether or not they got them for all the targeted communications. And from a purely practical standpoint, the idea of being able to listen only to the overseas portion of these calls is ludicrous. Equally stupid would be to forgo listening to these communications altogether given that the entire reason for the program is to listen in to suspected al Qaeda communications between their operatives in America and their overseas contacts.

The question asked was loaded. By not mentioning the national security aspects of what the President was doing as well as using the misleading term “wiretaps,” all the question reveals is that Americans don’t like the idea of a President spying on Americans (or, more accurately, people who are visiting or residing in America for it is not clear at all whether those intercepts were from American citizens) for no good reason. Neither do I.

I find it interesting that even with a loaded question like this, that the country divides pretty much as it has for the last 6 years – right down the middle. At bottom, the question reveals a polarized electorate that appears not to be in the mood to unite on anything anytime soon.

This is the first in a series of 6 articles examining the issues and questions raised in Edwin Feulner and Doug Wilson’s book Getting America Right. Each article will examine one of the six questions the authors think we should be asking of every piece of legislation being considered by Congress.

The six questions can be found in my review of the book here.

*******************************************************************

How can it be determined if a proposed piece of legislation is the business of government?

The question is deceptively simple. For contained in that interrogatory is the confluence of government and politics. It highlights the clash of desire and necessity. It defines what kind of a people we want to be. And the answer to it is the permanent divide between liberals and conservatives.

A good starting point for looking at the history of the growth of what has been the “government’s business” would be the Civil War. It was here that “the arm of the federal government first reached out and tapped the ordinary citizen on the shoulder” as Bruce Catton put it when the great Civil War historian wrote about the first national draft in American history. Up until that time, the closest that the overwhelming majority of American citizens came to dealing with the federal government was in mailing a letter. Now the government in Washington could bypass the state and local government and affect the life of the individual American citizen directly.

The Draft Riots in New York city as well as in other places were not entirely the result of this radical measure taken by Lincoln to supply the northern army with much needed troops. In New York especially, there was a nasty element of racism and class involved. The government allowed that a draftee could purchase an exemption for the sum of $300. This amount was far beyond the means of most poor people. Couple that with a simmering resentment against free blacks among the almost equally oppressed Irish and the occasion of the draft simply supplied the kindling for a conflagration that killed hundreds.

But the very thought that the government in Washington could affect the life of the individual American was so radical that even supporters of the Conscription Act hastened to assure people that this was a wartime measure only and that such power granted the federal government would be taken away once the emergency had passed. Such was pretty much the case until the progressive movement burst upon the American political scene in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The existence of the progressive movement was a testament to the American belief in the perfectibility of society. Progressives believed that by applying scientific principles to government and couple it with technological progress, all of the ills afflicting society could be cured. The “March of Progress” was on and the government juggernaut began to role. Income taxes, business regulation, and an alphabet soup of new agencies and departments in the Executive Branch to deal with the new spirit of government intervention all came to pass even before the Great Depression.

It was Roosevelt’s New Deal, born out of dire necessity occasioned by a starving, nearly bankrupt country that finally placed the federal government at the forefront of radical intervention in the lives of individual citizens. With the massive expansion of public works and other measures like Social Security, the depression era federal government was for the first time taking on responsibilities that most Americans up to that time had reserved for themselves, their families, and their communities.

World War II brought unparalleled interference by government as rationing proved to be the most intrusive program ever enacted, telling people how much of a commodity one was entitled to and when they could buy it. And the War Planning Board was able to dictate to corporations what they could make and how much simply by controlling the supply of raw materials. Steel for washing machines was out. But if you wanted to make tanks, that was a different story.

In the immediate post war years, even though direct government control of the economy had been ceded, the left sought to influence both economic and social policy using incentives in the tax code to affect change. The result was an ever-expanding role of government in the decision making of average Americans.

The 1950’s saw no slackening to the pace of interference as a host of new agencies were born and the government entered the highway building business in earnest as the Interstate Highway System began to spread its ribbons of concrete across the country. Fueled by a gas tax, the building of the national interstate system could be considered one of the most necessary and successful government programs in history. What it has become in recent years is a repository for pork barrel politics and wasteful spending.

The explosion of social services offered by government in the 1960’s and 70’s altered the landscape of American society forever as we are still dealing with the consequences of many of these destructive programs that fostered dependency, hopelessness, and the break-up of millions of families. The addition of several executive departments such as CPSC, EPA, and the Departments of Energy and Education spread the influence of government until it touched every aspect of American life and commerce.

The 1980’s to the present has seen the growth of the corporate lobbying industry whose goal is simple; wrest as much money from the federal government as possible through tax breaks, incentives, and even direct grants. Giant companies whose only need of government is to help them destroy competition or fatten up the bottom line now feed at the federal trough with impunity.

I felt this short history of the growth of government was necessary if only to illustrate a simple point; it doesn’t have to be this way. And Messrs. Feulner and Wilson argue that it was our failure to ask that simple question “Is it the Government’s Business” that has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

When asking that question, we can obviously answer in the affirmative when it comes to national defense. We can also say with a reasonable amount of certainty that it probably isn’t a good thing to have 50 different standards for air and water quality. It is probably necessary to have some kind of a national social safety net involving programs that fill elementary human needs like food and shelter (the authors believe that such programs could better be handled by “state governments, neighbors, family, and local churches” which is true but unrealistic in that most poor people are cut off from society because of government dependence). Given time, there are probably dozens of areas where even a conservative could answer “yes” to the question at hand such as regulation of the stock market, anti-trust protections, and other measures designed to prevent us from returning to the turn of the 20th century when corporate trusts held sway over government and politics.

From my point of view, the question is not trying to create a “small” government which is, I believe, and impossibility in a 21st century industrialized democracy of nearly 300 million people. Rather, by asking if a law or regulation is the government’s business, we can certainly make government “smaller” thus making people and companies more self-reliant and give them more control over their own destiny.

The authors believe that “government bureaucracies are no match for the speed, creativity, and innovation that privately based free marketeers bring to problem solving” which is certainly true up to a point. The recent experiment in privately owned prisons is a good example. While praised for cost-effectiveness, the facilities have been cited for everything from poor nutritional programs to substandard rehabilitation efforts involving remedial education and job training. And studies have shown that recidivism rates are higher from these privately run prisons than from state and federal facilities (although many argue that there simply isn’t enough data yet to make those kind of determinations).

At bottom, what the question “Is it the government’s business” does is force us to keep decision making about what is best for society as close to the grass roots as possible. Would this engage the interest of a larger proportion of Americans in politics and government? And if it didn’t, wouldn’t that mean that the same activists who now drive the political agenda would be the only ones who seek to answer that question?

It’s my belief that even if we can only marginally affect legislation and regulation by asking that question every time a law is proposed, it would improve our lives. For that reason alone, the question should be enthusiastically embraced by the Republican party and especially Republican candidates for office.

Want to have some fun?

What’s the quickest way to get a Frenchman stuttering mad? Tell him that French “values and its global vision” will be broadcast around the world in English:

France’s television dream of mounting a challenge to CNN and the British Broadcasting Corp. has suffered an embarrassing setback after reports that the new channel would broadcast most of its output in English.

Starved of realistic funding for a 24-hour news station, CII is scheduled to go on-air in December for transmission initially to Africa, the Middle East and Europe. Its annual budget, met by the French taxpayer, will be $88 million, about an eighth of CNN’s.

President Jacques Chirac promised a “CNN a la francaise” in the 2002 election campaign and is committed to a station that will “spread the values of France and its global vision throughout the world.”

It was always known that part of the channel’s output would be in English and Arabic, but champions of the French language were appalled at suggestions that its output in French be less than four hours a day.

The reaction among the Guardians of All Things French has been predictable. Back in 1994, the Assemblée Générale passed the Loi Toubon (named after the Cultural Minister at the time Jacques Toubon) that actually banned the use of about 3500 mostly English words that had seeped into general usage. Called “Franglish” by the cultural overseers, the law actually called for fines or prison terms if one were to use foreign words in business or government communications, in broadcasting, and in advertising if “suitable equivalents” existed in French. To make sure that suitable equivalents in fact existed, a committee was formed to come up with French alternatives.

Thus, Ford Motor Company found itself in the ridiculous position of having to remove the term “air bags” from its advertisements and substitute instead, the culturally mandated “coussins gonflables de protectio.”

It is in broadcasting that the law is most draconian. French must be used exclusively in all forms audio or visual broadcasting, with the exception of movies shown in their original language with sub-titles. And God help you if you try to start a business and have any of the banned words in the name of your new company. No person or society, the bill says, can set up a company in France that contains a foreign word or expression, unless they can prove that there is no way of expressing the concept in French.

They are serious about enforcement, too. Police and other agents of the state are authorized to raid business premises and seize offending texts, and the bill threatens heavy fines and imprisonment for anyone attempting to impede these officers in their duty.

With so many being so hostile to English, one can imagine the reaction on the part of the purists to this assault on French sensibilities not to mention their high falutin pretensions about anyone on the planet caring very much about French “values” and their “global vision.” After all, nearly all countries know how to surrender and act like insufferable fools:

Marc Favre d’Echallens of the Association for the Defense of the French Language expressed outrage that a station designed to give a “French vision” of world affairs would contain so little in French.

“After celebrating Trafalgar with the English and making light of our own great victory of Austerlitz, it probably follows that a publicly funded French television channel should end up broadcasting in English,” he said.

“If all we get is a poor man’s version of what is already available, what is the point of doing it at all?”

What does it say about a country that would celebrate their “great victory” at Austerlitz, a battle that brought the Austrians to their knees in slavish homage to one of the greatest tyrants in history, Napoleon Bonaparte?

If French nationalists have to go back in time to 1806 to find justification for their continuing delusions about global leadership, we shouldn’t be holding out much hope that the government will come to its senses about the danger it’s in with regard to radical Islam anytime soon. That’s bad news for the French and for Europe as a whole. After all, if the people who invented “western values” in the first place are more concerned about a “threat” to the purity of their language than the real threat of Islamic radicalism and aren’t willing to defend those values now, who will?

I think we should start a grass roots movement to get Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appointed to the World Court at The Hague. Judging from her remarks made at a conference in South Africa last month, she sure as hell doesn’t belong within 3000 miles of the Supreme Court building:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg gave a speech in South Africa last month, which, for some reason, is just now being publicized. Ginsburg’s speech was titled “A Decent Respect for the Opinions of [Human]kind.” In it, Ginsburg argued explicitly for the relevance of foreign law and court decisions to interpretation of the American Constitution. Ginsburg did not try to hide the partisan nature of this issue; at one point, she referred to “the perspective I share with four of my current colleagues,” and she specifically criticized Justice Antonin Scalia, Judge Richard Posner, and the two bills that were introduced in Congress in 2004 and were broadly supported by Republicans. And she indulged in an outrageous bit of demagoguery, suggesting that those who disagree with her are somehow aligned with Justice Taney’s infamous defense of slavery in the Dred Scott case.

Ginsburg contrasted our Constitution (unfavorably, I think it’s fair to say) with the Constitution of South Africa, which specifically provides for the use of foreign law in interpreting its provisions.

You really should read the entire speech, but its argument is most concisely stated here:

To a large extent, I believe, the critics in Congress and in the media misperceive how and why U.S. courts refer to foreign and international court decisions. We refer to decisions rendered abroad, it bears repetition, not as controlling authorities, but for their indication, in Judge Wald’s words, of “common denominators of basic fairness governing relationships between the governors and the governed.”

Hinderaker offers a devastating critique of both the implications contained in Ginsburg’s words and the consequences of keeping this simpering internationalist on the court. Even if “foreign law” is not a “controlling authority,” what troubles me most is her notion that we can learn anything from other countries about “relationships between the governors and the governed.”

In America, that relationship is simple, straightforward, and proudly displayed right up front in our constitution, ostensibly so that even idiots like Ginsburg wouldn’t miss it:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I know it to be rather old fashioned of me, but when our Basic Law says that the document is ordained and established for the United States of America, I believe we should like, you know, take the framers of it at their word.

Call me a fuddy-duddy but I also seem to recall something about those governors she speaks of deriving their legitimacy from the consent of the governed and not the other way around as it is in every other country on planet earth. That would seem to put the kibosh on Ginsburg and her fellow black-robed Gods using any legal principle promulgated in countries (or in any supranational legal body) that take a dim view of the governed having any rights except those defined by the governors.

I like this analogy by Hinderaker:

Take, for example, the issue of homosexual sodomy. The Supreme Court recently ruled, in Lawrence v. Texas, that there is a constitutional right to commit acts of homosexual sodomy. Was this ruling informed by reference to foreign jurisprudence? If not, why not? On Ginsburg’s approach, the justices apparently get to pick and choose when they will look abroad for guidance. And, if foreign guidance had been sought in the Lawrence case, would the justices have looked to the law in Muslim countries where commission of such acts is a capital crime? If not, why not? There is no coherent answer to these questions, and, needless to say, Ginsburg does not offer one. In reality, reference to foreign law is nothing more than an ad hoc tool to be invoked or ignored at will by justices who want to advance a left-wing agenda.

I’ve tried to be measured in this critique of Ginsburg’s speech, but the truth is that it is more reprehensible than I have suggested. You really have to read it to appreciate how far removed it is from American laws and traditions, and how demagogic it is in both tone and substance.

What is it about liberals that when they leave the country, they say such outrageous things? Is it simply a matter of pandering to anti-American sentiment that is so widespread among the intelligentsia worldwide? Or is it something more atavistic – perhaps a feeling deep down inside that they really don’t like America very much and wish that we were more like France or Holland or, as Ginsburg seems to be saying, South Africa?

What I do know is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg should not be deciding cases on our Supreme Court. She, and her fellow Justices who think as she does, must be prevented from allowing foreign law or precedent to influence their decisions in any way. By doing so, they drive a stake through the heart of the concept of American exceptionalism – that we consciously do things differently here because of who we are and what kind of people we see ourselves as.

Readers of this site know how often I bemoan the downgrading by the left of American exceptionalism, the natural rights of man, and the idea that there is a “higher law” that we are all answerable to (including members of the Supreme Court). The essence of these conceits is America. They define our history. They animate our present. They are the meat and potatoes of American society. They are so ingrained into our culture, our political system, and our everyday life that we barely notice them – until Justices like Ginsburg attack them. It is then that we realize how very precious these conceits are and how without them, we lose something so valuable that it diminishes the very idea that is America.

For what else is America but an idea? Our sovereignty is not defined by recognizable borders, or a King, or any standard measure other countries would use. Our sovereignty is bound up in our Constitution which is the purest expression of how we see ourselves. And when the Ginsburgs of the world attack the ideas that define us by saying that we should take cues on how to live from foreign lands, I say enough. It should be the other way around. Foreign governments could learn a hell of a lot about freedom from copying what goes on here and not the other way around.

Paul Mirengoff believes that a case could be made for impeaching Justice Ginsburg (although he also believes it will never happen). Let us hope that President Bush gets at least one more opportunity over the next 2 1/2 years to name at least one more conservative justice to marginalize and diminish the influence of this wicked woman.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin reminds us that Ginsburg napped through recent oral arguments made at the Supreme Court. Maybe she should be sent to the Hague. I understand the Judges got plenty of rest when trying Milosevic for his unspeakable crimes against humanity.

There has been plenty of ink spilled and hot air expelled the last couple of days by members of the Reality (sometimes) Based Community over Senator Feingold’s proposed censure resolution. The dominant theme seems to be that the netnuts are upset that more Democrats aren’t rushing to the battlements to hold the Senator’s coat while he waves the bloody shirt before jumping off the catwalk into the alligator-infested moat below. Democrats being a canny breed, are fond of their political skins and do not look kindly on someone who exposes them to the prospect of ravenous media beasts taking huge chunks out of their hides in a doomed effort to prove…what exactly?

Well, according to Senator Cheesehead, we must censure the President because he “knowingly broke the law” by intercepting the domestic end of al Qaeda overseas communications while not informing the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This “fact” is not in dispute according to the netnuts. In truth, the “crime” is stated matter-of-factly, as if all the details of the NSA intercept program were common knowledge and there is unanimous agreement among legal experts that the President did indeed knowingly violate the law.

As to the former, what we don’t know about the program (and others like it) could fill the gaps between the ears of all the mindless loons who seek to censure a sitting President during wartime. To the latter, I would simply say Google up “NSA intercept program + legal” and scroll through a few pages. There is plenty of legal fodder for disputatious argument on both sides. To posit the notion that the issue of the program’s legality is settled is to betray both an ignorance of the facts and an arrogance of mind that has lately come to define the desperation of the President’s critics.

At bottom, the problem that Democratic Senators have is part political, part practical. Politically, they would be hard-pressed to justify voting for a motion of censure based largely on the President’s actions running a program that they support. That’s because unmentioned in all the unhinged rhetoric coming from the netnuts is the fact that very few Senators have come out and said they want the program to end. And a good case can be made that one would look like an idiot voting for censure when the censurable action is considered by the Senator to be justifiable in our present circumstances.

From a practical standpoint, only losing Roman generals and liberal netnuts fall on their own sword in order to make a point. And since the Democratic party fully realizes that the mess made by Republicans in Congress as well as several high profile missteps by the President and his people have given them an opening to take back one or both Houses of Congress in November, there won’t be too many sober-minded Democrats to jump on board the Cheese Train headed for Censureland.

The censure ploy is, in part, a creation of the far left who seek to sow the seeds for impeachment if, in the unlikely event, the Democrats were to overturn Republican control of both Houses of Congress. Despite the small chance of such a “World Turned Upside Down” scenario, the netnuts are beside themselves with anticipation. What is curious to me is that the professionals in both parties are oblivious to the probability that if the left were to regain control of the Congress, impeachment would be the number one priority:

Few lawmakers in either party think there is much chance of impeachment even if the Democrats do take the House. Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, called the idea “not realistic” but nonetheless useful. “It shows people how extreme the leaders of the Democrat Party actually are,” Mr. Forti said.

Mr. Forti is whistling past the graveyard if he doesn’t think that the day after November elections showing Democrats in control, Kos & Co. as well as every lefty loon in the United States wouldn’t be salivating for impeachment. And lest anyone think that this doesn’t matter, I urge you to look back at the confirmation debate over Judge Alito’s elevation to the Supreme Court. For weeks we heard the professionals say that a filibuster was impossible, that no one would attempt it. All it took for a filibuster to materialize was the netnuts going ballistic day after day before John Kerry answered their call, pandering as he did to a segment of the party whose support he was seeking for his 2008 Presidential run.

There are few scenarios for November that involve the Republicans losing both Houses of Congress. But that won’t stop the loony netnuts from pushing this censure resolution until they shame (or frighten) Democratic Senators into coming out in support of it. Expect the motion to be voted down in Committee but brought to the floor by Bill Frist himself who, like Speaker Hastert’s ploy of bringing Representative Murtha’s cut and run resolution on Iraq to an immediate vote, will seek to hold Democratic Senator’s feet to the fire and dare them to vote to punish the President for running a program they want to see continued.

THE BODIES OF 11 FAMILY MEMBERS KILLED EXECUTION STYLE IN TIKRIT LIE IN FRONT OF THE TOWN’S MORGUE.

It is sometimes difficult to wade through media reports of the war and try and ascertain what is true and what isn’t. That’s why we should be very careful in evaluating this story that appeared in The Daily Star, one of the more respected news organs in the Middle East:

Eleven members of an Iraqi family, including five children, were killed in a U.S. raid on Wednesday, police and witnesses said. The U.S. military said two women and a child died during the bid to seize an Al-Qaeda militant from a house. A senior Iraqi police officer said autopsies on the bodies showed each had been shot in the head.

[...]

Associated Press photographs showed the bodies of two men, five children and four other covered figures arriving at Tikrit General Hospital accompanied by grief-stricken relatives.

The U.S. military said in a statement its troops had attacked a house in Ishaqi, the town 100 kilometers north of Baghdad, to capture a “foreign fighter facilitator for the Al-Qaeda in Iraq network.”

“There was one enemy killed. Two women and one child were also killed in the firefight. The building … [was] destroyed,” the military said, adding the Al-Qaeda suspect had been captured and was being questioned.

Major Ali Ahmad of the Iraqi police said U.S. forces had landed on the roof of the house in the early hours and shot the 11 occupants, including the five children. “After they left the house they blew it up,” he said.

Another policeman, Colonel Farouk Hussein, said autopsies had been carried out at Tikrit hospital and found that “all the victims had gunshot wounds to the head.”

The bodies, their hands bound, had been dumped in one room before the house was destroyed, Hussein said. Police had found spent American-issue cartridges in the rubble.

Three things to keep in mind:

1. We could be talking about two different incidents here which would explain the discrepancy in stories between the US military and Iraqi police.

2. The story could be a plant. It is not unknown for media outlets like The Daily Star or Al Jazeera to receive propaganda stories planted by al Qaeda that later turn out to be false.

3. Tikrit is the hometown of Saddam Hussein. It would not be beyond imagining for Saddam sympathizers to fabricate this story (or embellish it) in order to put the Americans in the worst possible light.

If this story has any truth to it, look for the left to once again invoke the specter of Viet Nam by comparing the massacre of the family to the My Lai atrocity. My Lai was an unspeakable barbarity carried out by American soldiers who killed 300 men, women, and children after being ordered to by superior officers. And while the death of 11 family members would be an atrocity that would require swift investigation and punishment, the story itself just doesn’t ring true.

In the end, the fact that it happened in Saddam’s birthplace and his clan’s stronghold makes me very wary of believing all the details put out by the town “investigators.” That said, I hope the military looks into the story if only to debunk it.

UPDATE

The Associated Press is reporting the story but with decidedly different details:

Police Capt. Laith Mohammed, in nearby Samarra, said American warplanes and armor flattened the house and killed the 11 people inside.

An AP reporter in the area said the roof collapsed. Eleven bodies, wrapped in blankets, were taken to the Tikrit General Hospital, relatives said.

Associated Press photographs showed the bodies of two men, five children and four other covered figures at the hospital accompanied by grieving relatives. The victims were covered in dust and bits of rubble.

Riyadh Majid, who said he was the nephew of the killed head of the family—Faez Khalaf—told AP that U.S. forces landed in helicopters and raided the home. Khalaf’s brother, Ahmed, said nine dead were residents of the house and two were visitors.

“The killed family was not part of the resistance, they were women and children,” Ahmed Khalaf said. “The Americans have promised us a better life, but we get only death.”

The U.S. military said it was targeting and captured an individual suspected of supporting foreign fighters for the al-Qaida in Iraq terrorist network.

“Troops were engaged by enemy fire as they approached the building,” said Tech. Sgt. Stacy Simon. “Coalition forces returned fire utilizing both air and ground assets.”

No mention of family members being shot in the back of the head or their hands being bound behind them. There is also no reports of the house being blown up only that the “roof collapsed.”

The incident does sound like a tragic repeat of other actions where insurgents or terrorists take cover in houses either sympathetic to them or where they simply barge in and use for shelter, guns being a fairly persuasive argument that they should be invited to stay. And as we’ve also seen in urban warfare, when someone is shooting at you, it becomes an impossibility to be very selective about targets.

The fact that the military evidently got the terrorist and are questioning him lends a little more credence to the story being told by CENCOM. Let us now see how big a deal this becomes on the left over the next 24 hours.

Via Michelle Malkin, we find out that what the Anti-War Movement really needs is a…a…CATALYST!

With new polls showing that more than half of Americans believe the war in Iraq is going badly and that Iraq will never become a stable democracy, you might think that anti-war groups in the U.S. would be trumpeting their influence.
Instead, the groups appear to be caught in their own brand of civil war, criticizing each other for management styles, sympathizing with Communist dictators and pandering to the media. They have bickered over alleged racism and even over issues like who would get more microphone time and pay for the portable toilets at anti-war rallies.

The feuding appears to have precluded any kind of nationally coordinated anti-war rallies from happening on March 19, the third-year anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Now, I’m not one to say “I told ya so,” but way back last summer, I pointed out that despite all the publicity Mother Sheehan was getting about her “vigil” in Crawford, Texas outside of the President’s ranch and all the breathless, prayerful, homage being directed her way by lefty blogs, that St. Cindy being a catalyst for the anti-war movement was in fact a myth. She and her crusade were as manufactured a “phenomena” as last year’s American Idol winner Carrie Underwood.

The failure of the anti-war movement to be anything except a formless, shapeless mass of 60’s holdovers, New Age dingbats, Hollywood air heads, drug-addled dropouts, and netroot nincompoops is a direct result of a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the vast majority of the American people to align themselves with groups who see Haliburton behind every tree, dicatorship behind every Presidential smirk, and theocrats under every bed.

A couple of days ago, the moonbat who was behind the original “Storm the White House” protest left a comment on this site. Darrow Boggiano was, if nothing else, predictable:

Thanks for all the publicity. I was even invited on the radio. Sorry, I don’t state my case against legalized torture and theft of other people’s oil and poppy for heroin distribution and corporate profit, more eloquently. I actually get so freaked out about what has become of our government, that I don’t know what to say sometimes. But believe me, I’m not the one who’s nuts – it’s those of you who can sit around pretending that we have the right to allow our corporations to kill thousands, and what is even more stupid, is that you don’t even get any of that money – it all goes to a few on the top, and you idiots back them up. We could be saving lives and doing so many smart things. At least you can proud that you never had to say “I made a mistake, I voted for a stupid redneck, who thinks that killing is fun, especially when you can steal stuff”. I many not have figured out the perfect solution, but I do know the first step – putting bush, his daddy, cheney, rumsfeld, and rice behind bars where they belong. Too bad we couldn’t see the milosevich trial – it would have been a perfect practice for what is coming.

People are pretty upset with President Bush and the way the Iraq War has been prosecuted. But criticizing Bush for his handling of the war and being against the war are two different things. And as I pointed out a couple of days ago, with American casualties dropping, terrorist attacks going down, and the Iraq government about ready to take some very important steps toward organizing a democratic government, there is reason to believe that we are finally on the right track to victory. The only people in America who are anxious for a defeat in Iraq are the far left moonbats who wanted to “storm the White House” today but never quite got around to it. Their disorganization is indicative of a group of people with superior egos and inferior minds.

My buddy Jay over at Stop the ACLU has more.

This has been a good week for cluelessness as the cluebats have been literally crawling out from under the woodwork.

Since many of our cluebats resemble cockroaches, the metaphor is more than just a figure of speech.

There was Jay Bennish, the Colorado teacher/proselytizer whose anti-Bush rants (and anti-American tirades as well) were foisted upon his charges in the form of lectures. This creature achieved a modicum of notoriety when he appeared with apple-cheeked Katy Couric on The Today Show for which the 60’s throwback took a shower, cut his hair, and got dressed up in his best Sunday go to mom’s house for dinner clothes. Just yesterday, the cluebat was allowed back in the classroom, no doubt with some admonishment from the clueless local school administration who evidently thinks more of the Nutty Professor’s right to teach political fantasies than giving students what they go to school for: Knowledge.

Then there’s the left. I know, I know…It’s no fair of me to pick such a huge target. But try as I might, I could not find one single liberal voice in the MSM, in blogs, in academia, who had one positive thing to say about the situation in Iraq. Why is this important? Because despite the bloodshed and the dangerous tilt toward civil war, the forces of democracy are proving themselves much more resilient than we could ever dare hope to believe. Instead of dissolving into a puddle of despair and defeatism, the Iraqi government, army, and most of its people still have hope. The problems are monumental. But it appears that this has not dissuaded the majority of people from continuing to work toward a better future. The question has been asked before and will be asked again; how come we on the right can tick off what’s going wrong in Iraq as well as what’s going right while the left can’t? Are they preternaturally disposed to be to ignore the facts? Or are they just clueless? (Update: Please see comment #1 below for an example of what I mean.)

But without a doubt, the hands-down winner of Cluebat of the Week has to go to Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Feingold, author of the First Amendment busting Campaign Finance Reform bill now fancies himself a candidate for President in ‘08 as well as a leader of his party. The problem, as you and I know, with leading is that…well, in order to lead you have to, like, have someone following you. And when Feingold offered his Censure Resolution this week, his erstwhile followers decided it wasn’t a good idea to trail behind someone who was leading them over a cliff. Democratic Senators did not just tiptoe away from Senator Cheesehead – they ran like hell for the exits as if someone had yelled “fire!” in a crowded theater.

So for not only being clueless in offering a resolution that made the President of the United States an enemy in time of war but for not having the smarts to see that no one would be following him in his quest to kill the White Whale, Russ Feingold is the winner of our Carnival’s Cluebat of the Week.

Why not check out the rest of our entries this week? I can guarantee a few cluebats who will make you laugh as well as raise your blood pressure. Click me, baby!

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
(Martin Luther King)

“Hey Rev! You been readin’ the New York Times Iraq coverage?”
(Me)

***************************************************************

A Different River brings us the sad story of Carnival contributor Betya of Shiloh Musings who is being evicted from her home by the Israeli government. There are many, myself included, who feel that the Israelis are incomprehensibly sleepwalking their way to disaster in giving away their land with no guarantee of peace. I believe the current leadership is going to live to regret their actions.

Betya herself talks about the cluelessness of the Israeli government in her post on eminent domain and how it relates to the process of disengagement.

Jack Cluth is on a rampage against South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds who recently signed the abortion ban bill.

The lovely and talented Mensa Barbie points out that it appears Cluebat Hall of Famer John Kerry has begun his 2008 Presidential campaign in earnest.

Josh Cohen offers some uplifting music for our Carnival goers pleasure. The lyrics in this song will live for a thousand years, a towering example of the genius of western culture. Then again, mebbe not…

Mark Coffey is back in the Carnival this week with an entry that either reveals that the left is not as clever than they think themselves or that we are correct in evaluating how truly clueless they really are. (Read: No matter how you look at it, they’re fools).

Here’s your weekly dose of satire from William F. Buckley: Top 9 Suggested Jay Bennish Book Titles. Number eight is “Superanticapitalisticjewsarequiteatrocious.”

Me-Ander has some fascinating information about the general cluelessness of men. I am biting my pen to keep it from scribbling some mean, nasty, degrading anti-woman tirade in response. Instead, I’ll only write one word: Blonds.

Are Sheik Mo and George Bush going to pull a fast one on us with regards to the ports deal? Iris Blog has the skinny on what may be a switcheroo in the works.

Those pachyderms prácticos at Elephants in Academia pick on Hugo Chavez and his totally clueless redesign of the Venezuelan flag.

Pat Curley has the low-down on the curious way that the MSM treated the arsonists who torched those churches in Alabama.

Our Carnival Pin-Up girl Pamela has one of her semi-regular features giving us what happened during the week in Iran and what happened during the same time in Israel. Let’s just say that if the Iranians keep this up, they’re going to run out of rope.

Fred Fry gives us a learned and interesting exposition on the ports deal from the perspective of someone in the maritime industry. A fascinating read.

XYBA has a story from Colorado about a man who put up a sign about being a “proud, English speaking American” is being accused of racism.

Philomathean has an interesting post about the cluelessness of a Colorado Congressman who may have acted stupidly but in a round about way is probably right. Read it and you’ll understand.

Here’s the jaw-dropper of the day: Accountability International has the story of a man whose false claim of diplomatic immunity cost him a pretty penny.

Gullyborg at Resistance is Futile has a comprehensive look at the issue of illegal immigrants and the public schools. He also highlights the cluelessness of an emailer who doesn’t quite get it.

From Common Folk Using Common Sense, we get the real story of the decision by the Canadian publication to publish the obscene Jesus cartoon but not the Mohammed ones.

Silent in the Morning has a post entitled “Naomi Wolf is a Nutjob.” I don’t think I can improve on that.

The Canadian blog Centrerion is disappointed that the Harper government is exhibiting some cluelessness by funding Hamas despite laws on the books preventing the government from supporting terrorism.

Finally, here’s my take on the cluelessness of the MSM and their Iraq coverage.

“The irony is that he comes back to life, and everyone around him dies.”
(Howard Gordon, Executive Producer of 24)

Oh how the classical literary giants of the past would have loved the show this year!

The Greek playwright Sophocles would have especially enjoyed the irony mentioned above by Mr. Gordon. After all, in Sophocles’ case, how much more ironic can you get than having your main character be abandoned as an infant, later meet his own father in combat and kill him, and then marry his wife, your own mother?

Oedipus put out his own eyes as penance for his sins. In the case of our doomed CTU comrades, they paid the ultimate price for angering the Gods. Edgar and the Fat Hobbit were guilty of transgressing against their friends. Edgar not only dismissed the signs of a threat but sent Kerri to her death. And Lin’s sins were best summed up by the CTU guard Harry who had to share in the Fat Hobbit’s fate, representing as he did the failures of CTU security to keep the terrorist out of the building in the first place:

We’re all going to die because you were embarrassed?

In Tony’s case, his will to live had been sucked out of him by the death of Michelle thus making his death a sure sign that fate rules the affairs of men. The Greeks, a practical and thoughtful people, were absolutely convinced of this, going so far as to give the fates names – Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos – and assigning each a specific role in determining the outcomes of our lives. Clotho was the spinner of fate and hung around a person’s entire lifetime constantly spinning the threads of one’s existence., Lachesis was the drawer of lots and Atropos represented the inevitable end to life. One can see immediately where our three heroes were influenced by one or more of these goddesses.

Tony also chose the path of vengeance which, as the Greeks teach us, inevitably leads to one’s own destruction.

There is also the entirely Christian theme of redemption in the death of Lin which made his passing a more heroic and uplifting event than if say, Kim’s boyfriend Barry had made that sacrifice.

Of course I’m reading way too much into this. But I still find it fascinating that almost 3000 years after Homer’s death, writers are still using the dramatic devices in storytelling that proved so successful even back then. It’s a part of our western tradition and should be celebrated whenever possible.

SUMMARY

The sit-rep is grim. CTU headquarters is a vast, silent morgue as dozens of friends and colleagues lie dead from the nerve gas attack. The small pockets of survivors are in a state of shock, especially Chloe who can’t take her eyes off her dead friend Edgar. She moans about how she “treated him like crap – all day.”

No one has the heart to tell her that she treated Edgar like crap every day – but we knew that, didn’t we?

When Jack fails to snap Chloe out of it, Barry volunteers his services as a clinical psychologist to give it a shot, telling Chloe to ” find her breath.” Jack allows the shrink to make the attempt to bring Chloe back so that she can help a situation that is getting worse by the minute.

That’s because Tony continues his miraculous recovery from death’s door and, after applying a choke hold to the Doctor that saved his life, makes his way into the room where Dr. Feelgood, Agent Richard Burke, is still shooting Henderson up with truth serum in order to get the ex-CTU agent to divulge where the terrorist mastermind Bierko is with those cannisters of nerve gas. Grabbing Burke’s gun, Tony seems beyond reason – until Jack gets on the intercom pleading with Tony to forgo his vengeance at least until they have a chance to interrogate Henderson. Tony, in one of the greatest lines he’s ever delivered, says to Jack through clenched teeth, “Hurry up.”

At the ranch, the President, who is apparently under some kind of spell cast by Vice President Strangelove, agrees to go ahead with martial law after talking to Karen Hayes, an apparently turf conscious bureaucrat at the Department of Homeland Security. Grandma Hayes informs the President that most of CTU is down and that she is going over there to take charge. This elicits another argument between Strangelove and Jellyfish with the Veep convincing the President once again that martial law is necessary.

We find Bierko the terrorist planning his masterpiece as the “new target” is going to be a big one. He orders all the rest of the cannisters moved to the site. In the teaser for next week’s episode we learn that “200,000 people” are at risk which means they’re not going hit a Lakers game. And it’s past rush hour so hitting the subway system is out. I wonder if Centex is water soluble? Can they put it in the water supply?

Back at CTU, Barry is making no progress with Chloe who is still a basket case. In a move sure to endear him to Porn Star Kimmy, Jack informs the shrink that THERE’S NO TIME for the rather clinical way the Clinical Psychologist is working with Chloe. To prove his point, he applies the Jack Bauer Death Grip to Barry’s throat which seems to wake Chloe out of her stupor.

While difficult to ascertain, I believe I saw Kim’s eyebrow twitch when Jack was choking her lover which means that Ms. Cuthbert has added a third facial expression to her acting repertoire, the other two being a come hither smile and her famous teenage pout face that she used to such great effect when trying to get Chase to quit CTU in season 3.

Things start going from bad, to worse, to “Jack Bauer Time” when the seals on the doors start to degrade thanks to a corrosive agent in the nerve gas. Chloe, back on the job and fully engaged, informs Jack that she can clear the nerve gas if only she could get the air conditioners to work, the unit being blocked by an insidious program we saw the terrorist setting up before he released the nerve gas last week. Since it would take too long to get an HVAC repairman out to headquarters, Jack takes it upon himself to squirm his way through the air ducts to a place where he can break into the room where the computer running the program is and disable it. Alas, incompetent bureaucrats are everywhere as a grate that was not on Chloe’s schematics due to a clerical error, prevents Jack from reaching the computer. He is forced to retreat back to his make-shift airlock and breathe uncontaminated air.

We also heard the first mention this entire season that the gas is deadly if absorbed by the skin but Jack assures us that he won’t be exposed long enough for that to happen.

Wha? Oh…never mind.

Meanwhile, Chloe is back to her old self:

KIM: Is there anything we can do from here?

CHLOE: No. We just have to wait. There’s nothing we can do to get your dad out any faster.

KIM: Don’t talk down to me Chloe.

BARRY: Listen. We’re in a crisis situation here, OK? Tempers are bound to flare. Let’s just everybody breathe.

CHLOE: What’s with you and breathing? Is that your answer to everything?

A few moments later, after Jack has gotten back into his airlock, Chloe recognizes that he should have taken longer to dump the threatening computer program:

BARRY: What’s it mean that he finished so quickly?

CHLOE: I don’t know.

BARRY: Well, it could be a good thing, right?

CHLOE: Could be a good thing. Could be a bad thing. That’s what “I – Don’t – Know” means.

Gotta love her!

After Chloe explains to Jack how the only way they can now be saved is if the Fat Hobbit sacrifices himself by opening his sanctuary to the contaminated air and racing up the stairs to the room where the computer is, Jack realizes he must ask Lin to die.

The Hobbit takes the news like a good little soldier but Harry, his companion in the holding room, is just a low-paid security guard and balks a bit. Harry should know by now that security guards at CTU have a life expectancy of about 3 weeks as they always seem to get whacked by moles or infiltrators when all they’re doing is going about their business of being totally oblivious to what’s going on.

With the seals on the doors minutes from disappearing, Harry has an affecting scene as he says goodbye to his little girl. Bravely, Lin takes a deep breath and sprints up the stairs to the computer room, disables the program, and runs back to his now contaminated room where both he and Harry can do nothing but hold their breath as long as possible.

Jack assures them both that he will inform their families of their heroism, says goodbye, and thanks them. Harry takes a breath first and starts to celebrate when nothing immediately happens. We know better. After he keels over, Lin takes the fatal breath and dies horribly.

Television doesn’t get much better than that.

This may be something of a transformational moment for Jack as he appears now to have taken on the role of avenging angel rather than superpatriot. Look for Bauer to start exacting revenge on the terrorists for everything they’ve done this day starting with Henderson.

Saying goodbye awkwardly to Kim who still wants nothing to do with him, Jack orders Barry to drive out of the city without stopping for anything. We know what that means. With the city about to erupt in panic thanks to the coming declaration of martial law, Kim will once again find herself in mortal peril.

Maybe the writers can find a coyote or perhaps even a wolf to threaten Kimmy. My own preference would be a mutant grey squirrel that eats human flesh and has a taste for clinical psychologists.

Meanwhile, President Jellyfish, like an Alka-Seltzer in hot water, begins to dissolve right before our eyes. Discussing with Martha the reasons he agrees with Vice President Strangelove’s martial law scenario, the Spineless One begins to melt like the wicked witch of the west after having water thrown on her:

MARTHA: He is not the President…YOU ARE!

LOGAN: I am doing this because it’s the right thing to do. (The shot of Logan’s hands on the desk betray the fact that he is not at all convinced it is the correct course of action).

I don’t know how much more of this I can take. I really don’t. David’s assassination, the nerve gas, the murder of those hostages….Walt Cumming’s betrayal (begins to cry) and you…I almost lost you. I didn’t lose you, did I?

MARTHA: No, Charles…

So much for talking the wimp out of turning the country over to the military industrial complex.

We are then introduced to a gorgeous terrorist woman trying to get more schematics for Bierko, this time on their new target. Don’t know much about her except she is one hot mama and will definitely get any man, anywhere to do anything she asks.

Grandma Hayes of DHS is on her way over to CTU with a shadowy figure who may prove to be Jack’s next bureaucratic foil. He may also be associated with the terrorists although it’s too soon to tell. But it would not be surprising to have someone at Homeland Security on the payroll of international terrorists.

Hell…I wouldn’t be surprised if that were the case in real life.

For Tony, the end of the road has been reached. Seeing that Henderson won’t wake up before Jack can reach him, Tony loads up a syringe with an extra lethal dose of truth serum and prepares to stab Henderson in the heart with the drug (“as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it.”.) But being at heart a nice guy, he realizes he cannot do it.

Being a bad guy, Henderson has no such qualms. He grapples with Tony and ends up stabbing the taciturn series regular in the chest. As Henderson makes his escape, Jack bursts in just in time to find Tony on the floor and cradle his friend in his arms, feeling the life ebb out of him. And Bauer weeps. One by one, his friends are being taken from him. It is no longer his duty and responsibility to capture the terrorists. It is now his quest. Will it consume him like Ahab’s quest consumed the Captain of the Pequod?

This year…nothing is impossible.

BODY COUNT

Lin and Harry are heroes. Bill updates us with his estimate of 55 dead CTU employees. Since we already counted 12, that means we add 43 to the show’s total.

And since Jack asked Lin and Harry to die, we are going to credit Mr. Bauer with two more kills.

JACK: 15

SHOW: 142

PIE-IN-THE-SKY SPECULATION

Could this be the last year for Jack Bauer? With all of his friends dying off, the speculation on whether or not Jack will be killed off this year was ratcheted up a notch with this eye opening quote from Executive Producer Howard Gordon in today’s New York Times:

The actual death of Jack is where Mr. Gordon said he would like the series to end, whenever that may be. “He’s a tragic character, and tragedy ends in death,” he said.

UPDATE

Blogs4Bauer readers had the dead pool for this week spot on with McGill and Tony finishing one, two. Make sure you check out the site for some great summaries too.

From Strategypage:

The violence has shifted away from American troops, who are suffering 60 percent fewer casualties this month than in the past year. and more towards Iraqi security forces and civilians. Part of this is because there are simply more Iraqi police and soldiers patrolling the streets and policing the neighborhoods. Where there are about two American advisors for every hundred Iraqi security troops, these Americans are there to advise, not fight. And the Iraqis are doing the fighting, and taking the casualties. American troops are still making raids and patrols, but there has also been a sharp decline in terrorist attacks. Some six months of sweeps and battles in western Iraq has shut down many of the Sunni terrorist sanctuaries. Indeed, many al Qaeda terrorists have fled western Iraq for towns and villages on the Iranian border. Iranians don’t like to advertise the fact, but they do provide support to al Qaeda, despite al Qaeda’s attacks on Shias (for being heretics.) Iran would also like to see a civil war (ethnic cleansing of Sunni Arabs) in Iraq. If that were to happen, Shia Arabs would be 75 percent of the Iraqi population, and likely to side with Iran on many issues.

A “sharp decline in terrorist attacks” along with a “60% reduction in American casualties” adds up to one thing: The President’s policy is working.

Yes, there is still a level of sectarian violence that threatens to erupt into full scale battles in the streets al la Lebanon of the 1970’s. And foreign interference, especially from Iran, may yet derail the careful, agonizing steps the Iraqis are making toward forming a unity government.

But in reality, the only people who seem to be wringing their hands in despair (or rubbing them together in glee) are the mainstream media and the left who dote lovingly on every reported attack, even if no one knows whether it is related to sectarian strife or not. This fact is not lost on the Sunni insurgents, Shia hot heads, and bloodthirsty jihadists who somehow manage to blow people up in close proximity to western reporters at every opportunity, hoping that their strategy of weakening America’s resolve through the prism of media bias will work. It’s all they’ve got at this point, given how badly the war is going for them elsewhere.

There have been many, many missteps by the Bush Administration in Iraq; political, military, and in the reconstruction effort that still lags to this day. But a more objective observer, looking at the slow, but steady progress being made in all three areas, could only come to the conclusion that after many false starts and serious errors, we are now finally on the right track in Iraq.

More and more over the next few months, the destiny of Iraq will be in the hands of the Iraqis themselves. This includes prospects for a civil war as well as any progress made in addressing the thorny problems involving the numerous militias, Shiite control of the security services, Kurdish desires for more autonomy, and perhaps most importantly, coming to terms with the Saddam era. Part of what is driving this sectarian strife are old hatreds engendered by the minority Sunni control over much of the economic and religious life of the country. Before real peace can be achieved, there must be a full accounting of the cost from that period.

Such a process – whether it is achieved by convening a special commission or some other political device – will go a long way to tamping down the violence that currently roils some parts of the country and threatens to undo any gains made by the progress made by all Iraqis in inching toward a civil, democratic society.

UPDATE

Got linked by a site where a commenter asked if I worked “for the CIA.”

Look, people. And liberals too. Saying something positive about Iraq does not automatically make someone a slavish Bush automaton. The fact is, what is being reported as “sectarian violence” is a crock. Yes, there are some scattered incidents. But most of the death and destruction is being caused by the same cast and crew that have been carrying on the war for the last three years – Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda in Iraq.

Case in point: Car bombs. Most of the 80 people killed over the weekend were murdered by car bombs in Shia neighborhoods designed specifically to foment civil war. Is that sectarian violence? Or is it a case of people trying to incite it?

I put it to you. Iraq may yet slide into civil war with running gun battles in the streets, militias battling building to building, and hundreds dying every day.

And, it may not.

The point is, that with American casualties way down and even terrorist car bombs becoming less frequent coupled with the Iraqi Parliament about ready to meet (and where a coalition of Sunnis, Kurds, and secularists will toss out the Muqtada al-Sadr’s choice for Prime Minister Ibrahim Al-Jafari) the facts are undeniable; the policy of building up the Iraqi armed forces and guiding the factions toward a “unity government” is working. And it is the policy formulated by the President. Hence, the President’s policy is working.

To not acknowledge this is to practice the same kind of delusion you are accusing me of being held captive by with one glaring difference; my “delusion” is supported by the facts on the ground. Yours is supported by wishful thinking and biased reporting.

Read this piece by Ralph Peters in Real Clear Politics for more of the same “delusions.” (HT: Michelle Malkin)