The bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese on December 7, 1941 killed over 2,400 Americans and led directly to the entry of the United States into World War II.

In his powerful, thickly researched new book, December 1941: 31 Days That Changed America and Saved the World, Craig Shirley chronicles the day-by-day shifts in American culture, politics, and national identity through that horrible month. Before December, Shirley tells Reason’s Nick Gillespie, a solid majority opposed entry into World War II and the “eminently respectable” America First movement was poised to help select the next president of the United States. Non-interventionism was so universal that Franklin Roosevelt himself had campaigned for his third term as president on a promise to keep “American boys” out of European wars.

By the start of 1942, says Shirley, the long tradition of isolationism was over, never to be seen again. The nation that had rejected the League of Nations after World War I helped create the United Nations and America quickly became not simply a global economic, political, and military power but the dominant player on the globe.

The author of many books, including two biographies of Ronald Reagan and a forthcoming book on Newt Gingrich, Shirley talks with Reason’s Nick Gillespie about what was gained – and lost – in the historical hinge point that was December 1941.

Approximately 8 minutes.

Camera by Meredith Bragg and Jim Epstein; produced by Bragg.

Visit Reason.tv for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.

The reason the American Founders reserved the question of war to Congress was that they wanted to assure that so momentous a decision could not be made by a single individual. They had watched European kings plunge their nations into bloody and debilitating wars and wanted to avoid that fate for the American Republic.

The most fatal and consequential decision a nation can make is to go to war, and the American Founders wanted that decision made by all the representatives of the people after careful deliberation. Only when Congress has made that fateful decision does it fall to the President as Commander in Chief to command our armed forces in that war.

The authors of the Constitution were explicit on this point. In Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton drew a sharp distinction between the American President’s authority as Commander in Chief, which he said “would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces” and that of the British king who could actually declare war.

To contend that the President has the legal authority to commit an act of war without Congressional approval requires ignoring every word the Constitution’s authors said on this subject – and they said quite a lot.

There seems to be a widespread misconception that under the War Powers Act, the President may order any attack on any country he wants for 60 days without Congressional approval. This is completely false. The War Powers Act is clear and unambiguous: the President may only order our armed forces into hostilities under three very specific conditions: (quoting directly from the Act): “(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Only if one of these conditions is present can the President invoke the War Powers Act. None are present or alleged to be present, and thus the President is in direct violation of that Act.

The United Nations Participation Act requires specific congressional authorization before American forces are ordered into hostilities in United Nations actions. The North Atlantic Treaty clearly requires troops under NATO command to be deployed in accordance with their country’s constitutional provisions. The War Powers Act specifically forbids inferring from any treaty the power to order American forces into hostilities without specific congressional authorization.

The only conclusion we can make is that this was an illegal and unconstitutional act of the highest significance.

The President has implied that he didn’t have time for Congressional authorization to avert a humanitarian disaster in Libya. He had plenty of time to get a resolution from the United Nations. I would remind him that just a day after the unprovoked bombing of Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt appeared in this very chamber to request and receive congressional authorization.

Some have said that the President can do whatever he wishes and that Congress’s authority is limited to cutting off funds. War is not a one-sided act that can be turned on and off with Congressional funding. Once any nation commits an act of war against another, from that moment it is AT WAR — inextricably embroiled and entangled with an aggrieved and belligerent party that has casus belli to prosecute hostilities regardless of what Congress then decides.

Finally, I’ve heard it said, “we did the same thing in Kosovo.” If that is the case, then shame on the Congress that tolerated it. And shame on us if we allow this act to stand unchallenged any longer.

This matter strikes at the heart of the Constitution. If this act is allowed to stand, it will fundamentally change the entire character of the legislative and executive functions on the most momentous decision a nation can make and take us down a dark and bloody road the American Founders fought so hard to avoid.

While yesterday’s ruling is being praised by opponents of the law, it won’t stop their protests, it will prolong them.  For years.  In fact, hordes of angry protesters are scheduled to descend upon the state first thing Thursday morning.  And the propaganda machine on the left continues to run at full speed, cranking out intentionally misleading statements, disinformation, and outright lies.  We’ve watched the boycotts.  We’ve watched as the protests have erupted into hate events, directed not from the right against illegal immigrants as the left portrays them, but from the left and illegal immigrants against peaceful people on the right (and many in the center!).

Meanwhile, as the left continues their manufactured barrage of anger at Andrew Breitbart for supposedly taking things out of context in the Shirley Sherrod story, they fabricate their own version of context propaganda on video in examples like this one from the SEIU:

The video’s description reads in part:

“This means that while the law will still take effect on July 29th, police will NOT be able to use racial profiling to inquire into a person’s immigration status.  But SB1070 doesn’t stop with racial profiling. Further militarizing the border with land mines and machine guns, and shutting off utilities are all policy “solutions” that extreme politicians are considering.  If we don’t stand up, these types of extreme laws may come to your state.  Watch this video to see the type of America that Republicans want to create for us.”

The video then proceeds with one of the most irresponsible pieces of manufactured propaganda that I’ve seen in some time.  Here’s the script that SEIU is feeding to illegal immigrants and to uninformed sympathizers on the left who are unable to think or to read the law for themselves.

As seen in this video a frame at a time,

If they [the Republicans] get everything they want, here’s what it’ll look like.

First they’ll cut the power.

Then they’ll round them up.

They’ll build a wall.  (Video cuts to clips of Nazi Germany; building the Berlin Wall)

They’ll turn our border into a war zone and mine field. (Video cuts to clips of bombs exploding)

And then, finally, they’ll intern undocumented workers in camps – or tent cities.

Haven’t we seen this before?  (Video cuts to old video and edited news footage depicting interned Japanese after Pearl Harbor)

These bad ideas are coming to a state near you.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

This is disgusting.

Let’s pause for a moment.  Consider the importance of context with as much emphasis as was placed on it with respect to the Sherrod story.  Also consider the significance of some of the historical events that are depicted in the video alongside said “context”, and how drastically such history has been degraded by the insinuation that this is the case today.  Lastly, think about the portrayal of the images and of the information in the video – much like the insurance companies were chided by the left during the health care debate for cooking up “fishy information”, the SEIU projects a blatantly false portrayal of what the Arizona law really represents.

Where is the Reality Check from Linda Douglass in the White House today?  Where is the government snitch program through flag@whitehouse.gov?  Where is Media Matters for America on this one?

As if this video wasn’t enough to demonstrate the irresponsible nature of the SEIU’s “information” distribution, there is also this gem the SEIU has been peddling.

“A Nation of Immigrants”,  “The Story of Immigration is the Story of America.”  Well, surprisingly for the SEIU, those are actually correct statements.  Unfortunately, the context around the information in the video is not.  You see, the SEIU intentionally misleads viewers of the video by omitting any reference of the word “illegal” or anything like it.  The video attempts to convince the viewer that those who oppose the left’s plan for “comprehensive immigration reform,” which includes amnesty for all illegals in the country, oppose immigration.  This is simply not the case.  The SEIU and so many others on the left, including much of the liberal media, have repeatedly positioned the argument in this fashion, all the while portraying good Americans as “racist” and “full of hate”.

Let me refer to some of my own background for a moment to provide a little “context” for our friends on the left.

I have an interesting family history.  My great-grandparents immigrated to the US in the early 1900’s from Syria and Lebanon.  They waited years to become citizens; my great-grandmother, with whom I was close as a child, used to tell me their stories.  My great-grandfather and his brother had to make several trips back and forth between Lebanon and the US over a period of many years before they finally made their way through Ellis Island for the last time.  It took years to get all of their family members all over here in the US, back together again as one family.  Perhaps that appreciation for family is what keeps us meeting for family reunions every year, still to this very day.

On the other side, I also have my stepfather’s family history.  My mother was remarried when I was about 12 years old.  My stepfather’s parents immigrated here from Iran, as did several others from his family.  His father was a high-level decorated officer in the Iranian military.  His mother was a Polish citizen who was eventually removed from Poland and sent to a labor camp in Iran after the Nazis murdered her first  husband, leaving her alone with a small child, my stepfather’s oldest sister.  My stepfather’s parents met while his father was guarding the labor camp where his mother and sister were interned.  When his sister became gravely ill and the camp had no penicillin to save her life, it was his Iranian father who went to extremes to obtain penicillin, which was like gold at that time.  He rode great distances by horse to retrieve the medicine and bring it into the camp and save that child’s life.  Years later, the two married, and his father made his way to the US to make a home for them embraced by the freedom of our country.  She joined him here years later, and they’d had several more children, including my stepfather.

Despite their dire situations, their hardships, and their lack of financial means, all of my family members came into this country legally.  They all went through painstaking efforts to earn that entry.  They all loved this country immensely and often voiced this appreciation aloud.  I could tell story after story about my family members’ journeys, and about their lives as legal US citizens.  I summarize this background merely to demonstrate that there is a difference between those who are here illegally, and those who played by the rules and patiently made their way here legally.  It is an insult to all of the legal immigrants in this great country to act as though the rules don’t matter and should simply be tossed away.  It would hurt my great-grandparents and my step-grandparents to see the propaganda and hear the false rhetoric of the left on this issue.

As Americans, we all recognize that immigration is a difficult and complex issue that has no simple solution.  But before we can really address a realistic solution of any sort, the propaganda and the race-baiting and immigrant-baiting must stop.  Insincere and irresponsible videos such as these only harm the debate, and create unnecessary conflict and fear in communities where it need not exist.  These policies of fear are not at all the policies that the other side has been proposing.

It’s all about the context.

Yes, we are a nation of immigrants.  And my own family is very proud of their legal immigration to the US.  If only all of our great-grandparents were still alive today – if others were anything like mine were, I think we’d see a tremendous amount of respect, dignity and sincerity brought to this debate.  Most importantly, I know they’d have brought plenty of honesty.  And that’s something I haven’t seen a lot of in the agit-prop coming from the likes of the SEIU.  I know my great-grandparents would have been ashamed to see such treachery.

I guess the key phrase here is “in their right mind” because wouldn’t you know it, a plan to build what would, at 15 stories, be the largest community center/mosque in New York City is being hotly debated at the moment. Why the debate? Because its location will be only two blocks from the World Trade Center Ground Zero site. Yes. You read that correctly. And just like in my hypothetical examples I set forth above, the obvious question arises: why there?

First, a little background on the mosque’s sponsors helps frame the discussion. The imam leading the project is Faisal Abdul Rauf. Like many imams, Rauf seems to be a split personality. If one were to pull up CNN’s website or open up the NY Times, one would be dutifully fed the story of a soft-spoken introspective man. A respected religious and community leader who is dedicated to reaching across the chasm of religious animus to achieve peaceful co-existence with his Western hosts. A man with a sonorous voice and hypnotic charm who, according to his book What’s Right With Islam wants the mosque to be a place where inter-faith understanding is fostered. Aww shucks!

Of course, as is the case with many so-called moderate leaders of his faith, one must do a deep dive to find the inevitable darker side. You certainly will not read about his hostility towards the West in the mainstream media whose fear of portraying anything Islamic in a bad light is only conversely matched by its visceral objections to Christianity. (See MSNBC and Comedy Central). But Rauf’s own words tell us much of what we need to know of this practitioner of the “religion of peace.” In an interview with CNN shortly after 9/11, Rauf said:

“U.S. policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. We [the U.S.] have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. Osama bin Laden was made in the USA.”

Elsewhere, Rauf has stated that terrorism will end only when the West acknowledges the harm it has done to Muslims. (Do not expect his gratitude on behalf of the millions of Muslims saved from genocide in the Balkans thanks to Western actions while the Muslim world did nothing.) It is also his historically amnesiatic contention that it was Christians who started mass attacks on civilians. I guess the gruesome  slaughters of civilians in the wake of centuries of steady Islamic conquests – see Constantinople 1453 – was our doing too. But radicalism and ignorance tend to go hand in hand. And even granting him a reference to Allied bombing raids of cities in WW2, I do not recall those USAAF and RAF pilots dropping bombs in the name of Jesus Christ…rather in the hopes of accelerating the conclusion of a world war and an end to the killing they did not start.

To understand the origin of Rauf’s one-sided history one need go back just one branch on his family tree. Again, do not expect help from the mainstream media. After all it’s not like he’s a Catholic. His father, Mohammed, came out of the Muslim Brotherhood along with Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second man of al Qaeda. The Muslim Brotherhood is the oldest Islamic terrorist organization in the world. Mohammed left Kuwait where Faisal was born and then came to the United States in 1965 and built an Islamic center in Manhattan funded by 49 Muslim countries. Perhaps this is guilt by association. But becoming an imam who blames the West as much as terrorists for planes flying into buildings is hardly evidence of an apple falling far from the Jihadist tree.

And the story behind the source of Rauf’s capital is murky at best. Rauf reportedly bought the property for $4.5 million in cash. Where did that money come from? Some say unidentified sources in Saudi Arabia and Muslim-ruled Malaysia but no one as of this writing knows for sure. And he plans to invest as much as $150 million into the facility. Source of funds? Crickets.

Concerns over what will be taught in the new center, and financed by whom aside, the core issue of this story remains: WHY THERE? Why a stone’s throw from the place where Muslim fanatics screaming “Allahu Akhbar” killed 2700 innocent civilians who bore them no ill in one fell swoop? It is ultimately about the symbolism, which is an all important aspect of Middle Eastern culture. And the symbolism of the location of this mosque is not lost on those who view Europe as conquered infidel lands to be re-colonized by the righteous followers of Allah and who see the USA as the great impediment to their global caliphate. This as a test of our will. Subtle perhaps. And maybe not even a conscious attempt on the part of some who support it. There are surely even those who may be legitimate in their concerns and see the structure as an offering to bridge the divide. But for the jihadists of the world, and their millions of silent apologists, if not outright accomplices, if such a structure, near such a hallowed place, after so short a time faces no opposition than it is yet more proof that the West is weak and even the USA is becoming a defanged cobra. New flash: they’re right.

And don’t ask the city of New York, in financial straights and desperate for investment, to press the issue of either its unclear funding or adherence to local ordinances during its construction. Records for the Department of Buildings have shown numerous complaints for illegal construction and no access, yet the issues were officially listed as “resolved.” How exactly?

Consider. What if a bunch of Christian zealots (by no means representative of all the faithful) herded a few thousand mostly Muslim men, women and children into a building and incinerated it, killing them all in the name of Jesus Christ? What would be the level of “rage” from the Muslim street if less than a decade later a Christian group planned to build a cathedral on the spot? I’m thinking red-line here. Open season on Christians even.

The brazenness with which ever more radicalized elements of the Islamic world strive to impose their intolerant, misogynistic, and medieval belief system upon their Western host organisms is so obvious as to be a blasé fact of life. Even more unforgivable is our continual acquiescence to this trend, especially by far-left liberal activists who believe that tolerance is tantamount to being deaf, dumb and blind–and many of whose feminism, sexual preference and atheism would put them in the cross-hairs of conservative believers in Shariah law or Wahabiist doctrine well before lil’ ole me. And I for one am tired of the West being treated like fools by having our own cultural mores and adherence to the rule of secular law used against us. They are purposefully exploiting our tolerance, openness, and respect for other cultures in the way water seeks the weakest entry points to sink a ship. Why must the sense of outrage, of hyper-sensitivity to perceived affronts to a faith and heritage, only go one way? Enough of this self-inflicted double-standard. I watched 9/11 in person and lost several friends that day.  Yet I have absolutely no problem with Muslims as a whole—or anyone for that matter—so long as they have no problem with me and my beliefs. Just as I have no issue with Japanese or Germans sited in my opening as examples. Nor do I hold 1.5 billion people responsible for the actions of a few. But that does not mean I do not know when a line is crossed beyond which cultural outreach becomes insult—intentional or not. If you go to the Smithsonian you can see the B-29 Enola Gay on proud display. But you will not, nor should you ever, find it in Hiroshima. That is just common sense and decency.

Western culture is under siege and, whether or not we wish to accept it, there is more to the choice of this particular location for this particular mosque by this particular imam at this particular time than it being a convenient slab of real estate. If we cannot see that to resist this obvious insult to those who died on 9/11 is no more racist or xenophobic than it would be anti-German to resist a monument to that nation erected in Malmedy then we are hopelessly adrift in a sea of political correctness that will drown us in the end. This is not prejudice. This is a matter of respect for those  who died in the twin towers, and the nation as a whole. And it is about making a strong statement that, though Europe has effectively surrendered its cultural identity, we Americans are drawing a line in the concrete. That all from foreign lands are welcome to come here so long as they accept their American identity above all else. And that the many Muslims who claim to be respectful of other cultures must step up to the plate and in this case walk the walk…and in the process stop demanding we tip-toe on eggshells around their tiresome hot-button sensibilities, while our concerns are mere footnotes when juxtaposed with their aims. Until they accept this, we have absolutely no obligation to be tolerant of the intolerant. And certainly no obligation to support an affront that would cause murderous riots in the streets of any Muslim city were the roles reversed.

The argument which is made by the right against the president’s newly announced policy, namely that enemy nations that are in compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPR) can attack us with non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction with complete impunity from nuclear retaliation seems a bit hysterical. One way or another, any nation that attacks us with biological or chemical weapons should count on a rendezvous with their stone-age ancestors.   On the other hand, the argument from the left, that we have moved the hands of the doomsday clock back several minutes, seems like wishful thinking.  America and the world is not safer… not yet, anyway.

Some of those who have been the biggest critics of our Iraq, Afghanistan and anti-terror policies, and whose main motivation in life seems to be to prove George Bush’s policies were wrong contend that Iran or North Korea may, as a result of the new policy, be incentivized to abandon their plans to build nuclear arsenals and now comply with the nuclear non-proliferation agreement.  This seems more the stuff of Saturday Night Live than serious foreign-policy thinking.

We do not expect that the President will ever answer the phone in the oval office to,.. “Hello, Barack, this is Mahmoud Admadinejad.  Sorry I haven’t responded earlier to your outstretched hand, but your new nuclear policy made me realize that I owe you an apology.”  Or “Hi there Mr. President, Kim Jong-Il calling to let you know that your new policy is so impressive that I, today, personally ordered the dismantling of all our nuclear forces.”

And in the real world, Syria, which not too many months ago had their North Korean supplied nuclear program blown away by Israel, is at it again and has blown a loud new raspberry our way with news that they have started shipping longer-range scud missiles to their proxies, Hezbollah in Lebanon.  These nations have demonstrated repeatedly that their goal is not to reduce world terrorism but to expand their influence vis-à-vis their regions and the world.  A nation like Iran that has frequently made clear that it believes  “Israel should be wiped off the map” won’t abandon its evil intentions because it is less, rather than more, fearful of U.S. retaliation.

The forty-seven-nation nuclear summit meeting that convened last week in Washington, D.C. really hasn’t changed the calculus either.  Even though Iran is the biggest destabilizing threat in areas which are already a tinder box, the Chinese continue to take the position that they are against sanctions that are too punitive and that they would be opposed to any sanctions that inconvenienced (they said harmed) other nations that were doing legitimate business with Iran.  This is not exactly an example of the world getting tough with rogue nations.

As to the 47-nation nuclear-risk-reduction summit, as with all summits, the devil is in the details and this summit produced little in the way of details.  It was, in our view, important that the president reestablished American leadership on this vital issue.  It also accomplished what seems to be a serious commitment to continue the Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton, Bush (43) policies to reign in inventories of highly enriched nuclear material, and that is good.  But Pakistan continues to produce plutonium and it not only lives in a neighborhood influenced by Al Qaeda, but also has members of its own government sympathetic to that lethal terrorist organization.  And, as Charles Krauthammer pointed out in the April 17 edition of the Washington Post, the hoopla about the transfer of loose nuclear materials to the U.S. by Ukraine and Canada is old news.  It had been agreed to, but not announced, quite some time ago.

It would also do us well to recognize that pledges and agreements are no better than the resolve or the intentions of the signatories.  In the last century Germany and Japan both were signatories to treaties and protocols that should have made it highly unlikely that either country would, just a few years later, be responsible for unleashing world war.

A few earlier treaties are also worth considering.  At the beginning of the twentieth century battleships were the ultimate weapons.  The nations with the biggest and best fleets quite literally ruled the seas. Japan devastated Russia in 1904 by sinking its entire navy in the short-lived Russo-Japanese war.  In an effort to reign in the growing Japanese threat the Washington Conference of 1921 was convened and Japan and the United States ultimately agreed to reduce their respective fleets of battleships…an earlier version of a non-proliferation treaty.

As with all such conferences, each participating nation came with its own agenda and special interests. America’s interest was simply to slow or halt the expansion of Japan into the western Pacific.  The United States believed the best way to protect its interests was to secure an agreement that would establish an agreed upon ratio of naval tonnage between Japan and The United States.

Great Britain saw the 1921 conference primarily as an opportunity to protect its interests in Singapore, Hong Kong and other colonial areas.  Japan, on the other hand, wanted British and American recognition of their interests in Mongolia and Manchuria and a treaty that might limit America’s growing naval presence in the Pacific.

And so, America and Japan actually sank their own ships reducing their fleets to agreed-upon tonnages. There was no other example in history of nations intentionally sinking their own ships. But, as we observed earlier, it is the intentions of the signatories that really count, not the words on the document.  Battleships were, indeed, sunk as a result of the Washington Conference, so Japan shifted gears and began building aircraft carriers, which were not covered by the treaty.  Those aircraft carriers were to sink most of what was left of the American fleet at Pearl Harbor less than two decades later.

Of course there is probably no better example of an all-inclusive pact to end war than the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Treaty. Its formal name was the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War. It was the ultimate arms limitation treaty.

Great Britain was there, France was there, America was there and even Germany was there.  Talk about non-proliferation.  Representatives of virtually all of the nations that would soon be combatants in World-War Two scratched their signatures onto a document that committed their nations to eschew war as an instrument of national policy. Following the initial signing of the treaty on August 27, 1928 in Paris by the representatives from: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, India, the Irish Free State, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States, many other nations, including the Soviet Union joined the pact.  Within five years Germany was preparing for war and by 1938  World War Two was raging throughout Europe, North Africa and Asia.

We are not suggesting that treaties and disarmament conferences are a waste of time.  Quite the contrary. In fact, when the time is right, such efforts must be vigorously pursued.  And, in many respects, the time may very well be right.  The United States and Russia have, in fact, been reducing their nuclear arsenals for several years.  Twenty years ago the United States is reported to have had ten thousand nuclear warheads deployed and aimed at Soviet targets. Under the terms of the Moscow Treaty signed by President Bush (43) during his second year in office, we had cut that number down to only two thousand warheads by the time President Obama assumed office. The treaty the President just signed with Russia’s President Medvedev actually only reduces the allowable number of warheads agreed to in the Moscow Treaty by another 150 warheads.

We have reservations about the details of any commitments made in side protocols regarding the defensive missile shield which the U.S. planned to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic , and we would like to know whether the Administration plans to upgrade our remaining nuclear forces as the Russians have been doing  for years. The treaty, however, is an additional right step in the direction set by President Obama’s predecessors.

The newly announced strategic nuclear policy is, to us, troublesome on two counts.  First, it eliminates ambiguity.  Keeping our adversaries from knowing what any U.S. response to an attack on our allies or on us should be an important element in our overall security.  Our response to the attacks on the World Trade Center that took three thousand innocent lives was to chase from power the Taliban who had given Al Qaeda refuge in Afghanistan.  What if an enemy that was otherwise in compliance with NPR, or a force harbored within their borders, was to attack New York again, this time with anthrax or an equally deadly agent that took three million lives instead of three thousand.  Are we wise to declare what we won’t do in such a circumstance, or is it better to keep such an adversary guessing?

Second, we question whether it is wise to reduce or eliminate the nuclear option without simultaneously beefing up our conventional capability.  By all accounts we are stretched pretty thin right now.   By taking the nuclear option off the table, or by making it less accessible, we increase the risk that potential adversaries might become more adventuresome, especially if they calculate that we don’t have the resources to adequately respond.

It is hard to imagine any nation militarily challenging the United States one-on-one anytime soon.  Russia lacks both the resources and the reason to engage in hostilities with the United States and too much of China’s bread is buttered with American dollars for war with America to make any sense. In other words, neither country’s interests would be served by inordinate tension with America.  Iran, Syria, North Korea or Hugo Chavez’s increasingly troublesome Venezuela are not likely directly to attack America either.  However, they all represent a potential direct threat to nations with which we have close ties or with which we share vital interests.  Each of these nations is also a potential haven for terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and it is within this sphere of thugacracies that the nearest dangers probably lay.

We believe that any nation that provides aid or comfort to any terrorist organization that threatens US interests should live in dread of what we might do if such a rogue group launched an attack against us.  No new American policy should lessen that sense of dread.

If you remember, when President Bush was informed of the second plane crashing into the World Trade Center, while his photo op with school children at the Emma  E. Booker elementary school was about to start. For the next several minutes, (much maligned by Michael Moore, in “Faranheit 9/11″) we saw a man confused by the situation. It has been joked about by comedians as him wanting to see how the story ended.

Every time I watch this footage, I always saw a strong man, who knew that twenty school children had looked forward to their chance to read to the President, for weeks. He decided they would not be disappointed. And knowing that this was an attack on the United States, the President did his best to neither disappoint nor alarm the children.

I’ve always imagined his narcissistic predecessor bolting straight out of the room and into a bunker, stepping over any children in his path. In reality, what could the President do? In that moment of confusion there really was nothing that could be done, other than have him sit there uncomfortably, and pretend that everything was normal. It takes a strong man not to flinch under adversity.

After he left the classroom, he went in front of the cameras, for what was supposed to be a prepared speech about education in America, and his initiatives. Instead, he went completely off-script, and directly into a speech that was most probably ad-libbed due to time constraints. He said that this is a difficult time for America, and promised to get the folks responsible.

Fast forward to last week. President Obama was also supposed to pose for a photo op, when possibly the biggest attack on US soil since September 11^th occurred. While the other media still tries to sort out the motive for the shooting at Ft. Hood, I think most of us are pretty clear on what “Allah Akbar” means.

But there was no moment of reassurance from this President. Instead, he went into his prepared speech, and made a special point to give a “shout-out” to “Dr. Joe Medicine Crow” before he even addressed the issue.

In the President’s defense, I’m fairly certain that the “Shout-Out” had already been loaded into the teleprompter, and the tech didn’t know whether to delete it or not. The tech was obviously eMailed a Ft. Hood statement, but it took a while to get it up.

If you watch the video, you can see the clumsy transition (around 1:38). He stalls for a couple seconds while the new speech is being loaded: “Now, …I have to say though, ..that uhhh,…beyond that… uh I had planned to make some broader remarks, uh about the challenges that lay ahead for Native Americans as well as collaboration with our administration..”

Then suddenly his eyes lock on the right teleprompter as his Ft’ Hood statement begins to roll, and the stuttering stops: “uh but as some of you might have heard there has be a tragic shooting at the Ft. Hood Army base in Texas…”

I think this will be defining moment for this Administration. While he might be unclear on whether this was just a rampage, or an attack on the United States, I am certain that there is no question in the minds of the men and women of our military, that this event only differed from Pearl Harbor in scale.

And let it be known, that from this day forward, anytime a Leftie brings up “My Pet Goat” it will be retaliated with a “Shout Out to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow.”