And when you realize how they tricked you this time ...

So, what left-wing America hater penned this?

In the wake of the September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on the United States, the U.S. Government declared a global war on terrorism (GWOT). The nature and parameters of that war, however, remain frustratingly unclear. The administration has postulated a multiplicity of enemies, including rogue states; weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferators; terrorist organizations of global, regional, and national scope; and terrorism itself. It also seems to have conflated them into a monolithic threat, and in so doing has subordinated strategic clarity to the moral clarity it strives for in foreign policy and may have set the United States on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and nonstate entities that pose no serious threat to the United States.

Of particular concern has been the conflation of al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat. This was a strategic error of the first order because it ignored critical differences between the two in character, threat level, and susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action. The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al-Qaeda. The war against Iraq was not integral to the GWOT, but rather a detour from it.

Additionally, most of the GWOT’s declared objectives, which include the destruction of al-Qaeda and other transnational terrorist organizations, the transformation of Iraq into a prosperous, stable democracy, the democratization of the rest of the autocratic Middle East, the eradication of terrorism as a means of irregular warfare, and the (forcible, if necessary) termination of WMD proliferation to real and potential enemies worldwide, are unrealistic and condemn the United States to a hopeless quest for absolute security. As such, the GWOT’s goals are also politically, fiscally, and militarily unsustainable. Accordingly, the GWOT must be recalibrated to conform to concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American power.

Why, it's Dr. Jeffrey Record of the Army War College, in a new report assessing the War on Terror. The complete report can be accessed at this link.

That Equipment You Got's So Outdated

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has released its report on Iraq's WMDs. You can obtain the report at this link, or just read the summary here. The short version: There are no WMDs.

Iraq's nuclear program had been suspended for many years; Iraq focused on preserving a latent, dual-use chemical and probably biological weapons capability, not weapons production.

Iraqi nerve agents had lost most of their lethality as early as 1991.

Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, and UN inspections and sanctions effectively destroyed Iraq's large-scale chemical weapon production capabilities.

The report also has other recommendations and findings which hopefully somebody in authority in the US will take to heart:.

Revise the National Security Strategy to eliminate a U.S. policy of unilateral preventive war, i.e., preemptive war in absence of imminent threat.
...

There were at least two options preferable to a war undertaken without international support: allowing the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspections to continue until obstructed or completed, or imposing a tougher program of "coercive inspections.

Sounds a lot like one of my favorite thinkers on war and peace.

There is no Keyser Soze!

David Brooks has hastened to reassure us that there is nothing to worry about. In today's column, he chides those who listen to "ludicrous stories" which talk "about how Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Bill Kristol and a bunch of 'neoconservatives' … had taken over U.S. foreign policy." (Actually, the point of Mr. Brooks' column may just be to set up a handy rejoinder the next time someone criticizes Administration policy, since he also writes: "con is short for 'conservative' and neo is short for 'Jewish'.")

But, in any event, Mr. Brooks wants to make it clear that, despite what you may have heard:

In truth, the people labeled neocons … travel in widely different circles and don't actually have much contact with one another. The ones outside government have almost no contact with President Bush. There have been hundreds of references, for example, to Richard Perle's insidious power over administration policy, but I've been told by senior administration officials that he has had no significant meetings with Bush or Cheney since they assumed office. into their fillings.

Of course, Mr. Perle would probably be the first to argue with Mr. Brooks, about how important he was, and may still be. He has a delightful new book out, described by the American Enterprise Institute as follows:

An End to Evil charts the agenda for what's next in the war on terrorism, as articulated by David Frum, former presidential speechwriter and bestselling author of The Right Man, and Richard Perle, former assistant secretary of defense and one of the most influential foreign-policy leaders in Washington.

An End to Evil will define the conservative point of view on foreign policy for a new generation--and shape the agenda for the 2004 presidential-election year and beyond. With a keen insiders' perspective on how our leaders are confronting--or not confronting--the war on terrorism, David Frum and Richard Perle make a convincing argument for why the toughest line is the safest line.

But, according to Mr. Brooks, for anybody who was worried about what the Usual Suspects have been up to, it's all in your head.

Nobody believed he was real. Nobody ever saw him or knew anybody that ever worked directly for him, but to hear Kobayashi tell it, anybody could have worked for Soze. You never knew. That was his power.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

Babbling Brooks

I don't know why I get so annoyed reading David Brooks' columns in the New York Times. Once again, in today's column, he just seems particularly shallow. His starting point is sound - noting the varied religious journeys of the President and some major Democratic contenders, he observes: "What other country on earth would have three national political figures with such peripatetic religious backgrounds?" But, he then makes other observations (clearly designed to push his own political views) which are just nonsense. Taking just a few which bugged me (in sort-of increasing order of serious concern), Mr. Brooks says that Americans are "reasonable tolerant", noting: "In London recently, President Bush said that Christians and Muslims both pray to the same God. That was theologically controversial, but it was faithful to the national creed." Excuse me, Mr. Brooks, but it was only "theologically controversial" for some American evangelical leaders (the same people you claim do not have as much influence now). It's theologically orthodox for the rest of the world, such as among us Catholics. In another passage, Mr. Brooks cites deTocqueville's comment that Americans "don't seem to care that their neighbors hold to false versions of the faith", and he adds: "That's because many Americans have tended to assume that all these differences are temporary." Again, there are clearly a lot of Americans who very much do care about their neighbor's "false versions". Americans may be happy to go off by themselves, and leave others to their own faiths. When all together, though, there are many people who want to have their version of what faith is dominate - others can believe what they want, just as long as it remains unseen. If you don't believe me, observe how many commentators still seemed torqued off by the simple greeting, "Happy Holidays."

I have a big disagreement with Mr. Brooks' assertion that an "effect of our dominant religious style is that we have trouble sustaining culture wars." As evidence, he points to what he considers to be the waning of the influence of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. Mr. Brooks is missing the point, that the culture wars are no longer being directed from the churches, but from political types who consider themselves on a mission to save America. Look at the conservative books which sell well, touting the left-wing plot to destroy America's soul. Take as an example the "marriage debate". Cal Thomas recently wrote about "a strategy session at the White House", to make gay marriage a hot button political issue in the upcoming year. As Mr. Thomas wrote:

Most people would probably be happy to launch a counter strike in the culture war. Many could be counted on to support an amendment that tries to do something about the social, moral and cultural erosion over which they have felt powerless. Surrounded by bad television, worse movies, anti-religious attitudes of judges and certain liberal activist groups, a pervasive sense that "anything goes," most of those responding to the New York Times/CBS News Poll apparently find a constitutional amendment in support of marriage a much-needed line in the sand. They think we have already gone too far, too fast on too many things.

There will continue to be a "culture war", not necessarily because of religious institutions, but because of the efforts of the "culture war profiteers". Whether for political power, personal aggrandizement , or plain-old money, these all-American entrepreneurs will continue to use the culture wars for their own ends. Personally, I have faith in the tolerance of the individual American, I'm concerned that there are people out there hoping to capitalize on intolerance.

Finally, Mr. Brooks paints a little word picture, of how Mr. Bush and Dr. Dean may be political opposites, but able to unite if they met in a Bible study. I think that would depend on what the topic was. Given that these two gentlemen wound up following very different life choices, from very similar, privileged starting points (as Mr. Brooks likes to remind us), they may have very different views about how to live their faith. I think that's a big point which Mr. Brooks just misses.

A Little Christmas Song

Something in the spirit of the season, which you may not have heard of before ...

Once upon a time in a far off land
Wise men saw a sign and set out aross the sand
Songs of praise to sing, they travelled day and night
Precious gifts to bring, guided by the light
They chased a brand new star, ever towards the west
Across the mountains far, but when it came to rest
They scarce believed their eyes, they'd come so many miles
And the miracle they prized was nothing but a child

Nothing but a child could wash these tears away
Or guide a weary world into the light of day
And nothing but a child could help erase these miles
So once again we all can be children for awhile

Steve Earle, "Nothing But a Child" from Copperhead Road.

More on the Cardinal's Sin

The "Instapundit" has gone into Round 2 on his generic Catholic-bashing, all because poor Cardinal Martino basically admitted that even the most despicable sinner could be viewed with compassion. Wonder where the Cardinal could have picked up a wacky idea like that? Personally, I think the real reason those folks have it out for the Cardinal is something he also said at that same news conference, regarding the capture:"But it seems to me to be illusory to hope that this will repair the dramas and the damage of the defeat for humanity that a war always brings about."

The "Instapundit" felt safe, I guess, because he first referenced an article by Michael Novak. Back in February, the Cardinal stuck with the Church's view of the "just war" concept, and not Mr. Novak's, when the latter tried to get the Vatican to sign up with the Coalition of the Willing. Mr. Novak still may be a little miffed over that.

Anyway, with all of this Catholic-bashing from the right now, where's the Catholic League when you really need them?

If You Liked the Clark and Dean Speeches, You'll Love This ...

A Vatican official expressed concern about how pictures of the captured Saddam Hussein were presented, with pictures of an examination of his mouth and head.

"Seeing him like this, a man in his tragedy, despite all the heavy blame he bears, I had a sense of compassion for him," he said in answer to questions about Saddam's arrest.

From the news reports, it's hard to tell if it was more of an off-hand comment, since the main point of the news conference was to present the World Day of Peace message. Nevertheless, famous blogger "Instapundit" has a roundup of some anti-Catholic responses.

Those folks will really love the Pope's World Day of Peace message for this year, which includes the following:

Today international law is hard pressed to provide solutions to situations of conflict arising from the changed landscape of the contemporary world. These situations of conflict frequently involve agents which are not themselves States but rather entities derived from the collapse of States, or connected to independence movements, or linked to trained criminal organizations. A legal system made up of norms established down the centuries as a means of disciplining relations between sovereign States finds it difficult to deal with conflicts which also involve entities incapable of being considered States in the traditional sense. This is particularly the case with terrorist groups.

The scourge of terrorism has become more virulent in recent years and has produced brutal massacres which have in turn put even greater obstacles in the way of dialogue and negotiation, increasing tensions and aggravating problems, especially in the Middle East.

Even so, if it is to be won, the fight against terrorism cannot be limited solely to repressive and punitive operations. It is essential that the use of force, even when necessary, be accompanied by a courageous and lucid analysis of the reasons behind terrorist attacks. The fight against terrorism must be conducted also on the political and educational levels: on the one hand, by eliminating the underlying causes of situations of injustice which frequently drive people to more desperate and violent acts; and on the other hand, by insisting on an education inspired by respect for human life in every situation: the unity of the human race is a more powerful reality than any contingent divisions separating individuals and people.

In the necessary fight against terrorism, international law is now called to develop legal instruments provided with effective means for the prevention, monitoring and suppression of crime. In any event, democratic governments know well that the use of force against terrorists cannot justify a renunciation of the principles of the rule of law. Political decisions would be unacceptable were they to seek success without consideration for fundamental human rights, since the end never justifies the means.

As "Instapundit" would say, "Indeed".

It Takes One for the Running But Two for the Road

There were two good speeches on foreign policy yesterday, by two of the Democratic candidates for President. In his speech, Wesley Clark noted:

Regardless of your views or my views about the war in Iraq, I am pleased that so many agree that the capture of a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein is good news. After all, this is a dictator who was responsible for starting two wars in the Gulf, whose regime brutalized the Iraqi people, who committed massive human rights abuses, and who used chemical weapons against the Kurds and against Iran.

It has been a long time since there has been good news coming from Iraq. We were long overdue.

The capture of this dictator is good news not only for the Iraqi people - but for people around the world. And I wish to congratulate the American forces and the intelligence units involved in this mission.

But a day of good news in Iraq doesn't change the challenge we face there. The war is not over. There were insurgent attacks all this week against American forces. There was an attack yesterday and there was even an attack this morning.

The entire resistance in Iraq was not run by a pathetic ex-dictator hiding in a hole.

We still do not know how many outsiders have come to Iraq for suicide missions against American forces and the international community. We still not know how many insurgents are driven by a misguided nationalism. And we still do not know how many of the guerrilla fighters from Saddam's militias and intelligence service will fight harder or will give up now that he has been captured.

Our purpose of going to Iraq was not to capture Saddam Hussein. But in the chaotic aftermath of war, his capture was necessary to eliminate the fear that he inspired in so many Iraqis. But it is not sufficient. Iraq is still in danger of becoming a failed state.

And as Howard Dean stated:

The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost. An administration prepared to work with others in true partnership might have been able, if it found no alternative to Saddam’s ouster, to then rebuild Iraq with far less cost and risk.

As our military commanders said, and the President acknowledged yesterday, the capture of Saddam does not end the difficulties from the aftermath of the administration’s war to oust him. There is the continuing challenge of securing Iraq, protecting the safety of our personnel, and helping that country get on the path to stability. There is the need to repair our alliances and regain global support for American goals.

Nor, as the president also seemed to acknowledge yesterday, does Saddam’s capture move us toward defeating enemies who pose an even greater danger: al Qaeda and its terrorist allies. And, nor, it seems, does Saturday’s capture address the urgent need to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the risk that terrorists will acquire them.

Isn't there a way these two sensible kids could get together?

(Thanks to Political Aims and Oliver Willis for pointing to the speeches.)

Killer Joe

In the quest to gain political advantage in the U.S., from an event which has been welcomed from across the political spectrum (i.e., the capture of Saddam Hussein), one of the least helpful suggestions has come from presidential candidate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, on his campaign website:

This evil man has to face the death penalty. The international tribunal in The Hague cannot order the death penalty, so my first question about where he's going to be tried will be answered by whether that tribunal can execute him. If it cannot be done by the Iraqi military tribunal, he should be brought before an American military tribunal and face death.

In other words, neither the Iraqis, nor the world as a whole, should deal with the deposed tyrant. Instead, we should make this a U.S.-only affair, just so folks such as the good Senator can try to earn points by shouting for the death penalty.

Not to quibble, but in the long run, in terms of international relations, or even in terms of whether the Iraqis view our troops as liberators or conquerors, maybe it would be a good idea to tone down campaign rhetoric like that..

Then You're Outta That Hole and Back Up on the Street

In light of the fact that I'm actually getting comments now (from someone who isn't amused by "Unelectable"), I better make sure that I say something about the capture of Saddam Hussein.

We got him. Good. Excellent, in fact. Turns out the fearsome tyrant was cringing in a hole somewhere, with two guns and a lot of U.S. cash for company. He didn't use the guns, and I don't think he'll be spending that cash anytime soon. In fact, from news reports it sounds like it was the cash which helped bring about his capture. When our troops found $750,000 stashed in a crude hut, they decided that was a good area to look around further.

It's definitely too soon to tell how this will affect the long-term prospects for our involvement in Iraq. That hasn't stopped some from trying, or others from criticizing those who have tried. It didn't take long for the focus to shift from Iraq policy to U.S. politics, though, as if the capture in-and-of-itself solves all the problems. It's important, but it doesn't take the place of a well-designed plan for bringing about a peaceful Iraq.

Be that as it may, it's interesting to see how some people just have to start on the attack, as if "wrong-thinking" was somehow a punishable offense in the United States. Andrew Sullivan is on a tear, posting examples of what he calls "thinly-veiled disappointment at the capture of Saddam." He calls these examples "Galloway Award Nominees", after an anti-war British politician who was thought to have been receiving payments from some unsavory Middle Eastern types. Actually, the quote from Galloway used by Mr. Sullivan isn't so nonsensical: "This will not stop the Iraqi resistance. If anything, it may set the resistance free, if you like, from the cloud of Saddam Hussein, and transform it into a purely national resistance movement without the charge that it's being controlled from behind by the deposed president." That's not disappointment, that's an abundance of caution. Mr. Sullivan also disses Juan Cole, a very knowledgeable commentator, who had mused: "Those who dislike US policies or who are opposed to the idea of occupation no longer need be apprehensive that the US will suddenly leave and allow Saddam to come back to power. They may therefore now gradually throw off their political timidity, and come out more forcefully into the streets when they disagree with the US. " Again, that's not "disappointment", but some cautious thinking about the next steps in a land where only the firm boot of the Baath Party kept a lid on the competing interests in Iraq.

[Edited on 12/16 to add] The always-reliable Tom Tomorrow comes through, by introducing us to The Patriotism Police.

Unelectable

Unelectable... Bush won't go far
Unelectable... not up to par
Before long, he'll botch his "victory"
His thoughts are so contradictory
Never before has someone been more...

Unelectable... there is no way
What's he running for? 'Cause he can pay
That's why, Dubya, it's a spectacle
That someone so unelectable
Thinks he's not an unelectable fool

(instrumental interlude)

Unelectable ... there is no way
What's he running for? 'Cause he can pay
That's why, Dubya, it's a spectacle
That someone so unelectable
Thinks he's not an unelectable fool


(To the tune of Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable", Parody by William Tong)
(Link for the word "unelectable" inspired by Roger Ailes and TalkLeft)

You Be True to Me, and I'll Be True to You

Senator Lieberman is upset that Al Gore endorsed Governor Dean. He's said a few things about his loyalty, and about how Mr. Gore is helping to move the party backwards.

As reported back in July of 2002, Senator Lieberman had a different viewpoint about a year or so ago, as he was "waiting" for Mr. Gore to decide whether he was going to run:

"He has not decided to run," Lieberman told a group of reporters at a lengthy session during the Democratic Leadership Council's annual meeting. "It was a 50-50 matter."

Gore spokesman Jano Cabrera said Sunday night: "Gore has yet to make up his mind."

In the meantime, Lieberman is meeting with state delegations from early states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina - telling them that he wants to run as a "New Democrat," referring to the pro-growth, pro-business philosophy of the DLC.

But what's really interesting are Senator Lieberman's thoughts at the time, about the 2000 campaign and about the issues for 2004::

Lieberman said that he and Gore ran on a program that was faithful to New Democrat values, but said some of the campaign rhetoric about "the people vs. the powerful" may have sent the wrong message.

"It was not the pro-growth approach," Lieberman said. "It ultimately made it more difficult for us to gain the support of some`of the middle class, independent voters who don't see America as 'us vs. them,' but more in Kennedy's terms of a rising tide lifts all boats."

Lieberman said that message was inconsistent with Gore's previous record and "ultimately hurt."

Asked whether he would support Gore if he runs another economic populist campaign and there's no other "New Democrat" in the race, Lieberman said: "That's an alluring question I won't answer right now."

So, when asked whether he would "be true" to Mr. Gore, if Mr. Gore wanted to continue to fight in the 2004 campaign, Senator Lieberman politely declined to answer. That's his prerogative. But he shouldn't be complaining now.

All the Hatred and Dirty Little Lies

It seems that, as each day passes, the case against Captain James Yee stinks. Captain Yee is a Muslim chaplain, who had been assigned to Guantanamo Bay to counsel the detainees there. He was arrested amid allegations that he was involved in espionage against the United States. As noted below, the "case" against him, such as it was, seems to have little to do with espionage at this point, and more to do with trying to ruin the man. Now, it is reported that the government can't even decide whether the documents, which form the basis of the case, were even "classified":

Criminal proceedings against Army Capt. James J. Yee came to an abrupt halt Tuesday as Army prosecutors sought additional time to review and classify documents taken from the Muslim chaplain when he was arrested.

The "stink" comes from the fact that, at the time of his arrest, there were statements made that the "highest levels" of our government had assessed the situation, and considered Yee to be a traitor and a spy. As reported by "Newsmax" at the time:

The Washington Times source disclosed that the "highest levels" of government made the decision to arrest Capt. Yee, who had counseled suspected al-Qaeda terrorists at Guantanamo for a lengthy period. According to the report, he had been under surveillance for some time.

Although what country or organization is suspected of receiving information from Yee is as yet unknown, Yee has been charged with five offenses: sedition, aiding the enemy, spying, espionage and failure to obey a general order.

The report noted that the Army may also at some point charge him with the more serious charge of treason against the U.S.

As the Washington Times later reported:

The Bush administration decided to arrest Army Capt. James J. Yee because it feared he would reveal information that could aid terrorists and endanger the lives of military guards at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba, a law-enforcement source said.

As a result, Captain Yee was marked for stopping and searching, not before he left Guantanamo, but instead as he arrived on the mainland:

Special Agent Sean Rafferty, who works as a customs inspector in Jacksonville, Fla., said he was tipped off to watch for Army Capt. James Yee, 35, at the airport as Capt. Yee returned from the Cuba base. He said he searched the backpack that Capt. Yee carried off the plane.

"I found numerous notes of a suspicious nature," Mr. Rafferty said during a conference call to the preliminary hearing that will determine whether Capt. Yee should be court-martialed. "It was determined the documents were of interest to national security."

As I discussed below the other day, this has always seemed suspicious. Putting these elements together, we see that the "Bush Administration" wanted Captain Yee stopped, searched and arrested, even though to this day nobody can state that he had any classified material, or that he engaged in any action which could be considered espionage. Why were the "highest levels" of the Administration so hell-bent to arrest or otherwise ruin this Muslim chaplain?

Would it be possible for one of our fearless media types to ask this question at the White House?

In Which the Cautious Man Uses a Bad Word, but Only in the Interest of Accurate Reporting

This morning I sat at my kitchen table, drinking coffee and reading the paper (as I usually do most days). I read David Brooks' column in today's New York Times, in which he discusses how our troops in Iraq must be, not only fighters, but also builders of a better community in that country. Mr. Brooks discusses an incident in which an American soldier confronts an angry mob, which was "furiously accusing a man of butting in line and stealing gasoline." After investigating, the American officer "established that the man was merely a government inspector checking the quality of the fuel." Then, says Mr. Brooks, the American "took the chance to teach the mob a broader lesson":

The problem is that you people accuse each other without proof! That's the problem!

I don't know if Mr. Brooks does this on purpose just to annoy people, or if he really does miss the meaning of what he writes. But, when I read that, I shouted back at my newspaper, "How the fuck do you think we got into this mess in the first place!" (As I mentioned above, the use of the bad word is entirely due to the need to accurately report what I did this morning.) But really, how can someone miss the point that the "broader lesson" needs to be learned not just by Iraqis, but by us? Our government decided to charge into Iraq, without broad international support, and without any proof at all that it was either necessary or the best approach to the problem of Saddam Hussein. And, THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

Chaplain Yee's Scarlet Letter

Okay, who thinks that this whole Chaplain Yee case is now just an attempt to ruin the man? News reports now indicate that a case that used to be about espionage, is now about having pornography on a government computer, and adultery. Last month we learned that the original spying charges would not be going forward; that doesn't keep some members of the press from continuing to refer to him as an accused spy. From day one, this case seemed to be the result of unhappiness with Chaplain Yee for just doing his job as a Muslim chaplain, which for him including presenting a more balanced face of Islam to counter the "Islam=Terrorism" mindset of so many inside and outside the military.

So, an adultery charge well serves the interests of anyone who wants to discredit Chaplain Yee in the eyes of the public. Assuming he did cheat on his wife does the military prosecute all of these cases? Apparently not. Even before recent changes, literature on military law shows that adultery was viewed as a crime only to the extent it harmed order and discipline in the armed forces.

The National Institute of Military Justice issued a report (the Cox Report, named after its chair) in 2001 recommending revisions to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Among the recommendations:

The Commission concurs with the majority of these assessments in recommending that consensual sodomy and adultery be eliminated as separate offenses in the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts-Martial. Although popular acceptance of various sexual behaviors has changed dramatically in the fifty years since the UCMJ became effective, the Commission accepts that there remain instances in which consensual sexual activity, including that which is currently prosecuted under Articles 125 and 134, may constitute criminal acts in a military context. Virtually all such acts, however, could be prosecuted without the use of provisions specifically targeting sodomy and adultery. Furthermore, the well known fact that most adulterous or sodomitical acts committed by consenting and often married (to each other) military personnel are not prosecuted at court martial creates a powerful perception that prosecution of this sexual behavior is treated in an arbitrary, even vindictive, manner. This perception has been at the core of the military sex scandals of the last decade.

The elements of the offense are set out in Article 134 of the UCMJ:

(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;
(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and
(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. .

In 2002, President Bush issued an Executive Order adding an explanations to the UCMJ, including guidance for adultery prosecutions:

To constitute an offense under the UCMJ, the adulterous conduct must either be directly prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting. Adulterous conduct that is directly prejudicial includes conduct that has an obvious, and measurably divisive effect on unit or organization discipline, morale, or cohesion, or is clearly detrimental to the authority or stature of or respect toward a servicemember. Adultery may also be service discrediting, even though the conduct is only indirectly or remotely prejudicial to good order and discipline. Discredit means to injure the reputation of the armed forces and includes adulterous conduct that has a tendency, because of its open or notorious nature, to bring the service into disrepute, make it subject to public ridicule, or lower it in public esteem.

Private conduct may or may not meet this standard, and therefore commanders were instructed to consider factors such as: "The impact, if any, of the adulterous relationship on the ability of the accused, the co-actor, or the spouse of either to perform their duties in support of the armed forces; … The misuse, if any, of government time and resources to facilitate the commission of the conduct; … Whether the conduct persisted despite counseling or orders to desist; the flagrancy of the conduct, such as whether any notoriety ensued; and whether the adulterous act was accompanied by other violations of the UCMJ; …The negative impact of the conduct on the units or organizations of the accused, the co-actor or the spouse of either of them, such as a detrimental effect on unit or organization morale, teamwork, and efficiency; …" It remains to be seen what aggravating factors the military has found in Chaplain Yee's case, to justify a court martial.

When adultery prosecutions have come to the attention of the public, it has involved awareness of a double standard. For example, in 1997 Army Major General John Longhouser, the commanding general of the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Aberdeen, Maryland, was allowed to retire early at reduced rank after admitting he had had an adulterous relationship with a civilian. At practically the same time, there was the very contentious case of Air Force officer Kelly Flinn, who was threatened with prosecution for adultery, but who was in the end allowed accept a general discharge.

Oh, and at the time Senator Trent Lott had this to say about the adultery prosecution:"I think she is being badly abused. . . . The Pentagon is not in touch with reality on this so-called question of fraternization. I mean, get real. You're still dealing with human beings. . . . I don't understand why she is being singled out and punished the way she is. I think, at the minimum, she ought to get an honorable discharge."

People should consider whether Chaplain Yee's alleged conduct actually constituted a chargeable offense of adultery, or whether he, too, "is being badly abused."

Declared Unfit to Live

The trial of John Allen Muhammad, the "D.C. Sniper Mastermind", ended first with a conviction, followed by a recommendation by the jury for the death penalty. It's clear that Mr. Muhammad is responsible for those terrible crimes, and should be put away. But, news reports have shown once again how the death penalty is an imperfect vehicle for society to deal with the worst criminals among us. News reports (such as this one in my local paper) show the toll taken on the ordinary men and women of the jury, who were asked to recommend a sentence of death. One juror "said videotapes shown by the defense of Muhammad playing with his children made him think Friday that Muhammad should be spared the death penalty. But after a sleepless Sunday night, he changed his mind. " Another "said that the defense offering of home videos showing Muhammad playing with his young children, as well as letters his children wrote to him, 'weighed on this jury a lot.' "

It appears that the jurors were ultimately convinced that Mr. Muhammad was totally and unredeemably lost as a human being. "I think there is no chance of rehabilitation for him," one said. "If he can't be rehabilitated and he's a future danger, I could not live with myself if somebody else got hurt and I'd had the chance to stop it." That person also said: "I'd have a difficult time living with myself if he ever hurt or killed another person. There's no way anybody can guarantee he could not do that if he got life in prison."

It's sad to think that our justice system relies on this dehumanizing mechanism. We are told that it's apparently easier to kill someone, than it is to punish them for life. Our system requires jurors to feel that they would themselves be responsible for Mr. Muhammad's actions, if they were to choose to stop the killing by sentencing him to life in prison. One would think that we could find a better way.

The Kobayashi Maru

Saavik: "Sir, may I ask you a question?"

Kirk: "What's on your mind, Lieutenant?"

Saavik: "The Kobayashi Maru, sir."

Kirk: "Are you asking me if we're playing out that scenario now?"

Saavik: "On the test, sir. Will you tell me what you did? I would really like to know."

Kirk: "I reprogrammed the simulation so it was possible to rescue the ship."

Saavik: "What?"

David: "He cheated."

Kirk: "I changed the conditions of the test ..."

From Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

Q. Are you saying you want him dead or alive, sir? Can I interpret --

THE PRESIDENT: I just remember, all I'm doing is remembering when I was a kid I remember that they used to put out there in the old west, a wanted poster. It said: "Wanted, Dead or Alive." All I want and America wants him brought to justice. That's what we want.

President Bush, September 17, 2001. Meanwhile, today in Iraq:

General Peter Pace, vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at U.S. military headquarters just north of Kabul on Friday that the 11,500-strong U.S.-led force hunting al Qaeda and Taliban militants was not focusing on individuals.

"He (bin Laden) has taken himself out of the picture," Pace told reporters after visiting U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan.

"It is not an individual that is as important as is the ongoing campaign of the coalition against terrorists," he said.

That Massachusetts Decision

There will be a lot of discussion about the decision (you know, this one). As it is discussed, whether in terms of politics, morality, religious faith or economics, it would be a good thing to keep in mind the following, from Justice Greaney's concurrence:

I am hopeful that our decision will be accepted by those thoughtful citizens who believe that same-sex unions should not be approved by the State. I am not referring here to acceptance in the sense of grudging acknowledgment of the court's authority to adjudicate the matter. My hope is more liberating. The plaintiffs are members of our community, our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends. As pointed out by the court, their professions include investment advisor, computer engineer, teacher, therapist, and lawyer. The plaintiffs volunteer in our schools, worship beside us in our religious houses, and have children who play with our children, to mention just a few ordinary daily contacts. We share a common humanity and participate together in the social contract that is the foundation of our Commonwealth. Simple principles of decency dictate that we extend to the plaintiffs, and to their new status, full acceptance, tolerance, and respect. We should do so because it is the right thing to do.

Reasonable people will differ, but in doing so will have to confront the simple truth that this issue does not affect strangers, but "members of our community, our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends".

Just Another Roll of the Dice

It's ba-ack …

Remember the Terrorism Futures Market? Sorry, the "Policy Analysis Market" ("PAM"). That's the one which, as described by CNN, would "allow traders to buy and sell contracts on political and economic events in the Middle East, including assassinations, the overthrow of regimes and terrorist attacks. " As Government Computer News noted, "The market, which is intended to be an analysis tool to track and predict events in the Middle East, was developed for DARPA by Net Exchange of San Diego. The storm of congressional and public protest when the program was revealed resulted in its being shut down within 24 hours " It's now been reconstituted as a purely private venture. So, no problem, right?

Well, wrong, IMHO.

The "Policy Analysis Market" is based on the theory that this mechanism would develop better "guesses" as to likely terrorist activities. "It originally was developed and funded with the assistance of the Defense Department, where officials cited the uncanny ability of other futures markets to predict election results, weather patterns and other complex events." Let me suggest that you don't need any background in statistics or other mathematics to spot the flaw in this theory. Prediction is basically an attempt to discern patterns within a system, or to put it another way, to "model" that system. An electorate or the weather are two examples of systems which can be modeled, with the hope of finding such patterns. The financial markets are another example of such a system.

The key concept, though, is that these are "systems". As such, it is possible for some action to take place within the system, and have an effect. With weather, well, we can try but we can't do much about what will happen; it's classic "chaos theory", with uncountable inputs making up the system. Elections may be more easily manipulated, but in the larger picture it would take a concerted effort to overcome all of the other inputs in the system.

What about terror? Well, first off, it is a system with fewer inputs than the weather or a national election. Suppose one of the intrepid prognosticators does see a pattern developing, such that there is a possibility of a terrorist action? Although in weather there is nothing that can be done, and in an election there is little (if anything) which can be done with any certainty, this is not the case with the PAM. The whole idea is to find a way to determine where a terrorist activity will take place, and prevent it. Thus, action is taken, based on the modeling, and such action then, itself, becomes an input into that modeling.

To put it another way, if PAM is showing that a particular event is becoming possible, then action will presumably be taken to prevent that event. The fact of such action may, itself, influence the potential events which might be imminent. So, where does that leave us? "The observer becomes part of the observed system." It is an inexact analogy, but this is the same dynamic encapsulated in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: The outcome of an experiment depends on the view of the observer. The observer has an effect on the actions of the observed.

Or, to put it another way, unlike the weather or elections, the developers of PAM want to predict actions in a system on which they, themselves have a major effect. Would you take that bet? Another way to say this is, PAM may provide a false sense of security, not because anybody will bet on his own terrorist actions (and clean up), but because the purpose of PAM is to change the inputs, in the very areas it is trying to develop predictions. That may make PAM more like Laplace's Demon, a very theoretical creature. But, that also means that maybe we can't know what is going to happen.

The Worst Sort of Conversation

There are some signs that political discourse is going to take an even nastier turn in the next year. As an example:

Ted Rall wrote this piece, in the "voice" of an Iraqi attacking Americans, but really as a critique of how the Administration has approached and conducted the war. It's pretty close to the line in terms of taste, but it raises an important issue: Perception is a big deal, if the people decide to attack and kill our people based on how they view us.

Naturally, there are some people who will use this as a chance to "A Ha!". For example, James Lileks:

I suppose it's intended to help us understand the mindset of the enemy. Eh. The French have a saying: his head, it is filled with urine. Or they should have such a saying; I'm sure it would sound elegant and dismissive. These people aren't the loyal opposition anymore; they're just the opposition. They may say they love America, but they love some idealized nonexistent America that can never exist as long as there's individuality and free will. They're like people who say they love women and beat their wife because she doesn't look like the Playboy centerfold. I'm sick of the lot of them. As for Rall, who cares about him? He'll get his reward: the great yawning indifference of history. If people barely remember Kelly and Capp nowadays, what are the chances that they'll remember someone who appeared to draw with his thumb?

I wonder if Gnat knows he uses that kind of language? A different perspective comes from a lesser-known individual, whose weblog was pointed out by Bill Cork on Ut Unum Sint. Jason Van Steenwyk, on IraqNow, describes himself as a U.S. Army Officer corresponding from Iraq. He wrote an entry on the same Rall piece, in which he noted:

Ok, Rall's got a tin ear. Especially publishing something like that on Veteran's Day. He's a big boy. He's got no right to complain.

But, folks, there's also this thing called "irony." The classic, literary theory definition of "irony" is not quite the same as the sense in which the word has come into common usage. The literary theory definition of irony is this: irony is a construction whereby the ostensible meaning of the text is the opposite of the point the author wishes to convey.

(See, I knew that useless degree in literature would come in handy someday.)

Now, in this case, it can't be said that Rall wants to convey is the opposite of the meaning of the surface text. But the same is true of Jonathan Swift's classic of literary irony, A Modest Proposal.

I don't think Andrew Sullivan or any of the rest of the conservative pack of blogs currently chewing on Rall would suggest that Swift was a bowler-hat-wearing, crown-worshipping, Leprechaun-molesting, Ireland-hating Prod because he penned an essay proposing the killing and eating of Irish children.

So why is it necessary that Ted Rall must be a sniveling, terrorist-sympathizing America-hater because he pens his own essay encouraging the killing of American soldiers in Iraq?

I guess I liked that take on it, because I had also thought of Swift's Modest Proposal when I read some of the fulminating about Rall's piece. But, the above said it better than I could.

This is only one skirmish in what may be a longer, nastier dispute. As Jonathan Swift also wrote: Argument, as usually managed, is the worst sort of conversation, as in books it is generally the worst sort of reading.

Hail, Freedonia!

I'd be unworthy of the high trust that's been placed in me if I didn't do everything in my power to keep our beloved Freedonia in peace with the world. I'd be only too happy to meet with Ambassador Trentino, and offer him on behalf of my country the right hand of good fellowship. And I feel sure he will accept this gesture in the spirit of which it is offered. But suppose he doesn't. A fine thing that'll be. I hold out my hand and he refuses to accept. That'll add a lot to my prestige, won't it? Me, the head of a country, snubbed by a foreign ambassador. Who does he think he is, that he can come here, and make a sap of me in front of all my people? Think of it - I hold out my hand and that hyena refuses to accept. Why, the cheap ball-pushing swine, he'll never get away with it I tell you, he'll never get away with it!

President Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho Marx), in Duck Soup

And so the war began …

Recently, we heard something very similar from Richard Perle, concerning the reported peace overtures from Iraq:

Perle told ABC television's ''This Week With George Stephanopoulos'' that the offer by former chief of intelligence, Gen. Tahir Habbush made through Imad Hage, a prominent Lebanese-American businessman, was one of many approaches for a last-minute peace deal.

''There were a number of governments that were trying to broker something with the Iraqis,'' Perle said. ''So this was not credible, this offline approach, indirect as it was.''

The Bush administration has been accused by Democrats of being overeager to go to war with Iraq, ignoring possible diplomatic avenues to peace including that conveyed through Perle and exaggerating the threat from Iraq.

...

Perle said it also included oil concessions and he thought it was part of an effort to use that offer to discredit U.S. intentions. ''This was a trap,'' Perle said. ''I think it was clearly a trap. It was intended to discredit the administration's policy, it was intended to discredit our effort to liberate Iraq.''

"A fine thing that would have been", to paraphrase President Firefly.

These meetings and other communications all took place just days before the start of military operations on March 19, 2003. According to the news stories confirmed by Mr. Perle, a Lebanese-American businessman, Imad Hage, met with Richard Perle. The meetings had been set up through Michael Maloof, who was working in the Pentagon as an analyst in an intelligence unit set up to look for ties between terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and countries like Iraq. Hage, in turn, had met in Beirut with Hassan al-Obeidi, chief of foreign operations of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, and later in Baghdad with Tahir Jalil Habbush, the director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (and No. 16 on the United States list of most wanted Iraqi leaders). The key part of the story, and of the chronology, is this:

Working through Mr. Maloof, Mr. Hage finally arranged to meet with Mr. Perle in London in early March. The two met in an office in Knightsbridge for about two hours to discuss the Iraqi proposals, the men said. Mr. Hage told Mr. Perle that the Iraqis wanted to meet with him or someone from the administration.

Mr. Perle said he subsequently contacted a C.I.A. official to ask if he should meet with the Iraqis. "The answer came back that they weren't interested in pursuing it," Mr. Perle said in an interview, "and I was given the impression that there had already been contacts."

Mr. Perle now plays down the importance of his contact with Mr. Hage. He said he found it difficult to believe that Saddam Hussein would make serious proposals through that kind of channel. "There were so many other ways to communicate," he said. "There were any number of governments involved in the end game, the Russians, French, Saudis."

Nonetheless, Mr. Hage continued to deliver messages from the Iraqis to Mr. Maloof.

In one note to Mr. Perle in mid-March, Mr. Maloof relayed a message from Mr. Hage that Mr. Obeidi and Mr. Habbush "were prepared to meet with you in Beirut, and as soon as possible, concerning `unconditional terms.' " The message from Mr. Hage said, "Such a meeting has Saddam Hussein's clearance."

No meetings took place, and the invasion began on March 20. Mr. Hage, speaking in Beirut, wonders what might have happened if the Americans had pursued the back channel to Baghdad.

What's especially bizarre about this story is the fact that, at exactly the same time, the Administration was making a great show of giving the Iraq regime a "last chance", a "get out of Dodge City now" type of warning. The President spoke on March 17, 2003, saying:

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.
In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately.

So, the President told Iraq they had one last chance. A Presidential advisor, Mr. Perle, has indicated that he had communications from Iraq with an offer to avoid the war. But, that was "a trap". As President Firefly would say: "Who does he think he is, that he can come here, and make a sap of me in front of all my people?"

Education Pundit

Anybody who's tried blogging has looked at Instapundit, either to "emulate the master" or to find topics to torque one off. Being in the latter category, this item just seemed to jump out. Specifically, it was Professor Reynolds' pithy entry today: THE GOOSE CREEK INCIDENT -- a commercial for homeschooling and vouchers? The referenced story is one you may have read, concerning a school in South Carolina where a drug bust was attempted. The police came in, searching for drugs. There were videos of the police with guns drawn, and students on the floor while searches were being conducted:

Graham Boyd of the American Civil Liberties Union says police officers should never have come into the school with guns drawn. Instead, the students suspected of having drugs should have been brought to the principal's office to have their bags checked.

The school's principal says the raid sends a clear message to the students that those who bring drugs to school could wind up in jail. Principal George McCrackin stands behind the decision, "The high school has always had a reputation for being a safe, clean school. And I'll utilize whatever forces I deem necessary to keep this campus safe and clean."

McCrackin says several students were cuffed when they refused to get on the floor, "I don't think it was an overreaction on our part. I'm sure it was an inconvenience to those individuals who were in the hallway, but there is a valuable experience there."

School officials say there have been at least four cases of students bringing drugs to school. Officers also say they're sure drugs and a large amount of cash was floating around the school. Police say the school alerted them to suspicious behavior observed on surveillance cameras. Officers looked at tapes and watched live surveillance before they decided there was enough cause to enter the campus.

Obviously, not something which should have happened. The people involved should be held responsible, nobody could argue with that. Even the state is investigating the use of force.

Nevertheless, Professor Reynolds writes today that it's an advertisement for vouchers and home schooling:

Sadly, this sort of behavior is far from uncommon in government-run schools. But more and more parents are looking at private schools, vouchers, charter schools, and home schooling as alternatives. To a lot who haven’t made up their minds, I think that Principal McCrackin’s behavior may provide an incentive to move their kids out of public schools that are looking increasingly like prisons, and into more congenial environments.

One has to ask: Where the heck did that come from? It's a bit of a leap of logic to extrapolate that thought from the incident described. It seems to be the type of argument that would be made by someone who starts with the proposition that there is something "wrong" with the concept of a public school serving the community (which is just another way of saying "government-run", isn't it?). If the Professor believes that private schools are immune from the type of drug traffickers who were sought in he school in South Carolina, that's another leap of logic.

One could just as easily point to an extreme example, such as the recent case of adoptive parents starving their children in Collingswood, New Jersey:

In downtown Collingswood yesterday, Mayor Jim Maley said he has had conversations with school district officials making tentative plans to revamp the district's home-schooling policy.
The Jackson's sons were home-schooled, Maley said, which required little contact between the school system and the family.

Given that single incident, what sort of grade would the Professor give a student who declared: " Sadly, this sort of behavior is far from uncommon among the home-schooled. To a lot who haven’t made up their minds, I think that the Jackson’s behavior may provide an incentive to move their kids out of home-schools that are looking increasingly like prisons, and into more congenial environments." That's a ridiculous argument. But, it is the exact same type of argument as the first example.

Maybe it is the case that people with a preconceived notion, will happily spin any incident as providing an example reinforcing their worldview.

Indeed.

(Update on 11/11: The Professor had a follow-up today on this, noting that "there was hardly anyone who was prepared to defend the tactics involved there, though the lessons that people took from the event varied." Maybe other people couldn't figure out how he drew his conclusions, although it doesn't seem that the Professor often revisits his targets in this manner.)

Politicizing a War

There's a lot of fuming going on this week about a memo from somewhere within the Democratic side of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The memo was excerpted on "NewsMax" (at this link), which describes it as follows: :

A memo circulated among Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence shows the committee's minority plotting to use classified information against the White House in next year's presidential campaign.

The excerpt from the memo concludes as follows:

"SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.
"The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives."

The reactions to this will run the gamut, from those who view this as unpatriotic attacks on the Commander-in-Chief during wartime, to those who would like to see the loyal opposition do a lot more digging to find out how we got into this situation.

Hopefully, though, we can at least agree that issues of war and peace should not be used for partisan political advantage. For example, last year when the President wanted authority to go to war:

Democrats waiting for the U.N. to act? I can't imagine an elected United States -- elected member of the United States Senate or House of Representatives saying, I think I'm going to wait for the United Nations to make a decision. It seems like to me that if you're representing the United States, you ought to be making a decision on what's best for the United States. If I were running for office, I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people -- say, vote for me, and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I'm going to wait for somebody else to act.
And so I -- we'll see. My answer to the Congress is, they need to debate this issue and consult with us, and get the issue done as quickly as possible. It's in our national interests that we do so. I don't imagine Saddam Hussein sitting around, saying, gosh, I think I'm going to wait for some resolution. He's a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible.

I don't think that memo can hold a candle to statements like that.

Peace Stuff

You may be, or may know someone who is, a person who always thought that there had to be a better course of action than a full-blown invasion of Iraq. Therefore, you may or may not be interested in how this story develops:

As American soldiers massed on the Iraqi border in March and diplomats argued about war, an influential adviser to the Pentagon received a secret message from a Lebanese-American businessman: Saddam Hussein wanted to make a deal.

Iraqi officials, including the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, had told the businessman that they wanted Washington to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, and they offered to allow American troops and experts to conduct an independent search. The businessman said in an interview that the Iraqis also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who was being held in Baghdad. At one point, he said, the Iraqis pledged to hold elections.

The mention of the "man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who was being held in Baghdad", may refer to this guy, whom we have previously discussed as being the most famous suspect "in plain sight" in Baghdad.

The whole story may or may not be true. But, somewhere in all of the distortions and obvious rush to war, is it so outrageous to think that there could have been another way?

The Compassionate One

Driving home this evening, I heard the President's remarks in California, when asked about the recent, tragic loss of life in Iraq:

Q: Mr. President, as you know, Sunday was the deadliest day in Iraq since the end of major combat. What was your reaction to the downing of the Chinook and the 16 soldiers who were killed on board? And, also, should Americans be prepared for more such deadly days ahead?

THE PRESIDENT: I am saddened any time that there's a loss of life. I'm saddened, because I know a family hurts. And there's a deep pain in somebody's heart. But I do want to remind the loved ones that their sons and daughters -- or the sons, in this case -- died for a cause greater than themselves, and a noble -- and a noble cause, which is the security of the United States. A free and secure Iraq is in our national security interests. We are at war.

There is a reason I highlighted the phrase, "But I do want to remind the loved ones that their sons and daughters -- or the sons, in this case". That is because both men and women died in that attack on Sunday. That is a fact which anyone who read the news this morning would have known. That is a fact which greeted me in my morning paper, sitting with my cup of coffee after I walked back from voting this morning. That is a fact which, I would think, the President could have at his fingertips if he wanted to.

But, our President has admitted that it's not important to him to follow the news.

It's not important to him to actually find out what's going on in the world, if his advisors don't want to tell him about something.

It's not important to him to know anything at all about the people who die every day fighting this war.

So, even though he was speaking in California, the home state of one of our female soldiers who perished on Sunday in a terrible attack, our President didn't even care enough to know that, and he essentially denied she ever existed.

And in related news, the government is now taking steps to fully staff the draft boards.

(Update on 11/11: The web page mentioned just above is now gone. It had been a notice inviting applications to serve on local draft boards. Does its absence mean the boards are now fully staffed, or just that a decision was made that the whole "re-start the draft" planning was getting too public?)

(Newer Update on 11/11: The always-reliable Memory Hole has the old version of that web page here.)