Dear Athens,
Well, we feel bad. We really owe you an apology.
So, sygnomi, as you would say.
Sorry.

Speaking for one country (apparently in the matter to be addressed, he represents the whole US, or is it the whole world?) to another, Reilly uses his audience's language in that condescending way that liberal leftists do, to offer that cure all lefty remedy for any perceived grievance - an apology.

Sorry about the way we acted. We were paranoid and stupid and just flat out wrong. Our bad. If you want, we'll sleep on the couch.

After apologizing, Reilly quickly descends into another favorite pastime of the lefties - self loathing. Well, not just limited to self, of course, as evidenced by the use of "we" - apparently again speaking for a much larger body than his own oversized head.

We mocked you, ridiculed you, figured you wouldn't be ready. We envisioned you as a bunch of lazy, swarthy guys in wife-beater T-shirts chugging ouzo instead of finishing the baseball dugouts. We were sure steeplechasers would have to jump over drying cement, pole vaulters over tractors, divers into 3 feet of water.

We were wrong. It was all done and it was beautiful. OK, so the swimming stadium never got a roof. Big freaking deal. Imagine: having to swim in an outdoor pool. Let's all sue. Besides, you know what? It was more fun that way. Michael Phelps was out there so much he ended up with raccoon eyes from his goggles. He looked like a snowboarder. "Cool!" he said.

We predicted women madly weaving olive wreaths next to the podiums as the national anthems started up. We foresaw painters sprinting along painting stripes just yards ahead of 400-meter runners. We figured beams would be falling on people's heads. Who knew Wrigley Field would be a lot more dangerous?

I hate to keep harping on this, but who again is this "we" - other than a few sportswriters who perenially find themselves with too much time on their hands this time of year, except every fourth summer, who cares about the Olympics enough to have engaged in this kind of hand wringing? Certainly not as large of a group as Reilly is speaking for when offering his above apology.

We were sure every street corner would have three or four terrorists, just kind of killing time, looking for somebody to kidnap. Some bozo said, "The only place worse to hold an Olympics would be Baghdad." Please. I guarantee you, we felt a helluva lot safer these three weeks in Athens than we do in L.A. Or Detroit. Or the Republican National Convention.

Again with the "we" - and what a clever turn of words to work in a slam on those evil Republicans. What a great argument he makes as well, and I quote, "Please."

We insisted you spend 1.2 billion euros on security. You had to put up blimps and cameras all over the city. You couldn't throw a bucket of grapes anywhere and not hit a soldier with a rifle. And nothing happened. Zero. The only incident was when our Secretary of State said he was coming to visit. In other words, if Colin Powell would've just been happy with his remote, you wouldn't have had a single problem.

Apparently the "we" now is the IOC. After just proclaiming how safe "we" felt in Athens, he bags on those who had the foresight to make it that way. We also are told now who "we" isn't - namely Colin Powell. He, not being part of we, apparently wouldn't have been as safe in Athens as he would be in Detroit or L.A., or Baghdad for that matter.

Why you had to pay for our paranoia, I'll never know. It's the world's problem, the world should have to pay for it. What small country is going to be able to afford to host the Olympics anymore with these insane security demands? From now on, if a country wants to send a team to the Games, it pays its share of security, based on its share of the gross world product. In other words, it's our war, we should have to pay for it.

Paranoia? Gee, what has happened during the Olympics that might have reminded us yet again what anyone might be paranoid about? What a moron - do I even need to point out the illogic of his statements regarding the level of safety he felt all the while bitching about the cost of security? Maybe Reilly has a point though, who were "we" to force Greece to take on these Olympics? Oh, you mean they wanted to host them of their own volition? In that case, in typically leftist fashion, Reilly apparently believes everything is an entitlement, including hosting the Olympics, and the rest of the world should ante up. Never mind that every time it is discussed, there is a long list of countries that want to host the Olympics, even with all of the odious requirements.

And our ignorance cost you more than just the billion or so Euros. Our Edvard Munch screams leading up to these games kept millions of people away. Corporations bailed on you. Fans chickened out. I know burly journalists who were too scared to come.

Fortunately for "us", not so burly journalists were full of bravado. Well, full of something anyway.

Sygnomi. Really. You did such a beautiful job on all the venues, arenas and stadiums and yet most of them were so empty you would've thought you'd stumbled upon a goiter seminar. At one basketball game, we counted: There were 307 people. One women's soccer game involving the U.S. started with fewer than 50 people. I had a friend call one night and say, "You better get over to gymnastics, quick. There's only 15,000 seats left."

Ooh, a sincere apology!

The shopkeepers told us, "We've never seen it so dead in August." Hotels came down on their prices by three-quarters. Shirt stores lost their shirts. It's too bad. It was a glorious Olympics. It really was. The opening ceremonies were fabulous. The nightlife was amazing. Even the stray dogs and cats couldn't have been friendlier. I got lost once and had to hitchhike out of nowhere, and a motorcyclist not only picked me up but drove for miles until he found me a cab. So, efharisto, as you say. Thanks.

I feel just terrible about the shopkeepers. Given that a large percentage of the country hates the U.S., it seems likely that many of the shopkeepers are part of that demographic. And contrary to what Reilly and his ilk would have you believe, it isn't all because of "our" war.

Somebody did a poll and found that 97 percent of fans were "satisfied" with safety and security, 95 percent appreciated the job the volunteers did and 98 percent had a favorable impression of Greece. The other two percent were Paul Hamm's family. And what did you get for all your trouble? Nothing but heartache. With 9,000-plus Greeks about to go delirious, our men's volleyball team handed you a giant buzzkill --- coming back from eight points down to win the fourth set and then the fifth to advance to the semifinals. The only really good game our men's basketball team played the whole time was against Greece.

More lefty self-loathing. Obviously, the American volleyballers should have thrown the game rather than be a "buzzkill." At least the basketballers did their part. Nice crack at Paul Hamm thrown in for good measure - no need to muddy the waters with any context for that issue - it would just ruin a cutesy sound bite to point out that judging errors are the only thing that made it possible for the "slighted" South Korean to get a meddle at all.

It was Greek Tragedy Fortnight on TBS. It started even before the Games with your heartbroken judoka jumping from a balcony, followed two days later by her distraught boyfriend. Your two best sprinters turned in their credentials to end a doping/conspiracy/motorcycle wreck soap opera that tore the nation up. One of your favorite weightlifters had to give up a medal for a failed drug test, then wept in front of the world protesting his innocence.

Three dopers on the home team, but Paul Hamm and our men's volleyball team are the bad guys?

And now you're stuck with about $8.5 billion in debt, a bunch of huge, expensive stadiums you'll never use (Hey, kids, who's ready to synchronized dive?!) and a whole lot of "Get Your Butt to Team Handball!" shorts nobody was around to buy. Other than that, Mrs. Kennedy, how did you enjoy Dallas?

All because Greece was "forced" to hold these games. Pity.

So, really, we're sorry. If it makes you feel any better, we all feel a lot more Greek now. We're all coming back to the States telling the wife, "OK, you be Athena and I'll be Zeus!", demanding our favorite restaurants reserve us a table about 1 a.m. under the moon, right near a 2,500 year-old ruin. We keep spitting in people's hair for good luck, crushing plates for no reason and hollering "opa!" in the shower.

Now "we" is Reilly and his cohorts at the Olympics, and he is telling us more than most of us would probably like to know about his plans for when he gets home, as he drops back into his condescending adoption of what he considers to be representative of Greek culture. Well, he does appear to have one thing in common with a majority of Greeks - disdain for the U.S.

No idea how to make this right for you, except this: We vow, here and now, we'll never make you host us again. See you in Baghdad, 2016.

I can't wait for him to apologize on behalf of all of us for liberating them from Saddam.

PS - Welcome, VodkaPundit readers! A little clarification on the name may be in order - I am probably more of an infidel than a cowboy. It is all explained in the "about me" section. Anyway, enjoy, thanks for stopping by, and hope to see you again soon.

« Close It

(KD = Kerry Defender, IC = Infidel Cowboy)

KD: Kerry DID release his military record! That is why there are no calls for him to do it. Who cares about Whoopi, is Bush that thin-skinned that he cannot take a little ribbing? That is typical Republican-party rhetoric.

IC: Kerry released hand picked portions of his record. What is in the rest that he is afraid to release? Are you as adamant that he release them as Kerry, McAuliff, and the media were that Bush do so? I sure as hell don't care about Whoopi, but since you brought up thin-skinned politicians who can't take ribbing, what is your take on the girlie men in the California legislature?

KD: And why the hell shouldn't I call Bush a "flip flopper"? Huh? Hmmm, let's see here.

IC: Did I say you shouldn't? Ok, as you suggest, let's see here.

KD: I am a uniter, not a divider - sure, whatever you say (thumbs up)

IC: you make a compelling argument - thumbs up!

KD: No child left behind - hmmm, every schoolteacher I know knows this is complete BS.

IC: The same teachers who hate charter schools? The same ones who saw federal spending increase by more than 50% over the previous administration? They hate the NCLBA crafted with help from liberal professors from Oregon? What are they afraid of - accountability?

KD: Osama wanted "dead or alive" - Osama "doesn't matter."

IC: Not sure what you are referring to here. I'm sure Bush would still be happy to have him, dead or alive. Maybe you are referring to this - where Bush explains that terrorism is bigger than one man. I guess some people need that explained more than others. Let's see the whole quote, instead of the led around by the nose by Michael MooreOn version:

Bush's answer: "Well, deep in my heart, I know the man is on the run if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not? We haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

"Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I've mentioned in my speeches, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death, and he himself tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. . . . I truly am not that concerned about him."

KD: There are WMDs in Iraq - bwahahha

IC: Well, Kerry, Clinton, the Russians, France, and, hmm..., just about everyone thought so. Pretty funny, no?

KD: I am against nation building - no witty comeback needed.

IC: There was a pretty significant world event of historical importance between the time he said that and now. Maybe you heard about it?

KD: Gay marriage is a state's right's issue - what changed his mind on that? The fact he is a "war president"?

IC: Hey, aren't you Kerry guys always saying the Cheney is the real president? He thinks it is a state's rights issue, a position well to the left of whatever Kerry's stance is this week. Wonder why ol' flip flopping George won't do what his evil master Cheney tells him on this issue? To tell the truth, I wish he would. The proposed constitutional amendment on gay marriage is an abomination. I will ignore the non sequitur raised in the "war president" remark.

KD: We do not need the U.N. - Oh wait; now we do.

IC: It is pretty obvious that we don't need the UN, as Bush pointed out:

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

KD: Condi Rice won't testify in public - whoopsie.

IC: Condi should NOT have - it is a violates the separation of powers called for in the constitution. Partisan vitriol forced his and her hand.

KD: We won't negotiate with North Korea - uhhh, we won't?

IC: Why should we? Clinton and company tried to appease them and toasted them with champagne, they developed the nukes anyway.

How smart is that? Time, plus undeserved trust, is exactly what gave North Korea the opportunity to join the world's nukes club. As a result we find ourselves forced to bargain with a brutal regime that threatens world stability and 37,000 of our finest in South Korea. After years of UN and Clinton Administration engagement (who can forget Madeline Albright's champagne toast with Kim Jong Il?), we are at the brink of an international crisis. North Korea only decided to 'fess up when it realized that President Bush wasn't pussyfooting.

KD: Veep Cheney and Bush cannot testify because the constitution says we can't - uhhhh, they did.

IC: They can't be forced to testify. They chose to. Amazing what a difference one word makes.

KD: Hmmmm, I remember Bush opposing the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security when it first came out - can you say flip-flop?

IC: Hey, more bureaucracy will always make us safer. I feel so much safer with, as transit librarian is so fond of calling it, the Rainbow of Terror color alert system. I also feel safer with the great new guidelines put in place requiring the seizure of nail clippers - I guess we need something for those thousands of newly hired federal employee bag screeners to do, right? However, since the department was created, I hardly think it is a flip flop for Bush to appoint someone to lead it.

KD: And what about the 9/11 commission? Didn't he oppose that, too? Now he flipping loves the thing.

IC: Because it was destined to be an election year partisan hatchet job? You probably have flip flopped yourself, since it vindicated Bush on a number of issues.

KD: And if the invasion of Iraq was for self-defense, why aren't we invading North Korea? We KNOW they have "nucular" weapons. And what about the Sudan? If anyplace in the world is producing terrorists, it is the Sudan. Wait, the Sudan doesn't have oil - my bad.

IC: Indeed, it is your bad. Sudan has plenty of oil, which is why China and France refuse to lift a finger to stop the genocide. Again. Anyway, military force isn't the only way to achieve results. North Korea has been forced into multi-lateral negotiations - a smart move by Bush since those talks involve China - the only country that has much influence over North Korea.

KD: Can you please shut the hell up on the flip flopping thing? Learn to think for yourself for a change. EVERYONE is a "flip-flopper," get over yourself.

IC: I find it amusing that someone who suggests that another should "shut the hell up" could also utter such an inanity as "get over yourself" - but for the record, I belive I mentioned flip and flop exactly once each in the article to which you are responding. I also find amusing your admonishment to think for myself - I read stuff from all over the spectrum, I recently read Howard Zinn's History of America, for instance. I don't support the Republicans on a number of social issues. I don't support the Democrats on national security, which for me, in this election, is the only issue that matters. I don't support Progressives hatred of capitalism. You on the other hand seem to be marching in lockstep with your fellow kool aid drinkers who have a blind hatred of Bush.

KD: By the way, it wasn't the Viet Cong who were holding Galanti, it was the North Vietnamese. I suggest you do a little more research on this conflict that "didn't matter," because the truth is, it DID matter - and it has been dictating our foreign policy since 1968.

IC: It doesn't matter in determining the path forward. Kerry shouldn't have brought it up. QED. I agree that it does matter what Kerry did when he got back, and I don't care who was using Kerry's words against his "band of brothers."

KD: The North Vietnamese, like any army in conflict, used psy ops for any advantage. Of course they used Kerry's speeches to their advantage. Just like they used Johnson's, Nixon's, other soldier's, etc. But it doesn't change the fact that Kerry went over there thinking he was going to change a country for the better, but quickly realized we didn't know what the hell we were doing.

IC: That is what he went over there thinking? I am pretty sure he was thinking that his request for a deferment was turned down and that he should volunteer for swift boat duty, since at the time, they were used in combat missions.

KD: He came back and spoke out against the war at a time when not a lot of people were. You want to know that truth, cowboy, atrocities happen in war, all the time, every day; done by young men who cannot take their situation anymore. Americans did not know about these atrocities because the media wasn't reporting them, Kerry was telling the TRUTH. War is hell. People do stuff in war that would amaze you - regular people like you and I.

It doesn't make these people bad people, but they have to live with it the rest of their lives. Some can, some cannot. Kerry wasn't doing it to call anyone out, or get anyone in trouble. He was doing it to show the American public what war is capable of making people do. No one was talking about what the Vietnam conflict was doing to our fighting soldiers.

IC: I know plenty about the truth. My father that I don't know was there. He came back hooked on drugs and incapable of being a husband or father. My uncle who still has flashbacks was there. Having Kerry pile on with his charges of atrocities probably didn't help much for either of them, and yes, apparently he means them:

KERRY: "Why are all these swift boat guys opposed to me?"

BRANT: "You should know what you said when you came back, the impact it had on the young sailors and how it was disrespectful of our guys that were killed over there." [Brant had two men killed in battle.]

KERRY: "When we dedicated swift boat one in '92, I said to all the swift guys that I wasn't talking about the swifties, I was talking about all the rest of the veterans."

I am sure that my father and uncle would be comforted by your acknowledgement that they aren't bad people, even though it doesn't come in as official and public of a format as Kerry's congressional testimony, and even though they probably consider themselves to be among the vast majority of soldiers who didn't engage in atrocities.

So there you go, KD - if you really do want to think for yourself, there are plenty of links for you to start reading up on. Not nearly as easy or as much fun as just repeating lines from Farenhate 9/11 or the latest DNC talking points memo, but it was worth the effort. Have fun and thanks for playing!

« Close It

Two weeks from today we commence Operation Liberty Rising. An estimated one million people are descending onto New York City to denounce America and stand up for their 'principles.' They would have you think that they are humanitarians who love peace and have come to denounce war and aggression.

If that were so, then you have to ask yourself why these 'progressives' have for the last hundred years done nothing but support the most illiberal, war-mongering, imperialist fascist movements that are the constant instigators behind the state of war they so decry. We wish they would just be honest and admit that they hate freedom, but most of them aren't brave enough. Instead, we're supposed to become enlightened to their truth: America is no better than anyone else.

For most of this century their weapon of choice was Communism/Marxism/Socialism take your pick, which would have enslaved the entire world in totalitarianism but not for a vigilant America armed to the teeth, a policy they denounced every step of the way. Now we face a new threat, Islamo-fascism, a movement that will not stop so long as any outpost of Judeo-Christianity remains. It doesn't matter that Islamo-fascist countries have no freedom, no civil liberties, no women's rights, no science, no art, and are controlled by billionaire oligarchs who pay the clerics to keep their people under control; that they are part of the revolutionary struggle against America is all that is required to receive the moral approval of the 'pacifists.'

and

Throughout the 90's our foreign policy was all about being nice, even obsequious to our enemies. Yasser Arafat was the most frequent visitor to the Clinton White House, and America bestowed $100 million dollars a year to his despotic thugocracy, while we goaded Israel to give up what little land they have and stop contributing to the "cycle of violence." We responded to the '93 attempted destruction of the Twin Towers with lawsuits. We turned down an offer to hand Bin Laden over to us because that might have upset the Arab street. We intervened in a civil war in Kosovo, carpet-bombing Serbian population centers on behalf of Muslims, and because of our efforts, most churches in Kosovo have now been destroyed and replaced with mosques. (Of course no one can fight back as there is a U.N. 'peacekeeping force' there.) We fought Somalian warlords in an attempt to feed starving Muslim children. We went to the dead tyrant Assad's funeral, and lent our diplomatic prestige to that Asian Hitler Kim Jong, who was happy to show off his military toys before our fawning Secretary of State. To show how magnanimous we were, we gave him hundreds of millions of dollars to construct an underground nuclear reactor, taking him at his word it would only be used for peaceful purposes. We lent no moral support to the youth in Iran who are desperate to throw off their chains, we lent no moral support to Taiwan which is faced with extinction or enslavement, we lent no moral support to Christians in China who are being herded into prison camps. And we lent no moral support to the Iraqis wallowing under dictatorship and sanctions, and instead consigned them to a decade of torture chambers and rape rooms and acid baths while the U.N. made billions off 'Oil for Food'.

In sum, we did everything the Left would like for us to do. And in return, we got September 11.

and

While leftists worldwide mobilize against America's spending of blood and treasure to try to establish a free, democratic country, here's a snapshot of life in Sudan, a country with no American occupation or imperialism or colonialism, and a proud member of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, a seat denied to us:

"In Sudan in 1989, a coup installed the present military dictator Omar al Bashir, who declared Sudan to be an Islamic republic and imposed sharia (Islamic law). The Arab Islamist government intensified the long-standing conflict with the south by backing raids against the Christian and animist civilian populations. The raiders killed men and animals, burned villagers, and abducted women and children. Since 1983 when the Sudan People's Liberation Army started the warfare that preceded Bashir's coup, an estimated 2 million people have been killed and 4.5 million people have become refugees and internally displaced persons. Two hundred thousand women and children have been captured for labor and sexual slavery. Some of the victims were trafficked into slavery and sexual servitude beyond northern Sudan to Middle Eastern countries.

Once in the north, the slaves are subjected to forced Islamization and Arabization. In Sudan, the ritualistic cutting of girls' genitals, often called female genital mutilation, is widely practiced among all religions and ethnicities, although Christians have discouraged the practice. A survey conducted by Christian Solidarity International's Slavery Research Unit on slaves liberated from the north found that 40 percent of the women and girls had been subjected to female genital mutilation while in captivity.

As part of the campaign of ethnic cleansing, rapes are carried out in public, in front of family and community members. Those who resist or intervene are beaten and killed. Victims' arms and legs are broken to prevent escape. The intent is to impose terror on a village, and destroy the victims' and communities' integrity and identity. One rape victim was told by her attacker: 'You, the black women, we will exterminate you, you have no God.' Additionally horrifying is the participation of Arab women in the atrocities. According to Amnesty International, Hakama -- female traditional singers who praise male fighters -- accompany the raiders and rapists. By singing and ululating, they provide encouragement and a song track to rape and pillage."

--Donna Hughes, "The Rape of Sudan" National Review Online

Now, do you think these type of people want to destroy us because we're bad, or do they want to destroy us
because we're good. This is the fundamental question that determines how we deal with the threat we face.

and

They [progressives] are the ones who with their schemes create all the social problems and racial balkanization and government dependency and people being sued for anything and everything, and then stand back and denigrate America for the problems they create. The money we spend on social welfare programs, we could give every family below the poverty line a check for $40,000, but that will never happen because of the 90% that goes to feed the bureaucracy beast that maintains its monopoly on charity. And it's a funny coincidence that it's only the areas the government is involved with that never work, never help, never improve, where no one is accountable, where merit is not only irrelevant, it's a conflict of interest.

« Close It

Even if anyone had seen such a thing coming in the abstract sense, it is hard to believe anything could or would have been done about the 9/11 attacks. For 30 years we have given terrorists the impression that we are a "paper tiger" by our limp responses to their attacks on us. The vile partisanship our country is engulfed in would also have made any response difficult. As Podhoretz notes:

Slightly contradicting itself, the commission said that "the 9/11 attacks were a shock, but they should not have come as a surprise." Maybe so; and yet there was no one, either in government or out, to whom they did not come as a surprise, either in general or in the particular form they took. The commission also spoke of a "failure of imagination." Maybe so again; and yet the word "failure" seems inappropriate, implying as it does that success was possible. Surely a failure so widespread deserves to be considered inevitable.

To the New York Times, however, the failure was not at all inevitable. In a front-page editorial disguised as a "report," the Times credited the commission's final report with finding that "an attack described as unimaginable had in fact been imagined, repeatedly." But not a shred of the documentary evidence cited by the Times for this categorical statement actually predicted that al Qaeda would hijack commercial airliners and crash them into buildings in New York and Washington. Moreover, all of the evidence, such as it was, came from the 1990's. Nevertheless, the Times "report" contrived to convey the impression that in the fall of 2000 the Bush administration-then not yet in office-had received fair warning of an imminent attack. To bolster this impression, the Times went on to quote from a briefing given to Bush a month before 9/11. But the document in question was vague about details, and in any case was only one of many intelligence briefings with no special claim to credibility over conflicting assessments.

Thus the Bush administration, which had just been excoriated in hearings held by the Senate Intelligence Committee for having invaded Iraq on the basis of faulty intelligence, was now excoriated by some of the 9/11 commissioners for not having acted on the basis of even sketchier intelligence to head off 9/11 itself. This contradiction elicited a mordant comment from Charles Hill, a former government official who had been a regular "consumer" of intelligence:

Intelligence collection and analysis is a very imperfect business. Refusal to face this reality has produced the almost laughable contradiction of the Senate Intelligence Committee criticizing the Bush administration for acting on third-rate intelligence, even as the 9/11 commission criticizes it for not acting on third-rate intelligence.

President Bush in setting forth Pillar 3, asserts that we will act preemptively to prevent being victimized again the way we were on 9/11. Rather than wait for an attack to be carried out, or even for a threat to be imminent, we will take action, through various means up to and including military action, against those who harbor, financially support, or sponsor terrorists. Going on the attack instead of remaining in a vulnerable defensive position, taking the fight to then enemy, is the way to deter future attacks. Anything less would leave us vulnerable, as we were on 9/11.

Iraq sponsored terrorism abroad, sought and was believed to possess weapons of mass destruction, allowed terrorists to train within its borders, and was linked to al-Queda. Attacking them was the natural result of Pillar 3. It has already paid dividends, as seen in Libya by its abandonment of its nuclear weapons program. North Korea's agreement to multi-lateral negotiations over its nuclear program came shortly after the fall of Iraq as well. Hamas threatened to attack US interests after one of its leaders was killed by Israel - that threat was withdrawn quite hastily. We haven't been attacked here again since 9/11.

The doctrine of preemption is having the desired effect. We are safer with a viable threat of preemption than we were when it was safe to view us as a "paper tiger."

« Close It

If the alleged victim is lying, Kobe has no one to blame but himself for this mess. Kobe is married. He is rich and famous. He knows that by engaging in this type of activity, he exposes himself to the kind of situation he finds himself now in. Even if the criminal case is dismissed, he faces a civil suit which will cost him millions, either fighting it or in settlement, and which will result in him, his family, his friends, and his teammates being drug into court to testify. If the case isn't dismissed and he is wrongly convicted, he faces prison and a lifetime of being known as a sex offender.

If the alleged victim isn't lying, she has no one to blame but herself. It looks as if the best she can hope for is a civil judgement or an out of court financial settlement. Why? The judge is making an exception to the Colorado rape shield law because it appears that there may be evidence that contradicts her account of events surrounding the case - it would deny the defendant's right to a fair trial not to allow discrediting evidence in a case where credibility is everything. It now appears likely that prosecutors will be dropping the charges against Kobe, and if he is guilty, he will have gotten away with rape.

Other potential losers include future victims of rape. Rape victim activists are up in arms over the exception to the rape shield law. One can only hope that this type of exception won't be made again unless there is the same kind of compelling reason. If it is somehow proven that the alleged victim is lying, it unjustly hurts the credibility of future victims. If Kobe did it and gets away with it, others in similar positions may feel they can get away with it as well.

*********

Trying desperately to get this back on topic, I question why some are more worried about the rights of victims in general than they are in knowing the facts in this particular case? Why is there no regard for the rights of the accused? Mostly to prevent re-victimization. Partly, because many activists can't even conceive that an accuser could be lying. Most of the time, I would agree with them. Here, though, where we can't 100% know the facts, all we have to go on is testimony of the accuser. Calling into question the credibility of the accuser in a way that is relavant to the case seems fair.

I find the situation analgous to the presidential race. We are supposed to accept at face value Kerry's claims about his service in Vietnam. Kerry's co-conspirators in the media don't want you to even hear evidence that may call his claims into question. They can't conceive of the possibility that he has exaggerated or lied about aspects of his service for political gain. They say it would just re-open old national wounds to even discuss this. Most of the time, I would agree with them. Problem is, his claims about his service are all he has given us to go on in determining whether he should be President.

Meanwhile, Bush, has been treated more like the accused - with no evidence, he is accused of being behind the attacks on Kerrys and details of his service have been rabidly attacked. Could it be that the media are acting as activists for Kerry?

« Close It

Many apologists and sympathizers claim that there is a root cause for this evil; the perceived economic and social injustices against those "driven" to terrorism. The second pillar of the Bush Doctrine disputes at least the economic portion of that explanation. As Norman Podhoretz puts it:

...most of the terrorists about whom we were learning came from prosperous families-terrorism was no longer considered a product of economic factors. The "swamps" in which this murderous plague bred were swamps not of poverty and hunger but of political oppression. It was only by "draining" them, through a strategy of "regime change," that we would be making ourselves safe from the threat of terrorism and simultaneously giving the peoples of "the entire Islamic world" the freedoms "they want and deserve."

As you see, the root cause believers are partly vindicated, when they speak of the oppression faced my some of those supporting the terrorists. President Bush agrees:

For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and much oppression, so I have changed this policy.

Shamefully, one of the nations at the forefront of this approach has been our own. We have propped up tyrants and despots, finding them useful in promoting stability in a region of the world that we depend on for oil. We got stability, for a time, and we got oil, but now we are reaping the rewards of the oppression we supported and tolerated. The Bush Doctrine indicates that we will now instead focus on doing what is right. Quoting President Bush:

When it comes to the common rights and needs of men and women, there is no clash of civilizations. The requirements of freedom apply fully to Africa and Latin America and the entire Islamic world. The peoples of the Islamic nations want and deserve the same freedoms and opportunities as people in every nation. And their governments should listen to their hopes.

Of course, this new policy direction is not being done purely out of altruism, or even shame or regret over our previous policies. President Bush didn't see the need for this change in policy before we were attacked on 9/11. And one would also have to suspend incredulity to believe that there isn't self-interest involved. But that is the job of our government - to look out for our interests. While some might agrue that the most self-interested thing to do would be to abandon the mess we have helped make to its own devices, President Bush disagrees:

Some who call themselves realists question whether the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality: America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat; America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.

To summarize, pillar one deals with the fact that their is evil in the world and that we ought to recognize it and challenge it. Pillar two examines the causes for that evil, and provides a strategy and cause for dealing with it. I leave you with the words of Podhoretz describing the fruition of the philosophies behind these two pillars :

Since it was certain that Osama bin Laden had masterminded September 11, and since he and the top leadership of al Qaeda were holed up in Afghanistan, the first target, and thus the first testing ground of this second pillar of the Bush Doctrine, chose itself.

Before resorting to military force, however, Bush issued an ultimatum to the extreme Islamic radicals of the Taliban who were then ruling Afghanistan. The ultimatum demanded that they turn Osama bin Laden and his people over to us and that they shut down all terrorist training camps there. By rejecting this ultimatum, the Taliban not only asked for an invasion but, under the Bush Doctrine, also asked to be overthrown. And so, on October 7, 2001, the United States-joined by Great Britain and about a dozen other countries-launched a military campaign against both al Qaeda and the regime that was providing it with "aid and safe haven."

« Close It

Pillar 4 - Context for Understanding the Middle East Conflict

As Podhoretz indicates, President Bush provided a new context for understanding the Middle East conflict, one that encompasses issues with the Palestinian Authority as well as the entire Muslim world, including nominal friends as well as enemies. In the President's words:

Today, Palestinian authorities are encouraging, not opposing terrorism. This is unacceptable. And the United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure.

I've said in the past that nations are either with us or against us in the war on terror. To be counted on the side of peace, nations must act. Every leader actually committed to peace will end incitement to violence in official media and publicly denounce homicide bombs. Every nation actually committed to peace will stop the flow of money, equipment, and recruits to terrorist groups seeking the destruction of Israel, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah. Every nation committed to peace must block the shipment of Iranian supplies to these groups and oppose regimes that promote terror, like Iraq. And Syria must choose the right side in the war on terror by closing terrorist camps and expelling terrorist organizations.

« Close It

Pillar One - Asserting the Right to Preemption, once again in the words of President George W. Bush:

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

For much of the last century, America's defense relied on the cold-war doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence-the promise of massive retaliation against nations-means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend.

Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons or missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.

We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign nonproliferation treaties, and then systematically break them.

If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. . . . [T]he war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act.

« Close It

Pillar Two - Terrorism is not a Product of Economic Factors.

Excerpted from the Norman Podhoretz's excellent article:

If the first of the four pillars on which the Bush Doctrine stood was a new moral attitude, the second was an equally dramatic shift in the conception of terrorism as it had come to be defined in standard academic and intellectual discourse.

Under this new understanding—confirmed over and over again by the fact that most of the terrorists about whom we were learning came from prosperous families—terrorism was no longer considered a product of economic factors. The "swamps" in which this murderous plague bred were swamps not of poverty and hunger but of political oppression. It was only by "draining" them, through a strategy of "regime change," that we would be making ourselves safe from the threat of terrorism and simultaneously giving the peoples of "the entire Islamic world" the freedoms "they want and deserve."

In the new understanding, furthermore, terrorists, with rare exceptions, were not individual psychotics acting on their own but agents of organizations that depended on the sponsorship of various governments. Our aim, therefore, could not be merely to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and wipe out the al Qaeda terrorists under his direct leadership. Bush vowed that we would also uproot and destroy the entire network of interconnected terrorist organizations and cells "with global reach" that existed in as many as 50 or 60 countries. No longer would we treat the members of these groups as criminals to be arrested by the police, read their Miranda rights, and brought to trial. From now on, they were to be regarded as the irregular troops of a military alliance at war with the United States, and indeed the civilized world as a whole.

The campaign in Afghanistan demonstrated in the most unmistakable terms what followed from the new understanding of terrorism that formed the second pillar of the Bush Doctrine: countries that gave safe haven to terrorists and refused to clean them out were asking the United States to do it for them, and the regimes ruling these countries were also asking to be overthrown in favor of new leaders with democratic aspirations. Of course, as circumstances permitted and prudence dictated, other instruments of power, whether economic or diplomatic, would be deployed. But Afghanistan showed that the military option was open, available for use, and lethally effective.

« Close It

Pillar One - A Repudiation of Moral Relativism and an Assertion of the Need for Moral Judgement, in the words of President George W. Bush:

We have seen their kind before. They're the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.

The advance of human freedom, the great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depends on us. Our nation, this generation, will lift the dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.

I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.

For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and much oppression, so I have changed this policy.

Some who call themselves realists question whether the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality: America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat; America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.

This conflict will take many turns, with setbacks on the course to victory. Through it all, our confidence comes from one unshakable belief: We believe in Ronald Reagan's words that "the future belongs to the free."

Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong. I disagree. Different circumstances require different methods, but not different moralities. Moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time, and in every place. . . . We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name.

The 20th century ended with a single surviving model of human progress, based on non-negotiable demands of human dignity, the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women and private property and free speech and equal justice and religious tolerance.

When it comes to the common rights and needs of men and women, there is no clash of civilizations. The requirements of freedom apply fully to Africa and Latin America and the entire Islamic world. The peoples of the Islamic nations want and deserve the same freedoms and opportunities as people in every nation. And their governments should listen to their hopes.

Next in the series: the same treatment of the remaining 3 pillars, followed by a series of articles summarizing and analyzing Podhoretz's thoughts on each. Stay tuned!

« Close It

excerpt:

As for the second President Bush, before 9/11 he was, to all appearances, as deficient in the "vision thing" as his father before him. If he entertained any doubts about the soundness of the "realist" approach, he showed no sign