Right Wing Nut House

A STYLIZED AND UNREALISTIC PORTRAYAL OF CUSTERS LAST STAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our excellent group blog, “The Wide Awakes” has taken on several new members recently with more coming in all the time. If you haven’t already, check out TWA for some of the best writing on the right side of the sphere. And make sure you blogroll TWA and its members!

TMH Bacon Bits is an “old” new member who the House has linked to on several occasions. “Why the Left Doesn’t Understand Bush” is an eye opener.

The Discerning Texan is another blog you should be reading regularly. Here’s a post on why Rove’s comments distress the Democrats.

Mustang’s blog (Sheesh!…Another Texan!)Social Sense has a self explanatory post entitled “We Like to be Lied to.” Mustang’s got a tart, witty style. I think you’ll like him.

Duncan Avatar of Parrot Check can fisk the moonbats with the best of them. He’s posted a response to a letter to his alma mater about Morgan Reynolds, the tin foil hatter with the wacky 9/11 conspiracy theories.

You may have seen Kit Jarrell’s work at either Blogger News or Blogcritics. His Euphoric Reality blog is not to be passed by - especially this post, an interview with a Marine who served in Fallujah.

Daisy Cutter is a great site with a military bent. Check out his post on “Darth Rove” - it’s a stitch!

Clarity and Resolve is another TWA newbie you should have on your blogroll. “California Jihadin’ ” is just one reason why.

As always, check out TJ’s “News - Interesting - Funny” (NIF) for the best media and Shadow Media links around.

While we’re looking at some newer sites on the blog roll, you’ve probably already heard of “The New Editor”. Their links and analysis of news stories and editorials is always interesting. Check them out if you haven’t already.

The lastest edition of the Carnival of the Clueless last Tuesday proved to be a resounding success. With 16 entries from both the left and right side of the Shadow Media, the Carnival proved that there’s plenty of cluelessness to go around.

Here’s what we’re looking for:

Each week, I’ll be calling for posts that highlight the total stupidity of a public figure or organization – either left or right – that demonstrates that special kind of cluelessness that only someone’s mother could defend…and maybe not even their mothers!

Everyone knows what I’m talking about. Whether it’s the latest from Bill Maher or the Reverend Dobson, it doesn’t matter. I will post ALL ENTRIES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED OR NOT.

All sorts of targets this week from Durbin’s non-apology to Karl Rove’s remarks. Then there’s also the various outifts that supported the Kelo decision on private property rights.

C’Mon everyone! Join in the fun!

Entries are due Monday evening by 10:00 PM EST. You can enter two ways:

1. You can send me an email with a link to your post to elvenstar522-at-AOL-dot-com.
2. Or, you can take advantage of the easy to fill out carnival submission form at Conservative Cat.

Here’s the orginal post on the Carnival with a more detailed explanation.

I’d like to personally invite all members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to contribute to the Carnival…that means you Beth! Blogation is over…back to work!

Ace of Ace of Spades can be one of the funniest guys on the internets. His humor tends toward the scatalogical at times and his rants can go overboard in being personal - especially toward Andrew Sullivan (although Mr. Sullivan deserves it at times).

But he can also, when he sets his mind to it, be quite eloquent. Here’s some of his take on the Rovian controversey:

And of course not all (or even most) liberals are unpatriotic. Although it pains me to say it, I have little doubt, for example, that Aaron Sorkin, producer and writer of the West Wing and screenwriter of A Few Good Men, is quite patriotic about America. A love of America drips from his writing, even though, of course, that is love of America’s potential as a liberal bastion. He’s a dickhead and a crackhead, but he does love America.

Witness Dick Durbin. Durbin could have made his point using language that left little doubt about his love for America — he could have simply said that America is the greatest moral force in the world, and that we should not taint ourselves by being anything less than that, even dealing with those who frankly deserve it — but he didn’t. He compared our troops to the Nazis, Soviets, and the Khmer Rouge.

Read the whole thing. It simply says what needs to be said.

It’s no secret that one of the banes of modern society for the left is private property. Why, the very concept of “private” property screams of inequality. Some people got it. Some don’t. Ergo, in order to level out society private property rights have got to go.

What’s that you say? The Constitution says what?

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(HT: George Mason)

The decision handed down by the Supreme Court yesterday in the Kelo case where a group of Connecticut homeowners lost their fight to keep the city of New London from bulldozing their houses in order to put up a a host of projects that would benefit already wealthy developers (and incidentally bring in much more in tax revenue for the city than the working class homeowners currently pay) is one more indication that the “Age of Enlightenment” that played such an important role in defining individual rights for American citizens may have finally become irrelevant to the continuing experiment that our republic represents.

The touchstone to our past has always been a reverence for the primacy of the individual over the state. In order to insure this - and to insure that the Constituion itself would be ratified - many of the Founding Fathers insisted that a “Bill of Rights” be appended to the original Constitution. We’re mostly familiar with the first ten amendment’s guarantees of our freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, the press, as well as our rights to bear arms, to be tried by a jury of our peers, and to remain silent so as not to incriminate ourselves. But equally important to all of these rights was that simple declaration of private property rights, an echo of the masterful annunciation of our right to “life, liberty, and property” found in the DECLARATION OF COLONIAL RIGHTS from the First Continental Congress in 1774 and generally considered one of the cornerstones of personal liberty in the United States.

No more. George Will sums up the catastrophe nicely:

Those on the receiving end of the life-shattering power that the court has validated will almost always be individuals of modest means. So this liberal decision — it augments government power to aggrandize itself by bulldozing individuals’ interests — favors muscular economic battalions at the expense of society’s little platoons, such as homeowners and the neighborhoods they comprise.

Imagine working for 10 or even 20 years to be able to afford a house only to have the government come along and take it for “the greater good” of the community? Of course, some argue that the erosion of private property rights has been going on for some time now:

There is a sense in which it is perfectly logical to say that the democratically elected branches of government are in the best position to decide what is a legitimate “public use,” and the courts shouldn’t second-guess those decisions. And in many contexts, we conservatives do argue that the courts should defer to legislatures and local governments. The problem here is that accepting that principle would read the relevant language out of the Fifth Amendment. If anything that a state legislature or city government calls a “public use” is, ipso facto, a public use, then the constitutional protection is gone.

My only other observation on the case is this: I defer to no one in my admiration for Glenn Reynolds, but I don’t understand why he seems to think that the issue is a wash as between liberals and conservatives. Just look at how the decision broke down: Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer–the Court’s liberals–voted to uphold the taking, while O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissented. I don’t see how the ideological lineup could be clearer; if you care about property rights, vote for conservatives.

Indeed, the “Newspaper of Record” - for the left anyway - celebrates the decision:

The Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities’ ability to act in the public interest. It also is a setback to the “property rights” movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations. Still, the dissenters provided a useful reminder that eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain.

Notice the use of quotes for the term property rights, as if the term had no meaning outside of a few mossbacks who actually take the Constitution at its word.

The Captain points out the sophistry of the Times argument:

The Times laughably argues that even though government acting as an unwanted arbiter between two private property owners is a serious concern, the fears that a government will choose the one with deeper pockets is “exaggerated”. Oh, yeah, sure. In fact, that’s exactly what happened with New London. No one argued that the houses being condemned were “blighted”; the neighborhood was working class but maintained well. Some of the people arguing their case had, in fact, recently put a lot of money into renovations, money that they now will never see. Most had lived in the neighborhood for decades, and one house had remained in the same family for over 100 years, with the current resident having lived there for 60 of them. New London decided that the waterfront view had more value as commercial property than for the people who actually owned it, and sold out for a few extra tax dollars.

In short, a man’s home is no longer his castle, it’s whatever the hell the government decides it is. If it’s in the way of some Village Trustee’s pet development project that benefits some of his wealthy friends and contributors, too bad. Again, Mr. Will:

Liberalism triumphed yesterday. Government became radically unlimited in seizing the very kinds of private property that should guarantee individuals a sphere of autonomy against government.

If you were to examine the property rights of our neighbors to the south in Central and South America, you’d see a disturbing parrallel in the way that property can be expropriated. Of course, in those benighted societies, you suffer this fate if your politics doesn’t jibe with the local family or of the government. In our own republic, you only get your property stolen from you if your politicians want to insure their re-election by satisfying some of their big contributors.

Private property as a bulwark against the power of government, as a means of independence, as a sacrosanct and inimitable part of our heritage, and as an American birthright took a huge hit yesterday. It remains to be seen whether the coming battle over the next Supreme Court Justice(s) will incorporate arguments for private property rights into the debate in order to bring into stark relief the differences between liberal and conservative jurists.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin has an excellent media and Shadow Media roundup and says this:

The (right side of the) blogosphere’s response to yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling on Kelo v. New London has been stunning. And heartening. Eminent domain isn’t usually the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks “blogswarm.” But the fierce reaction to the decision shows that core economic liberty issues can still unite disparate factions of the right (South Park cons, neocons, Schiavo-cons, whatever-cons) who have been fretting about a conservative crack-up.

I’d also add that it appears from my reading that the traditional (sane) left is also decrying this decision. In addition to Michelle’s speculation about the decision uniting the current warring factions on the right, might this be the beginning of a beautiful friendship with some of our more traditional liberal friends?

Bill Ardolino also has a superb round-up and adds “A man’s home is… somebody else’s piggy-bank.”

By the end of the day, there will be 50 variations on a theme of that old saw.

Jeff Goldstein is full of disdain and satiricalness besides also having a gay old time linking here, there, and everywhere. I’m surprised he didn’t drag the armadillo out for this:

Lovely how the majority justices tried to cover this decidedly anti-Lockean decision with a rhetorical appeal to federalism (”local officials, not federal judges, know best…”). But just because the decision allows a local government (rather than the federal government, as it did with its cynical appeal to a malleable Commerce Clause) to assert what appears to me to be an extra-Constitutional claim on a private citizens’ property rights doesn’t make it any more kosher—and today’s decision, in its expansion of what can be shoehorned into the category of “public use,” gives carte blanche for municipalities to remake the geography in any way they see fit, so long as they can make the argument that they are doing so for the common weal (which in many cases is really just an excuse for gentrification—and legalizes the taking of private property from one owner and transferring it, by municipal will, to another government approved private property owner; it’s a plutocrat’s wet dream).

Flog that doggie!

The votes are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council and the winner is the lovely and talented Dr. Sanity with a great post entitled “Beautiful Indifference:” The good Doctor gives us a case study of one “Mrs. O’Hara” whose “La belle indifference” to her malady is a sign of hysteria:

A middle-aged woman was referred to the psychiatric emergency room when a rather thorough medical examination could not explain the sudden onset of a complete paralysis below the waist. Additionally, the Resident was concerned because her “affect” was rather strange. It seems that, despite what one might normally consider a rather devastatingly traumatic event–the loss of one’s ability to walk or to experience any sensation below the waist–the patient was laughing and joking with the medical Resident.

As it turned out, Mrs. O’Hara was eventually admitted to our inpatient unit (yes, they actually used to admit patients like this back in those days). I did not follow her closely, but it turned out that her husband of many years had recently left her for a much younger woman. They were in the middle of a nasty divorce, fighting over how much money she was to get. The whole situation would have been quite upsetting to anyone, but Mrs. O’Hara insisted it didn’t bother her at all–and as long as she insisted such was the case, she was unable to use her legs. She literally “couldn’t stand on her own two feet” and didn’t seem to much care (”la belle indifference”)

I tell this story merely to demonstrate “la belle indifference” and to segue into a discussion of the curious, but beautiful indifference of our own Mainstream Media.

Curiously, because they are journalists, and I would think that journalistic instincts are easily aroused by curiosity, the crop of journalists we must deal with today seem to be suffering from a form of mass hysteria. Their journalistic insticts; their curiosity; their “nose” for a story has been severely impaired–almost paralyzed you could say, and they don’t much seem to care!

She then charts a devastating comparison of what the MSM is obsessed with and what they’re indifferent to. A must read to understand the pathology of the left.

Finishing a strong second was an interesting post by Gates of Vienna that I’m pleased to say, was triggered by my D-Day post regarding some of the “what if’s” in history:

In a house filled with amateur historians, the post sparked dinner table conversations that lasted for several days. Finally, the consensus came down to one incident, one date, that changed the course of the 20th century and set into play the events which were to dog the rest of our days, even down to the present.

That moment, of course, is June 28, 1914. The incident is the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to Austro-Hungarian throne, by Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo.

Dymphna then goes on to detail young Princip’s unlikely role in the assassination and how the blundering of “Queen Victoria’s grandchildren” (the Crowned heads of Europe in Russia, England, and Germany) led not only to the slaughter of WW I, but also the Russian Revolution that eventually led to the deaths of perhaps as many as 100 million more:

In 1917, If only the German high command had not made the strategically brilliant move of sending Lenin to the Finland Station in a sealed train. If only if Russia had not suffered the particular reverses it did on the Eastern Front; if only the United States had entered the war earlier rather than later…If… if… if…

Timing was all, and timing led to the ascendancy of socialism. All the murderous totalitarian tyrannies of the 20th century — Fascist, Nazi, and Communist — were socialist in nature. One hundred million or more souls perished, directly or indirectly, as a result of socialism. Whether tortured and murdered in the camps, starved to death in deliberately engineered and accidental famines, or killed in the wars brought on by the dictators, the victims at the hands of the 20th century were, by and large, the victims of socialism.

Finishing third in the Council voting was a great post from E-Claire called “Sins of the Fathers…” which takes on the issue of reparations for slavery and the gigantic problems associated with such an undertaking:

How do we decide how much to give to whom? How black do you have to be? I thought we’d gone beyond “a single drop of blood” or the idea of “high yella” folks. Who stands in line for the pay off? 1/4? 1/16? do some folks get 10¢ on the dollar and others FittyCent? How does one prove it?

Where do I stand in line for *my* reparations? I’m part Irish and you know the old sign: “No Irish Need Apply” but ‘former slaves’ could. And the German side were bourgeois industrialists. Do I just pay myself?

Provocative questions…read it all.

The winning non-Council post is Rusty Shackleford’s heart-rending response to Kos over the Durbin comments. It’s called “Kos Says U.S. Torture ‘Equal’ To that of Saddam Hussein (A comparison).” (Warning: Disturbing images)

Will someone please grab Kos head, pull it out of his ass, and force him to please see below.

You, Kos, are a certifiable idiot whose blind partisanship is disgusting and unethical.

I don’t know Doc…why don’t you tell us how you really feel…

You can see all the nominated posts here. And if you’d like to participate in the Watcher’s vote, go here and follow instructions.

Well, it’s about time.

Karl Rove has taken off the gloves and scored some pretty potent left hooks landing them directly on the chin of the President’s tormentors. Invoking 9/11, Rove slammed liberals for their approach to the war on terror:

“Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,” Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State.

Citing calls by progressive groups to respond carefully to the attacks, Mr. Rove said to the applause of several hundred audience members, “I don’t know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.”

The Democrat reaction was quick and predictable: How dare he try and divide the country. That’s our job!

Told of Mr. Rove’s remarks, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, replied: “In New York, where everyone unified after 9/11, the last thing we need is somebody who seeks to divide us for political purposes

Your absolutely right, Chuck. How can we forget Democrat clarion calls for unity with the Nazis, er…Republicans. And your unwavering support for our President Adolph, er…George Bush. And let’s not forget your tearful effort to bring all people of faith including members of the Theocracy, er…Christian religion together.

All of this talk of unity by the Democrats seems to have slipped my mind.

At any rate, Nancy Pelosi won’t take this lying down:

“The president wanted to go to Iraq in the worst possible way and he did,” Pelosi said. “The president is on the ropes.”

Um, begging your pardon Madame minority leader but in a war, isn’t it customary to like, you know, want to have the enemy on the ropes rather than our guy? Perhaps you’re having a slight enemy identification problem? Let me help you. You’re supposed to be on the side of the United States. Unaccustomed as you are to such a position, let me offer you some free advice. We’re the ones who didn’t fly airliners into skyscrapers killing 3000 innocent people.

And our maybe soon to be first female candidate for President Hillary Clinton, threw her burgeoning weight around on the issue as well. (Note to Hill: The seat of your pants appears to be getting a little tight. Try polyester):

“I would hope that you and other members of the administration would immediately repudiate such an insulting comment from a high-ranking official in the president’s inner circle,” Clinton said.

The question is repudiate what? As I write this, dozens of rightwing bloggers are combing the statements made by prominent liberals after 9/11. I guarantee you that they’re going to find plenty of ammunition. In the meantime, Hill…chill. After all, Rove used to the term “liberal” to describe those who wanted to offer therapy to terrorists. And we all know that doesn’t include you, right? You’re a centrist so you’ve got nothing to worry about.

As a matter of fact, Rove never said the word “Democrats” as far as I can tell. So unless the Democrats want to change the name of their party (or allow only liberals to be part of it) they really don’t have anything to complain about, do they? That is, unless they already are liberal and don’t want anyone to know. In which case, Rove just initiated the most important “outing” of a political party in history.

UPDATE

I love it when I’m right.

As I predicted above, righty bloggers have been scouring the net and have struck gold. Here are just a few of the dozens of statements by prominent liberals following September 11 that prove Karl Rove was indeed correct:

John Hawkins:

“In a situation like this, of course you identify with everyone who’s suffering. [But we must also think about] the terrorists who are creating such horrible future lives for themselves because of the negativity of this karma. It’s all of our jobs to keep our minds as expansive as possible. If you can see [the terrorists] as a relative who’s dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion. There’s nothing better.” — Richard Gere

“Melt their weapons, melt their hearts, melt their anger with love.” — Shirley MacLaine on her anti-terrorism policy.

Matt Margolis:

Liberal donor George Soros said that he felt we should have responded to 9/11 as if it were a crime, “The terrorist attack on the United States could have been treated as a crime against humanity rather than an act of war. Treating it as a crime would have been more appropriate.” Soros also declared the war on terror was unwinnable:

“We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of the United States of America and of countries around the world, appeal to the President of The United States, George W. Bush; …and to all leaders internationally to use moderation and restraint in responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the United States.”

Michelle Malkin:

Flashback, December 2002: Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) exhibits the let’s-understand-why they-hate-us approach to fighting terrorism:

We’ve got to ask, why is this man [Osama bin Laden] so popular around the world? Why are people so supportive of him in many countries … that are riddled with poverty? He’s been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven’t done that. How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?

Ed Morrissey:

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), 10/1/01, Roll Call: “I truly believe if we had a Department of Peace, we could have seen [9/11] coming.”
Al Sharpton, 12/1/02, New York Times, on the 9/11 attacks: “America is beginning to reap what it has sown.”

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, 3/1/2003, Toledo Blade: “One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped cast off the British crown.”

Cross Posted at Blogger News Network

With support for the War in Iraq among the American people plummeting faster than the Cub’s chances for post season play, there’s only one person who can change the political dynamic of the situation and buck up the spirits of his supporters and once again flummox the designs of his opponents.

George Bush has been absent from the front for too long. His digressions into domestic politics have shifted his focus from Iraq with nearly disastrous consequences for our efforts there. His press conferences over the last few months have been exercises in little more than soft core salesmanship. There’s been a lack of focus from the White House resulting in the perception that our Iraq policy is adrift. Our men are dying, the terrorist insurgency is slaughtering the Iraqi people with scores dying every day. The Iraqi government is quibbling. And worst of all, because of a lack of leadership, the American people are beginning to lose heart.

Part of this loss of faith by the people is the result of the constant drumbeat of negativity from the MSM and the President’s political opponents. It’s gotten so bad that some of the less committed supporters of the President in Congress have begun to run for cover by supporting a Democratic effort to tell the enemy when we plan to stop killing them.

And it doesn’t help when the Vice President says that the insurgency is in its “last throes” only to be contradicted by the top Commander in the Persian Gulf.

All of this should be a wake-up call for the President and his advisor’s. Instead, a big PR push is planned over the next week or so culminating in what apparently is going to be a prime time address on Iraq from the Oval Office.

This is not the way to rekindle the war spirit in the American people. It is shallow. And it’s a pointless exercise in politicking when we need more, much more. It’s time to get back to work on Iraq.

It’s time to get off the stump and get back in the saddle. It’s time to face down the demons of Viet Nam that are gleefully being conjured up by your political foes and squash the idea of any kind of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. And it’s time to start kicking your opponents in the teeth for their obstinacy, their opposition, their obstructionism, and their ever escalating flights of rhetorical baloney comparing you, the Republican party, and anyone who supports you with Nazis.

Austin Bay has some excellent suggestions:

But our weakness is back home, in front of the TV, on the cable squawk shows, on the editorial page of the New York Times, in the political gotcha games of Washington, D.C.

It seems America wants to get on with its Electra-Glide life, that Sept. 10 sense of freedom and security, without finishing the job. The military is fighting, the Iraqi people are fighting, but where is the U.S. political class?

The Bush administration has yet to ask the American people — correction, has yet to demand of the American people — the sustained, shared sacrifice it takes to win this long, intricate war of bullets, ballots and bricks.

Bullets go bang, and even CBS understands bullets. Ballots make an impression — in terms of this war’s battlespace, the January Iraqi elections were World War II’s D-Day and Battle of the Bulge combined. But the bricks — the building of Iraq, Afghanistan and the other hard corners where this war is and will be fought — that’s a delicate and decades-long challenge.

Given the vicious enemy we face, five years, perhaps 15 years from now, occasional bullets and bombs will disrupt the political and economic building. This is the Bush administration’s biggest strategic mistake: failure to tap the American willingness produced by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

We’ve taken the President to task for this failure in the past. His inability to ask - or as Mr. Bay so rightly puts it - demand sacrifices of the American people is perhaps his biggest political error in this entire conflict. The American people have nothing invested in this war. We’re suffering a disconnect from the battlefield that was never a problem in World War II. Of course, most people at home during that war had a personal stake in the outcome what with family members in harms way. But it wasn’t just that. It was the way the war played out in the everyday lives of people. Rationing, war bonds, scrap metal drives, victory gardens, all became part of the American landscape, imprinting the war on people’s consciousness and uniting the country in such a way so that when setbacks and crisis occurred, there was a sense that we were facing our problems together.

Today, flickering images of smoldering cars, dead bodies, horribly wounded people, and grim body counts are watched in the privacy of our homes. Disconnected as we are from our neighbors and even our families, we struggle to deal with feelings of helplessness and sorrow as we watch the carnage night after night on television. It has caused many loyal and patriotic Americans to question why we’re in Iraq. What good is being done there? And most importantly, is it worth the lives of our best and brightest young people?

Only by leveling with the American people about who we’re fighting and what we’re fighting for can the dynamic be changed.

NRO’s Barbara Lerner has some suggestions:

I agree that the administration is at fault, but for an entirely different reason: because Cowboy George morphed into Cautious George. Cowboy George was a bold leader, unafraid to take the tough offensive actions we must take to win this war. He led us in the first two years after 9/11, and Americans rallied behind him in numbers so overwhelming they made “soft America” all but invisible. But after our conquest of the Iraqi military in 2003, Cautious George replaced Cowboy George. Cautious George is forcing us to fight with one hand tied behind our back by pretending we are fighting against one country only. In fact, we are fighting a regional war in Iraq, and have been since day one. It’s past time for America to acknowledge that fact and act on it. Time to make all the Middle Eastern despots who are pouring money, men, and arms into the battle in Iraq stop.

Because the president has not done this, most Americans think we are fighting only against Iraqis — local people, dependent on local resources. In that light, our inability to stem the daily toll of bombs and blood looks like evidence that most Iraqis support terror. Americans don’t see that Iraq as worth fighting for, or that kind of war as winnable. Other polls suggest Americans worry, increasingly, that Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia also threaten our security. They fear that by expending so much blood and treasure on Iraq alone, we may make ourselves more vulnerable to attacks from others.

Iraq is a difficult place, but this all-dark picture is false as well as dispiriting. Inadvertently, the Bush administration has made it look believable by downplaying the big role that foreign governments and their terrorist proxies play in Iraq. Administration spokesmen rarely pointed to the support — diplomatic as well as military — Iraq’s Sunni Baathist terrorists get from Sunni tyrants abroad, and they kept insisting that foreign jihadists are only a minority of the fighters we face. But foreign support is a fact, and harping on the relatively small number of foreign jihadists in Iraq at any one time misses the point. Foreign jihadists are responsible for almost all suicide bombings, and suicide bombings cause a disproportionate share of American and Iraqi casualties. Worse, because foreign jihadists come from all the Arab states as well as Iran, there is an endless supply of them. If we confine ourselves to hunting them down, one by one, only after they infiltrate Iraq, we will be there forever. Far better to act forcefully to stop the infiltration, and do it in a way that sends a message to all terror-succoring states: The free ride is over. The price for continuing to aid and abet the war against us and against a free Iraq has gone up.

Would this mean expanding the war? It would mean making it crystal clear to Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia that continued infiltration of bloodthirsty jihadists from their countries will carry with it a graduated series of consequences, the worst of which would be the despotic Sheiks, Mullahs, and autocrats sharing a jail cell with Saddam Hussein. If you said it, they’d believe it.

For the folks back home, we need to be reminded constantly of what our ultimate goal is in Iraq. Don’t be afraid to raise the ghosts of 9/11 to justify your policy. First of all, it would drive your opponents crazy and make them say things that would have them looking like apologists for the terrorists. And it would also bring into stark relief the unthinkable alternative of getting out of Iraq before the job was done.

It’s time to step up and get out front of this issue before your opponents preempt your policy and start substituting their own agenda. That can’t happen. If it does, yours will have been a failed presidency. And you’ll only have yourself to blame.

Cross Posted at Blogger News Network

Comedy is the trickiest of art forms. In order to execute it well, the performer needs perfect timing, good material, a feeling for your audience, and most importantly, the ability to make the absurd seem reasonable. Tripping on a banana peel done incorrectly brings gasps of concern from the audience. Is he hurt? Did he break something? Therefore, it’s imperative that when you slip on the banana peel, you do it in such a way as to make the audience aware that you didn’t really fall down because you skidded across the floor after stepping on the banana peel, you only made it seem like you did. The audience becomes part of your little conspiracy and laughs at you when you fall on your rump.

Bear this in mind when you read what the Democratic National Committee came up with to explain why John Kerry lost the election in Ohio. It’s a perfect illustration of bad comedy. In fact, if I were to rate the show they put on yesterday in the unvieling of this 200 page report on voting “difficulties” in Ohio, I’d have to give a thumbs down.

Not only did the performer, a Mr. Howard Dean, not have any sense of timing, he had no sense of the absurd whatsoever. In fact, Mr. Dean did not even realize he was involved in a comedy skit. However, since his audience didn’t either, I guess that makes them even.

One thing I will say is that as comedies go, the material was excellent. For pure enjoyment, it doesn’t get any better than this. In dealing with those electronic voting machines that Mr. Deans theater group pushed on the public following the 2000 election debacle, the report states:

It’s entirely possible that a DRE voter could vote for one candidate, which would be displayed on screen, while an entirely different candidate could be recorded internally as having received that vote. If such an error occurred, neither the voter nor any election official would be able to undo the damage after the fact. If such an error occurred systematically, it could swing the outcome of an election. And, if the faulty software was deliberately placed in the machine, it could even be programmed to modify itself to eliminate any traces of its having been present. If such fraud were occurring, it would not be visible to poll workers or election observers.

As with any other voting system, DRE votes must ultimately be centrally tabulated. This information may be communicated over a modem or carried by hand in a computer memory card. As with traditional ballot boxes, such data may be subject to tampering while in transit. However, while ballot boxes are large objects that can be easily observed and tracked, computer memory cards are small and sleight-of-hand can allow for quick substitutions. Likewise, telephone lines are not terribly secure against attackers who can climb telephone poles.

While appropriate cryptographic techniques can mitigate against all of these risks, many DRE vendors either use no cryptography at all or do it improperly, leaving the data effectively unprotected while in transit

Please note the subtext of the piece. Comedy can also be simple imagery as with the strange man on the telephone pole stealing vote tabulations or the “sleight of hand” required to pull the old “switcheroo” with computer memory cards. This is a cheap gag that can be traced back to the days of vaudeville. It’s also noteworthy that mixing comedy and magic never works. For that faux pas alone, Mr. Dean and his troupe should be shunned.

Mr. Dean’s troupe also had problem with insulting their audience. Clearly, if you’re going to put on a show, you can’t treat your audience like a bunch of buffoons. Mr. Dean comitted this unpardonable sin when he revealed how truly clueless his audience is:

Six (6) percent of voters who went to the polls reported feelings of intimidation. This group includes voters who heard that police would be at the polls to arrest people who had outstanding child support or car payments, and voters who said they felt intimidated on Election Day.

Voter Intimidation
• Isolated instances of overt intimidation at polling locations
• Scattered reports of fliers threatening arrest of people with outstanding parking tickets or with child support owing

Clearly, anyone who thinks they’ll be arrested for outstanding parking tickets if they show up to vote do not belong in any kind of a discerning audience. And yet, Mr. Dean makes it a point to take them seriously, a cardinal sin in putting on comedy. One must always keep in mind that there should be at least some kind of minimum sophistication for this kind of cerebral comedy. Bugs Bunny is funny to five year olds. Lenny Bruce was not. Similarly, people who feel intimidated when asked to show their ID at a polling station fall into the Bugs Bunny category of sophistication and therefore, need not have any attention paid to them. And yet Mr. Dean spends a great deal of time trying to make it appear as if the Bugs Bunny crowd deserved his consideration.

In summary, despite excellent comedic material to work with, Mr. Dean failed to arouse any laughter in his audience. Perhaps if the performance had been done in a decent theater rather than DNC headquarters, the results would have been different.

UPDATE

Matt Margolis:

When Christine Gregoire “won” the gubernatorial race in Washington state by a mere 129 votes, Democrats called it a done deal… despite mountains of evidence of irregularities…

Yet, President Bush won the state of Ohio by 119,000 votes, and Democrats still cannot accept it.

Yup.

GOP Bloggers:

So the real story is that people may have had a hard time voting… not because of some evil Republican scheme, but because they were impatient, untrained or confused… and even still George W. Bush legitimately received more votes in Ohio and won the election regardless of the findings.

Thanks for the news flash.

I take a backseat to no one when it comes to love and respect for the flag of the United States of America.

The single most inspiring sight in my life was the shot of that huge flag being erected over the still smoking ruins of the World Trade Center. It was a supercharged Iwo Jima, as electrifying a patriotic moment as perhaps Francis Scott Keye’s relief and pride at seeing the flag flying over Fort McHenry. When grown men can cry like a baby at the sight of a piece of cloth fluttering in the smoky, windswept wound that was ground zero, something more is at play in the human heart than simple love of country. There is faith. A faith as deep as any religious belief in what that flag represents.

A little bit of that flag was torn up today. The Congress decided that the United States government will be able to tell you what kind of political speech is acceptable:

The House of Representatives approved, for the fifth time, a constitutional amendment to ban the desecration of the U.S. flag, setting the stage for a close vote in the Senate, which has previously rejected the measure.

The House approved the proposal by 286-130, more than the two- thirds necessary to pass constitutional amendments.

The amendment allows Congress to pass laws prohibiting destruction of the flag as part of protests. A constitutional amendment is necessary because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that laws forbidding flag desecration violate the free speech protections of the First Amendment.

Yes people who burn the flag are lowlife scum not worthy to clean the boots of the lowliest private in the United States army. Yes they should be shunned by society for the cowardly wretches they are. Yes there is a special place in hell for people who burn the symbol of the country that gives them the freedom to desecrate the memories of all those who gave their lives in defense of that flag and whose widows and orphans feel a special, searing pain when that emblem of freedom becomes fodder for their sick political hate speech.

But arrest them? For what? For what they’re thinking, that’s what. If we were to start arresting people for stupidity the flag burners would have an awful lot of company.

What it boils down to is this. Free speech must be virtually absolute. If it isn’t, it’s not free speech. Once the government starts deciding what’s acceptable political speech there’s no turning back. In order to regulate speech at all, there must be some compelling reason - child porn or shouting “fire” in a crowded theater are two examples - otherwise, we’re not free.

It’s that simple.

Besides, it’s crazy to muck around with the Constitution. It’s been amended 17 times in 216 years since the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) were ratified in 1791. To modify that document to prevent one form of political expression is just asking for trouble. Who is to say that the amendment couldn’t be used to justify outlawing another form of political expression, one that you and I might agree with but a majority of the country finds distasteful?

The fact is I don’t trust the government to regulate political speech. They’re trying to do it with blogs and I don’t like it. It’s insidious. It’s dangerous. And it’s wrong.

The people who desecrate the flag by burning it are not worth defending. But what the flag stands for is. That’s why I sincerely hope that cooler heads prevail in the Senate and this amendment is consigned to the trash bin where it belongs.

UPDATE

Here’s a roundup of some reaction. I was surprised and pleased that so many conservative bloggers are opposed to the amendment. What’s kind of funny is that many believe they’re the only rightwingers who think that way. Also noticed: Those on the right feel compelled to to state at the outset (as I did) that they love the flag and are not defending the scumbags who burn it. Predictably, those on the left don’t bother to do anything but bash Republicans although it’s worth pointing out that the 77 Democrats who voted for the amendment are the ones who put it over the 2/3 majority necessary for passage.

The only decent defense of the amendment I found comes via The Corner

The good thing about being a conservative is that we don’t have to dream about some of the laws we would like enacted. As it turns out we wrote a flag protection act in 1968. We enforced it, and the States did the same until it was struck down. The period until the late ’80s when it was struck down were not dark days for free speech nor did red white and blue paper napkins and ties go the way of the hoop skirt. Burning the flag was seen as an invitation to a fight and it was reasonably prohibited.

The Supreme Court in the past has indeed restricted speech as it relates to “fighting words” - words that by themselves would cause violence. But it has consistently held that symbols like the swastika and even the hoods worn by Klansmen are protected speech.

From Corante: “How to Ensure More American Flags Are Burned”

How many reported flag burnings were there last year in the US according to an anti-flag burning group that tracks such things? One. The idiocy of those fostering this unpatriotic amendment is staggering.

Slobokan: “You can’t Legislate Respect”

While I agree that burning the U.S. flag is disrespectful to America, I also think that it’s impossible to legislate respect. We do not need laws on the books what tell us what to think, when to think, and how to think it.

The Anchoress:

Burning the flag is stupid. It is moronic. It is infantile. It is the sort of thing they do in places where America is hated. Some might say you can “love” America and still burn the flag in protest, but I have met a few flag-burners in my day and I never knew a one of them that wasn’t all about simply being a part of something “happening” and provocative. And a few of them regret it, now, all these years later.

Nevertheless, I cannot support this amendment. I think it too is stupid. And moronic. It is the sort of suppressive and insecure thing they do in places where - ironically - America is being asked to bring freedom. Places like Cuba, fer instance.