Right Wing Nut House

The votes are in from this Week’s Watchers Council and the winner in the Council category is “Earth Day” by Done With Mirrors. Finishing second was “Presidential Power and Criminal Terrorists” by Bookworm Room.

Finishing first in the non Council category was “The Big White Lie” from the City Journal.

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

I am known as something of a stick-in-the-mud when it comes to humor. For instance, I love Monty Python but hate Benny Hill. Eddie Murphy does nothing for me while Bernie Mac puts me in stitches. George Carlin sends me into hysterics but Rosie O’Donnell makes me want to puke.

This must be the reason I didn’t get the joke the Democrats were playing on the American people with the Iraq War Supplemental appropriations bill. Knowing full well that the President was going to veto the measure because of the artificial timetable for withdrawal that they were able to bribe, threaten, and coerce enough of their caucus to support, the Democrats nevertheless delayed vital funding for our military just so they could turn around after Bush’s veto and yell “Gotchya!” at the voters:

President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.

Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president’s veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, “transition” the U.S. military role and show “a reasonable way to end this war.”

“We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said after a White House meeting. “But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war.”

The only “mistake” anyone has made is believing the Democrats are serious about anything - much less the war. The funding of our troops (or defunding them for that matter) has turned into a gigantic political game where the Democratic leadership has shown they don’t have the balls to end the war by voting to cut off funds and put their political capital where their mouth is nor do they exhibit one iota of responsible governance by finding the quickest way to send the necessary monies to our troops who are currently engaged in the hardest combat since at least the battle for Fallujah.

The entire exercise regarding the debate, passage, veto, and now capitulation by the Dems is a travesty. And it would be nice to think that the White House and Congress could actually “work together” on anything with regards to the war except that too, is a game - this time played by both sides as each seeks to saddle the other with the “blame” for the delay in funding. Sensibly, the President thinks it a bad idea to let al-Qaeda and the sectarian thugs know exactly when they can ratchet up the slaughter of innocents by announcing to the world the day the last American combat troops will leave Iraq. Frustrated Democrats want some way to change the President’s course also toward something more sensible; perhaps a realization that our troops might be better used elsewhere in Iraq killing al-Qaeda terrorists and protecting the Sunnis from rapacious and murderous Shia radicals in league with the government there.

Of course, the Dems want no such thing but if Bush was smart, he’d realize where the Democrats end game is headed - a total defeat for the Administration - and try to at least maintain some semblance of a mission in Iraq. It doesn’t have to be as I’ve outlined above. But it’s got to be less than what he’s doing now and more than the Democrats would be willing to support six months from now when almost certainly they will have the upper hand.

But this would be too much to ask; especially when there are elections to be won. So Bush stubbornly soldiers on while the Democrats stubbornly refuse to act on principle and conscience by defunding the War and forcing the troops to come home. In the meantime, our boys are dying, Iraqis are dying, Iran is licking its chops, ready to move in and pick up the pieces while the rest of the Middle East looks on in horror at the whole mess.

We’re on a collision course with disaster and our national leadership are acting like spoiled brats. I’d like to say to hell with both sides but there are 150,000 Americans whose lives are being expended in what is shaping up to be a futile effort to give the government of Iraq the breathing room to create some kind of viable nation out of the mess of sectarian and political factions who are currently (and for the foreseeable future) at each other’s throats. I say futile because if anyone believes that Prime Minister Maliki and his Shia brethren in the government have any interest whatsoever in doing the things necessary to heal their bloody, war torn nation, I’ve got a bridge over the Euphrates river I’d be glad to let you have for a song.

NOTE: The original headline of this post referred to Sullivan working for Time Magazine. Of course, he now works for The Atlantic - something I was aware of but totally forgot when I wrote the post at 3:30 AM this morning.

Gosh. Where are those legions of editors and fact checkers when you need them? (I could have used a few myself judging by the note above, eh? Ed.)

Our own crazy conservative uncle Andrew Sullivan got snookered by a fake web site that reported the “news” that Fox was spinning off their hit TV series 24 into a Saturday morning children’s cartoon that featured Jack Bauer as a young cub scout torturing other kids and “kicking Arab ass.”

Here’s Andrew’s post:

Ann Coulter: set your Tivo. Money quote:

“We spent a lot time doing research on this game,” says Surnow. “Using a sponge, team members must take the water from a filled bucket and squeeze the water from the soaked sponge into an empty bucket. First team to fill the empty bucket wins.” Surnow said he chose the Sponge Bucket Game because it provides opportunities for little Jack to interrogate the little Arabs.

“There’s a great scene before the game starts where little Jack takes an Arab kid named Abdul and sticks his head in the water-filled bucket,” says Surnow. “Jack keeps his head under the water until he drowns. The kid did not give Jack the answers he needed, and for the greater good of the Cub Scouts of America, Jack had to send a strong and clear message.”

That’s a strong “enhanced” message. Just like Mr Tenet says.

The irony in this piece regarding Tenet’s “enhanced message” will probably save Mr. Sullivan total embarrassment as he will more than likely claim he knew it was a joke all along, that you can’t fool him, he’s Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic!

But my friend Taylor Marsh has no such excuse:

But one thing the show never tried to do is appeal to kids, children that is. However, considering Surnow also tried to wingnut the “Daily Show” by offering some lame spin off complete with Rush and Coulter as president and veep, I can’t say I’m shocked that he’d also try to morph “24″ for kids. But the idea is creepy. One can only wonder what torture will look like in the new kids version. Abducting their dogs and holding them for ransom or maybe something worse? Mr. Surnow needs a long vacation.

I would think that Mr. Sullivan owes the lovely Ms. Marsh an apology. After all, if The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan puts it on his blog, it must be true, no?

Except Dean Barnett saw through the gag immediately and also offers some thoughts on why Andrew can hardly claim that he knew he was having his leg pulled all along:

[I]n the sidebar of the piece Andrew links to are stories titled, “BASINGER RELEASES OWN LINE OF ANSWERING MACHINES,” “BEAN FARMERS BURNING HUGH GRANT IN EFFIGY,” and “CARSON DALY’S PAID AUDIENCE DEMANDS WAGE INCREASE.”

Did Andrew really not know this was a joke? Is it possible his intellect and sense of humor have been so thoroughly strangled by his oh-so righteous anger? Judging by his post which is completely irony and humor free, the only possible answer is yes. The alternative is that Andrew Sullivan is suddenly joking about torture. For some reason, that strikes me as unlikely.

I knew it was a gag reading “quotes” from series creator Joel Surnow in the story:

“Just because we’ll show Jack as a little kid, doesn’t mean he’s going to stop kicking the ass of all those Arabs he runs into,” says Surnow. “We’re getting our message across to adults that it takes a lot of torture to get the truth from these terrorists, and we believe that children need to see that as well because they’re growing up in an extremely dangerous world.”

I’ve read many articles quoting Surnow and seen him interviewed a dozen times and never, ever heard him talk like that. In fact, I would say that only someone already disposed to believe responsible conservatives like Surnow are perfectly capable of such obscene bigotry could possibly take something like that seriously.

For those who are already down on the right (Marsh is center left. Andrew is…well, Andrew) perhaps this kind of idiocy rings true because they are eager to suspend belief and think the worst of conservatives. This is a mindset that is able to color and spin what conservatives say and twist context and meaning until what emerges as “analysis” bears little resemblance to the original intent of the speaker. Lambchop is an expert at this kind of context assassination. Using a combination of laughably amateurish armchair psychology and a dead serious manipulation of the English language, commentators on the left routinely attack the right in this dishonest manner.

For Mr. Sullivan and his army of fact checkers and editors, however, another explanation might be in order.

Is Andrew really that stupid?

UPDATE

In all fairness, Sully isn’t the only prominent mainstream media organ to have been fooled by this website. A Baltimore TV station breathlessly reported on the Michael Richards story using info from “Dateline: Hollywood” (second item):

A WJZ staffer ripped the story off the Web — without realizing that the source, DatelineHollywood.com, is a purely satirical site, which invented the completely bogus item as a riff on Richards’s real-life racist outburst at an L.A. comedy club last month.

The producer missed some pretty obvious tipoffs– like the line about Richards pouring Aunt Jemima pancake syrup over Goldberg’s head. Also: The links to other “articles,” including “Britney Spears’ Vagina Asks Press for Privacy” and “Rupert Murdoch Found Dead Next to Bloody Glove.”

Yeah…I’d say that link to Spears should have been a dead giveaway. Everyone knows that Britt’s private parts seek out all the publicity that the MSM will grant.

I will be appearing on the highly rated and well respected “Sound Off Connecticut” radio show hosted by Jim Vicevich on CBS Radio’s Affiliate WTIC News/Talk 1080 in Hartford, Connecticut.

I’m scheduled to be on around 9:30 AM Central time (10:30 AM Eastern) for about 10 minutes to discuss Iraq. It should be a lively conversation.

If you wish to access the live stream, go here.

UPDATE

A podcast of the segment I was on is up. You can listen to it here.

Jim’s a great host - made me feel right at home. Somewhat surprised that he agrees with a lot of what I had to say. Equally surprised he reads my blog.

If my visitor numbers keep dropping, I’ll probably be on a first name basis with all my readers eventually…

There are ways to leave Iraq and avoid disaster. And then, there’s rank stupidity:

President Bush vetoed the Iraq-war spending bill this evening, calling it a blueprint for failure and defeat and intensifying a showdown with the Democratic-controlled Congress.

“It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing,” Mr. Bush said at the White House, where he vetoed the bill after the signatures of Democratic legislative leaders were barely dry.

The president said the bill would demoralize the Iraqis and send them and the world a terrible message: “America will not keep its commitments.”

The President may be in for a rather rude surprise when it comes to what exactly would constitute keeping our “commitments” in Iraq. Perhaps he should be jawboning the Iraqi government into keeping their commitments to us - i.e., this is round one in a ten round bout and while he holds the upper hand today, upon each successive revisiting of this issue, it will become more and more apparent that the Iraqi government has no intention of keeping their promises made to him and to the United States to achieve much of anything in the way of reconciling their war torn and riven country.

What this will do to his “veto-proof” GOP firewall is uncertain. Judging by the nervousness of many Republican lawmakers who wish to see at least some political benchmarks laid out for the Iraqi government to achieve as part of the funding bill, my guess is that unless their is a sea change in the attitude of the Iraqi government, GOP desertions will become significant after the first of the year.

Good to see the Iraqi Parliament taking our efforts to tamp down the violence so seriously; they’re going on vacation for two months in July and August. And Prime Minister Maliki is proving himself quite the reliable ally - at least for Mookie al-Sadr and his band of cutthroats. He’s cashiered a few generals who actually took him at his word when he said he wanted to rein in the Shia militias who are causing a lot of the sectarian bloodshed.

Maliki is a practiced liar - and an empty suit of a Prime Minister as well. He and his Shia brethren in his ruling coalition can read the writing on the wall as well as anyone in this country; that the closer we get to the 2008 election, the better the chances that any veto of the Democrat’s invitation to al Qaeda to initiate a bloodbath in Iraq will be overridden with the help of an increasing number of Republican legislators who see the War as a political millstone around the party’s neck not to mention a sure fire roadmap to the unemployment line for them. (The latter reason uppermost in their greedy little minds, I’m sure.)

At the risk of incurring the wrath of my dwindling number of readers, might I suggest that the President face this reality and sit down with the Democrats in order to come to some kind of an agreement about the future of our mission in Iraq? It may be old fashioned in this day and age to talk about “the good of the country” but that’s just me, I guess - A fat old codger who can remember when lawmakers took the political adage “Politics stops at the waters edge” seriously. Of course, I’m also old enough to remember when that compact between the parties was shattered. The political ghosts of Viet Nam still haunt this country and unless we can find our way back to a sensible, rational means for the two branches to co-exist and come together on the goals and troop requirements needed for this war, I fear that the disaster that is staring us in the face will almost certainly come about much to the detriment of our interests in the Middle East and our efforts in the War on Terror (or whatever we’re going to be calling it once the Democrats admit we need to fight one).

Even a successful surge - and it is showing signs of success in important ways - will fail to bring about the desired political results that would give us the victory all of us want but is looking more and more impossible to achieve. The recalcitrant Iraqi government seems perfectly content to expend American lives to increase their own legitimacy with the Iraqi people as the violence begins to subside while not doing what is necessary to validate our men’s sacrifices by bringing the warring factions together in order to form a viable state.

So the President’s veto of this bill will not be overridden. And the two sides will sit down and probably come to a compromise agreement that will fund the troops for a very limited time - perhaps 3 months if reports are accurate - with the Democrats abandoning their formal invitation to our enemies setting a date certain for the al-Qaeda/militia bloodbath to begin in earnest. Instead, the withdrawal timetable will be advisory only, thus encouraging our jihadi friends to simply watch, wait, and keep their powder dry and their swords sharpened.

Needless to say, we can’t go on like this. But we will. And when the dust settles from this political row, we can look forward to another Congressional food fight to break out when we revisit the issue in the fall.

Join me today as I talk politics and more with the Editor in Chief of The American Thinker, Tom Lifson. We’ll be going live on Blogtalk Radio from 3:00-4:00 PM Central time. To access the stream, click the button:

I’ll also take advantage of my hosting privileges and answer my many critics who took me to task for my article on Iraq.

Should be interesting. Don’t miss it!

UPDATE

Apparently my Host Web Page is a little screwy. Go here for the live feed if you can’t find it using the button.

UPDATE II: RED IN THE FACE AND MAD AS HELL

People laugh at me when I tell them at a 5 year old chimp has a better grasp of the computer than I do. Guess what? We should probably make it a 3 year old chimp.

There will be no podcast of my interview with Tom Lifson because it was not sent out over the stream. I goofed. I screwed the pooch. I should boiled in oil, tarred and feathered, and run out of town on a rail. What a revoltin’ development.

I apologized to Tom who just wasted an hour talking to dead air. And I apologize to anyone who tried accessing the stream. We’ll get things nailed down before next week’s show, I promise.

Zsu Zsu just asked if I want to be put on suicide watch. Dontchya love her?

“You’re cursed, Jack. Everything you touch, one way or another, ends up dead.”
(Secretary Heller, father of Audrey Raines)

Those of us who have followed the show from its first season recognize the supreme irony in those words uttered by Secretary Heller. That’s because the first season’s plot line revolved around Jack saving the life of a black Senator running for President - David Palmer - hence the idea that only Jack’s special “touch” in running the operation to protect the next President could save his life. But Jack’s zeal in protecting Palmer led directly to the death of his wife, the estrangement of his daughter, and his slow descent into a hellish nightmare where Bauer’s tactics and even his motivations began to mirror those of his enemies; torture, revenge, and a constant friction with his superiors at CTU and the government.

Heller’s comment also begs the question; is Jack a fallen angel? Has his descent into darkness gone so far that he is now not fit to mix with “normal” people? One realizes that a big part of Jack’s love for Audrey comes from the fact that she is his last link to this “normal” world of girlfriends, quiet dinners at home, and conversations about the normal drudgery of ordinary life rather than the life and death of empires. And the fact that Audrey’s father has now told him in no uncertain terms to stay away from her only completes Jack’s total isolation from all that is good and decent in the world.

Of course, Jack will probably ignore him. And I would guess that Audrey’s chances of surviving this year just plummeted because of that. Yes, everything Jack touches lately eventually dies. He hasn’t had a partner in years because given time, they either take a bullet meant for Bauer or are caught up in one of Jack’s rogue operations and get killed off unceremoniously. One by one, his friends have fallen, their association with him being enough to cost them their lives. In a way, it reminds me of that old movie Death Takes a Holiday.

Not to be confused with the ponderous remake Meet Joe Black starring Brad Pitt as Death (MJB had a 3 hour runtime), Death Takes a Holiday was an extremely literate and intelligent film, well acted and had moments of levity as well as a serious examination of many issues surrounding man’s mortality. Written by the great playwright/screen writer Maxwell Anderson and based on the 1929 Broadway hit of the same name that was written by Alberto Casella, the film starred a young Frederic March in the role of Prince Sirki/Death who visits a rich man’s house (Guy Standing) to discover why people fear him so. He is captivated by a young woman Grazia (Evelyn Venable) who longs for a release from her dull existence.

As long as Death is on a vacation, no one dies, flowers continue to bloom, the world experiences a day without anyone or anything dying. Early on, the rich man recognizes Death for who and what he is and tries to bargain with him to give him more time on earth. Intrigued, Death explores the reasons people wish to cling to life so desperately. He finds out when he falls in love with Grazia and wishes to take her with him. In the end, the rich man bargains his life for that of Grazia who even after finding out who Death really was, wanted to join him.

What made the film so compelling was the underlying tension (missing from MJB) that if you angered Death by not doing what he wished or crossing him in any way, your life could be forfeit. In the context of 24 , I found it revealing that when Jack was trying to snap Audrey out of her catatonic state, he whispered in her ear “I want them to pay for what they’ve done.” Jack’s desire for revenge now appears to be almost all consuming. Even his offer to commit suicide to prevent the circuit board from falling into the hands of the Chinese makes sense if you consider that with his own death, he would also be killing his Chinese tormenter, Mr. Cheng as well as denying them their reward for kidnapping he and Audrey.

So is Heller right? Has Jack become Death, the Destroyer of all he touches? I think the answer is yes. And even if Jack realizes it, he will be unable to give up Audrey who gives him his only fleeting contact with the world of the living.

SUMMARY

Little Ricky tries his luck in trying to communicate with Audrey to no avail. She’s a basket case and Nadia tells him to get her back to CTU pronto so that they can have a shrink examine her. As Jack is being shepherded into a helicopter, he begs Doyle to let him speak to Audrey, knowing in his heart of hearts that she will come out of her stupor just for him and give them the information necessary to track Cheng and that missing circuit board.

Nadia is having her own problems. Thrust into the role of Acting CTU Director by Bill’s firing, she feels a little overwhelmed. When Morris comes a calling, she summarily rejects his transfer request. Chloe’s boy toy tries arguing but doesn’t get very far. Referring to his “personal soap opera,” Nadia orders Morris back to work.

Back at the White House, Karen gets Daniels to sign off on an Executive Order closing the borders so that Cheng can be prevented from leaving the country with the board. Correctly, Daniels points out the this is a futile exercise because we can’t even keep “migrant workers” from crossing the border.

It is absolutely amazing to me that we live in a time when those who break the law by sneaking into this country illegally can be treated with the softest of kid gloves. They’re not “illegal immigrants.” They are “undocumented workers” or “migrants.” The fact that the writers felt it necessary to avoid the designation “illegal immigrant” says volumes about why our border policies are so screwed up in this country and why the current immigration debate is not about enforcing the laws on the books but rather on how best to create a “path to citizenship” for those here in violation of the law.

Incredible.

Meanwhile, the Veep’s blonde squeeze Lisa Miller arrives home only to be accosted by a man who turns out to be her secret lover Mark Bishop. We discover that Lisa has been carrying a relationship with Daniels apparently in order to advance her career when she whispers between nibbles that the only thing the Veep cares about is “his lunatic foreign agenda.”

So much for true love…

Trouble back at the White House when the Russian President calls on the videophone flanked by two tough looking generals. Suvarov bluntly tells the Acting President that the Russians know the Chinese have the circuit board and God help the United States if Cheng manages to leave the country with it. Daniels looks a little shaken when told of the probable escalation to Armageddon that would occur unless they can get that board.

Tom realizes that for the Russians to be aware so quickly that the Chinese have the board, there has to be a spy either in the White House or CTU. While he runs off to start the mole hunt, Daniels authorizes CTU to use whatever resources necessary to catch Cheng before he leaves the country.

And it appears that Cheng’s exit will be slightly delayed. Downloading the board’s schematics, one of his agents tells him that the board is busted and the only way to fix it is to bypass the security protocols. Cheng, chafing at the delay, announces that they must find someone with the technical expertise who can do the job.

Is it Chloe’s turn to now face death or assist the enemy? Cheng’s word’s are an echo of Fayed’s when he needed someone with the technical know how to build him a nuclear trigger. It appears that CTU is a one stop shop for the enemies of the United States who need someone with “technical expertise” in a hurry. And no one is better than Chloe at hacking through security protocols.

Since the only character who is not expendable is Jack Bauer, will this mean the death of Chloe? Yikes! Be still my beating heart! Then again, there’s the possibility that they could kidnap Morris to do the dirty work on the board thus giving him a chance to redeem himself. Either way, this looks like the big ending that the writers have been promising for weeks. Stay tuned.

After playing a little slap and tickle with Mark, Lisa heads for the shower and Mark heads for her PDA. It seems that Mark is a Russian spy and after downloading all the information from her Blackberry, he calls his handler, a Russian named (wait for it) Nikolai. We also learn that Lisa doesn’t have a clue that he’s a Russian agent. Well, duh. As if the Veep’s Chief of Staff would knowingly bed down a Russkie spy?

Back at CTU, a very affecting scene between Morris and Chloe plays out with Morris telling Chloe that she “crossed a line” with her jab about him building the nuclear trigger and that “It’s over. There’s no going back.” Chloe can’t believe that her prickly personality and total lack of interpersonal relationship skills has now cost her the only conceivable person on planet earth who could love her. She sobs uncontrollably and of course we feel badly for her. But then, we see Morris’ point, don’t we?

As Karen briefs Nadia about the possible mole (and refuses to answer her questions about Bill’s firing), the Doctor from Division is escorted into CTU and it is apparent from the get go that this fellow is trouble. Most medical professionals we’ve met who have been associated with CTU have been from the Josef Mengele School of Medicine - torture first, ask questions later. Nadia instructs this Dr. Bradley to make a quick diagnosis on Audrey because they don’t have much time.

As Jack sits pining for Audrey in a holding cell at CTU, Little Ricky and Nadia listen as the Doc tells them that Audrey is in a catatonic state and the only way to snap her out of it is through drugs. Good thing Audrey can’t here him when Bradley gives Nadia the odds of her survival. Doyle argues to give Jack a chance at snapping her out of it without drugs but Nadia, going by the book, refuses. Doyle sulks away.

At the White House, Daniels is obviously missing his squeeze. He calls Lisa and begs her to come back to him as soon as possible, hoping she hasn’t forgotten their date later. She breathlessly informs him that she’s on her way while Mark sits there grinning like a raccoon.

Tom then breaks the mood with bad news. The NSA has been able to track down who the mole is. They were able to trace calls to a Mark Bishop who was suspected as a Russian agent but the case was dropped for “lack of resources.” So, the Veep asks, whose the staffer. Lisa Miller, says Tom.

The Veep is incredulous. And he looks devastated when Tom tells him that the two are probably sleeping together. Daniels tells Tom that they have a big problem because he’s been sleeping with the mole too. Always thinking ahead, Tom tells him that he might have a way they could turn the situation to their advantage.

Back at CTU, Doyle enters Jack’s holding cell and gives him the bad news about Dr. Bradley and his little black bag of poisons. At the same time, Little Ricky uncuffs Jack, telling him when Jack asks why to “make it look good.” Deliberately turning his back and walking slowly away, Jack doesn’t need an engraved invitation. He promptly puts Doyle in a choke hold and squeezes him into unconsciousness, gently lowering him to the ground.

Whoever said Jack Bauer is a thug is a liar. If I were to put my own brother in a choke hold, I couldn’t have done it any more gently.

Jack then proves that Oscar de la Hoya has nothing on him. He floors the guard outside the door with one punch and then repeats the feat with a second guard. Making his way to CTU Medical, Jack makes it three for three by cold cocking Dr. Bradley’s assistant with a terrific right cross.

Maybe Jack missed his calling. Don King would most definitely be interested in promoting him I’m sure.

So Jack takes the catatonic Audrey and together they escape from the Medical floor. With alarms going off and his friends searching frantically for him, Jack makes his way into the bowels of CTU, not wishing for escape but only hoping to play for enough time so that he can speak to Audrey himself. Morris catches Jack on his video monitor and Nadia is about to tell Chloe to seal off that part of the building when we realize that Chloe is no where to be found. She wouldn’t just leave the building would she? Not with all those crazy Chinese looking for her? Would she?

Well how else do you think they were going to capture her?

Jack uses Doyle’s key card to access corridors, finally finding a storage room where he can have a little privacy and a few minutes breathing room. He immediately sets about the task of trying to snap Audrey out of it by reminding her who she is, what her name is, who her parents are, and where she was born. Poor Audrey still has the blank stare on her face although she seems to perk up a bit when her mother is mentioned.

But time is running out as Nadia has her people using a blowtorch to get through the door. So Jack simply hugs Audrey and tells her very tenderly that he loves her. They make an interesting couple. Audrey is catatonic and Jack is an emotional cripple. They were made for each other.

Doyle and Nadia break through the door guns drawn while Jack tells them he won’t hand Audrey over to Bradley. Suddenly out of the blue, Audrey says the word “Bloomfield.” Bradley says it could mean anything. Jack says it’s a clue to where she was held. Nadia tells Morris to track down the meaning of the word and informs the Doc to wait in her office, that Audrey is her witness now. With that, Jack gives her up and surrenders himself.

We learn that Russian troops are on the move, that the Russian President wasn’t bluffing about the consequences of allowing Cheng to leave the US with that board. Things are progressively getting worse.

And it really hits the fan when Lisa walks in, refreshed from her shower and, um, encounter with Mark. The Veep lays everything out for her; that Bishop is a spy, that he knows they’ve been sleeping together, and that she better help them now or her goose is cooked. She’s got to go back to Mark and tell him they’ve recovered the board. That should buy them some time anyway.

I thought the touch of making her an “enemy combatant” if she tried to expose their affair an especially interesting bit. Using that threat for personal political gain is about as hardball as it gets.

Back at CTU Medical, we are re-introduced to the Secretary of Defense James Heller, Audrey’s father, and a pretty good guy to have on your side (He took down two terrorists after being kidnapped last year.) But here, he plays the concerned father, telling Audrey that he’s taking her out of there. Audrey looks blankly ahead, not even seeing him. He tells Nadia he wants to see Jack before they transport Audrey.

Meanwhile, Doyle informs Nadia that the word “Bloomfield” might actually mean something. It’s the name of a copper company with a facility in Los Angeles. And since they found copper filings on Audrey’s clothes, it may be where Cheng was holding her. Doyle races to the building with CTU TAC.

The dreaded confrontation between Jack and Heller, two stand up guys who liked and respected each other at one time. But Heller, speaking as a father, informs Jack that he is not to see Audrey ever again. He is death incarnate. And he loves his daughter too much to see her hurt anymore by Jack. Jack swears that he can still help her, get through to her again. But the father is unmoved. And Jack is now faced with the prospect of losing his one and only link to the world of the living - a prospect that he will probably not accept.

BODY COUNT

A good episode despite the lack of carnage.

TOTALS

JACK: 25

SHOW: 407

For my ever shrinking number of readers (and those who come here every Tuesday for your 24 fix) I regret to inform you that my post recapping last night’s show will be delayed.

I had some business to attend to early this morning and have just now begun the recap. It will probably be up sometime after 11:00 AM central.

I apologize for making you wait. However, I think this one might be worth it…

Okay. So?

Dan Riehl devotes three posts to my thoughts and still can’t figure out what I wrote. He also said I write with a Thesaurus beside me. Judging by Mr. Riehl’s wild and crazy personal attacks, that must mean that Dan replies with a dictionary next to his keyboard, struggling to comprehend the meaning of words that any high school drop out in my day would have no trouble deciphering.

I’ll try and keep the syllables under 4 just for you Dan.

What all the hub bub boils down to is that many of you are saying that I am weak and cowardly because I changed my view on the war. In other words, I am not steadfast enough and that I don’t stick with “my principles” thus, making me wishy washy; a “sunshine patriot” as one wag was kind enough to put it.

This is a good criticism, an honest criticism. I have no problem with it. It is based on the excellent notion that standing by what we believe even when things get rocky is the essence of honesty and integrity.

But something happened on the road to Damascus and I changed my thinking. Allow me to explain.

When any of us form opinions - be it on Iraq or whether the Cubs are going to win the 2007 World Series - we base that opinion on an underlying set of assumptions. For instance, an assumption regarding the Cubs is that they haven’t won a World Series since forever and are perhaps the most doggedly jinxed baseball club in Christendom. Other assumptions would include the fact that the ownership rarely does anything right and that Wrigley Field and day baseball saddle the team with a disadvantage. Ergo, my opinion that they don’t have a Tinker’s chance in hell to win it all is based on solid assumptions, grounded in logic and a coherent view of the situation as it exists in baseball, in the National League, and in the eyes of history. The Cubs are toast and I’ll stick by that opinion come hell or high water.

Now suppose it’s late October and high water has arrived; the Cubbies are up in the World Series 3 games to none, needing only one win for the championship. I can still hold the opinion that they haven’t a ghost of a chance to win. But what has changed?

Some of the underlying assumptions are no longer valid, or obsolete, or simply false. Other assumptions remain rock solid. But in maintaining my opinion that there’s no way the Cubs can win, I have had to stretch logic, ignore some facts, concentrate on tangential issues such as perhaps an act of God will halt the Series now before the Cubs can win. In other words, I’m reaching to justify my opinion.

That’s where I found myself a year or so ago with regards to Iraq. Some of the underlying assumptions I had about the war changed. I believed for the longest time that the Administration and the Pentagon had a good idea of what was going on in Iraq and had a viable strategy to deal with the problems there. That assumption proved false. This became apparent when Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney would paint what was happening there in the rosiest of hues - so many schools built, so many clinics opened up, etc. Meanwhile, the insurgency grew, became more vicious, and al-Qaeda began to implement their strategy of pitting Shia against Sunni in order to foment civil war.

Anyone who was reading reports of what was going on in Iraq would more than likely do a double take listening to either one of those gentlemen. Are we talking about the same war? Those of us who have questioned what is happening in Iraq - most of the people that I’ve read anyway - were enormously troubled by this disconnect.

One by one, assumptions I had formed at the beginning of the war and occupation fell victim to changing realities in Iraq. This is not the same place it was 4 years ago nor is it even the same as it was a year ago. And if it has changed - if the facts, perceptions, and reality has changed, what did that do to the underlying justification for my opinions?

Once I began “reaching” to justify my opinions, I got very uncomfortable. The threads of logic became more tenuous the more I examined those pesky assumptions. I realized that many (not all) of my original assumptions were basically obsolete, done in by the cruel logic of domestic politics and a growing realization that the the US military could do everything that was asked of it and more and still come up short thanks to the balking politicians in Iraq, the twisted narrative of the war being spun by the left and the Democrats, Administration failures to implement a strategy that would win the war, and a growing belief that the country was sliding out of control.

So if you’re in my shoes, what do you do? Continue to defend a position you know is becoming untenable as a result of changing realities (and new information not available at the time you formed your original assumptions)? Or do you alter your assumptions and change your opinion?

It could very well be that abandoning long held opinions and beliefs about the war makes me a cowardly wretch. It all depends on how you look at it I suppose. But as I said, I still hold to some of those original assumptions; that Saddam was a potential threat, that the reasons for going into Iraq were basically sound (so much for my new found friends on the left, eh?), and that deposing the murderous tyrant was a good and moral thing to do. I don’t buy in to the left’s narrative regarding Iraq, finding it based on hysterical posturing and bilious phantasms (sorry Dan, couldn’t resist). And I also believe that Iraq is still a central front in the War on Terror (or whatever the Democrats are going to call it).

That said, this is one battle - a battle I sincerely believe we’ve botched as badly as Anzio or Tarawa, or any other blunder made during World War II - and what must be done now in my opinion is try our best to avoid disaster. There will be other battles and we will learn some hard and bitter lessons from this one.

That is, as long as we strive to be honest with ourselves. For me personally, this has meant questioning my beliefs when I thought the circumstances demanded it. If that means I’m “thinking too much” or seeing “too much nuance,” so be it. That is who I am. That is how I write.

Maybe I should get into the stock prediction business.

As I fully expected, some on the right are in full throated howl over my suggestion that we alter our mission in Iraq. The predictable response of the slack jawed yawpers doesn’t necessarily depress me, although I am not insensate to the barbs . Their personal attacks (in lieu of answering my points with intelligent counters) reveals how truly bereft they are of any understanding of what it will take for the efforts of our troops in tamping down the violence to bear fruit.

Also as I predicted, the left has attacked me for not advocating a complete withdrawal. There are also those who have “congratulated” me for “finally” seeing it there way.

Frankly, that’s hogwash. For more than a year I have been expressing my belief that the Administration’s strategy was not working, that despite the brilliant performance of our troops, any military gains made against he insurgency were lost because of the political inertia that even our best efforts could not affect. The Iraqi government was failing to take the steps necessary to reconcile the various factions and create a viable, democratic state. Just because people vote doesn’t mean democracy is in place. The rifts and divisions in that bloody land are standing in the way of uniting the people behind the idea of nationhood. In order for the idea of “nation” to take hold, there must be an accounting of both ancient history and recent history. And before Iraq can become a nation, Sunnis and Shias will have to look at each other and see a fellow countryman rather than an oppressor or a threat.

Only by accepting the concept of power sharing will the Shia government in Iraq succeed. And only when they are convinced that the Shias are not out to destroy them will the Sunni insurgents lay down their arms and join the government. The sad fact is that the United States military - as bravely as they have carried out their mission - can only create the conditions where this is possible; they cannot unite the factions through any conceivable military action.

What has changed? Clearly, the government of Prime Minister Maliki doesn’t have time to affect the changes necessary that would lead to this reconciliation. By that I mean our efforts at improving security (the largest but by no means the only aspect of our new strategy) will only last as long as we have sufficient troops on the ground to carry out that mission. And the entire point of my article was simple; time is running out. Blame it on the press. Blame it on the Democrats. Blame it on Elvis. The fact is the American people have had enough. And what little support there is for our mission in Iraq will only lessen the closer we get to the 2008 election.

I blame Bush for this. He has been AWOL in using the Presidency as a soap box to consistently, patiently, and honestly explain why we’re in Iraq, what the stakes are, who the enemy is, and why we must fight. His inexplicable silences over the last 4 years - sometimes lasting weeks - allowed the political opposition to hijack the war narrative and twist it for their own political purposes. Every six weeks or so, the President would embark on a 3 or 4 day PR offensive, appearing mostly at military bases and talking up the war. It was never enough. And we’re paying the price for this PR blunder with an American public who have been frustrated with the lack of progress in defeating the insurgency as well as the stalling tactics of the Maliki government.

For in the end, that is where the problem lies. The Prime Minister, the major parties in Iraq (SCIRI, Dawa, the Sadrists) have expressed little interest and less desire in affecting the changes in power sharing, de-Baathification, amnesty, reconciliation, and promised constitutional changes that would alter the political climate and start the Iraqis down the road toward a peaceful society. And again, there is nothing the US military can do to push the government off of square one and get this process moving.

And lest anyone misunderstand me (or, for those of you who simply didn’t bother to read what I wrote) I am not advocating anything more than a token withdrawal of American troops. And that would be as a consequence of cutting a deal with Democrats in Congress who almost certainly would insist on some kind of cutback of troops if they were to sign on to a redefined mission of fighting al-Qaeda, protecting the Iraqi borders (including the Iran-Iraq border), and preventing a humanitarian catastrophe. Only the significant presence of US troops will prevent the massacre of Sunnis by Shias hell bent on revenge as well as those who wish to make Iraq “Sunni free.” That same presence would probably also prevent a general Middle East war as well.

So those who believe I was signing on to the Democrats plan for phased withdrawal are simply wrong. In fact, I think it would be a blunder that would make the blunders made the previous 4 years look tame by comparison. Only those wishing the absolute worst for the United States, Iraq, and the Middle East would advocate such a course of action. Better that we maintain a strong presence in Iraq and allow the various factions to work out their own solutions to the problems facing the country.

My point about dealing with the Democrats is simple common sense. If we are going to stay in Iraq with the numbers of troops necessary to help train the Iraqi army, kill al-Qaeda, and protect the Sunnis, the Democrats are going to have to be aboard so that the political will for such a mission can coalesce and form around both Congressional and White House leadership. For this to happen, Bush will have to make the first move. I’m not expecting much even if Bush were to wear sackcloth and ashes and knee walk up the Capitol steps. But given the alternative - ultimate Democratic success down the road in pushing arbitrary timetables for a withdrawal of the bulk of our troops - what has the President got to lose?

Nothing I’ve written here or in my other post is very original. The political conditions in Iraq are well known if you read enough reports - both from the media and our own government. And the change in mission has been advocated by both Republicans and Democrats in and out of government. I don’t claim authorship only conversion to a point of view.

I guess the overarching point is that our divisions are killing us. Someone, somewhere has to reach out and find the common ground so that we can avoid an unmitigated disaster in Iraq. Judging by some of the comments here and elsewhere, I find it difficult to place much faith in that prospect.

ADDENDUM:

You may note that I have avoided the term “victory” when redefining the mission. Since I believe our original mission has already failed, trying to define “victory” would be an exercise in futility. Better to describe the mission as “staving off disaster.” That would be accurate.