June 18 - Al Qaeda militants kill American hostage. I knew Mr. Johnson was doomed when he was kidnapped, but that doesn't lessen my outrage and the sorrow I feel for him and his family.

CNN is also carrying a report from al Arabiya that the al Qaeda leader was killed:

Abdel Aziz al-Muqrin, the leader of al Qaeda's cell in Saudi Arabia, was killed, Saudi security sources told CNN.

He was killed while disposing of Johnson's body, the Arabic-language television network Al-Arabiya reported.

CNN was pontificating about how safe Saudi Arabia used to be, and my mind flashed back to William Sampson.

Remember him? He is a Canadian who lived and worked in Saudi Arabia. He and some British nationals were arrested by Saudi authorities in 2001 - before Sept. 11 - and convicted by a Saudi court of killing a British banker in 2000 which the Saudis claimed was part of a black market liquor ring.

Mr. Sampson was condemned to be beheaded after his "confession" was shown at his trial (he said he had been tortured.) No other evidence was presented to the court.

His and the British citizens were finally released by the Saudis after Prince Charles intervened personally.

The Saudi Arabia which was considered safe for foreigners was not safe: that safety was an illusion which the Saudi kingdom perpetuated by denying that terrorists were operating within Saudi Arabia and they substantiated these claims by accusing Westerners (and Israelis) of being behind the car bombs and shooting deaths of other Westerners.

This isn't a rant against the Saudis (or the Canadian government for their inaction in the Sampson case.) This isn't even a rant, because I'm too depressed at the news of Williams' death and the manner of his death to go into a rant.

This is rather me looking askance at us and wondering just how freaking stupid we really are.

Al Qaeda hates everyone who doesn't fit their narrow definition of "good" Muslims. They hate Shi'ites. They hate Hindus. They hate Buddhists. They hate Jews. They hate Christians. They hate agnostics, atheists, Wiccans, Taoists, animists and everyone I failed to think of when I made this list.

On reviewing that list, I am struck again at how many billions of people they hate, yet we wail because we are on it? Hell, I'd be ashamed to left off it!

They hate most of the human race. Yes, it's hard to believe because most of us are too busy and productive to waste our time actively pursuing our hatreds, but there you are. We don't understand them because we aren't insane.

We have an enemy. It's name is al Qaeda. It has condemned all of us to death. And how do we respond? By holding partisan-driven commissions to find some way of blaming our government for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. By asking why do they hate us, which rather ignores that anyone who hates "us" so much that they personally inflict horrific deaths upon Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, and Paul Johnson are psychopaths.

A church in Birmingham, Ala., was bombed in 1963 and four little girls were killed. The country didn't ask "Why do they hate Negroes" but joined together to condemn the hatred that killed those children and to renew efforts in the Civil Rights Movement.

Did people ask why Clifford Olson hated children?

Did people ask why Marc Lepine hated women after he went on a rampage at an Engineering School or did they confront the hatred and condemn it?

Of course there was countless speculation as to their deranged reasons, but no one credible concluded that the Klan, Olson and Lepine had good reasons to hate their victims and urged black Americans, women and children to mend their wicked, wicked ways.

Canadians didn't conclude that those women and children deserved to die for the sins of other women and children.

Moral equivalence is not moral. It's not even rational.

I presume the video is available somewhere, but I haven't looked for it and, when it inevitably comes to my attention, I'm not sure what I'll do. Some lessons need be learnt only once, and having viewed the Nicholas Berg video I think I got the message:

They are evil.

11:40: Saudi militants show beheaded body of victim from the Telegraph (UK)

The militants - calling themselves "al-Qa'eda in the Arabian peninsula" and the "al-Fallujah squadron" - released gruesome video images and photographs of the killing.

Still photographs showed a severed head, placed on the back of a body wearing an orange jumpsuit, the face turned towards the camera. A dagger rested on the corpse, its point apparently buried in Mr Johnson's forehead.

The Australian press has some additional information about the shootout that killed al Muqrin.

Kevin at Wizbang links to the Drudge photos of Mr. Johnson and has written a very informative post about the events of today as well as background on Al-Moqrin.

Eric at Classical Values has an excellent post on this atrocity and links to other examples of Muslim on Muslim violence including an account of the "cleansing" underway in Sudan (a genocide that Old Media has shamefully neglected, maybe because the U.N. is talking a lot handling it?) and an eloquent statement that is better than all the floundering I've been doing since I first came across the Drudge photos and debated if I should link to them.

Some of the commenters on the Nick Berg video shocked and dismayed me because they reflected how little people understand the universal threat posed by the psychotics in al Qaeda.

No, I don't mean those who urged us to reflect on our sins, the appeasers, or even those who believe we can build high walls and sit this one out; I mean the people who urged a total nuking of the Mideast and used what I call hate speech.

People are outraged by the vicious murders of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg and Paul Johnson. They should be. But we need to remember the vast number of Muslims that have been killed by al Qaeda and associated terrorists and remember that we share a common enemy with most people who live in the Mideast (and I include Israel in this.)

The enemy has been pretty efficient with their "divide and conquer" strategy. Muslims deplore terrorism yet feel defensive, and we must continue to reach out and affirm that we - the people of the world, i.e., the real international community - face the same enemy.

Another note: before we sneer at Muslims in Mideast countries (outside of Israel) for their ready acceptance that Mossad is behind all the terrorist attacks, we need to clean our own house. Look at our own media and note how they have distorted information: they've lied in claiming that Bush declared Iraq was an imminent threat, that Bush declared an end to the Iraq conflict, and now they write headlines that carefully imply that he claimed a connection between Saddam and Sept. 11.

Despite clearly documented evidence to the contrary, there are many people in the USA who believe the lies and conspiracy theories rather than the truth and all I can figure is that they believe the lies because they want to. So tell me again how much more sophisticated we are than people in the Mideast who watch and believe al Jazeera?

I repeat: Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, Jews, agnostics, atheists, fundamentalist Christians, Catholics and too many others for me to name share a common enemy.

I have only one motive in linking to these pictures: I want us to transcend the outrage when one of our own countrymen is so murdered and begin to relate more personally when we read of beheadings in Kashmir, the Phillippines or Solomon Islands. It is my sincere hope that the next time any of you read the word "beheaded" it will immediately convey horror, disgust and revulsion whoever the victim and remind you of the nature of the threat to all people.

Lastly, I believe that building a democratic Iraq that respects human rights will alter those dynamics that once lionized al Qaeda but increasingly make it clear that it is al Qaeda - not us - that is the enemy of Islam and peace-loving people everywhere.

Those of you who want revenge on the Saudi government might pause and consider the effect of having an Arab nation run by consensual government on its very borders. (The Saudi Royal family is certainly aware of the threat that would pose to them.)

Mr. Johnson is past pain and sorrow now, and I apologize for any part I might be playing in causing more grief to his family. I do not wish to exploit his death.

June 19 - 05:26: Donald Sensing asks does anyone doubt we must win this war, lays out the options and reaffirms the objective:

The conundrum of our task is that our long-term objectives are exactly those which Islamofascists say will ruin true Muslim society. Every success we gain, in Iraq or elsewhere when the time comes, will be fought tooth and nail by our enemies. But early this year, the high-ranking al Qaeda operative in Iraq, Abu Zarqawi, wrote to his superiors that democracy is "suffocation" for recruiting Iraqis to fight against Americans.

What this means is that the status quo ante bellum cannot be allowed to be reestablished. It was, after all, the womb of the war. The present status quo cannot be maintained either, for it is merely significantly, not decisively, better than before. We must remain focused on the long-term goals and vary our short-term tactics and strategies as we need to in order to obtain them. (Emphasis added.)

08:00: Via Beth at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, an Islamic website disputes that Muqrin is dead. I wasn't being prescient or anything as I reflected on the experiences of Bill Sampson, but it is an unfortunate fact that the Saudi government has been known to fabricate cases.

10:35: Tonecluster links to an Amir Taheri column on the practice of beheading that, sadly, is once again relevant and offers an interesting way to respond to this latest murder.

Posted by: Debbye at 06:54 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1785 words, total size 12 kb.

June 17 - Panel: U.S. unprepared 'in every respect' to stop the hijacking jets on 9/11 but there was something they did do which contradicts this statement:

THEY GROUNDED ALL AIR TRAFFIC.

THEY CLOSED THE BORDER.

Remember the events of that day? Remember the speculation that fighter pilots may have been ordered to shoot down passenger jets with innocent civilians aboard?

I'm not the only person who was shocked at the notion that we would be asking America's sons and daughters to kill innocent Americans as a last, desperate measure to save other innocent Americans.

There is also that South Korean jet which was flying over Canada and which had lost radio communication, did not respond to orders to land, and which PM Chretien admitted he was prepared to shoot down.

19:16: Some of the statements made at the 12th Hearing of the Sept. 11 Commission are now online and are somewhat more informative and complex than the CNN coverage (which should not be a surprise to anyone.)

The CBC's headline is 'Improvised defence' cost lives on Sept 11. And all this time I thought lives were lost because terrorists hijacked passenger airliners and crashed them into buildings ...

WASHINGTON - At least one of the hijacked planes in the Sept. 11 attacks could have been intercepted had aviation and military officials been better prepared, a report released on Thursday said.

Planes were hijacked. The passengers were told that they were returning to the airport, and as the first WTC bombers (from the 1993 attack) were about to be sentenced; who wouldn't have assumed that the demand would be for their release?

Wasn't a Canadian running NORAD that day? (Part of the military exchange program.) Anyone remember his name?

As I noted in the earlier post, lives still would have been lost, and you can bet there would be an inquiry if US military personnel had shot down American planes.

But as I also noted, the 'improvised' response was to order all planes to set down at the closest airport and, if other planes were indeed supposed to have been hijacked, I'd say that the 'improvised' response saved lives.

Instapundit has more links and comments.

Sorry about being so irritated: it's really hard to wake up to such wankery. (So why is it easier to go to bed after such wankery?)

19:40: Michelle at A Small Victory has a much more reasoned response to the "we could have shot the planes down" argument than I do and sums it all up here:

It's frustrating. It's depressing. These people would rather clap their hands in glee over some partisan bickering and sniping known as the 9/11 hearings than anything else.

It's a damned if you do or damned if you don't world.

Bush decides to invade Iraq. He's damned for it.
If he didn't decide to invade Iraq and Saddam took the opportunity to flaunt his disregard for the U.N. resolutions given him by blowing us - or anyone else - up, Bush would be damned for not paying enough attention to Saddam.

No one shot planes out of the sky on 9/11. Damned.
Yet I distinctly remember in the days after 9/11 many people crying that the criminal Republicans in the White House saved their asses by supposedly shooting down the plane in PA.
Oh and imagine if they did shoot those two NYC bound planes down. Where the hell did you want them to do that? Over a populated region? Imagine the outcry.

I need to believe that the American people are too sensible to fall for all this.

I need to believe that the American people are made of stern stuff, and they are far more resolute and determined than most pundits can conceive.

June 19 - 01:48: What she said. Especially the part about heartsick.

Posted by: Debbye at 05:47 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 688 words, total size 5 kb.

June 15 - We never fail to remind the world how inept we are, and I have come to accept it as a part of our national heritage or something. Sigh.

The report "Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003" concluded that that terror attacks were down in 2003 (I posted about it here) but the report was wrong, and it seems the CIA might have been responsible for the error (Powell: Inaccurate terror report was `big mistake') either by omission, software, using only half a calandar, or hiring an inept consulting agency. The report was put up on the State Department's website and they too didn't catch the errors (did they check the report? Of course not!)

The State Department correction is here.

Mark Steyn had a column in the British Telegraph about the resignation of George Tenet:

Everything that is wrong with the agency was made plain a few weeks ago with the much-anticipated release of a classified CIA "Presidential Daily Brief" from August 6 2001. This was supposed to be the smoking gun which would reveal that Bush knew 9/11 was coming. It turned out to be far more damaging than that. It revealed somewhat carelessly that the CIA - the most sinister acronym in the world, the all-knowing spooks behind the dirty tricks in a thousand Hollywood thrillers - crib most of their info from television shows and foreign intelligence services.

Under the headline "Bin Ladin [sic] Determined To Strike In US", the most lavishly funded intelligence agency in the Western world led off its analysis with its top piece of "classified" "intelligence": "Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and 'bring the fighting to America'."

Terrific. Your crack CIA operative knows how to go into deep cover in his living room and pose as an average American couch potato by switching on the television... (Emphasis added)

Add Sec. of State Powell's admission about the error-ridden 2003 Report on Terror Attacks to the list of things that might have prompted Tenet's resignation and things that the State Department "didn't catch" and we are left with one, sad other thing that "everybody knows": we accomplish things despite our government, not because of it.

But I really wouldn't have it any other way. After all, it gives constant validation to my belief that the citizen is superior to the government

Posted by: Debbye at 08:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.

June 12 - I managed to watch both yesterday's services for President Reagan in DC and the final internment service at Simi Valley. As one would expect, they were dignified, religious, and personal.

The buglar played taps, and the flag which had draped the president's coffin was folded and presented to the widow at sunset signaling the official end of a week that was dominated by the American people and thus true hearts filled with sadness, gratitude, and affection.

I've read how thousands of Americans lined the railroad tracks to pay their respects to President Lincoln as that funeral train passed, and we saw that history live as Americans stood by roads yesterday to pay their respect to Reagan (and, quite clearly, to Mrs. Reagan.)

Some of the on-scene reporters trivialized the crowds, comparing the atmosphere to that of a picnic; pardon me, but have any of them ever been to a picnic? I didn't see any BBQs, kids playing tag, dogs, frisbies, or softball games. Somebody, please! Invite these poor sods to a real picnic.

I did see a lot of flags, a lot of tears, and a lot of respect.

The Americans and others who paid their respects to President Reagan understood that it was right and proper that they should do so. It wasn't to be a part of history, as only egotistical reporters could have concluded, but to honour that part of history and the man, President Reagan, who dominated and, by his perseverence and strength, ended a tense era which was dominated by the Cold War and he consigned the Soviet Union to history.

(I do wonder how many of us who reflected on the presidency of Ronald Reagan found therein renewed courage and reassurance that we can defeat the forces of terrorism.)

Like millions of other Americans, I found that my life last week revolved around work, family, and Ronald Reagan with scant attention to other matters. I know that there were important events in the rest of the world, that the German Chanchellor laughed at Barney and ate hot dogs (as well as attended the services for Reagan in DC,) but with that innate isolationism that constantly vies with unwanted responsibilities on the world stage, many of us ordinary Americans took a well-deserved break from Iraq, the presidental election campaign, war on terror, and G-8 intrigue and we focused something that to us is more important: paying our respects as we laid a beloved president to rest.

Somewhat reluctantly, it is time to return to the issues of the day: Sadr's latest adventurism in Najaf, the extent to which NATO countries will support the new Iraq, the Canadian national election campaign, the American national election campaign; in short, those things which will shape the future.

The British paid a full measure of respect to Reagan, as PM Tony Blair and Prince Charles also attended the services in the National Cathedral. We've been a little self-absorbed and thus careless, so let me now say thank you to Great Britain and to all those countries that paid their respects to President Reagan.

I noted in the referrals that someone was looking for the French representative. I don't know if he attended as an official representative of France, but former French president Valery Giscard d'Etaing attended the services in the National Cathedral.

Good-bye, Mr. President. You did your duty admirably, and the tasks of the world have passed to others.

As the final note, the transcripts from the eulogies at the National Cathedral are available online:

Former Canadian PM Brian Mulroney's eulogy is here.

Former British PM Margaret Thatcher's eulogy is here.

President George Herbert Bush's eulogy is here

President George W. Bush's is here.

Posted by: Debbye at 11:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 629 words, total size 4 kb.

June 11 - I'm staying up to watch the services for President Reagan at the National Cathedral so posting will be light.

One extremely notable tribute today from Lech Walesa, who pays a personal tribute to Ronald Reagan in the Opinion Journal.

From In Solidarity:

I distinguish between two kinds of politicians. There are those who view politics as a tactical game, a game in which they do not reveal any individuality, in which they lose their own face. There are, however, leaders for whom politics is a means of defending and furthering values. For them, it is a moral pursuit. They do so because the values they cherish are endangered. They're convinced that there are values worth living for, and even values worth dying for. Otherwise they would consider their life and work pointless. Only such politicians are great politicians and Ronald Reagan was one of them.

Good-bye, Mr. President. I wish I had appreciated you sooner, but glad I came to embrace your vision.

Posted by: Debbye at 11:00 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

June 11 - It seems like a lifetime ago when President Bush said that he had looked into Russian President Putin's eyes and "seen his soul." The press mocked that assessment (of course) but one of the things we've learnt about President Bush that when he tosses out comments like that one it is wise to shut up, pay attention, and see what transpires over the long run.

Russia was opposed to the Iraq War, but at least they were consistent: they also opposed the NATO bombing of Kosovo. (Consistency may be the mark of small minds, but inconsistency is often an indication of opportunism.)

There are still some open questions about Russian involvement in Saddamite Iraq including the final days before the fall of Baghdad, but if the Bush administration chose to see how much rope the Russians might require, it seemed that the length was short the amount they needed to hang themselves and we have been able to maintain cordial relations with Russia.

Actually, relations between the USA and Russia seem the best possible between two sovereign nations: we disagree, but do so agreeably; Russia pursues courses in her best interests, we pursue ours; we didn't ratify Kyoto, and neither did they.

In short, both countries are behaving like adults without the burden of control freakery that seems to consume some of our other allies.

Whereas the foreign leaders who are said to prefer a Kerry presidency choose to remain hidden, the Russian leader has come as close as is proper to publicly taking a stand and does so consistent with his opposition to the war in Iraq: Putin Takes Bush's Side Against Democrats on Iraq saying

"I am deeply convinced that President Bush's political adversaries have no moral right to attack him over Iraq because they did exactly the same.

"It suffices to recall Yugoslavia. Now look at them. They don't like what President Bush is doing in Iraq."

(Link via Let It Bleed. I found while my post fermented that Kate at the Western Standard blog, the Shotgun, has also picked up the story from the Reuters link from which the Yahoo article was taken.)

Posted by: Debbye at 09:53 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.

Ray Charles has Died.

Damn. Double damn. The man was supposed to go on forever. He made so much music (both written and performed) and is even credited with starting The Twist. (Chubby Checker made the song famous, but Ray is said to have started it all in New York's Peppermint Lounge.)

I was pretty young when "Hit the Road, Jack" came out, but I remember my friends and I all singing it loudly and joyously. Ray had a loving sense of humour that came through so many of his songs.

He shaped American culture and therefore us. Thank you, Ray.

Posted by: Debbye at 05:22 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

June 10 - An impressive list of foreign dignitaries will be attending President Reagan's funeral on Friday, including Margaret Thatcher, Mikhail Gorbachev, Lech Walesa, Prince Charles, Tony Blair, Thabo Mbeki, Gerhard Shroeder, Australian G-G General Maj. Gen. Michael Jeffrey, and has been noted previously, Brian Mulroney and G-G Adrienne Clarkson of Canada. A more complete list is here. (I have violated protocol somewhat in how I may seemingly have ranked my list, but that those who played prominent roles during the Reagan era are attending is more to my interest than any protocol. I'm just sorry that Putin evidently won't be there, find it interesting that Shroeder will be there, and never expected Paul Martin or Chirac to attend so have only a shrug as a reaction.)

I expected that both Mulroney and Thatcher would attend, although I feared the health of the latter might prevent her from doing so.

The schedule for today and tomorrow is here, the traditions surrounding a state funeral in the USA are here and some historical background on those traditions are here.

Services concluded yesterday just as I needed to leave for work, so there was again that familiar disconnect of being part of a nation in mourning yet needing to pretend to go about the work routine without reference to it.

CNN (actually, Wolf Blitzer) maintained a respectful silence during yesteday's observances, but as I was leaving they were starting up with that all too familiar phrase "Reagan led the country to the right" which is guaranteed to get my engines fired up (and this is despite the fact that he didn't lead me to the right until I saw the hostages disembarking and the Berlin Wall being busted up. So I'm a slow learner ...)

Do the morons in Old Media suppose that when Reagan was elected in 1980 (and re-elected in 1984) that voters didn't know he was a conservative? We don't elect people to lead us anywhere; we vote to inform those who would lead us as to what we want and heaven help them if they don't deliver.

The US electorate chose a conservative candidate because they approved of fiscal responsibility, a strong defense and had no intention of losing the Cold War.

The voters of the USA led the nation to the right, not Ronald Reagan. Sorry to bust your delusions, CNN, but there is help: try enrolling in a remedial Civic course.

Posted by: Debbye at 07:19 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 3 kb.

June 9 - Reagan's procession under way.

Anyone else start bawling when the D.C. crowd greeted Nancy Reagan with cheers and applause?

As the man shouted, God bless you, Nancy.

Posted by: Debbye at 06:10 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

June 8 - Via Paul, Stephan Hachemi, Zahra Kazemi's son, has written a hard-hitting letter to the editor of the National Post which, given the short link life at the Post, I'm going to quote in full:

June 3, 2004

To former prime minister Jean Chretien:

Like many Canadians, I recently learned of your coming visit to Iran as a representative of a Calgary-based oil company. It is reported that the purpose of your trip is to conclude a deal with the Iranian government on behalf of this firm.

I write to congratulate you.

Your failure to ensure justice was served in the case of my mother, Zahra Kazemi -- who was murdered by the Iranian regime while you were prime minister -- has apparently paid off: You are now most welcome in Tehran.

Last June, my mother was arrested without cause by agents of the Iranian government, who then beat and tortured her to death. No doubt, you remember the case and so are well-informed of the systematic violations of human rights that take place in Iran, as well as the circumstances that surround the killing of my mother.

And yet, knowing this, you are off to shake hands with representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the executioners who less than a year ago had my mother murdered.

I can only thank you for doing this now, Mr. Chretien -- for you are demonstrating clearly what a charade Canada's fervent defence of human rights is. Despite your speeches about human rights when you were at the head of our government, you are now conferring your personal prestige on Iran's regime, and by extension its crimes against humanity.

Bravo, Mr. Chretien. I knew I could count on you to take the veil off your government's hypocrisy. The politics that you practice now show how your government favours "business as usual" before human rights. Congratulations.

Stephan Hachemi, Montreal.

Read the whole thing; it is disturbing and raises some questions that should be directed at Sen. Kerry.

Sen. Kerry has already indicated his willingness to treat with the mullahs of Iran, in a move which may be cynical (maybe it's all about the oil!!!!) or could be appeasement but which amounts to a flagrant dismissal of the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people. Small wonder US Old Media coverage of the Iranian elections and subsequent demonstrations received so little air time.

As Americans and Canadians, do we support tyrants or those who yearn for freedom? Are we appeasers of murderous despots or do we actually believe in those human rights we are so quick to claim to revere?

Those issues may not seem as urgent or important as bread-and-butter issues, but if we lose our freedom to work and raise our families without fear we will lose the true meaning of freedom.

Election campaign coverage has a way of obscuring issues by focusing on the sound bites instead of the substance of remarks, but President Reagan's death has reminded us that indeed there are pivotal events that can lead either to victory or become yet another missed opportunity.

Would I rather rejoice because millions of Iraqis are entering a new era of freedom or bewail the fact that the French are annoyed with us for ignoring their advice?

Posted by: Debbye at 07:24 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 619 words, total size 4 kb.

June 7 - Words are not coming easily for me this day. As Californians pay their respects to the former governor and president, I again feel that frustration at being here instead of there.

President Reagan's casket was carried into the Presidential Library earlier this afternoon and I found the heartbreak made even more unbearable by the clicking of camera shutters which interrupted that otherwise respectful silence. Aaron found stark words to express the need we feel, almost as a compelling duty, to watch these observances.

Part of the heartbreak is how viewing it forced memories of similar solemn processions from previous occasions of official state mourning. When I saw Nancy Reagan, I recalled other widows: Jacqueline Kennedy, Coretta Scott King and Ethel Kennedy.

Peaktalk may have made one of the best tributes in Goodbye, My Friend:

At the same time many people in Europe rallied the streets on a regular basis to demonstrate against deploying American cruise missiles on European soil as a counterweight to the Soviet missile build-up. Many of my friends joined in these protests, unwilling to see the rationale of the “peace through strength” philosophy that was coming out of Washington. It was in those days that I mentally departed from Europe and saw the deeper values underpinning “Go out there and win one for the Gipper” and “the Shining City on a Hill”, sentences that drew ridicule in Europe. Yet they represented and appealed to profound human emotions, crossed boundaries and inspired many around the world, not least of all myself. So my journey that turned out to be driven by optimism, a strong need for self fulfillment and a deep belief in the ability of the individual to shape his or her own destiny coincided with a period in which the White House was occupied by an inspirational, visionary, wise, and charming man who very effectively communicated the same values to the rest of the world.

Be sure to read Jack's Thoughts in which he neatly ties together Reagan, Juno beach and the upcoming Canadian election. Possible tear alert!

Kathy Shaidle has a delightfully honest post, I'm sorry I used to hate you. Me too, Kathy.

Ouch, even more embarassing moments: former punker Meatriarchy looks at the punk scene, Ronald Reagan and the Prophets of Doom and some stuff we hurried to forget once that wall came down.

Colby Cosh says he began to admire Reagan after his "logic chips were implanted over the years." Heh.

Jason Hayes remembers Reagan and marks the distinction between a politician and a statesman.

Burnside has an excellent round-up of blogger reactions from Saturday and even waded into the Democratic Underground.

Although President Reagan has been absent from public life this past decade, the recollections of the triumphs of his presidency which his death has forced upon Old Media contains a delightful irony which I believe Reagan would fully appreciate.

CNN commentators are claiming that Reagan's political opponents liked him. WTF? They hated him. He was the anti-Chri ... er, anti-progressive. Stephen Taylor fondly recalls the media furor over the Staubach bomb.

Mark Steyn doesn't mince words about Reagan's detractors:

The elites were stupid about Reagan in a way that only clever people can be.

Oh well, big surprise that Old Media are trying to re-write history, but sometimes they just can't resist temptation. CNN had a caption that read "Reagan was the first actor to be elected president." That's like saying "George Washington was the first surveyor to be elected president." Sheesh.

Some columnists are honest. John reports that a columnist for La Vanguardia has used the event to remind us that Reagan created bin Laden (fourth paragraph down) and an editorial which seems to laments the fall of the Soviet Union. John rebuts them quite nicely.

Off-shore, the official reaction in Cuba was candid. Gee, they didn't like him? They have true cause to lament the invasion of Grenada as well as the fall of the Soviet Union.

Bob comments on the Toronto Star editorial and David Janes wades into CBC coverage on Reagan's life and death.

Back home, Alpha Patriot has some great links to Reagan tributes and his own tribute here.

I have to go to work again tonight, but I'm glad I'll be off Friday. This is going to be a difficult week. My heart and thoughts are with America as we mourn.

June 8 - 16:39: Hurrah! Regular AgitProp commenter Chris has started his own blog, Taylor & Co., and makes a wonderful tribute to Reagan with more Cancon than Trudeauphiles might wish.

Posted by: Debbye at 04:03 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 776 words, total size 6 kb.

June 6 - Today's front page of the Toronto Sun:

There are a number of articles linked in this article, Reagan loses final battle, Calgary Sun columnist Paul Jackson has a personal tribute in his column A hero passes and Toronto Sun columnist Bob MacDonald recalls the Thatcher-Reagan alliance in The gipper won one for us, and the Western Standard's Shotgun has a number of posts on Reagan (start here and keep linking to subsequent posts.)

Belmont Club recalls how well Horatio held the bridge, Ghost of a Flea has The surly bonds of earth and further and deeply profound thoughts in Unfinished. Let It Bleed has a succinct summation of Reagan's legacy (ha!), Spinkiller recalls Reagan as The man who knocked down walls, and Damian Penny recalls the "Tear down that wall" speech and the memory of a Pole which rightly points at similarities between the election of 2000 and 2004.

I doubt I'm the only American for whom current events was forced into perspective with the recollections of Ronald Reagan's presidency during yesterday's news coverage of his death.

I still lived in California when Reagan was elected governor, and with that idealism of youth that fails to comprehend that government money is only that which comes out of my pocket, I deplored the reduction in the civil service and budget-cutting measures. (Those who forgot those lessons were surely reminded when Schwarzenegger was elected governor for much the same reasons as Reagan.)

I'd be lying if I claimed to appreciate President Reagan during his term of office, but the tearing down of the Berlin Wall began my re-evaluation of of the Cold War and how we had both over-estimated and under-estimated Soviet influence and might.

What I do remember is that Syria, Libya and Iraq were in the Soviet sphere of influence and, in true Babylon 5 tradition, the fight continues although the face of the enemy has changed.

One often gets the impression that progressive forces in Canada regret the passing of the Soviet Union in part because they viewed the Soviets as having a braking affect on American might. Yet this regret is not tempered by the admission that Soviet might kept Russians and Eastern Europeans in chains.

When those who have nothing to lose but their chains are those who live under communism - not capitalism - how can the left continue to justify it's existence? Belmont Club answers in Friday's post Mephisto in which the battle of Thermopylae is remembered (without reference to the fact that the Spartans stood alone while the Athenians dallied to finish their festival - inadvertant Cancon, anyone?) That post read today eerily forces to mind President Reagan's declaration that for America, the best was yet to come, a prospect which was anathema to leftists who must promote dire predictions and gloom because it's their only propaganda tool.

One of the lamentations of the left today is that US aggression against terrorism is causing instability much as the left then warned that a Reagan presidency would plunge us all into an nuclear holocaust.

Why are those who promote themselves as humanitarians those who least believe that human beings have unlimited capacity to greatness? Why are those who give lip service to human rights so willing to doom the oppressed of the world to tyranny in the name of stability? And since when does a revolutionist deplore instability?

The answer is fairly obvious once we shake off those bonds imposed by fear of risk and instability: the human race has steadily marched forward when it embraced tolerance and respect for each another, and when those opposed to progress preach intolerance and distrust they have forsworn the right to style themselves as progressives.

If man was meant to fly he's have wings. But man (and woman) was meant to fly - with all the risks of Icarus and all the glory of Billy Bishop. Maybe Reagan's legacy is the willingness to embrace the promise of the future by accepting the challenges of the present.

Rest in peace, Mr. President. May your legacy long endure.

Posted by: Debbye at 01:00 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 689 words, total size 5 kb.

President Ronald Reagan Dies at 93

When the Lord calls me home, whenever that may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future. I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead.

Posted by: Debbye at 07:48 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

June 3 - I guess I'd better give a nod to the big story of the day: CIA Director Tenet Resigns.

Pundits will debate the whys while others will say "what took so long." Kerry took a fairly predictable line, but must tread carefully as Tenet was a Clinton appointee.

As for me, I'm going to work. It's Friday!

June 5 - 21:14: Peter Worthington probably has the best perspective on it.

Posted by: Debbye at 07:33 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

June 1 - I woke up this afternoon just in time to catch this Justice Dept. briefing of the case against Jose Padilla on CNN. When they switched to Wolf Blitzer, I recollected that we now have MSNBC on our new television digital thingy and hurray! they were still airing the briefing. Take that, CNN!

I have little trouble with treating Padilla as an enemy combatant because he is one. After confessing to that shocking display of simplisme, I may as well also admit that although those worrying about his civil rights have their points and their cautions should be acknowledged, they might want to remember that we could just charge him with treason and hang him. We are at war, there is precedent, and it could be done in a military setting as he was plotting to engage in acts of sabotage as an agent of a declared enemy, al Qaeda.

This is the crux of the one, primary issue: do we deal with terrorists and terrorism as a police matter or as a military matter? As Comey made clear, we can't prosecute this war or protect ourselves within the structure of our legal system.

This crux has a sub-crux: are we at war? The answer to the latter question informs the answer to the former. That too is simple, which is not to say it's unsophisticated because it requires a degree of sophistication to envision a war in which there are few battlefields in the classic sense (ref. D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Shiloh) and uncertain methods of assigning victory.

From the Fox website: Transcript: Justice Dept. on Padilla.

U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Comey tells a story that should be shocking yet isn't. How far we've come.

The final question indicates the media is still lagging behind:

QUESTION: We've read a lot in the media about Jose Padilla and his motivation. Did he disclose anything new or reveal anything in his conversations with interrogators about his motivations for joining Al Qaeda, and any psychological reasons why a U.S. citizen would join Al Qaeda?

But we have not included in this document the extended exploration of his state of mind.

By the way, some familiar names pop up during the briefing: Mohammed Atef, Adnan Shukrijumah (aka Jafar,) Abu Zubaida, Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Posted by: Debbye at 06:32 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.