Right Wing Nut House

My post yesterday taking lefty bloggers to task for their gloating over AP confirming the existence of Jamil Hussein generated some comments that were, to put it mildly, revealing.

Ed, a frequent commenter on this site, spoke for those who see any attempt to discredit AP by questioning either the existence of their sources or the veracity of their information as disingenuousness by the right:

You really didn’t read the ‘Jamilgate’ blogs if you interpreted the attacks on the AP as anything other than just another attempt to intimidate the liberal MSM because they were reporting things that partisans didn’t want to hear. It wasn’t that there were inaccuracies, it was that inaccuracies could be used to discredit the AP’s overall coverage of the war. And yes, that is meant to insinuate that things would be different if people knew the “real” story.

So yes, a little crow-eating might be in order.

First, the idea that any blogger or group of bloggers could “influence coverage” by AP or any other major news outlet to the extent that they become war boosters is absurd. But if Ed means that we wish to influence the editorial coverage so that “fake but accurate” is not used as a matter of course in reporting on the war, he is absolutely correct.

In fact, this seems to be the de facto position of many commenters from that post; that it really doesn’t matter if 6 Sunnis were burned alive or not. It doesn’t matter if 4 mosques were destroyed or not. It doesn’t matter if any violent incident Jamil Hussein has been a confirming source for over the last 10 months actually occurred or not. The fact that Iraq is in chaos is what is important and that an inaccuracy here or a piece of enemy propaganda there is not going to change that overarching fact one bit.

Challenge them on that point and, like Ed, they change the subject to pre-war intel - as if there was even the slightest comparison between “news” in the form of intelligence analysis that was never meant to see the light of day (the information was leaked in violation of the law) and stories written for publication by AP or any other news organization.

And lest you think that I’m misstating or exaggerating the point about “fake but accurate,” here’s a follow up comment by Ed (an intelligent guy who contributes to reasoned debate on this site):

The major news from Iraq is and has been for a long time:

What other news are we missing, exactly? Perhaps you think our “rebuilding efforts” are more important news that the three points above that is what is usually referred to as the missing news from Iraq)?

The news that we’re “missing” from Iraq is of the factual variety - a point highlighted not only by the burning Sunni story but by many other stories commented on by this site and others.

As an example, there was the reporting on the Haditha massacre. Leaving aside the army investigation for a moment, the news stories that were written about that incident were wildly different and varied enormously. Here’s what I wrote when the story of the massacre first came to light:

While it is not unusual for small details to be lost or found in different translations, these discrepancies are huge, up to and including one 12 year old girl (or 13 or 15 depending on which report you are reading) being in different houses, being shielded from the wrath of the Americans by 3 different family members, and telling completely different and ever more bloodcurdling details of how the Marines killed her family.

Then there is the weird case of Aws Fahmi. In an AP report, he is reported to have been a victim of the massacre, left to bleed in the street after being shot by the Americans. But the Washington Post story in which several eyewitnesses are interviewed, features Mr. Fahmi’s testimony prominently and in which the “victim” has morphed into an eyewitness, viewing the events from his house with no mention of his being shot and left to bleed to death in the street.

I want to be extremely careful here because there may be other, more mundane explanations for the discrepancies in eyewitness accounts than what appears on the surface to be a coordinated disinformation campaign by the insurgents that has taken in reporters for AP, Reuters, and Time Magazine to name a few.

I feel constrained again to point out that there is no more difficult job than reporting from a war zone. Whom to believe? Whom to trust? Individual reporters, guided only by their personal code of ethics and common sense, have to sort out the facts from the confusion, the terror, the grief, and the hate that contributes to discrepancies in eyewitness reports in a battle zone.

But the Jamil Hussein story is different. Here is someone who, although not an authorized spokesman for the Iraqi government, has been used as a sole source on dozens of stories involving the worst of the war’s violence; sectarian massacres, blood curdling murders, and police or army collusion in the violence. And questioning the judgement of the stable of AP reporters in Iraq who have used Hussein as a sole source these many months - despite his distance from most of the incidents among other problems - would seem to me to be a reasonable and responsible way to hold AP to standards they themselves have set.

As for Hussein being in danger as a result of bloggers trying to find him, I find this incredible. AP didn’t use him as an anonymous source or try to hide his identity. They gave his name and location in any number of stories. Dan Riehl:

For Carroll’s assertion that Hussein is in danger one must assume that there is an element of the Iraqi government that would harm him for having been a primary source for the story. The other initial source, Imad al-Hashimi, retracted his statements after a visit from the Iraqi Defense Ministry.

Without arguing that first point, one need only answer two simple questions to reach the conclusion that the blog coverage of this incident would be more to Hussein’s benefit, than harm. Assuming he was in danger for being an AP named source, which is more likely: that these assumed to be dangerous elements of the Iraqi government would quietly take out an individual after the drive by media was long gone and onto another story? or that they would be reluctant to do so because blogger coverage has kept the issue and Jamil Hussein’s name in the news?

Some bloggers are still questioning whether or not Hussein exists, that until AP produces the police captain in the flesh, there will be a question. I am satisfied Hussein is a real person and works as a police captain in Baghdad. What I am not satisfied with is whether the information he has been feeding AP is factual or not. And until AP deals forthrightly with questions about the accuracy of Hussein and other sources, all the gloating in the world won’t change the fact that AP has a credibility problem.

Her name is Ashley. She’s 9 years old and weighs only 90 pounds. Her parents, hoping to keep their severely disabled “pillow angel” tiny so that it is easier to care for her, elected to have radical surgery performed that will stunt Ashley’s growth and prevent her from reaching a normal puberty:

In a case fraught with ethical questions, the parents of a severely mentally and physically disabled child have stunted her growth to keep their little “pillow angel” a manageable and more portable size.

The bedridden 9-year-old girl had her uterus and breast tissue removed at a Seattle hospital and received large doses of hormones to halt her growth. She is now 4-foot-5; her parents say she would otherwise probably reach a normal 5-foot-6.

The case has captured attention nationwide and abroad via the Internet, with some decrying the parents’ actions as perverse and akin to eugenics. Some ethicists question the parents’ claim that the drastic treatment will benefit their daughter and allow them to continue caring for her at home.

University of Pennsylvania ethicist Art Caplan said the case is troubling and reflects “slippery slope” thinking among parents who believe “the way to deal with my kid with permanent behavioral problems is to put them into permanent childhood.”

Not all doctors and ethicists agree:

Dr. Douglas Diekema, an ethicist at Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle, where Ashley was treated, said he met with the parents and became convinced they were motivated by love and the girl’s best interests.

Diekema said he was mainly concerned with making sure the little girl would actually benefit and not suffer any harm from the treatment. She did not, and is doing well, he said.

“The more her parents can be touching her and caring for her … and involving her in family activities, the better for her,” he said. “The parents’ argument was, `If she’s smaller and lighter, we will be able to do that for a longer period of time.”‘

Reading the parent’s blog, I am also convinced they did this out of love. And one look at the pictures on their site will convince anyone that the child is happy, healthy, well nourished, and well cared for.

Still, the parent’s desire to “manage” Ashley’s care via surgery raises troubling ethical questions:

Right or wrong, the couple’s decision highlights a dilemma thousands of parents face in struggling to care for severely disabled children as they grow up.

“This particular treatment, even if it’s OK in this situation, and I think it probably is, is not a widespread solution and ignores the large social issues about caring for people with disabilities,” Dr. Joel Frader, a medical ethicist at Chicago’s Children’s Memorial Hospital, said Thursday. “As a society, we do a pretty rotten job of helping caregivers provide what’s necessary for these patients…”

An editorial in the medical journal called “the Ashley treatment” ill-advised and questioned whether it will even work. But her parents say it has succeeded so far.

No one should sit in judgement on the parents of this little one unless you’ve walked a mile in their shoes. Dr. Frader makes an excellent point about the gap between home care and institutionalizing someone like Ashley. In most cases, parents cannot handle the burden and must give their child over to the state to be cared for (private institutions are astronomically expensive and very few insurance plans today cover them). And while many insurance plans will partially cover bringing in an outside caregiver, that too can end up being more than almost anyone can afford over the life of someone like Ashley.

The parent’s solution solution sounds drastic - perhaps even a little bizarre - but the important thing is that the surgery has allowed them to keep their daughter at home. They explain it this way:

“Ashley’s smaller and lighter size makes it more possible to include her in the typical family life and activities that provide her with needed comfort, closeness, security and love: meal time, car trips, touch, snuggles, etc.,” her parents wrote.

Also, Ashley’s parents say keeping her small will reduce the risk of bedsores and other conditions that can afflict bedridden patients. In addition, they say preventing her from going through puberty means she won’t experience the discomfort of periods or grow breasts that might develop breast cancer, which runs in the family.

The parents are obviously sincere but their explanation dances around the ethical dilemma that has some doctors and ethicists worried; that the surgery was not done necessarily for Ashley’s benefit but rather to ease the burden of the parents as well.

Ethical questions like this will only become more commonplace as new treatments and procedures are developed that will challenge the way we think about the severely disabled and the care they require and deserve. Would we feel the same way and view the parents in the same light if say, they had asked a doctor to amputate Ashley’s legs or perform some other kind of grotesque procedure that would have accomplished a similar purpose? Of course, it is doubtful any reputable doctor would have performed such a surgery but it does raise the haunting question of how far we are willing to go in accommodating parents in caring for a severely disabled child.

We live in an age where the miraculous in medicine is commonplace. We are rapidly approaching a time when even more wondrous advances in medical knowledge and technology will almost seem magical. And along with the magic will come the question that dogs ethicists with every major medical advancement: Just because we can do it, should it be done?

In literature, Mary Shelley illustrated the question brilliantly with Dr. Frankenstein’s creation, a warning that playing God has unforeseen consequences but also the very salient notion that with scientific advancement comes a responsibility to examine the underlying ethical considerations that attend all great discoveries. As we rush pell mell into the future, I feel at times that we are in danger of leaving behind a bit of our humanity in order to be first, or to be more innovative, or simply to demonstrate our capacity to amaze ourselves. And as our knowledge grows, so will the difficulty in resolving the ethical questions that inevitably arise from that knowledge.

There will be more disagreement among ethicists in the future as the line between what is right and what is possible grows ever more difficult to resolve. Let’s hope that our ability to decide such questions never fails to outstrip our capacity to glimpse the right course of action consistent with our values and our humanity.

UPDATE

If you want some intelligent analysis on how the surgery has affected Ashley and to get the perspective of a medical professional who deals daily with the severely disabled, you can do no better than visit my blog bud Raven’s site And Rightly So.

. She has been following the story for a while and has much more background on the case.

I can’t really get too upset about the rank triumphalism being exhibited by our lefty friends over the official opening of the 110th Congress. After all, if the shoe were on the other foot, I would be writing something similar (albeit much better written and a lot funnier).

But having said that, in perusing lefty blogs this morning, there is a distinct whiff of grapeshot in the air - an undercurrent of self righteous smugness that goes beyond triumphalism, beyond gloating, even beyond the left’s usual exaggerated self image of saving the country from Republican tyranny.

What is on display is not the understandable human desire for revenge born out of more than a decade of slights and insults at the hands of their enemies but rather the cold, calculated hunger for a reckoning, a settling of accounts. It isn’t enough to put Republicans in their place. It isn’t enough to humiliate them, to poke fun at them, to kick them in the head while they’re lying on the ground. It is time to rack the bastards, to stretch their necks and watch them dangle and twist slowly, slowly in the wind.

I am referring, of course, to the braying and crowing emanating from the left in response to the news that Jamil Hussein has probably been found - and right where he was supposed to be:

Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, who had previously denied there was any such police employee as Capt. Jamil Hussein, said in an interview that Hussein is an officer assigned to the Khadra police station, as had been reported by The Associated Press.

The captain, whose full name is Jamil Gholaiem Hussein, was one of the sources for an AP story in late November about the burning and shooting of six people during a sectarian attack at a Sunni mosque.

The U.S. military and the Iraqi Interior Ministry raised the doubts about Hussein in questioning the veracity of the AP’s initial reporting on the incident, and the Iraqi ministry suggested that many news organization were giving a distorted, exaggerated picture of the conflict in Iraq. Some Internet bloggers spread and amplified these doubts, accusing the AP of having made up Hussein’s identity in order to disseminate false news about the war.

My two posts on the AP are here and here. I was wrong about Michelle Malkin debunking the possible problem with transliterating Arab names into English for as Allah posited at the time and points out here, that appears to have been the reason for the inability of the Iraqi Information Ministry and CENTCOM to track Hussein down.

It does little good to point out that the real story is not whether Hussein exists but rather whether the information he was a confirming source for in 61 stories is true or false. That’s because the left doesn’t seem interested in whether or not the news from Iraq is real or imagined. “Fake but accurate” is fine with them. And no, even if every one of the Hussein sourced stories was a lie, that wouldn’t change the grim reality that Iraq is a bloody, violent mess. For the left to make that charge is ridiculous. There aren’t more than a handful of right wing blogs who have been stupid enough to make that claim. But for liberals to willfully self delude themselves into thinking that there isn’t a problem with the AP or any other news outlet who knowingly or unknowingly prints the propaganda of the enemy is incredible.

And the fact of the matter is that the story that set this hunt for Capt. Hussein in motion - that six Sunnis were burned alive and that 4 mosques were destroyed by rampaging Shias - is still open to question. The New York Times was unable to confirm the story and CENTCOM has stated that patrols in the area were unable to confirm the destruction of any mosques much less 4 of them.

But our unquestioning lefty friends - who apparently don’t care if the news is true or false just as long as its bad for Bush and America - have jumped on the Hussein story and, as only leftist twits can do, ignored the implications of the real story and instead directed their venom at bloggers who questioned Hussein’s existence:

And, to their great credit, AP — which continues to aggressively defend its imprisoned-without- charges Iraqi photojournalist Bilal Hussein (whom right-wing bloggers repeatedly accused of being a Terrorist) — fought back against these accusations. And now the right-wing blogosphere stands revealed as what they are — a pack of gossip-mongering hysterics who routinely attack any press reports that reflect poorly on their Leader or his policies, with rank innuendo, Internet gossip, base speculation, and wholesale error as their most frequent tools of the trade. The operate in packs, constantly repeating each other’s innuendo and expanding on it incrementally, and they then cite to each other endlessly in one self-feeding, self-affirming orgy of links, as though that constitutes proof.

And they are wrong over and over and over — and not just in error, but embarrassingly so, because so frequently their claims are transparently, laughably absurd, and they spew the most righteous accusations without any sort of evidence at all. The New Republic has its Stephen Glass and The New York Times has its Jayson Blair. But those are one-off incidents. The right-wing blogosphere is driven by Jayson Blairs. They are exposed as frauds and gossip-mongerers on an almost weekly basis. The only thing that can compete with the consistency of their errors is the viciousness of their accusations and their pompous self-regard as “citizen journalists.”

Yes, I know it’s Greenwald and that his over the top, laughable exaggerations of the vast majority of righty blogs are usually fodder for snarky commentary. But notice the hint of hysteria in his attack. You really should read the whole post because the feeling of smug superiority drips from almost every word, not to mention the paranoia, the tiresome falsehoods, and the outright lies that only our Lambchop can feed to his ravenous, sycophantic readers who hang on every out of control word as if from Gaia herself.

And then there’s this:

Nothing yet from TIDOS Yankee, though I would point out that today is the anniversary of the National Day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer, declared by President James Buchanan in 1861. National “Days of Humiliation” were a regular feature of Anglo-American political life from 1648 until the early 20th century; although such days are still declared every now and again, the political language has shifted somewhat to the use of the word “humility” rather than “humiliation.” Nevertheless, for Bob Owens, Michelle Malkin, the guy from Flopping Aces — and every right-wing soldier in the Army of Davids who linked to these wankers over the past month — today must certainly a day of humiliation in the traditional as well as the more contemporary senses.

One wonders if admitting error is enough for these folks. Obviously not. Nothing less than self flagellation and a knee walk up the cathedral steps while wearing sackcloth and choking on ashes will do.

And for all the ink and snark and failed attempts at humor, there is still the elephant sitting in the settee; how good a job is the media doing reporting from Iraq?

To not ask the question shows an incuriousness bordering on somnolence. I will take a back seat to no one in expressing my admiration for those reporters who have braved the wilds of Baghdad and done a thankless job while risking life and limb to ply their craft (Jill Carroll comes to mind). And for those reporters who, by necessity, rely on local Iraqi stringers for news and background, I sympathize with their plight. Confirming information in that bloody nightmare of a country must be an extraordinarily difficult undertaking.

But where is it written that reporters are infallible - even if they have the best of intentions? Are we to simply accept what we read and hear about what’s going on in Iraq from some in the media when others (not associated with the government or Administration) are telling a different story or, as in the case of the AP, the information can’t be confirmed?

It would seem to me to be the height of irresponsibility as a citizen not to question the sensationalism, the myopic obsession with body counts, and the almost total lack of context that accompanies every story out of Iraq. It is beyond belief that this is the best our journalists can do even under the trying circumstances in which they are forced to work - especially when there are stories coming from people like Bill Ardolino, Bill Roggio, and other embeds that, while still giving a horrific picture of what’s going on, also seem to be able to give a context to their stories that is missing from almost all the reporting we see and hear from Iraq.

I don’t think any righty blogger is looking for miracles when it comes to getting news from Iraq. Despite what many lefties are saying, no one that I’ve read on the right thinks that if only the “real” story of what’s going on could be “revealed,” the American people would do a 180 degree turn and support the war. But is it too much to ask that what is disseminated to the American people is a more complete and accurate picture of what is going on when we have 140,000 of our sons and daughters in harms way?

Apparently for the left, that is too much to ask.

The votes are in from this week’s Watchers Council and the winner in the Council category is Done with Mirrors for “Follow Your Surges.” Finishing second was “The Coming of Neo-Multilateralism” by American Future.

Coming out on top in the non Council category was “From Khomeini to Ahmadinejad” by Matthias Küntzel.

As we bid a fond farewell to Dymphna at Gates of Vienna, we welcome the newest member of the Council Francis W. Porretto of the excellent site Eternity Road. Good luck and welcome aboard!

If you’d like to participate in the weekly Watchers Vote, go here and follow instructions.

Pajamas Media is reporting that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is dead:

A source close to Pajamas Media has learned that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has apparently succumbed to the cancer that hospitalized him last month, as exclusively reported by Pajamas Media, at age 67. He has been Iran’s most powerful figure since replacing Ayatollah Khomeini in the role of Supreme Leader in 1989.

The jostling for power will now begin openly. As Michael Ledeen has been reporting, the maneuvering that’s been going on behind the scenes since Khamenei’s hospitalization last month has been intense:

As it happens, this is a particularly good moment to go after the mullahs, because they are deeply engaged in a war of all against all within Iran. I wrote in NRO two weeks ago that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had been carted off to the hospital–a major event, of which the Intelligence Community was totally unaware–and his prognosis is very poor. That information has now trickled out, and I found it today in the Italian press and on an Iranian web site. The mullahs are maneuvering for position, and Ahmadi-Nezhad’s ever more frantic rhetoric bespeaks the intensity of the power struggle, which includes former president Rafsanjani, Khamenei’s son, and Ahmadi-Nezhad’s favorite nut ayatollah. We should propose another option to the Iranian people: freedom.

The succession (if, in fact, Khamenei is gone) now rests in the hands of the Assembly of Experts. Fortuitously, the December 15 election was something of a setback for radical clerics who backed the current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, although the winners are far from liberal reformers. Western media has sought to portray last month’s victors as “pragmatists” or, even more laughably, “moderate fundamentalists.” Let me assure you they are died in the wool America haters who will make sure that the new Supreme Leader they elect will continue most of the policies of his predecessor including the drive to build nuclear weapons and feed the violence in Iraq.

Who might that new Supreme Leader be? It will probably not be Ahmadinejad’s spiritual mentor Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi who finished far behind in the voting last month but still garnering enough support to squeak through. To put it clinically, this fellow is a nut case. He is a fanatical isolationist, eschewing all contact with the west. And he considers any non literal interpretation of the Koran heresy. He is known to many Iranians as “Professor Crocodile” because of a notorious cartoon that depicted him weeping false tears over the imprisoning of a reformist journalist. The combination of Yazdi and Ahmadinejad would have been a nightmare for the west to deal with.

What about former President Rafsanjani himself? This too is unlikely since he was just elected to the Assembly last month, although following the career of this guy, you come to realize that anything is possible.

Example: After his term of office for President ended in 1997, he ran for a seat in Parliament in the election of 2000. At that time, the Iranian people showed that they had tired of Rafsanjani’s massive corruption (Forbes Magazine named him one of the richest people in the world at one point) and he failed to get enough votes in the Tehran district to be seated.

Lo and behold, the powerful Guardian Council (who oversee all elections in Iran) ruled numerous ballots as “ruined” or “void” and guess who ended up being the beneficiary? It is unclear to this day whether he simply spread a little money around to get the Council to see its way clear to finding a way to seat him or, more ominously, whether he was able to threaten a sufficient number of Council members in order to get his way.

So it’s probably not wise to count him out of the contest to replace Khamenei despite his status as an Assembly newbie and the fact that one of the criteria for serving as Supreme Leader is to have an impeccable political and social record - something that everyone in the country knows Rafsanjani lacks. Still, his ambition knows no bounds and he is a very powerful, dangerous man.

But it is more likely that the Assembly will choose someone older and more religiously inclined. The best possible candidate from our point of view would be Grand Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri. Perhaps the most respected Islamic scholar in Iran, he was at one time designated as Ayatollah Khomeini’s successor. But Montazeri denounced the Ayatollah publicly for being undemocratic and violating the Iranian Constitution. He also denounced Khamenei which led to his house arrest in 1997. He’s no liberal but he would almost certainly be someone that we could do business with. Alas, despite his standing as a scholar and a huge following among the people, his criticisms of the regime in the past will probably work against him.

If I were a betting man (and I am), I would place money on Ayatollah Mohammad Momen. He’s from the holy city of Qom, is considered a brilliant student of the Koran, and has some political clout in that he served on the Guardian Council. But he is still a longshot, although someone to watch in the future.

Khamenei’s legacy? It would have to be his shepherding the nuclear program to the brink of success. And for that, the world may have cause to curse his name in the coming years.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for Michael Ledeen. He has proven himself one of the most plugged in analysts in the commentariat when it comes to all things having to do with Iran. I would take anything he says about Iran much more seriously than anything I’d hear from Juan Cole who, although a noted scholar and someone whose articles on the historical background of the Middle East are nothing short of fascinating, suffers from a horrible case of Bush Derangement Syndrome which has clouded his analyses and at times, made him virtually unreadable.

That said, Ledeen is trying to take us over a cliff by advocating War against the Iranians.

It’s not that I disagree with his basic premise; that Iran has been at war with the west in general and the United States in particular since 1979. This fact should be self-evident given the number of attacks sponsored by the Iranians against Americans and American interests in the last quarter century. And I also have no disagreement with Ledeen regarding this latest evidence of Iranian aggression; the shocking assistance to both Shia and Sunni terrorists that has no doubt led to many American deaths in Iraq.

They are attacking our interests. They are killing our soldiers. They are threatening much worse. Why then should we not make the attempt to change the regime in Iran to one that would be freer, more peaceful, and less aggressive in its aspirations to dominate the region?

Ledeen believes that the amount of force needed to cause the Iranian regime to collapse is minimal and wouldn’t detract from our efforts in Iraq:

I have little sympathy for those who have avoided the obvious necessity of confronting Iran, however I do understand the concerns of military leaders, such as General Abizaid, who are doing everything in their considerable power to avoid a two-front war. But I do not think we need massive military power to bring down the mullahs, and in any event we now have a three-front war: within Iraq, and with both Iran and Syria. So General Abizaid’s objection is beside the point. We are in a big war, and we cannot fight it by playing defense in Iraq. That is a sucker’s game. And I hope the president realizes this at last, and that he finds himself some generals who also realize it, and finally demands a strategy for victory.

In passing, it follows from this that the entire debate over more or less troops in Iraq, surge or no surge, Baghdad or Anbar Province, all of it begs the central question. As long as Iran and their appendage in Damascus have a free shot at us, all these stratagems are doomed.

Alright. I’ll play. Suppose we apply whatever military power (short of “massive” - whatever that means) and the mullahs still rule? What’s next? We’ve just spent three years learning a valuable lesson (all over again) that American military power has its limits, that despite our troops best efforts and spectacular performance on the battlefield, it doesn’t matter a tinker’s damn if other factors not amendable to military force cannot be controlled or are not addressed.

In the case of Iran, it is answering the question who or what would take over once the government was overthrown? Are we once again going to indulge in the fantasy that a tyrannical government is teetering on the edge and all that is needed to send it crashing into the garbage heap of history is a little push? Ledeen thinks so:

As it happens, this is a particularly good moment to go after the mullahs, because they are deeply engaged in a war of all against all within Iran. I wrote in NRO two weeks ago that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had been carted off to the hospital–a major event, of which the Intelligence Community was totally unaware–and his prognosis is very poor. That information has now trickled out, and I found it today in the Italian press and on an Iranian web site. The mullahs are maneuvering for position, and Ahmadi-Nezhad’s ever more frantic rhetoric bespeaks the intensity of the power struggle, which includes former president Rafsanjani, Khamenei’s son, and Ahmadi-Nezhad’s favorite nut ayatollah. We should propose another option to the Iranian people: freedom.

Freedom is what most Iranians want, and, unlike their neighbors in Iraq, they have considerable experience with self-government. The Iranian Constitution of 1906 is remarkably modern, and Iranian intellectuals have in fact been debating the best form of government for their country for many years. Iranian workers are in open revolt against the regime, along with such minority groups as the Kurds, the Balouchis, the Azeris, and the Ahwazi Arabs. In other words, most of the Iranian people. It is long past time for us to speak clearly to them and support their cause.

I have no doubt that the Iranians want freedom. Just as I am convinced that the people of Iraq want to be free. But Iranian intellectuals, enamored though they are with a 100 year old document that even the Shah honored in the breach, are not going to pick up guns and kill the mullahs. Nor are the 200,000 Revolutionary Guards going to suddenly become rabid democrats and lay down their arms to give democracy a chance. And Ledeen and the rest of the Iran hawks have yet to present any kind of a military option (short of “massive”) that wouldn’t necessarily involve hundreds of thousands of presumably American troops who would have to physically march to Tehran in order to overthrow the government. For Ledeen fails to answer who in Iran would finish the job that we would be starting?

As internally weak as the Iranians may be - and I’m not convinced of that by any means - they have done their job the last 25 years. Anyone who has expressed a desire for anything more than cosmetic reforms in the Islamic paradise has been ruthlessly suppressed. The restive minorities that Ledeen rightly points to as our natural allies are even more brutally oppressed. In short, any real opposition to not only Ahmadinejad but also the Rafsanjanis and Khatamis is small, frightened, disorganized, and incapable of taking advantage of any favorable military situation we may present them with. And it would take years to build up any kind of effective political opposition to the theocrats in Tehran, something one assumes Ledeen and the other Iran hawks would not be willing to wait on.

Ledeen cautions against a two front war but then virtually advocates taking Syria on too. This is madness. We have got to realize that the consequences of starting a war against Iran would not only fail to achieve the goal of overthrowing the mullahs (short of throwing everything we have against Iran’s 800,000 man military) but also lead to unforeseen problems that would only make matters worse in Iraq, in Lebanon, and could lead to a general Middle Eastern war in which hundreds of thousands of people would be killed.

There is another way. It won’t overthrow the mullahs right away nor will it stop their nuclear program - something that an attack as envisioned by Ledeen won’t guarantee anyway. This study done by the Army’s Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) recognizes the danger of Iranian nukes as well as the continued threat of aggression from the Iranian regime. They advocate a much broader approach to the problem:

* Engage in traditional deterrent strategies such as making it clear to Tehran that the use or threatening the use of nuclear weapons has reciprocal disadvantages to the regime.

* Allow the development of nuclear weapons by states threatened by Iran such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

* Employ a regional military strategy against the regime by building credible alliances.

* Work with dissident groups to create an armed, united opposition that could affect regime change.

Unsatisfying to be sure. But perhaps we should ask ourselves if it isn’t better than the alternative to an attack on Iran? Iraq in even greater chaos thanks to a general Shia uprising against our forces. No guarantee the mullahs would be ousted. Almost certainly the prospect of a spate of terrorist attacks carried out against our interests in the Middle East and perhaps even here in the United States. And the horrible prospect of a general war in the Middle East.

To my way of thinking, military action only makes sense if the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages War with Iran - as satisfying and enticing an option though it may be - isn’t even a close call. And advocating such a course of action is like shadowboxing with reality; you’re not dealing with the real problems in Iraq by going to war with Iran.

There may be security issues we can help the Iraqis with by sending another 30,000 troops into Baghdad and Anbar. But the insurgency and sectarian violence would continue with or without Iranian and Syrian assistance. Hence, only an Iraqi political settlement that all parties can sign off on has any chance at all of bringing a modicum of peace to that bloody land. And until the political will exists in Iraqi society for such a general settlement, any war we wage against those who assist the militias and the insurgents will be worse than futile and do more harm to our interests in the region than good.

UPDATE

A commenter points to this blurb on The Corner where Ledeen is saying he does not advocate going to war against Iran:

Rich: No, I don’t want to invade Iran, as I have said for many years. And I don’t follow your logic. I think — and, as recent news stories in the NY Sun and NY Times have made clear, the policymakers in the Bush administration now know—that much of the terror war in Iraq is the result of Iranian activities. I have written here for years that the Iranians were promoting both sides of a series of potential civil wars in Iraq, Sunni/Shiite, Kurd/Turkamen, Arab/non-Arab, etc.

The two policies you list (run away or invade Iran) are only two among many. In Tracinski’s article, he quotes Michael Rubin on behalf of what Tracinski calls “Cold War II.” That is, support democratic revolution in Iran. Again, I’ve been arguing in support of that since before we started Operation Iraqi Freedom. I think it’s the best option, I think it will succeed if it is well done, and I think this is an excellent moment for it, since Khamenei is dying (as I was the first to report; it is now all over the Iranian blogs) and there is an intense internal power struggle at work. You probably noticed that the justice minister was killed in an automobile crash the other day, and it is noteworthy that an amazingly high percentage of important Iranians die in car and air “accidents.”

“Tracinski” is Robert Tracinski who advocates attacking Iran now. On the other hand, Ledeen does not advocate a hands off policy regarding Iran either:

I have also argued for a long time that our troops in Iraq should defend themselves against Iran and Syria. I think we should attack terrorist training camps in both those countries, and I think we should also go after the facilities where the terribly lethal new generation of IEDs is produced and assembled.

As I have said, any military action taken against Iran will cause enormous problems for us in Iraq as well as set off some of the consequences I outline above.

Also, See-Dubya over at Hot Air accuses me of wanting a “political settlement” with Iran. This is incorrect. I linked to the SSI monograph largely because it gave some alternatives for going to war - none of which included negotiating with Iran BTW. Reading what Ledeen had to say on The Corner, I would guess that my thinking is much closer to his - support of democratic elements in Iran (or attempting to unite the opposition) while strengthening our friends and working to develop a coalition in the region to oppose Iranian aggression.

Hardly a “Bakerite” solution.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

What do you get when you throw a stick of dynamite into a room full of nitroglycerin?

Let me rephrase that: What do you get when religion, politics, and powerful symbols of American tradition all intersect to form a combination of controversy and conundrum?

The decision by newly minted Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) to take his oath of office on the Koran rather than the bible has many conservatives up in arms and many of the rest of us scratching our heads. There has been an enormous amount of ink spilled by those who believe that Ellison’s choice of the Koran as a symbol to seal his oath somehow threatens American civilization. Columnist and syndicated radio host Dennis Prager pulled no punches:

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America’s culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

I sincerely hope that Prager was able to take something to cure whatever was ailing him the day he wrote that article. Referring to Ellison’s “culture” (he was born and raised in this country) and the Koran as Ellison’s “favorite book” was evidence of someone either suffering from a severe case of hyperbole or Prager was demonstrating a towering ignorance about the tradition and meaning of oaths.

Prager wasn’t the only one to be caught up in this hysteria over where Ellison’s hand was going to be when he swore to uphold the Constitution. Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode felt it necessary to send an email to hundreds of his constituents warning them that Ellison was just the tip of the iceberg; that unless we followed the Mr. Goode’s advice and drastically curtailed the immigration of Muslims to America, we would end up with more Congressmen who would take the oath using the Koran:

In his letter, which was dated Dec. 5, Mr. Goode said that Americans needed to “wake up” or else there would “likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.”

“I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped,” said Mr. Goode, who vowed to use the Bible when taking his own oath of office.

I am glad that Mr. Goode vowed to use the bible when being sworn in. This despite the fact that no one in this country or on planet earth for that matter ever suggested that he would use anything else. Goode reassured us even more when he published a short column in USA Today where he dutifully informed us that he has a copy of the 10 commandments on the wall of his office (presumably not the original) and that he does not subscribe to any of the tenets of the Koran nor will he display the book in his office. I’m sure this comes as an immense relief to his constituents although what relevance it has to his duties as a Congressman remains something of a mystery. Perhaps Goode believes that populating the country with strawmen is in his job description.

But Goode does his level best to ignore history and generate hysteria when he tries raise the spectre of some kind of Muslim invasion that would not only overwhelm our “resources” but even worse, mean the election of more Muslim Congressmen, probably Democrats. In fact, Goode has very little to worry about. The history of every immigrant group who has come to America has shown that the same fears expressed by Goode about the newcomers undermining our values and culture were used by nativist and anti-immigration forces in the past.

For the Irish, it was questioning how they could be loyal to both Rome and the US government. For the Italians, it was the fear that their birthrate would overwhelm the “real” Americans and we’d wake up one day and everyone would have a last name that ended in a vowel. And don’t forget the mafia while your at it. Mexican immigrants in the past raised many of the same fears plus the added bugaboo of everyone having to learn Spanish in order to get by. I would argue that this has become more of a threat as the push to assimilate more recent Mexican immigrants has been blunted by many of those multiculturalists that Goode and Prager rail against. But Mexicans who have been here for generations turned out (not surprisingly) to be regular Americans who speak English, complain about high taxes, and even vote Republican sometimes.

The question is why we should expect anything less from Muslims than we did from Irish, Italians, or Mexicans? In fact, Muslims who have been here for several generations have adapted very nicely, thank you. Like all other immigrants in our history, they learn English, adapt American values, work hard, and are loyal, patriotic citizens. And like other immigrant groups, they have those who find it hard to fit in and adapt. There are enclaves of Muslims that wish to remain separate. And the lure of radical Islamism is certainly a reality that we must deal with. But are we to deny entry into this country for an entire religious sect because of the violent proclivities of the few? This has never been the American way and despite the fact that we are at war with Islamic extremists, we shouldn’t change now.

I’m sure Ellison is enjoying all the attention. It is distracting people from examining his hyper-liberal record as well as some curious connections the new Congressman has with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). For a stunning review of these connections as well as a close look at some of his jaw dropping positions on the issues, the boys at Powerline covered Ellison’s campaign so well that the local paper, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune didn’t even bother. Or perhaps what the Powerline crew uncovered would have been absolutely devastating to his candidacy which is why the liberal “Strib” never wrote a word about Ellison’s radicalism.

Be that as it may, as a political junkie I can always appreciate a good political maneuver. And Ellison has come up with a beaut. He will take the oath on a Koran owned by none other than the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson:

“He wanted to use a Koran that was special,” said Mark Dimunation, chief of the rare book and special collections division at the Library of Congress, who was contacted by the Minnesota Dem early in December. Dimunation, who grew up in Ellison’s 5th District, was happy to help.

Jefferson’s copy is an English translation by George Sale published in the 1750s; it survived the 1851 fire that destroyed most of Jefferson’s collection and has his customary initialing on the pages. This isn’t the first historic book used for swearing-in ceremonies — the Library has allowed VIPs to use rare Bibles for inaugurations and other special occasions.

Pretty shrewd. And I’ll bet Mr. Goode and perhaps even Dennis Prager are having apoplexy over Ellison’s political master stroke.

All of this ignores two salient facts. The first being that the oath taken using the bible (or the Koran or the Hindu Bhagvad Gita if you’re so inclined) is actually the second oath taken by the incoming Congressmen. It is a photo-op, nothing more. The first oath is administered in private with no holy book at all. This not only raises the question of what the fuss is all about but also just what an oath or affirmation means?

An oath is a personal guarantee. Despite Dennis Prager’s contention that the Congressional oath is somehow a rite that belongs to America, anytime someone swears - with or without a sacred text - that individual is giving a personal assurance that the terms of the oath will be upheld. Until recently, the bible was a powerful talisman to use when taking an oath because it was believed (and still is thought by some) that if you break an oath after swearing it on the bible, you go straight to hell when you die and burn for eternity with no possibility of being given a reprieve. This had the salutatory effect of assuring one and all that the individual swearing on the bible really meant it.

Times change and few would make a similar argument today. Instead, the consequences for breaking an oath are entirely secular in nature. In the case of a Congressman violating their oath to be loyal to America, one would think a very long jail term would be in the offing.

But it is the symbolic power of the oath as a reminder both to a Congressman and to his constituents that the stakes of service are high and that being true to the United States is extremely important. And if one is concerned about the Congressman holding that promise sacred by using a symbol to denote the seriousness and gravity of the moment, shouldn’t that symbol reflect the deepest beliefs of the oath taker rather than some arbitrary construct that would be meaningless in a religious sense?

This is an issue that will not go away. Someday, a fundamentalist Muslim may be elected to Congress and questions will again be raised about “serving two masters” and whether or not someone who believes in the efficacy of Sharia law can serve after swearing allegiance to the Constitution. I don’t think that day will come anytime soon. But when it does, I hope the hysteria can be kept to a minimum and we can examine the issue with reason and tolerance. For a nation founded on religious diversity, I see no reason why we shouldn’t be able to manage without descending into the darkness of ignorance and bigotry.

Note: This is the extended version of the original bleg.

First, allow me to take this opportunity to wish all my readers - left and right - a Happy New Year. I hope 2007 will be a good year for all of us - prosperous, safe, healthy, and filled with joy.

Looking over the past year and taking stock, I celebrated some achievements while coming up with some resolutions for the New Year that I’d like to share with you.

1. The number of Bloglines subscriptions to The House topped 3,500 last year. This is largely due to the fact that the folks at that excellent blog aggregator placed my site in their “Quick Pick” subscriptions for conservative blogs.

2. Several of my articles were republished at a variety of sites including RealClear Politics, Frontpage Mag, and, of course, The American Thinker.

3. I was featured in a story on the Sunday front page of the huge suburban daily here in the Chicago area, The Daily Herald.

4. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post became one of my best friends, featuring me in his “Media Notes” column more than a dozen times.

5. Readership climbed steadily during the year, passing 80,000 per month in October. After a big decline in December, numbers are on the way back up.

6. My Ecosphere ranking is a joke. I used to put a lot of stock in NZ Bear’s system but when one of my post’s garners more than 30 links and I get credit in his system for only 7, something is screwed up. Be that as it may, I haven’t gone down much and have been as high as the low 200’s.

7. I had several high profile media exposures including an appearance on C-Span’s Sunday Morning’s Washington Journal as well as an appearance on the CBC with Craig Crawford to talk about Jack Bauer. I was also a guest on the nationally syndicated Michael Reagan show and Rush Limbaugh read a couple of my articles from The American Thinker on his program.

Now for my resolutions.

1. This is a make or break year for me as far as writing is concerned. If there isn’t a dramatic change in my fortunes by next fall, I’ve told Zsu Zsu that I’ll quit the blog and my other projects and go back to the 9-5 grind - hopefully someplace where I can still write a little. My dearest has sacrificed a lot to help me pursue this dream and I consider it unfair to her to ask her to continue to bear the burden of supporting us. My part time job is bringing in enough to cover our food and incidentals every week but it is her paycheck that pays the rent and the bills. Our savings are also dwindling and since neither of us are spring chickens, those dollars that are drawn down every quarter or so are going to be harder to recover over the years we have left before we’re both turned out to pasture.

In order to maximize my chances, I’ve decided quite simply that I have to write more. You, my dear friends, will be the beneficiary of this resolution in that I will branch out from my rather narrow focus of politics and foreign policy and delve more into some issues that are important to all of us; homeland security, immigration reform, health care, and a few other issues I have neglected since I started writing this blog.

I will also closely monitor the various investigations that will be initiated by Democrats over the coming months. If you’re a Republican and a conservative, I can guarantee you are not going to like what you hear about Iraq reconstruction, Katrina contracts, and other issues that will come before the various House and Senate committees. I will try my best to cut through the spin and the headlines and get to the real issues that are important in these investigations. But I can assure you, from what’s already been released from trials held here in the US regarding Iraq reconstruction, there will be some shocking developments to report on.

I will also try to write more about ethics. My articles about Terry Schiavo as well as other social issues seems to bring out the best (and worst) in my commenters as well as giving me a chance to think deeply about things that really matter.

And finally, in about a week I’m going to restart my radio program on WAR Radio. The 2nd generation software has been installed and I’ve got some great ideas on how the show will proceed; more interviews with newsmakers, important bloggers, and some authors as well as some lighter stuff I hope you’ll enjoy.

Now to the purpose of this post - my bi-annual request for funds.

I realize that many of you generously gave when I had the “Bleg Blitz” last September - a 12 hour fund raising effort that solved an emergency need for cash when Sue’s granddaughter was born and she had to leave work to take care of her daughter in law for 10 days. For those who opened their wallets back then, I would like to again say “thank you” and please do not feel obligated to donate again.

This bleg will be more traditional. I have placed two buttons below; one connects to Amazon.com and the other to Paypal. Any amount you can give will be greatly appreciated.

I have written before of our rather modest lifestyle so your contribution will go largely to easing our monthly distress of stretching our dollars to make ends meet. If I ever get enough ahead, I plan on redesigning the blog - but so far, that just hasn’t been in the cards.

So if you like what you read here - or if I challenge your assumptions, pique your curiosity, raise your blood pressure, or make you giggle a little - I would be forever grateful of you were to contribute.

Thank you.

Rick Moran
Proprietor

Victor Comras at The Counterterrorism Blog links to a letter sent by Comptroller General David Walker to Congressional leaders in November 2006 which outlines areas of oversight that Congress should take up in the new year. It is in the area homeland security that Mr. Comras gives us some keys to the unfinished business of Congress and the Bush Administration that needs to be addressed now more than 5 years after 9/11.

Actually, when one considers the overwhelming domestic security challenges facing the government in the aftermath of 9/11, Congress and the Administration have made astonishing progress in a relatively short period of time in some areas. But in other areas, there has been an equally astonishing lack of concern and focus that has homeland security experts shaking their heads in wonder that terrorists haven’t exploited these weaknesses.

Some of the targets of oversight include:

(1) the effective integration and transformation of the Department of Homeland Security, (2) ensuring a strategic and integrated approach to prepare for, respond to, recover, and rebuild from catastrophic events, (3) transforming and strengthening our national intelligence community, (4) enhancing border security, (5) ensuring the safety and security of all modes of transportation, (6) strengthening efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their delivery systems, (7) enhanced computer security, and (8) otherwise ensuring the effectiveness and coordination of U.S. international counterterrorism efforts. Further congressional oversight and action are also required, the Comptroller’s letter indicates, to improve the overall US image overseas.

Perhaps the most important area for DHS is the effective integration and transformation of the department. Still a relatively new agency, DHS is suffering from indigestion, having gobbled up 22 federal departments in 2003 with various responsibilities in the homeland security area. The GAO has found numerous problems with the agencies’ attempt to integrate these various bureaus and departments into a seamless whole as well as inter-departmental squabbling over the setting of priorities.

For the former, this is something that will take time as with any large department made up of so many formerly semi-independent offices which is thrust into existence. Organizational charts (and the inevitable turf battles that accompany them) have to be drawn up and resolved and personnel adjustments made.

As for the latter, the setting of priorities is clearly management’s responsibility. And the fact that we are still having difficulties in this regard is a direct reflection on the job that Director Michael Chertoff is doing as head of DHS.

I don’t envy Mr. Chertoff his job or the enormous responsibilities that job entails. However, these management problems date back more than 2 years. And the idea that we are still experiencing some of the same problems this far down the road does not reflect well on Mr. Chertoff’s leadership or management abilities. From the GAO letter, these are areas of oversight they recommend regarding the management of DHS:

• Evaluate the progress of DHS and its components in strategic planning, particularly whether strategic plans conform to best practices and link performance goals to resource requirements.
• Assess the progress of DHS in developing and integrating key management functions—financial, acquisition, information, and human capital—across its components.
• Review the progress of DHS and its components in performing risk assessments—particularly in the mission areas like border and transportation security and critical infrastructure protection—as part of a risk management approach to the allocation of resources.
• Examine the progress of DHS and its components in improving partnering with other federal, state and local governments, and private entities in the fulfillment of its homeland security and non-homeland security missions.

Comras describes it a little less clinically:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been given a front-and-center role in combating terrorism and protecting us at home. It was charged by Congress in 2003 with digesting some 22 agencies into one department with the objective of enhancing our overall domestic security. But, the GAO has found some serious shortfalls in the integration of these agencies and in the ability of the new Department to set its priorities, particularly in the area of risk assessment and security planning. It has also expressed concern with the continuing lack of internal accountability and oversight. Border security, transportation security and critical infrastructure protection remain critical areas requiring increased Congressional oversight, the Comptroller General says.

This sounds like a department with serious management flaws - especially relating to “internal accountability and oversight.” All of this is a direct reflection on Chertoff and his apparrent inability to extend his influence over the entire agency. And is there anything more important to a homeland security department than “risk assessment and security planning?” If we’re having problems in those areas, it would seem that a good question to be asked by a Congressman at an oversight hearing might be “What the hell do we have a DHS for if you guys can’t get your act together in deciding what part of the homeland is at most risk and what the hell should we be doing about fixing it?”

Chertoff has received high marks for his relatively good relations with Congress and his candor in discussing some of these problems. But I think if I had to choose, I’d rather have a bastard that every Congresscritter hates but who knows what has to be protected first and has a good idea of how to go about doing it.

Given the choice, which would you take?

Another troubling area that the GAO wants more congressional oversight on is in the planning for dealing with the recovery from a catastrophic attack. This is especially important in light of the news from Canada that a “dirty bomb” would appear to be the most likely WMD attack on the horizon and that terrorists are fully capable of acquiring the materials and initiating such an attack:

“The technical capability required to construct and use a simple RDD [radiological dispersal device] is practically trivial, compared to that of a nuclear explosive device or even most chemical or biological weapons,” the CSIS study says.

A homemade radiological weapon could consist of a conventional explosive laced with radioactive material commonly found at universities, medical and research laboratories or industrial sites.

Several isotopes used in applications including cancer treatment and industrial radiography have been identified as possible sources. However, CSIS notes, much would depend on the material’s half-life, the amount of radioactivity present, the portability of the source and the ease with which it could be dispersed.

Experts say such an explosion, while claiming few initial casualties, could spread radiation over a wide area, contaminating several city blocks, sowing panic and wreaking economic havoc.

Indeed, imagine an RDD set off in mid town Manhattan. Depending on the wind and the size of the explosion, several square blocks of the most expensive and important real estate in the world would be unusable for many months as NEST (Nuclear Emergency Support Team) personnel fanned out over the affected area and went about the long and arduous task of removing enough of the radioactive material so that people could return and business could get back to normal. While the number of deaths from the initial blast might be relatively small, many hundreds could be sickened and die while several thousand would be at a much higher risk for cancer down the road.

And while most of the economic activity that normally occurs in the area affected would resume from other locations, there is no doubt that the psychological effect on our people and the markets would be profound.

Again, it is unsettling that this remains a priority that is in need of oversight because it hasn’t been dealt with properly or that plans are incomplete.

Another area that the GAO points to the need for oversight is border security. Now I don’t care who is running DHS, this is a matter that absolutely must be addressed by Congress and the Administration. And the fact that both branches of government insist on doing a Kabuki dance regarding illegal immigration while playing russian roulette with our border control policies is unconscionable.

I understand the political realities of battling over the Hispanic vote and why no one wants to offend that rapidly growing demographic. But this is suicidal. Given the ease with which our border can be violated and illegals escape detection, one has to wonder not if terrorists are in this country already, planning the next attack but how many terrorists might actually be here.

Some recognition by both Congress and the White House that the United States is a sovereign country with recognizable, defensible borders will have to be forthcoming before we can even begin to address the problem. And while I don’t believe a fence would help that much, surely a massive increase in border control personnel would seem to be in order along with the will to enforce the law by jailing employers who hire illegals.

This should be an absolute minimum. There’s much more we can do, of course, in determining visa reforms and other bureaucratic initiatives that will keep terrorists from coming here legally. But it starts at the border and it starts with enforcing the law. That much, we can demand of our representatives.

There’s more for Congress to look at - port security being among the items not mentioned in the GAO letter. And I’d like more emphasis placed on securing “softer” targets like chemical and power plants. What’s more, does anyone doubt that our transportation security efforts need a drastic overhaul? The point is, we have a long way to go before we can consider the job of homeland security being competently addressed.

So far, I would give the Administration a D+ for their homeland security efforts and the Republican Congress an F. Let’s hope the Democrats will give homeland security the attention and, more importantly, the funds it deserves.

“Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit.”
(Sergeant ‘Buster’ Kilrain from the film Gettysburg)

I’ve got to hand it to Representative Virgil Goode. Not content with exposing himself as an ignorant bigot by sending a letter to his constituents warning of a Muslim invasion of America and the prospect of many more Congressmen swearing allegiance to the United States on the Koran, he has now reiterated these points on the pages of USA Today:

My letter did not call for a religious test for prospective members of Congress, as some have charged. Americans have the right to elect any person of their choosing to represent them. I indicated to my constituents that I did not subscribe to the Quran in any way, and I intended to use the Bible in connection with my swearing-in. I also stated that the Ten Commandments and “In God We Trust” are on the wall of my office, and I have no intention of displaying the Quran in my office. That is my choice, and I stand by my position and do not apologize for it.

My letter also stated, “If American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran.”

Immigration is arguably the most important issue facing the country today. At least 12 million immigrants are here illegally. And diversity visas, a program initiated in 1990 to grant visas to people from countries that had low U.S. immigration at that time, are bringing in 50,000 a year from various parts of the world, including the Middle East.

Let us remember that we were not attacked by a nation on 9/11; we were attacked by extremists who acted in the name of the Islamic religion. I believe that if we do not stop illegal immigration totally, reduce legal immigration and end diversity visas, we are leaving ourselves vulnerable to infiltration by those who want to mold the United States into the image of their religion, rather than working within the Judeo-Christian principles that have made us a beacon for freedom-loving persons around the world.

Goode may not have called for a “religious test” specifically, but what the hell are we supposed to make of his warning about there “will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran…?” Ooooh…those “demanding” Muslims, how dare they! I didn’t hear Ellison “demanding” anything. I heard him state the fact that he would use the Koran when being sworn in. Why does Goode mischaracterize Ellison’s action in this way?

I will point out that making Ellison into a martyr was something I thought impossible. The radical liberal can be taken to task for his position on any number of issues. But his religion shouldn’t enter into the debate.

And what’s with Mr. Goode solemnly stating that he will not display a Koran in his office? And that he doesn’t “subscribe” to it in any way? That’s just bizarre. And that he assures everyone he has the Ten Commandments on the wall of his office and refuses to apologize for it? Holy Mother! If this guy set up any more strawmen to knock down, he’d be populating the universe with scarecrows.

The tone of this article is, if anything, more blatantly bigoted than Goode’s letter to his constituents. I can’t understand why his colleagues don’t take the lost soul aside and advise him to keep his mouth shut, that he’s sounding like a paranoid fool when he uses phrases like “vulnerable to infiltration…” - as if legal immigrants are sneaking around behind the government’s back.

My last post on the good Mr. Goode’s prejudice was met with outraged cries of “You don’t understand!” and “He’s absolutely right!” I suspect I’ll get the same for the following.

Anyone who believes that Muslim immigration is bad in and of itself doesn’t know American history and also doesn’t know much of American Muslims. The overwhelming majority of second and third generation Muslims are loyal, patriotic Americans who speak excellent English, believe firmly in American values, are very well assimilated into American life, and generally are indistinguishable from Americans of any other ethnic group who have recently arrived. They are teachers, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, factory workers - in short, good, hardworking Americans who want the exact same things you and I want.

While it is true that a small subset of American Muslims are very insular and remain wedded to the old ways, their numbers and influence on the Muslim population is negligible. It is also true that there are enclaves of Arabs in some big cities where immigrants are not assimilating and where radical Islam is a lure that entices some younger men. But if we are to deny immigration to people based on the violent proclivities of the few, best we keep out all sorts of “undesirables” such as the Irish, the Basques, and black South Africans.

Goode is dead wrong - and an embarrassment to the Republican party to boot. It is one thing to advocate enforcement of the law when it comes to illegal immigrants and to support stopping illegal immigration - something I wholeheartedly agree with. There is absolutely nothing wrong with insisting that legal immigrants be law abiding citizens in their own country and not have joined a terrorist group or terrorist sympathizing entity. And even though I strongly disagree, there is nothing bigoted or racist about supporting reduced immigration quotas.

But to work toward denying the blessings of America to Muslims simply because there are extremists who would do us harm is nutty. Yes we should tighten up our screening procedures for all immigrants. But to judge an entire group by the actions of a few makes Goode a pea wit.