The Assassination of Anwar Sadat

---

---

For most Americans, the war on terror began in 2001, when the World Trade Center was brought down by two hijacked airplanes. For a few, it may have begun eight years earlier when the first attack on the World Trade Center took place.

And, to be fair, that probably is when the war first came to America.

But it's been going on longer than that — in the sense that Islamic martyrs have been dying for the cause. Thirty–five years ago today, Lt. Khalid Islambouli, an Egyptian military officer and Islamic extremist, assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat during the annual Victory Parade in Cairo commemorating the Egyptian army's crossing of the Suez Canal to reclaim part of the Sinai Peninsula from Israel in 1973.

It probably evaded most Americans' radars, but Sadat's final months had been rocky. There had been a military coup in June that failed, and there had been riots. There were those who said the riots were the outcome of domestic issues that plagued the country, but Sadat believed the Soviet Union was orchestrating an attempt to drive him from power.

That was also a particularly violent time in the history of the world — at least in terms of high–profile violence. President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II had survived assassination attempts earlier in the year. Ex–Beatle John Lennon had been gunned down in front of his New York apartment building nearly a year before.

Egyptian Islamists had been angered when Sadat signed the Camp David Accords with President Carter and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in September 1978 — for which Sadat and Begin shared the Nobel Prize.

There were several missed opportunities for authorities to take Islambouli into custody before the assassination, most notably in September 1981 when Sadat ordered a roundup of more than 1,500 people, among them many Jihad members, but somehow Islambouli's cell was missed.

Then, in spite of ammunition seizure rules that should have prevented the assassination, the cell managed to get into the parade and jump from the truck in which they were riding when it approached the reviewing stand, where Sadat was supposedly protected by four layers of security and eight bodyguards. Sadat stood, thinking it was part of the show. He was mortally wounded by a grenade and gunfire, along with 10 others in the reviewing stand. Vice President Hosni Mubarak, who had been sitting next to Sadat, was one of 28 who were wounded but survived.

Islambouli was identified as the man responsible for Sadat's wounds and executed the next year.

Nearly 30 years later, Islambouli's mother said she was proud that her son had killed Sadat.

What does this say about the mentality of the Islamic extremists that they are still waging this war nearly four decades later? It says the same thing that a second attack on the World Trade Center eight years after the first told us.

This is a foe that is patient. It picks its battles, and it learns from its mistakes.

Now, I know that a mother's love is a powerful thing. I covered murder trials as a young newspaper reporter, and I would not be surprised to hear the mother of a murderer say that she loved her son/daughter in spite of the crime(s) he/she committed. In fact, I have heard mothers say that. It is certainly not uncommon for Christians to say that they hate the sin but love the sinner.

But this mother says she is proud that her son committed the sin. That is a different matter, and it gives you great insight into a mindset.

This foe truly believes it is waging a holy war, and it is willing to give it as much time as it takes — generations, if necessary. The jihadists take inspiration wherever they can.

Since Sadat's assassination, Islambouli has been inspiring Islamist movements the world over. In Tehran a street was named for him after the assassination. A postage stamp was issued showing him shouting defiantly in his prison cell, and Ayatollah Khomeini declared him a martyr after he had been executed.

This is not a traditional foe, and it cannot be beaten in the traditional ways.

Releasing John Hinckley

---

---

I felt torn — and still do — when I heard today that John Hinckley Jr., the man who shot Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981, is going to be released after being in custody for 35 years.

I'm torn because, on one hand, I believe that anyone who tries to kill a public official should spend the rest of his or her life in prison — until that life is ended by the state or nature. On the other hand, I believe in the jury system and that anyone who is accused of attempting to kill a public official — or any other crime — must be found guilty by a jury of his or her peers.

Everyone who is old enough to remember that day knows that Hinckley fired the gun that wounded Reagan and three others. The new president, only 10 weeks into his administration, had just given a speech, and a swarm of reporters and photographers were waiting for his exit. It may have been the most photographed presidential assassination attempt in history; there was plenty of photographic evidence of Hinckley's crime.

No one died that day — although when Reagan press secretary Jim Brady, who was critically wounded by a shot to the head and permanently disabled, died in 2014, his death was ruled a homicide, the ultimate outcome of the gunshot wound he suffered 33 years earlier.

Anyway, there was no question of Hinckley's guilt, but there was plenty of doubt about his sanity, given the paper trail he left behind.

And that was the question Hinckley's jury had to decide when he went on trial in 1982. Its verdict — not guilty by reason of insanity — was not a popular one. The laws concerning insanity defense were revised in many states; the defense itself was abolished entirely in three states.

But the point now is that Hinckley was not convicted. His verdict was conditional; he would be confined to a mental institution until it was determined that he was not a threat to himself or others. That was an ongoing struggle for about 25 years. From time to time he was given periodic temporary release privileges that were revoked when it was established that he was still obsessed with actress Jodie Foster — for whom he had attempted to kill the president.

It has now been determined that Hinckley poses no threat to himself or others, and he will be released on Aug. 6 — ironically, two days after the second anniversary of Brady's death. He is to live with his 90–year–old mother and have no contact with the Reagan family or Foster.

In case you're wondering, Hinckley could not face new charges in Brady's death because he had already been found not guilty by reason of insanity in the original shooting.

Shattering the Supreme Court's Glass Ceiling

---

---

Seeing a woman on the Supreme Court raises no eyebrows today.

One–third of the justices are female, and two of them were appointed by the current president. In fact, it wouldn't be surprising if Democrats are perceived as far more likely to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court than Republicans. The three women who sit on the bench today all were nominated by Democrats.

But 30 years ago today, Republican Ronald Reagan made history by appointing Sandra Day O'Connor to replace Potter Stewart on the Supreme Court.

It was historic because O'Connor was the first woman to be designated to join what had been called "The Brethren" for a couple of centuries, and it was the fulfillment of one of Reagan's campaign promises.

Since it had been a campaign pledge, the nomination probably didn't surprise many in Reagan's inner circle. But my recollection of that day is that nearly everyone else was surprised.

"My nomination was a great surprise to the nation," O'Connor later recalled, "but an even greater surprise to me."

Her gender may have played no role, but some of Reagan's supporters in Congress insisted they could not support O'Connor, many because they were not sure she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if given the chance.

(Now, you may think there are litmus tests in the appointments that are made in American politics today — and there are. But much more of an effort is made today to conceal that fact.

(The early 1980s was a period when people were defiant about it, almost proud of it. By and large, the attitude could be summarized this way — Yeah, we're applying litmus tests. Wanna make something of it?)

Some openly suggested O'Connor would support the Roe v. Wade ruling — and if you know anything about politics in America in the 1980s, it should be that the Republican Party had embraced conservative Christians, and a person's position on abortion was the litmus test for being a true Republican. (Those who were found to be lacking were treated as derisively as today's so–called RINOs.)

Yet, when the Senate voted on O'Connor's nomination in September, she was confirmed by a 99–0 vote.

(Around the time of her confirmation, O'Connor was quoted by the Washington Post as saying something that would, no doubt, be welcomed by a certain segment of the modern population: "I do not believe it is the function of the judiciary to step in and change the law because the times have changed. I do well understand the difference between legislating and judging. As a judge, it is not my function to develop public policy."

---

---

It is, as I say, nothing special to see a woman nominated for the Supreme Court now. Three other women have been nominated since that day 30 yeas ago. All three were confirmed, and all three sit on the bench today.

And, in the peculiar logic of American politics, when those seats are open again, due to retirement or death, I suspect they will be regarded as belonging to women, in much the same way that open seats have been considered liberal or conservative, depending upon who last held them, and only a like–minded jurist would be an acceptable replacement.

It is the same sort of thinking, for that matter, that made Thurgood Marshall's seat the black seat on the court when he retired — but race trumped ideology when his replacement had to be selected.

(It was always odd, I thought, that George H.W. Bush chose to replace Marshall with Clarence Thomas, who shared the same skin color but little else with the man he succeeded.)

For the most part, I guess, O'Connor lived up to the hopes of conservatives. When the Supreme Court was called upon to break the electoral deadlock in Florida in 2000, for example, she voted with the Republican appointees, allowing George W. Bush to prevail over Vice President Al Gore.

But, overall, her voting record seemed to move more to the center as her Supreme Court career continued. I often wondered if Reagan ever imagined in 1981 the votes she might cast or the decisions she might influence in the quarter of a century that she sat on the bench.

The night before he announced her nomination, Reagan wrote in his diary that he thought she would make "a good justice."

She's only been retired for five years.

It will take awhile for history to render its verdict.

Sometimes a Kiss is Not Just a Kiss

---

---

"You must remember this,
A kiss is still a kiss,
A sigh is just a sigh,
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by."

Herman Hupfeld
"As Time Goes By"

---

The royal newlyweds are off on their honeymoon today, and, to be perfectly honest, I'll be just fine if I don't see or hear anything more about this royal wedding for awhile.

But I realize that some people are really into this.

It does appear to have drawn a higher audience (in England, at least) than Charles and Diana's wedding in 1981 — which makes sense, I suppose. The world's population is larger today than it was then. If the audience was higher in England, it would follow that it would be higher elsewhere.

I slept right through the whole thing, but I know some women who got up at 3 a.m. just to watch the royal wedding — and excitedly exchanged their thoughts via Facebook, where the first to post a picture of the couple kissing on the balcony of Buckingham Palace was hailed by her friends as some kind of conquering hero.

That was what they had been waiting for. Not the traditional bride and groom kiss in the church, but that kiss, the one at the palace.

"It's like a fairy tale," wrote one of my friends. I could imagine the others nodding in virtual agreement.

Anyone may kiss in a church, but only a few people get to kiss at Buckingham Palace on their wedding day.

---

---

I guess they were waiting for the same thing in 1981. There were very few personal computers in those days, no commercial internet, little in the way of cable news. It was, by comparison, a technologically primitive time.

But I'm sure that photos and video clips of Charles and Diana kissing at Buckingham Palace were what everyone was waiting for. And the couple obliged.

OK, I'm a guy, and most of the guys I know just aren't into that wedding thing. Guys know that weddings really aren't about them. They are expected to show up and say "I do" at the appropriate time, but no one really seems to care, for example, about what a groom is wearing.

And if a groom tosses his boutonnière, well, I don't think that would be received too kindly by the guests. My guess is it might be interpreted as a hostile gesture.

Unless, of course, the groom happens to be a member of the royal family.

Anyway, yesterday I sort of watched from the digital shadows as my female friends conversed excitedly, speculating about which of them would be the first to post a picture of William and Kate kissing on the balcony of Buckingham Palace.

And it occurred to me that sometimes a kiss ain't just a kiss.

---

---

I remembered an old episode from All in the Family, when Archie objected to neighbor Irene's gift of a reproduction of Rodin's statue "The Kiss" to Mike and Gloria.

Archie thought the statue was obscene because the two people in it were naked. As far as Archie was concerned, a kiss is not just a kiss.

Nor, I suppose, was a kiss just a kiss more than a century ago, in the early days of filmmaking, when a brief film called "The Kiss" scandalized folks in 1896.

---

---

The man and woman in that film were fully clothed, and the viewers saw them only from the neck up, anyway, but that 47–second film was considered indecent by many people in those days.

I doubt that anyone would feel that way now, and I can only imagine how the people of 1896 would react if they could see some of the things that are in movies today. Standards change, and, for that and many other reasons, I believe most of the people of the late 19th century would not be comfortable in the early 21st century.

But I suspect that one thing that has not changed much is the public's fascination with royal weddings. They were probably waiting eagerly for royal newlyweds to kiss on the balcony hundreds of years ago. We just don't have the photographs to prove it.

No doubt about it. Sometimes a kiss isn't just a kiss.

The Day Reagan Was Shot

---

---

On this day in 1981, the president of the United States was shot by a would–be assassin — a (thankfully) rare occurrence as it is, but this time was unique in American history.

This president lived to tell the tale.

That president, Ronald Reagan, wasn't the first to be the target of an assassination attempt, but he became the first president to survive being shot.

There were many reasons why that probably should not have been so, but it was.

Fortunately, Americans have been spared the agony of the shooting of their president for three decades now — and you just about have to be in your mid–50s (at least) to remember the last such attempt that succeeded.

I don't know why that is so. Are protection methods so much better now?

Surely, the Secret Service's methods must have evolved, but they would have to have done so quietly, wouldn't you think? I mean, I presume the changes that have been made in presidential protection have not been publicized — sort of like the policy that prevents most police departments from revealing certain details of high–profile cases.

They know that, many times, the guilty party will reveal himself because he has knowledge that only the person who committed the crime would have.

It is the same sort of thinking (in a kind of reverse fashion) that tells me that anything law enforcement knows and prepares for without the knowledge of any would–be assassins improves the chances that such an attempt will fail.

That would make sense to me. I played some poker in college. I wasn't very good at it, but I knew there was a lot of value in bluffing and keeping your opponents in the dark.

And I also know (or, at least, I think I know) that the murders — or attempted murders — of public figures were far more commonplace when I was growing up than they seem to be today. Presidential assassinations have been rather infrequent in our history, but there was a time when I was growing up when two attempts were made on the life of a president within a month of each other.

I can only conclude that presidential protection methods must have improved in the last 30 years, but it also seems to me that — with the exception of the recent shootings in Arizona — the methods for protecting most public figures have improved as well.

It may not seem like attacks have declined appreciably — maybe the preferred targets have shifted, from public figures to private (or, at least, less public) ones — but the atmosphere seems entirely different today than it was when I was growing up.

If anything, the political dialogue is more venomous, more toxic than I can recall at any other time in my life — and, for all I know, actual death threats may be more numerous than they have ever been, as well — but actual attempts on the lives of public figures are way down from what they once were.

---

---

When I was small, two of the most admired men in America, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, were assassinated within a couple of months of each other. A few years later, political firebrand George Wallace was paralyzed in an assassination attempt.

In the years that followed, John Lennon was murdered, and Pope John Paul II was shot but survived.

Sometimes it seemed like the world was a shooting gallery, but even the attempts on Gerald Ford's life in 1975 didn't spark the chaos that Reagan's shooting did on this day in 1981.

On a day that was as confused and bewildering and filled with uncertain moments as any I have witnessed in my life, perhaps the most noteworthy was Secretary of State Al Haig's pronouncement that "I am in control here" in spite of the fact that the vice president, the speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate are ahead of the secretary of State in the constitutional line of succession.

Haig insisted that he was not speaking of presidential succession but rather of the chain of command in a crisis. But, even on that point, he was on shaky ground.

In addition to loopholes in the chain of command that were exposed by the shooting, there were problems in presidential protection that were uncovered as well.

Lead Secret Service agent Jerry Parr told Ari Shapiro of NPR that "we still took a defensive posture" on March 30, 1981.

"With this event we realized that wouldn't work anymore, and we did it in a flash. That's what came out of it."

Perhaps the four presidents who followed owe their lives to the lessons that were learned that day.

And what of the man who tried to kill Reagan 30 years ago today?

John Hinckley Jr. is "moving closer to the day his doctors may recommend he go free," CNN's James Polk reported a few days ago.

The assessment of the doctors at the mental hospital where he has been held for nearly 30 years is that he is no longer a threat to anyone.

And, because Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity — even though video and still photographs taken at the scene show beyond any doubt that he was the man who pulled the trigger — his case is handled differently. He has received privileges for which he never would have been eligible if he had been found guilty of attempting to assassinate the president — and, consequently, may one day be set free.

I remember people complaining about that very thing when the verdict was announced — it was quite controversial at the time — and the knowledge that such a thing still is possible — however improbable it may be — continues to bother some people.

One of those people is Reagan's daughter, Patti Davis, who writes movingly in TIME of the damage that is still present in the lives of those who were shot — and the people around them.

"Time is a matter of perspective," Davis writes. "Sometimes 30 years isn't so long. There are times when the American legal system works brilliantly. There are times when it fails."

The presiding judge and Hinckley's defense lawyer, she suggests, have made this case one of the latter.

Davis, like Ron Reagan Jr., has a record of supporting progressive causes, but on this issue she sounds more like their father.

I'm not saying she is wrong. She is entitled to her pain and suffering, just like the other victims and their families.

But Reagan lived for nearly a quarter of a century after being shot and did not appear to suffer any lingering effects from the experience — unlike the others who were shot that day.

Or most of the nameless, faceless Americans who are shot every day in America. Many are killed, but some survive and must adapt in whatever way is made necessary by the injuries that have been sustained.

They continue to pay the price, but Davis' father turned an enormous profit.

Not quite 10 weeks into his term, suggests Jonny Dymond for BBC, Reagan was handed a priceless opportunity to connect with the voters — and he seized it. With his gentle, good humor when faced with personal peril, Reagan's presidency was "lifted ... out of the mere normal." He went on to become the first president since Eisenhower to serve two complete terms.

"Just a few weeks ago, what would have been Reagan's 100th birthday was commemorated with a slew of rosy retrospectives," writes Dymond. "But the legend that was celebrated was arguably born 30 years ago today."

Odds and Sods

---

---

It has been a broiling hot July afternoon in Dallas, Texas, and even though the actual temperatures have rarely exceeded the century mark this summer, the humidity (which I believe has been brought on by the unusual rain we got in late June and early July) has been sending the afternoon heat index well past 100° on a regular basis.

Just before 3 this afternoon, the actual temperature here in Dallas was 96° (a high of 101° was predicted) and the heat index was 100°. Four hours later, the actual temperature was a 99°, and the heat index was 103°. No real relief is in sight.

So we have been advised to stay indoors in the afternoons. And that has turned my thoughts loose this afternoon. I've been "scattershooting," as Blackie Sherrod, a well–known and much–beloved sportswriter in these parts, used to say.

• Wherever I may live in the rest of my life and whatever the climate there may be, the heat here in Dallas is one thing I will always associate with summer.
  
  I was not raised here, but my parents were and my family was always here in the summer to spend time with the grandparents and family friends. Many of my memories from childhood are of riding in hot cars with the windows rolled down and a hot breeze slapping my sweat–streaked face. And then, when we returned from wherever we had gone, my grandmother's house would be blissfully cool, and I recall many times when I would lay down on a bed beneath the window air conditioning unit and doze off for the afternoon.
  
  Ice cream, too, is the source of many summer memories for me. Unfortunately, it is often mixed with my memories of the heat. There were days when, if you were outside, you really had to gobble your ice cream sandwich or your fudgicle — because they would melt on you if you didn't.
  
  Well, I bring up ice cream because Baskin–Robbins, which is clearly one of the most well–known ice cream companies in America, is going to retire five flavors tomorrow, which is National Ice Cream Day. This is also being done in commemoration of the fact that 2010 marks 65 years since Baskin–Robbins began selling ice cream.
  
  Baskin–Robbins still will be selling 31 flavors, CNN reports. Five new flavors will be taking the place of the five that are being dropped, but the company isn't saying what they are. Baskin–Robbins is going to keep us in suspense until Sunday. Anyone care to guess what the new flavors will be?


• Have you ever been frustrated by parking meters?
  
  Once the automobile was invented, I guess the parking meter was an innovation that was bound to happen sooner or later, but you can blame a fellow named Carl Magee if you wish. He patented the first parking meter. And the very first one was installed 75 years ago yesterday in Oklahoma City.
  
  I've been looking at the web site for the newspaper in Oklahoma City, The Oklahoman, but I haven't found any articles about the anniversary. I guess that really is no surprise. I mean, what can you do to observe a milestone for an inanimate object?
  
  And how sentimental can one be about it when all it does is take your money?
  
  Still the revenue from parking meters helps to pay for city services. They're relatively painless, but they can be annoying, like when you're trying to find one more dime or quarter to make sure you don't wind up making an even greater contribution to the city's coffers.


• If you look at the screen capture from the top of this post, you will see my favorite headline of the year (so far).
  
  It's from the Springfield (Mass.) Union–News and Sunday Republican, and it has an unusual relevance for me.
  
  A few months ago, I was summoned for jury duty. All the prospective jurors for this particular case were gathered in a court room and told that the defendant had decided to plead guilty and that the jury would have to decide his punishment. The defendant had been charged with five counts of robbery, and the judge explained that, under the law, the difference between robbery and theft is that a robbery involves a victim who was injured or may have had reason to fear being injured while the theft was taking place.
  
  A theft would be taking something valuable from a parked car or a vacant desk. Of course, legal definitions can vary from state to state. But the article says a wallet was stolen. The suspect apparently wielded no weapon. But he had only one arm. He must have seemed quite threatening to qualify, under the law, for the charge of robbery.
  
  The kicker is his nickname — "Lefty."
  
  That's what my father used to call Bob Dole.

  ---

  ---

  As the recession drags on, I hear Ronald Reagan's name mentioned more and more often by politicians who seem to have a problem differentiating between reality and fantasy.
  
  Thirty years ago today, Reagan accepted the Republican nomination for president for the first time. The Republican convention was held in Detroit that year. Four years earlier, when Reagan came up short in his bid to defeat President Ford, the party held its convention in Kansas City.
  
  He went on to be elected president that November. Then he was re–elected four years later. And, in January 1989, he returned to California — the first president in my memory to serve two full terms, even though many people believed when he took office shortly before his 70th birthday that there was no way a man of that age could survive the crushing responsibilities of the presidency.
  
  But he did. And, in the two decades since Reagan left the White House, it has become almost routine for a president to serve eight years.


• Exactly one year after Reagan, an outspoken advocate of deregulation, accepted the GOP nomination, tragedy struck the city where Reagan narrowly lost the nomination to Ford in 1976.
  
  During a tea dance, a walkway at the Hyatt Regency collapsed because of a structural failure. More than 100 people were killed. More than 200 were injured.
  
  The hotel had a distinctive lobby, with a multistory atrium with suspended concrete walkways on the second, third and fourth floors. The fourth floor's walkway was directly over the second floor's walkway. The third floor's was off to the side. Because of a design flaw, the fourth–floor walkway collapsed on to the second–floor walkway, and then both fell to the lobby, resulting in the casualties.
  
  The Missouri Board of Architects, Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors found the engineers who had signed off on the plans guilty of negligence and misconduct. No criminal charges were ever filed, but those engineers were stripped of their licenses.