GOVERNMENT SAYS PASSENGER OVERREACTED ON SCARY FLIGHT

Follow-up on earlier Annie Jacobsen article. Maybe there was nothing to it, but the article raises some questions about overall security.

The passenger, later identified as Annie Jacobsen, was in danger of panicking other passengers and creating a larger problem on the plane, according to a source close to the secretive federal protective service.

“Initially it was brought to [the air marshals] attention by a passenger,” Adams said, adding the agents had been watching the men and chose to stay undercover.

Jacobsen and her husband had a number of conversations with the flight attendants and gestured towards the men several times, the source said.

“In concert with the flight crew, the decision was made to keep [the men] under surveillance since no terrorist or criminal acts were being perpetrated aboard the aircraft; they didn’t interfere with the flight crew,” Adams said.

The air marshals did, however, check the bathrooms after the middle-eastern men had spent time inside, Adams said.

“We have to take all calls seriously, but the passenger was worried, not the flight crew or the federal air marshals,” she said. “The complaint did not stem from the flight crew.”

1. Jacobsen said the flight attendant she talked to was worried. This report makes it sound like only Jacobsen was worried.  This helps to marginalize her experience.

2. Why did the flight crew allow the men to huddle around the laboratories when the fasten seatbelt signs were on and the plane was clearing to land? In my experience, just starting to get out of your seat at that point will bring pouncing crewmembers.

3. How did the Air Marshals know that no terrorist or criminal acts were being perpetrated? If they were so sure they wouldn't have needed to check the laboratories.

The source said the air marshals on the flight were partially concerned Jacobsen’s actions could have been an effort by terrorists or attackers to create a disturbance on the plane to force the agents to identify themselves.

Air marshals’ only tactical advantage on a flight is their anonymity, the source said, and Jacobsen could have put the entire flight in danger.

“They have to be very cognizant of their surroundings,” spokesman Adams confirmed, “to make sure it isn’t a ruse to try and pull them out of their cover.”

I don't see how the flight attendants would have ignored the bathroom huddle without getting orders from the air marshals. The passenger not only saw weird behavior from the men, but also noticed that the flight crew wasn't behaving according to the usual rules. If the air marshals were worried about having their covers blown they should have let the flight crews usher the men back to their seats. The rule bending gave passengers a feeling that something wasn't right. Therefore, the Air Marshals were trading the possibility of blown covers for more surveillance of the men.

Another thing that isn't mentioned is the government's failure to search these men at the gates. The lack of search was the beginning of this lady's worry throughout the flight.

They took a chance not searching them. They took a chance letting them huddle around the bathroom. Somehow passengers are to feel perfectly secure with this kind of risk-taking. If they become alarmed they are blowing the poor man’s cover.

Instead of blaming this passenger, the government should take her example as a reason to reform the current procedures. Otherwise, they should prepare for more of the same behavior.

PATRIOTISM WHEN IT'S SAFELY IN THE PAST

Gene Hackman was on Larry King Live last weekend. Larry went on and on about all of Gene's great movies and I forgot he was in so many. He's the kind of actor that can star or plays great secondary roles in movies starring other people. It's easy to forget how pivotal he was in movies like BIRDCAGE or THE FIRM. And who can imagine anyone but Hackman in UNFORGIVEN? He didn't want to do Unforgiven according to Time film Critic, and Eastwood biographer, Richard Schickel. Schickel explained that Gene fashions himself a liberal and didn't want to be in a shootem up western. When Eastwood explained that the movie was really about the horrors of gun fighting, Hackman signed on.

So it came as a surprise when Larry King asked Gene Hackman about Ronald Reagan and Hackman was nothing but praise. Hackman, of course, qualified it by saying the he personally was a Democrat, but that he loved the way Reagan loved this country. That qualification should be enough to keep the cocktail party invitations coming.

KING: But you loved President Reagan.

HACKMAN: I did, yes. I'm a Democrat but I also loved the idea of that man. He was so committed to America. A beautiful American.

KING: You never worked with him, right?

HACKMAN: I didn't. But I met him. It's funny. We have an occasion to meet a lot of famous people, being in this profession. And I was sitting outside the Oval Office thinking, well, I'll get this over with and go to lunch, or whatever. When I got in the Oval Office, I was like, hey, this is really something. I was very affected by it and by him.

KING: It hits you.

HACKMAN: It does.

I haven't been able to forget that all week. I kept thinking that it had some sort of significance and that I wasn't putting it together. Yesterday I figured out what it was. Liberals love their patriotism to be safely in the past. That's why liberals can write books like THE GREATEST GENERATION that celebrate some past American glory, but treat current patriotism as jingoism.

During Reagan's Presidency the term was usually jingoism, but now even this early the first Hollywood liberals are embracing yesterday's jingoism as today's patriotism. It's probably true that Hackman has always felt this way about Reagan and had to conceal it until it was benign.

Clint Eastwood, who is still a registered Republican, had a falling out with Reagan that was the beginning of his resurgence as a "serious artist." You'll remember that Eastwood made FIREFOX and HEARTBREAK RIDGE in the 1980s, both typical 1980s pro U.S. action films.

Eastwood said he became angry with Reagan because he spoke at the World War II cemetery at Bitburg to mark the 40th anniversary to the end of the war. The West German Chancellor was a big ally of the United States and asked Reagan to make this speech and Reagan agreed before he realized that members of the SS were buried there. John Kerry can go and handshake the North Vietnamese, but Reagan shouldn't be anywhere near dead SS. Anyway, Reagan felt that he had already promised and West Germany was too big of an ally to not make good on the deal. Afterall, We had military bases in that country and nuclear missiles aimed at the USSR. Reagan met with several holocaust survivors before he made the trip and there were some protestors and it made the news, but it was pretty much forgotten a short time later.

I read a late 1990s interview with Eastwood and he was still rankled over this Bitburg trip and he said that it made him sever ties with Reagan. It just grabs me as a silly reason to not like Reagan anymore and if you combine that with Hackman's sudden admission that Reagan was a great guy you can only conclude that these Hollywood people need cover for their own patriotic feelings.

Now that I read Eastwood is directing the Spielberg (Clinton buddy) produced FLAG OF OUR FATHERS about Iwo Jima. Tom Hanks (another Clinton buddy) was everywhere raising money for the World War II memorial. Hackman admires Reagan. All of this leads me to conclude that liberals need their patriotism safely in the past.

WAR LIBERALS

The New Republic is a traditional Liberal magazine that was a must-read in the Clinton White House. Owner-Editor Marty Peretz has always hired good writers regardless of their politics. Conservatives, Andrew Sullivan and Michael Kelly are were Editors and Fred Barnes was a longtime columnist. Peretz himself is pretty liberal. He was a former college proffesor of Al Gore and big supporter of Al Gore in 2000. But Peretz supports the war on terror, and thus must shriek every time he hears Gore speak at one of his Moveon.org functions.

There are two liberal mythologies currently in vogue. The first is Joe Wilson's honesty and the second is Sandy Berger's. Peretz takes them both down.

BERGER

He inadvertently took home documents and notes about documents that he was not permitted to take from the archives; secondly, he inadvertently didn't notice the papers in his possession when he got home and actually looked at them; and, thirdly, he inadvertently discarded some of these same files so that they are now missing. Gone, in fact. One of his lawyers attributes this behavior to "sloppiness," which may better explain his career as Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser and certainly describes his presentation of self in everyday life.

What was contained in the papers that Berger snatched? The answer to that question might answer another. Maybe Clinton's top national security aide didn't want others to see what they documented.

WILSON

he tale spun by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson that Iraq did not ever try to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger is now in the process of unraveling. And, of course, the phalanx of anti-war journalists is desperately trying to stop the bust-up. But it can't be done. The flying apart began with two stories in the Financial Times (London), one on June 28, the other on July 4. Relying on information ultimately sourced to three European intelligence services--none of them British and one of them that had monitored clandestine uranium smuggling to Iraq over three years--Mark Huband reported that the network also serviced or was to service Libya, Iran, China, and North Korea. A tell-tale element of the story is that the mines in Niger from which several thousand tons of uranium had been extracted and sold were owned by French companies. Apparently, after a time, they had abandoned the mines as economically unviable. But, as a counter-proliferation expert told Huband, this does not mean that extraction stopped. In any case, Lord Butler's altogether independent panel in the United Kingdom concluded that Tony Blair's claim about Hussein being in the market for uranium was "well-founded." These are the same claims made by George W. Moreover, the U.S. Senate report undercuts Wilson's very believability. I myself had wondered why the CIA had been so dumb--such dumbness is something to which we should have long ago become accustomed!--as to send a low-level diplomat to check on yellowcake sales from Niger to Iraq when it should have dispatched a real spook. Well, it turns out that a "real spook" had recommended him to her boss, that spook being Valerie Plame, who happens also to be Wilson's wife. He has long denied that she had anything to do with his going to Niger and that, alas, was a lie.

As Brent Bozell has shown the Networks are still propping up Berger, while major newspapers have ignored the Senate's report on Wilson.

What liberal Media?

CHOICE?

Abortion has always made me uncomfortable, but I've grown weary of the debate every four years when a presidential election rolls around. When Justice Harry Blackmun convinced Justice Anthony Kennedy to switch his vote in the 1992 Casey decision, the last chance for states to decide for themselves went up in flames. It would have been the perfect compromise and it would have taken the issue out of Federal elections. Instead, Roe v. Wade is here to stay.

Since Roe is a fact of life, I favor outlawing late-term abortions and I favor parental notification and waiting periods. It's one thing for an adult to have an early term abortion, but it's quite another to allow it willy nilly regardless of the harm it does. It seems that most Americans have some sort of squeamishness when it comes to the act of abortions. Even Bill Clinton said he wanted them to be safe but rare. His sentiments were tapping into the American psyche of abortions being unfortunate realities that allow disadvantaged women an opportunity to not be trapped in single motherhood.

What Americans don't want to hear about are social climbers that abort babies for convenience. Birth control isn't exactly a new fangled idea. And yet here is some lady in The New York Times Magazine that was tired of taking the pill and figured she might just have a kid if she got pregnant.

I found out I was having triplets when I went to my obstetrician.

My immediate response was, I cannot have triplets. I was not married; I lived in a five-story walk-up in the East Village; I worked freelance; and I would have to go on bed rest in March. I lecture at colleges, and my biggest months are March and April. I would have to give up my main income for the rest of the year. There was a part of me that was sure I could work around that. But it was a matter of, Do I want to?

I looked at Peter and asked the doctor: ''Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?'' The obstetrician wasn't an expert in selective reduction, but she knew that with a shot of potassium chloride you could eliminate one or more.

On the subway, Peter asked, ''Shouldn't we consider having triplets?'' And I had this adverse reaction: ''This is why they say it's the woman's choice, because you think I could just carry triplets. That's easy for you to say, but I'd have to give up my life.'' Not only would I have to be on bed rest at 20 weeks, I wouldn't be able to fly after 15. I was already at eight weeks. When I found out about the triplets, I felt like: It's not the back of a pickup at 16, but now I'm going to have to move to Staten Island. I'll never leave my house because I'll have to care for these children. I'll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise.

When we saw the specialist, we found out that I was carrying identical twins and a stand alone. My doctors thought the stand alone was three days older. There was something psychologically comforting about that, since I wanted to have just one. Before the procedure, I was focused on relaxing. But Peter was staring at the sonogram screen thinking: Oh, my gosh, there are three heartbeats. I can't believe we're about to make two disappear. The doctor came in, and then Peter was asked to leave. I said, ''Can Peter stay?'' The doctor said no. I know Peter was offended by that.

I went on to have a pretty seamless pregnancy. But I had a recurring feeling that this was going to come back and haunt me. Was I going to have a stillbirth or miscarry late in my pregnancy?

I had a boy, and everything is fine. But thinking about becoming pregnant again is terrifying. Am I going to have quintuplets? I would do the same thing if I had triplets again, but if I had twins, I would probably have twins. Then again, I don't know.

The article may be the worst example of nihilism I've ever read. What's haunting about the story is the detachment this lady has from her own children. All she can think about is how she'll have to live on Staten Island and shop at a Wholesale Club. What would it do to the surviving kid psychologically to learn that two-thirds of the litter were tied up in a bag and thrown into the river? The last paragraph about how she'd abort the triplets again in the same situation but maybe keep the twins is just batty.

This is just one weirdo, but the people who celebrate this kind of choice fight against the myriad of other personal choices they’d rather see the government control. Where are people's priorities?

WALL STREET JOURNAL: Release the documents

We'll grant that visions of a former National Security Adviser stuffing classified documents down his trousers or socks makes for good copy. But count us more interested in learning what's in the documents themselves than in where on his person Sandy Berger may have put them when he was sneaking them out of the National Archives.

For the evidence suggests that the missing material cuts to the heart of the choice offered in this election: Whether America treats terrorism as a problem of law enforcement or an act of war.

Mr. Berger admits to having deliberately taken handwritten notes he'd made out of the Archives reading room. On the more serious charges involving the removal (and subsequent discarding) of highly classified documents--including drafts of a key, after-action memo Mr. Berger had himself ordered on the U.S. response to al Qaeda threats in the run-up to the Millennium--he maintains he did so "inadvertently."

There's only one way to clear away the political smoke: Release all the drafts of the review Mr. Berger took from the room.

If it's all as innocent as Mr. Berger's friends are saying, there's no reason not to make them public. But there are good reasons for questioning Mr. Berger's dog-ate-my-homework explanation. To begin with, he was not simply preparing for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. He was the point man for the Clinton Administration, reviewing and selecting the documents to be turned over to the Commission.

Written by Richard Clarke for the NSC, the key document was called the Millennium After-Action Review because it dealt with al Qaeda attacks timed for the eve of the Millennium celebrations. In his own 9/11 testimony, Mr. Berger described these al Qaeda plans as "the most serious threat spike of our time in government." He went on to say that they provoked "sustained attention and rigorous actions" from the Administration that ended up saving lives.

But Attorney General John Ashcroft, who has the advantage of having read the document in question, had a different take. In his own 9/11 testimony in April, Mr. Ashcroft recommended that the Commission "study carefully" the after-action memo. He described it as laying out vulnerabilities and calling for aggressive remedies of the type he and the Bush Administration have been criticized for. Mr. Ashcroft further noted that when he took office, this "highly classified review" was "not among" the items he was briefed on during the transition.

That's a decent theory as to what was in the documents. And, of course, it can be partially cleared up by the release of those documents. What can never be cleared up is the identity and worth of the documents that Berger "lost." Whatever Berger took must have been a lot more damning than the heat Berger would feel if he were caught.

I'm glad that Bill Clinton can laugh it off. If Sandy Berger was the kind of fool who could casually lose top-secret documents then it says a lot about the kind of Administration Clinton ran. It also says a lot about the troubles and perils that George W. Bush inherited from these nuts.

Voters will get a chance in a few months to elect a President that will take us back to the 1990s era of terrorist figthing. It's not ironic that Berger is/was an adviser to John Kerry. The old team is ready to move back in to talk big and do nothing.

WHAT DOES BERGER KNOW THAT YOU DON'T?

Clinton's former National Security Advisor removes classified documents.

Former President Clinton's national security adviser is under criminal investigation for taking highly classified terrorism documents that should have been turned over to the independent commission probing the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, FOX News has confirmed.

Sandy Berger is under scrutiny by the Justice Department following the disappearance of documents he was reviewing at the National Archives.

Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.

"I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, but I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission, and to the contrary, to my knowledge, every document requested by the commission from the Clinton administration was produced," Berger said in a statement.

What's sloppy about putting the documents in his pants and socks. Is that something that people do half thinking? It sounds like he got away with whatever he wanted to get away with and will now play the fool who is so sorry.

SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR?

DANGER IN THE AIR

I just read the most disturbing article on FrontPage.com about new terrorist threats on the airlines.  The writer relates her own experiences on a recent flight from Detroit to Los Angeles where more than a dozen Middle Eastern men were acting suspicious all through the flight.  Passengers were getting scared and her husband learned from the flight attendant that Air Marshals were on board monitoring the situation but took no action. 

Finally, the captain announced that the plane was cleared for landing. It had been four hours since we left Detroit. The fasten seat belt light came on and I could see downtown Los Angeles. The flight attendants made one final sweep of the cabin and strapped themselves in for landing. I began to relax. Home was in sight.
 
Suddenly, seven of the men stood up -- in unison -- and walked to the front and back lavatories. One by one, they went into the two lavatories, each spending about four minutes inside. Right in front of us, two men stood up against the emergency exit door, waiting for the lavatory to become available. The men spoke in Arabic among themselves and to the man in the yellow shirt sitting nearby. One of the men took his camera into the lavatory. Another took his cell phone. Again, no one approached the men. Not one of the flight attendants asked them to sit down.  I watched as the man in the yellow shirt, still in his seat, reached inside his shirt and pulled out a small red book. He read a few pages, then put the book back inside his shirt.  He pulled the book out again, read a page or two more, and put it back.  He continued to do this several more times.

I looked around to see if any other passengers were watching. I immediately spotted a distraught couple seated two rows back. The woman was crying into the man's shoulder.  He was holding her hand.  I heard him say to her, "You've got to calm down." Behind them sat the once pleasant-smiling, goatee-wearing man.

This passage was just the end of a suspicious flight.  The whole article is worth reading.  She talks about how their actions mimic those of other "dry runs" that British intelligence has spotted.
 
She ends by saying that Transportation Secretary, Norman Minetta has fined airlines for screening suspicious Arab men and it explains why the airlines did nothing.  The air marshals told the author a few weeks later that their policy is to observe unless a disturbance occurs.  It seems to me that it's up to the passengers that aren't confined to politically correct action to do something in these situations. 
 
If a passenger would have stood up near the end of the flight and told the Arab men to sit down then it would have forced a conflict that the air marshals would have had to settle.  I'm surprised that a whole flight of people would just sit quietly as this went on.   Why is everyone afraid these days?  The government is afraid of being "racist."  Airlines are afraid of being sued.  Passengers are afraid of speaking up. 
 
The only fear we should have is these people succeeding and it looks like it's up to the passengers to do something about it.  The government is more interested in whether the air marshals have union bargaining rights than protecting us.

UPDATE: Annie Jacobsen pens a follow-up

WASHINGTON TIMES STORY

BUT BUSH IS THE LIAR, RIGHT?
 
Liar Joe Wilson has an interesting endorsement of John Kerry on his website entitled -- ha ha -- RESTORE HONESTY. At the bottom of the page is a disclaimer that the whole message is being paid for by John Kerry. Maybe Al "Lies and lying liers that tell them" Franken should have Joe Wilson on that radio program to explain.

RICH DEMS DON'T NEED GEORGE BUSH TO AVOID PAYING TAXES

The Wall Street Jounral has a great article about how Edwards and Kerry find a way to dodge all those tax cuts aimed at the rich.

In embracing John Edwards, John Kerry has also endorsed his populist "two Americas" rhetoric and has put tax increases at the center of the election campaign. So it's fair to ask the two Democrats: How much of those tax increases will actually hit the super-rich like yourselves, and how much will end up on the backs of upper middle-class wage earners?

For an answer, let's look at what the two Senators have themselves been paying in taxes. It turns out that the Kerrys and Edwards have exploited plenty of tax loopholes over the years. Of course, nobody is obligated to pay more than what the letter of the law requires. But the complex tax code benefits the wealthy, who can afford tax attorneys and complicated schemes to skirt the law. And high marginal rates give them plenty of incentive to do so.

Senator Edwards talks about the need to provide health care for all, but that didn't stop him from using a clever tax dodge to avoid paying $591,000 into the Medicare system. While making his fortune as a trial lawyer in 1995, he formed what is known as a "subchapter S" corporation, with himself as the sole shareholder.

Instead of taking his $26.9 million in earnings directly in the following four years, he paid himself a salary of $360,000 a year and took the rest as corporate dividends. Since salary is subject to 2.9% Medicare tax but dividends aren't, that meant he shielded more than 90% of his income. That's not necessarily illegal, but dodging such a large chunk of employment tax skates perilously close to the line.

It's funny how these guys are always acting so egalitarian about how they don't need Bush's tax cut.  Now I know why.   
 
Rich people can hire the best attorneys to avoid taxes.  Us middle class people have to rely on lower marginal rates.  Democrats have been playing an interesting game with the electorate.   They make middle class people feel envious of the rich all the while collecting middle class money in order to buy votes from the lower class. 
 
These programs that they believe in so whole-heartedly are to be paid for by people who actually work for a living and not them.   I would call that suspicious.

ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE

Watch this - courtesy of E HEAD

WHICH AMERICA DO WE LIVE IN?

George Bush took a lot of heat for visiitng Bob Jones University in 2000. Though he did nothing in his performance that he could be embarassed about, his mere presence was enough to make it a big news story.

In 2004, the Bush team wants to put the same heat on John Kerry for his fundraiser at Radio City Music Hall. Kerry called these millionaire egalitarian peaceniks the heart and soul of America. Thus, Bush's campaign has asked Kerry's campaign to release the performance so Americans can judge for themselves. The Kerry camp has been looking for reasons not to. The Corner prints the request letter today:

July 12, 2004

Mary Beth Cahill
Campaign Manager
John Kerry for President
P.O. Box 34640
Washington, DC 20043

Dear Ms. Cahill:

On Thursday your campaign hosted a fundraiser at Radio City Music Hall at which Sen. Kerry said, "Every performer tonight in their own way either verbally through their music through their lyrics have conveyed to you the heart and soul of our country."

I called on your campaign to release the performance that Sen. Kerry said represented the "heart and soul" of America so that all Americans could see for themselves what John Kerry thinks represents the "heart and soul" of our country.

Do most Americans in their hearts, think that calling the President a "thug" and a "killer" represents the "heart and soul" of our nation? We don't think so, but we think voters should decide for themselves by watching the celebrities John Kerry said captured the "heart and soul" of America.

Your Senior Advisor Tad Devine said that you believed that releasing musical performances "might violate copyrights and licensing agreements for the entertainers who performed and allow the Bush campaign to use the tape in commercials against Kerry and Edwards"

I have been assured that "fair use" rules of copyright would allow you to release the tapes of these musical performances to the news media under 2 U.S.C. § 107. To allay the other concern you relayed to the news media, Bush-Cheney '04 pledges to refrain from using audio, video or transcripts of the event for any television, cable, satellite or radio advertising. We look forward to seeing this spirited display.

Sincerely,

Ken Mehlman
Campaign Manager

I don’t think Kerry tried that “life begins with conception” argument backstage.

WHERE TO OLD BALLPLAYERS GO?

Remember Ron Karkovice the longtime backup catcher for the Chicago White Sox? I read last week in the paper that he was an Orlando native who went to Boone High School with Joe Oliver, another MLB catcher with a long career. The article was touting how Karkovice has opened a new restaurant called Ronnie’s Big League Deli. It really gives him a boost. When I read about the location I realized that it was biking distance from Tricia’s house and thought I would take her there at first opportunity. We went Saturday.

The place was decent sized, but most of it seemed under construction. There were only a few tables in the part that was open. One was occupied by a group of 5. No one else was present except for the girl behind the counter. She was nice and gave me a regular size cup for my water. They didn’t have bottled water or unsweetend Ice Tea. They didn’t really seem ready to open. The floor was bare cement and there wasn’t as much baseball memorabilia as the article led you to think.

I had a roast beef sandwich that was mostly tasteless white sub roll, but Trish did like her Turkey Bacon wrap. The beer was priced well enough if we had been in the mood for it.

After we started eating Karkovice sat down at a table behind us. He was engulfed in a replay of the Florida/Florida State game from a few years back. Later he chomped down on some wings. He wasn’t the gregarious guy welcoming everyone or trying to get chummy with the new, if scant, clientele.

I started thinking that Karkovice started this restaurant because he has nothing to do. He was tired of sitting home everyday watching sports so he opened a restaurant so that he could hang around strangers and watch sports. There didn’t seem to be much attempt to lure customers through décor or good food or a great atmosphere. But it did allow him to eat some wings and watch old football games.

He’s got the reverse problem that most of us have. We’re struggling in order to provide a better life for ourselves. Ronnie’s work is over. He doesn’t need money. He needs an outlet for his time. Like a lot of athletes that get drafted into sports he has no fall back plan in life. Some leave sports and have no money and have to struggle with the rest of us. Karkovice must have plenty of money, what with 11 big league seasons, but his life is only half over and he lacks a purpose for the rest of it.

He’s like a lottery winner that has plenty of money, but no connection to the things that were once important in life. The restaurant seems to be a way to reconnect. I only say this because he didn’t seem to put a lot of attention into the things that are necessary to make money and keep people coming back.

I left feeling bad for him. I felt like he either didn’t want to succeed or didn’t know how too. Maybe I read too much into the small scene I witnessed, but he’ll need to put a lot of work into this place if he wants it to be self-sustained. I suggested to Trish that we should come back in a month or two and see if he was making any progress. Maybe he just opened before the place was ready.

Another old Chicago Ballplayer tries something else.

The trouble with what to do with old politicians is even more difficult.

WMD AND THE ELECTION

Thomas Sowell finds it curious that Bush is blamed for insisting on the WMD when it was once a bipartisan belief.

Saddam Hussein not only had, but used, chemical and biological weapons against his enemies, foreign and domestic. With the help of the French, he was rebuilding nuclear facilities, ostensibly for civilian energy purposes, but oil-rich countries do not need nuclear power plants to generate electricity.

Who said so? The Russians said so. The British said so. Bill Clinton said so. Leaders of both political parties said so. George W. Bush was one of the last to say so. Yet he alone is accused of lying.

I had been worried that we have squandered the capital of going to war. Sowell agrees.

Iran and North Korea -- the other nations identified as part of the "axis of evil" -- are now playing the same cat-and-mouse game, and North Korea is openly threatening to produce nuclear bombs. Either or both these countries are potential suppliers of such weapons to international terrorists.

Libya backed out of the nuclear weapons game after Qadaffi saw what happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. What would have emboldened Iran and North Korea? Only a disunited America, full of loud irresponsible election-year talk about "lies" on weapons of mass destruction, making it unlikely that the United States can muster the political will to strike Iran or North Korea.

WAR HERO KERRY?

Kerry was acknowledged by the Vietnam government in 1983, when he was Lt. Governor of Massachusetts. Kerry's record of activism benefiting the communists was also lauded by the military commander of the North Vietnamese forces, General Vo Nguyen Giap, in his 1985 memoir of the war. Giap wrote that

“…if it were not for the disunity created by...stateside protests, Hanoi would have ultimately surrendered.”

Thus, Kerry¹s efforts aided and abetted the enemy, prolonged the war, and probably resulted in greater American casualties.

This is the real debate about Vietnam. Sure Kerry and the hippies had the right to disagree with the war, but that doesn't absolve them from the consequences. Speech is free, but it comes with a responsibility.

This election may ultimately decide whether the United States has the will to defeat its enemies. The Michael Moore movie has brought about an interesting debate in this country. People who pay no attention to world events are suddenly convinced that we're making a big mistake in Iraq. Talk to any of them and they don't know which of Moore's statements are true or false. When you point out the falsehoods they slip into moral relativism. "You just disagree with him." They say.

Sure I disagree with his conclusions, but whether his documentary is a factual isn't debatable. Many people who read and study world events have pointed out its flaws. The nonpartisan 911 commission denounced it. Only film critics who know nothing about the world, people easily influeced by whatever they see, and liberals love his conclusions. There is probably a decent documentary to be made by the opposition of the war using facts, but this isn't it.

But since Kerry hates war and his party hates war, you have to make the conclusion that a Kerry victory will end any American attempt to stand up for itself. A Kerry victory is simply a capitulation and return to the 1990s response to attacks on America. Was anything substantial done during the first attack of the World Trade Center? Does anyone remember our response to the embassy bombings? What did we do when our Navy ship was bombed in Yemen? ANSWER: We did nothing substantial enough for anyone to remember.

Will we ever forget what Bush did in Afghanistan and Iraq as a result of 911 -- least of all the terrorists? The main reason for spending the money and risking those lives was to show the world we were serious about our safety. The world may not like our actions or like us, but they have a greater respect for us.

The Democrats complain that the Afghanistan invasion was justified but not the Iraq invasion (though some Democrats go back and forth depending on whether they have to answer to voters). If Afghanistan was such an automatic, why didn't Democrats push for such an invasion after Yemen, the embassies or World Trade Center I? As soon as 911 happened, Clinton was told reporters that he thought it was Bin Laden. Why didn’t Clinton take care of this problem in the 1990s? He couldn’t do anything, because the majority of Democrats don't have the stomach for any kind of war. They're not going to come out against a successful and popular campaign. They'll praise it to the heavens. They would have done the same in Iraq had it went more smoothly.

Democrats have the easy task of never making the tough decision. Republicans will fight the wars. Democrats will praise the ones that are easy and attack the ones that are hard, leaving the impression that they only would have conducted the easy ones themselves. But Democrats have been in the white house 12 of the 29 years post Vietnam. Can anyone remember a decisive military action for American interests? I don't mean dropping bombs on Serbia, but an actual military action that benefited their own country. You can't and you won't. Not then, not now and not in the future. It's not who they are. It's not in them. They refuse to be Lyndon Johnson and get themselves into a conflict with their own voters. They'd rather have two terms of dolling out goodies to voters. It doesn't matter what they personally think unless they are willing to be ran out on a rail.

The election of John Kerry tells the world that we are no longer serious about our safety. We're too squeamish to do the tough work to win. We'd rather return to the 1990s and consider each attack just the cost of being America. We'll hope that our non-action will make them like us and maybe, if we're lucky, another disaster won't occur. Should we leave it to luck?

THE POSITION THAT PLEASES NO ONE

But even as he tried to avoid making news Sunday, Kerry broke new ground in an interview that ran in the Dubuque, Iowa, daily, the Telegraph Herald. A Catholic who supports abortion rights and has taken heat recently from some in the church hierarchy for his stance, Kerry told the paper, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

"I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist," he continued in the interview. "We have separation of church and state in the United States of America." The comments came on the final day of a three-state Midwest swing, during which Kerry has repeatedly sought to dispel stereotypes that could play negatively among voters in the Heartland.

When life begins isn't strictly a religious question. You can have an opinion based on science or philosophy. It doesn't matter how or why you formed an opinion, the question is whether you have the guts to stand up for your convictions. What Kerry is saying here is that he doesn't have the ability to fight for what he believes in. Yes, says Kerry, it is a human being, and though I pain when it dies in the womb, I am but a helpless Senator shackled by the rigors of the constitution.

Put another way, the Catholic Church believes in feeding the poor and offering charity. Is that a religious question? By Kerry's reasoning he cannot support welfare, public housing, food stamps or any government aid the Catholic Church supports, because it would conflict with his views of church and state.

Any opinion can be derived from any number of ways and many opinions are based or supported by more than one set of values. For some people it may take the scientific fact and a religious belief to change a behavior or form an opinion. You might not smoke because it's a sin and science says it might kill you. In the case of abortion a person could philosophically believe that abortion cheapens life which leads to more murder. Scientifically, abortion causes harm to the mother. Economically, the loss of these future humans will be a hardship on the economy. However your opinions are derived is unimportant compared to whether you are willing to fight for the ones you have. When Kerry casts a vote, the Supreme Court isn't going to disallow it because it coincides with the belief of his church.

Some leaders are driven by their beliefs and other leaders nod at the beliefs of voters to get elected. Does anyone think the latter is more honorable than the former? Is it better to lulled into sleep by a panderer or led by a believer?

I would much rather hear a candidate say that the abortion debate at the national level is really just emotionalism. What with the court and filibusters of judges, abortion is here to stay. So can we talk about something realistic that can improve America?

But if Kerry wants to tell us that life begins at conception then his voting record would remind one of the Nazis who ran the trains to Poland. They didn't gas one single Jew themselves in a concentration camp. They were just doing their job according to German law set forth by de Fuhrer, regardless of any personal beliefs. They were personally against this genocide, but it would have been wrong of them to get mixed up in their religious beliefs when they had a job to do. Thank goodness professionals can look past their own view of morality and keep the engines of government running as the law dictates.

VEEP ODDS (found via Drudge)

Sen. John Edwards, N.C.

Odds: 3-1 (Chance for the ticket: 25 percent)

Pro: Caught the fancy of Democrats during the primary seasons, starting with a close second place to Kerry in the Jan. 19 Iowa caucuses. Polling around the country demonstrates an appeal to independent voters that Kerry lacks. Con: A one-term senator with no other political experience, he will be dogged by questions about whether he could take charge in the Oval Office in an emergency. And picking him is so widely expected, Kerry would barely make news with this choice.

Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, Mo.

Odds: 5-1 (Chance for the ticket: 20 percent)

Pro: Delivers Big Labor. Could be a slam dunk if Kerry rests his bid on a Midwest play, and might cinch Missouri’s 11 electoral votes. Of all the contenders, he is the most akin to Kerry’s low-key style and liberal ideology. Con: Widely perceived as an unexciting captive of Washington politics with limited appeal to swing voters.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, N.Y.

Odds: 9-1 (Chance for the ticket: 10 percent)

Pro: Like a bunker-busting bomb, picking her would remake this race and provoke a news media frenzy. No one could do more to excite the Democratic base. Her background in health care politics might be an asset as Kerry struggles to spotlight the issue. Con: She turns off some swing voters. And Bill Clinton’s book tour is highlighting his scandalous past more than his supporters had hoped.

Sen. Bob Graham, Fla. Odds: 12-1 (Chance for the ticket: 8 percent)

Gov. Tom Vilsack, Iowa Odds: 12-1 (Chance for the ticket: 8 percent)

Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark Odds: 17-1 (Chance for the ticket: 6 percent)

Gov. Mark Warner, Va. Odds: 19-1 (Chance for the ticket: 5 percent)

Gov. Mark Warner, Va. Odds: 19-1 (Chance for the ticket: 5 percent)

Sen. Bill Nelson, Fla. Odds: 24-1 (Chance for the ticket: 4 percent)

Former Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin Odds: 24-1 (Chance for the ticket: 4 percent)

Gov. Bill Richardson, N.M. Odds: 30-1 (Chance for the ticket: 3 percent)

Gov. Janet Napolitano, Ariz. Odds: 30-1 (Chance for the ticket: 3 percent)

Wild Cards: Democratic buzz puts these men on the Veepstakes entrants at the last minute, and with 50-1 odds: Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and former Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia (1972-97).

He'd be a fool to choose anyone but Edwards. He needs likability before he can worry about carrying Florida. Edwards may be an ambulance chasing lawyer, but he comes off much more personable than the patrician Kerry.

JEOPARDY CHAMPION

I haven't been watching Jeopardy, but this article makes me wish that I had. Ken Jennings has won 22 straight Jeopardy episodes so far.

Jennings's run was made possible by the show's decision last fall to drop the rule that forced champions to retire after five victories. But no one expected this. Prior to Jennings's current streak of 22, the record was seven. Prior to his current cash total of $737,760; the record was $184,900. He's just in a different league. He seems to have no gaps in his knowledge. History. Geography. Science. Literature. Sports. Movies. Music. Languages. He not only knows, he recalls. Under pressure, in the form of a question. He buzzes in to respond while his rivals are still deciphering what's being asked. He wagers aggressively, but never recklessly. It's spooky — in the way that genuine greatness is always spooky. But it's riveting.

FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT

Clinton's speech with Jesse Jackson begins by lamenting that people's taxes are lower and that wealthy people should be feeding school kids. I wonder how much of the President Clinton's income is donated to charities that do that work?

They are coming to my town now for their convention, and it's in early September, and there is going to be so many flags you going to get slapped to death. Everybody is going to be patriotic and that's wonderful. But I'll tell you one thing they won't do before they get there -- they will not pass this [current federal] budget, because this budget that they've got on the [Congressional] floor now -- to protect my tax cut -- kicks the rest of -- listen to this, 1.3 million children out of their after-school programs," Clinton said.

I think some Vienna scientists have proven that Bill Clinton body will turn to dust if he accidently touches an American flag. At the least, no one has ever seen him touch one.

"If you kick another million kids out of their after-school program just to protect my tax cut, it's wrong, and the American people know it," he added.

Why doesn't Bill Clinton ponder the question of why people are having and raising kids they cannot feed? It seems like a bigger issue. Do parents forget that these kids are born mouths and digestive systems? Ah, there are so many rich Republicans we need not sweat the details.

Clinton can't go a whole speech without contradicting himself. Here he says that we shouldn't demonize the other side.

Clinton said he would not engage in any attempts to characterize his opponents as "bad people."

"I believe that we spend too much time in American politics and in the media trying to convince people that those who don't agree with us are bad people. I prefer to think we should argue who is right and who is wrong, not who's good and bad, he said to an approving audience.

Then he calls Pat Buchanan anti-Semetic.

Clinton called the controversial "butterfly" ballots used in some Florida counties so confusing that they resulted in "Jewish Americans" unintentionally casting ballots for Reform Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan's "openly anti-Semitic campaign."

Maybe he means it as a compliment. After all, Clinton was the one who invited Yasser Arrafat to the White House.

BRANDO DIES?

It's not on Drudge yet, but a Phoenix TV station is reporting it.

Confirmed.

The Good Choices:

JULIUS CAESAR (1953) - It would seem a strange choice for Brando, but I immediately liked the whole production and Brando is better than Robin Williams impersonation in Dead Poet's Society would have you believe.

ON THE WATERFRONT (1954) - Easily one of the ten best film performances of all time. If you haven't seen it, you should pull up a chair.

GUYS AND DOLLS (1955) Another strange choice for Brando? He does such a good job and it's such a fun movie you forget that he made his reputation with dramas.

THE GODFATHER (1972) - Can't say enough!

The Overrated Ones

THE WILD ONE (1954) - The classic biker picture doesn't really hold up and seems to have little point. If you've seen Brando in that black leather and Fonzie white t-shirt then you've seen a picture from this film.

STRRETCAR NAMED DESIRE (1951) - Brando seemed a bit much to me here. This is supposed to be a breakthrough in modern acting and a tour de force. It may have been for its time, but I had trouble getting through it.

VIVA ZAPATA (1952) - Brando as revolutionary leader Zapata left me cold. The story seemed uninspired and Anthony Quinn is more interesting in the film.

A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG (1967) - The last film direct by Charlie Chaplin. It's just plain silly in an old fashioned way with no point.

APOCALYPSE NOW (1979) - I liked Robert Duvall as the mad Colonel, but once they hit the river I feel myself drifting. Brando's part is incomprehensible. It's the essence of indulging an actor's nonsense.

Not Sure

THE YOUNG LIONS (1958) - Brando joined by Monty Clift and Dean Martin. Brando plays a sympathetic Nazi. Dean and Clift plays Americans. I liked it enough, but I don't remember much about it.

LAST TANGO IN PARIS (1972) - Brando gives a great performance, but the movie is a bit too odd in that early 1970s way when American films were trying to be more like European films (see Altman's 3 Women). Well, Bertolucci directed the thing so I guess it isn't that American after all. Pauline Kael said movies were changed forever when this was released. Roger Ebert said a couple of years ago that Kael had been wrong. This was a just an interesting blip.

SADDAM ON TRIAL

Saddam Hussein scoffed at charges of war crimes and mass killings Thursday, making a defiant first public appearance since being hunted down seven months ago. The deposed dictator fixed the judge with a penetrating stare and declared: "This is all a theater by Bush, the criminal."

That defense would play pretty well in the Northeast and parts of California, but it doesn't always fool Iraqis.

NEW IRAQI PRIME MINISTER AFFIRMS CONNECTION BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QAEDA

Much to the chagrin of Tom Brokaw. . .

Brokaw: I know you and others like you are grateful for the liberation of Iraq. But can't you understand why many Americans feel that so many young men and women have died here for purposes other than protecting the United States?

Allawi: We know that this is an extension to what happened in New York. And the war have been taken out to Iraq by the same terrorists. Saddam was a potential friend and partner and natural ally of terrorism.

Brokaw: Prime minister, I'm surprised that you would make the connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. The 9/11 commission in America says there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and those terrorists of al Qaeda.

Allawi: No, I believe very strongly that Saddam had relations with al Qaeda. And these relations started in Sudan. We know Saddam had relationships with a lot of terrorists and international terrorism. Now, whether he is directly connected to the September atrocities or not, I can't vouch for this. But definitely I know that he has connections with extremism and terrorists.

But, wait Mr. Prime Minister in my country the real connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam isn't to be exposed until after the Kerry inaguration. Let's instead talk about the effect Kurt Warner will have on making Eli Manning an NFL quarterback.

COULTER

A ferocious pen she wields. . .

The New York Times ran a front-page news story on Sunday about how life was better for Iraqi girls under Saddam Hussein -- living under Saddam, that is, not the girls who were literally under Saddam, Odai and Qusai while they were being raped. The article was titled "For Iraqi Girls, Changing Land Narrows Lives." True, they don't have to run from Odai's rape rooms anymore. But apparently not a single Iraqi female has been admitted to Augusta National Golf Club since the liberation! -- The Democrats want Saddam back.

SOWELL

Is any modern day writer better with marrying an anology with hard data than Thomas Sowell? He'll write down little keen observations and every few months dedicate a column to them. Here are four of my favorites from the most recent RANDOM THOUGHTS.

ON EDUCATION
A recently reprinted memoir by Frederick Douglass has footnotes explaining what words like "arraigned," "curried" and "exculpate" meant, and explaining who Job was. In other words, this man who was born a slave and never went to school educated himself to the point where his words now have to be explained to today's expensively under-educated generation.

ON THE 2000 ELECTION
The same people who were urging us to "get over it" and "move on" during the Clinton scandals have themselves still not gotten over the presidential election four years ago. They are still bitter that the U.S. Supreme Court would not allow the Florida Supreme Court to illegally interfere with the election process.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Why can't anyone get the University of California system or the University of Texas system to reveal the graduation rates of black students, now that affirmative action has been ended in these institutions? Are they afraid the statistics would show an increased rate of graduation, as critics of affirmative action have long predicted?

WORDS MEAN THINGS
I have always been offended by the song that says, "Everything is beautiful in its own way." If everything is beautiful, then the word "beautiful" has no meaning. If everything were purple, there would be no word "purple" in the language because it would not distinguish one thing from another.

WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN IRAQ?

Blogger Eric Johnson was a part of the Iraqi invasion in 2003 as a Marine reservist. He says that the Washington Post's Baghdad office is giving a false impression of what is happening in the country.

Part of the explanation is Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post. He spent most of his career on the metro and technology beats, and has only four years of foreign reporting, two of which are in Iraq. The 31-year-old now runs a news operation that can literally change the world, heading a bureau that is the source for much of the news out of Iraq.

Very few newspapers have full-time international reporters at all these days, relying on stringers of varying quality, as well as wire services such as Reuters and Agence France-Presse, also of varying quality. The Post's reporting is delivered intravenously into the bloodstream of Official Washington, and thus a front-page article out of Iraq can have major repercussions in policy-making.

The entire article is worth the time. He relates some specific events that he witnessed and how the Post covered them.

BEST LAID PLANS

You paid for it. Some politician looked like a hero. The benefits were minimal. Business as usual.

Tucked into the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a little-known program called the "e-rate," setting up a tax that has cost consumers and phone companies upward of $2 billion a year. What has that money bought? A rudderless program riddled with fraud and waste.

The e-rate fund has distributed $12 billion over six years, and estimates place the amount wasted in the billions. Because of lack of oversight, it's impossible to know the extent of the losses.

During a recent House hearing, legislators documented some of the lapses. They showed, for instance, how most of the $101 million in e-rate funds spent in Puerto Rico went to dubious purchases, such as 73,000 wireless connection cards for individual computers. The cards, purchased at more than $300 apiece five years ago, have grown obsolete in a warehouse outside San Juan. Most Puerto Rican children still access the Internet through dial-up modems on roughly two computers per school.

Other rural projects cited by supporters as successes have enormous per-pupil costs. A conflict of interest is built into the program's core: Its dollars are doled out by a nonprofit corporation run by telecommunications service providers whose businesses benefit from the money. They are barely overseen by the Federal Communications Commission.

Did I say "typical?"

GALLUP POLL ON BILL CLINTON

Gallup has done a pretty thorough poll on Clinton with the release of his book. The main point seems to be that Hillary's book was more anticipated. How much of that is Hillary beating Bill to the presses?

Hidden within the study is something that intellectuals may not like. 32% of those polled with a high school education or less plan on reading the book. Only 20% of those with a college education plan on doing so. It will be a nice little fact to cite the next time Bush supporters are called ignoramuses.

HILLARY KNOWS BEST

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

The twentieth Century was full of demagogues who won over a populace by taking things away from citizens. It sometimes led to Gulags and concentration camps. It has never led to more individual freedom.

Hillary's right-win conspiracy is nothing more than a group of working people that want politicians to quit buying votes with the money of middle class Americans.

"IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID" becomes "INVADING IRAQ WAS A MISTAKE"

George Bush 41 lost his re-election bid in 1992 on the argument that the economy of horrible, although the charts show the economy was in recovery about 10 months before the election. Maybe the relief wasn't immediately felt, but if you weren't sure what to think of the economy you could hear the media reminding you every night how bad everyone had it. That recovery began under Bush and lasted until the final year of the Clinton presidency. Bush was elected in the midst of a recession and Democrats were already blaming the economy on him before his economic plan went into effect. The Democrats tried the same "horrible economy" strategy in 2002 and no one listened. The public was more concerned about terrorism. Democrats in the early primaries started to make the argument as the economy was recovering before their eyes. Okay, the economy isn't going to be a winning issue with the voters. Let's try Iraq.

PLAN B - IRAQ was a mistake

1. No links between Saddam and Osama
2. WMD alegations were lies
3. Attacking Iraq will just make Muslims angry
4. Rebuilding Iraq is too expensive and dangerous
5. We didn't gain anything by defeating Saddam

1. Since there isn't a paper trail from the 911 investigations leading to Saddam Hussein's palace, Saddam is innocent of threatening American lives.

The fact the Iraq had numerous ties to Osama and most likely participated in any number of anti-American or anti-Israeli acts is buried under the headlines that the they weren't mobbed up for 911. The insinuation is that Saddam's links to Osama posed us no danger whatsoever. Does anyone think that Saddam was minding his own business?

2. Since we didn't find any WMD the intelligence was skewed, and maybe Bush himself used documents he knew were false to push his larger agenda.

When Clinton warned of WMD in 1998 everybody just figured it was a sideshow meant at distracting us from the Monica Lewinsky mess. Maybe it was a sideshow, but wouldn't it be nice to hear the Democrats who were full support back then step to the mic now and admit their contradiction. What the media has refused to do during this war is make Democrats reconcile their 1998 positions with their current ones. It would be nice to hear them admit that they would bomb a country just to take heat off the president. Or they could admit that Saddam was as dangerous in 2003 as he was in 1998.

Isn't it funny how Democrats will tell you that Bush's negligence caused 911 after Clinton did a genius job against terrorism in the 1990s? We're also supposed to believe that Saddam became less dangerous after he kicked out U.N. inspectors. Therefore, with no inspectors and incompetent Bush at the helm, Saddam wasn't as dangerous as when Clinton warned about him in 1998.

So where are the WMD? Syria. Some cave. Who knows? Iraq was trying to buy Uranium from Niger according to European intelligence. Doesn't this tell us enough about his aspirations? Not in an election year.

3. Attacking Iraq will just make them angry is an age-old argument reserved for people who would rather turn a blind eye. Could they hate us any more? Are they doing any less to come after us than they have? Aren't the citizens of Iraq actually citizens now? Don't they stand to be friendlier to the U.S. than their neighbors?

4. It's a relative question. We could have leveled the country to the ground, grabbed Saddam and walked. That would have provoked the kind of ire that critics warned about in complaint #3. Whether rebuilding was a mistake will be shown down the road. If Iraq eventually takes an anti-American stand then woe to the countries that we defeat next time. We'll just as soon walk away than spend more money that doesn't effect change. But with what we know now I don't see how we couldn't spend the money and rebuild.

5. We needed a target that would wake the Muslim world up. Afghanistan was just a holding ground for terrorists. That was an easy play. By attacking Iraq we showed other nations who support or harbor terrorists that we're not afraid to bring them down. This silly idea of sovereignty for dictators needed to die. Now if Iran or Syria wants to support our enemies they will be opening themselves up to a similar invasion. This was the most important factor in the Iraq invasion and yet the one we hear about the least.

The tragedy is that much of this capital has been squandered by politicians that complain about Iraq to the extent that it seems somewhat unviable for us to take out any of the other pesky countries. If Democrats had only shown a united front on Iraq then the world would have been on notice in a bigger way. Without a united America behind future invasions I fear that these countries will begin to feel too safe. Strength is more in the willingness to action than simply the ability. Our willingness is locked up in an election. The more we're willing to fight the less we'll actually have to fight. Opposition to an offensive campaign only makes our struggle longer and harder.

It would be ironic if Demcorats won by attacking Bush's strong stand on terrorism when they did so little about it in the 1990s. But it was ironic that Bush 41 would lose because of the economy in the midst of a recovery. Politics is the essence of getting your point of view into mainstream thought via the media. As long as the media continues to focus on some parts of Iraq over others, Bush is going to have a tougher fight.

I'M JOHN KERRY, AND I APPROVE THIS MOVIE

Q: "What Liberal Media?" - Eric Alterman
A: "Fahrenheit 9/11" - Tom Stamper

A similar movie made savaging John Kerry or Bill Clinton wouldn't open on 900 screens.

You could fill a trilogy with Clinton capers, but even Kerry would be fertile ground. You could have the right wing version of silly bumbling Michael Moore interviewing the doctor that says Kerry got a purple heart for the equivalent of a paper cut. That batty wife of his could be raked over the coals for marrying the next senator that came along. That she went from pro-defense John Heniz to pro-wine John Kerry could be made good use of. All that footage of Kerry protesting and leveling unsubstantiated charges against the troops could be brought into play. We could use those quotes from Kerry about how Clinton's non-service during Vietnam was no big deal intercut with the constant reminder by Kerry that his service record makes him the only eligible candidate. If nothing else, how much distribution do you think this movie will get?

What Liberal Media, Mr. Alterman? Have you seen Rotten Tomatoes? Moore's movie registered 82% positive when I wrote this blog. This is despite that fact that his movie is filled with any innacuracy needed in order to bridge the gap to his next criticism. Christopher Hitchens sums up the credibility of the film very well.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

I'm sure it is a funny movie. All of his movies are funny. But a reviewer of a supposedly nonfiction film should inform himself a little on reality before giving a movie like this credibility.

"Moore states his argument forcefully and effectively, alternating cold, factual data with emotionally wrenching -- and draining -- human episodes." Jeff Strickler, MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE

I'm sure some of the data is truthful, but much of it isn't. If Strickler could seperate fact from fiction maybe the rest wouldn't have been so emotionally wrenching. That's the problem with most of these film critics. Being personally liberal they are less interested in the truth of the subject matter and more enthralled that Moore has leveled a witty attack against someone they don't like.

CHENEY DROPS F BOMB

A brawl would have been more fun.

FORMER VP GORE HAS A FEW WORDS MORE

You think Gore is still sore about 2000? Speech . . .

It is an extraordinary blessing to live in a nation so carefully designed to protect individual liberty and safeguard self-governance and free communication. But if George Washington could see the current state of his generation's handiwork and assess the quality of our generation's stewardship at the beginning of this twenty-first century, what do you suppose he would think about the proposition that our current president claims the unilateral right to arrest and imprison American citizens indefinitely without giving them the right to see a lawyer or inform their families of their whereabouts, and without the necessity of even charging them with any crime. All that is necessary, according to our new president is that he - the president - label any citizen an "unlawful enemy combatant," and that will be sufficient to justify taking away that citizen's liberty - even for the rest of his life, if the president so chooses. And there is no appeal.

The first sentence is off the charts. When has Gore ever been a champion of individual liberty? The level of proof that he expects of Bush to lock up terrorists is much higher than the level of proof he expects from environmentalists that are screaming that the sky is falling. Gore wants to change individual behavior wherever an owl might be. He’s more than willing to punish successful individuals by taxing them at higher rates in order to buy votes of the less fortunate. To Gore and many left wing thinkers, the only individuals worth protecting are criminals.

What would Thomas Jefferson think of the curious and discredited argument from our Justice Department that the president may authorize what plainly amounts to the torture of prisoners - and that any law or treaty, which attempts to constrain his treatment of prisoners in time of war is itself a violation of the constitution our founders put together.

At least Gore talked about citizens in first paragraph. I don’t know why Thomas Jefferson would care one lick about what we do to enemy combatants. We didn’t sign a treaty with the Taliban, Al Qaeda or any group funding or supporting terrorists. Why should we tie our hands when our citizens are getting their heads chopped off in the Middle East?

What would Benjamin Franklin think of President Bush's assertion that he has the inherent power - even without a declaration of war by the Congress - to launch an invasion of any nation on Earth, at any time he chooses, for any reason he wishes, even if that nation poses no imminent threat to the United States.

Gore didn’t seem to be making these complaints when he was Vice President and the administration went after Serbia.

How long would it take James Madison to dispose of our current President's recent claim, in Department of Justice legal opinions, that he is no longer subject to the rule of law so long as he is acting in his role as Commander in Chief.

Is this Gore’s version of situational ethics? He didn’t think the “rule of law” was such a good idea when it prevented Clinton from lying under oath.

It takes balls to support activist judges that re-write the constitution whenever convenient and then complain that Bush is ignoring the founders vision. After spending a career walking over individual liberty for the overall “benefit of mankind” Gore can suddenly see the virtue in letting people alone. I wonder if Gore will allow such indulgences to those of us who aren’t trying to kill our fellow citizens.

In light of the Clinton book and 60 Minutes interview, NR's The Corner dug out some quotes from a February 1998 issue of the magazine.

#1 From The Week section of the February 23, 1998, issue of National Review: "President Clinton vows to spend the remainder of his term searching for the real adulterer."

#2 The scene: A smoky bar. The character: He and she. Old line: “My wife doesn’t understand me.” New lines: “I’m the victim of a right-wing conspiracy.”

I watched the baseball game instead of the 60 minutes interview. Did he take responsibility for lying under oath or was it my fault for sending money to the Empower America?

Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda

The media is trying to report that the Bush administration was wrong about a contact between Saddam and Osama. Even Democrat members of the commission admit the links. Real Clear Politics does a good job of cutting through the media distortion.

WASHINGTON POST

"Were there contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes," Thomas H. Kean (R), the panel's chairman, said at a news conference. "What our staff statement found is there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein in any way were part of the attack on the United States."

CHENEY RESPONDS ON CNBC

CHENEY: What The New York Times did today was outrageous. They do a lot of outrageous things but the headline, "Panel Find No Qaida-Iraq Tie". The press wants to run out and say there's a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said. Jim Thompson is a member of the commission who's since been on the air. I saw him with my own eyes. And there's no conflict. What they were addressing was whether or not they were involved in 9/11. And there they found no evidence to support that proposition. They did not address the broader question of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida in other areas, in other ways.

There are critics who think the Iraq invasion was wrong because they weren't involved in 911. That's an opinion. Another opinion says that we should defeat countries with terrorist ties before they do us any danger.

The reason for the 911 commission was to see if there was something we could have done to prevent tha attack. Bush's Iraq policy was designed so that they couldn't do what Osama had done. Whether Saddam funded Osama or the other way around misses the point that both factions were firmly anti-American and hellbent on our destruction.

UPDATE: What does Brokaw know?

CLINTON WRITES

Dan Rather gives Clinton's memoir 5 stars according to The New York Observer. How are you to take a memoir from a man who has no trouble lying in court? The fact that he still blames others for his dishonesty makes me think he wasn't ready to write this book. What he said about Susan McDougal the other night is revealing. McDougal was put in jail for contempt of court after refusing to answer questions about her Arkansas land deal with Clinton.

"Susan McDougal was a victim of abuse of power," Mr. Clinton said. "She was simply a political pawn."

The only reason for Susan McDougal to clam up would be to shield her own self from even more jail time or to protect the president. If Clinton is saying that she is a political pawn then she was put in jail for protecting him. If Clinton had been so worried about Mrs. McDougal he could have told her to protect herself by speaking. There's nothing like a touchy feeling man sending a woman to take the fall.

As always with Clinton he can't see his own culpability. It’s always others that fail. His personal corruption is married to his goals of equality of mankind. You’ll have to accept one if you want the other. It's a shame that McDougal went to jail, but Clinton was irreplaceable. It’s more important that he continue to work for the American people. He's suggesting that prosecutors should know that he is untouchable like a mob boss and they will only be putting the people in jail that are protecting him. Prosecutors should just learn to layoff and let him make his own rules.

The difference between Nixon and Clinton is that Nixon felt a modicum of shame for the damage he wrought. Clinton is sure that his egalitarian goals trump any sort of personal corruption.

RAY CHARLES -- LEGEND

I didn't blog last week deciding instead to take everything in and then expound. The one story I missed that was important was the passing of Ray Charles. I don't think any singer ever committed to a song the way he did. It was like his every last molecule was focused on the passion of that with which he was singing about. There were much better singers, but he performed a song in a way that you were sure it was about him. Sinatra was always given credit for phrasing a song well. Charles should be given credit for fully committing to the material like no one else.

The first time I heard him sing Georgia – I must have been quite young – I was moved by it. I didn’t realize that he was singing about a woman. I had thought he was just singing about the state. I guess it could be taken either way, but as I aged the passion in which he sang started to imply true love.

He brought the same excitement to anything he sang. When I hear “You don’t know me” I visualized him meeting and taking the hand of the woman he loves and I can see her misunderstanding his feelings. There was something real about his reaction to her nonchalance and his resignation that he would never have her.

Then the hard rockin’ “I got a woman” is a gigantic celebration of boy gets girl. It’s a simple song. His woman is good to him. The song is all in the singing. That ass clown Michael Bolton could never register the real feeling for a song like that. I’ve heard other versions that are fair, but Ray Charles seems to be living it.

“What I Say” has that great piano intro and then vocals that say little literally, but much in the way of blues. The song goes on and on and on and I think only Ray Charles could pull such a thing off. The song is so long that you have to turn the 45 over and hear part two on the other side.

I had wanted to see Ray Charles when I was in college, but no one was listening to that kind of music. Who would I have asked? I didn’t even own any of the records, but I had heard him sing on TV quite a bit.

After moving to Orlando I bought a 2-CD set of Ray Charles greatest hits and it was a big disappointment. All the songs were there in their originally recorded versions, but that turned out to be a minus. Sometimes the arrangements were all wrong for his brand of soul and the backup singers made some songs sound ridiculous. I realized that I had been hearing him sing these things live on TV with simple music and they were much better that way. He just throws so much of himself into a song that the old recordings make everyone else in the studio sound lackadaisical. I’d like to find a later album of these recording that were more bare-boned musically.

Luckily in June 2002 I got to see Ray Charles for a corporate event. The acoustics were horrible in the Convention Center, but he was his magical best. He ended with “America, America” and no song sung by anyone could ever make me feel as patriotic. He was much gray and needed to be helped on and off the stage, but I never would have thought he had just two short years remaining. The music will never die.

What is a trade deficit?

The US trade deficit widened to a record $48.3bn in April, putting a bigger drag on economic growth than expected and further damping down hopes that the trade gap is soon set to narrow.

Economists said that with the dollar reviving in response to expectations of higher interest rates, there was little chance that the trade gap would start to close over the next 12 months.

The trade deficit is an illusion.

If Americans trade U.S. dollars for foreign goods what happens to those dollars? Either the recipient buries them in the ground which reduces the money supply and makes our money more valuable. Or they take those dollars and buy goods and services from America. The money we use to buy these things either has to be traded back in the United States for other goods or they were foolish to take U.S. dollars in the first place.

So the money has to make its way back here eventually and that will lead to Americans getting the money back for their services. If the money never returns then we've just traded paper for real goods. That's just the kind of deficit we can afford.

NATIONS KEEPS GOD - SAYS COURT

The Supreme Court says the atheist father has no legal standing to challenge the Pledge of Allegiance's phrase "one nation under God." He doesn't have legal custody. The girl's mother had no problem with the pledge invoking the almighty.

O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas said further that "Under God" wasn't unconstitutional. Scalia probably would have joined them but sat out this case.

I don't quite know what offends atheists about using God in our common language. They would be best in humoring the rest of us. Nothing makes Americans angrier than frivolous lawsuits. Don’t they know that belief in God is the only thing keeping half the country from kicking their ass?

Oh Captain, My Captain

I was twelve years old when Ronald Reagan was inaugurated. I went to the music room to watch the swearing in during recess, but recess had ended and the ceremony hadn't. I figured the teacher would come and get me, but she didn't. When thirty minutes had passed I realized that I was going to be in pretty big trouble. The teacher did feign some sort of anger toward me when I returned to class, but later she took me aside and asked me about the event. Looking back, I think she was pretty impressed that this normally behaved student would play hooky to watch American history.

I was a freshman in High School when he told Walter Mondale during the debate that he wasn't going to exploit his opponent's youth and inexperience. Our school was mostly Republican, but I remember a Democrat trying to make the best of Reagan's landslide re-election. He said that at least they picked up some seats in Congress. I was a junior in High school heading to lunch when news spread about the Challenger explosion. It seemed impossible. But Reagan's speech about slipping the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God and I was deeply moved even as a self-centered teenager.

I was in college when he went to Berlin and demanded the Russians tear down the wall and make people free. By then I had left the high schools that shared my thoughts and joined the quirky academics that would criticize his policies and manner. I didn't know that the elite element in the country looked down upon him until then. They loved the Iran-Contra affair. Our Western civilization class would become a discussion about the awful things that Reagan was doing in Central America. When I spoke up that he was fighting communism the TA pointed to a guy from Nicaragua. The Nicaraguan had nothing nice to say. Reagan was subverting the people's will because he was in the pocket of greedy businessmen.

"How could making a people free be a negative?" I asked.

"Because," he said, "The people are poor and they need the communists in order to eat."

Reagan's tenacity resulted in free elections in that country and the people who needed the communists so bad ran them out on a rail. They weren't ready to trade their freedom for bread. It's not a subject the left likes bringing up much. They will still talk about Iran-Contra, but you never hear them acknowledge that Reagan was really helping those people make their own choices.

It was Ronald Reagan that made me appreciate Rush Limbaugh. When I first heard Rush, I was surprised at how politically Incorrect he was. I had spent the last 3 years being shamed by college professors. Rush was very entertaining, but when I heard him speak about Reagan for the first time I realized that other people still felt the way I did.

I went to the Reagan library in 2002 by myself on a Sunday. It was pretty quiet and I was able to wander around and see things uninterrupted. The museum does a good job of reminding you of his life and especially his presidency. They show video from the assassination attempt and the budget victory after his recovery. Tip O'Neill calls him after the vote and says something like I just want to congratulate you, Mr. President. You beat us old buddy and you beat us good. There's a replica of the oval office with the Original Reagan oval office furniture including some interesting Remington statues. Another room has his cabinet meeting table. There's a great section about the cold war and the arms agreements he made with Gorby.

This week brought much of that back to me. I was surprised at how many of his critics spoke so well of him. On Sunday's This Week show, Sam Donaldson said that he didn't agree with those who thought Reagan lied about the Iran Contra scandal. This was from the man who asked the President if he thought that scandal would taint his presidency. Sam was the loudest voice in those Reagan press conferences. He even wrote a book called "hold on Mr. President." Sunday, Sam showed nothing but true affection for the man.

The funeral at the National Cathedral was a great example of politics yesterday and today. Bill Clinton was upset that he wasn't asked to speak and then he and Hillary fought sleep during the service. Margaret Thatcher was told by her doctors not to travel or speak and yet she was wide awake at the early service and made the long journey to California for the dusk burial.

George Bush the elder was maybe the most surprising. He gave an impromptu press conference shortly after the death announcement last Saturday. He seemed very composed. His speech at the funeral was much different. Bob Dole is known for breaking down at any mention of sentiment, but I was not prepared for Bush's cracking voice as he said Ronald Reagan taught him more than anyone in public life. These political foes that became allies always showed the united front, but Bush wanted a kinder gentler nation which many took to be a criticism of Reagan. His speech yesterday was Bush telling us that he had joined the club.

My southern mother was for Carter in 1980. She said Reagan was a war monger. Dad was a business owner and liked Reagan's economic policies. Neither ever voted because the one time that Dad registered he got jury duty and had to sit around a court room when he had a business to run. Four years later mom admitted that she was wrong about Reagan and she joined the crowd in the tradition of many southern Democrats then and now.

My father is not very political. He doesn't pay much attention to politics. I remember in 1992 when Reagan was introduced at the Republican convention. He got a bigger and longer applause than anyone before or after. Dad simply said, "Americans love Reagan." That expressed it better than anyone has all week.

After Oliver North testified before Congress an older man (probably a veteran) who worked at McDonald’s put a “Col. North for President” bumper sticker on his car. I asked dad if he thought Oliver North would make a good president. Dad had already expressed that he liked North’s tenacity facing Congress. “No,” dad said. “He isn’t smart enough.”

“But so many people think that Reagan isn’t smart enough.” I said.

“He’s smart in a way they don’t understand. He turned the economy around and he made other countries respect us.”

National and world events helped to show Reagan’s greatness, but there was something else that made him important to me. He was like a grandfather to the country. He had wisdom that could be expressed in levity or gravitas. He made me feel safe and proud to be an American. It was like my parents were working and I was going to school and grandfather was running the country.

I don't expect that another President in my lifetime will ever mean as much to me as Ronald Reagan. I was spoiled growing up and thinking that his skills and optimism to be expected. I was 11 when he was elected and 19 when he left office. Those were formidable years and he’ll forever be an influence in my life.

RONALD REAGAN RIP

I was too young to remember Watergate and old enough to know that Jimmy Carter wasn’t cutting it. Reagan made being president look easy. And the presidents since have shown us how hard a job it really is.

He was an optimist in pessimistic times. He could demand that Gorby tear down that wall and joke after being shot. His tax reductions in the early 1980s were that basis for the great economic times we’ve had ever since. His critics called him simple-minded and out of touch with reality. So he made his own reality and then remade the world.

He pulled the conservatives out of the ashes of the Goldwater campaign of 1964 and set the stage for the Republican Congressional victory in 1994. Like Democrats in the shadow of JFK or FDR, Republicans are forever in the shadow of him.

REAGAN THE CONSERVATIVE
PATTI DAVIS:
George Will
Reagan's D-Day Speech
The Queen and Thatcher
Thatcher in 1988
Peggy Noonan
Reagan Vigils
Washington Post
FOX NEWS SHORT TAKES
THE SPEECH (AKA the Goldwater Boost Speech he gave in 1964 that became legend among Reaganites --rendezvous with destiny)
When Buckley met Reagan
Buckley Today
Tom Wolfe in 1988
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Dinesh D'Souza v. E.J. Dionne (1997)
Bob Novak
Michelle Malkin
Rush Limbaugh
Andrew Sullivan

D-DAY AND TODAY

Paul Johnson writes an interesting piece about the D-Day planning and concludes that the Britain and the U.S. didn't consider everything when going into Iraq.

Unlike Montgomery in 1944, who never underestimated the German genius for counterattack, and made provision against it, the allies this time did not study and prepare for the peculiar Arab genius for counterattack, which is to carry out prolonged and vicious guerilla warfare, completely disregarding human life, including their own. Moreover they did not study and prepare for the difficulties of meeting this form of counterattack against the political background of a free society at home, reacting nightly to what it sees on TV, and reading highly critical reports from the front written by journalists who have their own opinions and agendas and feel under no obligation to pursue the war (and peace) aims of the allied commanders. Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair are currently suffering from their lack of provision and foresight.

In the old days wars were judged by history. These days the wars are judged daily by journalists.

GREYHOUND BEATS HORSE IN RACE

If Bucky were only alive to see it.

A greyhound called Simply Fabulous was celebrating with his favourite meal of bangers and mash last night after pulling off one of the most unlikely upsets in racing history.

Early betting placed Tiny Tim, a six-year-old gelding ridden by Fergus Sweeney, a clear favourite to win the 5.45pm race over two furlongs (400 metres) despite only winning one of its last 33 races.

But the dog made the most of its light frame and rapid acceleration to take an early lead and never looked back. It crossed the finish in 23.29 seconds - more than a second faster and around 25 dog lengths clear of its equine challenger - and promptly lunged at the mock "hare" fitted to the trackside for the event.

CREW: KERRY CAN'T

Stop using our faces in your campaign material, eleven Swift Boat veterans have told Sen. John F. Kerry. The veterans are all from the unit in which Sen. John Kerry served.

"The signers of today's letter object to the use of their photographs in conjunction with the Kerry campaign because they believe that not only is Kerry unfit to serve as the commander-in-chief of the United States, but by using their images, the campaign suggests that these men endorse the senator," said a press release issued by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Of the 20 officers shown in the photograph, only two openly support Senator Kerry, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said. Eleven of the officers in the photo oppose Kerry's bid for the presidency, four wish to remain uninvolved and two are deceased, the press release added.

In an open letter on its website, the group tells Sen. Kerry, "It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us). Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war."

The letter also complains that Kerry now seeks to cover himself "in the very medals you disdainfully threw away in the early years of your political career."

Kerry wants to embrace his youthful folly and still convince America that he can lead the American military that he blasted for political gain. That's a tough job that maybe only Clinton could pull off.

IN OTHER NEWS: Kerry Honored by Vietnamese Communists