Michael Totten describes a visit to northern Israel, at the Lebanese border:

Rush Limbaugh has an interesting interview with Paul Greengrass, the (“liberal”) director of United 93:

GREENGRASS: I’ll tell you one of the most chilling things that I have learned from my experience of looking at terrorism. About 20 years ago the IRA bombed the hotel where the prime minister, Prime Minister Thatcher, and her cabinet were, and about ten people were killed, and Prime Minister Thatcher — who I never agreed with politically in the entirety of her career, but she was our prime minister, and I don’t agree with blowing her up. Luckily she escaped. Later that night, the IRA issued a statement. They said, “Tonight you were lucky. You have to be lucky every time. We only have to be lucky once,” and in that expression is the heart of the mind of the terrorist operation.

“We only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky every time,” and the truth is we can’t always be lucky.

That’s why we’ve gotta find somewhere solutions to these things, and we have to be prepared, it seems to me, and maybe you and I aren’t going to agree about this, to look at what we do and ask ourselves some tough questions about it. Are what we’re doing, are the things that we do, the things that they want us to do? Because one of the things terrorists want to do is goad us, make us react in ways that make the problem worse. I’m not making a political point now. I’m just, you know, answering the question, and that also is in this film. You know, we, all of us, wherever we stand on the political spectrum, if we’re going to confront this problem and prevail, have got to ask ourselves hard questions and be prepared to challenge our beliefs. Because unless we get some consensus here, we’re not going to prevail.

If you’re going to see the movie this weekend, it’s a good time to reread (or read for the first time, if you missed it) humorist Dave Barry’s staggeringly unfunny, but masterful essay on the event. I wish I’d written it. I wish I had a tenth of the talent it took to write it.

Michael Yon explains what he meant earlier, in a must-read photo essay.

…sitting in a tree. K I S S I N…

Gee, here’s an interview with Thomas Jocelyn, on what the captured documents have revealed about their relationship.

The same document…indicates that Iraq was in contact with Dr. Muhammad al-Massari, the head of the Committee for Defense of Legitimate Rights (CDLR). The CDLR is a known al Qaeda propaganda organ based in London. The document indicates that the IIS was seeking to

Cindy Sheehan’s excellent Easter adventure. I guess she can do this because she has, in Maureen Dowd’s words, “absolute moral authority.” I’m not a Christian, but if I were, I’d be appalled.

Christopher Hitchens is still waiting for some substantive answers from Joe Wilson:

…it’s true that the two men knew each other during the Gulf crisis of 1990-1991. Indeed, in his book The Politics of Truth, Wilson records Zahawie as having been in the room, as under-secretary for foreign affairs, during his last meeting with Saddam Hussein. (Quite a senior guy for a humble mission like violating flight-bans from distant Niger and Burkina Faso.) I cite this because it is the only mention of Zahawie that Wilson makes in his entire narrative.

In other words (I am prepared to keep on repeating this until at least one cow comes home), Joseph Wilson went to Niger in 2002 to investigate whether or not the country had renewed its uranium-based relationship with Iraq, spent a few days (by his own account) sipping mint tea with officials of that country who were (by his wife’s account) already friendly to him, and came back with the news that all was above-board. Again to repeat myself, this must mean either that A) he did not know that Zahawie had come calling or B) that he did know but didn’t think it worth mentioning that one of Saddam’s point men on nukes had been in town. In neither case, it seems to me, should he be trusted with another mission that requires any sort of curiosity.

First, we have this story, of a Marine put on a TSA no-fly list because he was detected with gunpowder residue on his combat boots.

Then, KLo over at NRO asks:

Small thing, all things considered, but wouldn’t an expired I.D. be something to notice?

Not in a sane world. I’ve commented on this before. And I just noticed in the last comment on that post:

And as far as security being “bullshit”? How many planes have been hijacked since new security procedures have been put in place?

And how many would have been had they not?

This is the “tiger repellant” fallacy.

“Why do you keep jumping up and down on one foot?”

“To keep the tigers away.”

“Are you crazy? There’s not a tiger within thousands of miles of here, except in zoos.”

“See? It works!”

It’s not the airport security procedures that have prevented hijackings (though they may have cut down on attempts)–it’s the fact that the passengers are much more alert now, and will never again allow another plane to be hijacked. Every flight from now on, as long as we remember Flight 93, will be Flight 93.

I knew that the Raptor was superior, but I hadn’t realized just how superior:

The aircraft is simply the most advanced ever built. There is nothing on earth to touch it. In simulated dogfights it has wiped the floor with the opposition.

In one such encounter, six F-15 Eagle air-superiority fighters

I’m on long record as being opposed to the “War on Terrorism.” Not that I don’t think that we should be fighting these thugs, but that the war was misnamed from the beginning. Jonathan Rauch explains:

“I think defining who the enemy is is a real problem in this war,” says Mary Habeck, a military historian at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. “If you can’t define who’s a real threat and who’s just exercising free speech, it’s a problem.” As it happens, Habeck is the author of one of three new books that, taken together, suggest the time is right to name the battle. It is a war on jihadism.

Jihadism is not a tactic, like terrorism, or a temperament, like radicalism or extremism. It is not a political pathology like Stalinism, a mental pathology like paranoia, or a social pathology like poverty. Rather, it is a religious ideology, and the religion it is associated with is Islam.

But it is by no means synonymous with Islam, which is much larger and contains many competing elements. Islam can be, and usually is, moderate; Jihadism, with a capital J, is inherently radical. If the Western and secular world’s nearer-term war aim is to stymie the jihadists, its long-term aim must be to discredit Jihadism in the Muslim world.

No single definition prevails, but here is a good one: Jihadism engages in or supports the use of force to expand the rule of Islamic law. In other words, it is violent Islamic imperialism. It stands, as one scholar put it 90 years ago, for “the extension by force of arms of the authority of the Muslim state.”

…”This is a struggle over Islam and who’s going to control Islam,” Habeck says. “If you can’t talk about that, you can’t talk about most of the story.” Specifying that the war is against Jihadism — as distinct from terrorism or Islam (or Islamism, which sounds like “Islam”) — would allow the United States to confront the religious element of the problem without seeming to condemn a whole religion. It would clarify for millions of moderate Muslims that the West’s war aims are anti-jihadist, not militantly secular.

In any case, says Habeck, “people are not buying the administration’s claim that this has nothing to do with Islam.” A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll finds that the proportion of Americans saying that Islam helps stoke violence against non-Muslims has more than doubled (to 33 percent) since January 2002, when 9/11 memories were still vivid. If anything, the tendency of Bush, Blair, and other Western leaders to sweep Jihadism under the rug is counterproductive and fuels public suspicion of those leaders and of Islam itself.

What’s interesting (particularly in light of this post) is that the left is supposedly against imperialism, but they never seemed to mind the imperialism of the Soviets. And now they are either sanguine, or in denial (or even supportive, because it opposes that evil western Amerikkkan imperialism) about Islamic imperialism.

[Via La Dynamist]

[Update a couple minutes later]

I think this is an opportunity for the administration. Since so many whine that the president will never admit to error, he could take some wind out of their sails, while clarifying the nation’s war policy, by admitting that calling it a “War on Terrorism” after 911 was a mistake. This would undercut a lot of the arguments about why we don’t go after the IRA, or other groups, while showing that he can recognize mistakes and rectify them. Renaming it a war on Jihadism would also increase pressure against Iran, which is clearly of a jihadist mindset, and increase justification for preventing them from getting nukes (assuming that any is really needed).

I’ve been meaning to post on this topic, but Tigerhawk beat me to what I was going to say:

Comedy Central has, at least, been forthcoming about its reason for censoring “South Park”:

Comedy Central’s belief in the First Amendment has not wavered, despite the decision not to air an image of Muhammad. Our decision was made not to mute the voices of Trey and Matt or because we value one religion over any other. This decision was based solely on concern for public safety in light of recent world events.

With the power of freedom of speech and expression also comes the obligation to use that power in a responsible way. Much as we wish it weren’t the case, times have changed and, as witnessed by the intense and deadly reaction to the publication of the Danish cartoons, decisions cannot be made in a vacuum without considering what impact they may have on innocent individuals around the globe.

We appreciate the transparency, because it prevents us from having to imagine the reasons Comedy Central might have had. This admission clarifies the issue. Comedy Central censored “South Park” because it feared that Muslim extremists would do violence if it did not.

Now, businesses like Comedy Central and Border’s Books and the major newspapers have every reason to want to avoid violence, so it is understandable that threatened or potential violence motivates them to censor themselves. They are fiduciaries. But they cannot also claim to stand for freedom of speech. That requires courage, and above all the willingness to stare down the threat of violence.

[Emphasis Tigerhawk’s, but I agree]

Yes. The point is that Borders (and Comedy Central) had a perfect right to abide by their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders, in not putting themselves in a position of being sued by someone injured by violent muslims as a result of their book and magazine sales. But when they do that, they forfeit any right to claim to be upholders of free speech. I was upset less by Borders’ actions, than by their unwillingness to be forthright about their reason for them, which would have provided more insight into the enemy that we face.

There are some other interesting points made in the comments to Tigerhawk’s post. How much responsibility does Borders have to protect their own customers, versus the responsibility of the government to do so? Would a plaintiff have a legitimate (and more important, in these days of nonsensical and whimsical jury decisions in civil cases) case that Borders was irresponsible in selling magazines that published cartoons that some violent people would find offensive?

On this holiest day of the Christian calendar, these are useful questions to think about and ask. Will CAIR put up guards outside of Borders to protect freedom of expression in this country? If not, why not? And if not, what does that tell us about where their primary loyalty lies? What part of their name is more important to them, the American (the “A” part of the acronym) or the Islamic (the “I” part)? If the answer is the latter–that it is not allowed to depict Mohammed, let alone insult him–is more important than the right of free expression, this tells us much, I think.

If we are to be cowed against criticism of a religion (uniquely of Islam) by violent threats, but free to have “Piss Christ,” and the Middle Eastern press (hardly a free one) can run cartoons reiterating over and over the blood libel against the Jews and compare them to Nazis, what does that tell us about Islam itself? Can we live with it, not as it purports to be, but (as revealed by this episode) it really is, and maintain our own values?

[Update on Monday morning]

There is some discussion in comments about the First Amendment, and whether or not Borders has a responsibility to enforce it. That’s not what this is about. The First Amendment is an example of what’s being discussed here, not the basis of it. What is at stake is not a constitutional right, but a fundamental principle of the Enlightenment.

Does, or does not, Borders stand for freedom of expression? If they don’t, if they have been cowed by some combination of Islamic and legal threats, then they should forthrightly make a very public and loud statement to that effect, describing exactly what went into their decision. While it’s true that, as one commenter noted, they have been transparent in this, in terms of email explanations, I want them to be more than that. If they purport to support this freedom, I expect them to be incandescent.