Thursday, September 20, 2012

Fast and Furious Hearing: Some Answers, But Case Not Closed

By Katie Pavlich
http://www.townhall.com
September 20, 2012

Capitol Hill-The Department of Justice [DOJ] Inspector General [IG] Michael Horowitz testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform committee Thursday and answered questions about his recently released report [OIG] from his office about Operation Fast and Furious.

The internal investigation into Operation Fast and Furious has been going on for 18 months. Horowitz and his staff reviewed over 100,000 pages and conducted interviews with 140 people.

In his opening remarks, Chairman Darrell Issa said the IG report and its findings are huge steps toward restoring the faith of the American people in the DOJ, but that the Committee’s work “is not done yet.”

“Operation Fast and Furious is a poster child for what you don’t do with deadly weapons,” Issa said. “Only the tragic lost of Brian A. Terry brought an end to Fast and Furious.”

The hearing and OIG report stressed the fact ATF and DOJ officials who carried out Fast and Furious had no regard for public safety, despite the risk to public safety being immediately evident through wiretap applications.

“There was a disregard for the safety of individuals in the United States and Mexico,” Horowitz said. “If you were focused and looking at the topic of gunwalking you would have read these affidavits and seen red flags……Wiretap applications did contain red flags about reckless tactics.”


THE MISSING LINKS

On July 26, 2011, we learned during a Congressional hearing White House National Security Advisor Kevin O’Reilly had been in contact with former ATF Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix Field Division Bill Newell about Operation Fast and Furious. Immediately after this revelation, O’Reilly was shipped off to Iraq and made unavailable to Congress and the IG office for questioning. The White House has also declined Fast and Furious document requests.

"We did not get internal communications from the White House” Horowitz said during the hearing adding, "Mr. O'Reilly's refusal to speak to us made it impossible," to get answers about White House involvement.

According to the report, Horowitz was told “the White House is beyond the purview of the Inspector General’s Office, which has jurisdiction over Department of Justice programs and personnel.”

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano did not make Immigration and Customs Agent Layne France, a co-case agent on Fast and Furious, available to Horowitz, and declined the his request to be interviewed.

At this point, Congress still has not received 74,000 documents requested through subpoenas, something Horowitz found unnecessary and said documents relevant to his investigation should be made available for Congress to review.

Democrat Ron Barber said it was unacceptable that it has taken this long to bring answers to the Terry family.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The OIG report shows the use of gun dealers to carry out Operation Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver was inappropriate and a conflict of interest based on the relationship between ATF and federally licensed firearms [FFL] dealerships.

“ATF’s policy at the time allowed the use of FFLs as confidential informants. However, no one appears to have recognized and taken into account the implications of authorizing illegal sales by an FFL or the conflict of interest that arises from the use of an FFL as a paid confidential informant. In addition to its investigative function, ATF regulates, licenses, and audits FFLs. Paying an FFL to act as an informant and facilitate otherwise illegal sales potentially is in tension with ATF’s regulatory function. The use of the FFL in this case illustrates the conflict,” the report says.

Another conflict of interest getting lost with the release of the OIG report, is the fact Horowitz wasn’t the IG in charge of the bulk of the internal Fast and Furious investigation.

"I wasn't here for the first 13 months,” Horowitz said.

Horowitz became the IG after Cynthia Schnedar quietly left her post as the DOJ IG in March 2012. Schnedar is a long time personal friend of Attorney General Eric Holder and worked for him during his time as the U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C.

FALLOUT AND CONSEQUENCES

Resignations have already started. Yesterday Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein submitted his resignation and former ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson “retired.” Both Weinstein and Melson are part of 14 officials referred by name for discipline in the OIG report. Issa called for the resignation of the 14 officials held responsible in the report.

“We expect that all 14 would find a way to find appropriate new occupations – ones in which their poor judgment or lack of dedication or unwillingness to actually read documents they were required to read would not be held accountable,” he said in his opening statement at the hearing on the IG’s report,” Issa said.

Although Horowitz referred 14 officials for discipline, he noted in his testimony, “It’s up to the AG to decide what discipline is taken.”

Thursday’s hearing made it clear ATF and DOJ need critical reforms including the improvement of coordination among law enforcement components, enhancing the wiretap review process and for the Department to review the conduct of Department personnel to determine if discipline is necessary.

“First and foremost there needs to be seriously reforms and controls at ATF,” Horowitz said.

HOLDER VINDICATED?

Despite Attorney General Eric Holder's victory lap yesterday, celebrating that the IG report didn’t hold him responsible for the majority of Fast and Furious, he isn’t off the hook and hasn’t been “vindicated,” as many in the mainstream media have tried to portray.  When asked directly if Holder was “vindicated by the report,” Horowitz refused to say yes.

“Finally, the report exonerates ATF whistleblowers who stepped forward to allege and end serious wrongdoing.  I hope the Department will finally recognize these brave men for their contributions and your office acts aggressively to hold those who tried to intimidate them to account,” Issa said. “Are you pursuing criminal investigations into whistleblower retaliations?” Issa asked.

Horowitz agreed and applauded whistleblower courage of coming forward to expose wrongdoing within the department. He also said his office was looking into cases of whistleblower retaliation and taking them very seriously.

Rep. Dan Burton asked Horowitz if he knew anything about the interaction between Media Matters and the DOJ Press Office, in particular Public Affairs Director Tracy Schmaler’s efforts to smear reporters, whistleblowers and Congressman exposing Fast and Furious. Horowitz said he hasn’t looked into the relationship between Media Matters and DOJ’s public affairs office, but read about it through news reports this week.

It was also determined during the hearing that the Attorney General should have been briefed about the connection between Fast and Furious and Brian Terry’s murder on December 15, 2010, the day ATF and DOJ first knew the connection was there.  Holder wasn’t briefed until a month later about the link and today, Holder believes there is no need for him to be briefed directly when a law enforcement agent is killed as a result of a Justice Department program.

WHERE WE GO FROM HERE

The Inspector General has turned over his findings and recommendations of reform to Attorney General Eric Holder. Horowitz did not recommend specific disciplinary actions that should be taken against ATF and DOJ officials he demeaned heavily responsible for Fast and Furious.

President Obama’s executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents after February 4, 2011 still stands. Chairman Issa made it clear today this “isn’t over” and the lawsuit challenging the executive privilege will move forward. Issa did say he hopes there will be more cooperation in the coming days in order to avoid a court battle over Holder’s civil contempt citations, which was a result of his refusal to turn over documents requested through Congressional subpoenas.

“On August 13, the Committee filed a civil action to compel Attorney General Eric Holder to produce documents related to Operation Fast and Furious subpoenaed by the Committee on October 11, 2011. Our legal action seeks to obtain documents covered by the subpoena that will show why the Justice Department took ten months to retract a February 4, 2011 letter.  This letter contained false denials of the reckless investigative tactics used in Operation Fast and Furious,” Issa said.

In the end, we still don’t have the answer to one simple question: Who came up with the idea for Fast and Furious?

ELITIST, OUT-OF-TOUCH MEDIA COMPLAIN ROMNEY NOT REGULAR GUY

By Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com
September 19, 2012

Only our totally unbiased watchdog media could turn the burning of U.S. embassies in countries where Barack Obama had recently supported mob revolts into Mitt Romney's blunder. Journalists couldn't risk having Obama's campaign slogan "Osama is dead" being amended with "and so is our ambassador."

After our ambassador to Libya was murdered in a preplanned, coordinated attack on our embassy last week, preceded by an attack on our embassy in Egypt (and followed by attacks on our embassies in Yemen, Indonesia, Tunisia and Lebanon), Romney criticized the Obama administration for "sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt."

He was referring to a statement put out by our Cairo embassy before the ambassador's murder, criticizing an American filmmaker whose YouTube trailer was the alleged provocation for the attacks. Attacks that happened to occur on the anniversary of 9/11.

The NFM (Non-Fox Media) uniformly denounced Romney's criticism and pronounced his campaign finished.

The Obama administration insisted that Romney had his "facts" wrong: Obama had absolutely nothing to do with the statement -- the embassy staff was freelancing -- and, even if the White House had approved it, it was a good statement because the riots were caused by the movie trailer, and furthermore, the embassy statement was issued before the riots even began.

This is known as an argument in the alternative: "I didn't break into that house, and if I did, I didn't steal the silver, and if I did, I only got twenty bucks for it."

If the statement were issued before our embassy in Cairo was attacked, then what was the administration responding to? Does the White House make it a practice to put out statements condemning random, barely viewed YouTube videos? The White House officially endorses that cute video of Kooky82's cat attempting to meow the national anthem.


The embassy's statement was obviously responding to something, and if anyone in the administration -- even that rogue embassy official! -- knew the Internet video was upsetting our dear Muslim friends, why on earth weren't our embassies protected?

Next, the Obama administration detained the American filmmaker and asked Google to block the allegedly offending video. (Take the week off, First Amendment.)

This behavior made it difficult for even the most obsequious journalist to keep railing against Romney for suggesting that Obama was acquiescing to angry Muslims. So the NFM's harangue against Romney was deposited in the same filing cabinet where the paperwork to close Gitmo is currently stored.

Now, a week later, Romney has said something, again. (Damn him!) This provoked another round of hysterical denunciations from the media.

At a private gathering, Romney told donors that Obama had a lock on the 47 percent of voters "who pay no income tax" and "believe the government has a responsibility to care for them." This was deeply offensive to people who pay no income tax and believe the government has a responsibility to care for them.

But no matter how much the media belch out the usual cliches -- out of touch, insensitive, racist, not one of us, Thurston Howell, etc. etc. -- all most people heard was: FORTY-SEVEN PERCENT OF AMERICANS PAY NO INCOME TAX?

A friend of mine who spent time in Russia during the '70s told me that whenever a Russian would bring up the extensive coverage of Watergate, he'd sigh, thinking he'd have to explain that the American political system was not as corrupt as the commissars would have it. But all they ever wanted to ask him was: "Do all Americans have such nice shoes?"

The lesson is: You can't always control what the audience notices.

Thanks to the myopia of our one-party media, most journalists are firmly convinced that voters will be appalled by Romney's description of 47 percent of Americans as supporting Obama because they pay no income tax. (Yes, head-up-their-butts journalists in the charming little burg of Manhattan are complaining that Romney isn't connecting with ordinary people.)

But the only people shocked by Romney's statement of fact are those who would never vote Republican under any circumstances. Everyone else is saying, "Is it really as high as 47 percent?" -- as the media impotently shouts, "No, you idiot! That's not the point!"

There's going to come a time, in the not-distant future, when it's 51 percent paying no income tax. And when that happens, the party of big government will never lose another election. America will become indistinguishable from Western European nanny states -- except there will be no America to protect us.

The media happen to love the party of big government with all their heart, so from now until the election, no matter what Romney says, they plan to be scandalized.

COPYRIGHT 2012 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK

The Fallacy of Redistribution

By Thomas Sowell
http://www.townhall.com
September 20, 2012

The recently discovered tape on which Barack Obama said back in 1998 that he believes in redistribution is not really news. He said the same thing to Joe the Plumber four years ago. But the surfacing of this tape may serve a useful purpose if it gets people to thinking about what the consequences of redistribution are.
Those who talk glibly about redistribution often act as if people are just inert objects that can be placed here and there, like pieces on a chess board, to carry out some grand design. But if human beings have their own responses to government policies, then we cannot blithely assume that government policies will have the effect intended.

The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The communist nations were a classic example, but by no means the only example.

In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler's Holocaust in the 1940s.

How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth -- and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.

People in industry are not inert objects either. Moreover, unlike farmers, industrialists are not tied to the land in a particular country.

Russian aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky could take his expertise to America and produce his planes and helicopters thousands of miles away from his native land. Financiers are even less tied down, especially today, when vast sums of money can be dispatched electronically to any part of the world.

If confiscatory policies can produce counterproductive repercussions in a dictatorship, they are even harder to carry out in a democracy. A dictatorship can suddenly swoop down and grab whatever it wants. But a democracy must first have public discussions and debates. Those who are targeted for confiscation can see the handwriting on the wall, and act accordingly.

Among the most valuable assets in any nation are the knowledge, skills and productive experience that economists call "human capital." When successful people with much human capital leave the country, either voluntarily or because of hostile governments or hostile mobs whipped up by demagogues exploiting envy, lasting damage can be done to the economy they leave behind.

Fidel Castro's confiscatory policies drove successful Cubans to flee to Florida, often leaving much of their physical wealth behind. But poverty-stricken refugees rose to prosperity again in Florida, while the wealth they left behind in Cuba did not prevent the people there from being poverty stricken under Castro. The lasting wealth the refugees took with them was their human capital.

We have all heard the old saying that giving a man a fish feeds him only for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Redistributionists give him a fish and leave him dependent on the government for more fish in the future.

If the redistributionists were serious, what they would want to distribute is the ability to fish, or to be productive in other ways. Knowledge is one of the few things that can be distributed to people without reducing the amount held by others.

That would better serve the interests of the poor, but it would not serve the interests of politicians who want to exercise power, and to get the votes of people who are dependent on them.

Barack Obama can endlessly proclaim his slogan of "Forward," but what he is proposing is going backwards to policies that have failed repeatedly in countries around the world.

Yet, to many people who cannot be bothered to stop and think, redistribution sounds good.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

NFL loses storyteller who shaped the sport he loved

By Richard Sandomir
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com
September 19, 2012

The death of Steve Sabol, the president of NFL Films, leaves us with one less storyteller. Yes, he was a cameraman, cinematographer, producer, editor, writer and director — encompassing skills that he and his father, Ed, employed to build a mythmaking apparatus better than the propaganda machines of most nations.
But boy, he could talk, on the air, on the phone, in a restaurant, at a banquet. He brought passion, detail and humor to his storytelling, whether he was explaining how a shot was made, how the martial music in his programs was composed or how Coach Hank Stram was fitted for a microphone during Super Bowl IV, when he was heard exhorting his Kansas City Chiefs to “matriculate the ball down the field.”
“We offered him $500 and he said, ‘That wouldn’t even pay my dry-cleaning bill,’ ” Sabol told me during an interview in 2003 aboutStram, a stout, toupeed dandy. “He was so vain about his posture and stomach that when he wore a mike, we saw that under his shirt that he wore a scuba diving vest to keep his shoulders up and his gut in.”
Sabol was an eternal youth and an auteur. He stood always on the edge of childlike joy knowing that all he did in his adult life was shape the image of the sport he loved. He did it with his father in a way that rival sports leagues envied but could not imitate. With a staff that understood that he was turning games into Hollywood productions, Sabol created a separate reality that made fans consider whether an NFL Films production, and not a television set, was the best way to enjoy a game.
The Sabol vision was first articulated by Ed, but it was executed by Steve: tight close-ups (spirals spinning for 10, 20, 30, 40 yards); slow-motion photography (sweat dripping from a beard and vapor escaping a bald head); players and coaches wired for sound but never for embarrassment; scripts that teetered between macho and dramatically absurd; baritones like John Facenda and Harry Kalas to lend gravitas to over-the-top screenwriting; and bloopers that made Sabol’s cinematic gladiators more human.
The very act of turning live games into 16-millimeter film works inevitably glorified the violence of football — but simultaneously illuminated the skills and toil of players, in the trenches and the air, that television cannot.
And because N.F.L. television broadcasts were almost never replayed until NFL Network came along, the versions of the games made by Sabol survived as the moving-picture memory of the sport. The Sabols built on that powerful platform, expanding its programming and influence year after year.
Sabol had much in common with Bud Greenspan, the Olympic documentarian who died in 2010. Sabol, as an insider, and Greenspan, as an independent filmmaker hired to make official films every two or four years, emphasized a Panglossian view of sport that has all but disappeared. But both men knew that journalists would cover the sordid, seamy and financial doings they diverted their cameras from; they adored the athletes and the sports they filmed and saw no reason to carp when others eagerly would.
In 1999, NFL Films produced a valentine of a documentary about Al Davis, the cantankerous, litigious owner of the Oakland — or Los Angeles — Raiders, that did not mention his legal battles with the league or his feuds with commissioners. Greenspan preferred to be far from anyone but the athletes who overachieved, overcame or failed valiantly. “I’ve been criticized for having rose-colored glasses, he told me during the 1996 Summer Games. “I say if that’s true, what’s so bad? I’m not good at hurting people.”
The reality of a father outliving his 69-year-old son is most often poignant. Steve Sabol is gone. Ed, 96, survives him. The former overcoat salesman and his artist son had an effervescent and complementary relationship that manufactured something memorable. The younger Sabol rarely discussed NFL Films without mentioning Big Ed, as he was called.
“He taught me that it’s more important to make people feel than to make people think,” he said, days before he delivered a speech at his father’s induction to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2011. “Football is a sport of emotions, and we have to capture that in our films.”
As he said those words, a brain tumor was preventing him from speaking as well as he wanted; from saying everything that he was thinking, from summoning memories. Sabol, the storyteller, was frustrated.
“The words,” he said, apologetically, “just fizz out.”
But the work of 50 years, which lives on at NFL Films in Mount Laurel, N.J., and in our minds, will not.

Steve Sabol truly lived 'a football life'

By Peter King
SI.com
September 19, 2012

When I saw the NFL Films documentary Bill Belichick: A Football Life, and realized this intensely private character had allowed himself to be wired for an entire year by NFL Films, letting it invade his offseason sanctuary in Nantucket, sail with him on his boat and sit with him in a coaches' meeting while he chewed out the offense, my instantaneous thought was: Steve Sabol did this.

Think of the trust Bill Belichick had to have in Sabol's company to allow Films to live with him for a year. To do the things NFL Films has done over the years -- wiring coaches and players in Super Bowls, allowing cameras in meetings that coaches wouldn't allow their closest friends in the world to attend -- gave NFL Films a genuineness that was unsurpassed not just in sports, but also in the world.

Where else were the inner workings of a business so intimately documented by filmmakers and shown to an adoring public? That began with Steve Sabol's dad, Ed, a Hall of Fame filmmaker in his own right. But it flowered and became the institution it is today because of Steve's storytelling brilliance, and his ability to get people to let him into their world.

And trust. Lots of people are good at making movies, but Steve Sabol's greatness was about so much more. Some of the most insanely private people in the business -- Belichick, for instance -- allowed Sabol and his cameramen into their world, and they had to know Sabol was not only going to show them in a positive light, but also would keep the film that landed on the cutting room floor out of the public domain. His ethics were above reproach, and he was one of the most authentic football lovers ever born.

The phone keeps ringing as I write this, with people in the game who want to say something about Steve Sabol. One GM, distraught, went stream-of-consciousness on Sabol, covering so many correct facets I'll just list them for you: "He was the most ethical person I knew. No one, no one, did more for the game in NFL history than Steve Sabol. He made Lynn Swann a ballerina. Everything about the job, he loved. He loved the filming, he loved the story, he loved the edit room ... ''

The man got emotional, and was rambling, and said we'd talk in a couple of days. Then Brett Favre was on the phone a few minutes later. He'd been wired, he guessed, about 50 times in his career, and much of that was because of his relationship with, and trust for, Steve Sabol. Favre understood the myth-making qualities of NFL Films and attributes how big the game has gotten to Sabol as much as any single person.
"He changed the face of the NFL without ever playing a down in it,'' Favre said.


Everyone I knew loved being around Steve. He was relentlessly positive, and not in a sappy way. He was convinced every team had 10 good stories, and he knew deep down that filmmaking brilliance of those he hired would make the stories better than maybe they were. But that's why Pete Rozelle took the leap of faith and hired Ed Sabol's company in the '60s -- to put some sizzle in the NFL steak.

"For a company that prides itself on telling good stories,'' he said, "this is one hell of a story. Dad makes the Hall of Fame. Son's going to be his presenter. Son gets a brain tumor. Now the story is, Is the son going to be there? Will the son make it? Who knows? I could be around until the Super Bowl in New York [2014]. But I've had a lot of time to think ...

"So they talk about heaven, and I don't know what is waiting for me up there. But I can tell you this: Nothing will happen up there that can duplicate my life down here. That life cannot be better than the one I've lived down here, the football life. It's been perfect."

So wonderfully fitting that a few of his last public words -- those -- will live forever. After reading his quote, NFL Films decided to call its new series of inside stories on the stars of the game, beginning with the Belichick opus, "A Football Life." As in, "Bill Belichick: A Football Life." The best stories they'll tell, every year, will be in that series.

The next show I want to see? "Steve Sabol: A Football Life."


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/09/18/steve-sabol/index.html#ixzz26vXNxFul

'It was the video'

By Jonah Goldberg
http://www.nationalreview.com
September 19, 2012

The Obama administration’s omnibus answer to why the Middle East (and now much of the Muslim world) is in near-open rebellion against the United States: The video did it.

The follow-up question no one seems to be asking is: “What if the administration’s explanation is true?”

White House press secretary Jay Carney insists the attacks in Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere were a “response not to United States policy, and not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people,” but were rather a spontaneous “response to a video, a film we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.”

On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, reaffirmed the claim that this was all about a YouTube trailer.

What about the fact that many experts say the Benghazi attacks looked like a sophisticated, coordinated assault with rocket-propelled grenades? Meaningless. It was the video. Even the president of Libya said, “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” Who cares? It was the video.

Al-Qaeda is taking credit for the Benghazi assault as revenge for the June killing of its No. 2 man, Abu Yahya al-Libi. What’s your point? It was the video.

Reports that the U.S was given a three-day advance warning by the Libyans of a possible attack? Video, video, video.

Now, I think this is absurd, like a Monty Python sketch gone awry — the parrot’s not dead, he’s just resting! But let’s assume it’s true and it really is all about the video.

How on earth is that better?

According to the Obama administration, its policies in the Middle East are working. The Cairo speech, the tougher line with Israel, the withdrawals from Iraq and pending drawdown in Afghanistan, Obama’s coolness to Iran’s failed Green Revolution: These have all been part of the successful effort to repair the damage done by the previous administration. Yet all of that hard work can go up in smoke if some crackpot says something mean about the prophet Mohammed on YouTube?

Progress that flimsy strikes me as no progress at all.

It is simply a fact that Islamist radicals, the Arab street, and the Muslim world have been angry at America for decades, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike. It’s also true that demagogues and other opportunists have used things like this video as an excuse to attack America and the West for generations. Obama isn’t solely to blame for the current conflagrations, though his naïveté about the transformational power of his presidency deserves ample scorn.

And let’s not pretend that President George W. Bush wasn’t naïve as well. His hope that love of democracy lurked just beneath the surface in the Middle East has proved at minimum more complicated, bloody, and expensive in practice than in theory. But at least you could tell what Bush was for in the Middle East: freedom.

With Obama it’s not so easy. Apparently you can’t say Obama apologized for America in his Cairo speech, but he certainly did make it clear we wouldn’t rub our values in anyone’s face anymore. During the Iranian Green Revolution, he acted as if the people’s yearning for freedom was really inconvenient. And, over the last week, this administration has talked about the First Amendment as if it’s something it’s stuck with.

“We do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, in the diplomatic equivalent of a regretful sigh. Maybe that’s true (though the White House did ask YouTube to consider pulling the video, and federal authorities did drag the alleged filmmaker in for questioning).

But our public officials now treat attacks on Islam as especially offensive — more offensive than unremarked-upon near-daily attacks on Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, atheism, and just about every other faith and creed.
Why is Islam so special? The answer is, it’s not. But Muslim rioters get special treatment. And that’s nuts. If these people are going to hate us, even after President Obama has done such a fantastic job reaching out to the Muslim world, maybe we should just accept that fact and stand up for what we believe, without apology.

— Jonah Goldberg is an editor-at-large ofNational Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. You can write to him by e-mail at JonahsColumn@aol.com or via Twitter: @JonahNRO. © 2012 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Interview: Mark Steyn on 'After America', one year later

Last year, as the month of August began, I received a copy of Mark Steyn’s After America from his publicist on Wednesday, the Dow Jones dropped 512 points on Thursday, and S&P shorted America’s credit rating on Friday.
Mark’s crack PR team earned their keep once again this year, staging riots across the Middle East, a feckless “Quantitative Easing” program by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and a First Amendment-trampling POTUS, all in the past week, as a sort of extended infomercial to promote the paperback edition of the book, which is now out today.
Mark spoke with me late last week to discuss the new edition of the book, and the breaking events in the news it foreshadowed.
Click here to listen:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest versionhere. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
(24 minutes long; 22MB file size. Want to download instead of streaming? Right click here to download this week’s show to your hard drive. Or right click here to download the 4 MB lo-fi edition. And for our earlier podcasts, start here and keep scrolling.)
If the above Flash audio player is not be compatible with your browser, click below on the YouTube player below, orclick here to be taken directly to YouTube, for an audio-only YouTube clip. Between one of those versions, you should find a format that plays on your system.
Transcript of interview begins on the following page.
DRISCOLL:  This is Ed Driscoll for PJ Media.com, and we’re talking with Mark Steyn of Steyn Online.com who writes on stage, screen, and demographic and economic apocalypses, and is the regular guest host for a talk radio star you may have heard of called Rush Limbaugh.  He’s also the author of the After America:  Get Ready for Armageddon,now out in paperback.
Mark, last year, when After America debuted, we had Moody’s lower America’s debt rating and the British riots. This year, Regnery seems to be paying off rioters in Egypt and Libya to promote both the new book, and America Alone,your look at America during the War on Terror, back when we still called it the War on Terror. How do you manage to consistently gin up such great publicity for your books?
STEYN:  Yeah, I know.  The — my book ends with a fairly sort of apocalyptic nuclear finale.  And you might want to be out of town once Regnery decide to do the publicity tie-in for that.
But it’s true, when it came out last year I had the great good fortune on the day of the launch to actually have the Moody’s downgrade.  And I — and basically in the British riots they were reenacting pretty explicitly my chapter on Britannia’s post-imperial decay.
This time around you’re right, what’s going on in Libya and Yemen and various other U.S. embassy compounds around the region I think is the next phase of that.  Decline always starts with the money, but it then moves on to other things.  When money drains, power drains.  I didn’t agree with Condi Rice’s — a lot of Condi Rice’s speech at the Republican convention, but she had one very good line in that when she said that a nation that loses control of its finances eventually loses control of its destiny.  And that’s actually what you’re seeing on the streets of the Middle East.
DRISCOLL:  While all that’s going on, Mark, what do you make of the Pentagon having Pastor Terry Jones on speed dial, and ringing him up after this year’s 9/11 riots?
STEYN:  Yeah.  I would fire General Dempsey, the Chief of Staff, for that.  I say that, by the way, as an immigrant to this country.  One thing you notice about this country is the U.S. government is actually quite coercive.  The United States Department of Justice if it decides to can bring unlimited resources to bear.  When you soak in the United States Treasury the IRS has far more powers to freeze your kid’s bank account than equivalent revenue agencies in most free societies.
So it’s not a small thing when the most senior military officer in the United States government calls you at home over a film you’ve made.  And it’s simply not appropriate.  Kathy Shaidle, my compatriot, the great Canadian blogger, had a joke about the — after the Manson killings, the Pentagon calling up the Beatles to warn them not to release “The White Album” — or whichever it was, that it allegedly provoked Charles Manson.  But this is simply something that the United States government should not be doing.  It’s legitimating, essentially, the view of these loons that the content of films and novels and cartoons and everything else is the business of the state.  And that may be true in Islamic states, but it’s not true in free societies.
And again, there’s a sort of futuristic chapter towards the end of my book where, sort of looking back on our time from around whatever it is, 2020, 2025.  And when we look back from that time we will marvel at how quickly western elites were willing to trade core western principles such as freedom of speech.  We see it in those — that disgusting Twitter chain from the U.S. embassy in Cairo, we see it in the weaselly words of Secretary Clinton and President Obama, and we see it in that outrageous phone call that General Dempsey made to Pastor whatever-his-name-is.
DRISCOLL:  Mark we’ll get back your take on current events in just a moment, but perhaps we’re getting a bit ahead of ourselves. For those who didn’t read After America when it originally debuted last year, you could you quickly outline in its thesis? The title alone must sound like crazy talk to someone trapped in the New York Times’ information cocoon.
STEYN:  Yes.  I mean, I think a lot of people have seen those sort of Congressional Budget Office graphs that sort of show the straight line going all the way up and sort of circa mid-century disappearing off the top of the page and going up through the ceiling and out through the roof timbers.  And I think that’s the way people — even people who are aware of the multi-trillion-dollar debt and the entitlements and all this, they think of it as a problem for mid-century.  That if we don’t get that — yes, in theory if we don’t get this stuff under control then it will be consuming, you know, 800 percent of GDP by the year 2080 or whatever.
And in a sense people think well, that’s going to be a problem for my grandkids but nothing I need to deal with right now.  The thesis of After America is that we’re way beyond decline.  We’re worse than Greece, we’re worse than Iceland, we’re worse than Portugal and if we don’t get this stuff fixed by mid-decade, not mid-century, then it’s over.  And by over I mean that the United States as we’ve known it will simply cease to exist.  It doesn’t necessarily mean Mad Max on I-95, although I wouldn’t rule that out, but it does mean that everything gets worse. And it gets worse on a scale unknown to relatively small European countries in a bad way.  In the end, anyone who’s been in sort of rural Greek villages knows that they could take quite a bit of decline and societal collapse, and when the dust clears they’d be pretty much as they were.  Iceland, for example, which was the sort of first country to go belly-up when the downturn hit in 2008, Iceland’s dreams of sort of, you know, being a major global finance power are over.  But Iceland is still pretty okay if you’re Icelandic, and if you’re not, who cares.
It’s not going to be like that with the United States.  When the U.S. goes over the cliff it lands with a much bigger thud than Iceland.  And it’s in real danger of slipping past the point of no return, circa 2015, 2016.
DRISCOLL:  As we’re recording this interview, the Fed are announcing that QE3 is sailing, another round of what it calls quantitative easing, which is the Newspeak euphemism for firing up the printing press and printing more money. How’s that going to work out?
STEYN:  Yes.  You know, one of the things that’s interesting to me about After America is I think there’s an element of delusion on the right, too.  For example, I was — when I was making the rounds when the hardback addition came out and it was around the time of the downgrade and everything.  And I said, well, you know, say what you like about Greece but Greece can’t do quantitative easing because it doesn’t print its own currency; Greece is on the euro.  One can have an argument about whether Greece should have got into the euro in the first place, but the fact is that Greece is in the euro now so those guys have to figure something out without being able to do quantitative easing.  And a reporter on the Fox Business Channel said to me well, that just shows how much — how superior we are, how great we are.  I don’t think so.  I think quantitative easing is basically your left hand writing an IOU to your right hand.  The idea that — which has been happening more or less since After America came out, but basically seventy percent of debt issued by the U.S. Treasury is bought by the Federal Reserve.  And if you — that’s basically like paying off your Mastercard with your Visa card at the end of the month.  You can do that for a while, but eventually that’s going to — that’s unreal.  That’s unreal, and quantitative easing is unreal.
And I think in that sense — again, that’s a reason why whatever the insanity of euro — I mean, the euro is a make-believe currency for a make-believe jurisdiction.  But one thing is does do is it eliminates a government’s ability to quantitatively ease their way out of their irresponsibility.  And in that sense, whatever you say about the Greeks, the Greeks aren’t lending money to their right hand with their left hand.
DRISCOLL:  QE3 involves lending money on a gigantic basis, but there’s also the money banks lend to individuals and families.  Glenn Reynolds, my colleague at PJ Media.com, has linked to articles on “the coming middle class anarchy.” Our entire nation’s economy rests on the idea of owning a home and paying your mortgage each month. If enough people who are underwater say the system is rigged, and nuts to all this, America’s already fragile economy could be in deep trouble.
STEYN:  Yes.  I think that’s certainly the case.  I mean, I think if you look at what has been wrecked by government, they include all the things that prudent people — we’re not talking about people with, you know, great ambitions.  We’re not even talking about, you know, dreams.  We’re not talking about fancies.  We’re talking about just what prudent, responsible people do.  People say oh, you know, buy property.  What is it?  The Mark Twain line, they’re not making any more of it, you know, whatever.
Buy a home.  Buy a house.  Own your own home.  The government through Fannie and Freddie and subprime mortgages wrecked the property market, so the idea of the whole sort of safe as houses concept is gone.  Then they said oh, you know, get an education.  Get an education.  Get a qualification; you’ll always have something to fall back on.  Most American qualifications are worthless and people stack up six figures of debt to acquire them, so they’ve wrecked that element too.
So these are things that, as I said, not dreamers but prudent, sensible people that get an education, buy property — look after your health, that’s another thing that’s wrecked now.  So in other words, all the props of prudent, sensible middle-class life have been hacked away at by government — big government interference with them.  And there’s not a lot left to wreck once you do that.
DRISCOLL:  And as you write in After America, starting a business is also increasingly anathema.  Whether it’s a kid with a lemonade stand or a hardware store who wants to put out its own coffee and donuts without being over-regulated to death.
STEYN:  Yeah.  I think this is not small stuff.  And I think there’s a problem here.  Again, there’s a sort of element of delusion on the right about how important this stuff is.  Because people do get annoyed about it, but again, it — they don’t — I think a lot of people don’t quite fully understand the implications of it.  A society in which you need 500 dollars worth of permits to put a lemonade stand on your lawn is not a free society.
You could have the Second Amendment.  I mean, a lot of people when I mentioned — I think it was on Rush I mentioned the lemonade — like, half a dozen lemonade stand stories from around the country.  And a couple guys e-mailed me and said oh, this isn’t important stuff, Steyn, you shouldn’t be talking about this.  We’ve got the Second Amendment, so nobody’s going to do all the — you know, nobody’s going to come and take away our freedoms.
That’s all very well, but you could — you can easily wind up in a situation where you still have the Second Amendment and every other freedom has been lost.  A society in which you cannot legally sell lemonade in your front yard is not a free society.  A society — you mentioned the hardware store.  A society in which a hardware store in Ventura County, California cannot put out complimentary coffee and donuts for its customers is not a free society.
And at some point people have to get real about this.  I think this is the way — this is one of the reasons, by the way, where the sort of codification of the U.S. Constitution actually gets in the way of looking at things clearly.  Because clearly what’s happened over the course of the last eighty years is that successive governments at the national level, but also at the state and county level, have ridden a coach and horses through the principles of the U.S. Constitution.  But because it’s still there on a piece of paper that some guy put down on parchment with ink and quill feather and it’s actually written down, people still think that it’s there and it’s effective even though eighty years of big government expansion has basically driven a coach and horses through it.
DRISCOLL:  A number of America’s woes seem to come down to academia.  They’ve created what Yale’s David Gelernter calls “America-Lite,” in which the culture of America has basically been hollowed out from the top.  And they’ve created what the aforementioned Glenn Reynolds calls the higher education bubble.  And now in Rahm Emanuel Chicago we’re seeing the lower education bubble as his teachers are on strike.  Do these bubbles give conservatives an opportunity to reform that broken and increasingly fiscally broke system?
STEYN:  I would like to think so.  In a strange way I think the Rahm Emanuel situation is actually more serious because it’s more disturbing to me that you’ve got this kind of social engineering in kindergarten and grade one, then by the time people get to middle age like Sandra Fluke.  Because basically by that point you’ve had — how old is she?  Thirty-one.  So she’s basically had twenty-five, twenty-six years of this stuff.  So in a way I regard the smashing of the teachers union monopoly as absolutely critical to this country.  I think the Right abandoned almost all the levels of society that mattered apart from electoral success.
And I think we saw in 2008 — by the way, Obama and Mrs. Obama are themselves superb embodiments of the worthlessness of this over-credentialed society.  If you look at Obama, he’s had basically a million bucks of worth of elite education between Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Law and then he goes and becomes a community organizer.  If he hadn’t become president nobody would think that was any kind of, you know, return on investment for what that guy’s education is supposedly worth.  Mrs. Obama, likewise, goes to Princeton and becomes basically the diversity outreach consultant for the University of Chicago hospitals.  A job so essential that they pay her 380,000 dollars a year.  And when she becomes — when she has to leave it to become First Lady it’s so indispensable, that diversity outreach consultant job, that they don’t even bother replacing her.
I mean, these two, in their disconnect from any kind of primary wealth creation I think embody the sort of decay of America in that they — if you recall, people mocked Sarah Palin because she’d been a mayor and before that she’d run a commercial fishing operation in Wasilla.  And people thought that was — for some reason that was a kind of snare.  She’d been in trade as opposed to thinking big thoughts like Obama.
I mean, the elites in this country now are like kind of dowager duchesses in an English social comedy from the late nineteenth century that, you know, they’re horrified by mere tradesmen:  oh, my dear, Sarah Palin, commercial fishing operation.  Why couldn’t she have been a supposed community — or done a little light community organizing like Obama.  Nobody would want to live in a community that had been organized by Obama; the community he did organize, they have — what are they up to now, a dozen murders on a good weekend in Chicago?
This, I think, the sort of decay of the elites and the decay into a kind of Latin-American setup where you have this super-privileged elite at the top and then a vast dysfunctional mass underneath and no middle class.  I think that’s where we’re headed if we don’t change course.
DRISCOLL:  So with all of that as prologue; with the ongoing collapse of so many aspects of what make up Barack Obama’s worldview, why is Mitt Romney seemingly flailing in the polls as of the time of this interview?
STEYN:  Yeah.  That bothers me too, because this guy ought to be losing by ten points at least.  And I know people say well, it’s a fifty-fifty nation and it’s going to be a tight election and all the rest of it.  If it’s tight this time around that says something very alarming.  You know, a lot of people don’t — simply don’t get the numbers.  The word trillion doesn’t really mean anything to people; it has no relation to their lives.  And at a certain point it takes on a bit of unreality because if you can spend trillions of dollars you don’t have and you do it for one year and you do it for two years and you do it for five years, people think well, why can’t we keep on doing that.  So that doesn’t seem like a real problem to many people.
And then I think there’s something even more worrying.  That if you go back to 2008 — and we all did this at the time — we said basically those of us, you know, who however reluctantly supported McCain.  When he lost we said well, the guy gave the impression he wanted to lose and people were exhausted by war and people were tired of the Bush administration and the Republicans hadn’t covered themselves in glory in the previous couple of years and this guy would be the first black president and everyone’s saying he’s the greatest speaker of all time and he’s a real glamorous celebrity figure.
You know, McCain did the thing where he was mocking Obama as the celebrity.  Now we’ve had four years of him.  He’s a crashing bore.  He’s not a great speaker.  He’s got nothing new to say.  He staggers around doing the same — giving the same leaden speech as the economy flatlines, as the jobs market shrivels, as people in their early fifties go on disability and people in their late 20s move back with their parents.
If he gets sort of elected as the nonglamorous failure, what that would mean is that America is essentially saying there’s no prospect of recovery.  We’re sticking with big nanny Obama because at least he’s guaranteeing our food stamps and our disability checks.  And they would essentially be accepting — they would be accepting, I think kind of — a European nanny state view of America that would in effect spell the end of this country.  They’d be basically saying there’s no possibility of an American dream.
Yes, we could vote for Romney, but who wants to take a flyer on economic recovery.  At least if we go with Obama we have the certainty of the food stamps and the certainty of the disability checks.  That’s a — there’s no hope — he’s basically offering them the hope — the certainty of no change.  And he’s saying when everything gets bad, and it’s going to be bad for as far as the eye can see, vote for me because you’ll get your food stamps.
DRISCOLL:  And that certainly sounds like After America to me, or at not the America I grew up in.
STEYN:  Yeah.  I think it is After America.  And the difference, I think — the point I try to make in the book, Ed, which is, you know, really I think very important is that Europe’s post-war decline was cushioned by the United States; the successive power.  The power that inherited Britain’s global networks built up over the previous century and a half, that’s the smoothest transition of global order ever in world history.  To the point where I don’t think historians in centuries to come will even look on it as a transfer.  They’ll look on the sort of Anglo-American imperium from the battle of Trafalgar for the next two centuries as one continuous period.
But the — it’s not going to go that way this time around.  That’s really what we’re seeing on the streets of Benghazi and Cairo, is that there is no — we will be living in a world with no order.  And again, the isolationist right, the Ron Paul guys say well, you know, who needs the rest of the world; screw off.  We can be a nineteenth-century isolationist republic and don’t have to get mixed up with any of this stuff.
I mean, get real.  Show me what’s — show me in your house something that’s made in America.  Where’s your nineteenth-century Yeoman republic gone.  Go take me to your local Walmart and show me something that’s made in the United States of America.  When everything in your home — you know, it’s easy to say we don’t want to be the big global policemen; we just want to be rich and fat and happy and watch Dancing with the Stars.  But when the TV you’re watching Dancing with the Stars on is made on the other side of the planet, and when the clothes you’re wearing are made on the other side of the planet, when everything comes from the other side of the planet you’re engaged with the world whether you want to be or not.  So don’t give me this nineteenth century isolationist mumbo-jumbo. That ship has sailed.  It’s a container ship and it’s sailed to Shanghai to pick up all the junk in Walmart that you guys want to buy because it’s cheaper than trying to make it over here.
DRISCOLL:  Sadly, perhaps much like America itself, we’re out of time. This is Ed Driscoll for PJ Media.com, and we’ve been talking with Mark Steyn, of Steyn Online.com, the author of the last year’s New York Times best-seller, After America: Get Ready for ArmageddonIt’s now out in paperback, at both Amazon.com and your local book seller. And Mark, thank you for stopping by once again.
STEYN:  Hey, always a pleasure, Ed.

  # # #

Shame

By Andrew Klavan
PJ Media
September 18, 2012

YouTube Preview Image

The people who booed the God of love, now rush to the defense of a hateful Allah. The people who pissed on the Christ of redemption, now bewail the hurt feelings of a damnable Islam. The people who denounced the death of civil liberties under the Patriot Act, now make rationalizations as brown-shirted cops drag a man from his home at midnight for the crime of posting a video on YouTube.
I’m sorrowful, but I confess I’m not surprised.
Over the course of time, I have seen many people ruin and waste their lives. Good people, smart people, talented people who sacrificed the gift of existence to drugs, alcohol, bitterness, self-abuse, fear, and anger. In every case, always, I felt the root cause was unacknowledged shame.
At some point, these people had come to confront — as we all must — their cowardice, their weakness, their dishonesty, or their foolishness. Unable to accept the pain of an honest assessment of their brokenness, they turned their eyes away and practiced denial instead. In an attempt to avoid the agony of their shame indefinitely, they created whole new philosophies of life. If, for instance, they had backed down when they should have stood up, they declared nothing was worth fighting for. If they lied when they should’ve spoken true, they declared truth was an illusion. If they succumbed to desire when they should have resisted, they decided continence was a game for puritans and fools.
In order to feel justified within this new philosophy, they not only had to continue in the bad behavior that shamed them in the first place, they had to condemn any good behavior that held the mirror up to their secret self-disgust. This always involved them in blatant self-contradiction. The person who believed there was no truth would accuse others of lying. The person who said all sexual behavior should be accepted would declare chastity unacceptable. The person who believed tolerance was the highest value would find those who disagreed intolerable.
Ultimately their stratagems of self-deception destroyed their integrity, and their hidden shame festered and ate away…  well, everything; the whole joy of living.
When I see, in the United States of America, a man rousted from his home at midnight and dragged to a police station over a YouTube video, when I see brutal, primitive, violent Islamism on the march and the values of free men and women in retreat, when I see so-called journalists doing everything they can to suppress, deny, and explain away rather than spread the news, my first reaction isn’t outrage at our foolish failure of a president, nor is it hatred for the cancerous religion currently doing murder to people of every competing belief system everywhere around the world. My first reaction is genuine sadness over the many, many Democrats of good will who are going to betray every value they profess to hold dear and double down on their error this election day because they simply can’t bear to acknowledge the fact that they were wrong.
Over and over in my mind, I keep hearing the famous words of Oliver Cromwell: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken!”

Monday, September 17, 2012

The Reign of Imagination

By Caroline Glick
The Jerusalem Post
13 September 2012

As he suffocated to death at the US Consulate in Benghazi on the 11th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the US, did US Ambassador Christopher Stevens understand why he and his fellow Americans were being murdered? From what we have learned of this man since he was killed, it is clear that he was extremely courageous. He stole into Benghazi in April 2011 on a cargo ship to serve as chief US liaison officer to the rebel forces fighting Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. He did the business of the US government in makeshift offices and moved from safe house to safe house under what can only be considered dire conditions of combat.

But did he understand the forces he was unleashing? Stevens arrived in Benghazi at an early phase of US involvement in the rebellion against Gaddafi, a former US foe who had been neutered since 2004. But even then it was clear that the rebels with whom he worked included jihadist fighters associated with al-Qaida. Their significance became obvious when just after the regime fell in November 2011, rebel forces foisted the flag of al-Qaida over the courthouse in Benghazi.

Did Stevens understand what this meant? Perhaps he did. But his boss, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, certainly didn’t. Following Tuesday’s attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Clinton said, “Today, many Americans are asking – indeed, I asked myself – how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding the world can be.”

Clinton, the bewildered stewardess of US foreign policy, then proclaimed with utter certainty that there is nothing to be concerned about. “We must be clear-eyed, even in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group – not the people or government of Libya,” she said.

Of course, what she failed to mention was that after the rebels felled Gaddafi’s regime – with US support – they began imposing Islamic law over large swathes of the country.

Clinton was not the only senior US official who didn’t understand why Stevens and three other Americans were murdered or why the US Consulate in Benghazi was reduced to a smoldering ruin.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, thinks that the party responsible for the Muslim violence against the US on the anniversary of September 11 is a kook in Florida who enjoys saying nasty things about Islam.

The day after the murderous assault on the US Consulate in Benghazi, and in the face of an ongoing mob assault on the US Embassy in Cairo, and on US embassies in Yemen and Tunis, Dempsey called Pastor Terry Jones in Florida and asked him to withdraw his support for a film that depicts Muhammad in a negative fashion.

Dempsey’s spokesman Col. Dave Lapan told Reuters, “In a brief call, Gen. Dempsey expressed his concerns over the nature of the film, the tensions it will inflame and the violence it will cause. He asked Mr. Jones to consider withdrawing his support for the film.”

Dempsey’s belief that a third-rate riff on Muhammad supported by a marginal figure in Florida is the cause of the terrorist attacks on US embassies is not simply shocking. It is devastating.

It means that the senior officer in the US military is of the opinion that the party to blame for the assaults on US government installations overseas was an American pastor. To prevent the recurrence of such incidents, freedom of speech must be constrained.

And Dempsey is not the only senior US military commander who harbors this delusion.

A similar response was voiced by Gen. George Casey, the US Army chief of staff, in the wake of the massacre of US forces at Ft. Hood in November 2009 by Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan. Hassan, who had been in contact with al-Qaida commander Anwar al-Awlaki and described himself as a “soldier of Islam,” was clearly acting out of Islamic jihadist motivations when he shot his fellow soldiers.

And yet, responding to the attack, Casey said that worse than the massacre itself – that is more sacred than the lives of his own soldiers – was the notion that “our diversity” should fall casualty to Hassan’s murderous attack. In his words, “Our diversity not only in our army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

A word about the much mentioned film about Muhammad is in order. The film was apparently released about a year ago. It received little notice until last month when a Salafi television station in Egypt broadcast it.

In light of the response, the purpose of the broadcast was self-evident. The broadcasters screened the film to incite anti-American violence.

Had they not been interested in attacking the US, they would not have screened the film.

They sought a pretext for attacking America. If the film had never been created, they would have found another – equally ridiculous – pretext.

And here we come to the nature of the attacks against America that occurred on the 11th anniversary of the September 11 jihadist attacks.

A cursory consideration of the events that took place – and are still taking place – makes clear that these were not acts of spontaneous rage about an amateur Internet movie. They were premeditated. In Egypt, the mob attack on the embassy followed the screening of the anti-Islam flick on jihadist television. It was led by Muhammad al-Zawahiri – the brother of al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The US’s first official response to the assault on its embassy in Cairo came in the form of a Twitter feed from the embassy apologizing to Muslims for the film.

The day before the attacks, al-Qaida released a video of Ayman al-Zawahiri in which he called for his co-religionists to attack the US in retribution for the killing – in June – of his second in command Abu Al Yahya al-Libi by a US drone in Pakistan.

Zawahiri specifically asked for the strongest act of retribution to be carried out in Libya.

As for the attack in Libya, in an online posting the night before he was killed, US Foreign Service information management officer Sean Smith warned of the impending strike. Smith wrote, “Assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”

The coordinated, premeditated nature of the attack was self-evident. The assailants were armed with rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns. They knew the location of the secret safe house to which the US consular officials fled. They laid ambush to a Marine force sent to rescue the 37 Americans hiding at the safe house. And yet, Clinton and Dempsey either could not fathom why the attack occurred, or blamed an irrelevant pastor in Florida.

Like Dempsey, the US media were swift to focus the blame for the attacks on the film. The New York Times was quick to report – falsely – that the film’s creator was an Israeli Jew. It took an entire day for that bit of misinformation to be dispelled. But the campaign to blame the attacks on the movie creators continued.

By Wednesday afternoon the media shifted the focus of discussion on the still ongoing attacks from the film to an all-out assault on Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Romney became the target of media attention for his temerity in attacking as “disgraceful” the administration’s initial apologetic response to the attack on the embassies.

Following the September 11 attacks, the US Congress formed the bipartisan 9/11 Commission and charged it with determining the causes of the assault and recommending a course of action for the government to follow to prevent such attacks from happening again. It took the commission members nearly three years to finish their report. In the end, they claimed that the chief failure enabling the attacks was “one of imagination.”

Unfortunately for the US, the commissioners had things backwards. It wasn’t that imagination failed America before September 11. It was that imagination reigned in America. And it still does.

It’s just that the land of make-believe occupied by the US foreign policy elite has shifted.

Until September 11, 2001, the US foreign policy elite was of the opinion that the chief threat to US national security was the fact that the US was a “hyperpower.”

That is, the chief threat to the US was the US itself. After September 11, the US decided that the main threat to the US was “terror,” against which the US declared war. The perpetrators of terrorism were rarely mentioned, and when they were they were belittled as “marginal forces.”

Those forces, of course are anything but marginal.

The Islamic ideology of jihad is the predominant ideology in the Muslim world today.

The rallying cry of al-Qaida – the shehada – is the cry of Muslim faith. Jihadist Islam is the predominant form of Islam worshiped in mosques throughout the world. And the ideology of jihad is an ideology of war against the non-Islamic world led by the US.

Then-president George W. Bush and his administration imagined a world where the actual enemies of the US were marginal forces in Islam. They then determined – based on nothing – that the masses of the Muslim world from Gaza to Iraq to Afghanistan and beyond were simply Jeffersonian democrats living under the jackboot.

If freed from tyranny, they would become liberal democrats nearly indistinguishable from regular Americans.

With President Barack Obama’s inauguration, the imaginary world inhabited by the American foreign policy elite shifted again. Obama and his advisers agree that jihadist Islam is the predominant force in the Muslim world. But in their imaginary world, jihadist Islam is a good thing for America.

Hence, Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan is Obama’s closest confidante in the Middle East despite his transformation of Turkey from a pro- Western secular republic into a pro-Iranian Islamic republic in which secularists are jailed without trial for years on end.

Hence Israel – the first target of jihadist Islam’s bid for global supremacy – is strategic burden rather than an ally to the US.

Hence the US abandoned its most stalwart ally in the Arab world, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, and supported the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power in the most strategically vital state in the Arab world.

Hence it supported a Libyan rebel force penetrated by al-Qaida.

Hence it is setting the stage for the reinstitution of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

It is impossible to know the thoughts that crossed Stevens’ mind as he lay dying in Benghazi. But what is clear enough is that as long as imagination reigns supreme, freedom will be imperiled.

caroline@carolineglick.com