Right Wing Nut House

DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE MEMBERS DISCUSS THE PARTY’S PLAN TO RETIRE MOST WEAPONS SYSTEMS IN FAVOR OF A “FASTER, SIMPLER, MORE CHEWABLE” OPTION OF BRINGING NEW ARMS TO THE BATTLEFRONT.

Saying that the military’s weapons had become “too expensive and too lethal,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-General Motors) will hold hearings next week on retiring most of the military’s current weapons and outsourcing the construction of their replacements to Senegal:

Chimpanzees living in the West African savannah have been observed fashioning deadly spears from sticks and using the tools to hunt small mammals — the first routine production of deadly weapons ever observed in animals other than humans.

The multistep spearmaking practice, documented by researchers in Senegal who spent years gaining the chimpanzees’ trust, adds credence to the idea that human forebears fashioned similar tools millions of years ago.

The landmark observation also supports the long-debated proposition that females — the main makers and users of spears among the Senegalese chimps — tend to be the innovators and creative problem solvers in primate culture.

Levin said that he and other Democratic members were especially interested in studying the new “manufacturing process” for the weapons that promises to save billions and billions of dollars:

The chimps were repeatedly seen using their hands and teeth to tear the side branches off long straight sticks and peeling back the bark and sharpening one end of the sticks with their teeth, the researchers report in Thursday’s online issue of the journal Current Biology. Then, grasping the weapon in a “power grip,” they jabbed into tree-branch hollows where Bush babies — small monkey-like mammals — sleep during the day.

One Senator who asked to be quoted anonymously (for obvious reasons) said another factor in favor of taking contracts away from such defense giants as General Dynamics, Raytheon, and United Technologies was the willingness of the newcomers to test the weapons on “Bush’s babies” - something that would please the online Democratic party activists who refer to themselves as “netroots.”

“One sure way to please the netroots and get them behind this proposal is to get the Bush babies involved in the war,” he said. “And if they happen to get in the way of a hungry arms tester, well…C’est La Guerre!

Claiming that the Senegalese firm would be able to produce weapons “faster, cheaper, and with a lot less backtalk than Lockheed gives us,” Senator Levin also praised the design of the weapons both for their simplicity and the fact that using the arms in combat will dramatically reduce civilian casualties.

“This really is a brilliant design,” he said. “It guarantees many fewer civilian casualties while generating casualties right where they belong - on the men and women in our military who were too stupid to get a job in the private sector in the first place.”

The Carnegie Endowment for Peace agreed, saying in a statement that the new weapons “represent a qualitative step in the right direction for reducing casualties in war.”

Another Committee member, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Negligent Homicide) pointed out that the way that contract payments for the arms would be made could fulfill a dual use purpose.

“The bananas, fruits, and nuts that we use to pay for these new super weapons could also be distributed to the poor in this country,” he said. “This new ‘Arsenal of Democracy’ could also become ‘The Fruitbasket of Democracy.”

National Organization for Women (NOW) President Kim Gandy also issued a statement congratulating the Senate on recognizing the unique role of females in both the invention and manufacture of these new weapons:

Adrienne Zihlman, an anthropologist at the University of California at Santa Cruz, said the work supports other evidence that female chimps are more likely than males to use tools, are more proficient at it and are crucial to passing that cultural knowledge to others.

“Females are the teachers,” Zihlman said, noting that juvenile chimps in Senegal were repeatedly seen watching their mothers make and hunt with spears.

Females “are efficient and innovative, they are problem solvers, they are curious,” Zihlman said. And that makes sense, she added.

Gandy said she was “pleased” to see women in combat and hoped that the military would change their mind and allow American females, armed with “weapons made by their sisters in Senegal,” to become part of combat teams throughout the military.

Note: This article is a parody/satire. It is not meant to be taken seriously.

UPDATE

A slightly different take - from the left.

Mark Coffey weighs in on the Joe Wilson angle.

Goodbye, Chuck. Hello, Joe.

The Senate is about to become a revolving door as both Chuck Hagel (R-Ambitious Cuss) and Joe Lieberman (D-Persecuted One) threaten to bolt their respective parties over the war issue.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico on Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties but suggested that Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.

Lieberman, a self-styled independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush’s plan to send an additional 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.

“I have no desire to change parties,” Lieberman said in a telephone interview. “If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don’t feel comfortable with.”

Asked whether that hasn’t already happened with Iraq, Lieberman said: “We will see how that plays out in the coming months,” specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued funding for the war.

Time says the possibility of Lieberman pulling a switcheroo is remote:

Lieberman says leaving the Democratic Party is a “very remote possibility.” But even that slight ambiguity — and all his cross-aisle flirtation — has proved more than enough to position Lieberman as the Senate’s one-man tipping point. If he were to jump ship, the ensuing shift of power to Republicans would scramble the politics of the war in Iraq, undercut the Democrats’ national agenda and potentially weaken their hopes for the White House in 2008. Those stakes are high enough to give Lieberman leverage with both parties no matter how slim the chance of his crossing the aisle. Which means Senate leaders aren’t worrying only about whether Joe Lieberman will switch parties. They’re wondering what, if anything, he plans to do with the power that comes from keeping that possibility alive.

I actually think it’s not very likely that Lieberman will cross the aisle. The Republicans don’t have much to offer him in the way of Committee Chairs - unless one of the senior Republicans were to give up the Chairmanship of Foreign Affairs (Dick Lugar) or Homeland Security (John Sununu). Would Lieberman jump the Democratic ship for anything less?

And I don’t think Lieberman is all that comfortable with the GOP’s economic or trade policies either, although that would be a minor factor in any decision he might make to leave the Democrats. He would go from being too conservative for his own party to being too liberal for the GOP. Either way, he would be in a distinct and uncomfortable minority.

No, Joe is a classic liberal - perhaps the last of what used to be called the internationalist wing of the Democratic party. Strong on national defense, friendly to unions, generous to the welfare state, but an overall belief in the goodness of America and a supporter of an activist foreign policy.

They’re mostly gone now. The Humphreys, the Nunns, the Bentsens. Like Lieberman, they shared an abiding faith that America should stand against the bullies, the thugs, and even a nuclear armed superpower to promote freedom around the world. Also like Lieberman, they were courtly in manner, generous to their foes, reasonable in debate, and when push came to shove, supported Republican Presidents when they sent our military into harms way.

If Lieberman does bolt the Democratic party, would Chuck Hagel cross over and keep the Dems in the majority? Hagel is the most likely of the moderate Republicans to turn. And the Democrats probably have more to offer him in Committee assignments than the GOP could offer Lieberman.

But Hagel should take note of what the netnuts have done to Lieberman before he thinks of crossing over to the other side. The first vote he would cast reflecting his conservative Nebraska roots would set the screaming meanies of the internet off on him and make his life miserable. Besides, Chuck wants to be President and it doesn’t look like there’s much of a chance for that if he would run as a Democrat. A third party run is more in the cards for Hagel.

In the end, unless the Democratic slow bleed the troops plan succeeds in the House, I expect Lieberman will stay right where he is. Chances of that happening are probably not quite as good today as they were last week before Murtha told the world exactly how he was going to undermine the Pentagon and the President of the United States. Such things are best done in the dark of night when no one is looking and the knife can be applied to just the right place in the small of the back so that the victim never knew what hit him. Now that Democrats have to stand up in the light of day and actually face the American people with their cowardly and immoral plan, I would guess that some Democrats who may have been inclined to vote for Murtha’s betrayal as long as it was being done below the radar of public perception are now having second thoughts.

Anything is possible in Washington. And the emotions that are roiling the capitol as a result of our involvement in Iraq are only going to get more intense the closer we get to the 2008 election.

By any stretch of the imagination, we are in for a very rough, very interesting campaign.

I missed last week’s Council vote due to one of the occasional bouts of sleeping sickness to which I am prone from time to time. Not the Tst-Tse fly variety but rather another bug that bit me much earlier in life; pure, unadulterated laziness.

Because of this, I must perform the pennance required by the omnipitent Watcher; a double dose of Watcher Council winners.

Week of 2/9

Council Category

1st Place: “Who Is George Soros?” by American Future.

2nd Place: “Once More, William Arkin, With Feeling!” by The Sundries Shack

Non Council

1st Place: “Media Mischaracterizes Senate Resolution Vote” by The QandO Blog.

2nd Place: “Once in a While a Veterans Thoughts Are Echoed” by Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Week ending 2/16

Council Category

1st Place: “San Francisco Has Bigger Scandals Than a Debauched Mayor” by Bookworm Room

2nd Place: “What a Tangled Web” by Done With Mirrors

3rd Place: “3 Squeeze Play: How the Palestinian Summit in Mecca Overturned Bush’s Middle East Policy” by Joshuapundit

Non Council Category

1st Plae: “Flagrant Evil” by Gates of Vienna

2nd Place: “Iran’s Obsession with the Jews” by The Weekly Standard

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

George Washington
a poem by James Russell Lowell

Soldier and statesman, rarest unison;
High-poised example of great duties done
Simply as breathing, a world’s honors worn
As life’s indifferent gifts to all men born;
Dumb for himself, unless it were to God,
But for his barefoot soldiers eloquent,
Tramping the snow to coral where they trod,
Held by his awe in hollow-eyed content;
Modest, yet firm as Nature’s self; unblamed
Save by the men his nobler temper shamed;
Never seduced through show of present good
By other than unsetting lights to steer
New-trimmed in Heaven, nor than his steadfast mood
More steadfast, far from rashness as from fear,
Rigid, but with himself first, grasping still
In swerveless poise the wave-beat helm of will;
Not honored then or now because he wooed
The popular voice, but that he still withstood;
Broad-minded, higher-souled, there is but one
Who was all this and ours, and all men’s - Washington

July 8, 1775

The poem is a fragment from the ode for the centenary of Washington’s taking command of the American army at Cambridge.

It says something important about George Washington that his influence on American life, politics, and culture would be so profound more than 75 years after his death. Perhaps only FDR, whose dominant personality and management of the two great crisis of the 20th century - depression and war - rivals Washington’s influence on successive generations of Americans.

Washington’s contributions to our history are almost mythic in nature. Indeed, that may be our biggest problem with coming to grips with him as a man. We ask ourselves, is it possible that someone could have refused a crown or dictatorship when it was so easily in his grasp? This is not hyperbole. There was a day - one day - when Washington could have had it all, that if he was less of a patriot and lover of liberty, America would have been changed forever.

Let me take you back to that day. The year was 1783. While formal hostilities had virtually ceased between the Crown and the American colonies, peace talks continued to drag on in London. The Congress was broke and in serious debt even though the Articles of Confederation, which required individual states to contribute funds to the Congress, had been approved two years earlier.

The Continental Army was restless. Many of its officers hadn’t been paid in months. Promises made by Congress at the time of their enlistment regarding reimbursement for food and clothing, pensions, and a pledge to give the officers half pay for life were either not being honored or were rumored to be withdrawn. Petitions by groups of officers to Congress asking them to redress these and other grievances either went unanswered or were brushed aside.

As a result of these indignities, a cabal of officers headed up by Colonel Walter Stewart and Major John Armstrong, an aide to George Washington’s chief rival Horatio Gates, were making plans to march to Philadelphia at the head of their men to force Congress to deal with their demands. The implication was clear; if Congress would not address their concerns, the men would enforce their will at the point of a bayonet.

The plotters believed that General Washington would be forced by their actions to become a reluctant participant in a military coup against the government. They believed that by presenting a united front composed of the senior officers in the army, Washington would have no choice but to back them.

To that end, they scheduled a meeting on March 10 of all general and field officers. With the invitation to the meeting, a fiery letter was circulated calling on the soldiers not to disarm in peace and, if the war were to continue, to disband and leave the country to the tender mercies of the British Army.

Washington got wind of the meeting and was deeply troubled. He issued a General Order canceling the gathering and instead, called for another meeting on March 15 ” of representatives of all the regiments to decide how to attain the just and important object in view.” The next day, another letter was circulated by the plotters that implied by issuing the General Order, Washington agreed with their position.

With the army teetering on the edge of revolt and the future of the United States as a republic in the balance, Washington stood before the assembled officers and began to speak. He started by saying he sympathized with their plight, that he had written countless letters to Congress reminding them of their responsibilities to the soldiers, and begged the officers not to take any action that would “lessen the dignity and sully the glory you have hitherto maintained.”

At that point, Washington reached into his pocket and withdrew a letter from a Congressman outlining what the government would do to address the soldiers grievances. But something was wrong. Washington started reading the letter but stopped abruptly. Then, with a sense of the moment and flair for the dramatic not equaled until Ronald Reagan became President, Washington slowly reached into his coat pocket and withdrew a pair of spectacles. There were gasps in the room as most of the officers had never seen their beloved General display such a sign of physical weakness in public. As he put the glasses on, Washington said “Gentlemen, you’ll permit me to put on my spectacles, as I have grown not only old but almost blind in the service of my country.”

Witnesses say that the officers almost to a man began to weep. This powerful reminder of the nearly eight years of service together and their shared sacrifices and hardships won the day. The revolt died then and there.

There were other days, other challenges where Washington showed a self-abnegation so profound as to allow many historians to charge that the General was more concerned about how he would look in the history books than with the kind of virtuous selflessness Washington’s contemporaries ascribed as his motives. In truth, Washington was not without a flair for the dramatic as his speech before Congress resigning his Commission attests:

Happy in the confirmation of our Independence and Sovereignty, and pleased with the oppertunity afforded the United States of becoming a respectable Nation, I resign with satisfaction the Appointment I accepted with diffidence. A diffidence in my abilities to accomplish so arduous a task, which however was superseded by a confidence in the rectitude of our Cause, the support of the supreme Power of the Union, and the patronage of Heaven.

Of course, to get the job of Commanding General in the first place, Washington paraded around the Second Continental Congress wearing his Virginia Militia uniform which sort of puts Washington’s claims to “diffidence” about serving in a different light.

And then, the peroration:

Having now finished the work assigned to me, I retire form the great theatre of Action; and bidding an Affectionate farewell to this August body under whose orders I have so long acted, I here offer my Commission, and take my leave of all the employments of public life.

There is every indication in both the private correspondence with his wife Martha as well as public pronouncements like this that Washington was dead serious about retiring forever. Only the gravest of crisis could bring him back into the “theater of Action.” And as Scott Johnson points out, it was the Constitutional Convention, convening at a time when the American experiment was in dire straits and the country threatening to fly apart, that Washington once again shouldered the burden of leadership:

Take, for example, Washington’s contribution to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Washington’s mere presence lent the undertaking and its handiwork the legitimacy that resulted in success. The convention’s first order of business was the election of a presiding officer. Washington was the delegates’ unanimous choice.

Presiding over the convention during that fateful summer, Washington said virtually nothing. In his wonderful book on Washington, Richard Brookhiser notes: “The esteem in which Washington was held affected his fellow delegates first of all…Washington did not wield the power he possessed by speaking. Apart from his lecture on secrecy, Washington did not address the Convention between the first day and the last.”

One other aspect Brookhiser brings out about the Convention was the debates over the powers that would be granted to the President under the brand new Constitution. Once it became clear that there would, in fact, be an executive, delegates could only think of one man who could possibly fill the bill - and he was sitting silently in front of them. As the delegates debated the powers that would be granted the chief executive, they would glance from time to time at Washington to see his reaction. So powerful a presence was Washington that he influenced deliberations simply by being in the room.

Scott calls Washington “The Indispensable Man,” quoting James Flexner whose marvelous 4 volume biography is still considered the seminal work on Washington’s life 30 years after the last volume was published. And the man one discovers in reading Flexner, Brookhiser, Harrison Clark , Richard Norton Smith and others is not a perfect being. A slave owner, a patrician who was distrustful of “the mob” as he called the common folk.

A man who could be vain, petty, ultra sensitive to slights both real and imagined, Washington was most of all a man of his times. He was able to embrace new ideas and had the vision to see America as an independent nation because he was a keen student of the currents of thought that were running through the colonies in the 1760’s as well as pre-Enlightenment Europe. Washington may have been one of the most plugged in of our Founding Fathers. The stream of visitors to Mount Vernon never let up, to the point that poor Martha complained about the constant overnight guests. He also kept in close touch with friends in Europe, gauging the reaction to the unrest in the colonies. While publicly uncommitted to independence, some historians believe Washington recognized the inevitability of a separate nation as early as 1774 with the imposition of the Intolerable Acts.

A man of his times, yes. But also a man for all time.

Christiane Amanpour is one of the most respected foreign correspondents in the business. She has literally been everywhere and done everything - from wars, to famines, to natural disasters, to weighty meetings between world leaders - Amanpour, with a combination of tenacity and courage, has reported on most of the transformational events over the last 25 years. She has received 9 Emmys and numerous other awards recognizing her outstanding achievements in broadcast journalism.

She is also a left wing hack, at times willing to shill for anti-American Europeans as well as promote a clearly biased agenda against Republican Presidents. Some of her less distinguished moments include a fawning interview with former President Bill Clinton and her self-congratulatory rant about the press coverage of hurricane Katrina - since shown to be wildly inaccurate and little better than rumormongering. Some conservatives point to her marriage to former Clinton State Department spokesman James Rubin as proof of her bias but frankly, I find such charges based on who somebody is in love with ludicrous. One need only look at the Carville-Matlin partnership to give the lie to that canard.

When she plays it relatively straight, I find her a truly awesome reporter. Her coverage of the Balkans was searing. Her exposing the plight of women in Afghanistan under the Taliban prior to 9/11 was groundbreaking. I found her reports from Iraq in the aftermath of the first Gulf War heartbreaking. She was, I believe, the first journalist to report on how George Bush 41 abandoned the Kurds and Shias after urging them to overthrow Saddam, a betrayal that haunts US foreign policy to this day. And her reporting of elections in Iraq in 2005 for CNN was, I believe more nuanced and in-depth than any other media outlet. She didn’t downplay the sheer joy of the Iraqis nor the courage of the American and Iraqi soldiers and police who helped protect the voters from terrorists who had vowed to disrupt the vote. I remember thinking at the time that Amanpour is probably at her best in this milieu; great events illustrated by using human interest stories to highlight the magnitude of what was going on.

The point of this short look at Amanpour’s record is to show that she is much more than a journalist with an agenda. Although her bias is certainly part of the total package she brings to her reporting, it shouldn’t blind us to her real accomplishments nor to the reputation she has around the world among friend and foe alike. And she is usually no lackey when interviewing the thugs of the world, challenging them on human rights as well as some of their more outspoken criticisms of the United States.

But what to make of this interview with a “senior Iranian government official,” I just don’t know:

As I sat down recently with a senior Iranian government official, he urgently waved a column by Thomas Friedman of The New York Times in my face, one about how the United States and Iran need to engage each other.

”Natural allies,” this official said.

It was a surprising choice of words considering the barbs Washington and Tehran have been trading of late.

“We are not after conflict. We are not after crisis. We are not after war,” said this official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “But we don’t know whether the same is true in the U.S. or not. If the same is true on the U.S. side, the first step must be to end this vicious cycle that can lead to dangerous action — war.”

He confided that what he was telling me was not shared by all in the Iranian government, but it was endorsed so high up in the religious leadership that he felt confident spelling out the rationale.

“This view is not off the streets. It’s not the reformist view and it’s not even the view of the whole government,” he replied.

But he insisted he was describing the thinking at the highest levels of the religious leadership — the center of decision-making power in Iran.

I asked whether he meant Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself.

“Yes,” he said.

A couple of things should be noted here, not least of which is that there have been rumors for months coming out of Iran of a deep split between Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad. Khamenei’s criticisms are more related to the President’s style rather than substance but he has also gotten an earful from what western reporters refer to as “moderates” in the regime - the old guard of original revolutionaries who were quite comfortable in their corruption and positions of power. Ahamdinejad blew into office and immediately began to get rid of most of the bureaucratic conduits used by the old guard to siphon money from the ministries, replacing them with men of little or no experience but who had the true faith.

And then last December, Khamenei, with the help of the Odd Couple of Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, both former Presidents and Ahmadinejad’s most vocal critics, engineered an electoral set back for the Iranian President as his lists for local and regional office as well as many of his radical candidates for the powerful Assembly of Experts went down to defeat. There have also been moves in the Iranian Majlis to shorten Ahmadinejad’s term of office as well as resistance to some of his more radical appointments to the ministries.

Taken together, all of this points to Khamenei trying to marginalize his outspoken President. But does this automatically mean a change in attitude toward the United States?

John Hinderaker isn’t buying what Khamenei is selling, pointing to recent statements by Iran’s Supreme Leader that are belligerent and threatening. Indeed, Khamenei’s rhetoric and the actions of the Iranian government have been far from friendly toward the United States in recent years. And, as John also points out, Amanpour allows the Iranian to give the impression it’s evil George’s fault:

Amanpour’s breathless report implies that only the belligerence of the President Bush, who unaccountably included Iran in the “Axis of Evil,” frustrates a full alliance between these nations, both of whom, she says, are bitterly opposed to al Qaeda.

Many others, of course, believe that top al Qaeda leaders are now inside Iran. And it is not hard to argue that from 1979 to the present, the foreign power that has most consistently been at war with the U.S. is Iran. Further, what are we to make of the claim that Ayatollah Khamenei considers his country to be a “natural ally” of the U.S.?

We have heard this “natural ally” theme for 25 years from those who wish to engage Iran in dialogue. It is said that the people of Iran have an abiding affection for Americans and wish to re-engage and requite this love affair so that they can benefit from trade and other contacts with the west.

The only problem with pushing this meme is that the Iranian leadership could give a fig what their people think about America and the west. In fact, every move they have made over the last 25 years has been to insulate themselves further from what they see as the degrading, sinful culture and influence that the west has on the third world.

Ahamadinejad is the synthesis of this movement. One need only read his “letter” to President Bush asking him to convert to Islam to realize what this 25 years of insularity has wrought; a leadership so out of touch with the real world that they have no clue how real nations interact with one another. When Ahmadinejad expresses surprise at the fierce opposition to his anti-Semitic rants by western governments, he is genuinely confused that they can’t see the logic and truth of what he is saying. When he suggests that the Jewish state should be lifted from the Middle East and set down someplace in Europe, the Iranian President actually believes that he is doing both Israel and the rest of the world a favor. He is genuinely surprised that people find his proposal monstrously insane.

So the question Amanpour should have asked is why the change of heart? What has happened recently to cause the Iranian government (at least the Khamenei faction) to approach a world-renowned journalist in order to carry a message of peace to President Bush?

I truly believe that the more pragmatic fanatics in the Iranian leadership are frightened of what might transpire in the near term. And it is more than the threatened military action by the United States. Surprisingly, the United Nations sanctions seem to be having a disastrous effect on the Iranian economy, far beyond either their intent or actual impact. Basics like food and fuel have skyrocketed in price in recent months as speculators believe that the current sanctions regime is just the tip of the iceberg. So too, may Khamenei. He is not oblivious to the voices of leaders like Chancellor Merkel of Germany who have made it clear that the west will do almost anything (short of military action one presumes) to prevent the Iranians from building a nuclear weapon.

And then there is the apparent stalling of the Iranian uranium enrichment program. After promising that they would have 3,000 centrifuges up and running by the end of February, it appears that the Iranians haven’t even started installing the machines. Given the technological challenges, most experts are not surprised. It may take a year or more for those centrifuges to become operational - and that’s if everything goes fairly well. And then perhaps another year and a half to two years before there is enough Highly Enriched Uranium and a workable bomb design. So, if Ahmadinejad thought that he would have a working nuke by the time the Americans were ready to attack, he’s coming up a little short.

Amanpour tried to draw out the Iranian on what exactly had changed recently to lead the Iranians to extend this olive branch:

When the official waved the column by Friedman in my face at the start of the conversation, his point was this:

That despite disagreement over Iran’s nuclear program, despite accusations that Iran is supporting anti-American killers in Iraq, despite even the 1979 hostage crisis, Iran and America are “natural allies” and the time has come to restore relations.

“We are natural allies. Why?” he said. “Because now the major threat for both Iran and the U.S.A. is al Qaeda…”

I pressed him about Iran’s sudden interest in extending an olive branch. “Why now? What’s motivating you?” I asked.

“Peace for the Iranian people,” he said. “But not only peace, peace with security. Peace based on mutual respect, mutual benefit and mutual security.”

Mindful of the heated rhetoric flying between Tehran and Washington — between both presidents no less — this official said: “If we give the impression that we welcome a battle, this is not because it is our first option. It’s our final option.”

All of this goes unchallenged by Amanpour - at least in the article on CNN’s website. Presumably, more complete answers would be forthcoming if there ever was a low level exchange of views between Americans and Iranians.

And it appears to me that the Iranian is broaching the very thing I wrote about here (and was roundly derided for by many of my friends) regarding a quid pro quo that included a guarantee of sovereignty for the Iranian regime in exchange for “peace with security” - perhaps intrusive and regular inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities?

This would be a non-starter at the present but could signal a real desire (or fear) on the part of the Iranians to talk. This is why I would not dismiss this interview out of hand despite the bias of Amanpour and the recent pronouncements of Khamenei. I respect the view of those who think that talking to Iran is worse than useless, that it would be delusional to believe that any agreement could be reached with the fanatics in Tehran. But does this mean we should close our minds to the possibility that, for the first time perhaps in 25 years, the Iranians have some good reasons to put out feelers to the west?

The so-called overtures made by Iran in 2003 can safely be dismissed for what they represented at the time; an attempt to drive a wedge between the US and our European partners by freezing the EU “Big Three” of Germany, France, and Great Britain out of any bi-lateral talks with the United States and weaken their resolve on the nuclear issue. As our negotiations with North Korea proved, multi-lateral and regional solutions to dealing with rogue states is the way to success - or at least the way to paper over conflict.

But this effort appears to be of an entirely different nature. The Iranians may be asking far more than we would be willing to give up at this point. But given the alternative of bombing and perhaps even military action that would facilitate regime change and the downside that would accrue to American interests in the region as well as our economy and our security, I would hope that the Administration looks upon this unusual demarche seriously and give it careful consideration.

UPDATE

Jules Crittenden doesn’t think much of the offer. This seems to be a pretty universal reaction from my conservative friends putting me once again at odds with the right on Iran. And since the left doesn’t think much of me either, it gets very lonely out on this here limb. I would appreciate it if no one sawed it off.

UPDATE II

Just as I was about to wallow in self-pity and whine about how lonely it is out here, up steps my brave friend Dave Shuler who, while not agreeing with me 100%, at least is a little more flexible than some:

Still, I have no argument with holding talks. I’ve heard Madeleine Albright say that the Iranian regime repeatedly snubbed the advances of the Clinton Administration. I guess that’s ancient history, too.

Talks are good. They don’t necessarily mean that you’re willing to surrender anything nor does it mean that they will be allowed to be used as a stalling tactic.

I might add that I oppose talking simply for the sake of negotiating. There must be an agenda and a framework before we sit down with a regime like the Iranians. Otherwise, Dave’s fears of the Iranians using negotiations as a stalling tactic would almost certainly be realized.

I hear Energizer Corporation is in discussions with Sandy Berger’s attorneys regarding his replacing the bunny as the mascot in its ad campaigns. It makes sense considering that the Sandy Berger Documents Odyssey just keeps going, and going, and going. . .

Today’s drip from the scandal’s faucet comes to us courtesy of the Washington Post and more evidence that the FBI was clueless about the true nature of Berger’s crimes as well as the startling admission by a couple of staff members of the 9/11 Commission that not only weren’t they told of the extent of Berger’s whitewashing expeditions to the National Archives but that they would have been more than eager to ask him under oath exactly what documents he destroyed.

It turns out, that despite what we were told initially about Berger’s crimes not involving the destruction of original, classified documents that in fact, the Archives have no idea how many documents Berger made off with.:

Brachfeld said he was worried that during four visits in 2002 and 2003, Berger had the opportunity to remove more than the five documents he admitted taking. Brachfeld wanted the Justice Department to notify officials of the 9/11 Commission that Berger’s actions — in combination with a bungled Archives response — might have obstructed the commission’s review of Clinton’s terrorism policies.

The Justice Department spurned the advice, and some of Brachfeld’s colleagues at the Archives greeted his warnings with accusations of disloyalty. But more than three years later, as Brachfeld and House lawmakers have pushed new details about Berger’s actions onto the public record — such as Berger’s use of a construction site near the Archives to temporarily hide some of the classified documents — Brachfeld’s contentions have attracted fresh support…

Zelikow (Staff attorney for the 9/11 Commission. ed.) said in an interview last week that “I think all of my colleagues would have wanted to have all the information at the time that we learned from the congressional report, because that would have triggered some additional questions, including questions we could have posed to Berger under oath.”

The commission’s former general counsel, Dan Marcus, now an American University law professor, separately expressed surprise at how little the Justice Department told the commission about Berger and said it was “a little unnerving” to learn from the congressional report exactly what Berger reviewed at the Archives and what he admitted to the FBI — including that he removed and cut up three copies of a classified memo.

“If he took papers out, these were unique records, and highly, highly classified. Had a document not been produced, who would have known?” Brachfeld said in an interview. “I thought [the 9/11 Commission] should know, in current time — in judging Sandy Berger as a witness . . . that there was a risk they did not get the full production of records.”

And to give you an idea of the outright stupidity of the Justice Department in this matter, it appears that rather than, you know, like, investigate Berger’s theft, they relied on what Berger was telling them when they told the Commission that Berger only took 5 documents:

In a letter to House lawmakers last week, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard A. Hertling did not address the issue of why the department told the commission so little. But Hertling wrote that in numerous interviews, “neither Mr. Berger nor any other witness provided the Department with evidence that Mr. Berger had taken any documents beyond the five.”

Hertling said the department “stands by its investigation” and believes the guilty plea it negotiated with Berger on April 1, 2005, “was the best one possible in light of the available evidence.” He also criticized the Archives staff for failing at the time to confront Berger, search him or contact security officials, saying this failure “had to be weighed against the evidence.”

The “available evidence” was evidently supplied by the perp’s statements about how many documents he stole not on any evidence gleaned from a thorough investigation. But we can’t simply blame the Justice Department in this matter. Clearly, the custodians of our treasured national records must bear a large share of the blame:

In the Hertling letter, the department noted obstacles in its investigation. The FBI was not advised of the case until Oct. 15, 2003, almost two weeks after Smith concluded that Berger had stolen documents. By then, Archives General Counsel Gary Stern had called Berger and former Clinton lawyer Bruce Lindsey about it and obtained two documents from Berger, who surrendered them at home after first denying they were in his possession.

The letter also said that six months after beginning the probe and well after Berger testified to the commission, “the Department had not yet asked Mr. Berger any questions, as he had not yet agreed to an interview.” Berger’s lawyer, Lanny Breuer, said Berger first spoke to the FBI in March 2005 and was interviewed a second time in July of that year, after his April 1, 2005, guilty plea to unauthorized removal and retention of classified material.

Gary Stern, Archives General Counsel, was a Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Energy during the Clinton Administration. In case you might miss the connection, about 70% of the Department of Energy’s budget has to do with the care and feeding of nuclear weapons. I will bet you a dollar to Navy Beans that Berger and Stern were good chums and that Stern wanted to make sure Berger had all his legal ducks in a row before siccing the Feds on him.

Of course, they didn’t talk to Berger for 5 whole months. And when they did, they swallowed his story about not stealing any originals and only taking 5 documents hook, line, and sinker. Not because they’re stupid. But because they didn’t want to know. These kinds of cases are huge embarrassments after all and the less anyone knew about it, the better.

This didn’t sit well with Archives IG Paul Brachfeld who agitated for a deeper investigation as well as informing the 9/11 Commission that Berger should be questioned about what he actually did:

Brachfeld pressed Justice Department officials on six occasions in 2004 to make a fuller statement to the commission about Berger’s actions, to no avail. He also contacted Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, who organized an April 2004 meeting between Brachfeld and Justice officials that convinced him that “these issues had to go before the 9/11 Commission,” according to two people present.

But in a notification to the commission the following month, the department did not mention that Berger had cut up documents, that he reviewed uncatalogued originals or that Brachfeld worried that Berger’s theft was greater.

Incredible.

Even more jaw dropping is that the staff at the Archives is evidently miffed that Brachfeld won’t drop the matter like a good little bureaucrat:

Some of Brachfeld’s colleagues have not been cheered by his new congressional support. An Archives lawyer, who Brachfeld said was one of those involved in the Berger case, this month sent Brachfeld an e-mail accusing him of poor judgment and stating that “I don’t think it comes as a great surprise if I were to venture the opinion that senior management at this agency have serious problems with the manner in which your office conducted itself . . . during the Berger investigation.”

On Friday, Archivist Allen Weinstein assured Brachfeld in writing, however, that this criticism did “not reflect either my views or the views of the overwhelming majority of NARA employees.”

In short, after failing to give adequate security to the documents themselves, violating procedure by allowing Berger to access the documents beyond a secure area, allowing him to take the documents back and forth to the bathroom, not bringing the FBI in on the case immediately, lying to the 9/11 Commission about the extent of Berger’s whitewashing of history, contacting Berger’s lawyer and Berger himself before reporting the incident to authorities, and being unable to say just what documents Berger might have made off with, the lower echelon of employees at the Archives who bear responsibility for all of the above are mad at management because they want to get to the bottom of what happened?

Unbelievable.

This case gets weirder all the time. And you know what? I’ll bet that there wasn’t much in those documents that reflected badly on Clinton at all. But the former President, so obsessed with his place in history and how historians will view his presidency and so vainglorious about his own personal standing, that anything that would reflect badly on his leadership needed to be expunged - especially since historians would be paying close attention to the 9/11 Commission’s final report.

They better find a way to get around double jeopardy as it relates to this crime or what happened at the National Archives when Sandy Berger destroyed a part of American history will never be known.

And in a very large way, that is a much bigger crime than Berger committed by stealing the documents in the first place.

UPDATE

Allah weighs in:

Exit question: What’s the deal? Moran thinks the DOJ is embarrassed by the incident and just wants it to go away, but why? No one would fault them for trusting an ex-cabinet member to behave ethically, even one with the taint of Clinton upon him. I think they’re more worried about sensitive national security information coming to light, either in the form of documents that Berger has or stuff he knows from his time in office. You don’t bring down the hammer on a former NSA, especially one with no compunctions about shenanigans involving state secrets.

Actually, I think they’re embarrassed because they botched the “investigation” from the get go. When two weeks pass between the crime and the reporting of said crime and then months go by before getting the perp to agree to talk, it might be well that no one ask too many questions about what actually transpired. If the IG for the Archives hadn’t been pushing this story over the last few months, we would never have been any the wiser. Those Republican House members who were asking for some explanations were doing so because Brachfeld was frustrated about what he saw as a cop out by Justice in not informing the 9/11 Commission about the extent of Berger’s potential crimes. It was his report that started the House GOP members asking questions back in October (the report was released in December).

Tom Bevan has the jawdropper of the day from Berger’s attorney quoted in the WaPo article:

You have to read all the way to the end of this Washington Post article on the Justice Department’s willful neglect in handling the Sandy Berger case before being confronted with this astonishing quote by Berger’s attorney, Lanny Breuer:

“It never ceases to amaze me how the most trivial things can be politicized. It is the height of unfairness . . . for this poor guy, who clearly made a mistake,” Breuer said.
Stealing highly classified documents from the National Archives is “trivial?” You’ve got to be kidding.

Indeed. And more:

Poor Sandy Berger. He had to pay a $50,000 fine and pick up some garbage on the side of the road in Virginia. Meanwhile, Scooter Libby had to face trial and might go to jail for, at worst, telling “a dumb lie” (to use the words of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald) about a non-crime.

Just as long as we’ve got our priorities right…

For the last three years, poll after poll has shown an American public who overwhelming believed that the war was mismanaged, that Bush was doing a horrible job in prosecuting it, that it wasn’t worth the effort, that we never should have invaded in the first place, and that we are losing the war.

Of course, the only poll that matters - on election day - saw the Democrats sweep into power promising to “change course” in Iraq. Not defund the troops. Not redeploy to Okinawa. Not carry out a domestic insurgency against the military by setting impossibly high benchmarks for the Pentagon to meet in order to send troops to the war zone. Not even set arbitrary timetables for withdrawal, although a majority of Americans would support a timetable to withdraw some troops over the next one or two years.

In fact, I commented here after the election on the curious disconnect between what Democrats were actually telling the American people before the election and the anti-war “mandate” they were claiming after the vote. With precious few exceptions, the Democrats did not talk about pulling our troops out of Iraq in 6 months or a year. They didn’t advocate timetables for withdrawal. They didn’t run commercials about supporting the defunding of the war or redeploying troops elsewhere.

Their unmistakable message to the voters prior to election day was that they would “change course” in Iraq - an interesting theme that appealed to a broad section of the American electorate. Since even many conservatives and moderate hawks advocated “changing course” in Iraq, this big tent approach obviously worked. At least it “worked” in the sense that the Democrats got their majority.

Two recent polls however, indicate one of two things; either the American people, when faced with the reality of a Democratic majority, are having second thoughts about leaving Iraq before some semblance of order is achieved or, more likely, a couple of pollsters have finally asked the “right” questions about Iraq to reveal what the American people have believed all along.

In fact, this poll reveals what has been one of the best kept secrets of American opinion over the past three years. A fairly consistent majority of between 55% and 65% oppose pulling our troops out immediately (59%). And another consistent sign of support is that a majority (57%) support “finishing the job in Iraq” - keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can handle security on its own. (HT: James Joyner)

The simple minded sloganeering from the left about polls on Iraq and how the American people support their anti-war agenda down the line fails to take into a account that citizens have a fairly sophisticated, nuanced outlook on the war. They think Bush is doing a poor job (60% “strongly” or “somewhat strongly” agree” ), that 52% believe Congress isn’t doing much better, that only 17% want our troops to leave immediately, that a bare majority (50%) believe we should stay until the job is done, that a surprising 56% agree with the idea of supporting the President even if they disagree with him (another 17% “somewhat agree”), and in another surprise, 53% believe that victory is still possible.

Also, a whopping 66% believe that losing the war would cause America to lose its super power status. And 53% believe strongly that the Democrats have gone too far, too fast, in pressing the President to remove troops from Iraq.

The American people are also realists about the outcome. More than 80% believe Iraq will not become a stable democracy after the US leaves.

The other poll taken by IBD shows similar attitudes toward the war, the President, and the Democrats.

What gives? You can believe we are losing the war (as I do) and still support the President and the mission. You can think that the President is doing a piss poor job of prosecuting the war but also believe the Democrats are dead wrong in moving to defund it or throw a monkey wrench into troop rotations. You can be convinced that Iraq will not be a stable democracy after we leave but still think that the country is “a key part” in the War on Terror (57%).

In short, when pollsters start treating the American people as if they had a brain and ask a series of questions designed to elicit responses that, when taken together, give a much more nuanced snapshot of how the people actually look at Iraq, the “anti-war mandate” claimed by Democrats in the aftermath of the election dissolves into mush.

Not pro-war by any stretch and certainly indicating that they have zero patience with both an endless continuation of past strategies as well as political gamesmanship by the Democrats, the American people - practical, realistic, and desirous of getting on with the task of meeting our goals and getting the hell out - have proved once again that they actually understand the stakes in Iraq as well as realizing that things are going poorly and that changes are needed if success is to be ours.

Perhaps if we all stopped treating the public as little children who need to be told what to think, what to believe about Iraq, we could get beyond the one dimensional critiques of the war on both sides and work together on a plan consistent with their wishes to get out of Iraq with the goal of leaving an Iraqi government in place that can handle its own security and not be a threat to us or her neighbors. If those goals are achieved, I think it’s pretty clear that the majority of Americans would see our efforts in Iraq as a success. Perhaps not a “victory” in any realistic sense - but far from a defeat and definitely something to build on in the years ahead as Iraq will continue to struggle with instituting democracy.

Support for our war aims in Iraq will endure only as long as the people believe we have a chance of succeeding. The next 6 months will be critical to that perception as the surge currently underway will seek to create conditions for the Iraqi government to work toward political goals that should broaden its base of support and negotiate with the factions to end the cycle of violence that has Baghdad and its environs in its grip. The patience of the American people has worn thin. It’s time for the Iraqi government to do what is necessary so that our troops can start coming home.

The sooner - the better.

UPDATE

In addition to linking to the raw data, James Joyner also has an interesting summary of the poll results:

“The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory,” said Neil Newhouse, a partner in POS. “The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not where the majority of Americans are.”

“The key group driving public opinion here are what we call the “nose-holders”, said Newhouse. “They don’t believe we should have gone to war or should still be there, but they believe we should stay and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security for their own country.”

Both pro and anti war advocates have ignored “nose holders” for far too long. These are the practical and nuanced Americans I wrote about above. They are smarter than most of us and probably have a lot less patience than pro-war supporters believe. They probably voted Democratic in the elections last November. But they will almost certainly punish the Democrats if they go through with their slow bleed the troops strategy - especially if Republicans get off their duff and make the case that this cynical strategy is nothing short of “cut and run” on the sly.

And I will say to my fellow conservatives that we shouldn’t be doing too much crowing about these numbers. While some of these responses give the lie to any “anti-war mandate” claimed by the left in the aftermath of the election, neither do they represent much good news. Clearly, the American people want out of Iraq quickly. As long as progress is made toward that goal, the President will be able to maintain this support. But if things go south with the surge or Maliki proves himself to be even more of an empty suit than he already has, that support will disappear in a heartbeat.

I can understand the reaction of many conservatives and GOP activists to the decision by 17 House members and 7 Senators to oppose the surge in Iraq. When the leader of your party and your President is in trouble, your first instinct should be to swallow your disagreements and support him. Loyalty to party and its leader should outweigh many concerns.

Indeed, there were many GOP House and Senate members who have grave misgivings about the President’s plan but supported it anyway. Why couldn’t that handful of lawmakers have seen their way clear to standing with the President when he needed them the most?

Mark Tapscott writes about the remarkable growth of The Victory Caucus, a week old internet phenomena that has as its mission:

* Deliver the perspectives and news on the war effort which the mainstream media neglects to help the American public understand the nature of our conflict and its true progress.

* Provide tools and infrastructure to help citizens who are committed to victory organize into a recognized and influential caucus.

* Identify opportunities for the caucus to act and exert influence on America’s leaders and to directly aid and support the men and women of our military.

Tapscott thinks that VC may eventually have the power to impact elections:

Victory Caucus represents something new - an Internet-based campaign wild card with the power to shape the outcome of an election. These campaign wild cards give voice to a decisive segment of the electorate whose concerns are being ignored and/or attacked in and by the major party candidates and the mainstream media.

Unlike the pre-Internet era that saw the Perot movement slip away, I believe it is now becoming increasingly possible with the Internet to not merely conserve the energy and focus of an independent electoral movement but to grow it over time, maintain its focus and even expand its internal structure and coherence.

That may be, but much hard, slogging work lies ahead for VC to have that kind of an impact. And events themselves might overtake the VC’s strong support for the war and the troops engaged in combat. The Democrat’s bleed the troops strategy resonates within their caucus because it gives the party an opportunity to stop the war while not being blamed for abandoning the troops. As cynical a ploy that Murtha’s strategy represents, it nevertheless has a real chance of succeeding - with or without a united Republican party.

And what would happen in 6 months if the surge fails and, more importantly, the Maliki government fails to make the political changes necessary to begin to unite all the factions in Iraq in order to begin the process of national reconciliation? Even the President has indicated that unless there is progress by the Iraqi government in this area, he would re-evaluate our commitment in Iraq. At that point, I would guess VC would lose some momentum if not some cohesion.

But what makes VC’s agenda so problematic is their stated goal of enforcing party discipline when it comes to votes on the war. Hugh Hewitt:

The growth of the Victory Caucus represents the combination of the internet skills of NZ Bear and the lassitude of Beltway Republicans. If the GOP is awake it will quickly begin recruiting and publicizing the candidates with appeal to the sort of voter represented by the Victory Caucus. They will also announce to the White Flag Republicans that they have made their choice, and they cannot expect the party to order shields up.

The voters involved in the VC want the Republican Party to act as though it believes in the mission in Iraq by identifying new faces and new voices with military experience to challenge the 2006 Democrats in red districts. The opportunity exists to channel the tremendous energy unleashed by the “slow bleed” Democrats, as Mark Steyn calls them. But the GOP’s Comngressional leadership needs to wake up to the fact that the activists are amazed at their inaction and defensiveness.

I fully support the pledge I signed that would deny party funds to those who vote against the surge (and support other measures by the Democrats to undercut our efforts in Iraq). But recruiting primary candidates to run against those who for reasons of conscience (or personal political calculation) choose not to support the President?

With the nonsensical dance of nonbinding resolutions in the House and Senate over (for now), it is time to focus on more productive activities. Namely: looking forward to 2008, and beginning the task of idenitfying opportunities for victory-oriented candidates to unseat White Flag incumbents.

There is work to be done. First, we need to research the White Flag incumbents we beileve might be beatable. Our starting list should be as follows:

Any White Flag Republican, defined as one of the 17 Representatives who voted for the House resolution, or one of the seven Senators who voted for cloture on the Senate resolution

Any Democrat in a district (or state) that was won by President Bush in both 2000 and 2004. This indicates that the seat may be vulnerable to a (victory-oriented) Republican challenger.

Perhaps it should follow logically that if you deny party funds to an incumbent for his apostasy, it stands to reason that a search for a primary opponent would be the next step. But I think this goes too far and I think it bad politics.

I wholeheartedly agree that the GOP should make a determined effort to recruit candidates to run against Democrats - especially from the class of ‘06 - with Iraq War experience. In fact, I would say that the dismal performance of the party leadership in recruiting quality candidates for open and contested seats was the number one reason for the GOP’s loss in the last election. The fact that the Republicans failed to defeat a single Democratic incumbent proves my point.

But why waste resources on recruiting candidates to run against Republican incumbents? I notice several House members from the “Gang of 17″ who are in vulnerable districts where they received 55% of the vote or less in ‘06. Defeating an incumbent in a bruising primary in these districts would make the prospects for a general election victory less than certain and may even guarantee a Democratic pick up.

The Senate, of course, is another story. But incumbents like Coleman and Smith face uphill re-election fights as a result of their past support for the war already. The prospects for success by a primary challenger in the general election would not be good under those circumstances.

Aside from all of the political calculations, there is the question of conscience and how much a representative should be penalized for following the dictates of his inner voice. We constantly complain about spineless politicians. And then when a couple of them stand up for what they truly believe, our first move is to rev up a primary opponent for him? Either we trust the judgement and heartfelt beliefs of our politicians or we encourage them to be as calculating in their votes as we hypocritically criticize them for.

I understand the need for party discipline in this matter. But a representative of the people who either votes to reflect the position of his constituents or out of a duty to his own moral precepts and conscience shouldn’t receive a death sentence. It is not wise politically nor is it right.

UPDATE

VC is highlighted in Politico today along with the story about going after GOP reps who opposed the surge.

By the way, if you haven’t bookmarked Politico you really should. Great “inside politics” articles and some first class writing too.

Yesterday, The House achieved a significant milestone when some lucky bloke opened the 2,000,000 page on this site since I began to keep track with sitemeter in February of 2005.

Since it seems like only yesterday that I was struggling to get 25 readers a day, I am astonished and humbled at that figure. I would like to thank all of you who are regular readers and those who drop by occasionally, if only to point out the error of my ways. Because yes, a significant number of those pages were not viewed by right wing nuts.

I also achieved another, less distinguished but even more remarkable milestone yesterday. My excellent spam catcher Askimet devoured its 500,000 victim - a spam bot probably trying to sell insurance. This number of spam comments and trackbacks does not include the 5,000 or so that actually made it through - usually by ganging up on the program and attacking it mercilessly, giving me up to 20 spams a minute. But for the most part, Askimet has performed magnificently.

BTW - if anyone has any good ideas how I can reduce that number, I’m open to suggestion.

We’ve known for several episodes that what motivates Phillip Bauer more than anything is his drive to “save what he built” - his company, BXJ Technologies. But why? What possible motivation could cause Phillip to become involved in such nefarious activities?

The answer is immortality. Phillip is obsessed with it. Passing his “legacy” on to the next generation - first Graem and now Josh - has caused him to betray everything; his country, Jack, even humanity. He has so wrapped his identity around the company that he founded and built he has reasoned that as long as the company is in existence, he too will live.

A powerful motivation, that. It speaks to the divine in all of us. Most of the world’s great religions posit an afterlife where the immortal soul resides. But this is different. This is something tangible, something in the real world. The concept is so seductive that Phillip has abandoned his morals, his integrity, and even his sons so that perhaps his last thought in this life will be that he will live on, an eternal sentry standing watch over those who run BXJ.

The Greeks were drunk with the idea of immortality as the Iliad clearly shows. Warriors like Achilles and Hector fought knowing full well that their deeds would long outlive them and that songs would be sung of them for a thousand years. More recently, no less a personage than George Washington was bitten by the immortality bug.

Most men settle for their legacy living on through their children. But Washington, from a very young age, knew that the eyes of history would be upon him and realized that by carrying himself as a historical figure, history would indeed treat him kindly. It is impossible to separate what actions Washington took with an eye on the history books and which were the result of his noble character. But given his constant allusions to classical figures to explain many of his actions like the Roman General Fabius who, after saving Rome, retired to his farm rather than take the dictatorship that clearly could have been his, many biographers of Washington believe Washington’s desire to live on through the ages played a large role in shaping decisions in his later life.

This is not to say that Washington was any less virtuous or should be held in any lesser esteem. But it does point up this desire in many men to have their deeds live on after they are gone.

For Phillip Bauer, this obsession has now led to what he must clearly see as his ruin and the ruin of his company. Is this why he spared Jack? With both Josh and Marilyn still alive and knowing the truth about him, perhaps he saw the futility in killing the only son he had left. Knowing the writers, we might never find out why he didn’t kill Jack. But it’s clear that from here on out, Philip’s “legacy” will have to live on through Jack. And because of that, don’t be surprised if Phillip switches from trying to kill his son to joining him in the hunt for Gredenko.

SUMMARY

Milo and Marilyn are on the run from Phillip’s thugs when Jack finds the burning van. He calls Bill to tell him the bad news and then races after them. While Milo is not a field agent, like Chloe (who offed a terrorist last year with an M-16) and all CTU agents, he is trained in the deadly arts - or at least he knows which is the business end of a revolver. Taking cover behind some dumpsters in an industrial park because Marilyn is wimping out on him, Milo grimly awaits the coming confrontation with the bad guys.

Phillip’s thugs aren’t too far behind. They arrive in the industrial park and begin the search while one of them calls Phillip at the hotel where he has taken Josh. The last place finisher in this year’s “TV Father of the Year” contest winces upon hearing the news of Jack’s presumed death, saying that there was “nothing that could be done.” He wants Marilyn alive so that she can tell him where Gredenko is.

Realizing the jig is up, Milo tells Marilyn to start running once he begins to shoot. As he bravely steps into the line of fire and begins to let Phillip’s bully boys have it, Marilyn either freezes or panics - probably both - and fails to move as Milo pours fire on to the bad guys. A single burst from an automatic silences Milo as a bullet finds his arm.

Taking Marilyn away and lining up to execute the geek-turned warrior Milo, the thugs are surprised when Jack shows up and wastes two of them. The fact that he had to use three shots to bring down the pair of them is ample evidence that poor Jack is out of practice and must get himself involved in more firefights in order to sharpen his eye.

The third thug threatens to kill Marilyn unless Jack drops his gun. Silly bad guy! Jack rarely follows orders from anyone least of all a brute holding a gun to the head of an innocent civilian. Jack also realizes that whoever is behind this needs Marilyn or the thug would have killed her already. The bad guy surrenders meekly.

Handcuffing the terrorist after checking to make sure Milo’s wound isn’t serious, Jack turns his attention to the former love of his life who betrayed he and his men. He grabs her by the throat and starts firing questions at her. The woman is too scared to try and lie so she spills the whole story; it’s Phillip who is behind everything. He has Josh and she had no choice but to do as he said. She also reveals the real address of Gredenko’s hideout, having noticed it when they drove by earlier.

The news appears to hit Jack pretty hard. But you can almost see the tumblers clicking into place. It all makes sense now. And Jack knows exactly what must be done. Like all great heroes, he must face his nemesis alone. He calls Bill and tells him to “trust him,” that it was now “personal” and that he would handle it. Before Bill can sputter out his objections, Jack has hung up and is setting a trap for his father.

Meanwhile, back at CTU Morris is on a “dry drunk.” Alcoholics don’t change once they stop drinking. The personality traits that made one susceptible to alcohol addiction in the first place never go away. Usually, it takes a few drinks for the self pitying, weepy drunk we’re all familiar with to emerge. But even for those alcoholics who have been sober for years, those same traits emerge - usually in times of stress.

Morris is on a full blown self-pitying jag. Chloe threatens to relieve him but he counters by saying all he needs is a little walk. When told of Milo’s heroics, Morris whines about “rubbing salt” into his wounded psyche. It is at this point that all alcoholics are in greatest danger of relapsing and going on a binge. In Morris’ case, he is torturing himself for arming the bomb and, more importantly, for not living up to the CTU Code of Heroic Conduct and seeking death rather than dishonor. Chloe tells him to call either the staff psychologist or his AA sponsor. Good advice not heeded.

Jack lays his trap for Phillip, making the thug call his dad and tell him that Marilyn won’t cooperate unless she sees her son. He has Marilyn insist on it or she won’t tell him where Gredenko is. Despite threats against her son’s life, Marilyn holds firm in her demand to see Josh. Reluctantly, Philip tells his bully boy to bring Marilyn to the hotel where he is staying.

Josh, overhearing the part about him getting killed, proves himself a smart kid and tries to sneak out “for a soda.” Phillip isn’t buying it and, showing the young man his gun, says darkly “No one’s life is worth the destruction of everything I’ve built.”

Welcome to the real Bauer family, kid.

Back in the bowels of the White House, Lennox meets with Reed and gives him the President’s itinerary for the Assad speech. He is told to get clearance for a man who will actually carry out the assassination. Protesting that his direct involvement will point the finger at him, Reed assures him that he won’t even be investigated, that blame will fall on Assad.

Clearly having second thoughts, Tom meets with the President and finds out that yes, his advice is still sought and desired by Palmer. This more than anything may have been the tipping point in Lennox’s inner struggles about the plot. The fact that the bureaucrat was still atop the food chain evidently matters more to him than getting rid of a President.

A short scene with Gredenko sheds no light on the mystery shipment coming from Vegas, only that because they only have three bombs left, the plan must be altered.

I have a very, very, bad feeling about whatever Gredenko’s ultimate plan might be.

Morris goes into a convenience store to get a snack (Good to see that 7-11 will still be open in the event of a catastrophic attack on America.) Seeing the booze behind the counter, he decides to turn his dry drunk into a wet one and buys some single malt whiskey -as good a choice as any if you’re going to fall off the wagon. He also buys some breath mints which no drunk in their right mind would do. Everyone knows that if you want to hide the fact that you drink, it’s best that you use Vodka which leaves no tell tale alcohol breath to betray you. All breath mints will do for Morris is make his breath smell like wintergreen whiskey.

Hating himself for his weakness, Morris takes several healthy gulps only to spit it out and force himself to upchuck the rest. Morris is in hell but he realizes that liquor won’t help him out of it. Chloe calls and orders him return. Morris can do nothing accept stagger back to work almost as if he had been on a two day binge.

Jack arrives at the Phillip’s hotel and readies Marilyn for the confrontation by offering her a sign of his true love and devotion - he gives her the only bullet proof vest that he has. The looks exchanged between these two former lovers tells me that poor Audrey has cause to be jealous.

After his meeting with the President, Tom meets with Reed to assure him that he’s working on getting clearance for the assassin. When his young assistant leaves, Lennox immediately calls the Secret Service and asks to meet with the agent in charge. But putting yourself on the side of the angels is not always the best move for your health. Upon leaving, he is attacked by Reed who never trusted him in the first place. After beating Lennox into submission, Reed calls the secret service to cancel his meeting with the agent in charge.

As the TAC team prepares to assault the house where Redenko is hiding, CTU gears up by having Chloe get them the satellite uplink. But Chloe, seeing how shaky Morris is knows the symptoms and, using a trumped up excuse about “resetting the backup” to the satellite uplink, pulls Morris out in to the hall and confronts her former husband.

She smells the whiskey immediately and upbraids him for letting her down, threatening to go to Buchanan. But Morris may have passed the crisis. He begs her to give him another chance and promises never to do it again. Chloe relents and they make it back to the conference room just in time.

I am more convinced than ever that Morris now must die. He will die heroically and redeem his cowardly actions in enabling Fayed to set off the bomb. The Gods demand it. And besides, for a show known to kill off regulars on a consistent basis, only dearly departed Curtis has exited so far. Some dead pools I’ve seen have Morris at the top of the list of the soon to be ex-24 regulars..

At Gredenko’s the TAC team moves in and finds the place empty. As Bill sends him the bad news via text message, Jack is moving toward Phillip’s room with the cooperating thug and Marilyn. Pushing their way in, they find the room empty. Just then, the phone rings. It’s Phillip who, smelling a trap, vacated the room with Josh and now has Jack right where he wants him. (”Even when you were young, I learned never to underestimate you.”)

His son tries to convince him that he only has one play left - give himself up, tell CTU everything he knows about the nukes, and hope for immunity. Given the number of bloodthirsty terrorists the US government has given this same deal to over the last few years, one wonders why Phillip doesn’t jump at the chance. Jack is right. His company is gone. All he has left is what remains of his family.

But Phillip will have none of it. When Jack suggests a prisoner exchange - Josh for Jack - Phillip agrees as long as Jack comes alone and unarmed. Perhaps realizing what he’s in for, Jack says goodbye to Marilyn in the stairwell next to where the exchange will take place. The moment is one more indication that Jack may have already forgotten about Audrey who has been pining away for two years while he sat rotting in a Chinese jail.

The exchange for Josh goes smoothly and Jack is left alone with is father. Phillip explains that Gredenko had him over a barrel, that he was blackmailing him with the knowledge of the Palmer plot from last year. He insists he was trying to stop Gredenko and that he didn’t know about the nukes until Valencia started to glow in the dark.

Jack isn’t buying it:

JACK: You want to lie to yourself you go ahead but stop lying to me. You let all of this happen just so you could cover up what you did.

PHILLIP: (Shaking his head ruefully) You had all the smarts Graem never had. You would have handled Gredenko before all of this got out of control. Ya know. . .none of this would have happened if you hadn’t turned you back on me. So that you could become - what - a “civil servant?”

It is clear that Phillip never understood his own son, only projecting his own values and desires on to a young Jack rather than realize that Jack’s calling was of a different kind, in a different direction. He tells Jack to get on his knees.

As Phillip prepares to kill his own son, Jack apologizes for letting his father believe all these years that he had turned his back on the family when he only wanted to live his own life by his own lights. As Jack braces himself for death, the bullet he was expecting to feel never arrives. Looking behind him, he sees that Phillip has left. Jack races out the door onto the roof only to find a palm pilot with a message to call an unfamiliar number.

When Jack calls and identifies himself, the voice at the other end is a familiar one, full of oily assurances and nauseating self importance. It is Charles Logan Ex President, ex plotter against the people of the United States, and former would be killer of Jack Bauer. Sporting a full beard (as if facial hair somehow gives him a backbone), he offers to help find Gredenko. But Jack must pay him a visit first.

And so the plot threads from two seasons are starting to merge. And one gets the feeling that Jack is going to find out more about his father from Logan than he wants to know or will be able to bear knowing.

BODY COUNT

Jack keeps his hand in by wasting two thugs, saving Milo in the process.

JACK: 8

SHOW: 367