Right Wing Nut House

The latest IPSOS-AP poll is out and it’s official: an overwhelming majority of Americans support the Constitution.

The American Constitution, that is.

This earth shattering news is based on the fact that 1001 people responded to one of the silliest questions ever asked by a major polling organization:

An overwhelming number of people say critics of the Iraq war should be free to voice their objections - a rare example of widespread agreement about a conflict that has divided the nation along partisan lines.

Well, duh.

Nearly three weeks after a grieving California mother named Cindy Sheehan started her anti-war protest near President Bush’s Texas ranch, nine of 10 people surveyed in an AP-Ipsos poll say it’s OK for war opponents to publicly share their concerns about the conflict.

I think if some pasty-faced pollster had asked me that question I would have looked at him as if he was from the planet Mongol and spit in his eye for insulting my intelligence. Why would such a question be of earth shattering importance? Better they ask if 1001 Americans like ice cream or enjoy sex.

Of course, the purpose of the question was to tie that 90% figure into the Cindy Sheehan-George Bush “Stand-Off” in Crawford. By implication, the AP is making it seem as if people are endorsing Sheehan’s quixotic, Quixote-like quest to bitch slap the President over the Iraq war - a moment she devoutly hoped would have been a catalyst for the anti-war movement.

Instead, the President won’t see her. Now that’s a question I would love to know the answer to: “Should President Bush meet with Cindy Sheehan despite the fact that he met with her once already and where she expressed her thanks to the President for “really caring?”

Somehow, I don’t think we’ll be seeing a question like that asked by any national polling outfit anytime soon.

Other poll results showed the President’s approval in handling the Iraq War right where it should be: around 37%. I know I would have given my disapproval for the way the civilians have handled the war recently. While our military is doing its usual spectacular job, the President and the brass in the Pentagon seem wedded to policies that are confusing, contradictory, and unrealistic.

One result of the poll that surprised me was that only 53% of the people think the war was a mistake. After the most relentless and aggressively anti-war media campaign in American history 47% of the American people still think invading Iraq was the right move. The poll also showed a solid 60% favor staying in Iraq till the job is done. The Gallup number is much higher - 67% - which could reflect an oddity in the way the polling was conducted.

There was the inevitable (and tiresome) comparison to Viet Nam:

More than half of those polled, 53 percent, say the United States made a mistake in going to war in Iraq. That level of opposition is about the same as the number who said that about Vietnam in August 1968, six months after the Tet offensive - the massive North Vietnamese attack on South Vietnamese cities that helped turn U.S. opinion against that war. Various polls have shown that erosion of war support has been faster in Iraq than during the Vietnam War in the 1960s.

Please note the totally unrelated mention of August 1968. What in God’s name does that have to do with a poll taken in August 2005? The 1968 poll was taken “six months after the Tet Offensive.” The 2005 poll was taken six months after…February. Now I hate the month of February as much as the next man but to compare Tet with February is just a little kooky.

And then there’s the helpful information (wishful?) that the erosion of war support (in what way?) has been faster in Iraq than Viet Nam.

Perhaps it would have been more helpful to know what analysis those numbers were based on. Seems to be a pretty broad statement to make with no proof to back it up. Perhaps some enterprising blogger would like to look into that statement because I seem to recall polls taken last November that while showing greater approval of the President’s handling of Iraq also show about the same percentage of people believing the war was a mistake and that we should leave immediately.

I have no doubt that Americans are getting tired of the war. They’re tired of the constant bombardment of bad news from the press and the carping and caterwauling of the left over the war. I am too. But if the Iraqis can ever get their act together and come up with a constitution agreeable to most of the country, I’m pretty confident that some of those numbers will inch upward.

And if the President could get out front on the war and show a little leadership, his numbers will probably take a turn for the better too.

“Every tomorrow has two handles. We can take hold of it with the handle of anxiety or the handle of faith.” (Henry Ward Beecher)

For just a few hours today, I want to forget about Cindy Sheehan, George Bush, Democrats, Republicans, the right, the left, the MSM, Islam, Chrstianity, Osama, Zarqawi, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, any and all things I’ve been writing about since I started posting on this site almost exactly 11 months ago.

Instead, I want to think about the future. Not of the country or the world, but a much more personal future - a place that you and I will find ourselves before we know it. I think that a large part of that future will involve what’s going on here, on this site, on your site, and millions like them around the world.

In a large sense, we’ve moved far beyond Marshall McLuhan’s “The Medium is the Message.” McLuhan was talking about human interaction and the “extensions” we use to communicate. Everything from gossiping over the backyard fence to satellite communications fell within McLuhan’s broad definition of “medium.” McLuan also famously coined the phrase “the global village” to describe how these extensions would unite the planet while at the same time, shrinking it to the point that it could be squeezed through a cathode ray tube and shown on a TV screen.

But the old definitions, like the tired gatekeepers who are fighting a losing battle against the barbarians storming the pallisades of old media, are simply not working. We’ve had some fun on this site making sport of their demise. And like dinosaurs who didn’t have a clue they were on the way out, we can sit back and watch in bemused fashion as we take a perverse sort of pleasure in their death throes. In a ghoulish sort of way, this is what passes for entertainment on many blogs, including this one. I suspect that this will continue to be the case because the nature of this medium enslaves us, binds us, and with tortuous regularity ultimately dooms us to follow a certain path.

The nature of this medium is content. When I first started writing a blog almost exactly 11 months ago, I knew I wanted to write about politics, media, history, and the way that those forces intersect and ultimately interact. I found the best way to do that was to write essays. Occasionally, to feed the content monster, I’ve been forced to alter the formula and simply link to other good blog posts with scant commentary on what someone else has written. Whenever I do that, I feel a twinge of regret and feel like slapping myself for my laziness or lack of inspiration.

This demon of a blog is an all consuming beast. It eats ideas for breakfast. It gobbles up perspectives for lunch. It devours concepts for dinner and snacks on personal conceits and beliefs between meals. But what it really gorges itself on is time.

I figure to write a 500-750 word essay takes about 3 hours. Some take longer, some shorter. Where time comes into play is doing research for an essay. And this is where it’s easy to be seduced by the internet.

The amount of information out there is beyond belief. I’ve gotten pretty good at googling up whatever information I need in order to get different perspectives on just about any issue you can imagine. What’s even more amazing is that you can find a treasure trove of information on just about any event in world history. And there just isn’t time to read it all. I’d love to sit back and read a long essay on the reign of Franz Joseph and how the death throes of the Hapsburg dynasty resulted in the explosion of nationalism which was a proximate cause of World War I. But I don’t have the time.

Perhaps I should explain. One would think that in my position - unemployed by choice, financially comfortable - I would have all the time in the world. Indeed, I spend a good 10-12 hours a day in front of this screen trying to keep up with the world as it rushes past. But my purpose in starting a blog was two-fold; to reaqcuaint myself with the writing skills I used a couple of decades ago when politics was my life and to build a blog that could act as a stepping stone to making a living as a writer.

The problem is that in the content driven culture of blogs, you don’t really have time to work much on number 1 and thus become a slave to number 2. There are not too many people who want to say upfront that most of what they do on a blog is geared toward increasing readership, links, and ultimately their standing in the ecosphere. Some see such grasping materialsim as sullying the “purity” of this new medium. Spare me. This new medium is exactly what you make of it. If you want to remain pure as the driven snow and not take any advertisements and say that you’re only writing for yourself, that’s fine. You’re welcome to that point of view and I congratulate you for it. You’re a better man than I.

Ultimately, readers will praise or condemn me not for the reason I write but for what I write - content. And here’s where the future comes into play in a big way.

How are we going to be receiving content 5 years from now? Ten years? I say “receiving” content because at the moment, we are slaves to others for access to that vital commodity. Will there come a day when content will not be “received” as much as it just simply is? In other words, if we’re not slaves to gatekeepers for the distribution of information, will there come a time when the “message is the medium?”

Jeff Jarvis:

I’m writing this post — grappling with perhaps the most fundamental truth of my brief blogging career — because I still hear big-media colleagues insisting — or perhaps they’re praying — that content is king, that owning content is where the value is, that equity will still grow from exclusivity.

But no: Content is transient, its value perishable, its chance of success slight. You think your article or book or movie or song or show is worth a fortune and in a blockbuster economy, if you were insanely lucky, you could be right. But now anyone can create content. And thanks to the power of the link — and the trust it carries — anyone can get the world to see it. Is some of this new load of content crap? Sure. Lots of content in the old media world was crap, too. But don’t calculate the proportions. Look instead at the gross volume of quality: There’s simply more good stuff out there than there could be before. And it can be created at incredibly low or no cost.

There is no scarcity of good stuff. And when there is no scarcity, the value of owning a once-scarce commodity diminishes and then disappears. In fact, it’s worse than that: Owning the content factory only means that you have higher costs than the next guy: You own the high-priced talent or infrastructure while your new competitor owns just her own talent and a PC.

What Jarvis is saying - and I agree with him wholeheartedly - is that I and most other bloggers are barking up the wrong tree. Content is transient. It’s not the end. It’s not even a means to an end. It simply exists. Content is not even a commodity - unless it’s so superior that it transcends conventions and enters the realm of culture itself. As Jarvis points out, that is a rare occurence. Content and how you recieve it (distribution) are secondary. But to what?

This is so hard for those of us trained in the old economy to get our heads around. That is why, like an ape on 2001, I keep poking at this obelisk to figure out what it is.

But in this new age, you don’t want to own the content or the pipe that delivers it. You want to participate in what people want to do on their own. You don’t want to extract value. You want to add value. You don’t want to build walls or fences or gardens to keep people from doing what they want to do without you. You want to enable them to do it. You want to join in.

And once you get your head around that, you will see that you can grow so much bigger so much faster with so much less cost and risk.

So don’t own the content. Help people make and find and remake and recommend and save the content they want. Don’t own the distribution. Gain the trust of the people to help them use whatever distribution and medium they like to find what they want.

In these new economics, you want to stand back and interfere and restrict as little as possible. You want to reduce costs to the minimum. You want to join in wherever you are welcome.

Okay…so there will be content and there will be distribution of that content but the value of both will take a backseat to the value of the community (or readership) itself, what Jay Rosen refers to as “a horizontal network” of like minded people all of whom will not only read content but contribute and help others contribute. In turn, the content is disseminated (linked?) where ideally, the value is contained in the act of sharing.

Here’s Jay Rosen on the sea change that’s taking place right under our noses:

Everywhere the cost of putting like-minded people in touch with each other is falling. (Idea number 8 on my Top Ten list.) So is the cost of pooling their knowledge. The Net is ideal for horizontal communication— peer to peer, stranger to stranger, voter to voter, reader to reader. When you talk about the Web era in journalism think: audience atomization overcome. Then you will be on the right track.

Think: media tools in public hands. We are in the middle of a producer’s revolution in media, also called Citizens Media by its great promoter and sage, Jeff Jarvis, following in the steps of others, who recognized what a big shift this potentially was.

Open Source journalism is all journalism that derives from the Janes Intelligence Review case, which was, in fact, “a giant leap forward for collaborative online journalism.” (There were other leaps too, the most important of which is Oh My News.) Not satisfied with that definition? Simpler one: Dan Gillmor says his readers know more than he does. Open Source journalism builds on that insight, which is foundational.

On a macro level, we saw this concept of open source journalism in action during the Rathergate affair where literally thousands of blog readers whose expertise in arcane subjects like typewriter fonts of IBM Selectrics from the 1970’s contributed to the overall story. And now that concept has been extended to on-line publications and even the editing of on-line books!

But let me whine for a moment; I’m not a journalist. I don’t pretend to be one nor do have any desire to imitate one. Will there be room for a 51 year old opinionated fat man who sees himself in a silly, heroic sort of way as a polemicist, a rabble rouser, someone who 200 years ago would have been posting broadsides on buildings facing the town square? Where does that leave me? How do I participate in this brave new world if I don’t want to climb on board this new media bandwagon?

More questions; what innovations will there be in hardware and software that will affect this new medium? How about changes in the internet itself? Access to it? The portability of it?

These questions go to the root of my problem; how should I approach the future? As Mr. Beecher (whose daughter Harriet was to write the play Uncle Tom’s Cabin) points out, one can either be anxious about the future or have faith in it. At the moment, I’m extraordinarily anxious. I suppose that’s natural for anyone my age whose basic supposition about the way things are is undergoing a radical transformation. I’d like to have faith in the future but wishing won’t make it so. I think the best any of us can do is keep an ear to the ground, watch for trends, and even try to anticipate change wherever possible. Easier said than done. I suppose in the end, having faith in the future means having faith in oneself.

And that, dear readers, is a process that gives meaning to any life. Self-discovery in the internet age. Who woulda thunk it.

UPDATE

Demosophist at Jawa Report links the Jarvis post and ties into what appears to be an idea for an open source intelligence network during wartime. The idea comes from this post by Donald Sensing which lists some interesting advantages that such a network would have.

The writer ties this in with MSM coverage of Iraq:

As always the value is in reliability and validity, and what has changed involves the method by which the public at large arrives at its assessment of those conditions. Every time MSM provides an assessment that turns out later to have been imprecise and even wildly erroneous the public downgrades their determination of the reliability and validity of their information and explanations. But the cycle by which this process unfolds, while nearly instantaneous in some instances, can take up to a year depending on the kind of information involved. And some things, like the brushstrokes of the counterinsurgency in Iraq, are making it through in dibs and dabs. But this is the very nature of brushstrokes. When the entire masterpiece becomes fully visible things may change very quickly, because it will be universally recognized that the critical detail was largely, if not completely, invisible to MSM.

I used to wonder why Venezuelean President Hugo Chavez was able to stay in office following the recall vote held in that country in 2004. After all, the Venezuela economy is in the pits, corruption is rampant within his administration, he has callouses on his knees from genuflecting so often before Fidel Castro, and he has a crick in his neck from reaching back and patting himself on the back so much.

But Hugo Chavez has a secret weapon. He’s a comedian.

Witness this latest string of one liners from the government of la cabra que ríe (loosely translated: The Laughing Goat):

This public call to assassinate a head of state, considered a crime by all modern legislation, is prosecutable by its very nature. That is what the civilized world is expecting of U.S. authorities,”

“It’s a huge hypocrisy [for the United States] to maintain this discourse against terrorism and at the same time, in the heart of that country, there are entirely terrorist statements like those,”

In Washington, Venezuelan Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez Herrera also described Mr. Robertson’s remarks as “a call to terrorism.” He demanded that the United States take steps to ensure Mr. Chavez’s safety when he visits New York for a U.N. General Assembly meeting next month.

(Cue Laugh Track)

All this in response to idiotarian Pat Robertson’s fantasia about someone “taking out” Mr. Goat Face. Robertson sort of apologized today, saying at first he was “misinterpreted” but then later saying “Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him.”

Takes a fantasist to know a fantasist, I guess.

Hugo Chavez is a thug in the classic tradition of Manuel Noriega and his idol Fidel Castro. In Chavez Venezuela, there are disappearances, death squads, shockingly routine police brutality, executions without trial, and a host of human rights violations that would make one pine for Allende’s Chile.

Then there’s the little matter of his support for narco terrorists in Columbia. FARC is a group of communist guerillas who’ve been fighting the Columbian government for decades. They now make no bones about financing their war by growing and selling drugs. Chavez has allowed them to open training camps in his country and has looked favorably on their terrorist activities. The laughing goat has opened a western hemisphere franchise outlet that may as well be called “al Qaeda West:”

Cuban “advisors” currently are in positions throughout the Chavez government with some even masquerading as sports coaches. Before he was imprisoned in 1994, fellow Venezuelan Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, a.k.a. “Carlos the Jackal”, whose long and sordid history of KGB/Cuban trained terrorism included acting as a specialist in terror for Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Lebanon, may be the original connection between Chavez and Islamic terrorists finding haven in Venezuela. Chavez has capitalized on his position as president of one of the five original founding members of OPEC to not only wage economic warfare against the US but to use his position to deal covertly with the anti-US Islamic members.

According to Chavez’s former personal pilot, Venezuelan Air Force Major Juan Diaz Castillo, Chavez told him, “…to organize, coordinate, and execute a covert operation consisting of delivering financial resources, specifically $1 million, to [Afghanistan's] Taliban government, in order for them to assist the al-Qaeda terrorist organization…making it appear as if humanitarian aid were being extended to the Afghan people.”

Furious that defectors have exposed his schemes, Chavez is demanding that the US refute news stories showing his links with and funding to terrorists. Chavez is especially bitter about a US News and World Report article “Terror close to home”. Chavez angrily said, “I challenge the staff of US News and World Report or its owners to come here and look for one single shred of evidence, to show the world one single shred of proof. The US government should respond to this call. (The magazine) supposedly cites information provided by US government officials. If a Venezuelan daily ran something as filthy as this, citing presidential officials here, my government would respond. It is a lie, but all the same, the idea has been planted. It is a strategy, to launch an offensive by concocting anything — an assassination, a coup, an invasion.”

Chavez has also proved himself a real laughing cowboy when it comes to making common cause with some of the filthiest terrorist enablers in the world. He’s made well publicized visits to Iran, North Korea, and Libya to proclaim solidarity and laugh it up with fellow comedians Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran, Kim Jung Il of North Korea, and Muammar Al-Qaddafi.

His own military tried to overthrow him in 2002 which is probably why he relies more and more on Cuban “advisers” salted throughout his government and security services. If Castro propped this guy up any more, they’d have to nail him to a couple of two by fours and stand him up in front of a microphone so that he can deliver one of his infamous 4 hour nationally televised speeches.

All this would rank him as one of the top ten funnymen of Latin America. But what really sets this goon apart from the run of the mill stand-up comics are his regional ambitions. The guy wants to unite Andean South America under his rule. To that end, he recently started a satellite TV network known as “El Jazeera:”

Chávez himself is well-known for his vehement opposition to the United States and his belief that capitalism is the root of all poverty in Latin America. He also believes in uniting every Andean country under a single socialist government, throwing all of his support behind a so-called “Bolivarian Revolution.” At the end of April he met with Castro and hundreds of regional communists in Havana before flying to Brazil for the first ever Arab-Latin America summit, where he met with the Qatari delegation to work on a deal to exchange footage and material with Al Jazeera, with whom Tariq Ali is connected. The deal is finally getting attention, earning Telesur the name “El Jazeera,” for good reason. Does it sound like anyone on this editorial board would seriously refuse anything the regime asks of them?

Clearly, this is a man begging for a CIA-backed coup. The question I would have before we get serious about ending this clown’s pompous dreams of glory is who or what is going to take his place?

Clearly, Castro has a stranglehold of sorts of Chavez’s government. When foreign thugs are the only thing standing between you and a military coup, it stands to reason that the person directing those foreigners will have tremendous sway over policy. Castro tried something similar in Grenada back in 1979, backing the bloodless coup carried out by Maurice Bishop, worming his way into the government there, and then staging a second coup in 1983 putting his stooge Bernard Coard in power. What Fidel didn’t count on was a United States President who wouldn’t meekly accept his brazen interference in the internal affairs of a Carribean country - after all, we reserve that right exclusively unto ourselves. So President Reagan sent thousands of troops into the tiny country, killed or captured a bunch of Cuban “construction workers” (who were armed to the teeth), and brought the wonders of freedom and democracy to the island.

The problem with trying a Grenada rerun is that the script would be different this time. Castro’s tentacles are so pervasive that it’s doubtful such a coup would succeed much less bring to power anyone we could work with in the United States. So for the moment, Chavez is relatively safe. I daresay the CIA will be working like crazy to unite the opposition to Chavez so that next year’s elections will bring to power someone who doesn’t look upon bloodthirsty jihadists as natural allies.

As for Pat Robertson’s diarrhea of the mouth, Jeff Goldstein had some prescient thoughts yesterday:

Though Robertson clearly overstated the case—at least insofar as he spoke publicly, which will allow Chavez to play up his already legendary paranoia and anti-Americanism by tying Robertson’s statement to the official government line—it is nevertheless imperative that we don’t lose sight of who the real villian is here. Unfortunately, I suspect our own press will do just that, aiding Chavez by playing up the connection between the social conservative base—understood to be Bush’s staunchest supporters (though that itself is debatable)—and Roberstson’s brand of religiosity. Which, while predictable, would be a shame, nevertheless.

After all, it’s quite possible Robertson read the WS piece and was simply heeding Halverssen’s advice (however rhetorically boneheaded his execution) that “persistent public exposure of Chávez’s increasing militarism, assaults on democracy, human rights abuses, and free speech violations, as well as his involvement with terrorist groups in South America and terror sponsors in the Middle East” is an important component in combatting his influence in South America and the Middle East.

Goldstein’s prescience about the media connecting Robertson and Bush was eery given he wrote this yesterday. At the same time, he’s spot on with his call for combatting this clown’s influence in the region. One thing we don’t need is a bunch of mini-Chavez’s strutting across the Latin American stage at this point. No sense in worrying about our rear (Central and South America) when we’ve got plenty on our plate sitting right in front of us in Iraq and the middle east.

UPDATE 8/26

Jay Tea is rethinking his criticism of Robertson in light of the discussion generated about President Goat Face.

And Raven at And Rightly So has a great post on the controversy asking “Who is Worse: Robertson or Chavez?”

Good question although I don’t think we could consider Robertson an enemy of the US - which is one of the points Raven makes. Read the whole thing.

And Stephen Green sums up nicely making a couple of points similar to ones I made here:

Not that there’d be much wrong with killing Hugo Chávez. If there’s one thing Ayn Rand got right, it’s this: No dictatorship has any right to exist; any free nation wishing to topple a dictatorship has the moral right (but not the moral obligation) to do so.

But Robertson is still an idiot. Do you know how tough it is to kill a country’s ruler? Do you know the kind of backlash that thing can lead to, especially when said leader has been using petrodollars to buy popularity? And doubly so when that leader has also been using Cuban know-how to keep dissenters from dissenting? Do you know of our nation’s awful history regarding South America?

Tom Bowler has an interesting link to a Mother Jones article from 1997 that references the recently unearthed whacko comments by George Stephanopouloos as well as other journalists who advocated the same thing!

Huhray…Huhray…Huhray…Step right up ladies and gents. See the strangest and oddest collection of cluebats on planet earth! “If they’re clueless, we’ve got ‘em” is our motto. Die-rect from Washington city and all points west, north, south, and east! Huhary…Huhray…Huhray…Step right up…

Okay, so I would have failed as a carnival barker. In truth, we don’t need no stinking barker to highlight this week’s souls whose capacity for rational thought was either an afterthought of the almighty or a qualification the Lord never considered adding to their intellectual makeup in the first place.

Our lineup of cluebats is ripped from this week’s headlines…kind of like Law and Order but without Angie Harmon (You can tell the last time I watched that show). I mean we’ve got “Team America Assassin” Pat Robertson, Arlen Specter, Chuck (The Ghost of Viet Nam Past) Hagel, “Mother (******)” Sheehan, as well as the usual lineup of local loonies, national nincompoops, and international idiotarians.

So take off your shoes and set a spell. Sample the grist of the blogosphere mill where cluebats are ground to dust and truth, justice, and good old fashioned American fisking is elevated to an art form.

“Stupidity is better kept a secret than displayed”
(Heraclitus of Ephesus (Greek philosopher remembered for his cosmology)

“Yo Hercules! It’s pretty clear you haven’t visited Crawford, Texas lately.”
(Me)

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

Mr. Right of The Right Place channels Monty Python and comes up with an hilarious spoof of Holy Grail repressed peasants. As with all good satire, it has just enough truth in it to make you think and laugh at the same time.

Van Helsing of Moonbattery fires a silver bullet into the heart of Frank Rich’s excreable article this week that defends Cindy Sheehan by smearing her detractors. Frank should go back to reviewing restaurants where he prevented people from getting indigestion instead of causing it as he does now.

Wonder Woman at North American Patriot has a few words for Hollywood bad boy, peace activist, and supporter of tyrants Sean Penn. Sean recently paid a visit to the mad Mullah’s theocratic paradise in Iran and came away saying “The Iranians are like, kewl.” Given Penn’s track record with his treatment of women, it’s no wonder he feels an affinity for gimlet-eyed Revolutionary Guardsmen who are known to beat women in the street if they’re not properly “covered.”

Josh Cohen at Multiple Mentality is angry at radio station programmers who have cut their playlists dramatically. Josh even goes after XM Satellite radio stations. Darn! And I was just about to get one.

Mark Coffey at Decision ‘08 has a question for Pat Robertson that sounds a lot like that Dierks Bentley song “What was I Thinking?” Mark should have known that Bentley’s song which is about a late night tryst with a ” little white tank top sitting right there in the middle by me” is not inThe 700 Club’s Top Ten Countdown.

The lovely Pamela (Official Carnival Poster Girl(r)) of Atlas Shrugs has a few hundred choice words for the left and their defeatism with regards to the Iraq War. She points out you can’t start an anti-war movement with smoke and mirrors. Since the left is blowing plenty of smoke - both literally and figuratively - in Crawford, she has a good point.

Speaking of Camp Casey, Beth sends us a link to the Camp Casey Now website where they are asking “Numbers at Camp Casey: Is this the best we could do?” A point that seems to be lost on the MSM who keep reporting about the “growing encampment” at Moonbatville. You don’t think that the press would like, you know, exaggerate or anything, do you?

Giacomo at Joust the Facts seems confused…or is he? He can’t make up his mind about which is the silliest column he’s ever read; Paul Krugman or Frank Rich? He solves the problem by taking them on together. Giacomo proves himself to be ambi-cluebat.

Fred Frey asks a simple question: “Would Europe Go to War Over Oil?” His answer, like Jeopardy, is in the form of another question: ‘Can Europe go to war?’ I guess that depends. If the bloodthirsty jihadists let the Europeans use insulting rhetoric, virulent anti-Americanism, and abject surrender as weapons, the Europeans will win hands down.

William Teach at Pirates Cove hoists the black flag and goes after Paul Krugman and his mysterious vote count studies from the 2000 election. Bill also gives Mr. Enron Adviser a lesson in party identification.

Cao of Cao’s Blog (pronounced “key”) is asking Mother Sheehan some tough questions in “Run Cindy, Run.” She also makes some excellent points about the hangers’ on who have surrounded the grieving mother. Great post!

Speaking of great posts, here’s one from Raven at And Rightly So about original Cluebat Hall of Famer Ward Churchill and the trouble he’s in with the University of Colorado Board. Raven says “Faster, please.”

Carnival regular Minh-Duc at State of Flux - always thoughtful and a good read - has an interesting post taking on two Op-Ed writers at the Washington Post (Ayako Doi and Kim Willenson) who wrote a piece decrying the loss of Japanese pacifism. Two more cluebats who went to sleep on 9/10/01 and woke up on September 12.

Ferdinand T. Cat is the most thoughtful cat blogger in the Shadow Media. The fact that he’s the only cat who blogs regularly may have something to do with that. At any rate, how many othe cats can royally fisk a moonbat psychologist who has connected pedophiles and Star Trek watchers? And my little ones heartily endorse Ferdy’s brand of conservatism.

AJ at The Strata-Sphere sends up the Washington Post for their coverage of the mad Mullah’s desire for a nuclear weapon. AJ asks the right question: “When you see a story that almost says Iran’s nuclear power program is not tied to nuclear bombs - you have to wonder where these reporters are coming from?

New World Man gives us the skinny on Ohio Governor and scion of a famous Republican family Robert Taft and his problems with sticky fingers. Is pleading “no contest” the same as pleading guilty? Uh… Yep.

How about a little satire with your breakfast cereal this morning? The Nose on your Face has a riotously funny take on the Air America finanical imbroglio with special attention to AA Chairman Evan Cohen’s efforts to “raise his father from the dead.”

And what would Carnival satire be without Mr. Satire himself! (NOT SAFE FOR WORK) He reports today on a homosexual marraige in the middle east between two Kuwaiti men. Where did it take place? “…in Hilton Ramses Hotel in Cairo, located at the rear of the Gay Liberation Square.” Read it all.

No Woodstock in the Czech Republic as a music festival billed as Czechtek ran into a little trouble. According to Taylor Buley of Fresh Politics when the youngsters were denied access to the festival, they made like it was 1989 and protested - which was promptly rudely interrupted by some clueless Czech police. Excellent coverage of an underreported event. (Nice blog too. Check ‘em out)

Will Franklin shows the anti-war crowd, in terms that they can understand (polls, of course) why they’re barking up the wrong tree when it comes to making Mother Sheehan an icon for the anti-war movement. Franklin: “Her 15 minutes needed to be up 16 minutes ago.” That just about covers it.

For a completely different take on the Cindy Sheehan issue, the bravest liberal in the blogosphere Northstar (our only left-wing regular) from the People’s Republic of Seabrook pulls no punches whatsoever in this post skewering Vice President Cheney entitled “Hail to the Chickenhawk in Chief.” Be nice, now. Be nice. We’ll not be supressing any opinions here today.

The next two posts take back all the nice things these bloggers said about Senator Bill Frist after he came out in favor of funding embryonic stem cell research. First, Orac of Respectfully Submitted takes a “vacations interruptus” to club the Presidential wannabe over the head for his remarks on intelligent design.

Ditto for Doug at Below the Beltway whose rant against Senator Frist includes the good Doctor’s motivation for his position: “Frist needs to establish his bona fides with the evangelical Republicans who dominate the Republican primary process in many states important to getting the 2008 nomination.” I would say that’s spot on.

Don Surber has an extraordinary post highlighting some cluelessness you have to read to believe about a baby killer and the $50,000 he won in a court of law. This is in addition to the $25,000 the state paid to fix the killer’s teeth.

Urban Grounds has another story almost too ridiculous to be true. This one is about a killer who was arrested while in the funeral procession for the person he killed! Was the family of the victim grateful? Absolutely not! Read it all and try to keep your jaw from dropping to the floor.

More unbelievable cluelessness brought to you by Pstupidonymous. This one is about a man who was hit by a Taser gun for stealing a salad at Chuckee Cheese. Who’s more clueless? The police for using excessive force or someone stupid enough to even eat salad from Chuckee Cheese in the first place? We report, you decide.

Like explaining things to a two year old child, Mean Ole Meany patiently (I know, completely out of character for Two Dogs) explains how Mother Sheehan’s grief doesn’t give her any more “perspective” than anyone else. If only the splodeydopes would listen.

More on the Chuck Hagel nonsense from Jimmie K at But That’s JustMy Opinion. Jimmie links to an article that says a lot about Hagel’s idea of party loyalty during wartime.

The Maryhunter at TMH Bacon Bits has one of the strangest science stories of the year involving some clueless ecologists who want to re-introduce “predators” back into the North American eco-system. Saw a cartoon referencing the story with Bill Clinton standing in a wilderness and saying “I smell intern.”

The Headgirl at The Common Room brings us a strange bit of cluelessness on the part of some motivational speakers who may as well have been twins seperated at birth. Another gentle, humorous takedown from our education-friendly friends.

Speaking of education friendly, how about our buds at Elephants in Academia giving a thorough and well deserved spanking to Senator Arlen Specter for his remarks on the “window of opportunity” we have in making a deal with Venezualean’s strutting peacock of a dictator Hugo Chavez. Yeah, right.

Matt from Going to the Mat has an interesting story about some clueless local school officials who seem to have erred in building an elementary school - at least as far as its location. Says Matt: “A crosswalk without a stoplight on a busy, four-lane highway is about as effective as a screen door on a submarine.” Needless to say, the parents are up in arms.

From the “When will they ever learn Department” the ACLU has equated religion with terror. Jay of Stop the ACLU has a link to this statement by a local ACLU moonbat: ““They believe that they answer to a higher power, in my opinion. Which is the kind of thinking that you had with the people who flew the airplanes into the buildings in this country, and the people who did the kind of things in London.” Un.Be.Lievable.

Beth at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy gives us the outrage of the week. The city of San Francisco and their refusal to play host to the World War II era battleship the USS Iowa because of (wait for it) The Iraq War! Damn their moonbat souls to hell.

Speaking of hell, here’s my take on Pat Robertson’s bid to make it into the cluebat Hall of Fame.

NOTE: Next week’s Carnival will return to its regular slot on Tuesday

It was a story waiting to be told for more than 3 years. And for some reason, the major networks - ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX - all gave it a pass.

That’s not to say that each of those networks hasn’t done their own “Special” on the 9/11 attack. CNN in particular, had a retrospective of that day that’s quite powerful. And CBS’s show “9/11″ which tells the incredible story of two brothers, Jules and Gedeon Naudet, who were doing a documentary on a New York Fire Department rookie’s probation period when they turned their camera skyward to catch American Airlines Flight 11 crashing into the World Trade Center North Tower is some of the most powerful TV you’ll ever see.

Similar shows have been on the other networks. But “Inside 9/11″ is different. I’ve had some bones to pick in the past with National Geographic magazine’s coverage of some issues, most notably their uncritical look at global warming and their wholesale adoption of Kyoto talking points. But the job done by everyone involved with the National Geographic’s searing and honest production of “Inside 9/11″ was, in this reviewer’s opinion, without parallel in television history.

The story of how we ended up at war with fanatical jihadists is extraordinarily convoluted. The barriers to making a documentary of the Islamist’s war on America beginning with the first World Trade Center bombing through the present day are staggering. You have a dizzying array of characters who leapt from place to place over that period so that under ordinary circumstances - reading the Final Report of the 9/11 Commission for example - it’s easy to get lost in the minutiae of trying to follow a coherent story line.

Using an absolutely brilliant set of conventions, the documentary told the story using three basic rules; reorient, repeat, and review:

1. Every single scene would orient the viewer as to where one was geographically by flashing an attractive high altitude photo which would zero in on where the action would take place and then move in for a closeup of that spot on the photo. Absolutely brilliant device in that it made it easy to keep track of where one was at any given point in the story.

2. The names of the Islamists along with a short phrase that described him when we were first introduced were repeated every time they appeared in a new scene. Mohamed Atta was “the engineering student.” He was identified as such, along with his name of course, every time he came back into the story. It made it so much easier to follow the course of events when one could recall the character and what he had been doing previously.

3. Every once in a while, the documentary would review a segment by summing up what was known to that point. This was especially effective the closer we got to 9/11 and the number of hijackers and “muscle hijackers” increased substantially. After repeating, the documentary would lay another layer of the conspiracy on top of what had already been shown. Far from getting repetitive or boring, it made it easier to watch.

This was the key to why the documentary was so powerful. By basically freeing the viewer from having to keep track of the timeline, the locations, even the names of the characters, the story itself hit home in a series of sledgehammer blows that left the viewer alternately shaking one’s head and shaking with rage at the incompetent fools who failed to protect us.

The “might have beens” with regard to 9/11 are also extremely well presented and done so in as apolitical fashion as possible. It helped that the people they had presenting expert commentary had no ax to grind - usually. 9/11 Commission staffer Deitrich Snell was really the only “expert” who could have been accused of that and his face time was limited. And the al Jazeera reporter was insufferably smug. Aside from that, the producer let the story take center stage and kept the expert’s commentary to a minimum.

The documentary would have been a triumph if all it had set out to do was tell the story of the hijackers and how they planned the attack as well as showing what radical Islam was and how it grew. But the producer didn’t stop there. The hijacker story made for fascinating television. But when the documentary began to tell the story of the victims and the heroes of that horrible day, the show entered a whole new realm, a place that television rarely goes; the sublime world of first person history.

Simply put, the producer puts you in the airplanes, in the towers, in the Pentagon and lets you watch as events unfold. It makes for some of the most searing, poignant, and startling television imaginable. In fact, I can’t imagine how it could have been done better.

There was less voice over narration and more first person accounts in this segment of the show. Stories told by survivors, by victim’s relatives, by eyewitness reporters who both reported on and became part of history that awful day all contributed to a viewing experience unlike anything shown on TV before. The stories of heroism were told matter of factly and with little embellishment thus allowing the deeds themselves to make one stand back and be in awe of the unselfishness and bravery of ordinary people.

The one discordant note I might sound - and I haven’t seen any reviews or other commentary yet - was what I considered the short shrift given to the firefighters and policemen whose acts of courage were brought out much better in CBS’s “9/11.” Of course, that documentary was about the firefighters actions that day. But it just seemed a little incomplete to have so few stories told of the 300 plus firemen who trudged up those stairs carrying nearly 100 pounds of equipment past thousands of people and never made it back down.

There will be other documentaries of 9/11 made. It’s hard to imagine anybody doing a better job. Perhaps a Hollywood film will be able to put more emotional context into the story. But I doubt it will give us such a broad overview of what the world was like and what we were like in the lead up to that terrible day. Nor will any Hollywood film be able to capture the immediacy and realism that “Inside 9/11″ was able to show us.

This is a documentary that will age well. It will have something to say to our children, to their children, and to children 100 years from now who wish to know how and where the war on terror started. Let’s hope that at that point, they will be looking at the conflict in the rear view mirror of history rather than living it every day like those of us who are survivors of that fateful day.

Can you believe that summer is almost over?

Of course, sitting in my dungeon as I do 12 hours a day, the seasons all seem to run together. Why its seems like only yesterday I was hosting the Bonfire during Super Bowl week. This made for a ready-to-burn Bonfire motif, something sadly missing from this week’s conflagration. I guess what that means is that I’ll have to rely on my wit and wisdom to pull off the snarkiness necessary to make this week’s bunch of Bonfire fodder worth reading. Let’s see who wants to step up and get swatted first…

While not technically a Bonfire post, this Bonfire reminder from Kevin had some guy named Don Surber scheduled to host today instead of me. And this after Kevin had been begging me for months to once again lay my magic pen on his little bonfire project. (I really do hate it when the little people get all gushy on me).

And speaking of Don Surber… Next week’s Bonfire host has a horribly persnickety post about people who don’t tag their links to open in a new window. Well Jeee Zuz Chriminy! What a grouch. And you oughta know by now Don that if you tell someone to do something one way, they’ll make damn sure to do it the opposite.

Andrew at Dodgeblogium goes after Mr. Wills who hosted the Carnival of the Vanities last week and had the temerity to actually rate the posts submitted. I got a “8.” What’d you get Andrew? Andrew?

I can see why Harvey at Bad Example wanted to roast this post…it’s incomprehensible. For instance, what’s a “Numa Numa Dance?” See! I knew you’d hate it too.

This totally worthless piece is from Brian J. Noggle (I heartily distrust anyone who puts their middle initial in the name of their blog). What passes for a “musing” is truly obscure. Who cares about the Cardinals anyway - they will be toast when they meet my beloved White Sox in the World Series.

Bill at Pirates Cove compares Judith Miller to Charles Manson. Nice try Bill. I’m sure Judith Miller does not think she is Jesus Christ (I’m not so sure about her bosses at the Times).

Blog d’Ellision (mmmm…sounds French. I already hate it) gives us a wooden post about Velociman who I take it is another blogger. God, I hate inside blog jokes. Nice picture, though.

This link from Technogypsy is unfair. It leads to another post whose obscurance is matched only by the brevity and incoherence of the writing. But that’s not why it’s unfair. The link also displays last week’s Bonfire that he hosted! Talking about milking your Bonfire for all that it’s worth! Clever, but not quite clever enough! (Note: This link from the gypsy also came in the mail. It seems that I received the tail end of last week’s mail. But it’s okay. I’ll get Surber to link this Bonfire next week too)

Baboon Pirates is in a snit because they’ve banned wood chippers in the “euthanizing” (I prefer “slaughter”) of poultry. This is truly a fowl post - real bird droppings. (Insert stupid pun here.)

The Conservative Cat must be off his meds. Ferdy the cat definitely needs professional help writing about Star Trek and pedophilia in the same post. I know, I know…it was some moonbat psychologist from Huffington Post. But for God’s sake, don’t encourage the witch!

Rusty Shakleford at Jawa Report almost didn’t get this link. How can we throw a post with gorgeous, young (emphasize young as in “jailbait”) nubile, half naked, smiling, innocent girls on the Bonfire? Okay Doc…you got your link (and your traffic no doubt.)

HectorVex has a conversation with Cindy Sheehan and David Duke. I think it’s fictitious but it sounds just a bit too plausible for parody. Next time, try Sheehan and Osama. Now for that I’d click a link to read.

This an actual blog. They call it “AAFFLLAACCKK .” I don’t know quite what to say. Perhaps I could ask for a show of hands to see if we should throw the entire blog on this bonfire? But they’re new at this so let’s give them a second chance.

Josh Cohen at Multiple Mentality is asking if your brain has ever gone into a feedback loop. The way I read it, he’s asking if your brain has ever gone into a feedback loop. From what I gather, the post is about your brain going into a feedback loop. Hey! Just a gol dern minute. This one is insidious. Light that post!

Beth’s entry from My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has the advantage of submitting the briefest post I’ve ever seen. Maybe the next one you can leave blank, Beth. And you’ve only left 14 comments on this site so you have a ways to go to catch up.

Coffee with CrankyBeach has a post about going to the dermatologist. Yuck! To me, there’s no sense telling everyone you’ve got some unpronounceable skin disease that will eventually cause your limbs to rot and eventually fall off. Of course, Crank didn’t admit to any such thing. But I can read between the lines. I will say not bad for typing one handed. Better get used to it….

Miriam’s Ideas is the name of the blog. And I sympathize with her. She had such a case of writers block she actually did a post on what’s on her nightstand. I don’t have a nightstand. Nor do I wear pajamas to bed. And if there’s anything else personal you’d like to know about me, just ask.

Wunderkraut asks a really, really dumb question. “Who here remembers my post about two and a half weeks ago about putting flow monitors into manholes?” Wouldn’t you be embarrassed to answer yes to that question? I think the boy should get out more.

From the “It’s Never Too Early Department” Maryhunter at TMH Bacon Bits has a post on stopping the ACLU from stopping Christmas. The jumping Santa is nice but the representational figure you’re using for the ACLU isn’t quite demonic enough. Next time, try using a picture of a Cave Troll from LOTR.

Just to show that insipid minds think alike, Jay from Stop the ACLU also has a post on why the ACLU should keep its bloody hands off Christmas. Enough is enough! I want no more Christmas themed posts until November!

Mean ole Meany channels Elvis and celebrates a birthday for someone. Not only that, but Two Dogs links to another post in this Bonfire! Is this incest? Or coincidence? I smell a conspiracy afoot. Either that or my tin foil hat needs adjusting.

Steve Pavlina.com bills his blog as “Personal Development for Smart People.” Well, that let’s just about everyone out who’s posted this week. The post itself - “How to know when to end a long term relationship” takes 1500 words to say what I usually say in about 10.

Northstar at Peoples Republic of Seabrook is a panderer. But that’s okay since he’s pandering to gay people. Now if I were some rightwing whacko, homophobic nut I’d say something really off color and tasteless. Since I’m not, I’ll just think it.

Note: If I missed anyone please let me know. I got some of the emails mixed up so if I didn’t include your entry I apologize. Just leave a comment and I’ll fix it in a jiffy.

I feel so much better knowing that Pat Robertson has proposed a practical albiet illegal solution to our problem with Venezualean President Hugo Chavez; grease the strutting S.O.B.:

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called on Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him a “terrific danger” to the United States.

Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on “The 700 Club” it was the United States’ duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a “launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism.”

Before we start hearing barking from the moonbats, I might point to this delectable bit of information that came to us yesterday in which far left communists and Islamists have joined together to oppose “The Great Satan” … that is, unless you’re a communist. Communists don’t believe in Satan. Or God. Or sanity, for that matter:

On Monday, Sept. 12, 7:30 p.m., Middle East historian Mark LeVine presents his new book Why They Don’t Hate Us: Unveiling the Axis of Evil and engages in conversation with CODEPINK cofounder Jodie Evans, who has made several trips to Iraq, along with Baghdad-born Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a progressive voice for Muslim Americans based in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. The evening is moderated by political scientist Suzi Weissman, host of KPFK’s “Beneath the Surface” Monday edition, and is cosponsored by CODEPINK and MPAC.

CODEPINK you may recall is spending the month of August with other all-American moonbats in Crawford babysitting Cindy Sheehan. But of course, the loons in Crawford love America as much as you or I…as they tirelessly keep trying to convince us.

Charles Johnson on this strange marraige between the far left secularists and far right religious nuts:

Salam Al-Marayati is notorious for telling radio station KCRW, within hours of the September 11 mass murder: “If we’re going to look at suspects we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what’s happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies.”

Quite a “progressive voice,” eh?

Indeed. But getting back to Pat Robertson, one might ask why such a drastic step would be necessary to get rid of Castro’s mini-me?

“You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it,” Robertson said. “It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war … and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.”

“We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability,” Robertson said.

“We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator,” he continued. “It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.”

If I didn’t know any better, I would have thought I was reading some dialogue from Team America except that Trey Parker is much saner than Robertson and has a better sense of humor.

Did anyone ask what the Lord said about all this? As you may be aware, Robertson talks to God quite often. In fact, if there’s one person I’ve heard of who has more than just a passing familiarity with the Almighty its the Reverend Robertson. I mean, he and the Lord are on a first name basis to hear the Reverend tell it.

That said, wouldn’t it have been more Christian of Robertson to pray for a bolt of lightening to strike the Venuezalean Dictator rather than a bullet between the eyes? Or maybe something a little less suspicious like a gas explosion in the Presidential Palace? Better yet, the CIA at one time tried to kill Castro by giving him a poisonous cigar. Anything except a gundown in the middle of some street.

This is a man who ran for President in 1988 and was actually taken seriously by some Republicans. I sincerely hope that this outburst is due to the onset of some form of dementia rather than a serious proposal from the biggest albatross going for the Republican party.

The Able Danger story is…well, I don’t know. Frankly, I am at a total loss as to where this story is much less where it’s going And anyone who claims otherwise can safely be ignored. That includes both righty and lefty bloggers both of whom are engaging in wild speculation involving Bush, the Saudis, the 9/11 Commission, the Pentagon, and a conspiracy involving Republicans. Let’s just present the information that came out yesterday and chew on it for a while to see if we can make any sense at all about what the heck is going on.

WHAT WE KNOW (FACTS WITH SOME REASONABLE SPECULATION)

Two more sources came forward yesterday confirming what Lt. Col Shaffer said last week; that Able Danger had uncovered at least one of the 9/11 hijackers names prior to 9/11 and tied him to al Qaeda. The first thing you notice however is a discrepancy in dates. Here’s the “new” source, Navy Captain Scott Phillpott:

The officer, Scott J. Phillpott, said in a statement today that he could not discuss details of the military program, which was called Able Danger, but confirmed that its analysts had identified the Sept. 11 ringleader, Mohamed Atta, by name by early 2000. “My story is consistent,” said Captain Phillpott, who managed the program for the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command. “Atta was identified by Able Danger by January-February of 2000.”

Col. Shaffer however says that they had ID’d Atta in “the spring of 2000.” Can both be right?

Then there’s the story of a private contractor hired by the Able Danger team to “create a chart in 2000 for the intelligence program that included Mr. Atta’s photograph and name.”

The former contractor, James D. Smith, said that Mr. Atta’s name and photograph were obtained through a private researcher in California who was paid to gather the information from contacts in the Middle East. Mr. Smith said that he had retained a copy of the chart for some time and that it had been posted on his office wall at Andrews Air Force Base. He said it had become stuck to the wall and was impossible to remove when he switched jobs.

As Laura Rozen rightly asks, “stuck to the wall?” A top secret chart with Mohamed Atta’s face along with God knows what else stuck on a wall like some bank calendar? For what purpose? And he couldn’t remove it when he changed jobs? And is this the same “chart” that Crazy Curt Weldon says he gave to National Security Adviser Steve Hadley immediately after 9/11?

Is your head starting to hurt too?

Then there’s the Pentagon and the case of the missing files. Or destroyed files. Or misplaced files. Or the files that didn’t exist in the first place. Whatever the case, as I predicted here, they’re hanging Col. Shaffer out to dry:

The Pentagon has been unable to validate claims that a secret intelligence unit identified Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta as a terrorist more than a year before the attacks, a Defense Department spokesman said Monday.

Larry Di Rita said that some research into the matter continues, but thus far there has been no evidence that the intelligence unit, called “Able Danger,” came up with information as specific as an officer associated with the program has asserted.

But of course, that doesn’t mean that poor Col. Shaffer is lying:

Di Rita said Pentagon researchers have found no evidence that Able Danger had Mohamed Atta’s name. He said he was unsure whether the unit came up with the identities of the other three hijackers but then said that none of Shaffer’s specific claims had been validated.

Shaffer himself has not provided any documentary proof, Di Rita said, and he said Shaffer has presented his information as second hand.

All that’s missing in that description is the sad shaking of the head and a wistful look on the face as Di Rita cuts Shaffer off at the knees.

And as far as “documentary proof” I daresay if Col. Shaffer did have some files he would promptly be arrested and thrown in the clink for a very long time. The Pentagon does not look kindly on people who steal classified material.

So, is the Pentagon stonewalling? Or stalling for time? Or are they genuinely at a loss as to what Col. Shaffer, Captain Phillpott, and Mr. Smith are talking about?

Beats me. Jack Kelly (whose must read post we’ll get into later) has some interesting thoughts:

ABLE DANGER was established by Special Operations Command in 1999, when Gen. Peter Schoomaker headed SOCOM. Schoomaker retired at the end of 2000. A few months after the change of command, ABLE DANGER was deep-sixed.

There are many in the Pentagon who would like to have the ABLE DANGER controversy go away. But in 2003, Rumsfeld brought Schoomaker back from the retired list to become chief of staff of the Army. If he is still as much a fan of ABLE DANGER as he was when he authorized its creation, Schoomaker would be in a position to prevent a whitewash.

The last thing we know for sure is that Col. Shaffer and other members of Able Danger met with members of the Republican leadership before going public and that Shaffer talked to Undersecretary of Defense Mike Cambrone to assess DoD’s attitude:

“I spoke personally to Denny Hastert and to Pete Hoekstra,” Shaffer told United Press International. Rep. Hastert, R-Ill., is speaker of the House, and Rep. Hoekstra, R-Mich., is chairman of that chamber’s intelligence committee.

“I was given assurances by (them) that this was the right thing to do … I was given assurances we would not suffer any adverse consequences for bringing this to the attention of the public,” Shaffer said, adding that the conversations took place before he and members of the Able Danger team spoke to the media anonymously in the offices of Republican firebrand Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, Aug. 8.

Shaffer also said he was given what he interpreted as tacit approval from senior Pentagon officials before going on the record to Fox News and the New York Times last week, thus revealing his identity and adding both credibility and a new twist to the story.

Shaffer he said he had met the previous day with Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Steven Cambone and Lt. Gen. Norton Schwartz, the staff director for outgoing Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers.

While the left has tried to spin this as some kind of Republican plot, it makes eminently good sense if you’re a whistleblower about to take on the national security establishment that you line up some pretty powerful people to cover your backside. It showed some smarts on Shaffer’s part not to rely on Weldon for protection. The Pentagon has just started to push back and they will think twice about getting too rough with an officer with the record and experience of Shaffer if they think they’ll have some angry Republicans to deal with.

That said, it should be made clear right here and right now; there are dangers for both the right and left in this story. As Jack Kelly asks “Why was Able Danger stopped in March of 2001?” Republicans may not want to know the answer to that question any more than Democrats would just wish the whole issue would go away and not remind people that the Clinton Administration did precious little to stop al Qadea from planning and executing the biggest terrorist attack (and consequent intelligence failure) in history.

QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS

As I mentioned earlier, read this post by Jack Kelly who asks some pretty damn pertinent questions. Here are just a few:

The next question is: WHO KILLED ABLE DANGER? Remember that the program was terminated in the early months of the Bush administration, not the last months of the Clinton administration.

Did Bush’s national security team order ABLE DANGER to be shut down?

Did Bush’s national security team know of, and acquiesce in, a decision to shut down ABLE DANGER made at a lower level?

Was Bush’s national security team even aware of the existence of ABLE DANGER before it was terminated?

The answers to these questions could shed some light on what otherwise seems puzzling behavior.

For those who want to make this a partisan issue - right and left - it’s time to let go of petty bulls**t like that and start thinking about what’s best for the country.

When the 9/11 Commission was holding its very public and very partisan hearings in the middle of an election year, it became an absolute necessity for the right to push back against the smearing and slandering testimony of self-serving lickspittle bureaucrats like Joe Wilson and Richard Clarke. They are both beneath contempt for their efforts to self-aggrandize themselves at the expense of Condi Rice, John Ashcroft, and the President himself. To act that way in public hearings on the biggest terrorist attack in history showed them to be people without honor or scruples. Both went on to advise John Kerry on his campaign and one can only speculate that their nauseating performance before the Committee served as an audition of sorts for getting those positions - not to mention a way to get a huge amount of free publicity for selling their books.

The revelations regarding Able Danger show that at the very least, the 9/11 Commission was so infected with partisan politics that they failed to do their job. I don’t know why the information about Atta and Able Danger was not included in the Commission’s Final Report. But if I were to hazard a guess, I’d say that part of the reason was the necessity to reach a consensus on a narrative with both partisan camps on the Committee. Able Danger’s revelations could very well have upset a timeline we had for Mohamed Atta and when he was in this country. Changing the timeline would have meant substantially changing the narrative, something that was probably carefully worked out between various partisan staffers in the months leading up to the release of the Final Report.

Another possible explanation is that they lost or misplaced the file on Col. Shaffer’s October, 2003 meeting with staffers in Afghanistan. Sometimes, the simplest explanation - stupidity - is the most logical. And since Captain Phillpott was interviewed by a different staffer (Deitrich Snell) it’s barely possible that Able Danger was dismissed because one part of the committee staff didn’t know what the other part was doing. Again, the simplest explanation could apply; incompetence.

What is no longer a possibility is that three different people are lying through their teeth. Which brings us back to the Pentagon and their lack of success in finding any documentary proof of the allegations. Here’s Jack Kelly asking the right questions:

Shaffer says the records of ABLE DANGER are no longer where they were put when the group was shut down. This doesn’t surprise me at all.

Shaffer claims he was ordered by a two star general at the Defense Intelligence Agency to stop trying to bring ABLE DANGER’s findings to the attention of the FBI. Suppose you were that two-star general. If ABLE DANGER did in fact identify Atta’s cell a year before al Qaeda struck, then what you did was the single greatest act of negligence leading up to the 9/11 attacks. Your career and reputation would not survive disclosure. Nor would it be good for the careers of the Pentagon lawyers who blocked the meetings to have their identities disclosed.

The Pentagon purportedly has been carrying out a search for the missing ABLE DANGER documents. Opponents of ABLE DANGER have been predicting for more than a week that a statement debunking ABLE DANGER was imminent. But no such statement has yet been forthcoming. I have a theory as to why.

Was there a shredding party at DoD in the immediate aftermath of 9/11?

It wouldn’t be unprecedented. Following the assassination of John F. Kennedy both J. Edgar Hoover and CIA Director John McCone scrambled to cleanse their files of references to Oswald. They didn’t do a very good job as was found out later when thousands of pages of documents were released by the FBI and CIA showing that both agencies showed more than a passing interest in the assassin. These documents were not supplied to the Warren Commission. And while the documents wouldn’t have changed the Commission’s conclusions, it would have showed that the FBI knew all about Oswald and were probably using him as something of an informal informant, spying on the small group of Russian emigres in Dallas that Oswald’s wife Marina had become friendly with. And the CIA was covering up the fact that they suspected Oswald could have been a Soviet spy.

What this suggests is that there may have been more than one shredding party following 9/11. The German police had been watching an associate of Mohamed Atta’s for years prior to 9/11. This associate lived with Atta in Hamburg and his name was also on the lease where Atta lived. While the CIA swears up and down they had never heard of Atta prior to 9/11 there is some evidence - tantalizing and unconfirmed - that Mohamed Atta was known as an al Qaeda operative prior to 9/11 by the CIA:

During the 28 months Atta’s name is on the apartment lease, 29 Middle Eastern or North African men register the apartment as their home address. From the very beginning, the apartment was officially under surveillance by German intelligence, because of investigations into businessman Mamoun Darkazanli that connect to Said Bahaji. [Washington Post, 10/23/01] The Germans also suspect connections between Bahaji and al-Qaeda operative Mohammed Haydar Zammar. [Los Angeles Times, 9/1/02 - link not available] German intelligence monitors the apartment off and on for months, and wiretaps Mounir El Motassadeq, an associate of the apartment-mates who is later put on trial in August 2002 for assisting the 9/11 plot, but apparently do not find any indication of suspicious activity. [Chicago Tribune, 9/5/02]

So if the CIA knew of Atta as far back as 1999 - admittedly a speculative possibility - it’s also possible that Able Danger would have known of him as well.

All of this doesn’t get us any closer to the truth. For that, it appears to me that we’ll have to re-open the entire investigation. As the Captain points out, even the interrogations of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed may have to be viewed in a different light:

How good was the data for the Atta timeline, and how solid did the Commission nail down his movements? Looking at the data on pages 167 and 168 of the report, it appears that all of the information that the Commission used to establish travel timelines for the Atta cell came from interrogations of Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. These two AQ officers later also discounted Atta’s travel to Prague in April 2001, despite the insistence of Czech intelligence that he met with the Iraqi envoy and an IIS agent at that time.

It seems most likely that Atta and his team may have traveled to the US, either under their own names or variants, and performed some scouting for suitable locations before moving themselves to the US for good. The Able Danger squad has insisted that their requests to coordinate with the FBI got denied on the basis that Atta had become a resident of the US. Binalshibh and KSM could have created a disinformation scenario for the FBI; only the interrogators there know for sure how reliable the pair’s information proved to be.

If the 9/11 Commission whitewashed anyone’s incompetence including mistakes by the Bush or Clinton Administrations or even more costly errors by the CIA and FBI, it’s time to find this out now. The 9/11 Commission was the most important investigative body since Watergate and it appears to have dropped the ball. I hope everyone can agree - right and left - that we owe it to the 3000 dead and their grieving families to find out what happened and let the political chips fall where they may.

UPDATE

Here are a couple of other links you should check out.

Bryan Preston (subbing for Michelle Malkin) has a great way to find out if Mr. Smith’s story is true:

This is truly one strange saga we have on our hands. But his story should be easy enough to confirm with a quick road trip to the base with Smith in tow. Someone has to remember a large chart stuck to a wall with Mohammed Atta’s easily noticed scowl, if it’s not actually still there.

AJ at the Strata-Sphere has some react to Slade Gorton’s appearance on Fox last night:

I was watching Sen Slade Gorton on O’Reilly make a complete fool of himself by getting out on a limb and saying there is nothing at all to the Able Danger story, and had to come post an update. I believe there is something here because of all the strange responses in 200o and now. But I am not willing to say one way or the other whether Able Danger is a real issue or not. No one should be saying that until all three criteria for burying this story are met, as I posted earlier. Slade is taking a huge risk coming out and basically calling Lt. Col. Schaffer a liar, or at least an extreme exaggerator.

AJ also has the observation of the day:

It looks like this will come to a head quite soon. I find it hard to believe these career people would go out on a limb if there was nothing to the Able Danger story?

Additional thoughts by Captain Ed here and here.

I don’t usually respond to every blogpost on the left that spews out a bunch of nonsense about me. If I did that, I’d never get to post much of anything else on this site and you wonderful people would be denied my wit, wisdom, and sleep-inducing prose.

That said, this guy’s post about me was too good to pass up. It started on Saturday when I left a drive-by comment about this ignorant peaen to Cindy Sheehan:

Cindy Sheehan is passionate, but her commonality is what truly frightens those that oppose and attack her. Career activists and academic dissenters have, like it or not, become extremely easy to marginalize, their language too remote. But Sheehan’s language is not. Her language makes her a threat because of its commonality. Millions of mothers across the United States identify with Sheehan, and millions besides support her single demand, the simplicity of which is stunningly powerful.

Cindy Sheehan wants to meet with the President and ask him some very basic questions, the sorts of questions that the majority of Americans can understand. Bush’s advisors know how dangerous this situation is, and not just for the current administration, but for the Republican candidate in 2008. That would be why they have chosen to use the media to defame Sheehan. For were the answers to Sheehan’s questions strong enough to stand on their own merit, President Bush would have met with Sheehan days ago. That, in itself, should say something to those watching this drama unfold.

Cindy Sheehan’s “commonality” of course, includes some of the most nauseating anti-semitism this side of the Third Reich. And anyone who thinks that this conspiracy mongering fantasist is anything except a disturbed, suffering woman being used by her fellow conspiracy mongering fantasists on the far left to advance a true anti-American agenda better think again. And the meme that “Cindy Sheehan wants to meet with the President and ask him some very basic questions” is believed only by 5 year old children who eagerly await the arrival of Santa Claus on Christmas and the Easter Bunny on Easter Sunday. What Cindy Sheehan wants is the “Chief Brody Slap” picture - a moment that she devoutly wishes to have replayed over and over like the Howard Dean scream that doomed that worthy’s candidacy after Iowa.

No-one is “afraid” of Cindy Sheehan except the far left who harbor the fear that when the press packs up and goes home, the media circus will end and they’ll have to scout out their next “Rosa Parks” to try and jump start a movement that simply is not resonating with the American people - a movement to cut and run in Iraq and allow the enemies of the United States to claim victory on the field of battle.

They are not interested in Sheehan. They are not interested in Bush, except as he represents what they hate most - the United States. Their goal is not to save the Iraqi people but to humiliate the country. They have made that quite clear, believing that a full fledged humiliation in Iraq will assist them in their ultimate goal of electing far left candidates to office.

“Bush Advisers” don’t need to shame Sheehan. She has done that all by herself. Every time she opens her mouth (and this despite a slew of PR flaks and media consultants) she says something else so outrageous that even what’s left of the sane left has abandoned her.

For God’s sake, stop trying to make this anti-semitic conspiracist into an anti-war icon. Just let her be. Just let her be…

UPDATE

Received this email from the moonbat who was upset with my comment on Mrs. Sheehan that I left on his blog.

He has now taken down the post I linked above because “I don’t want you getting traffic.” Why he linked to me in the first place remains a mystery. I guess at that time he did want to send me traffic…or he didn’t…until did. I think.

He also explained why he had to delete my comment:

Any comment that espouses violence, hatred, racism, sexism, and/or
generally abusive language is subject to removal. Any comment that
aims to silence other points of view through intimidation, ad hominem
attacks, and/or other methods is subject to removal.”

I guess when decrying anti-semitism, you’re practicing hate. Against whom again remains a mystery. Perhaps other anti-semites may get upset in which case, judging by the agreement with Mrs. Sheehan’s well known comments about Israel and the Jews and the conspiracy theories that involve the “neocons” and Jews that appeared in the comments on his website, maybe he should think about shutting himself down.

Also, I guess ad hominem attacks against conservatives are perfectly alright. And hate. But I guess this is what passes for political discourse on the left these days.

My point in posting it was to
illustrate the sort of baseless, unintelligent rhetoric spewed by
those that conduct themselves as if 40 years younger than they are.
Your views don’t even rate mention, your conduct has stripped you of
even that.

First, what my age has to do with anything is beyond me. Perhaps he’s likening me to all those “children” he and Mrs. Sheehan are talking about who are serving in Iraq. You know…the ones who volunteered to serve in the military, many of whom are in their 20’s and 30’s. This is an outgrowth of the left’s desire to take care of all of us as if we were infants. Maybe I should start referring to this fella as my nanny.

Secondly, if my views don’t even rate mention, why mention them? Just wondering.

Finally, this:

Please do not contact me again or visit my website. Thank you.

Well…that’s the ultimate dagger. I guess I’m going to have to scratch him off the list of sites that I’d never visit in a million years. I found it originally through a Technorati search of Cindy Sheehan. I was looking for people like this guy who believe that “Mother Sheehan” is some kind of catalyst for the anti-war movement.

As I made clear in this post, it’s a fantasy to believe such nonsense. And to elevate someone whose diatribes drip with anti-semitic venom and anti-American bilge to the level of saint says more about the left than anything my poor abilities could possibly relate.

Every time I see Chuck Hagel I feel sorry for Nebraskans.

After all, people in Nebraska are generally friendly, nice, and sane (except on the 7 Saturdays when the Cornhuskers are playing at home). They exude the kind of wholesome, all-Americanism that drives liberals crazy. And anyb0dy who drives liberals nuts can’t be all bad. They’re devoutly religious and sport the most productive agricultural economy in the history of human civilization. Despite it’s small population, the state contributes more than 13% of all US beef output with a value of almost $6 billion.

Anyone who’s ever visited Omaha knows that Nebraskans like most Midwesterners are eminently practical in their politics and policies. The city is one of the friendliest, best run cities in the United States. This is an outgrowth of the good sense and good humor that can generally be ascribed to Nebraskans in general.

Which makes their embrace of Chuck Hagel all the more mystifying. Since his arrival in the Senate, Hagel has chosen to be something of an idiotarian. And while Nebraska has always been something of a maverick when it comes to government (they have a unicameral legislature - the only state in the country to have one) the independent streak demonstrated by such luminaries as James Exxon (D) and Carl Curtis( R ), didn’t extend very much beyond an occasional straying from party orthodoxy.

Hagel, however is different. And what makes him different is that he wants to be President of the United States - badly. His campaign has purchased the domain names “hagel2008.com and “ChuckHagel2008.com.” And his calculated effort to distance himself from the President on Iraq has paid huge dividends. I mean, who would have ever paid attention to a Senator from Nebraska unless he received glowing, fawning attention from the New York Times who wrote a puff piece on he and other Republican “moderates” last spring?

However, if I were Senator Hagel, I’d just go ahead and sell those domain names because after statements like the one he made yesterday, he doesn’t have a ghost of a a chance to win the Republican nomination:

“We should start figuring out how we get out of there,” Hagel said on “This Week” on ABC. “But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur.”

Hagel said “stay the course” is not a policy. “By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq … we’re not winning,” he said.

We used to call this sort of thing “defeatism.” Now we call it “analysis.” But the good Senator wasn’t through:

Hagel, who was among those who advocated sending two to three times as many troops to Iraq when the war began in March 2003, said a stronger military presence by the U.S. is not the solution today.

“We’re past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam,” Hagel said. “The longer we stay, the more problems we’re going to have.”

This sort of nonsense has been fisked to death so I’m not going to do that here. Suffice it to say that Republicans have a very long memory and you can be sure any political opponent of Hagel’s will use those statements to great effect.