As we sputter, spin, and smartly move in place while James Baker and the Iraq Study Group finish their report, commentators fear that James Baker will lead us to regional talks with Syria and Iran where we abandon our Iraqi allies to the wolves in the region.

• Rich Lowry in, Bush adrift, talks about the President’s inability to seize upon a course of action, his delegation of authority to the Generals, and his failure to take responsibility as Lincoln did to master the details of war.

• Frank Gaffney in, The new groupthink, fears that “the Baker-promoted regional strategy is a euphemism for throwing Free Iraq to the wolves in its neighborhood: Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.”

• And finally, Chester in his blog, “Magical Realism Visits the Middle East, sees similarities in the pending Iraq “solution” to the surreal narratives penned by Garcia-Marquez in his novels. Chester states that the idea that Syria and Iraq will help us stabilize the region that they are responsible for destabilizing is our own current form of “magical realism.”

There is cause for concern if these commentators are correct. Are we about to embark on a course eerily familiar to Prime Minister Chamberlain’s decision appeasing Hitler with the Munich Agreement?

In an editorial: “Neocons' abandon Iraq war at White House front door,” USA Today blames any failure in Iraq on the “neocons.” Some of the neocon failures were the result of: 

· Disbanding the Iraqi army,

· The decision to go war itself, a naive and arrogant exercise in wishful thinking that the nation can't afford to repeat,

· Using weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for an imminent threat to U.S. security,

· Not planning and waging the war properly by implementing the Powell Doctrine and listening to Secretary Powell. Unfortunately, in Iraq, the Powell Doctrine took a back seat to neoconservative fantasies.

First, regarding the alleged disbanding of the Iraqi Army as a mistake: L. Paul Bremmer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, calls this argument a myth that refuses to die since the Iraqi army disintegrated during our invasion. There was never any army to disband and significant concerns were raised by the Shia and other groups about the risks of trying to recreate Saddam’s Sunni senior officer corps. In fact, Mr. Bremmer states this was one decision “we got right.”

Second, the mistake was going to war at all and especially on a pretext of weapons of mass destruction. The Bush Administration, however, prior to Secretary Powell’s appearance at the UN, consistently argued multiple rationales for action against Saddam including his frequent contacts with terrorists; violations of terms agreed to at the end of Gulf War I; daily firing on military aircraft operating in “No Fly Zones,” and human rights abuses.  Media and critics discarded all the other valid rationales for action only after the UN appearance.  

Since then all criticism about Iraq has been reduced to the formula no WMD equals a mistake although other rationales were persuasive.  Senator Lieberman, for example, suggested that the violations of the agreement ending Gulf War I were a sufficient rationale for action.  Failure to take action was a lesson learned from World War II after the Allies delayed acting against Hitler in the early 1930s when he violated Treaty Terms ending World War I.  Another example, Prime Minister Blair based his support on removing Saddam on humanitarian grounds and human rights abuses similar to our rationale for action in Kosovo. Consider that Saddam is currently on trial for atrocities against the Kurds for abuses during less than a twelve-month period which resulted in over 150,000 Kurdish dead.  Even at this past month’s death rate of 3,000 Iraqis, it would take over 4 years to match the devastation Saddam inflicted on the Kurds in just ten months.

Furthermore, the problem was that Iraq was not a transparent country; the absence of WMD places the focus in the wrong place. Saddam created the lack of transparency when he ejected or hid material from the weapons inspectors? Vice President Cheney was correct when he argued under these circumstances the burden of proof is on Saddam to allay the concerns of the world community.

Finally, there is the repeated assertion that the big mistake was going “too light” and not listening to military army officers such as Colin Powell about the need for a larger force. If Secretary Powell was right about the size of the force required, then what to make of the recent testimony that a large force and footprint fails to shift the burden to Iraqis to take responsibility? Also, in Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesman, and Leadership in Wartime, Eliot Cohen states that one of the lessons from Vietnam was the size of our force was so large that the burden never shifted to the ARVN forces (Republic of Vietnam) to clean up the corruption and build a viable military force.

Additionally, assuming General Powell was right about the size of the force required, what about his other advice: if you break it you own it; his opposition to Pentagon efforts to create an out-of-country Iraqi force under Ahmad Chalabi so as to put an Iraqi face and group in charge immediately after the fall of Saddam; and seeking UN approval. This “other advice” raises numerous “known unknowns” and makes it exceedingly difficult and incredibly facile to place the blame at the “neocons” doorstep for all conceived errors on Iraq.

First, General Powell repeatedly asserted if you break it you own. Of course, that suggests if we remove Saddam then we are responsible for Iraq. However, in America Alone, Mark Steyn, points to the difference between how we have handled “undesirable” leaders in Mexico in the past by removing them versus the British approach in India which was to stay for as long as it took to create a country that adhered to British law. The Pentagon (and neocons) planned to assist Chalabi and his group of ex-patriots to seize control in Iraq. Arguably, this was not a nation building strategy and approximates a “Mexico approach” (to use Mark Steyn’s formulation) rather than a British approach as in India. Unfortunately perhaps, (our known unknown), the State Department prevailed and “the postwar plan failed to provide for the Iraqis themselves to take control as soon as possible.” Was the L. Paul Bremmer time the best method of transition or did it ensure we would be forced to do a British version of India?

And what about the wisdom of General Powell’s advice to seek another UN resolution on Iraq, despite the fact that there were more than a dozen violations? In the end, the French and Russians never lived up to any commitments they made with the last approved resolution and the time lost resulted in multiple issues that raise further known unknowns. For example, Oriana Fallaci has argued that a mistake in dealing with Iraq was the significant delay after 9/11. She argued that world opinion supported U.S. action after 9/11 and the sooner we acted against Saddam the more world support we would have. Perhaps, the even more significant “error” in pursuing further UN action was the loss of Turkey as a means of transit for our forces into Iraq. U.S. forces were positioned to enter Northern Iraq and engage the opposition north of Baghdad. However, as a result of our delays and an election, the RPK party gained significant representation and opposed our use of a corridor through Turkey. We were therefore forced to conduct an invasion solely from the South and our troops billeted in Turkey were required to board ships and travel to Iraq by another route. We never did engage the resistance in the North since our forces stopped at Baghdad. So much for waiting to make another useless trip to the UN.

Finally, much is made by USA Today and others about our purported failure to heed the lessons of Vietnam – the size of force and the folly of fighting a foreign war. Winston Churchill said the tragedy of World War I was that its lessons were thrown away when Europe refused to respond to Hitler’s aggression. Change in Iraq was inevitable. Consider the “unknown unknowns” involved in all the criticism of the President’s decision to remove Saddam from Iraq. What would an Iraq look like today with Saddam still in charge? What would he be doing with his push to create WMD, his contacts with terrorists, and his plans to create a caliphate? Vietnam is the wrong model. The real tragedy of Iraq would be to forget the lessons of World War II.

Winston Churchill said the tragedy of World War I was that its lessons were thrown away when Europe refused to respond to Hitler’s aggression.  Today, in “Kick him out,” Elie Wiesel argues that in light of the frequent comments by the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to wipe Israel from the map we should take him at his word and not forget the lessons of World War II.  He argues that it is time for the United Nations to expel Iran from the world body. On what grounds would Iran be expelled?  He answers the question:

“It is quite simple: One member state of the United Nations that threatens to destroy another member state of these same United Nations violates its very charter and conventions.”

While he admits it is unlikely that any member state will offer such a resolution, isn’t it time to demand that the U.S. Congress repudiates this conduct?

Why hasn’t their been a move to isolate Iran further with a resolution of Congress condemning this outright attack on a member state?

Furthermore, even if expulsion is untenable, why should a member state that is unwilling or refuses to repudiate such comments be permitted to vote? When will Ambassador Bolton tender such a Resolution?

G.K. Chesterton said: “Men can always be blind to a thing, as long as it is big enough.” A holocaust is no longer unthinkable. It is no longer “big enough” that we can allow ourselves to be blind to it. Time is of the essence. Where is the sense of urgency and importance in Washington?

In "The ‘Eurabia’ Myth,” Ralph Peters responds to commentators such as Mark Steyn, America Alone, and Oriana Fallaci, The Force of Reason, who see a declining Europe ready to be dominated by its’ Muslim immigrants.  Mr. Peters’ message for us is to forget the ‘pop prophets.’  Mr. Peters rejects the idea that Europeans will allow the Muslim immigrants to take over their societies.  He sees a postmodern Europe enjoying the glories of a Kantian “state of universal peace" that is about to return to the Hobbesian realities of its history -- “we’re going to see Europe’s history reprised on meth.”  Rather than a failure of will to respond to the unassimilated Muslim immigrants, continental Europe will return to its history of ethnic cleansing, holocaust, and ejecting the “undesirables” (just as they did the Jews, Huguenots, and Moors in the past).  He concludes with a somber comment: “When Europeans feel sufficiently provoked and threatened - a few serious terrorist attacks could do it - Europe's Muslims will be lucky just to be deported.”

"Courage is almost a contradiction in terms. It means a strong desire to live taking the form of a readiness to die." (From Orthodoxy; quoted in Chesterton Society)

Best Chesterton WWW Links

Comments From Speaker Pelosi: To my fellow Democrats, do not be concerned if you are suffering from acrophobia. I will stay in the basement. I promise not to climb to any great heights. Don’t worry, I would never dream of going near a skylight. I don’t do sun spots.

November 8, 2006

Fox News reported an interview by Brit Hume with Ms. Pelosi.  Brit asked her if she wanted to win the war or simply end it?

Ms. Pelosi: What’s the point? The point is this – it isn’t a war to win. It’s a situation to be solved and you define winning any way you want, but you must solve the problem.

Comment:  Boy, this really helps my self-esteem.  I will never have to lose again.  Imagine I can tell Mrs. Foghorn, dear I didn’t really lose at poker with the guys, it was a situation to solve and I just left all my money there so I could rush home to you!

_____________________________________________________________________

*Oliver Wendell Holmes said:

“There are one-story intellects, two story intellects, and three story intellects with skylights. All fact collectors with no aim beyond their facts are one-story men. Two-story men compare, reason and generalize, using labors of the fact collectors as well as their own. Three-story men idealize, imagine and predict. Their best illuminations come from above through the skylight.” (Oliver Wendell Holmes, writer, physician) (Quote is believed to be from a short story called: The Three Story House.) 

During these perilous times it is imperative that with a divided government our elected representatives find a way to govern.  And make no mistake; potential peril is all around us. France is burning and the battles are continuing in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Further, in the first week of November 2006 news reports announced that six Arab countries, including Algeria, were contemplating going nuclear similar to Iran.  Additionally, there is increasing risk of atomic weapons in the hands of terrorists.  Moreover, if the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan and extremists eliminated President Musharraf in Pakistan, we would indeed face dangerous times. Other significant issues include: North Korea, Iran, and a range of domestic issues about how to “re-set” the rules for combating radical Islam. One conclusion seems inescapable - the times require a governing coalition.

Can our current political class subordinate past grievances and form a coalition capable of governing effectively? Can the Chief Executive find common purpose with enough members of both parties to form a coalition comparable to the one that President Reagan had with Southern Democrats, known as Yellow Dog Democrats, during the 1980s? Today, as a result of gerrymandered districts Yellow Dog Democrats are virtually eliminated. As a result, since 1992, we have seen a greater polarization between the left and the right. In 1994, however, a group of thirty-three conservative Democrats formed a coalition and became known as Blue Dog Democrats.  In this recent election, did the Democratic Party recognize the need to run a new breed of Democrat?

In a number of states the Republican actually faced a difficult challenge getting to the right of the Democratic opponent on the issues.  Perhaps these Democrats will emerge as a new breed of Democrat that could be called: Red Dog Democrats.  A Red Dog Democrat may be more conservative than his liberal counterpart, more likely to be pro-military, pro-marriage, pro-limits on abortion, and more traditional in his view of the issues.

Thomas Sowell in a provocative piece, New Voter Fraud, is a “Doubting Thomas.”  He argues that a number of Democratic candidates who ran as moderates will put extremists in charge, i.e., they will give the left wing of their party carte blanche.  Is he correct or are we going to see a new brand of Democrats that assert their political will?

Only time will tell if these newly elected Democrats, who represented themselves as closer to the political center, are really a new breed of Democrat or merely ambitious politicians willing to mislead voters.  Hopefully they were not misrepresenting their positions and will help form a coalition to govern.  Time will tell, but perilous times require leaders and responsibility requires vision.  Will we see it?  Stay tuned.

In 1994 Republicans swept 54 seats to gain control of the U.S. House of Representatives. While some may dispute the cause of that landslide, many Republican House members believe it was their Contract With America. The contract provided a plan for governing the Republican agenda. After the election, the Speaker, Newt Gingrich, methodically reviewed the contract ensuring he covered the provisions. During our war against Radical Islamic Jihadists, we need a new Contract with America.

Accordingly, is there an over-arching theme that could guide us in drafting a contract and proposing an agenda? Yes, during wartime any contract has to be driven by the need to promote a warrior class. Michael Barone writes about two Americas, Hard America and Soft America. ‘Hard America’ is characterized by competition and accountability, while ‘Soft America’ attempts to protect its citizens through government regulation and other social safety nets.

Mr. Barone explains:

One of the peculiar features of our country is that we produce incompetent 18-year-olds and remarkably competent 30-year-olds.

….

Why? Because from the age of 6 to 18, our kids live mostly in what I call Soft America--the part of our society where there is little competition and accountability. In contrast, most Americans in the 12 years between ages 18 and 30 live mostly in Hard America--the part of American life subject to competition and accountability; the military trains under live fire. Soft America seeks to instill self-esteem. Hard America plays for keeps.

….

But a sensible society also understands--and the military has been driving home the lesson--that Soft America lives off the productivity, creativity, and competence of Hard America. And that we have the luxury of keeping part of our society Soft only if we keep most of it Hard.

During a long war, can we afford the luxury of an under 18-year-old Soft America? How can we instill hardiness in those under 18? During my years living in Japan, I observed that pre-school Japanese children had significant freedom with very little if any discipline in the home. When school began, however, their lives changed – the school imposed discipline, competition, and accountability. These young children benefited from a clear plan to develop hardiness. During the winter you could see it with the young boys as they walked past your house on their way to school. The boys were wearing their school uniforms with short pants cut above the knee. I often marveled at how they adapted to the cold. My experience was that during the severe winters kerosene heat only helped you reach a sort of truce with the weather, but real relief only came when the temperatures climbed.

If Japan could instill that sort of hardiness in their young, especially the boys, why shouldn’t the United States adopt a similar bias during this long war with radical Islam? Why wait, as Michael Barone notes, until the age of 18? Isn’t it a disservice to military volunteers raised in Soft America, that they have to adapt quickly in military service or possibly lose life or limb? Shouldn’t we lower the age when our young leave Soft American behind? Shouldn’t we create a larger group of pro-military warriors during times of peril?

Yes, we should, and make no mistake potential peril is all around us. In the first week of November 2006 news reports announced that six Arab countries, including Algeria, were contemplating going nuclear similar to Iran. Additionally, there is increasing risk of atomic weapons in the hands of terrorists. Further, if the Taliban seized control over Afghanistan and Pakistan we would indeed face perilous times. Therefore, a culture that values military service and promotes, nurtures, and supports a warrior class is essential.

Why do we want a warrior class? Mark Steyn provides a possible answer in an anecdote about an event in Europe where a gang of “young men” (Muslim youths) on board a bus attacked a helpless passenger. The other passengers all averted their eyes and looked towards the floor. Only one passenger stepped forward to challenge the "youths.” The gang turned on this intruder and began severely beating him. At the next bus stop, thirty passengers quickly exited while the “youths” continued beating the Good Samaritan to death. A society unwilling to fight for its existence is a society already dead. For protection, our society needs an agenda that nurtures a Hard America with a warrior class.

This proposed contract is a first step in recognizing that priority.

1. All high schools receiving federal funding will have mandatory ROTC classes at their campuses. High school ROTC graduates enlisting in a college ROTC program will receive priority for federal funds for educational grants and loans.

2. All colleges receiving federal funding shall have ROTC programs on campus and allow military recruiters on campus.

3. Any high school receiving federal funding must require two years of United States History for graduation.

4. Armed Forces television and radio broadcasting for domestic consumption via satellite transmission and Internet with a high priority for reporting the “good news” for events in Iraq or other combat areas.

5. Special bonuses for graduates of Navy SEAL and Special Forces training programs. Additionally, provide a 50 percent increase in G.I. Bill benefits for members of those military communities who successfully complete their enlistment.

6. Pass legislation authorizing boy’s only education. Give legislative priority for vouchers to students attending military academies at the junior high and high school level.

7. All high schools receiving federal funds must re-institute mandatory physical education.

8. Legislative priority for programs that encourage individual responsibility, competition, and initiative.

9. Legislators will partner with civilian leaders to create national tournaments similar to the Little League World Series in sports such as football and hockey for junior high school students.

10. Athletic programs, such as Division 1 men’s football and basketball that contribute significant financial support to University athletic departments will not count for scholarship purposes under any Title IX restrictions. Schools that had previously been forced to close men’s programs, e.g., in water polo, wrestling, fencing, or judo, will consequently have additional scholarships available.

On November 3, 2006, days before the mid-term election, “old media” [occasionally referred to as MSM or mainstream media] trumpeted two stories: a report of misconduct by Ted Haggard, a former president of the National Evangelical Association, with 30 million evangelical Christians, and a report about the Bush administration posting Internet documents seized from Saddam Hussein in Iraq. In both stories, however, old media more likely failed to achieve their desired result.

Throughout the day, the media focused on the hypocrisy of Ted Haggard, a Colorado evangelical pastor, for buying methamphetamine and possibly engaging in homosexual conduct with a male escort. (Subsequently, on November 5, 2006, Ted Haggard confessed to sexual misconduct, and he was removed from his duties as pastor of the New Life Church.) The excessive coverage about the pastor of a small church in Colorado suggested old media intended more than to attack just Ted Haggard. Reporting by old media about evangelicals is consistently negative and reflects their hostile attitude toward religion and the Christian message. In trumpeting the Ted Haggard story, could there be an anti-religious intent to demoralize Church members and persuade them to abandon their faith?

Ted Haggard’s fall from prominence and disgrace is a story of human imperfection. For believers, man’s fall is not news; rather, it confirms the need for faith and grace. In the absence of grace, Christians believe anyone can fall short, and Haggard’s unfortunate story won’t persuade believers their faith is a mistake. Therefore, rather than discouraging evangelicals, the story more likely convinced them to renew their faith and pray for the grace needed to resist temptation.

The second story concerned the recent discovery that some archived Iraqi documents captured during the war and posted on the Internet might serve as a nuclear primer and help states like Iran build a nuclear weapon. Apparently, the Times’ intended to criticize the Bush administration for incompetence. The New York Times switch to an incompetence theme for disclosing information to the public after several years of criticizing the administration for its secrecy, however, confirmed the value of the archived documents. The documents clearly show Iraq was a dangerous place during Saddam’s rule. By emphasizing the danger of posting some of the documents, the Times actually confirmed the reliability of the other Internet archived documents that show Saddam's contacts with terrorist, his future plans including what he intended to do after sanctions were lifted, and the seriousness of the situation when U.S. forces entered Iraq to remove Saddam.

Consequently, in both stories, old media rather than demoralizing Pastor Haggard’s followers more likely reaffirmed their belief that faith and grace are a necessary part of daily religious life, and old media rather than discouraging President Bush’s supporters more likely persuaded them the President is charting a more realistic course than the one portrayed by the New York Times and others in the old media.

Broken windows left unrepaired in a neighborhood can be a signal of crime and disorder; they are evidence that standards have deteriorated and are not being enforced. Mayor Rudy Giuliani acted on this insight, the “broken-window theory” by Professor James Wilson, in cleaning up Times Square and New York City. Gradually Times Square and New York City turned around as the consistent enforcement of standards made it difficult for panhandlers, prostitutes, drug pushers, and various other underclass elements to thrive in the City. Enforcing standards made a difference.

Community standards or norms aren’t always enforced, however, as evidenced by the current popularity of out of wedlock births in Hollywood, total body tattoos, and body piercing tantamount to mutilation. In fact, it is hard to identify any criticism of the old social taboos today that would have been unacceptable a generation ago.

The good news is this past week a pro-military community once again found its voice and stood up for the brave military men and women fighting for their country during wartime. They said insults, personal attacks, or lack of gratitude for our military troops is unacceptable. This marks the second time in a short period that a senior Democratic Senator has been forced to recant a critical statement about our troops.

First, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the number two ranking member of the Democratic Party in the Senate, in June 2005, compared the U.S. military’s treatment of prisoners assigned to the Guantanamo Detention facility to the Nazis, Soviets in the gulags, “or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings.” Second, this week Senator John F. Kerry, the party’s 2004 Presidential nominee, was not permitted to get away with a comment that on its face was a clear insult to the intelligence of our military forces serving in Iraq.

In the past, such negative comments about our troops by leading political figures went unchallenged or failed to cause a community response. For example, during Vietnam, the personal attacks toward our troops built up and eventually like a black plague spreading over the body politic, our military members were criticized, spit upon, and attacked for their service to our country. Their response to a call for duty at great risk to personal safety was treated shabbily. If the myriad experts predicting a long war against radical Islam are right, it is important that a community speak out; we must maintain the morale of our forces and nurture our warrior class.

The fact that a significant community was able to mount an effective message of outrage is very good news. These two cases demonstrate that with the advent of talk radio and the Internet our military members will be defended. For example, in Senator Kerry’s case multiple sources reported his initial statement. In fact reports were on the Internet long before the White House weighed in. Senator Kerry lashed out at his supposed antagonists, perhaps unaware of the on line “network’ that brought his comment to millions of readers before Rush Limbaugh even took to the airwaves. Internet news sites like Drudge, PowerLine, Free Republic, Pajamas Media, and Hugh Hewitt, quickly had the report of the Senator’s Pasadena comment posted and circulating throughout the net. Even more impressive is the fact that Senator Kerry was forced to apologize despite any criticism from “old media” which generally tried to carry water for him while he made repeated efforts to explain away his insult.

An early reply such as the response to Senator Kerry’s attack on the military is a good thing contrary to an argument that criticizing the military should not be a third rail. While individual misconduct is open to criticism and punishment, the act of service and the patriotism of our forces should only be recognized with gratitude. Fortunately, the abuses heaped on returning Vietnam veterans will no longer be tolerated. There is an active community today that can communicate quickly and effectively and just like Mayor Giuliani they can force the “broken windows” to be repaired before disorder (loss of faith in our military forces) is allowed to gain a foothold.

John Kerry’s statement about the troops in Iraq at Pasadena Community College on October 30, 2006, created quite a stir. The words themselves were very clear: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Hours later, after his warning to a junior college audience about the “value of an education or you can end up in Iraq” comment had traveled across the Internet, the negative reaction built to a point where Senator Kerry was forced to hold a press conference. Over the ensuing days, the Senator continued to keep the story in the news. First, at his press conference, the Senator said he refused to apologize to anyone. Second, he subsequently said he left out a word. Third, he said it was actually a little more than a dozen words. And finally, he posted a statement on his web site, I am sorry if you misinterpreted what I said [implication: because you were too stupid to read my mind].

While many were just calling for the Senator to apologize for his comment, some supporters indulged in convoluted efforts to keep up with the Senator’s frequent iterations of his defense. Even the NY Times got trapped between version 2.0 and the upgrade to version 3.0 when they tried to defend Kerry for the failure to include a single word in his purported joke -- “us.“ What to do if you were a fence sitter and not sure how to divine Senator Kerry’s intent as to whether it was an intentional insult or a flubbed joke? Perhaps a way to approach a decision would be to apply my Grandpa’s beef stew test.

Years ago I went with my family to visit my grandfather in New England. One evening my Dad offered to take Grandpa out for dinner and Grandpa suggested we try a new restaurant that had just opened out near two-mile corner on the outskirts of town.

Of course, when we were seated and saw the menu, we all knew what Grandpa would order. He was an inveterate lover of beef stew and it was prominently displayed on the menu as a specialty of the house. Sure enough when the time came for Grandpa to order, he said, “I think I’ll have some of your beef stew.”

Something unexpected happened, however, when Grandpa later began to eat the beef stew-- his face turned from pure delight to extreme displeasure. After he took one bite of the beef, he called the waitress and told her to take it all back. My Dad asked what was wrong and Grandpa said the beef was rancid. I remember that Grandpa didn’t pick through the stew trying to find some good pieces of beef; he sent it all back.

Similarly, if Senator Kerry is found to have made any misstatements during this controversy, there is little reason to pick through his various iterations to try to find a defense somewhere. For example, at his press conference Senator Kerry said that as a veteran he would never criticize the military heroes serving in Iraq. So, what are we to make then of his prior criticism of the troops when he testified before Congress in the early 1970s and his critical comments about US troops in Iraq terrorizing families in the dead of night on Face The Nation just last year?

Since the Senator in his press conference denied ever criticizing the military and he is on record as having done so in the past, do we really need to pick through his defense or should we -- like Grandpa -- just reject it all? Why should we be concerned with whether he left out one word or twelve? Who cares if he intended to tell a bad joke or not, the words were very clear and the posting of a lame apology that fails to acknowledge the insult or take responsibility for it is as rancid as the stew Grandpa rejected.

Wolf Blitzer is a CNN veteran. Did Wolf Blitzer demonstrate CNN’s values and priorities during his Lynne Cheney interview on October 27, 2006, when he placed agenda above: customary courtesies traditionally due a guest; promises made about the interview subject matter; and, industry standards for professionalism by asking about unrelated issues irrespective of their relevance? It would be remarkable if Wolf Blitzer’s interview did not reflect the culture and values of CNN -- agenda is everything.

About the Children’s Book

Mrs. Cheney was invited on Wolf Blitzer’s show to do an interview about her new book, Our 50 States: A Family Adventure Across America (interview transcript here). In an interview where the transcript runs over 2,000 words, Wolf Blitzer’s comments about the book consist of about 115 words. He essentially said - the title of the book, the pictures are pretty, and I recommend everyone read it. These generalities are hardly the material for a 15-minute interview per prior agreement. He did not ask his guest a single question about her book. His banal recommendation that everyone read the book lacked conviction; he did not provide any evidence to support his assertion. He demonstrated no curiosity about the reasons, goals, or story behind the ideas for the book. He displayed zero curiosity about the content of the book and no evidence he had read it. He even failed to raise one factual point in the book that might generate a conversation, e.g., an item in the book about his home state that surprised him. Rather than discuss the book, the subject of the arranged interview, Wolf Blitzer went off topic to raise other issues.

Questions About Other Items

Mr. Blitzer raised an issue about a response by Vice President Cheney to a question about a dunk in the water being okay if it would save lives. He wanted Mrs. Cheney to comment on whether her husband was endorsing water boarding. She indicated there was no evidence of that. She mentioned that this type of distortion and other examples of bias by CNN about the Administration were very disconcerting. As an example, she mentioned a number of points from the CNN “Broken Government" series that were distorted and biased.

Mr. Blitzer suggested: “that was probably the purpose of the show, to get people to think, to get people to discuss these issues, because there are a lot of conservatives…”

Note to Mr. Blitzer: This is an amazing inversion of the journalistic principle that you present both sides so your audience can evaluate all the evidence and reach their own conclusion. Also, it is unlikely that any “thinking conservatives” still watch CNN so conceding the charge of bias suggests the purpose of the program isn’t so much to encourage thinking as it is to provide anti-administration propaganda to regular viewers.

The next issue was a recent airing by CNN of a terrorist video showing a sniper killing Americans in Iraq. Mrs. Cheney asked Mr. Blitzer: Do you want us to win? Mr. Blitzer replied: “The answer, of course, is we want the United States to win. We are Americans. There’s no doubt about that. You think we want the terrorists to win”

However, a few moments later when asked why they were running terrorists propaganda, Mr. Blitzer in a series of comments asserted: it was news; denied CNN was running terrorists video; and “we are not partisan.” And then there was this exchange:

LC: But Wolf, there’s a difference between news and terrorist propaganda. Why did you give the terrorists a forum?

WB: And if you put it in context, if you put it in context, that’s what news is. We said it was propaganda.

Next Mr. Blitzer claimed that CNN made it clear it was terrorist propaganda when they released it. Also, that it was a carefully considered decision.

Note to Mr. Blitzer: There is a major lack of clarity here about the role of journalists and the view of the war. In one comment the terrorist video is news and in another comment not only is the video propaganda, but all news is propaganda. In another sequence, “we” want to win the war and then later, “we are not partisan.” Also, the assertion that: “it was a carefully considered decision” is less than persuasive. You might recall, Osama Bin Laden and the New York Times both carefully considered their respective decisions before sending a terrorist team to kill three thousand people and releasing the details of a classified banking program that saved American lives.

Mr. Blitzer next turned to comments that day by the DNC (Democratic National Committee) and James Webb, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Virginia, about allegations of sexually explicit material in Mrs. Cheney’s book, Sisters. These allegations were offered as a defense to James Webb’s sexually graphic descriptions in his own novels. Mr. Blitzer read from the DNC talking points. He gave no indication he had read Mrs. Cheney’s out of print book from 25 years ago or that he had considered the accuracy of the allegation, before trying to involve Mrs. Cheney in a Virginia election controversy.

Note to Mr. Blitzer: There is a long tradition dating back to the early Greeks about how to treat a guest. Mrs. Cheney was a guest on your show. She was a former employee of your network and arguable a member of the CNN team. Questions about sexually charged issues made that very day when the guest is invited to talk about a children’s book is classless, boorish and in poor taste. Finally, I wanted to send my impressions of the interview:

Final Comments - Quality of Interview

Putting agenda above: courteousness to a guest, keeping a promise about the subject of the interview, and professionalism, actually damages CNN’s brand and your own integrity. In the process, the program presents a small-minded agenda.

Note to Mr. Blitzer: The interview smacked of an ambush. It was apparent that you failed to extend a simple courtesy to your guest like a heads-up that news events compelled you to ask if you could go off topic for a few minutes to get her comments.

The failure to offer this simple courtesy resulted in repeated requests from Lynne Cheney for time to talk about her book, thus wasting airtime. Such a waste of time failed to consider not only your guest, but also your audience, which was subjected to repeated questions by the surprised guest about when you would talk about her book. Your failure to engage at all on her book was inconsiderate. It also demonstrated that your guest was nothing more than a prop for you to raise issues such as the Vice President’s position on water boarding and the sexually explicit material in Mrs. Cheney’s out of print book as a rejoinder to charges about James Webb’s books. The performance gave the over-whelming impression of extreme partisanship.

You lost control of the interview. You allowed your guest to get the better of you repeatedly in off-topic exchanges. The most memorable points were your answers to questions from the guest. The fact that you are the story should suggest that your methods and performance were less than the professional standard.

Your answers reflected a lack of clarity about the war and CNN’s role as a news service. Consequently providing no reason why any listener should want to invite your program into their living. All in all it was a pretty remarkable performance for one afternoon.

At the beginning of this year’s election season, it was a promising development to see James Webb, Vietnam veteran, author, and former Secretary of the Navy, running as a pro-military, Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate in Virginia. As we enter the final stretch, however, one wonders if the recent back and forth over charges of sexually inappropriate scenes in Mr. Webb’s books marks a knockout blow to his candidacy. Rather than a rising star, is the James Webb campaign a crashing meteor?

Mr. Webb has been accused during the campaign of being demeaning towards women as evidenced by earlier comments about women in military academies and combat. It is therefore surprising to see him assert a charge against Lynne Cheney and her out-of-print book, “Sisters” written about 25 years ago, as a shield or barrier of defense against attacks on his writing.

Mrs. Cheney is not his opponent. She is not a candidate for any public office today. Further, it is not relevant to the charge that Mr. Webb’s books contain inappropriate sexual material to say – Mrs. Cheney is worse than I am! Or, You think I am bad, you should see what Lynne Cheney said in her out of print book about 25 years ago.

Mr. Webb’s other defenses were that the sections of his literary historical novels were taken out of context and were appropriate remembrances to advance the scenes in his plot. In introducing Mrs. Cheney’s writings as a defense: Did Secretary Webb read her book or did he merely reach for a DNC prepared talking point? If he did not personally read the out-of-print book, what does it say about someone who would plead “context” as his own defense and then make allegations about someone else’s writing without following his own prescription? There is little to be served by bringing Lynne Cheney into his campaign. Rather, it smacks of desperation and lacking in class to raise her as a shield when her conduct isn’t relevant to whether or not his writing is inappropriate.

Mr. Webb’s defense of his written work would have been better if he had merely ended his reply without raising the subject of Mrs. Cheney at all. Couldn’t he have merely asked: Have you read my books in context to understand how each setting is “illuminating surroundings or defining a character or moving a plot?" Do you realize I am explaining cultural differences and unusual values that I have seen personally—rather than trying to insert sexual material for a prurient purpose?

Mr. Webb acted in an un-Senatorial manner, without characteristic grace or class, when he attacked Mrs. Cheney for sexual content in her book Sisters as a defense to questions about sexually explicit material in his books. Just like the young boy who was crushed when Shoeless Joe Jackson was thrown out of baseball for fixing Chicago White Sox games in the Black Sox Scandal of 1919, one can only paraphrase and ask Mr. Webb: Please say it ain’t so, Jim.

The foil may curve in the lunge; but there is nothing beautiful about beginning the battle with a crooked foil. So the strict aim, the strong doctrine, may give a little in the actual fight with facts but that is no reason for beginning with a weak doctrine or a twisted aim. Do not be an opportunist; try to be theoretic at all the opportunities; fate can be trusted to do all the opportunist part of it. Do not try to bend; any more than the trees try to bend. Try to grow straight; and life will bend you. (Daily News) (Quoted in Chesterton Day by Day.)

If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. (Quoted in Chesterton Day by Day)