The Anchoress

It is either egregiously bad reportage, or out-and-out lying, but you must go over to Tom Maguire’s place and check out just how thoroughly, sleazily and easily they have twisted Clintonian words and meanings.

From the Wednesday Times, second paragraph:

MORE GUFF FROM DUFFY: Michael Duffy really does not seem to be familiar with the material…

You should read the whole thing.

At Maguire’s, commenter Neo leaves this useful bit of info:

background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush’s former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of ‘98 ’til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was …

CLARKE: No, that’s not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that’s really how it started. [emphasis mine - admin]

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.
[…]
ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you’re saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of ‘98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That’s right.

You might want to read the whole briefing.

Lorie Byrd has a smart must-read post up at Townhall - a response to Hillary Clinton’s recent remarks:

“I’m certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled ‘Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.’ he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team.”

Writes Lorie:

Bob Owens responded similarly to Hillary Clinton’s statement, but with specifics I’d never heard. Owens described the 1993 World Trade Center attack as the “first-and-to-date only WMD attack in America by al Qaeda and Iraq-affiliated terrorists.”

Owens states the fact that Hillary Clinton’s husband hoped to disguise with bluster: “Bill Clinton was President of the United States when lower Manhattan was the victim of an al Qaeda plot executed by an Iraqi bomb-builder who detonated a chemical/conventional weapon under tens of thousands of Americans. President Clinton later knew what the bomb was composed of, knew how it was intended to be used, and what threat al Qaeda posed…Bill Clinton was President for another 7 years, 10 months, 25 days after this attack.”

Read it all.

Roger L. Simon’s extensive interview with Joe Liberman is up at Pajamas Media.

And a nice pat on the back for PJM, here.

At morning prayer, the psalms seem suited to the archangels. Psalm 29 for Michael, the power of God: “The Lord’s voice resounding on the waters, the God of Glory thunders; the Lord on the immensity of waters…” And for Gabriel, Psalm 25, a quiet prayer of hope and trust. For Raphael, a psalm that I love, 147: “The Lord builds up Jerusalem, and brings back Israel’s exiles. And heals the broken-hearted; and binds up all their wounds.”
Michael - who is as God; Gabriel - God’s messenger; Raphael - God’s healing. They say what angels always say, “Do not fear.”
- Kathleen Norris, The Cloister Walk

My son Buster has a particular devotion to the Archangel Michael, and took his name at his confirmation. Even when he was very small he would “talk” to St. Michael, and on the rare nights when he would awaken from a bad dream, we would talk together about the powerful angel of God, the mighty warrior who puts down all that is evil and scary - dragons and such, and Buster would be able to get back to sleep, comforted by the knowledge that such a creature was on the job. When he was 11, an uncle gave Buster an Icon of the Archangel Michael, and he was amused - no, actually, he was rather stunned - to see Buster beam and clutch it to his chest in heartfelt gratitude. On the drive home, Buster fell asleep in the car, still clutching Michael to his breast. “I’ve never seen a kid react to something religious like that,” his uncle said. But Buster and Michael go back a long way. “There is history, there,” as Buster would say. It’s personal and private history. But I rather like knowing that my son has an angel with whom he feels friendship…or something.

An angel was standing near the altar in the temple; in his hand was a golden censer, and a large amount of incense was given to him. From the angel’s hand the smoke of the incense went up before God…
- Revelation, Chapter 8

When my Elder Son went away to college, along with his crucifix, I slipped into his packs an Icon of Gabriel, God’s messenger. He put it up in his room, but wondered about it. Why Gabriel? I wondered about it, too, until I remembered that Gabriel is the messenger…my firstborn was going away, and I’m sure on some level, I was afraid I would never hear from him again. I think I hoped Gabriel would help keep the communication lines open.

True biblical belief in angels can be no hindrance in our journey to God, it can only be a help. Belief in angels makes us more aware of God’s providential love, of God’s greatness and glory. Never does an angel intrude between God and us. Angels are completely devoted to God, completely amenable to the divine holy will. They never act on their own, never transgress the limits of their instructions from on high. All their activity is found int he performance of divine commands. When they speak, their words ask faith in God and obedience to God. And when we are moved tot hank them, they point us to God and say, Worship God! So spoke the archangel Raphael to Tobias, whent he latter sought to thank him for his kind assistance, for the archangel said: Praise God, adn give Him thanks in the presence of all the living.
- From the sermon, Angels: Spirits Magnificent and Mighty by Abbot Athanasius Recheis

Who are better examples of obedience and trust than the angels?

For my own reasons, I have a particular fondness for Raphael, his Icon is near my desk, and his appearance in the Book of Tobit has been very instructive to me on many personal levels. When my brother S was dying, Raphael kept all of us company on the journey, and even at the funeral.

I ended up at the book of Tobit, which has long been a favorite of mine, although I don’t know many people who have read it. I’ve used it personally when I’ve felt particularly alone or suffered through a bit of acedia, as it is a book that brings much hope. I like it because the people within it are ordinary. They are standard-issue people who do kind, thoughtful things, without seeking glory, or who grieve and wonder why they should go on living, or who celebrate the marriage of their children with happiness, even as they acknowledge some sadness at the transitions of life. Just like us, just like real life. The archangel Raphael figures prominently in the book, too, as he provides safe passage for someone and also gives a bit of advice regarding healing and the uses of what is created to bring about healing. […]

I think every parent can identify with this: Chapter 5:17-23 (Tobit) called his son and said to him: “My son, prepare whatever you need for the journey, and set out with your kinsman. May God in heaven protect you on the way and bring you back to me safe and sound; and may his angel accompany you for safety, my son.”

and Chapter 12, Raphael reveals much about angels:

Raphael called the two men aside privately and said to them: “Thank God! Give him the praise and the glory. Before all the living, acknowledge the many good things he has done for you, by blessing and extolling his name in song. Before all men, honor and proclaim God’s deeds, and do not be slack in praising him.
A king’s secret it is prudent to keep, but the works of God are to be declared and made known. Praise them with due honor. Do good, and evil will not find its way to you.
[…]
“I will now tell you the whole truth; I will conceal nothing at all from you. I have already said to you, ‘A king’s secret it is prudent to keep, but the works of God are to be made known with due honor.’
I can now tell you that when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, it was I who presented and read the record of your prayer before the Glory of the Lord; and I did the same thing when you used to bury the dead.
When you did not hesitate to get up and leave your dinner in order to go and bury the dead, I was sent to put you to the test. At the same time, however, God commissioned me to heal you and your daughter-in-law Sarah.
I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who enter and serve before the Glory of the Lord.”
Stricken with fear, the two men fell to the ground.
But Raphael said to them: “No need to fear; you are safe. Thank God now and forever.
As for me, when I came to you it was not out of any favor on my part, but because it was God’s will. So continue to thank him every day; praise him with song.
Even though you watched me eat and drink, I did not really do so; what you were seeing was a vision.
So now get up from the ground and praise God. Behold, I am about to ascend to him who sent me; write down all these things that have happened to you.”
When Raphael ascended they rose to their feet and could no longer see him. They kept thanking God

Do good. Praise God. Thank God. Be not afraid. The constant advice of the angels, in every age. Especially in our own.

Pope John Paul II (St. Peter’s Square, Sunday, April 24 1994):
“May prayer strengthen us for the spiritual battle we are told about in the Letter to the Ephesians: “Draw strength from the Lord and from His mighty power” (Ephesians 6:10). The Book of Revelation refers to this same battle, recalling before our eyes the image of St. Michael the Archangel (Revelation 12:7). Pope Leo XIII certainly had a very vivid recollection of this scene when, at the end of the last century, he introduced a special prayer for St. Michael throughout the Church. Although this prayer is no longer recited at the end of Mass, I ask everyone not to forget it and to recite it to obtain help in the battle against forces of darkness and against the spirit of this world.”

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the other evil spirits who prowl through the world, seeking the ruin of souls.

Related: Feast of the Holy Archangels, 2005

There’s a barnburner brewing between Michelle Malkin and Dean Esmay that is both interesting and important, as it has much to do with how the War on Terror is perceived and how we perceive each other, as well. Esmay and I had a friendly tussle a week or so ago, when he challenged me to assert a Muslim’s right to be annoyed at Pope Benedict XVI, to which I responded:

Can they first repeat Benedict’s argument back to him, accurately? It means reading the speech though, with an honest attempt to comprehend his meaning, and then saying, “this is what you said, Benedict - do we have the right of it?”

If they can do that, then yes..they have a right to be annoyed, if they like. Annoyed. Just like Catholics get “annoyed” when they feel they have been treated obnoxiously at the hands of, say, Hollywood. Annoyed does not mean killing, burning, calling for blood and death or converting people under a sword.

Having read Malkin and Esmay, though, I find myself landing rather squarely over here with Eric who is saying what I think most of us are feeling these days.

I, too, get very sick of hearing that Muslims are the enemy. Indeed; if we are at war with Islam, we have no business rebuilding Iraq and trying to help establish democracy; we should be leveling the place and populating it with Americans.

I see the enemy as jihadists…I mean [jihadists] in the sense of waging holy war in the name of Islam…One of the great ironies of the post-9/11 period is that while violent Islamic jihadists attacked this country, there is a constantly growing network — both organized and unorganized — of in-place apologists at virtually every level of society all ready to defend them. Criticize jihadists, and people on the left will call you a racist. An Islamophobe. A bigot. I have seen this too many times to count, and the reason I call it ironic is that before 9/11, feminists routinely criticized the veil. Gay activists did not hesitate to condemn Islamic homophobia. Atheists condemned Islam the same way they condemned Christianity. After 9/11, the PC crowd suddenly included a group which they’d previously neglected, and it seemed to me that the 9/11 attacks helped the image of radical Muslims with the left in this country. And in most newspapers, and on many campuses.

It is good to dialogue with folks like Ali, a moderate Muslim, but not enough such moderates are speaking out, and folks on the left, always desiring to seem “more tolerant” than ordinary human beings, and thus “more noble” have been busily making friends with the very people they used to despise for veiling women and persecuting gays. While they do that, they muddy up just what a “moderate” is. Ali is surely a moderate and even some who hated all Muslims have come around to seeing that (or to hearing it). But I cannot say it is beyond my comprehension why - for many - all Muslims are considered suspect.

As America has risked her young men and women in efforts to save Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia, to liberate them in Afghanistan and Iraq, she has had to watch a seemingly endless video loop of screaming Muslims packing the streets, blades exposed, carrying signs denouncing, America, the Great Satan. It seems like the same mobs have gathered to denounce Jimmy Carter, then Ronald Reagan, then George H. W. Bush, then Bill Clinton, then George W. Bush. Despite all of our “tolerance,” America has seen her flags trampled; despite all the split blood of her young, she have seen her presidents burned in effigy. Despite all of her service to liberty, she has seen scimitars raised at her, in gleeful abandon.

Well, yeah, I may very well be. It is not “hate” but plain common sense that tells me to feel threatened when I know that at any given moment, somewhere in the world, 100,000 men, women and children are gathering and holding signs urging the beheading of anyone who does not show sufficient “respect” to their prophet. I’m a very respectful person but I feel threatened when “respect” seems to mean nothing less than submission and obsequious kowtowing, which I am not willing to offer.

There is a lot of chatter these days, but it seems to me the best way to ease the confusion is for the Muslims themselves to define themselves once and for all - to sort of “take back the faith,” from the extremist, radical Islamists who have come to - in the eyes of much of the world - define Islam.

Absenting that, what we end up with is this sort of displaced hate. Afraid to speak up about one enemy, people turn around and attack the nations they know will not retaliate or abandon them:

Reading her horrifying descriptions of shrill and menacing encounters by Brits toward Americans and Jews, I can only think that the British are suffering from the sort of transference we learn about in Psych 101. They’re terrified…They know they have Muslim clerics standing outside of mosques advising jihad. They hate knowing it. They would rather not have jihad preached in their country…And so they must lash out, in fear.

It’s safe to hate Jews, it’s safe to spout off to the Americans, because Jews and Americans are notoriously forgiving.

If the moderate Muslim majority does not make themselves clear - if they do not themselves bring lucidity to an increasingly muddled world-wide paralysis of understanding - things will only get worse.

Donald Sensing has an excellent post on all of this.

Pajamas got off to a shaky start — stumbling just enough to satisfy those who had predicted it to fail but eventually finding its legs.
Now that the mainstream media have moved on to other stories, Pajamas is pulling in hundreds of thousands of readers each day, all drawn to its attractive mix of stories, viewpoints and, increasingly, videos.
Right now, especially on the big international stories, nobody covers events from more perspectives and with greater nuance than Pajamas Media. [emphasis mine - admin]

Very nice words to read from Michael S. Malone at ABC news, in a long and interesting piece on alternative media.

I was kvetching only a day or so ago about the limits of blog fact checking against a press that is not interested in facts, but perhaps as the press continues to narrow itself, people will pick up on it.

Meanwhile, I concur with Malone’s assessment of Pajamas Media and think major Kudos belong to Editor-in-Chief Gerard Vanderleun, managing editor Juliette A. Ochieng, (as well as our Editors in Australia, Spain and elsewhere) and big Kahuna Roger L. Simon. (Get Roger’s interview with Joseph Lieberman here).

Another founder, Glenn Reynolds, writes: I do think that the site has gotten much better, and it’s now doing the kinds of things I hoped for at its inception.

I think the site is a hothouse of talent, insight, energy and creativity. And it’s nice to write in slippers.

For a president who is supposed to be crippled by his “increasingly unpopular war” and his dwindling poll numbers, Bush continues to get what he wants.

Enough Democrats understand that, NY Times aside, the American people want seriousness - not cartoonish partisanship - when it comes to dealing with terrorists and terrorism. Or, at least they understand it in an election year.

No one wants to see Jack Baueresque torture (well, I’m sure some do) but people understand that we cannot fight a war by being “nice” to people who only perceive it as weakness, and who do not hesitate to abuse and mutilate our soldiers, or hide behind innocent children.

I’m of two minds about torture, and I bet many Americans are. Our better natures say “no,” our humanity says “no.” But weighed in the balance of thousands of lives…the shoulders go up, and we shrug, lacking wisdom, and hoping to do the best we can. I think in the end…we approve the belly slaps and hope they don’t escalate.

War is difficult under the most civilized of circumstances. This is a war unlike any others, and our enemies, un-uniformed, unconcerned with Geneva Conventions, unconcerned (nay, enthusiastic) about collateral damage, will not be defeated by wholly conventional needs.

I think we really need to do a better job of defining what is torture, though, and what it is not, really. Waterboarding is torture; I’m against it. Bellyslaps? I don’t think it should come under the same heading. If someone has information that can save thousands of lives, we do need to have methods in place to coerce that information. If someone has a better and more noble way of gathering that information from people who have more than demonstrated their committment to our deaths, I’m all for it, lets hear it.

I can only be honest and say I can see both sides of the thing. I’m not thrilled about it, but I think sometimes we walk blind and have to kiss it up to God and pray for the best, trusting that what we get wrong, in good faith, He will make right.

And may God have mercy on us all.

Ed Morrissey has the best and most informative post I’ve read on this subject. Read it all. Also, read Hugh Hewitt’s interview with Mark Steyn, on his return from Gitmo.

Also, the senate just unanimously approved 70Billion for the war effort. It’s election season, and the Democrats need to look “strong” on security - that’s one reason the vote was unanimous. The second reason is that for all the talk about “redeploying,” (and leaked NIE reports) the senate understands that to pull out of Iraq right now would be an incalculable travesty.

Related: More on torture - and on how it should be distinguished from milder forms of information coersion, and some thoughtful links here.

Dick Meyer, CBS’s grand poobah of internet stuff, has written a very thoughtful, sensible and ultimately rather depressing column today that I am recommending to you. I am not trying to depress you. He’s talking about the NIE report, and the way its contents were (or actually, were NOT) processed by the electorate thanks to the glomming on by politicos intent to spin it to death.

It appears that many of our politicians just kept on cycling, through the spin cycle, that is. Statesmen and stateswomen are supposed to do just the opposite. They are supposed to guide the citizenry past emotion to reason and debate. Quaint notion, isn’t it?

Well, simply read the short document and you will know this is but one of many points it makes, a point that doesn’t at all reflect the conclusions as whole.

Meyer writes intelligently about the real choices facing us regarding Iraq, and points out that none of them should make us happy. He also brings up how the Clinton/Wallace brouhaha overshadowed the more important story:

The NIE flap was actually not the most discussed issue related to terrorism and the truth this week; that would be Bill Clinton wailing on Chris Wallace, a news story that is all about the past, not the present, not the future, at a time when American soldiers are dying. It’s a sideshow.

He concludes wondering - as many of us have wondered - what it is about boomers, who can’t seem to get past their feeeeelings and into common-sense realities:

But, sadly and predictably, this report is just yet another morsel for our omnivorous two-party partisan spin monster to swallow. It is a document that could help clarify, but instead it becomes merely another Rorschach test for pre-existing positions and, more importantly, emotions.

But I think this episode rather clearly shows that this generation of political leaders, and perhaps this generation of voters, did not really process a central lesson of the Vietnam and Watergate eras: when it comes to life and death, don’t spin.

I don’t think Meyer is cheaply cynical. I’m sick to death of boomer sensibilities, myself.

But now, I must pounce on one glaring omission in this piece. Meyer covered the NIE report and how the parties presented it, and did it very well. How I wish he would apply that biggish brain of his to the other part of the NIE story: how the boomer-run big media reported (with a particular sneering tone) on the NIE report via leaks which characterized the report in such a negative manner (in fact, the report was rather an amorphous blob of a thing) that the White House felt compelled to release it. And how, even after the report was released, certain media members still had a very hard time moving away from their preferred narrative. I frankly wondered if some of the NYTimes and LATimes reporters had even bothered to read the released report.

Or, beyond calling the Clinton/Wallace debacle the soap opera it is, Meyer might have addressed how no one in the mainstream media - those “mediating intelligences” - thought it necessary to do a little fact-checking on Clinton’s claims (and heaven knows the blogs would have made the checking very easy for them) beyond reporting that he “defended himself vigorously.” Nope. No reason to check up on a Clintonian claim. If he said it, it must be true!

The mainstream media is incredibly “incurious” when it wants to be, isn’t it?

It’s really time for some members of the “big-time professional media” to stop closing ranks and start taking some of their colleagues to task, start calling them on their double-standards, their bias, their unwillingness to press a politician they favor, and their over-willingness (as with the reportage of the leaked NIE report) to propagate partisan propaganda.

It is one thing for Meyer to point at politicians and say “your screwing around and it is doing the nation harm.” One must remember that the press is the vehicle delivering the spin or the negatives, and deciding what gets reported and what does not - and how a thing is reported. One cannot indict grasping, ambitious and expedient politicians without taking a look at their chuckleheaded enablers in the press, and handing down upon them a second indictment.

Particularly during an election season, particularly in a time of war the electorate - and our servicemen and women - deserve whole stories with credible, named sources. We deserve real fact-checking that moves beyond emotional assertions and political theater. America needs and deserves a press that can and will do more than run interference for their preferred political parties. We are not getting that, and it is hurting us and weakening us.

I’m not the only one wishing for it. I think Dick Meyer is a pretty straight shooter. I wish he’d take the first shot.

Meanwhile, Hugh Hewitt has more on what the mainstream press is not reporting.

Related: (Perhaps I should open a Dick Meyer category…)
Wealth Porn and Cognitive Dissonance at the Grey Lady
Dick Meyer on Political Parenting
Dick Meyer Finally Says It
Paranoia Ascending
Meyer and the Futility of Political Debate

That would be Rudy Giuliani.

Actually, aside from President Bush, who sought to downplay the whole “Clinton meltdown” thing, Rudy Giuliani is the only politico I’ve read who has seemed presidential about it.

“The idea of trying to cast blame on President Clinton is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don’t think he deserves it,” Giuliani said in response to a question after an appearance with fellow Republican Charlie Crist, who is running for governor. “I don’t think President Bush deserves it. The people who deserve blame for Sept. 11, I think we should remind ourselves, are the terrorists - the Islamic fanatics - who came here and killed us and want to come here again and do it.”

Exactly right.

“Every American president I’ve known would have given his life to prevent an attack like that. That includes President Clinton, President Bush,” the former mayor said. “They did the best they could with the information they had at the time.”

Exactly right. And before you say “Clinton wouldn’t die for America,” to me…I suspect you might at least agree he would die for his legacy? ’nuff said.

Giuliani also said a recently declassified report that said the Iraq war had become a “cause celebre” for Islamic extremists demonstrated the need to continue the fight there.

“The jihadists very much want a victory in Iraq. They feel that if they could defeat us in Iraq they will have a great victory for terrorism,” Giuliani said. “What that should do is organize us to say if they want a big victory in Iraq then we have to deprive them of that victory.”

Exactly, exactly, exactly right.

I’m working on a project with a looming deadline. I don’t even like it. It’s kind of like homework, no fun at all, but I’ve got to do it because at the end of the drudgery lies a bit o’ the green stuff.

Because I’ve picked up some new readers, I thought I’d offer up a “getting to know you,” link, all about, well…me in all my whiney glory.

If you’re not interested in hearing me whine, you might prefer this rambling bit on Merton and Stargazing from a sleepless night.

Or, you know…there was that time I got mad…liberals making an endrun around the constitution.

If you’re not interested in any of those, this you’ll like: one of the most entertaining baseball stories of all time!

Hope to be back into the fray later today. Thanks for looking in.