Our Intellectual Overlords, Part II

In case you missed it: Our Intellectual Overlords, Part I Part I looked at the payoff for being on the left: with some rote memorization of leftist dogma, you get to be an intellectual overlord: superior to, and lording over, the rest of us.

Today's Part II examines the rationales behind much leftist dogma. I turn Part II over to Evan Sayet: former liberal; and former writer for Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect show on HBO - back in it's original days, when Maher's show was still funny, before it degenerated into bitterness. Mr. Sayet speaks, with charisma and humor and insight, in this videotaped speech from the Heritage Club: link.

The speech is entertaining, yet long(about 35 minutes). I can read faster than I can listen. I can understand better when I write things out. So, I took notes of the speech, and, for my sake as well as yours, I present a synopsis of Mr. Sayet's speech below. I invite you to listen, or read, and to enjoy a real political discussion - of the type which rarely happens anymore. Enjoy an opportunity to think.

Notes of Evan Sayet's speech before the Heritage Club:

***********************************************

Growing up I knew one thing: Dems are good and Repubs are evil.

I tell this story - its not true, but it shows what happened to me - about an old friend:

He constantly complains about his wife, and you smile and think: he doesn't really hate his wife. Then one day, his wife is getting beaten up. You jump up: "Lets go save her!" He says: "Nah. I'm sure she deserves it", and you realize: he really does hate his wife.

That's what happened to me on 9/11. My friends complained for years about our nation, and I thought: they don't really hate America. Then 9/11 happened, and I jumped up: "America's in trouble, lets go help her!" My friends said: "Nah, I'm sure she deserves it.", and I realized liberals really do hate America. I started a quest to understand the mindset. How could this be?

I discovered that Democrats are wrong on every issue - as wrong as wrong can be.

It's not an accident they are wrong. It's part of a philosophy which invariably results in siding with:

• evil over good,
• wrong over right,
• and the behaviors that lead to failure over the behaviors that lead to success

Liberals side with evil. Are they evil? No.

Are they stupid? No. Besides, if it was just stupidity, they'd be right more often. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Whats their plan? How do liberals think they are making a better world?

I discovered the modern liberal looks back on thousands of years of human civilization, and knows only one thing for sure:

None of the ideas mankind has come up with, none of the:

• religions
• philosophies,
• ideologies
• forms of government,

none have succeeded in creating a world devoid of

• war
• poverty
• crime
• and injustice.

Liberals are convinced that since all of these ideas of man have proven to be wrong, the real cause of war, poverty, crime, and injustice can only be found in the attempt to be right.

Their thinking is this:

1. If nobody ever thought to be right, what would we disagree about?
2. If we didn't disagree, surely we wouldn't fight.
3. Without fighting there would be no war.
4. Without war there would be no poverty.
5. Without poverty there would be no crime.
6. Without crime there would be no injustice.

Its a Utopian vision.

All that's required to usher in this utopia is the rejection of all

• fact
• reason
• evidence
• logic
• truth
• morality
• and decency

These are all the tools you and I use in our attempts to be better people, and to make the world more right, by trying to be right, by siding with right, by recognizing what is right and moving towards it.

When this first started to dawn on me, I would take my liberal friends out and question them...

What you have is people who think the best way to eliminate rational thought, and the best way to eliminate the attempt to be right, is to work always to prove that right isn't right, and to prove that wrong isn't wrong.

They want to bring about a philosophy like John Lennon's song:

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

While trying to attain that goal, everything they do - all media, etc - has one criteria/result:

• Does it tear down what is good, and elevate what you and I would say is evil?
• Does it tear down what is right, and elevate what you and I would say is wrong?
• Does it tear down the behaviors that lead to success, and elevate what you and I would say are the behaviors that lead to failure?

Their goal is to tear down everything, until there is nothing left to believe in. There is no liberal standard for truth, beauty, and justice.

Abu ghraib: 44 days on front page of NYTimes: Why? It met one criteria: you think America is good? We found something to show you America is not that good.

Koran's being flushed at Guantanamo? It meets no journalistic standard, and it's an impossible story. No one can flush a book down a toilet. Why did Newsweek run a bogus, illogical story? Because nothing mattered to Newsweek, except that the story attacked America.

There is no artistic standard, or aesthetic criteria, by which a jar of urine with a cross in it is beautiful. No one says: "lets take down the Monet and put up the jar of urine." But it met the one and only standard of art that exists for the modern liberal [tear down what our society values].

Not everyone who voted for Kerry is aware of the leftist blueprint to eliminate anything worth standing up for. The elitists have succeeded in indoctrinating our children into a cult of indiscriminateness. They do this by teaching our children that rational and moral thought is an act of bigotry, and

• that no matter how sincerely you may seek to gather the facts,
• that no matter how earnestly you may look at the evidence,
• that no matter how disciplined you may try to be in your reasoning,

your conclusion is going to be so tainted by

• your personal bigotries
• and your upbringing
• and your religion
• and the color of your skin
• and by the nation of your great great grandparents birth,

that no matter what your conclusion, it is useless. Your conclusion is nothing other than a reflection of your bigotries.

Therefore, for elite leftists, the only way to eliminate bigotry is to eliminate rational thought.

My thinking is greatly influenced by a book Allen Bloom wrote in 1987: "The Closing of the American Mind."

Bloom asked himself: why were his university students suddenly so stupid? He finally realized they had been raised to believe indiscriminateness is a moral imperative, because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated. In order to eliminate discrimination the modern liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate.

For example, in airports, we intentionally pretend we don't know some things we do know.

The problem is that the ability to discriminate is the essence of rational thought. So, quite literally, we are dealing with a whole of Western Europe and today's Democratic Party being dominated by this philosophy that rejects rational thought as a hate crime.

So what you're left with, after 10 - 15 - 20 years in the indoctrination centers that our schools have become, are citizens of voting age who, on the one hand, are utterly unwilling and incapable of critically judging the merits of the positions they hold, and have held, unquestioned, since they were 5 years old.

Its not that liberals are unaware of all the adult things we are aware of. It is that they need to reject them in order to remain in their utopia, which they are told is the only hope for mankind: mindless indiscriminateness.

You are left with adults of voting age who not only cannot judge their own positions, but are virulently antagonistic to any position other than their own. Why? When you are brought up to believe indiscriminateness is a moral imperative, any position other than your own must've employed discrimination in it's formulation. Any form of discrimination is "Discrimination = Bad!" They know theirs is a position arrived at through the moral imperative of indiscriminateness, therefore any position other than their own must've been arrived at through the employment of discrimination - which makes you not just wrong, on your issues and your stances, but, more importantly: bigoted.

They don't even think about your issues and your stances. They don't have to. Even if they were willing to, even if they were able to, they don't need to. Would you sit and contemplate Hitler's Social Security policy? No. You would fight Hitler.

What you're left with, coming out of the schools, is people who quite literally cannot differentiate between

• good and evil,
• right and wrong,
• better and worse.

Here's a key: Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. Indiscriminateness of thought invariably leads the modern liberal to side with

• evil over good,
• wrong over right,
• and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.

Why? Because in a world where no behavior is to be deemed better than any other, then your expectation is that all behavior should lead to equally good outcomes.

You and I know different behaviors lead to different outcomes, because we think. But to the modern liberal, who cannot make that judgment, must not make that judgment - because that would be discriminating, they have no explanation.

So the only explanation for success has to be that somehow success has cheated. Success, simply by its existence, is proof positive to the modern liberal of some kind of chicanery and likely bigotry.

Failure, simply by its existence, is proof to them of victimization.

The same is true for good and evil. Since nothing can be deemed good, and nothing can be deemed evil, that which society does recognize as good must be the beneficiary of some sort of prejudice. That which society recognizes as evil must be the victim of that prejudice.

Many rank and file Democrats embrace their victimhood. They mindlessly accept whatever policy tears down good things:

• America
• Israel
• Walmart.

They will elevate what is evil, until everything meets in the middle, and there is nothing left to fight about [like John Lennon's song].

Once you belong to this cult of indiscriminateness, there is no other conclusion you can come to other than that good is evil, and that evil is the victim of good.

If there is no objective difference between the terrorist and the freedom fighter, then why teach George Washington is a hero, and Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein are villains? You and I know why, b/c we think. Washington risked his personal fortune to lead his troops into battle, against uniformed forces, in a noble cause. Yasser Arafat stole his people's money and sent 14 year olds into battle in order to prop up his corrupt dictatorship. Pretty villainous stuff. We can see that. But to the folks at the NYTimes, who have established as official policy that there is no objective difference between the terrorist and the freedom fighter, "why do we teach our children that George Washington is a hero?" They've no idea. Their only possible explanation is b/c George Washington was a white Christian of European descent. If there is no difference in the behavior of the terrorists, why do we teach that Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein are villains? There can be no reason other than they are darker skinned Muslims of Middle Eastern birth.

Once you subscribe to indiscriminateness, anything other than indiscriminateness is the evil of having discriminated.

Happy Easter!

Things to do when it snows

in Ft. Worth, on Easter weekend:

#27: mow the lawn

...in your beautiful LSU sweatshirt, a gift from 16 months ago, which you've never worn - b/c its a heavy sweatshirt, and it just never gets cold enough to wear it - which you become certain of when you don the sweatshirt, only to then snap a sales tag from inside the neck of the sweatshirt.

And, wouldn't you know it, the sweatshirt becomes too hot inside of 10 minutes. So you hang it, and don a windbreaker, which becomes too hot inside of 10 more minutes. So you hang it, and finish the lawn, in the skittering/swirling snow, wearing two sturdy t-shirts. You mow an artistic diagonal cut.

Risking Psychological Annihilation

Charley Rosen (newly blogrolled):

Besides talent, there's a huge difference between winners and losers. Winners always play hard no matter what the score is or where their teams might rank in the standings. Accordingly, after a game, win or lose, winners are totally drained physically and emotionally.
[...]
On the other hand, losers always keep their sense of self intact by rarely (if ever) making an all-out effort for every play in every game. The very notion of risking even a temporary psychological annihilation is too frightening for them to consider — even subconsciously.

With my (over?)sensitivity to language implications, I do not prefer to characterize people or behavior in terms of "winners" or "losers." Beyond that quibble, Rosen's observation is compelling.

Valentine to Kelly Clarkson

I've always been taken by "girl next door" types. Kelli Clarkson, from Burleson, TX, is the ultimate girl next door type - including the circumstance that, as a guy, you do not want the girl next door to be prim. You want her to be cute, down to earth, and a bit of a playa. Kelly Clarkson is cute, is unaffected by her celebrity, and is a fun playa-grrrl.

This shows what happens when a playa-grrrl next door gets famous, moves to L.A., has a bit too much to drink, and goes with her friends to a Metal Skool concert. Metal Skool pulls her onstage. She tries to tell them she's had too much to drink, yet that only encourages the band.

The good part starts at the 4 minute mark, when the band starts into GNR's "Sweet Child of Mine". No hair has ever fallen across eyes more alluringly than Kelly's. It's also cute that, like the rest of us, Kelly basically only knows the chorus to the song. Watch as the lead singer tries to help her, by subtly cuing the words for her. Enjoy. Kelly is.

Postscript: When she starts singing, Kelly is as natural and unaffected as she could be. She puts more of her true self out there - nakedly exposed for the audience - than most performers would dare to, even if they could.

It's impossible to watch this without thinking of Kelly and her girlfriends, ten years ago, jumping around in each other's Burleson bedrooms, singing to CD's and pretending they were rock stars. Onstage with Metal Skool, even Kelly's rock and roll "I've had too much to drink" licentiousness looks like what teenage girls would do - to scandalize and amuse their girlfriends, during bedroom concert performances.

During this, watch for the lead singer's double take reactions to Kelly during the performance. He keeps looking offstage to share looks with someone. Notice how "the lead singer for Yellow Card" gets so into it he sort of forgets the band is more interested in hearing Kelly sing. I really enjoy this video.

"300"

In "300", Spartans are offered their lives, their land, their riches, every good thing their civilization enjoys - and more ... IF ... they will bow down as subjects of the Persian King Xerxes.

1

Spartan King Leonidis goes to war with Xerxes - not for Greek lives, land, riches, or any good thing - but for freedom. Leonidis will not give up his freedom, or that of his people. It is one of the earliest instances of a people warring for a philosophic concept: freedom - instead of warring for traditional motives of land and treasure.

1

In the movie, Spartan King Leonidis despairs at sending his Spartan nation to war. Freedom is still a fresh concept in history. Leonidis could bow to Xerxes - as would've been Sparta's only option just a few years before - when she was not yet a nation committed to freedom. If King Leonidis bows, his Spartan people would live long and prosperous lives. If Leonidis fights, his people will very possibly be slain - to the last man - by Xerxes' military hordes. Spartan Queen Gorgo counsels her husband:

"It is not a question of what a Spartan citizen would do, nor a husband, nor a King. What, my dearest love, would a free man do?"

In 480 BC, the world had Xerxes. In modern day, we have the lovely gentleman pictured above, holding the sign. Is this gentleman protesting political change in Afghanistan, or in Iraq? Is he counterprotesting the freedom-demanding student movement in Iran? Negative. He is standing in London - outside the French embassy, protesting the very Western freedoms whose protections he is enjoying.

1

h/t Powerline, who caption the picture: "Reductio Ad Absurdum".

1

Last note: though "300" is gorgeous and entertaining, critics HATE it. Why? "300" celebrates every political and philosophic concept which "progressive" movie critics typically stand against. At Protein Wisdom, Melissa explains:

A rock-n-roll thumping score, over-the-top visuals, and Fred Astaire grace-filled battle-scenes featuring flying heads and spurting limbs serve as the backdrop to the story. The theme is simple and that is why critics scorn (see here, here, here and here) it and audiences love it. On the evil Persian side symbolized by a gold-adorned Xerxes there is hubris, decadence, slavery, treachery, bribery, betrayal, theft, cowardice, rape and weakness. On the good Spartan side symbolized by Leonidis and his wife Queen Gorgo there is faith, restraint (except during fighting—leave no prisoners—another reason for reviewers to hate it), freedom, loyalty, willingness, courage, giving, bravery and strength. The good side wins even in loss.

Spartan’s King Leonidis is offered a savior’s choice: “Worship the devil in return for all the kingdoms of the world.” Leonidis declines and tosses the messengers into a well, thus declaring war on the vast Persian army. Leonidis was not in a mood to treat with the enemy, also known as diplomacy, also known as appeasement, also known as certain submission, i.e. slavery. Perhaps this is the biggest sticking point with critics (see above): the lack of nuance.
[...]
Queen Gorgo has the nerve to speak out to the Persian messenger and the Spartan Council. How dare she? Well, she serves as the moral compass to King Lionidis; they are a team, and a formidable one. Marriage and family as societal strength surely also riles the critics [since the traditional marriage argument = special reverence for traditional marriage strengthens our nation].

300 lays out simple themes for the taking, the last one the most important. Persia was undone by their decadence and softness as much as anything. If America is to take a lesson, it should be taken from the Persians. The high ideals and simple beauty of democracy deserve a fight. Riches and indulgence and decadence and licentiousness will undo the greatest of cultures. America should worry about rotting within. That’s a danger bigger than any suicide bomber. With a weak will to protect the ideals, the enemy is already victorious.

Winners and losers, right and wrong, good and evil. This movie will make a lot of money. The progressives will despair.

As an aside: This is not a movie for children.

John Podhoretz, a columnist for the New York Post, is THE WEEKLY STANDARD's movie critic:

Because the actors are unimportant, Zack Snyder received no pressure from a top-of-the-line star to adjust his script to make his heroes more attractive, more modern, and more politically correct. There's no way that a Brad Pitt could have played Snyder's Leonidas. The part would have been altered to ensure Pitt got to deliver a speech bemoaning the tragic cost of war. No Spartan would have delivered such a speech, of course, but if Brad Pitt is your Spartan, he's going to insist on it.
[...]
In animated features, the story is king--and the stories that work are ones with clear moral conflicts in which flawed characters are called upon to sacrifice for the greater good. Stars don't like playing characters with flaws, or characters from different times whose views on social matters don't conform to our own. If semi- animated pictures aimed not at kids but at adult moviegoers now really take flight because of 300's smashing success, the future will not be so bright for Hollywood's star system. But it will give adventurous moviemakers some room to breathe free.

link

Unfinished

What is the purpose of all existence?

We are not meant to know. The gritty details of creation, infinity, and eternity are beyond human conception. We will know, hopefully, in the hereafter. It’s something to look forward to.

What is the purpose of our existence?

To use our skills to meet our challenges.

Aaaaaaaggh! That seems incomplete, and trite.

It does, if you do not trust God. Everyone’s trust fluctuates from moment to moment: sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker. The exceptions would be those who never have been in a foxhole, and thus never have believed in God.

“Use our skills to meet our challenges.” Why?

God intends that we fulfill our role in His eternal plan. God is aware of each individual. He preplanned each individual birth, and the course of each individual life, to suit his eternal purpose. God is a big picture guy, yet He also does socks and jocks. He gives each of us a personalized set of skills, and a personalized set of challenges.

My eternal role may be small, yet it is definite. Eternity is incomplete without it. We are each designed to fulfill our roles, and to make our definite marks upon eternity.

Where does He get the time? It seems impossible God could be aware of each of us, as individuals, from individual moment to individual moment.

It does seem impossible. However: creation, infinity, and eternity also seem impossible. If God can create atomic particles, DNA, the Milky Way, a spark in the eye of one you love, loyal pets, and Kate Winslett™, why couldn’t He also be aware of us as individuals, from before our birth, to the moment of our birth, and in all moments thereafter? Since it can’t be disproved, it’s at least possible. In my wizened adulthood (closer and closer to my death-hood – so I am motivated), I have faith it is so.

“Use our skills to meet our challenges.” Seems awfully sterile – where’s the love?

It is love in action. To love God is to trust the skills God has given you, the circumstances God has placed before you, and the eternal purposes God has chosen. Any moment in which you are engaged in the most appropriate activity, and are using your skills to meet your challenges, is a moment of love in action. You are serving your highest purpose, and loving God to the highest extent.

Sounds a lot like painful sacrifice. I’m not into pain.

Yet you have pain – and lots of it. We all do. Pain is inescapable.

To serve your highest purpose is to be near to God, and to bask in God’s soothing grace. When experiencing pain, where is the best place to be: nearer to God's soothing grace, or further away?

Trusting God does not equate to masochism. God designed us to experience pleasure. He intends it. Our pleasure is part of His plan. Our pleasure pleases Him. We ought not view pleasure as an activity of last resort. It has an important place in our lives.

Why do pain and suffering exist?

Yin/Yang. One cannot have the front of the hand without the back of the hand. One cannot comprehend pleasure without pain; comfort without suffering; harmony without discord.

This is not to discount the Buddhist philosophy that pleasure and pain, et al, are mere constructs; and that everything simply is – and is perfect - without characterization as good or bad. I see elements of this in Jesus’ teachings, also. If one believes everything simply is, one would not characterize pain and suffering as bad. Thus one would never ask “Why do pain and suffering exist?” The Yin/Yang answer is for those of us who remain unenlightened, and do characterize pleasure and pain; comfort and suffering.

Ooookkaaayyy. Cough(poseur)cough. You talked above about loving God. What about loving your neighbor?

Excellent! Thanks for that question.

Jesus said the greatest commandments were to love God with all your heart and all your strength; and to love your neighbor as yourself. Loving your neighbor is also about love in action: when you are engaged in the most appropriate action, and are using your skills to meet your challenges, you are serving your highest purposes. You are thus contributing as much as you can to your fellow man. This is love in action.

Wait, wait, wait: What about ladling soup at homeless shelters? What about contributing to charity? What about teaching? Coaching little league? Working in the Peace Corps? Being a Big Brother/Big Sister?

Love is not restricted to certain activities, or to approved methodologies.

"There is a time for everything." It is good to carefully consider the most appropriate actions for any particular moment. “Use your skills to meet your challenges” certainly means using your skills of reasoning, meditation, prayer, and instinct to meet your ongoing challenge of choosing the most appropriate courses of action.

Sounds so dry, and so serious. I’m again sensing masochism; and sack-cloth slavery; and lack of fun.

I empathize with your feelings. It’s our Puritan heritage.

Repeating Ecclesiastes: "There is a time for everything." Aristotle, also: "Everything in moderation."

Our muscles need stress and rest. Too much stress equals muscle failure, muscle injury, and a tired and weakened body becoming susceptible to germs and illness. Too much rest equals muscle atrophy, and the blocked arteries and wasting-away damages which soon enough result from inadedquate usage. "Most appropriate action for a particular moment" certainly includes both stresses and rests for muscles, intellect, and spirit, including: pleasures and pains, comforts and discomforts, wakefulness and sleep. "Most appropriate action for a particular moment" is not an exhortation to become a priest or a monk, or to take a vow of poverty or chastity.

How do you know when to do what?

You don’t know for certain, as we cannot predict the future.

Living is art. Almost always, we make choices based upon incomplete information: either to take particular actions, or to delay particular actions. Everything is a choice - constantly and ongoingly. Non-action is action.

We have skills - reasoning, meditation, prayer, instinct - which allow us to make the best choices during the time frames in which they must be made. As new information becomes known to us, we may change course. Or not. Living is art.

Regrets?

I’ve had a few, but then again, most were quite silly... and self-dramatic.

In the self-dramatic types of regrets, I would make a choice based upon incomplete information: I gave give a piece of the Berlin Wall as a gift to my sister in law. Later, when I had new information: she hates the piece of the Berlin Wall; I regretted not having made a different choice in the original instance: bath beads(?).

However, how could I have made a different choice in 1989? When I made the original choice: "the Berlin Wall! Cool!"; I did not have the newer information: she likes baths more than concrete historic mementos. Yet – oh the delicious regret, and the delicious self-flagellation: "She gave me the perfect, microwavable Tupperware bowl! How could I have given her a piece of concrete?" Maybe we’ve all done this type of self-drama - though maybe not this exact example! Now that I know more about life, women, and my sister in law, its perfectly obvious she would rarely be thrilled with receiving a piece of concrete. It was not so obvious in 1989. Do I now regret it?

We can regret, I think, deliberate instances of boorish or sinful behavior. Maybe, in 1989, I could've been more sensitive to others, and less involved with myself. Yet, I was who I was, and it was the only way I knew to be at that time. I know some things better now, but I don't regret who I was then. I think I ought not wallow in that type of self-drama, even in instances of greater consequence. I didn't know what I didn't know. What are ya gonna do?! In his old age, Bear Bryant said, of players from his early years of coaching:

"We did some of 'em wrong. We didn't know any better."

What are ya gonna do? Should Bear Bryant have wallowed in self-recrimination for the rest of his life? I think not.

When we do engage in deliberately boorish or sinful behavior, it is valuable to remember we are naturally fallen, imperfect beings. To berate ourselves - for being imperfect - is to not trust God.

If we seek virtuous action, we engage in a balancing act. We do not wish to justify sinful behavior: "It's okay to steal this, for I am an imperfect sinner". Yet, also, when sinful behavior occurs, we do not wish to be drowned in smothering, stifling regret and recrimination.

Tony Romo, and Human Nature

Tony Romo's post-game tears have surely endeared him to Cowboys fans everywhere. Jerry Jones should immediately sign him to a long term contract. Cowboys fans identify with him. He will sell tickets, and jerseys.

Here's the thing: Tony Romo did not lose the game. Not even close. Not in any universe in which rationality prevails. At worst, his muff had a slight effect on the Cowboys chances to win. At best, his muff gave the Cowboys a better chance to win - not a worse chance.

Bill Parcells should be indicted for poor strategy. He ought to have gone for a first down, instead of kicking:

• Had the Cowboys made a first down - but no touchdown, the game would've been over. The Cowboys would've run down the clock, then kicked the winning FG. The FG would've been good. Romo's muff was one of those moments in time - when all the stars aligned just so. Those moments do not repeat themselves.
• Had the Cowboys scored a TD, they would've enjoyed a 6 point lead.
• Had the Cowboys failed to gain a 1st down, here would've been the situation(which actually did occur after Romo's muff):

Seattle gains the ball just outside their 1 yard line, 1:15 remaining, and Dallas in possession of three time outs. The sequence could have gone like this:

• Run, timeout, 1:08 remains.
• Run, timeout, 1:00 remains.
• Run, timeout, 52 seconds remain.
• Punt, Dallas gains possession approx. at Seattle's 45 yard line, 42 seconds remaining.

Dallas would've needed only a FG to win. Dallas would've been one first down away from being in FG range.

The Cowboys defense had an additional advantage: Seattle was operating from just outside their own one yard line, and a safety would've put the Cowboys ahead. Seattle's offensive options were affected - to the Cowboys' advantage.

Parcells' strategic thinking was flawed.

Had the Cowboys succeeded in making the FG, the Seahawks would've had 1:15 on the clock; needing only a FG to win the game; and facing a Dallas defense which could not pressure the QB, and which was riddled with wide open spaces in their secondary. Seattle would've had returning Super Bowl QB Matt Hasselbeck lining up under center. In that situation, I would've liked the Seahawks' chances better than the Cowboys' chances. Parcells screwed up.

The crucial play of that stage of the game was not Romo's muff, but rather Seattle's run from the 1 yard line to the 14 yard line. Its incredibly rare for a good defense to give up such a run in such a situation. In the Roger Staubach era, Cowboys' defenses would've stopped Seattle's offense, forced a punt, and Staubach would've won the game.

The 2006 Cowboys simply had a bad defense - period, and end of story. Yet Romo took the fall: nationally, locally, and forevermore. It's astounding to me - and worrisome, from a team and a leadership standpoint - that Dallas' defensive players allowed Romo to take all the blame in the postgame locker room. In my mind, and I'm serious about this: Romo's muff gave the Cowboys a better chance to win - not a worse chance.

Final Notes:

1. About late-game, seemingly catastrophic sports plays:

They feel horrific, yet they are actually just another play - out of hundreds of plays which make up a game. We emphasize them b/c: (a) we crave excitement, and (b) we crave conversational bonding with our friends. Both goals are aided by dramatizing and simplifying the action. The truth is more complicated.

Further, late game plays usually have less impact than we realize. The classic example is the Chicago Cubs fan who caught the foul ball against the Florida Marlins. There was one out in the 8th inning when he caught the foul ball.

A baseball fan/mathematician made an outstanding mathematical study of how the outcome odds were affected. If the Cubs had caught the ball, for the second out of the 8th inning, the Cubs would've had a 9% better chance of winning the game. As a coach, or a player, increasing your chances by 9% is huge. Still, it was only 9%. Over the final two innings, the Cubs contributed far more towards losing than did the fan.

2. On Romo's muff, there's a solid chance he made the first down before being tackled, yet the booth referee was simply too stunned to call for a review of the spot of the ball. Watch the replay, and compare the spot of the ball to the first down marker. Romo was within a few inches - either way - of making the first down. There's a solid chance he made it. Either way, though, the booth referee blew it by not calling for a review.

Also, watch Grammatica put a mini-block on the Seahawk who eventually tackles Romo. If Grammatica - who was making a team-first effort, had made the merest additional effort, Romo would've made the first down by a decisive margin. Victory and defeat are about inches.

3. I was disgusted by Parcells' post game interview. He feinted at being the good guy, then buried Romo in blame. Parcells has some Barry Switzer in him, insofar as he never takes responsibility for failure. Parcells' defense failed in the final 75 seconds. His handpicked, personally designed defense - procured at the cost of high draft pick after high draft pick - failed, badly. Parcells' clock strategy failed, and his personalized defense failed. Parcells failed more than Romo failed - then he blamed it on Romo. Disgusting. Parcells can leave now.

Our Intellectual Overlords, Part I

This post was heavily influenced by, and much of it blatantly stolen from, this post by Ace of Spades.

One can only discuss politics when conditions are exactly right. Both parties must be capable of distinguishing between opinion and self. Both parties must have a common understanding of the facts underlying an issue. These conditions almost never exist.

If a rightwinger's opinion turns out to have been wrong, the sane on the right simply change their opinion. To them, having held a wrong opinion doesn't mean they are bad or stupid people. Their existence is not justified by their political views.

The left - including the left which is on TV, or writing columns and books, or holding political office - are generally lightly educated persons. They consider themselves, by virtue of having memorized leftist dogma, to be intellectual superiors. Given their status as intellectual superiors, they feel a duty to instruct their inferiors.

Leftists claim superiority despite having rarely done intellectually rigorous work. They often haven't earned advanced degrees, nor undergraduate degrees, nor even - one suspects, in the cases of certain Hollywood actors - high school diplomas.

A leftist needn't be an actual scientist, an actual physicist, or an actual engineer. If said leftist memorizes enough dogma, he or she is automatically a gifted intellectual. Memorizing dogma = earning an equivalency degree. Memorizing dogma is a shortcut to all the self-esteem benefits, without doing all the actual, yucky work. Memorizing dogma equates to being a gifted intellectual. It justifies your superior, enlightened existence. You may begin to take yourself very, very seriously.

I'm not on the left. My existence is not defined or justified by any political opinions I hold. I'm willing to be wrong about my political opinions, then change them.

Persons of the left take their intellectual status very, very seriously. It's who they are. It's how they define themselves. It's the core of their self-image. Their special status is all dependent on their memorized dogma being true.

This is the spot where leftists are brittle: they don't actually examine the dogma before memorizing and proselytizing it. They take it on faith. They join the club. They figure: if such large numbers of cool and smart people already believe it, well, it must be true. Mustn't it? If cool people believe the dogma, and if the dogma feels right, and if it's kind of difficult to examine the underpinnings of the dogma with intellectual rigor ... well, then, why worry? I'm in! No time to waste! I can't wait to be a gifted intellectual!

Soon enough, they've built a sort of living monument to their own genius, and are thus locked into a condition in which they cannot examine the dogma - for it is the very basis of their gifted intellectual status. If any part of the dogma which is accepted by all the cool people is untrue, then many parts of the dogma which is accepted by all the cool people might be untrue. All parts of the dogma which is accepted by all the cool people might be untrue. Scary.

These possibilities must not be considered, for upon the dogma rests the self-image. If your persona is based upon leftist dogma, you cannot allow any portion of the dogma to be challenged. It is too dangerous. It could be like a tiny leak in a dam. It could lead to a destructive flood. Your larger group of beliefs could become devastated. You could discover you are just a regular schlub of a person, instead of an enlightened, gifted intellectual. This is too horrible to consider. Your years as an intellectual would be exposed as a pretense, and a lie.

And that is the nub of the problem of political discussion. To discuss whether a leftist belief is untrue is to attack the leftist's status. He or she will feel personally attacked. You are not simply discussing an idea, you are challenging their very persona - their very self image. You are attacking them. They feel attacked.

They cannot allow such an attack to go on. Their psyche cannot bear the possibility - however remote - that such an attack might succeed. Therefore, they strangle the attack in it's infancy. They refuse to acknowledge facts which might prove to be in opposition to their beliefs.

Remember, their beliefs are unexamined. Their beliefs are based upon faith in large numbers of cool people who endorse the dogma, and upon faith in feelings and instincts. At some level, the dogma goes clunk for them. However, always remember that clunk is emotional. Our intellectual overlords know they haven't examined the facts underlying the dogma. This scares them - as it should. In an attempted discussion, not only will they refuse to acknowledge any contrary facts to you, they will refuse to acknowledge any contrary facts to themselves. To do so would threaten everything they've built themselves up to be.

When confronted by contrary facts, Leftists are thus thrust into a state of cognitive dissonance. In their carefully constructed reality, they are our intellectual superiors. Any facts which threaten that status are invisible to them. They cannot see them. They do not see them. They cannot acknowledge them. They do not acknowledge them. To do so would feel almost life-threatening. They personify denial.

You might believe you are discussing the facts of a situation with them. They feel you are attacking the very core of their being. Your perceived "facts", if they threaten leftist dogma, are very, very personal threats to them. They will refuse to acknowledge the existence of your facts. Your facts do not exist. Their perception and reaction have nothing to do with discussion of truth, and everything to do with protecting their psyche, and with protecting their carefully constructed intellectual facade.

Which is why one can only discuss politics when conditions are exactly right. Both parties must be capable of distinguishing between opinion and self. Both parties must have a common understanding of the facts underlying an issue. These conditions almost never exist.

Fisking President Clinton

(Edited and bumped to top)

That America got hit with a big attack was not Bill Clinton's fault. Truly, honestly, sincerely - was not. We were going to get hit, no matter what.

That said, I can't resist fisking the amazing string of falsehoods President Clinton proferred in the interview with Chris Wallace.

I suspect President Clinton was engaging in a delusional act of psychological self-defense. An indicator of psychological self-defense occurs when a reaction is out of proportion to a provocation.

WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on Fox News Sunday, I got a lot of e-mail from viewers. And I’ve got to say, I was surprised. Most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaida out of business when you were president?

There’s a new book out, I suspect you’ve already read, called The Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops. Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the Cole.

Greg: Chris! You're conflating two separate questions:
1. Why didn't you do more to get Bin Laden(in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000), and
2. Did the (1993) pull out from Somalia encourage the growth of Al Qaeda?
You ought to ask one question at a time, my friend...

CLINTON: OK, let’s just go through that.
WALLACE: Let me — let me — may I just finish the question, sir?And after the [Cole] attack, the book says that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around, because he expected an attack, and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is always 20/20…

Chris! Now you're adding a third question:
3. Did the failure to respond to the Cole attack encourage Al Qaeda?
One question at a time, Chris!

CLINTON: No, let’s talk about it.
WALLACE: … but the question is, why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

Whew. Finally - Chris restates the main question, and hushes up. We can see Chris wanted to throw some "dots"(Somalia, African Embassies, Cole) into his question - likely in the hope President Clinton would elaborate on his thinking about Bin Laden.

CLINTON: OK, let’s talk about it. Now, I will answer all those things on the merits, but first I want to talk about the context in which this arises.

Exactly - his entire defense is a "context" defense: forget the merits, everyone - concentrate on this: Fox News is bad. Neo-Cons are out to get me! Don't look at that(merits). Look over here(context)!

I’m being asked this on the Fox network. ABC just had a right-wing conservative run in their little Pathway to 9/11,

Pathway to 9/11 zinged everyone - right and left.

falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 Commission report,

Path to 9/11 included numerous, blatant, printed statements that it had taken dramatic license.

It's interesting that Clinton here lends credence to a 9/11 Commission Report which he will later dismiss as "politically motivated".

Also, Clinton here rips a Richard Clarke-influenced television drama (Path to 9/11), only to shower Richard Clarke with praise throughout the rest of this interview.

with three things asserted against me directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report.

I would looove to hear Pres. Clinton elaborate on what actually happened. A person can dream.

And I think it’s very interesting that all of President Bush’s neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden.

a) If conservatives in media examined Clinton's motives for his missile attack, they were only doing what opinion pundits are paid to do. It's a slur to equate examining motives with "thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden."
b) To equate some conservative pundits to "all of President Bush’s neo-cons" is a slur.
c) Further, Lexis Nexis confirms my memory: the vast majority of conservatives - whether elected, or in media - cheered for Clinton to do everything possible against Bin Laden. Newt Gingrich blast-faxed a number of conservative talk radio hosts, asking them to withhold criticism of Clinton's missile attack, and laying out reasons America needed to take action against Bin Laden.

They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office.

Condi Rice says the Bush Administration held four large, formal type of meetings with pertinent personnel. President Bush ordered a study on how to "eliminate" Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He didn't want to continue Clinton's policy of "rolling back" Bin Laden, which Bush equated to "swatting at flies." That study was completed approx. one week before 9/11.

All the right-wingers who now say I didn’t do enough said I did too much — same people. They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in Black Hawk down,

Lexis Nexis reveals Republican sentiment for staying in Somalia and finishing the job - though I I'm confident many politicos(including Repubs) were likely running for cover.

and I refused to do it and stayed six months

Sort of. A half truth. After Blackhawk Down, the Americans did not give full effort towards completing the mission President Clinton had given them: to capture the warlord Aidid.

In Chapter 26 of Blackhawk Down, Mark Bowden wrote that CIA operative Robert Oakley met with Aidid's emissary, and delivered this message:
"America's operations against Aidid had ended, and American was going to pull out of Mogadishu.
First, however, U.S. pilot Michael Durant should be released, as a goodwill gesture on Aidid's part.
Failing that, America would have to try and rescue Durant. That effort would be bloody, and America would hold nothing back. Oakley: 'This whole part of the city will be destroyed, men, women, children, camels, cats, dogs, goats, donkeys, everything.'
Aidid agreed to release Durant."

and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations. OK, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk down, Somalia.

President Clinton slickly (delusionally? dishonestly?) reduces multiple criticisms (Somalia, African Embassies, Cole, Why didn't you get Bin Laden?) to one thing: Black Hawk Down, 1993

There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaida was a growing concern in October of ‘93.

President Clinton appears to be addressing Chris Wallace' Question #2:

2. Did the pull out from Somalia encourage the growth of Al Qaeda?

President Clinton's stated assertion is: the pullout was reasonable, based on what we knew about Bin Laden at the time - which was zip. By making this particular stated assertion, President Clinton is conceding an unstated assertion that the pullout encouraged Al Qaeda. Logically, it has to be true that President Clinton is conceding that unstated assertion. Next, we shall see that President Clinton does not feel any moral duty to be logical.

WALLACE: I understand, and I…
CLINTON: No, wait. No, wait. Don’t tell me this — you asked me why didn’t I do more to bin Laden. There was not a living soul. All the people who now criticize me wanted to leave the next day. You brought this up, so you’ll get an answer, but you can’t…
WALLACE: I’m perfectly happy to.
CLINTON: All right, secondly…
WALLACE: Bin Laden says…
CLINTON: Bin Laden may have said…
WALLACE: … bin Laden says that it showed the weakness of the United States.
CLINTON: But it would’ve shown the weakness if we’d left right away, but he wasn’t involved in that.

If the pullout did not show weakness (read: encourage Al Qaeda), why does Pres. Clinton carefully point out that he didn't know about Bin Laden in 1993? President Clinton's reasoning is all over the place. His conflicting arguments remind of the classic legal defense:

• My client's dog did not bite anyone;
• your client kicked my dog first;
• my client doesn't own a dog.

Pres. Clinton could make this argument more credibly, if only he had a law license...

In Mogadishu, Pres. Clinton's treasured "six month pullout" was a slow walk. It was a show of force which was unaccompanied by serious offensive action. It was an effort to pretend we didn't run away. Everyone, including Osama, saw it for what it was.

Pulling out was not the worst mistake in history. Lots of Presidents might've pulled out. However, Pres. Clinton is playing games when he suggests that we didn't leave right away. For all practical purposes - for every purpose which counts in any way whatsoever - we pulled out immediately. It did show weakness. This would've been the best (and most honest) response from Pres. Clinton:

"It did show weakness. However, of several bad options available, pulling out (and showing weakness) was the best choice (due to realpolitic; long view; morality of risking soldiers for limited return; et al)."

That[what Bin Laden said]'s just a bunch of bull. That was about Mohammed Aidid, a Muslim warlord, murdering 22 Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission. We had no mission, none, to establish a certain kind of Somali government or to keep anybody out.He was not a religious fanatic…
WALLACE: But, Mr. President…
CLINTON: … there was no Al Qaida…
WALLACE: … with respect, if I may, instead of going through ‘93 and…

Yes! Chris is rallying! Somalia is not the most important, or the most interesting, question.

CLINTON: No, no. You asked it. You brought it up. You brought it up.

Chris did bring it up. All you journalism students: learn to ask one question at a time!

WALLACE: May I ask a general question and then you can answer?
CLINTON: Yes.
WALLACE: The 9/11 Commission, which you’ve talk about — and this is what they did say, not what ABC pretended they said…
CLINTON: Yes, what did they say?

WALLACE: … they said about you and President Bush, and I quote, The U.S. government took the threat seriously, but not in the sense of mustering anything like the kind of effort that would be gathered to confront an enemy of the first, second or even third rank.

I wish Chris had restated the original question:

"Why didn't you do more to get Bin Laden(in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, or 2000)?"

It was the simplest, and best, question. Chris added "dots"(Somalia, African Embassies, Cole) in an apparent effort to pin Clinton into answering the original, basic question. Clinton, in turn, is using the dots to camoflage his evasion of the original question.

Chris is now asking a new question, in an attempt to get an answer to the original question. It is a typical journalistic technique - yet it is a poor action choice.

TV interviewers do not like to berate a subject by repeatedly demanding an answer to a question which has been evaded. TV interviewers say: "Viewers should be smart enough to discern when a question has been evaded."

CLINTON: First of all, that’s not true with us and bin Laden.

Wallace expects Clinton to elaborate on why he made the choices he made in the effort to get Bin Laden. But Clinton is evading. Clinton now turns the interview into a child's contest about whether or not he gave a "first, second, or even third rank" effort to get Bin Laden. The interview is now about
"Did too give good effort!"
"Did not!"
"Did too! Clarke says we gave good effort! Tenet says we gave good effort!"

WALLACE: Well, I’m telling you that’s what the 9/11 Commission says.
CLINTON: All right. Let’s look at what Richard Clarke said. Do you think Richard Clarke has a vigorous attitude about bin Laden?
WALLACE: Yes, I do.
CLINTON: You do, don’t you?
WALLACE: I think he has a variety of opinions and loyalties, but yes, he has a vigorous…
CLINTON: He has a variety of opinion and loyalties now, but let’s look at the facts: He worked for Ronald Reagan; he was loyal to him. He worked for George H. W. Bush; he was loyal to him. He worked for me, and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him.
They downgraded him

That Bush downgraded Clarke is an untruth. Even - in Clinton's fantasy - it were true, it would still be an irrelevant strawman - unrelated to the question of whether Clinton mustered an antiterror effort of "first, second, or even third rank." Even in a "did not/did too" argument - which he cannot lose - Clinton resorts to an untruth, plus a strawman.

and the terrorist operation.

Condi Rice responded to the accusation that Bush downgraded the terrorist operation:"We did at least as much in eight months (before 9/11, to counter Bin Laden) as [Clinton] did in eight years."

Now, look what he[Clarke] said, read his book and read his factual assertions — not opinions — assertions. He said we took vigorous action after the African embassies. We probably nearly got bin Laden.

Clinton refers to the August, 1998 bombing of Bin Laden's training compound. Bin Laden left the compound 45 minutes before cruise missiles hit it. Clinton, fearing that Pakistan would mistake cruise missiles for a nuclear attack from India, had informed Pakistan that cruise missiles were about to come across their airspace. More than one analyst has speculated that Pakistani allies likely tipped off Bin Laden about the coming attack. Clinton says: "We probably nearly got bin Laden." It's not really a lie. It's also not something a person of high character would cite in his own defense.

WALLACE: But…
CLINTON: No, wait a minute.
(CROSSTALK)WALLACE: … cruise missiles.
CLINTON: No, no. I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him.

This is misleading. The CIA still had to get Clinton's okay to attempt an assassination. By one count, Clinton refused, on ten separate occasions, to give the go ahead to kill Bin Laden. Some reasons: collateral damage to women and children inside Bin Laden's desert compound; collateral damage to a Pakistani Prince inside Bin Laden's desert compound; thin intelligence linking Bin Laden to a location; Clinton's refusal to quit watching a golf tournament to come to the phone; Clinton's refusal to take such calls in general.

The CIA, which was run by George Tenet, that President Bush gave the Medal of Freedom to, he said, He did a good job setting up all these counterterrorism things.

The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came there.

I love that! As if we might've previously had an anti-terror operation - but it wasn't "comprehensive!"

Now, if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: After the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden.

I consider that "drawing battle plans" equates to the minimum responsible reaction to the Cole bombing. The Pentagon has battle plans drawn up for invading a plethora of countries. I hope President Clinton actually had existing battle plans updated, and polished.

Now, amazingly, after defensively evading questions to this point, President Clinton answers why he didn't go after Bin Laden in the three months after the Cole attack:

But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would’ve had to send a few hundred Special Forces in in helicopters and refuel at night. Even the 9/11 Commission didn’t do that. Now, the 9/11 Commission was a political document, too.

Note that Pres. Clinton has already cited the 9/11 Commission as an authority. But that was so five minutes ago. Now: J'accuse! They are political! During this interview, Pres. Clinton argues - passionately and vociferously - on both sides of the following issues: 1) whether the Somalia pullout encouraged Al Qaeda; 2) the legitimacy and expertise of the 9/11 Commission; 3) the expertise of Richard Clarke.

My two cents: the 9/11 Commission was a political joke. Jamie Gorelick should've been testifying in front of the Commission, instead of sitting on it as a Commissioner. Richard Ben Veniste as an impartial Commissioner? Puhleeeze.

All I’m asking is, anybody who wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book.
Whereupon the blogosphere gleefully rushed to their copies of Richard Clarke's book, and began quoting all the places he ripped Clinton for being unserious about Osama Bin Laden.
WALLACE: Do you think you did enough, sir?

Wait! Chris rallies! You can't hold him down!

CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him.
WALLACE: Right.
CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried.

There's a legacy: "I tried." Here, mercifully, Pres. Clinton answers the original question "Why didn't you do more to get Bin Laden?" I shall interpret:

** "I tried" = I did everything I reasonably could've done. To do more would've been unreasonable at the time.**

So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy

Condi Rice says no comprehensive anti-terror strategy was left by the Clintons. Richard Clarke says the anti-terror strategy had been around since 1998 - and had been consistently, overtly ignored. Further, under questioning from the 9/11 Commission, Clarke said this strategy "absolutely would not have prevented 9/11."

and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted.

In his own book, Richard Clarke says he voluntarily left, in order to head up an Internet security project. Condi Rice, responding to Clinton's accusation, says Clarke voluntarily left after he was passed over, in favor of Tom Ridge, for Director of Homeland Security.

I remind, also and again, Richard Clarke has been critical of Clinton's response to Bin Laden - and, also and again, Richard Clarke was a major source for The Path to 9/11 drama which Clinton so detested. Clinton duplicitously insists on acting as if Richard Clarke is a big supporter of Clinton's Presidential actions.

So you did Fox’s bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me.

Out of proportion reaction. Psychological self-defense warning system activated: Red lights flashing, sirens going off...

What I want to know is…
WALLACE: Well, wait a minute, sir.
CLINTON: No, wait. No, no…
WALLACE: I want to ask a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?
CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question, but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole? I want to know how many you asked, Why did you fire Dick Clarke? I want to know how many people you asked…
WALLACE: We asked — we asked…
CLINTON: I don’t…
WALLACE: Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday, sir?
CLINTON: I don’t believe you asked them that.
WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of…
CLINTON: You didn’t ask that, did you? Tell the truth, Chris.
WALLACE: About the USS Cole?
CLINTON: Tell the truth, Chris.

Chris Wallace has asked both Rumsfeld(on June 28, 2004) and Rice about the Cole, and has asked them other hard questions. Rumsfeld and Rice have these advantages:
1) they are accustomed to answering hard questions,
2) they have actual answers. They don't have to think up spin.

WALLACE: With Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s plenty of stuff to ask.
CLINTON: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch(the owner of Fox News)'s supporting my work on climate change.

Let's just repeat that:
"You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch’s supporting my work on climate change."

and again:
"You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch’s supporting my work on climate change."

just let it roll over you:
"You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch’s supporting my work on climate change."

one last time:
"You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch’s supporting my work on climate change."

This is the recent leader of the Democratic Party. This is their champion - the example they point to as the epitome of outstanding Democratic leadership. Is it scarier if Pres. Clinton actually believes this delusion; or if President Clinton cavalierly makes an accusation he knows to be untrue? Or, is it scarier that masses of lefties buy into this delusory accusation?

And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about — you said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7-billion-plus in three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.
WALLACE: But, President Clinton, if you look at the questions here, you’ll see half the questions are about that. I didn’t think this was going to set you off on such a tear.
CLINTON: You launched it — it set me off on a tear because you didn’t formulate it in an honest way and because you people ask me questions you don’t ask the other side.

Listen... can you hear the world's smallest violin? President Clinton was helpless in the face of the vicious, assaultive questions. Why, Chris Wallace virtually raped him...

WALLACE: That’s not true. Sir, that is not true.

Wallace: I am not a rapist!

CLINTON: And Richard Clarke made it clear in his testimony…
WALLACE: Would you like to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative?
CLINTON: No, I want to finish this now.
WALLACE: All right. Well, after you.
CLINTON: All I’m saying is, you falsely accused me of giving aid and comfort to bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew Al Qaida existed then. And…
WALLACE: But did they know in 1996 when he declared war on the U.S.? Did they know in 1998…

Chris rallies again!

CLINTON: Absolutely, they did.
WALLACE: … when he bombed the two embassies?

Chris is gaining momentum!

CLINTON: And who talked about…
WALLACE: Did they know in 2000 when he hit the Cole?

Chris is interrupting to make a point. His name truly is Wallace!

CLINTON: What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.

How does Bill Clinton know this? Does he receive current reports about special forces operations?

And if I were still president, we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him.

Note the implication that 20,000 American troops are in Afghanistan basically to kill Bin Laden, and not much else. Note the further implication that, once Bin Laden is dead, our terror problems will be largely resolved. Note that President Clinton completely ignores the international troops who are serving, and giving their lives, in Afghanistan. It is as though they do not exist.

Now, I’ve never criticized President Bush, and I don’t think this is useful.

(rolling eyes) Go on, Bill - let 'er rip...

But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq.

This is based on us having one-seventh the number of American troops in Afghanistan as in Iraq. The conflict in Iraq will be more immediately decided than the conflict in Afghanistan. The conflict in Iraq is more immediately, strategically significant than the conflict in Afghanistan. Most seem to understand this. For President Clinton, and his accolytes, I spell it out.

And you ask me about terror and Al Qaida with that sort of dismissive thing? When all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror.

Sigh. Say it, yet again, and maybe it will become true.

And you’ve got that little smirk on your face and you think you’re so clever.

Classic psychological projection!

Watch carefully what is about to happen. It is classic Bill Clinton. It is classic misdirection. It is absolutely intentional - and is Pres. Clinton's long time modus operandi. Pres. Clinton feints towards answering why he didn't do more to get Bin Laden during 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000. It's only a feint. He finishes his (non) answer by restating why he didn't get Bin Laden after the Cole incident.

In future interviews, President Clinton will claim he "fully explored, with Chris Wallace" why he didn't go after Bin Laden in the late 1990's. He will say he doesn't feel the need to go through it all again. He will say his future interviewer is a Javert who continues to pursue answers which have fully been explicated.

The ground - why Pres. Clinton didn't do more to get Bin Laden during 1996 - 2000, has not been covered. If the interviewer tries to point that out, he will be overrun by a fully steaming locomotive of ad hominem.

What is about to happen is intentional misdirection, and bunk. It is part of what the left uses to justify Bill Clinton as a brilliant politician. They reject, out of hand, the idea that truth might work better. They reject that truth might be important for moral reasons. They lovingly overlook the exaggerations: "the entire military"; "no one thought."

But I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it. But I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending Special Forces in to Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter. And no one thought we could do it otherwise, because we could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaida was responsible while I was president.

And so, I left office. And yet, I get asked about this all the time.

Maybe he gets asked about it indirectly. Bloggers can find only one interviewer who previously asked him about it: David Letterman.

They had three times as much time to deal with it, and nobody ever asks them about it. I think that’s strange.

Best I can tell, he's talking about killing Bin Laden. He says "nobody ever asks them about it." Here, President Clinton insults the Washington press corps, as well as any Dem pol who has publicly demanded answers about why we failed to kill Bin Laden at Tora Bora. President Clinton says you are all nobodies!

WALLACE: Can I ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative?
CLINTON: You can.
WALLACE: I always intended to, sir.
CLINTON: No, you intended, though, to move your bones by doing this first, which is perfectly fine. But I don’t mind people asking me — I actually talked to the 9/11 Commission for four hours, Chris, and I told them the mistakes I thought I made. And I urged them to make those mistakes public, because I thought none of us had been perfect.But instead of anybody talking about those things, I always get these clever little political yields (ph), where they ask me one-sided questions. And the other guys notice that. And it always comes from one source. And so…
WALLACE: And…
CLINTON: And so…
WALLACE: I just want to ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative, but what’s the source? I mean, you seem upset, and I…
CLINTON: I am upset because…
WALLACE: And all I can say is, I’m asking you this in good faith because it’s on people’s minds, sir. And I wasn’t…
CLINTON: Well, there’s a reason it’s on people’s minds. That’s the point I’m trying to make. There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds: Because there’s been a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression. This country only has one person who’s worked on this terror. From the terrorist incidents under Reagan to the terrorist incidents from 9/11, only one: Richard Clarke. And all I can say to anybody is, you want to know what we did wrong or right, or anybody else did? Read his book.

Sigh - like a Jew using Jesus Christ to justify Judaism.

The people on my political right who say I didn’t do enough spent the whole time I was president saying, Why is he so obsessed with bin Laden? That was wag the dog when he tried to kill him.

My Republican secretary of defense — and I think I’m the only president since World War II to have a secretary of defense of the opposite party

Actually, since this is a fisking, you are the third President since WWII: both Kennedy and Johnson used Republican Robert McNamara for their SecDef. I can't see that a SecDef from the opposite party has really been something to brag about.

Richard Clarke and all the intelligence people said that I ordered a vigorous attempt to get bin Laden and came closer, apparently, than anybody has since.

If I say it enough, maybe it will be true.

WALLACE: All right.
CLINTON: And you guys try to create the opposite impression, when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s findings and you know it’s not true. It’s just not true.

If I say it enough, maybe it will be true.

And all this business about Somalia — the same people who criticized me about Somalia were demanding I leave the next day. The same exact crowd.

If I say it enough, maybe it will be true.

WALLACE: One of the…
CLINTON: And so, if you’re going to do this, for God’s sake, follow the same standards for everybody…

There's a strong chance this is psychological defense mechanism. There's a strong chance Clinton actually believes this allegation against Chris Wallace. Wallace cannot defend himself by proving a negative. This is another "do too/do not" contest.

WALLACE: I think we do, sir.
CLINTON: … and be flat — and fair.
WALLACE: I think we do.
WALLACE: One of the main parts of the Global Initiative this year is religion and reconciliation. President Bush says that the fight against Islamic extremism is the central conflict of this century. And his answer is promoting democracy and reform.Do you think he has that right?
CLINTON: Sure. To advance — to advocate democracy and reform in the Muslim world? Absolutely.I think the question is, what’s the best way to do it? I think also the question is, how do you educate people about democracy? Democracy is about way more than majority rule. Democracy is about minority rights, individual rights, restraints on power. And there’s more than one way to advance democracy.

I assume he intends to advance democracy before Tel Aviv, London, Manhattan, and Vatican City are decimated - and before the Port of Houston is exploded with a nuke.

But do I think, on balance, that in the end, after several bouts with instability — look how long it took us to build a mature democracy. Do I think, on balance, it would be better if we had more freedom and democracy? Sure I do. And do I think specifically the president has a right to do it? Sure I do. But I don’t think that’s all we can do in the Muslim world. I think they have to see us as trying to get a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Puh-leeze. Those Jews are butchers and blood-drinkers. They voluntarily withdrew from Lebanon and Gaza only because they are impediments to "just and lasting peace." Sheesh. President Clinton is - aah - misguided in his thinking.

I think they have to see us as willing to talk to people who see the world differently than we do.

"Talk to people who see the world differently than we do" is code language for "give in to the Jihadis' demands." It is code for "maybe if we appease them, they won't try to kill us." It is code for "it is the fault of the U.S.A." President Clinton's worldview doesn't recognize the root causes of the Jihadi threat.

WALLACE: Last year at this conference, you got $2.5 billion in commitments, pledges. How’d you do this year?
CLINTON: Well, this year we had — we had $7.3 billion, as of this morning.
WALLACE: Excuse me?
CLINTON: $7.3 billion, as of this morning. But $3 billion of that is — now, this is over multi years. These are up to 10-year commitments.But $3 billion of that came from Richard Branson’s commitment to give all of his transportation profits for a decade to clean energy investments. But still, that’s — the rest is over $4 billion.And we will have another 100 commitments come in, maybe more, and we’ll probably raise another, I would say, at least another billion dollars, probably, before it’s over. We’ve got a lot of commitments still in process.
WALLACE: When you look at the $3 billion from Branson, plus the billions that Bill Gates is giving in his own program, and now Warren Buffet, what do you make of this new age of philanthropy?
CLINTON: I think that, for one thing, really rich people have always given money away. I mean, you know, they’ve endowed libraries and things like that. The unique thing about this age is, first of all, you have a lot of people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who are interested in issues at home and around the world that grow out of the nature of the 21st century and its inequalities — the income inequalities, the health-care inequalities, the education inequalities.

And you get a guy like Gates, who built Microsoft, who actually believes that he can help overcome a lot of the health disparities in the world. And that’s the first thing.The second thing that ought to be credited is that there are a lot of people with average incomes who are joining them because of the Internet. Like in the tsunami, for example, we had $1.2 billion given by Americans; 30 percent of our households gave money, over half of them over the Internet.And then the third thing is you’ve got all these — in poor countries, you’ve got all these nongovernmental groups that you can — that a guy like Gates can partner with, along with the governments.

So all these things together mean that people with real money want to give it away in ways that help people that before would’ve been seen only as the object of government grants or loans.

WALLACE: Let’s talk some politics. In that same New Yorker article, you say that you are tired of Karl Rove’s B.S., although I’m cleaning up what you said.
CLINTON: But I do like the — but I also say I’m not tired of Karl Rove. I don’t blame Karl Rove. If you’ve got a deal that works, you just keep on doing it.
WALLACE: So what is the B.S.?
CLINTON: Well, every even-numbered year, right before an election, they come up with some security issue. In 2002, our party supported them in undertaking weapons inspections in Iraq and was 100 percent for what happened in Afghanistan, and they didn’t have any way to make us look like we didn’t care about terror. And so, they decided they would be for the homeland security bill that they had opposed. And they put a poison pill in it that we wouldn’t pass, like taking the job rights away from 170,000 people, and then say that we were weak on terror if we weren’t for it. They just ran that out.

This year, I think they wanted to make the questions of prisoner treatment and intercepted communications the same sort of issues, until John Warner and John McCain and Lindsey Graham got in there. And, as it turned out, there were some Republicans that believed in the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions and had some of their own ideas about how best to fight terror. The Democrats — as long as the American people believe that we take this seriously and we have our own approaches

Less than half of Americans believe that. Less than half of Martians believe that.

— and we may have differences over Iraq — I think we’ll do fine in this election.But even if they agree with us about the Iraq war, we could be hurt by Karl Rove’s new foray if we just don’t make it clear that we, too, care about the security of the country. But we want to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, which they haven’t for four years.

So, after "the 9/11 Commission was a political document", President Clinton is back to praising the 9/11 Commission! Full circle, baby!

We want to intensify our efforts in Afghanistan against bin Laden. We want to make America more energy-independent.

Implication: Those dang conservatives want to make America less energy independent!

The degree to which we become energy independent will depend on private enterprise, and on the free market profits which are available. It will not depend on government subsidy. A representative example happened a decade ago, when a businessperson convinced McDonald's they would make greater profits by moving away from styrofoam packaging for their burgers. It's about profit. Free-market entrepreneurs will lead the way to whatever energy independence our nation achieves. Mouthy liberals will accomplish exactly zero. The government will not be the solution.

And then they can all, if they differ on Iraq, they can say whatever they want on Iraq. But Rove is good. And I honor him. I mean, I will say that. I’ve always been amused about how good he is, in a way. But on the other hand, this is perfectly predictable: We’re going to win a lot of seats if the American people aren’t afraid.

The Americans who are not afraid are deluded lefties.

If they’re afraid and we get divided again, then we may only win a few seats.
WALLACE: And the White House, the Republicans want to make the American people afraid?
CLINTON: Of course they do. Of course they do. They want us to be — they want another homeland security deal.

That's a bad thing?

And they want to make it about — not about Iraq but about some other security issue, where, if we disagree with them, we are, by definition, imperiling the security of the country. And it’s a big load of hooey.

There's a logical argument about the issue.

We’ve got nine Iraq war veterans running for the House seats.

Context, people! Forget the issues - LOOK AT THE CONTEXT! You are getting verrrry sleeeeeppppyyyyyy...

We’ve got President Reagan’s secretary of the navy as the Democratic candidate for the Senate in Virginia. A three-star admiral, who was on my National Security Council staff, who also fought terror, by the way,

"by the way..." Heh. My "Heh" is about context.

is running for the seat of Kurt Weldon in Pennsylvania.We’ve got a huge military presence here in this campaign. And we just can’t let them have some rhetorical device

aka: LOGIC.

that puts us in a box we don’t belong in.

B/C we Dems are the rightful leaders of this nation! We would add: "by God" - if only we believed in God. More bad luck, that.

That’s their job. Their job is to beat us. I like that about Rove. But our job is not to let them get away with it. And if they don’t, then we’ll do fine.
WALLACE: Mr. President, thank you for one of the more unusual interviews.
CLINTON: Thanks.

Wrapup: Fisking Pres. Clinton is, at first, as fun as eating a delicious dessert. But he goes on - stringing together falsehood, after misleading statement, after falsehood. His stamina for falsehood is quite amazing. After awhile, the delicious dessert becomes too much. By the end, I had a stomach ache.

Somalia Addendum:
It was a mistake to pull out of Mogadishu without arresting or killing Aidid. However, that mistake was not the cause of 9/11.

Well before Mogadishu, Bin Laden had the conviction that America was weak and timid. If Mogadishu had not happened, Bin Laden would've still found other "proofs" of his conviction. He would've used those proofs to recruit. Bin Laden did not need Mogadishu to grow Al Qaeda.

Having said that, Clinton is mistaken in his contention that pulling out of Mog was justified by the absence of knowledge about Bin Laden. Clinton should've known the terrorists and despots of the world always watch America's actions, and they always draw conclusions. They - and not just Bin Laden - drew unhelpful conclusions after Mogadishu.

Mark Bowden believes pulling out was a mistake. Here, he writes in 1999, in the Afterword to the paperback edition of Blackhawk Down:
"In Somalia the chances of success were greater and more tangible(than in Vietnam) because the mission was so limited. There was little danger of American troops being drawn into a quagmire in Somalia. No matter what ultimate impact Aidid's arrest would've had on the U.N. goals in Somalia, it was important to see the mission through once Task Force Ranger was committed. The lesson our retreat taught the world's terrorists and despots is that killing a few American soldiers ... is enough to spook Uncle Sam."

War. What is It Good For? This...

There was one good thing about the Israel-Hezbollah battle: it got the full IDF 1) into uniform, and 2) into close proximity to cameras! Above: sea, sand, salt air, kite, girls, beer, automatic weapon, full clip. Sigh...

Do yourself a favor, and click the link