Right Wing Nut House

There are many disturbing aspects to the Bush Administration that historians will examine and perhaps, if they are charitable, chalk up to an overreaction to the 9/11 attacks or perhaps a zealotry for securing the United States from another, bigger catastrophe.

But there is one facet of the Bush Presidency that historians will universally and roundly condemn; the politicization of governance that, top to bottom, has interfered with many of the vital functions we expect the government to carry out. From the office of the Attorney General, to the Environmental Protection Agency, to NASA, to the National Park Service and more, politics has intruded into what traditionally has been non-political or apolitical functions of government. Science issues seem to be a favorite target of the Bushies for political massaging but other important government operations have also seen the heavy hand of politics interfere with public policy decisions - decisions that affect the health, safety, and security of the American people.

The latest evidence of this practice comes from former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona who testified before a Congressional Committee that the Administration fiddled with public health reports because of political considerations:

Former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona told a Congressional committee today that top officials in the Bush administration repeatedly tried to weaken or suppress important public health reports because of political considerations.

Dr. Carmona, who served as surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, said White House officials would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues because of political concerns. Top administration officials delayed for years and attempted to “water down” a landmark report on secondhand tobacco smoke, he said in sworn testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

He was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of every speech he gave, Dr. Carmona said. He was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings, at least one of which included Karl Rove, the president’s senior political adviser, he said.

Just because the Surgeon General is nominally a political appointment in that the post is filled by someone nominated by the President doesn’t mean that the job itself should be politicized. And to believe that reports and studies that would have an immediate impact on the health of American citizens should be held hostage to some myopic political views promoted by the White House is outrageous.

This attitude of politicizing government functions that should be non-political is not confined to health issues. The Administration has also grossly interferred in EPA rulemaking regarding issues such as auto emissions, management of public lands, pesticide bans, and other matters that would ordinarily not be political footballs. And the Administration practice of hiring lobbyists as regulators - 100 such hirings in the last 6 years - smacks of asking the fox to watch the chickens. One such lobbyist turned regulator, Philip Cooney, routinely altered reports by Administration scientists on climate change despite the fact the gentleman had a law degree and knew little of science.

A certain amount of political oversight of federal regulatory agencies is to be expected. The Clinton Administration subjected climate change data from their own EPA to “inter agency review” which indicated a political interest in seeing that the information coming out of various studies was in tune with their message of man-made global warming. George Bush #41 did something similar with AIDS research. But no Administration in memory has politicized the functions of government to the extent that this Administration has.

Should conservatives care about this issue? Altering findings of scientific studies to bring them in line with an Administration’s political agenda is not only dishonest but makes for very inefficient government. It’s a waste of taxpayer’s money to ask a government agency to study a problem and then alter the findings to suit the politics of the moment. Besides, there are legitimate safety and health issues at stake and if the government politicizes these questions to satisfy industry supporters, it stands to reason that the American people will be put at risk for the sake of politics. No responsible conservative can possibly countenance such practices.

The US attorney firings at the Department of Justice are another example of this idea that the Administration has tried to politicize too many government functions that are best left outside the purview of politics. If one were to look at this particular issue separately, it might just be a question of a desire to put a Bush imprimatur on the offices of dozens of federal prosecutors. But when placed in the context of what else has been going on in government over the last six years, it becomes one more example of politics intruding where it has no business intruding. Not only were the firings themselves badly botched but the reasons didn’t make much sense. In fact, one could say that the only reason it was done is because it could be done. And that’s no way to run a railroad - or a government.

There’s nothing illegal in all of this. But charges of incompetence, cronyism, and just plain bad governance have dogged this Administration for several years. And the reason is that when you politicize government where it should be apolitical, the people you depend on to make the government run smoothly and efficiently become more concerned with pleasing their masters in the White House than getting the job done. This leads to inefficiency, error, and a lowering of morale in the permanent bureaucracy.

Perhaps the Bushies just can’t help themselves. If so, the damage their lack of willpower has done to the functioning of government will be difficult to repair when the next President takes office in 2008.

The Rick Moran Show will go live at 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM central time today. Our topic will be Lebanon and what appears to be some kind of endgame being initiated by Syria and Hizbullah.

We’ll look at what they’re saying on Lebanese blogs as well as Middle East media. And we may have a suprise guest to comment on the crisis.

A podcast of the show will be available shortly afterwards. You can access the stream live by clicking on the icon below:

UPDATE:

What an interesting show.

1. Some kid calls in and starts pretending to comment then starts swearing on the air. When I mention that I will be calling his phone company to file a complaint, he calls back and tries to apologize.

2. Power outage occurs around 52 minutes in. Finally able to log back on with 1 minute left.

Needless to say, the show sort of fell apart.

Anyway, if you’re interested in listening to a train wreck, click the player below:

Word from Michael Totten (via Naharnet) that Syria is telling its citizens to leave Lebanon by July 15th in anticipation of a “[p]ossible eruption of violent crisis” and even more shockingly, has already invaded Lebanon. The Syrian army has penetrated to a depth of three kilometers into the Bekaa Valley. They are digging in, throwing up berms and revetments with the evident intent of staying a while.

The invasion, coupled with the call for their citizens to get out of Lebanon means one of two things could be at work here; a gigantic bluff being run by Syria and Hizbullah in advance of the multi-party talks in Paris that will take place later this week or a genuine war warning. With the unpredictable Assad, it’s anyone’s guess at this point what he has in mind. But given the absolute, unbending determination the Syrian President has shown to keep the International Tribunal from meeting added to the fact that no one in the west appears willing to stand with Lebanon in this, her most desperate hour, I am leaning toward the belief that Syria is about ready to manufacture an “incident” that would set off a violent confrontation in Beirut between Hizbullah and the March 14th forces, giving Assad an excuse to re-occupy the country or allow Nasrallah to deploy his well armed, well trained militia against the March 14th amateurs.

Many signs recently have pointed to some kind of resolution to the 7 month long cabinet crisis that has virtually paralyzed the government. Nasrallah promised many months ago that the elected government would be overthrown peacefully and hasn’t delivered. He’s had his followers in the streets of Beirut surrounding the government building while Prime Minister Siniora and his ministers have hung tough in the face of incredible dangers and provocations.

But time is running out on Assad which is why the rhetoric from the opposition has been escalating drastically the last 10 days. Walid Phares:

The main issue now is the presidency of the republic. Elections are currently slated to take place in September. But current, pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud will try to postpone the elections as long as he can. The March 14 movement (opposed to the Syrian regime) will try to vote for its candidate — not yet selected — by late October/early November. The new president won’t be recognized by Hezbollah and its allies.

Hezbollah and its allies will form a government of their own and take control of large parts of Lebanon. This plan is two years old. It is being publicized only now by both parties in the propaganda-warfare realm.

There is a possibility that the “axis” may attempt to break down the Seniora government during the summer (July-September) through ground action, and also by initiating the formation of another cabinet.

Al Mustaqbal, the pro-Hariri daily is publishing reports about a potential coup d’etat by Hezbollah as a “preemptive strike.” The information about Iran-Hezbollah plans for a coup, were made available as early as 2006 by the Lebanese international lobby (also known as the World Council of the Cedars Revolution). The March 14 coalition chose to release this information now, as the other side is also leaking it in an attempt to intimidate the Seniora cabinet. Hence, as both sides are leaking it simultaneously, it has been picked up by international monitors of the various media, including MEMRI. In short, the plan of a coup d’etat by Hezbollah, and backed by Iran and Syria is two years old, but it is surfacing now as the crush moment draws dramatically closer. “

MEMRI is reporting the same thing; that Hizbullah is set to form a “shadow government” in Lebanon:

For the past month, senior officials in the Hizbullah-led Lebanese government, as well as Lebanese President Emil Lahoud, have been threatening to establish a second government in Lebanon, or to take “historical” and “strategic” steps that will be announced in due course.

The crisis between the March 14 Forces and the Lebanese opposition has deepened with the approach of the legal date set for the presidential elections, which the opposition is threatening to prevent, and in light of harsh criticism by the Lebanese government and the March 14 Forces accusing Syria of being behind all the recent attempts to destabilize Lebanon.

On June 18, 2007, the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, which is close to the Lebanese opposition, reported that Lahoud had postponed until mid-July the deadline on his ultimatum requiring the opposition to apprise him of their plans against the March 14 Forces. According to the paper, if the crisis is not resolved by July 15, the opposition will form the second government. [6]

On June 25, 2007, Al-Akhbar reported that the opposition had already discussed plans to form a second government and to take over the government ministries, in the event that the Al-Siniora government continued to adhere to its current positions. The paper added that the opposition had even begun to name the individuals who will form the second government.

A senior member of the Lebanese opposition told Al-Akhbar that he believed that if the second government is established, the Lebanese army will adopt a neutral stance. He estimated that the regions that would be loyal to the second government would be larger than the ones remaining loyal to Al-Siniora’s government. He further said that people from the South, from the Beqa’ valley, and from a large part of the Mount Lebanon region, as well as in the North, would refuse to recognize Al-Siniora’s government. He added that UNIFIL would find itself facing a new reality when it discovered that Al-Siniora’s government was no longer able to support its activities or ensure its security. [7]

It should be noted that an article in the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal, which is affiliated with the March 14 Forces, estimated that the second government’s jurisdiction would include South Lebanon, that is, the area bordering Israel, and the Beqa’ valley, that is, the region bordering Syria. [8]

Lots of speculation but little in the way of hard news about the plans and purposes of the Assad/Hizbullah/Iranian axis.

This presents something of a dilemma for Siniora and his besieged cabinet. They know a storm is coming but they don’t know when and are unsure of its magnitude. A Hizbullah move to create a “shadow government” would probably generate a lot of publicity but would hardly change the power equation in the country. Hizbullah has been an independent force for years, exercising authority in the south in opposition to the government. They have their own infrastructure in place already. Any declaration by Nasrallah - even if his “government” included Christians and Sunnis as ministers - would fail to generate much support outside of the Hizbullah stronghold in the south.

This leads me to believe that Nasrallah has something else planned in conjunction with the formation of another government in opposition to Siniora. It could be, as Phares points out above, the initiation of some kind of violence in the streets - past patterns suggesting a series of bombings possibly in Sunni areas of Beirut - that would give legitimacy to Nasrallah’s call for a new government to control the spilling of blood. This would certainly ratchet up the pressure on Siniora. His refusal to accede to Nasrallah’s demands in the face of increasing violence might - just might - give Syria an excuse to move back into Beirut.

Would Assad dare? Michael Totten:

Syria can, apparently, get away with just about anything. I could hardly blame Assad at this point if he believes, after such an astonishing non-response, that he can reconquer Beirut. So far he can kill and terrorize and invade and destroy with impunity, at least up to a point. What is that point? Has anyone in the U.S., Israel, the Arab League, the European Union, or the United Nations even considered the question?

There has been no outcry about Syria’s moving troops into the Bekaa from the United States, from the French, from the west, from the Arab League whose Secretary General Amr Moussa has been in Damascus talking with Assad in a futile attempt to head off disaster, from the Saudis, nor from the Iranians who MEMRI reports has moved from a position that opposed the idea of a Lebanese Civil War to now supporting Assad’s position that the International Tribunal must be headed off by any means necessary.

Who will stand with Lebanon? Will anyone fight to save what’s left of Lebanese democracy?

Even if Assad doesn’t order his tanks into Beirut, it is clear that he and the opposition forces are slowly gaining the upper hand in this cabinet standoff. Siniora can do nothing except endure the pressure coming from Nasrallah and Assad. They have tried every formula possible - without giving up their majority status - to try and accommodate Nasrallah and his beef about Shia cabinet representation. Every time it appears that a solution is at hand, Nasrallah has backed off and raised the ante. He has variously demanded new parliamentary elections as well as holding hostage the presidential selection process until Siniora is gone and his handpicked toady is in place.

There simply is no placating Nasrallah. Compromise and accommodation are not his goals. He means to overthrow the government and will accept nothing less. The coming talks in Paris beginning Saturday among all parties is just more window dressing for Nasrallah, one more venue where he can spout his lies and sound reasonable, all the while plotting his next move in this deadly game of chess with Siniora and his western backed government.

The answer to the question of who might help Lebanon is unfortunately, no one who could do much good before the storm hits. The United States, already involved in one civil war in Iraq could hardly be expected to deploy any troops to Beirut in order to become embroiled in another. The French, with their long standing affection and sense of responsibility toward the Lebanese people wouldn’t move militarily without some help from the EU and the US even if Sarkozy demonstrated a willingness to do so.

The United Nations would examine the situation carefully and after a couple of weeks of debate would issue a watered down resolution condemning the Syrians for meddling in Lebanon. As far as ordering the 13,000 UNIFIL force in the south to assist the Siniora government, that simply won’t happen. Those forces are not configured for combat and besides, it would be a huge stretch to imagine the UN involving itself in a civil war by taking sides.

The Saudis, as Lebanon’s chief financial ally, could only stand and watch as Lebanon was gobbled up by Assad. King Abdullah has no desire to get into a shooting war with either Hizbullah or Syria. Other moderate Arab states would also condemn any coup in Lebanon but would except an Assad fait accompli as a fact of life.

Except for rhetoric, Siniora and the March 14th forces will find themselves alone to face the tiger. And as the situation moves toward a climax, the painful reality will be that in the face of a ruthless, determined foe, the United States and the west failed to protect and nurture the hope for democracy in one of the most pro-western, secular Arab nations in the world.

UPDATE

Allah also believes the Syrian army’s move into Bekaa presages some kind of political denouement to the crisis. He sees “the presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon as guarantors of the new government.” In this scenario, Assad keeps his forces out of Beirut while letting Nasrallah and Hizbullah slug it out with the woefully undermanned and underequipped Christian and Sunni militias. Once Nasrallah has the clear upper hand - something that should happen rather quickly - Assad moves in to prop up Nasrallah’s new government while ruthlessly suppressing any opposition to it. This is something the Syrian intelligence service was born to do, having proved themselves more than up to the task both in Lebanon and rebellious areas of Syria.

This is certainly one of the more interesting science tidbits I’ve seen in the news lately. A panel of scientists has recommended that we expand our search for extraterrestrial life to include “weird” life forms based on other elements than carbon and water:

A panel of scientists convened by America’s leading scientific advisory group says the hunt for extraterrestrial life should be greatly expanded to include what they call “weird life”: organisms that lack DNA or other molecules found in life as we know it.

“The committee’s investigation makes clear that life is possible in forms different from those on Earth,” the scientists conclude in their report, “The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems,” published by the National Research Council.

Other experts hailed the report as an important rethinking of the search for life. “It’s going to help us a lot to make sure we go exploring with our eyes wide open,” said Michael Meyer, lead scientist for NASA’s Mars exploration program.

Starfish, sequoias, salamanders and the rest of Earth’s residents may seem very diverse, but they are surprisingly similar on the molecular scale. All species that scientists have studied need liquid water to survive, for example. Further, they all rely on DNA to carry genetic information, and they all use that information to build proteins from the same set of building blocks, known as amino acids.

NASA has long looked to life on Earth to guide its search for life on other worlds. Planets and moons that have hints of liquid water have been ranked high on the list of potential sites for life-detection missions.

But there is good reason to suspect that other kinds of chemistry could support life as well, the authors of the new report argue. Weird life could differ from life as we know it in small or big ways.

Fascinating. When scientists say that “Weird life could differ from life as we know it,” are they talking about life like this?

(NSFW)

(more…)

There’s only one question I have for everyone out there today.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!

Don’t you know the planet is in danger of shriveling up like Al Gore’s testicles on a cold winter’s day? Don’t you realize that unless we do something NOW about global warming, Los Angeles will be under water before you know it and they’ll have to cancel all those “See the Homes of the Stars” tours? Can’t you see that unless we abandon all industrial production and go back to a time when men were men, women were women, and horses were just like cars except they didn’t have chrome bumpers and electric sun roofs, that the Earth Goddess will be angry at us and punish us by cancelling the Winter Olympics in 2050? (Goodness! What will the Canadians do if they can’t compete in Curling?)

YOU PEOPLE SUCK! No commitment. No concern for the planet. AND YOU’VE GOT THE MOST GOD-AWFUL TASTE IN MUSIC I’VE EVER SEEN!

Live Earth has been branded a foul-mouthed flop.

Organisers of the global music concert - punctuated by swearing from presenters and performers - had predicted massive viewing figures.

But BBC’s live afternoon television coverage attracted an average British audience of just 900,000.

In the evening, when coverage switched from BBC2 to BBC1, the figure rose to just 2.7million.

And the peak audience, which came when Madonna sang at Wembley, was a dismal 4.5million. Three times as many viewers saw the Princess Diana tribute on the same channel six days before.

Two years ago, Live 8 drew a peak television audience of 9.6million while Live Aid notched 10million in 1985.

The BBC blamed the poor figures on Saturday’s good weather and said its Wimbledon tennis coverage had drawn away afternoon viewers.

Critics said however that the public had simply snubbed what they saw as a hypocritical event.

ALL OF YOU SHOULD BE ROYALLY ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES!

More people went to see Tiger Woods play golf in DC than the Live Earth Concert - many, many more:

People in attendance at the PGA Tour event today in the D.C. area: 37,613, per a local sports channel.

People in attendance at Al Gore’s Live Earth event in D.C. today… Well, somewhat less than that. Guessing whether it was 100 times less, or merely 50 times less, that’s just part of the fun.

Here’s what look like empty seats at the marquee event in New York.

And drastically fewer people showed up than anticipated in Rio.

What does it say about you dilettantes that 140,000 people showed up at a NASCAR race in Daytona to watch carbon spewing automobiles race around an oval track while a less than impressive 52,00 showed up at Giants stadium to watch rocker Bon Jovi (local boy) and that paragon of restraint and virtue Kanye West?

Why, I’ll be you didn’t even sign the pledge. What pledge, you ask? Why, the Live Earth Pledge, naturally:

I PLEDGE:

1.To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;

You see what I mean about horses, right? Cutting 90% of our greenhouse gas emissions would take us back to the turn of the century. That’s the turn of the 20th century!. But hey! Who’s counting centuries with “earth in the balance?” And don’t forget to pledge this part extra hard:

2.To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become “carbon neutral;”

No burping. No farting. And forget about barbecuing the next 4th of July. Gas, electric, or briquette, it doesn’t matter. They all contribute to your massive carbon footprint on this planet.

And no burning wood either. Don’t you know how long the Earth Goddess has to work to grow a tree? What’s the matter with you? If you get cold during the winter, might I suggest burning a few unnecessary books? For a list of accepted and appropriate titles to burn, go here. Of course, there’s always “snuggling.” But keep your hands to yourself! No monkey business under your recycled cotton blanket. You know how Mother Earth feels about kids - the fewer the better. Unless they’re white. But all you brown and yellow people out there CUT IT OUT, WILLYA! You’re spoiling the planet for the rest of us by having oodles of kids. Take a cold shower once and a while, huh?

But I see where all those big music stars and even Al Gore failed to get through to you. It’s not their fault. They did their best. IT’S YOU PEOPLE WHO ARE FAULT! YOU JUST DON’T CARE ENOUGH TO BE A TRUE CLIMATE WARRIOR!

So be it. For penance, when the next one of these “Live (fill in the blank)” concerts takes place. I condemn you to sit in front of your computer or TV and watch the whole thing from beginning to end. Even if Madonna shows up. Even if the Beastie Boys are, well, Beastly. That will teach you the proper way to practice social activism; sitting on your butt listening to the bones creaking from ancient musical acts.

AND DON’T GET ANY IDEAS THIS IS OVER. IT’S NOT. NOTHING IS OVER UNTIL WE SAY IT IS. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? AND IT’S NOT OVER NOW!

So make sure you sign the pledge. It may be an inconvenient truth, but there you have it.

AND I DON’T WANT TO HAVE TO COME DOWN ON YOU LIKE THIS AGAIN. GET GREEN!

Welcome to the 2008 Presidential campaign, Fred Thompson!

Set to announce his candidacy as soon as this week, the former Senator from Tennessee is ready to turn his front porch campaign into a full blown effort to reach for the brass ring. And by doing so, Fred has unleashed those Media Furies whose tried and true methods of smearing and destroying GOP hopefuls has been honed to a fine point through more than 50 years of flinging feces and slinging slime at their ideological opponents.

There’s never been anything subtle about these campaigns. The Furies don’t do nuance. Rather, their attacks are full frontal assaults on decency and the truth - all the better to stick the knife into the vitals of their target and give it a few good twists.

The astonishing thing is that without coordination or “conspiracy,” the three most screechingly anti-Republican news outlets in the country - the LA Times, the NY Times, and the AP - all published what can only be described as “hit pieces” in a period of three days.

Now, it should be said that looking at the record of the Senator while he was a lobbyist is perfectly legitimate journalism and provides the public with pertinent information on Mr. Thompson’s character and qualifications. But this LA Times piece that breathlessly reveals the fact that Fred “lobbied” for a pro-choice outfit in the 1990’s could have used a few fact checkers and editors before it saw print. If they had done so, it is doubtful the “revelation” would have been news at all.

First, the story:

Fred D. Thompson, who is campaigning for president as an antiabortion Republican, accepted an assignment from a family-planning group to lobby the first Bush White House to ease a controversial abortion restriction, according to a 1991 document and several people familiar with the matter.

A spokesman for the former Tennessee senator denied that Thompson did the lobbying work. But the minutes of a 1991 board meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. say that the group hired Thompson that year.

His task was to urge the administration of President George H. W. Bush to withdraw or relax a rule that barred abortion counseling at clinics that received federal money, according to the records and to people who worked on the matter.

The abortion “gag rule” was then a major political flashpoint. Lobbying against the rule would have placed Thompson at odds with the antiabortion movement that he is now trying to rally behind his expected declaration of a presidential bid.

Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo adamantly denied that Thompson worked for the family planning group. “Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period,” he said in an e-mail.

Basically, the family planning outfit swears that Thompson lobbied John Sununu, then Chief of Staff to Bush #41 at the White House. However, not only Thompson denies it but Sununu says it’s a bunch of bull as well:

Sununu said in a telephone interview: “I don’t recall him ever lobbying me on that at all. I don’t think that ever happened. In fact, I know that never happened.” He added that he had “absolutely no idea” whether Thompson had met with anybody else at the White House, but said it would have been a waste of time, given the president’s opposition to abortion rights.

In response to Sununu’s denial, DeSarno said Thompson “owes NFPRHA a bunch of money” if he never talked to Sununu as he said he had.

Absolutely let’s get to the bottom of this. Let’s look at the billing records and any other evidence that the family planning group may have of Thompson’s work on their behalf. All we have right now are the minutes from one meeting where this announcement of hiring Thompson was supposedly made and the accounts of several pro-choice activists.

Not a lot to hang your hat on if you were doing an important story that could potentially affect a presidential race. But the LA Times wasn’t interested in accuracy or the truth. They were interested in smearing Fred Thompson. And with Thompson’s categorical denials as well as Sununu’s supporting testimony, it would seem that either the Times was taken in by this pro-choice group or, more likely, simply saw an opportunity to stick the knife into a leading GOP candidate for President.

This LA Times story could be considered a barely legitimate exercise in journalism disguising a vicious smear designed to lower Thompson’s standing with a key GOP interest group - the anti-abortion crowd. But the New York Times makes absolutely no bones about practicing legitimate journalism in this shocking piece on Thompson’s wife where Times Fashion writer Susan Saulny refers to the Tennessee Senator as “grandfatherly” and Jeri Kehn Thompson as a “trophy wife:”

AS the election of 2008 approaches with its cast of contenders who bring unprecedented diversity to the quest for the White House, the voting public has been called on to ponder several questions: Is America ready for a woman to be president? What about a black man? A Mormon?

Now, with the possible candidacy of Fred D. Thompson, the grandfatherly actor and former Republican senator from Tennessee, whose second wife is almost a quarter-century his junior, comes a less palatable inquiry that is spurring debate in Internet chat rooms, on cable television and on talk radio: Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife?

The question may seem sexist, even crass, but serious people — as well as Mr. Thompson’s supporters — have been wrestling with the public reaction to Jeri Kehn Thompson, whose youthfulness, permanent tan and bleached blond hair present a contrast to the 64-year-old man who hopes to win the hearts of the conservative core of the Republican party. Will the so-called values voters accept this union?

The unbelievable insult to Mr. and Mrs. Thompson written by a Fashion section writer should not surprise us in the least. When putting on the smear, the Times will utilize any section of its publication it sees fit to best highlight where it wants to apply the slime. I suppose the “Style” section would be the best place to talk about a “trophy wife” - if such things were important enough to be included in a presidential campaign. But since they’re not and since Ms. Saulny plays rough and ready with her prose - “but serious people — as well as Mr. Thompson’s supporters” who I guess are not serious people but rather stupid, goober chewing, bible thumping, mouth breathing “values voters” (so-called) and must be instructed in what is obviously an issue that they should cluck their tongues and wag their heads about - it shouldn’t come as a shock the depths to which the Times will sink to savage an ideological foe.

I can’t remember any news outlet printing such a slanderous piece of tripe against a candidate’s wife . Jeri Thompson is no bimbo. She’s an accomplished attorney and by all accounts, smart as a whip. Wouldn’t you love to see a picture of Susan Saulny? What do you think the odds are they her looks and figure suffer by comparison with Mrs. Thompson?

Just wondering.

Finally, this deceptive AP story came out on Saturday with the headline “Fred Thompson aided Nixon on Watergate.” If true, one would guess that Thompson has a lot of explaining to do.

But the story isn’t about Thompson “aiding” Nixon on Watergate. It’s about Thompson doing his job as minority counsel on a Senate investigating committee. Here’s how Thompson described his role in his book At That Point in Time, published in 1975:

Thompson, who declined comment for this story, described himself in his book, “At That Point in Time,” published in 1975, as a Nixon administration “loyalist” who struggled with his role as minority counsel. “I would try to walk a fine line between a good-faith pursuit of the investigation and a good-faith attempt to insure balance and fairness,” Thompson wrote.

The AP story does dispel the myth that Thompson ferreted out the White House taping system information from Alexander Butterfield. Republican investigators had gotten that information from Butterfield days prior to his questioning the White House underling before the cameras. But the guts of this AP hit piece is not so much that Thompson did anything improper, it’s how the Nixon Administration viewed the 30 year old lawyer:

Publicly, Baker and Thompson presented themselves as dedicated to uncovering the truth. But Baker had secret meetings and conversations with Nixon and his top aides, while Thompson worked cooperatively with the White House and accepted coaching from Nixon’s lawyer, J. Fred Buzhardt, the tapes and transcripts show.

“We’ve got a pretty good rapport with Fred Thompson,” Buzhardt told Nixon in an Oval Office meeting on June 6, 1973. The meeting included a discussion of former White House counsel John Dean’s upcoming testimony before the committee.

Dean, the committee’s star witness, had agreed to tell what he knew about the break-in and cover-up if he was granted immunity against anything incriminating he might say.

Nixon expressed concern that Thompson was not “very smart.”

“Not extremely so,” Buzhardt agreed.

“But he’s friendly,” Nixon said.

“But he’s friendly,” Buzhardt agreed. “We are hoping, though, to work with Thompson and prepare him, if Dean does appear next week, to do a very thorough cross-examination.”

Five days later, Buzhardt reported to Nixon that he had primed Thompson for the Dean cross-examination.

“I found Thompson most cooperative, feeling more Republican every day,” Buzhardt said. “Uh, perfectly prepared to assist in really doing a cross-examination.”

It was the job of the minority counsel to prepare for cross examining witnesses brought by Democrats. Why the AP would cast such a negative light on what was so obviously part of Thompson’s job reveals much about their motives for going with the story in the first place. That and the fact that the historian quoted in the story - Stanley Kutler - an emeritus professor of law at the University of Wisconsin - Madison and author of numerous books on Watergate (guess where his political sympathies lie) seems to believe that any effort by any Republican on the Ervin Committee to defend Nixon should be seen as suspect - despite the fact that it was unclear until August of 1974 that the President was personally involved in the scandal.

This is the biggest non-story regarding Thompson to date and was published simply to tar the Senator with the Watergate mess. By most other objective accounts - including those written by Democrats - Thompson performed honorably and ably on the Committee. And this attempted smear by the AP notwithstanding, that’s how history will remember him during that period.

What these three hit pieces show is that Fred Thompson is a genuine danger to Democrats in the general election. His brand of moderate conservatism would go a long way toward re-uniting the GOP and bringing conservatives back to the fold by election day. While his less than doctrinaire stand on social issues may not play well with that segment of the GOP base, it appears even they are willing to make allowances for a candidate that can bring the Republicans victory in 2008.

No wonder the paragons of liberal virtue in the media seem worried.

I regret the fact that I am not an anthropologist.

I also regret not being a Major League baseball player making a gazillion dollars a year with women hanging all over me and my name on the lips of every kid in America. But given my rather indifferent academic achievements, I would probably have as much chance of playing for my beloved White Sox as I would being employed as an observer of the cultural phenomenon that is modern American liberalism.

In a word, astonishing. R. Emmett Tyrell believes that liberals are the neediest human beings on the planet and, judging by the explosion of emotion and outrage on the left generated by the Libby pardon and other recent events, who would doubt him? This cloying need for high drama in their lives - a dramatic narrative that has them riding to the rescue to save America either from itself or, in this case, George Bush - is tinged with a breath of hysteria:

Time is running out! America is being destroyed! Our Freedoms are Vanishing!

Won’t someone DO something?

Like Cecil, the seasick sea serpent, whose stirring battle cry “I’m comin’ Beanie Boy!” split the airwaves every Saturday morning for my generation, so too liberals propose on riding to the rescue of the American people, saving the Republic by impeaching both the President and Vice President of the United States, and restoring peace and justice to the galaxy, rescuing the rest of us ordinary folk from the evil Sith Lords who hoodwinked more than 60 million people into voting for them in a free and fair election less than 3 years ago.

The fact that the presidency would then devolve to liberal Democrat, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, is entirely coincidental and has no bearing on whether the elected executive branch of the federal government should be decapitated and 2004 election annulled like a Kennedy marriage. How dare you even think that a liberal would do anything so base and…and…common! Allowing partisan considerations to enter into such an extraordinarily serious matter is something only Rethuglicans and those evil Neocons do. Those blessed with the superior moral vision to see the shining path leading to American redemption that can be found in impeachment are not concerned with such ordinary trivialities such as whether a Democrat sits in the White House.

Phooey! If this over the top drama were taking place in some other countries that liberals admire, John Conyers wouldn’t be making the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows coyly hinting at overturning an election. He’d be lined up against a wall behind one of those superior medical clinics in Havana. And liberal bloggers wouldn’t be writing hysterical treatises on how close we are to rack and ruin. They’d be disappeared faster than you can say “Hugo Chavez.”

This in and of itself gives the lie to the left’s wildly exaggerated claims that the United States is slipping into some kind of putative dictatorship. If we were, they’d never get the chance to make the claim in the first place.

But this kind of logic seems to escape those whose paranoid, overwrought, frenzied rhetoric about a myriad of conspiracies to steal American liberty has gotten so out of control that reading some of their breathlessly juvenile scribblings, one is torn between tearing your hair out in frustration that anyone could be so idiotic or falling to the floor and rolling around, laughing your ass off:

Come home America, come home.

It is time to come home from distant wars against fictions and phantoms. It is time to come home to your wives how (sic) miss you, to your children who need you, to your families that feel the pain of missing souls.

It is time to come home America, home to the cities that have been flooded, the forests left untended, the fields left untilled. It is time to come home America, to the work left undone, the minds left unschooled. It is time to come America, to the home you did not leave behind, because no home ever lasts if left unrepaired.

And how about this drama queen:

It’s not that we don’t know enough to be enraged. We know too much. About too many things. Our rage is splintered, spread too thin to be effective. For the past five years, people in this country and around the world have protested against Bush and Cheney’s genocidal assault on two helpless nations. As they prepare openly for yet another bloody attack on yet another nation, we continue to sign petitions, hold meetings, march against the corporate machine — all to no avail.

The issues catapaulting citizens into the streets are outrageous — each one deserving of a “million man march” on its own merits. However, because we are frustrated by a relentless media blackout and by the deepening corruption, loss of freedoms and the tightening noose of tyranny, our cries are little more than a cacophony of discord — an impotent racket.

“Cacophony” indeed!

And lest you think hyperbole is the exclusive province of obscure, lefty bloggers, how about this gem from Firedoglake:

This week, a cowardly President who resembles more the King George the colonists revolted against than any of the courageous patriots who signed the Declaration of Independence signed another document, freeing a convicted felon, a crony, from the justice peers found he richly deserved, again trampling on the rule of law. Yesterday, his spokesman insulted the intelligence of reporters and the American people by trying to justify this cowardly act. But in the process, Tony Snow let slip a tidbit that may just be the string that unravels a huge criminal conspiracy

Just what has changed in the America that has caused this sudden upsurge in hyperbole? The more desperate the situation in America - the more dire the circumstances, the more heroic liberals will see themselves when they save the day by impeaching Bush and Cheney. It’s that simple.

Michelle Malkin points out that on numerous occasions prior to the election, the Democrats swore on a stack of bibles - or, given the left’s jaundiced view of religion, maybe on a pile of palm fronds - that come what may, they wouldn’t initiate impeachment proceedings against the President.

This was an extremely useful lie in that it kept enough of Bush’s conservative base at home on election day to allow the the Democratic party to pick up a dozen or more seats by the hair of Hillary’s chinny chin-chin. The way that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi sat on John Conyers and his little impeachment flea circus was deft politics in that the only thing that would have energized conservatives in 2006 was the prospect of Conyers trotting out his truther brigade in order to go over exactly the same ground examined by two Congressional Committees, an in house Pentagon probe (no link), the 9/11 Commission, and the Butler Commission in Great Britain. Reams and reams of paper all saying the same thing; you’re a loon if you believe in some kind of grand “criminal conspiracy.

This won’t stop Conyers. Nor will it stop the netnuts who are ultimately driving this impeachment bandwagon. Whether Republicans care enough about this President to get in their way is an open question.

My prediction? Better install a tampax dispenser in the Oval Office bathroom.

Despite the offensive in Baqubah continuing to show great signs of both political and military success and other military aspects of the surge also proving that the strategy developed by General Petraeus is doing what it’s supposed to from a military standpoint, the Iraqi government slips deeper into chaos and ennui, negating any possible chance that the American military alone can turn the situation around and bring peace and stability to the country.

The military successes we’ve had are taking place in a political vacuum. The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki continues to wallow in sectarianism, incompetence, corruption, and a curious lethargy when it comes to addressing the issues that absolutely must be addressed if Iraq is to have a chance at internal peace. To wit:

* A boycott of the cabinet by Sunni ministers shows no sign of being resolved. In fact, it appears that very little effort is being made by the Shias to entice the Sunnis back into the government although it is understood that American diplomats are working frantically behind the scenes to get the parties back together.

* The Parliament is paralyzed. With 74 members boycotting the proceedings coupled with the usual bunch who don’t bother to show up anyway, it becomes impossible to gather a quorum so that official business can be conducted.

* For every step forward, two steps back are the result. While the New York Times is reporting that a moderate group of Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds appear ready to begin working on the oil revenue sharing legislation in order to try and shepherd the bill through parliament, the largest Sunni bloc is still opposing the bill making passage a moot point. Why pass a bill the majority of Sunnis won’t support? It’s just one more indication that the Shias intend on riding roughshod over the political rights of the Sunnis.

* And if that weren’t bad enough, Muqtada al-Sadr has joined with some Sunnis and Kurds to oppose the oil legislation anyway. Mookie knows full well that if the oil bill passes, Bush can claim political progress in Iraq and stop the momentum towards withdrawal.

* Nearly 20 people a day are still being found in Baghdad who have been executed as a result of the sectarian violence roiling the city and its suburbs. This is half the number that was found in February. But sectarian deaths elsewhere are up and the violence appears to be spreading into formerly peaceful northern provinces, especially around Kirkuk where Kurds and Shias are carrying on a low level conflict over control of that vital oil center.

* There is no sign of any mass movement by internal refugees back to the city to reclaim their formerly mixed neighborhoods despite incentives offered by the government. In fact, more people are leaving the country. Both Jordan and Syria are thinking of severely limiting the number of refugees from Iraq.

As competent and bravely as our military has performed, there is little they can do to affect any of these problems. Yes, they can reduce the violence. But can they change what’s in the hearts and minds of the purveyors of this mayhem? Simply keeping the murderers off the streets is not solving the problem in any lasting way. This is a job for the Iraqi people and their elected government.

We can kill al-Qaeda. We can build effective bridges to the Sunni community. We can keep the militias from causing too much trouble by keeping them off the streets. We can keep raiding insurgent strongholds and confiscating weapons and bomb making materials. We can keep building infrastructure and reaching out to the Iraqi people. But this is not a permanent solution to Iraq’s problems. The surge is not designed to permanently solve Iraq’s security problems. It was designed to lower the level of violence so that the Iraqi government could get its act together and start the long, hard, slog toward building a peaceful, democratic society. We are doing more than our part. But the Iraqi government is failing miserably in holding up their end of the bargain.

Realizing this, Republican Senators are finally abandoning Bush and calling for a change in mission. The latest apostate is Senator Pete Domenici:

White House efforts to keep congressional Republicans united over the Iraq war suffered another major defection yesterday as Sen. Pete V. Domenici (N.M.) broke with President Bush and called for an immediate change in U.S. strategy that could end combat operations by spring.

The six-term lawmaker, party loyalist and former staunch war supporter represents one of the most significant GOP losses to date. Speaking to reporters at a news conference in Albuquerque, Domenici said he began to question his stance on Iraq late last month, after several conversations with the family members of dead soldiers from his home state, and as it became clear that Iraqi leaders are making little progress toward national reconciliation.

“We cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress,” Domenici said. “I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops. But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home.”

Domenici becomes the fourth Republican Senator in the last week to come out in favor of a change in mission. He also announced he will sponsor legislation that would “embrace the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group” - a clear sign that Bush’s days of having unfettered control over war policy are numbered.

I and many others predicted that the ISG report would eventually be used by lawmakers as political cover to change the mission in Iraq and start the withdrawal of American combat forces. The question is, can the Administration itself adopt some of the ISG’s recommendations in order to avoid the political and military disaster of being forced to accede to the Democrat’s strategy of set timetables and a much faster draw down of troops?

The answer is no. Bush has pinned his political fortunes on the surge strategy and only Congress can make him give it up. Can Domenici and a few other Republicans craft a compromise that falls short of the Democrat’s draconian plan for withdrawal while still recognizing reality and begin the process of redeploying our troops so that we can start bringing them home?

I think this is more than possible and will probably end up a reality soon enough. And I also believe there are enough GOP House and Senate members who would leap at the chance to support such a compromise to make the measure veto proof. With the American people in favor of such a withdrawal - leaving substantial numbers of troops in place to train the Iraqi army as well as keep killing al-Qaeda - the President will face the stark choice of sticking with a losing hand in Congress or grudgingly accepting the inevitable and working with the leadership to come up with the best plan possible.

That last is probably a non starter. This President has shown a sometimes admirable stubbornness when it comes to sticking to his guns on Iraq. But that same stubbornness has also prevented him from changing course when it could have done a lot more good as well as blinding him to political opportunities to work with the Democrats in order to successfully extricate ourselves from the war.

There are some parts of the ISG that most GOP members would balk at implementing. Surely there would be great opposition to engaging in any kind of dialogue with Syria about Iraq. The gangsters who run that thug nation couldn’t be trusted to keep any agreement. And the fact that Syria continues to try and murder their way back into dominating Lebanon should put the Assad regime beyond the pale of all civilized nations.

Iran may be a different story. While the mullahs have zero incentive to come to any kind of agreement with us about Iraq, they may have other issues where a mutually beneficial dialogue can be initiated. With their economy close to collapse and great unrest among the populace, the Iranians may be in a relatively weak position regarding any bi-lateral talks with us about issues of common concern (except the nuclear issue). There’s a chance that some kind of agreement can be forged - but it is a small chance and may not be worth the effort.

Bush will wait on the interim report that General Petreaus is preparing for September before even contemplating changing course. He has promised the general that much and I think Petreaus deserves it. But I am anxious to see just how realistic Petreaus will make the political section of his report given the attitude of the Iraqi government to date. With calls from senior members of the military for a withdrawal, I wonder if Petreaus will heed those calls or cave in to the Administration instead and play the rosy scenario game with his report. At his confirmation hearing, the General appeared to be pretty much of a straight shooter. I would hope he gives the President a dose of truth from both barrels.

NOTE: Comments are unmoderated. As long as we behave ourselves, they will stay that way.

UPDATE

Allah and I seem to be on the same page as far as the ISG goes:

Bush’s team has reportedly been murmuring for the past six weeks or so about a Baker-Hamilton resurgence and the House actually passed a measure to resurrect the Group back at the end of June. There’s no question we’re going to adopt some form of that strategy; the question is whether Bush is going to go along and pretend like he thinks it’s a good idea or if he’ll resist until Congress overrides him and then blame the chaos that follows withdrawal on them. Probably the former — I don’t think he could stand to have his war authority diminished the way the latter process would.

Either way, I think the already-dim prospects of a partisan “truce” are finished. The Dems hold the cards. What would they gain?

To mark Independence Day, al-Qaeda #2 Ayman Zawahiri (just another country doctor turned terrorist) has issued a 90 minute video with a stirring call for Muslims to back the terrorists in Iraq. In fact, the tape also includes a piece from the Islamic State of Iraq terror group - an al-Qaeda “inspired” outfit that Zawahiri seems to be supporting and urging the entire Muslim world to help. This despite assurances by some in the west that al-Qaeda has no presence in Iraq and that every time someone in the Administration says so, they are lying.

Who to believe? Those lying Bushies or the country doctor?

As Americans celebrate the 4th of July today, Al Qaeda’s top deputy Ayman Zawahiri is appearing in a new internet video praising jihadi fighters in Iraq and elsewhere. Dressed in all white and sitting before a news studio background, Zawahiri warns Americans that “Today, the wind - by grace of Allah - is blowing against Washington.”

In the hour and half long video, which surfaced today on the website Strategic Translations, a translation and terror analysis firm, Zawahiri urges his followers to hurry to Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Somalia.

He also offers a message of confidence to the jihadi fighters in prison saying that victory in Iraq and Afghanistan will come soon.

“You must be patient and steadfast,” he says. “Rejoice, for victory is near, with Allah’s permission, and the herds of crusaders have begun to split up and their sole concern has become searching for a way out.”

Entitled “The Advice of One Concerned,” the video has English subtitles and includes clips from other videos and news broadcasts, including one from Al Furqan, the video production arm of the Islamic State of Iraq.

Thankfully, we don’t have to “search” very hard for a way out at all. Just do what the Democrats want and all will be well.

Beyond the words on the tape - and coming on the heels of several botched terrorist attacks in the UK and here - there’s always the thought that this particular tape will trigger a cell somewhere to go into action. And given we’ve already had some warnings about attacks this summer, one certainly hopes that DHS Director Chertoff has a little different attitude about terrorists operating in this country than his rather laid back approach to illegal immigrants. Given some of his recent statements, I’m not so sure.

Meanwhile, the Brits are waking up to the fact that warnings about these recent failed attacks were coming from some very interesting sources. Canon Andrew White, the president and CEO of the Foundation for Reconciliation in the Middle East and the vicar of St. George’s (Anglican) Church in Baghdad came face to face with pure evil at a meeting in Jordan two months ago where a specific warning was issued regarding the most recent attacks in the UK:

Dear Friends,

Just over two months ago I wrote in my Update that I had the worst meeting in my life. I said I have seen the Devil today. I met this awful man in Amman prior to our last major meeting in Baghdad.

I referred to him as the Devil and I even refused to continue the meeting and told the Sheikh who had brought him to me never to let me meet him again.

He told me that they were going to start killing in the UK then the USA. One sentence I remembered but did not understand was “those who cure you will kill you”.

I did not understand this then but in the last two days since the terrorist activities in the UK were brought to a head I was not surprised when there were reports that those arrested were all involved in the health services.

Those terrible words “those who cure you will kill you” suddenly made sense.

The litany of planned killing was horrendous. I do not know why I was told this by an Iraqi Sunni living then in Syria. I passed on this information to our FCO. I then learned that this person was a senior Al Qaeda figure and so was indeed bent on the destruction of innocent lives.

I will never forget this meeting. It remains the worst I have ever had. I hope I never have one like it again.

I find it interesting that this gentleman of the cloth - a liberal’s liberal judging by his record of opposing US-UK actions in the entire Middle East - would easily make the leap of faith and have the intellectual honesty to identify this al-Qaeda agent as “the Devil.” That puts him one step beyond 95% of the liberals in this country who can never seem to make that determination of evil regarding the nature of the enemy. Such black and white concepts aren’t “nuanced” or complicated enough. And what’s the point of being a liberal if you can’t trivialize the momentous and complicate the obvious>?

And as information continues to emerge about the UK terror plotters, one is struck by the prescience of the last National Intelligence Estimate from Iraq that predicted these kind of “do-it-yourself” terror cells that would use al-Qaeda ideology as an inspiration rather than receiving direct aid from the terrorist groups. It should be noted also that the NIE predicted that terrorists trained or blooded in Iraq would begin to inspire and perhaps even advise these homegrown jihadis. Judging by some of the remarks by Zawahiri on this new video, it appears that the al-Qaeda leader is trying to claim these groups as al-Qaeda’s own despite the fact that they have not given them any assistance. What that portends for the future can only be guessed at.

This brings up an issue that I’ve wrestled with since the beginning of the War on Terror: Does confronting the terrorists in and of itself breed more terrorists?

This question has not received the attention it deserves from either the right or the left. At the heart of the query is a big “what if;” if we had not gone into Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq and either responded as a President Gore might have by lobbing a few cruise missiles into al-Qaeda training camps following the 9/11 attacks (Gore may very well have invaded Afghanistan also) or done virtually nothing, what would the state of the worldwide jihad be today? In other words, would it have been better to simply acknowledge that we are going to be attacked every once and a while and concentrate our efforts on policing and prevention?

I throw this out simply to start a discussion not as an indication of what I believe. Given the success we’ve had worldwide in cracking al-Qaeda cells in many major cities around the world, as well as stifling their funding mechanisms, would essentially non-violent methods have worked just as efficiently while, at the same time, not creating additional terrorists for us to deal with?

One might think this is a sophomoric intellectual exercise given we can’t go back and change history. But very soon, following at least a partial withdrawal from Iraq, we are going to have to take a step back and figure out “what’s next?” I doubt very much whether this current crew in charge of our security has done much thinking along these lines so perhaps we should goose them a bit to start seriously considering our options.

For myself, I have no doubt that once we are hit again - and hit again we will be - we will be faced with decisions perhaps more momentous than our decision to go for regime change in Iraq. If confronting terrorism will always breed more terrorists anyway, perhaps continuing to attack the state sponsors of terrorism would be an exercise in futility given the nature of jihad today - not centrally organized and largely home grown. But can the will be summoned to resist what will surely be enormous pressure to hit back at one of these terrorist sponsors?

I’m not the answer man here - just someone with a lot of questions and who is very uneasy given our experiences with fighting terrorism so far. I’d be pleased if as many of you as possible shared your thoughts on this.

I have removed comment moderation to get a discussion going.

Thanks to everyone for the links and kind words about my blogging experiment in trying to recreate the history of the vote for independence and the debate over the Declaration of Independence. I hope we all learned a little something about history - and ourselves.

It was not quite as fun as liveblogging Gettysburg. But the subject matter certainly lent itself to a deeper examination of core beliefs held by the American people at that time. Hence, I tried to fold myself into the blogger character a little more thoroughly in order to discover just what he believed about a variety of issues facing the colonies at that time; slavery, Tories, the Congress, independence, and perhaps a fresh look at the personalities of the revolution from the perspective of someone who was there.

I received some criticism from this gentleman who took me to task for ending up on the wrong side of the slavery debate:

He took a requisite swipe at the French (his French acquaintance viewed the Americans as ‘arrogant’) even though, without the services of Lafayette and the French government he influenced, the revolution would have failed.

And anyone who thinks that both the leadership and ordinary people were not extremely suspicious of the French - Lafayette or no - doesn’t know anything about colonial history. Besides, Tocqueville said pretty much the same thing, although he admired this trait in Americans - our self confidence in the face of challenges.

But the gentleman loses it when he, in essence, criticizes me for not using fantasy to alter history:

Not only does Moran seem to believe that all Americans of the time viewed slaves as savage animal worshipers, but that all considered slaves to be legitimate property. And while many did, why should Moran side with the majority in his little fantasy liveblog scenario? Because unity against the British demands it?

Because that’s the way the convention and history played out, Moran chose to be on the side of those who achieved victory, believing that every choice they made was crucial to that outcome. In fact, one could theorize better outcomes with wiser choices - especially in a fantasy.

If I was going to do an alt/history piece, I would have done an alt/history piece. I chose instead to liveblog a period in history - that’s history, not the gentleman’s fantasy. In fact, I would urge the gentleman to try his hand at this kind of parlor game. I’m sure he could do a much better job.

Those attitudes I chose to adopt toward slavery were realistic and widely held at the time. I make no apologies for the ignorance of our ancestors although the ignorance of those in contemporary times who try and change history to suit some politically correct sense of the past, I condemn for being dishonest.

But this fellow was the exception. Most of you took the exercise for what it was - a fun way to put ourselves in the shoes of someone who lived more than 200 years ago and actually live those historic days in Philadelphia. I appreciate all the support and look forward to contiuing these experiments in blogging in the future.

Regards,

Rick Moran
Proprietor