Someone once asked why television was called a medium. The answer was that it was seldom well done. TV's wall-to-wall coverage of the September 11th anniversary -- on virtually all channels and around the clock -- was a painful example of the fact that nothing exceeds like excess.
When Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., decided to join Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., in sponsoring legislation that allows airline pilots to carry guns as a defense against hijackers, she expressed surprise to find herself agreeing with her conservative colleague.
So much for the great Republican split over Iraq. Just weeks ago, we were told that it included the old-guard heavyweights: Brent Scowcroft, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Dick Armey and, heaviest of all, Colin Powell. Let's review the lineup.
Among the patriotic lesson plans for 9-11 was one proposed by the National Council for Social Studies, which recommends a short story titled "My Name is Osama." Calculatedly inciting hatred toward white American boys, the story is about a nasty little boy, "Todd," who taunts an Iraqi immigrant named "Osama."
After Osama bin Laden's hijack squadrons invaded our skies a year ago, America's military responded. Operation Enduring Freedom launched on Oct. 7, 2001. President Bush deployed thousands of troops to combat terrorist forces in the Middle East.
Here's what the Harvard University Civil Rights Project's "scholars" said in a July 2001 press release: "Almost half a century after the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Southern school segregation was unconstitutional and 'inherently unequal,' new statistics from the 1998-99 school year show that racial and ethnic segregation continued to intensify throughout the 1990s."
Let's see. First, some Democrats and liberals to remain nameless (Cynthia McKinney call your office - that is, if rookie fry-girls at McDonald's are allowed to make personal calls) accused Bush of fomenting war in order to make money in the stock market or some such silliness.
Those most loudly objecting to an American military action to remove Iraq's Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction have been on the offensive. Isn't it time they answered some questions themselves?
It goes without saying that the Islamic terror attack on America on September 11, 2001, was an act of pure evil; that for those who suffered and died it was an unspeakable horror; that nothing will ever compensate their loved ones for their loss; and that the date will forever live in infamy in American memory.
All signs in Washington point to an American attack on Iraq. Before any military action, the fullest democratic urge would encourage a lengthy debate questioning all the reasons for action and the possible outcomes. But it's one thing to debate, another altogether to undermine.
On the eve of what is being billed as a major address to the United Nations, President Bush is being advised to emulate his father's approach on Iraq twelve years ago by making the cobbling together of a broadly based international coalition a precondition to taking on Saddam Hussein.
Students streaming back to the hallowed halls of Harvard this fall will find a few new faces: Last week, Harvard Law School lifted a 20-year-old policy banning military recruiters on its campus, enacted to protest the ban on homosexual soldiers.
Rand Paul on NSA: “I Believe What You Do on Your Cell Phone is None of Their Damn Business” | Daniel Doherty