Right Wing Nut House

We who live in the 21st century suffer from a breathtaking conceit regarding our ancient human ancestors. We believe that the poor dears were ignorant little children, occasionally making a breakthrough discovery to move the train of human knowledge along (some even going so far as to believe that aliens were responsible for it all rather than people) but by and large, seeing the ancients as a dirty, doltish bunch of superstitious ignoramuses with no indoor plumbing and an unhealthy reliance on the mystical in their everyday lives.

This ignores the facts of archeology which paint a much different picture. About 50,000 years ago, our ancestors created art on the walls of caves outside of Lascaux, France that rivals in realism and talent anything that Renaissance painters could do. The Polynesians populated the Islands of the Pacific by crossing expanses of ocean that wouldn’t be duplicated by Europeans for thousands of years. Going the Polynesians one better, it is still a mystery how people from Southeast Asia managed to make it to New Guinea 50,000 years ago.

The Egyptians moved blocks of stone weighing tens of thousands of pounds with little more than levers and rope (the block and tackle pulley system was waiting to be discovered). By sheer brute strength, they carved and maneuvered these stones, stacking them so perfectly that the tolerances achieved would make a modern engineer jealous.

The irrigation system invented by the Mayans was so sophisticated that nothing comparable would be seen until the 19th century. The Mayans also made an unbelievable leap of knowledge by coming up with the concept of zero in mathematics; as counterintuitive in its own right as the invention of quantum mechanics.

And then there were the Greeks. What we know about this astonishing culture has piqued our curiosity and excited our admiration since Medieval times. It’s what we don’t know about them that may, in the end, prove to be even more incredible than anything we could have imagined:

A computer in antiquity would seem to be an anachronism, like Athena ordering takeout on her cellphone.

Known as the Antikythera Mechanism (Nature)But a century ago, pieces of a strange mechanism with bronze gears and dials were recovered from an ancient shipwreck off the coast of Greece. Historians of science concluded that this was an instrument that calculated and illustrated astronomical information, particularly phases of the Moon and planetary motions, in the second century B.C.

The instrument, the Antikythera Mechanism, sometimes called the world’s first computer, has now been examined with the latest in high-resolution imaging systems and three-dimensional X-ray tomography. A team of British, Greek and American researchers deciphered inscriptions and reconstructed the gear functions, revealing “an unexpected degree of technical sophistication for the period,” it said.

The researchers, led by the mathematician and filmmaker Tony Freeth and the astronomer Mike G. Edmunds, both of the University of Cardiff, Wales, are reporting their results today in the journal Nature.

They said their findings showed that the inscriptions related to lunar-solar motions, and the gears were a representation of the irregularities of the Moon’s orbital course, as theorized by the astronomer Hipparchos. They established the date of the mechanism at 150-100 B.C.

While scientists now know pretty much what the Antikythera mechanism did, we still don’t really have a good idea of what it was for. Possible practical uses for the device include:

* Astrology was commonly practiced in the ancient world. In order to create an astrological chart, the configuration of the heavens at a particular point of time is needed. It can be very difficult and time-consuming to work this out by hand, and a mechanism such as this would have made an astrologer’s work very much easier.

* Calculating solar and lunar eclipses.

* Setting the dates of religious festivals connected with astronomical events

* Adjusting calendars, which were based on lunar cycles as well as the solar year

This new research indicates that the Antikythera mechanism could predict eclipses to the hour of their appearance as well as the orbits of at least Venus and Mars.

The Antikythera mechanism featured wheeled gears whose sophistication and exactness wouldn’t be seen again until the watchmakers of the middle ages. What this device hints at is the probability that much human knowledge and many technological leaps were lost to history following the fall of Greek civilization. Why didn’t this kind of knowledge pass to new generations of humans so that they could build upon and improve what was already done?

Roman stupidity probably had something to do with it, an empire always more willing to plunder and destroy rather than save and study - except that which could assist them in their conquering. And the fall of that empire which plunged the Europe into the so-called “dark ages.” Of course, while barbarians were running wild in Europe, Muslim culture was in full flower, making their own scientific advances. The Muslims, in fact, admired the Greeks immensely and much of what we know of them is largely given to us by Muslim scholars who saved what they could following the great upheavals in Europe.

The Antikythera mechanism reminds us that the human capacity for making great leaps forward in knowledge is not something limited to modern technological man. Throughout the history of our species, these astonishing breakthroughs have occurred in every culture and during every epoch proving that we really are quite clever when we put our minds to it.

PART OF A MASSIVE CROWD GATHERED IN DOWNTOWN BEIRUT IN SUPPORT OF HIZBULLAH’S EFFORT TO BRING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT OF PRIME MINISTER SINIORA

A crowd estimated at hundreds of thousands is occupying central Beirut today in a massive “open ended sit in” organized by Hizbullah and designed to topple the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora:

Hundreds of thousands of opposition supporters led by the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hizbullah staged an open-ended sit-in in downtown Beirut Friday in a bid to topple Prime Minister Fouad Saniora’s government.

Army troops and armored personnel carriers were heavily deployed around Saniora’s offices, where the premier and other cabinet ministers have been residing for over a week after the assassination of Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel.

Barbed wire fences as high as two meters were erected around the premises as heavily-armed troops kept demonstrators around 150 meters away.

In an apparent effort to avoid friction, Hizbullah “disciplinary members” formed a chain separating the protesters from security forces.

Protesters brandished Lebanese flags and white banners that read: “Down with Feltman’s government,” in reference to the Saniora cabinet which has been termed by Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah the government of U.S. ambassador Jeffrey Feltman.

“We want a national unity government,” and “We want a clean government,” other banners read.

Obviously well organized, most of these people don’t seem to be going anywhere anytime soon. This leaves Siniora with something of a dilemma. Does he crack down by having the army move in to scatter the protesters? Or does he try and wait Nasrallah out, hoping that a firm stand will call Hizbullah’s bluff?

The problem with the former option is that it almost certainly will ignite sectarian violence. And the problem with the latter is that evidently, Nasrallah plans on escalating things until he gets what he wants: Siniora gone and a “National Unity Government” that will give Hizbullah veto power over the cabinet in his place:

Hezbollah deputy chief Sheikh Naim Kassem said the protests would not end until Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s cabinet fell.

“This government will not take Lebanon to the abyss. We have several steps if this government does not respond but I tell them you will not be able to rule Lebanon with an American administration,” he told Hezbollah’s al-Manar television.

One shudders to contemplate what “several steps” Nasrallah might have in mind to hasten Siniora’s exit.

In a bid to keep the number of protesters down, the government apparently closed roads into Beirut:

Will Beirut be transformed today into the “capital of Arabism, resistance and unity,” as Hassan Nasrallah described it yesterday in a statement, or will Lebanon come under a regime of “religious tyranny,” as Marwan Hamade, minister of communications and an associate of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, warns? The efforts of Nabih Berri, the speaker of Lebanon’s parliament, to find some magical formula to avert the danger will continue today, but it seems that Nasrallah will not pass up a show of force, something he has been planning for weeks and which was postponed following the assassination of Pierre Gemayel.

The government of Lebanon is preparing for such an eventuality, with roads in the outskirts of Beirut being closed by the army in an effort to prevent Hezbollah supporters from the countryside entering the city and moving toward the main squares. But it is clear to both sides that the situation is so explosive that any violent confrontation in one of the districts is capable of setting Lebanon ablaze, even though both the government and Hezbollah are talking of quiet demonstrations and strikes.

Anti-American sentiment is running high among the protesters, ginned up by the Hizbullah propaganda arm al-Manar, whose broadcasts have been referring to Siniora’s government as “Feltman’s Government” - a reference to US Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman. Nasrallah himself has taken up this mantra and it seems to have its desired effect; many protesters are carrying signs referring to Feltman and undue American influence in Lebanon.

Druze leader Walid Jumblat - who knows a thing or two about survival - urged his March 14th comrades to remain patient:

“Very calmly, we will remain steadfast,” he told a news conference on Friday. “We will confront (the opposition) calmly. We will remain in our houses and fly the Lebanese flags… We will wait for a month, for two months… and watch them.”

Siniora himself addressed the nation with a plea for calm but made it clear that the democratically elected government would not give in to Hizbullah’s demands:

Premier Fouad Saniora warned Thursday that Lebanon’s democracy is in danger but vowed that his government will fight attempts to bring back foreign tutelage on Lebanon.

“Lebanon’s independence is threatened and its democratic system is in danger,” Saniora said in a nationally televised address from the Grand Serail, on the eve of street protests by Hizbullah and its allies aimed at ousting his cabinet.

“Do not be afraid and do not despair. We have a rightful cause,” Saniora told the Lebanese. “Threats will not deter us. Maneuvers and ultimatums will not terrorize us.”

He said his government will fight against “the return of the tutelage,” an apparent reference to Syria’s military and political domination in Lebanon which ended in April 2005.

“We will not allow any coup against our democratic regime,” he said.

Saniora also urged the Lebanese to stand by the “legitimate” government, adding that the only way to bring down the cabinet is through the legislature.

“There is no way to topple the government except through parliament which has given it its vote of confidence,” he said.

Parliament has been effectively prorogued which means that if Hizbullah is going to bring down the government, more drastic action will be necessary.

For the March 14th Forces, it is now a matter of survival. Nasrallah has placed himself out on a limb from which he cannot easily crawl back. If he and his bully boys leave the streets without bringing down the government, it would be a huge blow to his prestige and set back his cause months, perhaps forever. This is why I believe it is likely that, in the end, Nasrallah will be forced to resort to the gun in order to get his way.

His patrone in Damascus may be able to engineer an “incident” that would justify Hizbullah’s coup - at least in the eyes of the Shias. At that point, the two sides would begin tearing at each other.

Most analysts expect Hizbullah to win something of a quick victory given the fact that they are better armed than any potential coalition of adversaries and better trained than the Lebanese army (who would probably sit out a civil war anyway). But what Nasrallah would then do with the smoking ruins of the tiny country remains to be seen. Once ignited, a civil war has a nasty habit of simmering for years. And any effort he would make to establish an Islamic theocracy like the one in Iran would be met with stiff opposition from this, the most secular and westernized of Arab states.

Abu Kais blogging over at Michael Totten’s blog sums up his feelings poignantly:

Prime Minister Fouad Siniora delivered another pretty speech which I won’t quote, because I think it’s useless, given that the man will keep turning the other cheek until he ends up on Hizbullah and Assad’s cross.

My emotions are clearly running high. All I see in front me, as a Lebanese Shia, is Nasrallah’s face as he kidnaps my child into the servitude of his dark lords.

Courage my friend.

HIZBULLAH SEEMS TO HAVE ORGANIZED THE DEMONSTRATION EXTREMELY WELL. IN ADDITION TO PORTABLE TOILETS, THE TENTS ARE FOR MEDICAL PERSONNEL. THERE ARE REPORTS THAT MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF FOOD ARE BEING BROUGHT IN TO FEED THE MULTITUDES.

THE FACE OF THE FUTURE IN LEBANON?

UPDATE

Jim Hoft: “There is still a cancer in Lebanon.” Indeed.

Malkin: “Where are the pro-Western, anti-jihad demonstrators?” For the moment, quiescent. Some Lebanese bloggers are calling for counter-demonstrations but the admonition of Siniora and Jumblat to remain at home is working so far.

If it begins to look like civil war is imminent, I expect we’ll see plenty of the March 14th Forces on hand.

After being mercilessly pummelled the last 2 days by lefty commenters for my ignorance, my closet authoritarianism, my slavish devotion to the cult of Bush, and other wild and wacky imaginings, I thought I’d get away from questions about burning Sunnis, “realist” foreign policy mavens, and the war to talk about something really important.

No, not Lebanon - although I promise a post later today about Nasty Nasrallah and his Merry Band of Cutthroats and their planned “open ended sit in” in Beirut. And no, I will not write today about My Beloveds since they don’t make news on this blog until Sunday. Writing about Pakistan is too depressing. And penning an essay on the weather - 10″ of snow that will need to be blown off the sidewalks in front of the homestead - smacks of self pity and no one wants to read about my aching back or chilled feet.

Today’s topic is the lifeblood of human civilization. One usually uses that term when referring to oil. And indeed, without cheap oil, the wheels of western industrialized civilization would come off and we’d live the way the Greenies intend; residing in “sustainable” mud huts, wearing rags for clothes, and bartering mouse meat for extravagances like ball point pens or nail files.

I am talking about the planet’s second most important commodity. With 400 billion cups drunk annually, coffee’s importance economically, culturally, and socially cannot be denied. Indeed, if oil greases the wheels of industrialized civilization then coffee surely lubricates its living, breathing, moving parts.

The history of coffee is weird. The reason for this is that homo sapiens have probably known of every edible plant, root, grass, and tuber on planet earth for more than 100,000 years. Agriculture - the planting and harvesting of crops - has been around for at least 10,000 years. And yet, the coffee bush escaped cultivation until around 1100 CE. Why this is so is a mystery. Poppies have been cultivated for at least 5,000 years. Marijuana even longer. It is amazing that the little bush, thought to have originated on the hillsides of Ethiopia, was not generally recognized for either its medicinal properties or the salutary effects the berries had on our constitutions.

In any event, there are several amusing anecdotes about the origin of coffee, including one widely told myth of a a sheep herder from Caffa, Ethopia named Kaldi who noticed how frisky his animals got after eating berries off of a particular bush. (And no, I’ve never seen a frisky sheep and have no desire to discover how Kaldi could tell either.)

Seems that Kaldi tried the berries and found himself getting rather frisky as well. This piqued the interest of Arab traders who took the bush back home. For three hundred years, Arabs had pretty much of a monopoly on coffee production, although isolated pockets of cultivation appeared in places like India as a result of stolen seedlings. In fact, it was a crime to transport the bush outside of Arabia.

It was probably the Turks who figured out how to dry the berries and roast them, then soaking them in water to make what we would consider coffee today. The first coffee shops appeared in Constantinople around 1475. The Turks, not knowing any better, added flavorings like anise and cardamom to their coffee - as if one could improve on the Almighty’s handiwork by arbitrarily adding flavorings not in God’s original recipe.

From Turkey, it was a simple matter to jump the Bosporus and land in Venice - the center of life and culture in Europe at the time. The first coffee shops opened there in 1645 and swept across Europe.

Early coffee shops were places of both debauchery and intellectually stimulating conversations. English coffee shops hosted the finest minds of the pre-enlightenment and can be credited in no small way with facilitating the spread of radical democratic ideas. Authorities tried several times to clamp down on these ideas by closing the coffee shops - as if one could stop a tidal wave by commanding the ocean to cease making waves.

Later, the French brought the berry to the New World, specifically their island holdings in the Caribbean where the rich, volcanic soil in places like Martinique produces some of the most flavorful and aromatic varieties in the world. Coffee appeared in Brazil in 1727 and by 1800, most of Central and South America was growing the bush.

Although I believe it sacrilege to add anything to coffee, I realize that I live in a world where coffee lovers come in various shades of latte, cappuccino, mocha, and espresso. So be it. Because the social history of coffee is one of felicity and accommodation in interpersonal relations, I will mention that it appears the first use of sugar in coffee was in the court of The Sun King, Louis XIV in 1713 while the use of milk or cream in the nectar seems to have been continuous since coffee’s discovery. Espresso was invented by the French but perfected by the Italians with the first commercial machine in use by the turn of the 20th century.

Why all the fuss? What is it about coffee that has captured so much of humanity and made it the drink of choice to be shared by friends, philosophers, philanderers, the high born, the low, and most especially, the middling classes?

To say, “It’s the caffeine, dummy” is too pat, too simple. While addictive, caffeine is by all reports a mild stimulant and not a danger to human health when taken in moderation. Of course, those of us who truly love coffee find nothing “moderate” about it. A pot in the morning with a taste in the afternoon and a satisfying after dinner indulgence is a daily routine.

But it is not the amount of coffee one drinks but rather the choice of bean as well as the careful preparation of the elixir that marks the casual coffee drinkers and separates him from the half crazed obsessives such as myself.

For every time of day there is a corresponding type of bean that, when prepared in the proper manner, can bring the sun out from behind the clouds and brighten the mood of anyone.

Mornings require a robust, but richly textured coffee. Most “house blends” seek to achieve this combination but rarely succeed. I rarely bother with blended beans because the quality tends to vary from pot to pot. Starbucks is a perfect example. Millstone also supplies uneven results. This is why for going on 40 years, I have enjoyed a canned coffee. But not just any canned coffee. Stewarts is a Chicago institution and until recently (the last 20 years) was unavailable in most stores. This is the most unique blended coffee I’ve ever had. And if you can keep it fresh, will deliver pot after pot of superbly sublime coffee.

Afternoons require something a little tamer, a taste both smooth and rich while going easy on the palate. Kenyan AA or Kona does nicely. Just about any good highland coffee from Central America will also fill the bill - although I find the Belize bean much the superior to any other from that region.

If you insist on drinking coffee before dinner, try an island coffee. Jamaican is smooth while not being too aromatic. I personally find coffee before dinner a hazard to the enjoyment of the meal. Best to keep the palate cleansed, preferably with water but any good Merlot or Chardonnay that doesn’t leave an aftertaste will do.

The same holds true for drinking coffee with dinner. Given the havoc that coffee can play with our sense of taste, unless you’re eating at Denny’s, wait until dessert.

Here your choices are unlimited. A strong, winey, and full bodied brew is my preference. Can’t get much better than Columbian but many prefer a good Arabica - especially if one is to indulge in dessert. Anything that can overwhelm the tastes of the recently concluded repast so that the coffee isn’t affected by some of the heavier flavors like onion or garlic is desired.

There are literally hundreds of varieties of coffee to choose from for any occasion. But keys to making good coffee are the same regardless of what your personal preferences are; freshness and uniform preparation.

I can’t tell you how to prepare coffee. The idiosyncratic nature of one’s taste buds require that you experiment to discover your own path to coffee Nirvana. If you’ve never paid much attention to how you prepare your coffee, chances are you are missing the full flavor potential of the bean. When experimenting, pay attention to how acidic the coffee is, its aroma, and how the body of the coffee is affected by the combination of more or less water or more or less coffee. When you find a combination that pleases you, stick with it and see if it’s what you had in mind.

As for freshness, here too there are arguments about the best way to keep the bean from going stale. All agree that placing the bean in a hermetically sealed glass or ceramic container is your best bet. When I open my canned coffee, I immediately place it in a glass jar with a lid that can keep the air out. I then place it in a cupboard to keep it away from sunlight, another factor in making coffee lose its freshness.

Some prefer to keep the coffee in the refrigerator. This is controversial due to the moisture that may form in your container. Others recommend freezing the bean. I have tried this and found the coffee nearly tasteless after thawing. For those who might have an interest in the subject, this site gives the pros and cons regarding coffee storage in a pretty straightforward manner.

Regardless of how you prepare it, what beans you use, when you drink it, or what you put into it to enhance its flavor, coffee has greased the skids of social interaction for more than 500 years. More than beer, more than wine or cola, coffee seems always to taste better when drunk in the company of others. It appears to have been placed on earth for the specific purpose of encouraging human beings to interact and enjoy the give and take of stimulating conversation.

For myself and I’m sure for many of you, the world would be a much different place without coffee. Poorer in spirit, I think. Less open, less interesting.

And, no doubt, a much sleepier world as well…

The votes are in for this week’s Watchers Council and the winner in the Council category is American Future for “Our Rules of Engagement in Iraq.” Finishing second was “Media Icons” by Done with Mirrors.

Coming out on top in the Non Council category was Daled Amos for “Congressman Conyers and Islam.”

A spot has opened up on the Watchers Council. If you’d like to serve on this noble blogosphere institution, go here and do as you’re told.

I have to confess to being a a little underwhelmed by the AP story of burning mosques and burning Sunnis. Not that I don’t believe the story is important or that the work done by several bloggers hasn’t been outstanding.

It’s just that we’ve been down this road before many times. Conservatives have been questioning the facts about news stories coming out of Iraq for more than 3 years. We questioned stories from the Israeli-Hizbullah war last summer. We have known about the disinformation, the enemy plants, the outrageous bias of the international wire services AP, AFP, Reuters, as well as the BBC.

We have seen photos doctored, stories embellished or faked outright. Anyone remember the “chemical weapon attack” on Fallujah? We have seen civilian body counts inflated and stories of how they died swallowed whole by a press who would rather believe enemy propaganda than their own military; a press who suspends belief when given information that reflects poorly on the American military but insists on triple confirmations before they publish a retraction - if they ever bother.

And they don’t bother. The burning Sunnis were last week’s news, already forgotten in the rush of events. Bush and Maliki. The Iraq Study Group. Obama, Obama, Obama.

In their smug, self righteous little cocoons, the AP and others continue the process of making sausages out of the news. The burning Sunnis were just one mind-numbing atrocity in a Flanders Field of atrocities so who really, really cares down deep if we blew it? Just put up the old firewall of denial, do a cursory follow up by finding some “eyewitnesses” (who probably read about the burning Sunnis in the paper or saw the report on TV), neglect to mention our little police captain problem and that’ll do it. End of story.

AP can do this because ultimately, we are not their clients. Unlike newspapers or TV networks, the AP could give a hoot about the people who actually end up reading their enemy propaganda. The people who pay them are, of course, the newspapers and TV stations that subscribe to their service.

And what does that say then about all of those media outlets who carried this story? Curt at Flopping Aces was able to raise numerous questions about the truth of the burning Sunnis story after a couple of hours of research using nothing more than some common sense, a curious mind, and a modem. If similar questions had been raised in newsrooms across America, I can guarantee you any responsible editor would have put a “hold” on that story. At least until a later revision from AP had been forthcoming.

But that wouldn’t have been good enough. The changing nature of journalism in America means that to a large extent, reporters are almost as incurious about the world as their readers. What would it have cost to pick up the phone and call CENTCOM? The PA officers there got back to Curt within a few hours with the info that contradicted the AP story. Better yet, duplicating Curt’s work, how much trouble would it have been to Google up Capt. Jamil Hussein? Would the fact that he appeared as a source for AP so many times over the previous months raised a red flag in any newsroom in America? I doubt it.

I think the difference between journalists today and those of 20 or 30 years ago is that reporters used to have a thirst for knowledge, an “itch” that could never be scratched. They attacked a story, constantly challenging assumptions, digging ever deeper to see if there was anything else there. They did it not necessarily because they were afraid they were wrong but rather because they were afraid they were missing the true essence of the story.

But the shocking incuriousness of the media who left the vetting of this story to AP and allowed it to appear in newspapers across the country proves that times indeed have changed. Publishers and editors used to stand by everything that appeared in their publication. But how can they do that today if they don’t make even the most cursory of efforts to see that what is printed actually happened.

And lest there be any doubts about whether this incident actually happened or not, here’s Sharon Tosi Moore, an officer in the United States Army Reserves currently serving in Iraq with a piece in The American Thinker today:

A winning situation all around.

Except, well, except for the tiny little detail that the incident most likely never happened. A week has gone by and no charred bodies were produced. No dramatic funeral parades, with all the attendant wailing and gnashing of teeth, occurred. Not one photo. No grand reprisals. Not even any speeches (and it is hard to imagine Iraqi religious leaders miss an opportunity to make speeches). Just a few remarks from the Iraqi government, largely ignored by the U.S. press, that all reports showed that that particular district had been quiet, and pleading the Iraqi people for calm.

No one thought to question this unusual divergence from normal protocol.

The gullible press swallowed the initial claims whole. Of the major news sources, only TIME Magazine used the word “reportedly” in their headline.

Gullibility is not really the issue. I believe the issue is laziness. And perhaps a lack of passion that enables the reporter to simply go through the motions of being a journalist instead of living up to what his editors and readers expect.

This story is revealing of many things, not the least of which is that our free press is in trouble. Partly from infringements by government but also by lousy stewardship of this precious right being carried out by many the current practitioners of the craft. Not all, of course. There are still some excellent journalists writing for the top publications. But by and large, those whose responsibility it is to inform us, to keep us abreast of what’s going on in the world, are failing and failing badly.

And the hell of it is, no one seems to want to fix the problems much less address them.

Glenn Greenwald has seen fit to “respond” to my post from yesterday in which I asked he and other civil liberties absolutists to “Bite Me” for spending the last two years crying about our “lost freedoms” as a result of the use of the NSA to intercept terrorist phone calls from overseas to their friends in America.

It is truly astounding to watch people incapable of understanding the point that the reason it is wrong and dangerous for the President to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants is because doing so is against the law. Shouldn’t that be a simple enough proposition that every functioning adult ought to be capable of understanding it? It doesn’t mean that everyone has to agree with that proposition — if people want to continue to cling to the theory that the President is unbound by the law concerning matters of national security, obviously they are free to do so.

But there is no excuse for failing to comprehend the objections to the President’s behavior, particularly since the central objection is not all that complicated. To the contrary, it is what we all learn in seventh-grade civics.

One more time: the principal problem with the President’s warrantless eavesdropping is not that he is abusing the secret eavesdropping powers he seized (that is something we do not yet know, because the Congress has not yet investigated that question). Instead, the “problem” is that the President is engaging in the very conduct which the American people, through their Congress almost 30 years ago, made it a felony to engage in, punishable by up to five years in prison — that is, eavesdropping on Americans without judicial oversight.

How many times can you say that it’s impossible to determine the legality of a program you know nothing about? That the technical details, hidden from most of us, were reviewed by the Privacy Board and discovered to be protective of our civil liberties. That in fact, those in Congress who have been briefed on the program have not said one word about it being illegal - including Democrats. Specter and Feingold (and others who mouth off about the program’s legality) have not received the kind of briefing given the intel committees. And apparently, the Privacy Board received an even more substantial briefing than Congress.

Greenwald is, in essence, assuming facts not in evidence. Does he assume that the NSA uses technology and hardware similar to if not exactly the same as domestic law enforcement? Does Greenwald have any idea how that technology is used?

Is Glenn Greenwald a gypsy fortune teller in disguise? Does his “second sight” ability give him insight that the rest of us mere mortals lack?

In short, this hand wringing hysteric is talking through his hat and always has been about the NSA intercept program. And the statements by the Privacy Board (nice job in smearing dedicated public servants Greenwald) would seem to indicate that constitutional protections are carefully observed. (Do you really think Lanny Davis wouldn’t say what he said if he sat on your definition of an “independent” board?)

And thinking he can discredit me or anyone else by referring to me as a “neocon” reveals someone whose extraordinary shallowness is only matched by a breathtaking ignorance of who or what makes a “neocon” - a blindness so endemic on the left that one would think they all came down with a collective case of the stupids and have yet to find a cure for it.

Greenwald has no clue. And trying to spin his way out of trouble by repeating the same, tired and now thoroughly discredited arguments only makes him look like a fool.

UPDATE

The new comment policy is in effect. No insulting me or any other commenter. No obscenity.

Strictly enforced - once I get off the air.

As I was doing my radio show yesterday, I read from an article on the trouble that President Musharaf of Pakistan was causing NATO troops by not making much of an effort to stem the flow of Taliban fighters into Afghanistan. In fact, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri recommended that NATO go ahead and surrender now by making a deal with the Taliban on establishing a coalition government in Kabul and leaving. He also sagely recommended against sending any more troops to bolster the 33,000 troops already serving in that theater.

Leaving aside Musharaf’s perfidious Foreign Minister, the fact is that NATO troops have generally performed brilliantly in Afghanistan. And while the US has far and away the most troops serving in the NATO contingent, I was somewhat surprised to learn that of late, the US has not been doing most of the fighting. In fact, it has been our neighbors to the north who have demonstrated once again that when duty and honor call, the Canadian soldier has always stepped forward, front and center, to be counted as a true friend and ally of the United States.

Despite viewing our northerly neighbors with either a bored indifference or a condescending big brother-little brother attitude, the Canucks seem able to shrug off our beastly treatment of them and when crunch time comes, deliver. This says a lot about the character of Canadians who, after all, are a proud, fiercely independent people, resentful at times of an American culture that threatens to overwhelm them and American tourists who tend to view Canada as a gigantic 51st state. In fact, it is a wonder that Canadians are as welcoming of Americans as they are when we visit. That also says a lot about the Canadian character.

For despite all the jokes about the Canadians taciturnity, I have found them to be a warm, open people, fiercely protective of the great expanse of natural treasures found in their beautiful lakes, rivers, forests, and mountains as well as being practical stewards of the land. It is a balance that we here in the United States should aspire to although, given the current political climate, is probably not in the cards.

As for the Canadian armed forces, I was amazed to learn, for instance, that Canada sent nearly 620,000 men to fight in World War I. At the 2nd Battle of Ypres, the Canadian 1st Division was sent in to hold a bulge in the line directly opposite a German division dug in on a low hill. Following a short but fierce artillery bombardment, the Canadian troops - holding the center of the salient - saw a green mist waft toward them. It was the very first use of poison gas in World War I, a deadly cloud of chlorine gas which was designed to sink to the lowest point on the battlefield; in this case, the trenches of the Canadian 1st Division.

Not equipped with gas masks, the Canucks nevertheless stood their ground. Coughing and spitting, the Canadians beat back the German infantry charge and then launched a counterattack of their own. Of course, such attacks and counterattacks were ultimately self defeating. The area around the small Belgium town of Ypres - “Flanders Fields” - is considered one of the most heavily fertilized places on the planet due to the nearly half million dead from both sides, most of whom disappeared into the mud never to be found and buried.

No one has questioned the toughness of Canadian troops since.

In Afghanistan, the Canadians have distinguished themselves both as warriors and in reconstruction efforts. The Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team (KPRT) has a hundred projects either in development or completed. The Canadian government has earmarked over $600 million for reconstruction over the last 5 years, making them the 4th largest contributor to the effort. Needless to say, in order to defeat the Taliban, it will take both the efforts of NATO combat forces and the reconstruction teams.

In combat operations, only the United States has suffered the loss of more men. In the last year alone, 36 Canadians have died (Canada has suffered a total of 44 dead since 2001). This is due to the fact that the Canadians have taken the lead combat role in one of the hotbeds of Taliban activity; Kandahar Province. Specifically, the southern part of the province where the Taliban regularly crosses the border in strength from their bases in Pakistan. Prime Minister Harper has increased troops strength to nearly 2,500 and the government has extended Canadian participation in Afghanistan for another two years.

In July of this year, the Canadians spearheaded an attack on the Taliban stronghold of Panjwaii. Operation Mountain Thrust involve nearly 2,000 Canadians and several hundred of their Afghan allies. It was designed to destroy concentrations of Taliban fighters who had been gathering strength in the area. The Canucks waded in and, after several days of fierce fighting, sent the Taliban flying, scattering their forces.

With the Taliban regrouping in the area in the early fall, the Canadians once again attacked Panjwaii, this time with the help of some Dutch and Americans as well as a crack regiment from the Afghan army. Operation Medusa, commanded by Canadian General David Fraser was a bigger, bloodier action than the July operation with twice as many Taliban having infiltrated across the border. This apparently didn’t faze the Canucks a bit. Aggressively attacking the well dug in Taliban, the Canadians rooted them out, killing more than 200 and once again scattering their forces to the four winds. This was a more costly enterprise with 4 Canadians sacrificing their lives and 50 others wounded (a friendly fire incident involving an American A-10 killed one and wounded 30).

The reason that the Canadians had to return to the scene of their July victory in Panjwaii was because of a lack of NATO forces who could enter a combat zone and risk casualties. There was no way to hold the area and prevent the re-infiltration of the Taliban without the substantial presence of NATO forces, something that simply wasn’t possible. That’s because most NATO nations have put severe restrictions on their troops going into harms way. Called “caveats,” these restrictions have made the Canadian army’s life difficult in Kandahar since operations there began.

This, however, may be changing. NATO ministers meeting in Riga have agreed to lift some of these caveats which should free another 1-2,000 NATO troops for combat duties in the south.

A statement from NATO indicated that the leaders had agreed to remove some of the “caveats” that countries had placed on the use of their troops, though exactly how much will change remained uncertain.

Though Germany, France and some others have maintained restrictions that will largely keep their troops in the relatively calm north, the Netherlands and Romania removed limits on how their troops can be used. Some other countries offered more troops and equipment for the effort, officials said.

During a news conference, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said that about 26,000 of the troops in Afghanistan were now “more usable” in combat and noncombat operations and that all member countries had agreed their troops could be called on in a crisis by British Lt. Gen. David Richards, NATO’s Afghanistan commander.

Lately, the Canadians have been involved in the most dangerous reconstruction project in Afghanistan; the building of a road from the Panjwaii district to Kandahar City. Numerous IED’s and landmines not to mention ambushes by Taliban and tribal irregulars have claimed 14 more Canadian lives. The Taliban has begun to target Canadian soldiers believing that they can knock Canada out of the war by turning the Canadian public against the mission.

There is little doubt that the Canadian people are, at best, ambivalent about Canada’s combat role in Afghanistan. Polls show a bare majority wish the government to bring the troops home now. A large and growing peace movement - fueled by a desire not to sully Canada with the perceived sins of Abu Ghraib and Bagram - has recently become more active. But the government of Stephen Harper has remained firm - so far. NDP leader Jack Layton has called on Harper to open “peace negotiations” with the Taliban and to pull Canadian troops back out of harms way. And many in Canada are questioning why their little country - which has suffered 25% of NATO deaths - should give so much while France and Germany give so little:

NATO’s Dutch Secretary-General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, has taken aim at the big countries whose troops are kept from combat by political restrictions.

“We need to better configure our forces in Afghanistan,” he wrote in a German newspaper last week. “That also means removing the limitations individual nations have placed on their troops.”

Pleas from top NATO commanders for more troops or the loosening of tight leashes that keeps most European soldiers from the fighting have fallen largely on deaf ears.

“Only a handful of NATO members are prepared to go to the south and east and to go robustly — mainly the U.S., U.K., Canada, the Netherlands, Romania, Australia and Denmark,” the International Crisis Group concludes in a blunt report published this month.

“Hard questions need to be asked of those such as Germany, Spain, France, Turkey and Italy who are not, and who sometimes appear to put force protection, not mission needs, at the fore.”

A senior Canadian officer is more blunt. “How many battalions does it take to protect Kabul airport?” said Colonel Fred Lewis, the deputy contingent commander.

The French and Germans were not among the countries that lifted their caveats to allow their troops to engage the Taliban (the French have 200 Special Forces operating in the north).

But it doesn’t seem to faze the Canucks. They continue to soldier on, taking the hard jobs that others eschew. It is safe to say that without the Canadian contingent in Afghanistan, the mission there would be in greater danger of failing, given that the US and British troops are already stretched to the limit. Their willingness to take on more than their fair share of the burden of this war should be recognized and applauded by every single American.

So here’s to our neighbors to the north. And the next time you’re knocking back a few, buy yourself a Molson or Labatt and toast the boys who wear the Maple Leaf patch so proudly on their shoulders.

And here’s hoping more Americans begin to realize what a tremendously important job Canadian boys and girls are doing to help Afghanistan resist tyranny and find a way to peace and freedom.

Join me today from noon until 2:00 PM central time for The Rick Moran Show on WAR Radio.

We’re still working on getting the second generation software installed and working. When we do, it will open up a whole new set of wonderous possibilities for interaction with you, the listener with me, the host. Instant messaging as well as instant links to articles and websites we’re discussing will become available.

I’ve also figured out how to use my Skype/Hot Recording software to tape interviews. Expect a slew of conversations with important and stimulating personalities over the next few weeks.

Today, we’ll look at plenty of news from Iraq, Pakistan, and Lebanon. And what did a board of civil libertarians think when the NSA gave them a full briefing on the NSA intercept program? You and Glenn Greenwald will never guess…

To access the stream, click on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar. Java script must be enabled. It usually takes about 20 seconds for the stream to come on line.

NOTE: If you’re still having trouble accessing the stream, try using Firefox and/or closing some programs.

I have spent much of the last two years on this site railing against the hysterical, exaggerated, and ultimately dishonest charges made by people like Glenn Greenwald and others that the Bush Administration was tearing apart the Constitution and trying to set up some kind of a dictatorship.

The cornerstone of their bilious rantings has always been that the Administration’s NSA intercept program was, on its face, illegal. In fact, the NSA program has been cited as reason number one to impeach the President and no amount of reasoning by those of us who cautioned against jumping to conclusions about a program that we knew so little about deflected these despicable jackanapes from wailing about our “lost freedoms” and comparing Bush to Hitler.

Well pardon my French, but the only thing I have to say to the gaggle of goofs who have spent much of the last two years in formulating some of the most vile, calumnious, and over the top charges regarding the Administration’s cavalier attitude toward our civil liberties is… BITE ME:

After a delay of more than a year, a government board appointed to guard Americans’ privacy and civil liberties during the war on terror has been told the inner workings of the government’s electronic eavesdropping program.

The briefing for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board had been delayed because President Bush was concerned — after several media leaks — about widening the circle of people who knew exact details of the secret eavesdropping program.

The board, created by Congress and appointed by Bush, focused on other classified work since it was named in spring 2005, but continued to press for a formal briefing by the National Security Agency.

A breakthrough was reached in recent days, and the five members were briefed by senior officials last week.

Board members said that they were impressed by the safeguards the government has built into the NSA’s monitoring of phone calls and computer transmissions, and that they wished the administration could tell the public more about them to ease distrust.

“If the American public, especially civil libertarians like myself, could be more informed about how careful the government is to protect our privacy while still protecting us from attacks, we’d be more reassured,” said Lanny Davis , a former Clinton White House lawyer who is the board’s lone liberal Democrat.

All of that ink spilled. All of that bile vomited forth from people who didn’t know what the hell they were talking about and yet accused the President and other public servants of the most horrible violations of the Constitution. All of that outrage from people less interested in our civil liberties - not to mention our national security - than they were in scoring cheap political points at the expense of a program that not only now has been shown to be well run and sensitive to civil liberties but also vital to protecting the United States from another terrorist attack.

And let us also put to rest perhaps the most ridiculous charge of all; that the President and his people simply didn’t care about the Constitution:

“We found there was a great appreciation inside government, both at the political and career levels, for protections on privacy and civil liberties,” said Raul, author of a book of civil liberties. “In fact, I think the public may have an underappreciation for the degree of seriousness the government is giving these protections.”

Gee. Ya think? Wonder where the public got “an underappreciation for the degree of seriousness the government is giving these protections…?” Couldn’t be from leftist lickspittles like Greenwald et.al. who’ve spent much of the last 5 years trying to convince the American people that Adolf Hitler was in the Oval Office and Nazi gaulieters were staffing the Justice Department, could it?

Just thinking about the smug, self righteous louts who have hindered every single program, every single effort to protect the people of the United States by constantly raising the specter of Hitler and dictatorship makes me sick to my stomach.

I have no doubt they’ll spin this news by pointing out that there are plenty of other examples of Bush/Hitler tearing up the Constitution. But given the fact that no one in the government connected to the NSA program ever thought in their wildest dreams that any media outlet would be irresponsible enough, partisan enough, or stupid enough to reveal its existence, one can logically assume that other programs are equally careful of the Constitution and civil liberties. And this report now places the burden of proof on the civil liberties absolutists to show otherwise.

I’d say “For Shame!” except they have none. Nor do they have a case that the NSA program and its offshoots are anything except as advertised by government; as well designed as possible in order to safeguard the Constitutional protections that all of us - both liberals and conservatives - are vouchsafed as Americans.

UPDATE

Ed Morrissey, as always, puts it more delicately than I - which makes his indictment of the hysteria mongers even more devastating:

The hysteria surrounding this program might finally start receding, as long as these remarks get some significant play. After all, having a former Clinton aide wish he could reveal more about a secret program to reassure people of the good work done by it rather than to torpedo the Bush administration should raise some eyebrows among the paranoid. Former Reagan counsel Alan Raul went even further, telling John Solomon that he believes that the public underestimates the level of concern and dedication for civil liberties in the federal government.

Once again, the public’s support for a tough but necessary program has been reinforced by its careful execution by the NSA. This should not surprise anyone, as even the New York Times acknowledged that they had no information that the agency broke any laws or violated anyone’s civil rights when they broke the story. All they had were “concerns” about the program’s legality from their anonymous tipsters.

The same could be said for every single program that these guttersnipes have been using as a club to make the Administration’s commitment to the law and the Constitution suspect, undermining the public’s confidence in our national leaders during a time of war, and ultimately, giving aid and comfort to the jihadis who know that they can always depend on the New York Times and their allies to give them a heads up about any attempt to thwart their plans using legitimate, constitutional methods.

The Anchoress:

So, once again…sound and fury signifying nothing. And we’ll see the NY Times with a big headline on this assessment on page one, above the fold, right? Brian Williams will lead with this story, right? Maybe at least Jon Stewart will bring it up?

Last I saw, the forecast for hell was hot and humid with no chance of snow…

Finally, the inimitable Mr. McGuire:

Left unanswered - what terrible hold does Karl Rove have over Lanny Davis?

Ask Greenwald. Or maybe David Corn. His tin foil hat is brand new this week…

The Bush Administration in the past has rightly decried the leaking of classified information from intelligence sources whose motives may or may not have been largely partisan in nature. But the deliberate leak yesterday of a classified analysis of Iraqi’s embattled Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley should be seen in the context of statecraft and not necessarily the typical Washington bureaucratic game of “gotchya” - a difference that may be lost on some but is telling nonetheless.

The audience targeted with this leak is extremely small. In fact, it is an audience of one - the Iraqi Prime Minister. The President will meet with Maliki on Wednesday in Jordan and the timing of this leak will not be lost on the PM nor will the words of Hadley, who makes up for a lack of elegance in language with a series of triphammer verbal blows that questions Maliki’s fitness for the job:

The memo presents an unvarnished portrait of Mr. Maliki and notes that he relies for some of his political support on leaders of more extreme Shiite groups. The five-page document, classified secret, is based in part on a one-on-one meeting between Mr. Hadley and Mr. Maliki on Oct. 30.

“His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans, and sensitive reporting suggests he is trying to stand up to the Shia hierarchy and force positive change,” the memo said of the Iraqi leader. “But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action.”

It has been apparent since June that the situation on the ground was getting beyond Maliki’s control. That’s why in August, CENTCOM proposed the current redeployment of tens of thousands of US troops to Baghdad, a strategy that has not worked, is not working and will not work until Maliki gives the go ahead for the United States army to crush Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Militia and until Maliki’s promises about sending more Iraqi troops to assist the Americans in holding areas cleaned and swept by our forces are realized.

As for al-Sadr, the radical cleric has carved out an independent role for himself and it is becoming clear that he has little interest in cooperating with Maliki in tamping down the violence. Nor does he have any interest in having Shias share power with Sunnis and Kurds - something he has made no secret of from the beginning:

In describing the Oct. 30 meeting between Mr. Hadley and Mr. Maliki, it says: “Maliki reiterated a vision of Shia, Sunni and Kurdish partnership, and in my one-on-one meeting with him, he impressed me as a leader who wanted to be strong but was having difficulty figuring out how to do so.” It said the Iraqi leader’s assurances seemed to have been contradicted by developments on the ground, including the Iraqi government’s approach to the Mahdi Army, a Shiite militia known in Arabic as Jaish al-Mahdi and headed by Moktada al-Sadr.

“Reports of nondelivery of services to Sunni areas, intervention by the prime minister’s office to stop military action against Shia targets and to encourage them against Sunni ones, removal of Iraq’s most effective commanders on a sectarian basis and efforts to ensure Shia majorities in all ministries — when combined with the escalation of Jaish al-Mahdi (JAM) killings — all suggest a campaign to consolidate Shia power in Baghdad.”

Needless to say, these actions are 180 degrees in opposition to what the Iraqi government needs to be doing to assure the Sunnis that they will have a place at the table in any Iraqi power sharing arrangement. In effect, Maliki’s actions are fueling the insurgency while he asks more and more of his American allies in helping to snuff it out.

And the aforementioned failure of Maliki to deliver Iraqi troops to the capitol to assist the Americans is just one indication of how tenuous Maliki’s hold on power actually is:

The memo refers to “the current four-brigade gap in Baghdad,” a seeming acknowledgment that there is a substantial shortfall of troops in the Iraqi capital compared with the level needed to provide security there, in part because the Iraqi government has not dispatched all the forces it has promised. An American brigade generally numbers about 3,500 troops, though Iraqi units can be smaller. While Democrats have advocated beginning troop withdrawals as a means of putting pressure on Mr. Maliki, the memo suggests that such tactics may backfire by stirring up opposition against a politically vulnerable leader.

“Pushing Maliki to take these steps without augmenting his capabilities could force him to failure — if the Parliament removes him from office with a majority vote or if action against the Mahdi militia (JAM) causes elements of the Iraqi Security Forces to fracture and leads to major Shia disturbances in southern Iraq,” the memo says.

Not mentioned in the memo is one of the big reasons for that “four-brigade gap:” Iraqi troops refusing to serve in Baghdad by either mutinying against their commanders or going AWOL.

If the Prime Minister cannot even control his own armed forces, how much power does he really have? Couple this weakness with his accommodation of both the Mahdi Militia and the even larger Badr Brigades and it may be time to start asking why we should prop someone up who doesn’t have a leg to stand on in the first place?

Good intentions don’t mean squat. We have heard this empty suit of a Prime Minister talk for more than a year about what needs to be done to curb the insurgency, bring the militias to heel, clean up the rampant corruption in the ministries (where taxpayer monies are being shoveled down a black hole), affect a political settlement that includes a sharing of oil revenues with all parties, and bring the Saddamites who terrorized the Iraqi people for more than a quarter of a century to justice.

He has accomplished none of it. He has barely started most of it. He has, in fact, been an obstacle to achieving many of those goals. He has tried to play both ends against the middle with al-Sadr on one side and the Americans on the other and has satisfied neither and disgusted both. His efforts to reform the Interior Ministry to ferret out the independent death squads and militia members who have infiltrated the Iraqi Police Force have been for naught. And his efforts to unite the country politically have consisted largely of grandiose rhetoric with little in the way of concrete proposals that could be the basis for negotiations with the Sunnis and Kurds.

He gives off no sense of urgency, no realization that the patience of the American people is nearly at an end and that he and his government are in mortal danger of not only becoming irrelevant but also extinct. He continues to try and muddle through. And in the meantime, Iraq bleeds.

But he’s all we’ve got at the moment. So the President will trundle off to Jordan and see if he can impress upon the Iraqi Prime Minister the absolute necessity for him to start acting. The time for pleasantries about uniting Iraq in brotherhood are over. It’s time for the Prime Minister to get on his hind legs and fight: Fight the insurgents. Fight the militias. Fight the crime, the corruption, the sense of utter futility that has infected the population and has caused so many to lose hope.

I am not hopeful that any of Hadley’s prescriptions will help the patient because what he really needs is a spinal transplant. But somebody has to get through to this man or Iraq will continue to devolve until it is a place fit only for gravediggers and gravemakers.