sic semper tyrannis

…We’d all swim in the sea. Tom Friedman of the Times has the courage to wish he were swimming back in the sea before it became a sea of troubles on 9/11/01. From his bullying pulpit on the Times op-ed page, he holds forth on what presidential candidate he will, and will not vote for:

I will not vote for any candidate running on 9/11. We don’t need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12. I will only vote for the 9/12 candidate….the candidate of 9/12 is the one who will not only understand who our enemies are, but who we are.

Before 9/11, the world thought America’s slogan was: “Where anything is possible for anybody.” But that is not our global brand anymore. Our government has been exporting fear, not hope: “Give me your tired, your poor and your fingerprints.”

Friedman continues on; berating us for having Guantanamo, and, generally, for treating 9/11 as what it so plainly was: our realization that we were at war.

Note the past tense: many years before that clear September day in 2001, the other side had declared war against us, and was waging it. It is only on 9/11 that they were able to import to our shores their terror.

Friedman doesn’t want a “9/12″ president. He pines for a 9/10 president; a man (or woman) who wants to return to some imagined, and dangerous, open borders situation.

Finally, in a demonstration that Friedman has no clue as to what good security is, he holds Disney World up as the exemplar:

If Disney World can remain an open, welcoming place, with increased but invisible security, why can’t America?

If Friedman wants a president who believes that the security interests and needs of a theme park in the interior of the United States should be on a par with that of a sovereign nation, that man (or woman) shouldn’t be running for dogcatcher.

Let’s put it differently. The United States will get along just fine if someone sabotages the rides at Disney World, or otherwise causes the park to close. We don’t want that to happen, but, to put it gently, our national security does not depend on theme parks.

Further, it should be obvious to even the casual observer that Disney World does not have to patrol our national borders or maintain a standing army, navy, air force, marines, and coast guard. It is, literally, a fenced enclave. How much would you like to bet that someone like Friedman would scream bloody murder if we were to make America’s borders look just like Disney World’s?

Unlike a silly theme park, our national security would suffer gravely if there is another successful terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11. We need to remember that it was a near thing that we did not also lose the Capitol or the White House on that day.

9/12 is not 9/10. It must be an awakening after 9/11; awakening to the existential threat posed by Islamic jihad.

Here it comes, and she hasn’t even clinched the Donk nomination. The Hillary is talking about socialized medicine (again), and, in what seems to be a knee-jerk response of Democrats who are close to being in power, a costly and foolish giveaway. This time it’s “Baby Bonds.”

No, sounds like but is not the drug-enhanced faux-record holder Barry Bonds. This is a real “throw money at everybody” proposed by The Hillary. From the WaPo:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday floated the idea of giving $5,000 to every newborn American child — suggesting that a “baby bond” would help children grow up to be able to afford college.

There would be no means test for this giveaway: billionaires and sharecroppers alike would get $5,000 bonds. Some proposals are not well thought out; some just need some tinkering. This one is stillborn and never had life.

The first problem? Tuition, room and board, books, and miscellaneous costs are in the tens of thousands, even at relatively inexpensive state schools. At private universities, tuition alone typically is well over $20,000 per year. So a 5K bond, even with interest, isn’t going to get your child past the first semester — if that. And, the horrible downside of interest? If you got 6% on a bond (very, very high), guess what’s also going to happen to tuition and other college expenses?

The second problem is that a $5,000 bond, to be cashed in 18 years, means virtually nothing to families at or above the median income level. So, on its face, this giveaway is not just ineffective, it is wasteful.

It should also come as no surprise that, according the normally sympathetic WaPo, that Hillary “did not say how such a program would be financed.”

First, from the author of the much-used term, “the fog of war,” the Prussian Carl von Clausewitz (from Wikipedia):

The great uncertainty of all data in war is a peculiar difficulty, because all action must, to a certain extent, be planned in a mere twilight, which in addition not infrequently — like the effect of a fog or moonshine — gives to things exaggerated dimensions and unnatural appearance.

This is one of the first things we were taught in our military science courses: on the battlefield, the best one can hope for is to see what’s going on “in a mere twilight.”

What was true in von Clausewitz’ time (early 19th century) remains true in Iraq today. In spades. Which brings us to the firm that seems to have taken Halliburton’s place as the Left’s bete noire: Blackwater USA.

Seems that Blackwater stands in the gap of insufficient American troops in Iraq. As a result of this, Blackwater often engages the enemy, which in Iraq can be anyone, anywhere, anytime.

A recent engagement, apparently initiated by some locals, pick your adjective, insurgents, terrorists, sectarian extremists, has resulted in some Iraqi casualties. Which, of course, must be investigated by the powers that be. It’s not as if Iraq is some sort of free-fight chaos. The WaPo, of course, is all over any story that exposes the brutality of an American corporation that kills in the name of our national security.

The story in today’s paper could be summarized by this sentence: Locals shoot at Americans; Americans shoot back; locals die. This is being treated by the Post, and by our own State Department, as something unusual, worthy of investigation. As though this particular incident took place in Washington, DC.

Consider just two sentences from the Post story:

…the events that led to the shooting involved three Blackwater units. One of them was ambushed near the traffic circle and returned fire before fleeing the scene…

Sarhan Thiab, a traffic policeman who was in the circle at the time, said Iraqi police did not fire on Blackwater. “Not a single bullet. They were the only ones shooting,” said Thiab, who said he and other traffic officers fled to nearby bushes once the shooting began.

So, presumably, the ambush was with harsh words and dirty looks. Did Blackwater use excessive force? From the facts on the table, they did not. At least not if the venue is a war zone. As, contra President Bush, all of Iraq has become.

The underlying problem is that we are attempting to fight a war without any casualties on either side. Thereby ensuring that casualties on our side are much greater than they should be. The use of Blackwater is a problem, not because of anything that Blackwater does. Rather, it is because there should be no need for private security firms. We should have the troops on the ground to do the job, or we should leave.

The middle ground sought, and found, by the Bush administration, is a path to Hell. And results in the deaths of far too many Americans.

Herb Lusk, who played for the Philadelphia Eagles in the 1970s, has been credited, in the Washington Post story as being “the first NFL player to kneel in the end zone and pray” after scoring a touchdown. Mr. Lusk did this quietly, and, it would appear, solely for the purpose of thanking God for providing him the skills needed for his success.

Mr. Lusk’s prayer might have started, or at least helped, in a dramatic increase in public prayer among professional athletes. From the Post:

I don’t know if there was hesitancy to do it back then, but [athletes] weren’t as impulsive as they are today,” said Vermeil, Lusk’s coach at the time, who added that he noticed a huge increase in on-field prayer during his broadcasting career in the 1980s. “He kind of initiated this movement. . . . It freed a lot of people to express themselves.”

All well and good. Apparently the Post writer was unaware of the many baseball players, especially those from Dominica and other Caribbean Central American countries, who routinely make the sign of the cross when they step up to the plate. But, perhaps, for the Post, these guys don’t count, because they weren’t football players. I’m pretty certain I’ve seen this at baseball games well before 1977, but, whatever.

What’s my point in all this? I’ve always had a suspicion of any public piety. And a kneeling prayer, in the end zone at an NFL game, could not be more public or me-centric. This is what bothers me. From Matthew 6:

1″Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.5″And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Should we always pray alone? Of course not. Whenever two or more are gathered in the name of Jesus, there is where we should also pray. Alright, John Luke, who died and made you Inquisitor? No one, of course. Pray as you feel moved to by the Holy Spirit. But be careful that you do not ask God’s blessing on a trivial matter. Like beating another team. Or taking credit by yourself for a team effort.

This latter, a solo prayer by someone who thanks God for his success, is not wrong on its face. Except for the violation of Jesus’ advice in Matthew 6. And, unless the entire team whose running, blocking, and tackling allowed your “individual” success, such a prayer is worship of oneself. It can become, in a word, idolatry.

The fever swamps of the Left, led by miscreants from MoveOn.org and A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism; get yer Red-hot Che T-shirts here…), have been calling for the president’s impeachment for allegedly lying and getting us into a hopeless morass in Iraq.

A morass that has cost the lives of thousands of our bravest men and women. Men and women who, of course, the Left has nothing but contempt and crocodile tears for…

But perhaps there is an actual reason for impeachment. The reason is how our commander-in-chief has failed to contain Iranian threats to regional and world security. And how his administration has failed, miserably, to even confront Iran, in the light of acts of war by the Islamic Republic. A nation that has been directly tied to killing Americans in Iraq and which was identified, early on in the Bush administration, as being a member of the “Axis of Evil.”

The Wall Street Journal, certainly no redoubt for those dreaded Neocons, hasn’t called for Mr. Bush’s impeachment. And they most likely will not. Yet in today’s lead editorial, the Journal illustrates just how feckless Bush and his administration have been.

The sense of the editorial may be summarized in the sub-heading: Tehran has been told it will pay a price for killing Americans, but it never has. The lead paragraph:

The traveling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad circus made for great political theater this week, but the comedy shouldn’t detract from its brazen underlying message: The Iranian President believes that the world lacks the will to stop Iran from pursuing its nuclear program, and that the U.S. also can’t stop his country from killing GIs in Iraq. The question is what President Bush intends to do about this in his remaining 16 months in office.

Appeasers, intentioned or otherwise, will often tell us that Iran’s president doesn’t hold the real power. The mullahs do. Those who think that the mullahs, motivated by a militant vision of Islam as being on permanent armed jihad, believe that they should make peace with the United States, please raise your hands. Now go to the nearest psychiatrist for counseling; you are delusional.

Here’s the standard caveat: we’re not at war with the people of Iran, just their leaders. This will be of tremendous comfort to the thousands, if not millions, who will be incinerated by Iranian nukes down the road. Absent strong action, actual evidence of American resolve, this is what will happen. Unless, of course, all nations in the Middle East surrender and accept Iranian hegemony. And all Jews leave the Middle East, or die.

This would not upset most people in the State Department, since the cookie-pushers at Foggy Bottom always have clientitis — the belief that whatever the most powerful of our potential enemies wants, they will get. After all, who cares about the Jews, Kurds, or Sunni Arabs?

Heather Mac Donald has a fact-filled article at City Journal that puts to rest the notion that the United States still looks like Little Rock Arkansas, circa 1957.

Titled “The Jena Dodge,” its theme can be expressed in this single sentence: “It is not racism that is putting black men in jail; it’s their own behavior.” This doesn’t stop the race hustlers such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton from going down and inciting riots. Jena is merely symptomatic of elements of the black community refusing to accept responsibility for itself.

These facts are harsh, and support the notion that black progress in America has been retarded by blacks themselves. They are not victims any longer, except of their own refusal to see things clearly. Black leaders, by which I mean men and women with moral authority (not the “reverends” cited above who are nothing more than racist hustlers) need to heed the call from the Gospel of Luke (4:23): Physician, heal thyself.

I’m not a big fan of the death penalty. With rare exception, I’d much prefer to keep convicted murderers in prison for the rest of their lives. True life sentences, with no possibility of parole for all first-degree murderers or those who murder police or children. But my standard of justice, or mercy, depending on one’s perspective, is strictly for peacetime. War is, and should be, different.

Not for some. We’ve got one of the Supremes, John Paul Stevens, arguably the most liberal member of the Court, in profile in the New York Times Magazine. It goes without saying that Justice Stevens is a hero to the Lefties at the Times. In fact, one may find a sense of how to fight a war in this article that has been adapted by the Left in its mantra for our war on terror.

The method? It might be called “Bring out the Subpoenas, Warrants, and Miranda Rights.” Don’t shoot the bad guys shooting and bombing us; read them their rights and discuss their defense strategy with them. To see some of the roots of this myopia, consider this about Stevens from the Times:

After graduating Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Chicago in 1941, Stevens enlisted in the Navy on Dec. 6, 1941, hours before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. He later won a bronze star for his service as a cryptographer, after he helped break the code that informed American officials that Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto, the commander of the Japanese Navy and architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, was about to travel to the front. Based on the code-breaking of Stevens and others, U.S. pilots, on Roosevelt’s orders, shot down Yamamoto’s plane in April 1943.Stevens told me he was troubled by the fact that Yamamoto, a highly intelligent officer who had lived in the United States and become friends with American officers, was shot down with so little apparent deliberation or humanitarian consideration. The experience, he said, raised questions in his mind about the fairness of the death penalty.

Well, the Americans went too far that time. After all, poor Yamamoto “had lived in the United States and become friends with American officers.” Once Japan declared war on us by bombing Pearl Harbor, what, exactly, is the relevance of this? Is it that personal friendships with Americans make one immune from being killed in a war? Or, by implication, the death penalty if the criminal had committed a sufficiently heinous crime?

Admiral Yamamoto, regardless of where he lived or who he befriended, was a legitimate target. As was any other uniformed member of Japan’s armed forces while engaged in his duties. This is, indeed, the norm for nations waging war, and should be.

Now, one could ask, should flag officers get special treatment? Hell, no. Should we have pursued a decapitation strategy, i.e. should we specifically target flag officers? Yes, if it would work to ultimately save the lives of Americans and if it were not feasible to otherwise remove the officer from combat.

Perhaps the good Justice Stevens has gotten a little soft, but then he started soft. Does he, or other lefties, such as Senator Kerry, truly believe that we can send platoons of lawyers out to stop terrorists? Or that if we had just asked him politely to cease and desist, Admiral Yamamoto would have?

______________
A Worthy Enemy

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was a worthy enemy. He was a man of vision, culture, and learning. In his honorable career in Imperial Japan, he recognized the coming primacy of naval aviation as the best method to project force for a Pacific Rim nation.

Read his bio at Wikipedia; it should make you appreciate the intrinsic value of flag officers such as Yamamoto. Or David Petraeus, for that matter.

The tragedy is not that Admiral Yamamoto was killed in action. The tragedy is that he was on the wrong side during the war.

An exercise in morality, and whether we can recognize the man of honor as compared and contrasted with the man of dishonor. This posting by GOP Vixen is worthy of your time.

Two excerpts. First, some pithy (not a typo…) sayings from Mad Mo:

• We don’t shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world.
• The countdown for the destruction of Israel” has begun.
• Iran does not give a damn about resolutions.
• Them (the West) invented the myth of the massacre of the Jews and placed it above Allah, religions and prophets.

Whatever, dude. It’s hard to know who is more despicable: your sorry anti-Semitic ass or the feckless weasels of Columbia who invited you for some “dialog.”

Now, compare and contrast Mad Mo’s ravings with those of the just-passed mime, Marcel Marceau. From the GOP Vixen:

Yesterday in Paris, legendary mime Marcel — a French Jew who escaped deportation to a death camp and whose father died in Auschwitz — died at age 84. Though he would become famous for his wordless art, as the horrors of the Holocaust unfolded young Marceau was anything but silent:

“With his brother Alain, Marceau became active in the French Resistance, altering children’s identity cards by changing birth dates to trick the Nazis into thinking they were too young to be deported. Because he spoke English, he was recruited to be a liaison officer with Gen. George S. Patton’s army.His father was sent to the Auschwitz concentration camp in 1944.’Yes, I cried for him,’ Marceau said. But he said he also thought of the others killed.

‘Among those kids was maybe an Einstein, a Mozart, somebody who (would have) found a cancer drug,’ he told reporters in 2000. ‘That is why we have a great responsibility. Let us love one another.’”

Marcel Marceau, mensch. Mad Mo, much, much less than a man, let alone a mensch.

Jim Hoagland is one of those eminences in the world of big journalism who has, apparently, been elevated to the point where his columns are no longer fact-checked. Or, in the parlance of those of us who blog on current events, fisked.

In his rush to judgment in today’s column on the what presidential candidates ought to do and which the Bush administration has not, he alleges, done (or good things that they have allegedly failed to do), consider this paragraph just chock full of anti-Bush goodness:

Bush and Condi Rice are struggling now to get back to where the Clinton administration left Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. Old Europe and New Europe have merged back into just plain Europe. A confrontational White House policy toward Iran is now premised on the hope of driving from power the radicals the policy helped bring to power.

One at a time, please, no pushing…First, the monumental arrogance of the assumption: The Clintonistas were paragons of foreign policy virtue. This, all by itself, is a, let’s be gentle, rather surprising evaluation of the Great Triangulator. Now, the specifics.

Where did Clinton and company leave the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations? To its credit, the Clinton administration had almost succeeded in brokering a deal. Depending on who you ask, the Paleos got 95 to 98% of the land, although, of course, they did not get their hearts desire: all Jews to leave the Middle East.

In 2000, what the Clinton team had brokered was likely as good as it is ever going to get for the Paelos. So, what did they do? Started the second intifada over some trumped up claim of a Jew walking somewhere.

The point isn’t that the Paleos are stupid to have not accepted the deal. That is self evident. The point is that the failure of the agreement had nothing to do with anything then under United States control. Nor is it anything but wishful thinking to believe that, somehow, the United States can, through dipolomacy of any kind, dictate a peaceful outcome.  Iraq should have proven this — diplomacy now has zero chance, by itself.  And I don’t see any American administration being stupid enough to send hundreds of thousands of troops to get between the Paleos and the Israelis.

So it seems a curious wish on Hoagland’s part that the Bushies could, even if they wanted to, somehow get back to the point in time at which the Paleos torpedoed the Clinton-brokered agreement.  Weren’t the thousands of needless deaths due to Arafat’s intransigence quite enough?  Now, thanks to the fact that the Paleos never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity (e.g. cheering at our pain on 9/11), they’ve got two failed areas, with a bone fide terrorist group in charge of Gaza, and a terrorist group in all but name, Fatah, in charge of the West Bank.

Next up? North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. The 1994 deal brokered by the Clinton administration was an abject failure. Again, I’m not sure that any administration could have done better. The cause of the failure? North Korea simply did not honor their agreement. Period.

What was lost was sufficient time for the NKs to attain a (minimally) functioning nuclear arsenal. Way to go, Clintonistas. Trust but don’t verify, not an improvement over the Reagan era “Trust but verify” slogan used in dealing with the Soviet Union.

So, Hoagland would presumably prefer it if the Bushies were to go back in time, negotiate a 1994-style deal, that would give the North Koreans a few more years to perfect and plus-up their nuclear arsenal? One hopes that no candidate for president thinks that this might be a good idea.

Finally, the icing on the cake. The statement that the “confrontational White House policy toward Iran” somehow helped to bring to power Iran’s radical regime. See, it’s all Bush’s fault that Jimmy Carter was a weak and feckless president, and that the Ayatollah Khomeini somehow, in coming to power in 1979, knew that George W. Bush was going to be president in a mere 22 years so he’d better institute a radical Islamist republic.

Now, all this being said, there are legitimate complaints about the Bush administration. But it is foolish to engage in wishful thinking of the sort that Hoagland is. Even if one could go back to the past events, it is far from clear that this would be desireable. And what is left is the feeling that Hoagland is more concerned that George W. Bush be blamed for something than that something be made right.

I lived for a time in New Orleans, and, I’d have to say, it shouldn’t be rebuilt.  NOLA lost its original rationale for being built in the first place a long time ago — as a major port at the mouth of the Mississippi.

It had become, and remains today, merely a place where one may get great food, do things around Mardi Gras time that one wouldn’t do back home,  and see the biggest cockroaches this side of a nuclear war.  We used to joke that the cockroaches used to prey on alley cats…

These things may (or may not be, depending on your tolerance for dirt and sleaze) good things, but they are not sufficient things to justify Federal and state expenditures in the tens-to-hundreds of billions to rectify.

Seriously, NOLA is an example of low expectations placed on its citizens; expectations that have been fully met.

In the “this isn’t really news” news, some Muslims are rioting over perceived (or real; I don’t particularly care) insults to the Religion of Peace. There are the usual requests that various people be murdered. This particular Islamic display of tolerance took place in Bangladesh.

You may, if you’re old enough, remember how the lefties, such as Joannie Phonie Baez whined about poor little People’s Republic of Bangladesh when it broke away from Pakistan back in the early 1970s.

Fast forward, and this recent display of violence shows that, at least in this regard, it is hard to distinguish Bengali Muslims from Arab Muslims. They all appear to be an excitable lot; far too prone to violence given the slightest provocation.

Unfortunately, the violent reaction, this time to what appears to me to be an innocuous and actually funny cartoon (shown at Little Green Footballs), should cement in our minds this fact: Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of violence, intolerance, and fanaticism.

There will be the usual apologists, who will note that these Bengali Muslims are not typical; that not all or even a majority of Muslims support this sort of violence, blah blah blah.

I was trained as an engineer, and learned to accept the data in front of me. Not explain it away as the first response. We’ve got a lot of data that points to Islam as a religion of violence and intolerance. We can’t hope to change the minds of 1.5 billion people. All we can hope to do is keep them away from us, and ensure they don’t kill us.

We in the West must see things clearly, and, when we need to, act to preserve our liberty.

Every once and again one may read an essay that can cause a sudden “Stop!” to your notions, preconceived and otherwise. John Derbyshire has such an essay up at NRO. Derb, an agnostic himself, makes several key points about religion in general.

One is that Islam, whatever else it may be, provides comfort for a large majority of its practitioners. Another point is that Christians may be wishing that jihadis cease and desist because it makes Christianity look bad:

There is, I think, a vague fear [in the West] that the antics of the jihadists may be discrediting all religion. In a Western world that is, many religious people feel, yielding to creeping secularization, religion is on the defensive. The jihadis are religious, and they’re nuts: one more data point for the people who want to tell you that all religions are nuts.

A related issue is the ying and yang of religion in general, and that Islam has the most testosterone. From Derb’s essay:

There is both a male and a female principle in any religion, but usually one or other principle is to some degree more prominent. Judaism is, in (I think) obvious ways, a more “masculine” religion than Christianity or Buddhism; the Old Testament more “masculine” than the New; and within Christianity, Protestantism is more “masculine” than Catholicism. Islam strikes an outside observer as the most “masculine” of all the big faiths.

Onward Christian Soldiers, and all of that…But the serious point is that Christianity, as practiced in much of the West, has, indeed, been feminized. At least in the so-called mainline churches, if not down here in the evangelical swamps, where we still fuss over the great struggle with Satan.

Islam, in contrast to the almost-neutered Western Christianity, remains a warrior’s faith. And it shows. Getting back to Derb, he isn’t an apologist for Islam’s depredations, but accepts, as I do, that “the great majority of present-day Muslims don’t approve of terrorism, and would like to live lives of peace, prosperity, and security.”

Unfortunately, it does not take a terribly large percentage of a world population of 1.5 billion in order to have tens of thousands of violent jihadis.

One conclusion? Islamophobia is not the correct term, as a phobia implies an irrational fear of something. We are quite rational to fear militant Islam, unless and until it can reform itself. And, I fully endorse what Derb concludes about Muslims coming here:

Keep ’em out; fence ’em off; send Muslim visitors home; keep a wary eye on Muslim citizens. Leave them the consolations of their faith, though; stop trying to convince me that there is no good at all in that faith; and, if you’re the praying type, pray that the good will prevail at last.

Again, I do believe that the vast majority of Muslims just wish to be let alone, to live their lives in peace. Would that they can first get control over those elements from their faith who won’t let us do the same.

To anyone who thinks I’m a tad unfair to Mad Mo’, consider a sample from Mad Mo’s repertoire:

• Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map — AlJazeera
• Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has described the Holocaust as “a myth” — CNN
• Ahmadinejad: Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives — ynet News

The point? To any who think some of us sustaining members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy are too hard on Mad Mo’, please consider that one of two things, but not both, may be true about him.

First, take Ahmadinejad at his word. He means to destroy Israel, and he truly believes the Holocaust didn’t happen. In the first instance, he isn’t fit to be allowed to enter our country. In the second instance, he is either dumber than a box of hammers, or a rabid anti-Semite. I don’t think he’s dumb, just evil on both counts. He means what he says. Keeping evil men such as this out of our country is a no-brainer.

Second, we could assume that Ahmadinejad is merely bloviating, as many do in his part of the world. That is, going into rhetorical excesses, but just doing so for effect. He really doesn’t want to wipe Israel off the map; he really does know the Holocaust happened. If this is the case, fine. But why should we allow a liar and fool into our country?

For any who would be foreign policy “realists,” one must take one’s adversary at their word. To assume otherwise is to believe in the good intentions of foreign leaders in the face of lots of evidence that their intentions are anything but.

This is not realism. It is living in Neverneverland.

…we let Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visit the site of the 9/11 atrocity? According to news reports, the Holocaust-denying, Israel-threatening moke who is the president of Iran, wants to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site. In memory of those taken down by Islamic terrorists.

Just a New York minute, here. Isn’t this guy a sponsor of Islamic terrorists? Oh, that’s right. That would be Shiite terrorists. They’re ok. 9/11 was perpetrated by those evil Sunnis, after all. The Mad Mo’ Moment is that we even let this scum into our country.

But then those who think we can talk terrorists to death will bleat, “But he’s a diplomat when he attends the annual Thug, Whore, and Pimp convention at the United Nations.” Of course, our diplopukes wouldn’t dare say this truth: that the United Nations General Assembly is comprised of “nations,” the large majority of whom believe it their mission in life to nip at Uncle Sam’s heels and who think that Israel is a bigger problem than Iran.

I have this irredentist conservative fantasy: what if we let Mad Mo’ visit the site, then simply arrest his sorry ass as an terrorist. And haul him down to Gitmo, lock him up, and wait for the howls of rage from around the world. What, exactly would Iran do? Cut off their oil exports, thereby sealing their own economic doom? Attack our shipping? Develop nuclear weapons?

Oh, that’s right. Forgot. That’s what they’re doing now. What else might they do? Not much, I’d bet. As for our alleged allies? To Hell with them if they don’t know the difference between a free, liberal nation and a nation of Islamofascists who promote terror and hatred.

There, I feel much better. Don’t worry; we’re not going to do that to Mad Mo’. We, and by “we” I mean the Bush administration, lack the stones to do what should be done.

Sally World is the make-believe world of some Hollywood celebrities, named for Sally Field by Michelle Malkin in honor of Field’s lefty tirade at the recent Emmy Awards.

Sally World is an imagined world in which good conquers evil by thinking kindly thoughts and never fighting back. A world in which mothers, by the act of giving birth, somehow hold the absolute moral high ground a la Cindy Sheehan. In case you’d forgotten, Sheehan is the leftist who claimed that, as the mother of a soldier killed in action, she had an absolute moral ground to oppose the war in Iraq.

The press, of course, is complicit in the idiotarian approaches of the Sheehans and Fields. And Michelle Malkin does not let them off the hook. There are other mothers out there, including mothers of the fallen brave, who vehemently disagree with those who would practice unilateral disarmament.

There is a larger picture in all of this, and it relates to the general feminization of our culture. A culture in which we are all victims, of one sort or another. In which a “zero tolerance” for virtually everything masculine such as roughhousing during recess quickly descends into creating androgynous zones at our schools and in the workplace.

A culture that has infected politics, making the Democrats the sissy party of “let’s talk” and of the “read the alleged terrorists their rights” before we arrest them with judicially-sanctioned warrants.

Here’s a news flash: the real world is a hard place. It is just chock full of people who, for a variety reasons, want us dead or in submission. They are not going to be persuaded by logic or singing kumbaya around a campfire. Talking is fine, and is usually to be preferred to shooting. Except when someone is already shooting at you.

That is the case in today’s world. And has been for quite some time.

Here’s some political support for Rudy from an unlikely source: MoveOn.org. The idiotarian, left-wing, anti-American group has issued an anti-Rudy hit piece to run in Iowa. From the Boston Globe, the basics:

Its political action committee bought an ad that attacks the former New York mayor for skipping out on meetings of the Iraq Study Group, which called last December for sweeping changes in US strategy in Iraq.

The ad accuses of Giuliani of going “AWOL” and eventually quitting the study group when he had the chance to influence policy and instead making paid speeches. The spot will run in Iowa, site of the first caucus of the presidential nomination process. Giuliani’s camp has said they would wear what they called MoveOn.org’s character assassination tactics as “a badge of honor.”

First question: Was Rudy’s absence from the Iraq Study Group was a good or bad thing? That in itself is not clear. The ISG’s conclusions were a bland mix from the “reality” school of foreign affairs. You know, the school that had previously brought peace to the Middle East — in some some parallel universe, perhaps. Not in this world.

But, regardless, since it is MoveOn, the facts of the matter are open to dispute. Why? Since they are proven liars. But what is an undeniably good thing about this attack by MoveOn? Among likely Republican voters, it would be truly surprising if this attack does not help Rudy. Last week’s attacks on General Petraeus certainly did not hurt the general nearly as much as they did MoveOn’s credibility with us normals.

Where to begin? The image shows someone blithely pedaling along at last Saturday’s anti-war rally, wearing a shirt whose sponsor is “Pastors for Peace” and whose message is “Regime Change in the U.S. Not in Cuba.”

Pastors for Peace is, apparently, what might charitably be called a communist fellow-traveler organization, along the lines of the “Fair Play for Cuba” communists of the past. Or are these folks still around?

Back to the pastors. The organization, which I will not link to, apparently makes a big thing of providing “humanitarian” aid to Fidel’s communist dictatorship. And, of course, they are big on removing the economic and other sanctions we’ve imposed on Cuba since the Kennedy administration.

Any economic boycott that mostly hurts the poor in Cuba is, or should be, a problem for any Christian. I am personally against the boycott, and believe that we should normalize relations with Cuba, not for a moment taking the pressure off of them to reform. As in, hold free elections. As in, free political prisoners. As in, allow the free exercise of religion.

Any group, such as the Pastors for Peace, that supports “regime change in the U.S.” only has to support the candidate(s) of their choice, and get out the vote. Unless, of course, by “regime change” they mean dumping our republic for a communist dictatorship (which I think is what they truly desire, but that’s another point). To think, let alone broadcast, that Cuba shouldn’t have regime change is to be complicit in the tyranny of the Castro regime.

It is a form of, again being charitable, moral blindness to equate the Bush administration with the Castro administration. No matter what, come January 20, 2009, George W. Bush will cease to be president. The same can not be said for Cuba, where, barring a revolution, 1/20/09 will be just another day in the tropical worker’s paradise — the Tropical Gulag, going on two decades since the fall of their Soviet puppet masters.

Good column by Mark Steyn (is there any other kind?) up on NRO this morning. The theme, or one of them? How very misguided some of our “leaders” have become in describing evil. Yeah, there goes that Manichean Jack again, but consider this quotation attributed by Steyn to Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts this 9/11:

9/11, he [Patrick] continued, “was also a failure of human beings to understand each other, to learn to love each other.”

As Steyn so correctly points out, it wasn’t due to any lack of “love” on our part. It was, rather, a matter of hatred on the other side. One-sided hatred, all the whines of the professional apologists for radical Islam aside.

Deval Patrick, a Democrat in one of the most liberal states in America, might be excused if he were from another planet. But, hey, Guv, use your noggin. The 9/11 hijackers hate you, they hate me, they hate anyone who isn’t waging violent jihad alongside of them. Patrick comes across as merely another liberal fool, and, no, I don’t consider “liberal” to be an epithet.

But we can’t afford to have fools in charge, even of one of our states. Look, I love Massachusetts, despite all the affronts to the nation that it has provided (any number of Kennedys, John Kerry, and quite a few others). My dad grew up in Malden, a very un-tony suburb of Boston. I grew up commuting between New York and Boston to visit family members. Just don’t ask me to love the BoSox, some things are beyond the pale…

Patrick is half right: what we lacked on 9/10/01, and, to a certain extent, still lack, is a clear understanding of the other side. We still don’t get how they can want all of us in submission to Islam, or dead. Some of us got it after 9/11. Many, like Gov. Patrick, have yet to understand that the threat to our freedom is worldwide.

The threat is existential. It is not something that we can deal with solely using rules of evidence and due process. It must be dealt with using all the tools at our disposal.

There’s an interesting article on Mitt Romney’s campaign in today’s WaPo Outlook section. Titled, “For Romney, It’s Not His Father’s Campaign” it compares and contrasts the failed candidacy of George Romney in the late 1960s. Other than being father and son, the salient feature in common? The Mormon faith.

There’s some discussion of religion, qua religion, not being a large factor back then. It was all due to Saint Jack of Camelot, of course, who allegedly demonstrated that a Roman Catholic could separate his politics from his church. The “allegedly” is in there due to the fact that I claim it is impossible to truly separate one’s entire being from one’s faith, and build, let’s call them “faith-tight compartments.”

There was, at the time of the 1960 election, the fear, widespread among evangelicals, that Rome would, somehow, dictate to the newly elected Irish Catholic president. Right. Kennedy was about power, and his family was, and is, about power. Nothing more, nothing less. They weren’t about to let some priests, bishops, or cardinals dictate to them.

Fast forward to 2007, and we’ve got the polished Mitt Romney running. He’s an attractive candidate, pretty in fact. He’s our Johnny Breck Girl Edwards. But, unlike Edwards, Romney appears to be a serious candidate, with serious ideas. What’s not to like?

According the Post article, consider this grave misunderstanding of evangelicals:

So far, however, the opposition to Romney seems inspired not by fear about how his faith would influence his actions — unlike the Roman Catholic Church and most evangelical denominations, the Mormon church doesn’t expect Mormon elected officials to do its bidding — but by the mere fact that he’s a Mormon. A Gallup poll last winter showed that 46 percent of Americans have a generally unfavorable view of Mormonism.

Now, I can’t speak for any but my own church. And I am here to swear on that proverbial stack of Bibles that my evangelical church doesn’t expect any of its members to do “its bidding.” I can tell you what is expected, however.

What the Roman Catholic Church, the Baptists, the Methodists, and every other Christian denomination expect is that we each of us do the “bidding” of the One we proclaim as Lord and Savior: Jesus Christ. The basics? Mark 12:28-31, which is always worth repeating:

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: `Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

As for Mormons, we don’t consider them to be a Christian faith, because, among other reasons, of some unacceptable differences in their view of Jesus Christ. To which this Baptist must add, I don’t especially care if Mitt Romney isn’t a professing evangelical Christian.

Given the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, I would vote for Romney, if he’s the Republican nominee. With a clear conscience. Just as I would vote for Joe Lieberman, the Orthodox Jew, or any other candidate whose views I agreed with and who came across as a man (or woman) of honor.

With a tip o’ the fedora to Vik Rubenfeld’s Big Picture, a useful quotation from one of the greats, Sir Winston:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

The quotation is from Sir Winston’s The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

Well, the more “tolerant” modern says, Sir Winston was a known racist and colonialist, and all sorts of other nasty things. Perhaps. But he was also a man of great vision, and fortitude. What’s been lost is the ability to both see things clearly, and state one’s mind clearly. We would do a lot worse than to use Winston Churchill as our lodestar.

As for what is wrong with Islam, to my mind Sir Winston has hit the nail on the head: “the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.” Leaving aside that Islam denies that our Savior was fully God, fully man, and that they co-opt Jesus by claiming him as one of the prophets of Islam.

Where one faith denies the truth claims of another, both can not be valid. Even God can’t square a circle. Islam is wrong; Christianity is right. That is my belief, and, along with most of my fellow Christians, I’m content to preach the Gospel to them, but then leave the Muslims alone in their error should they deny the truth of Jesus Christ.

Would that they would return the favor.

In the credit given where it’s due department, the single most important phrase about the current improvements in Iraq is the title here, and is detailed in today’s WaPo editorial, “The Least Bad Plan.” From the editorial, the lead paragraph is all one needs to read:

President Bush’s explanation of his latest plans for Iraq last night was marred by a couple of important omissions. First, the president failed to acknowledge that, according to the standards he himself established in January, the surge of U.S. troops into Iraq has been a failure — because Iraqi political leaders did not reach the political accords that the sacrifice of American lives was supposed to make possible. Instead he focused on the real but reversible military gains achieved in and around Baghdad and on the unexpected decision of Sunni tribes to take up arms against al-Qaeda, a development facilitated but not caused by the surge.

Militarily, is appears that, for now, we have taken the initiative, and have been able to convince some Sunni tribal leaders that, indeed, the enemy of their enemy (al qaeda) is their friend. For now.

This is the essence of the problem: for now, things are looking better. Things are looking as though the Iraqi political situation, which has shown some signs of improvement, albeit not nearly enough, has some chance for sufficient improvement. So, this is a measure of success, is it not? Yes. But that success can go south in a heartbeat.

In the absence of a sufficient U.S. military presence, all those who believe that the various Iraqi tribes and sectarian groups will lay down there arms and play nice with each other, please raise your hands and go to the principal’s office. We’ve also got a bridge that goes from Brooklyn to Manhattan to sell you.

As the Post editorial also has it, our strategy is based on the “hope that Iraqis will take steps that will make the added security provided by U.S. troops sustainable — and prevent a worsening of the situation when American brigades withdraw.” You and I may hope for many things. But it is nothing to base a wartime strategy on.

If our national security depends on achieving a stable and non-hostile Iraq (tall order), then we need to do whatever it takes. If our national security does not so depend, then we should have left yesterday. Mr. Bush presumably believes the former, but he can’t have it both ways by starting a drawdown of 30,000 (with the presumption of further withdrawals) while still claiming the mission in Iraq is vital to our national security.

Worst of all, the president should not be holding our our national security hostage to a hope. This is not acceptable.

Update: The White House just released a progress report to Congress, and, according to the Wall Street Journal, “The White House told Congress Friday that Iraqi leaders have gained little ground toward meeting key military and political goals, a discouraging assessment a day after President Bush said that progress justifies a large continued U.S. military presence there.”

What I wrote above not only stands; it’s been reinforced.

Speaking of the Gray Lady, caught this little bit of the liberalati down among the primitives via Max Boot at Contentions. The primitives in question are from the Hudson Valley town of Cornwall-on-Hudson, very close to West Point. Seems that General Patraeus grew up there, and the Times article about the general and his hometown is a generally harmless puff piece about his youth and influences.

There is, however, one sentence that gives away the “down among the primitives” theme, as well as the pervasive moral equivalence of today’s liberalati:

Some said they were aghast at the dimensions of the problem, some awed by General Petraeus’s seeming grasp of the wildly irregular forces in play; but almost none seemed to foresee a happy result for “our side,” as many in this conservative, Republican-voting place put it.

Yes, I know it’s a quotation. But since when is such a distinction, the setting aside of a statement by quotation marks, necessary for what should be self-evident? For the Timesmen, and many others in the liberal mainstream media, it seems that America’s side isn’t necessarily their side.

Bear this in mind when you read anything at Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, and far too many others to name here. Caveat lector, in other words.

Udate. According to this story in the New York Post (yep, Rupert’s Rag), $167,000 may be the actual rate, as opposed to, say, akin to the rates posted on hotel room doors, i.e. much higher than what most people actually pay:

A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.

Of course, even if the Post reporter didn’t identify himself, perhaps the Times has caller ID?  I’d say the Times has some tall ’splainin’ to do.

A marriage made in Hell? It’s just too easy, and sweet. According to Fox News this morning, the “General Betray Us” full page ad in the New York Times was placed by MoveOn.org for $100,000 less than the published rate. The furies on the right have been roused, not just because of the despicable ad, but for the insinuation that the Gray Lady is complicit in the smear.

First things first. The ad is despicable, and reflects only on MoveOn Negatively. Very negatively. What is almost as bad is that none of the Democrats running to be commander-in-chief have disowned this unfounded slander of a man whose honor is beyond reproach. They have, rather, tended to simply allow others to say in public what they’d like to but know they’d be held accountable.

One can only hope the voters will remember this come next election day, and punish the Democrats for not disavowing, and condemning in no uncertain terms, those among their ranks (MoveOn) who use such slimy tactics.

As for the Times, it isn’t at all clear that they’ve given MoveOn a professional discount, as it were. Sure, the Times is left-leaning, and their journalism has been tainted by the smell of political correctness and anti-Bush bias. But I’d like to think they are clever enough to not grant an in-kind contribution to MoveOn in the form of a discount that is not available to other advocacy groups.

Yes, it appears that MoveOn didn’t pay the published rate for a full page ad, and, in fact, paid about $100,000 less. This does not on its face implicate the Times in a shady and perhaps illegal political contribution. The real questions are: “What have other advocacy groups paid for such ads?” And, “Is there a difference between what left-leaning advocacy groups paid and what right-leaning advocacy groups paid?”

Given the nature of this particular MoveOn ad, its slander, and its apparent lack of truth (a/k/a “lies), it would behoove the Times to come forward with some explanations. It’s only what the Times would insist on, had a right-leaning advocacy ad appeared, for a deep discount, in one of Rupert Murdoch’s papers.

Sometimes my law and order friends go a wee bit too far. Or do they? Thomas Sowell, as per usual, has written a useful and thought-provoking article at NRO. The topic is the White Bronco of the murdering O.J. Simpson. Well, in a way.

The subject is high-speed police chases, and whether our nanny-like concern that no citizen shall get a hangnail as a consequence of police actions has swung too far in favor of perps. Sowell’s answer, with which I generally concur, is, “oh my yes.”

On high-speed police chases, there might as well be a platoon of lawyers right behind the cops, ready to pounce with frivolous lawsuits against them.

One need not be a dyed-in-the-wool law and order man to wish that the police had more leeway in stopping criminals who speed away from a crime. On the other hand, how much force should be used against someone who poses only a potential threat to innocent lives? That is, someone who is speeding and refuses a lawful order to pull over.

Sowell has one suggestion that is sure to enrage ACLU-niks: shoot the speeder from a police helicopter. In his words:

When there is a police helicopter overhead, a shot straight down would have little chance of hitting some innocent bystander. Maybe the speeder is just someone out joy-riding but that does not make a reckless driver any less dangerous.

The problem with this lies in how one interprets the guidelines on when deadly force is appropriate. The standard that I’m familiar with, when I had to set them for our armed guard forces at my agency, was that deadly force is only used when lesser means will not suffice to prevent imminent death or serious injury to an officer or a civilian. This very much includes the notion of future harm that might be inflicted, if an armed person escapes from custody.

So, where does that leave firing down on a speeding car from a police helicopter? Very iffy. One must posit that the speeder may reasonably be expected to cause significant injury or death if not stopped by any means necessary. The question becomes, “what is the likelihood of significant injury or death caused by a speeder”?

Assuming no criminal activity other than fleeing police, this would be a tough case to make in today’s courts. I’d have to err on the side of caution here, and not shoot unless the speeder is a known felon, or is suspected of committing a violent felony.

As for the deterrent effect of a few such shootings by police? Doubtful, any more than the death penalty deters most future murderers. Of course, and with apologies for this apparent “on the other hand” wishy-washiness, if the death penalty were imposed as it used to be, swiftly and surely, and in a vast majority of cases, well then…

“Duty, Honor, Country” is the West Point motto, and it becomes the personal creed for Army officers who joint the thousands who have, throughout our history, joined the Long Gray Line. It is also a simple description for the vast majority of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps officers I’ve known and worked with in my career.

I don’t know General David Petraeus, but I knew quite a few of his type. By which I mean warrior-analysts, who are expert at the sharp end of the sword as well as in the study of war. Some of us, like me, who weren’t quite as sharp, used to make fun of the “policy wonks” that we’d meet — until it came time to actually engage with them on their ideas, which they were willing to back up with their very lives.

I came away from the War College with a much, much greater respect for the men of General Petraeus’ cut. The difference between men such as David Petraeus and the moral midgets who are now casting aspersions on his honor? For the most part, they have not served; they lack standing of any sort. Not that Army officers have not in the past made terrible, heinous errors of judgment. And lied about them. But, in my long experience, these are the rare exceptions.

To get the flavor of the current dishonorable attack, please check out today’s editorial at the Wall Street Journal. The silence of most Democrats on the reprehensible attack by MoveOn.org, and especially the silence of their leadership, speaks volumes.

No one expects Democrats, or Republicans for that matter, to simply accept any situation report from any level, without some healthy skepticism. In this regard, all Americans should be from Missouri, the Show Me State — as is one of the honorable exceptions on the Democratic side, the current Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton.

The lesson? The vast majority of men who serve in uniform are men of honor. When someone with proven warrior and policy bona fides such as David Petraeus speaks his own words, and not anything cleared with the politicos, it behooves us all to listen with respect. We may, with honor, disagree with the general’s conclusions. But no one should impugn his honor. That is beyond the pale.

9/11/01 was not the start of the war against us, but it was the point in history when many of us took notice. A wake-up call, if you will.

9/11 did not, however, “change everything.” From the very start of our recovery from those cowardly attacks, we were told to simply resume our lives, go shopping. Enjoy the latest in our American version of the Roman bread and circuses.

9/11/01 was, however, the continuation of a war that began over 1,300 years ago in the deserts of Arabia. It is the march of Islam for global domination. At the point of a sword, or, these days, whatever weapons jihadis can get their hands on.

On this sixth anniversary of 9/11/01, the victim card is still being totally overplayed. As if the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were natural disasters, things to be suffered through but then overcome; they couldn’t happen again. Yes, I’m afraid they could — and, absent our eternal vigilance, will.

Yes, there were 3,000 or so victims on 9/11/01. People who just went to work that day, like any other day. They weren’t heroes, but there were heroes among them after the planes hit the towers, the Pentagon, and on board United 93.

And there were other heroes, most especially including 343 of New York’s Bravest, my brothers in the FDNY. But these men were killed because of who they were, not because they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were doing what the best of us do: protecting their fellow men and women. They ran into the inferno, and perished trying to save lives.

They were killed because they were Americans. And there is nothing in the world that Islam hates more than a people whose first principle is freedom of conscience. A nation founded on the idea that God has given each and every one of us the right to choose how to live, what to do, and what to believe.

These things are anathema to Islam, which, in ways gentle, but for the most part violent, insists that we all believe as they do.

Never forget who the enemy is, or what it is they want. Or why. And never, ever, surrender.

Pathos, Bathos, and Public Grief. The new Three Musketeers of our age; the wall-to-wall sob-story coverage of the deaths of people more famous than good, or elevated in the public eye well beyond the merely human. The ghastly shrines to Diana, now mimicked wherever a tragedy has taken place; the stupid because it is meaningless question, “where were you when so-and-so died?”

Grief is a necessary emotion when a loved one dies. Or when a great leader is cut down. It is useful, as well, in purging the soul of the detritus that traumatic events can leave behind. Without this purge, a cholesterol of the soul starts to clog our thoughts, eventually shutting out more positive thoughts, thoughts that we need to move forward in our lives.

So, while some grief, and public mourning, is needed, it is best kept brief. It is best if it does not take on a life of its own. Unfortunately, as the crapulence that surrounded the tenth anniversary of Diana’s death reminds us, many people prefer to dwell in this world of perpetual grief.

This brings me to what is fast becoming the typical water-cooler question about 9/11/2001: where were you that Tuesday, September 11, 2001? 9/11 wasn’t a declaration of war against us; that had been done a few years earlier by al qaeda. 9/11 was, however, at the time, considered a wake-up call. A call to arms.

For an all-too-brief period of time, it was. We toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan; we planned and then did take out Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Regardless of the mess Iraq is now, the initial military mission was, in fact, accomplished. But back here at home, the president did not act as though we were at war. He basically told us to go on living our lives; to go shopping. And told us, despite much evidence to the contrary, that “Islam is a religion of peace.”

So, as we observe yet another anniversary of that heinous day, we are still going to the mall. We still don’t accept that we are at war, that our enemy is militant Islam, and that negotiations with them are not possible. They don’t want to talk. They want us dead, or converted to their brand of Islam.

Grief at the losses on 9/11 is appropriate — if it fuels our anger, anger which we channel into vigilance.  We must not forget what was done to us.  We must not forgive unless and until our enemies repent and request our forgiveness.  To forgive militant Islam for its crimes against us absent such repentance is worse than useless.   It may make weak-minded people here feel better, but it will have no effect on our enemies.

Wake up; we are at war. It is global; it is not going to end when we leave Iraq, or when (if) there is ever a stable peace between Palestinian terrorists and Israel.

This is quite the bumper sticker slogan. It’s found on the sign of one Elliott Nesch, who has walked more than 1,600 miles in protest of the Iraq war. Well, good for you, Elliott; you’ve got the gumption to get out and get moving in support of your beliefs.

According to the article in the WaPo, young Mr. Nesch has been on the road some six months. Good thing he’s not burdened by small things like making a living, but I digress. From the WaPo article, Nesch

said three things motivate his walk: preaching the Gospel of Jesus, urging Christian ministers who support the war to repent and calling for another investigation of Sept. 11. “I think it was an inside job,” he said.

Let’s leave the last thing for a moment, and focus on preaching the Gospel of Jesus. First, a confession: I’ve spent some time among the Friends (Quakers), because I share some of their convictions. At least those that relate to the simplicity of the Gospel, and that each of us has the light of Christ within. Even if that light is often very, very, hard to discern.

I left the Quakers when it became apparent that, at least here in the United States, they had abandoned the plain, Christ-centered preaching of George Fox in favor of a leftist political agenda. For example, when I attempted to get a discussion going about the “seamless garment” of life, i.e. pro-life, I was told in no uncertain terms that “all Quakers are pro-choice.” That is, in favor of abortion. And that some things were beyond the pale and could not even be brought up.

After waking up and smelling the hypocrisy, I came to realize that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not political. God gave us the Gospel because He knows there will be “wars and rumors of wars” and that ” nation will rise against nation” (Mt. 24:6-7) before the end times. In the here and now, the Gospel of Jesus could not be simpler. And it has nothing to do with our wars here on earth.

If I were asked to summarize the Gospel of Jesus while standing on one foot, it would be: Repent, and believe the good news. Christ has died for your sins and has joined the Father, so that you who believe in him may live forever. As they say, your mileage may vary, but this is the very heart of the Gospel.

War? Not generally a good thing. Sometimes a necessary thing. Was Iraq a just war? I used to think so; not so sure any more. I’m pretty sure it is not a just war in the Christian sense. But that’s more of a political discussion, having nothing to do with belief in the Man on the cross at Calvary.

As for Elliot Nesch, his theory that 9/11 was an “inside job” gives away what he’s really about: partisan politics, and of the kind not susceptible to reason. I wish him and his cohort well, although I very much disagree with them and question their motives. Actually, I pray that this confused young man will truly come to know that our Savior wasn’t a politician.

Jesus is our salvation, our ticket to heaven. Not running for office.

In a recent Zogby poll, the following question was put to respondents: Are pigs able to fly but choose not to; are pigs able to fly and do, but only out of sight of humans; are pigs merely farm animals and a wonderful source of bacon and pork chops? Just kidding, but this is the flavor of at least one important question from an actual poll from Zogby.

The question opens with this rather questionable assertion: “There are three main schools of thought regarding the 9/11 attacks.” I’m not sure in what universe, outside of Dearborn, Michigan (U.S. Jihad Central), rabid conspiracy theories would be given equal weight with the demonstrable evidence. But Zogby manages, equating, as “main schools of thought” two moonbat notions.

The first moonbat theory, a fav among the “No Blood for Oil!!! Halliburton!!!” crowd, is that Bush and company knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks, and did nothing. Sort of like the much-more plausible notion that in 1941 Franklin Roosevelt knew in advance about Pearl Harbor, but did nothing, because he believed we needed to get into the war.

The second moonbat theory given equal weight is the notion that our government “made it happen.” As in, Bush et. cie. “actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attacks.”

Oh, for completeness, Zogby does list, first, something labeled as “first theory,” the “official story,” that “maintains” that 19 Arab fundamentalists executed a surprise attack.  To label an hypothesis as “theory,”  use the word “story,”  and state that  the  government  “maintains” (obviously in the face of  some different reality) poisons the question.

The results? A disturbingly high proportion of Democrats (almost 43%) believe in the moonbat theories. As opposed to the reality, accepted by most sane people, and the 9/11 Commission: we might have been asleep at the switch, and, as they say, mistakes were made. But 9/11 was an atrocity perpetrated on the United States by Arab terrorists.

Period. Based solely on the clever way this question is asked, Zogby might be suspected of some sympathy with the 9/11 terrorists, since, after all, it’s only the “official story” and just a “theory.” So is gravity, pal.

This poll reflects poorly on a supposedly objective pollster when rabid conspiracy theories are placed on a par with the obvious facts of the matter. Unfortunately, the very wording of the poll question calls question whether any Zogby poll about anything should be believed.

And pigs are flying over Dearborn…

The exchange, at the latest Republican candidates’ debate, between Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee raises only one question for me: why do they allow Ron Paul on the stage?

Ron Paul is, shall we say, out to lunch on the issue of national security generally, and specifically Iraq. His foreign policy smacks of Lindbergh’s in the late 1930s, with Paul being quoted (via Peggy Noonan today at Opinion Journal) as stating we should “Mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend our country, defend our borders.”

What’s especially noxious is the notion that we can, somehow, afford to hunker down in Fortress America and “mind our own business.” Seems to me we were minding our own business when jihadis started attacking us (there’s a long list, 9/11 being severe enough to be a wake-up call). Paul, however, seems to think that Republicans are going to keep losing elections if we persist in our Iraq misadventure.

From Ms. Noonan:

Mike Huckabee, and for this I ♥ Huckabee, shot back that history will judge whether we were right to go in, but for now, “we’re there.” He echoed Colin Powell: We broke it, now we own it. “Congressman, we are one nation. We can’t be divided. . . . If we make a mistake, we make it as a single country, the United States of America, not the divided states of America.”

The governor’s remarks are provided at some length at the Baltimore Sun’s Swamp :

Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It’s our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away because something is at stake. Senator McCain made a great point, and let me make this clear. If there’s anybody on this stage that understands the word honor, I’ve got to say Senator McCain understands that word — (applause, cheers) — because he has given his country a sacrifice the rest of us don’t even comprehend. (Continued applause.)

Wait a minute, isn’t this the famous Colin Powell Pottery Barn rule? Are we supposed to now call it the Mama Huckabee rule? Anyway, Huckabee continued…

And on this issue, when he says we can’t leave until we’ve left with honor, I 100 percent agree with him because, Congressman, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion that historians can have, but we’re there. We bought it because we broke it. We’ve got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve. (Cheers, applause.)

Gov. Huckabee is right as rain: we now have some obligation to Iraq that, rightly or wrongly, we’ve created. And that we would lack honor if we simply tuck tail and leave.

And, not least, in today’s world, when we’ve got the welcome mat out for all sorts of potential jihadis, foreign and domestic, it is impossible to simply “mind our own business.” It would be stupid to imagine that hiding from the world will protect us.