The Anchoress

see more crazy cat pics

The other day - for reasons I don’t understand - I tripped through the blogosphere Q & A style, and people seemed to like that.

So, here are some more:

Q: What is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s motto for this session of Congress?

A: Well, I am not privvy to the great-woman’s thoughts, but it would appear to be, “Mr. President, tear down any economic advantages you might be pursuing for us, and while you’re at it, please make us as vulnerable to the oil-producing nations as you possibly can. Also, get this stuff put into the bible, ASAP!”

Q: Bill Clinton said Saddam had nukes, but it turned out he didn’t. But that wasn’t a lie, like it was when Clinton and all Democrats Bush said Saddam had WMD…but now it looks like Syria had gotten ‘em, somehow and um…North Korea helped. But I thought North Korea was on board with the Clinton/Albright “framework” which was all “we give you nuke stuff and you stop making war noises and go dance a foxtrot with Maddy” or something and now…how…what?

A: I know, I know, it’s confusing. I don’t fully understand it either but Syria and NoKo were building something bad - heaven only knows how they got the materials - and Israel had to go over there and blow the thing up for us, which they did, Shalom, Israel! There is only one narrative you have to take out of this whole strange story: George Bush cannot pronounce the word “nuclear” and so obviously, this was, is and always will be his moronic fault and failing.

Q: If Obama has to talk about his Weather Underground pal, shouldn’t Hillary have to talk about her husband’s Weather Underground pardons?

A: Now, you stop picking on Hillary, she never knew what Bill was up to in that Oval Office because she was, you know, dodging sniper fire and solving the troubles in Northern Ireland! And besides, Bill pardoned a-lots of people and some other far worse terrorists, so, you know, you be cool. Nobody wants to hear that crap! Besides, the Clintons version 2.0 is totally transparent-like and Hillary’s all down with Mary and stuff, right now.

Q: If you don’t support Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy, does that automatically mean that you are suffering from a toxic form of cynicism?

A: Of course not. If you don’t support Barack Obama it means you are a racist; unless you are a woman over 55, in which case you are both racist and age-ist and a man-hating victim of oppression who wears comfortable shoes. And as far as I am concerned, and I don’t care who knows it - there is NOTHING WRONG WITH WEARING COMFORTABLE SHOES. I do so, myself, and I have pretty feet, with no corns or bunions.

Q: What’s the deal with these monks getting a recording contract and now these singing priests and all that? Are those damn Catholics fixing to infiltrate popular culture again? Is a remake of Going My Way in our future?

A: As to “Going My Way,” never having been a fan of Der Bingel, I hope not. As to the rest of it, I highly doubt that Hollywood will be expending any dough making inspiring or uplifting stories including beautiful and efficient nuns who impact wayward girls, or manly, faithful priests who make a difference, when the more negative and sensational stereotypes - though unprofitable - are so very tantalizing and much more in line with their bleak worldview, which permits neither wonder nor joy. Although, if a buck is to be made, all bets may be off. “Toxic Cynicism” is more rampant in the entertainment industry than in Washington DC, although it’s a near thing.

Q: Is there any good news coming out of Iraq? Or Afghanistan?

A: Yes and yes. And yes.

Q: Is Jimmy Carter (for whom you voted in 1976) the most repellent ex-president, ever?

A: Gosh, let me think. Bill Clinton went overseas and criticized our efforts in Iraq, but he’s still Bill, you gotta love/hate him; and Jimmy Carter has said much worse things and may be in violation of the Logan act, besides, so yes. I say yes.

Q: Are “peace” activists really peaceful people?

A: Some are. I have on my desk a review copy of a book by a Jesuit priest who is so pacific he’s making me feel clammy, but having lived through 1968 and that whole era where people went around glassy-eyed saying, “Peace! Love, man,” while saying and doing some profoundly graceless and unpeaceable things, I’d say, a lot of them are just phoneys looking to belong to something, or for something to be angry about.

Q: Is Cinnamon the new cure-all that’s “good for what ails you?”

A: I’m sorry, your urethra cannot like it!

Q: On a personal note: cats or dogs?

A: I like them both very much, but there are differences.

Found via Ace, who got it off John Miller at the Corner, Five For Fighting’s John Ondrasik gives us a chance to decide what kind of world we want and he gives us this video to help us decide. It’s very moving. Apparently the old man in the pawn shop is a medal of honor winner - one of our our everlasting heroes

You’ll want to go watch it, and while you do, remember that - media narratives aside - Iran is at work against Democracy in the Middle East, and oh yeah, it seems Saddam did have ties to terrorism, including friendship with Al Qaeda. You can read the Pentagon report here.

Do read Ed Morrissey, who was reporting on the collected Iraqi documents when everyone else was choosing to ignore them, and read Eli Lake at the New York Sun, who seems to actually have read the report.

Gateway Pundit reminds us wher Saddam was at 10 years ago, if we’ve forgotten, and where America was, too.

Related:
Dr. Sanity
Americans Will Die for Freedom
Re-assessing Just Wars
“I have never learned to fight for my freedom”

On the endless go-rounds about illegal immigration I wrote a while back:

What if it’s all an illusion, just like the Cinco de Mayo “nationwide protests” by Hispanics was an ‘06 (election year) illusion that had nothing behind it in ‘07 (no elections). What if everyone is being played a little bit, here, being prompted to emotional reactionaryism as a means of reaching into and infecting those Americans of good-will who until the “flashpoint” and the sudden hue-and-cry couldn’t be moved to hate? Moved to grousing, yes, but never before moved to real, unadulterated hate?

Illusionists are clever sorts - they are specialists at making us look at one thing, and convincing us that we know what we are seeing, while they are actually doing something else, entirely. It’s called “misdirection.”

What if the illegal immigration flashpoint was never about immigration at all, but about getting people stirred to “hate.” Who would do that, you ask? Think about it. Who and what does hate serve? What happens to the soul of a nation, when “hate” is the overpowering force driving a majority of people - it doesn’t matter which “side.”

It did not escape my notice that the “spontaneous” demonstrations by Mexican-flag-waving, sign carrying La Raza groupies who were all over the streets in May of 2006 were curiously absent in May of 2007. Back when the conservatives were freaking out by the images of discontented Latinos demanding “the return” of their country, etc, all that radical claptrap, I recall a few blogs remarking on the astonishing number of Mexican flags (scroll down) and wondering who had underwritten them.

Some on the blogs were saying, “this is not real, it’s illusion, it is political theater…pay no attention and go look for the man behind the curtains - THAT is the reality.” I’d assumed that A.N.S.W.E.R was the underwriter of those demonstrations and parades. Turns out it was, according to this article, George Soros.

Didn’t the mainstream media report that 2006’s vast immigration rallies across the country began as a spontaneous uprising of 2 million angry Mexican-flag waving illegal immigrants demanding U.S. citizenship in Los Angeles, egged on only by a local Spanish-language radio announcer?

Turns out that wasn’t what happened, either. Soros’ OSI had money-muscle there, too, through its $17 million Justice Fund. The fund lists 19 projects in 2006. One was vaguely described involvement in the immigration rallies. Another project funded illegal immigrant activist groups for subsequent court cases.

So what looked like a wildfire grassroots movement really was a manipulation from OSI’s glassy Manhattan offices. The public had no way of knowing until the release of OSI’s 2006 annual report.

I also wrote, here:

And by the way, the press has noticed what sets you off, and they’ve been playing to your heat, and you’ve been responding to their bell-ringing like Pavlovian dogs, too.

It can’t feel good to realize you have been played by George Soros and pals, and while you were being played, you weakened your president, lost a good deal of power in Congress (not that your party was using it, but still…) and drew inflexible battle lines flanked by impossible demands and pipe dreams, while - in the end - nothing actually changed. Played by a master, your party became divided, some of you literally became one-issue haters of everything and everyone who did not join in your daily chant; “illegal is illegal.” And in being played, you’ve managed to make a fast-growing segment of the voting populace suspicious of conservatives on the eve of an election wherein literally every vote and every voter is going to count. And where fraud may well be rampant.

I have been loath to write about the ‘08 election because the campaigns began too soon. But it is not too early to say that I cannot recall a more urgent or important election in my lifetime. The ‘08 election is going to be the one that determines whether the America you love will be recognizable in twenty years. I know I’m not alone in thinking so.

Once upon a time you could say, “who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes,” with a wry smirk and appreciate the irony. It’s not so ironic, anymore. Now we are in the third act of Hamlet, the King - his conscience pricked - is crying out and the castle is in uproar and Hamlet declares, “believe none of this,” which is good advice. Maybe all of history has been a staged production, but I don’t believe that. Sadly in American politics, circa 2007, very little is real, very few are motivated by selfless love of country, and illusionists are everywhere.

Whoever can manipulate the images, whoever can best misdirect your attention, whoever can mesmerize you with their illusions…that is who will win this election, because too many of us buy into everything we see and hear. Unless we stop falling for it all - for the large-scale productions and the small sound bites. How do we do that? I can only hazard a guess, myself:

Remember that half of what you see is an illusion and the rest of what you see is a passing fashion, and you’ll fret a good deal less, no matter what the issue.

Perhaps the other half of that good advice is to watch less news and television, read fewer papers, spend less time on political forums feeding your rage and paranoia and spend some time - every single day - being quiet and contemplative. I think that’s the only way to counter all of this frenetic noise that leaves you neither time nor room to think and which completely cuts you off from your guts and your instincts. Your guts are there for a reason. Don’t stop using them.

Remember, even the internet - particularly the political forums - contribute to the illusions:

While the internet has a capability of enlarging, the truth is most people surfing the blogs and sites find the ones they like and linger there, in the echo chambers of a few favorite spots, and thus they shrink their worlds. They begin to believe the illusion that because 80 or 800 or 8,000 people frequent the same site and jaw the same sentiments, that there are a whole lot more people agreeing than disagreeing with them. That, in fact, a breathtaking number of people - MOST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, even - believe what they believe.

In fact, the forums are a little like the Mirror of Erised in Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. That mirror shows the viewer what he or she most wants to see - it shows one’s deepest heart’s desire - but recall Professor Dumbledore’s warning: “this mirror gives us neither knowledge or truth“. He warns that men have gone mad before it, mad in their obsessive fascination with the seductive illusion that “the perfect” (which can never be) is somehow attainable.

What I notice happening on both sides of the political spectrum is that left and right are falling into their mirrors and allowing themselves to be seduced by these absolutist dreams - a world where no principals are ever compromised and everything goes along just as each side thinks it should all go along. That’s not reality.

Here is one reality: a president everyone hates goes to the candidates who feed that hate and who hope to succeed him, and he helps them to not hang themselves or the nation upon the noose of excessive expectations, doled out at whim. He does this not for their good, or for his, but for the good of the nation, the country that rejects him, and the sake of the world. That is selfless, mature, honorable and statesmanlike. Take a good look, you may not see such a one again.

Another reality: If you don’t vote in the next election because the candidates aren’t perfect enough for you - they don’t live in that Mirror of Erised where you can gaze on your happy, perfect dreams - then you will get the government you deserve.

And the last reality: You won’t like it.

UPDATE: Peggy Noonan is striking a similar theme:

It’s all very controlled. And it’s unworthy of a great nation. When people say the campaign feels artificial, that’s what they mean. It’s not John Edwards’s hairspray or Hillary Clinton’s makeup. It’s that they give every sign of being afraid to speak and listen to those who haven’t been patted down by thought-cops for unacceptable views.

The Republicans are the same. An invitation to debate on Univision, the Spanish-language network? They have scheduling conflicts. What about the Log Cabin Republicans? No time right now.

How unserious.

Unserious, insulating, energy-sapping and ultimately dangerous.

WELCOME: American Thinker readers. While you’re here, please look around. Today we’re also talking about whether there is a difference between a madman and a Catholic, Katie Couric’s staggering incuriosity, whether the Roomba Robotic Vacuum really works and finally, what it is to sit by a window of a quiet autumn night. Enjoy!

Traitorous Jeb Bush and Ken Mehlman have penned a piece in support of the current illegal immigration bill. I know, I know, they’re Bushies and not to be trusted, but I’m putting it out there for you to read, if you haven’t already.

I feel a rant coming on…and probably many de-linkings from the right. This may be a multi-parter.

Does anyone remember a while back, when “The Minute Men” were going to shame the nation and President Bush into building a wall and settling the problem of illegal Mexican immigrants pouring through our borders?

President Bush caught a lot of hell from the far-right for using the word “vigilantes” (and that was a perfectly precise use of the word, by the way - these people kept “vigil”):

“I am against vigilantes in the United States of America; I am for enforcing law in rational ways,” Bush said during a press briefing with Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.

I thought the movement was a good-intention that would not be able to make a difference, mostly because the folks at the head of it seemed a little too slick, a little too comfortable with the posture of a flim-flam fella. I also thought (and this won’t surprise you) that the President was correct - that any president would be correct - to discourage this “taking the law into our own hands” mentality.

Okay, please - stop now - don’t start sputtering at me that “President Bush hasn’t done enough to enforce the law since he made that statement“; granted.

But when President Bush had a congress and senate on his side and started talking about fixing the immigration problem, what did you do? You started screaming “no amnesty! Ship them all back! They’re criminals! Make them come in legally! If you don’t agree you’re a traitor!”. Then you killed anything constructive that might have occurred by scaring the easily-scared house GOP and listening to rabble-rousing and demagoguery designed by some to weaken the president, by others to promote themselves and by still others to pull the party ever-rightward into the pretend paradise of party purity.

A year later, you’re still screaming the same stuff, and accusing the president of treason. The Democrats are in charge, the president is appreciably weakened, probably a few 100,000 more illegals have come into the country while you’ve demanded solutions - and rejected all of them as unworkable - while holding out for perfection, offering only spiteful snark instead of serious alternative solutions.

You were offered porridge and threw that off the table demanding ice-cream. Now you’re getting gruel. Hey, don’t blame the first cook; porridge was at least nutritious.

Have you had enough stamping the feet? Are you ready to sit down, now, and be practical and pragmatic? It might be too late, though. The Democrats have the steam to push through a plan they prefer and they got some of that steam from you, and your tantrums. Yes, the bill from last year, the one you screamed down, was better than this year’s. You might be able to ring a few phones and demand from your representatives “something better than this,” it’s worth a try, if you are serious about getting something done.

But the legislators you connect with may well say, “hey, we were in a stronger position last year, with a better bill, and you took it out of our hands.” They might even get biblical and try, “We sang you a jig and you wouldn’t dance, now we have this dirge…and maybe we all mourn.”

Well, I doubt they’d say that last part, actually. But they might say the first.

Let’s start here and work our way backwards, if we must. Gerald at Closed Cafeteria - a legal immigrant (from Austria) who is by no means a “lefty” and who knows what it is to jump through the broken hoops of the INS- has written a very thoughtful post, jumping off of George Will’s recent plea for the right to face facts. Gerald is writing from a very Catholic perspective, which I know will irk those of you who have already written to me cursing the Catholics and insisting that we’re looking for “more asses in the pew and more money in the collection plate.” Thank you for that email, by the way. It must have pleased Jesus very much when you sent it to me.

Gerald lays it out in plain-speaking:

If you will not deport 12 million people, you have to offer them a chance to redeem themselves. Otherwise, you perpetuate the very problem you criticize.

Therefore, the current proposal…supports, makes sense - secure the borders and offer a chance of legalization. One reason why so many came here illegally is that immigration is bottlenecked - the supply of visas is far lower than the demand of people wanting to come here and businesses needing workers. In order to combat illegal immigration, a three-pronged strategy is needed - and this is along the lines of President Bush, too: legalization for people, combined with a hefty fine, who came here illegally and committed no crimes (crossing the border illegally is not a crime right now). A real border - obviously it will never be perfect - has to be established, and more efficient immigration proceedings would drastically lower the number of fence hoppers. Drastically increasing and improving the immigration bureaucracy to accomodate the need and desire for labor. Obviously, if 12 million people vanished over night, the American economy would collapse. [all emphasis mine - admin]

America could certainly use more taxpayers - without immigration, there’d be problems
similar to those in Europe. Therefore, instead of being (despite it being their fault) submarines, they should be allowed to ’surface’ and contribute (more) money.

…if you are not going to deport them all, you have to offer an option to become legal. If they were good enough to clean hotel rooms, serve food, build houses, mow the lawn and babysit the children, they should be offered a chance to redeem themselves. The whole speech about ‘cutting in line’, ‘they broke the law’ and so forth may get the Republican base riled up, and it is of course true, but what’s the point of pointing out the obvious without providing a solution? Deport on a scale not seen since World War II, or offer a chance to legalize.
[…]
Immigration in the past basically meant showing up at America’s shores. Nowadays it is a bureaucratic nightmare that could use streamlining, since it does not accommodate the need for labor by American business. San Diego has a pilot project, where everyone gets an interview within 90 days which could serve as a model for the entire country.

Do give Gerald a read - put your best Christian charity hat on, ask the Lord to bless you while you read - and see if he doesn’t make some sense.

Getting back to those Minutemen…they seem to be coming apart at the seams and splintering off into smaller groups carrying bitterness between them. This is not a good situation. President Bush was right about the net-negatives inherent in vigilantism, and you were wrong. Hmmmm…what else might he be right about?

“But Anchoress, he’s insulted us; he’s questioned our patriotism! He’s presumed to lecture us about the state of our souls!”

Not a bit - he’s just doing his job as president, and challenging the people to get serious. Most of us don’t even realize that we make choices about how we’re going to receive the world and what’s in it, what we see and hear. If you choose to feel insulted by a challenge, well, fine…but remember, you hated the left for doing so - you hated the left when they accused Bush of “questioning our patriotism” when (as you know) he did no such thing. In your emotionalism you’ve decided not to take the president’s remarks in context, and consider them as a piece, but to instead accept the random lines-out-of-context offered to you by the press and those whose motives are far-ranged and often personal. The headlines were tantalizing red meat: Bush Betrays Base. Bush Worries for Nation’s Soul. Bush says You Don’t Want What’s Best for the Country! Out of context red meat, easily gobbled down.

And by the way, the press has noticed what sets you off, and they’ve been playing to your heat, and you’ve been responding to their bell-ringing like Pavlovian dogs, too.

Part II here.

Also writing about immigration and the tone:
Jonah Goldberg
Dr. Melissa Clothier
Sister Toldjah
Captain’s Quarters Blog, who also has more on the weaknesses of the bill. Can it be strengthened?
Beth

So, Cindy Sheehan’s overlong 15 minutes have come to a slightly whiney close as she realizes - finally - that the Democrats and the left only loved her as long as she was doing their bidding emotion-tapping, Bush-bashing, Jackson-hugging, insurgent-encouraging, Chavez-hugging, camera-mugging, headline-grabbing, mob-collecting tool of distraction and obfuscation thing, meant to drive down the president’s poll numbers and support for his efforts to keep terrorist attacks from our shores.

I remember when Cindy Sheehan first came on the scene. First I was sympathetic, then I wondered about her, in her suffering, then wondered some more, then grew rather horrified, and then stopped wondering at all and wrote:

The woman, who this weekend kvetched because CNN et al were spending all of their time covering Hurricane Rita, which was “just a little wind and rain,” instead of Herself climbing all over Jesse Jackson, made certain she’ll be covered on all the channels tonight - that she’ll get the Drudge coverage and the number one spot on Technorati. She sat down where she wasn’t supposed to and, after three warnings, was “arrested.”

“Attention all you cameramen, I am about to be arrested, please focus!”

I can’t think of anything that seems to destroy people’s mental health faster than a few weeks or months of uncritical, gushing media hype.
[…]
And now, we see Mother Sheehan - an utter media creation who burnished her genuine tragedy with an ability to cry-on-cue, but who has long-since overplayed the “grieving mother” hand and become all about preening and performing for the camera. Yesterday people losing lives and livelihoods to a storm were mere peons interferring with her scheduled adulation. Today she got herself arrested, smiling the whole while and still quite certain that the constitution which guarentees her the right to self-destruct in an endless loop on CNN, is a constitution that is not worth dying for.

Last week, I wrote of Rosie O’ Donnell:

“…go figure out who is trying to kill you and who is actually trying to save your foolish ass.”

I commend the same advice to Sheehan, but given the text of her bitter and self-pitying missive, I don’t think she’s interested, yet, in consuming massive doses of reality. Her first does has almost done her in:

The conclusions that I have slowly and very reluctantly come to are very heartbreaking to me.

The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a “tool” of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message…

However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the “left” started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used…

The missive is rife with personal references and some ideas that hint of a failed messiah-complex, and there is some crazy stuff in there about the government “controlling what we think” (not yet, Cindy, that would be your good pal Hugo Chavez come back after ‘08 for the rest) but one line of hers is worth exploring:

“The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing.”

Madam, your gracious and courageous son - whose death is tragic and for whom your mourning is nothing less than appropriate - will only have died “for nothing” if his mission is left dangling and unfinished by the very people - and their minions - who exploited you, and who help to make the job of every soldier in Iraq more difficult. Your son died fighting - like the very noblest and most formidable of heroes - to free a people and a nation from tyranny, and to rid them of the nests of violent and murderous men who keep their nation - and a whole region - under the boot, under the veil and out of the marketplace of ideas and invention, progress and parity. So long as those people are so subjected, the “world peace” you rant for will never take hold, and terrorism - the killing and maiming of utter innocents - will continue, throughout the world, to be the preferred means of movement.

The truth is, Mrs. Sheehan, President Bush is not the one trying to cheapen your son’s sacrifice. I certainly am not, either. Your son’s honorable death is being cheapened by the people who would say, “I support the troops, so I want them to be pulled out of a the place where they can make a difference, and have them stop acting like the warriors they are, so we can all sing Kumbaya and pretend to be friends with the whole world…until they attack another US City, in which case we should all beg their pardon and ask them why they hate us and how we can change to be more what they’d like.” Those are the people who want to “waste” Casey Sheehan’s young life. Those are the people who gave you “absolute moral authority” to do their bidding, until you dared ask them to let their actions be consistent with their rhetoric.

Do go home, Ma’am. Do go home and be silent for a little while, because silence is so much more instructive than noise. Go home and figure out who is trying to kill you and who is actually trying to save your grieving ass. Your son had already figured it out. He knew that liberty comes through the overthrowing of tyrants.

I tend to feel as this Freeper spokesperson does:

Kristinn Taylor, spokesman for FreeRepublic.com, which has held pro-troop rallies and counter-protests of anti-war demonstrations, said dwindling crowds at Sheehan’s Crawford protests since her initial vigil may have led to her decision. But he also said he hopes she will now be able to heal.

“Her politics have hurt a lot of people, including the troops and their families, but most of us who support the war on terror understand she is hurt very deeply,” Taylor said today. “Those she got involved with in the anti-war movement realize it was to their benefit to keep her in that stage of anger.”

Note: You’ll not be surprised to note that newspaper reports are carefully editing Sheehan’s goodbye letter
to omit her criticisims of the left and the Democrats. The press is ever-vigilant to insure that no dross touches their favored ones.

Siggy gives no quarter to Sheehan and wonders how much of her resignation is tied to financial questions, as he remembers some of Sheehan’s lower moments.

Tammy Bruce gives Sheehan’s screed a fisking.

Ed Morrissey and Rick Moran have more thoughts.

Don Surber also rolls his eyes as he bids Sheehan adieu.

More:
Sister Toljah

Blue Crab Boulevard noticed it:

Want proof that the New York Times made a major mistake with its “November surprise?” revelation about Iraq’s nuclear program?

The wire services are ignoring it. Nothing at all on the Yahoo News page. Nothing. No coverage.

There may be something out there but it is being ignored on the aggregaters.
[…]
The wire services are not spreading this. Okay, found something on CNET, still no big wire service stories. If anyone sees one, put a link in the comments.

Hmmm…as of this writing, there are no sitings in his comments section. I notice Drudge, is not covering the backfire, either.

Stephen Spruiell also noticed.

Writes Grandaddy Long Legs: The death of the “Bush Lied!” meme is a huge story, but it’s not one that the collective media is going to willingly cover. So use this Google link to type in the name of your local news service, and get started.

Doubt making noise will change much. When the press doesn’t want to tell you a story, it doesn’t tell you a story. That’s what blogs are for.

::::UPDATE BUMPED TO TOP::::
Statement from Los Alamos National Laboratory

The Laboratory is treating this matter with the utmost seriousness. Los Alamos National Laboratory has done a careful and comprehensive analysis of the materials that we believe may have been compromised as part of this matter. Based on that assessment, we have determined that the majority of the material was classified at the lowest levels and was twenty to thirty years old. None of the documents in question were classified Top Secret. None of the materials included any of the most sensitive nuclear weapons information.

Additionally, we are currently taking decisive actions to further enhance our existing security measures that protect classified information employing both administrative and engineering controls.

Can we get a big “whew” for that one?
:::END UPDATE:::

A recent drug bust at a Los Alamos home made an additional discovery: Top-level information on deactivating locks on nuclear weapons were found in that home. CBS is breaking the story.

The recent security breach at Los Alamos National Laboratory was very serious, with sensitive materials being taken out of the facility — possibly including information on how to deactivate locks on nuclear weapons, officials tell CBS News.

The woman had top secret “Q-clearance” with access to all the U.S. underground nuclear test data. Additionally, she had “Sigma 15″ clearance, which allows her access to info on how to deactivate locks on nuclear weapons.
[…]
Los Alamos has a history of high-profile security problems in the past decade, with the most notable the case of nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee. After years of accusations, Lee pleaded guilty in a plea bargain to one count of mishandling nuclear secrets at the lab. [Note: Wen Ho Lee was fired from the Los Alamos labs, and arrested, in 1999 - admin,]

Meanwhile, there are more questions about the security of our votes in the upcoming election. Seems to me paper ballots and voter ID is the way to snuff out the threat of fraud, but that idea is not grabbing on.

Security is the issue. Are we secure at home, from terrorists? Are our labs secure from opportunists and spies? Is the government able to perform its defensive, clandestine operations without those programs constantly being undermined and compromised by leaks to the press?

Oh, silly me. The press is always very concerned about leaks of classified information. They’ll go out of their way to spin this latest story, the Los Alamos story, as the fault of stupid evil Bush (everything is his fault) and pound the desk about security leaks (which a reputable press SHOULD pound about, btw)…but then if they get the chance to leak something else on Monday or Tuesday…they’ll do it. The world is rich with irony. The press is stuffed to the gills with it.

Admin Note: (removed because it was too long…I’ll find a better way to say it and repost later in seperate post)

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors”
- President William Jefferson Clinton 12/16/98

The Bush Derangement Syndrome at the NY Times has reached such yelpingly mad levels that the Times’ inevitable breakdown is nigh. The most telling symptom (besides yesterday’s outright lying) of an impending crash is now manifesting itself as the Times’ inability to reason or use simple logic.

In the paper’s insatiable hunger to destroy the Evil Enemy Bush and His Minions, they have frontpaged this story:

U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

Yeah! In the wee small hours of some morning, President Bush, the stupidest (and most evil!) man in the world personally uploaded into the web ALL OF IRAQ’S NUCLEAR PLANS, drawings, diagrams, equations. (Ummm…actually Congress put this stuff online, but never mind about that. It’s not like they gave tech information to China, or nuclear power to North Korea, but I digress).

So, the NY Times twirls its mustache and writes:

Stupid Evil Bush Reveals Saddam’s Nuke Plans, and He was Only a Year Away from Having Nukes and….and….

Times Peon #1: HOLY CRAP, Mr. Keller, did we just validate everything Dick Cheney and Colin Powell and stupid evil George Bush said to the UN? When we’re spilling secrets, we’re not supposed to do that!

Keller: OMG, WE DID! We DID validate these scheming nazi theocon bastards!!!

Times Peon #2: And…and…and what about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame and those sixteen words Bush said…you know, the impeachable 16 words about the Brit intelligence and the Yellowcake! Jim Geraghty at TKS says we might have freaking validated that story, too!

Keller: Ohhhhhh crap! And freaking bloggers! Okay, let’s spin this, baby, spin it! All hands on deck! Turn this ship around! Call Chris Matthews! Call MoDo - no, wait, don’t call her, she’ll make it worse by pretending to be Emma Peel, or something - call Bob Herbert! He’s a wiz at shifting the rudder! Spin, spin! Call Olbermann!

Peon #3: Aye, Aye, captain! Uh, sir, Olbermann is chewing floorboard and Matthews is crying, again. Should we call Judith Miller, sir?

Keller: Jesus God Almighty! No, no, just let her stay buried!

Times Peon #2: There is no God but Allah, sir, and Mohammed is his prophet. Be careful with those exclamations or we might get into trouble with Islamofa-

Keller: Don’t you say Islamofascists, Peon! You know the only fascists on this planet live in the White House and…some place in Kansas…

Times Peon #2: Sorry sir, lost my head - a confusing day. Anyway, we want them on our side, sir, the ummmm…non-fascist Islamists. They’re telling people that the Democrats should win this election!

Keller: Exactly. Thank you, Peon, you’re a good man for reminding me about them. You’re right, this is no time to lose our heads!

Times Peon #1: Hah-haha, good pun, sir!

Keller: Pun, hell, I’m quite serious! (Pounding well-coiffed head against the newsroom’s fifth column)…I gotta think…gotta think…we need…we require…we gotta get Clinton in on this, no choice, only Clinton can spin this thing as adroitly as we’re going to need!

Times Peon #3: Which Clinton would that be, sir? Bill Clinton was on the cover of Time Magazine calling Saddam out in 1998 and saying he had WMD and possibly nukes! Hillary Clinton said in 2003 that the intelligence that stupid evil Bush was showing congress was “consistent with what we saw in the White House in the 1990’s.”

Times Peon #2: And besides, sir, you’re going to have a hard time using Clinton if the bloggers start reminding everyone about the nuke trigger he gave to Iran in 2000!

Keller: (under his breath) Damn! Freaking Clintons, can never count on them for anything! What about Gore!

Times Peon #1: Unavailable, sir! Flying a private jet to Iceland to warn about Global Warning, the biggest threat facing the world at this time, as you know!

Keller: Kobayashi Maru?

Peon #2: Fiction, sir. Star Trek, I think?

Keller: Albright! Gimmee Albright!

Times Peon #3: Under the desk with her head down on her knees, sir, with Byron Calame! She’s in a sort of trance muttering this over and over again: “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. I knew that when I said it on Feb 18, 1998.” She keeps saying it, sir. And Calame is saying, “Banking data, NSA leak…no way out, no way out, no way out.”

Times Peon #1: Albright and Calame have gone bye-bye, sir.

Keller: I always did think they were the same person…alright, you know what? Get Kerry. Bring on John Kerry! He was a sailor! He’ll spin this wheel and turn us aright! He knows how to get out the information we want gotten out. And besides, he owes us! We shot down the Swiftboat Vets and never asked to see Kerry’s milrecords, and we and got him an extra 10-15% in 2004!

Times Peon #2: Confined to quarters, sir, on account of nobody really likes him, much.

Keller: Okay,dammit, then sound the sirens! Dive! Dive! Dive!

Times Peon #2: Sir, we’re not a submarine, we are the majestic shining jewel of the journalistic seas! We are The TIMESTANIC!

Times Peon #1: Iceberg, straigh’ ahead!

Hate consumes the hater and the NY Times is killing itself because it hates stupid evil George W. Bush and all you unsophisticated, knuckledragging little red-staters stupid enough to believe him, too. Oh, and every chance they can get, they’re going to weaken our defenses against people like Saddam, and countries like Iran, and North Korea. Until, of course, there is a someone with a D after her/his name once again skulking about the Oval Office.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

In my experience, Ed Morrissey is going to be the go-to “Captain” on this story, so check back with him throughout the day. He more than anyone (and certainly not the “mediating intelligences of the press”) has been keeping track of the slow, steady translations workand the info we’re gleaning from 45,000 boxes of Iraqi documents no one else seems to care about. Except, maybe this fellow, who has done some amazing work.

It seems to me Ed’s unflagging interest in these documents has been vindicated.

And Betsy Newmark says It’s time to take another look at the those parts of the Duelfer Report that got sloughed off in the past.

And Shrinkwrapped does a psychological evaluation of the Timestanic.

Also writing:
Right Wing Nuthouse
Flopping Aces
Blue Crab Boulevard
Ace
Oak Leaf at Polipundit
Just One Minute
Carol Platt Liebau