Remember

On Tuesday, September 11, 2001, I was at work sitting in front of a pair of powerful computers. A co-worker walked up to me and said, "Did you hear that a plane hit the World Trade Center?" No, I hadn't.

I surfed to the CNN website. Apparently, millions more around the world were attempting to fetch CNN's home page. The load on the server was tremendous; only a select few users were able to retrieve the site's front-page. After a number of repeated attempts, to no avail, I surfed to Yahoo and MSN. I was able to get a synopsis of the situation: a plane had smashed into one of the twin towers and a fire was raging.

Not long after, I was able to retrieve the CNN home page: a second plane had hit the other tower. My stomach dropped. I knew we were at war. A photo showed that both buildings were burning.

After a while, someone in the technology department had hooked up a live CNN satellite feed to a streaming, multicast video server. We were able to watch CNN on our machines. The entire floor of the building was silent. We were in a high-rise. How many other planes were out there?

Rumors were flying. Someone mentioned that the Pentagon had been hit. Another told an assembled group that a plane had gone down on the mall near the White House. How many other planes were out there?

We watched live -- in utter horror -- as one tower collapsed, a cacaphony of twisted steel and burning jet fuel, snuffing out thousands of lives in an eye-blink. Could the video feed be correct? How could a tower have... just disappeared? Almost as an answer, the next tower collapsed, giving out under the strain of melting structural supports.

I knew that we had just watched thousands die on American soil: the worst single enemy attack in our history. I mentioned to a co-worker -- former Air Force -- that it was most likely Bin Laden's handiwork. UBL was a household name even then.

For anyone working in a high rise, there was an unstated fear. Silly as it may sound, folks kept looking out the windows, half-expecting to see the silhouette of a jet. But there was nothing out there. Nothing.

A war had begun in earnest.

Ideas for more Dramatizations of the Clinton Era

Given all of the interest and attention paid to the docudrama The Path to 9/11, other networks are certain to follow in ABC's footsteps. Helpful chap that I am, here are some suggestions for additional mini-series that center on the Clinton legacy:


The Path to Chinese ICBMs -- a dramatization of the fascinating story of Johnny Chung, the DNC, and the Clinton Administration -- details of how Chinese organizations "funneled" cash to the Democratic National Committee. According to CNN, "...after [the Chinese] passed illegal money to the D.N.C., Clinton approved the transfer of commercial satellite-launch technology to China--technology that might have helped China improve the accuracy of its long-range ballistic missiles that threaten the U.S..." Review: Pulse-pounding drama at its best!


The Path to the Lincoln Bedroom -- a dramatization of the many Clinton-era celebrities and donors who visited the White House and slept in the Lincoln Bedroom. According to CNN, among the nearly 800 guests who used the bedroom were "Barbra Streisand, catalogue retailer Lillian Vernon, playwright Neil Simon, film director and producer Steven Spielberg, former Chrysler chairman Lee Iaccoca, the Rev. Billy Graham, Apple Computer co-founder Steven Jobs, nutrition guru Dean Ornish, and, not least, actress Jane Fonda and her husband, [and] CNN honcho Ted Turner." Review: Celebs, romance, and controversy - a heady brew!


The Path to Monica's Heart -- a dramatization of the scandal known as "Monicagate." A former White House intern, Lewinsky engaged in a brief relationship with the President while she was a paid staff-member at the Pentagon. On August 17, 1998, Clinton admitted he had misled listeners and said that he had participated in an "inappropriate" relationship with Lewinsky. Some critics noted that Clinton had subjected himself to a situation where he could have been blackmailed. Review: a timeless romance, suitable for the entire family!


Vote Republican.

Related:
Betsy Newmark: It's about time that people remember Sandy Berger
Ed Driscoll: Combating Terrorism With Public Relations
Hugh Hewitt: "The Path to 9/11"
Michelle Malkin: Path to 9/11: Cut short?
Outside the Beltway: "Path to 9/11" Video Clips

Quote o' the Day

Our quote of the day award goes to BlameBush, who wins two snow tires and a bottle of A-1 Steak Sauce (opened, but barely used). The topic? Bill Clinton and his dogged pursuit of terrorists:

Madeline Albright and others who worked with The Man from Hope insist that given the opportunity, a court-issued warrant, permission from the International Community, a green-light from the ACLU, and a thumbs-up from the public opinion polls, there's nothing that would have stopped him from going after Osama Bin Laden.

The free speech crowd

In the months leading up to the 2004 Presidential Election, a major motion picture was released. Fahrenheit 9/11, a movie written and directed by Michael Moore, pilloried the Bush administration for its "unjust" actions in pursuing the war on terror.


While portrayed as a documentary, critics pointed out that Moore's movie contained more than 50 major inaccuracies. Democrat Ed Koch called the film, "propaganda" and Slate's Jack Shafer said, "no court would be inclined to find in Moore's favor if a critic accused him of lying once or twice or 12 times in Fahrenheit 9/11."


Despite all of the criticism, Moore was feted at Cannes and other major film festivals.


Moore was also honored with a Presidential Box seat at the Democratic National Convention along with ex-President Jimmy Carter.


By election day 2004, Moore's film had grossed around $120 million.


On August 21, 2006, ABC released the synopsis of its mini-series, "The Path to 9/11." The docu-drama is a "dramatization is based on The 9/11 Commission Report and other published sources and personal interviews."


The film portrays the events leading up to 9/11 in a dramatized fashion. Scenes include "...a plan to capture bin Laden and bring him to the U.S. to face justice [that] is never approved for action... [later] the simultaneous bombings of two U.S. embassies... push the Administration to respond with an ineffective missile strike that some think merely elevates bin Laden's stature in the Muslim world."


In 2004, the Washington Times reported that the Clinton administration had four opportunities to kill or capture Bin Laden and failed to act each time.


According to the Times, Sandy Berger -- Clinton's national security adviser -- worried, "if the plans failed and al Qaeda launched a counterattack, 'we're blamed.'"


Berger later admitted to stealing and destroying Top Secret documents related to "the Administration['s] knowledge - and inaction - regarding al Qaeda presence in the U.S. in 1999 and 2000... stolen were crucial notes in the margins of these drafts which reveal the thinking and agendas of the Clinton Administration relating to the mounting terrorist threat."


Unembarrassed about these actions, Berger and other former administration officials have complained bitterly about ABC's film. Berger himself called one scene, "a total fabrication."


Democratic members of Congress have also requested the ABC alter or remove the film from distribution. The EIB Network reports that Democrats sent a, "...letter threatening ABC's license for their owned and operated television stations..."


Democrats Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, and others wrote a letter to ABC's leadership that asked ABC to censor the broadcast: "We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney's plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic..."


America Blog describes the tactics used by Senate Democrats: "...The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Note the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before..."


Let's think about the irony of this situation for a moment.

That Congressional Democrats and others would attempt to censor ABC for its dramatization -- after embracing a film like Fahrenheit 9/11 -- is the height of hypocrisy.


As EIB notes, this activity represents a "pure Stalinist tactic". And I always thought Democrats represented the "free speech crowd."

Vote Republican.


Related:
Gateway Pundit: Clintons and a Damning 1998 Video of OBL
Hotair: Meltdown: Dean, Berger, Albright... demand "Path" be edited cancelled
Hotair: U.S. drone had Osama onscreen — in 2000
Hugh Hewitt: Dave, from Minnesota
Macsmind: Presidential Daily Brief to Clinton warned of Hijackings
Wizbang: A few thoughts on the Path to 9/11

Trojan uses Microsoft EFS to hide itself

McAfee's Avert Labs has word of a new trojan-hiding technique that uses Microsoft's Encrypting File System (EFS). EFS, present in all versions of Windows since 2000, allows a user to protect a folder using strong encryption based upon the user's login-name and password.

Avert reports that the newly spotted trojan uses EFS to avoid detection while executing with administrative rights. It employs obfuscated DLL and PE files to drop a couple of components into EFS-protected folders: a dialer and a downloader/dropper. When it executes, the trojan begins by creating a randomly named administrator account. It then creates a randomly named Windows service that executes under the just-created admin's credentials.

Once the service runs, the downloader can check for updated versions of itself and bring them down as needed. According to Avert, some variants of the trojan use our old IE friend -- Browser Helper Objects (BHOs) -- and the classic NTFS file-hiding technique called Alternate Data Streams.

All in all, this sounds like a doozy of a trojan that leverages nearly every vulnerable aspect of Windows to propagate its bad self.

Avert Labs: Protecting against EFS based attacks

Dems pressure ABC to censor 9/11 docudrama

Ex-president Bill Clinton and other Democrats have raised a stink with ABC over its docudrama The Path to 9/11. The DNC has gone so far as to call it a, "despicable and irresponsible fraud."

Letters have been written, calls made, angry blog posts -er- posted, all in an effort to censor ABC's historical retrospective on 9/11. Nowhere does the DNC call the scenes fabricated: that's because they are anything but fabricated. Many of the scenes are culled from copious records that ended up in the 9/11 Commission Report or from eyewitness accounts.

Newsbusters reports that four prospective committee chairmen in the House -- prominent Democrats all -- sent a letter to ABC demanding a review of the miniseries. There are no overt threats in the letter, but the subtext is clear: should the Democrats take control of the House in November, ABC better watch out for retribution from Conyers, Dingell, Harman, and Slaughter. The key graphs of the letter complain about:

...a scene in which Sandy Berger, the National Security Adviser to President Bill Clinton, declines to give Central Intelligence Agency operatives the authority to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, and in which those operatives are outside a house where Bin Laden is located...

The tragic irony? Sandy Berger, a vociferous critic of the film, was convicted of stealing and destroying classified background material related to Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and 9/11 that could have been used to corroborate or confirm the historical facts. Shockingly, there's no mention of that little burst of criminal activity in the letter.

The would-be Democratic chairmen also whine about:

...a scene in which the Central Intelligence Agency declines to share information about the 9/11 hijackers with the FBI and ascribes that failure to the so-called "wall," limiting information sharing by the Department of Justice in certain circumstances, and established by the Department of Justice in an internal memorandum...

Would that be the same wall that was erected by Democrat Jamie Gorelick? The same wall roundly blamed as blocking information sharing between agencies? And the same Gorelick who also served on the 9/11 Commission, a blatant conflict-of-interest? Why... yes, yes, and yes.

Newsweek reports:

...Clinton’s major beef is over a scene where his security adviser Richard Clarke... stops the CIA from assassinating bin Laden out of concern that the president wants to avoid any political damage should the mission go awry. The movie then cuts to real footage of Clinton testifying that “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” The obvious implication is that Clinton ducked pulling the trigger because he was too preoccupied with his political future, especially since it was undermined by his own personal drama. (And if that implication isn’t obvious enough, the camera immediately cuts from Clinton to a suggestive shot of the looming phallic Washington monument). Was Clinton too distracted to act? Maybe. Is it plausible to suggest that? Certainly to some people, including the filmmakers. And frankly, that should be enough...

The fact that Berger and Gorelick are used to bolster the Democrats' arguments should tell us all we need to know about this little tiff.

The Democratic tactics of seething, whining, and hissing should be utterly ignored by ABC.

Thought for the day

Some people try to find things in this game that don't exist, but football is only two things: blocking and tackling. -- Vince Lombardi

"A Despicable, Irresponsible Fraud"

That's the headline of an email I received from the Democratic National Committee, a predictably frenzied reaction to the ABC docudrama entitled, "The Path to 9/11."

Because the film accurately depicts the long runup to the 9/11 attacks during the Clinton years, the Democratic PR machine has spun up faster than the flywheel on a Christopher Lloyd anti-gravity machine.

The Demos' PR consultants picked on a couple of scenes they claimed were "biased [and] irresponsible." By the way, note their failure to claim the scenes were falsely depicted:

...In [one] scene, a CIA field agent places a phone call to get the go ahead to kill Osama Bin Laden, then in his sights, only to have a senior Clinton administration official refuse and hang up the phone. Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor, called the same scene "a total fabrication. It did not happen."

Would that be the same Sandy Berger convicted of the theft and destruction of classified documents related to 9/11? Why, yes, I think that would be:

...One of the stories widely reported this week was the discovery that Sandy Berger had blocked four different efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, in one case because the US did not have him under indictment. Could it be that Berger attempted to replace the memo with his handwritten objections to these operations with a new version without the notes? Or, even more possible given the authorship of the draft memos he stole, could Berger have tried to replace the stolen documents with forgeries rewritten in order to coincide with the testimony that Richard Clarke later gave the 9/11 Commission in public hearings? John Lehman blasted Clarke for the changes in his testimony between the closed sessions and the open sessions of the commission hearings in an interview this week. Could this be related? ...

Having Berger comment on the film's veracity -- after his conviction for theft and destruction of classified documents related to 9/11 -- isn't just a bad idea, it's downright comical.

The Dems also lambast the docudrama for its expert consultants:

...ABC asked only the Republican co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean, Sr., to advise the makers of "The Path to 9/11". The producers optioned two books, one written by a Bush administration political appointee, as the basis of the screenplay -- yet bill the miniseries as "based on the 9/11 Commission Report."

The Democrats really nailed it this time - the aftermath of 9/11 was a "despicable, irresponsible fraud." But the fraud didn't arrive in the form of this docudrama; instead, one could argue it was the 9/11 Commission, which had a giant constipant by the name of Jamie Gorelick on its rolls.

If you look up "conflict of interest" in Wikipedia, odds are you'll see a mug shot of Gorelick. That's because, long before she served as a commissioner for the 9/11 report, she actually helped bungle the Clinton administration's horribly ineffective counter-terrorism efforts:

...there are serious questions about the independence of one Commissioner in particular, Jamie Gorelick... a recently declassified 1995 memo written by... [her] ...instituted a new set of procedures to raise "walls" within the FBI beyond those established by the Foreign Intelligence Service Act of 1978 (FISA)... ...there is no question that Jamie Gorelick has a conflict of interest in serving as a member of the 9/11 Commission - even Gorelick's defenders on the 9/11 Commission are not arguing that... she is the only member of the 9/11 Commission who served in either the Clinton or Bush administration. She was directly involved in matters that are currently under investigation by the 9/11 Commission including the "walls" that prevented the FBI from sharing information internally and with other parts of the government... ...knowing what we know now about the memo she wrote in 1995... would she have been asked to testify if she had not been in the 9/11 Commission. The answer is clearly "yes"...

Gorelick had no business adjudicating the aftermath of 9/11 since her actions were arguably a primary accelerant.

The Frontpage review of the movie put it succinctly:

...[Director] Nowrasteh and the producers of this miniseries have gone out on a limb to honestly and fairly depict how Clinton-era inaction, political correctness, and bureaucratic inefficiency allowed the 9/11 conspiracy to metastasize. Let me say here though that "The Path to 9/11" is not a partisan miniseries or a “conservative” miniseries. It simply presents the facts in an honest and straightforward manner (the producers have backed up every detail of the miniseries with copious amounts of research and documentation), and the facts are that for seven years, from 1993 to 2000, the Clinton administration bungled the handling of the world-wide terrorist threat. The miniseries is equally honest in depicting the Bush administration. It shows a few points where administration officials, following in the tradition of the Clinton years, do not follow certain clues about the terrorist plot as zealously as they should have...

I've got an idea for the Democratic National Committee: if the story is so untrue, sue for libel.

I won't hold my breath. Unless, that is, I'm being chauffered around Martha's Vineyard by Ted Kennedy.

p.s., No hyperlink provided, but you can cut-and-paste the Democratic link if you wish -- http://www.democrats.org/pathto911 -- I won't give them the benefit of the referral.

Thought for the Day

The Democrats have opposed developing the missile defense system that could protect us against the missiles that North Korea developed under the terms of the agreement that Bill Clinton negotiated with it in 1994.

My 2006 Congressional Campaign Commercial

Any GOP candidate may freely use this commercial. Cue tape. Cue talent. 3-2-1... action.


The Democratic leadership -- represented by Harry Reid -- says that the war in Iraq is just a distraction in the war on terror. That the situation in North Korea has worsened. And that our relationship with Iran is more dangerous than ever.

What Reid fails to mention is how we got into this mess in the first place.


In 1978, terrorism hit a new plateau when Democrat Jimmy Carter failed to support Iran's Shah and -- later -- "went out of [his] way to support" the Ayatollah Khomeini.


Little did Carter know that the new regime would invade sovereign American territory -- the US Embassy -- and hold Americans hostage for 444 days. Carter's actions would also ignite a worldwide bonfire of terrorism.


Under Democrat Bill Clinton, the U.S. blithely ignored a series of terrorist attacks including a truck-bombing of the World Trade Center,...


...a massive bombing of American servicemen and others in Saudi Arabia,...


...deadly truck-bombings of two U.S. embassies,...


...an attack on a U.S. warship, the USS Cole,...


...allowed the A.Q. Kahn nuclear parts network to thrive under their noses, which directly benefited Iran, Libya, and...


...North Korea,...


...and culminated with a second attack on the World Trade Center and another on the Pentagon.


On four occasions, Clinton also failed to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden, citing a variety of concerns.


A clear path runs from the day of the raid on the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the seizure of American hostages to 9/11. A path defined by Democratic presidents.


Now, the Democratic party tells us it will make us safer. But Democrats voted against the Patriot Act, against surveillance programs, and against missile defense.


It's taken a long time to begin climbing out of the hole dug by Democratic leaders. In this, the nuclear age of terrorism, can America really afford more Democratic "leadership"?

Vote Republican.


Related reading:
New York Post: Carter's History: How He Established Islamic Rule in Iran, Part II
Washington Times: Berger rejected four plans to kill or capture bin Laden

Question for the day

Now that DNC honoree Michael Moore is prominently featured in terrorist recruiting videos, can we officially name the far Left bank of American politics "the Hezbocrats"?

Chevron's oil find may boost U.S. reserves by 50%

This morning, Chevron announced the successful test of its deepest well in the Gulf of Mexico: Jack #2. The company estimates that the recent discoveries in the gulf hold between 3 billion and 15 billion barrels worth of oil and gas reserves.

If their estimates hold to the high side, this discovery would boost U.S. reserves by 50%.

And gas is down to $2.29 a gallon in the Midwest.

I blame Bush.

MarketWatch: Chevron-led group may find top U.S. oil source

An anecdote from 2004... and lessons for 2006

Jim Geraghty, writing at National Review Online, asks some key questions concerning the 2006 elections:

...Today there's frustration in the land. Understandable, bloggers are fed up with pork, want to track down Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd, get a good secret hold on their collars and shake them vigorously. But do Democrats get to win back Congress this year based on the performance they've turned in lately? When their plan on Iraq is essentially pull out and hope it gets better, and the most prominent spokesman wants a rapid response force based in Okinawa, do they deserve to win what a potential committee chairman John Dingell said he 'doesn't want to take sides' for or against Hezbollah. Do they get to win when they object to the term Islamic fascism essentially arguing that the guys we're fighting can't be fascists, because they don't have spiffy uniforms and a distinctive march? ...What? Are they worried that the label fascist will unfairly tarnish the reputations of Al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, Nasrallah and Hezbollah and the Iranian mullahs? Judging by the reaction to Durbin last year, Nazi comparisons are okay for US troops guarding Al-Qaeda prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, but not okay for the actual terrorists these guys are guarding. When they knock out the one undisputed hawk in their caucus, Lieberman, replace him in Ned Lament, who pledges America is stronger when we work with our families and our allies, do they deserve to win for this? Do they deserve to win? Do they get to win back Congress? ...When they've spent much of the year beating the drums over a crime that didn't occur? The Plame episode. When they had to abandon the culture of corruption argued because members of their caucus had cash in their freezer and took a swing at a capitol police office? When there’s no chance whatsoever that these folks would really crack down on illegal immigration, and they not-so-subtly suggest that wanting immigration laws enforced is de facto racism? ...Look – I can see losing to Bill Clinton. The guy could sell ice to Eskimos, always had the perfect touch on television, and campaigned as the most noncontroversial welfare-reforming centrist ever to kiss a baby. (And, er, uh, other people.) ...But these guys? The GOP is going to lose to Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, John Murtha, Ned Lamont? The crowd that shares its stages with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Cindy Sheehan? Maybe my inclinations are blinding me. And there’s still a lot of campaign season to go. But I just don’t think it’s likely that this crowd is going to seal the deal with a majority of the American people.

TKS on National Review Online: An anecdote from 2004, and thinking of 2006

How to destroy a city with Photoshop

Here's an intriguing tutorial that steps imaging professionals through the entire process of "destroying" a city. Have a picture of a pristine cityscape? Now, with these easy-as-pie instructions, you'll be capable of rendering the city a veritable wasteland, appropriate for inclusion in any Reuters article on the Middle East and beyond.

Photoshop Contest: Modern Ruins

Ted Stevens hometown paper supports net neutrality

The egregious Ted Stevens -- he of the secret "hold" on pork-busting legislation -- has had the riot act read to him by his own hometown paper on the topic of net neutrality. Hopefully Stevens' cat-like tendencies for self-preservation will swing him against the carriers' (and their lobbyists') position.

...Sen. Stevens has said he doesn't see an immediate problem that requires regulation. In other words, he's reluctant to have the government set the playing rules until more companies are caught cheating. Apparently he thinks competition can be counted on to prevent any abuses. Only problem is, local Internet service is not a fluid, totally free market with a lot of competitors. Many markets are served by only one or two high-speed Internet companies. Switching providers is not as easy as driving to the next gas station or grocery store... ...Net neutrality is hardly a heavy-handed government intrusion into the free-wheeling world of the Internet. It is a simple antitrust rule that protects consumers by keeping Internet companies from exploiting their control over connections. Congress should get ahead of the curve and ensure net neutrality before abuses begin to spread. BOTTOM LINE: Net neutrality is a good idea. Sen. Ted Stevens should support it.

Anchorage Daily News: Stevens should support net neutrality

Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson spontaneously combust

What a week it's been for the super-duper-secret Vanity Fair cover couple:

...First, there was the sight of Richard Armitage -- Colin Powell's #2 man when Powell was Secretary of State -- being frog-marched out of his home by FBI agents and charged with exposing Valerie Plame's identity. Some cynics say that in the end, Armitage -- who had opposed the war in Iraq -- will not spend any time in jail, but instead get a slap on the wrist and become the butt of jokes -- much like former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who stole and destroyed classified materials from the National Archives. Then Powell himself issued a statement through his attorney -- not even appearing in person -- saying that the former Secretary of State would have no comments on the matter while it was still pending before the courts. Then Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, got hit with a legal one-two. First, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney hit him with defamation lawsuits, then the New York Times went after him for fraud. Legal experts say the Rove and Cheney suits will most likely be dismissed, but the Times one is on firmer ground -- they published Wilson's account of his trip to Africa on behalf of the CIA, and in it he flatly contradicted his official report -- and that was under oath. Sources within the Times say the real motivation for the suit isn't the embarassment for publishing it, but revenge for starting the whole mess that sent the Times' Judith Miller to jail for almost three months. Miller herself is looking into suing Patrick Fitzgerald over the whole thing, as he apparently knew the real source was Armitage long before she was called in to testify -- and was locked up for refusing to cooperate...

Would it be inappropriate to giggle at this juncture? I'll just say: Heh.

Wizbang: Plame-Wilson Story: Week that Was

Here's a Democrat (and a Republican) I can endorse

Timothy Penny's op-ed in the Washington Times should be required reading for every member of Congress. Penny, a former Democratic congressman from Minnesota, calls out both sides of the aisle. Congress has demonstrated a consistent "tax, spend, then hide the evidence" pattern of misbehavior that is as undemocratic as it is outrageous.

...Our nation's current fiscal policies are creating a mountain of debt that our grandchildren will be forced to repay through higher taxes. The unfunded promises we have made to recipients of Social Security and Medicare and other entitlement programs will almost certainly lead to higher taxes on today's children and those yet to be born. In my view, that amounts to "taxation without representation." ...Part of the problem lies with the current congressional budget process. On Capitol Hill the bulk of time and attention each year is devoted to the annual appropriations bills... [but] ...two-thirds of spending goes to so-called "mandatory" programs: interest on the debt and entitlement programs, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Though representing the vast majority of dollars spent every year, these "mandatory" spending programs receive little -- if any -- debate... The expenditures are essentially automatic. That is not right. ...More attention must be paid to these mandatory programs because of their long-range costs. Before long, Social Security and Medicare alone will consume virtually all the taxes paid by working Americans. It is not fair to the next generation to saddle them with enormous costs for entitlement programs and leave them no alternative except to reduce spending for other priorities or to pay ever higher taxes. ...Rep. Frank Wolf, Virginia Republican, in sponsoring legislation to create a bipartisan entitlement commission. Mr. Wolf is a member of the appropriations committee, and understands that entitlement spending deserves closer scrutiny than is provided in the current budget process. He realizes that the difficult decisions required -- if entitlement spending is to be brought under control -- can only be achieved through a bipartisan effort. He also believes that all options must be on the table. Finally, and most importantly, he sees that as a matter of morality and fairness to future generations. ...So, during the coming weeks as legislators wrap up their work in Washington and return home to campaign, speak out for your children and grandchildren. If, after hearing from us, our elected officials refuse to endorse Mr. Wolf's reasonable approach, then, like the Boston Tea Party, we should throw them overboard this November...

Washington Times: Taxes and spending

Is it okay to question their patriotism now?

Question: which Democratic icon has now been honored with both a presidential box seat at the Democratic National Convention and a speaking part in a terrorist recruiting video?

Answer: You know who.

In his L.A. Times editorial yesterday, Donald Rumsfeld explicitly highlighted this conflict's information war:

...this is the first war of the 21st century — a war that, to a great extent, will be fought in the media on a global stage. We cannot allow the terrorists' lies and myths to be repeated without question or challenge...

This country needs honest debate about the best strategy for defeating the global scourge of extremist terror.

But the media's record of consistent fabrications are unhelpful, to say the least: Al Qaqaa, Plame-Armitrage-gate, forged Air National Guard memos, and Newsweek's fake Koran-flushing story are examples of utterly bogus stories that have dominated the mainstream press while a global war rages on.

Put simply, the media has ignored or underreported the real stories of this global conflict:

* In Thailand, bombs were set off in 23 banks simultaneously, reportedly an attack by Muslim separatists focused on overthrow of the government.

* In Darfur, the multi-year genocide continues unabated at the hands of the National Islamic Front (NIF), which is responsible for the murderous onslaught of African tribal populations.

* In addition to instigating terror attacks over the past two decades (including the murder of nearly 300 American servicemen), Hezbollah has set up shop in Venezuela.

* In Beslan, residents commemorated the second anniversary of a terrorist attack that killed 333 people (more than 150 of whom were children).

And the mainstream media -- not to mention the Pelosi and Reid gang -- couldn't care less.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid called Rumsfeld's utterly valid remarks, "reckless." But he couldn't quantify why said comments were reckless, nor answer any of the questions Rumsfeld posed.

Nancy Pelosi whined that Rumsfeld's factual observations and questions were "smears":

..."Secretary Rumsfeld's efforts to smear critics of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy are a pathetic attempt to shift the public's attention from his repeated failure to manage the conduct of the war competently... If Mr. Rumsfeld is so concerned with comparisons to World War II, he should explain why our troops have now been fighting in Iraq longer than it took our forces to defeat the Nazis in Europe...

Perhaps, genius, because these are two completely different and unrelated wars. So far, Pelosi has produced only similarly useless non-sequiters and politicized soundbites. She, and Reid, have completely avoided any discussion of strategy in prosecuting the war on terror (other than retreat and appeasement without regard to the consequences).

Pelosi has a horrid track record when it comes to combatting terrorism: opposing the vital Patriot act (which the Department of Justice indicates has disrupted over 150 terrorist acts and cells), praising the Hamdan decision that, "[grants] terrorists the same legal protections to which American citizens are entitled," and critquing the NSA international wiretap program (but only after the issue became politicized, months after being briefed on it).

Because of her willingness to blithely oppose tools -- which are generally praised by law enforcement as pivotal in prosecuting the war -- for pure political gain, yes, I question Pelosi's patriotism. As I do Harry Reid and the laughable Howard Dean.

This clique has opposed virtually every tool used to combat terror... that's every... single... tool... proposed by the administration. Given that 100% track record of opposing the President, I can only believe that their concerns are purely political, focused on regaining power, and certainly not in the best interests of America.

So, yes, I do question their patriotism. They have, for years, studiously avoided answering the critical questions of our time. Until and unless they can bring something to the table other than obstructionism, they are profoundly unqualified to take the reins of power in this country.

Why AT&T needs IPTV more than Cable needs Telephony

Interesting analysis over at the AT&T "Weblog" (didn't know anyone still used that term):

We know why AT&T and Time Warner want to get into each other's business. They've both are counting on the idea that consumers want bundles, right? ...But who stands to gain the most by adding that new component to its bundle? ...I bet it's AT&T. ...the landline phone business is going away. Look at what's happening to AT&T's revenues as people switch off their home phones for wireless and e-mail. Look what's happened to long-distance rates... ...U-verse has the potential to bring AT&T into the entertainment business, which is growing and has expansion potential yet to come. Even if competition from cable companies makes AT&T cut subscription prices, the company's IP-based system theoretically gives it an open-ended ability to roll out — and charge for — new services including music, games and plenty that's still being dreamed up... But, before we start slapping Big Ed on the back in congratulations, we've got to remember something: AT&T has got to execute before it can reap those rewards...

Looking back on Ed's track record of innovation, I don't think the cable companies are all that worried.

AT&T Blog: Why AT&T needs U-verse more than the cable guys needs phone

BBC: Windows Vista may prove open-source more secure

Fascinating analysis from IT Business Edge that posits Microsoft's strategy of freezing out third-party security vendors may be hazardous to its health:

Last week Redmond released security patches for Windows Vista Beta, and the media was all over it, pointing to the fact that it was the first time Microsoft had patched a beta release... Most surmise that it results from the fact... [the] new OS may have locked out other security vendors. Microsoft’s Kernel Patch Guard, which will ship with Vista, prevents the kernel from being modified in any way which, in turn, will prevent most antivirus software from doing its job. In a BBC News column, tech commentator Bill Thompson points out that Redmond may be writing its own death warrant with the new approach... For the first time..., users will be able to determine for themselves whether completely closed source software development or open source software development produces a more secure OS. And if open source comes out on top, Redmond won’t be able to look anywhere but in the mirror.

IT Business Edge: Windows Vista Could Prove Open Source More Secure