The Hound Of Ulster

From the HEROIC…

As Jews worldwide honored on Monday the memory of those who were murdered in the Holocaust, a 76-year-old survivor sacrificed his life to save his students in Monday’s shooting at Virginia Tech College that left 33 dead and over two dozen wounded.

Professor Liviu Librescu, 76, threw himself in front of the shooter when the man attempted to enter his classroom. The Israeli mechanics and engineering lecturer was shot to death, “but all the students lived - because of him,” Virginia Tech student Asael Arad - also an Israeli - told Army Radio.

Several of Librescu’s other students sent e-mails to his wife, Marlena, telling of how he had blocked the gunman’s way and saved their lives, said Librescu’s son, Joe.

…to the ABSURD.

Across the continent on Tuesday, European media rubber-neck at Monday’s massacre in the United States. Most seem to agree about one thing: The shooting at Virginia Tech is the result of America’s woeful lack of serious gun control laws. In the strongest editorialized image of the day, German cable news broadcaster NTV flashed an image of the former head of the National Rifle Association, the US gun lobby: In other words, blame rifle-wielding Charlton Heston for the 33 dead.

Amy has a bit more for the HEROIC side, and Red State has some for the ABSURD.

I don’t know why these sorts of things always move to the “gun control” issue so rapidly. It seems deeply inappropriate. Sure, I see the connection. And I’m not opposed to it coming up eventually. But the day after? That’s just wrong.

The day after should be about PRAYER and (for some) about GRATITUDE.

Today our nation grieves with those who have lost loved ones at Virginia Tech. We hold the victims in our hearts, we lift them up in our prayers, and we ask a loving God to comfort those who are suffering today.

THIS story, from a Red State contributor known only as “Ben,” is pretty amazing. I have no idea how much of it is true, and how much of it might be political hyperbole - (or even worse, political posturing). But even if only half of it is based in fact, he’s a pretty extraordinary young man.

The remnants of the Louisiana Democratic machine are scrambling to fill her spot—and already, some are admitting publicly that their only hope is to play the race card. Democrat Rep. Charles Melancon mused to reporters that “a white, centrist Democrat can beat Jindal.”

It remains to be seen who they’ll choose. In early polling, Jindal still leads all potential candidates. But Louisiana has a history of difficult, controversial, and crooked elections, and there’s no reason to think this will be any different.

What is different is Jindal. He’s more earnest now, more than just a policy wonk dealing with charts and figures. He’s more dedicated to the ideals he cherishes, because he knows what they mean for his state. He’s older, but it’s not just the years—Katrina aged him. He understands the importance of this race for his home state, for his neighbors, for his family.

THIS won’t help him at all.

I’m feeling a bit whipsawed today.

On the one hand, General Casey said THIS:

We have seen numerous indications Shia militia leaders will leave, or already have left, Sadr City to avoid capture by Iraqi and coalition security forces

He also said this:

He said he considers it “unlikely” that violence would spread much beyond greater Baghdad because the battle for the city is “the central struggle” for control of Iraq.

The first seems like a semi-good sign - at least a mild indication that a surge could be effective in the short-term. And the second seems like an accurate and essential assessment of the situation. Baghdad is of utmost importance.

But he also said THIS:

Asked by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., why he had not requested the full five extra brigades that Bush is sending, Casey said, “I did not want to bring one more American soldier into Iraq than was necessary to accomplish the mission.”

How does that make any sense? I understand that “the bare minimum” is a good strategy in some cases. I’m not going to take 300,000 milligrams of Vitamin C, for example. And it’s good to have “exactly enough light” when exposing photographic film, too.

But fighting a war based on that principle is absurd. 99.9% of the time, that sort of thinking will result in us not having enough soldiers and equipment, as opposed to a situation where we have “the exact amount.” Over-shooting the mark has a downside, sure - especially if you’re concerned about the (completely legitimate) issue of public support and the way it relates to military casualties. (Incidently, we’re not talking about 21,500 HERE.  We’re talking about a lot more.)

The “over-shooting” downside is nothing compared to the problem of under-shooting the mark, which also caries a heavy price in terms of public support. Oh, and could also result in failure and defeat, if that makes any difference in your thinking. Casey’s position here seems very unhelpful to me. We’re fighting a war, not taking pictures.  (Michael Goldfarb has MORE.)

Apparently not that many people realize the situation. Otherwise, how could we explain the fact that this sort of thing is floating around all over the place:

The proposed Senate resolution opposing Bush’s troop buildup is likely to pose a threat to the White House because of its potential appeal to Republicans who have grown tired of the nearly four-year war and want a chance to express their concerns.

Sorry, what was that again? They’ve grown tired after “nearly” four years? How ’bout changing that word to “only.” That would be a bit more accurate. Where has our perspective gone?

Captain Ed SPECULATES on the cause of this sudden lack of support. I sure hope he’s wrong. Failure to support the war because “we’re tired of it,” or because “it’s taking such a long time” seems wrong to me. But doing it for political purposes - to get back at “that mean ol’ White House” is more than just wrong. It’s reprehensible.

At least we still HAVE Kyl - best presidential candidate from the state of Arizona, even though he isn’t running. (And no, I don’t mean that to be “damning with faint praise,” though one could certainly take it that way.)

In a speech to Harvard University’s graduating class of 1978, Alexander Solzhenitsyn attacked the West’s weak confrontation of communism. His words remain instructive today as we face a different ideological threat.

Mr. Solzhenitsyn warned that “The Western world has lost its civil courage…” and rhetorically asked, “Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?” He lamented that “[N]o weapons, no matter how powerful, can help the West until it overcomes its loss of willpower.”

…

A little practical wisdom, confidence in our cause, and more courage are sorely needed in the war against radical Islamists. Like Solzhenitsyn before, contemporary observers, such as Mark Steyn and Daniel Pipes, have condemned the weak response of the left to the terrorist threat. Mr. Pipes recently wrote that “Pacifism, self-hatred, and complacency are lengthening the war against radical Islam and causing undue casualties.” He added that “left-leaning Westerners” will have to “overcome this triple affliction and confront the true scope of the threat” if the civilized world is to prevail against the Islamist terrorists.

At stake in the war on terror is nothing less than preserving Western civilization, as Solzhenitsyn sensed almost 30 years ago: “The fight, physical and spiritual for our planet, a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future; it has already started.”

The fate of future generations depends on how we answer the enemy’s challenge today. To do that, we must clearly understand the nature of the threat we face – and we must marshal the courage and character necessary to prevail.

Amen.

THIS is disgusting:

Anti-war protesters were allowed to spray paint on part of the west front steps of the United States Capitol building after police were ordered to break their security line by their leadership, two sources told The Hill.

I’m trying to think of a way that “pulling back” from protecting the Capitol could possibly have been appropriate. I’m not coming up with anything. At least the non-leadership seemed to reaction properly.

According to the sources, police officers were livid when theywere told to fall back by U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) Chief Phillip Morse and Deputy Chief Daniel Nichols. “They were the commanders on the scene,” one source said,who requested anonymity. “It was disgusting.”

…the sources who talked to The Hill were furious that protesters were not stopped before reaching the Capitol.

“To get that close to the Capitol building, that is ridiculous,” the second source said. “[Police] were told not to arrest anyone.”

The second source added that police had to stand by and watch as protesters posed in front of their graffiti.

Terrible stuff. This reflects well on no one - (except for the angry police officers). How can the anti-war folks possibly think this will help them? I can’t imagine that the majority of Americans are ready to have their Capitol building vandalized, no matter what the reason.)

Oh, and Hanoi Jane’s BACK.

(Updated thoughts from Captain ED and K-LO.  And Dreher is UNCOMFORTABLE with his friends.  As he should be.)

Hugh Hewitt says IT’S a “superb idea,” but I think he’s getting at the same thing.

Hugh,

I’d like to make a request that may have some broad applicability. I’ve discussed with my parents and my wife’s family that this year we give to armed services charities en lieu of gifts of things we don’t really need.

We’re not hurting nor are we rich. We don’t want to make a political statement; we want to help the families of those who have contributed to America at a level that most of us don’t. You’ve been a good source in the past of worthwhile ideas.

Fyi; between our families we will probably contribute a couple of thousand. Could you suggest worthwhile organizations and aid functions? My wife and I have a list but there are probably others that deserve support.

There has been a very interesting discussion over at The Corner regarding George Will’s recent REVIEW. The one that includes these nuggets:

Not since the medieval church baptized, as it were, Aristotle as some sort of early — very early — church father has there been an intellectual hijacking as audacious as the attempt to present America’s principal founders as devout Christians. Such an attempt is now in high gear among people who argue that the founders were kindred spirits with today’s evangelicals, and that they founded a “Christian nation.”

Christianity, particularly its post-Reformation ferments, fostered attitudes and aptitudes associated with popular government. Protestantism’s emphasis on the individual’s direct, unmediated relationship with God, and the primacy of individual conscience and choice, subverted conventions of hierarchical societies in which deference was expected from the many toward the few. But beyond that, America’s founding owes much more to John Locke than to Jesus.

In 1953, the year before “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance, President Dwight D. Eisenhower declared July 4 a day of “penance and prayer.” That day he fished in the morning, golfed in the afternoon and played bridge in the evening. Allen and others who fret about a possibly theocratic future can take comfort from the fact that America’s public piety is more frequently avowed than constraining.

The Corner posts are wide-ranging, and too numerous to link up here. Matthew Franck, however, has several posts up over at Bench Memos that cover some of the more interesting material.

HERE:

But whatever the alleged Deism of the leading founders—with Franklin and Jefferson it’s generally agreed that it’s more than “alleged”—it’s awfully hard to believe that they would find themselves comfortable keeping company with Richard Dawkins or Andrew Sullivan, two who come to mind because their books too are reviewed in today’s NYTBR. Maybe Brooke Allen, on the other hand, would be more comfortable in such company than in that of, say, Michael Novak. And that’s where the debate today is located, between those who wish to chase religion out of the public square, and those who defend its place there. I’m not sure from George Will’s review whether Brooke Allen has made much of a contribution to that controversy, other than to recycle some well-known arguments.

And HERE:

Later, after the death of his son Philip in a duel, Hamilton’s devotion revived. As Forrest McDonald writes in his 1979 biography: “His youthful faith had never entirely departed him, and the overt atheism of the French Revolution had rekindled his sense of the importance of religion. Now, in the wake of Philip’s death, he became as devout as he had been as a protégé of the Reverend Hugh Knox. In the spring of 1802 he went so far as to propose the formation of a political party to be known as the Christian Constitutional Society.”

There’s also THIS link, which suggests that Allen’s been focused on this question for a while. As have the folks at NR.

Every single one of the Founders believed that, at the level of both individual morality and public policy, the demands of reason and of revelation powerfully reinforce one another. They understood that with respect to the ultimate questions—the creation of the universe, the purpose of human existence, and the hope of life after death—faith and philosophy might differ. In the practical world they inhabited, however, the Founders believed that both Socrates and Jesus enjoined their followers to accord all persons truth, justice, and charity.

Indeed, the Founders saw the cultivation of religious sentiment as the ultimate safeguard of American liberty. They knew that liberty could only prosper among moral citizens, whose practice of self-government in their private lives was a necessary prerequisite for its exercise in public. They believed that even if it were possible for certain individuals to behave morally without believing in God, on the whole an entire citizenry could not long keep its moral bearings without the guidance of religious faith.

I’m starting to realize just how much history these folks know. Actually, make that “how much more than me.”

And count me as disappointed that Will’s gone to the “rewriting history” card. I don’t really see it here, and it makes him come off badly. He needs to write something about baseball soon. That’d get him back into my good graces quickly enough. I think I’ll go read Men at Work, just to see if I can get his review out of my mind.

THIS is good to see:

Representative Duncan Hunter wrote in his letter that, quote, “CNN has now served as the publicist for an enemy propaganda film featuring the killing of an American soldier.”

But this is not:

CNN executives defended their decision to air the footage, saying its news value outweighed other concerns.

The LA Times has a bit MORE of both the good and the bad:

“I think Americans like to think we’re all in this together,” Hunter said. “The average American Marine or soldier has concluded after seeing that film that CNN is not on their side.“

Sed Contra:

“Whether or not you agree with us in this case, our goal, as always, is to present the unvarnished truth as best we can,” CNN producer David Doss wrote in a blog on the network’s website.

…

Doss said CNN Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware received the video after communicating — through intermediaries — with Ibrahim Shammari, a spokesman for the Islamic Army.

Doss said the decision to broadcast the video came after hours of “intense editorial debate.”

He said one compromise was made: The moment when the bullet hits the soldier’s head is blacked out. The soldier’s face and unit patches were not clear, so identifying him was impossible, CNN said.

I’m seeing “unvarnished” and “intense debate” a great deal. That definitely seems like the defense CNN is going to be using. “Even if you disagree with you, we’re all about the news. And you’re not. Besides, we thought about it really hard.”

Which would be laughable if it weren’t so maddening. And thanks for throwing us that “compromise” bone, Mr. Doss. That must have been a tough concession.

The conclusion of that Times article gave me pause.

Embedded reporters sign pledges not to show the faces of dead American troops until their families are notified, but nothing prohibits the use of pictures in which identities are not discernible.

I guess “nothing” means different thing for me than it does for Tony Perry.

I’d be inclined to say “nothing legally prohibits.” Because there is definitely a long list of things that prohibit it, even if one does not find them explicitly spelled out in the Army’s “Embedded Reporter” manual.

But then we’d have to start talking about things like “ethical considerations,” or “common sense,” or “patriotism,” or perhaps even “the common good.” And I guess those are too complex for journalists to take into account when a story is on the line.

Or perhaps they’re just too restrictive.

Cliff May’s Townhall article SUGGESTS he might be getting close to one.

One reason these questions can be elided is that in Iraq, the media have adopted the strange practice of not naming the perpetrators of killings – unless the perpetrators might happen to be Americans. As the scholar Michael Rubin has pointed out, the use of the passive voice in the media has become routine. For example, a recent McClatchy story read: “Nearly 2,700 Iraqi civilians were killed in the city in September.”

“Well, who killed them?” Rubin asks. “Baathist insurgents or Iranian-backed militias? If the public read that Iranian-backed militias killed nearly 2700 civilians, we might be less willing to reward their murderers.”

Another example, this one from The New York Times: “Most of the 500 municipal workers who have been killed here since 2005 have been trash collectors.” Rubin notes: “Again, someone did the killing. Why hide it? It’s important to know what we are up against.

Not identifying the killers makes it hard for people to direct outrage against them — and easy to direct it against Americans. Has there ever before been a war in which journalists have given such a gift to their country’s enemies?

But this war is different. In this war, bullets and bombs are used at least as much to send messages as to kill and maim. And the media are for manipulating. One side makes full use of these changes. American political leaders seem not yet to fully comprehend what they are up against; much less have they begun to respond effectively.

Red State’s Haystack has REACHED his Beale moment, though. He’s mad as hell, and he’s not going to take it any more. It’s hard to disagree with him, after you see THIS. It relates to those last several sentences from May, I think.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A sniper is watching these American soldiers. You’re looking at the unobstructed view from the sniper team’s vehicle.

And they are waiting for their moment, as the soldiers mingle with Iraqi civilians.

“People are around them,” warns the sniper’s spotter, who seems to be operating the video camera.

“Want me to find another place?”

“No, no,” comes the reply. “Give me a moment.”

And, then, the soldier falls forward. You hear the sniper’s vehicle start, and they slip away.

American casualties this month are tracking at near record numbers. This video is a glimpse into an enduring feature of this war. Ground commanders say it is a growing and deadly tactic, insurgent sniper teams.

U.S. military intelligence tells CNN, it suspects some of these teams are trained abroad. They make an intimidating weapon.

BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Am I next? What about my buddy? You’re looking constantly. Your head is on a swivel, they say, you know, in windows, doors, looking in cars, rooftops. It’s a very effective weapon. And — and that’s why our own military uses them extensively. The best counter of a sniper is — is another sniper team on your own side.

WARE: CNN obtained the graphic tape through intermediaries from the Islamic Army of Iraq, one of the most active insurgent organizations in the country.

It is titled “Latest Sniper Operations in Baghdad.” Accents, license plates and street signs seem to indicate the sniper attacks in fact have occurred here in the capital. A careful review of the entire video by CNN technicians found no evidence the images had been electronically manipulated.

The tape documents 10 incidents, all of which appear recent. But there’s no way to confirm precisely when or where the attacks took place, or which U.S. units were involved, or what happened to the targeted soldiers.

The tape comes as the Islamic Army calls to renew talks with the United States, and as Islamist Internet postings call for a P.R. campaign aimed at influencing the American public.

A campaign that has been greatly aided by the likes of Anderson Cooper and Michael Ware.  (In fairness, I must point out that they do identify the attackers, so they are avoiding at least one prong of May’s attack.)

But let’s think about what Cooper and Co. just did. The “Islamic Army of Iraq” is trying to influence the American public by murdering American soldiers, video-taping the killings, and trying to get the tapes into the hands of as many people as possible.

Why?

Well, I supposed that’s up for speculation. Or at least it would be, except Ware happens to have pretty concrete knowledge of their intentions. They’re doing it because they want to influence the American public. And they want to do that because they’re not having much success influencing the American leadership. So, they recognize that the best way to get America out of Iraq is to destroy the support back home.

But that’s hard, unless they can with the P.R. war. Which means that the murders have a larger purpose. They don’t just want to kill US servicemen; they want to get the images of their brutal killings into every ordinarly American home they can reach.

Human nature is mighty predictable in some ways. And one of those ways is that it’s hard to watch your own die. If we American have to watch our boys dying over and over again, it will weaken our resolve. That’s just human.

But these guys don’t have the media machine to do that. They simply cannot reach this audience on their own. If the American public - “Middle America,” as Nixon called it - doesn’t see these images, then our enemies have lost that “larger purpose,” that means of manipulation. So they’re stuck at stage one, like a preacher without a pulpit. No soapbox for their killings.

But that’s OK. All they need to do is dial up the American Media Empire - which will ensure that these images are seen by millions and millions of American families. All while skillfully clocking its participation under the sanctifying cloud of “clear and honest accounting,” bathed in the soothing light of the suggestion that to do otherwise would be to “sugarcoat reality” and “dishonor their sacrifice.”

After all, is is a story that, “shocking as you may find it, is one that we believe needs to be told.”

Fair enough. Only who is it exactly that needs this story told? Perhaps we should spend a bit more time thinking about that.

THIS is an amazing story.

A Navy SEAL sacrificed his life to save his comrades by throwing himself on top of a grenade Iraqi insurgents tossed into their sniper hideout, fellow members of the elite force said.
Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor had been near the only door to the rooftop structure Sept. 29 when the grenade hit him in the chest and bounced to the floor, said four SEALs who spoke to The Associated Press this week on condition of anonymity because their work requires their identities to remain secret.“He never took his eye off the grenade, his only movement was down toward it,” said a 28-year-old lieutenant who sustained shrapnel wounds to both legs that day. “He undoubtedly saved mine and the other SEALs’ lives, and we owe him.”Monsoor, a 25-year-old gunner, was killed in the explosion in Ramadi, west of
Baghdad.

I can remember reading about similar incidents when I was looking through the names and accounts of Congressional Medal of Honor winners from WWII.

The only way someone would be able to do this would be to react instantly. No thought process. It would have to be instantanious.

But that also means you’d have to decide before-hand how you would act in a certain situation such as this.  And that means Michael Monsoor was a hero long before he got the opportunity to act like one.

May he rest in peace.

Today has been a rough day in the blogosphere.

I am sad because this day is seen as an opportunity for POLITICAL commentary by many - a fact that is true on BOTH sides of the aisle. Some are more shrill than others, to be sure.  And I do not intend to single out Michelle as a “grievous offender”  - or even as an unreasonable one. But I wanted today to be an American event, not a Democratic or Republican one.

I am sad because there are so many moving STORIES, so many nearly nameless VICTIMS, so many families SCARRED forever. How can we begin to quanitfy what we have lost? Five years is not enough for the task. Nor is five-hundred.

And I am sad because I am scared - not for myself and my own personal safety, but for my country. And for my children.

Cliched as it may sound, the world was indeed changed by 9/11. I no longer have confidence in where the future is going, though that is perhaps confidence I should never have had. My sons will grow up in a different America than I, whether they realize it or not. I pray that the differences will be only skin-deep.

We must never allow ourselves to forget the events that took place five years ago today. We must never forget the victims of 9/11, or the ultimate sacrifice they had thrust upon them. And we must never forget that we are not alone in this (or any) struggle.

Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?