Right Wing Nut House

Funny how these things always seem to happen at the last minute in politics.

Republicans, including the President, have been saying for more than two years that his immigration “reform” bill was not - repeat - not an amnesty measure. Anyone who said any differently was a “racist” or paranoid. There was no way that this bill would be used to grant permanent legal status to the 12 million illegal immigrant scofflaws residing in the United States.

“Trust me:”

Senators negotiating a bipartisan immigration reform bill have settled on the details of a plan that would immediately grant legal status to all illegal immigrants currently in the United States.

The deal on “Z visas” for illegal immigrants is one of several issues where Democrats and Republicans have reached broad agreement.

But as senators emerged from what they had hoped would be a final round of negotiations Tuesday, they indicated that painstakingly slow progress would keep them from meeting the deadline set by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to begin debate on a bill today.

Late Tuesday, Reid agreed to push that deadline to Monday.

“They tell me they’re 80% of the way,” Reid said in announcing the delay. “That’s fine, the other 20% is hard.”

The plan to award legal status to all illegal immigrants who meet certain qualifications would occur only after other “triggers” are met. These triggers would require that certain border security and work-site enforcement measures be in place before other aspects of the overhaul go forward.

The Z visa plan would start with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States going on a probationary legal status. If the triggers are met — a process that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) estimated would take 18 months — then illegal immigrants who qualify could get Z visas. Those who have committed felonies would not be eligible, Graham said, and all participants would have to pass security checks, pay a fine and a processing fee and pass an English proficiency test.

I am a cynical old curmudgeon, having long ago lost my wide eyed innocence when it comes to worshiping the men and women who occupy seats in the House or the Senate. In fact, I lost my schoolboy notions of government and the people who serve the United States within about 6 months of coming to Washington. They are not paradigms of wisdom and virtue nor are they evil manipulators. They are human. There are nice ones and mean ones. Smart ones and dumb ones. Clever ones and clueless ones. Serious and unserious, trustworthy and untrustworthy - the whole, rich panoply of the human tapestry encompassing all the good, the bad, the bald, and the ugly resides in those chambers of lawmaking. So it is entirely possible to revere lawmaking but be cynical about the lawmakers. Such is the way of Washington.

But one thing that all politicians can’t help being - good, evil, and everything in between - are liars. The very same thing that you might spank your child for, politicians do on a regular basis. The very same thing that you would divorce your spouse for, politicians do without thinking.

Hence, the illegal immigrant amnesty bill and what seems like an abrupt about face by many of the politicians involved. Long time Hill watchers took a look at that immigration bill when it first saw the light of day and could smell the amnesty provisions in it a mile away. Despite the denials that this simply wasn’t so. Despite the name calling by proponents, tarring the opposition with horribly hurtful epithets questioning their fairness and empathy. Despite all of it, the opponents of the bill turn out to be right and the advocates are revealed as liars.

Our politics have become so cynical that politicians know there is a very good chance the public will not penalize them for their lies, that the people will simply shrug their shoulders and chalk it up to “politics as usual.” And they would be right. The infection of fatalism regarding our politics and politicians has so sickened the public that expecting honesty and integrity in our public officials is no longer a given. When someone like Representative William Jefferson (D-LA) can be caught with $90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer and be re-elected by a comfortable margin, you know that something might just be amiss with the body politic.

It’s their fault, of course. And ours. And our parents and grandparents and the long, illustrious line of Americans going all the way back to the Founding Fathers. The Founders may not have imagined a republic the likes of which we have today. But they knew what men were capable of doing when in power and tried to set up a system that mitigated against the worst of what we were capable of. The fact that they largely succeeded is astonishing. It’s just too bad they couldn’t imagine an age where lying became second nature to the politicians that people have grown weary of making excuses for.

UPDATE

Ed Morrissey doesn’t seem alarmed, pointing to increased border security measures. better workplace enforcement, and a slight roadblock placed in the way of amnesty seekers.

Obviously, I’m a tad more hysterical. Allah less so. Hewitt - steaming.

In this, the longest, the strangest, the most expensive, perhaps the most important Presidential campaign season in history, Republican candidates from Rudy to Ronnie seem to be spinning their wheels, trying to find an issue where they can successfully get off the defensive and attack their opponents.

So far, they aren’t doing too well.

The tried and true liberal attack lines of the past sound old and strangely out of place. Pointing out that Hillary is anti-capitalist as one candidate did at last night’s debate is silly. Of course she’s anti-capitalist. She’s a liberal Democrat. And the problem is that the right has done an excellent job over the years of defining liberals in such a way as to make their stupidity on economic issues plain as day. Weak foreign policy, ditto. The American people don’t need to be reminded of these things because two decades of conservatives have successfully tagged the Democrats for what they are; a statist party in love with big government, tax raising, and the idea that everything in the world that can be blamed on America, should be blamed on America.

If this is the best a Republican nominee can do in what is sure to be a battle royale over the future of this country then Republicans will almost surely lose. For in the end, the American people will not only want a candidate to offer concrete solutions to our problems but also verbalize the spirit and optimism that denotes a “can do” attitude toward the future. This, after all, is what Presidential campaigns in this country have always been about. Coupling political attacks with a vision for where the nominee wants to take the country - a powerful, positive, optimistic vision - usually spells the difference between victory and defeat.

The Democrats, God bless ‘em, will spend the next year and a half telling the people how badly the Republicans have screwed up. In this, they will have plenty of evidence and ammunition. In fact, the real danger for the Democrats is that they get so caught up in their GOP/Bush bashing that they forget about that “vision thing” as George Bush #41 put it and fail to articulate a positive message that will give the people an idea of what kind of country they want the United States to be.

But that may still be enough for victory given the paucity of ideas coming from Republican candidates in these debates. Of course, part of the problem is the way the debates are structured. But outside of Duncan Hunter’s “Zero Tax” on American manufacturing and a few scattered initiatives from Romney, McCain, and Guiliani, no candidate as yet has been able to break out of the pack with a clear conceptualization of what kind of nation they want to lead.

This time out, it is not going to be enough to simply point at the Democratic nominee and scream “LIBERAL! LIBERAL! LIBERAL!” The last eight years will have given the American people a sour taste about the Republican party and any GOP nominee will have to remove that unsavory memory by making people look to the future and think about our security, our economy, and our culture in ways that are optimistic and positive.

A very tall order, that. There’s always the danger of overdoing it and leaving oneself open to counter charges of being too Pollyanish about the future. But there is little doubt that a bit of cockeyed optimism can blunt some of the more outrageous criticisms that will come the GOP’s way via the Democrats who can then be portrayed as being too grouchy, too negative about the future to deserve the reins of government. A delicate balance to be sure but one that the Republicans must seek out if they are to have any chance at all of recapturing the Congress.

As for the debate last night, Romney may have come closest to articulating a positive vision of the future. But there’s a reason he’s mired in 3rd place behind Guiliani and McCain; there’s just something too set, too perfect about his delivery and his personae. Not that he should seek to be some kind of rough hewn good ole boy, backslapping and “aw shucksing” his way to the nomination. But he exudes little warmth and less humanity. He comes off as a competent technocrat and not much else. Mitt could’ve used that “Rudy Moment” last night in going after Ron Paul for his obscene statements about 9/11. It would given him some personality.

Rudy did much better than he did last week in California. He needed to. He may have benefited most from the fact that the adults at Fox News were asking terrific questions designed to flesh out a candidates position on a particular issue rather than trying to create a “gotchya” moment as Chrissy Matthews constantly strove for on MSNBC the week previously. His answers were smoother and more intelligently formulated than the sputtering responses he gave the week before. And of course, his flash of temper at Ron Paul was the viral video highlight of the evening. I think Allah nails it here:

A more thoughtful response would have been to ask him what his studiously noninterventionist “constitutional” option would have been when Saddam invaded Kuwait. But that’s all gravy; Rudy’s answer suffices as an expression of the palpable disgust most Americans (or at least most conservatives) felt at that moment for that Bircheresque crank, which is why he got the reaction he did. You can hear Mitt at the end over the din demanding that Rudy not be given the extra 30 seconds he requested, and with good reason — he might have walked away with the nomination right there.

I mentioned last night while liveblogging the debate at Heading Right that Rudy’s Moment was reminiscent of Reagan’s loss of temper in Nashua, New Hampshire when the Publisher of the Nashua Telegraph, Jon Breen, sought to cancel a debate between he and George Bush because Reagan had invited other candidates to the event - an event he ended up paying for when the Telegraph bowed out of sponsoring it. When Breen ordered the microphones turned off, Reagan, in a flash of temper, grabbed one of the mikes and said “I’m paying for this microphone, Mr. Green (sic).” With those words, Reagan’s campaign destroyed George Bush’s “Big Mo” and he went on to victory. So Allah’s thought that Romney’s demanding Rudy be denied his extra 30 seconds lest he grab the nomination then and there is probably true.

Did Rudy “win” the debate? For that moment alone, he stood out and therefore probably did himself the most good. Better yet, he matches a similar viral video bit with Fred Thompson absolutely skewering Michael Moore over an open pit. Thompson’s piece has taken the righty blogosphere by storm and from what I can tell, Rudy’s bit has equally electrified conservatives.

And what about The Absent One? Despite Thompson’s response to Moore, the longer he stays away from debates and delays formally declaring for office, the more he risks appearing wishy washy about the whole idea of being president. It may be time for Fred to jump in with both feet and begin the race in earnest. Right now, he’s not damaging himself by staying away and may even be doing himself some good by not suffering by comparison with the other candidates. But that glow around him won’t last much longer. Eventually, he’ll have to commit. And the sooner the better.

McCain also did much better, again largely as a result of the kinds of questions that were being asked by the Fox journalists. I thought his response to the hypothetical “ticking bomb” scenario was especially good. As a man who himself experienced torture, I thought his answer regarding whether a president should order torture for captured terrorists with knowledge of an impending attack especially poignant and morally defensible. It may not have sat well with some conservatives but I know quite a few who aren’t holding his position on the issue against him.

As for the rest - forget them. With the possible exception of Duncan Hunter who I believe would make an excellent conservative Vice Presidential candidate for either Mitt or Rudy, Tommy Thompson, Tom Tancredo, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee (who gave the most spirited anti abortion defense among the lot), and Sam Brownback failed to distinguish themselves in any way and a couple - Tancredo and Thompson - should look at a tape of that debate and then withdraw quietly. Not that anyone would notice anyway.

Ron Paul should not be invited to any more Republican debates. His truther position on 9/11 is so far beyond the pale of rationality and logic that including him does a disservice to the entire presidential selection process - and not just for Republicans. We have to find a way to place people like Paul so far out on the fringes of American politics that they fall off of a cliff and disappear. And not inviting him to another debate would be a good start.

This time out, a little better, sharper focus by all the top candidates which made them look slightly more “presidential” but failed to excite too many of us. I’m anxious to see a smaller field so that some of the candidates answers can be fleshed out more and we get a better idea of the quality of their minds. Right now, they barely have enough time to relay their talking points on the issues. A little more depth, please.

And a note to Fred!: C’mon in. The water’s fine.

UPDATE

Hugh Hewitt has some interesting thoughts about the debate last night, specifically John McCain’s trouble with responding to Mitt Romney’s criticism of McCain-Feingold:

Few analysts have focused on Senator McCain’s nearly incoherent response which asserted that there was too much money in politics and that money had corrupted the GOP. Both assertions are simply false, and though the MSM nods along, GOP voters absolutely reject both assertions. There isn’t too much money in political campaigning, they think, there’s too much money from the hard left represented by Soros. Further, the party faithful don’t think of themselves as corrupt, or even of the party generally. They believe that the GOP’s corrupt Congressmen weren’t corrupted by soft money or campaign donations but by cold cash and perks in exchange for favors.

That much is true - as far as it goes. McCain will get no praise from me for his ideas on how campaigns should be regulated. His ideas, as Hugh makes clear, are anti-Democratic and fly in the face of conservative thought.

But most Americans recognize that something must be done about the way that money is raised. In my review of the new book on the Duke Cunningham scandal, I point out that earmarks are not just being used for pork barrel politics but rather as a way to fill the campaign coffers of Republicans (and soon, Democrats) with hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions. That “cold cash” Hugh speaks of makes its way into campaigns via lobbyists in exchange for favors (earmarks) - as close to bribery as you can get without actually being frog marched out of the Capitol Building and straight to prison.

McCain’s presecriptions are draconian, restrictive, and Professor Hewitt says unconstitutional. I defer to his knowledge and experience in that regard but find his defense of the GOP ringing hollow. It has been Republican strategy since 1994 to use the Appropriations process to wring contributions from lobbyists by selling earmarks. This is not a secret nor is it illegal. But it stinks to high heaven and has corrupted the budget process. And as Duke Cunningham proved, it can corrupt individual congressmen as well.

Is there a “conservative” reform program for campaign finance? Unlimited contributions with immediate and full disclosure is about the only idea I’ve heard regarding FEC reform. To say that this is a prescription for permanent incumbency is a given unless the earmark process is reformed as well. And there are too few lawmakers - McCain is one of them - who sees the need to reform both parts of the whole.

So yes, skewer McCain for his folly. But recognize the problem and figure out a way to do something about it before what little integrity our political process and government have left disappear.

The Wrong Stuff: The Extraordinary Saga of Randy “Duke” Cunningham, The Most Corrupt Congressman Ever Caught: A Review

Disclaimer: One of the authors of this book, Jerry Kammer, is an old friend of the family. It was he who sent me a free copy of the book to review.

This articile originally appears in The American Thinker

It is “the biggest case of Congressional corruption ever documented.” Shocking in its scope and in the brazenness of its conspirators, the Duke Cunningham bribery caper is a tale not only of individual malfeasance that would make a grifter cry but also of a culture in Washington, D.C. that threatens the integrity of government itself.

The saga of Duke Cunningham from a popular, athletically inclined small town boy to war hero, to Congressman, to convicted felon is told in a new book by the Pulitzer Prize winning reporters who broke the story. Marcus Stern, Jerry Kammer, and George E. Condon, Jr. of Copely News Service and Deal Calbreath of the San Diego Union Tribune shared the award for National Reporting in 2006 with James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times who won for exposing the top secret NSA program to spy on terrorists.

What Stern et. al. uncovered in their investigation of Cunningham’s criminality went far beyond the rather seedy yet spectacular corruption of one Congressman. The authors have written a brief against the budget device that led Cunningham (and no doubt others) down a primrose path toward temptation and ultimately, a moral surrender to turpitude; a device that threatens the foundations of trust in our elected officials; a belief that they are acting in the interests of their constituents and not to line their pockets with gifts and cash from the legions of lobbyists whose only job is to wring as much of our tax dollars as is humanly possible from the government and deposit it in the bank accounts of their clients (keeping a healthy portion of pork for themselves).

It’s earmarks, of course. And if you can come away after reading this book and not be shaking in anger at the unadulterated and transparent corruption that earmarks have fostered, then you don’t pay taxes or simply don’t care.

In truth, there is nothing illegal about earmarks and, as the authors point out in a brilliant chapter on the practice, they can be used for good at times. As an example of earmarks being used for a beneficial purpose, a lone Texas Congressman steered billions of dollars to the Afghan resistance fighting Soviet occupation in the 1980’s. Said Representative Charlie Wilson (whose story was told in the hugely entertaining Charlie Wilson’s War) “There are three branches of the government and you have to explain that to the executive branch every once and a while and earmarks are the best way to do that.” Wilson believed that the Afghan resistance would never have triumphed without earmarks because the CIA would not have spent the money effectively.

But the authors make the case it is not necessarily what earmarks are for that is the problem. After all, one man’s earmark is another man’s necessary expenditure. What may look like a pork road project to one person living far away from where construction would take place could in fact be a “quality of life” issue to someone directly affected by the increased traffic flow and safer driving that a particular earmarked project would bring.

Rather it is the way that earmarks are included in the budget process that cries out for radical reform. Earmarks are usually dropped into spending bills anonymously and are rarely debated on the floor of the House. Or they are added during mark-up sessions or even during House-Senate conferences. Sometimes, they are included in the Committee’s report on the final spending bill and not even passed on to the President when he signs it.

Earmarks were a problem going back in the 1980’s. For example, the authors point to the 1987 Transportation bill vetoed by an astonished Ronald Reagan who counted no less than 121 earmarks in the bill. Both the House and Senate - Democrats and Republicans - shrugged off the Gipper’s disapproval and passed the bill over the President’s veto overwhelmingly. In 1991, the number of earmarks in the pork laden Transportation bill had grown to 538; 1850 by 1998; and by 2005 the total number of earmarks reached a mind numbing 6,373 costing an additional $24.2 billion. (Source: Taxpayers for Common Sense).

Newt Gingrich and the Republicans saw the earmark as a ticket to a permanent majority. The Republicans would place newer or more vulnerable members on one of the Appropriations Committees which would give them access to the lobbyists who, in exchange for an earmark, would fill their campaign coffers with cash as well as shower the member with gifts, junkets, and other goodies.

It is a sordid, depressing, but perfectly legal practice. But to a man like Duke Cunningham, it was a goldmine, a path to the riches and lifestyle he had craved since a boy in a small Missouri town where he grew up. Graduating from the University of Missouri, Cunningham got married to his college sweetheart and took a job in Hinsdale, Illinois as an assistant coach of the swim team. At that time, the Hinsdale swim team was coached by the legendary Doc Watson who won 12 straight state swimming titles and sent several of his athletes to the Olympics. Cunningham was later to brag that he was responsible for much of the team’s success - a statement belied by both former athletes he coached as well as Doc Watson himself.

But that was Duke. And after losing a close friend in Viet Nam, Cunningham decided to enlist in the Navy and fly jets. Proving himself a dedicated aviator, Cunningham’s diligence was rewarded on one spectacular day in May of 1972. On May 10th, in a dogfight immortalized by the History Channel’s “Aces of Vietnam” documentary, Cunningham engaged and shot down 3 enemy MIG’s. Coupled with the two he shot down earlier in the year, that made Lt. Randy Cunningham an air ace - the only naval ace of the war.

But there were troubling indications that Duke Cunningham had a moral weakness when it came to money even back then. Prior to receiving the Navy Cross for the action that made him an ace, Cunningham and his backseat man Willie Driscoll informed their commanding officer that they were going to refuse the most prestigious decoration the Navy awards and “hold out for the Medal of Honor.”

Apparently, Duke had been promised by a Washington bureaucrat that he would receive the Medal of Honor and felt he deserved it - and the $100 a month that came with it. And even though his commanding officer disabused Duke and Driscoll of the notion that they were going to be awarded the MOH, to many who became aware of the story, this early indication of Cunningham’s moral blindness was telling indeed.

Being feted after the war as a hero and role model, Cunningham also saw how the rich lived and craved that lifestyle until it became an obsession. Barely elected to Congress in 1990, Cunningham set out to get the most out of his position of trust.

The story of his bribery is told in a spare, no nonsense manner by the authors. It traces Cunningham’s relationships with his co-conspirators Mitchell Wade, Brent Wilkes, and Thomas Kontogiannis and how they milked the government for federal contracts using earmarks - often in the “black budget” of classified projects - while Cunningham was paid for his services in cash.

The most unbelievable piece of evidence against Cunningham was the so called “bribery menu” where the Congressman actually wrote down on a piece of Congressional stationary how much he expected in kickbacks for each kind of earmark he successfully pushed through Congress. The menu showed that Cunningham wanted a $140,000 yacht for the first $16 million in government contracts. Thereafter, he expected $50,000 in bribes for each additional million in contracts.

Missing this piece of evidence the first time around, prosecutors got a tip about the document and deciphered it. The Congressman, who had been proclaiming his innocence, buckled at that point and agreed to plead guilty. He is currently serving an 8 year sentence - the longest prison sentence ever given to a Congressman for bribery.

But the question that the authors never quite answer and seem to dangle in front of the readers, tempting them perhaps to make their own judgement, goes to the heart of the debate over earmarks. Did the earmarks themselves corrupt Cunningham or did they simply act as a catalyst for his already warped sense of entitlement?

If it is the latter, then this is a story of one more venal politician caught with his hands in the cookie jar. But what if it’s the former? What if earmarks themselves (and the way they are currently being used and abused) is at bottom, an overwhelming temptation to members and literally irresistible to all but the most incorruptible.

There are now 35,000 lobbyists in Washington, D.C. whose ability to deliver tens of thousands of dollars to Congressional campaigns means that members must pay obeisance to them or lose out on the gravy train. It is a broken system that no one can figure out how to fix. Some see government financed elections as the answer - unsatisfying because most experts agree that it would make races even less competitive than they are now. Others see unlimited contributions with full and immediate disclosure on the internet. This would be another invitation to permanent incumbency.

The authors sensibly do not offer any grandiose solutions to this dilemma. They are, after all, reporters not policy wonks. All they’ve done is uncovered the facts and told a story - a maddening, frustrating, sad, and yet riveting story of one man’s fall from the heights of power and privilege to the absolute lowest depths of prison and disgrace. It is a compelling human drama told in an entertaining manner. And in a way, like all good journalism, it is a call to action - to address the problem of earmarks before the corruption they engender destroys what credibility our lawmakers and government have left.

Addendum: I interviewed Jerry Kammer, one of the authors of the book, on my radio show. The podcast is available here.

My show with Pulitzer Prize winner Jerry Kammer, co-author of The Wrong Stuff - a new book about the Duke Cunningham scandal - was outstanding despite some technical problems at the beginning. I also welcomed my brother Jim to talk with his best friend from college.

The Wrong Stuff is a readable and fascinating look at both Cunningham and the process of earmarks that the authors rightly believe are a threat to the very integrity of our goverment. You can order the book from Amazon here.

The podcast of the show is available here.

My first reaction to hearing the news that Jerry Falwell had died was surprisingly the same kind of reaction to the news a couple of weeks ago that astronaut Wally Schirra had passed on: Sadness for having lost something from my youth. A reminder that the candle is starting to flicker and the skein of my life is unravelling faster than I thought possible just a short time ago.

Yeah, it’s selfish. And self-absorbed. But frankly, I view Falwell - like Schirra - as more of a talisman from my past than any great political/historical figure. He was a spokesman for a certain point of view among religious conservatives who thrived in a time of enormous intellectual upheaval for the conservative movement. And unlike some other TV evangelical preachers, he mostly avoided sins of the flesh in carrying out what I’m sure he saw as his mission from God.

Ed Morrissey is right. There will come a better time to assess the political legacy of the Reverend Mr. Falwell. But Ed is a fine Christian gentleman and I, a grubby minded atheist. So allow me to offer a few thoughts regarding the Reverend Mr. Falwell.

Every great political movement in American history has been driven by passion. The 19th and 20th century reformers who ended slavery, fought for womens’ rights, sought to ban demon rum, and agitated for unions were, for the most part, ordinary Americans swept up in historical tidal forces that altered the political and social landscape of America forever. What made them successful was the overarching, overweening, absolute belief that what they were doing was right and that people who opposed them were not just wrong but evil. They didn’t demonize the opposition out of political calculation but rather because they truly believed the fate of the republic or mankind was at stake in the successful prosecution of their cause. Ergo, if one opposes that cause, they are on the side of the dark one.

The period of the mid-1970’s to the late 1990’s could very well one day be remembered as another “Great Awakening” for American evangelicals. The first three “Awakenings” (or four if you subscribe to 1960’s “consciousness raising” as a religious movement) occurred during periods of great social ferment and spun off social movements like abolitionism, prairie populism, and prohibition. This particular “Awakening” inspired a generation of evangelical Christians to treat politics itself as a question of faith - that some political questions were answered not by reason, logic, and adherence to a set of political principles but rather by reading the bible carefully and gleaning God’s plan for man as laid out in the old or new Testaments.

The fact that secular Republicans who did indeed use reason, logic, and adherence to a set of political principles many times came to the same conclusions about issues as the evangelicals meant for an uneasy and at times, uncomfortable alliance with the party. And it was preachers like Jerry Falwell who first introduced these evangelicals - the “moral majority” - to Republican politics. They were never a majority (even of Republicans) and the “moral” failings of many prominent TV preachers in the 80’s and 90’s tarnished the image of the movement considerably with ordinary, secular Americans. But to this day, they make up a sizable (about 15%) and vocal minority in the party. Many analysts believe they were the difference in the last two presidential elections.

Falwell was perhaps the most visible of these TV preachers during the last 3 decades although other, more polished (bland) and carefully spoken leaders have supplanted him as a spiritual guide lately. They too, are not without their failures in resisting temptations of the flesh. But at least they don’t mutter outrageous comments about America being punished for our sins by planes being flown into buildings and a lot of innocents getting killed. While Falwell apologized for his comments following 9/11, there has always been this underlying threat in his sermons that unless America “reforms,” there will literally be hell to pay. In that respect, he is an echo of an earlier evangelical period where hellfire and tent revivals mixed easily with a population that was mostly rural and hungry for answers to life’s tragedies.

I have no doubt the left will make jokes about Falwell’s death as they are wont to do when it comes to anything where faith is involved. He was an easy target thanks to his simplistic world view and uncanny ability to say the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time.

But Jerry Falwell was an authentic American, a linear descendant of Jonathan Edwards whose 1741 sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” echoed many of the themes in Falwell’s preaching and was a seminal moment in the first “Great Awakening.” These true believers have undeniably contributed much that is positive to our politics. Reformers will tend to do that. But their limited view of issues and their tendency to view opposition to their ideas as evil also makes them a danger to democracy. Thankfully, their numbers and influence has always been limited. This was true even of the biggest TV preacher in history who when all was said and done, lived life by the light of faith he truly and honestly believed was given to him by the Almighty.

UPDATE

Allah has the reaction from the left. I’ll just send you over there without comment and urge you to start clicking.

Michelle Malkin has a round up of mostly MSM sources. As is her wont, she will probably expand coverage as more react comes in.

If there were any doubts that Marilyn Bauer was hiding some shocking secret about her son Josh, they were swept away by this exchange between Jack and his former lover following the rescue.

Jack is still trying to figure out why Philip Bauer is so interested in having Josh by his side and fills Marilyn in on what his father told the young man:

JACK: He told him he was taking him to China, that he was his legacy.

MARILYN: Is that all he told him?

The look of panic that crossed her face when she uttered those words sealed it for me.

Then again, the writers may have it in for me since I’ve criticized them so much this year and want to make me look ridiculous. And a man in my position can’t afford to look ridiculous.

No matter. I will be in for the surprise of my life if Philip and Marilyn Bauer aren’t hiding something momentous about Josh - both from the boy and from Jack. Whether it has to do with his parentage or something else is anyone’s guess. But I will lay odds that either Jack or Philip himself is the father of the young man and that for reasons as yet unknown, Marilyn has kept the secret from Jack.

The problem with this kind of speculation is that there is no firm timeline established for when Jack’s relationship with Marilyn ended. Josh appears to be about 15-16 years old while Jack’s daughter Kim is probably close to 25 (she was 17 in Season 1 and a couple of the “days” in future seasons occurred with a gap of anywhere from 18 months to this season’s two years).

This means nothing to the writers, of course. But it would be more logical if Philip, in fact, was the father (making Josh Jack’s long lost brother!). Controlling and dominating as he is, one can see him moving in on his son’s wife and initiating an affair.

This will probably be the most interesting thing to watch for during next week’s 2 hour finale - except perhaps what Jack will do with Philip. Oedipus killed his own father but was unaware of who he was when he took his life. Jack has no such excuse. And there may be enough hate in Jack’s heart toward his father that patricide is definitely an option.

SUMMARY

Cheng’s chief goon Zhou orders two of his men to take Josh to his boss which sends Marilyn into hysterics. As they are about to kill her just to shut her up, Jack intercedes and proves why everyone likes him:

JACK: (To Zhou) Please let me help you.

ZHOU: Get on your feet! Keep her quiet!

JACK: Thank you.

It’s a wonder terrorists and thugs don’t just break down and repent on the spot when Jack is so nice to them. Saying “please” and “thank you” to someone with a gun to your head may be stretching politeness a bit far. But then, Bauer is a man of extremes. Coming from him, we find it perfectly natural for Jack not to forget his Emily Post.

With Josh gone, Zhou makes ready to move the CTU prisoners into a secure room. Realizing that if they’re locked up they won’t have a chance to get the circuit board, Jack whispers to Nadia that they have to make a break for it. As the gang is filing out, Jack and Nadia bringing up the rear, Jack makes his move.

Head butting an unsuspecting Menudo, Jack begins his death struggle with Zhou while Nadia distracts another guard and Morris leaps on the back of a goon who was about to kill Jack. Bauer takes out one thug with Zhou’s gun and then the three CTU’ers are fighting for their lives. Finally, Jack gets Zhou in a position where he can use the thug’s weapon strap as a choker and just as the killer of Milo is about to lose consciousness, Jack snaps his neck like a dry twig.

Nadia is having a lot more trouble - until Little Ricky shows up and blasts the terrorist, saving her life.

And Morris? We never find out. We glimpse him struggling with his antagonist but no more mention is made of his heroics nor do we even know what happened to the Menudo he was fighting with. Let’s give Morris a kill anyway, shall we? He has partially redeemed himself for violating the CTU code of honor which requires death before helping terrorists. Maybe it will even help get him back together with Chloe.

Meanwhile, Jack is hot to go after Josh until Nadia reminds him he’s still under arrest. Brushing aside this little detail (what’s a half dozen felony counts among friends?) Jack is allowed to go Josh hunting albeit with Little Ricky in command.

The fact that Jack doesn’t take orders from anyone anyway seems to have been lost on Nadia. At any rate, Jack and the TAC Team go after Josh.

As the team wades through the sewer trying to pick up the trail, Josh and his captors arrive at the warehouse where Cheng is holed up. He immediately informs Philip that he has the kid at which point the elder Bauer demands to speak to him.

It is hard to glean much between the lines when listening to this conversation. In an earlier recap, I talked about Philip’s desire for immortality, wanting to see himself live on through the survival of his company. His obsession with Josh as his “legacy” strikes me in a similar manner - especially now that his company is no more. And it appears that this obsession may have driven him insane.

Cheng loads Josh into a car and they start for the rendezvous with Philip. Jack shows up just as Cheng is pulling away and opens fire, killing the driver of the car and causing it to careen into a concrete pillar. In the confused firefight that follows, Jack kills three more thugs while Cheng - using Josh as a human shield - slips away once again.

Jack offs two more Menudos while chasing Cheng to the roof of the warehouse. And Josh proves his mettle by escaping Cheng’s clutches, kicking the Chinese security chief in the face and running for his life.

If Josh is in fact Jack’s son, he acquitted himself in the finest tradition of the Bauer family. Contrast Josh’s quick foot with Kimmy’s confrontation with the Mountain Lion from Season 1 where she cowered and screamed for help. Brave lad, that Josh.

Cheng empties his gun in a fruitless attempt to kill Jack who has now arrived on the roof just as Josh escapes Cheng’s clutches. But in order to do so, Josh hangs precariously from a heating pipe. And his grip is slipping.

Just as Jack is about to take Cheng into custody (or, more likely, execute him as soon as he tells him where Josh is), the boy slips from his perch and desperately needs help or he’ll plunge to his death. Jack is forced to take his eyes off of Cheng, allowing him to escape and help the boy. So while Jack has Josh, Cheng is still at large.

When Josh tells Jack that it was Philip who was behind his kidnapping, Bauer looks perplexed. He has no idea Philip is in possession of the circuit board. But he realizes that a showdown with dear old dad is now in the offing.

DOYLE: Your father is involved with the Chinese? Why?

JACK: I don’t know. I’ll ask him when I find him.

Thus, the stage is set for the confrontation of the season. Philip has proven that he has no compunction about killing his own son. But if it comes to it, can Jack kill his own father? Stay tuned.

Back at the White House, Karen tells Daniels about menacing Russian troop movements. This causes the Veep to confide in Karen about Lisa the Slut and her betrayal as well as his “personal relationship” with her. Karen is solicitous but Daniels is inconsolable, believing that his “lapse in judgement” will bring the country to war.

Funny that these two creatures of Washington never thought about the politics of what it would mean if Daniels relationship with Lisa was ever exposed. The guy would be toast and would probably have been forced to resign. The opposition would have had a field day with the revelations as would the press.

At Bishop’s apartment, the two rutting deer finally finish up. As Lisa goes into the bathroom, Bishop makes ready to download the fake info from her PDA when he stops, his spy instincts on full alert. Instead, he calls Lisa out to have a drink with him. Unable to carry on the charade any longer, the woman attacks Bishop who fights back, getting the Veep’s squeeze into a choke hold. Only the intervention of the Secret Service saves Lisa’s life.

Tom never skips a beat. He confronts Bishop and offers him a choice; cooperate or get the death penalty. Not surprisingly, Bishop chooses to download the fake evidence and send it along to his Russian masters.

Meanwhile, Cheng calls Philip with the bad news that he no longer has Josh. Philip coldly informs him that he is now useless to him and he will make other arrangements. It may seem as if that’s the end for the Chinese but somehow, I get the feeling they haven’t gone far and will be up to their necks in it next week.

Back at CTU, a gaggle of bureaucrats from Division arrive to investigate the security breach at headquarters that allowed the assault to occur. Nadia tries to explain that their in the middle of trying to prevent a war and that it’s three in the morning anyway.

Nadia is unfamiliar with the bureaucratic mind set that recognizes nothing except it’s own relentless rationale for existence. In this case, the end of the world matters squat. Getting the job done, the report written, the paper shuffled means more than any silly notions of saving the planet from Armegeddon. Nadia promises full cooperation, something Morris objects to saying that Milo didn’t die so that the blame for his death could be laid at Nadia’s feet. But the woman is feeling guilt for hesitating ever so slightly and allowing Milo to take the bullet meant for her.

Lennox reports back on the success of the operation with the exception that Lisa has been badly injured - perhaps brain damaged - as a result of her post-coital tussle with Bishop. Daniels seems out of sorts which is not a good thing. Not when they now have to call the Russian President and confirm the fake emails by lying to him about destroying the circuit board.

The conversation with President Suvarov turns into a nightmare when he tells them he knows of the fake emails and other data thanks to their surveillance of Bishop. Suvarov makes it clear that unless Daniels can come up with the board or evidence of its destruction before the show is over (within 2 hours) we’ll be at war with the Russkies.

Making his way back to the White House, Tom is about ready to attend a military briefing on the situation when he receives a call from none other than Philip Bauer. Breaking into the meeting and asking for privacy with Karen, Daniels finds out that Philip will give them the board in exchange for Josh and clear passage out of the country. Karen argues against it. Tom says it’s a no brainer, that they should give the kid to Bauer.

In this case, I agree with Tom. Giving a grandfather his grandson in exchange for a chance to stop the war would seem to be an easy choice. The well being of one 15 year old kid versus the prevention of World War III? No contest.

Choosing the obvious, Daniels orders Lennox to tell CTU to round up Josh. The risk of war is just too great what with many more anti-American generals like Gredenko calling the shots in Moscow.

And this leads to the heart wrenching scene in the parking lot when Jack is called away for a phone call after telling Josh to get in the car. Instead, Little Ricky shows up and drags the kid into a waiting helicopter. Realizing he’s been had, Jack races after him only to be restrained by CTU personnel. With Josh crying plaintively for “Uncle Jack” and Jack answering, one can only surmise that they are indeed father and son.

At any rate, we’ll find out next week, won’t we?

BODY COUNT

Once again, Jack breaks a record. With seven kills on the night, Bauer is making up for lost time from the previous weeks,

Four Menudos killed in the escape from CTU Island. (Two by Bauer)

Jack gets five more in the firefight to rescue Josh and in the wake of going after Cheng.

Morris breaks through and partially redeems himself.

TOTAL

Jack - 38

SHOW: 428

Will he or won’t he?

Newt Gingrich has teased his supporters (and detractors) for months with intimations that he would run for the GOP nomination for President.

Now it appears that he has pretty much decided that he will, in fact, run - but as is typical with the former Speaker of the House, he will do it in his own time and on his own terms:

In an interview with Diane Sawyer on “Good Morning America,” the former Republican speaker of the House said there was a “great possibility” that he would run for president.

He will make that decision sometime in the fall. Sawyer noted that previously Gingrich had only said he was “thinking about” a run for president.

“You said you’ll make a decision at the end of the September,{is it} more likely, less likely this morning? Sawyer asked Gingrich. “I think right now, it is a great possibility,” Gingrich said.

“A great possibility you’ll run? Sawyer asked. But Gingrich declined to elaborate. “I don’t want to get into all this stuff,” Gingrich said. “I want to focus on what we have to do to make America successful.”

Gingrich was visiting “GMA” to talk about his new book, “Pearl Harbor: A Novel of December the 8th,” which he co-wrote with William Forstchen.

But Gingrich took time to assess the field of declared candidates and said he wasn’t happy with the current contenders, comparing them to contestants on “American Idol.”

“We’re in this virtually irrational process,” he said. “It’s exactly wrong as a way of choosing a national leader.”

So why wait until September? A look at the disadvantages of waiting so long to enter the race formally are daunting. Other candidates enjoy the benefit of having already hired most of the 1st tier pollsters, media and campaign consultants, fundraisers, and moneymen who supply the nuts and bolts organization to any campaign staff. Gingrich’s close advisors, including campaign consultant Joe Gaylord, have little or no experience running a national campaign - not necessarily a fatal flaw but certainly a problem when one is talking about hitting the ground running just 4 months prior to the first contest in Iowa.

Then there is the question of money. Rudy and McCain may each have raised over $70 million by September 1st. Romney may have raised more. Newt’s strategy is obvious. He is going to need to generate plenty of free press along with a breakthrough win in an early primary or caucus state. This would give much needed momentum to his campaign and allow him to carry on into “Super Tuesday” or, as some are starting to call it, “National Primary Day” on February 5. The problem there is that with less money to spend, Newt will be at a distinct disadvantage in heavy media states like California and New York (another big media state that will almost certainly move their primary to February 5 is Illinois). He will have to rely on the magic his name still holds for large numbers of conservatives as well as a general dissatisfaction with the current crop of candidates.

Otherwise, his entering the race is an exercise in futility.

There is no doubt that Gingrich is an idea man first, last, and always. In a profile written for Cox News in 2003, Newt makes no bones about who he is:

I’m a scout, thinker, policy developer,” he explained in advance of his milestone birthday. “…I can actually go and look at all these things and meet all these companies and learn all these ideas. I can think about them from 40 years of experience. And then I have the standing to show up and do hearings or go to meetings.”

Sipping on a Diet Coke in a cafeteria on Capitol Hill, Gingrich had just presented his notions on how to cure the health care system in general and fix Medicare in particular to the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Afterward, he posed with admirers and autographed copies of his testimony text.

Now he is talking to a reporter who has written about him for 20 years: From brown hair to steel gray to nearly white. From obscurity as Georgia’s lone Republican congressman to Speaker. From Time Magazine Man of the Year in 1995 to humbled resignation four years later. The Newtonian words come as fast as ever. With a gaggle of young interns hanging on every syllable, Gingrich verbally bounds from history to high-tech, military to medical, arcane to august.

And Gingrich makes it clear that he doesn’t think much of the current GOP frontrunners for the nomination:

The top Republican presidential front-runners are trying to woo conservatives, but so far it seems an unrequited love.

“The three front-runners are just not viable conservative choices, and I think what we know about the three front-runners is enough really to doom them,” said one Republican voter.

There seems to be an opening for a conservative candidate. Former senator and actor Fred Thompson may have his eye on the White House. Some speculate that Gingrich, with the release of a new book and his apology to conservative leader James Dobson for past personal indiscretions, could as well.

That last nugget - Newt’s “personal indiscretions” - may doom his candidacy before it starts. For a rundown of “Newt the Philanderer” and “Newt the Hypocrite,” this website gives a good accounting. And with Hillary’s crew of experienced personal attack dogs, Republicans may want to think twice about nominating a candidate with so many personal, financial, and ethical problems in his past. He’s just too easy a target.

None of that will probably matter to legions of conservatives and fans. I gave my reasons for not supporting his candidacy here. Short version; idea men make poor executives. And Gingrich has a history of beginning to follow through on an idea only to leave it behind to conquer the next mountaintop.

No matter. If Gingrich runs - and it seems a virtual certainty that he will even with the mini-boomlet for Fred Thompson - he will certainly add some much needed color and fire to the GOP campaign. Wherever Gingrich speaks and whatever he talks about, sparks fly. Like flint being struck, ideas, facts, and historical analogies leap from his fertile mind and light up the TV screen. But given his late start and the almost overwhelming advantages enjoyed by the frontrunners, Gingrich’s candidacy will probably be a hopeless effort.

As we careen toward the blockbuster two hour finale, speculation in running rampant about how all the plot threads will eventually merge and tie themselves up into a nice, neat bow.

Of course, those of us familiar with the series know that no such thing will happen. The writers of the show treat the fans with a mixture of bemused contempt and haughty condescension. They believe that we have the memories of a fruit fly and are unable to recall details of what happened a couple of months ago. Ergo, the chances are about 100% that one or more major plot threads will simply disappear down the rabbit hole, victim of the writers maneuvering themselves into a corner and not being able to blow something up, kill someone off, or create some grand, revelatory moment that clears everything up.

No matter. We’ll still have fun anyway. And part of the fun is trying to figure out who lives, who dies, how the United States will be saved, and most important, the fate of Jack Bauer.

Leave your best, your craziest, your silliest speculation in the comments below (FSM readers email me at rick@rightwingnuthouse.com). Tomorrow afternoon, I’ll post the best of that speculation for all to see.

And then get set for tomorrow night’s blockbuster episode.

Exclusive to rightwingnuthouse.com! Must credit rightwingnuthouse.com!

If you thought it was bad enough that the Federal government uses the terrorist spying program to listen in on your Auntie Midge talking to her neighbor about the upcoming church social, think again. Rightwingnuthouse.com has learned that the United States Federal government will now use its massive intelligence capabilities to spy on global warming.

This will be the first effort to spy on climate and it is not sitting well with several members of Congress.

“First, we spy on global warming and the next thing you know, we’re at war,” said James Inhofe (R-Not OK With Me). “I have no doubt Democrats will fix the intelligence, twisting it in order to manipulate the American people into fighting global warming.”

Some pundits have their briefs in a twist over the revelations.

“My briefs are in a twist,” said Glenn Greenwald, whose listed occupation is “tail end of the horsey costume at Mardi Gras” as well as a sockpuppet and part time pundit for Salon.com. “Is there no end to this Administration’s attack on the Constitution?”

Speaking from his palatial house on an ant farm outside of Rio de Janeiro, Greenwald made it plain that civil liberties absolutists would not go along with another warrantless surveillance program.

“What has global warming ever done to us,” asked Greenwald. “We have global warming in a box and as long as we keep an eye on it, there’s no chance it will ever be a threat.”

Greenwald, famous author of a book on civil liberties (excerpts of which were read on the floor of the Senate as well as several prominent mens rooms in Omaha) pointed out that there is nothing in the NSA charter that gives it the right to spy on any climate - much less global warming.

“We need an amendment to the FISA statute that would prevent this abuse of power,” he said. “I propose we amend the law to include a ‘climate court” that would force these Rethuglinazikluxers to obey the Constitution.”

Representative John Conyers (D-Impeach Bush NOW) agreed saying he would introduce legislation to create the CISA early next week.

James Wolcott, food tester for George Soros and sometime columnist issued a thundering denunciation of the program on his blog:

So the government now thinks it has the perfectly legitimate right to spy on global warming. Is there no limit to this Administration’s evil? Even climate can’t change without Bush and his minions seeing a threat. Of course, he’s only doing it to satisfy his rich meteorologist friends.

Meanwhile, the CIA has issued no official statement on the matter. But one analyst who spoke on the condition his name not be used due to to the extreme sensitivity of the subject (not to mention he could end up in the slammer for 10 years for leaking to the press) was dubious of any concrete benefit of spying on climate change.

“I doubt whether we’ll find anything useful,” he said. “Global warming has proven to be very elusive, evading all attempts to find it. We think it may be in the hills above Karachi but no one really knows.”

The agent bristled when it was suggested that spying on global warming would take intelligence resources away from fighting the War That Democrats Haven’t Gotten Around To Renaming Yet.

“I categorically reject that notion,” he said.” Yeah, we might be thinned out in some places [as a result of the global warming spying program]. And sure, we might lose a little coverage here and there. But I’d place the increased threat of a terrorist attack at no more than 10 percent - 15 tops.”

“I can live with that,” he added.

This kind of cynicism deserves a special reward.

Mort Kondracke thinks he’s being sensible by coming up with a “Plan B” for the day that the surge proves itself to be a tactical success but a strategic failure. The plan is simple, elegant, immoral, and would condemn millions of people to slaughter and misery.

But hey! Who’s countin’ noses when we get our very own pet Shia running Iraq?

The 80 percent alternative involves accepting rule by Shiites and Kurds, allowing them to violently suppress Sunni resistance and making sure that Shiites friendly to the United States emerge victorious.

No one has publicly advocated this Plan B, and I know of only one Member of Congress who backs it - and he wants to stay anonymous. But he argues persuasively that it’s the best alternative available if Bush’s surge fails. Winning will be dirty because it will allow the Shiite-dominated Iraqi military and some Shiite militias to decimate the Sunni insurgency. There likely will be ethnic cleansing, atrocities against civilians and massive refugee flows.

On the other hand, as Bush’s critics point out, bloody civil war is the reality in Iraq right now. U.S. troops are standing in the middle of it and so far cannot stop either Shiites from killing Sunnis or Sunnis from killing Shiites.

Winning dirty would involve taking sides in the civil war - backing the Shiite-dominated elected government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and ensuring that he and his allies prevail over both the Sunni insurgency and his Shiite adversary Muqtada al-Sadr, who’s now Iran’s candidate to rule Iraq.

What’s a little ethnic cleansing among friends, eh Mort? Standing by while Sunnis are slaughtered is going to sit quite well with our friends in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and the majority Sunni Gulf States.

The plan, of course, is as immoral as the Democrat’s current political gamesmanship which would accomplish exactly the same thing - Sunni slaughter - but would have the advantage of giving the US plausible deniability. (”How were we supposed to know that was going to happen?”) Kondracke doesn’t even pretend the murder of several hundred thousand people would come as a surprise. In fact, it’s part of his master plan.

And in the muddle that is Iraqi politics, it is unclear whether Mookie al-Sadr is, in fact, an “adversary” of Maliki at all. In some respects and on some issues, he is almost certainly an “ally.” And while a rival for power, as long as Ayatollah al-Sistani draws breath, the SCIRI will never allow the young upstart cleric to run much of anything in Iraq - even if he’s backed by Iran.

As for the rest of this tripe, is Kondracke sure this “anonymous” Congress critter wasn’t pulling his leg? I can’t imagine the US standing by watching as Shias herd Sunnis like cattle, whipping them toward the Saudi, Syrian, or Jordanian border. It would be the largest forced migration of people since the India-Pakistan partition in 1947. But that’s what a lot of the Shias who surround Maliki are all about - making Iraq a Sunni-free nation. It’s why the political benchmarks demanded of the Iraqi government by Congress will never be met. There is not the desire much less the political will among major Shia parties and personalities to unite the country.

Kondracke’s explanation is unconvincing:

Prudence calls for preparation of a Plan B. The withdrawal policy advocated by most Democrats virtually guarantees catastrophic ethnic cleansing - but without any guarantee that a government friendly to the United States would emerge. Almost certainly, Shiites will dominate Iraq because they outnumber Sunnis three to one. But the United States would get no credit for helping the Shiites win. In fact, America’s credibility would suffer because it abandoned its mission. And, there is no guarantee that al-Sadr - currently residing in Iran and resting his militias - would not emerge as the victor in a power struggle with al-Maliki’s Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.

Iran formerly backed the SCIRI and its Badr Brigades but recently switched allegiances - foolishly, my Congressional source contends - to al-Sadr, who’s regarded by other Shiites as young, volatile and unreliable. Under a win dirty strategy, the United States would have to back al-Maliki and the Badr Brigades in their eventual showdown with al-Sadr. It also would have to help Jordan and Saudi Arabia care for a surge in Sunni refugees, possibly 1 million to 2 million joining an equal number who already have fled.

Sunnis will suffer under a winning dirty strategy, no question, but so far they’ve refused to accept that they’re a minority. They will have to do so eventually, one way or another. And, eventually, Iraq will achieve political equilibrium. Civil wars do end. The losers lose and have to knuckle under. As my Congressional source says, “every civil war is a political struggle. The center of this struggle is for control of the Shiite community. Wherever the Shiites go, is where Iraq will go. So, the quicker we back the winning side, the quicker the war ends. … Winning dirty isn’t attractive, but it sure beats losing.”

Allah asks the tough questions that Kondracke shrivels from and lays out “we broke it, we’ve got to fix it” case for at least maintaining enough of a presence to forestall genocide:

We all understand the dilemma here: we’re the only thing preventing a pogrom, but it’s at a huge human cost to our own military. At what point does our responsibility to get our boys out of harm’s way morally justify leaving a power vacuum within which Iraqi Arabs can slam away at each other? We’re not going to solve a Sunni/Shiite rift that’s existed for 1400 years so why waste any more American lives trying to postpone it? The answer, or my answer, in two words: Pam Hess. It’d be unconscionable for the United States to acquiesce in ethnic cleansing in a country whose security we’ve taken responsibility for; if you believe some on the left (and right), it’s unconscionable for us to acquiesce in ethnic cleansing even in countries whose security we’re not responsible for, like Sudan. When we leave, we have to leave with a good faith belief that the two sides can co-exist, which is why political reconciliation within parliament is so important and why we’re stuck there until it happens. If you take Kondracke seriously, the best solution might actually be to have the Air Force carpet-bomb Anbar: it’d solve the problem instantly, we’d get “credit for helping the Shiites win,” and it’d send a none-too-subtle message to Sadr that he’d best not antagonize us in the future. It would also send the Sunni countries in the Middle East into a frenzy, of course, and would mean the destruction of a part of Iraq where the leadership is, increasingly, unabashedly on our side and has taken the lead in fighting Al Qaeda — but of course, Shiite ethnic cleansing would accomplish the same things.

Strangest of all, in what sense does Kondracke think “American credibility” would be served by letting Sadr put the Sunnis to the sword? We’d be hearing about it from the left and the Islamists for the next thousand years. Al Qaeda would make it a centerpiece of their recruiting strategy. Even Iran, the ostensible beneficiaries, would demagogue the hell out of it with crocodile tears about their “Sunni brothers” whom the Sadrists had no choice but to fight after the U.S. goaded them into it.

Kondracke is wrong on so many levels it is beyond belief that he isn’t just throwing this out in order to initiate discussion about what next in Iraq.

And if he’s seriously considering what he wrote as an actual course of action for the United States, he should, as I suggest above, be sentenced to be dressed in Sunni garb and dropped smack in the middle of Sadr city.

Methinks his perspective on Shia ethnic cleansing would benefit by a little first hand experience with the process.