Michael Bouldin's blog

City Room notes a small blast, believed to come from an improvised explosive device, at the recruiting station in Times Square at 3:43 AM this morning.

(Image: © The Daily Gotham)

New York City police officers and firefighters cordoned off much of Times Square for more than two hours after a small explosion — set off, the authorities said, by an “improvised explosive device” — damaged the front of the Armed Forces Career Center on the traffic island bounded by 43rd and 44th Streets, Seventh Avenue and Broadway at 3:43 a.m., officials said. No one was injured, and after a temporary interruption, subway service was restored.

Most traffic around Times Square was allowed to pass by 6:45 a.m., after vehicles had been diverted for more than two hours. City officials confirmed that police had initially blocked off the area as a precaution to ensure that there was no secondary device or other threat; the officials emphasized that they did not believe anyone was in danger.

Police officers at the scene said the explosion blew a hole through the front door of the recruiting station, which is at the northern end of the structure.

Members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the large Police Department and F.B.I. unit that investigates terrorism, were at the scene of the blast, supporting the Police Department’s Bomb Squad, which along with other police detectives likely will take the lead role in investigating the incident, an F.B.I. official said. The official said that in today’s attack, a man in a gray hooded sweatshirt was seen leaving the scene on a bicycle.

What's interesting, obviously, is the blog reaction on the right; it's gleeful.

If you thought that Hillary Clinton's increasingly directionless campaign did not have some further reservoirs of self-immolating malice to draw upon, please disabuse yourself of the notion. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Exhibit A: a new television spot being run in Texas in advance of that state's primary on March 4th. The conventional wisdom is that, simply, Team Hillary needs a clear victory to even stay in the race. So here's the spot, titled "Children":

To place that in context, here's one of the final ads from Team Bush in 2004, "Wolves":

How astonishingly depraved: after eight years of fear-mongering, a leading Democratic candidate embraces the Rovian playbook. They're not even being subtle about it.

Vote for me or your children die.

It was probably inevitable that a major Presidential candidate with an Arabic name would, sooner or later, be confronted with questions about the relationship between the United States and its closest Middle Eastern ally. Equally inevitably, after five years of war in an Arab country and seven after a terrorist attack carried out on this country by an Islamist terror network, that discussion will touch on America's fractured relationship with the Islamic world in general and our posture towards the Jewish state in particular.

A look back is in order. In 1820, New York State's Grand Island was proposed as the location of a new Jewish homeland, understood as a gathering place for Jews before aliyah to Zion became possible. Emma Lazarus, author of The New Colossus, was an agitator for proto-Zionist and proto-feminist ideas in New York's 19th Century Gilded Age. The connection between New York and the idea of Zionism is long and deep.

The United States was one of the first countries to recognize Israel itself, somewhat to the chagrin of the British Empire; and before Washington endorsed the fact of Israel's independence, there had been a bipartisan consensus of sympathy to the Zionist experiment.

President Wilson expressed his support for the Balfour Declaration when he stated on March 3, 1919:

The allied nations with the fullest concurrence of our government and people are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth.

After Wilson left office, his successors expressed similar support for the Zionist enterprise. "It is impossible for one who has studied at all the services of the Hebrew people to avoid the faith that they will one day be restored to their historic national home and there enter on a new and yet greater phase of their contribution to the advance of humanity," said President Warren Harding.

Calvin Coolidge expressed his "sympathy with the deep and intense longing which finds such fine expression in the Jewish National Homeland in Palestine."

"Palestine which, desolate for centuries, is now renewing its youth and vitality through enthusiasm, hard work, and self-sacrifice of the Jewish pioneers who toil there in a spirit of peace and social justice," observed Herbert Hoover.

Of course, Hoover's observation rested on one glaring error: that the Cis-Jordanian Imperial mandate of Palestine was terra nullius, an empty land awaiting settlement. The land was not empty, and the question of how to reconcile the legitimate claims of competing (and, one could argue, complementary) nationalisms has been contentious and unresolved ever since.

Following independence, the relationship between the United States and the new nation of Israel quickly cooled, responding to the patterns of alignment set in the developing Cold War. A major portion of the weaponry that secured the new state's independence came from Czechoslovakia prior to that country's complete absorption into the Soviet orbit. In 1956, President Eisenhower forced an Anglo-French-Israeli expedition force to retreat from the Suez Canal, recently seized by Egypt's Arab nationalist President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Further frost was added to the bilateral relationship by the conservative Eisenhower administration's distrust of Israel's nascent structure as a socialist economy characterized by strong labor unions, led by the labor coalition Histadrut, and a parallel internal economy of collectivist enterprises in the Kibbutzim. A rapprochement of sorts between the Labour government of Levi Eshkol and the Kennedy/Johnson administration was capped in the 1967 Six Day War, another Cold War proxy battle, when American arms shipments to Israel obviated comparable shipments to Arab combatant states by the Soviet Union and resulted in a stunning Israeli victory.

As a result of that victory, Israel became an occupying power over territories previously belonging, de facto or de iure, to Egypt, Syria and Jordan. It is the fate of these territories that ultimately will decide a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In 2004, the Democratic Party platform embraced the concept of a two-state solution for the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, following in the footsteps of the Clinton administration's developing Middle Eastern policy. The current republican administration embraced the idea of two states for two peoples some time into its first term as well. Despite the overall fraying of the post-war foreign policy consensus along partisan lines, therefore, it can be considered settled American policy that the legitimate national aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians, to live in peace, security, within recognized borders as fully sovereign members of the international community, are an objective of the American national interest. Firmly embedded within that consensus is the assumption that America, due to the kinship between our domestic institutions and Weltanschauung with those of Israel as a Western democracy, will continue to support Israel's security and aid that country's defense.

Barack Obama stands equally firmly within this consensus. So why the controversy?

From the I don't know whether to laugh or cry file comes this item: the iconic Swedish band ABBA has rejected John McCain's request to use their opus 'Take a Chance on Me' as his campaign song.

Yes, you're absolutely right, that would be this song right here.

RedState slaps its crew-cut head, sniffs, scratches its crotch and declares

Is there anything less manly than this?

Candyass, he's a freaking war hero. The man was tortured by the Vietnamese. You write a blog. Notice the difference?

It's hard not to, at some level, feel sorry for McCain. The only reason he's using lyrics like...

Ba ba ba ba baa, ba ba ba ba baa
Honey I'm still free
Take a chance on me
Gonna do my very best, baby cant you see
Gotta put me to the test, take a chance on me
(take a chance, take a chance, take a chance on me)

...we need to talk. I'm worried about this campaign you're running.

Let's start with the basics: I've voted for you three times. The first time, in 2000, with absolute enthusiasm. The second and third times, in 2006, because you were so far superior to your primary and general election opponents that it really wasn't a contest. Sure, I was somewhat disappointed over your lack of desire to really speak out against the Bush administration, but hey, the Senate is a more collegial body than the House. Sure, your war vote was troubling, too, but I figured you'd come around sooner or later.

Now, however, you're doing things that fill me and many others with astonished dismay. Your chief strategist, Mark Penn, is talking about states that don't matter. Now, if there's one thing we've learned in the last seven years - and in the 2006 elections - it's that all states matter in a political contest you're trying to win. That's why we now have Democratic Senators in places like Montana and Virginia. This Fifty State Strategy stuff? It really works.

Alright, I'm amused. The publicity agents for Equinox, an upmarket chain of gyms, email over, breathlessly, as follows:

It's been politics, politics, and more politics lately (with a little NY Giants thrown in) [Ed. note: Yes, that's what we do], so I thought you and your readers might be interested in a very different type of NY event: Equinox's scandalous - almost pornographic - nuns ad is coming to the city this week for 3 days only.

Have you seen the controversial print yet? It features a group of sexy nuns sketching a nude male model in a figure drawing class, a la Michelangelo's David. Some people are in an uproar - I personally think the whole thing amusing (but hey, I'm a liberal New Yorker)

Now, speaking merely for myself, I'm a big believer in the idea that the world needs more sculpted, naked flesh adorning the public space. What's amusing to me is that what is obviously, transparently, a ploy to garner free media - and what better way is there to do that than mixing religion and sex? - has seemingly aroused the ire of the usual suspects.

Memo to Bill Donohue: The reason people run campaigns like this is precisely to cause the reaction you infallibly deliver.

Memo to advertisers: Want press? Hire some models, dress them in ecclesiastical garb and leave one of them naked - no nipples or genitalia, please, since you're not nearly daring enough to risk condemnation from the Four As. Proceed to write steamy press release congratulating yourself on being all edgy, daring and shit, while all the prudes - in New York City, sure, whatever - supposedly froth. Bingo, get press.

Moveon.org, the Progressive activist powerhouse, is presently in some hot water with the usual suspects for having the astonishingly poor taste of telling the truth, in the New York Times, no less.

(Click to enlarge)

File this one under News That Normally Breaks Friday Afternoon: Karl Rove is leaving the White House to, wait for it, what could it be, that's right, spend more time with his family.

The New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 13 — Karl Rove, the political adviser who masterminded President George W. Bush’s two winning presidential campaigns, is resigning, the White House confirmed today.

In an interview published this morning in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Rove said, “I just think it’s time,” adding, “There’s always something that can keep you here, and as much as I’d like to be here, I’ve got to do this for the sake of my family.”

Mr. Rove said he had first considered leaving a year ago but stayed after his party lost the crucial midterm elections last fall, putting Congress in Democratic hands, and Mr. Bush’s problems mounted in Iraq and in his pursuit of a new immigration policy.

He said his hand was forced when the White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, recently told senior aides that if they stayed past Labor Day they would be expected to stay through the rest of Mr. Bush’s term.

Nobody in the entire history of Washington has ever resigned to spend time with their family.

Yesterday's pardon - and yes, it was for all practical intents and purposes exactly that - of Scooter Libby by George Bush is a clear and flagrant abuse of power, intended to thwart an ongoing investigation and to undermine the proper administration of justice.

That is Nixon territory. Hence, George Bush must be impeached by the U.S. House and brought to trial in the Senate.

The New York Times lays out the case here:

Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell.

The literature on the Presidential power of pardon is extensive, and it is clear: this power exists as a means to temper justice with mercy.

It is not intended to save Presidents from undue scrutiny, nor to shut up loyal retainers under investigation for acts committed in the service of the White House. This, however, is the effect of this pardon; not to put too fine a point on it, Bush issued it on the same day that a Federal court informed Scooter Libby that he would have to wait out his current appeal in jail.

That's what raises this from a question of Presidential privilege to an abuse of power: clemency is a last resort of mercy when all other options have been exhausted.

Ha Ha, Newt Gingrich.

The New York Times has an interesting piece on the front page today, about the leftward drift of the younger generation.

Young Americans are more likely than the general public to favor a government-run universal health care insurance system, an open-door policy on immigration and the legalization of gay marriage, according to a New York Times/CBS News/MTV poll. The poll also found that they are more likely to say the war in Iraq is heading to a successful conclusion.

They have continued a long-term drift away from the Republican Party. And although they are just as worried as the general population about the outlook for the country and think their generation is likely to be worse off than that of their parents, they retain a belief that their votes can make a difference, the poll found.

More than half of Americans ages 17 to 29 — 54 percent — say they intend to vote for a Democrat for president in 2008. They share with the public at large a negative view of President Bush, who has a 28 percent approval rating with this group, and of the Republican Party. They hold a markedly more positive view of Democrats than they do of Republicans.

Now would be a good time, I suppose, to trot out the over-used Churchill quote that a young person who is not liberal has no heart, an old person who is not a conservative having no common sense, or something to that effect. That wouldn't do this justice, however.