Amen To That

The pro-life movement's most important intellectual, Robbie George, writes Gravely Wicked.

Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence. Rightly or wrongly, George Tilller was acquitted by a jury of his peers. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished. By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion. Every human life is precious. George Tiller's life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life. Let our "weapons" in the fight to defend the lives of abortion's tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.

Soros Catholics Blame Pro-Life Groups

It begins. It's as if an agent provocateur had committed this wretched act.

Dr. Tiller's death comes at a time when some are calling for a heightened war of words over abortion even as a new common ground approach – aimed at unifying Americans behind solutions to the economic and social factors underlying many abortion decisions – is gathering steam. We have absolutely no reason to believe that those who seek an escalation of the so-called “culture war” are responsible for today's unjustifiable act of violence. We fear, however, that this murder is a byproduct of increasingly hateful and intolerant language on the part of some militant opponents of legal abortion – language that has often sought to demonize people like Dr. Tiller to the point of dehumanization.”

“In the wake of Dr. Tiller's death, we call on all sides of the abortion debate to commit to charitable dialogue and pursuit of common ground solutions. It is only through this sort of respectful communication that we can find real solutions to abortion and avert tragedies like the one that occurred in Kansas today.

Meet the new Catechism, folks: you have to do it Obama's way, or else you're a murder-inciting freak.

I'm not sure I need a lesson in charitable dialogue from people who use a man's murder to score cheap political points within moments of his death. Nor am I certain this demonizing of all defenders of innocent life because of one evil man is a respectful communication.

Disgusting, Indefensible Act

George Tiller has been slain. Prayers for his soul and for his family, first and foremost.

But I also pray God the villain doesn't imagine he was acting in the name of the unborn. We'll wait to hear, but if it turns out so, the shooter is a worse enemy of the unborn than Tiller was.

Artisan Of Christ

Mikhail Vrubel

vault above the choir of St. Cyril, Kiev

Happy Feast of Pentecost! Two members of our folk group made me happy this morning by doing a beautiful job on the Pentecost Sequence.

The Pope's homily is great (Jesus versus Prometheus as giver of Fire to man!) but not yet translated.

For the season I've been reading Arcbishop Martinez' The Sanctifier; it's not easy to excerpt, but it's a treasure. Here's one little thought, though, fitting for a Pentecost feast that closes out the Mary Month of May:

As for Perfection, these profoundly comprehensive words are well known: "It is now no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me." The word "transformation" is also from St. Paul: "But we all, with faces unveiled, reflecting as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into His very image from glory to glory."

Now, how will this mystical reproduction be brought about in souls? In the same way in which Jesus was brought into the world, for God gives a wonderful mark of unity to all His works. Divine acts have a wealth of variety because they are the work of omnipotence; nevertheless, a most perfect unity always shines forth from them because they are the fruit of wisdom; and this divine contrast of unity and variety stamps the works of God with sublime and unutterable beauty.
[snip]
This is what we are taught regarding Jesus, with the conciseness and precision of an article of faith: "who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, ... of the Virgin Mary." That is the way Jesus is always conceived. That is the way He is reproduced in souls. He is always the fruit of heaven and earth. Two artisans must concur in the work that is at once God's masterpiece and humanity's supreme product: the Holy Spirit and the most holy Virgin Mary. ...

Undoubtedly, the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary sanctify us in different ways. The first is the Sanctifier by essence: because He is God, who is infinite sanctity; because He is the personal love that completes, so to speak, the sanctity of God, consummating His life and His unity, and it belongs to Him to communicate to souls the mystery of that sanctity.

The Virgin Mary, for her part, is the co-operator, the indispensable instrument in and by God's design. From Mary's maternal relation to the human body of Chris is derived her relation to His Mystical Body which is being formed through all the centuries until the end of time, when it will be lifted up to the heavens, beautiful, splendid, complete, glorious.

[snip]
The Holy Spirit pours charity into our heart, makes a habitation of our soul, and directs our spiritual life by means of His gifts. The Virgin Mary has the efficacious influence of Mediatrix in the most delicate operations of grace in our souls.
[snip]
Such is the place that the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary have in the order of sanctification. Therefore, Christian piety should put these two artisans of Christ in their true place, making devotion to them something necessary, profound and constant.

If Only The Irish Had Listened

The National Catholic Register picked up an American angle on the scandal of Irish orphanages.

According to Irish Central, our own Fr. Flanagan (who was Irish born of course) warned the Irish.

When World War II ended in 1945, President Harry S. Truman asked Fr. Flanagan to tour Asia and Europe, to see what could be done for the homeless and neglected children in those regions.

Fr. Flanagan decided to return to the land of his birth in 1946 to visit his family, and also to visit the “so-called training schools" run by the Christian Brothers to see if they were "a success or failure.”

Thanks to the success of Boys' Town, he was greeted like a celebrity.

But Fr. Flanagan was unhappy with what he found in Ireland. He was dismayed at the state of Ireland's reform schools and blasted them as “a scandal, un-Christlike, and wrong.” And he said the Christian Brothers, founded by Edmund Rice, had lost its way.

Speaking to a large audience at a public lecture in Cork’s Savoy Cinema he said, "You are the people who permit your children and the children of your communities to go into these institutions of punishment. You can do something about it." He called Ireland’s penal institutions "a disgrace to the nation," and later said "I do not believe that a child can be reformed by lock and key and bars, or that fear can ever develop a child’s character."

He was ignored and even excoriated in the press. Back in the States he wrote

What you need over there is to have someone shake you loose from your smugness and satisfaction and set an example by punishing those who are guilty of cruelty, ignorance and neglect of their duties in high places . . . I wonder what God's judgment will be with reference to those who hold the deposit of faith and who fail in their God-given stewardship of little children.

(Just for the record, not to excuse the inexcusable, but for perspective, Bill Donahue shows the reports themselves have been somewhat sensationalized: which was hardly necessary, the facts are bad enough.)

Maybe He Is The Anti-Christ After All?

I'm just going to say it outright: I don't think Obama makes a move that isn't aimed at destroying the Catholic Church ...at least the Church in this country.

The Soros Catholic projects; Doug Kmiec; the Vichy Catholic cabinet --getting putative Catholics to do all the heavy lifting on life and marriage issues. It's not enough the culture of life be destroyed; it must be destroyed by "Catholics."

(Years from now when the culture of death has died of attrition and what remains of the nation is run by people who were actually born, rather than aborted, experimented upon, injected into Parkinson's patients or frozen in nitrogen, the history books are going to tell us the Catholic Church was responsible for the abortion holocaust as they now claim the Church was responsible for the Shoah. Some future pope will be apologizing for how little the Church did to defend innocent life, Catholics will be seen as collaborators and people will say the corrupt popes of the turn of the 21st century didn't do enough. A few highly-placed collaborators get all the attention.)

And now the President's got a mole at L'Osservatore Romano --I wonder if he's albino? (If you haven't been following that troubling scandal, Michael Novak summarizes nicely; the editors of the Pope's newspaper have been beguiled by words, having no clue about actions:

he is a golden-tongued, a honey-tongued speaker, skillful as no one else in making everyone in his audience, even those on opposite sides of an issue, believe that he is siding with them. It takes unprecedented skills to decipher what Obama means to do. Slowly, we in America are learning.)

Toldja this was war.

Let's See C-Span Do This

They're having a rollicking good time, all of 'em. Although Jack Straw in the background looks a bit as if he's day-dreaming lunch with Condi.

And speaking of Lady Thatcher (last line of the clip), did you see she met the Pope yesterday?

EPA

Tidbits:

Before she met the Pope Lady Thatcher laid a wreath of white roses on the tomb in the Vatican of John Paul II with a card which said: " To a man of faith and courage."

This little detail from Paul Johnson, who arranged the meeting:

Of all the Popes that I have known since Pius XII (died 1958), Benedict XVI is the most difficult to see. He is a hands-on-boss, running an enormous machine, and only sees visitors when there is real business to be done.

Is That Like Being An "Ardent" Catholic?

"Real Clear Politics" from The Ryskind Sketchbook

Meet Our New Ambassador to the Vatican

Miguel Diaz of St. Benedict's college is a systematic theologian, Rahner specialist, and Catholic adviser to Obama. Fr. Z's unhappy.

Update: Heh.

President Obama continues to build his Vichy Catholic government that pretends to be against abortion while supporting those who support it.

Defending Sotomayor Sotto Voce

I'm sure she'll be an activist disaster: surely the first thing the President asked Judge Sotomayor was her opinion of Roe, etc. And this firefighter case everyone's crowing about looks bad, and some lawyers don't like her and her opinions are bad and tend to get overturned on appeal.

Stipulated.

Nevertheless, a sense of fair play compels me to point out that this remark about which everyone is hyperventilating

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

looks quite different in context. In context, all she said was it's foolish to think we're not shaped by our heritage and experiences, and judges should be aware of their limitations so as to stretch beyond them if they can. Some excerpts, emphases mine:

Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then "as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically" but instead of "acting intuitively." I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes' movement. While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.

[snip] Here comes the part with the offending quotation:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

[snip]

Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

What she says here is intellectually untenable. But I think it's unfair to call her a racist, at least based on this speech.

I also think the "court of appeals is where policy is made" statement is being used unfairly. She was speaking to law students about what positions they should seek and describing the difference in practice.

SOTOMAYOR: The saw is that if you're going into academia, you're going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is -- court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know -- and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. OK, I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm -- you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating -- its interpretation, its application. And Judge Lucero is right. I often explain to people, when you're on the district court, you're looking to do justice in the individual case. So you are looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law because the application of the law is non-precedential, so the facts control. On the court of appeals, you are looking to how the law is developing, so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. And so you're always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step in the development of the law. You can make a choice and say, "I don't care about the next step," and sometimes we do. Or sometimes we say, "We'll worry about that when we get to it" -- look at what the Supreme Court just did. But the point is that that's the differences -- the practical differences in the two experiences are the district court is controlled chaos and not so controlled most of the time.

It would take more than that to convince me she was a wild-eyed radical. Not saying she isn't: Ed Whalen thinks so and that's good enough for me. I'm only saying all the comment proves is she's a conventional thinker.

She managed to apply the law fairly in a case involving the Mexico City policy --enough to cause the pro-abort groups to greet her nomination with caution. There's no chance in hell she's pro-life, but on at least one occasion she fairly interpreted the law instead of legislating from the bench.

So: I am waiting to read a few more of her opinions before hating her guts, am enjoying the idea of the lady groups sweating just a wee bit, and wish the activists would knock off the cheap shots when there are so many substantive ones to be had.

One thing I like about her? She's a lapsed Catholic and has the decency to admit it. The White House says of her:

Judge Sotomayor was raised as a Catholic and attends church for family celebrations and other important events.

Praise the Lord, no one is going to tell us she's "ardent."

Update: At No Left Turns, Richard Adams (see Julie Ponzi's comment, too) thinks Republicans should seize this as a teaching moment rather than ragging on the nominee. Same message from Peter Wehner & Charles Krauthammer. Wehner writes after observing some of the same things I did about the Right's response to Sotomayor:

Strong, spirited, even passionate debate can be useful, and even important, in the life of a nation. But civility and decency are vital as well. And as Noemie Emery pointed out in her excellent Weekly Standard article, “Reagan in Opposition: The Lessons of 1977,” “his tone was unfailingly gracious and civil, and focused on issues, not men. He did not oppose for the sake of opposing. He criticized Carter’s ideas, but seldom the man, and he almost never uttered the president’s name.”

Reagan sought to persuade people, not annihilate them. His arguments were forceful; his restraint, admirable. And of course the model for Republicans is Lincoln, the country’s greatest President, of whom it was said at the time, “The sledge hammer effect of his speech results from the … force of the argument of the logician, not the fierce gestures and loud rantings of the demagogue.”

It is unfair to hold up Reagan, and certainly Lincoln, as standard-bearers who are within easy reach of the rest of us. None of us measure up to either man. And in the modern age, with blogs, twitter, and all the rest, it is easy to write in an unfiltered way, to send things out that one would like to have back. Still, we need to stay on the right side of the line when it comes to public discourse. Reagan and Lincoln are models we should continue to look up to, and emulate.

The High Priest Barack

Just noting some things about the President & religion for later commentary.

During the campaign, Senator Obama said this:

Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers," Obama said during a June 2007 speech available on YouTube.

At the speech, Obama also seemingly blasted the "Christian Right" for hijacking religion and using it to divide the nation:

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it's because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us," he said.

In Turkey, President Obama declares the U.S. "not a Christian nation." (By the way, he's correct, but whether he means by that what the Founders meant by it is a question.) Let's see the remark in context, this was at a press conference:

I think that where -- where there's the most promise of building stronger U.S.-Turkish relations is in the recognition that Turkey and the United States can build a model partnership in which a predominantly Christian nation and a predominantly Muslim nation, a Western nation and a nation that straddles two continents -- that we can create a modern international community that is respectful, that is secure, that is prosperous; that there are not tensions, inevitable tensions, between cultures, which I think is extraordinarily important.

That's something that's very important to me. And I've said before that one of the great strengths of the United States is -- although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.

I think Turkey was -- modern Turkey was founded with a similar set of principles, and yet what we're seeing is in both countries that promise of a secular country that is respectful of religious freedom, respectful of rule of law, respectful of freedom, upholding these values and being willing to stand up for them in the international stage. If we are joined together in delivering that message, East and West, to -- to the world, then I think that we can have an extraordinary impact.

He's stopped attending Church, so as not to disrupt services. (So did Reagan after he was shot...and for the same reason.)
In February he gave this address at the National Prayer Breakfast, which should really be studied. He always includes atheism in the list of religions:

There is no doubt that the very nature of faith means that some of our beliefs will never be the same. We read from different texts. We follow different edicts. We subscribe to different accounts of how we came to be here and where we're going next – and some subscribe to no faith at all.

[snip] and faith has no relevant content beyond joint social projects:

whatever our differences, there is one law that binds all great religions together. Jesus told us to "love thy neighbor as thyself." The Torah commands, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow." In Islam, there is a hadith that reads "None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." And the same is true for Buddhists and Hindus; for followers of Confucius and for humanists. It is, of course, the Golden Rule – the call to love one another; to understand one another; to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.

It is an ancient rule; a simple rule; but also one of the most challenging. For it asks each of us to take some measure of responsibility for the well-being of people we may not know or worship with or agree with on every issue. Sometimes, it asks us to reconcile with bitter enemies or resolve ancient hatreds. And that requires a living, breathing, active faith. It requires us not only to believe, but to do – to give something of ourselves for the benefit of others and the betterment of our world.

In this way, the particular faith that motivates each of us can promote a greater good for all of us. Instead of driving us apart, our varied beliefs can bring us together to feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted; to make peace where there is strife and rebuild what has broken; to lift up those who have fallen on hard times. This is not only our call as people of faith, but our duty as citizens of America

He declined last month to personally observe the National Day of Prayer, although he did sign a proclamation (which he used once again to highlight the golden rule.)

On this day of unity and prayer, let us also honor the service and sacrifice of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. We celebrate their commitment to uphold our highest ideals, and we recognize that it is because of them that we continue to live in a Nation where people of all faiths can worship or not worship according to the dictates of their conscience.

Let us also use this day to come together in a moment of peace and goodwill. Our world grows smaller by the day, and our varied beliefs can bring us together to feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted; to make peace where there is strife; and to lift up those who have fallen on hard times. As we observe this day of prayer, we remember the one law that binds all great religions together: the Golden Rule, and its call to love one another; to understand one another; and to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.

There's the Notre Dame Commencement. Believers have to humble and holy:

the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds.

And therefore we have to live what's common --the Golden Rule-- and have a spirit of service.:

Make it a way of life. Because when you serve, it doesn’t just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens -- when people set aside their differences, even for a moment, to work in common effort toward a common goal; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another -- then all things are possible.

(shades of Luke 1:37?)

The White House now vets prayers. (Prayer editing?)

Then there's continuing Catholic "outreach" (I view it more as "neutralization"): the President's personal Catholic mole & the Soros-funded groups Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and going to Notre Dame (yes, they invited him, but he accepted two among many invitations).

Discussion question: how is the President's Notre Dame speech different in content from Benedict XVI's speech to Muslims & diplomats in Jordan? Both say religion must unify, not divide; both appeal to reason; both encourage believers to hold fast their beliefs in the public square; both say joint acts of service have the power to build unity. (Be sure to use complete sentences in your answer.)

My answer when I find time to compose it.

Ted Olsen, Gay Marriage Champ

Remember when Bush nominated Harriet Miers and George Will & all the Ivy League Conservatives were like, "Harriet Miers?!? Don't you have a clue what makes a good judge, Stupid President? We need somebody solid, like Ted Olsen."

And I was all, "Ted Olsen?!? Don't you have a clue what makes a good judge, Stupid Conservative Pundits?"

Ahem.

Previews: Reviews of Flicks I Haven't Seen, But My Brother Has

Do you know Cliff Hanger?

My little brother reports, pace all those positive reviewers out there, that new Star Trek is a disaster. Its plot: a lot like Cliff Hanger, who always ends up hanging from a cliff.

Bro' reports he thought of walking out the 5th time James T. Kirk was suspended from a cliff. When Kirk is not clinging for dear life to a cliff or ledge, he's being choked. Sometimes it's both: there's a scene in which, after numerous Kirk cliff-hanging episodes, the Romulan villain lifts Kirk from the cliff where he's hanging --lifts him by the neck-- but Kirk kills him, so the Romulan drops him and he falls back to his by now not-very original cliff-hanging position.

Little Bro' likewise points out the one saving grace of the Star Trek films (which were never great) is their sense of wonder. There was always a sense of excitement, fascination and awe of the beauty of space. The new director has zero interest in the fact that his people are in space.

Also: in the future the entire planet apparently adopts the Obama attitude with respect to missile defense, because the plot depends on Earth's having absolutely zero ground-based defenses.

Here's what killed any desire I had to see the flick, though. Spock's father --not Spock, who is half-human-- but Spock's father tells his son

Follow your heart.

Follow your heart? From a Vulcan? I'll be following my heart to a different summer blockbuster, I think.

Here's an amusing review of another flick I haven't seen...with a surprise Star Trek tie-in. (I'm speaking of the embedded video.)

A Hard Rain Gonna Fall

It's pouring here in the Nation's Capital: so loudly I barely slept. A mild wind brought the drops in at an odd angle such that they thump-thumpa-thumped insistently against one bedroom window all night long.

I finally decamped to a sofa and awoke with this in my head. So sorry if the post title seems a bit dramatic in this context, but did you know there's an "arms race" in space? And we seem determined to lose it? Plus:

Unhappily, the administration is pushing Israel to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a “non-nuclear-weapons state,” meaning Israel would have to eliminate its nuclear arsenal. Iran and others will welcome this, given their repeated demands for the same result. Today’s real proliferation threat, however, is not Israel, but states like Iran and North Korea that become parties to the alphabet soup of arms control treaties and then violate them with abandon. Without robust American reactions to these violations — not apparent in administration thinking — more will follow.

And the Vice-President may be flat-out nuts, but he was right about the test in the first six months, wasn't he? And it's a nuclear test! ninme posts this: Could that loud bang be North Korea...?, which takes a rather encouraging view.

Me, I never understand why we think we can stop a nation determined to do so from going nuclear. Do the words India & Pakistan mean nothing to anybody?

Which is why I like missile defense: defuse the threat, then no one need pay any mind when Kim & Abombnjihad stamp their wicked little feet. But no, we're not allowed to have it, nor, as Mr. Bolton points out above, are any of our friends.

P.S. It's a good thing we have a knowledgeable ambassador to Japan. (Doh!)

The Minds, They Are A-Changin'

Or so says my cousin, who sent me this very funny David Brooks piece: And The Angels Rejoice.

There is nothing so inspiring as public service, so I’ve been incredibly moved over the past few weeks to watch squads of corporate executives come to the White House so President Obama could announce that he was giving away their money.

The President accomplishes these things through "enhanced negotiating techniques."

These executives have been invited to make these donations in the same spirit that the Cossacks invited my ancestors to emigrate to the Lower East Side. And yet there is a moment during each of the ceremonies when the spirit of the Almighty descends upon the congregation. It usually happens while the president is describing the glorious future. He’ll be describing how, in three years, he will slash the deficit by cutting taxes and doubling spending. He will be describing how, in three years, he will create millions of jobs by raising energy costs.

You can see the ecstasy of Washington promise-making spread joy from soul to soul. Infected by these visions, automakers vow that in three years they will have created a resurgence of enthusiasm around the Chevy Aveo. Financiers vow they will build an entirely new banking industry that doesn’t rely so much on loan repayment. Health care executives vow that in three years they’ll perform CAT scans at Kinko’s.

Some say these are just meaningless promises that ignore hard choices and that no one has any intention of keeping. But this is ungenerous.

Etc. It's even funnier that Brooks didn't see this coming.

Potpourri of Popery, Benedict In the Holy Land Edition

It's the middle of the novena for Pentecost and I am starting to annoy myself by taking too long to get the Holy Land potpourri going. Stop. Start. Stop. Start. What began as contemporaneous highlighting is now a retrospective, alas.

For all the news, commentary and day-to-day reactions to the Pope's trip to the Holy Land , you won't do better than the posts at Benedict In Israel. Plus the same blogger posts an assessment of the trip here.

The usual suspects spun away. Some particular Jews & Arabs were obnoxious and manipulative; the real distorters, however, were journalists with their vaunted journalistic..."innocence" (see final anecdote here to see what I mean). As George Weigel put it in an Italian journal:

IF: Do you think that his words are often manipulated by those who desire to give the impression of great conflict between faiths?
GW: I think it's more often the case that reporters simply don't have the intellectual equipment to understand, and explain, what the pope is actually saying.

Bless the Jewish defenders, of whom there were many. Great pictures here and here. And the Pope didn't give anyone any ipods or DVDs, just for the record.

I'm now free to stick to the Pope's texts (which are collected here): couldn't agree more with Fr. Owen Kearns' observation:

Once the initial reactions of varied people with passionate and partisan agendas calm down, the Holy Father's words will, as they so often do, have their true effect. After the shouting, his words will bear fruit in peace and serenity. The rereading will begin, and their true worth will emerge. He doesn't speak for the moment, but for the long term.

Popery:
From Wednesday's Audience, here's B16's own assessment of the trip.
His Q&A on the flight to Jordan is a good summary of his aims: intercession; conscience formation; defense of reason.

prayer is a real force: it opens the world to God. We are convinced that God listens and that he can act in history. I think that if millions of people – millions of believers – all pray, this is truly a force that influences and can contribute to moving forward the cause of peace. Second: we are seeking to assist in the formation of consciences. The conscience is the human capacity to perceive the truth, but this capacity is often impeded by particular interests. And to break free from these interests, to open up more to the truth, to true values, is a major undertaking: it is a task of the Church to help us to know true criteria, true values, and to free us from particular interests. And so – in third place – we also speak – no doubt about it – to reason: precisely because we are not a political force, we can perhaps more easily, and in the light of the faith, see the true criteria, we can assist in understanding what contributes to peace and we can appeal to reason, we can support positions that are truly reasonable.

At Regina Pacis center, a home for the disabled in Amman, the Pope told young people:

even hearts hardened by cynicism or injustice or unwillingness to forgive are never beyond the reach of God, can always be opened to a new way of being, a vision of peace.

At the mosque in Amman, speaking to Muslim religious leaders:

Places of worship, like this splendid Al-Hussein Bin Talal mosque named after the revered late King, stand out like jewels across the earth’s surface. From the ancient to the modern, the magnificent to the humble, they all point to the divine, to the Transcendent One, to the Almighty. And through the centuries these sanctuaries have drawn men and women into their sacred space to pause, to pray, to acknowledge the presence of the Almighty, and to recognize that we are all his creatures.

For this reason we cannot fail to be concerned that today, with increasing insistency, some maintain that religion fails in its claim to be, by nature, a builder of unity and harmony, an expression of communion between persons and with God. Indeed some assert that religion is necessarily a cause of division in our world; and so they argue that the less attention given to religion in the public sphere the better. Certainly, the contradiction of tensions and divisions between the followers of different religious traditions, sadly, cannot be denied. However, is it not also the case that often it is the ideological manipulation of religion, sometimes for political ends, that is the real catalyst for tension and division, and at times even violence in society? In the face of this situation, where the opponents of religion seek not simply to silence its voice but to replace it with their own, the need for believers to be true to their principles and beliefs is felt all the more keenly. Muslims and Christians, precisely because of the burden of our common history so often marked by misunderstanding, must today strive to be known and recognized as worshippers of God faithful to prayer, eager to uphold and live by the Almighty’s decrees, merciful and compassionate, consistent in bearing witness to all that is true and good, and ever mindful of the common origin and dignity of all human persons, who remain at the apex of God’s creative design for the world and for history.

He had high praise for Jordanian efforts in this regard. I was interested in his aside about the Common Word initiative:

Of great merit too are the numerous initiatives of inter-religious dialogue...[including] the more recent Common Word letter which echoed a theme consonant with my first encyclical: the unbreakable bond between love of God and love of neighbor, and the fundamental contradiction of resorting to violence or exclusion in the name of God (cf. Deus Caritas Est, 16).

(King Hussein's welcome is both interesting and very nice, by the way. He rather fascinates me.)

The pontiff's address to priests & religious (and lay movements!) at the Melkite-rite Church of St. George is interesting because of what he highlights: resisting sleazy Western entertainments as part of finding common ground with Muslims (why do they hate us, Hollywood?) and not being afraid to participate openly in Jordan's public life.

The Church in the Middle East has been having a Year of the Family, so the Pope spoke about family during his Mass in Jordan. He highlighted the dignity of women, though, God bless him:

How much the Church in these lands owes to the patient, loving and faithful witness of countless Christian mothers, religious Sisters, teachers, doctors and nurses! How much your society owes to all those women who in different and at times courageous ways have devoted their lives to building peace and fostering love! From the very first pages of the Bible, we see how man and woman, created in the image of God, are meant to complement one another as stewards of God’s gifts and partners in communicating his gift of life, both physical and spiritual, to our world. Sadly, this God-given dignity and role of women has not always been sufficiently understood and esteemed. The Church, and society as a whole, has come to realize how urgently we need what the late Pope John Paul II called the “prophetic charism” of women (cf. Mulieris Dignitatem, 29) as bearers of love, teachers of mercy and artisans of peace, bringing warmth and humanity to a world that all too often judges the value of a person by the cold criteria of usefulness and profit. By its public witness of respect for women, and its defence of the innate dignity of every human person, the Church in the Holy Land can make an important contribution to the advancement of a culture of true humanity and the building of the civilization of love.

The pope also gave loads of children --including 40 Iraqi refugees!-- their first communion during this mass.
Nice little homily on the occasion of blessing the cornerstones for two new churches in Jordan. He doesn't waste occasions!

Then there was the farewell ceremony and off to Israel. I note B16's statement at the arrival ceremony only to point out this line:

It is right and fitting that, during my stay in Israel, I will have the opportunity to honor the memory of the six million Jewish victims of the Shoah, and to pray that humanity will never again witness a crime of such magnitude. Sadly, anti-Semitism continues to rear its ugly head in many parts of the world. This is totally unacceptable. Every effort must be made to combat anti-Semitism wherever it is found, and to promote respect and esteem for the members of every people, tribe, language and nation across the globe.

Remember the words in bold later.
Love this line at the Presidential Palace. It has the merit of being both profoundly true and extremely shrewd:

Religious leaders must therefore be mindful that any division or tension, any tendency to introversion or suspicion among believers or between our communities, can easily lead to a contradiction which obscures the Almighty’s oneness, betrays our unity, and contradicts the One who reveals himself as “abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (Ex 34:6; Ps 138:2; Ps 85:11).

Especially since both Jews & Muslims suspect Christians of being polytheists, it's really something to gently point out to them that all this fighting ain't really convincing anyone that God is One. Plus, that's the same thing Benedict always tells us Christians: that God himself is the author of our unity, and real ecumenism consists in discipleship, allowing God himself to draw us each up into himself.

Read what he says about security, too. It pretty well sums up Vatican attitudes: yes, Israel of course has the duty to defend its citizens; at the same time, security has to involve a little trust, too. The Israelis named a new strain of wheat --one with the potential to yield a double harvest-- after the Pope!

Ahikam Seri

The Holy Father's lovely reflection on the meaning of a name while standing before the names of the victims of the Holocaust at Yad Vasham (which means "name memorial") was marred by criticism I can only understand as vicious. Apparently a certain vocal contingent of Jews in Israel (mostly pundits for the Israeli press) weren't receiving the Pope, but "A German" (Who's racist now?), and couldn't open their minds for two seconds to reflect that what he said was deeper and more meaningful than yet another scripted apology. John Paul II has already apologized sincerely and completely for any and all Catholic failings with respect to the Holocaust. He did that on behalf of the whole Church; there is no need to keep on apologizing. The Pope's words expressed unity with the slaughtered, he identified with them. Response? Oy!

He didn't say "murdered," he said "killed," they complained; he didn't say "6 million", he only said millions (which only means they weren't paying attention, see above). Sigh. My Jewish father was disgusted, and not by the Pope.

Then he visited the Dome of the Rock. For the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem: strong medicine, sweetly presented, as always:

the One God is the infinite source of justice and mercy, since in him the two exist in perfect unity. Those who confess his name are entrusted with the task of striving tirelessly for righteousness while imitating his forgiveness, for both are intrinsically oriented to the peaceful and harmonious coexistence of the human family.

For this reason, it is paramount that those who adore the One God should show themselves to be both grounded in and directed towards the unity of the entire human family. In other words, fidelity to the One God, the Creator, the Most High, leads to the recognition that human beings are fundamentally interrelated, since all owe their very existence to a single source and are pointed towards a common goal. Imprinted with the indelible image of the divine, they are called to play an active role in mending divisions and promoting human solidarity.

This places a grave responsibility upon us. Those who honor the One God believe that he will hold human beings accountable for their actions. Christians assert that the divine gifts of reason and freedom stand at the basis of this accountability. Reason opens the mind to grasp the shared nature and common destiny of the human family, while freedom moves the heart to accept the other and serve him in charity. Undivided love for the One God and charity towards ones neighbor thus become the fulcrum around which all else turns. This is why we work untiringly to safeguard human hearts from hatred, anger or vengeance.

Then there was Mass in the Josafat Valley (under the Mt. of Olives). He begged Christians to stay put if they possibly could.

I would like to speak directly to the tragic reality – which cannot fail to be a source of concern to all who love this City and this land – of the departure of so many members of the Christian community in recent years. While understandable reasons lead many, especially the young, to emigrate, this decision brings in its wake a great cultural and spiritual impoverishment to the City. Today I wish to repeat what I have said on other occasions: in the Holy Land there is room for everyone! As I urge the authorities to respect, to support and to value the Christian presence here, I also wish to assure you of the solidarity, love and support of the whole Church and of the Holy See.

Nice exhortation to Palestinians in Bethlehem:

I make this appeal to the many young people throughout the Palestinian Territories today: do not allow the loss of life and the destruction that you have witnessed to arouse bitterness or resentment in your hearts. Have the courage to resist any temptation you may feel to resort to acts of violence or terrorism. Instead, let what you have experienced renew your determination to build peace. Let it fill you with a deep desire to make a lasting contribution to the future of Palestine, so that it can take its rightful place on the world stage. Let it inspire in you sentiments of compassion for all who suffer, zeal for reconciliation, and a firm belief in the possibility of a brighter future.

The Pope called for a Palestinan state, but called on Palestinian people to work for it by being worthy of peace.

AP Photo/L'Osservatore Romano

Everywhere he went in Bethlehem, the Pope had these guys for an honor guard. They ain't Swiss! But I never ran across any id for them. I hope they are some cool fraternity from the days of the Crusades like the Knights Hospitaller of St. John or something. Here's the homily for the Mass in manger square.

In today’s second reading, Paul draws a lesson from the Incarnation which is particularly applicable to the travail which you, God’s chosen ones in Bethlehem, are experiencing: “God’s grace has appeared”, he tells us, “training us to reject godless ways and worldly desires, and to live, temperately, justly and devoutly in this age”, as we await the coming of our blessed hope, the Savior Jesus Christ (Tit 2:11-13).

Are these not the virtues required of men and women who live in hope? First, the constant conversion to Christ which is reflected not only in our actions but also in our reasoning: the courage to abandon fruitless and sterile ways of thinking, acting and reacting. Then, the cultivation of a mindset of peace based on justice, on respect for the rights and duties of all, and commitment to cooperation for the common good. And also perseverance, perseverance in good and in the rejection of evil. Here in Bethlehem, a special perseverance is asked of Christ’s disciples: perseverance in faithful witness to God’s glory revealed here, in the birth of his Son, to the good news of his peace which came down from heaven to dwell upon the earth.

Notice the common threads in what he says to each audience? Peace, having the courage to trust, working for justice for all, leaving aside prejudice, witnessing to the unity of God, all of that. But what really jumps out at me is that even as he acknowledges suffering and trial, the Pope never treats anyone or any group as a victim. Everything is about vocation: what is your mission, what are you called to do? Everyone else in the world goes to Bethlehem and tells Palestinian Christians how downtrodden they are; the Pope goes and tells them they have something to give...something they should be striving to live up to. Even to kids in a hospital the Pope said: study and prepare yourselves to be ready to lead in the future; and to refugees from Gaza: make the peace the politicians will respond to.

Next it was off to Nazareth, and here's the homily from the Mass he celebrated there.

AFP/Jonathan Nackstrand

Once again he preached on the importance of the family as the bedrock of freedom:

In the family each person, whether the smallest child or the oldest relative, is valued for himself or herself, and not seen simply as a means to some other end. Here we begin to glimpse something of the essential role of the family as the first building-block of a well-ordered and welcoming society. We also come to appreciate, within the wider community, the duty of the State to support families in their mission of education, to protect the institution of the family and its inherent rights, and to ensure that all families can live and flourish in conditions of dignity.

Here again, though --and keep in mind Nazareth is an Arab city-- he emphasized the role of women:

As we reflect on these realities here, in the town of the Annunciation, our thoughts naturally turn to Mary, “full of grace”, the mother of the Holy Family and our Mother. Nazareth reminds us of our need to acknowledge and respect the God-given dignity and proper role of women, as well as their particular charisms and talents. Whether as mothers in families, as a vital presence in the work force and the institutions of society, or in the particular vocation of following our Lord by the evangelical counsels of chastity, poverty and obedience, women have an indispensable role in creating that “human ecology” (cf. Centesimus Annus, 39) which our world, and this land, so urgently needs...

Not that he left the men out:

Here too, we think of Saint Joseph, the just man whom God wished to place over his household. From Joseph’s strong and fatherly example Jesus learned the virtues of a manly piety, fidelity to one’s word, integrity and hard work. In the carpenter of Nazareth he saw how authority placed at the service of love is infinitely more fruitful than the power which seeks to dominate. How much our world needs the example, guidance and quiet strength of men like Joseph!

At the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth: AP/Pier Paolo Cito

Visiting Golgotha: AP Photo/Yannis Behrakis, Pool

He concluded his private pilgrimage by praying at the Holy Sepulchre.

Here Christ, the new Adam, taught us that evil never has the last word, that love is stronger than death, that our future, and the future of all humanity, lies in the hands of a faithful and provident God.

The empty tomb speaks to us of hope, the hope that does not disappoint because it is the gift of the Spirit of life (cf. Rom 5:5). This is the message that I wish to leave with you today, at the conclusion of my pilgrimage to the Holy Land. May hope rise up ever anew, by God’s grace, in the hearts of all the people dwelling in these lands! May it take root in your hearts, abide in your families and communities, and inspire in each of you an ever more faithful witness to the Prince of Peace! The Church in the Holy Land, which has so often experienced the dark mystery of Golgotha, must never cease to be an intrepid herald of the luminous message of hope which this empty tomb proclaims. The Gospel reassures us that God can make all things new, that history need not be repeated, that memories can be healed, that the bitter fruits of recrimination and hostility can be overcome, and that a future of justice, peace, prosperity and cooperation can arise for every man and woman, for the whole human family, and in a special way for the people who dwell in this land so dear to the heart of the Saviour.

In other words: live differently. Be who you are called to be and you will change the world.

He himself summarizes his trip in the departure ceremony at the airport. To the reporters on the flight home he had only this to add:

there are enormous difficulties as we know, as we have seen and heard. But I also saw that there is a deep desire for peace on the part of all. The problems are more visible and we must not conceal them: they exist and need clarification. However, the common desire for peace, for brotherhood, is not so visible and it seems to me that we should also talk about this, and encourage in everyone the desire to find solutions to these problems that are certainly far from simple.

In other words: hope.

Praying at Mt. Nebo

The Quiet Of Memorial Day

Toby Talbot/AP

There are many fine things to say, but this year I think I like Peter Schramm's simple observation best.

It seems to work out perfectly from year to year that over the Memorial Day weekend I can just ride and ride [on his motorcycle, somewhere in Ohio]. Everything falls into place, the freedom and the soft weather, the smell of the flowers, the small flags in cemeteries (and other odd things), the easy moving people, who, if willing to talk, will only do so quietly. I’m in and out of small towns and smaller cemeteries. People are getting together, in public places and even in parades or at their homes, but somehow all is quiet, I never see any rowdies making fools of themselves. Maybe all this has to do with the reason for the holiday and its history, maybe it's just the knowledge and sense that we are remembering those men who die in battle, die too young, die before they should. A reflective and quiet and sacred day, filled with gratitude.

He's right, isn't he? There always is a quiet about Memorial Day.

House Moves To Protect Pedophilia, Sadism, Bestiality

H.R. 1913, the updated "Matthew Shepard" bill, will make you a federally-protected minority group if you have any of the following "orientations":

potemnophilia, asphyxophilia, autogynephilia, coprophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, gerontosexuality, incest, kleptophilia, klismaphilia, necrophilia, partialism, pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, telephone scatalogia, toucherism, transgenderism, transsexual, transvestite, transvestic fetishism, urophilia, voyeurism, or zoophilia.

How do I know this (I don't even know what most of those things are)? Because the Republicans are being openly mocked for proposing an amendment that would specifically exclude these groups. Rep. Hastings in the video link laughs at the Republicans for being ridiculous, but then goes on to admit they'll all be protected by the proposed legislation.

Consult the Congressional record for the debate (esp. p. H4932 & ff). The House Committee also voted down an amendment to exempt pedophiles. If it were simply a matter of saying, "Pedophiles shouldn't be killed," that would be one thing (although the law already says that when it calls murder --of anyone-- a federal offense); but anyone covered by the law is now a federally-protected class.

The bill itself is hateful: hate crimes legislation is an effort to control thought, which is not only an evil thing to do, but a stupid one. Telling people they can't hate a certain group usually has the effect of increasing hatred; the only way to dispel hatred is with the light of open discussion (and mockery!).

In The Future, The Press Corps Will Be Slightly More Confrontational

Curtsy: The Ryskind Sketchbook, which calls this "Obama press conference in the not too distant future."

What's This?

Answer to come.

ninme gets the prize! However, special award to GDE for mind-reading, since I considered running just this photo with the caption: "Look, it's the American people getting stimulus."

Taken at the koi pond at the National Arboretum. Which is lovely, and I'd show you, if my camera battery hadn't died as I was filming hundreds of these guys trolling for crumbs. Here's the shot from which the original fish lips were taken.

Too Goode To Be True

As this clip already indicates (that's a warning), I expect this show will be too crude to be watchable, but here's an interesting cultural phenomenon: green backlash?


Here the creators try to convince us they're on the Goode Family's side, but I take it that's just audience-building.

The Black Sphere

For all your rants-from-a-black-conservative and Obama photo shop needs.

Happy Ascension Thurs/Sun Day

Hans Suess von Kulmbach

I get a kick out this image: the grizzled, puzzled apostles and Christ's cute dangling feet. Click to enlarge, you'll see what I mean.

Salute the last and everlasting day,
Joy at the’uprising of this sun, and Son,
Ye, whose just tears or tribulation
Have purely washed or burnt your drossy clay;
Behold the Highest, parting hence away,
Lightens the dark clouds which He treads upon,
Nor doth He by ascending, show alone,
But first He, and He first, enters the way.
O strong Ram, which hast battered heaven for me,
Mild Lamb, which with Thy blood hast marked the path,
Bright Torch, which shin’st that I the way may see,
O, with Thy own blood quench Thy own just wrath,
And if Thy Holy Spirit my muse did raise,
Deign at my hands this crown of prayer and praise.

John Dunne, from La Corona

Gitmo Myths

Here's an excellent article laying out the Gitmo/"torture" timeline. I think many things have gotten confused in people's minds. A key passage:

The OLC understood as well as any of its later critics that torture—the cruel and needless infliction of pain in order to dominate and control others or to exact confessions or information—was barbarism. It was precisely in order to prevent such barbarism that the memos were drawn up in the first place. It was also why then, and later, army and CIA interrogators tried to avoid even drawing close to those boundaries without explicit authorization.

Critics further assert that the OLC memos “denied” Geneva Convention status to the al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners at Gitmo. One key lawyer, Michael Ratner, has claimed that by “ignoring” the Geneva Convention in this way, the Justice Department rules were in “violation of half a century of U.S. precedent.” This is incorrect. Yoo and the OLC were not making policy in the memos. They were attempting to describe the law as it stood.

By the way, Cheney's speech? Brilliant. (I enjoyed the opening joke. Dry, self-deprecating and Cheney-esque. I find him so lovable even when I don't agree with him that I'm truly mystified by, e.g., the vitriol being directed against him right now on friends' Facebook pages) I could kiss him just for saying this

In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn't invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force" to protect the American people.

I am among those who would like a legal requirement that anyone proposing a law be compelled to show where the power lies in the Constitution! But that's not by any means the important part of the address.

now that this once top-secret information is out for all to see--including the enemy--let me draw your attention to some points that are routinely overlooked.

It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You've heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed--the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.

We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn't know about al-Qaeda's plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn't think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.

Maybe you've heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.

In public discussion of these matters, there has been a strange and sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top secret program of enhanced interrogations. At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America's cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.

Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.

Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.

I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about "values." Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.

Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What's more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

A little more:

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned, one lead that goes unpursued, can bring on catastrophe--it's no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.

Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our country. You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term "war" where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we're advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as, quote, "Overseas contingency operations." In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, "man-made disaster"--never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.

And when you hear that there are no more, quote, "enemy combatants," as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn't change what they are--or what they would do if we let them loose.

RTWT. No, wait, I have to give you more:

The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America's national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, we learned yesterday, many were treated too leniently, because 1 in 7 cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.

In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we've captured as, quote, "abducted." Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.

And this:

Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a "recruitment tool" for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It's another version of that same old refrain from the Left, "We brought it on ourselves."

It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America's moral standards, one way or the other.

Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

Here he gets to the thing that's burning me most --Obama has retained the right to order enhanced interrogation techniques. He hasn't repudiated them at all.

The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world--for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences--and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don't stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for--our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.

What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.

This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It's almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.

Ok, now go RTWT before I quote the rest. Still working on the President's speech given the same night. I have to kind of work myself up for it.