Right Wing Nut House

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

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

UPDATE: 4/9

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

UPDATE II: 11:00 AM CENTRAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some pragmatist. Some moderate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Krauthammer hit a home run today:

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

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

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

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

Here’s the video, courtesy of You Tube:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE

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

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

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

WELL, I WROTE MY CONGRESSMAN TO LET HIM KNOW
THAT I’M THINKIN’ ‘BOUT HEADIN’ DOWN TO MEXICO
AND I WAS HOPIN’ HE COULD PULL SOME STRINGS
TO GET ME IN
YA SEE, I DON’T WANNA BOTHER WITH LEGALITIES
NO PASSPORTS OR VISAS, IF YOU PLEASE
I’M JUST ASKIN’ FOR THE SAME DEAL THERE
THAT WE GIVE THEM

CHORUS:
AND I SAID,
“CAN YOU GET ME IN? CAN YOU GET ME IN?
I MIGHT STAY FOR AWHILE AND PRETEND I’M A CITIZEN
BUT I DON’T WANNA LEARN THEIR NATIVE TONGUE
AND I WON’T PAY TAXES – THAT’S NO FUN!
I JUST WANNA START A BRAND NEW LIFE
IF YOU CAN GET ME IN”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Washington Times hits the nail on the head:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pretty brilliant stuff.

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

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

UPDATE

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

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

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

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

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

But hey! Nobody died!

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

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

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

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

“Quid pro quo, Clarice…”?

Dear Senator Harry,

Just thought I’d write you a quick letter and fill you in on all the goings on here in the Middle East. My trip has sure sparked a bit of outrage from those bozos at the White House, eh? Sure is funny to see the Chimp in Chief getting riled up about my visit with “Bashy” Bashar. I call him that because of all those jokes he makes about what he’s going to do to some of those politicians in Lebanon if they pass a bill sitting the International Tribunal that will try the murderers of Rafiq Hariri. In fact, Bashy repeated for me the best joke he ever told. It was to Hariri himself and he told it about 2 weeks before someone lit up a car bomb and the poor guy just happened to accidentally get in the way of it.

Anyway, Bashy tells me that Hariri was sitting right where I was sitting - right a across from him and the Lebanese was being stubborn about allowing Bashy’s good buddy, President Lahoud of Lebanon, to illegally extend his term in office until 2007. Anyway, Bashy gets this dreamy look on his face and says that he told Hariri that if he didn’t change his mind about supporting the extension, he would “break Lebanon over your head.”

Well, he laughed and then I laughed and then our translators laughed and before you knew it, we were all laughing and carrying on like maniacs - especially Bashy who seemed to relish retelling the joke. I don’t know where the world gets the idea that President Assad is some kind of thug. He was very engaging and very accomodating. And the way he explained this Lebanon thing actually makes some sense - from his point of view.

He thinks that the US and France are meddling in Lebanese affairs, strongly supporting Prime Minister Siniora when Hezbullah only wants “justice.” Sort of like migrant workers in California except they don’t walk around armed to the teeth and threaten to kill westerners. But I can see the parrallels, can’t you? It made me think that maybe we’re riding the wrong horse in this Lebanese mess. Perhaps we should be a little more supportive of the legitimate aspirations of Hezbullah. All they seem to want is veto power over what the government decides. That doesn’t seem too much to ask - especially if it will bring peace to that country.

And even though I reiterated American support for his government when I met with Lebanese parliamentary leader Said Hariri on Monday, I told him in no uncertain terms that we Democrats believe that “”The road to solving Lebanon’s problems passes through Damascus,” which I’m sure pleased my buddy Bashy in Syria. He’d like nothing better than to get back into the game in Lebanon and help bring peace and stability to that country after having been so rudely kicked out by the Lebanese people. I tell you, Harry, some people and their manners . . .

Anyway, you may have seen me wearing a scarf over my head when I went to the Mosque in Syria today. I actually didn’t want to wear it since I just had my hair done before I left on the trip but these scary looking guys told me that if I didn’t wear it, it would be a tremendous insult since they consider women little more than slaves and covering my head is the least I can do to not offend them. Well, you know me, Harry. I only want to offend Republicans and conservatives. Everyone else, you should just “go with the flow” and do what you’re told. It wasn’t too bad really. Only a couple of the guys wanted to cut off my head for not covering my face up too. Oh well. You can’t please everyone all the time. . .

By the way, I’ve got to tell you about my trip to Israel. It was so interesting. I never realized how many Jews there were in Israel. Oh, I knew the government was Jewish and all but I thought it was like the way Jews control the government in the United States - as well as all the banks, the movie industry, television, newspapers, and big corporations.

But I was truly amazed! Everywhere you look when you’re in Israel, you see Jews. Jews, Jews, Jews. I mean, no wonder the Arabs are so mad at them. I think a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem would be fewer Jews in Israel. That would make the Arabs less mad and lead to peace. That’s my two cents anyway.

Well, I’m off to go shopping. Those crazy Muslims are making me wear the head scarf again. My hair is a mess but no one seems to care. When I get back, we’ll sit down and plan our next moves to change American foreign policy to make the world like us again.

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

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

Winter is now officially over.

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

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

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

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

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

Sox Manager Ozzie Guillen contemplates the upcoming season.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the most unforgettable moments in the history of 24 was in Season 2 when Jack, wanting to prove his worth to a crime ring involved in a terrorist plot so that he can infiltrate it, kills someone who betrayed the bad guys and, in a casual almost bored voice, tells George, the head of CTU at the time, “I’m gonna need a hacksaw.”

Jack needs the hacksaw so that he can cut off the snitch’s head and deliver it to the crime ring boss, once more proving that Jack will do anything to get the job done and protect the country.

When Gredenko had his arm cut off so that the implanted tracking device would be useless in helping CTU following him, every long time 24 fan probably yelled that famous quote at the screen. It has become a signature line that all Jack Bauer fans use when the show starts to go off the tracks - when the writers have lost focus and the plot threads dissolve into a jumble of half baked, confused and sometimes contradictory action. And the last few weeks have sadly confirmed this fact; that the show has lost its drive and is simply treading water, advancing at a snails pace, going off on tangents (like Doyle’s covering up for Milo’s mistakes and then quoting the Koran to Nadia), and getting farther and farther from it’s very promising beginning.

Where’s Jack’s father Phillip? What about Marilyn and her son Josh? They’ve completely dropped the Assad peace movement, the Muslim roundup, the detention center dramas, and Daniels’ security plan from the show. And Chloe has been AWOL for weeks - very little snark and vinegar from the show’s favorite character. The long, boring, drawn out attempt by Daniels to take over the government could have been handled in 15 minutes instead of being the focus of nearly 2 whole episodes. And perhaps it would help if we had some background info on what is going on in the country. After all, a nuclear bomb was detonated less than 12 hours ago. But you’d never know it except for a few roundabout references to it in relation to what would happen if another bomb went off.

It’s not unusual for the show to hit spots like this only to come roaring back. But with only 7 weeks to go (the final night is usually a two part special), it’s going to take a Herculean effort by the writers to get the show off the snide and back on track.

SUMMARY

As Daniels spins his evil web of intrigue against the President of the United States, we see Wayne Palmer sitting up, fully dressed, and apparently ready to take on the world. The fact that less than an hour ago, he was in an induced coma - a state that would ordinarily take several days to recover enough where the patient could actually open their eyes and speak - is forgotten as Wayne prepares to fight for his presidency. In that vein, he casually asks the doc for a shot of adrenaline.

Now “adrenaline” or “epinephrine” as it is referred to by the medical community, is not something to be played around with. It is given, in most circumstances, as a last resort to help restart the heart following a heart attack or drug overdose. And it is not administered in the arm either. The doctor uses a huge needle (in order to penetrate the chest muscles) and shoots the drug directly into the heart.

Anyone who has watched ER over the years knows this so it is surprising that the writers couldn’t have come up with something a little more realistic.

Back at Hauser’s house, Jack relays Gredenko’s demands for amnesty and no repatriation to Bill. When Bill tells Jack about the cabinet crisis, Jack realizes he’s got Gredenko just where he wants him. With the issue of who is president unsettled, it would make any agreement with the government null and void. Jack tells Bill that he has “no intention of honoring” the agreement anyway and asks his boss to keep him informed. Bill calls the AG to get the ball rolling.

As Wayne walks stiffly and in obvious pain into the cabinet room, the members stand in deference to the office. Vice President Daniels gets off the most nauseating line of the night and perhaps the season:

DANIELS: I know I speak for everyone here when I say how very happy I am to have you with us again.

Both Karen and Tom appear ready to gag while Wayne shoots the Veep a withering look of contempt. For some reason, Tom takes over the meeting although in reality, the senior cabinet officer - the Secretary of State by tradition - would probably handle that duty. (The Secretary of State was the first cabinet officer named by George Washington.)

Tom asks the doctor to give the cabinet an update on the President’s condition. He lays out a compelling case that, while the President is weak, he is expected to make a full recovery and that his cognitive functions seem unimpaired. He leaves a smidgen of doubt however, by saying that Wayne could relapse at any time.

Next up, President Palmer makes a strong case for remaining in office, saying that Daniel’s efforts to take over are the result of a policy disagreement. Since we’re talking about launching a nuclear missile, that would seem to be the understatement of the year.

When he gets his chance, the Veep actually agrees. He says that the 25th Amendment can be activated just for that purpose - to replace a man who is not acting in the best interests of the country.

When Tom called for the vote, the tally was 7-7. By the terms of the amendment, Daniels needed a clear majority to take over so it appeared that he had lost and Wayne Palmer would remain as president.

Not so fast says the slippery Veep. Karen Hayes resigned as National Security Adviser and was not formally reinstated. Her vote was invalid. And since this is America, the only rational way to resolve the dispute is to take the matter to the courts. In this case, the Supreme Court is informed of the controversy and briefs will be submitted within the hour.

Actually, the cabinet could have voted on Daniel’s motion to invalidate Hayes’ participation but that just wouldn’t have been dramatic enough. Besides, the writers are milking this thing for all that’s it’s worth. They may as well get a few more scenes out of it.

Back at CTU, Milo sidles up beside Nadia perhaps looking for a repeat of the lip lock they enjoyed a few minutes ago. This time, Milo would be able to wrap both arms around the Arab hottie because, Presto! His sling, in place since a bullet pierced his shoulder that morning, has magically disappeared. This is due to a time honored tradition on the show: The Twelve Hour Rule.

Now, The Twelve Hour Rule clearly states that:

“After 12 hours of showing the effects of any injury (i.e. broken ribs, sprained ankles, but especially bullet wounds) the affected CTU personnel will discard any outward manifestation of his injury including but not limited to; bandages, scars, cuts and bruises, and any and all physical defects such as limping, wincing in pain, or favoring the affected body part in any way.”

The reason? The writers think we the viewer have the memory capacity of a marmoset and the brains of a toad. But since they have consistently applied this rule for years, I suppose we can’t complain that much.

At any rate, Milo gives Nadia a final leer and saunters away. Just then Doyle calls Nadia and asks her to come up to see him. He tells her that apparently, the ease with which the terrorists penetrated CTU computer security was due to a serious error in establishing the security parameters. Doyle suspects Milo and wants Nadia to get the info off Milo’s computer for him.

When Nadia in fact finds this security breakdown on Milo’s part, most long time fans had their mole antennae prick up and come to attention. What are the chances that Milo “accidentally” forgot this vital security function? Is he so enamored of Nadia that it is distracting him from his work?

Stay tuned. And keep an eye on the geek Lothario.

More nonsense from the writers when Nadia gives the info to Doyle who then erases it from the computer memory. His explanation that CTU needs Milo to get the bombs rings hollow. As does his bizarre quoting of the Koran to the Muslim woman - ostensibly in order to show what a great guy he actually is.

If, as many commenters on different sites have been speculating, Doyle will be Jack’s replacement when Bauer is killed off, that kind of nonsense is necessary to turn him into more of a compassionate guy. But it was so out of character that one wonders why the writers even bothered.

Another useless scene, this time a phonecon between Bill and Karen. She frets that her stupidity in resigning might be the catalyst for a nuclear attack on another country. Bill mans up and reassures her while the two have a tender moment.

Can we get back to the show please?

With his amnesty papers in order (confirmed by Gredenko’s attorney which leaves us wondering why the Feds haven’t pounced on this guy too), the Russian calls Fayed to set up a meet. But Fayed is wary and picks the docks as his rendezvous point, telling Gredenko that he will find him once he gets there.

Back at the White House, the President readies his brief for the Supreme Court with the help of his sister Sandra. She points out it is a strong case - that Karen’s sitting in on a cabinet meeting with Daniels speaks to his intention to keep her on as NSA thus making her vote valid.

But in the lounge, Daniels and Lisa are scheming. When Lisa points out that their case is weak and will probably fail, Daniels gets this look on his face of faux concern and speaks about how bad this would be for the country, that Palmer is a weak sister and the world will take his inaction as a sign of weakness.

This proves too much for Lisa who practically tears her blouse off and offers herself to the Veep, so stirred she is by Daniels’ words (in more than one way). She hits upon an idea of committing perjury by swearing out an affidavit that the Veep told her that he was going to fire Karen once the crisis was over. “The ends justifies the means,” she pants. With a deft and evil smoothness that masks his degeneracy, Daniels pretends to reject Karen’s plan. But he takes her hand while doing so and that’s all that’s necessary for Lisa to melt into a puddle of mush and agree to commit the felony - all the while, looking soulfully into the Veep’s eyes.

Wish I could get women to do stuff like that for me. Not commit perjury, of course. But I haven’t had an effect on women like that in, well…ever. Maybe there’s a website that gives us males all those secrets.

Then again, my Zsu-Zsu probably wouldn’t understand. Being a practical, down to earth kind of girl, she’d probably just knock me over the head with a frying pan and order me to take out the garbage. Now that is what I call control!

Back at the docks, Fayed prepares to meet Gredenko. He unloads the nukes from the truck, making us wonder what has made him so suspicious all of a sudden. I bet the writers are wondering too.

At the White House, Tom pays a visit to Daniels and, after dismissing the wench Lisa, reveals the existence of a bug that he planted “to protect himself.” Daniels’ hooded eyes become even more closed as he warns Lennox to be “very, very careful.” And “careful” appears to be Tom’s middle name. He takes out a recorder and plays back the perjury scenario discussed by Daniels and Lisa. Lennox orders the Veep to call the Supremes and tell them that he is dropping his challenge. Reluctantly, Daniels agrees.

As Karen gives the President the launch codes so that he can cancel the nuclear strike permanently, Sandra bursts into the room with the good news about the Veep dropping his challenge. After the two women leave, Palmer sags noticeably. It’s clear that he isn’t feeling very well. He calls his secretary and asks her to get the doctor to his office pronto.

Having reached the docks, CTU TAC load Gredenko up with the monitoring equipment, including the injection of a small amount of nuclear material into his arm so that they can track him wherever he goes. As Gredenko starts down the pier, Jack observes him from afar while the gang at CTU listen in as well. They hear a phone ringing and Gredenko picks it up. No one is on the line but Jack sees him reading something off the phone. It’s a text message telling him where to go. As Gredenko disappears around a corner, Jack takes off in pursuit after he learns that Doyle and his main force is still 20 minutes away.

After the Russian is hustled into the building to meet Fayed, he silently takes the bug out of his pocket and disconnects it. With CTU blind and deaf now, Jack confirms with Milo that Gredenko is still in the building and takes off after him in earnest while the Russian tells Fayed that even though he has betrayed him by bring CTU along, he has a plan to get them away safely.

Jack arrives at the building and finds it empty. Milo confirms that the nuclear trace is still active and shows Gredenko in the same room with Bauer, just feet from where Jack is standing. But no Fayed. No Gredenko. And no Gredenko arm. Like an animal caught in a steel trap gnawing off its own limb, the Russian had Fayed cut it off so that CTU couldn’t track them.

But like a hunter following a wounded prey, Jack picks up Gredenko’s blood trail and sure enough, it leads him right to the little group trying to make a getaway. After a short shootout with Fayed’s men (taking out the second one after saying under his breath “Show your head,” before executing a perfect shot to the terrorist’s forehead), Jack keeps following Fayed and Gredenko like a bloodhound.

Desperate now, the two terrorists enter an open air dockside bar where Gredenko - inexplicably at the moment although we may learn later his motive - shouts to the assembled dockworkers and pier street brawlers “Here’s the terrorist they’re looking for! I saw him on the news!”

There are few more patriotic souls than Longshoremen who prove it by attacking Fayed with gusto, even after the terrorist plugged one of the innocent bystanders. Before they can beat Fayed senseless, Jack arrives and gets control of the situation, taking Fayed into custody. Meanwhile, Gredenko has once again escaped.

Back at the White House, the doctor arrives in Palmer’s office and Wayne orders him to administer another shot of epinephrine. The doc balks, telling the President that his blood pressure will shoot up and there will almost certainly be “vascular damage.” Get it done, doc says the President, or I’ll find someone else who will.

As the shot revives the President, Bill calls with the good news/bad news about Fayed. Yes they have him in custody but no, they don’t know where the nuclear bombs are. Wayne tells them to keep plugging away and find those nukes. He gets a strange look on his face as if the shot was doing something to him besides pepping him up.

On the beach, we watch as Gredenko staggers underneath a pier, the life oozing out of him. Finally, he keels over dead as waves wash over his body. Does he have something on him that CTU needs to find? A map? A phone number? Or are the writers done with Gredenko and decided on this anti-climactic end to one of the main villians on the show?

Karen meets with Tom and asks for a truce since they both seem to be on the side of the angels recently. Tom agrees and just then, gets a call. The shocking news sends him racing to the conference room; the President is about to launch the nuke on Fayed’s country anyway.

Bursting in, Lennox pleads with Palmer who says he can’t look weak or he’ll lose the presidency. Tom retorts, “Do not confuse being reckless with being strong!” Then quite matter of factly, the Admiral reports that the missile has been successfully launched. And Karen, Tom, and the rest of the cabinet can only watch the radar image as the missile rises gracefully from beneath the ocean on its way to a rendezvous with destiny.

BODY COUNT

A kind of blasé night for the Grim Reaper, although the death of Gredenko should have been a major milestone. The way it was handled was quite disappointing. I think most of us would have prefferred Gredenko to have died a more horrible death.

At any rate, the night was not a total loss. In addition to Gredenko, Jack upped his body count by two, showing off a little marksmanship in the process. And Fayed got off only one shot before being overwhelmed by Longshoremen, killing an innocent bystander.

TOTAL

JACK: 17

SHOW: 394

I’m late to this story on Michael Ware, the CNN reporter who supposedly “heckled” Senators McCain and Graham in Baghdad during their press conference. The Powerline boys have been all over the story, including an interview with Soledad O’Brien where Ware denies the story.

Ware was reported to have laughed and mocked comments being made by Graham and McCain while the press conference was underway. In the O’Brien interview, he denies heckling anyone and, given my understanding of the word, I would be forced to agree with him if all he did was act like an ass, laughing and carrying on during the presser. If he had shouted out from the audience and interrupted the press conference, that would have been considered “heckling.” So it appears that Drudge doesn’t know what the word means - not surprising since it isn’t the first time his headlines have failed to jive with the story being reported.

Ware claims he never got to ask a question and, in fact, just as he raised his hand to do so, the press conference ended. Since Ware knows the tape of the presser is going to be shown and scrutinized, one would have to say at this point that he is telling the truth - at least the truth as he perceives it to be.

But I also believe that the story itself is true; that Ware - an irreverent sort of fellow who tries to project the hard-bitten, world-weary, cynical war reporter image - no doubt laughed and mocked the politicians who were trying to put the best face on what is still a very dicey situation in Baghdad. NBC aired a report that McCain’s claims of being able to walk freely through a Baghdad market - about 3 minutes across the Tigris river from the Green Zone - were something less than honest. He was surrounded by 100 American soldiers and screened by 3 Blackhawk helicopters and 2 Apache gunships. The left and the press is having a field day with this info, never mentioning the fact that John McCain is a serious candidate for President of the United States and that this kind of security is not only necessary but expected.

Beyond that, it’s foolish of McCain or the military to make any sweeping generalizations about the security situation in Baghdad based on westerners being able to walk around without worry or even playing the body count game and pointing to reduced civilian deaths. If this is how we are going to judge the surge, the terrorists and insurgents will make absolutely dead sure that we will fail. They will do this by setting off the biggest bombs in the most crowded areas guaranteeing that even though the number of attacks will go way down, the body count won’t.

And it doesn’t matter if General Petreaus or John McCain or any westerner can saunter around in a market without getting killed. What matters is faith. What matters is whether the surge along with political initiatives by Prime Minister Maliki will begin restoring the people’s faith in the government. Iraq is a mess not just because of the insurgency or the terrorists. There is a sectarian war underway that has smashed the body politic in Iraq, making people who lived side by side in neighborly friendship for decades to look at each other with hate. What the surge is doing is giving the government the breathing room to show that it can work for all Iraqis and that each and every citizen has a stake in Iraq’s future.

There are tiny indications that this, in fact, is occurring. The market where McCain (and Iraqis) are able to walk around for a few minutes without getting blown up is a sign of that restoration of faith. So are the previously shuttered businesses cautiously opening up. So is the trickle of Iraqis moving back into houses where just a few months ago they had fled for their lives in terror from sectarian gangs. There are nearly 750,000 of these internal refugees - a monumental problem that won’t be solved anytime soon. But the government is addressing it. They are giving each of these refugees a $2,000 stipend if they wish to move back in to their houses - looted and gutted some of them. As for houses that are occupied by squatters, they are also offering the squatters funds to move back to their own abode.

In a very real way, Senator McCain was correct when he said that the American people are not getting the full story of what is happening since the surge began in Iraq. But it’s not information about reduced attacks on civilians or fewer sectarian murders that is the real story - although we shouldn’t dismiss them entirely. The real story is what is happening below the surface among the people; a slow, painful, tentative walkback from the abyss of civil war and sectarian conflict. Our military cannot affect this aspect of the struggle directly. But their efforts are having an affect, that much is clear.

And thinking about all this got me to thinking about Michael Ware and his behavior at that presser. Now I know what you’re saying. “Don’t think, Ricky it will only make your head explode. You’re going to overthink this Ware deal and get everyone upset with you.”

If you’re thinking that, you’re probably correct. But I was thinking that Ware has been in Iraq off and on for years, reporting on the absolute worst of it. The death and destruction that one car bomb can generate scars some people for life. Ware has seen dozens of these attacks - the dead and dying, the body parts of children, the screams of anguish from the bereaved and screams of pain from the horribly wounded.

And, by his own admission, he drinks. He drinks to forget. He drinks to anesthetize himself. He drinks out of boredom, or of bravado, or just to drink. Perhaps he was drunk at the press conference. More likely, he is simply weary of seeing politicians - both pro and anti war - who spend their days in safety sitting in Washington D.C., coming to Iraq and making grand pronouncements about “the way things really are.” He may agree with the anti-war position but I’ll bet he holds those Democratic politicians in equal contempt.

No doubt he wears his bias as a badge of honor. But his towering cynicism is actually a defense mechanism that protects him from having to feel for the tens of thousands of innocents who have been slaughtered in this conflict. Perhaps he feels morally superior to the rest of us. But there is little doubt the war has affected his judgement and made him useless as an objective observer.

CNN should recall Mr. Ware and never send him back. He has done an impossible job in an impossible place for far too long. It’s time to bring Michael Ware home.

UPDATE

Allah points to a Raw Story piece with the video from the presser that seems to confirm Ware’s denial.

And the video doesn’t show Ware laughing and mocking McCain and Graham either. Despite this, Paul at Powerline calls Ware an “advocate” and that he should be withdrawn by CNN immediately.

Ware’s hyperbole - normally part of his schtick along with his heavy Australian accent - seems to me to be getting worse. You have to admire the guy’s dedication to get the story. But I still think he’s been there too long and that his cynicism is interfering with his reporting.