Right Wing Nut House

In the past, I have voiced my support for the Public Broadcasting System and its continued funding from taxpayers because I believe that there are dozens of excellent productions that otherwise would not be broadcast even in this age of cable and satellite saturation. Science, nature, drama, and music shows of a consistently high quality has been the hallmark of PBS since its inception and most if not all of those productions would never see air time without taxpayers footing the bill.

And while cable outlets like Bravo, Ovation, Discovery Channels, and The History Channel now offer similar programming options to the consumer, the fact is the PBS productions have over the years proved to be a cut or two above the best that those channels have to offer. With several outstanding exceptions, there simply isn’t enough original programming on those outlets. (A current exception is The Discovery Channel’s “Planet Earth” which should surely be considered among the best nature series ever photographed.)

Can any science program shown on cable outlets compare with the consistently high standards of excellence exhibited by PBS’s Nova? Or productions of opera and symphony from Live at the Met? There is no doubt cable channels have their moments. But PBS has offered extremely high quality arts and science entertainment since its birth. And I have been more than willing to support their efforts in this regard in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

Where PBS fails miserably is in airing shows with political content. This includes many productions that purport to be “history” as well as shows that examine issues facing the country today. And while there is excellence exhibited in these areas as well - The American Experience comes to mind as a show of quality and intelligence - most, if not all political programming on the network is of such an obvious bias that for conservatives, it becomes nearly unwatchable.

Therefore, it was not surprising to read about the problems a producer of a documentary has had with PBS affiliate WETA of Washington D.C. in getting his piece about moderate Muslims being reviled and threatened by extremists on the air. For the politically correct, multicultural warriors at WETA, terms like “Islamafascist” and “terrorist” are considered “unfair.”

The question is…unfair to whom?

The producer of a tax-financed documentary on Islamic extremism claims his film has been dropped for political reasons from a television series that airs next week on more than 300 PBS stations nationwide.

Key portions of the documentary focus on Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser of Phoenix and his American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a non-profit organization of Muslim Americans who advocate patriotism, constitutional democracy and a separation of church and state.

Martyn Burke says that the Public Broadcasting Service and project managers at station WETA in Washington, D.C., excluded his documentary, Islam vs. Islamists, from the series America at a Crossroads after he refused to fire two co-producers affiliated with a conservative think tank.

“I was ordered to fire my two partners (who brought me into this project) on political grounds,” Burke said in a complaint letter to PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supplied funds for the films.

Burke wrote that his documentary depicts the plight of moderate Muslims who are silenced by Islamic extremists, adding, “Now it appears to be PBS and CPB who are silencing them.”

First, it should be said that the series America at the Crossroads looks like a typically earnest PBS effort to educate the public. The problem can be seen in these actions taken by project overseers to blatantly interfere in the production and their attempt to change the intent and point of view of the show’s producer:

Before filming began last year, Burke says, (WETA’s exec. producer Jeff)Bieber asked him, “Don’t you check into the politics of the people you work with?”

Bieber said PBS was concerned that the Center for Security Policy is an advocacy group, so its leaders could not produce an objective picture. Because of that, he suggested that Gaffney be demoted to adviser.

Burke, who did not honor the recommendation, says that funding was delayed and WETA began to interfere with his film until it was “expelled” from Crossroads.

Among Burke’s examples of tampering:

• A WETA manager pressed to eliminate a key perspective of the film: The claim that Muslim radicals are pushing to establish “parallel societies” in America and Europe governed by Shariah law rather than sectarian courts.

• After grants were issued, Crossroads managers commissioned a new film that overlapped with Islam vs. Islamists and competed for the same interview subjects.

• WETA appointed an advisory board that includes Aminah Beverly McCloud, director of World Islamic Studies at DePaul University. In an “unparalleled breach of ethics,” Burke says, McCloud took rough-cut segments of the film and showed them to Nation of Islam officials, who are a subject of the documentary. They threatened to sue.

“This utterly undermines any journalistic independence,” Burke wrote in an e-mail to WETA officials.

Beyond the question of whether it is appropriate to penalize a documentarian for the politics of his producers, one might ask why it matters in this case. The left wing bias of many PBS producers has never been a problem for WETA in the past - including William Cran who wrote and directed the premier segment for the series Jihad: The Men and Ideas Behind Al Qaeda as well as participating in numerous other projects for Frontline and other PBS specials.

Cran’s documentary on Christianity done for Frontline - From Jesus to Christ, the First Christians - outraged conservative Christians not only for its content but because he used liberal theologians as his only commentators. Similarly, Cran gathered as many critics of the oil industry as was possible back in the early 90’s and made Extreme Oil, a three part hit piece so one sided in its content that most oil industry groups refused to participate.

In fairness, Cran has also made several first class documentaries including one on Aids and an entertaining and fascinating look at the English language in America. But regardless of his talent, would Mr. Beiber question Cran’s politics in the making of his Jihad piece? Evidently not.

And an executive producer trying to alter content - especially content central to the thesis of the documentary? In a word, outrageous. It is apparent that Beiber and his friends at WETA don’t read the newspaper very often. If he had, he would have discovered that Muslim extremists in Europe have been trying for years to do exactly as Burke is trying to show; establish a “separateness” from European society (sometimes with the active encouragement of European governments) in order to live under Shariah law rather than the law of the land they live in. Numerous examples abound that evidence this fact. Trying to silence this point of view is inexplicable and indefensible.

Beiber’s criticism that the documentary is “unfair” can mean only one thing; the piece is unfair to Muslim extremists. Another documentary in the series, also on moderates in Islam apparently takes care of that. Here’s a blurb from the press release touting the show “Faith Without Fear:”

But is debate possible in Islam? That question brings Manji to Spain, where different religions, cultures and ideas flourished under Muslim civilization. It happened because of “ijtihad,” Islam’s own tradition of independent thinking. She shows the art, architecture and achievements that Muslims could once claim. In so doing, Manji finally encounters the Islam that she can love. Far from being a relic of the past, ijtihad is key to curbing atrocities committed today in the name of Islam. Manji introduces us to two Spanish Muslims who represent the humanity that ijtihad can restore to Islam, and the cruelty that Muslims will suffer at the hands of other Muslims if ijithad remains buried.

Throughout this high-stakes journey, Manji challenges herself to change. Wondering if her heart is blocked to the beauty of Islam, she invites one of her fiercest Muslim critics to break bread — and what she takes away aren’t crumbs. Yet Manji’s greatest epiphany comes from her pious mother. They don’t see eye to eye. But her mom’s dignified response in a moment of humiliation teaches Manji that Muslims can, in fact, have faith without fear. Islam allows it, if only Muslims will too.

One would think that a series that purports to show our country at “a crossroads” would want an unvarnished, PC-free perspective of exactly who the enemy is and what their intentions toward us (and anyone who opposes them) might be. Instead, in the interest of “fairness,” we are treated to the milquetoast perspective that gives equal weight and consideration to a point of view very much at odds with our values. This is not a question of fairness as much as it is a point of view that is lost due to the stifling conformity of a liberal world view that holds sway at PBS and its dominant affiliates.

This is where public TV fails the public; their rank bias stifles opposing viewpoints. They do it in the name of “fairness” or their version of “accuracy.” But it is obvious that the dead hand of conformity overlays so much of their political programming that any point of view that deviates from established liberal norms has enormous problems in making it past the gatekeepers at the “Big Three” who produce almost all public TV political content; WNET, WETA, and WGBH Boston.

This bias was fully on display in 1999 when it was discovered that those three stations along with dozens of others routinely swapped mailing lists with the Democratic National Committee. (Some PBS outlets also swapped lists with the GOP). It wasn’t so much the shocking ethical lapse on the part of the various stations that made this such a revealing episode but rather the open acknowledgement that the stations were much more likely to mine donors to public television from a list of liberal contributors. If that doesn’t show an awareness of bias on the part of PBS affiliates, nothing does.

In a futile attempt to change this culture at PBS, President Bush nominated Kenneth Tomlinson for Chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that is responsible for PBS who immediately sought to broaden the base of PA programming at the network by bringing shows with a more diverse perspective. The outrage from liberal board members as well as liberal activists who see PBS as their own private media preserve was immediate and vicious. And they went absolutely ballistic when Tomlinson wanted to force PBS to live up to its charter by holding off the signing of the annual contract between CPB and PBS until the stations promised to live up to the “objectivity and balance” language in the PBS charter. Until that time, PBS stations only had to promise to employ “journalistic standards” to PA programming.

You can see where liberals would be outraged.

In the end, Tomlinson was outgunned and outvoted. Eventually, he was forced out for misusing his email account for personal business. But it is illustrative of the liberal mindset that permeates the CPB and PBS from top to bottom.

It is not clear at this point if Burke’s documentary will ever be shown on PBS. There has been so much double-talk from the network about this project that it’s anyone’s guess whether the American people will ever have a chance to see the truth about radical Islam and the Muslim moderates who bravely speak out against them. But if PBS were smart, they’d find room to show this documentary, if only to try and dispell the notion that they are nothing more than liberal hacks who can’t stand airing opposing viewpoints.

For that reason alone, Islam vs. Islamists will be must see TV if it ever airs.

UPDATE

Hugh Hewitt highlights the censorship angle:

This is the real deal: state suppression of ideas with which the authorities disagree on ideological/political grounds. Where’s the ACLU? Where’s the left? Where’s the Bush Adminstration?

I don’t know if the film is any good, but I strongly suspect that the government censors are forcing it down the memory hole because it is powerful and persuasive, not the opposite.

Over the years, Jack has had some memorable single combat battles with the villians who populate 24’s terrorist universe. His one on one war versus Marwan two years ago resulted in a titanic struggle in a parking garage where, after finally cornering the fanatic, Marwan denies Jack the ultimate release of killing him by jumping to his own death.

No such cop outs this year for the writers. The battle royale between Jack and Fayed was so good, so satisfying, that it should have been on pay-per-view - perhaps as a warm up for Wrestlemania. The two fought with a ferocity rarely seen on TV. The animal like grunts and explosions of sound that peppered the action gave a realistic sheen to the entire fight while both men - exhausted and bruised from their day long ordeal - showed an unflagging will to fight to the death.

But it wasn’t just Jack’s battle with Fayed that made the moment. It was how Jack got to Fayed in the first place. Agent Doyle summed it up succinctly upon reaching the scene as he looked around the immediate vicinity and saw 5 dead terrorists as well as the dangling body of Fayed. “Damn, Jack,” was his quiet, awestruck assessment. Whether he was commenting about Jack’s courage, or rashness in taking on so many terrorists at once, or more likely, the ruthless barbarity of Jack’s attack, Doyle spoke for many of us who have watched as Jack has morphed from a duty bound soldier who did bad things because he loved his country to this incarnation of a terror warrior who metes out justice to those who threaten what’s left of his personal universe with a troubling, personal satisfaction.

The look on Bauer’s face after hanging his nemisis was one of deep emotional release. He had won. And more importantly, he had defeated evil. But at what cost to his own psyche? Clearly - and the writers seem to hammering home this point more and more the last couple of years - Jack is becoming indistinguishable from the terrorists he hunts.

The fact that he’s on “our side” makes us ask ourselves some tough questions. Many of us still excuse Jack for his transgressions against human decency. But what do you make of his goodbye bon mot to Fayed before hanging him? Is there any justification whatsoever for Jack to whisper savagely into Fayed’s ear “Say hello to your brother” as he ratchets up the chain that gruesomely chokes Fayed to death? Are those the words of a hero doing what is necessary to save us? Or an out of control sadist who derives great pleasure in not only killing his enemies but making them suffer in the process?

More of the latter than the former, I’m afraid. And the metamorphosis of Jack from Season 1 to this episode that has seen him change so drastically - from something of a mild mannered family man who would do anything to get the job done to this near monster of a death machine - isn’t done yet. That’s because the one real link he has left to the human race is now a prisoner of those who perhaps did more than any terrorist ever could do in taking away his humanity.

Jack’s two years under torture at the hands of the Chinese helped to create this new personae. Or perhaps it simply accelerated a process that has seen Jack’s purity tarnished considerably once the bad guys began targeting his friends and family. And the fact that his former tormentors now hold Audrey captive will only drive Jack to more extremes in seeking revenge and attempting to get this last, tenuous tie to the human race free from their clutches.

But what about the nukes? Are we done with that plot line and will now watch as the final 7 episodes become little more than a glorified rescue mission? The show can’t have gone downhill that much, can it? Surely the writers have a surprise or two relating to those nukes left up their sleeves. And since they are in CTU’s possession, it’s time once again to put your Official CTU Mole Hunting Hats on because I have a feeling sometime over the next two episodes, those nukes are going to “disappear” from CTU custody and plunge the nation once again into dire straits.

SUMMARY

Drama in the conference room as the missile rises into the air headed for Fayed’s country and a demonstration of…something. Our will to protect ourselves by using a weapon of mass destruction, I guess. But as Lennox tries to point out, the President may just have started something that the rest of the nuclear powers on the planet are likely to finish.

Frantically, Karen calls Bill at CTU and asks if Jack has been able to get anything out of Fayed yet. Since Bauer has just begun his “interrogation” Bill reluctantly tells Karen that he has nothing concrete to offer the President and give him a reason to abort the launch. Karen still tries to convince Wayne that Jack will get the job done but the President isn’t hearing it.

The Admiral reports that enemy radar is now tracking the missile which means there are probably a lot of wet pants in the Presidential Palace of Fayed’s country as that government realizes what is about to happen. Not surprisingly, a call comes in from the Ambassador, pleading with the President to abort. Apparently, they have new information that may be helpful. It seems one of their leading generals has been running Fayed from the time he got to America, directing the nuke attacks.

This information doesn’t surprise Wayne Palmer nor should it surprise us. The fact is, there are several countries in the Middle East we claim as “allies” who have elements within their governments who would like nothing better than to see America destroyed. It is thought that there is a faction within the Saudi royal family who have close ties to al-Qaeda. This rogue faction has allies in the banking, construction, computer, and hi tech industries as well as Saudi intelligence.

Then there is the strange, frustrating case of Pakistan. President Musharaf is beset with internal enemies who strenuously object to his forging close ties to America following 9/11. These opponents reside mainly in the secretive Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI. It was they who created the Taliban back in the 1990’s and who may to this day be assisting Bin Laden in escaping capture.

The question for American policymakers has always been how do we treat countries with these kinds of internal divisions? Even the highest ranking members of the Saudi royal family probably turned the other way prior to 9/11 when Bin Laden was using his government contacts to build up and finance his operation. And Musharaf has had a devil of a time living up to his agreements to fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan, preferring instead to sign agreements that give the terrorists a free hand in provinces bordering Afghanistan to infiltrate and kill NATO soldiers.

The answer is - there is no answer. Or at least we haven’t come up with a coherent one yet. And Wayne Palmer’s “solution” is definitely not the way to go.

At any rate, the attack itself turns out to have been a ruse to get Fayed’s government to cooperate fully. It turns out that there was no warhead on the bird and once Wayne aborts the launch, much to the relief of the Ambassador, he demands information on this General Habib and that the Ambassador deliver it personally to the White House.

For the first time in 6 seasons, Jack Bauer actually hurts his hand from hitting a suspect too hard. After clocking Fayed in the cheekbone with a terrific right hook, he grimaces in pain and shakes the pain from his knuckels. Obviously, being away two years has worn away the callouses he built up over time using terrorist’s heads as punching bags. But he is really letting Fayed have it, delivering blow after blow as hard as he can. It’s interesting because for years, Jack was a one punch knock out artist, putting Ali himself to shame in that department. Maybe he’s gotten a little long in the tooth.

It doesn’t matter anyway because Fayed ain’t talking - not even when Little Ricky tells him that if he friends set off those nukes and they kill more people, he will no longer be the hero of “your jihad.” The way Fayed spits out “I serve the will of God,” in response makes me think that Little Ricky should have probably stayed in Denver interrogating illlegals. He has no clue what motivates the guy and when he raises his gun to pressure the fanatic with a death wish, Jack orders him to desist. Fayed laughs at Little Ricky’s amateur attempts at breaking him. Realizing he won’t get anything out of Fayed this way, Jack decides to take him back to headquarters. On the way, he gets a call from Bill telling him about Habib. This gets Jack’s thinking moving in a familiar direction - outside the box.

Back at the White House, Tom apologizes to Wayne for doubting his strength of purpose. The President then asks Lennox how he got the Veep to drop his challenge. Being cryptic about his gambit of taping Daniels and catching him in the act of planning perjury, Tom says “I’m here to inform you and also protect you.” And, the two don’t necessarily follow each other.

On the way to CTU with Fayed, Jack and Little Ricky have casual conversation about the use of drug induced torture. Jack favors it (having just seen it work on his own brother) while Little Ricky doesn’t think much of it. Just when the subject was getting interesting, their vehicle is broadsided and flipped by an armored car. Helpless and upside down, Jack sees several terrorists exit the van and make their way to flanking positions. Our boys are sitting ducks and they know it.

Jack is out first cutting down a couple of bad guys while Ricky exits, gun blazing and dropping another. But a couple of well placed shots bring down both our heroes and the terrorists free Fayed and hustle him away.

The fact that the episode was barely 15 minutes old gave away the fact that our guys weren’t dead. That and the idea the show still had 7 weeks to go made you suspect immediately that all is not it appears. Sure enough, as the armored car turns a corner, we see a caravan of cars arrive at the scene of the firefight and Jack sitting up suddenly, a Lazarus with a gun. Having to erase two kills from Jack’s body count column was disappointing - until the end of the episode.

With all hale and hearty, we are told that the attack was a ruse. Those were Arab speaking CTU agents (Maybe they could lend a few to the FBI who still, 6 years after 9/11, can’t recruit enough Arab translators to help keep the country safe.) who will attempt to trick Fayed into taking them to his hideout and the nukes.

Following the fake terrorists, Jack tells Bill that he needs an AV hookup to catch what’s going on in the armored car. Glancing over at Little Ricky he notices that the boy is bleeding in the back of the head. Concerned, Nadia asks if he needs medical assistance. Ricky assures her that he’s fine but thanks for asking. Milo looks over at Nadia and wonders if she was thinking of playing doctor with the agent.

Fayed himself looks like he could use a medical break. Between the pummeling of the Longshoremen and sparring with Jack, he looks pretty beat up. But he’s also a suspicious cuss. He won’t take the agents to his hideout unless he speaks directly to General Habib.

This presents something of a problem as Bill discovers when he calls the White House asking the President to set the call up. Apparently, Habib is in the gentle hands of Fayed’s government and being “interrogated” himself. Lennox expresses concern about the plan, believing that regular methods of torture should be used rather than trying to get this call from Habib to Fayed. The President demurs, saying that “If Jack Bauer says that’s a dead end, then it’s a dead end and I believe him,” closing off all objections. But Wayne is noticeably weakening. His hands trembling and his gait unsteady, we realize it only a question of time before his body breaks down again and the country falls by default into the evil clutches of Vice President Daniels.

Meeting the Ambassador, Wayne bluntly tells the diplomat that they absolutely must have Habib talk to Fayed. Out of the question, says the Ambassador. He is not cooperating. We even arrested his family to put pressure on him.

Have you threatened to kill them, asks the President?

Even Tom is shocked to hear him say that. The Ambassador make a big show of being offended but the President satisfyingly bores in on the heart of the matter. “We know how you treat your dissidents” says the President so don’t give us any hypocritical nonsense about human rights. Gulping noticeably, the Ambassador promises to do what needs to be done.

CTU sets up the links to carry out the plan while Bill asks Nadia to translate for everyone. Needing a separate link for that purpose, she asks Milo to take care of it. But Milo is pouting. He thinks she’s being too friendly to Little Ricky, someone he still sees as a mortal enemy. After an intervention by Morris, the two go their separate ways with Nadia perplexed and Milo seething.

With a little geek magic, Habib is on the line talking to Fayed in a couple of minutes and ordering him to hook up with his men. The general also pretends to be angry at Fayed, telling him he “should have sent Sameer” to do the job. The gambit works and Fayed tells the driver where to go so that they can meet up with his men.

When this good news reaches the White House, Wayne rises unsteadily to his feet and dismisses the Ambassador. But something is really wrong this time and after Karen and the Ambassador leave, Tom is the only one there to catch Wayne as he collapses, crashing after his adrenaline high.

As Bill orders precautions against CTU being discovered, Nadia reports the disturbing news that the “Sameer” referred to by Habib has been dead for two years and is probably a duress code used by the general to let Fayed know he was being forced to cooperate. This galvanizes Jack who realizes the jig is probably up and he calls the agent in the armored car with the bad news.

Too late. The armored car has gone into a tunnel and just as Jack was spelling out his warning, the signal went dead. They close in on the armored car only to see it stalled in the middle of the tunnel with the back door open. There are two dead CTU agents and one badly wounded in the back of the car with Fayed no where to be seen.

Jack sees a possible avenue of escape for the terrorist - a door to a maintenance room - and goes through it just in time to see Fayed killing an innocent garbage truck driver. Not alerting Fayed to his presence, Jack pulls an Indiana Jones and gets underneath the truck, grabbing on to the axle for dear life as Fayed rolls away.

Jack tries to tell Bill where he is but the noise of the engine is too great. Bill orders the tape to be run through the audio computers for analysis and tells Chloe to backtrace the satellite so they can catch any vehicle exiting the tunnel.

Back at the White House, Wayne is in a bad way. His blood pressure is lower than Draculas and his brain may be expanding inside his skull faster than Timothy Leary on acid. He demands another shot of adrenaline - something his doctor will not do. The doc even threatens to resign if Wayne doesn’t get his butt down to medical. But the President will see this through on his feet or not at all. And herein lies the potential for more mischief from Vice President Daniels.

And now the grand confrontation begins as Fayed arrives at his hideout with Jack still in tow. Ordering his men inside to get ready and move the nukes, he leaves one lone guard to handle any trouble.

Big mistake. Jack sneaks up on the terrorist and breaks his neck with a satisfying crack. But even though Jack has several targets in his crosshairs, he wants to wait and make sure the nukes are at that location before meting out justice. As he glimpses Fayed closing the cases to the two bombs, Jack very deliberately begins his attack. The first two terrorists are dispatched almost before anyone knows he’s there. The resulting firefight has Jack taking out three more AK-47 armed terrorists, all the while moving toward Fayed with terrifying deliberation.

Recklessly exposing himself and still moving with a purposeful gait, Jack advances toward Fayed, both men emptying their guns at each other in a spasm of hate and violence as they edge toward the final battle.

Jack strikes first with a kick to Fayed’s head. And then it’s all in or nothing for both. Vicious kicks and punches elicit animal like grunts and groans as both men - trained in the deadly art of one on one combat - compete for a prize that each would give up in the right circumstances but that neither will allow the other; life.

In another time, another age, this would have been the way to settle a war. The King’s Champions would take the field and fight to the death. The winner standing over his fallen foe and asking if there were any other challenges. But in these less chivalrous times, Jack bites Fayed viciously on the shoulder as his adversary screams in pain while Fayed whacks Jack with a steel pipe knocking him to the ground.

Both men are near total exhaustion but Fayed is still on his feet. Moving in for the kill, he keeps Jack down with a couple of blows that would have felled a lumberjack, all the while Bauer is moving toward a hoist with a chain link cable. Picking up a piece of steel, Fayed attempts the coup de grace only to find his blows expertly blocked by the cable. It is then Jack proves the old adage “The biggest man in the world will collapse like a ton of bricks if you kick him in the back of the knee.” And that’s just what Jack does, Fayed going down like a sack of potatoes.

Quick as lightening, Jack has the cable around Fayed’s neck and with his disquieting epithet “Say hello to your brother,” Jack flips the lever. Up goes Fayed, hoisted the way terrorists, highwaymen, murderers, and horse thieves have gone to the hereafter for a hundreds of years; the hangman’s noose.

Little Ricky arrives on this scene of horrifying carnage and can only say, “Damn Jack.” No other words appeared necessary. He informs CTU that the bombs are now secured and Fayed is dead. Relief is dominant until, a phone call, a breathless Audrey begging for help, and the oily voice of the Chinese security agent Cheng telling Jack to do exactly what he says or Audrey will die.

Once again, Jack’s life is going to get very, very complicated.

BODY COUNT

A history making night for Jack as he sends 6 terrorists to hell, the most kills he’s had since I began the body count 3 seasons ago.

Fayed takes out two CTU agents and the luckless garbage truck driver.

TOTAL:

JACK: 23

SHOW: 403

I’ve had a wicked cough all week and took the weekend off trying to shake it. Today has been a little better but still not feeling up to snuff.

I may have something up later this afternoon. If not, I will definitely have my 24 recap up tomorrow.

UPDATE: 4/9

My 24 recap will be a little late. Should be up around 10:30 AM Central.

UPDATE II: 11:00 AM CENTRAL

Sorry to report that it will be at least another hour for the recap. My brain is fogged up with some great cough medicine and I find myself spacing from time to time.

I had to read this “analysis” by AP’s Sally Buzzbee twice before I decided it was not a belated April Fool’s joke. In a word, outrageous:

Iran’s abrupt release of 15 British sailors and marines is raising hopes the country might compromise on other disputes, most notably its nuclear program.

The move points to the growing influence of pragmatic conservatives, a faction that backs Iran’s Islamic clerical leadership but is still willing to deal with the West — at least to ensure that the country is not harmed in its confrontations with the U.S. and its allies.

British media credited the breakthrough to Ali Larijani, Iran’s top foreign policy negotiator who leads its diplomatic efforts in dealing with a demand by the West for a freeze in Iranian uranium enrichment.

While a religious conservative, Larijani is seen as a pragmatist with close ties to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He and his allies, including former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, are less anti-Western than Iran’s hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

First, whose hopes are being raised by this stunning propaganda victory of the Iranians? My guess is the AP editorial board and Sally Buzzbee. You sure don’t see these “hopes” anywhere else in the western world:

The Bush administration said Thursday that the release of 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran for two weeks created no new openings in dealing with Tehran, and it urged American allies to return their attention to enforcing new sanctions against Iran.

In public statements and background interviews, White House and State Department officials said that they saw no indications that the release indicated a change of attitude by Iran’s leadership. Neither did they see any more willingness to discuss suspension of its enrichment of uranium — the requirement that President Bush has said Iran must meet before he is willing to accept talks with the country.

One senior official, who like some other officials who discussed the issue spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing internal assessments of Iran’s motivation, said that the administration’s internal assessment of the episode, while incomplete, suggested that the seizure of the Britons was “probably not directed from the upper reaches government.” The official said that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decided on the release because “he understood that they had exploited whatever they could from the incident” and that “declaring them guilty and letting them go was the cleverest way to get out of it.”

And what about the growing influence of “pragmatists” as Buzzbee refers to them? She assures us that they are less “anti western” than Ahmadinejad. Specifically, she refers to former President Rafsanjani as in this camp and his him allied with the “conservative clerics” who run Iran.

I hate to disabuse Buzzbee and anyone else who thinks this way but it is imposslbe to rise as far in the Iranian leadership as Rafsanjani has without proving your anti-western credentials. How much “less” anti-western is Rafsanjani? As President, he began the secret Iranian nuclear program, using the services of the Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan and his nuclear black market during the 1990’s. The significance of this is simple; Khan doesn’t assist nations in creating uranium enrichment facilities in order to construct power plants. Every single client in Khan’s little black book has either successfully built or is striving to build a bomb. (Libya was forced to give up their bomb program when we caught them red handed.)

And Rafsanjani has never had a kind word to say about America, calling for our destruction on numerous occasions. You also don’t rise as far as he has in the leadership unless you are a fanatical hater of Israel.

Some pragmatist. Some moderate.

Don’t tell Buzzbee any of this, though. She’s on a roll:

The pragmatists also worry about the populism of Ahmadinejad and his backers that includes calls to redistribute wealth within Iran. Rafsanjani is a multimillionaire, and much recent criticism of Ahmadinejad by Iranian conservatives has centered on fears his strident rhetoric could hurt Iran’s economy and the status quo.

Yet if Larijani and his allies led the way in ending the faceoff with Britain, Ahmadinejad’s featured role during the release of the naval team seemed to indicate he was not completely brushed aside.

It is the struggle between hard-liners and pragmatists in the Islamic Republic that could give optimism only a brief life: As Iran headed back into talks with Europe on its nuclear program Thursday, it already was warning of retaliation if the West pushed too hard.

The mixed signals put the spotlight on a key conundrum about Iran — the question of who really calls the shots.

It is unclear whether Ahmadinejad himself cut Larijani and his friends off at the knees with this sudden move to release the hostages while they were busy trying to get the Brits to admit they were wrong or whether the decision was made in the Iranian National Security Council. Somehow, I think Larijani and his friends were blindsided by this decision which could point to a unilateral decision by Ahmadinejad to release the hostages that was okayed directly by Supreme Leader Khamenei. Ahmadinejad has his own power base in the Rev Guards and the fact that the leader of the Guards came out in favor of releasing the Brits without conditions while Larijani was in the process of negotiating could be significant.

But the question of “who calls the shots” in Iran is always fraught with uncertainty because of shifting alliances in the Assembly of Experts and the general perception that the Iranian president’s power is largely dependent on being in the good graces of Khamenei. Some western observers think that Khamenei knows that Ahmadinejad will be the last president on his watch as Supreme Leader. Rumors of ill health have dogged Khamenei for the better part of a year and it is thought he engineered Ahmadinejad’s victory over Rafsanjani to cleanse the revolution of endemic corruption. Rafsanjani, by the way, is not a “multi millionaire” as Buzzbee claims but rather a multi billionaire. Forbes Magazine named him one of the richest men in the world back in the 1990’s. Needless to say, you don’t make billions on a mullahs salary.

Ahmadinejad is in trouble with the elites not because of his anti-western rhetoric but because he has fired hundreds of technocrats in the ministries - conduits who funnel ill gotten gains to the leadership - and replaced them with true believers. To say that these “pragmatists” or “moderates” are interested in using negotiations with the west for any other purpose than to lull us into a false sense of security is absurd. Their goals are similar to those of Ahmadinejad, although they may disagree with him tacticly - especially when it comes to the rhetoric coming out of Iran. The mullahs have studied the western press and people closely and realize that making occassional noises about “reform” or diplomatic openings plays much better than vowing to wipe Israel off the map or sponsoring Holocaust denial conferences.

I doubt whether we wll ever know exactly how the internal decision was reached to release the hostages. But that didn’t stop Buzzbee from wildly speculating:

Ahmadinejad and his backers combine anti-Western ideology and strong Islamic conservatism. Larijani and his allies are also conservative, religious and strong supporters of the Revolutionary Guard, even if they are slightly less anti-Western.

That means tough bargaining over the nuclear program, and Western charges that Iranians are helping some of the violent groups in neighboring Iraq and supporting Islamic extremists elsewhere in the Middle East.

Iran clearly wants to engage the United States and the rest of the West, and it is likely to meet “flexibility with pragmatism,” said Vali Nasr and Ray Takeyh, two Iran experts with close ties to the country.

But so far, fearing that Iran is trying to develop atomic weapons, the United States and other governments remain adamant that Tehran must curb the nuclear program before any talks can begin on broader issues.

I shudder at the thought of an Iranian’s idea of “pragmatism” once we meet them with “flexibility.” I’m sure what those analysts are talking about is “flexibilty” regarding the Iranian nuclear program. In other words, surrender on the nuclear issue and we’ll talk.

No thanks. And if Iran is so all fired anxious to “engage” the US and the west, why are they taking hostages, refusing to bow to the will of the United Nations and stop their enrichment program, and training and supplying militants in Iraq who are killing Americans?

Krauthammer hit a home run today:

The capture and release of the British hostages illustrate once again the fatuousness of the “international community” and its great institutions. You want your people back? Go to the European Union and get stiffed. Go to the Security Council and get a statement that refuses even to “deplore” this act of piracy. (You settle for a humiliating expression of “grave concern.”) Then turn to the despised Americans. They’ll deal some cards and bail you out.

In the end, it will be up to the US to stand up to the fanatics. Probably alone, as usual, while the rest of our allies shout their criticisms and at the same time privately thank us for doing what they themselves lack the will to do.

The left is all atwitter this morning about the shouting match broadcast last night on Bill O’Reilly’s show between the host and Geraldo Rivera. The issue was an incendiary one alright - an illegal alien named Albert Ramos, arrested several times previously for alcohol related crimes, murdered two teenagers when he slammed into their car while driving drunk.

It is a shame that both men couldn’t have kept a lid on their emotions because there are serious issues involved here. Should Ramos have been identified as an illegal alien and deported following his previous arrests? Is it the job of state and local officials to enforce immigration laws? Is there anything that could have been done to avoid this tragedy?

Here’s the video, courtesy of You Tube:

Then there is the question of whether immigration issues should even be raised in response to the tragedy:

O’Reilly told Allison Kuhndhart’s father and sister during his show, “The authorities in your town would not obey the law, defied the law of the land and somebody needs to be held accountable sir. I want you to keep in touch with us. We’re gonna get the mayor, Oberndorf and the judge, Whitehurst, because they’re the villains.”

During the news conference, Mayor Meyera Oberndorf said she has never even O’Reilly’s show and did not mention him by name throughout the conference.

The mayor and Tessa Tranchant’s father both said that making an issue out of immigration loses the focus that the girls were killed by a man that police said was driving drunk.

Ray Tranchant said, “We need to heal, and to bring immigration, that’s disrespectful to a family who’s just mourning.”

Hard to argue with that sentiment. The problem is that this is not the first time an illegal alien has committed murder and brought tragedy to a family - not by a long shot. There have been dozens of cases across the country where it is more than likely that some innocent would be alive today if we took border security seriously. And in each case, local and state authorities take the cop out position that it is the job of the federal government to enforce immigration laws, not theirs.

I disagree strongly with that excuse. The state or local authorities are well within their rights to hand over an illegal alien to USCIS for committing a felony. The problem, of course, is that the Feds don’t want to deal with the problem either. So in a bizarre echo of “don’t ask don’t tell,” illegal aliens are allowed to continue their criminal activities, safe in the knowledge that they can prey upon American citizens and not worry about having their criminal careers in the US interrupted by a stricter enforcement of the law.

This is an indefensible position so Rivera ignored the immigration aspect of the case and tried to point out that it was a question of drunk driving, nothing more. I know what Rivera was trying to say - that it was wrong to bring “politics” into the case - and in a perfect world, at some other time in American history, he would probably be absolutely correct.

But how can one ignore the singular fact that this tragedy need not have happened? If we had a rational immigration and border policy, it is more than likely that Mr. Ramos would not have been on American soil to kill those two teenagers. This uncomfortable fact was not addressed by Mr. Rivera nor anyone in the open borders crowd. Instead, we get platitudes about how vital immigrants are to this country and how much they have contributed to the richness of our culture and our economy.

I do not begrudge legal immigrants these marvelous accomplishments. And I would strongly support - as part of a rational immigration policy - a tripling of legal immigration. It seems to me that if we can dramatically reduce border incursions by illegals we can certainly massively increase the number of people who want to go through the legal process of immigration and make an orderly entry into America. While there are no reliable statistics to prove it, anecdotal evidence from immigration attorneys would suggest that people who go through that process are much more motivated to make a living, learn English, and eventually become citizens.

But as the shouting match between O’Reilly and Rivera showed in microcosm, it is much easier for people to talk past each other rather than come to some kind of meeting of the minds on a rational borders and immigration policy. The time and place for that debate can be questioned in this case. But the issues raised cannot be.

UPDATE

My brother Jim, a folksinger who has performed with some of the legends in that genre, sent me an interesting email the other day with a link to a funny song by Bob Haworth about immigration.

“Can You Get Me In?” Here are some of the lyrics:

CAN YOU GET ME IN?
Words & Music by Bob Haworth
Copyright 2006 - Three Cats Music, BMI
All Rights Reserved

NOW I PLAN TO TAKE THE WHOLE FAMILY
ALL MY COUSINS, MY SIBLINGS AND EVEN AUNT BEA
WE’D ALL LIKE JOBS AND A REAL NICE PLACE TO LIVE
I WANT MY KIDS IN AN ENGLISH SPEAKING SCHOOL
I WANT FOOD STAMPS AND HEALTH CARE – I’M NO FOOL
‘CAUSE ALL THAT STUFF IS MY PREROGATIVE!

And the video. Go ahead and sing along. You know you want to. (Additional lyrics here at the bottom of the page.)

I’ve never really felt my classically liberal brother out about immigration. But he lives in southern California and taught “English as a second language” classes for many years at a local Junior College at night. I daresay he probably doesn’t agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Haworth in his little ditty. But he knew that I would so I have to express my appreciation for his passing it along.

Now we know why Pelosi was wearing that head scarf in Damascus yesterday. It wasn’t in deference to Muslim tradition. It was to keep her brains from dribbling out of her ears:

The Prime Minister’s Office issued a rare “clarification” Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s statement in Damascus that she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks.

According to the statement, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert emphasized in his meeting with Pelosi on Sunday that “although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the Axis of Evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East.”

Olmert, the statement clarified, told Pelosi that Syria’s sincerity about a genuine peace with Israel would be judged by its willingness to “cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbullah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran.”

The statement said Olmert had not communicated to Pelosi any change in Israeli policy on Damascus.

Obviously, she should have tied the scarf a little tighter given the copious amounts of gray matter that must have oozed out during her visit to the Middle East. Or perhaps she should have used a tin foil hat:

Pelosi, who met in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar Assad over the objections of US President George W. Bush, said she brought a message to Assad from Olmert saying that Israel was ready for peace talks.

“We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from the president [Assad] that he was ready to resume the peace process. He was ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel,” Pelosi said after meeting Assad.

She said the meeting with the Syrian leader “enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well.”

According to officials in the Prime Minister’s Office, however, this was not what transpired during her meeting with Olmert.

Anyone who believes any “assurances” from that murderous thug Assad obviously needs some additional Reynolds Wrap on their tin foil beanie to deflect all the rays marked “stupid” from penetrating their skull.

Assad has given Lebanon all sorts of “assurances” that he will respect their independence and not assassinate their citizens on a regular basis. The killing of the beloved Pierre Gemayal last November would seem to give the lie to the latter. And as for the former, Assad is working closely with his Hizbullah allies to bring about a return of Syrian domination of the tiny country.

Hey! But he’s talking to a liberal Democrat so he must be telling the truth, right? Because our Nancy is so good, so pure in motive, so…so…EARNEST, she can charm the hair off of an orangutan . And the fact that both Assad and Pelosi hate Bush with a passion probably gave them a lot of common ground to reflect upon.

Someone get Matt Stoller an oxygen mask. This breathless paean to Pelosi is so off the mark that it should be listed under “wishful thinking” rather than any kind of serious analysis:

Pelosi, in going to Syria, and in telling Bush to calm down, is looking much more like a President than Bush is. Bush is even having his role as commander-in-chief challenged, by both his own ineptitude and the public’s willingness to strip him of power. By default, that power is slowly bleeding over to Pelosi, Reid, and whichever member of Congress is leading that day and filling the massive void Bush has left. This is not an ideal scenario, but it’s the one that Bush set himself up for when he refused to acknowledge the results of the 2006 elections and what that meant for his method of governance.

He may hold the constitutional office, but he is less and less the President every day. He can still do a lot of damage, but we are increasingly going to see leaders like Pelosi in positions of authority. Power abhors a vacuum, which is why Pelosi looks like a President today.

Bush may not be able to set the agenda anymore. But to doubt the power of the veto pen is stupid. And by his own admission, Bush can still “start wars” - a not inconsequential power that would bolster his standing among Americans (at least temporarily) if the President were to be dumb enough to attack Iran; something I don’t think is in the cards for the foreseeable future.

And as far as Bush’s powers as commander in chief being “stripped,” perhaps Mr. Stoller might offer an example other than the sure to be vetoed war spending bill which also is a rock solid certainty of the veto being upheld. And any attempt to cut off funds for Iraq entirely will result in a smashing, humiliating defeat for the Democrats. So unless we have some other example of Bush losing his power as Commander in Chief, perhaps Stoller should just put a sock in it.

The Washington Post also wonders where Pelosi’s brains have gone:

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration — rightly or wrongly — has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker’s freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That’s true enough — but those other congressmen didn’t try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. “We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace,” Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president.

The Post is too kind. Why is this so surprising? The Democrats have sought to undermine this President’s foreign policy almost from day one. They have ridiculed his support of democratic reforms in the Middle East. They have undercut his authority by making the wildest, most baseless charges about why we are fighting in Iraq. They have gone to tremendous lengths to even question his legitimacy by constantly posing the most outrageous conspiracy theories about “stolen elections” - despite the fact that independent forums have confirmed the President’s victory in 2000 and only the looniest of Democrats actually believe that the 2004 election was won by Kerry.

There is much to criticize in the Bush presidency - a lackadaisical attitude toward important issues, cronyism (which certainly leads to questions of competence), an overarching drive to politicize government, and a reliance on loyalty as a determining factor in personnel decisions - to name a few.

But Pelosi’s performance in Syria - played to the hilt by the Syrian press who didn’t mention any of Pelosi’s traveling companions or any of the Republican lawmakers who also visited Assad - proves that she is a not ready for prime time national leader. Her egregious error in misinterpreting Prime Minister Olmert’s “message” and her jaw dropping myopia about Assad’s “assurances” brand her as an amateur’s amateur.

As long as she’s wearing the scarf, perhaps we should tell her to “Get Thee to a Nunnery.” Anything would be better than the disaster she’s already perpetrated and the confusion she’s already sown.

UPDATE

The normally placid Ed Morrissey has some tough words for the Democrats:

The Democrats, led by Pelosi, have tried to undermine Bush for years. Now that they have the majority in Congress, they can give full vent to their schemes. The efforts of the past couple of months show that the Democrats want to turn the Constitution upside down, strip the executive branch of its power, and make Congress the supreme power in the American system.

Well, sorry, but that’s the British system. Perhaps Pelosi would be more comfortable there or in Canada, but here in the US, the elected President has all of the Constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy and command the military. That remains true even when Congress dislikes the policies in both areas. If the Democrats want a new foreign policy, then let them nominate someone who can articulate one that the American people support, and stop nominating appeasers and vacillators.

Perhaps the Democrats should think very seriously about substituting the ostrich for the donkey as a mascot for their party.

It certainly would make more sense after House Armed Service Committee members decided to ban the use of the phrase “War on Terror:”

The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.

This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”

The “global war on terror,” a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the “long war,” which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years.

Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration’s catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as “the war in Iraq,” the “war in Afghanistan, “operations in the Horn of Africa” or “ongoing military operations throughout the world.”

“There was no political intent in doing this,” said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. “We were just trying to avoid catch phrases.”

The problem isn’t that the “War on Terror” doesn’t describe the nature of our conflict with radical Islamism. We’ve heard it repeated ad nauseam that terror is a tactic, not an ideology. And this is true to a large extent.

But the problem with this change in nomenclature is that the “War on Terror” was a phrase that made it absolutely clear that the conflict was both global in nature and that all of the “operations” the Democrats are now going to list separately had an interconnectedness to them, that they were part of a united effort against a common enemy. And since both political correctness and strategic necessity disallowed the obvious alternative to “War on Terror” - that being, a “War Against Radical Islam” - supporters of the war found themselves hamstrung in what else to call the conflict.

Some military people began to refer to the war as “The Long War” which was accurate as far as it goes but much less descriptive. Now apparently, the Democrats have simply abandoned the idea of a general war at all and will pigeonhole each operation as separate and unrelated to any other operation underway around the world.

This is the culmination of nearly 6 long years of work by Democrats to banish 9/11 as a seminal date in history; that America was a different place after the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans than it was before.

And the reason the Democrats have been so anxious to change the dynamic regarding the “War on Terror” is shockingly political; they see a huge advantage accrue to the Republicans as a result of the attacks on this country and have been seeking for 6 years to destroy that advantage. Despite a transparent attempt to change the narrative of 9/11 to reflect badly on the President, to this day the President’s performance on 9/11 and the days following is seen as the highlight of his presidency by the majority of Americans. Unable to undermine history by substituting their own cockeyed narrative of the events on that day and immediately after, the Democrats are doing the next best thing; they are trying to remove the impact of 9/11 on our military and foreign policy and the subsequent decisions made by the President to fight Islamic radicalism all over the world.

And lest anyone think that this isn’t almost entirely about politics, House staffers makes it plain as day:

Committee aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said dropping or reducing references to the global war on terror could have many purposes, including an effort to be more precise about military operations, but also has a political element involving a disagreement over whether the war in Iraq is part of the effort to combat terrorism or is actually a distraction from fighting terrorists.

House Democratic leaders who have been pushing for an Iraq withdrawal timetable have talked about the need to get combat troops out of Iraq so they can be deployed against terrorists in other parts of the world, while Republicans have said that Iraq is part of the front line in the war on terror. Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the armed services committee chairman, has been among those who have complained that having the military tied up with Iraq operations has reduced its capacity to respond to more pressing problems, like tracking down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

At the moment, the only other place to deploy troops is Afghanistan - a hypocritical idea since the Europeans aren’t pulling their weight as it is and such a move would give the lie to the Democrats oft repeated criticism that Bush is all too willing to go it alone when it comes to the conflict formerly known as The War on Terror.

The Washington Times hits the nail on the head:

This is yet another sign that the Democrats are going hard-left on national-security issues generally and not just on Iraq — in this instance, trying to airbrush away the very war on terrorism from our most basic defense legislation.

This is also hypocrisy, simple and rank — the sort that causes us to question motives. There is no other conclusion given that the phrase “war on terror” still has its uses for some Democratic lawmakers. One of them is Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, who chairs the House Armed Services Committee and is ultimately responsible for these directives. “Today, we are in the midst of a long struggle against the evil of terrorism,” reads his press release commemorating the fifth anniversary of the September 11, 2001. Iraq is “separate and distinct from the war on terrorism,” which, according to the Ike Skelton responsible for the Sept. 3, 2006, release, still retains merit. Of course, this document is intended for public consumption. It is only secondarily a means of cudgeling Mr. Bush.

Which is it, Mr. Skelton? A catch-phrase or a long struggle? We suppose it depends on whom you’re talking to.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be so taken aback. Many Democrats have been uncomfortable with “war on terrorism” for its alleged bellicosity, its lack of “nuance” and its clarity on whom the bad guys are. Above all, they dislike its close association with the presidency of George W. Bush.

No doubt that “close association” with Bush is one the major reasons for the change. From a party that has portrayed this president as more dangerous than terrorists; a Hitler, a stupid ox (while at the same time attributing Machiavellian achievements to him), and the greatest threat to civil liberties and liberal democracy in American history, removing part of his legacy would seem to be the least they can do to stick it to him.

I suspect that this directive will be honored in the breach and many Democrats of the Blue Dog stripe will continue to use the term “War on Terror” to describe the long, twilight struggle against radical Islam. And since global operations against terrorism will continue regardless of what Democrats call it (at least until a liberal democrat is elected President), it might be fun to watch Democrats twist themselves into knots trying to describe an operation that targets the financial reserves of the Philippine terrorist organization Abu Sayyaf Group while using Special Forces to interdict bombs and bomb making materials from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) whose links to the Indonesian group Jemaah Islamiah are well established. In the meantime, American FBI and CIA scour the back alleys and slums of Asian cities looking to break the links that bind all those groups together.

Yeah…but don’t call it a “Global War on Terror.”

It appears that the hostage crisis in Iran is over. President Ahmadinejad has “pardoned” the British sailors and has given them back to Britain as a “gift:”

During his press conference taking place right now, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has just announced that he has “pardoned” the British marines and sailors and that they will be released as a “gift” to Britain. (Sky News live broadcast, no link)

The presser is still going on as I speak, although I wouldn’t necessarily call it a press conference since, as is his wont, the talkative Ahmadiinejad is apparently asking and answering his own questions. And being a long winded sort of fellow, the hostages may be in for a long wait for freedom:

Iran is to free the 15 UK sailors and marines taken captive in the Shatt al Arab waterway as a “gift” to Britain.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the group would be released promptly and handed over to the British embassy in Tehran.

He said he had pardoned the sailors as a gift to the British people and to mark the birthday of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed and Easter.

He made the pledge after awarding medals to the “brave” border guards who arrested the Britons.

“I would like to thank the Iranian coast guard for courgeously defending our Iranian territorial waters,” he said.

He then pinned medals on the chests of three Coast Guard officers. The ceremony was performed during a broadcast broadcast around the world.

While the release of the hostages is welcome news (and I doubt that Blair would turn them away no matter what Ahmadinejad had made them out to be), the Iranian president’s “pardon” of the sailors is hugely significant. It presupposes that the sailors had done something wrong in the first place - an idea directly at odds with what the British government has been saying since the crisis began. In the end, Ahmadinejad found a way to humiliate the Brits while coming out smelling like a rose himself thanks to his “Easter gift” to the British people.

I realize that this is news and must be covered. I also realize that reporters sitting in Tehran are not about to get up and call out the Iranians on this shameless, nauseating piece of propaganda.

But the commentary I’m hearing on the voice over from Skye News is unbelievable. No mention that this is so obvious a propaganda dog and pony show. No comment about what a “pardon” for people who have done nothing wrong might mean. And certainly nothing about how this has placed Ahmadinejad on the top of the heap once again in Iran.

For the last 3 or 4 days, some of the less fanatical leaders in Iran (I will not refer to them as “moderates” or “pragmatists” which makes a mockery of the English language in so doing) shoved Ahmadinejad and his radical brethren to the sidelines in this dispute, working the phones and trying to get the British to agree to some kind of language where the Brits would admit to violating Iranian territorial waters without actually saying so. And they seemed to be making some progress.

And then, out of the clear blue, Ahmadinejad grabs the bull by the horns and “pardons” them all and then pins medals on the border guards who kidnapped the sailors illegally in the first place. Hard to beat that kind of chutzpah. In one fell swoop, he has scored an incredible propaganda victory for the regime, making them look like reasonable human beings instead of the drooling fanatics they are portrayed as being. And he has humiliated one of the great powers of Europe, making them accept his definition of what happened and acquiescing in his “pardon” of the innocent sailors. Ahmadinejad even managed to go over the heads of the British government by offering the sailors as a “gift” to the British people - no doubt many of whom will be eternally grateful that the thug didn’t torture and behead them while they were in his custody.

The effect of these gestures was to cut the less fanatical mullahs off at the knees, leaving them looking like idiots for trying to get the Brits to agree to language that would have been problematic in the extreme when all Ahmadinejad had to do to get exactly the same result was unilaterally declare the Brits in the wrong by pardoning the sailors.

Pretty brilliant stuff.

I have no doubt this has emboldened Ahmadinejad and his radical brethren although they’d be daft to try something like this on the United States. More likely, Iran will continue to probe the periphery of the west, searching for weakness and exploiting it when they can. Clearly, they are now big-time players in the Middle East - something they have been pointing to since long before our invasion of Iraq - and will either cause our allies to buckle and try and make the best accommodations possible with Tehran or they will look to the US for assistance.

Given the ever more strident calls for our leaving Iraq to the tender mercies of those allied with Tehran in the first place, I doubt whether our allies in the region are feeling encouraged today.

UPDATE

Ed Morrissey, celebrating the return home of his beloved First Mate following kidney transplant surgery, takes a slightly less optimistic view of the Iranian victory:

Ahmadinejad makes the most out of the reversal. Facing the threat of a blockade if Iran pressed this any further, he gets to look magnanimous while still maintaining the notion that he could have tried the sailors for espionage, even while dressed in uniform. It’s a net win, allowing the Iranians to feel as though they won a tactical victory while avoiding having to back up their rhetoric with action.

Whether this is a win for Tony Blair remains to be seen. He stuck with negotiations and got the 15 back, and he didn’t have to apologize for a violation that never occurred. On the surface, it looks great — an end to the crisis without a shot being fired. It’s what happened below the surface and behind the scenes that will determine how Blair fared against Ahmadinejad. What did the British have to give up in order to get their personnel back?

First, it would have taken a helluva lot of provocation for the Brits to have instituted (or asked our help in instituting) a blockade. I don’t think that was ever a serious option as long as the Iranians didn’t put the sailors on trial.

Secondly, few questions will be asked of Blair about the resolution of this crisis. As Ed says, he got them home and nobody died. No doubt the left in Britain will trumpet this “victory” and compare it unfavorably to something the US may have done. But because they have the introspective capabilities of a three toed sloth, the British left will fail to realize that Ahmadinejad has forced the Brits to tacitly admit that everything the Iranians said about the sailors was true; that they were spying, they were in Iranian waters deliberately, and that the British government is a bunch of liars for trying to say differently.

But hey! Nobody died!

And Allah sees the pardon as a sign of weakness on Ahmadinejad’s part:

The fact that they let/made Ahmadinejad make the announcement smacks of a face-saving gesture. According to the Times, Ahmadinejad’s hardliners were split with the pragmatists about how far to pursue confrontation here. You may remember the Times of London claimed a few days ago that the hardliners themselves were split, with the head of the Revolutionary Guard advocating that the sailors be freed. Sounds like “Mahdi” and his crew lost the debate but Khamenei threw him a bone by letting him look powerful and magnanimous by framing the release as a presidential pardon. The fact that it’s a pardon also assumes that a crime was committed, of course, which is another face-saving gesture.

The question now, given the de facto prisoner exchange yesterday involving that Iranian diplomat kidnapped in Iraq, is how much Britain — or we — gave up to make this happen.

Allah points to a report out of Iran that apparently we are going to allow an Iranian diplomat to look in on the Rev guards we captured at Irbil a few weeks ago.

“Quid pro quo, Clarice…”?

Dear Senator Harry,

As for my next trip, I hear Iran is lovely this time of year . . .

The Par 3 12th hole at Augusta National. The most difficult Par 3 in golf.

Winter is now officially over.

That snow expected for tomorrow? Pay it no mind. Major League baseball teams have broken camp and moved north signaling the official start of spring.

Opening day was welcomed with the usual excitement and high hopes - even by luckless teams like the Chicago Cubbies who went out and spent a gazillion dollars to improve their fortunes. To be fair, Cubs fans always have high hopes. It’s part of the little kit kids get when they become Cubs fans. And along with those high hopes comes paper towels to wipe the spittle off the TV screen when your heroes blow another game as well as a suicide instruction manual for those who just can’t bear to watch the destruction of another promising season. “Wait until next year” has become a running joke in Chicago - sort of like the dead rising from the grave to vote in every election except there’s a better chance of that really happening than the Cubs winning the world championship.

And to make this time even more glorious and significant, Tiger, Phil, and the best golfers in the world will vie for the most glamorous championship in the world in what may be the most beautiful sports setting in the world; Augusta National Golf Club.

That last is not hyperbole. Golfing great Bobby Jones who designed Augusta, took what nature had to offer and added wide, sloping fairways, enough trees to populate a small forest, breathtaking hillsides filled with blooming dogwoods and azalea bushes, and topped it off with the most treacherously designed greens in Christendom. The effect is a feast for the eyes and torture for the soul. How many golfing greats have found their dreams shattered going around “Amen Corner” (#10, 11, 12)? How many eagles have turned to double bogey thanks to the innocuous looking but devilishly placed tributary to Rae’s Creek on #13? And how many big putts by big golfers have rolled in for victory on #18?

For sports drama there are few events that can match it. Perhaps the “old” Indy 500 came close. And today, NASCAR’s Daytona 500 is usually one of the most competitive events of the year. But for sheer artistry, performance under pressure, and nail biting suspense, the Masters Golf Tournament usually doesn’t disappoint.

Sox Manager Ozzie Guillen contemplates the upcoming season.

Meanwhile, the Babes of Spring have begun their long quest for glory as Major League baseball opened its season this last weekend. Frankly, I don’t pay much attention until the Babes turn into the Boys of Summer who, in turn, morph into the playoff warriors of fall - fighting for the opportunity to join their names and the name of their team to the long and storied history of what we used to call “The National Pastime.”

No more, of course. For a variety of reasons I flesh out here, baseball no longer dominates the national conversation as it once did. But for those of us of a certain age, we can recall when baseball was king and other sports were created as filler, simply taking up the time before spring training started again.

No matter. I will be a baseball fan until the day I leave the earth and may the devil take anyone who criticizes me for it. I love the ins and outs of the game, the strategy, the grace of the players, and most especially, the one on one confrontation between the hitter and the pitcher - the most lovely of athletic competitions.

And even though players have turned into hobos and some have become Frankenstein monsters hyped up on steroids, the sound of the ball hitting the bat with that satisfying thwack still gets my blood racing and juices flowing.

This year’s edition of my White Sox will contend for the American League Central title. The only problem is, so will Detroit, Minnesota, and Cleveland. This, the most competitive division in baseball will probably feature some of the best games in all of baseball this year. Stellar pitching, excellent defense, and power offenses will make AL Central games a joy to watch.

Mercurial manager Ozzie Guillen will put pretty much the same lineup on the field this year as he did during last year’s 90 win season. The Sox have shored up some holes, notably in centerfield where last year’s weak sister Brian Anderson will start the season on the bench, giving way to veteran Darin Erstad. And two players who were pivotal during the Sox World Series championship year of 2005 - Juan Uribe and Scott Posednik - should regain at least some of the form that made them such a large part of that magical season.

Unfortunately, the pitching staff is something of a question mark. Trading away Freddie Garcia to Philly for two relatively unknown arms and the shocking deal that sent potential future star Brandon McCarthy to Texas for another set of young pitchers raised eyebrows around the league and set the fans to grumbling. But there is little doubt the Sox addressed their major problem from last year; an inconsistent bullpen. Now featuring three kids who can chuck the ball close to 100 MPH, the Sox should dominate in the late innings. And closer Bobby Jenks - whose fastball seems to have lost some velocity - still has that devastating hook as an “out” pitch.

For offense, murderers row is still in place with Thome, Konerko, and Dye, the triple threat power trio ready to play long ball. All three hit for average, drive in runs, and can go long at any time. Simply put, there is no more devastating middle of the lineup anywhere in baseball.

For intangibles, how about Ozzie being on the hot seat this year? Guillen’s shtick is beginning to wear thin with the club’s upper management, the press, and even some fans. If the Sox fall below expectations this year - and nothing less than another trip to the World Series is expected - Ozzie may find himself looking for another job. He has yet to learn to curtail his more outrageous comments and it may yet prove to be a distraction to the team if he gets embroiled in more controversies. But there is no doubt Guillen is a warrior for his players. And the players in turn feel a loyalty for their skipper that goes beyond the organization. Owner Jerry Reinsdorf has proven in the past that he can take only so much controversy before he takes care of the problem permanently. But if Guillen is winning, Jerry probably won’t care if Ozzie goes skinny dipping in the Grant Park fountain.

As I did last year, I will write from time to time about the Sox, especially the “Crosstown Showdown” series with the Cubs. And I expect I’ll have something to say when Barry Bonds breaks Hank Aaron’s career home run record, although if there has ever been a less attractive hero breaking an iconic major record than Bonds, I cannot for the life of me think of one.

So get set and strap it down. Baseball is here and summer isn’t very far behind.