Right Wing Nut House

Like a serial bloodletter in a teen slasher movie, the immigration bill, pronounced dead last week by House Republicans, has risen from the grave and is once again stalking the halls of Congress.

This version appears to be more like Ted Bundy than Michael Meyers. Instead of a bloody hatchet, amnesty supporters are going to try getting “comprehensive” immigration reform by smiling and being agreeable with the House - up to a point.

Key Senators have actually agreed that enforcement should be the #1 priority in any immigration bill, at least for the present:

Key backers of the Senate immigration bill said yesterday they are willing to consider a compromise that would delay the guest-worker program and “amnesty” portions until the borders have been secured.

The proposal was floated by Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter in an interview Monday with editors and reporters at The Washington Times.

“I think it’s worth discussing,” said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican. “Many of us have said we could work on border enforcement and, at the same time, work on other aspects that would take more time.”

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, said a delay will occur anyway because it will take a few years to set up the guest-worker program and the structure to process millions of illegal aliens onto a pathway to citizenship.

“We’ve always understood that,” he said, adding that the final bill must be “comprehensive” and include all provisions.

“That’s the key,” he said, after he, Mr. McCain and others hosted a broad coalition of outside groups demanding a comprehensive bill

Will the House play the part of the stupid teenager who walks into the dark room and whispers, “Who’s there?” right before being chopped into little pieces?

Reaction at the other end of the Capitol was more muted, with at least one key House leader continuing yesterday to point out flaws in the Senate bill.

The House and Senate approved very different immigration bills, with the House focusing on building 700 miles of fence on the U.S.-Mexico border, boosting enforcement and requiring employers to verify that their workers are here legally. The Senate bill boosts enforcement, too, but also creates a program for future immigrant workers and a path to citizenship for many current illegal aliens.

Putting off amnesty in order to placate the enforcement crowd in the House just won’t cut it. Unfortunately, there may be enough Republicans willing to take such a deal if the White House starts turning the screws on lawmakers in tough re-election fights.

It’s no secret not too many Republicans want President Bush to appear with them on the same campaign platform in the run-up to the election. But that doesn’t take into account the fact that the President has his hand on the money spigot for the Republican party, able to turn the juice on or off and reward his friends while punishing those who may not toe the line on immigration. And the party at the moment is flush with cash and will be able to pour money into districts at the President’s discretion.

Clearly, Bush can’t be too aggressive in denying cash to Republicans who won’t back him on immigration, given the narrow Republican majority in the House he must protect. But to believe he won’t or can’t use his power as party leader in this way would be a dangerous gamble for any Republican to undertake. Hence, immigration has become the bill that won’t be killed.

House Republicans are starting to squirm which is not a good sign. Mike Pence of Indiana has endorsed a comprehensive immigration solution that we could perhaps refer to as “Amnesty Lite:”

Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican, said it’s a “very big deal” that Mr. Specter is willing to put border security first in the final bill. He also said he has a bill that may bridge the “amnesty” divide between the two chambers because he thinks many House Republicans could accept a guest-worker program that requires illegal aliens to return to their home country before they can apply for it.

He has a proposal that would set up a privately run system to do this, and he thinks this “no-amnesty guest-worker” program could work.

“I think the majority of House conservatives would be open to a no-amnesty guest-worker program,” he said.

His bill also would set up a time frame, dedicating two years exclusively to border security before progressing to the rest of the bill.

If that “no amnesty guest worker program” sounds familiar, it should. That’s pretty much what we have now.

Can House Republicans resist pressure from the Senate and the President to come to terms on “comprehensive” immigration reform? Hopefully, this is will be one sequel where the bloodthirsty maniac really, really dies.

I understand that many of my conservative friends - and even Arlen Specter, the hypocritical bastard - are in favor of the proposed amendment that the Senate will start debating today on criminalizing the burning of the American flag.

But in a nation born of dissent, it seems to me that passing an amendment that would contradict one of the main things the flag represents is not only wrong but does an injustice to those who fought and died to protect it.

I know I’ll get a lot of flack for that last statement. But how meaningful can a heroes’ death be if we place a limit on what he died for? Must we also pass an amendment saying that this religion or that religion is outlawed? Should we amend the Constitution to prevent the New York Times from publishing all secrets? Perhaps we should have an amendment that outlaws lobbying? Or that limits demonstrations against the government?

We’d never think of amending the Constitution for any of those things. Even the New York Times, arrogant and self righteous though they may be, must be allowed to decide whether or not to publish information that may harm national security. We don’t like it. We believe they did it because, at bottom, they disagree with the government’s contention that we are at war and that publishing secrets gives aid and comfort to the enemy. But in the end, they must not be prevented from making their own judgments in such matters because to limit their decision making also puts prior restraint on their ability to publish. That is de facto censorship and cannot be allowed in a free society.

Living in America ain’t easy. This is a country that re-invents itself every few years, putting enormous strain on people to adapt. But there must be some things in America that should never change. And one of those things is the right to dissent in any way that does not harm another person or their property. Putting restraints on how someone dissents is the same as limiting their ability to disagree. Yes there are better ways to dissent than burning the flag. But who are you or I to tell anyone else that?

Burning the flag is hurtful, stupid, and reveals the dissenter to be more interested in provoking people than in making a statement against the government. But there’s no law against being an idiot. If that were the case, most politicians would be thrown in the slammer. Here’s Arlen Specter supporting the flag burning amendment:

Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, compared the measure to Supreme Court decisions banning so-called “fighting words,” slander, libel, obscenity and pornography involving children. As such, he said, it has no “social value.”

“Flag burning is a form of expression that is spiteful or vengeful,” the five-term Pennsylvania Republican said during the debate. “It is designed to hurt. It is not designed to persuade.”

This from a man who has been on the Administration’s case over the NSA intercept program because of his own extraordinarily narrow interpretation of privacy rights. All of a sudden, he wants to radically broaden the definition of “fighting words?”

If we outlawed all political speech that wasn’t meant to persuade, we’d have to tape the mouths shut of every politician in the country, starting with Specter. And how in God’s name did child pornography get into the debate over flag burning? And who said that child porn had any connection whatsoever to the “fighting words” doctrine?

Specter and the Republicans in the Senate are pandering, pure and simple. I don’t mind it so much when they push something like the so called Marriage Amendment that hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of passing. That kind of pandering is constitutionally harmless just because it will never pass. (Whether or not the issue is hurtful to gays is another issue entirely). But political posturing in support of this amendment that would limit the way people dissent is a different story. Mucking around with the Constitution for political gain is wrong. I felt the same way about ERA, the balanced budget, and the abortion amendments. Fooling around with the Constitution is deadly serious business which is why it has been amended only 17 times since the Bill of Rights became law.

I think this is the third post I’ve done on this issue and each time received varying rebukes from my readers for believing both flag burning and amending the constitution to criminalize it is wrong.

Hopefully, I won’t have to write another for a long, long time.

UPDATE

The amendment, needing two thirds to pass, fell short of passage by one vote 66-34. Here are the gory details.

Would it have passed 37 state legislatures and made part of the Constitution? That’s something I hope we never have to find out.

“Wild Bill” Keller appeared on television last night in what can only be described as “the friendliest forum available” - on CNN with Wolf Blitzer. Since Keller deigned not to explain his decision to publish information on the top secret wire transfer monitoring program in his arrogant and rather cryptic “letter” to readers in yesterday’s edition, he counted on Blitzer not to dig too deeply into his motivations and instead allow him to skate through relatively unscathed.

Good move, Bill. With anger taking on something of a bi-partisan tone for the first time in years (at least outside the blogs where liberals insist that this is one more indication that Bush is Hitler without the mustache and jack boots), Keller probably realized he couldn’t hide under his desk forever and not pretend to answer some of the issues that led him to publish a story that ruined a program that by all accounts was legal, had proper oversight, and most importantly, actually caught some bad guys.

The argument made here that ” [a]nyone who thinks that the people who carried out 9/11 don’t know that we are tapping their phones, reading their emails and checking into their financing, is an idiot” is true up to a point. Terrorists may know we are trying to tap their phones but I doubt very much whether they realized most of our capabilities in this regard. For instance, by knowing the specific measures that we take in not just intercepting phone calls to each other but also to people who may be totally unrelated to their terrorist activities, one more avenue of potential monitoring dries up. The NSA intercept program - details of which are still lacking (which hasn’t stopped the left from declaring the program “illegal”) - was far more than a wiretapping program. It was designed to uncover terrorist networks, not just the jihadis themselves.

The fact that it was successful in doing so makes the above argument ring a little hollow. Despite taking ordinary precautions against having their communications monitored, once the program became public knowledge, the jihadis could put in place countermeasures making it that much harder for us to find out what they’re up to.

In a similar vein, the wire transfer program will now be useless to us. The fact that 9/11 hijackers received Western Union wire transfers on a regular basis probably alerted the terrorists to the idea that this particular way of moving money was now closed to them. But what about their financiers? The Islamic charities here and abroad that maintain a steady flow of cash to terrorist groups like Hamas, Hizballah, Islamic Jihad, and others as well as the individuals who fund terrorists may or may not have been aware of the extent of our monitoring or of our capabilities to pull these transactions and the networks they reveal out of thin air.

Ultimately, the point is why assume they know everything that we are doing to spy on them? With that kind of attitude, we may as well shut everything down and wait for an attack, that trying to monitor their activities is useless and we may as well give up.

I think most Americans would reject that approach which is why, as Patterico points out here, Keller, the LA Times, and the Wall Street Journal may be in more trouble than they realized prior to publication:

The decision to prosecute newspaper personnel for publishing classified information is a vexing one that pits the core American value of free speech against a legitimate need for secrecy in some areas. I think that, in the particular circumstances of this case, a good argument can be made that a prosecution would be consistent with the relevant statutes and the Constitution. However, it is by no means certain that we would obtain a conviction — and prosecutions would be very bad public relations.

Accordingly, we should concentrate on finding the leakers, first and foremost. If that means dragging some journalists before a grand jury and forcing them to out their sources or go to jail, then so be it.

I think that analysis is spot on given that every newspaper and broadcast outlet in the country would oppose prosecution, no matter how much they may deserve it. And the people’s anger against the outing of this program may grow as information comes to light that there was a bi-partisan effort prior to the Times and others running their stories on this program to quash publication. Treasury Secretary Snow:

Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were “half-hearted” is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.

(HT: Captains Quarters)

While it appears that the LA Times has made a concerted effort to explain and justify its decision (that Patterico takes apart here), Keller has maintained a facade of arrogance about publication of the story that either reveals him to be completely clueless about the real anger at what the Times did or unconcerned about its impact on the War on Terror. Since Keller swears that he and his reporters assessed the potential damage to our efforts to fight terrorism, one would have to conclude that Keller and the Times ultimately placed their own narrow interpretation of the civil liberties implications of the program over what all agree was the importance of the program to uncovering terrorist networks.

This is arrogant and elitist on the part of Keller and the Times. And if we are forced to pay for their delusions of power by enduring a devastating terrorist attack, I daresay the questions asked of Keller will not be coming from bloggers, but from Federal prosecutors.

UPDATE

Steve Sturm suggests denying the New York Times access to the White House as well as Air Force I and other Presidential sites. In short, yank their press credentials.

It’s an interesting idea. I believe that the Administration froze out Helen Thomas in the immediate aftermath of the invasion - not for publishing secrets but because she was so rabid in her criticism. They didn’t yank her press pass but both the press secretary and the President refused to acknowledge her at press conferences and briefings. Since Thomas is the “Dean” of the Washington press corp, this was a slight that did not go unnoticed.

Can the Administration take away press privileges for the Times? I’m sure they can. But given the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would emanate from the media nationwide, my guess is that they may take them out of the loop the way they dissed Helen Thomas.

Last year, I carried out an experiment in blogging that was both fun and challenging for me and, I hope, entertaining for you. I decided to “blog” the Battle of Gettysburg as if we could be magically transported back to those fateful 7 days leading up to and encompassing the battle and pretend that the internet existed in 1863. The result of this experiment was a little uneven in quality, but made me look at the battle with a whole new perspective. It is my hope that by repeating the experiment, using more maps and better sources as well as polishing some of the rough spots, I can create something that will inform and entertain both you and me.

In that fateful early summer of 1863, everyone in America knew that a titanic battle was going to take place somewhere north of Washington. The soldiers were especially aware of this as their numerous diaries and regimental histories make clear. Since most of the major media was located on the east coast, the Army of the Potomac - “Mr. Lincoln’s Army” as Bruce Catton called it - was covered disproportionately compared to other theaters of that war and received the lion’s share of the criticism doled out by the likes of the New York Tribune’s sometimes hysterical editor Horace Greeley. This meant that both the officers and men felt themselves under a microscope at times, a state of affairs that did not engender risk taking by the army’s many commanders.

As the two armies made their way toward the little crossroads town of Gettysburg, the nation literally held its breath, hoping for the best but fearing the worst. Lincoln, a tortured soul even under just the day to day circumstances of the war, haunted the telegraph office at the war department, aching for news. And there was wild speculation in the Washington and Baltimore papers about where Lee was and what his intentions were.

In many ways, this unbearable tension leading up to the battle made the explosion on July 1-3 all the more dramatic, as if all the furies of the war had been unleashed at once to torment the nation. It truly was one of the more remarkable times in American history, something I hope comes through in the retelling of events.

Utilizing the extensive on-line databases available on the internet as well as information from my own library, I’ll be posting on events leading up to the battle, not only in Pennsylvania but also other theaters of the war, including Grant’s simultaneous capture of Vicksburg that some historians argue was more important to ultimate victory for the north than what was happening in Pennsylvania.

I hope you stop by often over the next 7 days as I will be updating the posts just as if I was getting updates from the battlefield. It should be an interesting week.

The following is the first in a series of posts leading up to and including the Battle of Gettysburg. I have written these posts as if we had all been magically transported back to 1863 and as if the internet existed at that time.

An introduction to this project is here.

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

THE MARCH TO GETTYSBURG. UNION ARMY REPRESENTED BY DARKER ARROWS

Big news from Washington today as apparently “Fightin’ Joe” Hooker has been replaced as commander of the Army of the Potomac. I guess Joe couldn’t take the heat from Horace Greeley and the MSM for his mismanagement of the army at Chancellorsville although maybe he should get credit for getting rid of Stonewall Jackson. That said, when he casually mentioned before he was made commander that maybe a military dictator should take over and run things in Washington, you knew he’d have to deliver or be cashiered. Well, he didn’t deliver and Honest Abe has replaced him.

I’ve since gotten a hold of a copy of a letter The Railsplitter sent him prior to Hook being placed in command. Abe let him know he had heard about the “dictator” crack telling him:

“I have heard, in such a way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the army and the government needed a dictator. Of course it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain success can set up dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship.”

Heh.

So who’s the next victim? Major Rathbone thinks it might be II Corp’s General Couch but I hear the Warhawks won’t stand for that. My guess would be Meade. “Old Hawknose” gets the nod probably because he’s the least objectionable. I hear from my friends at the War Department that they actually offered the Command to I Corp’s John Reynolds but that he turned them down flat. Too bad. General Johnny would do a great job. He’s also no fool. There have been 5 other Commanders of the Eastern Army and none of them could survive the scrutiny of the MSM and the Committee on the Conduct of the War.

Meade’s V Corp has fought well and the Pennsylvanian may be the only General in the whole damn army who doesn’t want to be President after the war! At any rate, he appears to be “it.” so we better support him the best we can.

So it’s a helluva time for Meade to take over what with Bobby Lee running wild in Maryland. There’s a rumor that Reb General Early is in Pennsylvania heading for Harrisburg, but that might be Stuart’s cavalry that was sighted north of Frederick. Hard to tell exactly because the only opposition so far to this thrust by the Rebs has been from State Militia. It’s all very confused and, as usual, our cavalry is no where to be found. I just wish we used them like the rebs use cavalry. Our cavalry units are too dispersed IMHO. We should marry up the units and concentrate them into division sized formations like the Rebs do, using them as shock troops.

That Jeb Stuart just rides rings around us anytime he wants to. Maybe we’ll get lucky and he’ll run into a Minnie ball soon.

One thing is certain. A big fight is coming. With our boys quick marching down the dusty roads of southern Maryland and Bobby Lee’s Rebs using South Mountain to screen its movements from the prying eyes of our scouts, it looks like Lee could make a stab at either Baltimore or Washington or maybe even Philadelphia. So we’re guarding the passes through the mountain to keep Lee from carrying out any plan like that.

The Rebs strategy is pretty obvious. Traitor Davis sent Bobby Lee’s army north in hopes that Mr. Lincoln will recall General Grant whose army is strangling Vicksburg as I write this. Reb General Pemberton’s 20,000 men are gone gooses unless Grant either up and leaves or takes to the bottle again. Rumor is the civilians in Vicksburg are already eating rats. It won’t be long now. And then the Mississippi River will be open and the South will be split. Not bad for a, “ignorant rail splitter” eh? Vallandingame and the Copperhead Democrats be damned!

A victory in Vicksburg will be meaningless if Bobby Lee whips Meade and moves on to Washington, D.C. The Brits and Frogs would have no choice but to recognize the Confederacy if that happened. And then, God knows. The State Department thinks that the French especially will try and break the blockade. If that happens, we may as well start peace negotiations with the Rebs.

So a big battle is coming. Where is anybody’s guess, but it better take place south of Harrisburg. If Bobby Lee were to get astride of that B & O rail line, he could strangle Washington and Baltimore in no time. That guy is something else. I just wish he was on our side.

It seems as if the whole country is holding its breath, both North and South. Something really big is building up. Maybe in Maryland. More likely in Pennsylvania. And with Vicksburg due to surrender any day, this could be the greatest 4th of July since 1776.

If we win, that is.

Trying desperately to spin the meager bits of good news coming out of Iraq into more proof of failure and defeat, the Democrats and the left have completely left our plane of reality and embarked on a sight seeing trip to La-La Land.

How else can you explain their laughable contention that their immoral, milquetoast resolutions on Iraq have been vindicated by news that the Pentagon plans on drawing down our forces in Iraq 5% by September (conditions on the ground permitting) with another 15% by the end of 2007 being able to come home (again, conditions permitting).

Of course, John Kerry’s resolution would not have had 20% of the troops home by the end of 2007 but rather 100% with nary a word contained in that dubious document about whether or not or boys should stay if they were needed by the Iraqi government. That little detail must have slipped his mind.

And, the so-called Levin alternative resolution was even murkier on the subject, although the floor speeches made by Democrats gave the game away before they even voted. Universally (and this is the mercifully short version) they believe the War is a failure, George Bush is incompetent, and it’s time to leave so that we can blame him for the defeat in time to get enough Democrats elected in November in order to take control of Congress.

An immoral, cynical ploy ’tis true. But then, when it comes to our national security, never let it be said that anyone cut in front of the Democrats when it came time to surrender.

The problem with the Democratic “Plan” is that it has always existed in a vacuum. The primary argument made by Republicans is that basically, you can’t run the war from Washington (Too bad Rummy didn’t take that advice very often). Any draw down of American forces must be tied to some kind of real-world, on the ground progress by Iraqi forces to deal with the violence. Do the Democrats think it a coincidence that 2 weeks and more than 500 operations after the death of the Merry Beheader al-Zarqawi that the military feels that we can reduce our troops strength? We captured or killed more than 1000 al Qaeda in Iraq operatives, sympathizers, and jihadists. We smashed their logistical infrastructure. And this is after the not-so-dearly-departed Zarqawi had written that the situation in Iraq was “bleak” for his terrorist buddies.

Or had we forgotten all that?

Surely there is a political element involved in reducing our troop strength. But to say that would be the only reason is ridiculous and, I might add, disingenuous in the extreme. Do the Democrats wish us to believe that their little dog and pony show last week with the Iraq resolutions was done solely for altruistic reasons? Who are they trying to kid?

Senator McConnell laid out the argument quite well:

Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell said lawmakers discussed the situation in Iraq with Casey before votes taken by Congress last week. But he said the point of the debate was that “Congress ought not to be dictating to the generals what the tactics are.”

“We want the conditions on the ground and the decisions of our commanders, in conjunction with the new Iraqi democratic government, to dictate the process, not the Congress trying to act like armchair generals,” the Kentucky Republican told ABC’s “This Week.”

Senator Boxer, on the other hand, is clueless:

“Here we have a situation where Democrats, 80 percent of us, voted to say we ought to start reducing our troop presence there — and again, we got pummeled,” Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, told CBS. “And now, it turns out, we’re in synch with General Casey.”

I would say Babs was more in synch with Zarqawi than General Casey. The fact is, the plan has always been to draw down troops in coordination with the Iraqi’s ability to defend themselves. As Iraqi National Security Adviser Sherwan Alwaeli revealed, there is an unofficial withdrawal plan heavily dependent on not only the numbers of Iraqi troops trained but also their combat capabilities. That kind of judgment cannot be made by Democratic Senators counting fingers and toes in order to come up with a cool sounding number for the voters in November.

It is unbelievable to me that despite the Republicans doing everything possible to lose in November that the Democrats haven’t virtually locked up control of at least the House and perhaps even the Senate. I think it indicative of how much the American people truly distrust the Democrats on national security. And judging by their statements this past weekend about possible withdrawals by American forces from Iraq, they have a long way to go to convince anyone that they are dead serious about protecting the United States from attack.

Hi Mom and Dad!

Well, I have to say my idea for starting this Camp New York Times retreat was certainly one of my more inspired brainstorms since taking over for poor Howell Raines as Executive Editor. I actually invited Howie up for the weekend thinking it would do him good to see the old gang again. But he mumbled something rather uncomplimentary about you, mom and well - I figured he just wouldn’t fit in with the group anymore. I didn’t have the heart to tell him that Jayson Blair was staying in the Alumni cabin.

I’m having a wonderful time. Sure is nice to get away from the city where I have to rub elbows with the hoi polloi and endure the stultifying presence of so many commoners. By the way, I know you’ll get a kick out of this: One of the security guards downstairs actually had the temerity to say “Hi Mr. Keller” to me the other day. I gave him my best “New York Times Executive Editor Haughty Glance,” barely acknowledging his presence with an ever so slight nod of my patrician head. That shut him up quick. He hasn’t had the gumption to say anything to me since. Now if I could only be that successful about shutting up our Public Editor Byron Calame and stop him from bothering me all the time with stupid questions about this or that story. I am so sorry I hired him.

You may have read in our newspaper right before I left for camp about my latest triumph; publishing more hush-hush stuff from the government. We’re all having fun up here reading how simply everyone is talking about it. Right after me and some of the boys carried out a panty raid on Maureen Dowd’s cabin (she asked us to stay and “play” but Dad, you should see that woman without makeup. Yikes!), I decided it was time to write a letter explaining my decision to publish the story about this top secret program to track terrorist wire transfers.

Well, you know the drill. Blah, Blah, Blah “bill of rights.” Fiddle, Fiddle, Faddle “freedom of the press.” This is usually good enough to satisfy the really important people like my friends at The New Yorker and The Nation. And, of course, I don’t have to work very hard to get Babs Streisand or any of our Hollywood friends on my side. Besides, I’m sure you know what a complete waste of my time writing letters like this is. Since I don’t feel like I have to explain myself to anybody, much less a bunch of Bush loving chimpanzees, I made this one extra irrelevant. Not once did I mention the real reason I spilled the beans about this perfectly legal program; it makes me feel real important, almost like I was in charge of the country.

In fact, one of our funnest games here at Camp is to pretend that all of us at the Times are more important than the elected government and that I get to decide what laws to obey and which ones to ignore. It’s almost as fun as my favorite game, “I’ve Got a Secret to Publish” although all of the government leakers I asked up here who have helped us with the top secret stuff would rather play “Get Bush” which, as you know, is getting to be so boring since we play that game everyday, day in and day out at the office. (To tell you the truth, I’m getting a little tired of having those leakers around. After all, they are bureaucrats and not the right sort to invite to The Club for a drink or take out on the Sound in the Avenger .)

One thing kind of bothers me, mom. All of these wild people on the internet. You know, the bloggers and such. Now you know me. I wouldn’t know a kilobyte from a kipper. But these bloggers are sort of smart - in a pedestrian kind of way. I mean, they’re not “smart” like us. They probably don’t know about the real important stuff like never wearing navy blue after Labor Day or how a gentleman shells an oyster in a restaurant. (Just like you taught me, dad. Gently…gently.)

But these bloggers are screaming bloody murder about this terrorist thing and want me arrested because they say I helped the enemy during wartime. Now you and I both know dad, that it’s not very sporting of us to have such a huge advantage over the terrorists when it comes to our hi tech stuff. All I’ve been trying to do by publishing the gobs of secrets about how we monitor terrorists is “level the playing field” a little. Jeepers! We do this all the time in politics. Anytime a Republican gets a lead on a Democrat, all we have to do is a couple of hit pieces, blow things way out of proportion, (you know…allow that note of hysteria to creep into our coverage) and things are back level - or better.

So these bloggers are driving us nuts over this and now, some people are talking about prosecuting me. I’d be interested in your thoughts, dad, about who I should call to represent me. Paul Krugman thinks I should get Robert Bennett, the man who kept Bill Clinton out jail. But I think I’d rather go with a New Yorker. Maybe the ACLU can recommend someone.

Anyway, that’s about all if have to say. Keep reading our paper. I’m sure before too long, I’ll have some more juicy government secrets to spill.

Your son,

Billy

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin has a great round up of reaction to Keller’s curious missive and links to Patterico’s analysis of a radio interview done by LA Times Washington Bureau Chief Doyle McManus during which the journalist tried to explain why the paper went with the story:

The bottom line is, of course, that McManus and his colleagues took it upon themselves to decide what classified information the public (and our enemies) should know about. Bizarrely, he claims that the critical factors in his decision were whether the program was legal and had adequate safeguards — even though, as I document in a related post, it was indeed legal and had extensive safeguards in place. Thus, his excuses are an apparent cover for some other motivation, as yet unrevealed.

Could it possibly be that McManus, Keller, and many other mainstream journalists and broadcasters are perhaps daring the Administration to initiate prosecutions against them? While I have no doubt that they can justify the decision to publish details of these programs based on their perception of the public’s “right to know” - a necessarily broad and all-encompassing reason - the fact is, it simply doesn’t adequately explain why they feel compelled to expose a secret program of obvious legality and with several different levels of safeguards (not the least of which is oversight by Swift itself).

It really is curious.

(This post originally appeared June 25, 2005)

A STYLIZED AND UNREALISTIC PORTRAYAL OF CUSTERS LAST STAND

George Armstrong Custer surveyed the low, rolling Montana countryside before him on that brutally hot Sunday afternoon of June 25, 1876 and must have felt a twinge of anticipation. He was a warrior. And prior to every battle he was ever involved in, from his glory days in the Civil War to this, the last battle of his life, Custer felt the tingling of impending combat. He considered himself invulnerable. His confidence - some would say arrogance - inspired both intense loyalty and profound disdain from the men and officers under his command. This, more than anything else, led to his destruction.

The Battle of Little Bighorn (the Lakota call it “The Battle of Greasy Grass Creek”) is the most closely examined battle in American history. Custer’s every known move has been examined, debated, dissected, re-examined and criticized by historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, and scientists. It’s also been one of the most popular subjects for artists as every generation since the battle has had both ridiculous and stylized portrayals as well as historically accurate reproductions. And thanks to Hollywood, just about everyone has heard of both the battle and its two major players - Custer and Tashunca-uitco AKA “Crazy Horse.”

The evolution of attitudes toward the battle is one of the most fascinating aspects of its history. Originally seen as a massacre of white soldiers by merciless Indians, the loss of of 267 American soldiers outraged and humiliated a country that was in the process of celebrating it’s Centennial. The resulting outcry sealed the doom of the Lakota, Cheyenne and other plains Indians tribes who had united for one last great war against white encroachment. Custer was portrayed as a great hero, thanks in no small part to his wife Libby’s hagiographic biography of their lives together called Boots and Saddles.

Then in the 1960’s, a welcome re-examination of America’s mythic heroes, including Custer, was initiated by historians eager to take advantage of the American people’s desire for the “truth” about our past. The pendulum swung in the opposite direction and Custer emerged as a vainglorious martinet of an officer, so eager for glory that he sacrificed his men on the altar of personal ambition.

By the late 1970’s, Custer’s image had been slightly rehabilitated thanks to a re-examination of his outstanding career as a Civil War cavalry leader. And along with authors like Jeffrey Wert and Evan McConnel, a new, more personal side of Custer emerged. The arrogant martinet became the loving and devoted husband whose letters to his young wife reveal a playful, likable man with a penchant for teasing.

But on that fateful Sunday, Custer allowed the darker side of his personality to take over. This was a Custer that was unconcerned with the lives of his men. This was the Custer who had been court martialed and suspended for a year for disobeying orders. And this was the Custer whose overweening confidence in his own abilities and suicidal disdain for the fighting skills of his adversary sealed his fate and the fate of so many in his command.

He was not technically in violation of his orders. General Terry who was making his way to the Little Big Horn with 2,500 infantry was due the next day but had not specifically ordered Custer to wait. So despite the warnings of his faithful Crow scouts (”Many Sioux” they had told him, a warning he didn’t heed because he thought the Indians couldn’t give an accurate count of warriors), Custer rode to his death.

His survey of the Indian encampment before him was superficial. All he could see from his vantage point was the north end of the village. This was due to a quirk in the topography of the battlefield. If you ever visit the Little Big Horn Battlefield National Monument, you’ll be struck by the gently, rolling hills that give the impression of a single valley stretching out in the distance. What Custer couldn’t see were intervening copses and indentations that hid not the 5,000 or so Indians he believed he was facing, but fully 15,000 men, women and children in a gigantic encampment that stretched for more than 5 miles across the plain.

At the sight of Custer’s men, the Indian warriors rushed to their families and helped to get them out of harms way. Custer interpreted this as a sign that the Indians were preparing to flee and divided his command into 3 sections. He sent Major Reno around to where he thought the south end of the camp was, ordering him to ride through the village and sow confusion while he attacked from the north and the other column commanded by Major Benteen attacked from the east.

It was stupid, rash, and doomed to failure. Reno, an inexperienced (some would say cowardly) officer took one look at the immense village before him and retreated. Some historians believe that if Reno had attacked while the warriors were busy looking after the safety of their families he could have in fact caused the kind of confusion that Custer was looking for. What this would have meant to the outcome of the battle is uncertain. It may have given Custer time to find better defensive ground as his subordinate Major Benteen was able to do by linking up with the incompetent Reno who had taken up a position on a steep bluff overlooking the Little Big Horn river. Given Custer’s impetuous nature, this probably wasn’t in the cards.

Custer’s 267 men rode along a bluff that he thought hid him from sight of the village. He was tragically mistaken. The Indians, alerted to his presence by the incompetent Reno were now swarming between the copses and in the shallow depressions that marked the north end of the battlefield. Too late, Custer realized his predicament and ordered his men up to the top of a gently sloping hill northwest of the village. Known as “Last Stand Hill,” approximately 900 Lakota and Cheyenne warriors were able to surround Custer’s command and wipe them out to almost the last man. (One of Custer’s Crow scouts escaped by wrapping a Lakota blanket around himself and simply wandering away).

In the aftermath of the battle, General Terry arrived and after hastily burying the dead, started after Sitting Bull and his people. Evading capture for two years by going to Canada, the starving Lakotans finally surrendered on their own and were forced onto reservations.

The spectacular victory of the Indians over the United States army was the last major engagement of the Indian wars of the 19th century. There would be other skirmishes and campaigns - most notably against Goyathlay AKA “Geronimo, the great Chiricahua Apache warrior - but Little Big Horn would be the last time so many warriors on both sides were involved.

As for history’s judgment, Custer’s legacy will be a mixed one. Perhaps it’s unfortunate that Little Big Horn will overshadow his real accomplishments as a cavalry commander during the Civil War. He remains one of the most fascinating characters in American history, reason enough for the continued fascination with the battle that claimed his life.

Dan Riehl is singlehandedly trying to change my mind about bloggers replacing the mainstream press.

In a series of stunning posts that deserve a helluva lot more attention than they seem to be getting, Mr. Riehl raises some troubling questions about Jerome Armstrong and MyDD, the political blog that Mr Armstrong created originally as a stock analyzing site that used astrology to help investors pick the winners.

If that were the only problem with MyDD, we could simply have some fun at the expense of the “reality based community” by gently pointing out that astrology hasn’t been considered a science since Newton got whacked on the noggin by a falling apple, which, given the prominence of Mr. Armstrong among the netnuts, sorta puts the kibosh on any claims liberals have to the rationalist high ground.

The real story here is not “Astrologer Jerome” or Armstrong’s problems with the SEC. What Mr. Riehl has uncovered with his sleuthing is what appears to be an elaborate flim flam involving a liberal PAC called BlogPac (that Markos Moulitsis transferred administration to MyDD just 10 days ago) and an apparent working relationship between Armstrong and MyDD’s Chris Bowers.

What makes that relationship significant is that BlogPac has decided not to disburse money to political candidates any longer. Instead, Blogpac’s mission “will be primarily to defend the netroots and improve the quality of online activism…”

Who then has benefited from this change in focus? Mr. Riehl:

If you look at the BlogPAC disclosure records, you’ll see that from Jan - Mar of 2005 - their only disbursements were to another blogger / consultant - Bob Bingham - from the Swing State Blog. According to slate, he was a one time employee of Armstrong, as well as a leading force behind BlogPAC. Interesting. They’ve been collecting money on line and paying it to … themselves for consulting?? I don’t know. But those filings could prove interesting, either now, or in the future.

And Riehl adds this disclaimer:

Without alleging any illegality, or malfeasance, which I am not - given Armstrong’s display of bad judgment in both political candidates and stocks, on top of his trouble with the SEC, it seems fair to at least broach the question: will the decision to turn Blog PAC over to MyDD end up helping blogs, or being a classic example of how a fool and his money can be soon parted?

Of course, assuming one thinks most liberals are fools to begin with, I suppose you could make the argument that its stupid money right from the start.

I would also like to add that there is nothing illegal in paying themselves for running the PAC. But one would think that contributors would like to be clear on the relationships at play before coughing up any money. And the relationship between Bowers and Armstrong appears to be one of employer and employee, which makes the BlogPac money a potential godsend to someone who can disburse it to bloggers who could then be employed to write paeans to Armstrong clients.

There’s no evidence for this except past history. Chris Bowers, for instance, has acknowledged being paid to consult for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The SEIU paid a company called Political Technologies LLC for which Armstrong is the Registered Agent $162,000 in 2005 for “Consulting”, “Professional Services,” and $5,000 for “Website Support.” Mr. Riehl points out that the SEIU received some glowing coverage in Armstrong’s book co-authored with Markos Moulitsis as well as many glowing references on Moulitsis’ own site, Daily Kos.

Is there more of this “pay for play” on blogs (perhaps conservative blogs as well) than anyone has guessed? For the record, I can categorically state that the only monies I have received because of this site (besides donations from readers) is the quarterly payment I get from Pajamas Media for hosting their ads - ads I have no control over as far as content or placement.

Read Dan’s entire post for some more complete background on the issues he raises.

Yes, victory. For all the sneering lefties who will come here and try and explain away the news that the freely elected government of Iraq is about ready to ask the United States military to leave once certain conditions are met and a timetable relating to those conditions is agreed upon, this is the very definition of a win for our side (no thanks to you). Our leaving would also be predicated on the acceptance by the insurgents of some kind of amnesty program for those who fought American troops but not for terrorists who deliberately targeted Iraqi civilians.

How is this different than John Kerry or the Democrats asking for a “timetable” based on arbitrary and capricious criteria, specifically neglecting the insurgency factor? For one thing, the proposal comes from the Iraqis themselves not self-serving domestic politicians wishing to score points with our electorate. For another, no Democrat ever proposed anything that would have taken into account a ratcheting down of much of the insurgency. It never entered into any discussion on any of the resolutions offered in the Senate. The timetables would have been based solely on Iraqi capabilities not on a concomitant easing of the security situation by drawing the insurgents into politics.

In short, not only will we leave once the Iraqis can stand up, but also when most of the insurgents lay down.

This is a formula for victory albeit not a complete one. Both the White House and the military have fiercely opposed amnesty in the past and will probably continue to do so. I made the point here that though it would be a bitter pill to swallow, we must expect some kind of amnesty program. For Prime Minister Maliki, who is proceeding more quickly and with more determination than anyone expected, the amnesty program is the cornerstone of his Grand Solution or “National Reconciliation Plan:”

A timetable for withdrawal of occupation troops from Iraq. Amnesty for all insurgents who attacked U.S. and Iraqi military targets. Release of all security detainees from U.S. and Iraqi prisons. Compensation for victims of coalition military operations.

Those sound like the demands of some of the insurgents themselves, and in fact they are. But they’re also key clauses of a national reconciliation plan drafted by new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who will unveil it Sunday. The provisions will spark sharp debate in Iraq—but the fiercest opposition is likely to come from Washington, which has opposed any talk of timetables, or of amnesty for insurgents who have attacked American soldiers.

[snip]

The plan also calls for a withdrawal timetable for coalition forces from Iraq, but it doesn’t specify an actual date—one of the Sunnis’ key demands. It calls for “the necessity of agreeing on a timetable under conditions that take into account the formation of Iraqi armed forces so as to guarantee Iraq’s security,” and asks that a U.N. Security Council decree confirm the timetable. Mahmoud Othman, a National Assembly member who is close to President Talabani, said that no one disagrees with the concept of a broad, conditions-based timetable. The problem is specifying a date, which the United States has rejected as playing into the insurgents’ hands. But Othman didn’t rule out that reconciliation negotiations called for in the plan might well lead to setting a date. “That will be a problem between the Iraqi government and the other side [the insurgents], and we will see how it goes. It’s not very clear yet.”

It may surprise you to learn that Iraqi government officials have been in contact with several of the larger insurgent groups for months. Since many of the major Sunni rebel groups are made up of men with tribal and clan loyalties, negotiators have been hard pressed to get a consensus among so many disparate groups. Apparently the ex-Baathists are one of the largest if not the largest insurgent group and are also being difficult although holding out the bait of political participation (making the party legal again) could work in Maliki’s favor.

But what will Washington do? In the end, Bush will have little choice in the matter. When the Iraqis ask us to leave and set the conditions for that to happen, we can hardly say no. Yes, we can push for a more limited amnesty and for more flexibility in the timetable. But resisting a pullout at this point just doesn’t make sense.

The President should schedule either a press conference or an oval office address for Monday or Tuesday at the latest. It’s not like they haven’t been kept fully informed of what has been going on so our response should be immediate. And Bush should take the opportunity to come out and say flatly that this is the path to victory. Not only would it undercut his critics, but he should carefully take the time to explain how this is different than the proposals made by the cut and run Democrats who were so soundly defeated in the Senate last week.

The insurgency is only part of the problem, of course. Al Qaeda in Iraq will not give up no matter what most Sunni groups end up doing. And then there are the lawless gangs of thugs who run large sections of Baghdad and some of the larger cities, making citizens pay them protection and running kidnapping rackets as well as engaging in murder for hire and other crimes of violence. This is a law enforcement problem that can be tackled vigorously once most of the police are freed up from concentrating on stopping insurgent and terrorist attacks.

And Prime Minister Maliki seems to have his priorities straight:

Maliki’s reconciliation plan will undoubtedly be the subject of protracted discussions, and not everyone in the Iraqi government is pleased with it. The document also calls for bringing militias and “death squads” under control—a provision which the powerful Shia party, SCIRI, is not happy with, because it effectively equates militias with the insurgents. Maliki is also Shia but from the Dawa party. And Sunnis, for their part, are reluctant to renounce the insurgency when they are still threatened by Shia militias, and by Shia-dominated police. “The Sunnis have only one card to play, the insurgency,” says the senior coalition official. “They don’t have enough population and they’re not sitting on any of the resources. Therefore their political identity is almost entirely defined by the insurgency.”

Breaking that Shia/Sunni impasse won’t be easy. But as the U.S. ambassador says, “Every war must come to an end,” and few on any side in Iraq any longer believe they can kill their way to peace. The only alternative is to try to talk their way there.

Peace. Victory. And with some hard negotiating along with a little luck vouchsafed by a just and merciful Providence, our boys and girls can come home in triumph.

UPDATE

Josh Marshall has an intelligent view from the left:

Not just the departure of American troops at some distant and unspecified point in the future when everything in Iraq has calmed down and it’s a fun place to live, but having it begin to unfold in the here and now. That accomplishes two things — it begins to lance the boil of foreign occupation and it forces the Iraqis themselves to start taking steps to run and control the country themselves. This would have to take place as part of a political program of national reconciliation as Prime Minister Maliki is proposing.

Am I sure this will work? Not at all. As I’ve written at various points over the last couple years, this is the root irony and tragedy of the situation we’ve gotten ourselves into in Iraq. We are both the glue holding the country together and the solvent tearing it apart.

Marshall draws an erroneous conclusion I believe when he states that Bush won’t take the deal because he is seeking to pass the problem along to a predecessor. I think if Bush is half the politician I think he is, he will jump at this chance to end our involvement in this problematic war. And while there’s no doubt that the Iraqis will request a residual “trip wire” force of perhaps 10 or 20 thousand men remain to prevent foreign adventurism, I think that troop drawdowns starting in late summer or early fall will take the Iraq War off the political menu for the Democrats.

This doesn’t mean they still can’t take over the House. But it may bring home just enough of the President’s base to allow Republicans to squeak their way to victory in November.