Bill Kristol wants you to know that he still hasn't read "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings," but...

... he "recognize[s] the work’s stature as a significant and influential part of our literary and cultural history."

I'm reading "In a World of Pete Hegseths, Be a Maya Angelou."

I don't know if Kristol knows what he's telling us we need to "be," but he's upset that "pursuant to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s order to purge so-called DEI content from military libraries and classrooms, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings was removed, along with 380 other books, from the U.S. Naval Academy’s Nimitz Library."

Kristol asserts, despite not having read the book, that "'I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings' is not 'DEI content.' It’s a quintessentially American autobiography—a popular and important one. It’s a book a student at the Academy might want to read for his or her education, or for pleasure."

Why would the story of a particular individual represent the promotion of the DEI agenda?

"Biden pardons Anthony Fauci, Mark Milley and the Jan. 6 committee in an extraordinary use of presidential power against potential Trump 'revenge.'"

AP reports.

“The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense,” Biden said in a statement. “Our nation owes these public servants a debt of gratitude for their tireless commitment to our country.”

It’s customary for a president to grant clemency at the end of his term, but those acts of mercy are usually offered to everyday Americans who have been convicted of crimes. But Biden has used the power in the broadest and most untested way possible: to pardon those who have not even been investigated yet.... 

Among the pardoned is Liz Cheney.

ADDED: Here's Biden's statement.

"The potential for a high-profile confrontation between the Pentagon’s two most senior leaders — one a telegenic political appointee, the other a circumspect career soldier..."

"... further challenges the military’s fraying status as a trusted, apolitical American institution. Polls show that public confidence in the military, intended to act as a national ballast amid shifting political currents, has fallen to its lowest level in decades.... A self-labeled introvert, [Charles Q. Brown Jr.] is described by associates as studious and reserved, often last to speak in a group but concise and direct when he does. Unlike his predecessor, the voluble Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, who was known to regale others with historical lessons and personal stories for hours at a time, Brown typically shares little.... [F]ollowing the police killing of George Floyd, he spoke in raw, emotional terms about his experience as a Black man in the U.S. military...."

From "Top general faces brewing storm after Trump’s Pentagon pick/The incoming administration’s focus on culture issues and countering diversity goals intensifies the transition challenge for Joint Chiefs chair" (WaPo)(free-access link).

Trump named Hegseth "days after Hegseth suggested firing Brown and other senior officers over what he described as a 'woke' agenda undermining U.S. military strength."

WaPo portrays Brown as "apolitical" and "reserved," but how does that connect to the "'woke" agenda"? You can't tell from that article. Let's look at the corresponding article in the NYT, "What to Know About Pete Hegseth, Trump’s Pick for Defense Secretary."

"They never fired one person. They didn't fire anybody having to do with Afghanistan and the Taliban..."

"They should have fired all those generals, all those top people because that was one of the most incompetently handled situations anybody has ever seen. So when somebody does a bad job I fire them. And you take a guy like Esper. He was no good, I fired him. So he writes a book. Another one writes a book. Because with me they can write books. With nobody else can they. But they have done such a poor job. And they never fire anybody. Look at the economy. Look at the inflation. They didn't fire any of their economists. They have the same people. That's a good way not to have books written about you."

From Tuesday night's debate, that's Donald Trump, accepting the consequences of firing people. They write books and get back at you. In that structure of cause and effect, not firing people is a subtle form of censorship, and we the voters ought to notice the silence and think about what we are not hearing.

Esper is Mark Esper, who wrote "A Sacred Oath: Memoirs of a Secretary of Defense During Extraordinary Times." Wikipedia says:

Taking stochastic terrorism seriously.

I'm reading "Trump Floats the Idea of Executing Joint Chiefs Chairman Milley The former president is inciting violence against the nation’s top general. America’s response is distracted and numb" (Brian Klass, in The Atlantic)(analyzing Trump's Truth Social post that said Milley’s call to China on l on January 6, 2021, was 'an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH'):

Trump loves to hide behind the thin veneer of plausible deniability, but he knows exactly what he’s doing.... The suggestion is clear, and it comes from a man who has one of America’s loudest megaphones—one that is directed squarely at millions of extremists who are well armed, who insist that the government is illegitimate, and who believe that people like Milley are part of a “deep state” plot against the country. 

Academics have a formal term for exactly this type of incitement: stochastic terrorism.

It was a special time, we had a President who was crazy, and General Milley's behavior must be understood in that context.

I'm paraphrasing the pro-Milley argument to be found in "Press Secretary Jen Psaki White House Press Conference Transcript September 15":

Jonathan: ... A new book reports that near the end of the Trump presidency, Chairman Milley had two conversations with his Chinese counterpart promising the countries would not go to war and that he would give an early warning if something were to happen. In a statement just minutes ago, Chairman Milley did not dispute this account. On this, does the president feel that these calls were appropriate? Does he have confidence in the chairman? And some Republican senators have called for Chairman Milley to be dismissed. Is he going to keep his job? 

"If the story of 'Dumbass' General Mark Milley... is true, then I assume he would be tried for TREASON..."

"... in that he would have been dealing with his Chinese counterpart behind the President’s back and telling China that he would be giving them notification 'of an attack.'... The good news is that the story is Fake News.... Remember, I was the one who took out 100% of the ISIS Caliphate. Milley said it couldn’t be done! For the record, I never even thought of attacking China—and China knows that...."

Wrote Donald Trump (on his website). 

"So intent was Pence on being Trump’s loyal second-in-command — and potential successor — that he asked confidants if there were ways he could accede to Trump’s demands and avoid certifying..."

"... the results of the election on Jan. 6. In late December, the authors reveal, Pence called Dan Quayle, a former vice president and fellow Indiana Republican, for advice. Quayle was adamant, according to the authors. 'Mike, you have no flexibility on this. None. Zero. Forget it. Put it away,' he said. But Pence pressed him, the authors write, asking if there were any grounds to pause the certification because of ongoing legal challenges. Quayle was unmoved, and Pence ultimately agreed, according to the book. When Pence said he planned to certify the results, the president lashed out. In the Oval Office on Jan. 5, the authors write, Pence told Trump he could not thwart the process, that his role was simply to 'open the envelopes.' 'I don’t want to be your friend anymore if you don’t do this,' Trump replied, according to the book, later telling his vice president, 'You’ve betrayed us. I made you. You were nothing.'"

From "Top general was so fearful Trump might spark war that he made secret calls to his Chinese counterpart, new book says/‘Peril,’ by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, reveals that Gen. Mark A. Milley called his Chinese counterpart before the election and after Jan. 6 in a bid to avert armed conflict" (WaPo).

"Milley, for his part, took what the authors describe as a deferential approach to Biden on Afghanistan, in contrast to his earlier efforts to constrain Trump."

"The book reveals recent remarks the chairman delivered to the Joint Chiefs in which he said, 'Here’s a couple of rules of the road here that we’re going to follow. One is you never, ever ever box in a president of the United States. You always give him decision space.' Referring to Biden, he said, 'You’re dealing with a seasoned politician here who has been in Washington, D.C., 50 years, whatever it is.' His decision just months earlier to place himself between Trump and potential war was triggered by several important events — a phone call, a photo op and a refusal to rule out war with another adversary, Iran. The immediate motivation, according to the book, was the Jan. 8 call from Pelosi, who demanded to know, 'What precautions are available to prevent an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or from accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike?' Milley assured her that there were 'a lot of checks in the system.' The call transcript obtained by the authors shows Pelosi telling Milley, referring to Trump, 'He’s crazy. You know he’s crazy. … He’s crazy and what he did yesterday is further evidence of his craziness.' Milley replied, 'I agree with you on everything.'"

 
From "Top general was so fearful Trump might spark war that he made secret calls to his Chinese counterpart, new book says/‘Peril,’ by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, reveals that Gen. Mark A. Milley called his Chinese counterpart before the election and after Jan. 6 in a bid to avert armed conflict" (WaPo).

"It was the last known missile fired by the United States in its 20-year war in Afghanistan, and the military called it a 'righteous strike'..."

"... a drone attack after hours of surveillance on Aug. 29 against a vehicle that American officials thought contained an ISIS bomb and posed an imminent threat to troops at Kabul’s airport. But a New York Times investigation of video evidence, along with interviews with more than a dozen of the driver’s co-workers and family members in Kabul, raises doubts about the U.S. version of events.... While the U.S. military said the drone strike might have killed three civilians, Times reporting shows that it killed 10, including seven children, in a dense residential block.... 'Because there were secondary explosions, there is a reasonable conclusion to be made that there was explosives in that vehicle,' the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, said last week. But an examination of the scene of the strike, conducted by the Times visual investigations team and a Times reporter the morning afterward, and followed up with a second visit four days later, found no evidence of a second, more powerful explosion. Experts who examined photos and videos pointed out that, although there was clear evidence of a missile strike and subsequent vehicle fire, there were no collapsed or blown-out walls, no destroyed vegetation, and only one dent in the entrance gate, indicating a single shock wave. 'It seriously questions the credibility of the intelligence or technology utilized to determine this was a legitimate target,' said Chris Cobb-Smith, a British Army veteran and security consultant.... Neighbors and an Afghan health official confirmed that bodies of children were removed from the site. They said the blast had shredded most of the victims; fragments of human remains were seen inside and around the compound the next day by a reporter, including blood and flesh splattered on interior walls and ceilings." 

From "Times Investigation: In U.S. Drone Strike, Evidence Suggests No ISIS Bomb U.S. officials said a Reaper drone followed a car for hours and then fired based on evidence it was carrying explosives. But in-depth video analysis and interviews at the site cast doubt on that account" (NYT). 

The article looks at evidence about the driver, Zemari Ahmadi. We're told he "had worked since 2006 as an electrical engineer for Nutrition and Education International, a California-based aid group." He was observed picking up 3 passengers on his way to work. He made a stop at a Taliban-controlled police station to get permission, the passengers said, to distribute food. Our military claims they saw him put heavy objects in the trunk, but there's camera footage, and he is, the Times says, filling containers with water from a hose.

"The nation’s top national security officials assembled at the Pentagon early on April 24 for a secret meeting to plan the final withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan...."

"... Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met with top White House and intelligence officials. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken joined by video conference. After four hours, two things were clear. First, Pentagon officials said they could pull out the remaining 3,500 American troops, almost all deployed at Bagram Air Base, by July 4.... Second, State Department officials said they would keep the American Embassy open, with more than 1,400 remaining Americans protected by 650 Marines and soldiers. An intelligence assessment presented at the meeting estimated that Afghan forces could hold off the Taliban for one to two years. There was brief talk of an emergency evacuation plan — helicopters would ferry Americans to the civilian airport in Kabul, the capital — but no one raised, let alone imagined, what the United States would do if the Taliban gained control of access to that airport, the only safe way in and out of the country once Bagram closed. The plan was a good one, the group concluded.... 'It’s a rational drawdown with our allies,' [Biden] insisted [on July 2d], 'so there’s nothing unusual about it.' But as the questions persisted, on Afghanistan rather than the economy, he grew visibly annoyed.... 'I want to talk about happy things, man.'"

From "Miscue After Miscue, U.S. Exit Plan Unravels/President Biden promised an orderly withdrawal. That pledge, compounded by missed signals and miscalculations, proved impossible" (NYT).

ADDED: If you go into the comments over there at the NYT and you put them in order of "most liked," you'll see an unbroken chain of comments supporting Joe Biden: "It seems to me that the media is being less than fair to Joe Biden over this," "Has it really gone wrong?," "Did the Trump Surrender Agreement with the Taliban provide for evacuation? If it did, what did it say? If it didn’t, why not?," "Frankly I’m dismayed that the media is now declaring this a disaster," "Thanks President Biden for making this brave decision albeit flawed execution. When we end this if there are no US troop live lost and Americans evacuated with as much of our allies. It will be remembered as a very good decision and no one will care about execution like Vietnam withdrawal."

"Of course, I blame President Biden for the disastrous retrograde operation still unfolding. But let us not allow that to deflect us from heaping even more blame on military leaders."

"They stonewalled President Trump rather than beginning deliberate preparations to exit the country when he told them to. They thought that they could outlast him and then talk sense to his successor. Then after the inauguration, they pressed the new president to reverse course. He wisely chose withdrawal. Then and only then did the generals begin their preparations in earnest. But it was too late to do it well.... General Milley must resign. Not only is he the Chairman of the Joint Staff, prior to that he was the Chief of Staff of the Army. While all services share the blame, the Army is the land domain proponent. The 20 years of failure in Afghanistan is an Army failure.... The capital fell in less than 90 hours. Failure must be punished. And punishment in a bureaucracy means mass firings and a smaller budget—not more money so that they might be better the next time. Congress must consolidate and collapse our intelligence agencies. And when its reorganization is done, if the overall size of the nation’s intelligence apparatus is a quarter of what it is now, that still is too large.... [T]he generals, the intelligence analysts, the defense contractors, and the pundits all leveraged America’s rarest resource: the American serviceman and woman... Even after its failure was apparent to their leaders, they continued to enlist and reenlist, largely because their superiors—the experts—assured them that success was possible. It was not. It never was."

 
That's part of a message from "a senior military officer" published at Instapundit.

"General Milley had no direct evidence of a coup plot. But in the days after Mr. Trump’s electoral defeat, as the president filled top military and intelligence posts..."

"... with people the general considered loyal mediocrities, General Milley got nervous. 'They may try,' but they would not succeed with any kind of plot, he told his aides, according to the book. 'You can’t do this without the military,' he went on. 'You can’t do this without the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. We’re the guys with the guns.' While some might greet such comments with relief, General Milley’s musings should give us pause. Americans have not usually looked to the military for help in regulating their civilian politics. And there is something grandiose about General Milley’s conception of his place in government. He told aides that a 'retired military buddy' had called him on election night to say, 'You represent the stability of this republic.' If there was not a coup underway, then General Milley’s comments may be cause more for worry than for relief. Were we really that close to a coup?... It was, instead, mayhem on behalf of what had started as a legitimate political position.... For all Mr. Trump’s admiration of military officers, they wound up especially disinclined to accommodate his disorderly governing style.... We might be grateful for that. But our gratitude should not extend to giving military leaders any kind of role in judging civilian ones."

From "What if There Wasn’t a Coup Plot, General Milley?" by Christopher Caldwell (NYT).

And if Donald Trump wins in the fall, will the first week of June have marked the beginning of the victory?"

"If Donald Trump loses in the fall, the first week of June might have marked the beginning of the end. On June 1, with the country consumed by historic protests against racism and police brutality, some of them violent, Trump decided to position himself as the 'law-and-order' president, made clear by his tweets and his now infamous march that evening across Lafayette Square, outside the White House. His path cleared by the National Guard and D.C. police who used chemical agents on lawfully assembled protesters and roughed up journalists, Trump walked across the street to stand in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church for an inscrutable and buffoonish photo op, in which he held up a Bible and said nothing much at all about the cities on fire and the country’s dismal legacy of racism. 'We have a great country,' Trump said. 'That’s my thoughts.' The moment was an emblem of Trump’s presidency: attention-seeking, bereft of empathy, gut over strategy. It was so embarrassing and borderline anti-American that one of his generals, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Mark Milley, apologized for participating in the walk and reportedly considered resigning. Like so many of Trump’s decisions, it was a sugar-high tactic designed to please his base and get TV ratings, with almost no thought about the larger sweep of American history, let alone his reelection campaign. Politically, it was a disaster."

Or was it?

The quoted paragraph is the beginning of a Vanity Fair article by Peter Hamby — "'TRUMP COULD NOT BE MORE ON THE WRONG SIDE': NEW POLL SHOWS TRUMP’S BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTEST RESPONSE COULD COST HIM 2020/Exclusive polling suggests the protests changed Americans’ minds so quickly, and so profoundly, that Trump planted himself even further on the wrong side of public opinion than previously understood."

Trump is even more wrong than anyone could possibly even ever imagined. Imagine all the journalists straining to imagine even more dire visions of defeat for Donald Trump. One thing you don't need to imagine is the past, and I remember 2016, and all this histrionic talk about the magnitude of Trump's looming loss is just too reminiscent of the lead-up to his mind-blowing victory.

Now, to be fair to Vanity Fair, there is some elaborate polling behind that headline: