Today's broadcast is devoted to The Injured Marine Semper Fi Fund, which provides support to Marines wounded in the war or in training for combat and their families.  Please give generously to help those who have sacrificed a great deal in the service of the country.

You can donate online or send a check to:

The supposedly tolerant Muslim religion even finds it necessary to restrict speech
the United States.  Little Green Footballs this Tulsa, Olkahoma news story where
a man was thrown out of his mosque for advocating that the Al Queda killers 
turn themselves into the authorities.  Dennis Prager called this one of the most
disturbing stories of the past year.


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23480_Why_We_Rarely_Hear_from_Moderate_Muslims&only

It is useless to debate the left-wing bias in the MSM, which is like debating the temperature at any given place on any given day.  Opinions may differ as to what it feels like, but there is a factual answer to the question of what the temp is.  No matter what your opinions are about the MSM, the fact is that the Beltway-Manhattan MSM tilts way, way left.  Newsbusters quotes Jim Pinkerton running through the basics for the folks who think it may be close to freezing when in fact it is 61 and cloudy.

This bias does impact elections because it influences voters' perceptions of facts, most specifically this year about Iraq but on the economy and many other issues that move voters.  Newsweek's Evan Thomas once estimated that media bias would give the Kerry-Edwards team a 15 point lift in Campaign 2004, and while he obviously overestimated the ability of the MSM to decide presidential elections, he may not be that far off when it comes to that point in an eight year cycle when the incumbent president's fortunes are at a natural low --the sixth year election.

Mary Katharine Ham has some fun comparing last year's reporting on the day-after-Thanksgiving sales with this year's stories, and in so doing she underscores why the overwhelming number of lefties in newsroom works to tilt the news so decidedly to the left.  Stories can always be written to emphasize the good news or to emphasize the bad news.  The Pelosi-Reid cheering section exists in the news sections of every major daily in America, as well as within all of the broadcast networks except Fox. 

Pointing to and complaining about bias isn't a meaningless exercise, though, and is in fact a necessary one going into the next two years.  Though hardly anyone takes the "news" seriously as news, the MSM remains a very effective disseminator of various myths, and myths are stories intended by their tellers to be believed.  The most dangerous myth the MSM pushes is that the war we are engaged in is one of choice, and one that can thus be avoided.  A second killer myth is that our enemies can be "engaged," and that we have something they want.

These myths are similar to those peddled by the Times of London during the glory years of appeasement, and peddled with special vigor by Geoffrey Dawson, then editor of the Times.  There are plenty of candidates for Dawson's mantle (and Powerline worries that Susan Glasser's promotion at the WaPo is raising up another lefty even higher in the ranks) and of course Bill Keller's tenure at the New York Times has been especially hard on the national interest.

But, sadly, we haven't seen anything, yet.  The ordinary losses of a sixth year election will be used by the Beltway-Manhattan media elite as proof of a sea change in the public's opinion's from 2004, and the tentative attempt at arguing for retreat and defeat will grow very loud and very insistent very soon. 

The good news is that unlike Great Britain in the 1930s, there are plenty of new media outlets with vast and growing audiences.  The debates ahead will be sharp and prolonged, but not one-sided.  The killer myths have their friends and promoters, and their enemies as well.  The presidential election already unfolding will be a pretty interesting test of strength between the two, though new media has the advantage of seeing clearly what The Looming Tower and other crucial reads have laid out.

Al Jazeera notes the big Navy presence in the Gulf.:

[O]n October 31, two nuclear-powered carriers, the USS Eisenhower and USS Enterprise, arrived in Bahrain, accompanied by their carrier strike groups. And on November 9th, the USS Iwo Jima, and the USS Boxer also arrived.

Is President Bush up to something? Asked Rense.com

On October 11, American officials announced that the U.S., Bahrain and other states will hold their first naval exercise in the Gulf to practice interdicting ships carrying weapons of mass destruction and missiles.

The exercises, organized under the U.S.-led 66-member Proliferation Security Initiative and the first to be based in the Gulf near Bahrain, across from Iran, came as Washington and the European Union member states are pushing for imposing sanctions including possible interdiction of ships on North Korea, following its announcement of carrying out nuclear test, and on Iran, which the U.S., backed by Israel and the EU, claims is preparing to produce nuclear weapons.

Iran considers Washington- sponsored war games in the Persian Gulf, off the Iranian coastline as a provocation aimed at creating a situation of direct confrontation between the U.S. and Iranian naval forces in the Persian Gulf, although a senior U.S. official insisted that the exercise is not aimed specifically at Iran.

About the exercises, which experts say reinforces a U.S. strategy aimed at strengthening America’s ties with the Gulf states, which Tehran and Washington are engaged in a fierce competition to win influence over, the official, speaking on condition of anonymity claimed:

"It’s an effort to bring a lot of Gulf states together to demonstrate resolve and readiness to act against proliferation."

I don't know if a four carrier deployment is significant, but perhaps some old salt (or not-so-old salt) can compare this deployment with past exercises in the region.

I hate to say it, but the fix is in. The Iraq Study Group will be the 9/11 Commission redux, in more ways than one.

By swerving outside its lane and officiously volunteering to redesign our intelligence gathering apparatuses, the 9/11 Commission gave our political class a convenient excuse to shirk its responsibilities. It’s hard to imagine a single solon so neglectful that in the wake of the catastrophic intelligence failures that begot 9/11, he didn’t give at least some thought to how our intelligence agencies could be improved.

But singing a rare bipartisan grace note, the congressional leaders of both parties decided that the 9/11 Commission was omniscient on all matters concerning intelligence. After all, if brilliant thinkers like Richard ben Veniste, Jamie Gorelick and the former governor of New Jersey didn’t have all the answers on how to completely revamp our intelligence agencies, who did?

The presence of the 9/11 Commission gave Congress a convenient excuse. By universally agreeing to outsource Intelligence Design to a merry band of partisan lawyers and ex-politicians, our political class had effectively passed the buck. If/when the next terrorist attack comes, politicians near and far can defend themselves by reminding the public that they supported the 9/11 Commission in all matters big and small, thereby intimating, “What more could I have done?”

The same dispiriting Kabuki ritual is due to be performed once again with the Iraq Study Group reprising the role formerly played by the 9/11 Commission. Ancient Congressional dinosaur Lee Hamilton is the only holdover from one cast to another.

Lee Hamilton happens to be a very good man. I’m less sanguine about James Baker’s personal attributes than Hamilton’s, but he’s earned a right to have his opinion heard also.

But the preemptive deference being accorded both of these figures is way out of line. I don’t recall the Democratic Party being so eager to embrace Baker’s every pearl of wisdom back in 1990-1991. And for that matter I don’t recall the Athenians adopting Hamilton’s advice without question when they were fighting the Spartans. The Iraq Study Group’s conclusions should be taken for what they’re worth. If they’re valuable, then they should be treasured. If they’re worthless, they should be treated as such.

Again, my biggest fear is that the Baker/Hamilton commission will give our political class an excuse to punt away its responsibilities. Regardless of how steeped the recommendations are in misguided “realist” nonsense, the media and our political class will rush to acclaim them as unique new insights that must be immediately implemented.

Merely anticipating this ritual is enough to crush a pundit’s spirit. It’s just so dumb. It’s not like the Iraq Study Group is going to produce a single unique insight. The only new thing it will “accomplish” is the introduction of a new player in the War on Terror drama. This addition to the dramatis personae will allow the administration and its abettors in Congress to tip over the checkerboard and start anew while claiming that they’re all just deferring to a higher authority.

In their younger days, both Hamilton and Baker dreamed of the presidency. Even if they had won the oval office, they never would have had their policies so unanimously hailed and so eagerly adopted by Washington’s political class as will be the case in the coming weeks.

So what happens next? We can momentarily console ourselves with the hope that the Iraq Study Group surprises us and offers a solution more muscular than seeking a diplomatic accord with people who have been rather outspoken regarding their desire to see us destroyed. If that happens, then almost everyone will get on board with the war against Jihadism and the administration will get a second crack at bat.

But that scenario is unlikely. Given the predominance of self-styled “realpolitik” practitioners in the study group and the fervor with which the cut-and-run caucus is awaiting its pronouncements, we have reason to fear that their counsel will be to leave the Middle East in peace (relatively speaking) and normalize relations with our malefactors as much as possible.

We can expect a lot of gooey reassuring rhetoric from the study group that our problems in the Middle East can be solved by winning hearts and minds. Expect much pabulum about carrots and sticks. And don’t forget the tiresome but erroneous assertion that the only people who really want to kill us are a bunch of cave dwelling whack-jobs in Waziristan, but that the rest of the region is just aching to start a love affair with America.

SO WHAT CAN WE DO IN the face of such a determined effort to put lipstick on a pig? First, we have to be prepared to utter the unpleasant and seemingly unspeakable truth.

The first key factor that few Americans seem to know that is Al Qaeda and Hezbollah are not some strange, tiny and exotic minority in the Islamic world. If free elections were held in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood would win. The Muslim Brotherhood is composed of Ayman al Zawahiri’s old playmates. If free elections were held in Saudi Arabia, a Salafist regime ideologically in sync with Al Qaeda would win. In Pakistan, yet again, Al Qaeda sympathizers would be major players. In the free election held in Palestine, terror group Hamas was a landslide winner. In Iran, the current regime is popular. In Jordan, free elections would see the moderate Hashemite regime toppled and replaced by a far more belligerent entity.

So what does all this mean? It means a storm is gathering. At this moment, our would-be malefactors’ abilities to seriously damage us are limited to terrorist attacks and economic disruption.

But those are only the threats of the moment. In time, the threats will grow. Exponentially. Although right now the Islamic world can’t so much as produce a shotgun on its own, that will change as petrodollars mix with government-sponsored Jihadism.

The ultimate component of the threat is the philosophy of Jihadism. While Saudi benefactors have convinced American academic uber-schmucks like John Esposito to see jihad as a form of yoga done while facing Mecca, that interpretation doesn’t square with the rhetoric coming out of the Islamic world. Islam’s most prominent and popular spiritual leader, Yussuf al-Qaradawi, has vowed to conquer Europe and America. In Iran, the Khomenist regime has turned against centuries of traditional Shiite disinterest in politics and likewise has announced plans to conquer the non-Islamic portions of the world. Al Qaeda you know about.

In short, if we don’t somehow reform that part of the world or at the very least dissuade the people there that their ambitions are misguided, we are in for the fight of our lives.

AGAIN, WHAT CAN WE DO? The first thing we must do is make a steady and unwavering effort to educate our countrymen. If the events of the last week have proven anything, they have shown that so far we haven’t made much headway in that regard. For this, I blame ourselves. The only Republican politician of any prominence who made this case in the latest campaign season was Rick Santorum. Other than that, the silence from conservative politicians was as conspicuous as it was damning.

I call on looking-for-work politicians like Rick Santorum, Chris Chocola and New Gingrich who understand the threat to take this message to every Podunk little TV station and eager Elks Lodge that will host them. Progress here will be measured in inches, not miles. But if we do this right, we can make sure the Republican presidential primary revolves around this issue and that it gets a good airing for the first time. They should also be reaching out to potential allies in the Islamic world who are as appalled by the Jihadist menace as we are.

I’ve written here many times of how Winston Churchill spent the 1930’s as a back bencher doing everything in his power to convince his countrymen of the threat posed by Nazi Germany. It took a cataclysm for Great Britain to finally agree with him, but at least he tried. And when his hour finally came, he saved his country.

Hopefully it won’t take a cataclysm to awaken our slumbering countrymen. But regardless, let us try.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

If Ambassador Bolton is refused an up-or-down vote by the Senate, I will join Claudia in the necessary fund-raising drive to collect and donate his salary to him. 

I heard a lecture by the New York Times' James Traub at the Newberry Library in Chicago yesterday that convinced me Bolton is the greatest thing to happen to the U.N. since Ambassador Kirkpatrick.  If Lincoln Chafee's seemingly infinite mediocrity prevents Bolton from having an up-or-down vote in the Senate, President Bush should again use his recess appointment power to keep Bolton at his post. ( I believe but am not certain that President Clinton followed this path with Bill Lann Lee.)  Bolton would then serve without formal pay, but as Claudia notes, there are thousands of Americans willing to help keep him at his post if the president is willing to do so.  Some third party would have to emerge as a trustee for the donations so that Bolton was unaware of who had donated to the cause, but that's the detail stuff.  President Bush has an opportunity to signal seriousness when it comes to his authority over the Executive Branch.  I hope he does so.

Sen. John McCain: 'Government Changed Us'

Reprint Information

Donald Rumsfeld Is Stepping Down 2008's 'Scandal Five' Sen. Bill Nelson's Son Arrested for Battery Mehlman: Three Lessons in GOP Losses Angry Viguerie: Fire GOP Leadership

Sen. John McCain of Arizona said he is "disappointed" with the results of Election Day for Republicans, but he is "confident" that the GOP will bounce back from its losses to lead America.

McCain, appearing on Fox News Channel, said he'd turn to the memory and inspiration of Ronald Reagan as proof that the party can improve itself for the betterment of the country after suffering significant defeats during the midterm elections.

"I remember in 1976 when Republicans lost everything," McCain said. "Ronald Reagan emerged and showed us the way to victory."

McCain said the election losses for the GOP should serve as a wake-up call.

"We went to Washington to change government, and government changed us," the senator said. "Particularly in the area of excessive spending, earmarking, a failure to take on immigration, Social Security and other issues.

The senator and presumptive 2008 GOP presidential candidate said Iraq may have been the biggest issue on the minds of disenchanted voters on Election Day, but that was not the only issue that led to many defeats for Republicans. McCain blamed overspending from the party that traditionally values "small government" as a big problem for many voters.

"We were not careful stewards of their tax dollars, which got out of control," McCain said, "so we paid the penalty for it."

Turning to the topic of the war in Iraq, McCain said the Bush administration must put politics aside and speak in clear terms on the serious nature of the war on terrorism.

"I think the American people need to be told what is at stake here, and there is a great deal at stake here," McCain said. "We need to tell them that it is long, hard and tough [to win against terrorists]. We need more troops over there [in Iraq], which I've been saying for a while.