Three Blind Mice

Steven e-mails to report on a brush with fame (or more like infamy?):

Today I went to a discussion at the [name removed to protect the innocent] School hosted by the Panetta Institute. The Institute is named for Leon Panetta, who used to be Clinton's Chief of Staff. He started the show off by explaining that the Institute existed to interest young people in public service. He said polls showed that disturbingly few youths wanted to go into public service. (He didn't hazard any guesses as to why that might be.)

The other members of the panel were the crook Tom Daschle and the "why can't we all get along, middle of the road, Republican in name only" Jack Danforth. From that group was supposed to issue a balanced discussion on whether we could enjoy both liberty and national security.

At one point Daschle said that he was shocked lately to see how many Americans were willing to trade their liberty for security. He was referring to the Patriot Act, but it struck me that he'd built an entire senate career on those people, ones who were happy to pay higher taxes in exchange for government programs. He even mentioned the need for government health insurance, without showing any sign that he was aware of the contradiction.

Danforth mumbled platitudes about how shocking it was that public discourse had become so unfriendly, and that partisanship had become so fierce. He indicated that it was worse now than it's ever been. It's not that I expect him to remember the Civil War, or the Lincoln Douglas debates, but something ought to have led him to qualify his statement.

Leon and Daschle griped about the "insane" tax cuts and the national deficit.

At the end, Panetta asked us - military officers all, except for a couple [name removed] School faculty members - what we thought we should do in Iraq - stay the course, while people are being blown up and violence is raging and everybody hates us - or withdraw to Kuwait, where we would be safe, and could be handy if needed, as recommended by Rep Murtha.

I was the first to raise my hand to answer. I said that, first of all, I objected to the way he stacked the deck with his question. Then I said that if the Panetta Institute was looking for kids who were interested in public service, they ought to go to Iraq. There are thousands of them there, and I saw them serving the public every day and doing a fine job of it.

Then I told him that there were places in Washington DC where he'd be in greater danger than are 90% of the people in Iraq. I reminded him that the terrorists are in Iraq as opposed to being scattered across half a dozen different nations, and that we are killing them there, which is a far better thing than having to hunt them down in other nations or deal with them here. Applause was building as I said these things, so I figured that meant I must be done talking, but right before I sat down, I told him, "And if you see Mr. Murtha, you can tell him I said not to do me any favors."

In his closing, Panetta said that he wanted to talk to people who've been to Iraq. He said he really wanted to get their perspective. I stood about 10 feet from him, talking to people who were thanking me for what I said, but he didn't take advantage of the opportunity to learn more about my perspective.

It sounds like Panetta really wanted to get the perspective of people who already shared his perspective about Iraq.

UPDATE-- Steve e-mails again to add:

By the way, Daschle said he was also concerned by how Americans no longer rely on newspapers for their news. Bloggers, he said, don't have editors to check and double-check their facts like reputable newspapers do.

I wonder, was he talking about the New York Times?

He doesn't seem aware that newspapers are in decline precisely because they are no longer reputable, and that if anything will force them to clean up their act, it'll be bloggers, with whom they'll have to compete.