Right Wing Nut House

George McClellan was in a snit.

The Commander in Chief of the Army (circa 1862) had just returned from a meeting with a Congressman who was urging him to get the army moving toward Richmond pronto. It had been more than 6 months since the disaster at Bull Run and everyone in Washington was getting antsy, not least the President who quipped morosely that if McClellan was not going to use the army, then perhaps he (the President) might borrow it for awhile.

McClellan was feeling persecuted. Everyone in Washington was an armchair general, telling him how to win the war. The President, in a pathetically amateurish attempt to remedy his lack of military knowledge, was reading treatises on war by night and writing long, chatty letters by day telling him:

And once more let me tell you, it is indispensable to you that you strike a blow. I am powerless to help this. You will do me the justice to remember I always insisted, that going down the Bay in search of a field, instead of fighting at or near Mannassas, was only shifting, and not surmounting, a difficulty — that we would find the same enemy, and the same, or equal, intrenchments, at either place. The country will not fail to note — is now noting — that the present hesitation to move upon an entrenched enemy, is but the story of Manassas repeated.

I beg to assure you that I have never written you, or spoken to you, in greater kindness of feeling than now, nor with a fuller purpose to sustain you, so far as in my most anxious judgment, I consistently can. But you must act.

Lincoln wrote that letter as McClellan’s 100,000 man army sat in front of a Confederate battle line on the James Peninsula in Virginia that featured fake wooden guns and the theatrics of rebel General John Magruder who, in order to make his 15,000 man force appear to be a great host, continuously marched a brigade across the front of the Union lines, easily fooling the cautious McClellan into thinking he faced more than 100,000 men.

But that was in the future. The Congressman McClellan was so disgusted with was John Covode of Pennsylvania who sat on the most powerful Committee in the history of the United States Congress: The Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War. Covode had just informed Little Mac that he was in danger of losing his command unless he got the Army of the Potomac up and moving toward Richmond and the General was in a foul mood. He sat down and wrote a letter to his wife complaining bitterly about the interference of the “rascals” in Congress who seemed more interested in assessing an officer’s anti-slavery credentials than in their military abilities. Despite being given more power than any general since Washington, McClellan felt hemmed in and hamstrung by a group of amateurs who were looking over his shoulder and criticizing every move he made or, in the present case, didn’t make.

The Joint Committee was born out of the frustration in Congress with Union setbacks in the early days of the war and what the radicals saw as insufficient zeal for victory on the part of some officers. If, as Clemenceau said “War is too important a thing to be left to the generals,” then the Committee felt perfectly comfortable in making it their business to meddle in the affairs of the army. Woe betide the luckless officer who got into their sights. Because America was fighting a civil war, even the loyalty to the flag of officers could be and was questioned.

Nothing illustrated this salient fact more than the case of General Charles P. Stone whose attack on a small rebel encampment near Leesburg ended up an unmitigated disaster. Not only did he lose the battle, but the man most responsible for the loss, a former United States Senator Edward Baker, was killed in action. The Battle of Balls Bluff was a minor skirmish by Civil War standards but its impact would be felt for the rest of the war. In response to the defeat, the Congress decided that the executive branch needed guidance in the prosecution of the conflict and the Joint Committee was born. Their first target was General Stone himself who, while never accused outright of treason, was nevertheless tarred by innuendo and gossip to the point that Secretary of War Edwin Stanton ordered his arrest. For 189 days, Stone sat in a cell without being charged with any specific crime. He was finally released without apology and was never able to live down the cloud placed over him by Congress.

Whether it was the Committee’s intent or not, Union officers got the message. Headquarters operators like General Joe Hooker and Benjamin Butler cultivated Committee members, taking them into their confidence and lavishing praise on their activities. Combat officers like General Phil Kearny complained that the Committee’s second guessing was having a deleterious effect on an officer’s ability to carry out their duties.

Indeed, that was almost a universal criticism of the Committee’s investigations:

The Committee on the Conduct of the War was feared during its lifetime. Army commanders saw what was happening to their predecessors and let this influence the decisions they made on the battlefield. General Ambrose Burnside most certainly let the phantom of McClellan’s non-aggressive behavior color his judgment when he continued to send the waves of Union soldiers to their deaths up the slopes of Marye’s Heights at Fredericksburg, and again when he moved his army out of their winter camps into the Virginia quagmire in the infamous Mud March. How many other general officers made decisions based not strictly on what was best for their commands on a given field, but rather on what was “safe” conduct as far as the CCW was concerned? George Meade knew what was happening when he testified to committee members at Falmouth, after the Fredericksburg defeat. In a personal letter he wrote, “I sometimes feel very nervous about my position, [the committee is] knocking over generals at such a rate.”

In fact, the Committee did an enormous service to the Union cause. More often than not, they were able to weed out incompetent officers who were usually replaced by competent ones. They cared not a fig if an officer had West Point credentials, something that the President seemed over awed with at times. In fact, the Committee saw West Point as something of a bastion of Southern sympathizers, so many of the US trained officer corps leaving the army to fight for Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy. And while it is true their meddling sometimes caused problems for armies in the field, their investigation into medical treatment of wounded soldiers led to the formation of the U.S. Sanitary Commission which forever changed the way the army cared for its wounded. And other investigations into corruption in the granting of military contracts as well as being out front in urging President Lincoln to recruit and train black soldiers proved to be tremendously helpful to securing victory.

Could such oversight by Congress have prevented Abu Ghraib and other prisoner abuses? Would such a Committee if in existence today insisted on more troops on the ground at the beginning of the occupation? Could Donald Rumsfeld have survived this long if Congress had been looking over his shoulder? Would 363 tons of $100 bills been flown into Baghdad - $12 billion dollars worth - and ended up with employees of the Coalition Provisional Authorities using the banded stacks as footballs?

The Republican Congress has failed. It is as dysfunctional a legislative body as has ever been elected in my lifetime. While individual members have shown brains, courage, and thoughtfulness, as a group - and especially its quiescent, arrogant, and clueless leadership - it has been a disaster. We on the right have acknowledged this fact in one way or another. There has been nary a commenter on this site (with the exception of the few hopeless partisans who still drop by now and again) who hasn’t pointed out with brutal clarity the shortcomings of our party’s elected representatives. We should now take the next step and set up the guillotine because its time for some heads to start rolling.

To the Republicans in Congress, I would say yes, investigating Administration shortcomings is a partisan undertaking and it is a given that Democrats will turn hearings on any wrongdoing involving the war be it corruption in contract letting or prisoner abuse into one long diatribe against George Bush and the war. But you are all big boys and girls and politics is a tough business. If you can’t take the heat, stand aside and let others take your place with more fortitude and a desire to do the job citizens elected you to do. The medicine will be strong. But not taking it will once again plunge Republicans into minority status and elevate people who, we all believe, would not do the job of protecting America in this critical hour.

If Congress had something like the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War today, I daresay not only Donald Rumsfeld, but also the self serving, ass covering Generals who have recently come out calling for his resignation would have been in the Committee’s sights from day one. Rumsfeld’s failures are their failures. The fact that they are too arrogant to see that says everything you need to know about their “confessions.”

I really am at a loss about what to do. Staying home on election day goes against everything I believe about Republicans and democracy. But I am coming around to the belief that if not voting is the only way to change the leadership dynamic of the Republican party so that honorable conservatives rise to positions of prominence, then so be it.

When Donald Rumsfeld was nominated as Defense Secretary way back when the world was young, the daffodils were blooming, there were still two tall Trade Center towers standing in New York, and we could delude ourselves into thinking that America was invulnerable, the conventional wisdom about the President’s national security choices was that they were a “dream team,” the brightest, the most competent administrators available. Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and Cheney - they would be able to guide and teach the inexperienced former Governor of Texas about the ways of the world and reshape American military and foreign policy for the new century.

It’s hard for many of us to recall those days before our silly pretensions about the world were blasted away in the fire, and smoke, and rubble of 9/11. It’s equally difficult for most to recall the immediate aftermath of that horrible day, when American arms performed extraordinary feats of martial skill in vanquishing first the Taliban and then Saddam Hussein. The world looked on in awe - and some in fear - as America accomplished in a few short months what the old Soviet Red Army failed to do in a decade - win a war in Afghanistan.

Equally breathtaking was our triumph in Iraq as American forces raced to Baghdad, brushing aside Saddam’s once powerful army as if it weren’t even there. The architect of those two victories - Donald Rumsfeld - was feted and lionized by most as being the right man in the right place at that time in history. The Defense Secretary enjoyed the confidence of the overwhelming majority of the American people, with a 70% approval rating for his performance in June of 2002 following the Afghanistan campaign and a 71% positive rating in April of 2003 following the fall of Baghdad.

But then came Abu Ghraib. And the insurgency. And mounting American casualties. And finally a sense that Rumsfeld had lost touch with what was really happening on the ground in Iraq. His cheery pronouncements about “progress” were belied by the intractability of the insurgency and questions about who exactly we were fighting. By the time it became clear to the Defense Department that we were in fact fighting almost exclusively a domestic insurgency with deep tribal and sectarian roots in communities that offered them aid and shelter, more than 1000 Americans had been killed and nearly 10,000 wounded.

Then, with no fanfare and no public announcement, the Pentagon switched gears and began to do the things necessary to tamp down what by September of 2004 had become a full blown domestic insurrection against the occupation, not simply foreign terrorists seeking to thwart American designs for Iraqi democracy and Sunni bitter enders. The army began to improve its ground tactics to seek out and destroy the insurgents while continuing to look for ways to safeguard vehicles against the dreaded IED’s.

But for Rumsfeld, whose outlook on the war always seemed to see an overflowing glass rather one that was less than half empty, the disconnect continued. Abu Ghraib and reports of other prisoner abuse showed an executive whose approval of questionable interrogation techniques led to abuses far beyond what any American army had ever done. For this alone, he should have been sacked long ago.

But Bush has hung on to his Defense Secretary almost willfully, a stubbornness that reveals a character flaw that has gotten him into trouble time and time again both in domestic politics and in the prosecution of the war. While not in total agreement with this analysis by a commenter at Belgravia Dispatch, it points out a glaring weakness in the President’s national security planning that must be addressed:

First of all Bush has delegated virtually all war planning and management of the military to Rumsfeld; his own relationships with uniformed military officers or other Pentagon officials appear to be neither numerous nor deep compared to those of other wartime Presidents. Secondly he relies to an unusual — really, an unprecedented — degree on his Vice President to advise him on the political and diplomatic strategy behind the war. Vice President Cheney, a former Rumsfeld subordinate, has been the Defense Secretary’s strongest backer.

The unusual position this has allowed Rumsfeld to assume helps to explain key American policy moves throughout the Iraq war, and in other fields as well. The point I want to make here is that his departure now would not be like any other Cabinet Secretary’s departure — it would leave a huge hole in the middle of Bush’s administration, a vacuum that could only be filled by someone Bush trusted enough to delegate approximately as much authority as that he has given to Rumsfeld. Apart from Cheney himself, there is no such person.

Bush came into office promising a repeat of Ronald Reagan’s so called “CEO Management” style where wide latitude was given cabinet secretaries to carry out policies set by the executive. This worked reasonably well for Reagan in his first term, less so in the second. But the key was that Reagan seemed to have an intuitive sense when to reign in his people, moderating some of their policies to reflect a basic conservative worldview. For instance, while giving defense secretary Cap Weinberger a virtual blank check to re-build the American military, Reagan nevertheless continually asked Weinberger to take a red pen to the defense budget and come up with savings. Reagan was engaged in matters of the budget but left the Big Picture of how to improve our military to the defense secretary.

But Reagan did not have to deal with an ongoing conflict in his time as President, only the long shadow struggle with Soviet Communism. President Bush is not vouchsafed such a luxury. For a President to be so disengaged when it comes to war planning, (a criticism offered by both current and former Administration officials), is to invite disaster. With no one looking over his shoulder, Rumsfeld has erred stupendously in planning for the occupation, in underestimating the insurgency, in stewardship of the billions in reconstruction funds initially given to the Coalition Provisional Authority, and in not realizing that by authorizing interrogation techniques that sidled up to the line of outright torture, it was inevitable that line would be crossed in a horrific series of disclosures that has stained the honor of America and her military.

It may leave a huge hole in his Administration if the President asks Rumsfeld to resign. And it won’t win the Iraq War. But if Rumsfeld stays, there’s a very good chance we will fail. And the President’s obstinacy in keeping the Secretary long past the time it became obvious that he was damaged goods speaks to a flaw in the President’s character that may yet bring him down.

UPDATE

There are, of course, many who don’t quite see it my way. Here’s Richard Fernandez on the recent spate of calls for Rumsfeld’s resignation from retired generals.

UPDATE

One condenscending lefty emailer congratulates me on “following the lead of the generals” in calling for Rummy’s resignation. Readers will note in my main post, I never mentioned those generals who have come out recently calling for Rumsfeld to resign. I didn’t need to. I have written several posts in the last year calling for Rummy’s ouster.

I don’t put much stock in what retired generals say anyway. From my point of view, they are complicit in Rumsfeld’s failures for not doing the honorable thing and resigning if they disagreed so strongly with policy.

In his Wednesday column, David Ignatius has a cautionary tale about conflict with Iran that is chilling in its implications for the future. He asks if the situation with Iranian nuclear ambitions is analogous to what President John F. Kennedy faced with the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and if there are any “lessons” that can be learned from our experience in facing down the Russians during that crucial 13 days in October.

I do not believe much in “learning” from history in this fashion. History’s broad sweep precludes such lessons drawn from specific events such as the Missile Crisis, a once in a generation confrontation between superpowers. The currents that make up the ebb and flow of historical forces also have changed radically since that time as the forces of democracy, globalization, and capitalism are in the ascendancy - the exact opposite of what was occurring in the early 1960’s as the Soviet model was sweeping across Africa, establishing a toehold in Asia, and even being dallied with in Latin America.

Kennedy saw the challenge which is why he thought Viet Nam so important. Increasing American advisers from Eisenhower’s 850 to an eventual total of 16,500 before he died, Kennedy saw Viet Nam as the last chance for the west to establish a credible deterrent to the expansion of the Soviet model in the third world.

And we know where that led.

Ignatius describes a valuable atmospheric surrounding the Missile Crisis; the way Kennedy reached his decision:

Kennedy’s genius was to reject the Cuba options proposed by his advisers, hawk and dove alike, and choose his own peculiar outside-the-box strategy. He issued a deadline but privately delayed it; he answered a first, flexible message from Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev but not a second unyielding one; he said he would never take U.S. missiles out of Turkey, as the Soviets were demanding, and then secretly did precisely that. Disaster was avoided because Khrushchev believed Kennedy was willing to risk war — but wanted to avoid it.

The Bush administration needs to be engaged in a similar exercise in creative thinking. The military planners will keep looking for targets (as they must, in a confrontation this serious). But Bush’s advisers — and most of all, the president himself — must keep searching for ways to escape the inexorable logic that is propelling America and Iran toward war. I take heart from the fact that the counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Philip Zelikow, is an expert on the Cuban missile crisis who co-authored the second edition of Allison’s “Essence of Decision.”

The key here is “willing to risk war but want[ing] to avoid it.” There seems to be a general belief on the right that the Iranian hierarchy cannot be negotiated with, that they are not rational human beings and would, in fact, welcome death and destruction as it would then meet the conditions for the re-appearance of the so-called 12th Imam who would unite Islam and conquer the world.

I have no idea if this is true. I am not completely dismissive of the idea as many on the left seem to be nor do I necessarily think the entire Iranian government has gone of the edge of a cliff and lost touch with reality. That’s what makes this crisis so unpredictable. President Ahmadinejad uses rhetoric the likes of which have not been seen on the international stage since the days of Adolph Hitler’s thundering orations threatening to wipe Czechoslovakia “off the map.” At that time, Neville Chamberlain dismissed Hitler’s apoplectic rants as political sops to the militarists in the German government. (Chamberlain remained blissfully ignorant of the fact that Hitler was the #1 German militarist until it was far too late).

Since we’re talking about a nuclear Iran, we can be vouchsafed no such luxury of miscalculation. And given the recent history of US-Iranian relations, prudence dictates that we take Ahmadinejad at his word and plan accordingly. Herein lies the fallacy in Mr. Ignatius’ historical parallel with October, 1962: With Russia, we were dealing essentially with a state that was as concerned about its survival as we were. At present, we are not so sure that the leaders of the Iranian theocracy share that concern.

For that reason, some see military action as inevitable. The reasoning goes that under all circumstances, the Iranians must not be allowed to make a nuclear weapon because they do not recognize “traditional” nuclear deterrence strategies. In order for Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to work, both sides have to fear destruction. It is an open question whether the theocrats in Iran fear any such possibility.

Of course, this won’t stop the diplomatic dance at the United Nations or in the capitals of Europe where America will go to seek allies and partners in sanctions and in military planning. But perhaps it might be useful to recall one aspect of the Missile Crisis that, above all others, may have led to the defusing of tensions between the superpowers; the unwritten promise by the United States government that it would not seek to overthrow the Castro regime. In short, a guarantee of Cuban sovereignty.

Kruschev wrote in his memoirs that the reasons he placed missiles in Cuba in the first place was to redress what the Russians saw as a strategic imbalance between the two countries and to protect his client from a Bay of Pigs repeat. The missiles were removed only after Kennedy promised privately to retire the obsolete Jupiter missiles based in Turkey (which were as provocative from the Soviet point of view as missiles in Cuba were to the United States) and a further guarantee that the Americans would not invade or use a proxy army to overthrow Castro. Later, Bobby Kennedy reasoned that such a promise did not include attempts to assassinate Castro, which continued until at least 1965.

Would such a Quid Pro Quo work with the Iranians? Could we guarantee the sovereignty of the Iranian state in exchange for intrusive inspections by the IAEA and a promise by the mullahs not to enrich uranium?

All would depend on whether or not the leaders of Iran are indeed rational and fear war with the United States and the destruction of their regime. And much would also depend on the IAEA, an organization that would have to prove itself to be more than the nuclear enabler it has been in the past.

A tall order, that. And before we could even contemplate such an agreement, there would have to be what diplomats call “confidence building measures” in the interim, something that at this point, seems to be beyond the capability of both countries. Clearly, only a trusted third party could initiate such a dialogue. And given the pariah state of the Iranian nation, such a list would be very short indeed.

There will come a point where direct negotiations with the Iranians will become inevitable. It would help considerably if when that occurs, those negotiations have a chance of succeeding. For that to happen, nothing - including a military option or our willingness to guarantee Iranian sovereignty - can be taken off the table. For when thinking about war with Iran, it is best to remember that unforeseen consequences inevitably follow from conflict.

And those consequences may be so harmful to our interests that we may wish we had explored every option to end the crisis peacefully.

Here are the results from the latest Watchers Council vote.

In the Council category, Rhymes with Right walked away with top honors in a close vote with “Immigration Protests By High School Students.” Finishing in a tie for second was Gates of Vienna with “Aztlan and al-Andalus: Return to a Mythical Golden Age” and yours truly for my post “Dreams and Myths: Hollywood and 9/11.”

In the Non-Council category, first place was a runaway with American Digest winning handily for “On the Return of History.”

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

“Beware of Neocons Bringing Up Nazi Germany” was the working title of this post but I chucked it in favor of a header more reflective of my mood this morning.

It is indeed disheartening to read this piece in the Weekly Standard by Mr. Kristol, a usually clear headed, incisive thinker, who raises the specter of Hitler’s march into the Rhineland as a simile for our situation with Iran:

IN THE SPRING OF 1936–seventy years ago–Hitler’s Germany occupied the Rhineland. The French prime minister denounced this as “unacceptable.” But France did nothing. As did the British. And the United States.

In a talk last year, Christopher Caldwell quoted the great Raymond Aron’s verdict: “To say that something is unacceptable was to say that one accepted it.” Aron further remarked that Blum had in fact seemed proud of France’s putting up no resistance. Indeed, Blum had said, “No one suggested using military force. That is a sign of humanity’s moral progress.” Aron remarked: “This moral progress meant the end of the French system of alliances, and almost certain war.”

William Shirer said basically the same thing in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich which, given the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, is certainly true. But it is also true that trying to compare French reluctance to stop the Germans from re-militarizing what, after all, was their own territory with trying to prevent the Iranians from getting the bomb is a bit of a stretch. It had been 18 years since Versailles and the treaty by that time was seen as a disaster. Even without an integrated Europe, war reparations (suspended by the allies in 1930) along with depression had emasculated the German economy. By 1936, some politicians saw a weak Germany as a drag on their own economies (and a poor buffer against the Soviets). Hitler marching into the Rhineland killed the treaty once and for all, a turn of events that the shortsighted French did not view unkindly.

I understand what Mr. Kristol is struggling to say; that IF France and Great Britain had acted, Hitler would almost certainly have been deposed by the Wehrmacht allowing Europe to avoid World War II. Let’s not quibble with metaphors. Let’s quibble with the notion that taking action against Iran has the real possibility of igniting a war, not stopping one.

If we think we have problems in Iraq now with the Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda terrorists, they are nothing compared with the trouble that several hundred thousand Shia militiamen would cause if we bombed Iran. Muqtada al-Sadr, who has promised to unleash his militia against Americans if we bomb Iranian nuclear sites, is just waiting for an opening like this. At a time when other Shia parties are seeking to marginalize the young firebrand, he would suddenly become a hero to ordinary Iraqis (despite their reservations about Iranian influence in their country). Of course, our military can handle al-Sadr but at what cost? And what if other Shia militias including the Badr Brigade join in? We’d be faced with an entirely new situation on the ground, every hand raised against us, one that the left would spin as a second Tet Offensive.

In short, disaster. Kristol may argue that it would be worth it if we could take out Iran’s nuclear program sooner rather than later despite the fact that the Iranians are years from achieving success in building a bomb but I don’t see the rush. Kristol does:

Given Iranian president Ahmadinejad’s recent statements and actions, it should be obvious that it is not “a sign of humanity’s moral progress”–to use Blum’s phrase–to appease the mullahs. It is not “moral progress” to put off serious planning for military action to a later date, probably in less favorable circumstances, when the Iranian regime has been further emboldened, our friends in the region more disheartened, and allies more confused by years of fruitless diplomacy than they would be by greater clarity and resolution now.

I’m sorry, but I believe this to be utter nonsense. The situation two or three years from now may, in fact, be enormously improved. At the same time, how much will things really change in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, our “friends in the region” who would be “more disheartened” if we go the diplomatic route for the present? And if - an admittedly big if - we can get the Europeans to go along with a sanctions regime that has some real bite, the rickety Iranian economy (more than 20% unemployment) along with a restive populace may moderate the Iranian regime for us. At the very least, we can work like hell to deny the Iranians materials that would assist them in building a bomb. Centrifuges don’t grow on trees. Denying Iran the elements to manufacture them would probably be a good idea.

And how much more “confused” can our allies be than they are now? I daresay holding off on the military option unless it was absolutely necessary would have our friends more apt to assist us in sanctions. As far as Russia and China, I mentioned in another post that they need the west a lot more than they need Iran. Any overt undermining of the sanctions would not be taken lightly by us or our allies. Rhetoric in Iran’s defense is one thing. Actually encouraging the mullahs in their bomb making plans by circumventing sanctions is something else entirely.

Finally, Kristol draws what I believe to be an erroneous conclusion about our Iraq adventure:

The strategist Eliot Cohen was correct when he told the New York Times last week, “I don’t get a sense that people in the administration are champing at the bit to launch another war in the Persian Gulf.” They’re not. No one is. But it is also the case that a great nation has to be serious about its responsibilities, even if executing other responsibilities has been more difficult than one would have hoped.

“Great nations” should also know not to bite off more than they can chew. Our power is not unlimited. The consequences of an Iran strike have been detailed elsewhere including my own take here. Mr. Kristol, who seems to be advocating a “sooner rather than later” strike against Iran (presumably after sanctions fail) must also know the potential consequences of bombing Iran.

Therefore, one wonders about his last statement regarding our difficulties in Iraq. Can’t we be “serious about [our] responsibilities” while at the same time cognizant of our shortcomings? Seems to me, that was exactly our problem in Iraq. Too few troops, too optimistic about handling the insurgency, too little effort at both reconstruction and training the Iraqi army - and here we are today. Iraq is still something of a mess and time is running out to turn the situation around before the political will to stay and finish the job evaporates completely.

Far be it from me to criticize Mr. Kristol’s intent or question his base assumption that Iran with nukes is a very bad thing and needs to be blocked if at all possible. But I’m coming around to the notion that when you have no good choices, there can be no good outcomes. If this make me a defeatist on Iran so be it.

UPDATE

William Arkin of WaPo has this breathless piece of merde regarding war planning full of ominus sounding acronyms, changing metrics, invasion scenarios, and war games.

Wake me when we start shifting military assets closer to the war zone. Tap me on the shoulder when we start getting overflight permissions from the half dozen or so countries where our planes will have to overfly (places where people will be falling all over themselves to leak that fact to the press). Kick me in the shins when we start shifting half the US Air Force around.

We won’t be able to hide preparations that envision at the very least 700-1000 sorties to take out the known Iranian nuclear sites. And if ground troops are involved, you’re talking about a buildup comparable to Desert Storm - about 4-6 months.

Arkins point - that we should throw an arm around the Iranian’s shoulder and tell them that we are, in fact, planning for war and that they better play ball with the international community and stop enriching uranium is well intentioned but myopic. And his analogy with Iraq is curious. Saddam may have believed we sent 160,000 troops to sit in the desert in order to get suntans but no other rational human being did. Everyone on the planet knew we were going to invade.

The problem with all the talk of “war planning” is that it makes us weaker, not stronger. We have time for alternatives to war. If decision time were six months away I’d say go ahead, sit down with Iranian representatives and show them what we can do if you think that will help. But such is not the case and talking about war plans now only plays into the mullah’s propaganda campaign at home and abroad.

We have a good three years to get our stuff together - build a coalition, initiate meaningful sanctions, and plan for the worst. The leaks in recent weeks about our military options have served their purpose of warning the Iranians that we mean business. Arkin suggests we go public by having Rumsefeld say that yes, we are planning for war with Iran. I think this wrongheaded and may in fact have the opposite effect Mr. Arkin visualizes.

For now, the Administration is playing it just right.

There. Don’t you feel a little better now? I knew that you would. When in close combat with your political opponent, it’s always a good idea to take a moment to review, revitalize, and relax.

That’s what we’re doing, of course. This “crisis” has not been the doing of the Bush Administration. The blame for jacking up domestic tensions falls entirely and without question on the rabid dog left. Even liberal Democrats (for the most part) have dismissed immediate military action as a chimera. What passes for analysis on left wing blogs and punditry would have us believe that Bush will bomb Iran to take the heat off of the White House due to the Libby scandal, or that Bush will bomb the mullahs in September to rally the country to the Republican standard, or that the President will attack because he sees the end times coming and wants to start Armageddon.

Someone should just dump a bucket of cold water on their pointy heads and tell them to cool off.

The Administration has held no press conferences, no briefings of any kind. They have given measured, careful responses (outside of the President’s apropos characterization of Sy Hersh’s fantasy story about the United States using nuclear weapons in Iraq as “wild speculation) to the notion of military action against the mullahs. Negotiations remain the primary option of this Administration, despite leaks that were 1) meant to let the Iranians know we mean what we say; and/or 2) signal the Europeans and others to get busy at the UN.

Hersh’s dramatic story about disgusted military officers ready to quit if the JCS recommendations included a nuclear option must be taken with a very large dose of salt. Mr. Hersh has penned some of the most curious (and that is me at my most charitable) volumes that purport to be “fact based” in the last quarter century. The Dark Side of Camelot was almost universally condemned as a scandal mongering load of crap, so much so that one wag referred to it as “The Second JFK Assassination.”

And who could forget The Target is Destroyed, a book about the Soviet downing of KAL Flight 007 where Hersh gave the Soviets a virtual pass in shooting down the civilian airliner all because the US had a spy plane in the vicinity and the Soviets mistook the clear civilian markings on the KAL 747 for our intelligence platforms being flown in converted 707’s. (The pilot who shot down 007 pleaded with his superiors, telling them it was in fact a civilian airliner. So much for mistaken identity).

In fairness, Hersh has done some first class work in exposing aspects of the My Lai massacre as well as a mostly factual account of Henry Kissinger’s tenure as the doyen of American foreign policy. But his otherwise excellent book The Samson Option was criticized for poor sourcing and many of Hersh’s articles in recent years have depended almost exclusively on sources who remain anonymous. In effect, Hersh expects us to take him at his word, his reputation being enough to satisfy our questions regarding the viability of his claims.

As a man of the left, he can get away with it. Which brings us back to the current meltdown by the left about our military planning to take out Iranian nuclear capability. Despite President Ahmadinejad’s bluster about Iran joining the nuclear club, the “achievement” of Iraqi scientists is so rudimentary and preliminary to building a bomb that one wonders why he even bothered to announce it. The left leaning blog Arms Control Wonk posted a series of articles on the Iranian nuclear program and gave a reasonable timetable for a crash program by the mullahs to make an atomic device:

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

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

Enrich enough HEU for a nuclear weapon. 1 year

Weaponize the HEU. A “few” months.

Total time to the bomb—about three years.

The difference between what the Iranians achieved yesterday - a successful “cascade” involving 164 centrifuges - and what would be necessary to enrich enough uranium for one single bomb is like the difference between a tricycle and an Indy racing car. In order to weaponize enough uranium for a single bomb, the Iranians would need nearly 10 times the number of centrifuges (that they probably do not have at the moment) spinning at nearly 700 times a second, all working together flawlessly for many months, night and day, before the uranium was enriched not by the measly 3.5% the Iranians claimed yesterday but by at least 80% which most experts say would be the absolute minimum enrichment threshold for the uranium to achieve critical mass and detonate.

The technical challenges for such an operation would tax the labs and brainpower of most First World countries much less the Third World nation of Iran. It took the greatest brains on the planet at the time of the Manhattan Project nearly 3 years and what in today’s dollars would be nearly $75 billion to solve many of the technical problems involved in constructing an atomic bomb. While it is true many of these technical challenges have since been leaked into the public domain, there remain several key steps that are classified.

At the same time, our intrepid spies at the CIA are almost certainly dreaming when they claim as they did in a National Intelligence Estimate that the Iranians are a decade or more away from achieving their nuclear ambitions. The Israelis are under no such illusions as they also have gone on record (by way of background briefings) saying that Iran is much closer to that dangerous goal; 3-5 years being their timetable.

Of course, this timetable does not take into account some “shortcuts” the Iranians could use:

* Purchasing highly enriched uranium from a third party

* Acquiring nuclear weapons elsewhere

* Getting the requisite technical assistance from experienced foreign nuclear scientists.

The first two of these shortcuts are highly unlikely given how closely nuclear material is monitored around the world. And while we’ve been hearing for years that nuclear weapons from Russia have been on the market in all sorts of manifestations including so-called “suitcase” bombs, nuclear artillery shells, and even old short range missiles with nuclear warheads, the fact is not a one has been used. And given how closely Iran has been watched by both Americans and Israelis, it seems highly unlikely the mullahs have been able to purchase a ready made weapon on the black market.

The third shortcut is much more likely. There are indications that the Iranians have already gotten help from Pakistani scientists as well as North Korean technicians. Such assistance could considerably shorten the time for the Iranians to develop a nuclear capability.

The point I’m trying to make is that if we know all this, so does the Administration. This is why the UN is still a viable option and, if necessary, multi-lateral sanctions by Western powers against the Iranians. While the Russians and Chinese both oppose such a move, it is probable they would not overtly undermine such sanctions, bringing as it almost certainly will, trouble with their western partners. And since both giants need the west a heckuva lot more than they need Iran, there’s a good chance that any sanctions regime the US and NATO can come up with will have some bite.

The hyperventilating left and the itchy trigger fingers on the right should bear all of this in mind when discussing what to do about Iran. We have some time. Time to carefully build a powerhouse coalition of nations that takes Ahmadinejad at his word when he says he wants to “wipe the State of Israel off the map.” This won’t be accomplished overnight. But the major weaknesses in Iran’s economy as well as a restive population, chafing at 26 years of theocratic rule, could work in favor of the Iranians being forced to abandon their mad ambition to get the ultimate defense against cartoon blasphemy.

UPDATE

More cold water thrown on the fire by Greg Djerejian.

And Ed Morrissey, while slightly more optimistic about Iranian capabilities, still gives time frame of 2-3 years.

Tom Holsinger believes in scenario #2 above; that the Iranians already have fissionable material via North Korea. Read his deductions at Captains Quarters post linked above, comment #2.

A cockpit voice recording, never heard in public in its entirety, may indicate that United Flight 93 passengers actually broke through the cockpit door and battled the hijackers for control of the plane.

The dramatic recording was played during the penalty phase of the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui who shouted to the crowd as he was being led out “God curse you all.”

Previously, excerpts from the cockpit recording gave no clue as to whether or not the passengers managed to storm the cockpit to try and wrest control of the plane from the hijackers. But this snippet seems to indicate that not only did the passengers make it into the cockpit, but actually injured a terrorist:

As the tape proceeded, it was clear that passengers were gaining the upper hand.

Sounds of a struggle can be heard. At that point, the plane appears to go out of control. There are sounds of the hijackers trying to shake off the passengers. The plane pitches back and forth.

The 9/11 Commission report never mentions the passengers actually succeeding in breaking into the cockpit:

At 9:57, the passenger assault began. Several passengers had terminated phone calls with loved ones in order to join the revolt. One of the callers ended her message as follows: “Everyone’s running up to first class. I’ve got to go. Bye.”85

The cockpit voice recorder captured the sounds of the passenger assault muffled by the intervening cockpit door. Some family members who listened to the recording report that they can hear the voice of a loved one among the din. We cannot identify whose voices can be heard. But the assault was sustained.86

In response, Jarrah immediately began to roll the airplane to the left and right, attempting to knock the passengers off balance. At 9:58:57, Jarrah told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door. Jarrah continued to roll the airplane sharply left and right, but the assault continued. At 9:59:52, Jarrah changed tactics and pitched the nose of the airplane up and down to disrupt the assault. The recorder captured the sounds of loud thumps, crashes, shouts, and breaking glasses and plates. At 10:00:03, Jarrah stabilized the airplane.87

Five seconds later, Jarrah asked, “Is that it? Shall we finish it off?” A hijacker responded, “No. Not yet. When they all come, we finish it off.” The sounds of fighting continued outside the cockpit. Again, Jarrah pitched the nose of the aircraft up and down. At 10:00:26, a passenger in the background said, “In the cockpit. If we don’t we’ll die!” Sixteen seconds later, a passenger yelled, “Roll it!” Jarrah stopped the violent maneuvers at about 10:01:00 and said, “Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!” He then asked another hijacker in the cock-pit, “Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?” to which the other replied, “Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.”88

The passengers continued their assault and at 10:02:23, a hijacker said, “Pull it down! Pull it down!” The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them. The airplane headed down; the control wheel was turned hard to the right. The airplane rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting “Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.” With the sounds of the passenger counterattack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes’ flying time from Washington, D.C.89

They never gave up. They never surrendered.

If you get HBO, you might want to check out The Hamburg Cell which tells the story of some of the hijackers and gives a somewhat sympathetic portrayal of Jarrah, one of the hijackers of Flight 93. One thing the movie does - perhaps unintentionally - is show how radical Islam became so attractive to upper middle class Arabs like Jarrah who felt so out of place in western Europe going to school. The movie points out that the terrorists were not “victims” in any sense of the word but rather cold blooded killers who used religion to justify their murder.

Spring is in the air. Outside of my bedroom window I can hear a robin warbling a welcome to warm weather, singing for its mate with the joy of the season heard in every note. The waterbugs are dancing on the surface of the creek, easy pickings for the bass and pike who, after having spawned thus assuring the next generation of challenges for local anglers, ravenously attack the hapless insects, themselves answering the call of nature to be fruitful and multiply.

Even the squirrels are getting into the swing of spring as they scurry across my backyard oblivious to the hungry looks from my cats who now sit in the open windows sizing up potential quarry - that is, if I ever let them outside. Sadly, Aramas, Ebony, and Snowball have to settle for dreaming about the chase, a daily occurrence confirmed if one were to pay attention to them while asleep. Those of us owned by kitties know when our masters are dreaming about the hunt. Their herky-jerky motions while asleep betray a shadow reverie involving the thrill of the hunt, a kitty kind of heaven where even my old girl Ebony is young and sleek and able.

Fortunately for us here at the Carnival, spring also means the sprouting of the clueless into the full flower of moonbattiness and wingnuttiness. In such a target rich environment, our contributors have had a field day.

Carnival holdover from last week Representative Cynthia McKinney continues to exhibit a level of cluelessness that boggles the mind. And President Ahmadinejad of Iran has proven that he deserves to be put on suicide watch by celebrating the fact that his scientists have unlocked some of the mysteries of the atom.

But, like the Immortals in The Highlander films, for Cluebat of the Week, “There can only be one.” And who else can this coveted title go to than our friend, Jacques Chirac, who not only demonstrated the latest french fashion in surrender techniques but reminded us yet again why it’s great to be an American.

Caving in to rioters has been elevated to national policy in France. By giving in to the spoiled dilettantes and wandering youth who spent most of last week stoning police, burning cars, and running wild in the streets, the Chirac government exhibited a cluelessness not seen since their ancestor’s capitulation to Hitler at Munich in 1937.

By failing to stand by lawmakers who put their political hides on the line when they passed a sensible labor law that allowed employers to act like capitalists and not socialist weenies in their hiring and firing practices, Chirac has condemned another generation of French youth as well as the French economy to dependency and stagnation. How soon will it be that French lawmakers will once again have the courage to defy the mob in the streets when the leaders of their own government cower in the shadows, hiding from the anger of their furious children?

A long time, I daresay. And thus, one of the largest economies in Europe will continue to drag the continent toward a tipping point where their aging populations can’t work and their youth refuses to be productive enough to support them in their old age.

Disaster, thy name is appeasement.

We’ve got quite a lineup of cluebats for you this week. Go ahead and start clicking - you know you want to!

“Albrecht’s Law - Intelligent people, when assembled into an organization, will tend toward collective stupidity.””(Karl Albrecht)

“Hey Karl! Did you use the Republican Senate as a model for that axiom?
(Me)

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

Mark Coffey has a superior takedown of ex-Clinton hit man Max Blumenthal who suggested that the work of Victor Davis Hanson has been “discredited.” The link Blumenthal supplies to buttress that ridiculous charge is to a self-described “war nerd” whose silly, pretentious observations are full of conspiracy theories and laughably simple minded critiques of our war strategy. (Dave Niewert emails me that Max Blumenthal is the son of Sidney, a Clinton aide who investigated Republicans and released dirt on them - thus the sobriquet “hit man” that Mr. Neiwert seems to think indicates I believe him guilty or capable of murder. I told him to grow up. Ed.)

Kender sinks his teeth into a moonbat who has been blogging about the group site I also write for, The Wide Awakes.

Pat Curley takes on another clueless HuffPo writer, Stephen Elliott, who not only called GOP Congresswoman Heather Wilson “evil,” but then tried to cover that idiocy by deleting it from the original post. Obviously, the cluebat never heard of a Google cache. (Check the updates for further adventures in blogging by the hapless Mr. Elliott).

Orac has a great piece of writing skewering Paul Shattuck, purveyor of junk science extraordinaire, who has been spreading scare stories about vaccinations.

If they weren’t such a bloodthirsty bunch of terrorists, the cluelessness of Hamas would be fodder for stand up comedy. Iris Blog expertly reveals the looniness behind the reasoning of the murderous thugs.

The lovely Pamela at Atlas Shrugs is trying to keep track of the utter cluelessness of Reuters and their problem with terrorist nomenclature.

Jack Cluth has some real wingnuttiness from Texas as supporters of the disgraced Tom DeLay invade an opposition candidate’s rally and literally throw their weight around. Behavior unsuited to a democracy.

Cao is now a witness in a court case against the institution that harbors some of her prime tormentors - bloggers who have been using computers at Columbia University improperly.

Bill Teach instructs us in the foibles of Cynthia McKinney - and how dangerous a cluebat she really is.

HERE’S SOME CARNIVAL SATIRE FOR YOUR READING PLEASURE FROM OUR UNSTABLE STABLE OF SATIRICAL BLOGGERS:

Buckley F. Williams makes the hilarious case for Jack Bauer annexing Mexico.

You probably are unaware that we have been invaded by aliens - no, not those aliens. Actual space aliens. New-to-me website Moxargon is watching us.

The Baloney Press has the scoop on the President’s decision to export the National Hockey League to Iran.

Our favorite hippie chick Peace Moonbeam undergoes a “radical transformation” - with hysterically funny results.

Vox Poplar has more from his pen pal, the Yale Taliban.

Gullyborg has a revealing photo of the next CBS news anchor.

Dean Swift gives us a nice chuckle with this bit on a Cynthia McKinney protest by barbers and hairstylists.

CHECK THE CARNIVAL EVERY WEEK FOR THE VERY BEST SATIRE ON THE WEB!

GM Roper asks a thoughtful question: Is General Zinni, former CIC of CENTCOM, a hero or a mountebank?

Jon Swift has some thoughts on Jill Carroll and her impact on the blogosphere. I disagree strongly but hey! maybe I’m the real cluebat here…

Jay wants to Stop the ACLU from suppressing free speech at Pro-Life pregnancy centers.

Jeremy Bol has gotten some hate mail and asks people to pay his site a visit and let the cluebat know what you think. I love participatory democracy!

Ms. Underestimated has some more cluelessness from Cynthia McKinney, this involving the misuse of taxpayer funds.

Check out Spank the Donkey, a new-to-me blog with an attitude. This post on the Misadventures of Cynthia McKinney is a case in point.

Searchlight Crusade has a typical thoughtful take on war protesters and the consequences of dissent.

DL at Bacon Bits has the latest on our newest Cluebat Hall of Famer Al Gore and gives us the best title for a post this week: “Getting Bulled by Gore.”

Jake Jacobsen wonders if President Bush is insane for proposing a crazy immigration policy.

ROFA SIX: Is it sex? Or is it advertising? (perfectly safe for work…I think).

Those piquant pachyderms at Elephants in Academia gives us the complete lowdown on the consequences of the actions of our Cluebat of the Week, Jack Chirac in withdrawing the labor law.

Speaking of labor, Where I Stand has the skinny on John McCain’s appearance before a labor forum where love was apparently lost.

Josh Cohen relates some jaw-dropping cluelessness on the part of school administrators who suspended a kid who came to school with a pocketknife by mistake and voluntarily turned it into the office.

Here’s a thumbsucker I did on the cluelessness of a lefty writer who thinks all conservatives are closet racists.

Yesterday, I did a post based on an article in Truthout.org regarding some “revelations” that Bush lied to the American people and may have lied to Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald when “the President was not only briefed that Joe Wilson was trying to discredit the Saddam/Niger uranium story by going public but also that he was told that Wilson’s wife Valerie Plame was a CIA agent and had recommended sending him on the Niger trip.”

OOOOPS! My bad!

Not only was the story written by an proven plagiarizer but it now appears that Fitzgerald himself, in one of the more careless and shockingly sloppy errors his office has made to date, included language in his court filing that was untrue and, given the significance of the subject matter, leaves he and his people wide open to charges of partisanship:

An embarrassing move this afternoon from CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. In his now-famous court filing in which he said that former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby testified that he had been authorized to leak portions of the then-classified National Intelligence Estimate, Fitzgerald wrote, “Defendant understood that he was to tell [New York Times reporter Judith] Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was ‘vigorously trying to procure’ uranium.”
That sentence led a number of reporters and commentators to suggest that, beyond the issue of the leak itself, the administration was lying about the NIE, because the African uranium segment was not in fact among the NIE’s key judgments.

[...]

A few hours ago, however, Fitzgerald sent a letter to judge Reggie Walton, asking to correct his filing. The letter reads:

We are writing to correct a sentence from the Government’s Response to Defendant’s Third Motion to Compel Discovery, filed on April 5, 2006. The sentence, which is the second sentence of the second paragraph on page 23, reads, ‘Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was ‘vigorously trying to procure’ uranium.” That sentence should read, “Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, some of the key judgments of the NIE, and that the NIE stated that Iraq was ‘vigorously trying to procure’ uranium.”

One can immediately see how the change in language affects what the President might have known regarding the leaking to reporters of the NIE and Niger uranium story. Since the Niger uranium portion of the report was not a “key judgment” it stands to reason that Bush would not have asked or known of anyone who would have leaked Plame’s name - whether he knew she was Wilson’s wife or not.

Bush still must respond to another charge in Mr. Leopold’s Truthout article about being told that Plame was Wilson’s wife prior to the information coming out in Novak’s article. That information in the article comes from Mr. Leopold’s “sources” and the information should therefore be weighted accordingly. If it were true, it would contradict what Mr. Bush told both the American people and the Special Prosecutor.

The Washington Post, New York Times, and most major publications used the misinformation in the court filing as fodder for their front pages. What do you think the chances are that the correction will go in the same place?

You now have permission to pick your jaw up off the floor. We have official confirmation that Logan is indeed, an evil mastermind whose wishy-washy spinelessness has been an act that has fooled us for more than a year.

The subtlety of actor Gregory Itzin’s performance has been nothing short of brilliant. We have seen flashes of the “mastermind Logan” throughout the year. I have commented many times in the past that Logan only grows a pair when the crisis starts to affect him personally or politically. It is then that he digs in his heels and becomes decisive. Witness his insistence that the Summit with President Suburov go forward despite the terrorist threat. It seemed out of character at the time but, in light of Logan’s transformation, makes sense. The President kept the plan on track and in this, he was decisive - even going so far as to risk the life of his wife by not recalling the Suburov motorcade that he knew was going to be ambushed.

The question uppermost in everyone’s mind is why? Logan tells Henderson that the “plan” was to make America “safer and stronger” while protecting our interests. Sounds like a megalomaniac’s idea of an America under dictatorship. I hope everyone caught the fact that during his press statement, Logan did not rescind martial law despite the terrorist threat being now over. Does this presage one more attempt to frighten the American people into accepting his one man rule by initiating a terrorist attack? Or will the rest of the show become simply a political pot boiler as Jack races to take down the President? Somehow, I have faith that the writers won’t take the remaining 7 episodes to simply dethrone Logan and will have a couple of more satisfying twists that will keep us watching until the last minute of the last hour.

A word about Audrey. My Mole-O-Meter ticked considerably upward this week with regards to her association with the bad guys. At the very end of the episode, when Jack told her he had the tape, did you catch the faintest, the most fleeting sense of panic crossing her face when she asked Jack if he had listened to the tape? Was it my imagination? Or will Audrey break our hearts by revealing that she too, succumbed to the siren song of faux patriotism offered by either Henderson or Logan and will, at some point in the future, reveal a betrayal so shocking, that Jack will see no reason to go on living?

Probably not. At least that last part. Kieffer Sutherland has signed on to play Jack Bauer for three more years. Unless, of course, the announcement of Sutherland’s signing is itself a ploy and they have every intention of killing Jack off for real at the end of the show…

I really gotta get a grip here. This show does strange things to your mind.

SUMMARY

We discover that Evelyn, who was wounded at the shootout with Henderson’s boys at the plant, made a tape of Logan talking to Henderson about the Palmer assassination just that morning. What we do not discover is 1) Why Evelyn would tape the President in the first place, 2) How Evelyn could tape the phone call of a man whose communications are protected by a billion dollars worth of equipment and an army of technicians.

Maybe she listened in on a hall extension

(Note: Must be over 40 years old to get that joke).

After finding out that Evelyn took the precaution of placing the recording of the incriminating call in a safety deposit box at her friendly neighborhood bank, Jack and Wayne realize that they must get off the streets what with all the military patrols in the area. They pull into a motel so that they can treat the bleeding Evelyn who appears not to be hurt seriously. After getting a room, Wayne informs Jack that the bank’s night manager’s number was “listed” and that his house wasn’t far from the motel. (For the skeptical among you, I refer you to your local yellow pages where you can easily find your branch manager’s address and phone simply by looking under “Bank Robbers: Parts and Services”).

After leaving Evelyn to bleed in peace and quiet, Jack and Wayne head for the bank manager’s home.

At the ranch, Logan and Buckaroo Banzai have another heart to heart with Logan bemoaning the fact that everything “spiralled out of control once you (Banzai) decided to kill Palmer.” Buckaroo assures Logan that he has all the hospitals under surveillance and it would be only a matter of time before Evelyn showed up.

At CTU, Grandma Hayes (whose character is becoming more and more sympathetic as each week passes) and her oily assistant Miles receive word from the President himself that they must issue a warrant for Jack’s arrest. Logan tells Granny that “new evidence” has come to light proving that Jack was involved in Palmer’s assassination. Troubled but obedient, Granny issues the warrant just after Jack calls Audrey giving her the bad news about Logan and asks her to call her father so that the evidence of the President’s treason can be turned over to someone in the government.

Jack’s choice of Secretary Heller is a good one. Not only has Heller proved himself in combat (he offed two terrorists during his escape last year) but he also got off what has to be the best one line in the history of the show. Responding to his anti-military moonbat son who was spouting some leftist claptrap last year, Heller looked his kid right in the eye and said “Spare me the 6th grade Michael Moore logic…”

Got that right, dog.

Audrey, being only half geek (on her mother’s side), realizes she needs the services of Chloe in order to help Jack so she brings her up to speed on the plot. Seeing the warrant out for Jack’s arrest, Audrey says “It’s started” as if the previous 18 hours were nothing more than a prelude, a walk in the summer sun. If so, storm clouds are starting to gather and it’s beginning to get very dark.

Slimeball Miles reasons correctly that if they want to capture Jack, best keep track of his girlfriend. He has DHS flunkies attach a tracking device to Audrey’s car so they can follow her, hoping she will lead them straight to Jack.

Calling her father who is airborne, Audrey asks the Secretary to stop off in Los Angeles. Heller, realizing something is up, agrees to divert the plane to Van Nuys where Audrey is now on her way for the rendezvous. Heller, played by veteran actor William Devane, is a stand-up guy, a real straight shooter and if he turns out to be involved in this plot, I will eat my Official Jack Bower Boxer Shorts.

Jack and Wayne break into the bank manager’s house with ease, raising legitimate questions about whether Jack is actually a cat burglar on the side. After threatening both Carl the manager and his wife (a move that elicits a raised eyebrow from Wayne who had never seen Jack in action before) the trio start for the bank to pick up Evelyn’s evidence.

Eight year old Amy has her mother’s blood all over her hands and the entire night has just become too much for the little one. As she breaks down and starts to cry, that strangest and most compelling instinct of human mothers - their ability to hear their child crying even when unconscious or asleep - kicks in and Evelyn rises unsteadily to her feet, trying to answer this powerful call of nature. Alas, blood loss and trauma have taken their toll and she collapses, hitting her head on a table which knocks her unconscious. Amy, not knowing any better, calls 911 and gives her name thus assuring Henderson will pay them a visit.

Logan and the Veep have an interesting conversation about the “executive warrant” (?) issued for Jack. It may be my imagination but did anyone else notice that the Vice President has suddenly become a much more sympathetic character? Perhaps it was the revelation that he is not involved in the plot which has colored our perception but it just seemed that he has lost whatever menace that he had prior to last week and now appears to be on the side of the angels.

Watching her husband giving his statement on TV about the end of the crisis, Martha thinks that she has been too hard on him and offers praise for the President’s handling of the multiple crisis to Aaron. Agent Pierce, realizing things are far from over, let’s on that he is “battle worn” - a perfect descriptive for how many of us feel at this point. Pierce then calls Jack to tell him that there’s an arrest warrant out for him, a development that Jack takes a helluva lot better than I would have if I were in his shoes. Pierce asks Jack if there’s anything he can do and our hero gives the agent advice that all of Jack friends should take to heart: “Keep your eyes open and watch your back.”

Avoiding military patrols by making their way to the bank on foot, the trio of Jack, Wayne, and Carl enter the building and, after giving Jack the codes for breaking into the vault, Carl recognizes Wayne who spills the beans about what they’re up to. Carl should have kept his mouth shut, not realizing perhaps that almost all innocent bystanders who offer to help Jack end up wishing they hadn’t.

Meanwhile, Audrey stops at a gas station and calls Chloe who instructs her in the finer points of how to use CTU’s Magic Walkie Talkie that allows you not only to communicate with anyone in the world at any time, anywhere, but can also sniff out electronic tracking devices that just happened to be attached to your car. Ditching the tracker by placing it on a truck, Audrey speeds off to Van Nuys.

At the bank, Jack retrieves the incriminating tape that proves Logan’s involvement in the plot. The hard part over, Jack makes ready to leave but…too late! Buckeroo’s thugs have the bank surrounded. That’s because Henderson, informed of little Amy’s 911 call, shows up at the motel, offs the two EMT’s treating Evelyn, and was able to get woman to give up where Jack was.

Although pretty horrible to contemplate, it’s hard to imagine Henderson leaving either Evelyn or 8 year old Amy alive to tell any tales.

Back at CTU, Miles has tasked a satellite to find Audrey, a feat of legerdemain easily accomplished, not easily explained. Discovering this thanks to Sweet Sherry’s heads-up, Chloe goes into the server room to corrupt the data and prevent the satellite from tracking Audrey’s car. As the signal fades to black, Miles knows it can only be Chloe and races to the server room. Not finding her there, he sees her coming out of the women’s bathroom and initiates this classic bit of Chloe:

MILES: What are you doing?

CHLOE: What?

MILES: WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

CHLOE: Are you kidding? If you really want the details, I’ll write you a report.

One gets the feeling that she would, in fact, enjoy writing such a report. Miles, of course, is defeated again, becoming something of a running bureaucratic joke.

Back at the bank, realizing his options are extremely limited, Jack decides the only way out is to get some help. He has Carl trip the alarm deliberately which brings a couple of squads of LA’s finest roaring into the bank parking lot at which point Henderson orders his men to take out the cops lest they get their hands on that precious tape. This is exactly what Jack was counting on, hoping not only to get in a little target practice but also use the diversion of the cop/bad guy fire fight to make his escape.

A terrific gun fight erupts on the peaceful street with Jack being able to get two of Buckeroo’s henchmen while sidling away from the gun battle and toward a cop car whose occupants have met an unfortunate end. All seems to be going fairly well for Buckeroo’s boys - that is, until the army shows up. Several APC’s take up a blocking position and open fire with their 50 cals turning what was an even battle between the police and the thugs into a slaughter.

With bullets flying everywhere, poor Carl takes one for the team before being hurled into the police car and with Jack at the wheel, they speed away from the bloody scene. On the phone with Audrey, Jack finds out where to go and starts toward Van Nuys airport to meet Audrey, Secretary Heller, and the potential showdown with Logan.

BODY COUNT

Two EMT’s make their last call. Two cops go down in the line of duty. Five thugs go down with Jack accounting for two of them. Carl shoulda stayed in bed.

JACK: 26

SHOW: 174

SPECULATION

Are we headed for a civil war? As Secretary of Defense, Heller could be in a position to command some troops, especially if he is able to convince some of the Joint Chiefs to back him. Logan, as CIC, also could count on the loyalty of some troops.

What happens if Logan doesn’t want to leave? Farfetched of course. But it would certainly raise some interesting possibilities, wouldn’t it?

UPDATE

My friends at Blogs4Bauer as usual, have the best liveblogging, Tivo blogging, as well as the best speculation in the industry. Check out who they discovered to be “mole of the week.”