Monthly Archives: June 2005

Disgraced former Vice President Spiro Agnew is widely credited with originating (in 1970) the phrase, “I am not questioning his patriotism, I’m questioning his judgment.” Variations of this bromide have been used by hundreds of politicians ever since. Apparently, questioning someone’s patriotism, like calling another politician a liar, is to be avoided at all costs. Yet, with the device of this rather transparent circumlocution, the question is raised nonetheless, with a full measure of necessary gentility.

This sort of verbal cosmetics was essentially unknown in American politics until the 1920 elections, when campaigners did not want to offend the supposedly tender sensibilities of all those new women voters. And, by 1928, when broadcast media was to play an ever-increasing role in politics, we had truly entered the gelded age, so to speak.

As to the matter of Senator Dick Durbin’s asinine remarks, comparing the actions of our soldiers to various world class despotic regimes, although many condemned his remarks, and many others cravenly refused to, only Bush aide Karl Rove came close to attacking him personally, for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Naturally, when Rove mentioned this, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi called for his head, never specifying just what was wrong with Rove’s analysis. Pelosi seems intent on exposing her mindless partisan nonsense on a daily basis, as just the other day she opined that the war in Afghanistan is over—an assessment that must come as a big surprise to the troops stationed there, given recent savage battles.

When the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate is so blinded by ideology that he can equate harsh interrogation techniques to some of the most brutal regimes in history, the soft underbelly of the sick, sordid Left is exposed for all who have eyes to see.

Don’t be fooled by his crocodile tear-laden non-apology, either. How in the world can he reconcile

“This was the action of Americans in treatment of their prisoners.” [referring to the so-called mistreatment]

with

“When you look at the eyes of the soldiers you see your son and daughter. They are the best. I never, ever intended any disrespect for them.”

Of course, he intended disrespect, as he was simply tossing red meat to the core faithful, and assumed that he would not be called on it. (And he virtually wasn’t, in most of the elite media).

After all, the hardcore Dems really only stand for a few things: hating Bush, religion, and the military; unlimited abortion; pandering to racial minorities and homosexuals; promoting class envy; and gathering in their cells to tell each other how much smarter they are than the common man, even while masquerading as his champion.

Durbin should at the very least be mortified that Al-Jazeera now broadcasts his remarks to the war zone, undoubtedly putting America’s men and women in uniform in greater danger. Instead, he is now using his status as a victim of the right wing conspiracy to energize fund raising.

I have no doubt that the antics of Durbin, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, and the rest of the useful idiots will excite the hardcore, but the since the hardcore seldom wins elections, it matters not. What they are doing is turning off the average American, and that certainly works for me.

Were there not human lives involved, it would be great fun watching these mountebanks self-destruct.

Founded in the wake of 9/11, and set up to consolidate 22 previously disparate agencies, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) states its mission as follows…

We will lead the unified national effort to secure America. We will prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the Nation. We will ensure safe and secure borders, welcome lawful immigrants and visitors, and promote the free-flow of commerce.

Since a comprehensive evaluation of this gigantic organization is obviously beyond the scope of a brief essay, we will confine ourselves to those aspects of this agency that would most affect the average American.

The first question that must be asked is: Has DHS been successful so far? Inasmuch as there has not been a repeat of 9/11, the answer is yes. Of course, as in most matters involving actual humans—as opposed to lab rats—it is quite difficult (usually impossible) to arrange a valid control experiment. Would there have been no terrorist attacks anyway, in the absence of DHS? Did our immediate post-9/11 military invasion of Afghanistan, as the harborers of Al-Qaeda have a chilling effect? Does our willingness to flush out and engage the enemy on its home ground remove the impetus from sleeper cells already in our country? If anyone in the intelligence community has such suspicions, they’re certainly keeping them under wraps.

However, in light of the financial and logistical burdens imposed on our country by this newfound emphasis on security and first responders, “success” measured in such simplistic terms may not be enough. Besides, there could be all sorts of mini-incidents not characterized as terrorist attacks, that should be. How about Black Muslims John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo killing 12 innocent people and seriously wounding three others?

What about the discovery, a few weeks ago as mentioned in the New York Post, of pipe bomb materials in a Brooklyn, NY supermarket lined with posters of Osama bin Laden and beheadings in Iraq, that was quickly dismissed as having nothing to do with terrorism? And what about the huge explosions at an oil refinery in Texas City, TX, whereby responsibility was claimed by Islamist groups, and that was immediately ruled out by the FBI, even before they investigated the scene?

While there may be no terrorist connection to any of these matters, it is the breathtaking haste to term them as such that has me concerned.

Where most of us encounter DHS is via the color-coded advisory system, and when experiencing airport security screening procedures. And, here, the folly of DHS is most dramatically exposed.

The colorized risk assessments range from Green (low risk) to Red (severe risk). As I am writing this piece, we are at Yellow (elevated risk). But what would have happened if a condition Red were declared on September 11, 2001? Would no one have boarded an airplane? Would anyone who worked in Lower Manhattan or the Pentagon have stayed home? Other than the most generic suggestions (“Exercise caution when traveling, pay attention to travel advisories”; “Expect traffic delays and restrictions”; “Ensure disaster supply kit is stocked and ready”) there really is no meaningful advice for citizens.

However, under the inbred groupthink environment of a large federal agency, these sorts of platitudes seem like brilliant words of wisdom. Another consequence of this environment is the old problem often described as “the generals are fighting the last war.” How else to explain the absurd preoccupation with airport security?

Not only is it unlikely in the extreme that the specific tactics of 9/11 would be repeated, even if they were, passengers, knowing they were in a fight for their lives, would intervene. But, beyond that, is it really worth bankrupting the entire airline industry (since any drive under three hours is preferable to a flight to the same destination) to achieve some undefined level of increased security?

What is the point, after all, of showing picture ID as many as five separate times, three of which were in the space of about thirty feet, as happened during my last trip by air? Most, if not all, of the 9/11 hijackers had valid ID, and, what is the purpose of identifying oneself, anyway? Since fake ID’s and valid ID’s are both easy to get, exactly what does this prove? I don’t have a clue, and I’m betting that DHS doesn’t either.

Besides, anyone could board a passenger train with a high-powered rifle, and do quite a bit of damage, as he sailed along the rails. Why this emphasis on aviation, other than its prominence in the original attacks? And, if we can focus on something otter than aircraft for a moment, there’s always the disaster of our open immigration policy, repeatedly condemned overwhelmingly in polling data.

Finally, there is no point in being in denial of the historic enmity between Islam and Christianity, dating back to the very founding of Islam. Nor, was there any place for President Bush’s disingenuous, uber-PC, and blatantly false characterization of Islam as the “religion of peace.”

Even though political correctness, childish battles between the major parties, nonsensical pronouncements by such as Amnesty International, and a misguided focus on “diversity” and multiculturalism prevail, it will still come down to us killing them before they kill us—DHS or no DHS.

You’d have to be a true political junkie—and probably a Left-leaning one at that—to actually care that Deep Throat, the secret source for Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s Watergate investigative reporting, has finally stepped forward and identified himself. It seems that W. Mark Felt, now 91, and the number two man in the FBI during Nixon’s presidency, is the guy.

Felt was suspected to be the source as early as 1974, but kept denying it, and now bares all, supposedly at the urging of his two children. But please don’t ascribe too much nobility here. It is widely believed that he ratted out Nixon because he was passed over for the directorship of the FBI. Meanwhile, his daughter Joan was quoted as saying, “Bob Woodward’s going to get all the glory for this, but we could at least make some money…Let’s do it for the family.” I guess the apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree.

It worth noting that Felt himself authorized illegal FBI break-ins during the hunt for radical Weather Underground fugitives, and was later pardoned for this offense by Ronald Reagan—a pardon that was of course condemned by the usual useful idiots such as the New York Times. Moreover, the security guard who discovered the break-in, and made the entire Watergate industry possible, Frank Wills, died in obscurity, never feted by the self-same band of hypocrites. Why they never took the opportunity to raise up this simple Black working man, supposedly the very core of their political constituency, is a mystery only to those who really believe in the pathetic morally and intellectually bankrupt enterprise that is the Democratic party.

To understand how the 1972 break-in, planned and authorized by lower-level White House officials, could bring down an entire presidency, requires a bit of background…

First and foremost, the Left always hated Richard Nixon, since he had the temerity to target pinkos and Commies. From his first victory over Leftie congressman Jerry Voorhis in 1946, to his defeat of “Pink Lady” Helen Gahagan Douglas, to win a Senate seat in 1950, or his savaging of later-to-be-outed Commie Alger Hiss, “Tricky Dick” ticked off the Gliterati. Even though he always had the support of the average Joe, his treatment by the media and his humble background seemed to keep Nixon on the defensive for his entire life. Remind yourself that there was little if any alternative to the predominant Left-wing media of the era.

It didn’t help when he lost a close and probably corrupted presidential race against John Kennedy in 1960. Many, including President Eisenhower, suggested that Nixon contest the results, citing obvious irregularities in Illinois and Texas. Nixon declined to do so, both for the good of the country, and because the media would have undoubtedly attacked him without mercy. Back home in California, he was persuaded to run against incumbent Pat Brown for governor in 1962, but lost, declaring to the press that they would “…not have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore.”

He appeared back on the scene in 1968, defeating liberal icon Hubert Humphrey, in a presidential election that felt closer than it was, given the candidacy of George Wallace. While Nixon’s margin of the popular vote was minute, his 301 to 191 electoral vote edge was strong, and would have defeated Humphrey even if all the lost votes in the South had gone for him. Still, Humphrey was gaining toward the end, and might have made things closer had he attacked LBJ’s war policy earlier in the campaign.

Thus, even though all the polls showed gigantic leads for Nixon in 1972, over hapless candidate George McGovern, his reelection committee was taking nothing for granted. As it turned out, Nixon was to win by the incredible electoral margin of 520 to 17, and garnered 60.7 percent of the popular vote. McGovern carried only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.

While it was never established who ordered the break-in, or even why it was proposed in the first place, Nixon’s only involvement was in the cover-up, and in making the fatal mistake of lying to protect his staff. At least he wouldn’t live long enough to see the time when it would be all right for a president to lie under oath.

But then he didn’t live long enough to watch the Blogosphere take down the Elite Media, either.