On Yom Kippur we fervently pray for a favorable judgment, while we affirm that from dust we arise and to dust we return. We are nothing, but what we do in between, within and among ourselves.

In between, we are creatures with free will. Regardless of the ultimately unknowable by man of whether that personal free will serves G-d’s greater plan, it is knowable whether it serves G-d’s greater purpose: To build by our actions a better world by building better personal relations based on mutual respect, providing for the truly unfortunate, transmitting that purpose to our children, and creating and defending the security of self and civil society that makes such purposes possible.

It’s ironic, but perfectly clear, that as we individually move ourselves closer to personal harmony with this purpose, as we rise in nearness to it, in accomplishing worthy goals, our humility grows at the increasing knowledge of how little we’ve attained relative to the magnitude of the purpose, in effect recognizing we are nothing, our mortal remains returning to dust. However, as dust accumulates it forms greater mass, and if our individual specks of life accumulate for greater, lasting good, we’ve accomplished our privilege in living and choosing. What we leave behind defines the worth of our in-between.

Whether it’s platitudes about caring that are devoid of self-sacrifice or effort, or more directly venal and selfish self-serving with no care for the harms, others’ welfare or the furthering of a more civil world, or simply being unconcerned or ignoring threats to our and others’ survival or to elemental human rights, it’s clear to all but the self-blinded whether we’re working earnestly and honestly for the better purpose.

As we ponder, discuss, debate specific programs or policies in the public arena, it seems to me – at the very least -- we should first filter ourselves and what we hear through this overriding judgment.

The Wall Street Journal editorial that Winfield posted below, shows how partisan operators can put their political spin on a generic intelligence report for political motives. Since certain cherrypicked portions of the classified NIE report were leaked and have become public, concluding that the invasion of Iraq has radicalized the Islamic world and succeeded in producing more terrorists as of Sept. 11, 2001, the debate over the war has intensified. The New York Times, Democrats and vested political interests are leading the charge accusing the Bush administration of executing a reckless invasion that is now a lost cause. As a result of this sudden rise of an apparent political smokescreen before the midterm elections, even some conservatives seem to be in a Kerryesque “flip-flop” mode on this issue.

Several retired officers who recently served in Iraq testified that Rumsfeld bungled the war, lies were fed to the public to gain support for the war, and we should have kept our focus on Afghanistan. Major General John Batiste testified in front of the panel sponsored by Democrats that had we not lost our focus to Iraq, we wouldn’t have fueled global Islamic fundamentalism and created more enemies. Colonel Thomas X. Hammes testified about the moral failure not to provide the best equipment for our troops. At the same time Senate Republicans circulated a statement by four retired generals that said, "(W)e do not believe that it is appropriate for active duty, or retired, senior military officers to publicly criticize U.S. civilian leadership during war."

I don’t blame anyone for a crisis of confusion in this “fog of war” including myself. I am a fan of Michael Savage’s brutally honest style of talk radio. The other day his discourse reverted to the classic argument that the invasion of Iraq was conducted for the purpose of benefiting Halliburton and enriching the coffers of the corrupt military-industrial complex. We should have stayed on mission in Afghanistan and used our skills in negotiation for a strategic alliance with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to act as a buffer for the real enemy, Iran, he argued. I think these arguments are spurious, being that corruption reigns throughout our government, not only in the defense sector. Since the New York State government Medicaid program has stolen $18 billion annually form the taxpayers in corruption and fraud, as I reported a few days ago, does it figure that we should stop funding the health care of our elderly and the uninsured? Additionally, if we focused exclusively on Afghanistan, how could Iraq, already playing host to al Queda in Iraq and the Mujahadeen refugees from the war in Afgahnistan, become an effective buffer?

In personal email correspondences from Bruce Kesler, he quoted some recent remarks from Secretary of State Rice. She valiantly went on the offensive stating in response to allegations that the war has fueled terrorist recruiting:

When are we going to stop blaming ourselves for the rise of terrorism?...Now that we're fighting back, of course they are fighting back, too...I find it just extraordinary that the argument is, all right, so they're using the fact they're being challenged in the Middle East and challenged in Iraq to recruit, therefore you've made the war on terrorism worse...It's as if we were in a good place on Sept. 11. Clearly, we weren't.

She insisted that we stay in Iraq until we finish the job. For her, victory means to “wipe out” the root cause of violent extremism that is festering in the schools, curricula and propaganda throughout the Arab world affecting brainwashing of the masses to the extremist ideology. This is the overall objective of the Bush administration if we're not forced by partisan politics to "cut and run."

But what inspired me the most was a short but moving speech, Time to Step Forward, delivered to Tufts Republicans at Tufts University. Robert Stacy McCain, a journalist from Massachusetts recounted episodes from the American Revolution where the patriots were losing an increasingly hopeless war. George Washington was the unpopular commander of the starving, sick, demoralized New England regiment which was falling apart, with all the signs pointing to looming defeat by the British army. As the soldier’s tours of duty came to an end, no one wanted to re-enlist. They just wanted to pack it up and go home. Then Washington said with his last gasp for hope:

You have done all I asked you to do, and more than can be reasonably expected, but your country is at stake…If you will consent to stay only one month longer, you will render that service to the cause of liberty, and to your country, which you can probably never do under any other circumstance.

To win the war of ideas that is central to this debate we need to put partisan politics aside and refresh ourselves with the spirit of the American Revolution and our founding fathers who fought the battle of ideas before winning the revolutionary war against the British Empire.

Virginia’s Augusta Free Press has my latest column, “Virginia, On My Mind,” about the Allen-Webb race focus on alleged decades old slurs. The column is below.

Today’s Washington Post editorial treats the slur allegations seriously, but ends on a similar note to mine: “We hope the present discussion won't drown out a broader debate about what each candidate would seek to accomplish as a senator.”

Virginia, on my mind

Guest View

Bruce Kesler

The Augusta Free Press


Even though I'm across the country, in San Diego, the Senate race in Virginia has been on my mind. I'm disappointed that the news of the race has been about which candidate allegedly spoke which slurs decades ago, rather than discussion of the literally life and death issues at stake in whether and how to successfully complete stabilizing a less threatening key MidEast player, Iraq.

Both candidates seem to have lost sight of this issue. Perhaps it's the dynamic of their supporters and opponents having at each other. But, either candidate can and should disown such distracters, and neither has. So, it seems more likely that both candidates don't see much to gain from engaging much on Iraq, as most minds are settled, and vote-affecting events there are really entirely out of their hands.

So, since the candidates have, in effect, chosen to engage on the field of slurs, either directly or through their surrogates, that is what we're left with to judge them by. Although one or the other may be more correct or less egregious in their campaign's behavior, the point here is not to judge which but rather to say that neither has risen to the challenge of stature one would hope for from a candidate.

By the content and tenor of their campaigns so far, both have exhibited a disregard for another key issue that concerns Americans of good faith: How do we reduce the divides among us, to be a more civil and unified citizenry, decent, considerate and purposeful, to accomplish needed chores at home and defense abroad?

For disclosure, I'm ordinarily a Republican, and am friends with George Allen's Internet coordinator. Allen's strong record of sound stewardship and accomplishment led me to expect more of his campaign. I think he's simply been caught short by the vituperative path taken by Jim Webb's campaign, largely based upon the efforts of Leftist Internet insurgents, as witnessed by Allen only recently appointing an Internet coordinator. Nonetheless, to redeem himself, Allen must take strong charge in demanding of his and his opponent's campaign a higher standard of debate of issues.

For disclosure, as a Vietnam Marine, one who has often said I'd follow any Marine officer anywhere, and who developed deep respect for Webb's outspoken, ornery iconoclasm, I expected a clear integrity in debating issues. Instead, I think, Webb has been caught up in the web of his supporters' radical angriness, tearing down opponents at any cost, and is tossing away his well-earned reputation, because of his ambition. Webb does not have a record of responsible governance and statesmanship, like Allen's. To redeem himself and demonstrate he's up to the requirements of office as a United States senator, Webb must disown the radicals in his entourage and demand of himself issue-oriented seriousness.

At least, that's the way it looks to me from across the country, Virginia on my mind.


Bruce Kesler is a regular contributor to The Augusta Free Press. The views expressed by op-ed writers do not necessarily reflect those of management of The Augusta Free Press.

What do you think? Share your thoughts on this story at letters@augustafreepress.com.

(Published 09-29-06)

I'll add to Mitchell's commentary about the Times with an editorial from yesterday's Wall Street Journal. It utterly destroys the underhanded attempt by the Times, in this past Sunday's edition, to purposefully misinterpret the NIE's April 2006 report on the war. The Times claimed that the NIE proved that the Iraq war effort had not only done nothing to defeat terrorism, but has in fact made it worse.

The Bush Administration, of course, released a portion of the report, and it is unrecognizable as the document upon which the Times based its report. It was a wise move by the White House, as it removed the Times's principal weapon--unidentified sources who claimed to be familiar with the NIE's findings. And it's another excellent example of why this White House should declassify more documents, since only by doing so can they undermine the underminers.

From yesterday's WSJ:

National Intelligence Estimates are bland documents that represent the lowest-common-denominator judgment of more than a dozen intelligence agencies. We doubt they're very useful for policy makers, and they certainly aren't suitable for use as political cudgels in a national election.

But we now know that's exactly what a few leaking spooks, the New York Times and credulous Democrats just tried to do. Sunday's Times led with a story sourced to anonymous "intelligence officials" and headlined "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat." Democratic critics of the Iraq war promptly seized on the report. But now that President Bush has declassified the "Key Findings" of the April 2006 NIE on "Trends in Global Terrorism," we know this scoop was largely political spin. A more accurate headline would have been: "Spy Agencies Say Abandoning Iraq Would Worsen Terror Threat."

True, the NIE says post-Saddam Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for jihadists. But that's merely stating the obvious. Any U.S. intervention in the Mideast was going to provoke an extremist response. The more important statement in that same bullet point is: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

In other words, it's abandoning Iraq that would be the huge mistake -- while success would be a major antiterror victory. This is a blunt rebuke of Democratic Representative Jack Murtha and his House allies, who want to replace U.S. troops in Iraq with an "over-the-horizon" force -- in Okinawa, as he once put it.

And what about the larger Democratic theme that the war in Iraq has been a "distraction" from the fight against al Qaeda? In its very first sentence, the NIE says "United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al Qaeda and disrupted its operations." It also suggests dwelling on the failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden is a mistake: "Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders."

More broadly, the NIE seems to endorse addressing the root causes of terrorism through democracy promotion: "If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process."

And: "Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al Qaeda, could erode support for the jihadists."

This is hardly earth-shattering stuff, we grant. But it sure sounds more like an affirmation of the Bush Administration's general approach to the war on terror than what the Times described when it quoted an unnamed "intelligence official" that "the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse."

But then anyone who understood the process of producing NIEs would never have made such a big deal about the document. President Bush could do himself, and the country, a favor if he reacted to this latest attempt to politicize NIEs by asking our spy agencies to stop producing them. Their focus should be more and better intelligence. They should leave the policy judgments to elected officials -- and the voters.

The Monica Lewinsky service to Bill Clinton was marked up to immaturity, vanity and self-serving by both, compounded by denial, in an act lacking respect for basic standards of behavior. That description, and the lack of respect for basic standards, applies to the conduct of our major media in its drive to win the 2006 elections for the Democrats.

As in the lead-up to the 2004 elections, selective leaks, selectively presented, are trumpeted by leading media organizations that seek to reinforce Democrat charges of incompetence and failure in policies to undermine the Bush administration and Republicans. Elemental research is not performed, as repeatedly evidenced by the almost immediate factual fisking performed by bloggers. Even when facts are presented refuting the charges, they are ignored, spun, or relegated to passing reference late in the paragraphs.

This isn’t a calibrated, coordinated conspiracy. It doesn’t need to be. The common worldview and politics of MSM journalists creates the receptive sucking up to Democrat memes and failure to observe basic standards of research that results in deficient journalism. Every study of political leanings among MSM journalists demonstrates an overwhelming Democrat orientation, ranging from 7-1 to a retiring star self-described liberal Washington Post political reporter’s estimate of 25-1.

Couple this predilection, an unprofessional failure to use the Internet on their desk to research their stories, and an abysmal ignorance of the elemental basics of American history or civics found by a University of Connecticut/ISI sample of 14,000 students at 50 colleges, and you have a picture of an immature, partially-educated Lewinsky MSM media absorbed in its own self-importance, behaving with a sense of impunity to being astray, and Democrat leaders eager and focused on using their services to spread their seed.

In 2004, the election was saved by a thin margin from such “October Surprises” due to the emergence of bloggers and alternative media exposing such MSM Lewinskyism. This year, the Bush administration is bolder and faster in exposing such MSM twisting of truth. Bloggers must man their computers vigilantly to do so also, and deliver a “November Surprise” to MSM servicing of Democrat leaders.

UPDATE: A reader just alerted me to Lorie Byrd’s more genteel op-ed in today’s Examiner on this subject, “Hard to sort out the truth in mainstream media.”

As a teenager expressing his or her independence is welcomed, even though often shrouded in surliness, the latest poll of Iraqis’ desires for independence from any external presence in their affairs should be welcomed.

The Washington Post reported on several polls of Iraqis. The headline, “Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show” and most of the article focus on this part of the polling. Although the poll by World Public Opinion devotes most of its content on other matters, and the WP article spends a few paragraphs on these, Judith Klinghoffer’s blog post focuses on this other side of the poll story, “Poll: Al Qaeda Lost Hearts And Minds In Iraq.”

In short, most Iraqis polled favor a withdrawal of US forces within a year, but most Iraqis also oppose Al Qaeda, support their central government, oppose sectarian militias, have faith in Iraqi security forces, and do not favor dissolution into Shia, Sunni and Kurd states.

One can fault the World Public Opinion poll for its questions or methodology. The choice of questions is fairly leading. For example, only the possibility of a US desire to establish permanent bases is polled, and suspicion of that then posited as reason for opposition to the US presence. The poll does not present other possible reasons for support or opposition to the US presence, like security or reconstruction. Further, there’s no statistical reliability claimed, except that the polling firms tried to be random. Statistical reliability, of course, is probably too much to expect in a war zone or in a country without reliable recent demographic census data. But, to simply accept a poll as valid, on its face, in these circumstances makes as much sense as believing whatever is in a newspaper just because it’s in print.

Nonetheless, the poll results are reasonably reasonable. Most Iraqis want peace and security, and want everyone, whether internal or external forces, to get out of their faces and to feel safe.

Responsible scholars of governing class as absurd that national leadership should just be poll driven. Public opinion is largely driven by events and leadership, as seen in the sharp decline in the poll since last January’s polling of Sunni opposition to the central government. Leaders recognize there’s still much to do, and very likely at least several more years hard effort, to make current progress a reasonable chance of lasting.

Still, the immediate strategic objectives of the US going into Iraq have been accomplished, the elimination of the plans and capabilities to manufacture WMD’s or to interfere in the affairs of neighboring countries, and the elimination of a bloody dictatorship. The larger, and obviously far more difficult objective of developing a more civil society is well launched, as this poll indicates, by the Iraqis’ support of their more democratic central government, lack of support for external or internal troublemakers and murderers, and increasing confidence in the Iraqi security forces.

This is the environment in which local stringers operate, local stringers whom are the primary reporters used by the Western media, local stringers whose reporting must pass such hostile to the West muster before becoming our guidance, endorsed by Western editors whose own slanted politics are served while safely removed from realities on the ground.

Bashir Goth is a well-known MidEast journalist, whom the Washington Post’s David Ignatius asked to comment about, “How free are journalists in your country? Even where there isn't outright censorship, how much self-censorship goes on? How can journalists work together to protect each other and our common goal of open communications?”

The answer “Community Censorship Plagues the House of Islam,” is both eloquent and heartbreaking, at least for anyone who expects soon to find a strong “moderate” leadership or street in the MidEast, or reliable reporting from the MSM about the struggles in Iraq.

The entire piece is a gotta read.

In case you don’t have time or interest, here’s a telling quote:

Freedom of the press in the Muslim world cannot be separated from freedom of expression in general. Journalists, due to their conspicuous public role, risk their lives everyday. They have been targeted and killed in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Somalia, Sudan and other countries. The Muslim world is not a friendly place for freedom of speech at all.

In the state where the debt grew from $27 billion in 1995 to $49 billion today, and the day of default on state debt obligations is fast approaching, the issue that resonates the most with voters is the fraud and corruption in Albany and the non-democratic nature of the legislative process. Stu Mirsky is one candidate for New York State Assembly I’ve seen, who is capitalizing on the public outrage to do something to reform New York’s legislative process, the most dysfunctional in the nation according to the July 2004 report of the Brennan Center of NYU. In an earlier entry, Mitchell Langbert wrote about Stu Mirsky’s Assembly campaign, where he discusses the consequences of the failed liberal model of big government as the panacea for social ills, in which the 75 year exodus of businesses and working people from New York State has continued unabated.

According to the Brennan report, New York’s defective legislative process thwarts accountability and invites corruption by excluding lawmakers from the very process for which they were voted into public office! The heart of this disgrace lies in a dysfunctional committee system that has become the status quo, leaving lawmakers ineffectual with no clout. “They vote on bills that they have had no opportunity to read let alone study,” and are thereby accountable not to the voters they serve but to the special interests and big public labor unions.

In the education sector, I’ve been well aware of the monopoly of the powerful teacher’s and faculty unions on the state legislative process since I’ve been involved with higher education reform issues. Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and the State Assemblymembers obediently “rubber stamp” the agenda of the massive coalition of NYSUT (NY State United Teachers), UFT (United Federation of Teachers), PSC (CUNY Faculty Union), NEA/NY (National Education Association of NY), UUP (United University Professions), that have consistently misappropriated funds to issue anti-war resolutions, anti-military recruitment resolutions, and to send the rank and file to peace rallies and protests against the RNC. When the Academic Bill of Rights (A10098) was introduced as a bill in both the State Senate and Assembly earlier this year, NYSUT’s highly paid lobbyists went to work to kill the bill, while ensuring that incompetent faculty who use their classrooms to promote political agendas, and discriminate against students who have differing political views, continue unchecked, making over $100,000 per year for 12 hour or less workweeks.

Since no one in minding the store, this systemic failure has allowed the state debt to balloon out of control and the public sector labor unions and government programs to steal billions annually from the state taxpayers to use for their pet political agendas and to line the pockets of their own benefactors and pensioners.

This status quo has allowed the healthcare workers union and public sector unions to mushroom into omnipotent behemoths that have gotten away with rampant waste, fraud and political abuse scot-free. Recently involved in a $1 billion scandal, SEIU 1199, United Healthcare Workers, which has grown to become largest union local in the world, has also proudly trumpeted a political agenda as the first union in the nation to oppose the war in Iraq. According to Harry Lewis, a Mirsky research adviser, who recently reported the scandal on Urban Elephants, the $1 billion proceeds from the conversion of non-profit Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield to a for-profit company which was originally earmarked for charitable causes to increase access to health care for the uninsured, instead was diverted into the coffers of Dennis Rivera, the president of SEIU 1199. When the infamous “three men in a room,” Pataki, Bruno and Silver, secretly negotiated the deal with Rivera, the proposed legislation was unquestioningly voted into law, without a single legislator knowing what hit them. The malfunctioning committee process allowed them to summarily legalize the greed, corruption and grand larceny of the Albany triumvirate with Attorney General Spitzer turning a blind eye in complicity. This windfall enabled the SEIU 1199 to mount its massive anti-Bush campaigns giving paid leave to union members to actively campaign against Bush in 2004.

The Center for Individual Freedom reports on the new federal disclosure rules opening the books to witness the fraud of big labor unions misappropriating funds for left-wing political causes. The report reveals “unions such as the AFL-CIO and National Education Association (NEA) spent 60% or more of their discretionary dollars on partisan political activities in 2004 – 2005.” In one year, according to the disclosure, the SEIU spent $0 on “representational activities,” i.e. representing workers on the job and $27 million on “political activities and lobbying.” Workers should know that they have the legal right to demand the return of the 60% or more of their union dues that paid for partisan political campaigns or any uses other than representational activities.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Since no one is watching the books up in Albany, the state Medicaid program has been defrauding the public out of as much as $18 billion per year. According to a New York Times report, the Medicaid program created to provide health care for the state’s millions of poor people, has grown into a massive unchecked state bureaucracy that “has been misspending billions of dollars annually because of fraud, waste and profiteering.” The lack of effective legislative policing has allowed excessively greedy operators to get away with setting up lucrative scams and becoming millionaires on the backs of the taxpayers until the Times reported the malfeasance. Aside from the crooks unlucky enough to get caught, such as the nursing home operator who billed the state for a $1.5 million salary, the dentist who claimed up to 1000 procedures in a day, and ambulette drivers charging $200 million for rides overcharged or never given, the corruption continues unabated, as reported in January of this year in the New York Post, due to the dysfunctional state government that prohibits legislators from monitoring the untouchable Medicaid program. Again the triumvirate and Attorney General Spitzer continue to look the other way.

That is why I am devoting some time on my weekends campaigning for Mirsky. I am taking it to the streets where I’m finding a receptive audience in the collective public outcry for reform in Albany. Almost everyone I’ve spoken to wants to see new blood in the state legislature. I’ve also been talking up the candidacy of John Faso for Governor and John Spencer for Senate, two other strong voices for reform. Faso is running against Spitzer, our Attorney General who other than harassing New York businesses and Wall Street, has been sleeping on the job. Spencer is running against Senator Clinton, for whom New York is a one way ticket to the White House.

The hysterical editorial in the San Diego Union-Tribune this morning is typical of the half-truths and deceptive practices within the MSM that has brought it so low in respect for its reliability and, consequently, its profitability and viability.

Titled “A Soviet secrets act,” as purposely inflammatory a headline as the editorialist can imagine, the editorial rails against the Senate Bill 3774 that (the editorial only mentions Senator Bond) Senators Chris Bond, Lott, Chambliss, Stevens, Cochran, Burns, Hatch, Santorum, Cornyn, Domenici, Bennett and Alexander introduced last summer, with the endorsement of the 4,500-member current and former Association for Intelligence Officers.

For fairness, more than the editorial considers appropriate, the entire editorial is below. Then we’ll add what the editorial doesn’t consider relevant for the public to know. That epitomizes the abuse of position and public trust and ears that the MSM has fallen to, in effect, demands for official irresponsibility both on the part of government officials to whom we entrust our very lives and on the part of leaders in media who expect it’s their right to ignore that trust.

These are not good days to be whistle-blowers or investigative reporters. Between the federal government's relentless push to put more of its activities under wraps and the increasing readiness of prosecutors at all levels to try to force journalists to give up their sources, the whole notion of a watchdog media sometimes seems under siege.
If that seems a tad melodramatic, consider Senate Bill 3774. Sponsored by Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., the bill is a de facto Official Secrets Act, under which for the first time the disclosure of any classified information would be a criminal act. Contrary to the contentions of the measure's loudest supporters, there are already laws to punish those whose disclosures harm national security. Also contrary to their contentions, there are hundreds of examples of government scandal, waste and perfidy that only came to light because of whistle-blowers' courage and reporters' digging.
This is not to belittle the concerns of those who worry that at a time of war, the media are insufficiently worried about national security. Yet those who voice their fear often seem inclined to give undue deference to politicians whose opposition to disclosure may be driven by less-worthy concerns. It is hardly outrageous, for example, to wonder whether the secrecy surrounding domestic electronic eavesdropping was more about delaying the inevitable legal challenges to its legitimacy than any other factor.
The Supreme Court may yet declare such eavesdropping to be illegal. Yet Bond and his allies would have us live in a country where the disclosure of government lawbreaking is itself against the law.
This is outrageous. We are not the Soviet Union. We are not Saudi Arabia. We hope this occurs to a majority of senators before they embrace Bond's atrocity of a bill.

I wrote at length on this subject last June, before the reintroduction of this Bill. Please refer to it for links about what is summarized below.

This Bill has a history that is not told us by the editorial. As Senator Bond makes clear in his August 2, 2006 Statement introducing the Bill, it is the “legislation that was passed by the Intelligence Committee in 2000. It had been adopted by unanimous vote, but it was vetoed at the time.”

In other words, prior to 9/11, prior to the Democrats shamelessly exploiting or manufacturing any charge against the prosecution of the war in Iraq for the political purpose of bringing down Bush and reimplanting their own boot on Congress and the presidency, the U.S. Congress in November 2000 passed this Bill, only to have then President Clinton veto it the following month in one of his last official acts, after intense lobbying by the major media organizations.

The new Bush administration’s conciliatory stance toward the media, in the wake of 9/11, was reflected in then Attorney General John Ashcroft’s concurrence with the veto in October 2002. Ashcroft, recognizing that prior efforts to enforce security leaks had been slight, encouraged government agencies to increase their security safeguards.

That conciliatory stance has not been reciprocated, either by the major media or the Democrat Party or its allies within government bureaucracies, especially some within the CIA. Instead, leak after leak of national security secrets have been vaingloriously trumpeted, and selectively exposed for maximum damage, by the major media, without regard either for the stakes of a nation at war.

In August, the 1917 Espionage Act was upheld by the U.S. District Court in Virginia, saying: “[E]ven private citizens who do not hold security clearances can be prosecuted for unauthorized receipt and disclosure of classified information.” That’s the reasonable judgment the editorial hopes for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn.

Every body examining the wiretapping program exposed by the media has found it legitimate and lawful, most recently the Europeans (although the NYT's seeks to obscure that). More importantly, the program has proven itself essential to the war against our enemies. Yet, the editorial blithely misinforms and slanders the program and its supporters by accusing its secrecy as being solely for the purpose of hiding lawbreaking, ignoring the rest of the truth.

As the Associated Press report on the Bill states:

Government workers, contractors or anyone who has signed a nondisclosure agreement with the federal government could be prosecuted under Bond’s bill if they “knowingly and willfully” disclose classified information to someone who is not authorized to receive it.

So, what part of responsibility for adhering to one’s written agreement in order to be on the public’s payroll doesn’t the media, this editorialist, understand? There are within government inspector generals and within the Justice Department enforcers of law and within Congress legislators all authorized to investigate and disclose and correct infractions by government agencies, to whom whistle blowers may turn. No one deputized the New York Times or Washington Post, for example, with this legal responsibility. Nor do they have the necessary background, nor the necessary impartial integrity, to investigate and reveal wrongdoing.

Instead the editorial and major media expect, misuse their platform, to endorse what should be called official irresponsibility acts, on their part and by those in whom we’ve legitimately entrusted our nation’s safety. The extremist partisanship of this posture is deserving of the scorn the MSM has so widely earned.

As the Association for Intelligence Officers wrote in support of the Bill:

...a crisis now exists. With no serious punishments nor enforcement of penalties, we lack any meaningful impediment to this growing willful harm to the national interest. As a result, the leaks grow -- essentially sabotaging our own intelligence and military operations and causing the deaths of our troops and intelligence operatives. Our allies, understandably, are losing trust that we can engage in mutual operations and hesitate to share crucial intelligence and battlefield information with us.

I'll take their knowledgeable word for that, particularly over that of an obviously ignorant and self-centered and deceptive editorialist.

Every year I start the High Holidays in bewilderment. My question is always the same: Will I have a breakthrough? Will I “get it,” delve inside myself deeply enough to know my failings that I’ve overlooked? Will I find a way to better my acts in the coming year?

Through the days of prayer and reflection, I keep returning to these questions. I am always anguished at my inabilities to see. I stand and cover my eyes, and beg myself to see what must be before me. I get mentally frantic at times. I lose hope. I pray for hope for myself. I ask G-d to help me to find the strength within myself to open my eyes.

Somehow, every year I experience a miracle. Just before the end of Yom Kippur services, a revelation – as clear and succinct as can be – enters my consciousness. It’s different every year. It’s never what I thought it would be as I searched.

It carries me through the coming year, and as I wander I’m thankful for the light provided by this insight. I’m convinced that I wouldn’t make it through the year without that light of understanding, and obedience to that commitment to better acts.

As we enter Rosh Hashanah, I wish to all to find their light for the coming year.

May you be inscribed in the Book of Life.

That's the title of my latest column in the Washington Examiner. Why, I ask, has most of the American Church hierarchy failed to support Benedict in the fallout of his comments on Islam at the University of Regensburg?

Because they're afraid of losing stature in the elite social and intellectual circles in which they move, I argue. In Europe, their counterparts could sincerely claim that the possibility of violence might cause them to parse their words--not that they should do that even then.

But here, cultural and intellectual nihilism have created an atmosphere in which frank talk about Islam (and a host of other topics) is forbidden.

Here's hoping that these clerics prove me wrong, and soon.

Update: Others treating this topic today include Jonah Goldberg, also in the Examiner, and Reuel Gerecht, who has a superb piece in the WSJ.

George Will's column on Ayaan Hirsi Ali echoes some points I made two weeks ago in the Examiner.

A 501(c)(4) called VetsVote is the latest metamorphosis of a Dean-Kos attempt to create a pretense of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans opposing Republicans, a la Kerry’s 2004 campaign, that depends for its respect on simply being veterans regardless of facts.

Now, this Democrat front group has surfaced with a manifestly untrue and disreputable hit ad against George Allen in Virginia, and is intending the same hit ads against other Republicans. If one searches the IRS filings for this 501(c)(4), one will surely find the usual suspects.

James Webb, Allen’s Democrat opponent for U.S. Senator, earned respect for his Vietnam Marine service, war novel, and as Secretary of the Navy. He’s quickly losing it by his association with the extreme Left of his Democrat Party and their grossness and gross irresponsibility. Webb must quickly, clearly and emphatically denounce such scurrilous backers, or lose what respect he’s earned in the past.

I’ve written about this Dean-Kos effort before (see links below).

FactCheck.Org just issued a report on VetsVote’s completely erroneous and scurrilous attack ad in Virginia against George Allen, “False Claims About Body Armor.”

One might expect veterans to know better, but apparently they can’t even cheap shoot straight.

The ad is shocking and visually powerful. It shows Pete Granato, an Army reservist who served in Iraq, firing several rounds from an AK-47 assault rifle into a pair of mannequins at a distance of about 50 feet. Granato then rips open the vests to show bullet holes in the abdomen of the figure wearing what he described as a "vest left over from the Vietnam War," but none in the dummy protected by what he refers to as "modern body armor, made for today's weapons."

Granato says of the newer armor, "Senator George Allen voted against giving our troops this. Now it's time for us to vote against him."
That's false. Allen did not vote against giving troops modern body armor….

More importantly, there was already money for buying body armor. As we explain in more detail later in this article, the Pentagon was already in the process of vastly increasing its orders for the latest-model armored vests, and the shortages that plagued some units in Iraq for the first few months of the war were due not to a lack of money, but to the inability of Pentagon contractors to manufacture the vests fast enough to meet the sudden spike in demand, and problems getting the gear shipped to the troops. A report issued in April 2005 said:
GAO: Temporary shortages of the Interceptor body armor occurred because of acquisition delays related to lack of key materials and distribution problems in theater.

… The ad also exaggerates the body-armor problem by falsely claiming that troops were sent to Iraq using vests " left over from the Vietnam War." What the ad actually shows, however, is not a Vietnam-era vest at all but an improved vest the Pentagon adopted in the 1980's, and which was standard issue until the current "Interceptor" armor began to be phased in starting in 1999….

This ad is just one of many to raise this bogus issue in the 2006 House and Senate elections. We found seven ads, by candidates from both parties and from outside groups such as MoveOn.org, that mention body armor. These ads either fault an opponent for not giving our troops adequate body armor, or highlight a candidate's own support for funding for body armor.

For example, MoveOn.org has used it against six Republican incumbents, claiming they were indifferent to overcharges by Pentagon contractors "at a time when soldiers didn't have enough body armor." And Republican challenger John Raese has claimed that "Robert Byrd voted against a bill that would have provided money for body armor," sending to our troops a message "that we don't care."

But our research leads us to conclude that all these ads are off base. For one thing, all troops in Iraq (and all Pentagon civilians, for that matter) have had the bullet-stopping Interceptor body armor since January 2004. But more importantly, the shortages that existed for the first eight or nine months of the Iraq conflict weren't the fault of Congress. Furthermore, we see nothing Congress could have done that would have ended the shortage sooner.

The Democrats' '06 replay of veterans gambit

Dems Cynical Veterans Politics 2006

“Band of Brothers” Redux

Democrats’ 2006 National Security Strategy

Dem Vets Get No Respect

What would happen if the world’s experts and those with personal knowledge of something newsworthy gathered together online to provide the depth journalism so often lacking in major media? Jay Rosen’s post announces the $100,000 seed funding from Reuters of NetAssignment.Net, “where people collaborate peer-to-peer in the production of editorial goods.”

The idea is to draw “smart crowds”—groups of people configured to share intelligence—into collaboration at NewAssignment.Net and get stories done that way that aren’t getting done now. By pooling their intelligence and dividing up the work, a network of volunteer users can find things out that the larger public needs to know. I think that’s most likely to happen in collaboration with editors and reporters who are paid to meet deadines, and to set a consistent standard. Which is the “pro-am” part.

I propose the first project to be the detailing of the backgrounds of the thousands of stringers employed by the major media around the world. There are, at least, three fundamental questions to be answered: Is the world’s media being manipulated, by whom, and how much?

The latest case is of the Associated Press’ photographer in Iraq, whose product is either characterized as propaganda photos or behind the lines photos, and who was caught with an Al-Quaeda leader in an apartment with bomb-making materials and traces of explosives on his clothes. (See here for the AP’s take, and here, here, and here for its fisking.)

This is not a new issue. Pham Xuan An died at 79 yesterday. He was the prized stringer during the Vietnam war of Western news services, who turned out to be a Viet Cong officer.

The major news wire services, newspapers and TV have not been forthcoming about the details of who the stringers are that they hire, how they’re vetted, or the verification of their reporting. If the media wants us to trust them and their word on the issues of – literally -- life and death for Americans and other nations’ peoples, aren’t we entitled to know whose word we’re supposed to trust?

I must have been dreaming. How preposterous to suggest that Muslims denounce the firebombing of churches and killing of nuns instead of protesting against criticism and reasonable debate? What was I smoking when I wrote in my blog, Stand With Pope Benedict XVI that moderate Muslims protest against the intolerant ideologues among their brethren? How could I suggest that they be reasonable enough to stand up for the Pope’s fundamental right to express thoughtful criticism in a free society? I was swiftly brought to my senses when I saw the political cartoon Critical Mass, which depicted Jihad being declared on poor “Phil” for suggesting that “Muslims should protest against terrorism, not criticism.” Reason, civility, dignity, tolerance – Bah! Humbug!

Actually, the artist and writer, Allen Forkum, of Cox and Forkum Editorial Cartoons, mentioned to me that there was no intentional reference in the cartoon to my blog, and that this was a case of very bizarre coincidence. He did post an excerpt from my piece after the fact, to allude to the real McCoy.

However, a hopeful sign was found on the Cox and Forkum entry for September 17th. Emilio Karim Dabul came out from behind closed doors to write One Arabs Apology, and offers eloquent insight into the nature of his own culture and calls on all Arab-Americans and Arabs around the world to protest Islamic fascism.

Well, I'm sick of saying the truth only in private - that Arabs around the world, including Arab-Americans like myself, need to start holding our own culture accountable for the insane, violent actions that our extremists have perpetrated on the world at large.

Yes, our extremists and our culture.

Every single 9/11 hijacker was Arab and a Muslim. The apologists (including President Bush) tried to reassure us that 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam, but was a twisting of a great and noble religion. With all due respect, read the Koran, Mr. President. There's enough there for someone of extreme tendencies to find their way to a global jihad.

The men who killed 3,000 of our citizens on 9/11 in all likelihood died saying prayers to Allah, and that by itself is one of the most horrific things to me about that day….

For as long as I live, the image of those towers falling, as I watched in horror and disbelief from the corner of 40th and Fifth, will be for me my Pearl Harbor, for in that instant I recognized that not only was our city under attack - so was our freedom.

It still is. And will continue to be for years to come. And the threat is not from within, but from Islamic fascists who desperately want to destroy the freedom and opportunities that millions the world over still seek.

Five years after that awful day, it's time for all Arab-Americans, and Arabs around the world, to protest against Islamic fascism, to raise our voices - and, where necessary, our arms - against these tyrants until their plague of terror has been driven from the face of the earth forever.

Like almost all Americans, I’m no expert on the Sudan. In recent weeks, I’ve tried to come up to speed, with little authoritative results. Like many of the world’s trouble spots, there’s overlays from centuries of history and politics guaranteed to confuse anyone without a current agenda’s filter.

One doesn’t need to be an “expert” on all the ins and outs of Sudanese history or politics to apply the most important filter. There can simply be no tolerance for genocide. And, anyone or state that seeks to explain away or excuse genocide under any guise is expressly complicit.

The Chicago Tribune’s wrap-up (free registration) describes how President Bush – almost alone among world leaders -- has kept his eye on this central issue, although more need be done.

Bush said he would call for world action on Darfur during a three-day trip to New York for the opening of the General Assembly's annual session, where he plans to meet with Annan and several heads of state, including Chirac.

Last week, Bush expressed frustration that the world body hadn't taken a firmer stance toward Sudan.

"I have said, and this government has said, there's genocide taking place in the Sudan," Bush said during a White House Rose Garden news conference. "The problem is that the United Nations hasn't acted."

The conflict in Darfur, an arid region in western Sudan with an estimated population of about 6 million, has pitted black African rebel groups against the mainly Arab central government and a government-backed militia called the janjaweed.

Fighting has escalated in recent weeks in northern Darfur, with government planes bombing rebels and civilians.

Estimates of the death toll have varied widely because the government has restricted access to the region.

In a new study in the journal Science, two researchers say the conflict probably resulted in as many as 255,000 deaths as of last September.

With the passage of another year, and counting 60,000 more who are listed as missing and presumed dead, the Darfur death count probably is nearing 400,000, according to John Hagan, a Northwestern University sociologist and co-author of the study, "Death in Darfur."

Violence is responsible for about a third of the deaths, said Hagan, who worked with University of Wisconsin demographer Alberto Palloni. The remainder was caused by disease and malnutrition among the uprooted population of black Africans, many of whom have fled to neighboring Chad.

Up to 3 million residents of the region have become refugees, Hagan estimates.

"It's important to have a sense of scale," Hagan said. "It's important to have a distinction between tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands if you're going to get people thinking about this as genocide and pursuing this as a case of genocide."

Human-rights activists have applauded the Bush administration for taking the lead in trying to arouse an international response to the Darfur crisis, but they say the White House could do more, such as appointing a special envoy to focus on the issue. Former Sen. George Mitchell worked toward peace in Northern Ireland, and former Sen. John Danforth crafted a peace agreement between the northern and southern Sudanese factions to end a bloody civil war.

Other steps that the U.S. or the UN could take to put pressure on the Sudanese government include implementing a no-fly zone over Darfur, freezing the assets of Sudanese leaders and imposing travel bans on them.

But ultimately the key to ending the conflict lies in persuading Khartoum to accept the peacekeeping force. And that means enlisting the support of China, Sudan's largest oil customer.

"There has yet to be a genuine international effort to cajole, entice, pressure Sudan to accept a peacekeeping force," said Lee Feinstein of the Council on Foreign Relations.

"If China were to say, `You've got to do this,' they would begin to think twice about resisting."

President Bush has indicated he’s tiring of obstruction and obfuscation by other nations.

”What you’ll hear is, well, the government of Sudan must invite the United Nations in for us to act,” Bush said [last Friday]. “Well, there are other alternatives, like passing a U.N. resolution saying we’re coming in with a U.N. force in order to save lives.”

President Bush emphasized his frustration:

But Bush, bringing up the subject as an example of general frustration with the world body, appeared angry that “the United Nations hasn’t acted” on Darfur and wants to see a “more robust effort. His comments suggested the possibility of a new, tougher resolution that would explicitly bypass approval from the Sudanese government….”Now is the time for the U.N. to act.”

CNS reports the 118 nations of the Nonaligned Movement (NAM) meeting last week, supposed to represent the views of developing states, of which African ones certainly lead the list, devoted just 8-lines to Darfur in their 40,000-word final declaration:

Despite the international focus of attention on the humanitarian crisis in western Sudan – Sunday was a global day of action for Darfur – just eight lines of the declaration dealt with the conflict there.

They made no reference to U.N. attempts to send peacekeepers to Darfur – a move Khartoum is resisting – but expressed support for Sudan’s “efforts to sustain and reinforce peace.”…

By contrast, the document gave six pages to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and another two pages to the recent Israel-Hizballah conflict and Israel’s presence on the “occupied Syrian Golan.”…

Suggestions include allowing two-thirds of the [U.N.] General Assembly to override a [U.N. Security Council] veto decision. NAM’s members account for 60 percent of the U.N.’s 192 member states.

Perhaps, Bush’s insistence and a modicum of embarrassment at the moral emptiness at the U.N.’s core has led Secretary-General Kofi Annan, recently returned from the NAM meeting in Havana, to urge “the body’s recently formed Human Rights Council to focus on Sudan’s Darfur region with the same intensity it has been giving the Middle East.” Annan emphasized the “importance of universality, objectivity and non-selectivity and of eliminating double standards and politicization.” Annan’s words are welcome, but appear forked as one considers his record of just such swaying in the wind from NAM members.

The horror in Darfur is a mirror reflecting most countries’ ugly, inescapable demonstration of unconcern for outright mass slaughter, and instead focus on ways to further it for their own benefits and corrupt regimes’ entrenchment.

A lot of consideration is being given to Pope Benedict’s speech and its reverberations throughout the Muslim and Western worlds as his call for a dialogue of cultures is continued here on Democracy Project by Bruce Kesler and Mitchell Langbert. Langbert looks at the unfortunate conciliatory fallout from Europe, academia and the media, in using Israel and the war in Iraq as bargaining chips for the losing hands that the West seems to keep playing. This is a discussion that must go forward in secular, political as well as religious spheres. I tackle the discussion with a call to action from the religious sector.

Along with Roman Catholics throughout the free world, Jews, Protestants of all denominations, Evangelicals, Buddhists, Hindus, secularists, skeptics and atheists should all stand together with Pope Benedict and urge him not to keep apologizing for innocuous statements he made about faith and reason in a free society. Instead we of all faiths who are married to reason, instead of extremism, as he admonished, must join hands in saluting Pope Benedict as one of the great intellects and moral leaders of the free world following in the footsteps of Pope John Paul II who helped drive decisive nails into the coffin of communism.

In his noteworthy speech at the University of Regensburg in Germany on September 12, the Pope asserted that faith and reason must coexist as it does in Christianity which is based upon the heritage of Greek philosophy and, might I add, the Thomistic tradition. He correctly avows that violence is incompatible with the nature of God and quotes from a medieval source to point out that Islam cannot be considered reasonable if it resorts to such mandates to spread faith by the sword, as they appear in the Qur’an. Here, the Pope lectures on a portion of a medieval manuscript by Professor Khoury, which talks about a discussion between Byzantine Emperor Paleologus and an educated Persian:

In the seventh conversation [text unclear] edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion".

According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably ... is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..."

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident.

The Pope goes on to question Islamic teachings that maintain God’s will is absolute and not bound by conventional rationality. He calls for a modern day dialogue of cultures based on a rapprochement between reason and faith that is not blinded by either.

Instead, as the New York Post article, Muslim Outrage at Benedict Broadside reported on Saturday, the Muslim world has united in condemning the Pope, from Pakistan’s legislature, India’s media, to Lebanon’s top clerics, with the Turkish ruling Islamic-rooted party taking the offensive in accusing the Pope of initiating the opening salvos in the new Crusades. Even the Turkish secular opposition party joined the fray. Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of Turkish ruling party, issued statements condemning the Pope, but said nothing to condemn the Muslim rioters and firebombing attacks on churches in the West Bank and Gaza:

He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages...It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades...He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini.

But where is the Muslim outrage at the violence, the firebombing of churches, the cold-blooded murder of a Nun, the rampages in the name of Allah over the forthright words of the Pope? Where is the outrage at Iranian president Ahmadinejad’s statement to "wipe Israel off the map" or Nasrallah along with top clerics throughout the Middle East chanting the war cry "death to America?"

If so-called moderate Muslims living in America and the free world wish to appear as all good people of faith whose beliefs can civilly mesh with reason and moderation rather than violence and extremism, they must stand in solidarity with the Pope together with Jews and Christians, although they may dispute his statements. If they cannot mount a show of solidarity, strong enough to confront the radical instigators of Muslim wrath and vengeance toward those who express opinions which may not be to their liking, then theirs is not a faith but an ideology of hate and intolerance that must be condemned as an assault against American ideals and those of all free peoples. They must stand up and make that choice if they are to remain as participants in a civilization that protects the free speech and religious liberties of all.

I would propose that "moderate" Muslims, who are very adept at organizing anti-war rallies and lobbying their representatives for protection from profiling, organize a massive NION-style (Not In Our Name) public relations campaign to condemn the intolerant ideologues of Islam. Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, called for a "Million Man March" for black unity in 1995 which drew almost one million to the National Mall. Leaders of the Muslim world should once again call for such a show of unity and solidarity with the Pope and the free world.

The dialogue of religions is that of calling on scriptural sources to discern how to approach current concerns. Of course, in many cases, ancient scriptural writings are less than crystally clear in their modern application. Such discussions reach their height in Judaism’s Talmud tradition of “on the one hand, on the other hand” exploration of alternative paths of understanding, usually ending with a strong leaning toward practicality and future openness toward emergent unknowns. Papal pronouncements, by nature, are more authoritative and directed. Nonetheless, in either case of Western religious tradition, the result is similar, favoring a decency in our dealings toward each other, the core immutable teaching of Western religions that we deserve the consideration of being G-d’s creation and only thus can we approach G-d’s purpose.

The nature of political dialogue often, also, calls on revered sources of political philosophers. But, there being so many, none so hallowed as G-d’s word or the biblical prophets or disciples, and so much less in agreement with each other or universally revered, such political searches for the right way carry less weight with most, and are more subject to manipulation for more immediate temporal advantages than transcendent ones.

Historically, in the West, religious disagreements have degenerated into physical violence between opposing schools of thought. However, in recent centuries, political man ascendant over religious man, leaders have not relied upon scripture to brutalize each others’ peoples. Western religions’ teachings of decency have, in effect, been freed of its once overly intimate involvement in statecraft’s more immediate demands.

The Pope’s speech at the University of Regensburg, Germany, where he once taught (in full here, excerpted here) has raised the hackles of many Muslims for challenging in the Western religious tradition the continuation in Muslim leaders’ of historical language and behaviors that condone violence against those of different faiths, and of those in the West whose secularism for immediate political goals supercedes principle.

Instead, what the Pope clearly intended was to reassert the requirement of reasonable decency that the learnings, both scriptural and historical, upon which Western civilization rests in its prosperity and comparative peace among Western nations be embraced by Muslim leaders as well to similarly advance.

In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures.

Those who criticize the Pope demonstrate either an attachment to “we’ll kill you rather than dialogue peacefully,” or to civilizational irrelevancy for the West.

I know it’s unfair to compare the New York Times' news control management to China’s. China’s is far more profitable.

Nonetheless, the NYT’s editorial of September 13, also picked up by the NYT’s owned International Herald Tribune, concludes, without self-reflection, about China’s new added media rules that all foreign news must enter via the state-run Xinhua news agency monopoly:

What they do understand is how rich they've gotten since joining the World Trade Organization. These new rules appear, at a minimum, to violate their WTO pledges to liberalize access to financial information. Trade officials and foreign business leaders need to remind Beijing's leaders of those promises. And they need to warn them that a country that keeps a stranglehold on information is not a great place to invest.

The political risks to investment in corrupt regimes is great: The relative ease with which proprietary technology is bandited and property expropriated, and the resentments built among those in such countries who yearn for greater freedom and will one day come to greater power against such Western collaborationist profiteers. But, at least in the meanwhile, the rulers are lining their bank accounts, and some of the prosperity of foreign trade is seeping down to some among the population.

By contrast, neither the NYT’s owner-management nor its shareholders are profiting from the sharp decline in its stock price, reflecting its poor profits and future business prospects. Running further to a strident Left in its editorials, its news coverage similarly slanting, vital news ignored or partisanly presented, and national security concerns be damned in this determined blindness to responsibility, is a lemming-like leap into turning off customers and continuing decline. Neither China, nor the New York Times, is a great place to invest.

Last night’s Smith Family Foundation debate, “Responding to Anti-Americanism in the Arab World: Have we Been Effective Since 9/11?” betrayed a sense of moral clarity and candor for the sake of amicability. As is usually the case, panelists were from both sides of the political divide.

The first to speak was David Frum, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, former speechwriter for President Bush, and one of the ideological fathers of the unilateral approach to fighting the war on terror. He started with a brief anecdote characterizing the culture of the Arab world: An athletic Algerian bicycle rider training for the Olympics was riding on a country road, when a car struck him, ran over and shattered both his legs. Four passengers got out of the car, savagely beat on his legs, and shouted that there were no bicycles in Mohammed’s time. The injury left the prospective athlete disabled for life.

Frum warned that Arab cultural prestige along with the political extremism originating from within the Arab world is infiltrating and upstaging indigenous cultures and spreading deep into Europe as well. In fact, Turkey and neighboring countries are embracing more of the Arab vernacular, and as signs of the growing radicalism in Britain, 78% of the Muslim population believes there should be legal punishment for the desecration of the prophet Mohammed and 40% want sharia law introduced. Since the conflict between modernity and the culture of the Arab world finds its mode of expression in anger, violence, and terrorism, we needn’t embrace solipsistic perceptions, judging that everything revolves around America, either chauvinistically on the one hand, or in a guilt-ridden fashion claiming that every global problem is traceable to American causes.

Leon Hadar, a journalist and research fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, argued that the anger of the Arab world directed at America is a result of our foreign policy and the flawed democratization project in Iraq that has led to the radicalization of the Shia and Sunni factions as well as promoting the rise of Hezbollah terrorism. The final speaker was Craig Charney, Ph.D., president of Charney Research, a leading pollster of Islamic attitudes. He declared that it all comes down to how we perceive each other and that there is reason to be optimistic if we change our policies and narrow-minded views to reflect a more nuanced look at a diversified Arab world. For instance, much of the Arab world turned away in revulsion from the violence and extremism of the al Queda movement. Focus groups and polls found that Arabs don’t dislike Americans or our values, but “it’s the foreign policy, stupid” that they hate. The culprit is the perception that America aims to achieve hegemony over the region.

Disappointingly, the panelists never mentioned the word “enemy” nor did they entertain the notion that we were fighting a war against our civilization, and even Frum seemed too browbeaten to do so. So during the question and answer session, I brought this up. I asked the panelists to explain the reason for all this concern and anxiety over “why they hate us” when 10% of the global Muslim population is wedded to a radical ideology of hate. Don’t they hate us regardless of our foreign policy, even as it plays out in the Iraq War and our support for Israel? In fact, as recent history shows, doing nothing to retaliate for the USS Cole bombing and a halfhearted show of force in response to the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa has inflamed and radicalized the Arab world against the perceived spineless U.S. paper tiger, more than any subsequent aggressive Middle East foreign policy. So rather than obsessing over our foreign policy and how we’re perceived by the Arab world why don’t we do battle with this ideology of hate not only with guns, but right here in the free marketplace of ideas, as well?

I didn’t get much of an answer except that Charney asked where did I hear that statistic of 10%? But I received a big applause from the audience. Perhaps even in this relatively academic, cosmopolitan New York audience, many were rather frustrated that no one addressed the real issues of war and the battle of ideas with the enemies of America.

The statistic of a radicalized 10% segment of the Muslim world came from Dennis Prager, one of America's most respected radio talk show hosts. I quote from his article, Does Religion Make People Better or Worse?:

There are many millions of decent and kind Muslims in the world. But there are also at least a hundred million Muslims (i.e., 10 %) who support killing innocents in the name of Allah and Islam. And there are more than that who believe in the ideal of using force to spread Islam throughout the world.

Also a quick check into The Pew Global Attitudes Project public opinion surveys on this issue confirms that popular support for violent Islamic extremism runs between 13% to 57% in predominantly Muslim countries.

In fairness to Dr. Charney, I have offered him an opportunity to respond and answer my original question, and I will post his response if he chooses to do so.

John Bolton’s confirmation as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. is one of the most important signals the U.S. Congress can provide the world that our leaders actually, really care about American values compared to the delicacies of feigned outrage from tyrants.

Powerline blog outlines the stark difference between supporters and opponents of Bolton:

One of the most disgraceful acts by the Democrats during the past Congressional session was their filibuster--and coordinated slander--of John Bolton, President Bush's nominee as United Nations Ambassador. President Bush courageously gave Bolton a recess appointment, which will expire in January unless he is confirmed by the Senate.

There are two aspects of this issue. The first is narrow: Bolton is a superb public servant who has done a great job as U.N. Ambassador. He deserves confirmation, and denying him even the right to a vote is outrageous. The second is broader: President Bush wants our U.N. Ambassador to be a man who recognizes the shortcomings of that organization, which are immense, and demands reform. He wants our Ambassador to be a man who represents the United States, and vigorously defends our interests.

The Democrats don't. They want a U.N. Ambassador who won't stick up for America; who won't hold the U.N. to account; who won't try to defend American interests, but rather will exchange fine words with the rest of the U.N. crew while nothing is done to address the pressing international problems that we face. This is, in short, a microcosm of the difference between the two parties on foreign policy.

It’s not entirely Democrats barring the door to Bolton. Such effetes as renominated Republican Senator Chafee of Rhode Island are now standing in his way. The Party actively supported Chafee against his more conservative primary challenger, only to have Chafee blackjack Bolton. Chafee better repay his debt quickly, and reverse track.

Meanwhile, Powerline points out the citizens’ lobbying effort mounted by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to phone your Senators IMMEDIATELY to tell them you expect support of Bolton’s confirmation before they go home to campaign with platitudes about standing up for America by actually demonstrating they do.

The website set up by Senator Frist has the phone numbers for all the Senators, or just go the United States section of the Government pages in front of your White Pages phone directory. Phone now, please.

The behavior of most of the globe’s nations is discouraging of hopes and actions for increased security, prosperity, and freedom. That American politicians, mostly Democrat leaders, would focus on criticizing the administration and the U.S., and repeatedly propose that there’s a better way in leaning toward the U.N. or other states’ views or amorphous and manipulated international opinion not only encourages such anti-U.S. behavior but increases the tendency toward disengagement by many Americans.

The platitudes voiced by Democrat Party leaders are starkly contrasted this week against the worthless behavior of such international institutions. Whenever these puerile protestations are voiced during the Fall election campaigns, they should be firmly confronted.

Across the globe, international disorder appears more the agenda of our self-appointed “betters.”

118 of the 192 members of the United Nations are meeting in Havana. This Nonaligned Movement (NAM) started in the 1950’s as a “third way” between the West and Soviet Union – more often as a lever for aid from each -- then foundered on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as the roughly half of membership comprised of Muslim states took a side. In the post-Cold War world, its agenda has moved toward securing more aid, mostly to prop corrupt regimes, and coalescing to control the United Nations’ agenda to oppose the U.S. and the West. As the CNS report on the NAM’s 2,800-word document, entitled "Declaration on the Purposes, Principles and Role of the Non-Aligned Movement in the Present International Situation,"

Without naming the U.S., it makes numerous references to "unilateralism," "hegemony" and attempts to impose a "unipolar world."

Among the summit's purposes, it says, is "to condemn all manifestations of unilateralism and actions marked by attempts at hegemonic domination."

Principles guiding the NAM include "non-interference" in other states' affairs, "abstention from ... exerting pressure or coercion on other countries" and "abstention from resorting to the threat or use of force."

The document calls on NAM members to strengthen "multilateralism" and to work together at the U.N. and other international agencies on issues of priority to the movement.

These priorities, as listed, include "the rejection of unilateralism and the attempt to impose a unipolar world," "the condemnation and rejection of the imposition of coercive unilateral measures" and "the support of the Palestinian cause."

Apart from the statement on the "present international situation," NAM representatives also will adopt other statements, including a final summit declaration which - according to its draft - expresses support for Venezuela's populist left-wing president, Hugo Chavez, and concern about "aggressive" U.S. policies against his government.

The draft also says NAM members "totally reject the use of the term 'axis of evil' by a certain state to target other states under the pretext of combating terrorism."

Who are these pillars of international virtue in NAM?:

Among some 50 leaders attending the heads of state portion of the Havana summit will be some of the world's most controversial political figures, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuela's Chavez, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Sudan's Omar al-Bashir and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. North Korea will be represented by Kim Jong-il's deputy, Kim Yong-nam. Whether ailing Cuban President Fidel Castro will attend remains unclear.

The regimes they represent are not just hostile to the West, they also are among the nations most often censured by human rights organizations for abusing the rights of their citizens.

The AP’s review of the NAM Summit’s agenda focuses on the redefinition of “terrorism” it proposes.

The draft declaration condemns Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, with no balancing comments about Hezbollah’s missile attacks on Israel.

It also hails the Lebanese people’s “heroic resistance to the Israeli aggression” and demands that Israel compensate the Lebanese government and people for the deaths, injuries and destruction the war caused.

Even the usually morally uniopic Amnesty International demurs.

Lebanese guerrilla group Hizbollah committed war crimes in its conflict with Israel by targeting civilians with rockets packed with metal ball bearings, rights group Amnesty International said on Thursday.

It said around a quarter of the nearly 4,000 rockets that Hizbollah launched into Israel during the 34-day war were fired directly into urban areas.

"The scale of Hizbollah's attacks on Israeli cities, towns and villages, the indiscriminate nature of the weapons used and statements from the leadership confirming their intent to target civilians make it all too clear that Hizbollah violated the laws of war," Amnesty's Secretary-General Irene Khan said….

The Hizbollah rocket salvoes forced between 350,000 and a million northern Israelis to flee their homes, Amnesty said. The hundreds of thousands who remained behind spent much of the war in bomb shelters. A million Lebanese were also displaced.

The total damage to Israel from the rockets was $1.8 billion, a parliament panel found. The war damage to Lebanese buildings and infrastructure was estimated at $3.5 billion.

Amnesty said it had met Hizbollah members who argued their rocket attacks on northern Israel were a reprisal for Israeli attacks on civilians in Lebanon.

"This line is totally rejected by Amnesty International," Amnesty said.

The war was sparked by Hizbollah's seizure of two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12.

The 61st annual session of the United Nations General Assembly opened this week, the institution that once was intended as and represented the world’s hopes for peaceful reason, but now dominated by the NAM states. As longtime observer of the UN’s wayward path, Anne Bayefsky, wrote in the NY Sun:

Together, these nations represent the majority of the 132 developing states and the majority of 192 U.N. members. They are unified not by a desire to democratize, or even to develop, since many are quite content with kingdoms and with servitude in their own backyards. They are a team because they are adroit at U.N. politics, and they have learned that the cartel is good for business. This holds true particularly for the largest single bloc amongst them – the 56-member Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Ever wonder why you don’t hear the ambassadors of the NAM countries calling for a relocation of the UN to one of their countries? It would mean losing their luxury Manhattan apartments. Their free ride on the almost complete funding of the UN by the U.S. and a few other developed countries would come to a screeching halt. And, who would want thousands of double-parking, double-dealers in their capital?

Meanwhile, the Arab states at the core of the Islamic Conference expressed their compassion for the penurization of their fellow NAM members, as Reuters reported their primary concern is “Will oil’s drop rob producers of power?”

It’s not much better in Europe, as its NATO members recoil from providing adequate support for their mission in Afghanistan, supposed by critics of the U.S. in Iraq to be the “true” core of the war on terror.

Nato staff asked for extra troops in Afghanistan more than a year ago but the request has still not been granted, the alliance’s top commander in the country said on Monday.
Speaking to the Financial Times, Lieutenant General David Richards, the commander of Nato’s 20,000-strong force in Afghanistan, said Nato countries were asked 18 months ago for a reserve battalion of 1,000 soldiers.
His comments were made ahead of a crucial few days for Nato, in which the spotlight will be on member countries’ readiness to send reinforcements to hard-pressed British and Canadian soldiers in southern Afghanistan. Last week General James Jones, Nato’s supreme commander, revealed that he had sought but so far failed to obtain 2,500 extra troops, comprising the reserve battalion plus up to 1,500 air support staff.
Nato officials will meet on Wednesday in an attempt to secure enough pledges to fill the gap. But Gen Richards’s remark indicates the request was more long-standing than was previously thought.
“That reserve . . .  is nothing more than nations knew was the military advice that was required for 18 months now, endorsed by the Nato chain of command,” he said.
“That requirement has never been met by nations. The bit it lacked was a hard-hitting reserve of about 1,000 people that I can use wherever I need to use it throughout Afghanistan, although obviously its focus would be the south.”

The 25-nation European Union did have time for a summit in Helsinki with 13 Asian leaders at the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) that AFP reported resulted in more “lofty statements but few promises” on global warming, world trade and the battle against terrorism. The only firm promise was to enlarge the ASEM membership, likely for more opportunities to attend expense paid conferences.

The bulk of the funds used by the World Bank comes from the United States to fund development in poor countries. The New York Times reports the opposition from European members of the World Bank to Paul Wolfowitz’ efforts to eliminate widespread skimming and corruption of these funds by the recipients.

The criticism has been especially sharp among Europeans at the bank, where many officials say that judgments about what constitutes “good governance” could rupture the bank’s delicate relationships with aid recipients, especially if the judgments are based on information gathered from dissidents and other critics in those countries.
“We must not use corruption as an excuse for a massive withdrawal of our help,” a senior French finance official involved in discussions with the bank said. The official was among many who agreed to discuss the internal debate only on condition of anonymity.

In fact, as the NYT’s reports, Wolfowitz replies: “He notes, for example, that the bank’s lending under his leadership actually rose slightly last year, to nearly $23 billion.”

Transparency International’s president strongly supports the anti-corruption efforts:

“It sent a tremor through the bank that Wolfowitz was serious, that he was going to ask hard questions, look at the track record of countries and make some changes.”

The careerism of many World Bank employees takes precedence over anti-corruption efforts, however.

“Let’s face it, promotion at the World Bank comes from spending money,’’ said John Githongo, a onetime campaigner against corruption in Kenya who has fled to safety in Britain and is now an adviser to Mr. Wolfowitz. “If you’re in the field, and too many complaints about corruption interrupt the spending, it has an impact on your career trajectory.’’

As usual, one of the only voices of sanity this week came from Britain’s Tony Blair.

Tony Blair has decried European politicians for their anti-American "madness" in not supporting the war on terror, saying none of the problems facing the West "can be resolved or even contemplated without" the US.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister called on Nato members to pull their weight by sending more combat troops to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan….

In the document, entitled Global Alliance for Global Values, Mr Blair says: "The strain of anti-American feeling in parts of European politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in. The danger with America is not that they are too much involved. The danger is if they decide to disengage.

Like most, I’ve pondered what the 5th anniversary of 9/11 should mean.

As I went through my morning prayers, I reflected on the hope and joy of enjoying the new day’s opportunities for growth in good and oneness. As I woke my 6-year old son for school, and he shared his dreams of last night and expectations of today, I drifted back to 9/11 when he was but almost 17-months wandering around the living room with his fascinating toys, coming over to me to hug and kiss as I cried at the sight on the TV of the horrors unfolding.

9/11, beyond even our need to remember the outrage, beyond even our need to remember the centrality of democracy’s virtues and rewards to our daily life, and defend it, to me recalls the sacrifices and aspirations we have for our children to also grow up in and prosper spiritually and materially under democracy’s beneficence.

Our national conversation has degenerated into loud arguments over factoids from the past, hurled at each other for maximum harm and profit. Meanwhile, among ordinary folks and among commentators too often in private instead of public, there is a deeper reflection on the pains we’ve suffered and endured, and upon our hopes for peace that comes through understanding.

The most common thread I hear among honest people is their prayer for understanding, for leadership, almost like of the pulpit, to go forward with hearts open and unafraid yet confident in the shield of each others’ courage and sincerity, and proper common purpose of our politicians to stand up and defend our secure interests with compassion and firmness.

In the electoral days to come, in the years to come, those who so lead shall be remembered and rewarded. And, those who don’t, who cheapen and degrade and undermine our faith and core purposes in life -- for our children to be safe and flower – in order to pilfer petty and passing personal advantages, will pay dearly in the disrepute they will have earned.

Two of my favorite ladies make superb sense this morning about the 2006 elections.

Betsy Newmark reminds us that for most American non-news junkies the “election season has only just begun and so the political polls and news that we’ve been seeing all summer don’t mean as much as what will happen in the next two months as Americans once again begin to focus…”

Betsy Newmark concludes:

Now is the time that they start trying to make the connections between what the politicians are saying and whether or not such positions are more or less likely to keep America safe. They will start thinking about the Democratic slogan of a "new direction" and wonder if the Democratic policy recommendations are more or less likely to keep the economy growing.

It is not clear that the Republicans have the ability or the ideas to win that argument. But now is when people will be paying attention and now is the time to close the sale for each party. All the doom and gloom we've been hearing about how the Democrats are poised to take back the House is mostly based on generic poll numbers which are unreliable and anecdotal evidence. There has been little polling in individual House races. And polling done in such races in the summer is pretty worthless since most people have no idea even who the candidates are. Perhaps, the GOP House is headed for a catastrophe in November. I'm just not convinced that there is any real evidence for either side right now on which to base substantive predictions in House races.

Lorie Byrd believes, and I concur, that on balance at least enough marginal voters will reflect on the hollowness of the Democrats’ message.

Following September 11 there was an outpouring of unity from those in government. Even the most partisan of politicians realized we faced an enemy that required them to work with their political opponents to mount an effective fight. Many congressional Democrats, and other leaders in the Democratic party, have not only abandoned that commitment to unity, but have chosen to put short term political gain ahead of the long term goal of national security. Americans should be outraged by this….

Just a word of advice to those Democrats who choose to continue putting partisan politics over national security in their upcoming pre-election debate over the legislation, don’t be surprised when (either this November or in 2008) that strategy backfires with a big, loud “thwack” over the head.

I know dealing with the Democrats' extremist charge du jour is like playing the bop the mole game, and is often as frustrating as Caddie Shack. But, unless most voters are supporters of the mole, which I doubt seriously, despite the moles' annoyance they are not about to be allowed to run the golf course.

I cancelled my subscription to The New York Times years ago when the Sulzberger team, Thomas Friedman, Bill Keller, Gail Collins, Andrew Rosenthal and their minions invoked the moral equivalency argument to justify appeasing Israel’s enemies by giving away more and more land. I haven’t read a copy of the rag ever since. But yesterday, the August 25th headline of the editorial page, Wanted: Scarier Intelligence caught my eye, since it was sitting on the floor of the machine shop that I supervise, being utilized to catch metal chips:

The last thing this country needs as it heads into this election season is another attempt to push the intelligence agencies to hype their conclusions about the threat from a Middle Eastern state.

That’s what happened in 2002, when the administration engineered a deeply flawed document on Iraq that reshaped intelligence to fit President Bush’s policy. And history appeared to be repeating itself this week, when the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, released a garishly illustrated and luridly written document that is ostensibly dedicated to “helping the American people understand” that Iran’s fundamentalist regime and its nuclear ambitions pose a strategic threat to the United States.

It’s hard to imagine that Mr. Hoekstra believes there is someone left in this country who does not already know that. But the report obviously has different aims. It is partly a campaign document, a product of the Republican strategy of scaring Americans into allowing the G.O.P. to retain control of Congress this fall. It fits with the fearmongering we’ve heard lately....

The editorial presents a rehashed version of the innuendo that the Bush administration lied to get us into war in Iraq, for political gain. Now they claim the administration’s confrontational approach to Teheran is a ploy by Republican strategists to engineer a victory at the polls in November based on flawed intel.

It is hard to quantify the idiocy of editors who rely on journalists in the Jason Blair mold who fabricate stories from their Manhattan news desks while steaming Air America live. Stupidity is forgivable, but the arrogance that they claim to know something is downright dangerous.

What “deeply flawed document on Iraq that reshaped intelligence to fit President Bush’s policy” are they invoking? Could it be the long discredited 2002 Downing Street Memos, a second hand report based on rumors that someone named “C” heard the buzz on Capitol Hill that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy?” This memo was the key piece of incriminating evidence to impeach Bush, a campaign orchestrated by John Conyers, Jim McDermott and Air America’s goddess of daytime talk, Randi Rhodes in the basement halls of our Capitol Building in May 2005. I was following these events, although no one else seemed to be interested at the time except fringe Bush haters and New York Times, which was taking it seriously, since it has hence formed the foundation of their vitriolic worldview.

They end the editorial with the following advice to guard against the new “fearmongering”: “The nation cannot afford to pay the price again for politicians’ bending intelligence or bullying the intelligence agencies to suit their ideology.”

Rather the editors (and every one of us) should wake up, read and digest the President’s September 7th speech
and the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, which is not a campaign strategy for the November elections. It frankly spells out the reality of World War III and the threats against us exemplified by Hezbollah terrorist leader Nasrallah:

Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan [America] is absolute… Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September, Death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America.

No intelligence is as scary as the truth. Meantime, The New York Times is a fine rag for collecting metal chips on the machine shop floor.

David White, my former AEI colleague who's making a name for himself as a writer, has broken a story on Juan Cole's unsuccessful effort to land a chair at Duke. David shows that Cole's accusations that a "Neocon conspiracy" cost him a chair at Yale are false--after all, the Duke interview occurred out of public view and was, therefore, hardly subject to outside influence. Cole wants to be a rock star public intellectual, and he had the bad manners to inform his hosts at Duke just that.

Moreover, Cole's lecture at Duke left many scholars unimpressed. Malachi Hacohen, an associate professor of history, religion, and political science at Duke who attended the lecture, was frank in his criticism of Cole, as was Michael Munger, chair of Duke's political science department:

According to Hacohen, 'It was one of the worst job talks I have heard in my life,' '[it was] logically faulty,' and "the talk seemed as if it were directed more to CNN viewers than to an academic audience.' And Michael Munger, chair of Duke's department of political science, explained that Cole's lecture 'was just not at a level we were expecting…it was more like an undergraduate lecture.'

David earlier covered Cole's experience at Yale, which didn't turn out any better for Cole--but was certainly a boon to higher education in America.

Campus Watch, which I direct, sponsored both articles.

That's the title of my column in today's Washington Examiner. I look at the ability of Islamists in Europe to intimidate their opponents into silence--a frightening method by which they hope to gradually implement sharia (Islamic law). In the UK, Islamic MPs are making demands that, they warn darkly, are a means to prevent future terrorist acts. Give us what we demand, they say, and we won't kill you.

My next Examiner column, which will appear two weeks from today, will examine this phenomenon in America, where we have more than our share of spineless elites who're only too happy to cave in to the demands of radicals.

I was looking forward to introducing myself in my first blog entry after returning home from my family vacation in Portland Oregon. However I started this entry at the hotel's business center because of an urgent experience I wanted to relate while it was still fresh. The experience was one of profound stillness and clarity at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington Park that was abruptly shattered by a rowdy gang justifying their shameless disrespect with political correctness.

We who understand the ideals we are fighting for should never be ashamed to speak out to defend the honor of our brave young servicemen and women, who have given their lives so liberty will prevail over tyranny, regardless of what opinions we may have about our government’s wartime strategy.

We visited Washington Park, which I highly recommend to anyone vacationing in Oregon, including the International Rose Test Gardens, the newly completed Holocaust Memorial and above all, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

The Holocaust Memorial was a solemn sculptural tribute to the victims of Hitler’s genocide with the buried ashes of ancestors of local Oregonians gathered from concentration camps throughout Poland. Regrettably, for almost a decade some nearby wealthy homeowners mounted a legal battle to thwart the construction of this memorial project on the absurd grounds that its popularity would lead to excessive traffic. But due to a persistent coalition of local synagogues, churches, and foundations that fought in the media and the courts and together with the Mayor's support, on August 24, 2004 this fitting tribute to the victims was finally completed and dedicated to the solemn oath "Never Again."

Having recently completed Heil, Professor! a project documenting the covert academic root causes of the Holocaust and World War II, I am well aware of the need to be vigilant in order to prevent such atrocities from reoccurring. In fact, while researching this paper I was shocked to find the skeletal remains of Nazism still hiding in the closets of many of today’s celebrated academics and so-called scholars. Notably, just a month ago, Gunter Grass, a world-renowned intellectual and hero in academic circles revealed the Waffen SS skeletons hiding in his own closet. According to Daniel Johnson’s Open Letter to Gunter Grass in the New York Sun, Grass impassively revealed his tenure in Hitler’s uber-elite forces in order to drum up sales for his new autobiography, “Peeling the Onion”, whose first printing was sold out as a result. Since many of his contemporaries in the Waffen SS were found guilty of war crimes during the Nuremberg Trials and hanged, why shouldn’t Grass be similarly tried and punished?

My wife and I and continued down the well-manicured paths leading to the Vietnam Memorial which covers many acres of the lovely Hoyt Arboretum. A city ordinance was prominently displayed at the entrance prohibiting frivolity and disrespectful behavior in the memorial section of the park. As we stood at the foot of an expanding spiral path linking dozens of marble monuments dedicated to the valor of our fallen heroes, we experienced a deep feeling of reverence and awe.

Unexpectedly, half way up the path we noticed a group of rowdy young men and women carousing and shouting. Not wanting to provoke a confrontation, I tried to ignore the indiscretion, but their offensive behavior intensified. They even let their dog loose to wander around and urinate near the monuments. As we approached I politely asked them to lower their voices and have more respect since this is a memorial for our soldiers who sacrificed their lives. They laughed and one replied mockingly he already has friends memorialized here. I said that’s all the more reason to be respectful. Regardless of your opinion about the Vietnam War, you should honor the memories of our soldiers who fought there and gave their lives so you can have your fun and express your opinions without restraint. Another young man yelled out, “there are no natives here!” After giving him a bewildered look, he started spewing drivel about the white man defiling the land, invading, occupying it and driving the natives off.

I don’t know if they were college students or runaways, or if they were indoctrinated by the likes of such revisionist historians as professor Howard Zinn who wrote the biased academic textbook “Peoples History of the United States,” professor Marc Becker organizer