PostWatch

Speaking of Hamdan

One of the qualities that distinguishes the war against Islamofascism from others like World War II is the lack of unity behind it, to state the obvious. But just think about that for a second. I wasn't there at the time, but it looks like every major element of society was on board and pulling in the same direction. The military wasn't operating alone, but was backed by politicians in both major parties, the press, the courts, popular music, Hollywood, you name it, and that's how we won. A little different now.

I fear we'll regain that unity in the worst possible way, as I am reminded by a long and well-written post at The Smallest Minority. Kevin recounts what he and others call World War IV, up through 9/11, and pauses to say:

What's stands out in this?

That we didn't get serious until a lot of American civilians got killed, and got killed here on our own soil. We seem to expect that our service members and government employees face violent death on a regular basis, but not our civilians. We seem to accept that being in a foreign land is risky, but we're supposed to be safe here. Nick Berg was kidnapped in Iraq and beheaded. We were outraged, but restrained. Four Blackwater contractors were murdered and mutilated - again, we were outraged, but restrained. Just this week two soldiers were kidnapped, tortured, murdered, and mutilated, and still we are restrained....

Until, that is, we're attacked at home and then true hell breaks loose. The Post goes in other riveting directions, but I want to focus on this, where Kevin quotes the ever-serene Ace at Ace of Spades:

One more. One more fu***** mass-murder. Go for it, boys. Give us the excuse. Some of us suspect it's inevitable and the only way to finally get it through your primative heads that we will no longer put up with being murdered by savage animals, but we need the moral pretext. We need the hot anger of fresh provocation.

So do it. If you are incapable of sharing the earth peacefully, then we will have to absent you from it. And when the nuclear fire rains down on you, you can cry out to your God and ask him "What have we possibly done to deserve this?"

No sane person wants that to happen. But I have often thought that all the Lilliputians binding Gulliver, from the Kossacks to Reid and Pelosi and Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, have never understood they're bringing us closer to that day.

It's Not A Pretend War

I'm trying to wrap my head around the part of the Hamdan ruling where non-uniformed terrorists who never signed the Geneva Conventions are entitled to protections they will not offer themselves--either to the captured soldiers they torture or the civilians they blow up.

There's plenty of commentary out there  more sophisticated than anything I can offer. For now I'll say only that the justices must have the same false sense of security shared by many other Americans. This truly is the downside of President Bush's success in the war against Islamofascism. If  757s were crashing into the Empire State Building or One First Street N.E., I can't believe they would have blundered like this.

UPDATE: Since I expressed some, er, skepticism about a flag-amendment editorial posted by NRO, it's only right that I cite their latest on the Hamdan decision, An Outrage:

The Supreme Court’s decision to impose by judicial fiat a treaty that no politically accountable official would dare propose — a one-sided compact wherein the United States gives elevated due process to al Qaeda’s terrorists while they continue slaughtering civilians and torturing their captives to death — is an abomination....

True and right and depressing.

Frist: Life Begins At Conception, But What The Hell

Rick Weiss writes about an embryonic stem-cell package backed by Sen. Bill Frist (R-Will Never Be President) in Senate to Consider Stem Cell Proposals:

Senate leaders from both parties agreed yesterday to schedule a vote on a package of bills that would loosen President Bush's five-year-old restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research.

With head counts suggesting there are enough votes to pass the legislation and with Bush having promised he would veto it, yesterday's action sets the stage for what could be the first full-blown showdown between the chamber and the president.

The package, which includes language identical to that passed by the House, would allow federal funding of research on embryos that have been slated for destruction at fertility clinics. Those days-old embryos are rich in embryonic stem cells, which scientists say have great potential to treat a wide variety of ailments, including spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's disease and diabetes....

Yesterday [Frist] went to great pains to reassure Americans of his conservative values. "I am pro-life," he said. "I personally believe that human life begins at conception."

But the few cell colonies available to federally funded scientists under the Bush policy are aging and not as high quality as scientists had hoped, he continued. "The responsible thing to do is to come to the floor and consider modifying that policy," Frist said.

Under his own logic, as reported by the Post, this doesn't make sense. I believe life begins at conception, but the responsible thing to do is to kill it. Okay then.

As Weiss notes, Frist's "loosening" on embryonic stem-cell research is tied to his presidential aspirations. Entirely aside from Frist compromising on an issue that had defined him, I will be president before Frist. What a waste.

And since the Post almost never points to non-embryonic stem-cell developments--a field that simultaneously has created far more therapies and is downright giddy with new research--I will. Here's a recent Reuters story via CNET:

A gene named after the mythical Celtic land of the ever young could help explain how to reprogram adult cells into embryonic stem cells to treat diseases, researchers said on Wednesday.

They discovered that the gene called Nanog helped to transform adult mouse cells into embryonic stem cells after cell fusion--when two cells are combined to form a hybrid.

"The effect of Nanog is remarkable. All the hybrid cells became fully converted to embryonic stem cells," said Jose Silva of the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, who reported the findings in the journal Nature.

Stem cells are master cells in the body. Scientists believe they could act as a type of human repair system to provide new therapies for illnesses ranging from diabetes to Parkinson's.

Embryonic stem cells found in early embryos have the potential to make any type of cell or tissue. Adult stem cells have a more limited range.

Converting adult stem cells into an embryonic state would eliminate the use of early embryos, which is a scientific and ethical stumbling block for researchers....

Used to be for some legislators too. 

More Ironclad SWIFT Logic

Taking another whack at excusing the exposure of national security secrets, Howard Kurtz quotes a Boston Globe story by Bryan Bender saying information about the banking-data program was already out there:

Turning now to the Beltway furor of the week: What if the banking program, the disclosure of which has sparked calls for the tarring and feathering of the New York Times, wasn't such a big secret after all?

This Boston Globe piece has some interesting details (and yes, it's own by the NYT Co. but is not known for carrying corporate water):

"News reports disclosing the Bush administration's use of a special bank surveillance program to track terrorist financing spurred outrage in the White House and on Capitol Hill, but some specialists pointed out that the government itself has publicly discussed its stepped-up efforts to monitor terrorist finances since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks . . .

"A search of public records -- government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 -- describe how U.S. authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT.

" 'There have been public references to SWIFT before,' said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. 'The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before.'

That must be the reason the New York Times gave their scoop the hed Bank Data Is Sifted In Secret To Block Terror. Because everyone knew what they were doing already.

There are at least two major defenses being attempted with this story. One, it's important to expose national security secrets because of abuses that would otherwise go unknown. Two, it's not a secret. Depending on the day and the audience I suppose. After citing the story, Kurtz adds:

There's even a SWIFT Web site .

Should I even bother?

• CIA
• NSA
• Defense Intelligence Agency
• It's kind of a long list
• You have got to be kidding, Howard.

The Hell We Don't Welcome Faith

Dana Milbank asks Will Democrats Put Their Faith in Obama? and the answer is Perhaps If They Take Enough Valium. Sen. Barak Obama (D-Not Hillary) gave a religiously themed speech, promoting the usual Democrat talking points but emphasizing some new ones too--the "need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away" and admonishing the party for blocking faith from the public square. Milbank describes Obama as a mirror image of President Bush:

Just as Bush rhetorically took on the "leave us alone" conservatives in his party, Obama said he felt a "pang of shame" because his staff had put on his campaign Web site "standard Democratic boilerplate" that disparaged abortion foes. He also complained that Democrats had "taken the bait" by banishing any hint of faith, and said they should favor faith-based addiction programs, voluntary prayer in schools and references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Obama gave the speech to "left-leaning Christian leaders" who loved it. Others of a more, um, progressive persuasion, not so much. Pachacutec* at Firedoglake:

It’s not Bill Clinton’s fault George Bush ignored 9-11 warnings.

But this bullshit  from Barack Obama is Bill Clinton’s fault.  The greatest victory of the radical right wing has been to train Democratic politicians to disrespect, mischaracterize and run against their base in the progressive movement.  And that is Bill Clinton’s fault.

First of all, there’s a very thriving religious left, thank you very much.  It’s absolutely false that Democrats and progressives disrespect or somehow fail to include people of faith. ...

Well, Jim Wallis of Sojourners hosted the Obama speech, so you've got that. And the Pachacutec says there was a nice interfaith service at the Yearly Kosfest. Oh, and adds:

Frankly, I’m fed up with paeans to St. Bill Clinton. He was extraordinarily talented, and the Democratic party grew far weaker under his leadership.  Yes, we defended him when he was wrongly attacked, but now it’s time to get past Bill worship.  Idiots like Obama still think the path to power is to spin Karl Rove’s lies into oratorical gold to gin up support from people who would rather see him in shackles than see him in national office.

Still dreaming of Fitzmas I see. The poster goes on to point to a Kossack "community" as evidence of the thriving Christian left. Thriving it may be, but a post there by Chuck Currie links a bit despondently to liberal reactions to the speech, including Jan Frel's, who blogs on Alternet:

There's the argument that religion gets more acceptable as it becomes less marginal; that a tolerant, pro-science outfit like the United Church of Christ is a reasonable vehicle for the worship of the Christian God. But ultimately, the insane component -- the God-worshipping component, orchestrated by priests and higher-ups who enjoy playing games of mind control -- is still there. Why cling on to this BS in desperation, I ask?

Sure, the Jehovah's Witnesses have an environmental bent, but it doesn't make the religious component any less crazy. Or, to go to slightly saner grounds, just because Jim Wallis talks about economic justice doesn't make his Christianity any less crazy to me. And, if I remember correctly, he's out in the public sphere because he's a Christian; his positions on various issues are there to burnish his Christian creds.

And that's where we get to an evangelical suck-up like Barack Obama...

After that, it becomes impolite. Other posts in the series include Screw You, Barak Obama.

In the trade, we call this reaction "mixed."

Screw You says Courting any religious stripe results in a government indistinguishable from any Middle Eastern nation ruled by Islamic law, and another blogger asks how is the mention of God even relevant to the duties of a public servant? Why the need to mention God at all? And I'm thinking these guys should get together with Pachacutec, who says

It’s absolutely false that Democrats and progressives disrespect or somehow fail to include people of faith.

Okay then.

UPDATE: Michael Stickings at The Moderate Voice moderately asks What the Hell Is Obama Doing?:

Well, he's criticizing his fellow Democrats for not being open to and respecting people of faith. Indeed, Democrats do not "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people".

First, this isn't true, as Steve Benen says. Yes, Democrats need to do a better job reaching out to, and making sure voters know they're open to and respect, people of faith. But Democrats aren't exactly hardcore secularists who oppose the very presence of religion in the public square. A few of them, perhaps, but at most a small minority of them and certainly not in the leadership....

Michael, let me introduce you to Mr. Screw You Obama and his friends, discussed above. Surf the web, the liberal web, and tell us again how small a minority this is supposed to be.

*An earlier version of this item named Jane Hamsher, the famous Firedoglake firebrand, as the poster. My bad.

We Boldly Announce Opposition To Bad Things

Hugh Hewitt notes a House resolution (pdf) condemning the New York Times and LA Times for publishing national security secrets in their SWIFT money-transfer stories does not name:

• The New York Times
• The LA Times

The House of Representatives. They're outraged. But they're not animals.

The resolution is mentioned in this story by Charles Babington and Michael Abramowitz, Bush Seeks to Use Media Leaks to His Advantage:

Senior administration officials say the president was outraged by articles in the New York Times and other newspapers about a surveillance program in which the U.S. government has tapped international banking records for information about terrorist financing. But his comments at a Republican fundraiser in a St. Louis suburb yesterday, combined with new moves by GOP congressional leaders, showed how both are working to fan public anger and reap gains from the controversy during a midterm election year in which polls show they are running against stiff headwinds.

Those senior adminstration officials may say Bush was outraged, but you can't be too sure of these things. Oh how I love the "but" in this story. But his comments at a Republican fundraiser in a St. Louis suburb yesterday, combined with new moves by GOP congressional leaders, showed how both are working to fan public anger and reap gains... Because political leaders are not supposed to talk about things they care about at fundraisers. It's Just. Not. Done.

The Shock of Clear Speech

Michelle Malkin points to a Cam Edwards report at Townhall.com on international gun control:

A remarkable thing happened at the United Nations yesterday. We, the United States, told the world “no”. The messenger was Robert Joseph, the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Speaking before the dozens of nations that have gathered for the review conference on Small Arms and Light Weapons, Joseph told the world in no uncertain terms where the United States stood.

“The U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of our citizens to keep and bear arms, and there will be no infringement of those rights,” he proclaimed to the dignitaries and functionaries. “The United States will not agree to any provisions restricting civilian possession, use or legal trade of firearms inconsistent with our laws and practices.”

Malkin wonders--not--why mainstream media isn't covering this. Nothing in the hard-copy Post. A Reuters dispatch was made available online at washingtonpost.com last night, and is not entirely worthless:

President George W. Bush's administration, a strong supporter of the National Rifle Association, is fiercely protective of the right of Americans citizens to arm themselves and the U.S. delegation to the meeting is salted with NRA activists.

In line with that stand, Joseph said the United States would oppose any moves to restrict civilian possession, use or legal trade of firearms. Washington also would oppose any attempt to regulate ammunition, he said.

And while it would continue to oppose "terrorist groups" acquiring arms, "we recognize the rights of the oppressed to defend themselves against tyrannical and genocidal regimes and oppose a blanket ban on non-state actors," Joseph said, referring to non-government fighters such as rebel groups.

Interesting, though, that it doesn't include Joseph's clarion call--music to my ears and to those of the salted NRA activists: “The U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of our citizens to keep and bear arms, and there will be no infringement of those rights”

'Why Is Everybody Always Picking On Me'

In Piling On the New York Times With a Scoop, Howard Kurtz repeatedly tries to fathom the mystery of why the Times is being attacked for its banking-data story when others including the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal published it too.

Wild guess: Because the New York Times broke the story.

Going out on a limb here.

UPDATE: There's an unbridgeable divide here, with people who believe this is a serious war on the one side and most of mainstream media, definitely including Kurtz, on the other.

I don't want to gratuitously bash Kurtz. No, let's do it with purpose and gusto. He seems like a decent guy, is one heckuva hard-working reporter and unlike many others at the Post gives conservatives plenty of column inches. But online yesterday and in print today, he's writing with sincere surprise at the reaction generated by the New York Times' exposure of a successful, legal anti-terrorist program. The funny thing is, when he quotes the Times' critics he runs down many of the reasons we're outraged:

• The program works
• It is legal
• Here are some safeguards to make sure it's legal
• Did I mention that it works

In today's story, he also has a mini-timeline: the LA Times' Doyle McManus (a former Postie) was hearing out a Treasury official's objection to publication when a Blackberry note came in saying the New York Times had gone with the story online. So they printed their own version. And it appears the Administration didn't bother trying to block the Wall Street Journal, with the cat out of the bag.

And yet after all this, Kurtz can still write:

Even by modern standards of media-bashing, the volume of vitriol being heaped upon the editors on Manhattan's West 43rd Street is remarkable -- especially considering that the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal also published accounts Friday of a secret administration program to monitor the financial transactions of terror suspects. So, in its later editions, did The Washington Post.

But more than anything else, the story reconfirms the fact that many people, entirely aside from their hatred for President Bush,* don't believe we're in a mortal struggle to defend our civilization. People who believe that couldn't say the following as if it were some kind of defense, as Keller does:

"I always start with the premise that the question is, why should we not publish? Publishing information is our job. What you really need is a reason to withhold information."

And who can think of a reason to do that?

UPDATE II: Hugh Hewitt says he's getting letters "particularly from the left" about a "conspiracy of silence" aiming at the New York Times instead of the Wall Street Journal. Um, see this here item above, my lefties, presumably Howard Kurtz not among them. Hewitt points to Patterico saying--with more certainty than I have--that the Journal was only playing catch-up, while the NYT and LAT were both going to run the story regardless. Either way, Kurtz's surprise at the anger directed at the New York Times, the paper that broke the story, well, surprises me.

*I don't put Kurtz in that category. Let's face it, he's just too amiable.

Naming A Desk Jockey vs. Exposing How We Capture Terrorists

Kind of the same thing in Howard Kurtz's mind unless this was just a careless comparison in his Media Notes online column posted hours ago (via Newsbusters) :

Some of the outside commentary is so over the top that I think those folks would repeal the First Amendment tomorrow if they could. And most of those proclaiming horror at the leaking of classified info were willing to give the White House a pass for the outing of the covert Valerie Plame.

Sorry, but a man placing those two events in the same time zone, never mind the same sentence, isn't thinking clearly.

Most of the column admirably quotes critics, Keller himself, and one or two insane people.

UPDATE: Tom Maguire has a much longer post on this "false parallel" between Plame and the bank-data program, including quotes from Posties Walter Pincus and Bob Woodward about how little damage the Plame outing may have caused. Maguire also notes the Plame angle is dropped in Wednesday's story.

Set The Flag On Fire

The National Review is wrong:

The Supreme Court got it wrong in 1989 and 1990, when it struck down first a state law and then a federal law banning flag-burning. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, not freedom of “expression”; and burning a flag is no more speech than nude dancing, public urination, or a barroom brawl — although each of these things may express people’s thoughts and feelings.

Let me amend that. The National Review is abysmally wrong and should be embarassed to have made this argument. Its editors have taken the Constitutional SAT test and failed.

Now let's stroll by the local watering hole and jot down the everyday pastimes of our neighbors:

• Nude dancing
• Public urination
• Barroom brawl
• Burning the flag

Which one of these these items do not belong?  Separately, what the hell kind of neighborhood is this anyway--because burning the flag while publicly urinating during a barroom brawl at a nude dance club is not what our people do. Friday nights, maybe.

But according to the National Review, burning a flag is no more speech than nude dancing, public urination, or a barroom brawl. Very bright and honorable people wrote that. I guess in every faction there are people who want a speech code for something.

UPDATE: Here's a column by Charles Babington and Jonathan Weisman about the proposed constitutional amendment to permit a ban against flag burning (that prompted the NR editorial). Bill Frist:

Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) cast the debate in loftier terms. "Many Americans have come to see the flag as a sacred symbol of our nation and its values," he said. "Those who dislike American values have the right to express their opinions even when they are offensive. But I do not believe that the right to desecrate a symbol like our flag belongs in the same category."

"Desecration" is a word best reserved for religion, Senator. Let's not confuse this magnificent flag and all it represents with veneration of the Creator of the Universe, 'kay? And I don't know what hurts worse--agreeing with Sen. Patrick Leahy, also quoted in the column, or with Dana Milbank. A stopped clock, etc. But tinkering with the Constitution of the United States over something that happens maybe well over several times a year--I don't think so.

UPDATE DEUX: I hope reports via Allahpundit over at the Hot Air blog are correct that the amendment is going to fail.

UPDATE PHASE THREE: Via Planet Moron of all places, I see the amendment failed. As Planet Moron put it:

However, the primary concern is that the burning of the American flag causes some people offense, making this the conservative version of political correctness. But unlike timid liberals who satisfy themselves with campus speech codes and corporate sensitivity seminars, conservatives don’t mess around, they go straight to the governing document of the country. No doubt, this is fully in the spirit of our Founding Fathers... In fact, James Madison had probably meant to put something in about flag burning, but you know how constitutional conventions are, it’s always rush rush rush.