OVER THE WEEKEND I MENTIONED Eugene Volokh’s post on VH1’s creative editing that turned boos for Hillary Clinton into cheers. I notice that Jay Caruso has found out something else: Viacom gave Hillary $37,000 for her campaign. He wonders: “So, she gets money and (one) embarrassing episode in her life whitewashed. Let’s see how she reacts to legislation down the road that affects Viacom.”

Of course, I suppose one can make too much of these contributions. Caruso also notes: “Clinton received $38,500 from the law firm of Kirkland and Ellis. Sound familiar? They should. It’s the same firm where Ken Starr is a partner.”

UPDATE: Oops. $37,000 was a typo — the proper amount for Viacom is $32,700. It’s probably also worth clarifying (you’ll see this if you visit the OpenSecrets page, of course) that though people speak in shorthand about contributions coming “from” Viacom or K&E, they of course came from people who work there, since such entities can’t give directly to candidates.

MICHAEL LEDEEN’S LATEST COLUMN contains this fascinating passage:

It’s luminously clear to anyone with eyes that Iran will go for our throats at every opportunity. And so they must: The mullahs would be gravely threatened by a free and successful society in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Tehran has made contingency plans to attack us if we were to invade Iraq (as have the Syrians, by the way, and all have been promised assistance from the Saudis). They mean to teach us a lesson. . . .

Tough talk indeed, and their words are not based on fantasy, as so many of our leaders seem to believe. Iran has driven us and the Israelis out of Lebanon with our tails between our legs, and they see no reason why the pattern should not hold for Afghanistan and, if necessary, Iraq as well.

Preparations for such contingencies may explain why the Administration has taken so long to move against Iraq. Or maybe Iraq’s not the main target after all. . . .

TONY ADRAGNA concludes his Scott Ritter series with a post comparing various contradictory statements and concludes that Ritter is driven more by anger at his old bosses than by any consistent position.

TWO MORE ARTICLES ON BLOGS: Here’s one from the St. Petersburg Times, and here’s one from the Telegram Online that features a photo of Damian Penny.

REASON has put all of its 9/11 anniversary stories online. There are many useful cautionary points, particularly this piece by Dave Kopel and Michael Krause on face-recognition technology, and this piece by Jacob Sullum on why the war/peace dichotomy is obsolete, and maybe even harmful, in terms of dealing with terrorism.

I’M SURE THAT THE PEOPLE who criticize the use of crime victimization surveys relating to Sweden will criticize the AP for this, too.

HMM. I THINK THAT THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A DEFENSE of the Democrats in Congress, but it doesn’t really work out that way. I asked yesterday why the Democrats aren’t making more out of obvious intelligence failures before September 11, the even-more-serious failure to do anything serious to reform the intelligence agencies after 9/11, etc. CalPundit responds that it’s because the Democrats are afraid that if they raise such criticisms they’ll be attacked as unpatriotic:

There have been plenty of news stories over the past year about bungling in the intelligence community, but there’s no upside for Democrats in piling onto this issue. On the contrary, they know perfectly well that anything they say will likely be twisted into a pretzel and made into devastating TV spots that leave an indelible impression of them as little better than latter-day Benedict Arnolds. . . .

Democratic politicians have to face reelection campaigns run by Republican strategists every few years. This makes them chicken, and with good reason.

So the reason that they’re not doing their job of overseeing the federal government’s operations is that they’re “chicken,” but it’s okay because they have a good reason. This is a defense?

It’s true that members of Congress were bullied into silence by an outburst of Ashcroft’s last year. It’s also true that there’s nothing honorable about letting yourself be bullied. The response to Ashcroft should have been: “You’ve got your job and we’ve got ours. And we don’t think you’re doing your job properly. Now shut up and answer our questions.”

When you get elected to Congress, you’re supposed to say what needs to be said, and you’re supposed to have enough courage to respond to critics. (This is a long-term problem: I remember watching Ollie North’s attorney Brendan Sullivan bully Daniel Inouye. If I were Inouye, I would have had Sullivan removed from the room for his absurd outbursts, which were totally out of order.) What CalPundit is really saying is that the Democrats place love of office ahead of love of country. Not very impressive.

What we need, apparently, are some Nick Denton Democrats:

But political capital has been squandered on a proposal, the department of homeland security, that is irrelevant at best. And Bush — out of loyalty or inertia — has left in place most of the officials who presided over the disaster.

It’s an underlying principle of bureaucracies: only through promotion and demotion, hiring and firing, can leaders exert their will. How else did the US intelligence services become so squeamish in the 1990s? Consorting with criminals and torturers became career-toxic. If US intelligence is to become as flexible, ruthless and coordinated as its opponents, bureaucrats will have to be taught a lesson. They respond only to personal reward and punishment, mainly punishment, and it’s time for the training to begin.

So if you’re the low-level US diplomat who failed to pass on a warning from a Taleban official, you’re fired. Lots of noise? Unfair? Tough. You were the director of the CIA during the greatest intelligence failure in 50 years: you’re out, notwithstanding your personal chemistry with the president. Find out where the memos stopped, and eliminate everyone in the vicinity.

What the US security services need, just like US corporate world, is a purge so bloody that the lessons will be etched into the minds of trainees for the next 100 years. Let them be terrified, not of the mewling of politically correct children, but of the fierce rage of taxpayers who spend $30bn a year and expect a modicum of competence. And let George Bush decide where he wants to stand, in the firing squad, or in front of it.

Nick and I disagree about a lot of things, but he’s got his head on straight. If he ever wants to run for Congress (not likely, as he’s got a real job) he’s got my backing regardless of disagreements.

(Note to CalPundit: it’s probably an oversight, but it would have been nice if you had linked to the post of mine that you were criticizing, so that readers could have seen what I said more easily.)

UPDATE: Oliver Willis isn’t afraid either. Would I vote for Oliver? Could be. I’d enjoy the campaign, that’s for sure.