The flap over former Representative Foley is losing steam as we get back to focusing on more important issues at hand like a nuclear North Korea.

Looking back at it, there are two lenses through which to view Foley's actions.

1.  The Moral Absolute Lens:  What Foley did was inappropriate, abusive of a position of authority, and morally wrong.  For this, he has rightly lost his position.  IF indeed Republican leadership was aware of his lewd communications with pages for a period of time before he was removed, they should have acted sooner.  Still, the right thing has been done and little will be gained by arguing over whether it was done quickly enough to satisfy the Democrats in an election cycle.

2.  The Political Circus Lens:  Democrats are trying to make political hay over Foley and his text-message trysts with 16-19 year-old pages & former pages.  Where do I start?.  In broad terms, the Democratic Party is the one most likely to support eschewing Abstinence-only sex-ed in favor of a curriculum that encourages Junior High and High Schoolers' use of contraceptives.  This curriculum in our public schools for children as young as twelve.  Children who any self-respecting liberal will tell you are going to make their own choices, so you better teach them to "be safe" about it.

So while the Democrats by-and-large support teaching twelve year olds how to use condoms before they "make their own choices", they paint Foley as a "predator" for lewd text-messages to 16 year-olds?  Aren't these boys - by the Democrats' standards - old enough that they are making their own choices, and old enough to have been properly "educated" in the Planned Parenthood-sponsored curriculum?  Does it seem strange that liberals can hold, simultaneously, the belief that twelve year-olds are capable of making their own choices about sex, and that Foley's pages are "victims".  Come on guys, pick one view & stick with it consistently, regardless of circumstance.  Right is right, right?

Don't get me wrong, Foley's behavior is creepy in the extreme & I'm glad he's out of office.  I just have a hard time swallowing the manufactured Democratic outrage about it.  Didn't a certain Democratic President "not have sexual relations with that woman", a 22 year-old intern.  And wasn't that a "private matter" between "me and my God"?  But now, the same American public that shouldn't have had any issue with the President's tryst with a 22 year-old intern should be outraged over Foley?

Let me ask Democrats with children this question:  Would it matter whether your child, serving as a page/intern to an elected official, was 16 or 22 when they were approached sexually by their boss?  Both instances are predatory, improper, unethical and immoral.  Both instances merit the elected official's removal from office...unless they're a Democrat, then it's private.

I've puzzled over Senator McCain's position and reasoning for extending Geneva Convention protections to captured terrorist enemy-combatants.  He says, along with Colin Powell and others, that doing so will assure humane treatment of our own servicemen and women.

Will it?  As Senator McCain witnessed first-hand, the Geneva Conventions aren't even a guarantee of humane treatment when we are engaged in war with another Geneva Convention signatory.  Did Senator McCain receive appropriately humane treatment at the hands of North Vietnamese?  Not even close.

Why then should we expect that treating terrorists well would have any bearing whatsoever on how they treat our troops when captured?  Remember, they are non-uniformed combatants unafilliated with any recognized state who intentionally target civillians, and then hide amidst civillian populations (endangering them) to avoid reprisals by uniformed militaries.

Daniel Pearl, a non-military journalist was beheaded by none other than Khalid Sheik Mohammend, the 9/11 mastermind, and current Guantanamo Bay detainee.  Is it reasonable to expect that if only we treat Khalid with kid-gloves, he'll abstain from future beheadings after being freed by an ACLU defense attorney?

Senator McCain may well have additional reasons for his position.  If so, he owes his constituents, and our nation, a fully articulated argument for his position.  What he has offered so far is not convincing.

Thomas Edsal completed a 25 year carreer at the Washington Post, retiring this year as senior political correspondent.  His new book Building Red America is out, and he sat for refreshingly candid interview by Hugh Hewitt on September 22, 2006 (listen here or read transcript).

Briefly, Edsall confirmed what many centrists and conservatives have long suspected:  The mainstream media is dominated by a paucity of intellectual/ideological diversity.  He estimated that newsrooms' staffs are probably "15-25 to 1" liberal:conservative and that the strong majority of reporters vote Democrat.

Additionally, according to Thomas Edsall, MSM reporters are predominantly products of the Vietnam era and reflect the sentiments of that particular era of our national experience.  They tend to be 1) suspicious of the military, and 2) hostile to faith - his words were that there is a hostility to faith "among a segment of the left, and not insubstantial".

The interview was a breath of fresh air as the truth that many see was confirmed by a member of big media.

Reflecting on this interview, it strikes me that while lip-service is paid to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of a day when we will all be judged on our character, not skin-color, our left-leaning press is doing us a disservice.

The left has enshrined an ideal of diversity whose rule is:  Pack the newsroom, work-place, and school-yard with a heterogeneous mix of blacks, whites, latinos, asians, gays, straights, etc...but let there be only one basic ideology, that of the Left.

Isn't Dr. King's vision of diversity still the one worthy of striving for?  If you answer yes, then stocking the workplace with a diversity of appearances, adherents of various faiths, or sexual orientations without regard to character isn't the way to go.  Character counts, and a diversity of viewpoints is the kind that counts.

By Mr. Edsall's own account, the big newspapers & network news aren't giving us a diversity of character, of ideas, opinion, and vision.  In this they have failed the nation they claim to care about.

Changing this will be challenging.  It is as lopsided as it is because, by nature, pensive, ideological intellectuals prefer observing, writing, and fomenting social change through media.  More conservative types tend toward action, getting in the game instead of sitting in the bleachers talking about it.  The better pay for acting instead of talking also works as a disincentive to genuine diversity in the newsroom. 

As a nation, judging by the reactions to Hurricane Katrina, we are becoming more a nation of watcher and less one of doers.  There is a strong predeliction to take direction on the best candidate from a reporter who, it is assumed, is paying attention and is unbiased.  Time to get off our collective duffs.  The reporters, we learn again, are very biased.  If we want the whole story, we're going to have to work for it.  Isn't that true of anything worth having?

A must read by Thomas Sowell on the fifth anniversary of September 11^th, 2001.

Recently I watched a Jon Stewart /Christopher Hitchens discussion on The Daily Show.  One about whether or not the U.S. should have invaded Iraq (This post is not about that, but about something revealed during the discussion). 

Hitchens noted that on October 31, 1998, (the day Iraq ceased any and all cooperation with UNSCOM) President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act (passed 98-0 in the Senate), which declared that "[i]t should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Following-up, Hitchens noted that anyone who disagrees with our having invaded Iraq should have written their Senators and President Clinton in 1998 to voice their displeasure with that policy.

Stewart replied that (paraphrasing) "well, I think it was symbolic".

Translation:  It didn't mean anything, we were just talking, we didn't actually intend to DO anything.

Maybe this explains why so many of us in the U.S. have such a hard time understanding the current terrorist threat - a threat that has existed, and will exist, regardless of whether a Liberal Democrat, Conservative Republican, or Green Tree Frog next holds the Presidency.

What do I mean?  Well, for those who operate in a world where words don't hold definite meaning, it's difficult to grasp the deadly seriousness of an Islamofascist vow of "death to America".  When Osama bin-Laden speaks of fighting the "Great Satan" and swears not to stop unless and until the whole world is Muslim, he means it.  To our great danger, many in the U.S. cannot fathom that.  It's just talk, right?

Remember September 11,2001.  It's not symbolic, it's not just talk.  And just talk from us won't end it.

What are we using to combat terrorist attacks?  No reason at all.  Why do judges uphold dogmatic politically correct arguments de-fanging our government from performing its duty to protect the lives of citizens against foreign attack?  No reason at all.

Johan Goldberg wrote an article http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2006/08/16/screening_for_terrorists_as_nicely_as_possible on our collective refusal to use appropriate profiling techniques to foil airline bombers, and posed this question, "Why is it morally superior to inconvenience old Mormon women of Swedish descent - for no reason at all - as much as young men from Pakistan?"

It seems the answer is - some of us prefer the use of absolutely no reason at all in the pursuit of pure political correctness to actually saving lives.

To prevail against relentless, hate-driven Muslim jihadis, we are going to need to bring all our capacity to reason to bear.  We are going to need to accept the very un-"It's a Small World" idea that in our small world, the overwhelming majority of building & airline & ship & embassy bombers are Mulim males from central & south Asia, then make that reality a PART of our screening process.  Not the one, lone criteria, but part of a short list of things that tip us off that a person may want to take out a plane-load or stadim-full of innocent citizens.

We cannot afford to aimlessly wander through this conflict without thinking.  We must  use experience to inform the most effective way to apply limited monetary and human resources in our fight against those Muslims who wish us dead, for no good reason at all.

Arthur Herman wrote in the August 16, 2006 New York Post, "We have passed an awful milestone in our history," Winston Churchill said after the Munich agreement was signed. "Do not suppose this is  the end . . . This is only the first sip, the first foretaste, of a bitter cup that will be proffered to us year by year."

Despite the failure of appeasement, Churchill still believed the Western democracies would make the "supreme recovery" and take up the banner for freedom again. The United States and the forces of democracy will recover from this debacle - even with a Democratic Congress in 2006 and a Democratic president in 2008. The reason will not be because Bush's opponents have a better strategy, or a clearer vision, or even a Winston Churchill waiting in the wings. It will be because our enemies will give us no choice.

Less than a year after Munich, Nazi panzers rolled into Poland.   Instead of fighting a short, limited war over Czechoslovakia, the Western democracies ended up fighting a world war, the most destructive in history. The war with the mullahs of Iran is coming. It is only a question of whether it will be at a time or on a ground of our choosing, or theirs - and whether it is fought within the shadow of a mushroom cloud.

We are faced today with yet another example of the toothlessness, of the United Nations and its resolutions.  The ink is barely dry on U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 and it has been violated with no consequence to those doing the violating.

1701 called for a cease-fire conditional on the Lebanese army and UNIFIL (United Nations Intermim Force in Lebanon) entering the area of southern Lebanon between the Litani river and the Lebanon/Israel border AND disarming Hezbollah.  Within a day or two of this agreement, the Lebanese government publicly refused to disarm Hezbollah.  The U.N. is still passing the hat for countries to contribute sufficient resources to create an effective UNIFIL force.

The question raised by these events is:  Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative...how can any reasonable person take the U.N. seriously as a body with any ability to fairly and effectively handle international conflict?  We owe it to our own country to bear in mind the U.N.'s repeated passing of resolutions which are never enforced.  This behavior tells us clearly that we cannot - must not - allow the U.N. to dictate how we handle our national security and the war against Islamofascism.


NOTE: Arthur Herman is the author most recently of "To Rule The Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World." He is completing a book on Churchill and Gandhi.

 CNN spent considerable time and resources to do some Arab-street reporting. The story? Why "they" hate us. "They" being Muslim extremists. You know, the Muslim extremists who have a nasty new habit of being democratically elected to govern. Hamas is the legitimately elected government of the Palestinian Authority. Hezbollah holds cabinet positions in the Lebanese government - conveniently the Lebanese government has decided it will not disarm Hezbollah in direct contradiction of the U.N. cease-fire resolution.

CNN isn't the first to pose the question. What CNN could be the first to expose is: Why don't we at least have the guts to express a full-throated dislike of these animals who want us dead? Is it really so politically-incorrect to state that we, the U.S. and our allies, are disgusted with misogynistic, fundamentalist Muslim, mass-murdering madmen?

The answer is, judging by CNN's treatment, yes. Let's not focus on those responsible for September 11, 2001, for Theo Van Gogh, for Madrid's March 11, for the attempted blowing-up of multiple airliners on their way from London to the U.S.. Should I go on? I could. Do we need reminding? We act like it.  (For any who need more...the first two WTC bombings, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, the U.S.S. Cole, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya & Tanzania, the Achille Lauro, PanAm at Lockerbie, etc...)

Acknowledging that the preceeding list is only SOME highlights of the long list of murderous acts perpetrated by Muslim extremists. It is high time for CNN to look into the real mystery of this time in history. Why do we not hate those plotting incessantly to kill innocents?

Have we, collectively, passed the warm-fuzzy stage of belief in a world full of "equally valid" cultures and gone rocketing into a twilight zone of self-loathing where an underlying belief that we don't have right to peaceably coexist with those other cultures has taken root in our collective psyche?

The western media has rocketed into that twilight. Luckily, many Americans have not. Those are the Americans who keep baffling the likes of John Kerry, who could never quite fathom, "why am I losing to that *$#%!@^ IDIOT"? Senator Kerry, sir, I have an answer. The American people, 51% at least, aren't cool with laying down to be killed by guys who hope to compel us all to worship their version of Allah or lose our heads. We're not okay with women being wrapped up like spring rolls and denied education, basic civil rights, and subjected to honor killings. May that critical 51% keep showing up, keep standing up, and keep speaking up.

We don't have to hate them. We do have to understand that they have no right to kill because of their hate, no matter what they think. Let the New York Times print THAT headline.

The following is a summary of a piece posted on the Center for Individual Freedom's site.

When North Korea test-fired up to seven missiles including ones designed to reach the U.S.,an emergency U.N. Secrurity Council session was called.

The result?  Japan put forward a draft resolution proposing sanctions. In particular, Japan wanted a stop to any nations transferring funds or technology that furthers North Korea's nuclear and/or missile programs, which could be used to threaten Japan.  The Security Council rejected it.  The proposal wasn't punitive, but rather specifically targeted a certain military capability.

The Security Council ended up doing nothing, unless you consider issuing a statement effective at deterring a Stalinist/Asiatic Dynasty modeled ruler who considers himself a God of sorts.  Democracy's stand-by allies, China and Russia, who each have financial interests in supplying Kim Jong Il with all the missile technology he can buy were behind the lack of action.

On the same day North Korea fired its missiles (built with money that could have helped prevent at least some of the starvation that has gone on in that country) the "reformed" U.N. Human Rights Council met in Geneva. The progress in that body was another resolution condemning Israel.

"And the band played on..."

A good friend called this morning.  In the course of our catching-up he told me about his "Starbucks experience".

He went through the drive-through on his way to an appointment.  The girl handed him his order and told him it had been paid for by the car ahead of him.  She asked, "Would you like to pay for the person behind you"?.

Since he doesn't have rocks in his head, he said, "I guess it depends on what they've ordered"!  He went ahead and paid.  Then, being the curious consultant that he is, he went in and talked to the staff.

As it happened, he was the 50th vehicle in the chain, and it continued for some time after that.

The lesson is:  The girl at the window was the catalyst to tapping the reservoir of latent goodwill.  Had she not ASKED each person if they'd like to pass it on, the chain would have been much shorter - or not a chain at all.  My friend and the others were happy to keep it going, but it didn't occcur to him until prompted with the idea.

CNN reports that Felipe Calderon is Mexico's new president after winning "a razor-thin victory Thursday...after four days of uncertainty".

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, Calderon's "leftist rival" claimed that there were irregularities in the vote count and vowed to fight the results in court.

Lopez Obrador said, "We are going to the Federal Electoral Tribunal with the same demand -- that the votes be counted -- because we cannot accept these results."  Deja-vu isn't it?

CNN's story on the election went on to say that, "Calderon had strong support among business leaders and wealthier Mexicans. Lopez Obrador's base was among the country's poor."  So, in typical class-warfare thinking, we are painted a picture of the rich conservative fat-cat "stealing" yet another election from the smarter, better-hearted socialist.  Could it be Calderon had better ideas?  CNN's story doesn't give that impression.

Given Mexico's current state of affairs, Calderon's Harvard education in economics and preference for free market economics and free trade may be just what the doctor ordered.

Lopez Obrador favors more spending on social programs for the poor.  An admirable sentiment, and one he can achieve in partnership with the Catholic Church and/or an inter-denominational coalition.  Helping the poor is not an act that government has a monopoly on.  In point of fact, keeping government bureucrats out of the mix, and having it handled by clergy and lay people is an approach that has worked historically.

Nearly 85 percent of illegal immigrants coming to the U.S. are from Mexico.  Looking at France, then at the U.S., it seems a reasonable choice of the Mexican people to elect President Calderon.  We wish him the best in improving the lives of his countrymen.

 The New York Times leaking of classified information provides aid to our enemies, harms the public interest, and increases the likelihood of terrorists’ success in planning attacks against civilians, not just in the U.S., but around the world in that we have now lost a unique and crucial tool in fighting terrorism.

Some have linked to the "Fact Sheet on Terrorist Financing Executive Order" dated September 24, 2001 as evidence that the Times revealed nothing new.  That Executive Order describes that, IN GENERAL, we will be targeting financial networks which fund terrorist organizations & leaders.

The New York Times piece divulges specific tools used to that general end, including classified information.

The difference is (to paraphrase Hugh Hewitt) between a 16-year old lead-foot knowing that the police are enforcing speed limits and a Capital-Journal article revealing the specific locations of speed traps.

Was the Times publication treason?  Treason, as defined here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002381----000-.html is “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, …adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason”.

The NYT’s divulging of a classified program, and the specifics used to combat enemies of the citizens of the U.S., provided aid for sure, we can argue comfort.

As evidence that the Swift program was not general public knowledge, I quote directly form the NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?_r=2&oref=login&oref=slogin (emphases mine)…

“Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity BECAUSE THE PROGRAM REMAINS CLASSIFIED”

“While THE BANKING PROGRAM IS A CLOSELY HELD SECRET, administration officials have held CLASSIFIED BRIEFINGS FOR SOME MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE SEPT. 11 COMMISSION”

“Under a SECRET…program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks”

“In terrorism prosecutions, intelligence officials have been careful to "sanitize," or hide the origins of evidence collected through the program TO KEEP IT SECRET “

“The idea for the Swift program…grew out of a suggestion by a Wall Street executive, who told a senior Bush administration official about Swift's database. FEW government officials KNEW much ABOUT THE CONSORTIUM, … but they quickly discovered it offered UNPARALLELED ACCESS to international transactions.”

“Viewed … AS A VITAL TOOL, the program has played a HIDDEN role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.”

“Officials described the Swift program as the biggest and most far-reaching of several SECRET efforts to trace terrorist financing”

“Administration officials… asked The New York Times not to publish this article, saying that disclosure of the Swift program could jeopardize its effectiveness”

TIMES’ DEFENSE OF PUBISHING DUE TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST…
“Bill Keller of the NYT justifies the publication saying, “We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."

So, Mr. Keller knew that publicly elected officials & the 9/11 commission were aware of the program via CLASSIFIED BRIEFINGS. They are elected to represent us, and if they deemed the program legal, and worthy of remaining classified, what special knowledge to the contrary does Mr. Keller & the NYT have that it should be published in a large (but shrinking) newspaper?

Further to the point that the public interest has been considered by democratically elected officials (as opposed to Mr. Keller)...
“Officials realized the potential for abuse, and narrowed the program's targets and put in more safeguards. Among them were the auditing firm, an electronic record of every search and a requirement that analysts involved in the operation document the intelligence that justified each data search. Mr. Levey said the program was used only to examine records of individuals or entities, not for broader data searches."

Levey described the program as legal and appropriate in discussing it with the Times AFTER they notified him they were running the story.

ARGUMENT FOR IT’S SIGNIFICANCE IN COMBATING TERRORISM…
“Dana Perino, deputy White House press secretary, said: “One of the most important tools in the fight against terror is our ability to choke off funds for the terrorists….We know the terrorists pay attention to our strategy to fight them, and now have another piece of the puzzle of how we are fighting them. We also know they adapt their methods, which increases the challenge to our intelligence and law enforcement officials."

“Swift is a CRUCIAL gatekeeper, providing electronic instructions on how to transfer money among 7,800 financial institutions worldwide.

“The program…"has provided us with a UNIQUE and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks and is, without doubt, a legal and proper use of our authorities," Stuart Levey, an under secretary at the Treasury Department, said in an interview on Thursday. “

“Swift data has provided clues to money trails and ties between possible terrorists and groups financing them”

“Among the successes was the capture of al Qaeda operative, Riduan Isamuddin… believed to be the mastermind of the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort”

“In the United States, the program has provided financial data in investigations into possible domestic terrorist cells”

“The data also helped identify a Brooklyn man who was convicted on terrorism-related charges last year”.

All these quotes from directly from the original NYT article on the Swift program.  For a group that lives in the very city where the worst terrorist strike in history took place, these guys are completely clueless and thoroughly dangerous.  This leak is orders of magnitude worse than the alleged leak of Valerie Plame's position.

North Korea has 3-5 more short and/or medium-range missiles it may be preparing to test fire.  This after showing the world with their first 7 missile tests on Wednesday, July 4th that they suffer from ballistic ED, for which no Viagra analog exists.

Maybe these additional threatened launches are a sad attempt to save face.

On a more serious note, this strenghthens the U.S.-Japan missile shield partnership.  If North Korea continues on this course, and China & Russia keep looking the other way, we may end up with Japan and South Korea considering missiles of their own and strengthening their militaries.

The silver lining could be counterbalance to China's growing ambitions in the Pacific.