Hewitt Blog

I don't often read the Washington Post's Jim Hoagland. He's old school and usually avoids giving offense to anyone or information that hasn't been available for months on the internet. Today's column, though, is about the French riots, "French Lessons," and Hoagland knows Europe, so I gave a look. As he's winding up a fairly absurd, risibly apologist effort, Hoagland pauses to toss this gem out:

The United States has responded to the collapsing social and family structures of the Muslim Middle East and Central Asia with the fire and brimstone of war.

Can anyone more fundamentally misunderstand 9/11 than a writer who attributes its root cause to "collapsing social and family structures?"

Does a statement so far outside of reality tell us anything about the columnist who wrote it?

Judge Alito is doing very well in his meetings with senators. The "groups" on the far left margin of judicial politics are putting on a brave face:

[A]ctivists tried to play down any progress Alito is making in creating a favorable impression during his rounds on Capitol Hill, saying they hope only to keep pressure on senators to remain open-minded until the hearing, during which they believe Alito's fate will be decided.

"In most cases, a candidate enjoys a honeymoon period after the nomination," said Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, which was instrumental in torpedoing Robert H. Bork's 1987 Supreme Court nomination. Next week, the alliance plans to launch a multi-pronged campaign against Alito, which will include television ads and a wide range of grass-roots events.

"I think right now what you're looking at is not whether or not the opposition will build or exist, but rather when that opposition will be announced with sufficient critical mass to indicate the battle has been joined," said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. "This is in the process of developing."

Given that confirmation hearings are two months away, Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, said his plan is to slowly marshal opposition to Alito. He pointed out that the opposition that derailed Bork and nearly did the same to Clarence Thomas coalesced just before their respective hearings.

"I wouldn't put too much stock in the first week of courtesy calls," Neas said.

I know, Ralph. You've got him just where you want him. All these years to prepare, and you can't even get a senator to say tough things in public.

The House is approaching a bill authorizing exploration in ANWR. Because some GOP Reps are on record as opposing the exploration, there is some desire to drop the provision now and reinsert it into the conference package, thereby strengthening the vote for the overall package.

The House leadership should force the vote and bring clarity to the make-up of the GOP's caucus. At a time of soaring gas prices and genuine middle-class distress over prices at the pump, the GOP has got to be seen as the party willing to tackle the problem instead of proposing windmills in every backyard. If anti-ANWR-exploration Republicans lose the budget bill and the ANWR exploration, why support them at all? Such a vote means their antipathy to exploration trumps bedrock GOP principles on the size of government.

I'd like clarity on who is who in the GOP, and the caucus should as well, while there is still time to mount primary campaigns where they might help.

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank takes us inside the Senate Intelligence Committee. It is an account sure to unsettle Republicans.

And the first question is: With a 55-45 majority, why did the GOP agree to a 3-3 split in the most sensitive committee of all? Because the Democrats promised they wouldn't play politics with it?

Two years ago Democratic staffers to this committee let slip out their game plan for using the committee to pummel the president and the GOP. Among the steps called for by the staffers in their memo, as related by Senator Bond on the Senate floor:

Yet the memorandum that came out yesterday has such interesting
quotes such as:

Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may
lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or
questionable conduct by administration officials.

They are not looking at the Intelligence Committee; they are ooking
at the administration. They say:

We need to look at activities of the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and the State Department.

They talk about preparing additional views. And they say:

Among other things, we will castigate the majority for
seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.

They talk about an independent investigation, and they say:

We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation on
the administration's use of intelligence at any time.

When you talk about what goes on and how intelligence is used, that
is a topic of debate in the political realm, and there is no shortage
of that debate in particularly the Democratic primaries right now. We
see many of the candidates who are arguing very forcefully about it. I am disappointed that the discussion in the Presidential primary has
totally ignored or forgotten the old adage that politics stops at the
water's edge; that we should not be getting into political battles when we have troops in harm's way, and there is no question we have troops in harm's way.

[[Page S13949]]

It appears this memo suggests there is, at least at the staff level, a Democratic game plan to make the Intelligence Committee a focal point for the 2004 Presidential debates. This memorandum said:

Yet, we have an important role to play in revealing the
misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and
motives of the senior administration officials who made
the case for a unilaterally preemptive war.

Those are pretty harsh words. Those are the words of a political
attack.

Between now and 2008, and certainly now and 2006, there is nothing --nothing-- a Senate Democrat will do or say that isn't motivated by the desire to win the mid-terms of the presidency. The sooner the Senator Frist-led GOP figure this out and pledge themselves to realism, the better off they and the country will be.

Establish a select-committee to investigate the CIA's war on Bush, the various leaks, and especially Joe Wilson's Walter Mittyisms.

Play offense. Every day. Christmas and New Years too.

Rhett Smith writes a post for every college student, or everyone who knows a college student.

A very different --but not so, really-- pastor is leaving the blogging world: Training for Eternity is signing off. (HT: Blackfive.)

I did three segments of today's show on the Sony software that downloads onto personal computers when playing new Sony CDs, and I could have given the entire show over to it. People are very upset. One example from the pile of e-mail:

Sony CEO George Orwell said today...

Hugh, there is nothing he could say. There are no words to excuse what they have done. I don't buy CDs/DVDs of music in any case (almost deaf) and I don't steal. Never have.

But, this clown is prepared to destroy 20+ years of academic work and
unique datasets if I should make the mistake of buying a Sony product? And you think an apology will suffice? This is the first time I have ever wondered if we are on different planets. Hugh, lefties do words; we do deeds. There are no words to excuse this behavior.

Sorry, bucko, the death penalty. Nothing from Sony will be in my house. Ever. Again.

Bob M____

And this:

Nor is the fact that they're sending the information like your IP in the issue. The issue is the rootkit. All programs, including anti-virus programs have to trust that the operating system is telling the truth about what programs are on disk and what programs are running in memory. If a rootkit is used to hid a program, it's nigh impossible to detect much less remove it without going to drastic measures. This means that the Sony rootkit opens up a big hole for anyone who wants to cause some trouble, but doesn't have the skill or opportunity to do it.

There's tons of DRM out there that not only limits use, but also observes buying patterns (iTunes and it's DRM'ed AAC format are good examples), but Sony went way beyond that by forcefully and secretly installing a program that hacks windows. By all definitions Sony's rootkit is a virus, and it's unacceptable that they're spreading something that can so easily break Windows and give those that intend much more evil an easy in.

And this:

Dear Hugh, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was considering the purchase of a Sony brand DVD burner for my computer (to back up my computer files). Now I will definitely be looking at other brands. Thank you for the best radio show ever! William.

It is a New Coke moment for Sony. How will management react?

Senator Harry Reid today:

"The manipulation of intelligence, to sell the war in Iraq, Vice President Cheney is involved in that. The White House energy policy, that puts Big Oil ahead of the American consumer, Vice President Cheney is behind that. Leaking clasified information to discredit White House critics, the Vice President is behind that. Halliburton, contracting abuse, the list goes on and it goes on. Certainly America can do better than that."

It was a through-the-looking-glass moment, where Harry Reid embraces his inner Michael Moore. It may work in the fever swamp, but I doubt very much if ordinary Americans think much about these wild charges other than that they indicate a Senate minority gone way over the cliff.

I asked Counselor to the President Dan Bartlett about Reid's remarks, and the prospect of Joe Wilson under oath, on today's show. The transcript will be up later at Radioblogger.com.

It is about time. Now broaden it out.

Powerline's Scott Johnson has a detailed post up on the CIA's war on the Bush Administration, which includes links to his WeeklyStandard.com column on the same subject, and to Jed Babbin's in the American Spectator. The American Thinker is on the same trail.

So what to do? Congressional hearings seem to be necessary, but I hope the House goes first, as the senate Intelligence Committee seems hopelessly politicized by its Democratic members.

Call Joe Wilson. Call Valerie Plame. Call George Tenant.

What did Wilson not know, and when did he invent it?

On yesterday's radio show, I spent half an hour describing my negative reaction to Jarhead, and fielding calls --mostly negative and mostly from retired Marines-- about the movie. I pointed out that the Weekly Standard's superb film critic Jonathan Last had not been so harsh on the movie, but this morning I find Joe Carter's review, and that retired Marine turned influential blogger delivers a devastating critique.