This review originally appears in The American Thinker

NOTE: Mark Tapscott of the Heritage Foundation was kind enough to send me a free copy of Edwin Feulner and Doug Wilson’s new book Getting America Right in exchange for reviewing it on my site. It should go without saying (although given all the criticism of blogs lately from several mainstream media sources I’ll say it anyway) Mr. Tapscott had no input into this review whatsoever. The words and sentiments are my own.

When it comes to diagnosing what’s wrong with America and offering solutions on how to cure what ails us, there is no shortage of thoughtful, sincere opinions on both the right and the left that offer specific courses of action to address the nation’s problems. In fact, an entire literary industry is devoted to this peculiarly American genre of government improvement manuals. Ideas on repairing American democracy run the gamut from the ridiculous to the sublime. Books by radio talk show hosts, comedians, celebrities, and self-improvement gurus can be found alongside the learned tomes of intellectuals, university faculty, and the baker’s dozen of major think tanks whose prescriptions for solving our problems are usually a combination of wishful thinking and mind-numbing complexity.

This drive to improve government is a clear offshoot of our drive for self-improvement, a trait that has piqued the curiosity of American observers from de Tocqueville to Churchill. De Tocqueville especially was fascinated with this aspect of the American mind, saying ” The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.” The Frenchman marveled at our obsession with self improvement and attributed much of the vitality of American society to this singular characteristic.

Perhaps that’s why I liked Getting America Right so much. At bottom, the book is a joyous recognition of American exceptionalism; the fierce belief that despite seemingly insurmountable problems, the individual genius of American citizens can be brought to bear with results that have always astonished.

The idea of America as a wholly unique national entity has taken enormous hits in recent years from leftists in academia and liberal political pundits who have sought to superimpose a veneer of European ideas over the American experiment in self-government on everything from law to health care. Of course, this would have come as a shock to our Founders who did everything they could when writing the Constitution and forming our government to distance themselves from what they saw as the corruptive influences of nobility and the European traditions of monarchical tyranny. Coupled with similar attacks on the ideas of “natural rights” and “higher law,” American exceptionalism as a driving intellectual force has been in danger of being relegated to the dusty, disorganized national attic where we are storing other quaint, 19th century American peculiarities like self-reliance and self-restraint.

Authors Edwin Feulner who is President of the the Heritage Foundation and Doug Wilson, Chairman of Townhall.com have written a good book, perhaps an important book that is both eminently readable and thought provoking in diagnosing America’s problems and offering common sense, “bottom up” solutions. Using a combination of jaw clenching examples of the most horrific government waste imaginable and the inspiring stories of average citizens and local governments addressing some of our seemingly intractable problems in education, dependency, and federal overreach, the authors have succeeded in correctly identifying key areas where conservative values could be applied most efficaciously.

The problem however is not necessarily in the specific solutions being offered by Messrs. Feulner and Wilson but in what is at the core of their critique of America and their refutation of the welfare state: That in order to affect the kind of changes envisioned by the authors, nothing less than a revolutionary revision of the American people’s relationship with government would have to take place.

Can this be achieved? Considering that Americans are as susceptible to the natural proclivity of the human species to take the easy course when offered a choice between the hard slog of self-reliance and the soothing path of letting others make difficult personal decisions, it would seem a daunting task to make the kind of changes that would be necessary to enact most of the solutions offered in the book.

As the authors correctly point out, the American people have become addicted to government solutions for problems that their grandparents and even their parents would have solved themselves or with the help of their friends and neighbors. And lest anyone think that our major problems only involve welfare cheats and Medicare defrauders, Feulner and Wilson offer many eye opening examples of multinational corporations and other rich entities feeding unabashedly at the federal trough. The fact that we allow Congress to get away with this kind of tomfoolery goes to the very heart of what’s wrong with America today. We are sleepwalking our way to disaster. In this respect, the book is a wake-up call as much as it is a blueprint for change.

While not totally responsible for the kinds of budgetary shenanigans described by the authors, there is nevertheless a great conundrum in conservative governance that I wish the authors would have addressed more directly. Modern conservatism was an ideology born in a politically inferior position to liberalism. It’s strengths have always been in the logical way it is dismantled the intellectual underpinnings of the welfare state. But knocking the chocks from underneath the left’s cherished beliefs is one thing; actually governing a 21st century industrialized democracy is another.

The fact is, conservatism is suffering from the transition to majority status in that it is hard to be anti-government when you are, in fact, the government. The corrupting influence of Capitol Hill and the sybaritic culture inside the Beltway have led many erstwhile conservatives to abandon long held principles in order to fit in with the “get along, go along” culture of Washington. That, and the pragmatic realization that the American people may talk a good conservative game, but when it comes to improving the quality of their own lives or protecting their own benefits, they look to their Congressman to do the job. In short, many conservatives in Congress appear to have decided that fighting the system does not lead to longevity in politics. Better to go with the flow and become a careerist rather than rock the boat and risk losing what you have.

This is a cynicism that Messrs. Feulner and Wilson dance around throughout the book but never quite address. And that’s because they have opted instead to advocate for solutions that involve we the people rather than the Congress (in most cases). But as the authors point out, “[S]ocial power is a zero sum game: When governments take it, individuals lose it.” Wresting power from the powers that be is a dispiriting task. It remains to be seen whether or not the kind of reforms being offered by the authors are amendable to the real world struggles that would ensue between citizens and their government over who controls.

That said, the book does very well on a variety of levels. The authors have done a remarkable job in annunciating conservative values and principles and how they relate to American society. Defining the core beliefs of conservatism as “a set of beliefs that prize moderation, reflective tradition and reason; it cherishes the old and valued even as it produces new solutions,” is not only a classical recitation of conservative values but a recognition that modern conservatism, despite all, is still a churning cauldron that spews out a great many ideas and solutions to any number of challenges facing America today.

The authors also speak of conservatism as a “shared moral order” that “respects human dignity, inculcates decency, overcomes fear, and inspires people to help each other in times of trouble.” This is a side of conservatism I wish more people would see in that the mostly successful war waged against this “moral order” by the left has had so many deleterious consequences – dependency, a loss of civility in discourse at all levels of society, and a general decline in both manners and morals – that getting back to some level of sanity with regard to a reasoned and sober civil society will be a revolution in and of itself.

The book also succeeds in clearly delineating what constitutes good government. The authors accomplish this by applying a test involving 6 questions that should be asked of every law, every government program and regulation that is being considered:

1. Is it the government’s business?
2. Does it promote self-reliance?
3. Is it responsible?
4. Does it make us prosperous?
5. Does it make us safer?
6. Does it unify us?

Each question has a chapter devoted to discussion, examples, and solutions. This format succeeds as both a logical place to start a discussion of such intractable problems and as a way to measure the potential success or failure of many of the common sense solutions offered.

The book does not succeed as well in recognizing the systemic problems with the federal budget and Congress itself, although promoting the idea of a line item veto is mentioned. The problem there is the almost certain challenge to its constitutionality in Congress. What would our reborn Supreme Court think of a law that the Founders would probably have thought a usurpation of power granted specifically to the People’s House? That’s a question that will probably not be answered any time soon.

All told, Feulner and Wilson have written a timely, thoughtful, and intellectually satisfying book that offers a wealth of solutions to problems many conservatives have either thrown up their hands in dismay at ever solving or simply brushed off with the empty critique that such challenges would go away if only we “reduced the size of government.” I am very glad that the authors offered much more specificity than the hollow, generalized rants that pass for critiques of the welfare state by less serious lights in the conservative movement. If nothing else, the book proves that conservatism is alive and well and is still seeking answers to the basic question of how people in a free society can best govern themselves.

UPDATE

Getting America Right is such a finely written and richly textured book that I am going to write a series of 6 more articles over the next 6 days that address each of the 6 questions asked by the authors about whether or not a specific law meets the standards set by conservatives for good government.

I invite serious discussion on both the book and my take on it from both the left and right but be warned; troll droppings will be deleted mercilessly.

Ken McCracken at WILLisms hosts a Pundit Roundtable every Sunday where he asks several bloggers to comment on the same question.

I’ve participated a couple of times and found it enjoyable. Ken’s questions are always topical and elicit a variety of responses, all well thought out and interesting.

This week’s question was especially thought provoking:

Now that the Dubai ports deal has fallen through, and with all the rancor these days over pork, immigration, policy failures such as Social Security reform, and a backlash over the Iraq War, is the Republican party cracking up as some have suggested?

What does Karl Rove need to do?

Here’s my response:

The ports deal will be seen in retrospect as an hysterical interlude and not much more. The ineptness demonstrated by the White House in handling first, the vetting of the transaction and then the backlash against it was troubling but hardly a reason to think that it had any broad implications for the Republican party.

As for what Rove can do about it, I daresay the Evil One is less engaged on matters of Republican unity these days except as it relates to legacy building by the President. In that, I fully expect Rove to work dutifully to help get out the vote in ‘06 and perhaps even try and swing the ‘08 Republican nomination to someone who would build upon Bush’s legacy. I have no idea who that would be but I’m pretty sure it won’t be anyone named McCain.

By the way, if you aren’t a daily reader of Willisms, you’re missing out on one of the finest political sites around. Will and Ken blog on some of the real nuts and bolts stuff that makes politics so fascinating. And make sure to check out Ken’s weekly post on Social Security reform every Thursday.

A truly unique and valuable resource. Bookmark it.

CUBAN BORN PROTESTOR IDENTIFIED ONLY AS “ENRIQUE” HOLDS UP A SIGN THAT SAYS “DOWN WITH FIDEL” AT THE WORLD BASEBALL CLASSIC IN PUERTO RICO

And he held his crude, hand-written sign up to the cameras and the entire Cuban government trembled.

He has been identified only as Enrique, a baseball fan who attended a game being played between Puerto Rico and Cuba at the World Baseball Classic tournament in San Juan. Enrique is a non-descript sort of fellow, middle aged, bit of a paunch, smiling eyes behind wire rimmed glasses. He also has a clear sense of mission as well as a keen eye for history. He arrived 3 hours before the game with his little sign and a lot of chutzpah. Standing behind home plate near the field, he flashed part of his message to Cuban players as they warmed up:

A few moments later , Tony Castro (Castro’s son) walked by and I told him Tony , Tony , he looked around and saw directly my open sign Baseball Players YES Tyrants No , he looked down and kept walking and I shouted Eso es para tu papa (That is for your dad)...... I know he heard that…”

The whole world would hear what Enrique would be saying a little later.

During the game, Enrique and his friend Mercado left their seats behind home plate and made their way to where the sign would be visible to the TV cameras. Unfolding the other part of his sign that read “Down with Fidel” in Spanish, the image, being carried live in Cuba, flashed across TV screens and set off what in baseball is known as a “rhubarb” and in diplomacy as “an international incident.” Within seconds, the Vice President of the Cuban Sports Federation was frantically making his way toward where Enrique and Mercado were sitting with the still unfurled sign apparently intent on acting like he was on the imprisoned Isle of Cuba rather than free and democratic Puerto Rico. He was joined by another Cuban government thug who approached Enrique demanding that he stop what he was doing:

The authorities intercepted Castro’s lackeys and hustled them out of the stadium. While not under arrest, the authorities took them to a nearby police station:

Puerto Rican police quickly intervened and took the Cuban official Angel Iglesias, vice president of Cuba’s National Institute of Sports to a nearby police station where they lectured him about free speech.

“We explained to him that here the constitutional right to free expression exists and that it is not a crime,” police Col. Adalberto Mercado was quoted as saying in El Nuevo Dia, a San Juan daily.

Tell that to the Cuban government who almost immediately had their minions in the streets of Havana demonstrating against not little Enrique but the United States government and President Bush who they believe concocted this “plot” to discredit the Castro regime. The Cuban team (whose dugout resembles an armed camp with more police and security people than baseball players) protested the sign waving by not attending the post game press conference and Castro even threatened to send the team home because of a “lack of security and respect.”

Perhaps the dictator should have recalled his players anyway because they lost to Puerto Rico 12-2 the next day.

Castro is terrified of the prospect that several of his talented ballplayers will take the opportunity to defect while playing in the free countries of Central America and the United States. The hotel where the Cubans are staying in San Juan is a virtual prison:

Why are the Cuban baseball players being held as virtual prisoners?

Why aren’t they allowed to roam the hotel lobby, talk with the Puerto Rican people, drink a beer if they feel like it, dance with a Puerto Rican girl?

Why are they being held as virtual prisoners and not allowed the freedom that players from every other country are enjoying?

Why are so many security agents keeping track of the players movements all the time?

It didn’t used to be this way. There was a time when Cuban ballplayers were welcomed with open arms into the Major Leagues here in America – just as long as they were white enough.

In the cuckoo land of racist professional baseball during much of the last century, Cuban players were allowed to play for Major League teams as long as they weren’t too black. This posed some problems for those Cuban players who either were of mixed race or even if some of the darker skinned Hispanic players got too much of a tan playing in the sun. The lengths to which some teams would go to hide the racial make-up of some Cuban players was ludicrous. From changing their names, thus making them sound less Hispanic to requiring darker skinned players to play with long sleeve shirts during the entire season, the attempts to circumvent baseball’s unwritten racial purity rules would have been almost laughable in any other context.

During the 1950’s, there were dozens of Cuban players playing on Major League teams. And there was something else; protests at World Series games against the Batista regime:

More than one time in the 1950s, members of the 26th. of July movement directed by Fidel Castro, jumped into the playing field during the World Series games carrying protest signs against the Batista government. They did it because they knew that the games were being broadcasted in Cuba.

In addition to displaying their signs, the members of the 26th. of July interrupted the games by running all over the baseball field with their signs. Then, those Cubans were considered ‘heroes’ by Castro.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot and free Cubans are simply exercising their right to free speech in a free country by holding signs WHILE SITTING AT THEIR SEATS THAT THEY PAID WITH THEIR OWN MONEY, the Cuban dictator is whining and crying and threatening to pull out his slave players from the World Baseball Classic and order them to return to his island prison.

What a hypocrite this brutal dictator is!

I guess in Castro’s Cuba “What’s good for the Goose” isn’t necessarily good for the gander – especially since the Cuban people rarely see either a goose or a gander on the dinner table. The average daily intake of calories in Cuba is about 2400. Compare that to even the poorer countries in Central American whose average is 7% higher at more than 2800. More tellingly, their caloric intake from domestic animal products (348) is more than 20% less than their neighbors (460).

It will be interesting to see what Enrique’s little protest will do to the internal politics of Cuba. With Castro rumored to be in failing health, the struggle for power following his inevitable death will pit his military-security cronies against more reform minded politicians. In a struggle like that, having the people on your side will be critical. The goons may have the guns. But as long as there are people like Enrique who are willing to stand up for freedom, the forces who support liberty and democracy in Cuba will have a chance.

UPDATE

I’m surprised there isn’t more play on this story, especially from the right. There are quite a few other stories making news but this incident occurred Thursday night and we’ve had nary a peep from the blogosphere.

Dr. Sanity has a great write up on the story as does Brian Preston at Junkyard Blog who dubs Enrique “Hero of the Day.”

That, and more.

We bloggers are known for taking a few liberties with the truth in order to get a laugh, or a rise out of our readers, or just because some of us are idiots and don’t know any better. Now that doesn’t mean we lie. It means we sort of stretch reality so that it fits around whatever point we’re trying to make. Hence, when lefty bloggers call right wing bloggers “fascists” they really don’t mean that we all walk around in brown shirts with swastikas on the sleeve giving the stiff-armed salute in slavish devotion to George Bush.

Well, then again…

Regardless, when I saw this on one of the major left wing sites, I first thought that it was a joke. I said to myself “This can’t be serious! Can anyone be so determined to be dense that they would actually believe what they’re writing here is true?”

You decide:

The new site Fancy Ford, built by the National Republican Senatorial Committee and with the blessing of Elizabeth Dole, is an interesting new web tactic. Racism online and mainstreamed.

The “Ford” refers to Representative Harold Ford, a good and decent man who is running for the Senate from Tennessee. But what, pray tell is this “Racism online and mainstreamed?”

What’s the message behind this site? The line of white women on the front page, the fact that it highlights his attendance at NBA All Star events featuring Biz Markie, the emphasis on opulence all combine to portray Ford as a pimp. The site tries to be subtle in its racism, but it fails.

Please excuse me while I pick my mandible up off the floor before it starts digging.

Methinks this fellow is a couple of shakes short of a finished martini.

The “line of white women” is a picture of some Playboy Bunnies, which refers to a Super Bowl party sponsored by the men’s magazine that the Congressman attended. That’s right. He is accusing the designer of the website of poring through thousands of photographs of Playboy Bunnies in order to find one picture that only features white women.

But wait! Here is more of the “subtle racism” our friend has sniffed out like McGruff the crime dog.

The goofball says that the site “highlights his attendance at NBA All Star events featuring Biz Markie.” Weeeellll…in the immortal words of Secretary of Defense Nimzicki from Independence Day “That’s not entirely accurate.” It seems that the good Congressman connected himself to Mr. Markie because all the website does is quote an invitation to a Ford fundraiser held during the NBA All-Star game. The site does not mention more than one “event” so the use of the plural in that charge is false and misleading.

Now that’s subtle. Taking something written by the Congressman’s own campaign and putting it on website. That’s never been done before. Sure smacks of racism to me.

But what of the charge that there is an “emphasis on opulence.”

Are you kidding me? From a party that constantly portrays Republicans as rich and out of touch with regular folk I have to listen to that kind of crap? Besides, the web site is making the point that all of these extravagant extras are enjoyed at his contributor’s expense. If I was going to give money to a candidate, don’t you think it might matter to me if the guy is pissing it away with $20,000 weekend stays at the Biltmore hotel?

Finally, and I know this was the most difficult part to follow, we come to the charge that the site is portraying Ford as a pimp.

Lemme get this straight: White women + NBA + Biz Markie + opulence = PIMP!

The guy is a goddamned Sherlock effing Holmes. That’s not only subtle. It’s damn near invisible.

It’s a good thing the ports deal issue will soon be fading into the background. I can’t tell you how uncomfortable I am when I have to show my anti-Arab bigotry in public. I feel much more at ease hiding behind code words and other devices that only my morally superior betters can divine as being truly “racist” in nature. Better that most people never suspect that, at heart, I’m just a wild eyed, goober chewing, slack-jawed mouth breather who fears the ayrab and all the rest of them fereners. The only good ferener is a dead ferener, that’s what I say. Especially when they dress up in funny clothes and don’t worship Jesus.

That said, I’m glad we can now get back to business as usual with the Saudis, the Pakistanis, and all those folks from the city-state sized feudal kingdoms that make up the Emirates, itself a form of government that’s an anachronistic throwback to a time when Islam was the light of the world and western Europeans were killing each other over who should be living in which drafty old castle.

Yes, it will be nice to get back to business as usual with people who are playing both ends against the middle in the terror game, hoping that modernity on the one hand and radical Islam on the other doesn’t intrude on their private preserves of debauchery and corruption. To guarantee that, they have the United States government to protect and shield them from both substantive change in their societies as well as the ravages of Islamic fundamentalism.

It must be nice for them to be able to be able to talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time about terrorism. On the one hand, the Saudis, Pakistanis, and many of the smaller Gulf states are actually quite helpful in our fight against terrorism – up to a point. I haven’t seen the Saudi royal family disciplining any of its members lately for their ties to terror. Nor have I seen any purges of the Pakistani intelligence services, some members of which helped prop up the Taliban in Afghanistan and may to this day be supporting al Qaeda. The same goes for the Saudis except we are much too polite to be asking questions about that. We need the oil spigots kept wide open and insulting King Abdullah by pointing to probable disloyalty in his secret police may upset the monarch’s delicate sensibilities.

And our bestest friends in the UAE? Funny how Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum can welcome our carrier battle groups with open arms on the one hand and then send billions of dollars to fund radical Madrasses around the world that preach the only good American is a dead American. With friends like the Sheik…

Yes, I’m happy that the ports deal imbroglio is over. Now we can get back to laughing at Democrats who were so desperate to demonstrate their bona fides on national security, they didn’t realize they now leave themselves wide open to charges of hypocrisy regarding their curious resistance to protecting our southern borders.

But that’s another debate…

That thud you heard coming from the White House today was the sound of Karl Rove’s invincibility hitting the floor.

The UAE was either asked or decided on their own to nix the ports deal thus heading off a certain veto override by Congress and embarrassing the President more than he and his Administration have already embarrassed themselves:

The United Arab Emirates company that was attempting to take over management operations at six U.S. ports announced today that it will divest itself of all American interests.

The announcement appears to head off a major confrontation that was brewing between Congress and the Bush administration over the controversial deal.

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) announced on the Senate floor shortly before 2 p.m. that Dubai Ports World would “transfer fully the operations of U.S. ports to a U.S. entity.” Warner, who had been trying to broker a compromise on the issue, said DP World would divest itself of U.S. interests “in an orderly fashion” so as not to suffer “economic loss.”

It was never about the security of the ports. It was never the fact that the UAE has a leader that has gone hunting with Bin Laden. It was never the fact that the UAE government has funded Wahabbist Madrasses all over the world to the tune of billions of dollars over the last 2 decades. It was never the fact that they don’t recognize Israel or that their banking system may be a financial way station for al Qaeda funds or that they were Muslims and I’m a bigoted fool.

It was always about the Bush Administration and their arrogant, cavalier attitude toward this deal and other aspects of homeland security including securing our borders. The committee set up to vet DPW was a bureaucratic rubber stamp made up of second and third tier assistant secretaries who didn’t even feel the need to brief the heads of their agencies about the deal. They never felt the need to brief the Joint Chiefs. The never felt the need to brief Congress.

Michelle Malkin:

Nervous nellies will argue that the House Republican “hotheads” should have waited for the 45-day review of the deal. But to many knowledgeable observers of the CFIUS process, the panel is the root of the problem—not the solution. As I made clear in my first post on this subject on Feb. 18 and consistently throughout the debate, we simply cannot afford the business-as-usual attitude of the rubber-stampers at CFIUS. And if that means the UAE retaliates by pulling out of business deals with Boeing, as it is threatening to do now, so be it.

You will recall that both DHS and the Coast Guard raised objections to the deal when it was first proposed. While both entities have come back and said their concerns were “addressed” what exactly does that mean? Were real concerns about security papered over with typical bureaucratic double-talk? Or were substantiative changes made to the deal that took into account the potential security problems pointed out by agencies whose job it is to protect us.

For that reason alone this deal needed to be examined. And I would still like to see hearings on other foreign owned companies who manage our ports and other transportation nexus. These are a particularly vulnerable part of our overall security profile and what this deal proved is that no one appears to be thinking very hard about them.

I sincerely hope that the UAE isn’t offended by the pressure that was put on them, although, when a country is owned by one man, it becomes very hard to separate the business from the personal. Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum may feel that he’s been double crossed but he shouldn’t blame the Congress or the American people. The blame is ultimately the Presidents’ to shoulder as are our other problems with border control and gaps in security at our airports.

If the killing of this deal has opened the eyes of the President and his people to the concerns of Congress and many conservatives, then it just may have a silver lining. They can go a long way toward proving that they’re listening by working with Congress on an immigration reform package that puts security over commerce and the safety of the American people over the wallets of the members of the Chambers of Commerce.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin also has an excellent “first reaction” round up of media. Check back to her site often for more updates to come,

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

When the history of our times are written a hundred years from now, it is probable that historians will be scratching their heads in puzzlement over contemporary reports regarding the challenges faced by the Bush Administration and how the President’s people managed them. They will take note of the super-charged partisan atmosphere that permeated Washington at the time and the extraordinary hostility of major opinion makers in the media to the President and his policies. And when all is said and done, they may very well conclude that the President’s contemporaries were suffering from some kind of mass delusion, a sickness of thought and reason that not only clouded their judgement but contributed to the deliberate formulation of a powerful myth: The myth that the Bush Administration was incompetent in its stewardship of the republic.

Historians being historians, there will be many who will posit the notion that this judgement of history is in fact, no myth at all. They will take the arguments of the President’s contemporaries at face value and point to the problems associated with winning the War in Iraq, hurricane preparedness, intelligence failures, and a host of domestic missteps in areas as diverse as Medicare reform and ports management.

But if historians took the reports of a great man’s contemporaries at face value, we would not be celebrating Washington, Jefferson, Adams, nor especially Lincoln who engendered as much hate and loathing as any past President in history. Lincoln’s contemporaries indulged in an orgy of name calling and criticism of his war policies to the point that his own party sought to throw him off the ticket in 1864.

As for Washington, a cursory examination of his military efforts during the revolution would elicit little more than contempt. The General lost more battles than any other general in American history. His amateurish New York campaign in 1776 almost lost the war before it started and only the luckiest of circumstances kept the Continental Army from being destroyed en masse .

And Washington’s stewardship of the young republic is replete with contemporary accounts of mismanagement, cronyism, and dark hints of the General’s monarchical tendencies. His second term was one long nightmare of criticism of his foreign policy, his close relationship with the bane of Jeffersonians Alexander Hamilton, and his handling of the “Whiskey Rebellion” where the President himself rode at the head of an army of 9,000 men into western Pennsylvania to put down a challenge to the primacy of the federal government. And yet, Washington is beloved to us today not because of what his contemporaries thought of him but because his record taken in its totality reveals a man of vision and steady leadership through some of the most turbulent times in American history.

The point isn’t that George Bush is like Washington or Lincoln. The point is that historians will be able to look back at this two term President and find a record on the economy, on foreign policy, and even on several domestic issues that will give the lie to charges of incompetence and instead, reveal a President who initiated strikingly bold initiatives that changed the course of both American and world history.

There is nothing new in Democrats and the media charging that a Republican President is incompetent. They’ve been doing it since the Eisenhower Administration. The ex-general was accused of sleeping through the 1950’s. Nixon’s incompetence was ieven highlighted in his administration’s scandals as his detractors were always fond of pointing out that Watergate was the result of “a second rate burglary” and that the White House plumbers resembled the Keystone Cops. His prosecution of the Viet Nam war and handling of the peace negotiations as well as his relationship with the Democratic Congress were also skewered by his critics as evidence of Nixon’s unworthiness for high office.

But these critics saved their most venomous invective for Ronald Reagan who was constantly called a “dunce,” a “stupid actor,” and much worse. It says something about Reagan that even when the White House press corp treated him with contempt, he never lost his sense of self-deprecating humor, making fun of his age, his work habits, even his own intelligence.

The way critics tried to draw the President’s father also degenerated into caricature as Bush #41 was belittled constantly for his optimism and enthusiasm. Trying to portray the President of the United States as a glorified cheerleader, his detractors succeeded in tarring George H. Bush as a shallow, substanceless rich man who never thought deeply about anything.

Why should it surprise us that Democrats and their allies in the press are seeking to apply the same broad brush to this President?

A more objective observer would note that the standards of competency being applied to this Administration by both the President’s opponents and now many erstwhile Republicans are impossibly high. In this media saturated age where perception is reality and the present merges seamlessly into the future, hindsight has been flipped on its head to become foresight. The President’s tormentors have twisted, mangled, and mutilated the truth and the facts so often that the legends they have created are now accepted as reality. In a truly Orwellian way, history is being written before events actually occur. And when something happens that in any other reality would be considered insignificant, it is pointed to as “proof” that the Administration’s actions, or policies, or plans are an abject failure.

A recent Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by Daniel Henninger noticed this very same phenomenon:

Rational problem-solving generally requires adhering to the rules of the game, and in politics those rules are often informal. One such rule in Washington is that a politician is as good as his word. Perhaps nothing has been more destructive to Washington’s current ability to function than the belief that “Bush lied” about WMD, most notably Joe Wilson’s foundational charge in the New York Times that Mr. Bush lied about Iraq’s attempts to buy uranium from Niger.

This persistent belief that George Bush committed a major moral crime, which was refuted by the Robb-Silberman Commission, had consequences. It has led many people in Washington’s standing institutions—Congress, the press, the intelligence and foreign-policy bureaucracies—to think they’ve been released from operating inside the normal boundaries that allow political Washington to function, that allow partisans to do business, whether on foreign policy, Social Security or homeland security.

Henninger specifically points to the Valerie Plame case as proof that the President’s detractors leap upon the most insignificant matters to prove Administration perfidy. The fact is, as Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald admitted in court last week, there was no “outing” of a covert agent and that he didn’t intend to offer “any proof of actual damage caused by the disclosure of Wilson’s identity.”

But it is the prosecution of the War in Iraq that the President’s critics have used their powers of hindsight to the fullest. There may be no human endeavor more fraught with uncertainty nor more open to the vagaries of chance than war. And yet, every setback in Iraq whether by our military or in the political arena is held up as “proof” of the incompetence of the Bush Administration. If these critics had been around in 1943-44 and had access to the same kind of information they have about the situation in Iraq, I can imagine the howls of protest against Roosevelt’s competency. The list of American missteps on both fronts – mistakes that cost many times more lives than those lost to date in Iraq – read like a military bad dream. The Italian campaign, the Tarawa landing, and a host of smaller catastrophes would have sapped the will of the American people and made prosecution of the war that much more difficult.

In Iraq, the President’s critics have had a field day dissecting both military and political strategy from the comfortable perch of hindsight, always able to come up with some report or leaked intelligence estimate that puts the Administration’s efforts in the worst possible light. The question is never broached about what other information the Administration had access to which would put any decisions made in context. I daresay that if such second guessing occurred during the slow progress made by American forces during World War II where there were numerous defeats and even political troubles with Charles DeGaulle of the Free French Forces, the American people may very well have thought Roosevelt an incompetent boob.

Critics of the President are using what engineers refer to as a “Six Sigma” model of critical analysis regarding Administration actions. “Sigma” is a Greek letter used as a statistical term that refers to a measurement of how far a given process deviates from perfection. The higher the Sigma number, the closer to perfection. The central idea behind “Six Sigma” is that if you can measure how many defects you have in a process, you can systematically figure out how to get rid of them.

But for Bush detractors, this kind of analysis becomes a convenient weapon. It ignores the thousands of variables that go into everything from war planning to hurricane preparedness and relief. It also has the virtue of of immediacy in that defects – both real and imagined – can be offered as proof of policy failure before the policy has a chance to work. We saw this with the Katrina relief effort as the Federal government pre-positioned millions of tons of supplies prior to the hurricane making landfall and within 24 hours Administration critics were already declaring the relief effort a failure, the result of the President’s disinterest in the plight of poor black people. With New Orleans 80% underwater, critics were wondering why supplies were not getting to people who needed them.

The fact is these critics weren’t asking President Clinton the same thing following Hurricane Floyd where flooding prevented FEMA from acting in anything approaching a timely manner. The Reverend Jesse Jackson interviewed FEMA Director James Lee Witt almost 30 days after Floyd devastated the east coast:

“It seemed there was preparation for Hurricane Floyd, but then came Flood Floyd,” Jackson began. “Bridges are overwhelmed, levees (my emphasis) are overwhelmed, whole town’s under water (my emphasis). . . [it’s] an awesome scene of tragedy. So there’s a great misery index in North Carolina.”

When Jackson asked what was being done for the thousands of families left homeless by Floyd after nearly a month had passed since the storm first hit, Witt said Bill’s FEMA was “just beginning to address the problem.”

Sound familiar?

There is no better example of this Six Sigma mindset among the President’s critics than the recent sectarian violence in Iraq which had many in the press especially salivating for a civil war. The violence was serious and continues to the present at a reduced level. But the exaggerated reports of attacks and casualties – the result of both the inability of the press to see the big picture as well as the probability that reporters were getting much of their information from al Qaeda propaganda cadres – did not include any reports of the counterweight being applied to the prospects of a civil war by the Iraqi Army whose performance was generally praised in the aftermath of the Shrine bombing and the tens of thousands of ordinary citizens who marched in “Unity Demonstrations” across the country.

Despite all the provocations by the insurgents and al Qaeda terrorists, Iraqis from all walks of life, all sects, and all parts of the country are working together to keep civil war from happening. And while it is still an open question whether or not civil war can be avoided, this unity among so many Iraqis is a direct result of Administration efforts to promote democracy. The people of Iraq have been given a stake in their own future by the government of the United States. Whether they can take advantage of this is still open to question. But to call the policy a “failure” at this point is wrong. The Iraqis may be taking two steps forward and one back in their march to the future. But the fact is the only way for our policy to fail is if we pick up and go home. In this, both Administration critics and al Qaeda terrorists have something in common.

Criticizing the day to day ups and downs of progress in Iraq would be considered irrational in almost any other context except that which seeks to perpetrate the myth that the Administration is incompetent. The same holds true for Katrina relief efforts, the scope of which dwarfed any other similar effort in American history. But the Six Sigma group, having control of mass media and taking advantage of the Administration’s curious inability to defend itself, has been able to pick and choose the decisions and circumstances that best contribute to their skewed incompetence narrative while ignoring other efforts that have proved to be successful.

How much have we heard about the economy recently? Low inflation, historically low interest rates, low unemployment, rising incomes, high productivity, and the prospect of further, sustained growth is a spectacular record of achievement. Predictably, the Six Sigma group concentrates instead on the systemic unemployment of minorities and the rising cost of health care.

Similarly, the President’s bold initiatives in education reform and prescription drug assistance receive scant attention except to highlight the problems with the programs. No one mentions that millions of at risk students will finally have schools that must demonstrate that they are trying to raise standards or that seniors will have coverage for prescription drugs that they didn’t have before. Problems with both these programs can be fixed. But shepherding them through Congress in the first place along with tax cuts, faith based initiatives, and other issues that the President’s critics confidently predicted would never fly in the legislature bespeaks a level of competence not vouchsafed by the President’s critics who tend to forget their own incompetent powers of prognostication on these and other matters.

It is easy to pick out mistakes made by any President. And believe me when I say I wholeheartedly agree that this President has made his fair share of them. One could even point out the incompetence of the Administration to specific challenges like government spending, social security reform, and even some aspects of Iraq reconstruction and yes, hurricane relief. But generally speaking, President Bush has tackled some of the biggest challenges to face this country in more than a generation. He has done many things well. He has fallen down in other respects. But to have the President’s critics slap the label of incompetence on his Administration doesn’t stand up to any kind of objective scrutiny.

In the end, Bush will be judged by the totality of his Presidency not by the Six Sigma analyses that pass for serious critiques by the Presidents detractors. In fact, they are not serious at all. They represent a political tactic that seeks to undermine rather than improve. And for that, they should be ashamed of themselves.

UPDATE

I’d like to publicly thank long time House reader Fritz who sent me the idea for the “Six Sigma” Democrats. One wonders that if Bush were to bring unemployment to “0” whether these critics would complain that government bureaucrats would have nothing to do!

Oh how the mighty have fallen!

At one time, the wire services – Associated Press and United Press International – were media Gods. Their reporters, stringers, and hangers-on were considered the creme de la creme of journalistic excellence. Presidents would defer to them by allowing them to ask the first question at White House press conferences. Newsrooms across the country relied on them to report on breaking news around the world. In a time when major dailies would publish 3 or 4 editions, that breaking news was vital in order to get the jump on the competition.

This is because when the AP and UPI ruled, people who lived in large cities had the option of getting their news from several daily newspapers. And the competition to be first out with breaking news (the fabled “extra” edition hawked by the newsboys) was extremely intense. A 15 minute difference in getting the edition to the streets could mean the gain or loss of 50,000 copies sold. Hence, the wire service boys were prized for their ability to get the story first and to get it right. And the competition between AP and UPI defined an age of journalism where minutes counted and reporters fought like wildcats to get the story “on the wires” first.

This was the newspaper business of the 40’s and 50’s. Editors and publishers relied on AP and UPI to make their newspapers profitable. No more. It wasn’t the advent of television that killed AP and UPI and made them virtually irrelevant. It was the changing technology of news gathering that sounded their death knell. Satellites, cable TV, and finally the internet all conspired to bring the mighty wires services to their knees.

Both AP and UPI survive today but their roles have changed dramatically. While speed is still prized by both, their profitability is dependent on the chains of smaller newspapers who rely on their national and international reporting to fill out the pages of the glorified “shoppers” that pass for local news today. Rather than hire reporters to write these stories, “small” newspapers, who themselves are owned by giant corporations like Paddock Publications and Gannett, use the wire services almost exclusively to fill up the white spaces wedged between ads for local goods and services.

This fall from the mountaintop has been accompanied by a curious phenomenon; a casual approach to facts and a creeping kind of advocacy journalism with a decidedly left wing slant. This is especially true of the Associated Press whose bias and disregard for honest journalism was recently put on display for all to see.

It is clear that the “Katrina Video” story was driven by big media and the lefty blogs. But the original story came to us via the good old AP. The only problem was that the accompanying articles written by the Associated Press were so full of inaccuracies, omissions, and, some would say, outright lies, that the AP was forced to admit (albeit on a Friday night when they hoped few were paying attention) that large portions of their “news” story simply weren’t true. Not only did they mischaracterize what was on the video, they falsified what was said, putting words into people’s mouths that didn’t jibe with what was said on the video. Couple that with the fact that they tried to pass the video off as an “exclusive” – despite most of the newsnets having the video in their own archives – and you have our Cluebat of the Week.

So for Cluelessness that reveals how far a once great and talented news service has fallen, the Associated Press is awarded the coveted Cluebat of the Week.

Why not check out the articles below for some more cluelessness that’ll make you smile. make you cry, and maybe even make you throw your diet vanilla coke at your monitor! Go ahead…you know you want to click it.

“When stupidity is a sufficient explanation, there is no need to have recourse to any other”
(Mitchell Ullman)

Hey Mitch! So that explains coverage of the Iraq war!
(Me)

***********************************************************
Those pesky pachyderms at Elephants in Academia have some interesting thoughts on the Rumsfeld v FAIR case where the Solomon Amendment allowing military recruiters on campus was upheld.

Pat Curley does a more than admirable job in taking down one of the left’s leading intellectuals, Lewis Lapham, who recently jumped aboard the impeachment bandwagon. Lapham is basing his critique on Rep. John Conyers nutty report that has every conspiracy theory ever dreamed up including, I believe, aliens landing at Roswell, NM.

Josh Cohen takes on Standardized Tests for children and makes some valid points on why they are probably a bad idea in some respects. I personally believe that the entire idea of testing has gotten out of control and that there have to be better ways to judge not only how well a child is doing but how good a job the school is doing in educating them.

Our Carnival pin-up girl Pamela got one of the blog interviews of the year with UN Ambassador John Bolton. Talk about someone who can identify cluelessness…

Holly Aho has the skinny on some real cluelessness at the DU. It seems one of our proud Marines who recently braved the jihadis in Iraq decided to brave the moonbats at the Democratic Underground in order to answer questions.

DL at Bacon Bits wonders “Can we Impeach an Ex-President?” Perhaps more to the point would be to ask if it’s still illegal to tar and feather Jimmy Carter and run him out of town on a rail.

NOTR at the blog ROFASIX has a good fisking of Barbara Streisand’s criticism of the anti-intellectualism in the Bush Administration. Now if the ditsy diva could ever learn to spell, as well as graduate from an accredited college, she may some points to make.

XYBA wonders about Catholics who don’t support the Vatican. Some excellent points made about an age old argument.

Kender sends along a piece by Heidi at Euphoric Reality who points us to an interview on al Jazeera with a secular Muslim who absolutely skewers the jihadis and non-violent moderate Muslims who don’t criticize them. The cluelessness of the reporter is breathtaking in its stupidity.

The scatological Scotsman himself has graced the Carnival yet again with his words of wisdom about religion. It seems that Kender has discovered a long lost “saint” from, of all places, France. Um…read the whole thing and be amused.

AJ Strata has the results from a recent poll that shows American are fed up with Washington – not just the government but everyone who makes a living writing, talking, and otherwise bloviating about politics.

Doug at Below the Beltway has the quote of the day. In taking apart columnist Eugene Robinson who complains that Washington, D.C. is out of touch with the “real America,” the cluebat wants us instead to look to Hollywood for what is really going on; “Ah yes, let’s move from Washington, D.C. to the capitol of Reality Nation——- Hollywood, California.” Ah, yes indeed.

Tom Bowler has the jaw-dropper of the day. A Kos diarist is celebrating “victory” in Iraq. Considering the source, it isn’t the kind of victory that you and I would think worth celebrating. Read it – but take your blood pressure meds first.

Mensa Barbie (irresistible combination, eh guys?) has some more idiocy from al Jazeera on how Saddam wasn’t really that bad. Yep. You heard me.

Fausta (whose hair looks lovely today) has the incredible story of the cluelessness of large corporations who are playing footsie with “The Laughing Goat” Hugo Chavez as the dictator tries out his socialist policies with the help of the crony capitalists.

Adam tries to calm the hysteria on the left who have their panties in a twist over legislation in Missouri that on its face appears to make Christianity the “official religion” of the state. A closer look reveals a different story.

On the lookout for good new blogs? Try One Man Bandwidth written by a professor in China. This post is about a person not being “dead enough” to harvest their organs.

A Different River brings us up to date on the global warming debate and how it is absolutely impossible – according to its adherents – that the theory could be incorrect. An eye opener.

Cao has a jaw dropper about the cluelessness of journalists who continue to deny Jack Idema’s claim of US government sanction for his actions.

Our favorite hippie chick Peace Moonbeam is fighting the good fight against hunting this week. Her solution; arm the animals! Anyone who has seen Crocodile Dundee with the gun toting kangaroos will get a laugh out of this one.

Those gentle homeschoolers at The Common Room are back in the Carnival! This time, the Deputy Headmistress picks up the paddle and spanks a clueless law professor who thinks it impossible for women to be “fulfilled” while staying home and taking care of children.

Jack Cluth has a laugh out loud piece on people who see religious icons in everything from grilled cheese sandwiches to a piece of sheet metal. Jack thinks it looks more like Val Kilmer.

Finally, here’s my piece on Cindy Sheehan and the hagiographic treatment given her by the media.

Being remiss in my responsibilities once again in posting the winners from our Watchers Council vote, I take the liberty now to rectify that mistake forthwith.

For the week of February 24, the winner in the Council category was yours truly for my heartfelt peaon to Hubert Humphrey “The Happy Warrior is weeping in his Grave.” Finishing second was Done with Mirrors “Team of Rivals.”

In the non Council category, the winner was “How Does the Modern World Look When You Have Done Nothing To Help Create It, and Innovation Is a Threat To Cherished Beliefs?” by Dinocrat.

For the week ending March 3, the winner in the Council category was Done with Mirrors for “Our George.” The runner up spot was held down by New Sisyphus for “The Breach.”

In the Non-Council category, first place went to Micheal Totten’s “The Beginning of the Universe.”

If you’d like to participate in the weekly Watcher’s Council vote, go here and follow instructions.

HENDERSON: Damnit Jack! I’m not trying to protect myself, I’m trying to protect the country.

HENDERSON: You don’t want to know what I know. You get me to talk and you’ll just be opening Pandora’s Box.

Like a finely woven tapestry, the plot threads on 24 are usually beautifully conceived and intricately sewn, a combination of subtle characterization and innocuous circumstance that has the writers trying to pull the wool over our eyes while at the same time placing nagging questions in the back of our minds that more often than not bear fruit later on in the show.

Sometimes, these questions go unanswered which can be enormously unsatisfying and forces us to curse the writers when they paint themselves into a corner and are forced to dead end the thread. But then there are times when the threads merge into a seamless whole and a large chunk of the plot is revealed.

Such was the case last night when Henderson warned Jack about opening Pandora’s Box by trying to elicit the truth of his involvement in the plot followed almost immediately by the introduction of Vice President Hal Gardener whose plan for preemptive martial law – unsanctioned by Congress and with no time limit – along with the past hints of Department of Defense perfidy could mean that the ultimate goal which had terrorists and American government officials working together may be an attempt to establish a military dictatorship in the United States.

This theme is nothing new in Hollywood. Ever since the excellent film Seven Days in May (based on the equally excellent novel by Fletcher Knebel & Charles W. Bailey II) was released in 1964, the takeover of the government by right wing militaristic fanatics has been a staple of Hollywood political pot boilers. Apparently, left wingers are much too warm and fuzzy (not to mention addle-brained and angst-ridden) to try anything like attempting to establish a dictatorship in our republic. Besides, a left-wing coup would be too boring to make into a film. First, it would take too long for them to explain why they’re doing it. Secondly, watching so many self-righteous, flatulent, bloviators would cause the audience to leave 15 minutes into the showing of the film.

Since a left-wing plot is out, that leaves the military and the shadowy “military-industrial complex.” While there actually is an MIC, it may surprise you to know there are just as many liberal Democrats in it as there are conservative Republicans. The people who make up the dozens of Committees and Boards that propose policy alternatives, recommend weapons systems, intelligence reforms, budget priorities, and a whole host of responsibilities at the Departments of State and Defense also sit on the Boards of Directors of major defense contractors as well as fill out the ranks of Presidential appointees – both Democrat and Republican – in the national security establishment.

They are a small group of mostly white men who are extremely influential in formulating our defense and foreign policy. But coup plotters? Please give me a break.

Of course, this doesn’t stop Hollywood from fantasizing and making their nightmares come to life. And in the case of 24, we also have current left wing fantasies about the Bush Administration and their attempt to destroy America. How the Bushies are going to do this requires your complete suspension of reality as well as a healthy dose of conspiracy nuttiness. But if a United States Congressman – Cynthia McKinney – can accuse the President of knowing in advance about the attacks on 9/11, anything is possible I suppose.

So if I were a conservative, I wouldn’t be too upset by all of this. After all, it’s just a TV show, isn’t it?

NOTE: This week, we start a new category in our updates. From here on out, every time Jack or CTU violates the Constitutional rights of someone, we will make a note of it. This was suggested to me by a an emailer who thought it might be educational to count up the number of times Jack threw the Constitution out the window to get the job done.

At least, it should start some debate in the comments section, no?

SUMMARY

Bill saunters down to the CTU clinic to see how Tony is doing. Being warned by the doctor not to reveal to Tony that his beloved Michelle is dead, Bill informs him that Palmer is dead and that Jack was set up to take the fall. Tony looks pretty good for having a car bomb go off 5 feet away from where he was cradling Michelle’s body – just a small facial bandage to hide some second degree burns on one side. I’m sure Tony was pleased when he realized he still had all his hair and that his Brooks Brothers button-down shirt was still intact despite the proximity of the explosion.

At the site of the assassination attempt, Nutzo Martha and the Suburovs are wandering around in the open, dazed but none the worse for wear. Maybe the Secret Service was using the three as bait to see if there were any more terrorists in the area who wanted to kill them. Martha mumbles to Aaron that Jellyfish knew about the attack and didn’t stop the motorcade. Since everyone thinks she’s crazy, Aaron looks at her like…well, like she’s crazy.

As we predicted, the boyfriend of Jenny, the Fat Hobbit’s sister, has called the terrorists and told them he has Lin’s CTU key card. We assume he found the number in the yellow pages under “Terrorists, Foreign and Domestic.” The Hobbit places a call to Jenny asking for the card back which she is more than willing to do until she learns that the boyfriend is going to get $20,000 for the little piece of plastic.

At the ranch, President Jellyfish has one of his frequent bouts of self recrimination that serves the purpose of making us hate him even more as well as causing us to come close to vomiting, so much the weasel that he is. Even Novik is getting sick of having to hold this guy’s hand. Maybe the terrorists can find a way to drop a little nerve gas in the President’s coffee or something.

After his lucky escape from certain death, Jack is on Buckaroo Banzai’s trail thanks to Chloe waving her magic geek wand and coming up with an address she hacked from Henderson’s office PC. As Jack heads over the turncoat’s house, Curtis finds some schematics on one of the dead would-be assassins that point to another attack within the hour. A computer search is initiated trying to match the plans to buildings in Los Angeles.

Tony, realizing that people are tip-toeing around the subject of Michelle’s condition, drinks from the grotto at Lourdes and, less than 8 hours after having a bomb go off on top of him and being on the critical list, makes a miraculous recovery and walks over to a computer to google up Michelle’s name on the CTU website. Finding out she is dead, Tony returns to bed but we’ve seen enough to know that he will be on his feet shortly and feeling well enough to help catch the terrorists. Maybe they’ll strap him to a board and stand him up in the conference room.

Logan lies through his teeth to the Russian President about what he knew about the nerve gas and when he knew it. President Suburov, only partially convinced that Jellyfish is innocent, agrees under the terms of the treaty to allow CTU access to Russian intel where the guys discover that Vlad Bierko is the name of the terrorist who is giving them so much trouble today. This thread bears watching as it would be very bad if Suburov discovered that Jellyfish is lying.

Back at CTU, Edgar gets a match on the schematics taken from the dead terrorist. It’s a hospital and while they begin an evacuation, Curtis races over with a TAC team. The hospital security chief assures Curtis he has everything covered except he forgets to mention that the terrorists have much better schematics of the hospital than he does – Bierko finds an “unguarded” secret entrance to the sub-basement. The terrorist is discovered but not before he places the cannister of nerve gas next to the ventilation system. Curtis corners him and takes him out while the hazmat crew races against time to defuse the cannister.

Meanwhile, Jack has reached Buckaroo’s house where his loyal wife, Mrs. Banzai is surprised to see Jack alive. Pulling a gun on the housewife, Jack tries to make the disbelieving Miriam believe that her husband is not only a rotten lover but a lying traitor as well. With Chloe’s help, he finds a “shadow hard drive” on Henderson’s computer that contains what appears to be telephone numbers used by the terrorists to communicate. Refusing to give him the password, Jack appears to be torn about the prospect of torturing the woman to get the information. Deciding against it for the moment, Miriam is placed in quite an awkward position when her husband comes home only to have Jack waylay him and start the interrogation.

Buckaroo won’t talk which gives Jack the opportunity to partake in a little target practice with Mrs. Banzai’s thigh. Perfect shot, dead center where he was aiming. Jack informs Buckaroo that the next round will put his former best friend’s wife in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. Of course, Jack won’t do that even when Henderson refuses to cooperate. Jack asks CTU to set up the holding room and rig it for “medical interrogation.”

At the hospital, the CTU klutzes finally think of searching the dead terrorist after about five minutes and find the timer for the cannister on him. Realizing that THERE”S NO TIME, Curtis races to the containment truck and just in time deposits the load of nerve gas in the bin while the cannister goes off harmlessly.

And then the moment that many of us have been waiting for: Kim shows up at CTU.

All grown up (sleeping with your therapist is a sure sign of maturity). Kimmy has had a rough journey these last two years what with playing a porn star in The Girl Next Door and other forgettable roles. Now she’s back where she belongs. The only thing missing is the cougar.

Audrey’s telling the young woman that her father is still alive taxes Ms. Cuthbert’s acting abilities to the limit, the news eliciting both facial expressions she is able to make. Unfortunately, she does not bare her midriff in this scene which is a pity since her navel is more interesting to watch than her acting.

No matter. We’ll get to see plenty of Kimmy later I’m sure – both her bare midriff and her lack of emotional depth as an actress.

The other shoe of the conspiracy drops as Vice President Strangelove (Hal Gardener) enters the picture. Strangelove wants to declare martial law for the greater LA area despite the fact that no one knows anything about the nerve gas threat. The scene was interesting first because it showed the latent dictatorial tendencies in President Jellyfish and second, who’d ever think that Mike Novik was a civil libertarian?

In the Field Ops room at CTU, Jack and Kim come face to face.

JACK: The most painful thing I’ve ever been through was having to walk away from you. Even more painful than losing your mother. But it was the only way to make sure you’d be safe.

KIM: I buried you…

JACK: I know…

KIM: You know, there’s something wrong with people like you. You can’t hold on to anything. Chase couldn’t either. He tried for a while then he was gone just like you. And now you’re back. And I’m supposed to…(sniff, sniff). I’m happy you’re alive. I am. But I can’t give you what you want right now.

Kimmy has a lot of experience saying that last line. She tells the director that every day.

Jenny’s boyfriend meanwhile, discovers what happens when you negotiate with terrorists as he and the Fat Hobbit’s sister are killed. After expertly altering the key card, the terrorist calmly walks into CTU where the dumbest guards in Christendom man the outer doors.

In a case of life imitating art, recent revelations about security holes at the Homeland Security building are nothing compared to the nincompoops who are stationed to guard to CTU building. First, they don’t search the magic briefcase (which soon will double in size to accommodate the nerve gas cannister). Second, they don’t recognize the boss? Absolutely no Christmas bonuses for these idiots.

In a move that will prove interesting later, Bill pays another visit to Tony and informs him that Henderson is their only lead at this point. Since Tony and Buckaroo are moved into the same room when the nerve gas attack occurs, look for some interesting fireworks before that situation resolves itself.

Dr. Feelgood primes Henderson for interrogation but he refuses to talk. Jack has Richard administer the truth serum which it is assumed will either kill him or make him talk. As the serum begins to course its way through his body, every siren, horn and klaxon in the place goes off at once as the Fat Hobbit finally tells Bill about the missing key card after learning of his sister’s execution style death. Edgar, checking to see where Kerri is, finds her body in the basement which will prove to be his undoing.

The terrorist tries to make his escape. He kills a guard and takes his radio. Realizing this, Jack and Bill trick the terrorist into thinking the search is moving away from him. Confronting the cornered terrorist, Jack finally gets to use his gun on a bad guy but being out of practice, it takes him two shots to bring him down. When Jack discovers the schematics to CTU’s ventilation system on the terrorist, the gang realizes they better get the heck out of there quick. Too late! The cannister starts spewing, people start dying, and Chloe (who as we all know does not work well under pressure) finally figures out that the safest place to be for all is the conference room.

With colleagues collapsing and dying all around them, the little group that includes Bill, Jack, Chloe, Kimmy and her therapist, and Audrey seal themselves into the conference room. As they all watch in horror, Edgar staggers up from the basement and, with Chloe looking on, dies in front of all of us.

“Farewell and adieu, you sweet Spanish ladies…”

BODY COUNT

Curtis gets the hospital terrorist. Jenny and Boyfriend are executed. Kerri is knifed in the back. One CTU guard is retired. Jack is back in the kill column. Plus, I counted 12 CTU personnel going down including Edgar. That number may change (probably upward) if we get something more definitive.

JACK: 13

SHOW: 79

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATED

1. Chloe hacks Henderson’s PC without a warrant.

2. Henderson was not read his rights.

3. He is being tortured (are you kidding?)

4. Jack broke in to the Henderson home illegally.

5. He searches the home without a warrant.

6. He shoots Miriam to get Henderson to talk.

If there are any more, I’d like to see them in the comments.