Well, here’s a huge story that the MSM won’t want to touch. At least not until they can conjure up some insane angle on it that will somehow make it Bush’s fault.

I never cease to be amazed that the same media that continues to give Cindy Sheehan wall-to-wall coverage, and help her promulgate the lie that the president hasn’t met with her, is so incurious about the fecklessness of the Clinton administration, and Sandy Burglar’s reckless acts.

I should add that I’ve never been able to be as impressed with the “bipartisan” 911 Commission as the press wanted me to be. When Jamie Gorelick wasn’t required to recuse herself on those things being investigated in which she was directly involved, it lost all credibility with me. The sad thing is all of the legislation that was rushed through on its flawed (and perhaps, as we see now, duplicitous) advice.

[Update at 9:37 AM EDT]

John Podhoretz isn’t impressed with the commission, either:

The 9/11 Commission staff did hear about intelligence-gathering efforts that hit pay dirt on the whereabouts of Mohammed Atta — in 1999 — and deliberately chose to omit word of those efforts.

And why? Because to do so might upset the timeline the Commission had established on Atta.

And why is that significant? Because the Mohammed Atta timeline established by the Commission pointedly insisted Atta did not meet with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague.

And why is that significant? Because debunking the Atta-Iraq connection was of vital importance to Democrats, who had become focused almost obsessively on the preposterous notion that there was no relation whatever between Al Qaeda and Iraq — that Al Qaeda and Iraq might even have been enemies.

(Former?) Democrat and radio ventriloquist Phil Hendrie has a blog. With a surprising name. He’s not impressed with Cindy Sheehan.

James Lileks has some suitably arch commentary about the moral obtuseness of certain Presbyterian church leaders:

The Presbyterian church – not the members, but the learned elders – has announced it will use the church

I’d like to see this woman try this trick in her homeland, say, protesting Syrian support for the Iraqi “insurgents.”

And I wonder why these nutballs think that watching mental defectives do a strip tease and covering their naked selves with dumb graffitti is somehow going to make us hit ourselves in the forehead, forget all of the logic and facts that got us to our positions, and say “Of course! The war is Iraq is wrong!”

Only in America.

…ago we employed the first nuclear weapon ever used in war on the city of Hiroshima, Japan. A few days later, we dropped another on Nagasaki. Neither we, nor anyone else has done so since. Let’s hope that it remains that way.

Jonah Goldberg writes about the hypocrisy of the morons who are trying to kill us (occasionally, sadly, successfully), and how they’re aided and abetted by the victimologists among us:

… idiots are often very useful in illustrating the appeal of fascistic cults. Intellectuals are too good at covering their real psychological motivations with verbiage. It turns out that the famously “homegrown” terrorists of the London bombings were much more like John Walker Lindh or even the Patty Hearst types of the 1960s and ’70s. Radical chic may be as a big a part of the story as radical Islam.

We’ve always understood this was the case to a certain extent. Osama bin Laden’s prattling about the Crusades, for instance, merely shows how poisoned Islamism is by Western Marxism and anti-imperialism. Muslims used to brag about winning the Crusades. It was only after the West started exporting victimology that Islamic and Arab intellectuals started to whine about how poorly they’d been treated.

To a certain extent, radical Islam in Europe has taken the place of third-world Marxism

Jonah Goldberg writes about the hypocrisy of the morons who are trying to kill us (occasionally, sadly, successfully), and how they’re aided and abetted by the victimologists among us:

… idiots are often very useful in illustrating the appeal of fascistic cults. Intellectuals are too good at covering their real psychological motivations with verbiage. It turns out that the famously “homegrown” terrorists of the London bombings were much more like John Walker Lindh or even the Patty Hearst types of the 1960s and ’70s. Radical chic may be as a big a part of the story as radical Islam.

We’ve always understood this was the case to a certain extent. Osama bin Laden’s prattling about the Crusades, for instance, merely shows how poisoned Islamism is by Western Marxism and anti-imperialism. Muslims used to brag about winning the Crusades. It was only after the West started exporting victimology that Islamic and Arab intellectuals started to whine about how poorly they’d been treated.

To a certain extent, radical Islam in Europe has taken the place of third-world Marxism

Jonah Goldberg writes about the hypocrisy of the morons who are trying to kill us (occasionally, sadly, successfully), and how they’re aided and abetted by the victimologists among us:

… idiots are often very useful in illustrating the appeal of fascistic cults. Intellectuals are too good at covering their real psychological motivations with verbiage. It turns out that the famously “homegrown” terrorists of the London bombings were much more like John Walker Lindh or even the Patty Hearst types of the 1960s and ’70s. Radical chic may be as a big a part of the story as radical Islam.

We’ve always understood this was the case to a certain extent. Osama bin Laden’s prattling about the Crusades, for instance, merely shows how poisoned Islamism is by Western Marxism and anti-imperialism. Muslims used to brag about winning the Crusades. It was only after the West started exporting victimology that Islamic and Arab intellectuals started to whine about how poorly they’d been treated.

To a certain extent, radical Islam in Europe has taken the place of third-world Marxism

I’m working under several deadlines, so posting is likely to remain light for now, but Jonathan Adler points out that Canadian airport security is either more lax, or more rational, than that of TSA:

…if the shoe x-rays were really all that necessary — and I do not believe they are — this would create a security risk. More likely, it’s just another example of TSA irrationality.

Personally, I think that our entire airline security policy is flawed. I’d prefer knowing that my fellow passengers are armed, to ensure that there will never be another successful hijacking, and this would also result in huge productivity increases for travelers by not having our nose-hair trimmers and lighters confiscated. I do worry about bombs, though, so in a sense, Richard Reid did us a favor by being such a moron–if he’d succeeded in lighting his shoes over the Atlantic, there may not have been any evidence of how the aircraft was destroyed. Still, I think that those of us who have to undergo the inconvenience and indignity of padding through the machine in socks or barefoot, should at least have an opportunity to throw darts at a picture of him after we’ve gotten through the gauntlet and reshod ourselves. It could hang just below a picture of Osama.

One of the reasons that our nation, and indeed the world, is so divided on the so-called War on Terror (which, I remind once again, is really a war on a new form of totalitarian fascism wearing the not-that-much-less malign face of Islamic fundamentalism), is that we have major divisions over what motivates the people who make war on us.

In one sense, it’s like the old fable of the blind men and the elephant. If you’re a traditional leftist, you see everything through the lens of capitalist, colonialist oppression, and suicide bombers look like stalwart and admirable fighters against The Man. To people like Michael Moore, they are simply freedom fighters, just like the Minute Men of our own revolution. (Of course, they only use this comparison when they’re trying to make the enemy look appealing to those who disagree with them because, in fact, some of the time they’re actually instead denigrating George Washington and his troops, and comparing them to terrorists, which is apparently only a bad thing when they’re Americans.)

If you’re a multi-culturalist, you see them as misunderstood, their culture under daily siege from an unrelenting barrage of western music, and sexual images, and women with flesh exposed to the world. It’s only understandable that they would want to strike out, and even end their lives when they hear about their holy book being defiled:

He said Tanweer had never mentioned links with any militant group.