Right Wing Nut House

Mike Ditka in a familiar pose.

The winds blow cold off of Lake Michigan in Chicago this time of year. Snow swirls around lamposts and street signs in ever widening eddies making little white vortexes as the city’s inhabitants, inured to the arctic cold, hustle along the broad avenues to their appointed tasks.

Grant Park is almost deserted these last few days as the temperature has dipped into the low twenties. On balmier winter days, you can usually find a couple of pick up touch football games to watch, the kids trying to imitate their gridiron heroes who cavort at Soldiers Field just a short distance away and who are usually done playing by this time every year.

Not so this year. For the first time since 1988, My Beloveds are going to play for a chance to go to the Super Bowl. The city is beside itself. Productivity has plummeted. Absenteeism has skyrocketed. Anything and everything with a Bear on it has been grabbed off the store shelves and displayed on cars, in the workplace, on front lawns and from apartment balconies.

Alternating psychotically between bouts of uncontainable excitement at the prospect of going to Miami for the Big Game and the cold, palpable fear of a devastating loss, Bears fans are in need of one gigantic Xanax or there is a danger that the mental health infrastructure of the city could collapse in a massive Chicagoland nervous breakdown.

And into this charged up atmosphere comes a betrayal so shocking, so shattering that some of the callers to the sports talk radio shows have actually wept in anger and sorrow.

Mike Ditka doesn’t care who wins the game this Sunday between the Bears and Saints:

It has been nearly 21 years since Mike Ditka led the Bears to the Super Bowl, and 14 years since he last walked the sidelines as their coach.

Yet on the eve of the Bears’ biggest game since 1989, “Da Coach” has his unique grip on this town again.

Many Bears’ fans were in an uproar over Ditka’s comments that he doesn’t have a rooting interest in the NFC championship game Sunday between the Bears and New Orleans Saints at Soldier Field.

He has ties to both teams, spending three forgettable years (a 15-33 record from 1997-99) as coach of the Saints. But it was in Chicago where Ditka became an icon; first as a Hall of Fame tight end and then as a larger-than-life coach who guided a larger-than-life team to glory in 1985.

The latest flap began Tuesday when Ditka told the Tribune, “I never root for anybody, really.”

Allow me to take you back in time to the year 1985 when the “Super Bowl Shuffle” Bears were not just beloved of the fans - any Bears team can make that claim. The relationship between the fans and the 1985 Bears was a sociological phenomena. I would venture to say that there has never been anything like it in the history of professional sports in America. The entire city, both football and non football fans, took that team and literally adopted it. The people adopted their swagger, their braggadocio, their kookiness. I daresay for a couple of months, the people of Chicago must have been insufferable louts.

And at the top of the crazy collection of characters who made up the team was Da Coach. Ditka with the jutting chin, the chest thrust forward in unspoken challenge to any and all who would question his team’s abilities or greatness. Ditka with the pugnacious prowling of the sidelines during games, smoldering like a volcano about to erupt and then exploding in anger or joy depending on the play of his charges. Ditka in the ref’s face. Ditka snarling at the opposing coach. Ditka and his assistant coach Buddy Ryan almost coming to blows during a game.

If there was ever a personality who evoked such powerful feelings of civic identity I am unaware of one. The triad formed by the coming together of Ditka, the city of Chicago, and the fans and residents was unprecedented and has endured despite Ditka’s desertion of the city for warmer climes. He is far more popular today than Michael Jordan whose luster was tarnished after leaving the Bulls by bad mouthing the team and then playing for the Washington Wizards for a couple of years.

So when Ditka came out and said that he wouldn’t root for the Bears, the town temporarily forgot about the game and buried its collective head in its hands:

Ditka’s comments caused a furor, as angry fans ripped the former coach for not being loyal to the team. It was as if they felt abandoned by someone many consider to be the ultimate Bear.

“Everyone understands he has an argument with the McCaskeys; he can’t get past that,” North said. “But they don’t understand how he can’t pull for the blue and orange. Those colors transcend anyone who runs the team. I mean, can you imagine Bill Walsh not rooting for the 49ers?”

The passion that Ditka still elicits speaks to his incredible popularity. His in-your-face approach to football, as well as life, resonated with a town that prides itself on being tough. His colorful and unpredictable persona never dimmed with Bears fans. He remains very much in their consciousness with his analyst work locally and nationally for ESPN.

“If Mike Ditka is on one side of Ontario Avenue and [Bears coach] Lovie Smith was on the other side the day after the Super Bowl, Mike would be mobbed,” North said. “He’s still the face of the franchise.”

Never mind that Ditka probably feels constrained by his position as analyst for ESPN not to take sides. Nevertheless, radio host Mike North of WSCR pointed out the obvious:

North was surprised Ditka didn’t stick by the Bears.

”It surprised me a whole lot,” North said. ”Usually, he shoots from the hip. He said he doesn’t make any predictions, but he predicted the Indy game [against New England]. Bears fans are his bread and butter. He can disassociate himself with the McCaskeys. We don’t care. He has an ax to grind with the McCaskeys, and probably for a good reason. But that has nothing to do with this game.

”Mike Ditka not picking the Bears is like Bear Bryant not picking the Crimson Tide.”

It’s hard to tell about Ditka sometimes. Toward the end of his run as coach of the Bears, he became a caricature of himself, emphasizing the snarling cynic rather than a sort of lovable grouch whose droll sense of humor made most of the media look forward to his post game press conferences. His over the top rants the last couple of years as coach proved grating to both players and management, although most fans never wavered in supporting him.

His neutrality may also have something to do with the way he exited the team:

Mike Ditka didn’t back down Wednesday from a shot he took at Michael McCaskey, again referring to the Bears chairman as a ‘’snake.”

Ditka first made the accusation during an interview with the Sun-Times’ Rick Telander for a column printed Wednesday. Ditka, fired as Bears coach after the 1992 season, elaborated during an interview with ESPN Radio’s Sean Salisbury and Steve Rosenbloom on WMVP-AM (1000).

”I dealt with a snake in Chicago,” Ditka said. ”I don’t really respect people who do those things. When I still had the job as the head coach, they talked to somebody behind my back. That’s a little disgusting. He talked to the guy he hired [Dave Wannstedt] before he fired me.

”You just heard it, and you just read it. You can book it.”

McCaskey is the son of Virginia McCaskey (nee Halas) who is still majority owner of the Bears. A classless twit, I wouldn’t put it past the younger McCaskey to have done something so underhanded although there’s no confirmation that indeed the Bears talked to anyone prior to firing Ditka.

Regardless of the past, there is real anger directed at him for the first time in memory. And if the Bears make it past the Saints, the story may get even bigger. This is one of those stories that will be driven by talk radio and bleed over into local news coverage not just sports. And judging by the messages left at Ditka’s website for his restaurant, he may want to keep a low profile while he’s in town for the game:

“My code-word for success is “ACE”: Attitude, Character, and Enthusiasm.” Well, Mikey, Your ATTITUDE stinks, you have no CHARACTER, and your ENTHUSIASM towards the Bears is pathetic. You can’t have it both ways, FELLA!!!

That “code word for success” is from one of Ditka’s best selling motivational books. He’s made a good living on the rubber chicken circuit, speaking at conventions and corporate gatherings about teamwork and improving yourself.

Is he in danger of losing all of this? No, but I believe that people in Chicago are looking a little bit differently at Ditka today than they were yesterday. And if the story continues into next week - and if Ditka can’t keep his mouth shut - he may do further damage to one of the most unique partnerships around. Ditka and the people of Chicago have come a long way together. It would be a shame if they parted company now.

UPDATE: 1/19

Ditka spent yesterday afternoon backtracking furiously from his statements of neutrality, giving several different explanations why he didn’t come out immediately in favor of the blue and burnt orange:

”I’m pulling and I’m rooting — as I always have every game this year — [for] the Chicago Bears,” Ditka said Thursday on WMVP-AM (1000) from his restaurant. ”Now, I thought I’d make that announcement on my show, not somebody else’s show.”

Ditka explained why he wouldn’t, at first, choose the Bears over the Saints, saying it was a smoke screen.

”Does anybody ever think the reason I didn’t want to say anything in the first place … maybe, maybe I didn’t want to jinx them?” he told Steve Rosenbloom and Sean Salisbury. ”Did anybody think that possibility?”

Frankly, that’s a load of manure. Ditka said on three different occassions and in three seperate interviews that he had no rooting interest in the game. It wasn’t until the firestorm broke that he suddenly became worried about “jinxing” the team.

Ditka, who coached (and was fired by) both the Bears and the Saints, said he would like nothing more than for the Bears to make it to Miami and win the Super Bowl. He dismissed any notion he would be jealous if coach Lovie Smith won the title.

”Yeah, I’m really worried about that,” Ditka said sarcastically. ”That is my biggest worry, believe me.

”No, I’m not jealous about anything. I want the Bears to win. I’ve been a Bear fan since 1961 when I started. And I’ve always been a Bear fan. … If you’re asking me, the truth is that. And that’s how it is. People can assume anything they want to. I can’t control that. It becomes kind of humorous, really.”

What’s humorous is to watch as “shoot from the hip” Ditka spins, and spins, and spins his way out of trouble with his meal ticket - Bears fans.

Maybe he should re-read one of his motivational books, concentrating on the chapter admonishing readers to be honest with themselves.

In what I hope will be a regular feature on this site, I will be following the progress of Illinois favorite son, Barak Obama, as he seeks to become the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

There really is no other way to describe the fawning, goo-goo eyed coverage of Mr. Obama in the press except “Obamania.” More has been written about his pecs than about his thoughts on Iraq. One would think his first name is “Rock Star” given how many times that appellation has appeared as a descriptive of his impact on a crowd. His books have rocketed to the top of the bestseller charts - thanks to millions of dollars in free publicity given by the media.

Every move he makes is doted on. Every sound he utters has reporters swooning. Every step he takes toward declaring his candidacy for President starts a new wave of hagiography about his life story; his humble, mixed race upbringing, his bootstrapping college and law school, and his political career (necessarily the shortest and least informative of what’s written about him).

Here in Illinois where Obama was something of a known quantity prior to his being anointed a rock star cum savior, local reporters have jumped on the Obama bandwagon with gusto, being even more explosively enthusiastic about his candidacy than out of town scribes:

Call me nuts again, but here are the eight reasons why 65 percent of more than 13,000 click voters at chicagotribune.com this week were right when they said that Obama will win the Democratic nomination:

Columnist Eric Zorn then goes on to list reasons such as his likability, his race, his “rock star” status attracting the young, - and on and on. He even opines that Obama will win because “his team is tough:”

The snarks in the water have tried to stick Obama with the schoolyard nickname “Obambi” to suggest that he’s weak and naive. But he has assembled a seasoned campaign crew that will not shy from political street fights.

I pointed out before that “a Democratic corpse plucked from a Chicago graveyard could have won the race for Illinois Senator in 2004.” The Republicans self destructed six months before election day. And their choosing Alan Keyes - an extremely conservative, out of state politician - to replace the scandal damaged Jack Ryun barely 10 weeks prior to the voting was such a clear act of desperation that Obama outpolled Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry by more than 20 points on election day.

Obama as tough campaigner? Ridiculous. The man has yet to be tested. And given the team of cutthroats in Hillary’s shop (blooded in two national campaigns) who are sharpening their knives in eager anticipation of shredding the rookie from cheek to groin, I daresay that there is a very good chance that much of the luster applied to Obama’s personae is bound to be sheared off in the process.

Where will they find the ammunition?

With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn’t have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes.

Obama _ who filed papers this week creating an exploratory committee to seek the 2008 Democratic nomination _ may also find himself fielding questions about his actions outside public office, from his acknowledgment of cocaine use in his youth to a more recent land purchase from a political supporter who is facing charges in an unrelated kickback scheme involving investment firms seeking state business.

That “land purchase” is a scandal waiting to happen. In June of 2005, Obama purchased a House on the South Side of Chicago for $1.65 million. On that same day, the wife of a top Democratic fundraiser (who was under suspicions for illegalities and influence peddling at the time) purchased the adjoining vacant lot for $625,000:

Obama and Rezko then engaged in a series of private transactions to redivide and improve their adjoining parcels, the Tribune disclosed in November.

These arrangements came after Rezko was widely reported to be under a federal grand jury investigation.

Obama said it was “boneheaded” to engage in those transactions when Rezko was “under a cloud of concern.” Obama further told Tribune editors and reporters Dec. 14: “In retrospect, it was stupid. So I’m happy to own up to that. And, I will also acknowledge that from his perspective, he no doubt believed that, by buying the piece of property next to me, that he would, if not be doing me a favor, that it would help strengthen our relationship.”

Obama added that he had never “done favors for [Rezko] of any sort. Most of the time, I’ve never been in a position to do favors for him. I don’t control jobs. I don’t control contracts. There were no bills that he was pushing when I was in the state legislature that I know of or that he talked to me about. And there were no bills in federal legislation that he was concerned about, so there was no sense of the betrayal of the public trust here.”

And as far as Obama never having done any favors for Rezko, the fact that he hired a young man as an intern who was the son of one of Rezko’s associates less than a week before the land deal makes one wonder if there are any other “favors” Obama may have done for the disgraced fundraiser or his cronies.

Such speculation has raised the hackles of the Obamaniacs. Eric Zorn again:

All I hear amid the noise is the thrum of resentment and fear:

Resentment that he’s not playing by the old rules–that he hasn’t acquired his political capital by spending years swapping favors and grandstanding in lesser offices or by climbing the coattails of his politically powerful father.

And fear that he’s going to be a hell of a good candidate–brilliant, telegenic, immensely likable and on the popular (negative) side of the war in Iraq from the git-go.

Not to say that he’ll be a perfect candidate

That last appeared to have been hastily added by Zorn lest anyone try and count the stars in his eyes whenever he talks about Obama.

I shouldn’t pick on Zorn. He’s not alone. Sun Times columnist Lynn Sweet:

Obama’s physique is old news to Chicago Sun-Times readers. I’ve worked out several times next to Obama at the East Bank Club, but alas, could not follow him into the locker room. My colleague Neil Steinberg did and reported on Jan. 6, 2006, that the undressed Obama “doesn’t have enough fat on his body to make a butter pat.”

You be the judge in looking at the People photo whether anything has changed in a year. (My blog awaits your comments.)

“Telegenic” and sex appeal to boot! Now that’s what I call reporting!

Clearly, Obama has struck a chord with celebrity watchers, liberal Democrats, and even ordinary Joes who ache for someone to mount the White Horse and ride to the rescue; the shining knight saving us all from our partisan follies and rancorous politics. But is there anything inside the armor our savior is wearing? Or is it simply a matter of us filling that empty suit with whatever hopes and dreams we can stuff inside it?

Obama is not an everyman. He is an “anyman” - he’s anything you want him to be. Until he defines himself, he risks having his political opponents do it for him. And that’s an opportunity that Team Hillary is salivating for.

I’m not sure whether this is an huge change in policy or whether the media is spinning it that way, but the controversial NSA intercept program has now been placed under the jurisdiction of the FISA Court:

The Bush administration, in a surprise reversal, said on Wednesday that it had agreed to give a secret court jurisdiction over the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program and would end its practice of eavesdropping without warrants on Americans suspected of ties to terrorists.

More Politics NewsThe Justice Department said it had worked out an “innovative” arrangement with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that provided the “necessary speed and agility” to provide court approval to monitor international communications of people inside the United States without jeopardizing national security.

The decision capped 13 months of bruising national debate over the reach of the president’s wartime authorities and his claims of executive power, and it came as the administration faced legal and political hurdles in its effort to continue the surveillance program.

The question screaming to be answered is: IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO TODAY, WHY DIDN’T THE ADMINISTRATION COME UP WITH THIS “INNOVATIVE” ARRANGEMENT WITH THE FISA COURT FROM THE BEGINNING?

And here is where not knowing the technical details of how the program was carried out - something the media and the left have ignored from the beginning in their rush to claim the program “illegal” - may be the key to understanding why government lawyers were willing to sign off on this program in the first place.

Unless you believe NSA lawyers as well as Justice Department attorneys involved in signing off on the intercept program (many of whom threatened to resign unless changes were made) are in love with authoritarianism and unconstitutional abuses of power, then you have to believe that they found justification under the law and the Constitution to give their imprimatur to the initial program. These lawyers are not Republican flunkies. They are career prosecutors and attorneys as dedicated to the law as any left wing commenter who for more than a year have been offering one horseback opinion after another about the legality of the intercept program.

Despite appearances - that is to say, the way the intercept program was described by the New York Times - it was constantly nagging at me that the lawyers at NSA and Justice who vetted this program (and who apparently had access to details not revealed by the Times or the soothsayers on the left who are so confident about knowing exactly how the program works) had to have satisfied themselves that no one was breaking the law. If it came out later that they signed off on a program knowing full well it was illegal, their careers would be over not to mention they would be showing themselves to be moral cowards.

Orrin Kerr, no flaming Bush supporter or booster of the NSA program:

What’s going on? As with everything about this program, we can’t be sure; we don’t know the facts, so we’re stuck with making barely-educated guesses. But it sounds to me like the FISA Court judges have agreed to issue anticipatory warrants. The traditional warrant process requires the government to write up the facts in an application and let the judge decide whether those facts amount to probable cause. If you were looking for a way to speed up that process — and both sides were in a mood to be “innovative” — one fairly straightforward alternative would be to use anticipatory warrants.

An anticipatory warrant lets the government conduct surveillance when a specific set of triggering facts occurs. The judge agrees ahead of time that if those facts occur, probable cause will exist and the monitoring can occur under the warrant. The idea is that there isn’t enough time to get a warrant right at that second, so the warrant can be “pre-approved” by the Judge and used by the government when the triggering event happens.

I don’t know if this theory is right, of course. But it seems to be consistent with the clues in the DOJ briefing. Why are these orders taking a lot of time to obtain? If my theory is right, it’s because the triggering facts that amount to probable cause in a terrorism investigation presumably are complicated. There are cookie-cutter drug cases, but I gather there aren’t any cookie-cutter terrorism cases. It probably takes a lot of negotiation with the FISA court judges to figure out what different sets of facts they’ll accept as triggering events that satisfy probable cause. Plus, the Court might have required review every 90 days instead of the one-year max allowed under FISA because the FISA court judges would want to know if their trigger is working out in its application.

Kerr speculates that a Supreme Court case decided in March making “Anticipatory Warrants” legal may be the impetus behind this deal.

This story is going to open the door to rehashing the same arguments that each side has been flinging at each other for over a year. And the fact that we are no closer to definitive answers today on the legality of the program than we were a year ago is enormously troubling. The program has been reviewed by the Intelligence Committees of both the House and Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the program. Even a government civil liberties oversight board has looked into the program.

To date, most Congressmen and Senators who have been briefed about the program - both Republicans and Democrats - have not called for its termination. There have been some who have urged the President to place the program under the auspices of the FISA Court but this is by no means a universal response by Congress. And the oversight board found nothing illegal and indeed, praised the Administration for their concerns over privacy issues.

All of this leads me to believe there is a missing element to this story - one not revealed by the Times in their initial reporting nor subsequent follow ups. The fact that a federal judge with no special knowledge of how the program worked declared it “unconstitutional is no help since her ruling has already been challenged and the government successfully got an injunction imposed to keep the program running. (Note: It is almost universally believed by attorneys that her opinion was so poorly written and incoherent that it will easily be overturned.)

But what could this “missing link” be? Did the Times get the story wrong initially? Not impossible but I’ve reread that story and the subsequent follow-ups and it appears fairly well sourced but, by necessity, incomplete. Did the NSA “eavesdrop” as defined by the law? Was the technical means used to intercept the messages something new and therefore beyond the scope of the FISA Court? Was use made of the Court in ways that have not been publicized?

As Kerr says, we just don’t know. And given all the facts we have at hand, I just don’t know either.

UPDATE

I deliberately didn’t want to explore opinion on this matter prior to writing this post (Kerr’s post caught my eye because his opinion on the intercept program has mirrored my own since the story broke; that it was probably borderline legal but bad news for civil liberties).

There appear to be two schools of thought; one that echoes my bold faced question above and another that sees the FISA Court caving in to the Administration. Ed Morrissey:

It’s not that the program has ended; it obviously will continue. My anger is over the fact that the Bush administration insisted on two points: one, that the FISA court would not cooperate on streamlining the process for warrants on these intercepts, and the second that the Bush administration had the authority to proceed without it. They took everyone along for a big ride, making all sorts of legal arguments about the AUMF and Article II — and now Gonzales has revealed that even they didn’t really believe it.

If they were negotiating with FISA to place the program under their jurisdiction, then they must have agreed with their critics that insisted FISA was a covering authority for such action. And if they’ve spent the better part of two years reaching an accommodation with FISA, why not just tell people what they were doing when the program got exposed? And for toppers, why didn’t they start negotiating with FISA in November 2001 when they started the program?

Ed says that Bush has blown his credibility and, given what I’ve read in the last hour or so, I tend to agree. Morrissey believes that Bush is making this move now because he thinks that the President is trying to cut his losses and keep the program running even though a Democratic Congress would move to terminate it.

Mark Levin is livid:

Is there no principle subject to negotiation? Is there no course subject to reversal? For the Bush administration to argue for years that this program, as operated, was critical to our national security and fell within the president’s Constitutional authority, to then turnaround and surrender presidential authority this way is disgraceful. The administration is repudiating all the arguments it has made in testimony, legal briefs, and public statements. This goes to the heart of the White House’s credibility. How can it cast away such a fundamental position of principle and law like this?

Marty Lederman has some interesting speculation:

Why didn’t this happen years ago? Might it have something to do with the prospect of a possible big government triple-loss on (i) state secrets privilege; (ii) FISA; and (iii) its article II arguments — a development that DOJ would understandably be eager to avoid?

Curiouser and curiouser . . .

Indeed, the prospects of getting legally hammered, not to mention John Conyers and his impeachment inquiry waiting in the wings, salivating at a chance to go after the President, may have focused the Administration’s efforts to take the fire out of the issue. If so, one wonders what other domestic security measures the Administration will seek to rollback.

The more I read about this decision, the more I realize that my post above is at best, superficial and at worst, an exercise in wishful thinking. The Administration has just admitted that what it had been doing for 5 years was either illegal, unconstitutional, or both. How this will play out over the next several months as Democrats begin sharpening the long knives and begin their investigations in earnest will determine the fate of the President.

I’ve read a couple of books by Dinesh D’Souza, a self designated conservative intellectual whose most controversial book, “The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society caused some liberal’s heads to explode back in the 90’s. As examples of deep conservative thought, they are excellent brain candy; fluffy, superficial explorations of the left’s dominance of American culture and academia. The End of Racisim was even skewered by some conservatives for being wretchedly sourced and borderline bigoted. Two black fellows at The American Enterprise Institute resigned in protest over the think tank’s promotion of the book as well as D’Souza’s continued affiliation with the group.

One of the black fellows who resigned, Glenn Loury, wrote a review of The End of Racism in which he called the then 34 year old D’Souza “the Mark Fuhrman of public policy” which may have been a little unfair but indicative of the effect that D’Souza’s shallow critique of black culture had on genuine intellectuals like Loury. D’Souza also wrote Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus in which he anticipated the much more scholarly efforts of David Horwitz in exposing the left wing bias of professors and college administrators. In D’Souza’s case, the major criticism was again one of poor sourcing. I would add that Illiberal Education, as a dialectic, was an utter failure. Logical fallacies abound in the book and it should have finished the young man as a serious critic.

But the same conservative network of foundations, think tanks, and study groups that raises up and propels brilliant thinkers like Michael Ledeen, Fred Kagan, and Jeffrey Hart to prominence also brings us the occasional dud. D’Souza, and to some extent Ann Coulter, share a predilection for generating outrage both for the sake of advancing their personal public personae as well as eliciting angry responses from the left. The latter is important in that most criticism of their work is just as shallow and vapid as the work being criticized - easy pickings for a clever interlocutor like D’Souza who is a regular on CNN and other cable news networks where clever ripostes and chicken soup bromides rule the airwaves.

The only book of D’Souza’s that I really liked was Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader - a hagiographic summation of The Gipper’s impact on America and the Presidency as well as a listing of his leadership qualities that D’Souza claims made him the leader that he was. Here D’Souza wasn’t attempting any deep analysis but rather simply giving his opinion of a man he obviously admired. It was a thoroughly enjoyable read with plenty of Reagan anecdotes and a rehash of some of his major addresses. I came away with a deeper appreciation of the man although not convinced that any of Reagan’s unusual qualities or unorthodox leadership style could necessarily be adopted by anyone else to be a successful President.

This much is clear; D’Souza is not cut out to be a scholar. His mind appears to be too undisciplined to rigorously examine the subject he writes about, taking the issues apart and putting them back together so that he is intimately familiar with all aspects of the matter. Nor does he seem to be very self critical in that I don’t see him constantly challenging his own ideas. While this is a failing of many people who consider themselves scholars, constantly bulldogging one’s own work brings texture and a richness to arguments and gives depth and nuance to criticism.

It is dangerous (and a little silly) to comment on a book I haven’t read. But D’Souza’s latest effort, The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, judging only by what the author himself has said and news reports of its contents have revealed, I would have to say that D’Souza has elevated logical fallacy to an art form while making Ann Coulter look like a Sister of Mercy of liberal criticism.

D’Souza’s own words:

“In this book I make a claim that will seem startling at the outset. The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11. … In faulting the cultural left, I am not making the absurd accusation that this group blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world. The Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks were the product of this visceral rage–some of it based on legitimate concerns, some of it based on wrongful prejudice, but all of it fueled and encouraged by the cultural left. Thus without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened.

Muslim rage “fueled and encouraged by the cultural left” being “responsible” for 9/11? There are few more vociferous and sneeringly deprecating critics of the cultural left than yours truly but this is sheer lunacy. And it gets worse:

“I realize that this is a strong charge, one that no one has made before. But it is a neglected aspect of the 9/11 debate, and it is critical to understanding the current controversy over the ‘war against terrorism.’ … I intend to show that the left has actively fostered the intense hatred of America that has led to numerous attacks such as 9/11. If I am right, then no war against terrorism can be effectively fought using the left-wing premises that are now accepted doctrine among mainstream liberals and Democrats.”

First, the idea that no one has made this charge before is ludicrous and shows that D’Souza either lives in a cocoon or is a shoddy researcher:

It took culture warrior Robert Knight to refine the argument, and he was quite specific about who was to blame:

“None of this happened by accident. It is directly due to cultural depravity advanced in the name of progress and amplified by a sensation-hungry media.

* We were told putting women into combat areas is progressive and enlightened.

* We were told pornography is liberating, and that anyone who objects is a narrow-minded Puritan who needs therapy. We have been flooded with porn imagery on mainstream television and in magazine ads. Where did those soldiers get the idea to engage in sadomasochistic activity and to videotape it in voyeuristic fashion? Easy. It’s found on thousands of Internet porn sites and in the pages of “gay” publications, where S&M events are advertised alongside ads for Subarus, liquor and drugs to treat HIV and hepatitis.

* We were told homosexuality is harmless and normal, and the military should live with a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that allows homosexuals to stay in the barracks. We were told that men “marrying” men and women “marrying” women is inevitable - not only for America, but for the world. Imagine how those images of men kissing men outside San Francisco City Hall after being “married” play in the Muslim world. We couldn’t offer the mullahs a more perfect picture of American decadence. This puts Americans at risk all over the world, especially Christian missionaries who are trying to bring the Gospel to people trapped in darkness for millennia.

* This is a Perfect Storm of our own making, and it is up to normal Americans to unmake it. It is not beyond correction. The American people should start by getting on their knees and asking God’s forgiveness for letting it get this bad. Then, they should ask Him for guidance in how to restore the moral order.”

While Knight is talking specifically about Iraq, he generalizes the jihadis hatred - ostensibly the same hatred that fueled the 9/11 attackers. (Read Eric’s entire piece. It is an excellent antidote to D’Souza’s idiocy.)

In fact, as this review of The Enemy at Home in Slate Magazine by Timothy Noah points out, D’Souza’s slings and arrows directed at the “cultural left” (a term he apparently never defines) seems to have missed their mark entirely:

The heart of D’Souza’s book isn’t his libeling of the American left, but rather his libeling of the American right. D’Souza notes, correctly, that al-Qaida’s hatred toward the West in general, and the United States in particular, is animated to a great extent by America’s permissive culture. But Bin Laden isn’t some Michael Medved figure grumping about the vulgarity of American Pie. He’s got bigger fish to fry. Al-Qaida’s enemy isn’t the excesses of secular culture; it’s secular culture itself. And to a surprising degree, D’Souza is willing to go along for the ride. Theocracy, D’Souza argues, is misunderstood to mean “rule by divine authority of the priesthood or clergy.” Not so! There are checks and balances, just like in the U.S. Constitution. In Iran, for instance, “the power of the state and of the mullahs is limited by the specific rules set forth in the Koran and the Islamic tradition. The rulers themselves are bound by these laws.”

Jesus Lord what sophistry! And ignorance to boot. It would come as a huge surprise to the small number of cowering democrats in Iran that the power of the state is “limited” in any way. More than 200,000 Revolutionary Guards make sure of that. And the Supreme Leader, whose power is technically checked by an Assembly of Experts, in reality does anything he damn well pleases as long as he’s clever enough to justify it by interpreting the Koran broadly enough.

But Noah’s point that D’Souza is actually libeling conservatives is well taken. If conservatives in this country express similar criticisms of the cultural left as the Islamic fanatics, according to D’Souza’s illogic doesn’t that put the social righties on the same moral plane as the jihadis? Doesn’t it, in fact, make us allies with conservative traditionalists around the world - even conservative Muslims? You betchya!

[I]f the political left and the Islamic fundamentalists are in the same foreign policy camp [because they both hate American imperialism], then by the same token the political right and the Islamic fundamentalists are on the same wavelength on social issues. The left is allied with some radical Muslims in opposition to American foreign policy, and the right is allied with an even larger group of Muslims [which includes radical Muslims] in their opposition to American social and cultural depravity. This is the essential new framework I propose for understanding American foreign policy and American social issues.

I hardly think we need this kind of “framework” - which is about as broad and simplistic as I’ve ever seen proposed - in reaching a new intellectual paradigm that explains either American foreign policy or the cultural left. D’Souza is spouting nonsense - a language he speaks with great fluency and total obliviousness to rationality.

If D’Souza had written about the toxicity of the culture promoted by the left and its effect on the mores and manners of American society - dumbing down discourse while polluting the values and traditions that hold the country together, I may have taken a flyer on the book and bought it. But from all that I’ve read about this book - both left and right - it’s a tome only the rabid cultural warriors could embrace.

Do you think they’ll catch the irony of D’Souza’s idea of making common cause against the left by allying with Muslim conservatives? I think not. They’ll probably be too busy chortling over the savaging of lefty icons to pay much attention to what passes for nuance in the book.

Mr. Dark has come calling and he’s brought his carnival of terror with him.

The Ray Bradbury novel that inspired the title of this recap (not the execrable 1983 film) was full of extraordinary imagery and allegories; the carousel that, depending on which way you rode it, either made you younger or older. The mirror maze. The strange and terrifying freaks. And Mr. Dark himself, a man with a tattoo for every soul he had ensnared to serve him.

Opposed by two 14 year old boys who were alternately terrified and intrigued by what the carnival offered. Mr. Dark met his end when one of the boy’s fathers embraces an age-regressed Dark and kills him because the devil cannot endure love. For Jack Bauer, a mere shadow of his former cold blooded self, the demons that haunt him finally get the upper hand when he is forced to shoot and seriously wound his CTU partner Curtis.

For Jack, it is too late. Mr. Dark already has a tattoo with his name on it emblazoned across his chest. The realization that the deal he made with the devil that allowed him to do his job better than anyone else while believing he was giving his life meaning proved too much for him. He physically rejected the compromises with his own humanity he was forced to make all these years. His incarceration by the Chinese was the trigger. But it was the recognition of his own isolation that caused him to vomit forth all the pain and self imposed loneliness from his soul when he finally came to grips with what he was capable of doing to get the job done; save his mortal enemy while possibly killing his friend.

The physical torture Jack endured in the Chinese prison was nothing compared to the mental anguish this realization must necessarily bring. And there is only one thing that could bind Jack’s wounds and prop him up so that he could go forth and continue to do his job; the call to duty.

The horror of a nuclear bomb being detonated on American soil is probably the only thing that could have saved Jack from the ultimate fate of experiencing a self loathing so powerful, it would have meant an end to his CTU field career. He is a creature of duty. And watching as the mushroom cloud blossomed over Valencia, Jack realized that if ever the United States had need of his “special talents,” it was now.

Jack has gotten on the carousel and is riding it backward - back to a time when he was without pity or remorse. He has a mission now. His life, such as it is, has meaning again.

Bad news for the terrorists. And not good news for Jack as once again, he descends into the demon haunted world of blood and violence to save the United States from the ultimate threat to its existence.

*****************************************************

It should be interesting to see how the writers play with the nuke scenario. This Rand Corporation study of what would happen if a nuke detonated in a major American city is extremely sobering. Needless to say, 5 nukes going off in 5 different cities would be a catastrophe unprecedented in the history of industrialized civilization. It would be an open question if the United States could survive the economic, political, and public health impact of such an attack. Yes, there would physically be an area known as “USA” on the maps. But I doubt if you or I would recognize what kind of country it had become.

Simply put (and I’ve said it many times over the past three years about one episode or another), television doesn’t get any better than last night. And the exciting thing is, we still have 20 hours to go.

SUMMARY: 8:00 AM - 10:00 AM

As the White House grimly reviews the casualty figures from the latest round of attacks, Fayed calls the President. It seems that the terrorist reads the New York Times and Washington Post because he calls for the release of all enemy combatants at “Palmdale” detention center (an obvious euphemism for Guantanamo). As with all terrorist demands on the show, the United States has exactly one hour to comply or something really bad will happen.

For a country that has made it clear that we don’t negotiate with terrorists, 24 has consistently made a liar out of every modern President by showing the US not only negotiating with terrorists but simply giving in to their demands. Even Reagan used the Iranians to negotiate with with the terrorists holding our hostages in Lebanon. The show doesn’t even use the pretense of a third party for that.

Anyway, Palmer tells Bill to get the ball rolling at Palmdale just in case he decides to give in to Fayed’s demands. And in a rare show of unity, both Karen and Lennox oppose the deal.

After the failed suicide bomb at the train station, Jack and Assad follow Fayed’s man through the city streets hoping he will lead them to the terrorist leader. Jack convinces Assad that they need CTU’s help to track the car when it becomes clear that the terrorist is heading out of the city. Assad, wary of working with “the enemy” agrees but the country is such a mess, no satellite coverage is possible for several minutes.

Fearful that they will lose track of the terrorist, Jack hits upon a brilliant scheme, almost as scathingly brilliant as his convenience store heist in Season 4 when he was faced with a similar situation; carjack another vehicle and ram the terrorist’s car. Insurance fraudsters know the scam well. Deliberately side swipe a victim’s vehicle while having a “witness” (who happens to be in on the scam) claim it was the victim’s fault.

Jack casually steals a Jeep Cherokee, rudely pushing the owner away, and cuts through back alleys and side streets in order to catch up to the terrorist’s car. The scam works to perfection. And Assad, taking the side of the victim in this case, convinces the terrorist to get in his vehicle and continue his journey.

Back at The Typical American Family’s house, Ahmed (pronounced “Achhhmed”) takes the entire Wallace family hostage. Unable to complete his mission for Fayed because of the injuries he suffered as a result of the beating by his neighbor, he coerces The Typical American Dad to do his errand for him; take a box to a mysterious man named Marcus and pick up an item in return.

Assad meanwhile is playing his role of helpful stranger like a pro. Knowing that CTU is listening to his conversation thanks to his leaving an open phone line on his cell, he ticks off a landmark so that CTU can track him. Jack meets up with Curtis and his TAC team, filling him in on the good news that Assad is a reformed terrorist now and that all the hundreds of dead bodies trailing in his wake don’t mean squat. Curtis has a sour look on his face when he states the obvious:

CURTIS: The man is a terrorist, Jack. He’s responsible for taking hundreds - perhaps thousands of innocent lives over the past 20 years. Doesn’t that mean anything to you?

JACK: I don’t know what means anything anymore, Curtis. I’ve spent my whole life defending the country against people like Assad. Now he’s trying to disarm his people and renounce terrorism. I guess people change.

Sure they do. Just ask Yassar Arafat. Renounce terrorism for yourself but turn a blind eye while your subordinates gleefully continue to kill civilians. The strategy has the dual advantage of making you look like a statesman while still allowing for killing your enemies.

Arafat “changed” alright. He went from being a scumbag terrorist to being a scumbag terrorist enabler. And for that, he got the Nobel Peace Prize as well as becoming Bill Clinton’s most frequent (male) overnight guest at the White House.

Speaking of Presidents, Palmer learns that Pamela was arrested for obstructing the FBI and is being taken to the Anacostia Detention Center. Palmer calls her and the woman is breathing fire and taking names. She wants to make a federal case out of her arrest but Palmer dismisses her grandstanding and orders her release. Before leaving the detention center she wants to see Walid but the FBI is through playing with her and escorts her home.

Finally, CTU gets satellite coverage of Assad’s car just in time for Fayed’s man to be picked up after being dropped off. Jack and Curtis close in with CTU TAC. After being introduced to Curtis, Assad is promptly placed into custody. Jack protests but to no avail. Assad looks a little miffed but seems mollified after Jack, employing his legendary good manners, thanks the reformed terrorist for his help. Curtis looks at Jack like he’s from another planet.

The TAC team moves smoothly and professionally into position. Fayed’s man has opened a self storage unit and, amidst the dozens of boxes of Czech ammunition, takes out a laptop computer. But hearing a sound on the roof, he catches a glimpse of TAC team member and starts a firefight. Wounded, he takes out a grenade and blows himself to kingdom come, apparently destroying any evidence that would lead CTU to Fayed.

Upon hearing this and realizing he has no other options, the President orders the release of the enemy combatants. The MP’s carefully load the prisoners on buses to take them to an airplane and eventual freedom.

Our Typical American Dad meanwhile has found the mysterious Marcus and dutifully delivers the package. We discover it contains money - lots of it. Marcus then informs the TAD that it’s not enough, he wants $50,000 more before he gives up the “item.” Upon calling Ahmed (pronounced “Achhhmed”), the TAD is ordered to get the item at all costs or his family is toast. Desperate, the TAD asks to see the item and when Marcus brings it out for inspection, the TAD shockingly kills him.

Back at the site of the recent firefight, CTU recovers a hard drive with some engineering specs on them. Since they’re in Arabic, Jack calls for Assad to lend his assistance. Curtis objects but Jack prevails and the former terrorist informs us that the specs are for a trigger device for a nuclear weapon. But not just any nuclear weapon. The device is made to trigger a so-called “suitcase” nuke.

There has been a lively debate among nuclear experts about whether or not “suitcase” nukes could actually fit into a suitcase. Former Congressman Curt Weldon famously lugged a suitcase around Capitol Hill for a few days to dramatize our vulnerability. Weldon’s Committee held hearings on the subject which was dramatized by Russian General Alexander Lebed’s famous claim on 60 Minutes that there were a hundred suitcase nukes that Moscow couldn’t account for.

Best guess? Possible but not likely. And the amount of maintenance that would be necessary (changing many impossible to get components every six months or so) to keep the bomb capable of detonating probably means that at the moment, terrorists don’t have one.

Meanwhile, a man is identified as part of the plot but no one knows his real name. Seeing a picture of the suspect, Assad recognizes him immediately as one Hassan Nameer, a nuclear expert who has expertise in suitcase nukes. When Chloe runs the name, the database spits out the fact that Nameer was being held at Palmdale. Immediately, the President realizes that Fayed’s “demands” were nothing more than a smokescreen to free Nameer. Bill stops the plane from taking off but too late! A turncoat American soldier hid Nameer in a luggage compartment on the bus that took the inmates to the airport, killed one of his fellow soldiers, and freed to the terrorist to hook up with Fayed to complete the work of arming the bomb.

Once he realizes he has escaped, Bill loses his famous cool:

Bill: Nameer is a known terrorist with possible access to suitcase nukes and he escapes in broad daylight.

(Shouting) WE HAVE TO DO BETTER THAN WE’RE DOING AND WE HAVE TO DO IT FASTER!

Everyone on the floor looks anxiously at Bill. The guy has never raised his voice, not even to Chloe. Clearly, everyone is starting to feel the strain.

Back at the White House, another grim meeting, this time about the consequences of the detonation of a suitcase nuke in a large city. The number of deaths and serious injuries could be in the hundreds of thousands. That cuts it. Palmer says in a voice reminiscent of Commissioner Gordon summoning Batman, “Get me Jack Bauer!”

But Bauer tries to beg off, feigning being out of practice. Nonsense. Jack’s already offed two bad guys and made a deal with a reformed terrorist. Sounds like he hasn’t missed a beat.

Except he has, of course. Jack is tired of the responsibility but when the President says “I need you” to run the operation, Jack’s finely developed sense of duty overcomes his misgivings and he agrees to run the hunt for Fayed and Nameer as well as stop the detonation of the nuke. But Curtis is still balky about working with Assad. Jack asks Chloe to look into any connection between Curtis and Assad.

Nameer takes a magic carpet ride and arrives at Fayed’s lair just minutes after having escaped (on foot) from detention. He even mentions he had to come all the way across town - a feat that for any normal Angelino takes hours. No matter. We get our first look at The Gadget. Funny, it doesn’t look that dangerous…

Having made his first kill, The Typical American Dad calls Ahmed (pronounced “Achhhmed”) and demands the release of his family. The terrorist gives him one - his wife - and threatens his son unless he delivers the device to Fayed at the designated address (which is overheard by young Scott Wallace). Although agreeing not to call the Police after her release and conversation with her husband, The Typical American Mom dials 911 anyway. The police pass on the info to CTU and Jack realizes they are hot on the trail when the TAM mentions that she overheard Fayed’s name while being held by the terrorist. Jack and Curtis take the TAC team to the Wallace house to rescue young Scott and grab Ahmed (pronounced “Achhhmed”)

After confirming with a Middle Eastern ambassador that Assad is indeed seeking to lay down his arms, the President calls Jack and asks to speak with Assad. Palmer offers him immunity for all his past crimes as well as protection if he will help catch Fayed and foil his nefarious plans. Assad agrees in principle, but like all good terrorists, he wants to see it in writing.

Back at Anacostia Detention Center, Walid has a conversation with another inmate that leads him to believe the man is involved in the terrorist attacks. He makes it a point to listen in to a conversation between two inmates, trying to get as much information as possible.

Our Typical American DAD finally makes it to Fayed’s hideout. As he is ushered into Fayed’s presence, Nameer eagerly takes the device and proclaims that it’s just the ticket to light up the sky with the fires of burning infidels. TAD puts two and two together and realizes what the terrorists are up to and says “You’re nuts!” which is true as far as it goes but not a smart thing to say if you want to stay alive when surrounded by about 20 bloodthirsty jihadis. TAD begs Fayed to call Ahmed (pronounced “Achhhmed”) and have his son released. On his way out the door, Fayed makes the call and orders the terrorist not to release Scott but kill him instead. The mastermind makes his way to another safe house while Nameer races to complete his work and arm the bomb.

CTU TAC arrives at the Wallace house. Just a Typical American House in a Typical American Suburban Neighborhood. So quiet, so peaceful. And yet, the wolf has been living among them for years, waiting for the day when he could tear off his sheep’s clothing and reveal his true nature. “Achhhmed” was just the friendly guy who lived across the street 3 short hours ago. Now he orders Scott to kneel and turn around so that he doesn’t see the shot coming.

Just in time, CTU busts in and distracts the terrorist. Despite orders from Jack to take him alive, a TAC member sees Bauer and Ahmed pointing guns at each other and fires.

It doesn’t matter how we pronounce Ahmed’s name anymore.

But young Scott comes to the rescue when he recalls the address that Ahmed had given his dad to take the package. Two other TAC teams race to the location while Jack finalizes the agreement with Assad and the United States government. Assad asks for a few minutes to examine the fine print which makes one pine for the days when terrorists were simply terrorists and not also versed in the nuances of law. I guess it just goes to show that lawyers have indeed taken over the world.

Back at Anacostia, Sandra finally gets in to see Walid. She also, finally, gets slapped down by someone for spouting her civil liberties absolutist positions - and it’s none other than Walid who tries to shake some sense into the woman. After telling her that he overheard some prisoners talking that made him think they were not innocent Muslims locked up by a capricious and bigoted government, Sandra starts in with her shrill talking points:

SANDRA: They’re being held illegally! Any statement they make…

WALID: Damnit Sandra! Stop being a lawyer for one damn minute! These guys may be planning something that could hurt a lot of people…

Well, that shuts her up. Temporarily at least. Walid tells her that the two inmates kept repeating a phrase in Arabic. He has Sandra memorize it and promise to pass it on to the FBI.

Back at the Wallace house, Curtis is told of the deal with Assad and gets a very sour look on his face - as if he were sucking on the sourest lemons possible. Jack doesn’t give it another thought because he thinks Curtis is on board when he says “If that’s the way it has to be, then that’s the way it has to be.”

Too late! Chloe calls with the news that there is indeed a history between Curtis and Assad. It seems after the Gulf War, Curtis’ outfit was on patrol and ambushed by Assad’s men. Curtis was wounded and the terrorists took two of his men as hostages. After releasing a video showing them begging for their lives and then beheading the unfortunates, it is not surprising that Curtis is a little unbalanced where Assad is concerned.

And we see just how unbalanced when Assad, on his way back to CTU headquarters, is accosted by Curtis just before he gets in the CTU van and finds himself looking down the barrel of Curtis’ gun.

Jack, realizing that Curtis may try something, races out side and draws his own gun, pointing it at his friend, telling him to move away and put his gun down. For several tense moments both men face off against each other. Curtis with his gun to Assad’s head. Jack with his gun pointed at the gap between Curtis’ vest and neck. When Curtis, crying now, shakes his head and says “I can’t let this scum live,” Jack realizes there is nothing for it.

The sound of the shot is not only a surprise, but the wound that opens up in Curtis’ neck along with the look of total surprise and shock on his face makes us catch our breath. As his friend slowly sinks to the ground with the life oozing out of the wound in his neck, Jack is confronted with the ultimate irony of his life; he has just saved his mortal enemy by shooting and perhaps killing his friend.

It is too much. The retching sound as Jack throws up makes us all queasy. This is not the Jack Bauer we’ve come to know for 5 years. We always knew he had a soft spot for women, children, and dogs but we’ve never seen his soul ripped open as we have here. Not even when his wife was lying lifeless on the floor at CTU have we seen Jack so totally, and utterly exposed. Even a pep talk from Bill can’t assuage the guilt and self loathing that has Jack saying “I’m done” with a finality that makes us think he really means it.

That is, until the nuke goes off.

CTU moves in on Fayed’s headquarters just as Nameer is finishing up the trigger. In the ensuing firefight, with the TAD looking on in absolute horror, Nameer makes it to the “on” switch of the bomb and flips it.

The two million degree heat from the detonated nuke obliterates anything and everything within a half mile of ground zero. And rising into the morning sky with a terrible majesty is “The Finger Of God” - the all too familiar but still an unbelievable sight of a mushroom shaped cloud, billowing upward and outward. Near its base, a roiling, churning sea of fire and smoke.

The White House, CTU, and Jack all look on in speechless horror. The unthinkable has been thought. The unspeakable has been spoken. And America will never be the same.

Milo brings the translation of the Arabic phrase overheard by Walid at Anacostia: “Five Visitors.” There are four more of these mini-cataclysms out there. Four more American cities that could suffer the same fate. And CTU has no leads, no clues, and apparently, no Jack. What are we going to do?

What are we going to do?

BODY COUNT

Obviously the casualty count from the nuke will be substantial. In deference to the fact that such an event should not be made light of, I will forgo adding the casualties from the nuke attack to this body count.

But the terrorist and TAC team count at CTU that occurred before the blast will be included.

112 confirmed dead in Baltimore
200 confirmed dead in Boston
Fayed’s man blows himself up
Ahmed becomes a permanent sleeper agent
1 CTU TAC man down at Fayed’s headquarters
2 terrorists taken out by TAC prior to nuke blast

TOTALS:

JACK: 2
Show: 347

“CHLOEISM” OF THE NIGHT

Chloe speaking to Morris about Milo:

CHLOE: He could bounce you. That’s what I think you want sometimes.

MORRIS: Why would I want that?

CHLOE: I don’t know. It’s your character flaw. Not mine.

“I don’t know how to do this anymore.”
(Jack Bauer)

Sure you do, Jack. It’s easy. Just empty your soul of pity, compassion, and empathy while keeping uppermost in your mind that you’re doing it for the good of the country.

I’m sure it will all come back to him eventually. I just hope it comes back to the writers of this show before we’re treated to a full blown outbreak of miasmic political correctness; a whimpering, simpering mish mash of civil liberties speechifying and multicultural hooey that threatens to cloud the focus of the show before it even gets started.

In a phrase; too one dimensional. I don’t mind that the White House Chief of Staff Thomas Lennox (played woodenly by Peter MacNicol) is a forceful advocate for domestic security measures that most Americans would find excessive, unconstitutional, and oppressive. But his mantra - “security has its price” is simple minded slop. I prefer a little nuance with my villains, please.

The angst ridden cries of betrayal are already coming from some of my friends on the right. I’ve seen comments on some conservative sites where people are so upset that they say they’ll never watch the show again - a threat I don’t believe for a moment. No matter how politically correct or terrorist-friendly the show gets, real 24 fans will continue to tune in. And the reason is simple; Jack Bauer is the most compelling character on television. The show may go PC but Jack never will.

But after all, it is a just a television show. And despite the extremely serious nature of the civil liberties vs. security debate perhaps, in the end, it may be that reducing the complex arguments for and against extraordinary security measures to one line sophisms is the best way to get a national conversation going on the topic. Goodness knows we need it. Too often, when it comes to discussing this vital issue, people have been talking past each other rather than trying to come to some kind of consensus on the best way forward.

How do we keep the homeland safe while maintaining our freedom? Anyone who says that this is simple question or that one side or the other is either unpatriotic or in favor of establishing a dictatorship isn’t helping matters any.

As I write this, it has been several hours since the premiere ended and we have yet to hear from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). They’re late. Usually by this time, they would have been tearing up the airwaves with anguished cries, bemoaning the unfair portrayal of Muslims as terrorists while simultaneously calling for a boycott of the show’s advertisers. If they condemned terrorist acts half as enthusiastically as they call for boycotts of shows that attempt to portray the true nature of our enemies, people might pay more attention to them.

All things considered, however, the first two hours was indeed riveting. And the storyline is as realistic as it gets. Pay close attention people because this show may very well be giving us a glimpse of the future. It is much more likely that suicide attacks on buses, trains, shopping malls, and sporting events would be carried out on American soil than nerve gas or nuclear attacks on large cities. And the rather esoteric arguments we are having today about liberty and security may one day become deadly serious debates about the survival of the United States as a free country.

And Jack? I wouldn’t worry about him. Give him a couple of hours, let him get a few kills under his belt and he’ll be as right as rain. On the surface anyway. How did those years of prison and torture affect him psychologically? I hope they make Jack’s struggle to give his life meaning a major part of the show. Coupled with his pursuit of the terrorists, that should make for some first class dramatic television.

SUMMARY: 6:00 AM - 8:00 AM

America is under seige. For eleven weeks, terrorists have been carrying out devastating attacks on “soft targets” killing thousands of Americans and giving the rest of the country the willies.

At the White House, a debate on civil liberties versus security is taking place between former CTU Director Karen Hays, now National Security Advisor, and Thomas Lennox, the smarmy, oily Presidential Chief of Staff. The President, none other than Wayne Palmer, brother of the deceased former President, has his feet firmly planted in both camps - for the moment. He listens to both sides of the argument and then fails to come to a decision regarding setting up detention camps for terrorist suspects. When Lennox chants his “security has its price” mantra Palmer responds “so does freedom, Tom” which is one way for the writers to show both sides of the issue. It was eerie how many of the same arguments have been echoed by both sides in the liberty versus security debate in real life. However, Lennox sounded like a B-list blogger spouting ignorant generalities and meaningless tripe while Hughes sounded reasonable and heroic in defending civil liberties.

Guess which side the writers want you to come down on?

It is at this meeting that we learn of the plan to hand over Jack Bauer, imprisoned by the Chinese for the last 18 months, to a supposed terrorist traitor, one Abu Fayed. In exchange for Jack (and $25 million), he will betray Hamri al-Assad, the terrorist that the government believes is behind the attacks.

Cut to the airport where Bill and Curtis are watching as a C-130 taxis toward them carrying a bearded, unwashed, unkempt Jack Bauer. It was hard to tell if he had just been released from captivity or whether he was on his way to a formal Moveon.Org banquet. The presence of the ubiquitous Mr. Cheng Zhi, the Chinese security agent who kidnapped Jack last year confirmed the fact that yes, Jack was being released from Chinese custody. We also learn from Mr. Cheng that in the nearly two years that Jack was a prisoner, he never spoke a word. (Too bad we can’t get Jack’s daughter Kim to attempt that trick.)

At CTU, Chloe gets nosy when she’s asked to set up a link to military operation that she knows nothing about. She confronts Nadia Yassir, second in command at CTU-LA and finds out that Jack is to be handed over to his enemies in exchange for information on the whereabouts of Assad. The military and CTU will use the information to take out Assad and his network. None to pleased, Chloe is comforted by her ex-husband Morris who also works in the office.

The producers have spiffed Chloe up considerably from her previous incarnations on the show. She’s gone from a typically disheveled, absent minded geek to a wannabe hottie with brown hair instead of her original blond tresses, nice clothes, and even a dab or two of makeup. But you know what they say about putting a hog in a dress. They could make Chloe into the most glamorous looking woman on the show and she’d still be, well…Chloe.

At the airport, Bill fills Jack in on what’s expected of him - ritual suicide. Jack doesn’t bat an eyelash. The first word out of his mouth is “Audrey” which means at some point in the next 24 hours, we will have a reunion scene with tears and hugs and kisses - probably just before Audrey is kidnapped. Jack also asks about Kim and is informed that neither woman knows he’s been released. Fans of the show devoutly hope that Kim is kept blissfully ignorant of her father’s release so that the American viewing public can be spared an appearance by Elisha Cuthbert, the only female in film history to be outacted by a cougar.

As Jack cleans up in preparation for his death, he takes off his shirt revealing horrible scarring from the torture he received at the hands of the Chinese. He appears a broken man, resigned to his fate.

Emerging from the airport shaved, shorn, and wearing a shirt buttoned all the way to the top (making him look decidedly mild mannered and a little nerdy), Jack takes a call from the President who apologizes for asking him to sacrifice his life. Barely coherent, Jack assures President Palmer that he knows what’s expected of him. After hanging up, Lennox assures the President he is doing the right thing: “It isn’t right, it isn’t wrong. It’s simply our only option…” - something that could be realistically said about many decisions by many Presidents over the years.

Arriving at the exchange point, Bill has a tender (in a manly sort of way) moment with Jack where we learn what really makes Bauer tick:

BILL: I don’t know what to say, Jack.

JACK: Do you understand the difference between dying for something and dying for nothing? The only reason I fought so hard to stay alive in China was because I didn’t want to die for nothing. Today, I can die for something my way, my choice. To be honest with you, it will be a relief.

This is a point about Bauer I was trying to make in my piece in The American Thinker yesterday. It’s not that Jack has a death wish. But he does crave the release that a meaningful death can bring.

Back at the White House, Karen discovers the nefarious plans of Lennox to set up detention centers for suspected terrorists despite the President’s refusal to authorize them. Once again, we are treated to the “security has its price so get used to it” argument from the faux conservative Lennox. Perhaps the writers will go all the way and make Lennox into a Manchurian Candidate type of character who talks tough against terrorists but actually willingly does their bidding by turning Americans against each other and destroying civic life. That kind of nuance may be beyond the writers, however, who seem to revel in portraying many political types - both right and left - one dimensionally.

Cut to a quiet suburban neighborhood where The Typical American Family is arguing about whether to send their child to school given the security situation. The father wants to cower in the house. The mother wants to go on living their lives normally. Their son Scott cuts the argument short when he informs that their their Friendly, Liberal, Neighborhood Arab Terrorist family across the street just had a visit from the FBI and the father is being led away in cuffs.

Seeing some neighborhood bullies approach their innocent looking neighbor’s house, the boy wants to rush to his defense but is restrained by the father who intercedes on behalf of Ahmed (pronounced “Achhhhmed”) and then invites the young man into his house for protection. It’s only later we find out that Ahmed (pronounced “Achhhmed”) is actually a real live, honest to goodness terrorist and that the father and son are being played for fools.

Meanwhile, Abu Fayed arrives to take Jack away. Chloe and Morris, using a little of their well known geek magic, are able to pirate a signal off of a commercial satellite in order to keep an eye on Jack. Alas, Fayed has thought of every contingency, even getting access to CTU surveillance protocols, so that Chloe’s clandestine caper is easily exposed. Threatening to break his deal with CTU unless the satellite is redirected, Fayed gets Nadia to nix Chloe’s coverage. He then teases our heroes by saying that he will now “think about” whether to reveal the location of Assad.

Nadia and Bill are fit to be tied with Chloe. In phone con with Karen telling her of Chloe’s stupidity, Karen bemoans the idea that “there are people in the Administration “willing to tear up the Constitution in the name of national security,” something she believes that country may not recover from.

If the country could survive the curtailment of civil liberties during the Civil War, World War I, and World War II, the idea that it wouldn’t recover from whatever temporary measures were deemed necessary (albeit unconstitutional in the strictest sense and deplorable from a civil liberties standpoint) during this conflict reveals perhaps how little faith the writers have in this country. When people of good will on both sides can agree, the “torn up Constitution” can be put back together as it was in the aftermath of all of those conflicts.

At Fayed’s headquarters, Jack is facing death with quiet resignation. Even the prospect of torture (payback for what Jack did to Fayed’s brother years ago), doesn’t deter him from reminding Fayed that he made a deal with CTU and that he has to give them Assad’s whereabouts. To make his death even more painful, Fayed tries to take away any meaning that Jack’s selfless act would bring by informing him that Assad is not the terrorist mastermind behind all of the attacks but rather it is he, Abu Fayed, who is the actual perpetrator and Assad has come to America to stop him because he wishes to lay down his arms and negotiate with the west.

Uh-huh. And I was a finalist for the Miss America pageant not so many years ago.

Leaving aside that issue for the moment, Fayed does indeed call CTU and tell them where to find Assad. Then, just as he is about to snip off one of Jack’s fingers, he is informed that he has an important call. Leaving Jack alone with only one guard (stupid, stupid, terrorist!), we learn that the caller is none other than Ahmed (pronounced “Achhhmed”) who tells Fayed about his father. The terrorist mastermind could care less about that, only wondering about “the package” that Ahmed (pronounced “Achhhmed”) has in his possession. The way he said “package” can only mean trouble for America.

And Jack? Channeling Bela Lugosi, he uses his teeth to rip the heart monitor cuff off of his arm, thus feigning death. The lone terrorist guard leans down to investigate and Jack once again uses his teeth - this time to sever the jugular of the guard. Finding the keys, he makes his escape. Fayed’s search is cut short when one of the terrorists reminds him that they must get back so that “the operation” - one designed to “kill thousands” of Americans - can be carried out on time.

Put Ahmed’s “package” together with Fayed’s “operation” and you’ve got a nightmare waiting to happen.

Meanwhile, Jack finds a nearby parking garage where there just happens to be one of the few cars left on the road without an alarm system, wheel locks, or electronic ignition. Ripping some wires from underneath the dash, Jack magically starts it. After informing CTU and the White House of his escape and being rebuffed by the President in his effort to call off the military strike on Assad, Jack speeds to Assad’s location in an effort to save the good terrorist so that he can get to Fayed. Jack gets the address from the phone book in his cell, simply looking under the listing for “Terrorists: Reformed.”

In another call to the Friendly, Liberal, Neighborhood Arab Terrorist, Fayed orders him to “retrieve the package.” Making his excuses to the Typical American Family, he leaves the house only to be confronted by young Scott who apologizes for all the bad things that have happened to him and, by extension, all the bad things we Americans are doing to innocent Arab terrorists just like him. Scott chalks it up to “the whole world is crazy.” Ahmed replies “It’s been crazy for a while, you just haven’t noticed,” which is true as far as it goes. Someone as oblivious as young Scott wouldn’t have much of a clue about the real danger “Achhhmed” and his merry band of suicidal, beheading fanatics pose to America.

Jack, however, does recognize the danger - at least we all used to think so. As Jack creeps up on Assad’s hideout, we wonder what in God’s name he’s doing warning this terrorist scum - a man that Jack knows has killed hundreds of innocents. This is not a case of the ends justifying the means. After all, Jack doesn’t have to save him. All he has to do is capture him and torture the information from him regarding Fayed’s whereabouts.

And when Jack enters the hideout and points his gun at Assad, you half expect him to shoot it out with the thugs right there. But Jack needs to know where Fayed is so he helps Assad find the traitor in his midst with the transponder our military is honing in on and then spirits him away just as the helicopters blow the place to smithereens.

It is mystifying. And a little disconcerting. Has Jack gone wimpy? The question is answered a little later when he and Assad, along with the wounded terrorist traitor, take refuge in a house. It is there we discover that Fayed’s information is true - that Assad wants to “lay down his arms” and “negotiate with the west.” He wants to “mainstream” his organization.

The obvious parallel with Lebanon’s terrorist group Hizbullah is nauseating. The first question we might ask is just what there is to “negotiate.” Our security? Our freedom? It’s hard to tell whether Assad is supposed to be a Bin Laden character or, more likely, a standin for Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah (who has no intention of negotiating with anybody and threatens to start a civil war in Lebanon if anyone tries to take away his guns).

And to make matters even worse, did you notice that when Assad was giving his little speech about his peaceful intentions, that there was an American flag covering the window behind him? This murderous thug was actually framed by the flag with the lighting bringing the flag to prominence. It made me queasy.

Strange and troubling.

Things get even stranger when Jack starts to question the terrorist traitor. Beginning the ritual torture of the man, hearing his cries and screams of pain, Jack loses interest quickly saying that he believes him when he says that he doesn’t know where Fayed is. This doesn’t satisfy Assad who really applies the screws to the hapless traitor who then gives up a location where he knows Fayed’s men will be.

It is here that Jack, realizing he may have lost his touch - and heart - says “I don’t know how to do this anymore.” We hope he remembers very soon. We’ve still got 22 hours to go.

So Jack and Assad become the most unlikely anti-terror team in history as they seek to bring down Fayed together so that Assad can safely lay down the arms of his happy group of martyrs and negotiate whatever he intends to negotiate with the west. I sure hope that after his usefulness is at an end, Jack remembers that the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

At CTU headquarters, Chloe discovers that it was Jack that helped Assad escape death. She tells Bill who plans to keep this little tidbit to himself for the time being. One can imagine Lennox loosing the dogs on Jack if he found out.

We meet Sandra Palmer, the President’s sister, who is a liberal attorney for what appears to be a CAIR-like group of Muslim-Americans. No terrorists here, she chirps confidently as the FBI shows up asking to see personnel records from the group. The FBI leaves in a huff but from the look the Agent in charge gives Palmer, you know they’ll be back. Terribly upset that the FBI would ask for voluntary cooperation from anyone, she calls her brother to complain. She voices her mistrust of Lennox and his crew of mini-authoritarians, saying that they “treat the Constitution like a list of suggestions” which is extremely clever and would probably elicit a titter at an ACLU meeting but is hardly the point. The scary part is that the Constitution does indeed allow for such actions - just ask Japanese-Americans who lived during World War II.

Back at Terrorist Central, Fayed gives a last minute pep talk to a suicide bomber about ready to go on a mission. We don’t know where he will strike but there is more talk of the operation that will kill thousands.

As expected, the FBI returns to the CAIR-like group’s headquarters, this time with a document known as an Administrative Warrant. This is actually a warrant that doesn’t need to be issued by the courts. It is a warrant that was authorized by the Patriot Act but must go through a rigorous approval process by both the local FBI office and the national headquarters. Unless they believed that there was information about a nuclear weapon about to go off, there is no way on God’s green earth that the FBI agents would have been able to secure such a warrant in a matter of minutes. But, when trying to show how close the US is coming to a dictatorship, anything goes.

Sandra, not willing to have the FBI get a hold of the names and addresses of employees, electronically shreds the files. The FBI arrests her along with the head of the organization who apparently is her lover.

Meanwhile, Ahmed (pronounced “Achhhmed”) retrieves “the package” which was hidden inside the wall of his house. Before he can leave, his bigoted neighbor pays him another visit and starts to beat on him. The terrorist is able to get his hands on a gun and kills the neighbor just as Scott shows up. Showing concern for his wounds, Scott suggests a trip to the hospital. Unfortunately, the young man realizes too late that not everything in this world is as it appears. Sometimes your Arab neighbor across the street really is a terrorist.

“We’re friends,” says young Scott. “Friends? You can’t even pronounce my name!” says Ahmed (pronounced “Achhhmed”).

Jack and Assad are waiting at the designated intersection when Fayed’s men show up. Assad informs us that it is a suicide bomber and his handler. The unlikely anti-terrorist team follows the two men to the train station. Jack sticks with the bomber and tells Assad to stay with the handler.

Boarding the train with the bomber, Jack is suddenly confronted by the conductor who demands his ticket. Having left his wallet in China and thus is without funds to pay for the ride, Jack informs the conductor that he is trying to stop a terrorist attack. I’ll have to remember that one the next time I get on the Chicago and Northwestern for a trip to the loop.

Just as the terrorist is about to set the bomb off, Jack intervenes and literally kicks the guy off the train so that the bomb explodes several blocks short of its intended target - Union Station - which is where the handler ended up to make sure that the suicide attack went off properly. Seeing that it didn’t, the handler calls Fayed and gives him the bad news. The call was intercepted by the NSA who were illegally monitoring the innocent terrorists, egregiously violating their privacy and Constitutional rights but also confirming what Jack said; that it is Fayed and not Assad who is the terrorist mastermind.

So the stage is set for Assad and Jack to take down Fayed together while the White House and CTU are left wondering what their next move will be. President Palmer thinks that “things are going to get much worse.” Knowing the writers for the series as we do, that would seem to be an understatement.

BODY COUNT

As has been my practice for the previous two years, only confirmed, on screen kills will be part of this body count.

22 Americans died in the bus explosion. Also, scratch one suicide bomber.
Jack reverts to cannibalism and eats his first kill.
Air strike sent 4 of Assad’s men to hell.
Assad kills the traitor.
Ahmed (pronounced…Oh, forget it!) offs his neighbor.
Another suicide bomber dies when Jack kicks him off the train.

TOTALS

Jack: 2
Show: 31

“CHLOEISM” OF THE WEEK

Something new this year. I will pick three quotes from Chloe and have my readers vote on which one will win “Chloeism of the Week” honors.

1. To Morris after he got chewed out by Milo:

“Morris, I had the same problem with Department Heads when I first started. Then I learned how to fit in.”

Only those of us who truly know and love Chloe can appreciate that one!

2. To Bill, admitting her role in the satellite caper:

It’s my fault. Fire me.

3. Same setting:

BILL: Chloe, look at me.

CHLOE: I’d rather not!

Other suggestions will be considered.

UPDATE

My friend Steve Strum will once again confront the logical inconsistencies in the series with his weekly “24isms.” Fascinating stuff!

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

“Abandon all hope, ye who enter here!”
(Inscription above the Gates of Hell from Dante’s Inferno)

Tonight, 16 million TV viewers will make themselves as comfortable as possible on the edge of their seats as Fox Network’s pulse-pounding actioneer 24 returns for another season. This means that an American entertainment icon will also make a return, sparking both intense loyalty and raging controversy.

Jack Bauer (played by Emmy Award winner Kiefer Sutherland), the fictional counter terrorism agent working for the fictional Counter Terrorism Unit (CTU). is perhaps the most recognizable character in American television today. Even people who have never seen the show have an opinion about him. Bauer’s well know predilection for torture, violence, rebellion against authority, and a rather novel approach to civil liberties, has sparked debate far beyond the confines of the show. Serious forums involving intellectuals and constitutional experts have convened to discuss the implications of what Bauer does in order to succeed and defeat the terrorists threatening America. Numerous articles in newsmagazines from Newsweek, to The New Republic have been written about Bauer discussing his impact on our culture and politics.

Bauer has transcended the entertainment world and become a political talisman; stroked by the right and bashed by the left, 24 has become the favorite guilty pleasure of the political class in America. Even many liberals confess their addiction to the show, despite Bauer’s enormously troubling use of torture and the cavalier way in which he disregards the constitutional niceties. And many conservatives, seeing Jack taking the fight directly to our enemies (along with maintaining a moral certitude that is both refreshing and emotionally satisfying), cheer Jack on as he battles evil.

Last year at this time on these pages, I called Bauer “The Perfect Post 9-11 Hero:”

Torn as America is between getting the job done at all costs while upholding American ideals, Jack simply can’t help himself. He necessarily sees the world in stark relief, a place populated by some really nasty thugs who don’t even blink at the idea of murdering hundreds of thousands of people. We recoil at some of Jack’s tactics. But we recognize that Jack is the guy doing what needs to be done to keep us safe. This makes Jack Bauer the perfect hero in a post 9/11 America. He doesn’t engage in any kind of self destructive hand wringing about not being able to do anything about the threat. His doubts — if he has any — have been left on the cutting room floor. He sacrifices his personal life for the greater good. In this respect, he is a true patriot.

And while Bauer still fills that bill, events transpired on the show last year that narrowed the focus of Jack’s universe and ultimately, made his quest to bring down the terrorists a personal matter.

The murder of ex-President Palmer, Tony Almeida, and Michelle Dressler along with the terrorist nerve gas attack on CTU headquarters turned Bauer into an avenging angel of death. Stopping the terrorists became a means to an end - finding and killing the murderer of his cherished friends. Every thread Bauer unravelled, every bad guy he killed brought him closer to the man who took so much from him. Christopher Henderson (played brilliantly by Peter Weller), a super patriot who wanted to use terrorist attacks as a smokescreen to secure oil rights in the Caucuses, met his end not in a violent shoot out but by cold blooded, deliberate execution. There was something shocking in the way Jack carried out the sentence of death:

JACK: You are responsible for the death of David Palmer, Tony Almeida, and Michelle Dessler. They were friends of mine.

HENDERSON: That’s the way it works.

The sound of the shot from Jack’s gun was jarring. The realization that Bauer was capable of such a cold blooded act - especially since Henderson would have had information valuable to the continuing hunt for suspects - was disconcerting because it took the character into uncharted waters. Bauer was human after all. And the sense of loss that drove him to what can only be described as murder had finally overwhelmed him.

This theme of loss has been a part of the show ever since the end of Season 1 when Baur’s wife was killed by a CTU mole. It seems that ever since that first awful day, Bauer has been descending slowly into hell; a place not of his own making but one that he chooses to inhabit in order to give his life meaning. Indeed, one of the most common questions asked about Bauer is does Jack have a death wish? Placing himself deliberately in harms way as often as he does, it may very well be that in some way, Bauer longs for the release that death can bring him. But what he really craves is to fill the emptiness in his heart, the hole in his soul. If death is the only means to that end, Bauer will gladly take it.

The death of his wife and estrangement from his daughter along with the death of almost all the people he ever cared about has exacted an emotional and psychological toll on the troubled hero that makes him an extremely vulnerable character one the audience wants to wrap their arms around and protect. This vulnerability was never more in evidence than in the conclusion of last year’s final episode when, having been kidnapped by the Chinese for a past transgression, he is lying beaten and bloodied in the hold of a cargo ship bound for Shanghai. Slowly, Bauer raises his head and says in a pained and pleading voice,

“Kill me….Please kill me…” .

This from a man who has faced death a thousand times, a thousand different ways. Does the prospect of spending the rest of his life in a Chinese prison make him think that death is preferable to an existence without friends, family, or purpose?

It is this kind of vulnerability that will drive the show this year. The Emmy Award winning production team of writers, producers, and special effects wizards were faced with the problem all long running TV dramas must come to grips with: How do you top what you’ve done previously?

Rather than go for bigger terrorist threats, larger explosions, and more expansive plot lines, the drama this year will be telescoped to an emotional level not experienced by fans of the series before. Released from the Chinese prison where he has been beaten and whipped into apparent submission, Bauer will spend the first 24 hours of his freedom trying to stop a year long spate of terrorist attacks that have the country in an uproar. A war in the White House is going on between civil liberties absolutists and security advocates. But the heart of the show will be the emotional turmoil and self doubt of Bauer himself. Jack’s personal demons are finally going to get a thorough airing this year and it should make for compelling, riveting television.

In order to defeat the terrorists, Bauer will once again have to descend to their designated circle of hell to confront them. From the terrorists inhabiting Dante’s Seventh Circle who commit “violence against their neighbors,” to the bureaucratic hypocrites, evil counselors, and falsifiers in the Eighth Circle, all the way down to the worst of the worst - the betrayers of their own country in the Ninth Circle where Dante saved his most gruesome descriptive of punishment - the tormented souls are condemned to gnaw on the heads of their neighbor for eternity.

But unlike Dante, Jack has no guarantee that he will escape. He has been living in his own personal hell for so long that it is an open question whether he can tell the difference between the light and the darkness. For him, there is only a grayish existence, both in and out of the world. His one connection to the sane, the rational - his girlfriend Audrey Raines - is tenuous at best. Audrey and Jack’s past is one of enormous pain and betrayal. There is much to overcome if those two are to find any kind of happiness.

But I doubt whether Bauer will be thinking much about happiness in the coming 24 hours. And that is the secret to success of the show. It is anti-formulaic. Just when you think you can’t be surprised any more, the writers drop a bomb so unexpected, you don’t know whether to clap your hands in glee or throw something at the TV screen. Unexpected deaths of series regulars is the signature of the show and there is no reason to expect that will change this season.

So sit tight, get set, and strap it down. We’re about ready to experience another thrill ride that will alternately have us gripping our chairs in white knuckled suspense and cheering Jack on with a gusto we usually reserve for our sports teams. Like the knights of old, he sallies forth to engage in single combat with the terrorists, defending the honor of the United States and protecting her through the sheer force of his iron will. There’s nothing like it on television. And there’s never been anything like it before.

UPDATE:

As I write this at 9:00 PM Sunday night, an ice storm is brewing in the Chicago area. Already there is a good 1/2 inch of ice coating the driveway.

There is also a half inch of ice coating the power lines. If they go, it will probably be a couple of days before I get power back.

No power would mean no internet for me. If this site isn’t updated by noon tomorrow, you’ll know that we’ve had a power outage.

Otherwise, my 24 post recapping the first two hours will be on the site by 10:30 AM at the latest. I work Sunday nights 10:00 PM - 6:00 AM and it will take a few hours to review the video and write the post.

If we have power, my Tuesday recap will appear at the usual time - around 7:00 AM central.

UPDATE: 1/15

Okay. I’ve had an intermittent internet connection this morning which will delay the posting of last night’s summary until perhaps 11:00 AM - 11:30 AM central.

I apologize for the delay and thank everyone for their patience.

The Associated Press is reporting that diplomats and intelligence agencies are at a loss to explain an apparent pause in Iran’s drive to enrich nuclear fuel:

Iran’s uranium enrichment program appears stalled despite tough talk from the Tehran leadership, leaving intelligence services guessing about why it has not made good on plans to press ahead with activities that the West fears could be used to make nuclear arms, diplomats said today.

Outside monitoring of Iran’s nuclear endeavors is restricted to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections of declared sites, leaving significant blind spots for both the agency and intelligence agencies of member countries trying to come up with the full picture.

Still, Tehran’s reluctance to crank up activities at its declared enrichment site at Natanz when it seems to have the technical know-how is puzzling the diplomatic and intelligence communities. Some say it is potentially worrisome.

Diplomats accredited or otherwise linked to the Vienna-based IAEA, speaking on condition of anonymity in exchange for discussing restricted information on the Iranian program, said some intelligence services believed that the Natanz site was a front.

While the world’s attention is focused on Natanz, Iranian scientists and military personnel could be working on a secret enrichment program at one or more unknown sites that are much more advanced than what is going on at the declared site, they said.

I think the most likely reason for the apparent pause in the Iranian program is very simple; they are having problems overcoming the technological hurdles involved in making 3,000 centrifuges work the way they’re supposed to.

Having the technical “know how” and then actually carrying out the experiment are two totally different kettles of fish:

IAEA inspectors arrived at Natanz yesterday for a routine round of monitoring.

But one of the diplomats said they were unlikely to find anything but the status quo — two small pilot plants assembled in 164 centrifuge “cascades” but working only sporadically to produce small quantities of non-weapons-grade enriched uranium and other individual centrifuges undergoing mechanical testing. That essentially has been the situation at Natanz since late November, he said.

There have been no signs of any activity linked to Iranian plans to assemble 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz and move them into an underground facility as the start of an ambitious program foreseeing 50,000 centrifuges producing enriched material, said the diplomats.

We tend to forget that Iran is a third world country, one of the most insular nations on earth. Ever since we exposed the A.Q. Khan nuclear black market network 3 years ago, it is likely that the kind of technical expertise that could help the Iranians get over the hump and start those centrifuges whirring also dried up. Since intelligence agencies (along with the IAEA) keep a close watch on nuclear scientists from countries like Pakistan and North Korea, they would know if Iran was receiving the kind of technical assistance that would help keep their nuke program on track.

In short, the Iranians may have hit a technological road block - temporarily. Given time and money, they will almost certainly be able to work through their problems.

This, in fact, was foretold by nuclear experts a year ago:

So, the real question, however, is how quickly Iran could assemble and operate 1,500 centrifuges in a crash program to make enough HEU for one bomb (say 15-20 kg).

Albright and Hinderstein have created a notional timeline for such a program:

Assemble 1,300-1,600 centrifuges. Assuming Iran starts assembling centrifuges at a rate of 70-
100/month, Iran will have enough centrifuges in 6-9 months.

Combine centrifuges into cascades, install control equipment, building feed and withdrawal systems, and test the Fuel Enrichment Plant. 1 year

Enrich enough HEU for a nuclear weapon. 1 year

Weaponize the HEU. A “few” months.

Total time to the bomb—about three years.

And that was based on things going relatively smoothly. What could go wrong?

Iran might not be able to meet such a schedule for bringing a centrifuge plant into operation. The suspension of manufacturing and operating centrifuges could be reestablished, or Iran might have trouble making so many centrifuges. In addition, Iran does not appear to have accumulated enough experience to operate a cascade of centrifuges reliably. Iran had assembled 164 centrifuges into a cascade just before the suspension, but it did not acquire sufficient experience in operating the cascade to be certain it would perform adequately. Centrifuges can crash during operation, causing other centrifuges in the cascade to fail—in essence, destroying the entire cascade. Thus, Iran might need a year or more of additional experience in operating test cascades before building and operating a plant able to make HEU for nuclear weapons.

In the last year, Iran has operated those 164 centrifuges successfully and enriched an extremely small amount of uranium about 5%. In order to build a bomb, they would have to operate a cascade using 10 times the number of centrifuges, for at least 12 months of constant, flawless operation in order to enrich a much, much larger amount of uranium to 85-90%.

Does this mean they don’t have a “dual track” program - a civilian program that is being inspected by the IAEA (at present) and a secret military program that no one knows about?

The CIA considered such a possibility but could find no evidence to support it although there were troubling indications of military research and development of centrifuge technology. It would come as a huge surprise indeed if the Iranians were enriching uranium using sophisticated cascades and thousands of centrifuges in secret while appearing to make only marginal progress publicly.

Could the CIA be that wrong about the Iranian program? Considering their track record, the answer is yes. The Israelis believe the Iranians are less than 2 years from having a workable bomb, hence their own sabre rattling recently.

Anthony Cordesman may have divined the real reason for the slowdown in the Iranian nuclear program:

Anthony Cordesman, an Iran specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, suggested an additional possibility linked to theories that Tehran was forging ahead with its enrichment program at undisclosed locations: fear that any major progress at Natanz could provoke military action by Israel or the United States.

“It’s a known facility and more and more of the subject of discussion as a possible Israeli or U.S. target,” Mr. Cordesman said from Washington. “So, do you use this facility now or wait to see what threat you face?”

I think the left is right about this one. I think Bush fully intends to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities before he leaves office - especially if he thinks his successor won’t. Considering the possible problems that the Iranians are having with their program, this just doesn’t make any sense.

We have time - time to build the kind of international coalition that we failed to do on Iraq. The Europeans are already on board. Even Russia and China agree that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. Bombing them at this point without applying progressively more painful sanctions is stupid. If necessary, we could blockade their ports or if worse came to worse, destroy their oil facilities. Yes, these are both acts of war - acts committed against a country that declared war on the United States 28 years ago. But even bombing their oil facilities would be far preferable to the kind of sustained, massive air attack that would be necessary to interrupt the Iranian drive for nuclear weapons.

I agree that a nuclear armed Iran is as bad as it gets for the peace and security of the world. But they’re not there yet and may be nowhere near the point where they are a threat.

Rex “The Wonder Dog” Grossman drops back against Tampa Bay last month.

It seems that everyone turned against the quarterback who came out of college so highly touted. Signed for an enormous amount of money, his first two season in the league were a disaster. Fans and sportswriters alike wanted his scalp. He was judged a bust, a has been before he had even gotten started.

Rex Grossman of the Chicago Bears? Nope. John Elway, Hall of Fame Quarterback from Denver:

For this man, the Denver Broncos gave up Chris Hinton, Mark Herrmann and a No. 1 draft choice?

For a man with a 47.5 completion percentage? For a man with twice as many interceptions (14) as touchdown passes (7)? For a man who was the lowest-rated quarterback in the American Football Conference?

For John Elway?

Where is the return on that investment?

It was called the Trade of the Century in May of 1983, when the Broncos obtained Elway from the Colts for Hinton, Herrmann and a first-round pick in the ‘84 draft. Bob Irsay’s pockets got picked, they said. The Broncos got Elway for far less than what other teams had offered the Colts before the ‘83 draft.

It still may be the Trade of the Century, but the emphasis may switch to the Colts. Hinton was an All-Pro guard in his rookie season in Baltimore. Elway was an all-low quarterback.

“I really don’t think it can get any worse than it was last year,” Elway said as Denver’s 1984 training camp opened.

It began in Minnesota in the last exhibition game of ‘83, his first as the Broncos’ starting quarterback. Elway was sacked five times and was 100 percent ineffective. Denver lost, 34-3.

It ended in Seattle in the AFC wild-card playoff game, Elway standing on the sideline in favor of Steve DeBerg. The long day’s journey into night closed with Elway silently leaving town just after Christmas, accompanied by none of the hubbub and clatter that marked his arrival.

(Sporting News: 9/10/84)

I have never seen such manufactured controversy and useless hand wringing over anything in my life. The idiocy surrounding all the criticism of Chicago quarterback Rex Grossman - a player who will be starting his 23rd game of professional football on Sunday against Seattle - is beyond the normal griping and complaining that fans are wont to do. The invective heaped upon Grossman is especially shocking because not only has the guy won 13 games his first full year as a starter but he has passed for more yardage and thrown more touchdowns than any Bears quarterback in a single season save one - Erik Kramer.

Very few NFL quarterbacks come out of college and dazzle right off the bat. Dan Marino was one. Joe Montana was another. But Brett Favre threw 24 interceptions his second year in the league (only 19 TD’s). And Peyton Manning may have had 55 TD passes his first two years in the league but he also had 43 interceptions.

And John Elway? After 26 games, Elway’s stats were very similar to Grossman’s (including a 76.8 passer rating his second year compared to Wonder Dog’s 73.9). Elway completed 57% of his passes for 2600 yards. He had 18 TD’s and 15 interceptions. Grossman completed 54.6% for 3100 yards with 23 TD’s and 20 interceptions.

He also showed flashes of brilliance, leading the league by racking up a QB rating of over 100 7 times.

And he showed flashes of awfulness by also leading the league in QB ratings under 40 (5).

While this would normally drive any football fan nutzo, what has my dander up is the jaw dropping stupidity of talk radio jocks (and pretend jocks) and many fans who actually think the kid is a bust after 22 games and should be benched or traded. The kid won 13 games, passed for 3,000 yards and fans want to trade him in for…what? A shot at drafting Brady Quinn or some other college phenom?

Or perhaps we trade for a better quarterback or sign one in the offseason via free agency? Who? Looks like Jake Plummer might be available, a guy who hasn’t won anywhere in his life. Or perhaps someone currently playing backup?

This is crazy!

And the Bear’s current backup, Brian Greise, has never won a playoff game. Greise will not, cannot take the Bears to the Super Bowl. But Wonder Dog can. Perhaps not this year. But if he can continue to stay healthy, Grossman will take his place among the NFL elite quarterbacks very soon. And if the Bears can maintain their high level of play on defense, there should be absolutely no reason why they can’t win a few Super Bowls in the next 5 years.

The mindless Rex-bashing is led by Ron Jurkovic, former player and current host of the most popular sports radio talk show on the air in Chicago:

“Rex cannot take this team to the Super Bowl, but most of the city knows his crappiness can stop them from going there,” said retired 10-year NFL veteran John Jurkovic, part of the “Mac, Jurko and Harry Show” on Chicago’s ESPN Radio 1000. “The defense will take them there, the special teams will take them there, but Rex just needs to go along for the ride and quit being a moron.”

Jurkovic is joined on the show by Dan McNeil who was fond of saying that Michael Jordan was finished as a basketball player the year he returned from his days playing baseball. Jordan went on to win the MVP of the league twice as well as 3 more world championships proving that McNeil knows about as much about sports as my pet cat Snowball.

And the fans who call in are even more ignorant - the big reason I stopped listening to sports talk radio years ago. Egged on my any number of hosts, the fans who call into these shows don’t know squat about the game and make fools of themselves railing against young Wonder Dog. After listening for about a half an hour in the car yesterday, I had to turn it off before I blew a gasket (not in the car, in my head).

With Grossman, the Bears will suffer through games where he will look like a junior college transfer from Iowa who just walked out of the cornfield. He will also have games where he dazzles. This is the price of youth. In a year or two, Grossman will be putting up all pro numbers and fans will forget they ever wanted to get rid of him. Or he will be gone and putting those numbers up somewhere else. And these very same fans who have directed the most vicious barbs at Grossman demanding his exit will then complain that the Bears should have hung onto the kid and waited until he matured.

Then again, if Wonder Dog doesn’t come through this Sunday, he may want to consider a disguise of some sort - at least until the season begins next year.

UPDATE

According to the Trib Sports Blog, there are still hundreds of tickets left for Sunday’s game.

There’s a good reason for that:

Maybe it’s the price. That aforementioned pair of tickets will run you $650 — before Ticketmaster adds their convenience fees, handling fees, processing fees… and whatever else they tack on these days. At least it’s late enough in the game that you can pick your tickets up at Will Call rather than get stuck for shipping fees.

But the ticket brokers don’t think price is the problem — and they apparently don’t think Bears fans value education too much.

“Other teams’ fans just aren’t willing to spend that kind of money for a playoff game,” StubHub spokesman Sean Pate told the Daily Herald. “Bears fans are more passionate. They’ll put college tuition on hold for a big game.”

I went to a Redskins-Bears playoff game at old RFK Stadium in DC back in 1984 and paid $500 for two tickets. But that was from a season ticket holder not a ticket broker. Bears won as Walter rushed for more than 100 yards and the defense stifled the Redskin offense.

If the Bears can get by Seattle, I don’t think they’ll have any problem at all getting rid of tickets - at any price. This town is ready for a Bears run to the Super Bowl. And a chance to go to the big game by winning next week will have this town in an uproar - absolutely mad with Bear fever.

Be still my beating heart…The Bears and Jack Bauer all in one day. Can I stand it?

The President weeps at yesterday’s Medal of Honor Ceremony for Corporal Jason Dunham.

I must start by stating the obvious. I am not a psychiatrist, psychologist, or liberal know it all who tries to play at psychoanalyzing political opponents by ascribing laughable motivations or evil intent to people whose only psychological malady is that they fail to see the brilliance and simple goodness of liberals and left wing dogma. Armchair Freuds and Jungs abound on the left and it can get rather tiresome being told that you suffer from some kind of mental disease simply because you disagree with someone politically.

But you don’t have to be a trained mental health professional to recognize the fact that the President of the United States is under a terrible burden and that at this moment in history, when all the ancient furies have been loosed to torment him, George W. Bush is feeling the loneliness of his office more keenly than at any time in his presidency.

You saw it in his posture and the way he delivered his televised speech on Wednesday night. His cadence was stiff and unnatural. Rather than flowing from one point to another, the speech seemed choppy and out of kilter. His peroration - usually a chance for any President to hit the ball out of the park - fell flat rather than soar and inspire.

We usually chalk this kind of performance up to the fact that Bush is a poor communicator. But, as Hindraker points out, these set piece Oval Office speeches have seen Bush excel in the past:

In the past, I’ve often said that President Bush has been more effective in televised speeches than he has been given credit for. Not tonight. I thought he came across as stiff, nervous, and anxious to get it over with. The importance of the issue seemed to overwhelm the President’s ability to communicate. I suspect that only a few listeners absorbed more than a general impression of what the new strategy is all about.

Hindraker isn’t the only one who noticed that Bush was way off his game that night. Howard Fineman of Newsweek, who has covered Bush since 1993, said basically the same thing:

George W. Bush spoke with all the confidence of a perp in a police lineup. I first interviewed the guy in 1987 and began covering his political rise in 1993, and I have never seen him, in public or private, look less convincing, less sure of himself, less cocky. With his knitted brow and stricken features, he looked, well, scared. Not surprising since what he was doing in the White House library was announcing the escalation of an unpopular war.

I’m not sure about the President looking “scared,” although I would agree he didn’t look very sure of himself. In short, his speech did not inspire confidence among his supporters and, judging by the reaction in Congress on both sides of the aisle, it appeared to embolden his political foes. The Democrats are seriously considering legislation that would deny the Commander in Chief funds that he feels is necessary to protect the country. You can argue that he is wrong, misguided, or even stupid. You can even argue (and lefties are, of course, doing so) that he is lying through his teeth and that Haliburton isn’t through squeezing all the money out of our Iraq adventure yet - hence the surge in troops.

But what you cannot argue is that Bush is Constitutionally empowered as a result of being elected by a free and fair vote of the people President and Commander in Chief to act as he sees fit to protect the troops under his command and the nation he is responsible for. The coming confrontation with Democrats over funding for the Iraq War will strain our Constitutional government to the limit as age old questions about Presidential prerogatives versus Congressional power of the purse clash and battle lines are drawn that could determine the future security of the country and the world.

Is it any wonder that the President looks a little haggard? Weighed down with the fact that his policies in Iraq are failing, his political position eroding, the enemies of America becoming more aggressive, and many of his old friends deserting him on Iraq, the crushing responsibilities of his office appear to be taking a toll. Contrast this picture below from 2000 with the one above taken yesterday:

Certainly 6 years as President would take a toll on any man - except perhaps Ronald Reagan whose innate optimism and sunny disposition overcame almost all the vagaries and pitfalls of the office that normally turn Presidents into old men before their time.

But what becomes immediately apparent in comparing the two photos is the striking collapse or, more accurately, deflation of the President’s face. The flesh hangs loosely now. He has become a little jowly. And the worry lines have become pronounced on his forehead. He looks tired and frankly, beaten down.

For those who wish nothing but ill for this man, I say shame on you for you know not what you do. George Bush, at the moment is it. History has tapped him on the shoulder and until January 20, 2009 at the stroke of noon, he is the only President we have. If you care one whit about this country, you would hope that whatever happens, the President is able to bear the enormous burden that we have placed upon his shoulders. We may disagree with him on any number of issues. We may believe him to have blundered horribly in Iraq and the Middle East. But to gloat about the pain he is suffering and the loneliness he is experiencing or worse, hope that it all becomes too much for him demonstrates a monumental lack of empathy for a fellow human being and a breathtaking disregard for the well being of the country.

Presidents deal with the enormous burden the office places on them in different ways but they all have felt it at one time or another. Harry Truman used to relate an anecdote from his first official cabinet meeting following FDR’s funeral. The discussion went around the table about war policy toward Japan and then, a silence settled over the room. With a start, Truman realized that all eyes were on him as the cabinet was waiting expectantly for a decision. He said at that moment, he first felt the horrible loneliness of the office and wished devoutly he was back in Missouri.

Lincoln probably suffered from clinical depression for most of his adult life which made his time in the White House during the Civil War a living hell. The country agonized along with him and when he died, it was not uncommon to hear eulogies that compared his suffering and death with that of Jesus. The analogy was taken a step further as many also compared him to the redeemer - a man who died for the sin of slavery and hence, redeemed the country in the eyes of God.

In an article a few weeks ago, Tony Blankley summed up Bush’s slide following the elections in November:

The American presidency has been called “A Glorious Burden” by the Smithsonian Museum, and the loneliest job in the world by historians. As we approach Christmas 2006 Anno Domini, President Bush is surely fully seized of the loneliness and burden of his office.

For rarely has a president stood more alone at a moment of high crisis than does our president now as he makes his crucial policy decisions on the Iraq War. His political opponents stand triumphant, yet barren of useful guidance. Many — if not most — of his fellow party men and women in Washington are rapidly joining his opponents in a desperate effort to save their political skins in 2008. Commentators who urged the president on in 2002-03, having fallen out of love with their ideas, are quick to quibble with and defame the president.

Blankley is surely being disingenuous when he writes that opponents of the war are “barren of useful guidance.” Surrender and retreat is a perfectly viable option to push if you believe the war is already lost and nothing is to be gained by leaving our soldiers in Iraq one moment longer.

Bush does not believe we’ve already lost but it is an open question as to what kind of “victory” he envisions his augmented force can bring him. If he can accomplish what he outlined in his speech on Wednesday night - a large reduction in sectarian violence and the establishment of some kind of viable Iraqi state, then he will have at least avoided catastrophe. The problem is that both those goals cannot be achieved solely by the American military but are heavily dependent on the political actions of the Iraqi government. And given their track record, it is very difficult to be optimistic about a positive outcome.

George Bush is not a stupid man nor is he oblivious to what is going on around him - despite the ignorant commentary from the left about the mental acuity of their political opponents that has dogged Bush and every Republican President since Eisenhower. And watching that ceremony yesterday in which the Medal of Honor was awarded to Corporal Jason Dunham for the heroic act of falling on a live grenade to save two of his comrades, I was struck, as I often am with Bush, about how deeply he empathizes with those who have lost loved ones in the war. The dozens of private sessions he has held with widows, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers of the dead - out of sight of the cameras - are rarely reported on and even more rarely is he given credit for them. By all reports from family members, they are extremely wrenching emotionally as some parents yell at him and berate him for killing their child while others stand aloof, too upset with Bush to even acknowledge his presence.

I don’t care what you think of the man, but going through with those sessions knowing that some of the survivors are likely to accuse you of what amounts to murder takes guts. And, of course, there are many who report that the President’s words and actions comforted them during these private meetings.

The point is simple; whether because of his deep religious beliefs or simply the way he is, Bush’s enormous stores of empathy denote a man who is more likely to become emotionally crippled when the whole ball of wax begins to collapse. I don’t think Bush’s public tears are necessarily indicative of anything except perhaps exhaustion. But we have two long, hard years to go before the President leaves office. And judging by the way he looked during his speech Wednesday night and the way he looked yesterday at the medal ceremony, I am worried that events may simply overwhelm the President if a crisis occurs.

I feel for the man. I disagree with him but he is still my President, the elected leader of the United States. I sincerely hope that his faith in the Almighty and the love of his family can sustain him during the coming months.