Article 5 of the NATO charter contains the following:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all ...

Article 13 says:

After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.

If our allies don't support us in the United Nations here's the Mullings Big Idea du Jour:

MEMORANDUM
To: The Government of the United States of America
From: The Government of the United States of America
Re: Denunciation of NATO Membership
Body: Start the clock.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.

George Tenet should be replaced as part of urgently needed intelligence reforms. Tenet testified before the Senate in February 2002 that there was no intelligence failure and that he is proud of the CIA's record. The first step in fixing the problem of American intelligence is to recognize that there was an intelligence failure on September 11 and before, and then begin rebuilding with new leadership, not just at the top, but at the upper and middle levels. Tenet has been a key advocate of the politically correct approach to intelligence that was part of larger efforts by the Clinton administration to impose destructive policies on government. There is no place for that kind of politics in intelligence, or any national-security components of government. Effectiveness and only effectiveness and results should be the watchwords.

Those who are demanding "proof" before the United States launches a pre-emptive strike against Iraq are demanding the impossible. By definition, a pre-emptive strike means that there is no proof of what you are trying to forestall -- and that you are not going to wait until there is proof, like a mushroom cloud over some American city.

Teachers' unions often say that teachers deserve higher pay because they are doing an important job. But if you are doing an important job badly, you are doing more harm than if you were doing some minor job badly. Many teachers are overpaid for what they are actually doing, even if someone who did the job right would deserve far higher pay.

The next time somebody talks about how we should be guided by "world opinion," just remember those Palestinians and Egyptians dancing in the streets after 3,000 Americans were murdered by terrorists. Remember all the young Americans buried under a sea of crosses on the beaches at Normandy because we had to rescue the terribly clever French, who had blundered their way into a war in which they surrendered after less than two months of fighting. Remember all the tinhorn despots and half-baked intellectuals around the world who constitute a large part of what is called "world opinion."

The good side of this new ethic is that the nation refused to scapegoat Muslim Americans for the 9/11 attacks. The bad side is that to avoid anger and judgment, a normal emotional response was diverted into an orgy of self-examination, much of it revolving around the notion that the United States somehow invited or deserved the attacks.

This war is waged on many fronts. We've captured more than 2,000 terrorists; a larger number of killers have met their end in combat. We've seized millions in terrorist assets. We're reorganizing the federal government to protect the homeland. Yet, there's a great deal left to do. And the greatest tasks and the greatest dangers will fall to the armed forces of the United States.

I came to the Presidency with respect for all who wear America's uniform. Every day as your Commander in Chief, my respect and that of our nation has deepened. I have great confidence in every man and women who wears the uniform of the United States of America. I am proud of all who have fought on my orders, and this nation honors all who died in our cause.

Wherever our military is sent in the world, you bring hope and justice and promise of a better day. You are worthy of the traditions you represent, the uniform you wear, the ideals you serve. America is counting on you. And our confidence is well placed.

What happened to our nation on a September day set in motion the first great struggle of a new century. The enemies who struck us are determined and they are resourceful. They will not be stopped by a sense of decency or a hint of conscience -- but they will be stopped.

A greater force is amassed against them. They are opposed by freedom loving people in many lands. They are opposed by our allies who have fought bravely by our side. And as long as terrorists and dictators plot against our lives and our liberty, they will be opposed by the United States Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force and Marines.

Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!

It is only a matter of time before the "intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners" represented by bin Laden and his followers will capitulate. Modernization, which is to say westernization, will inevitably smash all cultures that don't accommodate themselves to it. They will be smashed chiefly not by bombs and military force but by the choices of their own peoples, who will turn their backs on the traditions and institutions that have kept them so long ignorant and poor.

Honoring America's heroes and innocents lost is worth doing. However, the best way we can honor them is not with ceremonies or with television specials, but by doing everything in our power to prevent another 9/11 from happening.

It is fine to remember the dead today. But I think to truly honor those dead, we must follow the example of those on Flight 93. We must be defiant to those who would have us cower to their demands, to those who would have us bleeding on our knees begging for forgiveness. We have grieved; we must forever remember, we must always be vigilant, we must be defiant.

God bless those who died, God comfort those who live on, and God forgive those who crossed our paths.

Never Forget

• Lynn "Don't call it 9-11" Sislo (She's right about that.)
  
• Rich Galen writes on America as the "New Jerusalem."
  
• ScrappleFace recalls visiting the WTC with his(?) daughter and finds wisdom from John Adams.
  
• Robert Bove captures that fateful day in poetry.
  

I'm sorry I came along too late to prevent us from being stuck with this word "blog". If you held a contest ten years ago to form the ugliest possible random concatenation of phonetic units, "blog" would have walked off with the Palme d'Or and the plaudits of a grateful universe. I feel like a transsexual Liberal-voting urophile just performing an activity that can be described by the verb "blog."

China, perhaps, might set a National Mood, and ensure that all public remembrances; all media commentary, followed it faithfully. Cuba, I'm sure, celebrates its holidays similarly; with a firm consensus across the land as to How To Feel; with compliance ensured at the point of a gun.

That, of course, is not our way.

Our way is noisy; it's messy, and chaotic and tacky and somber and inspiring and revolting and dramatic and insipid; it's full of genuine heroes and puffed up nobodies; it's crass and commercial and giving and charitable and is guaranteed to showcase the absolute best and absolute worst in our society.

Our way is to have no one way. It is to have millions. One per citizen, as a matter of fact.

Program the most sentimental, cult-of-victimhood survivor profiles you can find. Write the most blustery, jingoistic let's-kill-'em-all columns you can produce. Program hour after hour of airbrushed, santized remembrances, full of waving flags and slow-motion firefighters. Do some hard journalism and show us the facts of what really happened; and what threats still face us out there. Give us celebrities telling us where they were when it happened, somberly reflecting on How They Were Moved. If you're in Big Media, do exactly what you think will boost your ratings highest. Or say screw it all, and do a week full of programming that feels right to you without giving a damn about Neilsen. If you're a CEO, sponsor some commercials on Wednesday --- or don't; whichever helps you sleep better at night. Or whichever helps your bottom line. If you're a blogger, let fly your deepest raw emotion and reaction without sanitizing it for public consumption. Or write the kind of piece you know everyone wants to hear --- make a play for those big links --- even if it isn't really what you're feeling.

Pander. Offend. Inspire. Challenge. Inform. Manipulate. Provoke.

He can be managed, with respect to France. The French manage him by collaborating with him, by taking up his case. He can't be managed, however, with respect to the United States. And the important point is that the situation of the United States is very different from that of France or Germany or any other country. You don't see Saddam standing up and saying how he despises France, but you do hear him talking about the United States in vicious and really unlimited terms. We tend to dismiss that as hyperbole, but I do not believe that it is wise to ignore it. We have misread him in the past. Everyone we've been able to talk to, who know him, agree that once Saddam becomes "nuclear", he is perfectly capable of using the weapons.

Is the Trilateral Commission trying to establish a world government?

A. Not at all. The Trilateral Commission has tried to encourage international cooperation on many issues, but this is a far cry from promoting a world government. There have been no Commission reports in which it has been proposed that our national governments be dissolved and a world government be created. Individuals or organizations who believe the Trilateral Commission has intentions to form a world government, however well-intentioned they may be, are unfortunately ill-informed.

Is the Trilateral Commission a conspiracy to control the U.S. government?

A. No. President Carter was a member of the Trilateral Commission before he became President, and many members of his Administration were members of the Commission before taking on their government jobs. Some members of the Reagan and Bush Administrations were Commission members in earlier years. But these facts do not indicate control of the U.S. government by the Commission.

First, members must resign from the Commission upon accepting an Administration post.

Second, as noted earlier, the Commission has a very diverse membership in terms of both geography and occupation. It is also fairly evenly divided in the United States between Republicans and Democrats, and it does not take an institutional position on particular issues. Aside from its general emphasis on consultation and cooperation with Western Europe and Japan, there is no ?Commission line? on policy questions. Task Force reports do not prescribe day-to-day actions; and the Commission does not lobby for particular legislation or for candidates.

Third, the men and women who join the Commission are of outstanding ability, receive their information from many sources, and think for themselves. For many members, participation in Commission activities does not extend beyond attendance at the annual plenary meeting. The Commission, through these conferences and its publications, does hope to provide an additional educational experience for its members, while simultaneously contributing to the general policy debate in this country and elsewhere, but it cannot and does not attempt to do more than this.

Some individuals believe that the Trilateral Commission somehow arranged President Carter?s election in 1976. This is a far-fetched misconception. The Commission is entirely non-partisan and has never supported any candidate. In the case of President Carter, one need only recall that he received his party?s nomination after a very demanding primary process. This was clearly not some kind of ?backroom deal? that could be arranged by a few persons. David Rockefeller is usually cited as the person responsible for ?making Carter President,? yet he voted for and supported President Ford.

In the case of later presidential campaigns, many members undoubtedly supported particular candidates Republican, Democrat, and Independent but the Commission was not, and by its nature could not be, committed to any candidate.