QandO

2 good 4 2pac

Michelle Malkin shares some feedback on her blog from her "2 Lazy 2 Teach" column on Townhall.

It makes her point.

French rediscover the wheel

Under the heading "a blinding flash of the obvious", France's finance minister had this to say:

"We simply have to accept that those who want to work longer to earn more should be allowed to do it," he said.

How very descent of you! You'll actually allow people to decide on their own what amount of work they wish to do and what income level they want to attain?

How freakin' gracious of the government of France.

Of course, reality is a hard teacher, and reality says they can have more money to throw into the welfare pot if they allow the motivated to work more and earn more.

The 35-hour week is putting a huge strain on the French economy, Finance Minister Nicolas Sarkozy has said.

In an interview with newspapers Les Echos and the FT, Mr Sarkozy blamed tight restrictions on working hours for France's budgetary problems.

The policy directly costs the French Government and firms 16bn euros (£10.6bn; $19bn) a year, Mr Sarkozy said.

And by restricting companies, the rule has left the French economy far less flexible than its competitors.

Apparently unaware of how it works in the rest of the world, the French have finally figured this out. My guess is the Finance minister isn't really French which explains the revelation.

They've also figured out that if they couple this "new" concept with Hillary's recently voiced philosophy they have the makings of socialist heaven ... let some earn more so government can take more. Liberty, fraternity, equality ... Vive la France!

That is, of course, until Atlas shrugs. When that happens, 10% unemployment may be remembered as the good old days.

Fahrenheit transcript

If, like many, you have no interest in enriching Michael Moore by seeing his "documentary" but you're still curious about its contents, wander on over to RedLineRants where a transcript of the first half (the second half is promised soon) is posted.

The Never-Ending Hell That is NMCI

I am completely stymied as to why no one in congress or the media has latched on to the multi-billion dollar boondoggle that Navy/Marine Corps Internet project has become. I've
written on it here before, so regular readers know I'm completely disgusted with the whole thing.

One of the key things about IT services is that they are a support function. The mission determines IT's workload. But, somehow, EDS has now gotten that relationship completely reversed.

On the installation where I work, we are so frustrated with NMCI that we are currently planning to buy a completely separate network on which we can do our jobs. We will, of course, have to keep paying 200 bucks per seat per month for our NMCI network, but it will be used mainly for email. At the same time, we will have to buy and maintain our own network, where all of our work will actually get done.

Every one I've talked to, at every Navy or Marine Corps installation from Point Mugu to Quantico is appalled at the way NMCI is working. Or as the case mainly is, not working.

So far, the Navy has dumped $8.8 billion down this hole, to end up with a network that they don't even own. That's right, EDS, the prime contractor, owns the network, the servers, and the individual desktop computers and laptops. And EDS gets to decide what hardware and software gets run, and if they disapprove your software, they'll refuse to allow you to put it on an NMCI machine.

Essentially, this means that if you need something other than Microsoft Office©, then you're sucking wind.

IT isn't supposed to tell you what you need to do your job. You're supposed to tell IT what you need, and their job is to make it work. IT is a support function.

Some people have just had enough. Last week, Lt Gen Ed Hanlon, who runs the Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC, pronounced "mik-SID-ick"), blew his stack at the NMCI conference.

Unlike the favor-curriers in the Navy, it took a Marine to tell the truth.

Hanlon cited poor connectivity and slow delivery, along with other flaws and deficiencies in the system, and called them "unacceptable." He described NMCI's progress as "rocky and problematic."

"It is not going as smoothly as we hoped and expected," Hanlon said at the 2004 NMCI Industry Symposium in New Orleans. "I believe that EDS was not prepared to handle the implementation..."

Hanlon said...that he uses his NMCI station to communicate with personnel in Iraq, and the connection has failed him too many times. The Marine Corps has received 9,000 NMCI "seats" out of a total goal of 89,000, he added.

"Implementation is moving too slowly," he said. "At the current rate, it would take far too long to reach the objective."

How did the crowd at the conference respond?

The crowd of industry and military information technology officials at the conference gave Hanlon a standing ovation after his speech.

That's right. Because the performance of EDS has been a parade of incompetent buffoonery, and everybody who has an ounce of knowledge about IT services knows it. If you tried to bumble your way through a project like this in the private sector, you'd be out on your behind so fast it would make your head swim. Only the government can manage to subsidize incompetence to this extent.

Of course, when Hanlon was done, EDS' response was classic.

EDS spokesman Kevin Clarke said the company appreciates Hanlon's candor.

Yeah. I'll bet. I know how deeply I appreciate it when someone calls me an incompetent buffoon.

But the best part is this:

Earlier Tuesday, Navy Secretary Gordon England praised NMCI and said there are a "few bugs" in the system, but "you're always going to have them."

"That's the way it is with my own personal [America Online] account," England said.

I'm sorry Mr. Secretary, but that just makes you sound like an idiot.

I wonder, Mr. Secretary, how often do America Online's tech support people log onto your computer in order to delete any software they find that might interfere with AOL, and cause their number of tech support calls to rise? 'Cause NMCI does that to my NMCI machine every night.

Or rather they would do that if my NMCI machine worked. For four weeks now, my NMCI machine has been unable to boot up, due to a driver conflict caused by NMCI's dial-up software. I have literally no idea at all when it will be fixed. How satisfied would you be with AOL if their software prevented you from using your computer for a month, Mr. Secretary?

I bet you'd be a lot less tolerant of those little "bugs".

Oh, and while we're on the subject, get a real ISP, Mr. Secretary. I'm not saying AOL is bad, but it's designed for use by computer novices. No offense to other people who might blog here (*cough* Jon! *cough* ah-hmm) , but as soon as you say that you are an AOL customer, you've just told me that you are automatically unqualified to speak knowledgeably about IT issues.

It doesn't mean you aren't smart and competent in your own field, but it implies that computers aren't your bag, man. So you really shouldn't presume to tell a roomful of IT professionals that everything is fine, when you clearly aren't qualified to assure anyone about anything. Especially about things they know to be true.

The only way you could sound more pitifully uninformed Mr. Secretary, would be to add that you have lots of software development experience because you build databases in FoxPro.

Even worse, AOL blocks all the really good porn.

Or, so I've heard.

You know, for 9 billion bucks, I'd like to think that someone would've put just a bit more thought into this boondoggle. But, maybe that's just the way EDS has done business since Ross Perot left.

One of the attendees at the conference related that EDS used to have television commercial where there was a passenger jet flying, and the passengers were all looking around while EDS employees were completing construction of the aircraft in flight. I guess EDS' point was that they could do really complicated stuff on the fly.

Maybe, but it looks like a pretty good way to kill a planeload of passengers, too.

Blacks protest Jesse Jackson

While John Kerry was addressing the 33rd annual Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Conference on Tuesday, a group of about 100 blacks were gathered outside to protest the person they described as their "worst nightmare".

John Kerry?

No ... Jesse Jackson.

"Jesse is an immoral person. He has a history of being on the wrong side of history," said Pastor Anthony Williams of Chicago's St. Stephens Lutheran Church.

"The media -- the American media -- has invented our worst nightmare in the black community. He has never done anything beneficial for our people," Williams told CNSNews.com.

"We are letting the Democratic Party know -- from a state, county and federal level -- that the black vote is not for sale. I will vote for Mickey Mouse before I vote for John Kerry," Williams added.

I've felt the black vote was far from monolithic anymore, especially with the expansion of the black middle class. But frankly, although I think its warranted, I have to confess some surprise to hear that Jesse Jackson was being protested by blacks. I probably shouldn't have been.

Williams does not believe that black voters' overwhelming support for the Democratic Party has proven beneficial to minorities.

"The African American community has historically got nothing (from supporting the Democratic Party) -- a precious few has gotten something like these old civil rights organizations and people like Jesse," Williams said.

"We have been taken for granted because of people like Jesse. His day is over with," he added.

That is the realization that is finally dawning on black voters. The Democrat party has done little to nothing in the past to earn the votes of blacks. In fact it has taken them for granted and continues to do so ... primariy because of "leaders" like Jesse Jackson.

Its my feeling that as the economy grows and more and more blacks migrate to the middle class, less and less of them are going to automatically vote for Democrats. They're going to instead vote for the party which gives them the most opportunity economically, educationally, vocationally and in power sharing. The stark contrast between Condi Rice and Colin Powell in positions of real power in the Bush administration vs. the Jocelyn Elders type appointments of the last Democrat administration have to be making an impact on some black voters. Instead of talking about it, the right has done what blacks have demanded ... shared power with black Americans.

Meanwhile on the Democrat plantation, life continues unchanged and the Jesse Jackson's of the world try to keep it that way for their own benefit.

Its nice to see some blacks waking up to that fact.

The Media's true colors

Perusing the local rag this morning I came upon a column which made an excellent point, a point I've not seen really touched upon in the debate over "Fahrenheit 911". The writer, Shaunti Feldhahn, says:

What is disturbing is that respected movie reviewers and media leaders are not really trying to treat the film as the biased polemic that it is. I have been astounded to see movie critics solemnly discuss the thing as if it were a factual documentary whose controversial claims deserved careful consideration. The Los Angeles Times' movie critic, for example, labels the film "propaganda" -- but then goes on to review it as if it weren't, saying that because it has elements of truth, it should have a "devastating effect on viewers"!

It's as if religion reporters were to suddenly treat the novel "The DaVinci Code" not as a work of fiction but as a historical reference piece worthy of scholarly consideration, just because it contains a few grains of fact amid all the fabrications. Just because Moore calls his film "nonfiction" doesn't mean that it is fact. The job of the mainstream media should be to tell us what's fact, not the other way around.

Good analogy ... and we have few if any book reviewers out there trying to convince us the "Da Vinci Codes" are real do we? In fact, many went out of their way to ensure you knew it was fiction.

But Moore's film? Take a look at some of these:

A.O. Scott, New York Times: "Mr. Moore's populist instincts have never been sharper...he is a credit to the republic."

Michael Wilmington, Chicago Tribune: "Received both the first prize and the longest continuous standing ovation in the history of the Cannes Film Festival and it wasn't because of some cliched French antipathy to America."

William Arnold, Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "A masterful job of ridiculing the personality, intellect and employment resumé of George W. Bush ... could well become the docu-equivalent of "The Passion of the Christ" and even affect the presidential election."

Jami Bernard, NY Daily News: "I was in tears after first seeing "Fahrenheit" at Cannes."

Tom Long, Detroit News: "A film every citizen of voting age in America should see."

David Edelstein, Slate: "After the screening, a friend railed that Moore was exploiting a mother's grief. I suggested that the scene made moral sense in the context of the director's universe, that the exploitation is justified if it saves the lives of other mothers' sons. "

David Elliott, San Diego Union Tribune: "He spends time with a caring, patriotic woman reduced to near-ruin when her son is killed in Iraq. And shows how Iraqi mothers respond, too. Call that "demagogic," if you have an agenda in place of a conscience."

Eric Harrison, Houston Chronicle: "(Moore) is an indispensable treasure, and his imperfections are part of the reason, because they mark him as real. "

J.Hoberman, Village Voice: "Let us not forget that Dana Carvey did more than anyone in America, save Ross Perot, to drive Bush père from the White House. There are sequences in Fahrenheit 9/11 so devastatingly on target as to inspire the thought that Moore might similarly help evict the son."

Mick LaSalle, SF Chronicle: "What both exalts the experience and grounds the picture is Moore's essentially patriotic faith that a sincere, invested argument can get a hearing in America."

Eric Lurio, Greenwich Village Gazette: "Every Independent voter should see this movie and vote for Kerry."

Rex Reed, New York Observer: "There are multitudes of shattering, seminal moments in his brilliant Bush-whacking documentary."

Carrie Rickey, Philadelphia Inquirer: "A magnificent piece of filmmaking. "

There are many more but you get the drift. Where is the questioning of the facts of the movie or the techniques used in the Morre's film by these so called critics? Where is the demand rigor in reporting that any documentary requires? More importantly, where are these people's ethics?

Have the politics of desperation so addled them that they can't undertand they are destroying any shred of credibility they might still enjoy?

How does one ever take a movie critic, or pundit for that matter, seriously ever again when they say things like: "What both exalts the experience and grounds the picture is Moore's essentially patriotic faith that a sincere, invested argument can get a hearing in America?" Especially when we've heard this "patriotic American" tell foreign audiences, while speaking of Americans, "They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy]. We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.”

Indeed.

Feldhahn then makes a final point, which to me was the most telling in terms of how Moore's film is being treated by the media elite as opposed to another "documentaries" with at least as much 'factual evidence' as "Fahrenheit 911":

Ten years ago, "The Clinton Chronicles" documentary presented disturbing details about our then-president and his wife. The movie appeared well-researched and made some devastating charges about the Clintons' power years in Arkansas, carefully building a case for corruption, money-laundering, drug-running, bribery, intimidation and even murder.

But mainstream film distributors and movie critics never even considered circulating or reviewing that documentary. After all, they reasoned, "The Clinton Chronicles" was simply propaganda intended to smear an incumbent president during his re-election campaign. They ignored the movie in the name of responsible journalism, and it was consigned to informal distribution among die-hard conservative conspiracy theorists, never to receive mainstream attention

.

Responsible journalism, it appears, is only practiced when the "victim" of a "documentary" is from the left.

Agenda? "What agenda?", the media asks.

Apparently they just don't realize how transparent they are at times.

The BattleGround State UR Project

If internal economic conditions--e.g., the unemployment rate--have much bearing on November, it's probably worth watching those conditions in the battleground states.

So, based on the states Zogby defines as Battleground States--and assuming a drop in unemployment favors the incumbent--let's look at the latest data from the BLS....

WASHINGTON -.2 (Bush)
Apr: 6.3
May: 6.1

OREGON +.1 (Kerry)
Apr: 6.7
May: 6.8

NEVADA -.2 (Bush)
Apr: 4.3
May: 4.1

NEW MEXICO: -.1 (Bush)
Apr: 5.6
May: 5.5

MINNESOTA: +.1 (Bush. It's down almost a full percentage point this year, so it's hard to call this uptick a trend for Kerry)
Apr: 4.2
May: 4.3

IOWA: +.4 (Kerry)
Apr: 3.9
May: 4.3

MISSOURI: +.4 (Kerry)
Apr: 4.7
May: 5.1

ARKANSAS: +.2 (Kerry, though the longer trend is sharply down)
Apr: 5.6
May: 5.8

WISCONSIN: +.5 (Kerry)
Apr: 4.6
May: 5.1

OHIO: -.2 (Bush)
Apr: 5.8
May: 5.6

TENNESSEE: -.1 (Bush - rate has dropped more than 1 full point this year)
Apr: 4.9
May: 4.8

FLORIDA: -.2 (Bush)
Apr: 4.7
May 4.5

WEST VIRGINIA: 0 (Bush, as they are trending downward for the year)
Apr: 5.2
May: 5.2

PENNSYLVANIA: -.2 (Bush lately, but the longer trend is fairly flat)
Apr: 5.3
May: 5.1

NEW HAMPSHIRE: 0 (flat, short and long term)
Apr: 4.0
May: 4.0

The unemployment rate is by no means the only important factor, but it plays a part in how people perceive local economic conditions. The Unemployment rate trend in battleground states appears to favor Bush over Kerry 9-5, with one tie.

Drudgery

Drudge is touting a tip from an "insider", who claims...

Official Washington and the entire press corps will be rocked when Hillary Rodham Clinton is picked as Kerry's VP and a massive love fest will begin! So predicts a top Washington insider, who spoke to the DRUDGE REPORT on condition he not be named. "All the signs point in her direction," said the insider, one of the most influential and well-placed in the nation's capital. "It is the solution to every Kerry problem."

Wow! An Insider! He'd know something we don't! It must be true!

Except, based on what this "insider" says, it's pretty obvious he's a Republican, because he can't seem to resist the snark when talking about Democrats....

- "he served in Vietnam after all" - No Kerry supporter/insider would sarcastically refer to one of Kerry's selling points like this.
- Speaking of Republicans "dirty tricks", "we know they are scandals dirty tricks because the former president book says so"
- He calls Hillary a "health care expert"...putting that term in scare quotes.

I doubt very strongly that Hillary would accept a VP spot--or that she'll be offered one--and this "insider" strikes me as nothing more than a Republican attempt to seed the air with disinformation about Kerry's campaign - perhaps to overshadow whoever he does eventually pick. (though, Kerry is running a "health care" ad campaign right now!)

One gets the impression that Drudge is just posting emailed speculation from his friends. Unfortunately, this will probably get more attention than it deserves.

Chirac's Plan, Bush's reply

A lot has been made of France's opposition to US initiatives in Afghanistan and Iraq ... and rightly so. France's leader, Jaques Chirac, has made it obvious that his stance on the question of both countries will be "if the US if for it, France (or at least Chirac) is against it".

I'm interested in the "why" of his position. A quick look provides some interesting information and an opinion.

It is apparent to all but France that France is a fading power. Their country is a wreck, with unemployment consistently hovering at or near 10%. Its welfare state is a disaster, immigration is threatening its culture and France's power, even in the new EU, is slowly eroding. It is the accumulation of these facts which now confront France's leadership. Couple that with internal political woes and you have a leadership and a leader ready to strike out at anyone who further threatens their position.

Why, then, is Chirac so testy? Well first, things just aren't going well at home politically:

In two recent elections voters rejected his party.

70% of voters say they have no confidence in Chirac's Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin.

Chirac's approval rating was a low 50% last August, but is now a sub-electable 35%, according to TNS Sofres, a pollster.

Chirac is battling within his own party.

Chirac is in an internal battle for his political life and indications are his future isn't particularly bright. Because his chances of maintaining power don't look good, there's a urgency to his actions and his edged rhetoric. He seems to believe only he can redeem France's fading power and glory, and because of his political woes, he has to do so quickly. The single greatest roadblock to this internationally?

The United States under George W. Bush.

The point here is important ... the problem is not just the US, but George W Bush's US. A Kerry administration would be much more to Chirac's liking since Bush is on to Chirac's game. A Kerry administration, as admitted by the candidate himself, would attempt to be much more accomdating to our "European allies", a code phrase for France and Germany.

But as an editorial in the NY Post today points out:

The junior senator from Massachusetts is more attractive to Paris than the incumbent president because Bush is on to Chirac's game.

Never mind the War on Terror: The French political establishment is fighting a war against what it sees as Anglo-Saxon political, economic and cultural domination.

France believes it can use its influence within international institutions like the United Nations and the European Union to reverse more than a century of French decline.

If Kerry understands this, he has given no sign of it.

But if he and his supporters are naive enough to believe that the French would suddenly become more accommodating to a Kerry administration, they are courting a rude shock.

Nothing will change the French policy of working to undermine American and British efforts in Iraq or elsewhere — because France loathes and fears America and Britain.

Absolutely nothing would change in France's dealings with the US. However, a Kerry administration would give Chirac more time in his attempt to salvage and consolidate France's waning power. Kerry has made clear his preference for dealing internationally through the UN. France holds a seat on the Security Council and therefore owns a veto on US policy routed through that institution. Nothing could be better for Chirac. The US, under Kerry, would at worst be neutral in Chirac's attempted reclaimation of France's power, and at best manipulated into helping it. Kerry, who touts his "diplomatic experience" would be putty in Chirac's hands.

Bush has essentially written the UN out of the international equation for France, thereby neutralizing Chirac's most powerful weapon in his goal to keep France relevant. In fact, Bush's ability to get the latest UN resolution concerning Iraq passed with France's vote actually outplayed Chirac.

So there's a reason for Chirac's sharp remarks concerning Turkey and the EU.

France and the other European powers that oppose Turkey's inclusion believe — though it is rarely said publicly — that the E.U. should remain an organization of exclusively Christian countries.

France is also uncomfortable about greater E.U. expansion because each new country in the union dilutes French power — and thus France's ability to use the confederation to increase its global clout.

The first reason simply shows France, and much of Europe's, hypocricy. Not that its particularly surprising from a collection of nations which birthed both Facism and Communism. But the second reason is the real reason Chirac blew a gasket. More countries in the EU mean less power for France ... a direct threat to Chirac's plan.

It is something of which Bush is very aware. His remarks were a warning shot across Chirac's bow. It was meant to back him off his intransigence concerning NATO. It didn't work, but Bush's subsequent refusal to back off his remark leaves little doubt that two can play this game and Bush is more than willing to do so.

As mentioned, the UN, as a weapon of France's power, is, for all practical purposes, gone when it comes to the US. That leaves the EU and NATO in which France might be able to exercise its power and pursue its plan while neutralizing the US.

However, there's a problem with the EU as well ... the EU is already trying to shrug off France's attempts to consolidate its power. Things are not quite going to plan ... Chirac's plan:

At the European summit, Chirac tried to sell the draft EU constitution as "good for France," but the Economist wrote that the final text was not the document he had wanted, thanks to provisions that allowed the British to keep a veto over taxation and social security.

Chirac and Germany's Schröder tried to install Guy Verhofstadt, Belgium's prime minister, as European Commission president and were defeated in what the Economist termed "a cruel reminder that, in an enlarged Europe of 25, the French and Germans can no longer steer matters alone."

So when Bush said ...

"America believes that, as a European power, Turkey belongs in the European Union," Bush told an Istanbul audience, adding that its entry would be "a crucial advance in relations between the Muslim World and the West," because Turkey is "part of both."

Furthermore, allowing Turkey to join "would show that the E.U. is not the exclusive club of a single religion"

... it was more than Chirac could stand ... in a now characteristic undiplomatic blast he told Bush to butt out.

Bush won't and Chirac knows it (and you can hear the frustration in his rather rude remarks). So Chirac is left with limited options. He can only block and delay US power and policy through NATO at the moment, while hoping feverently that John Kerry wins the November election and gives France the ability to once again wield its power in the UN, NATO and the EU with America's tacit backing vs. its interference.

Another reason to eschew Kerry in November, unless, of course, you'd like to see France in the position of helping dictate future US foreign policy.

Myth-busting - GOP outsourcing

The GOP was "outsourcing fundraising!" To India! For poverty wages! The "Grand Hypocrisy Party"!

It seemed too good to be true, but Democrats.com, BuzzFlash, BestOfTheBlogs, DifferentStrings (and many more) believed every word of it. Because it was exactly what they wanted to hear.

They were wrong....

The Republican National Committee filed a complaint Tuesday accusing a Texas group of posing as a GOP organization to raise money by phone using an Indian telemarketing firm and through fund-raising mailings.

The fund-raising telephone calls prompted false, widespread rumors that the RNC was outsourcing its donor phone calls to India, the committee's complaint to the Federal Election Commission says.

The complaint accuses The Republican Victory Committee, based in Irving, Texas, of impersonating the Republican Party and fraudulently raising money by telling prospective donors it was being solicited by the GOP for use by Republican candidates.

The group denies the charge, saying they are "Republican-leaning", but the fact remains - the charge against the RNC/GOP was false.

Of course, the damage was done, the meme spread. One wonders if those spreading the rumor will issue a mea culpa, and attempt to correct the misinformation. It would be the decent thing.

UPDATE: Added to the Beltway Traffic Jam.

Disposable Personal Income

At the end of the day, very few of us pay attention to economic statistics. Most of us notice one thing: are we doing better or worse?

Of course, there's a statistic for that, too: "real disposable personal income". It is the (inflation-adjusted) portion of our income left over after taxes - the money we can spend, invest, or spread on the bed to roll around on later, if that's the sort of thing you're into.

So, how are we doing? Well, not too badly, as it turns out....

Per the Bureau of Economic Analysis....(pdf)

"Since May of last year, real disposable personal income has increased 3.8 percent, and real consumer spending has increased 4.1 percent."

That's an annual increase in DPI that rivals the best years of the 90s, outpacing all but two of the annual DPI increases during the Clinton administration. (with the caveat that neither the Bush, nor the Clinton administration really control DPI to a significant extent)

All that to say, the recovery--or, the upturn in the economic cycle--is becoming more and more apparent in the pocketbooks of Americans. And they're beginning to notice, too....

Consumer confidence in the U.S. economy surged in June to the highest level in two years, spurred by job gains and falling gasoline prices, a private survey found.

The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index rose to 101.9 this month, from a revised 93.1 in May. The figure exceeded the highest estimate in a Bloomberg News survey of economists. The percentage of consumers who said they found jobs hard to find was the lowest level since September 2002.

Higher consumer confidence means more spending, and less saving....which translates to increased orders. Which, we hope, should translate to more jobs. Which will translate to.....well, a different economic message from John Kerry. "Sure, things are good, but I won't rest until there's nothing left for me to bitch about! Or, until I'm President. But I repeat myself...."

Digital Brownshirts

This whole Alliance of Digital Brownshirts thing bothers me. Yes, I get the point of the thing, vis a vis Al Gore's remarks. Yes, I understand the sarcastic nature of the whole deal.

But it bothers me.

I despise totalitarianism in all its forms, but there's something peculiarly bothersome about Nazism. So, I am repelled by the DB logo, which uses a portrait of the head brownshirt himself, SA leader Ernst Roehm. Granted, Roehm, who was murdered on Hitler's orders in 1934 during "The Night of the Long Knives", was killed long before the Nazis began their more egregious crimes, was never able to become more than a sadistic street thug before Hitler bumped him off, so it's not as if the logo used a known war criminal.

But something strikes me as extraordinarily unseemly about the appropriation of Nazi imagery for any putatively humorous purpose. And there are certainly some who will look with suspicion at those who do so with such apparent glee. "Why," some will wonder, "are these people so proud to associate themselves with Nazi imagery?" And, irrespective of the various bloggers' reasons for doing so, a number of people will, in the course of asking themselves that question, come up with an unpleasant answer.

The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi. Period. So, not to rain on anybody's parade, but I'm simply repelled by the use of Nazi imagery for any purpose but depictions of the utterly inhuman and brutal nature of the Hitler regime and its ideology.

It strikes me that using Nazi imagery this way runs the danger of detracting from the real evil that it represented. Ernst Roehm wasn't a jolly, thick-necked, beer-swiller. I mean, he was, but he was also something much darker, and his party left a stain of barbarism and oppression that should remain sharp and clear in our minds for generations.

Let the DU types make the "Bushitler" commercials, and photoshop Don Rumsfeld as a German Field Marshal. Let them make the Nazi comparisons, and trust the basic common sense of the American people see it for what it is.

But I don't feel comfortable at all joining them down in the mud by cheapening the evil of Nazism for satirical effect.

Random Musing

Something's just occured to me that has me curious. Michael Moore's new film has all the anti-Bushies frothing at the mouth about the concatenation of "facts" he's spun together into a story. It's amazing how these guys can put two and two together when the answer is something they want to hear.

If we were to learn tomororrow that a junior aide in the Bush White House met with a junior aide that worked for Ken Lay, the DU types would be howling about "secret, back-channel communications" between the administration and Enron.

Being able to build up a coherent conspiracy out such minor things is a real talent, but, you know, it's funny how that ability fades when presented with something like, I dunno, a history of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. They can't seem to put two and two together when they see that kind of evidence, but if looks bad--or can be made to look bad--for W, then all the sudden, they can do quadratic equations and differential calculus in their heads to add facts together.

Al-Qaida exists for one purpose: to commit acts of terror. If your government has contacts with al-Qaida then you are involved with terror. It's that simple. Doesn't mean Saddam planned 911, or anything like that, but it implies at least some degree of coziness that you have to be fairly irrational to deny.

It's just odd how people with such a powerfully conspiratorial bent when it comes to someone they hate can spin conspiracies out of the very ether, but suddenly get slack-jawed with stupefaction at stringing together facts that don't support their ideology.

Lessons Learned

Ralph Peters writes in the New York Post that, on a strategic level, it may be 10 or 15 years before we can know what we've really accomplished in Iraq. In the interim, however, there are some valuable tactical lessons we should take away from the experience.

Briefly, they are as follows:

1. Plan for the worst-case scenario, not just the one you hope for.


2. In the wake of combat operations, always impose martial law.


3. Fight terrorists and insurgents immediately, remorselessly and comprehensively.


4. Kill terrorists, rather than taking them prisoner.


5. Don't treat an occupation as a bonanza for American contractors — hire locals.


6. Don't place blind trust in émigrés.


7. Preventive War is a concept that's here to stay.


8. The globalized media demands new rules.


9. Ignore the Left.


10. Speak softly, and carry a big stick.


11. Trust the troops.

Pretty good lessons, if you ask me.

Bite Me, Frog-boy II

Good old Jacque Chirac. Evidently, he didn't get enough satisfaction at sniping at the US at yesterday's NATO summit. So he started in again today.

As the alliance struggles to define its role in a post-Cold War world, French President Jacques Chirac forcefully stated his opposition to any collective NATO presence on the ground in Iraq, suggesting it should limit its role to coordinating national efforts and training outside the country.

"I am completely hostile to the idea of a NATO establishment in Iraq," Chirac told a news conference. "It would be dangerous, counterproductive and misunderstood by the Iraqis, who after all deserve a little bit of respect."

On Afghanistan, Chirac rejected an American proposal that NATO's elite new response force be deployed to provide security for elections scheduled in September.

Remember, please, that with all this talk about NATO troops, that France does not participate in the military alliance. France holds a seat on the political council, but contributes no troops to NATO, and does not participate in NATO military operations in any sense, except to send small observer missions.

So, nobody's talking about forcing France to send any troops, anywhere. Yet, despite the fact that France contributes nothing whatsoever to NATO militarily, Chirac is trying to exercise a veto on other NATO countries from engaging in NATO military missions.

It's about time that W call our ambassador to France home for "consultations".

Too early to say

Jon mentioned this morning that it looks like support for Bush's presidential campaign is softening. Now, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but I'm not sure it matters one way or another at this point on the calendar.

First of all, 80% of the electorate hasn't paid much attention to the election at all. For most people, the election is something they just don't feel the need to worry very much about until after labor day. During the conventions, interest will start to pick up, then there'll be a steady increase after that.

So, even in normal times, I'm not sure what polls five months out tell us that's particularly useful about the first week in November. But this election is one where events--most of which are totally outside the control of either candidate--will probably be a key factor in what happens on election day. Progress in Iraq, finding a cache of WMDs, a major terrorist attack in the US; any of these things could affect the election spectacularly.

Bush or Kerry might make some horrific political mistake. Back in '72, George McGovern picked a man named Thomas Eagleton as his running mate. Eagleton appeared to have all the right qualifications to be vice president. He was distinguished-looking, he was moderately articulate, and he was breathing. The whole VP package, really.

Unfortunately, it turned out that Senator Eagleton had been "treated" for "depression". Evidently it was a pretty severe case of depression, too, because it turned out that one of his treatments had been electroshock therapy.

Despite the fact that we elected Al Gore as VP 20 years later, at the time the idea of a potential madman becoming a potential president didn't sit too well with most people. McGovern at first tried to defend Eagleton strongly. "I'm not going to drop him as my running mate!" he declared. "Tom Eagleton is perfectly sane!" He then called Eagleton and begged him to drop out of the race, then chose Sargent Shriver as his new, improved running mate.

We all know what happened to McGovern on election day.

In any event, despite Bush's soft support, assuming, arguendo, that his support is soft, Kerry hasn't been much of a barn-burner either. Despite 6 weeks of hideously bad news in April-May, Kerry got a 5-point bump in support. Now, if you take a look at RealClearPolitics.com, where they round up all the poll results, the RCP poll average has Bush at 45%, Kerry at 43.6%, and Nader at 3.6%.

So, despite months of press sniping over Iraq, several weeks of carnage, beheadings, and militia attacks, the lack of any WMD stockpiles, and constant pounding on Bush from the Democrats, the best Kerry has been able to do is pull to within 2%.

That doesn't scream "fundamental strength" when it comes to Kerry. What it tells me is that the campaign is W's to lose. That impression is reinforced by looking at the New York Times, hardly a pro-bush paper, when I see things like this:

Similarly, 45 percent said they had an unfavorable opinion of Mr. Bush himself, again the most negative measure the Times/CBS Poll has found since he took office. And 57 percent say the country is going in the wrong direction, another measure used by pollsters as a barometer of discontent with an incumbent.

Yet the survey found little evidence that Mr. Kerry has been able to take advantage of the president's difficulties, even though Mr. Kerry has spent $60 million on television advertising over the past three months.

Translation: At best for Kerry, this means that the electorate thinks a) Bush sucks and b) Kerry sucks even harder. That tells me that, all other things being equal, the race is still tilting in Bush's favor, despite all the bad news of the last few months.

If, at any time in the next five months, things begin to look better in Iraq, or people begin to get the message about the improvement in the economy--which they surely will if the jobs picture keeps brightening--then this one won't even be close.

The only reason Kerry is still even in the ballpark is because the news from Iraq seemed to be unremittingly bad. If that doesn't continue, neither will Kerry's hopes for getting elected.

UPDATE:

Oh, by the way, Mickey Kaus notes something I completely missed in the NYT piece I quote above. As Kaus puts it:

Soxblog notes that a month ago, the CBS poll had Kerry up by 8 in a head to head with Bush (and up 6 with Nader in the race). This month, the NYT/CBS poll showed Kerry's lead had dropped to a single point in the head-to-head, and Bush was actually winning by a point with Nader included. Kerry dropped seven points in a month. So what do the Times' Nagourney and Elder lead their story with?

Bush's Rating Falls to Its Lowest Point, New Survey Finds

You don't find out until paragraph 11 that the candidates are essentially tied, and only in the 13th graf do Nagourney and Elder slip in the previous months poll results--without pointing out to readers the decline in Kerry's lead.

I think that reinforces my position on Kerry's weakness as a candidate even more.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

The audacity of that statement is staggering ... but not a surprise considering who it comes from ... Ms Rodham Clinton.

On that single statement alone, the vast majority of Americans should go screaming to the polling booth to ensure Clinton and her ilk are kept as far away from the reigns of power as possible ... but they won't.

Because there's a significant group out there who actually believe in her nonsense. They believe someone else can decide what constitutes 'the common good" for them. And they don't mind giving up their right to their property for them either ... and think you should do the same (you greedy bastard!).

Really.

James Lileks, in his own inestimable way, puts some perspective on the subject which is spot on with his "Parable of the Stairs. "

Its a long excerpt but it makes a the point so well that I hope you'll take the time to read it through.

A minor political note, if you’re interested in such things. The other day a young girl came to the door to solicit my support for her presidential candidate. I asked her why I should vote for this man. She was very nice and earnest, but if you got her off the talking points she was utterly unprepared to argue anything, because she didn’t know what she was talking about. She had bullet points, and she believed that any reasonable person would see the importance of these issues and naturally fall in line. But she could not support any of her assertions. Her final selling point: Kerry would roll back the tax cuts.

Then came the Parable of the Stairs, of course. My tiresome, shopworn, oft-told tale, a piece of unsupportable meaningless anecdotal drivel about how I turned my tax cut into a nice staircase that replaced a crumbling eyesore, hired a few people and injected money far and wide - from the guys who demolished the old stairs, the guys who built the new one, the family firm that sold the stone, the other firm that rented the Bobcats, the entrepreneur who fabricated the railings in his garage, and the guy who did the landscaping. Also the company that sold him the plants. And the light fixtures. It’s called economic activity. What’s more, home improvements added to the value of this pile, which mean that my assessment would increase, bumping up my property taxes. To say nothing of the general beautification of the neighborhood. Next year, if my taxes didn’t shoot up, I had another project planned. Raise my taxes, and it won’t happen – I won’t hire anyone, and they won’t hire anyone, rent anything, buy anything. You see?

“Well, it’s a philosophical difference,” she sniffed. She had pegged me as a form of life last seen clilcking the leash off a dog at Abu Ghraib. “I think the money should have gone straight to those people instead of trickling down.” Those last two words were said with an edge.

“But then I wouldn’t have hired them,” I said. “I wouldn’t have new steps. And they wouldn’t have done anything to get the money.”

“Well, what did you do?” she snapped.

“What do you mean?”

“Why should the government have given you the money in the first place?”

“They didn’t give it to me. They just took less of my money.”

That was the last straw. Now she was angry. And the truth came out:

“Well, why is it your money? I think it should be their money.”

Then she left.

And walked down the stairs. I let her go without charging a toll. It’s the philanthropist in me.

That's the difference folks ... there are actually people who believe that the "government" is why you have money and "they" have the "right" to take back, at any time, what is "theirs".

Yes, I know, its hard to believe, but they do exist ... and, frighteningly, they vote as well.

"Incompetent" ... say it again, "incompetent"

Since words are our medium, I'm always interested in how they're used, etc.

Take the word "incompetent".

Seems "incompetent" has won out over "miserable failure" and "dumb as a box of rocks" (although I understand "smirking chimp" is still in the running) as the favorite description of Bush and his administration by the left.

For instance Richard Cohen, in order to avoid the rush one presumes, declares Iraq a failure one day after the handover and before Michael Moore can claim credit. The reason?

A supposedly new Iraq was born this week, a graduate going off - really being kissed off - without the necessary skills. The insincerely proud parent of this miserable misfit is the Bush administration, whose incompetence has been staggering.

Not to be outdone, Ms Competence herself (heck we've been in Iraq less time than it took her to find her records from Rose Law Firm), Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton has weighed in as well:

"I think the administration has been both wrongheaded and incompetent and should not be rewarded."

Where'd this come from, you ask? Obviously the left would argue, "from the inept actions of the administration, you dolt!"

But that's more than arguable ... in fact its very arguable. No question many things could have been done better, but do they rise to the level of incompetence?

An argument for a different day. Today I'm more interested in the genesis of the meme than its truth.

Wandering around on google, I find what appears to be first use by Nancy Pelosi ... a paragon of competence if ever I've seen one. On May 21st she thrilled her constituents and the left side of the political spectrum by declaring that Bush was incompetent:

"I believe that the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers."

Dear Albert, breathing fire and brimstone, quickly did a little bandwagon hopping when on May 27th he too called the President incompetent. Speaking of competence, Gore caught rhetorical fire after the 2000 election in which he even failed to take his home state. But, to his statement:

"The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorist attacks against the United States,"

As with all things in the political realm, they're not what they seem. Pelosi is widely credited with starting the incompetence meme, but as with many politicians, it appears she stole someone else's work. Yes friends, it appears credit may indeed go to none other than David Corn who, on May 11th wrote:

It's the incompetence, stupid. That should be the battle cry of the forces of anti-Bushism.

But it is ... it is the apparent battle cry.

So was it Corn who coined it?

Well probably not. It appears, dear reader, that its an import. Yes, imported from another lefty politician. To his credit, he at least minces no words. I give you, from early February of this year, Australian Labour Party member and MP Mark Latham:

Labor MPs savagely attacked the US President on Wednesday. Frontbencher Mark Latham described Mr Bush as "the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory" and referred to Liberal MPs as a "conga line of suckholes" to Mr Bush.

Yes, true friends are hard to find, especially among suckholes.

There is good news though with the Democrat adoption of "incompetence" as their new meme. They've dropped gravitas like a hot rock.

Which makes sense if you think about it. After all, their candidate is John Kerry. And everyone know he needs a gravitas transplant in the worst way.

Which is worse ... being incompetent or lacking in gravitas?

Only the DNC knows for sure.

Two wrongs...

Bill Hobbs...

Thinking of seeing Michael Moore's lie-fest, Fahrenheit 9/11, but don't like the thought of putting money into Moore's rather large pockets (and from there, no doubt, into Moveon.org or some other organization allied with the Kerry presidential campaign)? Here's a suggestion: Buy a ticket to a different movie, and see Fahrenheit 9/11 instead.

...and Dean Esmay--who links and calls it "interesting"--are wrong.

Michael Moore is willing to deceive in order to combat the Bush administration, whom he regards as liars. That, I think we can agree, is wrong.

If that's wrong, then it's every bit as wrong to not only lie to avoid paying Michael Moore, but to actually commit theft towards that end. It's wrong, and bloggers who recommend that practice sacrifice their principles in doing so.

(Note: No, it's not excused by the fact that Michael Moore encourages that theft. It's not entirely his property to give away)

Celsius 250: The Temperature at which Fat Burns

In the spirit of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which has been called an "unvarnished presentation" (by Senator Tom Harkin), and about which Michael Moore has said "The most important thing we have is truth on our side", I present this "unvarnished presentation" of facts.

Celsius 250
Based on the Fahrenheit 9/11 movie and website by Michael Moore
(hint)

One of the most controversial and provocative posts of the year, Celsius 250 is blogger Jon Henke's searing examination of Michael Moore's life and career in the wake of the tragic deception of Fahrenheit 9/11.

With his characteristic humor and dogged commitment to uncovering the facts, Henke considers the life of Michael Moore and where it has taken him. He looks at how - and why - Moore and his inner circle prominent Democrats avoided pursuing the Iranian and Syrian connection to terrorism, despite the fact that it has been reported that Moore's movie distributor is accepting Hezbollah affiliated money. Celsius 250 shows us a country kept in constant fear by Moore's own record and lulled into accepting a movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, that infringes on basic civil discourse. It is in this atmosphere of confusion, suspicion and dread that the Moore team makes its headlong rush towards deception and Celsius 250 takes us inside that deception to tell the stories we haven't heard, illustrating the awful human cost to civil discourse in the US.

Facts:

• Michael Moore has a residence and/or lives in Michigan.

• A search of a Michigan sex offender website for "Michael Moore" of approximate age "50" returns one Michael Moore convicted of "Criminal Sexual Conduct - Third Degree".

Coincidence?

• Canadian Bacon was directed by Michael Moore.

• John Candy died in 1994 of a "heart attack" in Durango, Mexico--conveniently outside US jurisdiction--shortly after making Canadian Bacon, providing a burst of important publicity to the post-mortem release of Michael Moore's feature film debut.

What role did Michael Moore take in planning the "publicity events" for the release of his movie?

• The ACLU has defended NAMBLA against lawsuits, calling them "witch hunts."

• Since that time, Michael Moore has cited the ACLU approvingly.

Quid pro quo?

• Front Row Entertainment, with which Michael Moore is affiliated through Fahrenheit 9/11, has been quoted saying "We can't go against these organizations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria", in response to overtures from Hezbollah affiliated groups.

• A search of Michael Moore's site does not find any disavowal.

• Hezbollah has killed hundreds of US citizens, and gets support from Syria and Iran.

• In Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore focuses on Saudi Arabia, rather than Syria and Iran.

Is Michael Moore protecting, or even supporting, terrorist sponsors?

"I'm not trying to pretend that this is...fair...." -- Michael Moore, referring to Fahrenheit 9/11.
"Sauce for the goose, you know..." -- Jon Henke, referring to Michael Moore.

UPDATE: In case you've missed the obscure reference and didn't follow the link, I'll elucidate: Celsius 250: The temperature at which fat burns.

Quick Hits

*** Yes, he's kicking a man when his site is down--though I think he'd be amused--but, this is funny.
(in reality, Matt is one of the more thoughtful, worthwhile liberal pundits, and I have a great deal of respect for his blogging - though, I disagree with him often)

*** I'm beginning to believe John Kerry will win this election. The more I look at events, the softer Bush's support seems to be. It's his fault, really. Kerry voters may really be more interested in voting "against Bush" than "for Kerry"....but Bush isn't exactly overwhelming conservatives and libertarians with reasons to vote for him. And they're not as mad at Kerry, as liberals are at Bush.

Having said that, and assuming Kerry wins....

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Kerry won the electoral college, but lost the popular vote? The next four years would be filled with Democrats explaining why it was "different this time", and--come to think of it--so would many Republicans.

*** There's been a great deal of partisan carping about the handover. As Dale wrote, "critics set the bar impossibly high, and...[dismiss] progress that doesn't meet their unreasonable expectations as abject failure". On the other hand, there's also been some very reasonable criticism, too.
--- Jesse Taylor points out that Paul Bremer put in place some laws very "unfitting to Iraq", and it will be very interesting to see how the Iraqis deal with them.

--- Edward also makes a good point about Bush's recent claim to have fulfilled our promise...

Until there is an elected government in place that represents ALL Iraqi voices, the pledge is not fulfilled. Talk of martial law and loop holes in the interim constitution that may allow more restrictive Islamic law into the final constitution, as well as the added complication of "ensuring" that anything happens in a fully "sovereign" nation make this just another in the long line of premature Mission Accomplished speeches by the President.

I don't think the presence of some Islamic values in Iraqi law will render our promise unmet, but his point stands. Until the interim government succeeds in its purpose, our promise is not fulfilled....and, if we are serious about Iraq being "sovereign", we can hardly dictate events to them any longer.

As with a teenager, we'll just have to hope we've set them far enough down the right path.....and be there, if they ask for help.

*** It's not often I agree with Oliver, but I'll do so here....

If I was in the Bush administration's communications department, and I knew that things were not going well in Iraq, and I wanted to spin the message my way -- I would set up a number of "Iraqi blogs" and use the information within to sway influential American opinionmakers.

In fact, the last time I recall agreeing with Oliver Willis, it was about the exact same thing, when I wrote "I agree with Oliver here, but I'll go a step further. Why are we so sure that all of these Iraqi bloggers are actually Iraqi bloggers?"

Don't worry, Oliver.....if you're accused of being a "conspiracy theorist", you can just tell them you got it from me.

*** Henry Hanks is on fire. Start here - or here, here...or just keep reading down.

*** Cam Edwards, host of Cam and Company on NRAnews.com, has an idea....

...every Friday, a different group of bloggers and more traditional pundits get together and review the week's big stories. I envision a show where people like columnist Michelle Malkin and radio host Joe Kelley are on, as well as people like Stephen Taylor and Lawren K. Mills.

Frankly, I think there are, ahem, bloggers here who would be very good on his show. Cam is asking for interested bloggers to participate, so check in with him. (hint: it could only help his prominence if he links QandO. Just sayin'...)

*** I have, in the past, compared Rush Limbaugh to various leftish demagogues like Michael Moore. Readers have taken offense to that, claiming Limbaugh didn't engage in the vicious lies and slurs in which pundits like Moore engage.

I believe this vindicates my position.

*** Regarding comment sections, Instapundit links to a post on QandO, and writes...

...Q&O made a perfectly reasonable point about James Rubin, only to see the comments degenerate into nasty remarks about Rubin's wife, Christiane Amanpour. I don't like Amanpour, whom I regard as excessively agenda-driven, but I wouldn't want her called names like that on my blog. Which means I'd either have to edit such comments out, or live with it. I don't have the time for the former, and I'm not willing to do the latter.

It occurs to me that we've never really discussed our comment policy. That is, perhaps, because we don't really have one. As near as I can tell, our policy seems to be:
1: We delete spam, and duplicate comments.
2: We retain the right to delete needlessly and personally vicious, or libelous comments, though we have no done that yet as far as I am aware. (correc me if I'm wrong, guys) We generally have a very high tolerance for dissent--even disrespectful dissent--and welcome it.....though, we prefer civil dissent.

That non-deletion does NOT imply that we support every comment on our blog, though I should think that goes without saying.

More relevant, to me anyway, is this...

The other problem, which I've seen both at blogs I agree with and blogs I don't, is that bloggers can be captured by their commenters. It's immediate feedback, and it's interesting (it's about you!) and I can imagine it could become addictive. My impression is that often, instead of serving as a corrective to errors, comment sections tend to lure bloggers farther in the direction they already lean. Anyway, I worry about that.

I've worried about that a great deal, too. I'm aware that QandO is generally read by right-leaning people, and I've taken great pains to ensure that I do not simply turn this blog into a "preach to the choir" chorus of criticism of Democrats. You will note that each of us has been, at times, vocal in our criticism of the Bush administration and right wing pundits.

So, you've been warned. I don't think QandO will ever be a warm ideological cocoon for right-of-center partisans. Or, at least, I hope it won't.

Bite me, Frog-boy

Jacques Chirac, who apparently fancies himself the Emperor of Europe, told the NATO summit attendees that the US has no business expressing an opinion about European affairs.

Stung by Mr Bush's call for the EU to give Turkey a firm date for accession, Mr Chirac responded: "He not only went too far but he has gone into a domain which is not his own.

"He has nothing to say on this subject. It is as if I were to tell the United States how it should conduct its relations with Mexico."

Or...Iraq.

Mr Chirac was irritated by Mr Bush's comments a day earlier during a meeting with Turkish leaders.

Hailing Turkey as an example of "how to be a Muslim country and at the same time a country which embraces democracy and rule of law and freedom", Mr Bush said: "I believe you ought to be given a date by the EU for your eventual acceptance into the EU."

Mr. Chirac is awfully froggy (no pun intended) for the leader of a country that doesn't even participate in NATO's military organization. Maybe we should restrict France's participation in NATO's political cousels to the same observer status they have in the military alliance.

One also notes that, during the whole wretched collapse of Yugoslavia, culminating in the atrocities in Kosovo, the French, among others, were begging for US help. The French spent years dithering over that mess and accomplished...well, what France usually accomplishes, which is nothing.

Mr. Chirac's real fear, of course, is that as the EU enlarges France will be increasingly relegated to the second-rate status, even among European countries, that it deserves.

What is especially irksome about Chirac mouthing off at a NATO meeting is that the French have spent the last 50 years on the rear of NATO, confident that if the Russians came roaring across the Elbe, they would have the benefit of the American conventional and nuclear umbrella to protect their country, without their having to go through the tedious business of cooperating with the rest of NATO in any meaningful way.

It's almost enough to make one wish the Germans still had a real army.

What has been right in Iraq

Notice I didn't say what is right in Iraq. Instead what's been going right in Iraq all this time and has been woefully under reported. Fred Hiatt of the WaPo does a nice job of making up for a little of that:

What is striking in Iraq, though, is an emphasis on learning from mistakes and moving forward, because there isn't any alternative. This is noteworthy among two groups in particular: Iraqis who have signed on at considerable risk to build a new democratic government, and U.S. soldiers and Marines.

In much of the country, the U.S. military and its allies -- notably but not only Britons and Poles -- provide virtually the only foreign presence, and their resourcefulness and adaptability are impressive. Terrorists have managed to chase away the United Nations, most nonprofit organizations and many for-profit contractors. So the troops not only must fight and kill bad guys but also open vocational schools, manage irrigation projects, rebuild universities, train police and soldiers, mediate ethnic disputes, organize town councils, prepare for elections, and more. All this, while they are stretched thin for their military mission.

Young Army captains spend their evenings in mayors' offices, advising on everything from democracy theory to garbage collection. Slightly older lieutenant colonels organize sheiks' councils. "Every commander in this division has personally run an election," either in Bosnia or Kosovo, says a senior officer in the 1st Infantry Division, now based in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. By default, they have become America's nation-builders overseas.

One of the reasons I've always believed those in our military to be the brightest and best is they do this sort of thing ... routinely. Its almost as though they live in a world where "it can't be done" doesn't exist. In fact, from experience, I know they do. They're tough, bright, adaptive and stubborn. If its possible they'll make it happen.

You can't ask for much more. Read the whole article as its a nice break from the doom and gloom the Post usually peddles.

OK, what's up with Canada

Do you guys really need this sort of a warning?

"Eating a ballot, not returning it or otherwise destroying or defacing it constitutes a serious breach of the Canada Elections Act," Elections Canada warns on its Internet site.

It might make sense in Florida, but really this takes "ballot stuffing" to a whole new level.

I hope this isn't true ...

... but I'm afraid it might be.

The parents of 20-year-old Army Pfc. Keith "Matt" Maupin, held hostage in Iraq since April, were informed today that there may be a videotape showing his execution.

Its hard enough to lose your son or daughter in combat, or to a roadside bomb. But it has to have been hell for PFC Maupin's parents since April, especially with the Berg, Johnson and Kim beheadings.

Again, the terrorists have prove they have no soul despite the religious mewling they're prone too. The depths of their depravity is bottomless.

Meanwhile, in this nation, we continue to debate the Geneva Conventions.

Sir Edmund Hillary Rodham Clinton

Mark Steyn is the priceless treasure of the Anglosphere, a title he earns with pieces like his review of Bill Clinton's memoirs, My Life, for the Wall Street Journal.

Is there anything interesting in "My Life" by Bill Clinton? Oh, yes. Page 870.

The Clintons are in New Zealand and finally get to meet "Sir Edmund Hillary, who had explored the South Pole in the 1950s, was the first man to reach the top of Mount Everest and, most important, was the man Chelsea's mother had been named for."

Hmm. Edmund Hillary reached the top of Everest in 1953. Hillary Rodham was born in 1947, when Sir Edmund was an obscure New Zealand beekeeper and an unlikely inspiration for two young parents in the Chicago suburbs. I mentioned this in Britain's Sunday Telegraph eight years ago this very week, after this little story was trotted out the first time, but like so many curious anomalies in the Clinton record, it somehow cruises on indestructibly. By the time Sir Edmund shuffles off this mortal coil, the New York Times headline will read: "Man for Whom President Rodham Named Dies; Climbed Everest in 1947."

Naturally, the review is replete with sharp one-liners as well.

The foothills of the vast tome are deceptively easy, when Mr. Clinton is merely telling a heartwarming personal anecdote about every single person listed in the Arkansas telephone directory between 1946 and 1992.

Up in the clouds, way above the out-of-his-tree line, the president advances the theory that he was obliged to submit to random sexual advances in order to uphold the important constitutional principle that Republicans are uptight about oral sex.

Mr. Clinton is certainly thinking of his legacy. The index lists more pages for "bin Laden, Osama" than "Jones, Paula," which isn't how it seemed at the time.

Instead, Mr. Clinton's book is a double flop: Either stake your claim to join the guys on Mount Rushmore or embrace your destiny as a guy who rushes to mount more.

That's just good writing, and funny, too.

The Anti-Moore

I'm getting to like this guy. Arnold Ahlert of the NY Post gives us a brief run down on his imaginary documentary entitled "What We're Up Against" in answer to Michael Moore's imaginative "Farhrenheit 9/11":

I'd include the following:

* Scenes from the destruction of the World Trade Center: jets crashing, people jumping from the upper floors, the towers' collapse, the months-long digging through the rubble — and the excruciating body-identification task faced by the medical examiner's office.

* The "beheading videos" — from reporter Daniel Pearl right through to Korean Kim Sun-il.

* The charred and mutilated bodies of four Halliburton workers hanging from a bridge in Fallujah.

* Post terror-bombing scenes from Bali, Madrid, and Istanbul. Ditto for Riyadh, but with additional footage of the recent attack showing the 22 victims whose throats were slit.

* The Saddam Hussein "torture videos," photos of the mass grave sites containing 300,000 Iraqis and photos of Kurdish men, women and children killed by chemical poisoning.

* Footage of the pregnant Israeli woman and her four daughters murdered by two Palestinians who then put an additional bullet in each child's head and one in the abdomen of the mother.

* A "montage" of numerous mullahs and imams whose non-stop spewing of anti-American and anti-Semitic speech incites further hatred and violence.

* Another montage of "joyous Arabs" dancing in the streets after virtually every successful act of terror.

Think he'd win at Cannes?

Nah ... he doesn't either.

Gasp! Now here's a surprise

I know you've been holding your breath wondering which way this one would go:

The largest federal employee union will work to defeat President Bush in November after endorsing presumptive Democratic nominee John F. Kerry last week.

The reasons (not that there really have to be any other than "he's a Democrat"):

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which has 210,000 dues-paying members, said the Massachusetts senator would help turn back the Republican's efforts to revamp federal pay and personnel systems and open up more federal work to private contractors.

"No" to efficiency! "No" to monetary savings! "Yes" to more union memebers!
"Yes" to more spending! "Yes" to larger deficits.

"Yes" to John Kerry!

"Senator Kerry is against this dismantlement of the fed government," Gage said in a conference call with reporters during a gathering Friday of 600 union delegates in Pittsburgh. "People believe in what they've done in their careers. . . . They've spent their lives to make these programs work and they feel that at the top there is a concerted effort to make these programs not work."

Or to make these programs that don't belong at a federal level go away? Smaller government you mean?

Fie on that.

So these programs are pretty inefficient, ineffective and a waste of money, these people have worked HARD at these programs and that hard work, whether relevant or needed, should be rewarded .... with other people's money. We owe it to them ... to subsidize them and their boondoggles.

Actually it would be news if a union didn't endorse Kerry.

Instead we get this.

Dying in Darfur

Just to keep it in mind, here's a reminder from Rich Lowry in the Manchester Union-Leader tnat there are nasty things happening in Sudan.

Militias backed by the Sudanese government have forced roughly a million people from their homes in the western part of the country. In the North-South conflict that wracked Sudan for 20 years, the Muslim government's favored tool was genocide, directed against the Christian and animist South. The government is using genocide again, giving air cover and other support to Arab militias that are cleansing black Sufi Muslims from the western province of Darfur. The North-South war killed 2 million. At least 10,000 have died already in Darfur, and absent immediate relief, hundreds of thousands could die.

The US has been about the only country in the world that has even partially paid attention to the problem. Our European allies have talked about it, and clucked their tongues disapprovingly, but that's about it.

"The U.S. has done more than anyone else in Darfur, and the Bush administration has done more than any other administration about Sudan," says Nina Shea of the human-rights group Freedom House. The United States has pledged nearly $200 million in aid to the region. The European Union so far is kicking in a little more than $10 million — from all 25 countries in the EU combined. It is the United States that is pushing hard for a tough U.N. Security Council resolution that will call on the Sudanese government to end its support for violence and allow aid to flow into Darfur. This is consistent with the administration's history of involvement in Sudan.

Negotiations between the North and South had been bumping along ineffectually for years, until President Bush appointed former Sen. John Danforth — now the U.S. representative to the United Nations — as his special envoy to the country. High-level Bush officials were engaged in the peace talks on a daily basis, and finally a cease-fire was forged this May. The Sudanese government has repeatedly proven itself susceptible to international pressure throughout the years, which is why there is hope for Darfur — if only the world can be bothered to create the pressure.

Over the years the Sudanese have blinked every time they've been eye-to-eye with concerted international pressure. Why no one outside of the US seems interested in appying such pressure is beyond me. But if they don't, then we'll soon be able to add Sudan to the list of "Never Agains", like Cambodia, Bosnia, and Rwanda.

"Never again" apparently doesn't mean what it used to.

Calling Joe Wilson, call for Joe Wilson ....

I don't think he'll be answering. Per the Financial Times:

The FT has now learnt that three European intelligence services were aware of possible illicit trade in uranium from Niger between 1999 and 2001. Human intelligence gathered in Italy and Africa more than three years before the Iraq war had shown Niger officials referring to possible illicit uranium deals with at least five countries, including Iraq.

This intelligence provided clues about plans by Libya and Iran to develop their undeclared nuclear programmes. Niger officials were also discussing sales to North Korea and China of uranium ore or the "yellow cake" refined from it: the raw materials that can be progressively enriched to make nuclear bombs.

Now, let's review. President Bush, in his 2003 State of the Union speech said:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

So the intelligence reports say "between 1999 and 2001" - as I remember it Saddam Hussein was running Iraq at that time - there were discussions by an African nation - that would be Niger - with Iraq. And the discussions were about the illicit procurement of what?

Yellowcake uranium.

Well, well.

Can't wait to hear the thundering silence on this one as another favorite "Bush lied" meme bites the dust.

UPDATE (JON): The Belgravia Dispatch is (quite typically) useful on the topic, with additional insight. Josh Marshall is taking a contrary stance, though it's hard to tell if the "bad actors" he promises to reveal soon are coalition actors, Nigerian actors, Iraqi actors, or third party actors.

Kevin Drum argues...

...the article also mentions that while the CIA never believed Iraq had tried to procure yellowcake from Niger ... British intelligence has always contended that there really were serious contacts between Iraq and Niger. [...] Oddly, though, it remains unclear why the CIA discounted them, so it's hard to know what to make of this new information.

Actually, it's always seemed perfectly clear why the CIA didn't regard the British assertions as "credible". It's hard for the CIA to evaluate evidence they'd never seen.

For my part, I will mention this: awhile back, there was a "dust-up" at my job, wherein a colleague and I took a professional stand against one another on this topic. This colleague insisted the "sought uranium in Africa" story had been definitively disproven. I insisted that the Niger document had been disproven, but the larger story could not have been disproven, as we didn't have access to the complete data, but evidence did apparently exist which left the accusation well in the field of play.

The only thing resolved was that we would have to agree to disagree, and each excercise "professional judgement" if it came up again in the course of our job. (i.e., she could assert it, I could "edit" as I saw fit) Our relationship has been, to say the least, chilly since then. Regardless of the outcome of this story, the fact that Joe Wilson asserted in his book that Iraq's former information minister, Mohamed Sayeed al-Sahaf, was assumed to have sought uranium in Iraq, seems to vindicate my position. If this is accurate, it would seem to call for a healthy does of crow pie.

Not so fast, Mr. President

The Supreme Court swept aside the Bush Administration's presumed wartime powers vis a vis the terror-related detentions of foreigners. I have long been uncomfortable with the Bush Administrations blanket declaration of a wartime right to hold anyone they with, for as long as they wish, without any access to the legal system. Evidently, the Supreme Court is uncomfortable, too.

Let's take a look at each case individually, in order to more completely understand the court's position.

The first case is HAMDI v. RUMSFELD. At issue in HAMDI was the following question: Does the Constitution permit Executive officials to detain an American citizen indefinitely in military custody in the United States, hold him essentially incommunicado and deny him access to counsel, with no opportunity to question the factual basis for his detention before any impartial tribunal, on the sole ground that he was seized abroad in a theater of the War on Terrorism and declared by the Executive to be an "enemy combatant"?

The Court's response to these questions is as follows:

We therefore hold that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker...

At the same time, the exigencies of the circumstances may demand that, aside from these core elements, enemy combatant proceedings may be tailored to alleviate their uncommon potential to burden the Executive at a time of ongoing military conflict. Hearsay, for example, may need to be accepted as the most reliable available evidence from the Government in such a proceeding. Likewise, the Constitution would not be offended by a presumption in favor of the Government's evidence, so long as that presumption remained a rebuttable one and fair opportunity for rebuttal were provided. Thus, once the Government puts forth credible evidence that the habeas petitioner meets the enemy-combatant criteria, the onus could shift to the petitioner to rebut that evidence with more persuasive evidence that he falls outside the criteria. A burden-shifting scheme of this sort would meet the goal of ensuring that the errant tourist, embedded journalist, or local aid worker has a chance to prove military error while giving due regard to the Executive once it has put forth meaningful support for its conclusion that the detainee is in fact an enemy combatant...

We think it unlikely that this basic process will have the dire impact on the central functions of warmaking that the Government forecasts. The parties agree that initial captures on the battlefield need not receive the process we have discussed here; that process is due only when the determination is made to continue to hold those who have been seized. The Government has made clear in its briefing that documentation regarding battlefield detainees already is kept in the ordinary course of military affairs. Brief for Respondents 3-4. Any factfinding imposition created by requiring a knowledgeable affiant to summarize these records to an independent tribunal is a minimal one. Likewise, arguments that military officers ought not have to wage war under the threat of litigation lose much of their steam when factual disputes at enemy-combatant hearings are limited to the alleged combatant's acts. This focus meddles little, if at all, in the strategy or conduct of war, inquiring only into the appropriateness of continuing to detain an individual claimed to have taken up arms against the United States. While we accord the greatest respect and consideration to the judgments of military authorities in matters relating to the actual prosecution of a war, and recognize that the scope of that discretion necessarily is wide, it does not infringe on the core role of the military for the courts to exercise their own time-honored and constitutionally mandated roles of reviewing and resolving claims like those presented here.

This seems to me like a fairly reasonable compromise. It allows military authorities to hold prisoners during combat operations, since POW status is not punitive. Once an enemy combatant is to be held for a longer period, then he must be notified, and given an opportunity to plead his case against detention before the courts. In doing so, however, the government has a rebuttable presumption that the detainee is an enemy combatant. This is different from, say, a criminal proceeding, where the defendant has a presumption of innocence. The ruling gives due regards to the military and security concerns of the government, while, at the same time, allowing the detainee a chance to get a hearing in a neutral venue.

The voting on this was all over the map, ideologically. Justice O'Connor wrote the decision, and concurring were Justices Rehnquist, Kennedy, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg. Dissenting were Justices Scalia, Stevens, and Thomas.

Yeah, you read that right: Stevens and Scalia.

The next case at issue was RASUL v. BUSH. The central question in RASUL was tis question: Do the Federal Courts have the jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay?

According, to the Supremes, they sure do.

The Bush Administration's contention has been that Guantanamo Bay is located in a heathen foreign land where US Courts have no reach. But, the Supremes' response put a bullet in the head of that argument.

Whatever traction the presumption against extraterritoriality might have in other contexts, it certainly has no application to the operation of the habeas statute with respect to persons detained within "the territorial jurisdiction" of the United States...By the express terms of its agreements with Cuba, the United States exercises "complete jurisdiction and control" over the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, and may continue to exercise such control permanently if it so chooses...Respondents themselves concede that the habeas statute would create federal-court jurisdiction over the claims of an American citizen held at the base...Considering that the statute draws no distinction between Americans and aliens held in federal custody, there is little reason to think that Congress intended the geographical coverage of the statute to vary depending on the detainee's citizenship. Aliens held at the base, no less than American citizens, are entitled to invoke the federal courts' authority under §2241.

Application of the habeas statute to persons detained at the base is consistent with the historical reach of the writ of habeas corpus. At common law, courts exercised habeas jurisdiction over the claims of aliens detained within sovereign territory of the realm, as well as the claims of persons detained in the so-called "exempt jurisdictions," where ordinary writs did not run, and all other dominions under the sovereign's control. As Lord Mansfield wrote in 1759, even if a territory was "no part of the realm," there was "no doubt" as to the court's power to issue writs of habeas corpus if the territory was "under the subjection of the Crown..." Later cases confirmed that the reach of the writ depended not on formal notions of territorial sovereignty, but rather on the practical question of "the exact extent and nature of the jurisdiction or dominion exercised in fact by the Crown..."

In the end, the answer to the question presented is clear. Petitioners contend that they are being held in federal custody in violation of the laws of the United States. No party questions the District Court's jurisdiction over petitioners' custodians...We therefore hold that §2241 confers on the District Court jurisdiction to hear petitioners' habeas corpus challenges to the legality of their detention at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.

So, we can now expect a flurry of habeas petitions in the Federal court on behalf of detainees in Guantanamo. Interestingly enough, however, though the Court ruled that Federal courts have jurisdiction in Guantanamo, they didn't rule about what the practical impacts of their decision would be. Indeed, Justice Stevens explicitly acknowledges this.

Whether and what further proceedings may become necessary after respondents respond to the merits of petitioners' claims are not here addressed.

Which means that lower courts are going to have to play it by ear, when these habeas petitions reach them.

This provides a compelling lesson in how the other two branches of government respond when the executive tells them to sod off. In essence, the Bush Administration told the Federal Courts to mind their own business, and that they didn't have any right to go poking their nose around in Guantanamo. Unsurprisingly, the decision of the Federal court system was that they could poke their nose into Guantanamo any time they pleased. And, since the Federal court system was the only place to decide this under our system, they had the home field advantage.

The Government's argument was pretty stupid though. If you are a civilian worker at Guantanamo, and you do something very bad, you'll find yourself in Federal custody in a New York minute. So, it's a bit disingenuous for the Government to claim that Guantanamo doesn't fall under Federal court jurisdiction in this case, when they cheerfully agree that the courts have jurisdiction in every other possible circumstance.

Voting went down more or less ideological lines on this one, with Justice Stevens writing, joined by Justices O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy. Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissented.

Finally, the Court ruled on RUMSFELD v. PADILLA, in the case of Mr. Padilla's indefinite detention. In essence, the court punted on this one on technical grounds, but also, one expects, because HAMDI demolishes the government's incommunicado detentions. Padilla will now refile his habeas petition, where it will be considered in light of HAMDI. In any case, by dismissing on a technicality, the Court reached no Constitutional principles to expound.

Although, having said that, the four dissenters in this case--Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer--clearly wanted to.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in this case raises questions of profound importance to the Nation. The arguments set forth by the Court do not justify avoidance of our duty to answer those questions. It is quite wrong to characterize the proceeding as a "simple challenge to physical custody," ante, at 13, that should be resolved by slavish application of a "bright-line rule," ante, at 21, designed to prevent "rampant forum shopping" by litigious prison inmates, ante, at 19. As the Court's opinion itself demonstrates, that rule is riddled with exceptions fashioned to protect the high office of the Great Writ. This is an exceptional case that we clearly have jurisdiction to decide.

In other words, we really, really wanted to rule on the merits, overturn the detention, and make new law. Or, at least, enforce the bright-line rule on habeas corpus.

But, the general principle is that if the court doesn't have to approach the Constitution to make a ruling, it doesn't. And, it's clear to me that Stevens makes the argument above because he thinks that, in the absence of the technical considerations that allowed the court to punt on this one, he would've probably ended up with a majority for his position, with Kennedy and O'Connor probably joining him.

I suspect the majority felt that, since HAMDI had already been decided on the merits, a further reinforcement through this case was unnecessary. Stevens doesn't seem very happy about it, though.

Overall, the decisions amount to a complete trashing of the Bush Administration's position on these detentions, and opens the door for the Federal courts to involve themselves in these types of cases.

The Wisdom of Michael Moore

Via WizbangBlog, I find this interview with Michael Moore. The Democratic Party is happily standing beside this guy? Words nearly fail me....

Regarding Jay Leno...

"He's banned me from his show for 10 years," contends Moore, who does a wickedly funny Leno impression. "Then, after my Oscar speech, I thought he went out of his way to incite violence against me by showing 'Michael Moore's house' being blown up. It was a frightening time for me -- my house in Michigan was vandalized. And he'd have James Woods and other guests on and incite them to criticize me."

...says Michael Moore--who once said the insurgents in Iraq were not "'the Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win"--about a late night comedy talk show.

Regarding Bill O'Reilly and Jay Leno...

According to Moore, Leno isn't the only lofty TV icon to freeze him out. He says the last time he was on "The O'Reilly Factor," he cut Bill O'Reilly to ribbons, and "Bill doesn't like that, so I got banned from the show." Of course, says Moore, "now that it will help his ratings, he wants me on."

The story isn't quite so simple, as I learned when I got O'Reilly on the phone. "Moore was never banned, and he's welcome to come on any time," he said. "I guess that's part of his charm. He's going to say bad things about me to get publicity.
[...]
The Leno camp also offered an account at odds with Moore's. They said that far from being banned, Moore was invited to appear after Cannes and was asked to be on the show twice in recent years, most recently after "Bowling for Columbine" won the Oscar for best documentary and Moore gave an inflammatory acceptance speech.

After hearing of Moore's charge about showing his house being blown up, Leno went back and watched the tape, which he said shows not a house but a shack in the desert being hit by a missile. Through his publicist, Leno said, "If the jokes bothered him, I wish Michael would have called. Or he could have come on the show. I was just telling jokes about what made headlines, and that included him."

Regarding oil...

Anyway, the support Bush and the Republicans feign for Israel is because Israel is near our oil. If the oil wasn't there, I bet those same Republicans wouldn't (care) about Israel.

Hard to falsify that agurment, isn't it? Oil there? Then it must be about oil. No oil there? Well, it's not far from oil, so it's all about oil.

Others have shredded Moore more effectively than I will. Fahrenheit 9/11? Clever deception, but probably good movie-making. If I see it, I'll let you know.

Mostly, though, I am simply aghast that honest, serious Democrats and liberals line up beside this fool.

Domestic Agendas

The liberal Brookings Institute puts together a bipartisan panel to evaluate the domestic and economic agendas of both Bush and Kerry. The results are not pretty...

In an effort to get to the substance of the presidential campaign, a Brookings panel this morning took a magnifying glass to the domestic policies of both Senator John Kerry and President George W. Bush. The panelists verdict: the health-care, education, and economic agendas of both candidates aimed for the political center, and the differences between the two were mostly minor and designed to appeal to the candidate's base. Panelists also agreed that flaws exists in the agendas of both candidates, with neither adequately addressing the larger issue of fiscal responsibility.

Although Bush and Kerry have different approaches to the economy, both Bush and Kerry would increase the federal deficit, according to the Urban Institute's Leonard Burman. Kerry wants to repeal tax cuts for people who earn more than $200,000—something Bush rejects—but supports Bush's middle class tax cuts.

"The two plans, in terms of their overall affect on the budget, are not that much more different," Burman said. "Basically, we're talking about a trillion dollars in additions to the deficit from the proposals of both camps."

Specific data points, excerpted from the report:

*** Kerry has proposed an education trust fund of $200 billion spread over ten years to pay for education reforms and new programs, but his call for $30 billion over ten years to increase teacher salaries would not result in serious raises, according to Brookings Senior Fellow Tom Loveless.

*** Jack Meyer, president of the Economic and Social Research Institute, said both Kerry and Bush needed to refine their health-care proposals. "The overall problem is that Senator Kerry and his advisors may not have always selected the best means to get to good ends," Meyer said. He noted that Kerry's plan to rearrange federal and state responsibility for health care coverage "is very complicated and it's going to set off some concern in the states." Meyer said Bush's $1,000 tax credit for individuals was too small. The President, Meyer said, should "scale up his set of plans, get a bigger vision, and a bolder plan."

*** Putting aside the particulars of each candidate's domestic agendas, panelists were close to unanimity in their contention that the United States' burgeoning federal deficits were not seriously being addressed by either candidate.

*** Brookings Senior Fellow Isabel Sawhill said that the Administration's budget is "based on unrealistic assumptions on the cost of war, the need to fix the alternative minimum tax, and other issues." In addition, Sawhill said Bush's continued push for tax cuts and his "miserable record on curbing spending" didn't bode well for deficit reduction.

She was critical of Kerry as well, noting that his revenue savings would likely be dwarfed by his proposed additional spending on both education ($200 billion) and health care ($700 billion). Moreover, Sawhill said, these price tags "are probably on the low side."
________________________________________________________________

Coming from a liberal think-tank, this is a fairly credible and damning evaluation of both candidates...but especially of John Kerry. Even supporters of Bush tend to admit he is acting, to say the least, fiscally irresponsible. Critics agree, though the two sides disagree on what exactly constitutes that irresponsibility.

However, for that criticism to matter, Bush's critics have to support a more fiscally responsible plan...and, it's fairly clear they do not. To put it another way, Democrats are not upset that the President is being fiscally irresponsible...they're upset that the Republican President is being fiscally irresponsible.

That's different, you know.

The Warriors Left Behind

The blogosphere is replete with Worthy Causes, and I am hesitant to turn QandO into "PBS Pledge Week", since it's hard to say "yes" to one, but "no" to another.....

But, this tugs at my heart. It's a worthwhile cause.

I decided that the idea of an INDC Pledge Week to offset my bandwith cost is ridiculous, considering the fact that my high school friend Dan Eggers (see the post below) and many other Americans have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect us, and I've been wondering what more I can do. Every penny that's been given so far and every penny that you donate now will go to will go directly to a trust fund set up for Dan's children.

Bill posts about Dan Eggers here, and has pictures of his family and the military funeral here.

I've dropped 10 bucks in the jar. Go take a look at the family Dan Eggers left behind, and....well, you're under no obligation. Do what you feel is best.

The Handover

I was going to praise the surprise handover, but Spoons already expressed my thoughts perfectly, writing that, while we went about the whole thing backwards...

...if we're going to do it this way, I think doing it by surprise two days early is brilliant.

Somewhere in Iraq, some terrorists' plans are royally messed up.

I'd still have preferred we follow the US model for building a democracy - i.e., turn over local control>>regional control>>national control...in that order - but we didn't. As long as we didn't, the early handover was a stroke of genius, in that it denies the insurgents a chance to make one last stand - to derail the handover.

One also has to like the attitude displayed by the new Iraqi Prime Minister...

Asked by reporters attending the ceremony about why the handover was stepped up by two days, an Iraqi official said Prime Minister Allawi requested it because "every day matters" and they were ready to crack down on violence.

Translation: the insurgents are put on notice...the gloves are coming off, and judgement day is coming. Or, so we hope. We can only wait and see....

UPDATE: Well, others don't think it's such a good move...

If you needed convincing that the situation has deteriorated and the Iraqis are far from prepared to assume sovereignty, you need look no further, the Bush Administration proved it today.
[...]
But even I didn't expect this. Not only did the Bush Administration sacrifice the political benefit of the transfer, they did themselves harm. Pushing it up two days and conducting it in a tiny room with few watching leaves the media with no relevant spin save "they were afraid of insurgent attacks". Stunningly, they essentially admitted that they can't protect the country and they've no control over the events.

If I understand Ezra correctly, he argues that the continued ability of free people to do bad things constitutes US inability to "protect the country" and "control" events.

Of course, to excercise that degree of "protection" and "control", we would have had to bomb the opposition into oblivion, and enforce the harshest of martial law. I doubt that's a position Ezra would advocate, so I'm left wondering why Ezra is suggesting that the presence of insurgents constitutes a failure of US policy.

Further, Ezra seems to look down on the idea of taking away an opportunity for the insurgents to grandstand. The point here is not to gain the "political benefit of the transfer", but to transfer power in an effective manner. I'm a bit surprised that the administration critics would complain that the Bush administration passed up a chance to grandstand politically, for a more peaceful, safe handover of power.

Actually, I'm not terribly surprised. For whatever reason, a great deal of the issues in the Iraq war are seen through the very narrow prism of partisan politics. Seen that way, everything anybody does can be criticized....you just have to look at it the right way, you know.

Early Sovereignty Handover fools terrorists

In a smart move, the sovereignty hand-over in Iraq was ceremonially completed two days before schedule:

The U.S.-led coalition transferred sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government two days early Monday in a surprise move that apparently caught insurgents off guard, averting a feared campaign of attacks to sabotage the highly symbolic step toward self-rule.

For all intents and purposes, that had already been done when the last of the ministeries was handed over last week. But as we all know, much of this is about symbolism, and there is no doubt in my mind that the terrorists were intent upon disrupting the symbolic handover.

The new interim government was sworn in six hours after the handover ceremony, which Western governments largely hailed as a necessary next step. The Arab world voiced cautious optimism, but maintained calls for the U.S. military to leave the country quickly.

Of course that's not going to happen ... not until it seems apparent that Iraq can handle its own security. And, as we heard today, NATO will now take a hand in that. James Lakely of the Washington Times reports that NATO has now come on board, at least partially, to help Iraq in an area of critical need .... security:

"We have decided today to offer NATO's assistance to the government of Iraq with the training of its security forces," said a draft declaration urging member nations "to contribute to the training of the Iraqi armed forces."

"We have asked the North Atlantic Council to develop on an urgent basis the modalities to implement this decision with the Iraqi interim government."
[...]
"If we do not tackle the problems where they emerge, they will end up on our doorstep," Mr. de Hoop Scheffer said, mirroring Mr. Bush's oft-repeated doctrine that the United States will battle terrorists as they gather in other countries rather than fight them on American streets.

Sounds pretty concilliatory and cooperative (and multilateral) if you ask me.

As for the new Iraqi goverment:

"This is a historical day," Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said during the ceremony. "We feel we are capable of controlling the security situation."

[...]

Allawi delivered a sweeping speech sketching out some of his goals for the country, urging people not to be afraid of the "outlaws" fighting against "Islam and Muslims," assuring them that "God is with us."

"I warn the forces of terror once again," he said "We will not forget who stood with us and against us in this crisis."

Now the real test begins. It is going to be bloody, no question, given the absolute disdain for innocent Iraqis with which the terrorists have prosecuted their agenda to this point. But it will be Iraqis now fighting in the counter-attack. The success or failure of a free Iraq now rests in the hands of the citizens of Iraq .... the question is will they step up to the challenge?

ADDENDUM (Dale):

I was as surprised as anyone else to get this special little present from the Bush Administration on my birthday (I hit the Big 4-0 today!) And, I'm still waiting for the inevitable negative response from the "But" Monkeys. "It's a very good step forward for the Bush Administration, but..."

Of course, that kind of partisan carping is inevitable, so we might as well ignore it.

Some interesting observations have come to mind in doing my reading this morning.

Iyad Illawi is saying some interesting things that bear out McQ and I on our opinions about how the Iraqis will be handling the security situation henceforth:

"We will be on the lookout for them and chase them and bring them to justice to get their fair punishment," he said.

In addition, he is calling them "infidels". That's an important word when used in an intra-Muslim context. It implies that they don't regard their enemies as fellow Muslims, which means they won't feel a lot of restraint about taking the fight to them. The Iraqis are a little PO'd about getting blown up by now, and I think they're keen to do a little blowing up of their own.

A lot of the critics are painting the situation in Iraq as a failure. There are insurgents still there and security in many places is fragile, so, we must be dropping the ball, big time. Of course, by that reasoning, every metropolitan police force is an abject failure, because, after all, we've had organized police forces for more than a century, and there's still crime in our cities. That kind of "reasoning" allows the critics to set the bar impossibly high, and it dismisses progress that doesn't meet their unreasonable expectations as abject failure. We need to recognize that as the pure partisan cant that it is.

Next, we have to accept that, whatever happens now, we will play an increasingly smaller role in events. It is the Iraqis' country, not our, and they have to build a society that suits them, and not us. This means that they are going to make some decisions we don't like. They may, in fact, tell us to sod off.

Good. That's precisely the thing we've been trying to give back to them after 30 years of Ba'athist terror.

We can't remake them into our own image, all we can do is give them a chance to rule their own affairs in a more consensual, democratic way. It sounds more and more like that is what the Iraqis are hungering for, and that they are, in the main, serious about getting it. If they do so, then we’ve done everything we possibly can.

Finally, the insurgents are being helpful, too, by shooting themselves in the foot. As an example, I would draw your attention to the fact that there is currently the matter of USMC Cpl Wassef Hassoun pending. Cpl Hassoun is a 24 year-old Muslim of Lebanese descent. It is important to note that being a fellow Muslim doesn't appear to be sparing him the prospect of a beheading at the hands of his captors. I can assure you that Iraqis will note this with keen interest. For all that the al-Qaida operatives go on about the sacred brotherhood of Islam, it's becoming increasingly clear in Iraq that being a Muslim doesn't go very far in sparing you when the al-Qaida boys strike their targets. And I strongly suspect that religious affinity won't spare the al-Qaida people when some Iraqi lance corporal has them centered in the peep sights.

So, now the Iraqis have their country back, legally at least. Now we'll see if they can keep it.

The tortured torture debate

Well, like so many other issues that screamed "scandal!" for awhile--in a suspiciously partisan-sounding voice--, the torture issues seems to have died down with the release of documents and internal memos related to the topic. The WaPo, and other media majors, led with the Justice Departments repudiation of the memo and forthcoming review of all legal advice from the Office of Legal Counsel.

The Washington Times, on the other hand, put the relevant matter up-front...

President Bush decided shortly after the September 11 attacks that terrorism detainees would be treated in accord with the Geneva Conventions, despite legal advice that this was not required, to adhere to "our values as a nation," according to a memo he wrote himself.

And really, when the question is whether torture was authorized by the Bush administration, shouldn't that--rather than Justice Department wrangling--be front and center?

Another point I find interesting: the press often--often necessarily--treats the government as more of an opponent, a wall to be torn down, than a factual entity with legitimate interests. The Times make a point I've seen made nowhere else...

The White House released the documents reluctantly, fearing that public disclosure of interrogation guidelines would make it easier for terrorism suspects to resist the techniques used to gain valuable intelligence.

The release was the right thing to do, under the circumstances, but it's worth remembering that the release of this kind of information gives our opponents an upper hand...an insight into exactly what we will - and will not - do. Specifically, they learned that we will go this far....

The memos showed that the Pentagon considered using four "aggressive tactics" to get information out of detainees that could save American lives:
•Convincing a detainee that severe pain or death were imminent for him or his family.
•Exposure to cold weather or water.
•Use of a wet towel or dripping water to induce a perception of suffocating.
•Mild, noninjurious physical contact, such as grabbing the arm, poking in the chest, or light shoving.

Only the last of the tactics was approved by Mr. Rumsfeld, and, after its use for a few weeks, he decided to end it, said a senior administration official.

...but no farther. And the willingness of, for example, Leahy and Kennedy to give too much weight--but no context--to memos merely considering the legal options, including torture, doesn't help.

So, do those measures constitute torture? The Geneva Convention doesn't really define torture. With a strict interpretation, they would seem to violate Article 17, though, which says:

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever."

Of course, using that strict interpretation, virtually anything, including normal daily conditions in your average US prison, would qualify as torture. So, it appears we - and the international community - need to define "torture" more specifically.

However, it also appears that the Bush administration stayed in the clear.

The Sunday Puzzler

Rhetorical question?

Breaking news?

We'll have to see ... but WorldNetDaily is reporting the following:

A day after the head of the CIA weapons inspection team warned that terrorists in Iraq are trying to get their hands on the Saddam Hussein regime's chemical weapons of mass destruction, Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin reports the first attack with these weapons of mass destruction has been launched inside Baghdad's Green Zone.

Few details are available, including any casualties associated with the attack using mustard gas.

The sources say the munitions were old, but still potentially lethal.

"I think it's safe to say our little friends know where the cache is now," said one source sardonically.

Petard ... as in "hoist upon"

Remember former Clinton State Department spokesman James P. Rubin ?

Sorta?

Remember when he said this about two years ago in the introduction to an hour-long PBS documentary called "Saddam's Ultimate Solution":

"Tonight, we examine the nature of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Ten years after the Gulf War and Saddam is still there and still continues to stockpile weapons of mass destruction. Now there are suggestions he is working with al Qaeda, which means the very terrorists who attacked the United States last September may now have access to chemical and biological weapons."

No? Well that's good, because James Rubin wants you to forget all about it.

That way he can do this:

Last week, appearing on a cable talk show as a senior adviser to the presidential campaign of John Kerry, Rubin sharply criticized the public official who has most forcefully asserted that these allegations need to be fully explored and investigated. Rubin went so far as to question Vice President Dick Cheney's "fitness for office."

Unfortunately for Jimmy, someone remembered and asked him about the documentary:

Rubin, asked about the documentary, then distanced himself from the film. "Was I the producer of the documentary?" he asked. "I was the host, producing--having a discussion about the documentary."

Ah, the Peter Arnett "Tailwind" defense. Yo, Mr. Rubin, your denial has a wiff of "tailwind' to it. It didn't work for Arnett and it damn sure doesn't work for you.

Kerry - Man of the People

I wonder if Paul Wellstone is turning over in his grave yet:

John Kerry may be only a candidate for president, but he and his entourage travel like kings. A month ago, his campaign began chartering a gleaming 757, packed with first-class seats, fine food, sleeping accommodations - even a stand-up bar. They hardly shy away from fancy hotels, like the Four Seasons in Palm Beach and the St. Regis in Los Angeles.

Why should he care ... its not his money. Imagine, if you will that same sort of attitude with access to the federal budget.

Payola and Plugola

I have to agree with Jeff Jarvis on the subject of the "scandal du jour" about CBS' potential conflict of interest, wherein they provided an Amazon link to Clinton's biography on their website, without disclosing that they will make some small profit off sales of the book when bought through their link. Jarvis calls it "the most crimson of herrings". Unfortunately, beyond that, he doesn't really explain why it's not a big deal. Instapundit, on the other hand, just doesn't seem to understand the issue at all. Neither properly state the terminology.

First, the law: Payola occurs when a broadcaster is paid--or given anything of value--for a broadcast, but does not disclose that the broadcast item has been sponsored. "Both the person making the payment and the recipient are obligated to disclose the payment so that the station may make the sponsorship identification announcement required..."

In this case, CBS was neither paid--nor alleged to have been paid--for the broadcast in question. So, payola is not in question.

Plugola, on the other hand, may be somewhat more directly related. Plugola is "the on-air promotion or "plugging" of goodsor services in which someone responsible for including the promotional materials in the broadcast has a financial interest".

An easier way to describe these is this:
Payola occurs when somebody gives you money to play a song/show/etc, without the sponsorship being mentioned.
Plugola occurs when you broadcast something of financial interest to yourself, without disclosing that interest.

Payola is a non-starter here, but plugola seems a bit closer to the mark, doesn't it? Well, not really. Or, at least, not unless the entire industry has been in ongoing violation of the plugola rules for the better part of a decade.

The fact is, this occurs every day. Reference these radio stations. It's widespread, and the fact that CBS does it with a book is neither new, nor unique. (See FoxNews channel's "What We're Reading" page, complete with Amazon sponsor links)

Not only is this not a story...it's common practice. CBS is in the clear.

UPDATE: Oliver Willis doesn't think there's much to it either, and sees VRWC leaders behind it....

UPDATE: (McQ) Two weeks ago Sean Hannity interviewed Newt Gingrich about his new book about the Civil War, "Grant Comes East". You can go here on the Hannity website to buy it. Payola or Plugola?

UPDATE (JON): RatherBiased is in high dudgeon about the whole thing, claiming it "is far from the truth" that CBS' Amazon link is similar to that of their rivals. Of course, they need to explain the literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of radio stations that do the same...as well as the FoxNews links we've shown above. Further, RatherBiased would need to show some incidence of FCC action against this practice to credibly claim that it is actual plugola.

It seems like, at this point, they're just struggling to keep their "gotcha" on the table.

God bless 'em, every one ...

After that Abu Ghraib fiasco, people ask me why I'm still so optimistic about Iraq and Afghanistan. Its simple ... because for every loser we had at Abu Gharib, we have 100, maybe a 1000 young people like these:

Spc. Williams with Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, plays with students at the Kalkalan School in Kirkuk, Iraq, during a goodwill visit, May 18, 2004. DoD photo by Pfc. Elizabeth Erste, U.S. Army. (Released)

Sgt. Mitchell Hull with the 55th Signal Company, Combat Camera, 21st Signal Brigade, films a group of students at Kalkalan school in Kirkuk, Iraq May 18, 2004. DoD photo by Pfc. Elizabeth Erste, U.S. Army. (Released)

Sgt. Ulberg with 2nd Battalion, 11th Field Artillery Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, greets a young Iraqi boy during a goodwill visit to the village of Karacham, located outside the city of Dibis, Iraq, May 26, 2004. DoD photo by Pfc. Elizabeth Erste, U.S. Army. (Released)

Staff Sgt. Thomas Hughes with the Herat Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT), talks with a group of citizens outside a clinic in the village of Toraghandi, Afghanistan, May 18, 2004. The Herat PRT is assisting the Afghan government with rebuilding the western regional provinces of Afghanistan. DoD photo by Sgt. Christopher Kaufmann, U.S. Army. (Released)

Spc. Amanda Adams, with the 428th Military Police Company, hugs a new friend, a young Iraqi boy, in Baghdad, Iraq, June 2, 2004. DoD photo by Senior Airman Jorge A. Rodriguez, U.S. Air Force. (Released)

Blog hopping

Whilst link hopping around the blogosphere I noticed:

Bithead gives us an update on "Err America".

Max Jacobs at Commons Sense & Wonder wonders why there are no Gay Pride parades in Arab countries?

For those of you in need of it, Quibbles-n-bits provides you with an updated drinker's dictionary. Where else would you lean that "Beervana" is the place between "buzzed and vomiting".

Claire at e-Clair is horrified to find she actually agrees with Michael Moore on something.

Ed Motzen notes at "Late Final" that the Kerry campaign has blasted the Bush Campaign for using Hitler in an ad. Apparently the Kerry folks didn't understand that the ad was a compedium of DEMOCRAT attack ads against Bush. Go read about it and watch it.

BoiFromTroy has decided that in order to validate Al Gore's "Digital Brown Shirt" assertion, the least he can do is organize it. Go see ... logo and everything.

Meryl Yourish is not particularly impressed with the new Coke, known as "C2".

Sam an Hammorabi bolg gives us a breakdown of the nationality of the terrorists killed in the last fight in Fallujah. Hint, they weren't Iraqis.

Joe Gandelman at Dean's World links to a series of pictures (and a story) you have to see to believe.

Enough.

Enjoy the day!

And the pendulum begins to swing?

With the official handover looming, some Iraqis become more vocal about the violence:

A claim of responsibility for Thursday's bombing spree in al-Zarqawi's name was posted on an Islamist Web site. U.S. and Iraqi officials also blame al-Zarqawi and his network for several other attacks in advance of Wednesday's scheduled handover of sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government.

Some Muslim clerics who had been critical of the U.S. occupation railed against those who carried out Thursday's bloody attacks, The Associated Press reported.

"What sort of religion condones the killing of a Muslim by another Muslim?" asked Sheik Abdul-Ghafour al-Samarai, a member of an influential Sunni group, during a sermon in Baghdad's Umm al-Qura mosque. "We must unite and be heedful of those who want to drive a wedge among us under the cover of Islam."

Me thinks the heat is going to turn up in certain quarters. With clerics speaking out against the terrorists, it stands to reason that the possiblity of a backlash is there, where the Iraqis take matters in their own hands as they did against al-Sadar's militia.

Speaking of al-Sadar:

Shiite fighters loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr announced a cease-fire in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood, scene of frequent clashes with U.S. troops.

A statement issued Friday said the cease-fire was called to show al-Sadr's interest in preventing "terrorists and saboteurs" from "causing overwhelming chaos or security disorder."

The statement said that anyone who violated the moratorium would be expelled from the militia and punished.

Another positive step.

This will be interesting to watch.

Old Europe, New Europe

I stumbled upon an interesting foreign policy take by a fellow named Mohammed Al-Jassem (editor-in-chief of a Kuwaiti newspaper, Al-Watan) in a back issue of the magazine "Foreign Policy". I'm not sure the link will do you any good since its a subscription service, but I've got the meat of it below. Al-Jassem make a very good observation when comparing "Old Europe" to "New Europe" and the resulting split in how each viewed the run up to Iraq. To me it was quite telling:

President George W. Bush’s foreign policy initiatives tend to be better received in the former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe than in most West European countries. The roots of this generally benevolent attitude can be found in the region’s past. Many people in “New Europe” philosophically oppose the idea of war, but their experiences with the likes of Romania’s Nicolae Ceausescu and Hungary’s Matyas Rakosi give them little patience for dictators such as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein or Syria’s Bashar Assad. What Old Europeans perceive as American oversimplification of complex international issues, New Europeans tend to see as principled stances reminiscent of those that helped bring down the Soviet empire in the late 1980s.

And his point makes sense when one reviews the participants in the so-called "coalition of the willing". Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia and the Ukraine. 15 formerly communist eastern European states who, unlike the Old Europe to the west, seeemed to understand the importance of liberating Iraq.

The other point which bears repeating is that while Old Europe wanted to dismiss the US Iraqi policy as an 'oversimplification', New Europe saw it for what it was ... a stand on principle, based in self-defense and with a long term goal of defeating terrorism and stabalizing the region. Having suffered the effects of dictators in its recent past, its patience with them and their ilk is far less than the appeasing likes of Old Europe.

That's not to say they wouldn't favor diplomacy if diplomacy had a chance of success, but hard earned experience had taught them long ago that dictators are rarely amenable to diplomacy. Their support is based in the fact that totalitarian regimes are never good and this one was especially bad and had to go. Their recent experiences with just such regimes and their overthrow gave them the understanding of the reality, of what is required to do that, which Old Europe was (and is still) apparently unable or unwilling to grasp.

When West Europeans ridiculed former President Ronald Reagan’s description of the Soviet Union as the evil empire, East Europeans understood exactly what he was talking about. And today, even as West Europeans reject Bush’s remarks about the “axis of evil,” many East Europeans listen sympathetically. Although a large number of them may not favor military intervention as a means of bringing down brutal regimes, they don’t mind too much when force is used to achieve that goal.

Again, 15 former Eastern bloc European nations signed on as opposed to 7 nations of "Old Europe". This speaks volumes, at least to me, as to which nations have a grasp on the reality of the situation in the Middle East. By the way, for anyone in the anti-war crowd reading this and prone to mouthing the myth "the US is going it alone", that's 22 countries and counting. In case you're interested the total was 55. Hardly a unilateral venture.

East and Central Europeans also feel stronger loyalty toward the United States than do their Western counterparts. Not only do they remember the U.S. role in bringing down communism, but many also remain grateful to Washington for pushing NATO expansion to the east even as the European Union (EU) was hesitating on its own enlargement. Europeans in former communist countries are more open to the idea of exporting democracy to the Middle East—a concept some West European intelligentsia dismiss as unrealistic. Eastern Europe remembers that, during the communist era, many West Europeans did not believe their neighbors were mature enough to have democratic societies, while Americans “naively” believed that freedom and democracy were universally valid aspirations.

You might recall the point in the article "Why the left shares some of the blame for "why they hate us" which Bernard Lewis makes about the attitude and approach that in the past has so angered the people of the middle east. Al-Jassem makes precisely the same point, except he makes it about the former Eastern bloc countries.

Unlike Old Europe, New Europe rejects the "attitude and approach" which says it can't be done. It rejects the argument that the region has no history or desire or ability to embrace democracy. They have no problem believing what Old Europe characterizes as the "naive" American nonsense disguised as foreign policy which believes it can succeed in bringing freedom to Iraq and the Middle East. After all, New Europe has been the beneficiary of such American "naivete" in the past. Instead of the sniffing condescension and inaction of Old Europe, New Europe brings success fueled optimism to the venture as does the US.

Perhaps New Europe can, in the next few years, pass along the benefit of its hard won experience to the arrogant and self-absorbed states of Old Europe. It would certainly be a boon for the future of the EU.

Talking the talk

Well, they're talking the talk, it still remains to be seen as to whether they can walk the walk, but I do think they've got the right attitude:

In Baghdad, the country's new leadership, due to assume sovereignty in five days, promised stern action against the insurgents, claiming much of the unrest was directed by foreigners but offering no proof.

``Our culture, our customs have been destroyed,'' interim Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan said. ``The time has come for a showdown.''

As we've mentioned here countless times, after June 30th, things are going to be done by the Iraqi government that we didn't dare do.

As the situation worsened, Iraq's interim vice president warned that a drastic deterioration in the country's security could result in the implementation of emergency measures or martial law - however undesirable that may be in a democratic society.

``Announcing emergency laws or martial law depends on the nature of the situation. In normal situations, there is clearly no need for that (step),'' Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a Shiite and member of the Islamic Dawa Party, told The Associated Press in an interview.

``But in cases of excess challenges, emergency laws have their place,'' he said, adding that any such laws would fall within a ``democratic framework that respects the rights of Iraqis.''

It'll be interesting to see how the Iraqis choose to confront the terrorists when the ball is completely in their court. My guess is we'll see a marked change in attitude and success against the terrorists. It has to do with having a vested interest, being part of the culture and wanting peace (and realizing that the only way it will happen is to participate). It may get some of the more reticent Iraqis off the fence and committed to seeing an end to the violence and chaos.

On Thursday, the coalition turned over the last 11 government ministries to Iraqi officials.

During the handover ceremony, interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said the attacks were ``only acts of disturbances conducted by cowards'' meant ``to foil the democratic process.''

Yup ... now do something about it so they don't succeed in foiling it.

Book Review

Science/Hard SF writer James Hogan has a new book out, Kicking the Sacred Cow, and it's a doozy.

The central point Hogan attempts to make--and he makes it well--that science is becoming increasingly hidebound. Rather than being an open-minded search for knowledge, he presents a mass of evidence that indicates that the scientific community is transforming itself into an ecclesiastical priesthood whose main criterion for success and recognition is the uncritical acceptance of the received wisdom of the elders.

Hogan believes that the pervasive scope of government-related funding of Big Science is corrupting. Scientists who question the scientific/political status quo find their grants terminated, their access to peer-reviewed publication closed, and their tenure denied. Scientists are increasingly afraid to question the status quo, if for no other reason than to do so is a near guarantee of government grant money drying up.

Hogan is troubled not only by the fact that Big Science increasingly refuses to listen to innovative ideas that threaten the status quo, but that the methods used by its practitioners to heap scorn on views that deviate from the mainstream consist of increasingly dishonest or ad hominem attacks, rather than unbiased reference to the scientific evidence.

To illustrate this, Hogan takes a tour through every major idea current with Big Science, and proceeds to gleefully present alternatives that the scientific community would prefer you not hear. By the end of the book, he leaves no stone unturned, and, by turns critical, humorous, and bitingly sarcastic, Hogan highlights the alternative theories. By the end of the book, practically no discipline is spared.

Hogan lists the flaws in the currently accepted neo-Darwinist evolutionary account. He taunts the Einsteinian physics community with intriguing hints about the failures of both General and Special relativity, and the existence of privileged frames of reference. He presents evidence of electromagnetic, rather than gravitic explanations in astronomy and cosmology. He presents the evidence for Velikovsky's catastrophist solar system history. He discusses the history and science behind the DDT ban, global warming, and the worldwide AIDS crisis.

His point is not that the alternative theories he presents are necessarily true--though he is careful to present the scientific evidence for them--but to point out the increasingly hidebound and intolerant attitude of Big Science to being questioned skeptically, even by its most respected members.

As he quotes one acquaintance, a physicist as telling him, "You don't understand. Einstein can't be wrong." That, notes Hogan, is the attitude of an acolyte, not a scientist. Or, at least, the attitude of scientist who knows what side of the bread his tenure, grant funding, and publication opportunities are buttered on.

Hogan argues that the single most useful trait of real science is its willingness to skeptically question its most closely-held beliefs, and to reject theories, no matter how popular or venerable, if other, less popular theories explain the facts better and more simply. He argues that these are the traits that have made science so phenomenally central to Western progress for the past two centuries. If science devolves into a priesthood constrained by the received wisdom of the past, then its usefulness will end, leaving us all the poorer for it.

Kicking the Sacred Cow, is well-written, informative, and extremely accessible to the average reader. For those who are interested in the state of science--or the future of human progress--this book is a must-read.

Why the left shares some of the blame for "why they hate us"

Since I touched on it yesterday, I wanted to take an opportunity to address in more detail the question which constantly seems to plague the left concerning Islam in general and the people of the Middle East in particular ... why do they hate us?

My guess is they'd never answer: "partially because of the left in the west".

They'd be incorrect.

I'm reading a very interesting book at the moment: "The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror" by Bernard Lewis. Lewis is a long-time observer and recognized scholar when it comes to Arab affairs and Islam (note: not all of Islam is Arab, but Lewis's book is about all of Islam, from Algeria to Indonesia).

Lewis addresses the "hate" issue in his book and his argument makes some sense. Yes, there's jealousy, there's an inferiority complex, there's even the religious difference, but that only addresses segments of the issue. However, one of the fundamental reasons for the hate in the "Arab Street" or "Islamic Street" if you prefer, is the perception of the West's callous disregard for the rights of the people of Islam, if disregarding them advances the cause of the West. And, even if not true, it appears, to the people of Islam, based on this perception, that they are considered to be inferior beings not necessarily worthy of help (or rights).

The most flagrant violations of civil rights, political freedom, even human decency are disregarded or glossed over, and crimes against humanity, which in a European or American country would evoke a storm of outrage, are seen as normal and even acceptable."

You certainly can't argue that the West, both left and right, has evinced much outrage over the atrocities of dictators in the middle east if it was to their advantage to have that dictator in power. Both sides in this country have turned a blind eye at times. At least until Iraq.

We all know about the treatment of the Kurds by Iraq under Saddam. Cruel acts of genocide. It wasn't until recently that we became "outraged" about that. Another example took place in Syria where Hafiz al-Assad massacred between 10,000 and 25,000 of his own people in an uprising of the Muslim Brothers in Hama in 1982. Nary a ripple of dissent from the West. No mighty condemnation. No rattling of sabres. No hue and cry about human rights. It was mostly ignored. Assad was later visited 30 times by the American Secretaries of State under 3 successive administrations after that, never once having to answer for Hama, and even once by an American president (Clinton).

Middle Easterners increasingly complain that the West judges them by a different and lower standards than it does Europeans and Americans, both in what is expected of them and what they may expect, in terms of their economic well-being and their political freedom. They assert that Western spokesmen repeatedly overlook or even defend actions and support rulers that they would not tolerate in thier own countries.

Hard to argue the point, given the history of dictators we and the rest of the West have tolerated. The question has to do, then, not with "if" we've done that - we certainly have - but with "why" we've done that? Have we had lowered expectations and a seemingly lower status for the people of Islam based on those lower expectations? Or have we, at a minimum, given that perception?

As Lewis notes:

The underlying assumption in all of this is that these people are incapable of running a democratic society and have neither concern nor capacity for human decency. They will in any case be governed by corrupt despotisms. It is not the West's business to correct them, still less to change them, but merely to ensure that the despots are friendly rather than hostile to Western interests. In this perspective it is dangerous to tamper with the existing order and those who seek better lives for themselves and their countrymen are disparaged, often actively discouraged. It is simpler, cheaper and safer to replace a troublesome tyrant with an amenable tyrant, rather than face the unpredictable hazards of regime change, especially of change brought about by the will of the people expressed in a free elections."

That is, until now ... with Iraq, that paradigm has been irrevocably changed. And its been changed by the right in this country. The West, in the guise of the US, is facing the "unpredictable hazards of regime change" and "the will of the people expressed in free elections".

But consider the quoted paragraph. Doesn't it essentially express the argument (and attitude) of the left here in the US and those in Europe? In the UN? Among some in NATO?

Saddam wasn't an imminent threat. He posed no danger to the US. If the people of Iraq are tired of him, let them take care of their problem. Killing his own people, yes, that's terrible, but that's their problem, not ours. Let's live with the "devil-we-know" instead of creating a new devil.

That's the attitude and approach. Stay out, let Arabs take care of Arabs. We shouldn't intervene. It is on this attitude and approach that Lewis drops the hammer:

"This approach commands some support in both diplomatic and academic circles in the United States and rather more widely in Europe. Arab rulers are thus able to slaughter tens of thousands of their people, as in Syria and Algeria, or hundreds of thousands, as in Iraq and Sudan, to deprive men of most and women of all civil rights, and to indoctrinate children in their schools with bigotry and hatred against others, without incuring any significant protest from liberal media and institutions in the west, still less any hint of punishments such as boycotts, divestment, or indictment in Brussels. This so-to-speak diplomatic attitude toward Arab governments has in reality been profoundly harmful to the Arab peoples, a fact of which they are becoming painfully aware." [emphasis mine]

Live and let live (or die, or indoctrinate, or subjugate). No calls by the left for women's rights for Arab women. None of our business they scream. No calls from the left to boycott, embargo, divest or for trade sanctions because of human rights violations in Arab lands (but they will squall about "No War for Oil"). Handle it through the UN and talk it to death. Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy.

In the meantime another family is fed through the shredder.

Why do they hate us?

Because of the perceived application of a double standard. And that standard was forged in the ideology of the left. Countless editorials from liberal columnists have told us we shouldn't be there, even if Saddam was a cruel and inhuman tyrant. Numberless liberal pundits have opined that we should have done more with the UN and sanctions, that regime change was not the answer. Tons of politicians on the left have stated that containment was the proper way to handle Iraq.

All of this with seeming total disregard for the human tragedy that was Iraq, thereby validating the Arab street's perception of the West and its attitude. The Arab street feels we apply a double standard and look at them as inferiors, not worthy of rescue, not worthy of rights, not worthy of the blood or treasure to rescue them from tyranny.

Obviously the right in this country, which has argued that Iraq is a just war if for nothing more than the human rights violations, can claim the moral high ground on this one.

And the left? It can begin to accept responsbility for a good portion of the hate the people of the Middle East feel toward the West based on the "approach" and "attitude" they've advocated during this conflict as outlined above by Lewis.

Maybe its time for the self-declared champions of "human rights" to do a little soul searching.

The Courage of Their Convictions

Al Gore's speech yesterday makes several charges against George W Bush. Excuse the rather lengthy excerpting of the charges below, but it's important to review them before making my point.

He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention. Just as he would not honor the United Nations, international treaties, the opinions of our allies, the role of Congress and the courts, or what Jefferson described as "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind." He did not honor the advice, experience and judgment of our military leaders in designing his invasion of Iraq...

From its earliest days in power, this administration sought to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided America since the end of World War II. The long successful strategy of containment was abandoned in favor of the new strategy of "preemption."

The abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from the abuse of the truth that characterized the Administration's march to war and the abuse of the trust that had been placed in President Bush by the American people in the aftermath of September 11th...

We are less safe because of his policies. He has created more anger and righteous indignation against us as Americans than any leader of our country in the 228 years of our existence as a nation because of his attitude of contempt for any person, institution or nation who disagrees with him.

He has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us...And by pursuing policies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children, all of it done in our name...

The war plan was incompetent in its rejection of the advice from military professionals and the analysis of the intelligence was incompetent in its conclusion that our soldiers would be welcomed with garlands of flowers and cheering crowds...

There was also in Rumsfeld's planning a failure to provide security for nuclear materials, and to prevent widespread lawlessness and looting...

The President convinced a majority of the country that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11th. But in truth he had nothing whatsoever to do with it. The President convinced the country with a mixture of forged documents and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league with al-Qaida, and that he was "indistinguishable" from Osama bin Laden...

They have launched an unprecedented assault on civil liberties, on the right of the courts to review their actions, on the right of the Congress to have information to how they are spending the public's money and the right of the news media to have information about the policies they are pursuing...

Moreover, the administration has also set up the men and women of our own armed forces for payback the next time they are held as prisoners. And for that, this administration should pay a very high price. One of the most tragic consequences of these official crimes is that it will be very hard for any of us as Americans at least for a very long time to effectively stand up for human rights elsewhere and criticize other governments, when our policies have resulted in our soldiers behaving so monstrously...

OK, so there's the Gore position, and one that pretty well encapsulates the Democratic Party's list of charges against the President. Of course, many Democrats think far worse, as the list above doesn't include the Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 charges that so many Democratic politicians thought were so important to talk about after the Washington DC premier two days ago.

I'm not particularly interested in refuting these charges for now. It's just important to know what the charges are, not to try and determine the truth of them.

So, how many articles of impeachment do you think that would come out to? I count at least 6:

1) The president intentionally deceived both the American people and their elected representatives when taking the nation to war.

2) He lied to Congress and the American people about Iraq's WMD programs.

3) He has abused executive power by a de facto elimination of civil rights for some Americans, and an extra-Constitutional exercise of his police powers.

4) He has implemented a policy that explicitly calls for the torture of prisoners of war, in violation of the United States' treaty commitments vis a vis the Geneva Conventions and the Law of Armed Conflict.

5) He has pursued an illegal and immoral military policy that has resulted in the death of thousands of innocent civilians.

6) His incompetent war leadership has caused incalculable damage to our military, and resulted in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of soldiers.

So, if the president has actually done all those things, why don't the Democrats begin putting forth articles of Impeachment in the house, in order to make the president face up to the high crimes and misdemeanors these charges represent? After all, these are not inconsequential charges. They are, if true, something completely different that partisan disagreement.

The Democrats are alleging that the President is subverting the Constitution, engaging in massive, extra-Constitutional violations of civil rights, waging a war of aggression, and generally destroying the world-wide credibility of the United States of America, and, by so doing, actively harming the safety and security of the nation and its citizens.

So, if they really believe these things to be true, why isn't Nancy Pelosi introducing Articles of Impeachment on the House floor every business day? And, since she is not doing so, nor does she apparently have any plans ever to do so, what does that say about the factual basis for these charges?

The problem with starting impeachment proceedings is that would require hearings. Those hearings, being aired every day, would make apparent the factual basis--or lack thereof--for these charges readily apparent.

The Democrats are engaged in nothing more than a cynically vicious and partisan strategy, whereby they get to accuse the president of impeachable offenses of the grossest sort, but conveniently forego having to prove any of it factually by ensuring it stays in the political, rather than judicial arena.

Truth or agitprop?

Bill O'Reilly offers an interesting evolution of "Fahrenheit 911" (or as one wag tagged it, "Fraudenheit 911") since Cannes:

On June 9th it was "the truth":

"We want the word out. Any attempts to libel me will be met by force. The most important thing we have is the truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, then I'll take them to court."

Of course Christopher Hitchens has welcomed this little challenge with open arms.

By June 20th, it had "evolved" into an "op/ed" piece:

"(The movie) is an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. And what's what I call it. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."

Ah ... but aren't op/ed pieces at least based in truth and fact? Well in this world they are. No report how that works in Moore's world.

A.O. Scott of the NY Times rides to the rescue and helps it "evolve" again:

"It might more accurately be said to resemble an editorial cartoon ..."

Not to be outdone, LA Times critic Kenneth Turan helped it "evolve" one more time:

"It is propaganda, no doubt about it, but propaganda is most effective when it has elements of truth ... "

No report on what constitutes the "elements" of truth to which Turan was alluding.

From "da truth" to "an op/ed" to and "editorial cartoon" to "propaganda".

Not exactly something I'm willing to spend my hard earned money on. If I want propaganda, I can watch political ads for free. But rest assured, the left, hungering for "red meat" of any kind (I mean they have Kerry for a candidate, have a little compassion) will make Michael Moore's propaganda at least a financial success.

Such is life in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

He knows the words, but they mean nothing to him...

From the Al Gore speech...

Our ingrained American distrust of concentrated power has very little to do with the character or persona of the individual who wields that power. It is the power itself that must be constrained, checked, dispersed and carefully balanced, in order to ensure the survival of freedom. In addition, our founders taught us that public fear is the most dangerous enemy of democracy because under the right circumstances it can trigger the temptation of those who govern themselves to surrender that power to someone who promises strength and offers safety, security and freedom from fear.

They're punks, who would feed your ass into a shredder for "society", as soon as they got their hands on the machine that they've just woken up to whining about since January of 2001. --Billy Beck

UPDATE: Added to the (forthcoming) Beltway Traffic Jam

Supply and Demand, even in health care

Matt Yglesias makes a good rhetorical, but poor economic, point...

The right, meanwhile, increasingly seems to be populated by people who get a headache when they try and think seriously about the health care issue and, therefore, are eager to embrace excuses for not discussing it.

The left, meanwhile, increasingly seems to be populated by people who get a headache when they try and think seriously about the ever-present economic problem of how scarce resources are allocated and, therefore, are eager to "solve" it by fiat.

Actually, Matt understands this issue perfectly well, as he has criticised rent control - another egregious example of wrong-headed cost-shifting in the name of "the public good".

Now, it may be true that socialized medicine will, in some ways, be better than what we have now...but it doesn't require a fistful of Tylenol to understand that socialized medicine may simply be the better of two bad ideas. And there are better ideas out there.

Unfortunately, both parties increasingly seem to be populated by people who get a headache when they try and think seriously about the health care issue and, therefore, are eager to embrace excuses for not discussing it. Or, at least, pretending our only options are "what we have now" and "socialized medicine".

Really? Isn't that what the administration's been saying?

This has certainly gotten a lot of coverage, hasn't it?

An apparently authentic document from Saddam Hussein's regime confirms cooperation between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, the New York Times reported Friday.

The Iraqi document, obtained by the newspaper several weeks ago and described by U.S. officials as genuine, describes contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden's al-Qaida when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990s.

Specifically, the documents describe Baghdad agreeing to an al-Qaida request to rebroadcast anti-Saudi sermons across Iraq.

And of course if genuine, as it is claimed, it sort of puts "nonsense" to this:

Last week, the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington concluded contacts between Baghdad and al-Qaida had not demonstrated "a collaborative relationship" between the two parties. It is not known whether the commission had access to these documents.

Of course, full disclosure requires you know this:

The U.S. officials who provided the document to the newspaper confirmed they had obtained it from the Iraqi National Congress, which has recently fallen out of favor in Washington.

But it ought to be easy enough to check out ... did Iraq "rebroadcast anti-Saudi sermons across Iraq" as requested by bin Laden?

UPDATE (JON): The NYT story can be found here.
OTB has a good round-up of information on this, too.
Tom Maguire says it all in his post title: "Row, Row, Row It Back".
Jeff Goldstein says it all, too, in his post title....but differently:

New York Times: "Okay, so there is a document proving ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but the document doesn't really prove prove those ties -- or rather, it does prove prove ties...
...but it doesn't exactly prove prove that Bin Laden and Saddam ordered a single milkshake and two spoons, if you catch our drift."

Captain Ed writes...

...the Times notes that bin Laden requested coordination on attacks against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia -- American forces -- and that there is "no indication" that the Iraqis agreed to the proposal. Apparently, there is no indication they refused, either; otherwise, the Times would have trumpeted that in the lead paragraph. However, in 1999, Saddam felt close enough to bin Laden, a man that the Times has maintained considered Hussein an infidel unworthy of association, to offer him asylum in the face of American opposition, according to this CNN report from February 1999.

NoMoreMisterNiceGuy Blog...

Just what the 9/11 Commission said -- no collaboration on terrorism, attempts to forge a real working relationship rebuffed.

As with McQ, I make no predictions about the reliability of anything passed through the INC, but if we assume arguendo that it is, I'd point out that it confirms the primary argument put forth by the Bush administration in regards to Iraq and Al Qaeda. Namely, that we could not afford to wait in the naive hope that Iraq and Al Qaeda would never collaborate.

F-Bombs away....

Atrios is upset about bad language...

"Go Fuck Yourself"

Our Vice President is all class.
...as Dennis Prager says:

As for the liberals who think that using the f-word in public is no big deal, it is good to have them say so. Anything that clarifies the massive values-differences between the Left and the Right is helpful. We who are not on the Left think public cursing is a big deal, because we believe that people can pollute their soul, their character, and, yes, their society, just as they can pollute their rivers and their air and their lungs.

Indeed.

So says Atrios.

And so we're perfectly clear, that's the same Atrios who has said "Fuck you, Judy Woodruff". This is also the same Atrios who called Instapundit "the moronic brownshirt fuck".

Yeah, that Atrios. He's all class.

"How'd a nice guy like me make so many enemies?"

A few weeks back, Kevin Aylward and Oliver had a disagreement on whether "Bush-hatred" had reached the levels of "Clinton-hatred". Kevin thought it had, Oliver...didn't. Kevin listed numerous claims against Bush that were similar to Republican claims against Clinton, but Oliver--fairly, I think--rejected that because the claims against Clinton had been made by actual Congressmen.

However, I think the Democrats have essentially tied up the game in one fell swoop...

Cheered by supporters, Michael Moore previewed his Bush-bashing documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11," before a mostly Democratic audience in the nation's capital Wednesday night. Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe said he thought the film would play an important role in this election year.

Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa implored all Americans to see the film: "It's important for the American people to understand what has gone on before, what led us to this point, and to see it sort of in its unvarnished presentation, which Michael Moore has done."

Lovely. This demagoguery is promoted by the same people--Tom Daschle--who used to say that demonizing attacks like this caused "the threats to those of us in public life go up dramatically, on our families and on us, in a way that's very disconcerting."

But, presumably, he's ok with it now.

(Not so) Instant Karma's gonna get ya

Jesse Taylor is upset about Senate Republicans maneuvering votes to to screw over John Kerry...

So, now you can just move around Senate votes to prevent the wrong Senators from voting for them. I have no problem with the normal congressional tinkering and rescheduling that goes on to shore up votes, etc. But, in this little forgotten corner of reality called "sanity" I'm trying to spruce up over here, don't you lose any credibility as a critic when you prevent someone from doing the thing you're mad at them for not doing?

In short, didn't they just shoot themselves in the foot by giving Kerry a ready-made excuse and Senate Democrats a ready-made line of attack? Has the giant collective Capitol Hill Republican brain been killed by years of steady movement conservative booze?

No, Jesse, those elephants just have long memories....

Democrats successfully used parliamentary tactics in 1996 to help derail then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole's candidacy for the White House and in the process forced the Kansas Republican to resign his seat - a fact that Republicans have never forgotten.

I will eagerly await a follow-up post condemning the Democrats for the same. For the record, I find both distasteful misuses of the responsibility of governance. But I'm not surprised.

(link via the increasingly invaluable Robert Tagorda)

Bad Medicine

The last 24 hours or so have been a bit hectic for me. My mother has had a medical emergency.

Yesterday afternoon, she went to a doctor to get a nerve block injection in her shoulder for chronic pain. As it happened, the doctor made a tiny little mistake. Apparently, he missed with the needle, and punctured her lung. At first he sent her home. But the pain got so bad, and her breathing got so short, she had to go to the hospital, where she learned that her lung had collapsed. So, she had to go into surgery last night at about midnight to place a chest tube in.

She'll be in the hospital for the next few days. She's still in a lot of pain, what with a plastic tube running through her chest wall, but it appears she'll be OK.

We are, needless to say, rather unhappy with the doctor at the moment, though...

Iraqi Soldier saves Marine

As I've mentioned, I'm a sucker for stories about soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen ... and especially ones which tell about their bravery in action. This one from National Review, however, is particularly heartning:

“I was walking beside the Marine, then we heard gunfire, and I saw that the American Marine was shot. Then I realized it was just me and him, so I quickly started shooting at the enemy." — Private Imad Abid Zeid Jassim, Iraqi Civil Defense Corps

Portions of Iraqi Private Imad Abid Zeid Jassim's citation for bravery reads: "...[A]s the firefight ensued, under a hail of enemy fire that was accurately targeted on the wounded [U.S.] Marine, and without regard for his own safety, Private Imad Jassim moved forward into the enemy fire and came to the aid of the wounded Marine. He dragged the wounded Marine out of the line of fire to a covered and concealed position...reengaged the enemy...aggressively pushed forward...dislodged the enemy fighters.... His efforts clearly saved the life of the Marine...."

Read the whole thing if you have a moment because it covers the entire engagement and how well the ICDC troops handled it. This is so critical to the success of a free Iraq its hard to over state it. If they can't handle their own security, they're doomed.

I agree with Dale here ... I think, upon the handover of sovereignty in the next few days, we're going to see the end of "Mr. Nice Guy" as the Iraqis take charge of their own destiny. It may, in some cases, be tough to watch. I don't think they'll be quite as worried about "hearts and minds" as we are. Most likely they'll have their failures and mistakes .... in fact I can guarantee them. But I'm also optomistic that when the bit is in their teeth, they'll take it and run with it.

If they don't, the violence will get worse, not better .... and I think they know that.

War of Attrition

Ralph Peters has a fascinating article in the summer issue of Parameters, the quarterly journal of the US Army War college.

He writes that, even though the idea of a "war of attrition" brings to mind the bloody stalemates of WWI, the fact is that nothing says wars of attrition have to be fair, and, besides, every war is a war of attrition.

The Silence on Darfur and the Limits of American Power

Robert Lane Green laments in The New Republic that apparent genocide in the Sudan raises scarcely a ripple in international politics. He notes with interest that it seems not to be so much because the victims are non-whites, but rather that it's because the perpetrators are.

It is often said that the reason we bombed Serbia but not Rwanda was because the victims in the Balkans were white, while the victims in Rwanda were black. But it is important to remember that the main perpetrators in the Balkans were also white (and, unlike their victims, Christian) and that the perpetrators in Rwanda were also black. You can be sure that if the Belgians or the Australians, or certainly the Americans or Israelis, were murdering, mutilating, and mass-raping tens of thousands of Africans, you wouldn't have the non-response we hear now over Darfur. Call it the "soft bigotry of low expectations."

When you compare the attention showered on various human rights problems today, it becomes clear that the world is once again judging the severity of abuses in large part by the ethnicity of their perpetrators. Not only has there been no call to arms over Sudan, there has barely been a call to anything--just 44 mentions of Darfur appeared in The New York Times' archive in the past year. It can't be simply because the victims are dark-skinned and poor, because the Times has featured 860 mentions of Abu Ghraib, where one or perhaps two people were killed and a number lightly tortured, beaten, and humiliated by Americans.

Abu Ghraib is a perfect storm for the media: Powerful Western soldiers abused and humiliated poor non-Westerners after invading their country for supposedly high-minded reasons. But when both the victims and the perpetrators are black or brown, you get the opposite: perfect calm. Thirty-four peasant farmers were massacred by left-wing guerrillas in Colombia last week. (In the distance, a cricket chirps.) And the quiet is never more deafening than when the violence is in Africa. Our low expectations of African perpetrators permits the world's worst horrors--a genocide in Rwanda (800,000 dead); a decade-long war in Congo (3 million dead); and genocide in Darfur (many thousands dead and the death toll climbing fast). Yet New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is practically the only prominent media voice to write repeatedly about Darfur. Where are the conservatives who should say that the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are God-given and universal? Where are the liberals who should decry the racism that allows blacks to be killed with impunity?

They are not speaking up because ethnic murder in little-understood parts of the world is all too easy to describe with a sad shake of the head and something about "ancient hatreds." The United Nations defines genocide as killing "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." Bush administration lawyers are currently looking into whether to use the word to describe Darfur, but have so far demurred. Their failure to change policies has ugly echoes of the Clinton administration's ban on the word "genocide" during the Rwandan massacres of 1994. Both presidents understood that using the word would bind them morally to act.

Frankly, this is a point that too few on the Left wish to discuss. For decades now, the Left--often rabidly pro-Third World, has argued that the problems in, say Africa, are the results of Colonial mismanagement and mistreatment. Now, however, after 40+ years of independence from colonialism, that excuse seems to be getting a bit threadbare. The crimes of white colonialism can't really be an excuse in perpetuum for everything that goes south in Africa can it?

But, if it isn't, the Left faces a unique problem. After a half-century in which every problem with Africa has been attributed to the victimhood of Africans, they must find some way of accepting that Third Worlders must also be seen as perpetrators of much evil. This seems to be too much of a hurdle to clear.

Talk about the "soft bigotry of low expectations"...

Another problem, though, is one that Jim Hoagland highlights, if rather sloppily, in his Washington Post column today.

The threshold for preventive war, for example, will be raised significantly for the immediate future. Intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and the intentions of dictators or terrorist gangs that seem to possess them are unlikely to be sufficiently clear to meet the standards for action demanded by the post-facto doubts and recriminations on Iraq. Intelligence analysis will become even more cautious and ambiguously stated to policymakers. Vulnerability to surprise attack could grow again.

Widespread disillusionment will also seriously undercut idealistic rationales for deploying U.S. forces overseas. The growing acceptance of humanitarian intervention that gave rise to the slogan "No more Rwandas" is marginalized today by the drumbeat of "No more Iraqs." The mishandling and abuses of the Iraq occupation have negated much of the idealism of the liberation in one long, bloody year...

The United States has "typically" stationed troops abroad "to defend its allies," not to seek territory or empire -- or to create new world orders, Cooper notes. The traditional Cold War defensive role is at an end, as decisions this month on troop redeployments from Germany and South Korea signify. But a consensus on what American troops can hope to accomplish in the Middle East or elsewhere is ever more elusive as the problems of intervention rather than its uses dominate U.S. national attention.

Unfortunately, Bush has compounded the confusion by prolonging Iraq's occupation and its aftermath, and blessing naked expediency in Baghdad, where the new prime minister is a longtime CIA asset who is accused in the New Yorker this week of having once been part of Saddam Hussein's execution squads.

Americans have lost sight of the mass graves of Iraqi Shiites, the genocide campaigns against the Kurds and the war crimes committed by the criminal Baathist regime that was overthrown a year ago. The benefits of fighting terrorist networks in the Middle East and thereby galvanizing the Saudi, Moroccan and other Arab regimes to take forceful action against their extremists are not described or seen clearly enough to counterbalance the abuses of Abu Ghraib or the problems of Fallujah.

Instead, Washington is in the grips of an overlapping series of blame games geared toward influencing the November elections, ruining the reputations of rivals, and obtaining or protecting jobs for the professionally ambitious and the ambitiously professional. Perspective on the future of America's role in Iraq, the Middle East and the world is quickly jettisoned in this psychological sourness. So are the once bright hopes of humanitarian intervention.

To put Hoagland's point simply, one lesson taught by the invasion of Iraq, for better or worse, is that things don't always go well. Our soldiers will die. The missions will be difficult, and they will require much intestinal fortitude, both politically, and in terms of public support, to complete.

We have, I think, been misled--although not, I hasten to point out, intentionally--into thinking that military campaigns should be bloodless, video-game sorts of affairs, and that each death of a US soldier should be cause for a national re-examination of why we are fighting. IF too many soldiers are killed, then we must be doing something wrong, we must be on the edge of failure.

In World War I, during the battle of The Somme, the British army lost 20,000 soldiers in a single day of fighting. Today, the political repercussions for an American administration that lost so many soldiers would be horrific.

We have, we are told, the finest fighting force in the history of the world. That is absolutely true, and there isn't a nation in the world that could oppose us on the battlefield. But once major combat operations have ceased, your ability to win through combat power alone is almost completely evaporated. It is politically impossible to unleash the full power of our combat forces against a restive native population.

The equation changes from asking how many divisions we need to break an enemy opposing force--which may actually be fairly small number--to how many MPs we need on each street corner to ensure peace and security on that corner, multiplied by the number of street corners in the country.

The latter number may be fairly large, and, because the forces are so small individually, posted in penny-packets throughout the country, they are vulnerable to constant casualties through harassing attacks in a way that an organized combat formation is not. Similarly, they are limited in their ability to bring power to bear against such harassment.

So, the cost of peacekeeping may, in fact, be quite a bit higher than any initial military intervention.

Our experience with Germany and Japan lead us to assume that our enemies, once they have been fairly beaten on the battlefield, will supinely accept our occupation once combat has ended. But that ignores the fact that the reason Germany and Japan were so quiescent, was because we had spent the previous four years bombing their civilian populations so heavily that, if we didn't manage to bomb them back to the Stone Age, we at least had bombed them back to the Age of Reason.

In general, though, the end of war usually results not in peaceful occupation, but in chaos as opposing groups attempt to fill the power vacuum left in the aftermath of overthrowing the previous political powers through military force. That is precisely the current situation now in Iraq, with daily chaos as the Islamofascists attempt to destabilize the interim government for political purposes of obtaining power there themselves.

One lesson of Iraq is that war, despite recent examples to the contrary, is usually messy, bloody, and confusing. Even worse, there are few obviously right answers for arriving at an optimal solution. No matter how confident you are in your planning, or how careful your execution, you are opposed by forces that are equally intelligent, knowledgeable about their own capabilities, and determined to defeat your plans.

That kind of messiness upsets the electorate, which has come to expect a Gulf War I-style, 96-hour military campaign with minimal casualties, followed by bringing everybody home to march in parades with confetti falling and bright yellow ribbons streaming in the wind.

But military intervention in places like Kosovo, Darfur, Rwanda, or any of a dozen other places, would imply precisely that kind of messiness.

It is much easier, therefore, for our political leaders to avoid such interventions like the plague, because every single one of them, as George W. Bush is learning, requires that they bet their political future on the outcome.

Signs of Desperation

By now, I expect you'll have heard of the hideous attacks all over Iraq today.

This shouldn't be an excuse to go wobbly. This type of escalating violence was perfectly predictable, and, in fact, was predicted. Iraq is a high-stakes game for Zarqawi and his minions, just as it is for us. But it seems to me that the risks are greater for him.

By attacking Iraqis, rather than coalition forces, he faces a completely different dynamic. If he attacks Americans, the most likely Iraqi reaction is, "Well, that's the Americans' problem, not ours." By attacking Iraqis, he forces them to see that he is the enemy of Iraq at least as much as he is the enemy of America.

One of the reasons many Iraqis are angry at us is because we can't seem to prevent Zarqawi from blowing stuff up. They feel we aren't forcing the security issue with enough seriousness. One doubts the Iraqi government will take the same path.

I suspect that, after the 30 June handover, Iraqis won't hesitate to blow up mosques, flatten city blocks, or do anything else they think necessary to root these guys out and kill them. They will lack a certain restraint that we seem to feel necessary.

So, what Zarqawi has to accomplish is to so destabilize the interim government that Iraq fragments into Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurdish mini-states. If that happens, then his people can concentrate on one portion of the country at a time. Alternatively, he may hope, or believe that the Iraqis, despite coming out of a three-decade nightmare under Saddam Hussein, will more or less passively accept a Wahabbist nightmare as Saddam's replacement.

If, however, neither of those things happen, he runs the very real risk of a seriously PO'd Iraqi security force hunting his people down like animals, and doing whatever is necessary to bring them to justice, or, as W so delicately once put it, "bring justice to them".

It's an all or nothing game for Zarqawi at this point, so his only option is to go for broke. The trouble with going for broke, however, is that if you don't win, you have very little left to use as a safety net when it all comes crashing down about your ears.

A National Disgrace?

What's the old saying about a woman scorned? Ask Gennifer Flowers:

"I have not yet read Mr Clinton's book but you can bet that my Judicial Watch attorneys will," Flowers said in a statement issued by Judicial Watch - a Washington-based conservative court and government watchdog.

"I have learned that Bill Clinton has repeated his lies about me and I am sickened by his continued disregard for the truth," Flowers said. "Bill Clinton pretends to be contrite but he continues to bear false witness against his neighbour. He is a national disgrace."

Can't say I disagree with her conclusion.

Doin' the Hand Jive

You can't make this up. Per TheSmokingGun:

While seated on the bench, an Oklahoma judge used a male enhancement pump, shaved and oiled his nether region, and pleasured himself, state officials charged yesterday in a petition to remove the jurist.

As TSG's title suggests, this gives an all new meaning to "Here Comes the Judge".

Hyperbole, Fiction and the Left, Part IV

Not that this is a particular shocker, but "Mr. Bitter", aka Al Gore has now accused President Bush of using "a network of rapid response digital Brown Shirts" to pressure news reporters and editors during a speech at Georgetown University:

In an hour-long address punctuated by polite laughter and applause, Gore also accused the Bush administration of working closely "with a network of 'rapid response' digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for 'undermining support for our troops."'

One wonders if the "polite laughter" was aimed at him or what he said. My guess is he wasn't trying to be funny.

But beyond that, note the hyperbole. Again the question, assuming what Gore claims is true, how does one ever again describe the real Brown Shirts (also known as the SA)? For the historically ignorant, go here for a brief capsule describing the SA or "Brown Shirts".

Then go here if your interested in really reading about an event which more closely resembles something the Brown Shirts might do (note: the point has nothing to do with abortion, instead it has to do with free speech).

Not long after, Porter made her way to an area where Kerry was shaking hands with a large group of people. She eventually found herself exactly where she hoped she would be -- a few feet away from the man some hope will be the next president.

She held up her sign.

"Then it happened," Porter explains. "He reached up to shake a hand in the back and his eyes went up to my sign. He read it and then he looked into the crowd to see who was holding it -- and he looked me directly in the eyes."

"I hope he saw my pain. I was not angry, just pleading with him to understand. You could see the shock and surprise on his face," Porter said.

But within seconds, a Kerry campaign staff member approached Porter and grabbed her sign.

"You can't have that sign here," the Kerry staffer said.

The sign tore and Porter let go. After he had possession of it, the Kerry staffer "tore it to pieces" and walked away. "He wouldn't even let me have the pieces," Porter said.

Even The New Republic's Editors "get it" ... well sorta

The editors of "The New Republic" ask rhetorically, "Were We Wrong" about supporting the war in Iraq? After much hemming and hawing, rehashing and reviewing, stuttering and stammering, they say:

With all these tragedies, how can there still be a moral case for the war in Iraq? Because Iraqis today--no matter how scared and how bitter--are, in some meaningful sense, free. From the hundreds of Iraqi newspapers to the roughly 40 new Iraqi political parties to the local councils being elected across the country, Iraqis are developing the independent civil society and open politics that the Middle East desperately needs. Could this embryonic freedom be extinguished? Of course. Given the militias roaming the country, Iraq's political future could well be decided by guns rather than ballots. If another dictator murders his way to power, or the country dissolves into violent fiefdoms, the war will have proved not just a strategic failure, but a moral one as well.

But that is clearly not what Iraqis want. Polls show that most Iraqis desire a democracy with Islamic characteristics and think they will achieve one. Prominent Iraqis like Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani don't denounce the United States for bringing too much democracy, but for not bringing it quickly enough.

Well there you go ... you weren't wrong, were you? Isn't it enough that the result of this war with "all these tragedies" is the chance for a free Iraq ... a chance not avialable before the war? Couple that with the fact that a regime that was a major supporter of terrorism is gone and you have the daily double.

But more importantly, as has been claimed by supporters of the war, it has opened not only a dialogue about democracy, but demands for it in other Middle Eastern countires:

And, throughout the Arab and Muslim world, people are watching. They may not hate America any less than they did before the war--for the time being, they may even hate it more. But, with the fall of Iraq's dictator, they can finally envision the fall of their own. And the new discourse emerging in Iraq is reverberating across its borders, changing what is conceivable. In March, demonstrators gathered outside the parliament building in Damascus, demanding an end to the country's longstanding state of emergency. A few days later, Kurds rioted in the country's northeast, prompting eleven Syrian human rights groups to blame the unrest on "the absence of democratic life and public freedoms." That same month, a group of prominent Arab intellectuals and activists met in Alexandria, Egypt, where they issued what famed Egyptian dissident Saad Eddin Ibrahim called "a sort of Arab Magna Carta" demanding reform. "In the Middle East today, you talk about food, you talk about football--and you talk about democracy," a young Egyptian political scientist named Mohammed Kamal recently told Washington Post columnist Jackson Diehl. "There is a serious debate going on in the Arab world about their own societies. The United States has triggered this debate."

Does anyone think these events were possible or even probable without the war with Iraq?

Which brings us to some of the left's favorite handwringing. Although the editors of TNR mostly avoided it, they had to mention it ... "they hate us".

Big deal. Its not like its something new, folks. Raphael Patai, author of the seminal "The Arab Mind" (1976) reminds us of a bit of history in that regard. Patai quotes Wilfred Cantwell Smith's writing in the mid '50s where Smith states "Most westerners have simply no inkling of how deep and fierce is the hate, especially of the West, that has gripped the modernizing Arab" As Patai notes, "a few years later, Bernard Lewis made an almost identical observation in speaking of 'the mood and wish that united many if not most Arabs' in 1955: it was, he found, that of 'revulsion for the West, and the wish to spite and humiliate it.'

In announcing the Egyptian/Russian Arms deal in 1955, President Nasser gave "dramatic and satisfying expression" to this underlying hate of the West:

"In the twilight world of popular myths and images, the West is the source of all evil -- and the west is a single whole" -- Nasser

Nothing has changed in that preception since 1955, nor will it anytime soon ... so to the left: "Get over it"! Understand, as the right seems to have done, that being "liked" is just not as important as being respected and getting the job done.

Concluding, TNR's editors almost get it right:

The outcome of that debate is in Arab hands, not American ones. Even in Iraq, although we must still assist as best we can, our control is slipping away. Ultimately, it is this new, bewildering, liberating debate, rather than U.S. force of arms, upon which our hopes for Iraq, and the whole Arab world, now rest. Americans no longer have the power to redeem this war. But Iraqis still can.

What don't they get right? There's nothing for the Americans to "redeem" in this war. By their own writing, the editors list the redeeming qualities of the war, qualities which are now extant only because of America and Americans (and the coalition of the willing). What is now in Iraqi hands isn't its redemption, but taking it to fruition.

One only hopes they're able to do that.

I'll get you yet, Snidely Whiplash!

I really have no opinion on the legal merits of the case, but it's worth passing along. The Supreme Court has nominally ruled for Cheney in the energy task force case...

The Supreme Court refused Thursday to order the Bush administration to make public secret details of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, but kept the case alive by sending it back to a lower court.

Justices said 7-2 that a lower court should consider whether a federal open government law could be used to get documents of the task force.

The Good: The case was decided 7-2, so it will be hard for critics to claim it was decided along ideological lines. And Scalia didn't have to cast a deciding vote, which would have been contentious after his duck hunting trip with Cheney.

The Bad: As a matter of principle, one understands why the executive branch doesn't want to make every discussion public. As a matter of politics, there are going to be a great many people wondering why it was so important not to disclose those meetings. And all of us can wonder whether the secrecy was principled or political.

Rufus T. Firefly takes charge

What the hell???

Officials from the tiny Balkan nation of Macedonia stepped forward last month to admit that the government had lured seven innocent South Asian immigrants to Macedonia, gunned them down and claimed they were al Qaeda terrorists plotting to attack the U.S. Embassy -- all to prove Macedonia's worth to the U.S.-led war on terror.

"It was a monstrous fabrication to get the attention of the international community," says Macedonian Interior Ministry spokeswoman Miryana Kontevska.
[...]
Just over two months after Sept. 11, 2001, according to internal Macedonian police investigations, top officials and police commanders met at the Interior Ministry to chart a course of action aimed at demonstrating Macedonia's commitment to President Bush's call to bring in Osama bin Laden and his supporters dead or alive.

By meeting's end officials had contrived a meticulous plan Hollywood scriptwriters would be hard pressed to better. They believed it would establish little-known Macedonia as a world player in the fight against terrorism.

It's a weird, weird, weird world.

"Moonbats in the Mist"

Bill at INDC Journal--the premiere Chronicler of Moonbattery--has another excellent photo-journal of DC protesters. Because the protesters aren't weird enough, he brings along Jeff Goldstein, The Commissar, and somebody named Dr. Harvey Streelburg.....or, reasonable facsimiles thereof.

Couple thoughts:

1: (re: kind eyes) - Holy crap, is that John Larroquette?

2: I've never bought the "war for oil" nonsense....but does anybody know what connections Bush has to the sign-making industry? What with all the protests in recent years, they're making a killing. War-profiteers!

The highest motive is the public good

Photo: AP (Scene from Fahrenheit 9/11)

And how 'bout a delicious cold beverage to wash that down?

Photo: AFP/Getty Images/File/Thos Robinson

Michael basks in the love of "The Little Guy"

Photo: Reuters/Handout

Bill Clinton Book Readings

Photo: AP Photo/Harpo Productions, George Burns

Michael Moore's Very Deep Love of America

Not that this will be any surprise, but Michael Moore apparently isn't averse to taking a little help from terrorists in marketing his new movie, Fahrenheit 9/11.

The movie industry publication Screen Daily reported, "In terms of marketing the film, [distributor] Front Row is getting a boost from organizations related to Hezbollah which have rung up from Lebanon to ask if there's anything they can do to support the film."

The story then quotes Front Row Managing Director Gianluca Chacra: "We can't go against these organizations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria."

And, of course, their money is as green as anyone elses. And it is, probably, unreasonable of us to resent Mr. Moore for taking that money, since the upkeep and property taxes on his $1.9 million Manhattan home or $1 million Michigan summer place are probably fairly high. As, no doubt, is the bill for tuition at his children's' private school.

Michael Moore's old schtick used to be that rich, powerful, white businessmen were unpatriotic, and would sell out America at the drop of a hat to make a few extra bucks in places like, say, Syria and Lebanon.

Apparently, he was right.

Saudi's offer amnesty to terrorists

Frankly I don't know what to say about this move. Its not exactly how I'd prosecute a war on terrorists:

"To everyone who has gone out of the righteous way and has committed a crime in the name of religion and to everyone who belongs to that group that has done itself a disservice, everyone who has been captured in terror acts is given the chance to come back to God if they want to save their lives, their souls," Abdullah said.

"If they give themselves up without force within one month maximum from the date of this speech, we can promise them that they are going to be safe."

Abdullah said all such people would be dealt with fairly, in accordance with Islamic law.

"If they are wise and they accept it, then they are saved. And if they snub it, then God is not going to forbid us from hitting them with our force, which we get from our dependence on God."

Its getting a little hot in Arabia.

Don't forget that it wasn't long ago that Saudi clerics condemned the terrorists and the violence. That sort of support for the government position had to come at a price.

This may be it.

UPDATE: Well you learn early in life, "never say never":

A man wanted in connection with crimes against the kingdom's security turned himself in to authorities hours after Saudi Arabia's king issued an offer to deal fairly with terrorists who give themselves up within a month.

How about that?

The Anti-Democratic Party?

Some Democrats seem to be taking Nader's threat pretty seriously:

On Wednesday, Arizona Democrats are expected to launch a challenge to Nader's petition to get on the ballot in that state.

Every dollar the Nader campaign must spend fighting off such Democratic legal challenges is a dollar it won't be able to spend on Nader's travel or on radio and TV ads. So, whether legally successful or not, the Democrats' effort will sap Nader's strength.

Interesting. Of course there are hazards to this ploy:

A resort by Democrats to legal warfare to keep Nader off the ballot might well backfire.

Micah Sifry, author of the book "Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America," said “the name of the party is the Democratic Party, not the Anti-Democratic Party.”

A Democratic legal crusade to obstruct Nader’s efforts to get on the ballot “feeds the Greens’ argument that this system is a duopoly” run by the two major parties in their self-interest, Sifry added.

“The Democrats ought to make a positive case for why people should be voting for them, not using strong-arm tactics,” he said. Sifry sees Democratic blocking of Nader as “part of an ongoing self-destructive dynamic between the Greens and the Democrats.”

You have to wonder about the thinking of Arizona democrats. They're validating the Green's argument and they're setting themselves up for a backlash. With Bush leading in AZ by about 4 points it doesn't seem like the smartest way to spend your time or money. And if successful, you've most likely alienated any Greens who might have considered voting for your candidate.

Hmm ... maybe I ought to send them a donation.

The Importance of Iraq

As rarely happens, I found something in a New Republic article with which to agree. Fareed Zakaria, discussing Iraq, makes a very important point:

But, since we are listing mistakes, the biggest one many opponents of the war are making is to claim that Iraq is a total distraction from the war on terrorism. In fact, Iraq is central to that conflict. I don't mean this in the deceptive and dishonest sense that many in the Bush administration have claimed. There is no connection between Saddam's regime and the terrorists of September 11. But there is a deep connection between his regime and the terrorism of September 11. The root causes of Islamic terrorism lie in the dysfunctional politics of the Middle East, where failure and repression have produced fundamentalism and violence. Political Islam grew in stature as a mystical alternative to the wretched reality--secular dictatorships--that have dominated the Arab world. A new Iraq provides an opportunity to break this perverse cycle. The country is unlikely to become a liberal democracy any time soon. But it might turn out to be a pluralistic state that gives minorities limited protections, allows for some political participation, and has a reasonably open society. That would be a revolution in the Arab world.

This point is made after a sharp critique of the Bush Administrations handling of "nation building" in Iraq. Frankly, some of his criticisms of that process are well made. But all that being said, valid or not, what he says above is the most critical argument to be made for the importance of what we are doing in Iraq, at least in my estimation. He addresses something which seems to be lost in the back and forth over Iraqi connections or lack of connections with al Queda.

Let's replay it:

There is no connection between Saddam's regime and the terrorists of September 11. But there is a deep connection between his regime and the terrorism of September 11.

This makes the arguments for or against al Queda/Iraq connections or WMDs or any of a host of other "reasons" almost superfluous. It doesn't matter. As we've known for some time, Iraq under Saddam was hip deep in terrorism whether through al Queda or not.

And it is this "deep connection" with the "terrorism" of 9/11 which made him and his regime a legitimate target in the War on Terror. Unlike Zakaria, and to his credit, much of the left wants to conveniently deny this point. It explodes the popular myth that Iraq was a distraction from the War on Terror and it drives home the point that the administration was indeed correct in targeting Iraq as a part of that war as one of the "sponsors of terror", much like the Afghan Taliban government.

But there's an even more important idea here. As Zakaria notes, the root causes of Islamic terrorism are a result of the dysfunctional and oppressive dictatorships of the middle east. The essentially totalitarian entites which comprise the "states" of the middle east have, through their policies, driven their hopeless, repressed and politically disenfranchized citizens into the willing arms of radical religion (who then blames the west for all their problems). Iraq, if successful, offers a concrete alternative to the citizens of the middle east on display right there in the region. If it is indeed successful in standing up on its wobbly legs and toddling along toward the path of freedom and liberty, Iraq can offer an alternative which may help defuse and dismantle the jihadist cults of Islam. It is that fact, obviously realized by the jihadists, which has them so committed to its failure.

But despite the fact Zakaria seems to "get it" in that regard, he misses with his conclusion:

The right lesson of Iraq so far is not that nation-building must fail, but rather that President Bush's approach to it, unless corrected, will fail. The right lesson is not that U.S. military intervention always ruptures alliances and creates an enraged international public, but rather that this particular intervention did. Most important, it is not that American power aggressively employed does more harm than good. Rather, the right lesson is that American power, because it is so overweening, must be used with extraordinary care and wisdom. Most of the world's problems--from AIDs to the Israeli-Palestinian issue--would be better served with more American intervention, not less. But, because of the blunders in Iraq, it is possible that most of the world, and far too many Americans, will draw the wrong lesson on this final point as well.

Here he gets some agreement but mostly disagreement from me. I'm not sure we're at the point we can make the claim that unless corrected this attempt at nation building will fail. I think that assessment needs to wait for the handover of June 30th before we can make that sort of determination. My hope though is if we see it going wrong, we do indeed admit it and correct it, since as stated, it is critical Iraq become a successful functioning free state in the Middle East.

To his second point, I agree that this intervention did indeed "rupture alliances", but I don't agree it was simply because of this intervention. It appears there was much more at play concerning Iraq and certain members of the "alliance" than meet the eye. And it is my contention that these relationships had more to do with the rupture than our intervention. While the left wails and gnashes its teeth about how we've alienated our 'friends' and gone it alone, it consistently ignores the fact that we had more members of this coalition than we had in 1991. Yes, the UN has stiffed us, essentially to get even. And yes, even NATO, a creation of the US in Europe, has declined to help. But in both instances this can be traced primarily to one country who disagreed with the intervention ... that is hardly akin to world condemnation or a "ruptured alliance". It is more of France being France and desperately trying to prove to the world that it is still a power than any demonstration of the world's disapproval.

As to the "enraged international public", we've seen that before ... in fact its pretty well a constant. Sometimes its overt, sometimes its not, but in matters of the US and its power it always is there, lurking under the surface. I simply don't much concern myself with it most of the time ... and Iraq is one of those times.

Lastly, I'm not particlarly interested in "more American intervention" rather than less simply because he thinks the world would benefit. If it is necessary for the security of this country and its citizens, I think America should intervene when and where it must. That is a right any sovereign nation must reserve for itself. That does't preclude working with other states or coalitions to try to solve world problems. But intervention, at least in my lexicon, means more than that ... and intervention must be reserved by this nation for the defense of this nation when necessary.

Compassionate Conservative...well, something, anyway

Everything that's wrong with the modern philosophy of Government, in two sentences...

"[T]he role of government is to stand there and say, 'We're going to help you.' The job of the federal government is to fund the providers who are actually making a difference."

That's the current President Bush. My, how far we've come...

"...a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."
----Thomas Jefferson

"The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
---- John Adams

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-- Thomas Jefferson

(Via Sullivan)

UPDATE: While we're on the subject, this comment in regards to an expensive party thrown by the financially strapped Air America network is pretty indicative of modern politics, too...

"It was a fun party, until I knew I was paying for it," says Bob Visotcky, Air America's former Los Angeles market manager, who hasn't been reimbursed for his hotel room and flight.

Yeah, I feel that way every time I see my paycheck.

Hyperbole, Fiction and the Left, Part III

One of the greatest problems I have today with leftist critics of the Bush administration is the lack of proportion in their critiques (and to be fair the right isn't exactly blameless in this regard either).

In today's WSJ, Bret Stephens takes a good look at this phenomenon and makes some great points as to the effect of such criticism:

Care for language is more than a concern for purity. When one describes President Bush as a fascist, what words remain for real fascists? When one describes Fallujah as Stalingrad-like, how can we express, in the words that remain to the language, what Stalingrad was like?

George Orwell wrote that the English language "becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." In taking care with language, we take care of ourselves.

Precisely ... if you call Bush "Hitler", how in the world do you then describe Hitler? Haven't you now diminished the horror of the real Hitler?

What brought this to Stephens' attention was a couple of columns by Sidney Blumenthal:

According to Sidney Blumenthal, a onetime adviser to president Bill Clinton who now writes a column for Britain's Guardian newspaper, President Bush today runs "what is in effect a gulag," stretching "from prisons in Afghanistan to Iraq, from Guantanamo to secret CIA prisons around the world." Mr. Blumenthal says "there has been nothing like this system since the fall of the Soviet Union."

In another column, Mr. Blumenthal compares the April death toll for American soldiers in Iraq to the Eastern Front in the Second World War. Mr. Bush's "splendid little war," he writes, "has entered a Stalingrad-like phase of urban siege and house-to-house combat."

Anyone at all familiar with Stalingrad, the Soviet Gulag system and combat on the Eastern Front in WWII is immediatly struck by the lack of proportion in Blumenthal's argument. There is no comparison, in reality, of the death toll on the eastern front and US losses in Iraq. Its not even close. In fact, it might be difficult to find days in that theater in which the losses were less than our total losses in Iraq for a year.

Where's the proportion to the argument that claims this ...

The war on the Eastern Front was unparalleled for its ferocity, intensity, and brutality. By most estimates some 4 million Axis troops and 11 million Soviet troops fell in battle or died as POWs. Another 15–17 million Soviet civilians fell victim to massacres, disease, and starvation during the war.

... is comparable to a war that has to this point cost us 800 casualties. How does one disproportionately compare the deaths of 30,000,000 with 800 and expect to be considered credible? If the April death toll for soldiers in Iraq is like the Eastern Front in WWII, how does one then describe the Eastern Front anymore?

And to attempt to compare Stalingrad to the bits of urban combat our forces have been subjected to in Iraq completely diminishes that battle's magnitude. The Soviet's casualties at Stalingrad numbered 1.1 million (and 100,000 civilians) while the Germans lost about 500,000. Where, in reality, is this Stalingrad in Iraq?

It doesn't exist. Again, this sort of disproportionate rhetoric is used to persuade the uninformed that Iraq is much worse than it is simply for political purposes. But in so doing, Blumenthal diminishes the real Stalingrad. If Iraq is like Stalingrad, then how does one describe Stalingrad?

And the "gulag" reference? The Soviet gulag system was in established for the imprisonment of internal dissenters. Established in 1930 under the Cheka or Internal Security Directorate (later KGB)these were forced labor camps, or slave labor camps established for political enemies and dissenters.

The Gulag is most widely associated with Stalin 's Great Purges which led to a significant increase of the proportion of political prisoners in the camps. In 1931-32, there were approximately 200,000 prisoners in the camps, in 1935 approximately 1 million (including colonies) and in 1938 nearly 2 million people. During World War II , the camp population declined sharply due to mass releases of hundreds of thousands of prisoners, who were sent directly to the front, but also due to a steep rise in mortality in 1942-43. After WWII the number of inmates in prison camps and colonies rose again and reached a number of approximately 2.5 million people in the early 1950s

The Communist leadership continued to sponsor Gulag for a while after Stalin's death, and it is estimated that a total of 1.5 to 2 million people have died in the camps and colonies. Large numbers of non-political prisoners were released in 1953 during the months after the dictator's death.

The enormity of and the difference in purpose of the Gulag when compared to the terrorists now held in US detention is evident to those with a sense of historical proportion. But that doesn't keep Blumenthal from attempting the comparison, again for no other purpose than cheap, rhetorical political points.

If the US detention camps are comparable to the Gulag, then how does one ever again describe the Gulag? How does one then make the point that the Gulag was a inhuman slave labor system used by a state to destroy political dissidence and took the lives of untold millions if what the US is doing now is "like" that?

My guess is that this makes no difference at all to Sidney Blumenthal or other political operatives on the left.

They have no use for proportion just as they really have no use for the truth.

This is all about winning ... politically.

And it is evident they have no problem using any means necessary to accomplish that goal.

ADDENDUM (Dale):

Stephens says that either George W. Bush is the worst historical disaster of a president to come along in 150 years, or his critics have begun a harrowing descent into madness. Stephens picks the latter.

The point here is not that Mr. Bush has a flawless or even a good record or that his critics don't have their points. The point is that, at this stage in his presidency, Mr. Bush cannot credibly be described as some kind of world-historical disaster on a par with James Buchanan and Herbert Hoover, nor can he credibly be accused of the things of which he is accused.
This brings us to our second hypothesis, which is that his critics are insane.

This is an easier case to make. Mr. Blumenthal, for instance, is the man who described Bill Clinton's presidency as the most consequential, the most inspiring and the most moral of the 20th century, only possibly excepting FDR's. Mr. Krugman spent his first couple of years as a columnist writing tirades about how the U.S. economy was on the point of Argentina-style collapse.

What makes these arguments insane--I use the word advisedly--isn't that they don't contain some possible germ of truth. One can argue that Mr. Clinton was a reasonably good president. And one can argue that Bush economic policy has not been a success. But you have to be insane to argue that Mr. Clinton was FDR incarnate, and you have to be insane to argue Mr. Bush has brought the U.S. to its lowest economic point since 1932. This style of hyperbole is a symptom of madness, because it displays such palpable disconnect from observable reality.

If you have to go looking for outrage, the outrage probably isn't there. That which is truly outrageous tends to have the quality of obviousness.

So here is one aspect of this insanity: no sense of proportion. For Mr. Blumenthal, Fallujah isn't merely like Stalingrad. It may as well be Stalingrad, just as Guantanamo may as well be Lefertovo and Abu Ghraib may as well be Buchenwald, and Mr. Bush may as well be Hitler and Hoover combined, and Iraq may as well be Vietnam and Bill Clinton may as well be Franklin Roosevelt.

The absence of proportion stems, in turn, from a problem of perspective. If you have no idea where you stand in relation to certain objects, then an elephant may seem as small as a fly and a fly may seem as large as an elephant. Similarly, Mr. Blumenthal can compare the American detention infrastructure to the Gulag archipelago only if he has no concept of the actual size of things. And he can have no concept of the size of things because he neither knows enough about them nor where he stands in relation to them. What is the vantage point from which Mr. Blumenthal observes the world? It is one where Fallujah is "Stalingrad-like." How does one manage to see the world this way? By standing too close to Fallujah and too far from Stalingrad. By being consumed by the present. By losing not just the sense, but the possibility, of judgment.

Sydney Blumenthal is shrieking that the campaign in Iraq is a Brutal Urban Siege (not to be confused with the Brutal Afghan Winter), where our troops are dying like flies, just like the Germans at Stalingrad.

You remember, Stalingrad, right? Where 100,000 German soldiers were killed in 6 months? Yeah, well, Iraq, according to Blumenthal, is just like that.

John Kerry has compared the Bush Administration's performance on job creation as the worst since Herbert Hoover. I'm sure we all remember how in 2003, just like in 1933, 25% of Americans had been put out of work in the previous three years.

Paul Krugman has been predicting for years that the economic policies of George W. Bush would send the economy into an Argentina sized tank of depression, hyperinflation, and, for all we know, flesh-eating zombies unless he's stopped right now. Well, I just looked, and the economy's growing at 4.5%, we've created 1 million jobs in the last 3 months, and the office corridor seems remarkably empty of the rotting undead.

This doesn't mean that W is perfect, or that his performance can't be criticized, but a lot of this stuff is just completely wacko. If you think Iraq is like the Eastern Front, Abu Ghraib is like the gulag, and our recent economic performance mirrors the that of The Great Depression, then you are freakishly clueless.

Plan B

Kevin Drum links to this post over at Econ4Dean, in which "Lerxst" decries "Rovian tactics" surrounding the approval of the Plan B birth control method. A WSJ story, per Lerxst, "makes clear that it is conservative politics and not science which as at issue". (the gist of the story is that the FDA head--a political appointee--disagreed with the recommendation of the advisory panel of scientists)

Kevin calls it evidence of the Bush administrations "nanny state desire to control our sex lives, increase the rate of abortion, and gin up phony excuses to justify it". Lerxst calls it "misuse of science for political gain".

Pretty strong charges. So, what happened? Per the NYTimes, the FDA simply told Barr Pharmaceuticals that they were allowed to sell the drug over the counter, provided they do one of two things:
1: "...undertake a new study among girls 16 years old and younger to show that they can use the drug safely without the help of a doctor."
Or:
2: "...write a new label and construct a system that would allow women older than 16 to buy the drug over the counter while those younger than 17 would be forced to get a prescription."

So, in this example of Bush administration malfeasance, they....approved the sale of Plan B to everybody 17 and over? And approved the sale to women 16 and under as soon as Barr Pharmaceuticals provides research confirming the safety?

"But", critics say, "there's no scientific basis for the restriction on girls 16 and under!" Really? That's not what maker of the drug found.....

Comprehension rates among subjects with different Demographics

Ages (Table 5): Significantly fewer subjects ages 12-16 understood objectives #1A, #2, #4 and #6 compared with those ages ≥ 17 years.

In short, girls under 16 don't understand proper utility and usage of Plan B. This is not a political opinion....this is scientific research from the maker of the drug.

And at the end of the day, the FDA is willing to approve this drug with no restrictions at all, provided Barr Pharmaceuticals simply does the research on younger females that they did on older females. Research which Barr Pharmaceuticals failed to do when submitting their revised proposal.

What does the FDA say about Plan B? A full Q&A can be found here, including this statement...

Wide availability of safe and effective contraceptives is important to public health. We look forward to working with the sponsor if they decide to pursue making this product available without a prescription.

Critics of this decision are upset that the Bush administration blocked a legitimate drug.....but, in fact, it has been approved, conditionally. The "Not Approvable" letter simply lays out 2 alternative paths that will lead to approval of the drug, and it is consistent with the reservations expressed in the research by the maker of Plan B.

If the Bush administration is trying to play up to religious lobbying groups, one would think it would involve something a bit more satisfying than over-the-counter approval for women 17+, and approval for 16-and-younger conditioned on only a bit of research.

What's more, one would think that people who accuse the Bush administration of side-stepping research would be a bit more supportive of an FDA demand for, you know, research.

Knowing better

Kevin Drum...

Matt Yglesias makes the case today that the Bush administration doesn't actually lie most of the time. Rather, if you parse their words with hyper-precision, you'll see that technically they're telling the truth even if it's plain to a four-year-old that their intent is to mislead and deceive. [...] Let's take this statement from Dick Cheney on Meet the Press last year:

If we're successful in Iraq...we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

Each phrase, then, is technically accurate. Taken as a whole, though, it's obvious that his intent was to imply that Iraq was a primary base for al-Qaeda's activities, which is clearly untrue.

This is an interesting--and, I'm afraid, all too typical--example of how partisans apply their own assumptions to their opponents argument in order to make their case.

As Matthew Yglesias argues, a "canny speaker can mislead his audience without necessarily saying anything false" - which, he says, is what the Bush administration did. As evidence, he cites a Bush statement...

"the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al-Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world."

...and writes, "Technically speaking, the president didn't say he had any evidence that this would happen, so the fact that there was no evidence it was likely to happen doesn't show that he was lying. But if he wasn't trying to mislead people, then he and his administration are simply in the grips of a paranoid worldview -- leaping at wholly imagined threats and throwing tens of thousands of soldiers and Marines into battle."

Pretty damning stuff. If, of course, you accept Kevin and Matt's assumption about the implications and beliefs of the Bush administration. And if you don't? They don't say.

The problem is this: their assumptions go directly to motivation - a subject about which both Kevin and Matt are making wild-ass guesses. And not just wild-ass guesses, but unfair wild-ass guesses.

Kevin does not, for example, mention the possibility that Dick Cheney could consider Al Qaeda a "global network of relationships, a system for transforming the frustrations and discontents of Islam-natives, marginalized immigrants, the militant sons of immigrants-into a violent expression of jihad" providing "connectivity, training, and financial support to an extensive galaxy of terrorists enterprises, stretching from North Africa to the southern Philippines".
- From the Statement of Brian Jenkins to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States March 31, 2003.

As such, it's nearly irrelevant where the head of the network is located. If, as the 9/11 Commission found, "Bin Laden sought to build a broader Islamic Army that included terrorist groups from Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea" and "at least one [group] from each did", then Iraq is as much a part of the loose network of terrorism-supporting regions as any other. Perhaps moreso, considering the unstable, warlike nature of the Hussein regime and the uncertain nature of their WMD capabilities.

It seems pretty obvious that Dick Cheney recognizes--and believes in--this paradigm. Does Kevin Drum believe it? Well, it hardly matters. What matters--for the purposes of the debate he's having--is the argument and assumptions that Cheney brings to the table. Drum and Yglesias would, apparently, rather argue with a different set of definitions.

The problem with this is that we can never have a serious argument about a very important topic - we can never debate the arguments the Bush administration makes - if their critics dismiss the arguments they make, and assign them entirely different arguments. Arguments based on assumptions about their motivations. In short, strawmen.

You don't have to agree with the assumptions Cheney makes, but you do have to argue with them. And, for the record, the same thing will apply if John Kerry is elected President. No matter how much we may disagree with a position, argue the merits. Assuming motivations is just...weak. It's the product of echo-chamber discourse.

Matt and Kevin should know better.

Affordable Housing...

This may explain why home-ownership rates have been skyrocketing...

Nationwide, 17.8 percent of the median family income was used to buy a single-family home at the median price in 2003, down from 18.5 percent the previous year, according to a study to be released today by the Center for Housing Research at Virginia Tech and the Virginia Association of Realtors.

John Kerry, who--per his campaign site--"has been a strong proponent of preserving and expanding affordable housing and homeownership opportunities for the American people, is probably just tickled pink.

UPDATE: Of course, the media still sees the black lining in that silver cloud.

Its the media's fault

One wonders if Bill Clinton will ever grow up enough to take responsibility for his own decisions and actions instead of the usual blame shifting.

Apparently he nutted up in a BBC interview when asked by the interviewer, David Dimbleby, why he had an affair with Ms Lewinsky when he knew he was under investigation by special prosecutor Kenneth Starr for other matters.

As is usual, Clinton avoided the question (and the responsibility for his choice) and blamed both the media and Kenneth Star for his problems:

"Let me just say this. One of the reasons he [Kenneth Starr] got away with it is because people like you only ask me the questions.

"You gave him a complete free ride. Any abuse they wanted to do. They indicted all these little people from Arkansas, what did you care about them, they're not famous, who cares that their life was trampled. Who cares that their children are humiliated.

"Nobody in your line of work cared a rip about that at the time. Why, because he was helping their story.

"And that's why people like you always help the far-right, because you like to hurt people, and you like to talk about how bad people are and all their personal failings.

"Look, you made a decision to allocate your time in a certain way, you should take responsibility for that, you should say 'yes, I care much more about this than whether the Bosnian people were saved, and whether he brought a million home from Kosovo'."

One would guess ... from his "answer"... that Monica Lewinsky was a result of the media making Ken Starr a "star". Apparently he consoled himself with Moncia.

At least that's what I get out of his "answer", if it is his answer.

Right. The important stuff. Got it.

Kevin Drum, 6/20/04...

Matt Yglesias has been watching TV this morning and says the talking heads are practically salivating at the idea of being able to talk about Clinton's blow jobs again. This will undoubtedly be followed up with a special segment on how woefully underinformed the American public is on the important issues of the day.

Kevin Drum, 6/22/04...(regarding the story about Jack Ryan's kinky sex life)

CAGES AND WHIPS!....Ah, those family values loving Republicans! "Cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling," says the legal filing, roundly denied by the GOP Senate candidate, of course.

Other bloggers who won't mind the coming fixation on Clinton's sex life include: Nick Confessore, Ezra Klein, Oliver Willis, Roger Ailes, and TBogg.

So, if I understand them correctly, sex scandals are once again--per Kevin Drum--worth salivating over. Got it.

Taking back the vote

I'm growing concerned about the Electoral College. I'm worried that the importance of large swing states like Florida and California will dilute white voting strength.

.....

Find that offensive? You should. It's intolerably racist.....so why is this tolerated....

The U.S. Department of Justice on Monday endorsed Richmond's bid to hold citywide elections for mayor...
[...]
Opponents of the measure, including Rep. Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-Va.), told Justice Department officials this month that the at-large mayor plan would illegally dilute blacks' voting strength in the city.

None dare call it racism.....but that's exactly what it is. Direct elections, democracy, one person-one vote....those concepts go out the window when a special interest wants more influence.

And the fact that it is so nakedly about race, that there is not even an attempt to pretend there is a motive other than racial advantage? It disappoints me.

Ironically, while critics claim racism, 2 out of 3 announced candidates--the two frontrunners--are black.

(Full disclosure: I live just outside of Richmond)

UPDATE: John Hawkins has more along these lines.

Misled?

The Belgravia Dispatch--in a fairly comprehensive look at the poll data regarding Bush's support in the war on terror--makes this interesting point...

...most Americans (over 60%) believe or suspect Saddam had cooperated with al-Q historically--but a full 48% neverthless believe they were misled on said alleged links.

As with the rest of the data, it appears the voters have a hard time with consistency. My take? Well, "what people think" can be interesting, but it's only got an incidental relationship to the facts. And what about the actual facts, anyway? Well, as Djerejian points out, the people who believe the administration misled the public into believing Iraq provided direct support to Al Qaeda need to explain this January 2004 poll result...

Before the war, do you think Iraq did or did not provide direct support to the Al Qaeda terrorist group?

• Iraq provided support,
  YOUR SUSPICION ONLY - 38%

• Iraq provided support,
  SOLID EVIDENCE OF THAT - 23%

• Iraq did not provide support - 33%

• DK/No opinion - 6%

Even more telling, I think, is this September 13 2001 poll, taken well before the administration said word one about the Iraq problem...

"How likely is it that Saddam Hussein is personally involved in Tuesday's terrorist attacks..."

------Likely-------
NET - 78
Very - 34
Somewhat - 44

-----Not Likely------
NET - 12
Not very - 9
At all - 3
-------------------
No Opinion - 9

This appears to be a deal-killer for those who would claim the Bush administration misled the public the belief that Iraq and Al Qaeda were cooperating in the 9/11 attacks.

Buried

Remember all the large-font headlines indicating no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Well, you won't see this on any front pages...

“There's really very little difference between what our staff found, what the administration is saying today and what the Clinton administration said,” said commissioner John Lehman, speaking Sunday on NBC's “Meet the Press.” “The Clinton administration portrayed the relationship between al-Qaida and Saddam's intelligence services as one of cooperating in weapons development. There's abundant evidence of that.”

“The Bush administration has never said that [Iraq] participated in the 9/11 attack,” Lehman said. “They've said, and our staff has confirmed, there have been numerous contacts between Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaida over a period of 10 years, at least.”[emphasis added]

I've been wondering what happened to George Tenet's allegations that "Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs". Commissioner Lehman appears to be confirming the existence of this evidence.

You won't see it in the headlines, and you won't see it from the left side of the blogosphere. You should, though. They've been misrepresenting this long enough.

I refuse to call them liars. They are not. But I have to ask why this aspect of the story goes unreported. The answer, I think, is simply that they are partisans.

UPDATE: This story - based on a Google News search - is showing up in all of two places...the cited MSNBC story (which I had to dig to find) and this FrontPageMag story.

Huh.

UPDATE II: From the Meet the Press transcript, a bit more...

In fact, as you'll soon hear from Joe Klein, President Clinton justified his strike on the Sudan "pharmaceutical" site because it was thought to be manufacturing VX gas with the help of the Iraqi intelligence service.

Since then, that's been validated. There has been traces of Empta that comes straight from Iraq, and this confounds the Republicans, who accused Clinton of doing it for political purposes. But it confirms the cooperative relationship, which were the words of the Clinton administration, between al-Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence.

The Bush administration has never said that they participated in the 9/11 attack. They've said, and our staff has confirmed, there have been numerous contacts between Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda over a period of 10 years, at least.

Republican's New Youth Vote Campaign Ad

In a Q and O exclusive, Joey Goebbels Jr, new youth vote manager for the Bush Campaign, relased their latest ad aimed at young voters likely to vote Democrat.

Said Joey G., "hey if we're going to be accused of it, we might as well use it.".

Joey also mentioned that while it might not sway many to vote Republican, it may dilute the Democrat vote a bit.

Democratic Underground could not be reached for a comment, although its been noted that there has been a significant drop in participation by its regulars since the ad's release.

Another Enron-Type Scandal

UCLA Corporate Law Professor and blogger, Professor Bainbridge, notes that a new Enron-type corporate fraud scandal may be brewing. Investors cheated, fraudulent asset sales, shaky finances; it's another example of the lack of morals and ethics the Left constantly talks about when discussing business under George W. Bush's administration.

The newest corporate fraud? Air America, apparently.

According to today's Wall Street Journal article, available for free here, not only does the corporation have serious financial troubles, but the operation has been sold to a new company controlled by the investors.

Many of Air America's investors and executives say they thought the network had raised more than $30 million, based on assurances from its owners, Guam-based entrepreneurs Evan M. Cohen and Rex Sorensen. In fact, Air America had raised only $6 million, Mr. Cohen concedes. Within six weeks of the launch, those funds had been spent and the company owed creditors more than $2 million.

When the problems came to light, "we realized that we had all been duped," says David Goodfriend, the company's acting chief operating officer. Messrs. Cohen and Sorensen say they didn't mislead anyone about the company's finances. They say they planned to invest more over time but didn't because of cultural differences with other managers. Both resigned in early May...

Air America's investors created a new company, Piquant LLC, which bought the assets of the old company, named a new CEO and simplified its business plan. Rather than buying stations or leasing time, Air America is following a more conventional route, allowing local stations to pick up portions of the lineup. It's on the air in New York and 14 other markets including Portland, Ore., and Chapel Hill, N.C.

The trouble with this asset sale, as Professor Bainbridge notes, is that it looks like the company is making the sale to blow off its creditors. If so, that would be, as a former president once said, wrong.

Since it appears likely, based on the WSJ article, moreover, that the selling entities were de facto insolvent at the time of the transfer, the probability that a court would find a fraudulent transfer goes up significantly. The sellers will have to show that the selling entities received fair value and that the transaction had economic substance above and beyond merely stiffing their creditors.

Another option for the creditors would be to seek to pierce the corporate veil of the selling entities to hold their owners liable. Since the purchasing entity was owned by most of the same investors as the selling entities (another factor that will weigh in favor of finding a fraudulent transfer, by the way), the creditors may be able to recover from the individual investors.

And that's just the civil side. There is a potential criminal liability here, too, according to the professor.

The securities fraud claims by investors in Air America could lead to criminal charges by the Justice Department if Cohen and/or Sorensen willfully misrepresented material facts or omitted material facts they had a duty to disclose. The creditor claims of fraudulent transfer and/or veil piercing, however, would be purely a question of civil liability by which the creditors would be able to recover their losses either from the purchasing entity or the owners of the selling entities.

No doubt all of this happened because of the close, corrupting political relationship between Air America and George W. Bush.

Oh, wait a minute...

Incinerating Michael Moore

You might get the idea, reading Christopher Hitchens' review of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" that perhaps Hitchens wasn't that enamored with it. In fact, he flat flames it:

With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

And he's just warming up. Go read it.

ADDENDUM (Dale): MQ and I both blogged this, but since he was first, I just thought I'd delete my post and add it here.

The bit McQ quoted is just the intro. Not only does Hitch savage the film, he notes the Moore has developed a "quick response team" in order to launch defamation suits against anyone who criticizes his new project.

Hitch is unimpressed.

However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers—get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.

Hitch painstakingly rips Farhenheit 9/11 apart for factual errors, logical inconsistencies, and flat out contradictions of Michael Moore's previously stated opinions. It's as if he's daring Moore to sue him.

Or hoping.

Going Wobbly

James lileks is getting pessimistic.

For the last few weeks I’ve had this gnawing belief that bin Laden got lucky by attacking during Bush’s term. Conventional wisdom says the opposite, because Bush fought back. But he’s the enemy now. I ask my Democrat friends what they’d rather see happen – Bush reelected and bin Laden caught, or Bush defeated and bin Laden still in the wind. They’re all honest: they’d rather see Bush defeated. (They’re quick to insist that they’d want Kerry to get bin Laden ASAP. Although the details are sketchy.) Of course this doesn't mean they're unpatriotic, etc., obligatory disclaimers, et cetera. But let's be honest. People are coming up with websites that demonstrate ingenious technology for spraying anti-Bush slogans on the sidewalks; it would be nice if they sprayed "DEFEAT TERRORISM" or "STOP AL QAEDA" now and then. Wouldn't it?

I belong to a usenet newsgroup that includes best-selling SF writer John Ringo. Right after 911, Ringo opined that what would happen after 911 was that we'd be all hot and bothered to fight the war on terror for a while. Then the anger would fade, the naysayers wouldconvince the public that we'd gone too far, and we'd fall back into the September 10th attitude about terrorism.

Then we'd get hit again. And the cycle would keep going, until the terrorists did something that just made us snap, and we'd start nuking the Mideast. I thought he was overly pessimistic, of course.

Now, I'm not so sure.

Stray Voltage

I’m still amazed at what passes for critical thinking in this country ... especially in the media. In a piece in this week's US News & World Report, Linda Kulman, taking a swipe at our materialism, makes the following claim:

Indeed, America has double the number of shopping malls as it does high schools.

Well gee, Linda ... if you had spent more time in high school and less time in a shopping mall perhaps you’d realize there are at least 5, maybe 10 times as many people in the demographic that use malls than the one using high schools. Maybe we’re under represented with malls.

*****

Despite the fact that we only had a week of Reagan and we’re stuck with a summer of Clinton, keep your chin up ... this too will pass (like a bad portion of corned beef and cabbage). Of course the critics have already had their say about it. Michko Kakutani blasts the book soundly (and surprisingly) on the front page of the NY Times:

The book, which weighs in at more than 950 pages, is sloppy, self-indulgent and often eye-crossingly dull — the sound of one man prattling away, not for the reader, but for himself and some distant recording angel of history.

In many ways, the book is a mirror of Mr. Clinton's presidency: lack of discipline leading to squandered opportunities; high expectations, undermined by self-indulgence and scattered concentration. This memoir underscores many strengths of Mr. Clinton's eight years in the White House and his understanding that he was governing during a transitional and highly polarized period. But the very lack of focus and order that mars these pages also prevented him from summoning his energies in a sustained manner to bring his insights about the growing terror threat and an Israeli-Palestinian settlement to fruition.

And that’s the nice part.

None of that will effect sales in the least. The lefty love fest will continue. The only hopeful sign of its eventual demise is the fact that K-Mart is already offering the book at 40% off list and it hasn’t even been released.

*****

Bill Walen in the SF Chronicle reminds us that despite the “uncivil” aspects of the race for the presidency this year its not like its something new. For example:

1876: An open seat and open season on both candidates. Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, a Union general, is accused of robbing the Civil War dead and shooting his mother in a mad pique. Democrat Samuel J. Tilden is, in GOP words, "a drunkard, a liar, a cheat, a counterfeiter, a perjurer, and a swindler."

As you can see the “liar” meme has a history ... at least W. hasn’t been accused of robbing war dead or shooting his mother ... yet.

*****

Saudi Arabia seems to be reaping the whirlwind. Years ago, in an attempt to keep the Royal House of Saud in power, they made a bargain with the devil. In the late ‘70s, hundreds of Islamic radicals occupied the Grand Mosque in Mecca in outraged protest against the royal family’s decadence and corruption. In an effort to quell the protests, the Saudi leadership gave the Wahhabi clerics more influence at home and a mandate to expand their ideology abroad.

It hasn’t helped. Its homegrown extremist jihadists have come home to roost, and it appears that they will be satisfied with nothing less than the demise of the House of Saud..

According to the al Qaeda account of the kidnapping, Mr. Johnson was anesthetized and taken hostage June 12 at a bogus checkpoint set up in Riyadh by al Qaeda members disguised in police uniforms and cars provided by sympathizers in Saudi Arabia's security forces, according to the Web site posting.

When you have 15,000 security forces looking for a body that’s been dumped for days and you can’t find it, when you have your own security forces giving “uniforms and cars” to the jihadists, my guess is you’re days are numbered.

*****

I’m a believer in the separation of church and state. It’s a must if we’re to have freedom and liberty in this country. But that being said, I’m sick to death of Michael Newdow and his whiny attempts to remove “under God” from the pledge. First he tried to sell the idea it was for his daughter’s sake he was bringing suit. Then it was learned his daughter was a Christian and had no problem with the pledge. Did that stop him? No ... he still pushed it to the Supreme Court, which told him, “butt out, you have no standing in this case”. Did that stop his whining?

No. In today’s NY Times he’s at it again:

The case, which I brought, presented the court with an important question: is a classroom recital of the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? The pledge — with its claim that ours is "one nation, under God" — is recited daily in the public school attended by my daughter. Because I am an atheist, she is, in essence, told every school morning that her father's religious views are wrong.

Uh, no, Mr. Newdow, the pledge makes absolutely no attempt to settle whether your views are right or wrong. And as a simple matter, if it offends you, if it is contrary to your “religious views” (whatever they are for an athiest), then don’t say it!

That’s your choice in the “land of the free”. Why not avail yourself of it and shut up, please?

*****

"Korean soldiers, please get out of here," the man screamed in English, flailing his arms. "I don't want to die. I don't want to die. I know that your life is important, but my life is important."

I wish my vocabulary was such that I could better voice my visceral disgust for the murderous pigs who put men like Paul Johnson and Korean Kim Sun-il through the horrible ordeal they put them through. Unfortunately its not. And just as unfortunately its my guess that Mr. Kim will suffer a fate not unlike Paul Johnson.

I just can’t imagine armed and masked thugs who butcher innocent people in the name of their religion ever being anything but craven cowards. I can only hope that we can somehow help them attain their martyrdom in the most expeditious fashion possible, and that when they do meet their version of “Allah”, he’s quick with the pitchfork and they roast in hell forever..

It's all W's Fault

After reading today's article by Leon Wieseltier, the Literary Editor for The New Republic, I am a bit confused. Or, maybe it's Leon who's a bit confused. The first paragraph of the article starts off with this:

If I had known that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I would not have supported this war. I am not embarrassed by my assumption that Saddam Hussein possessed the sort of arsenal that made him a clear and present danger: The alarming intelligence estimates were shared by many Western governments, so that the debate in the months preceding the war concerned the methods for disarming Iraq, not the reasons for disarming it...

OK, so what he's saying is, that, since practically everybody believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, and all the intelligence estimates agreed that he was, and actively seeking more, it was reasonable, if mistaken, to believe that Saddam did, in fact, have WMDs, and was seeking more of them.

Unless, of course, your name is George W. Bush, as he makes clear in the second paragraph. Then, it's just unforgivable sloppiness.

Strategic thinking must have an empirical foundation. You do not act against a threat for which there is little or no evidence. Yet that is precisely what the United States did. Saddam Hussein had no nuclear capability, and almost no nuclear program. If there is an adequate explanation for the disposition of his vast and documented hoard of chemical and biological weapons, I have not heard it...The arsenal that we said was there is not there. Whatever the merits of preemption, there was nothing to preempt. It really is as plain as that. An absence of regrets and recriminations on the part of a supporter of this war now amounts to an absence of intellectual honesty...The administration is reaping an alienation that it sowed...Whether or not the president lied, he was not speaking the truth. He justified this war to the American people in a manner that will make it difficult for a long time to come to justify almost any war to the American people. In a time of genuine crisis, in a world riddled with savage enmity toward America and Americans, he was sloppy with our trust.

So, it was reasonable when Leon believed it, but it was sloppy when W believed it? So, what, I guess W should have used his amazing psychic powers to divine the truth?

You can't have it both ways. Both Para 1 and Para 2 cannot simultaneously be true. If it was reasonable for Leon to believe, based on past experience and the actions of Saddam Hussein in thwarting inspections that there was a smoking gun, then it was reasonable for W to believe this to. It now appears they were both wrong.

That may have been a mistake, but it wasn't sloppiness. It was, after all, Saddam Hussein who refused to allow the UN unfettered access to his scientific people after UN Res. 1441 forced inspections to begin again. If there was any sloppiness, then it was Saddam Hussein's. Saddam could've prevented an invasion at any time simply by opening his books to the UN.

Instead, he acted in a way that convinced Mr. Wieseltier that he had an active WMD program. Unfortunately for Saddam, it convinced W, too. This offends Mr. Wieseltier, which strikes me as an overly tendentious position.

The rest of the article is similarly incoherent.

Wieseltier argues that liberating Iraq is a grand and noble experiment in bringing freedom to a repressed corner of the world. But it might not work, and the Iraqis might prefer something else.

This leaves the other justification for the war, the ennobling one. I say this without irony, and I refer to the democratization of Iraq. I can imagine no grander historical experiment in our time than the effort to bring a liberal order to an Arab society...

Still, some murmurings are in order. It is important to remember that freedom is not the same thing as democracy. When people are liberated, they become free to be what they already are. They almost never are already a democracy. Democracy is an elaborate structure of principles and institutions. It is built, not found. The liberation of Iraq is only a condition for the democratization of Iraq. Finally the fate of Iraq is in the hands of Iraqis. If Iraq becomes a theocracy, or succumbs to a strongman, or collapses as a state, all this, too, will be the work of a free Iraq.

So, does this mean that if the Iraqis choose to do something different than we hope, it wasn't a noble experiment? So, should we force them to create a democratic, Jeffersonian republic? Or what? Does he even have a point, other than, if the Iraqis don't come up with George Washington and Alexander Hamilton tout de suite, that W should be put in a bamboo cage and poked with sharp sticks?

Apparently not.

I love the final 'graph, too:

Though the president and the vice president are acting with force internationally, they are not exactly internationalists. They are not national greatness conservatives, they are national smallness conservatives. But who are the national greatness liberals?

I especially like that last line. Because that is the heart of the problem. The National Greatness Liberals, if Mr. Wieseltier is an example, want America to act forcefully in the world, but only as long as no one is offended, our allies all agree with us, and we don't make any serious blunders, never mind that serious blunders are a part and parcel of warfare, and always have been. This is essentially a prescription for doing absolutely nothing, until an atomic bomb blows up in Chicago, or Botulinum toxin is released into San Francisco's water supply. Maybe then the French will give us permission to defend our own interests.

If this is Mr. Wieseltier's--and the Left's--idea of national greatness, then I'll take W's national smallness, thanks.

Linked! (or, maybe not)

This development sounds interesting... (also found here)

The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has received new information indicating that a senior officer in an elite unit of the security services of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein may have been a member of al-Qaida involved in the planning of the suicide hijackings, panel members said Sunday.

John F. Lehman, a Reagan-era GOP defense official told NBC's "Meet the Press" that documents captured in Iraq "indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al Qaida."

...but, before the right side of the 'sphere goes off on it--at least, any more than they already have--it's worth reading through a bit, and really thinking about the caveats. They're important, and they're relevant.

...experts cautioned that the connection might be nothing more than coincidence.

"Shakir is a pretty common name," said terrorism analyst and author Peter Bergen, "and even if the two names refer to the same person, there might be a number of other explanations. Perhaps al-Qaida had penetrated Saddam's security apparatus."

Analysts say the Fedayeen was not an intelligence unit, but an irregular militia recruited from clans loyal to the regime in the capital...

He said the Fedayeen were "at the low end of the food chain in the security apparatus, doing street level work for the regime."[emphasis added]

Three reasons why this might not be the smoking gun it's cracked up to be.
1: The names could be a coincidence.
2: Shakir may have primarily been an Al Qaeda operative, doing espionage within Iraq, rather than for them - Al Qaeda merely keeping their eyes and ears deployed.
3: Shakir was affiliated with both organizations, but was not a "connection" between the two - in much the same way that a person can work for IBM and play softball for his church league, but not be coordinating softball strategy for IBM.

Or, perhaps there's something to it. At this point, though, it doesn't look like substantial evidence of a cooperative link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Death Wish?

One has to wonder about the "brilliance" of this move:

Iran said Monday it had confiscated three British naval vessels and arrested eight armed crew members. The Royal Navy acknowledged it had lost contact with three small patrol boats on a routine mission in the waterway between Iraq and Iran.

Its about the "nuke" spat going on right now ... a little tit-for-tat I believe:

Iranian-British relations have been strained in recent days, since London helped draft a resolution at the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors meeting last week in Vienna that rebuked Iran for past cover-ups involving its development of nuclear technology

Iran says its program is aimed only at producing energy, while the United States accuses Tehran of trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran accused Britain of caving in to U.S. pressure on the resolution..

Feeling a bit froggy, the Iranians had this to say.

The three British ships entered Iranian territorial waters not far from the Iran-raq border, the Arabic language Al-Alam television reported.

"Iranian forces confiscated the ships and eight military personnel on board," the report said.

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi confirmed the report, according to Iran's main Persian language TV channel.

"Interrogation of those detained will continue until the matter is clarified," Asefi was quoted as saying.

Hmmm ... somehow I can hear the SAS gearing up from here.

If I were Iran, I'd be sending 3 boats and 8 sailors back to the Iraqi side of the gulf fairly quickly. This is an escalation in tensions that they really don't want, whether they know it or not.

The Life of the Party

Ah, it's Bill Clinton season again. With the publication of his biography, we are once again offered a chance to relive the halcyon days of the Clinton Administration. In fact, I think that nearly everyone in the country has some reason to appreciate Bill Clinton's presidency. Indeed, Mark Steyn gives republicans a very good reason to appreciate Bill Clinton.

The Clintons' Democratic Party was great for the Clintons but disastrous for the Democratic Party: during the 1990s, they lost the House and the Senate and a ton of governorships and state legislatures, and eventually, with nothing else left to lose, they lost the presidency. Clinton's heat left the party so parched for talent they had no successful governors to run for president and were forced to turn to a stiff hack weathervane senator in the hope they could so damage Bush they could drag their boy across the finishing line.

People don't often think about this side of the Clinton Presidency. They remember that he won two terms in office, which, for a Democrat in post-WWII America, is practically a miracle.

But few think about the political change that occurred during the Clinton presidency. When he went to Washington in 1992, the Democrats controlled the Congress, a majority of governorships, and a majority of state houses.

Eight years later, that had all been reversed. Obviously, all the blame doesn't fall on Clinton. The party's increasing slide towards moonbat leftiness helped quite a lot, too. But I think it's fair to say that the shenanigans of Clinton's second term weren't much help, either.

Something else is interesting, too, in reading all this stuff about Clinton.

There was a photograph in The New York Post a few weeks ago of Bill Clinton and some other fellow entering a room. Seven-eighths of the picture was Clinton with a big broad smile and his arms outstretched, like a cheesy Vegas lounge act acknowledging the applause of the crowd before launching into his opening number ("I Get a Kick Out of Me"). The gaunt, cadaverous fellow wedged into the left-hand sliver of the photograph proved on closer inspection to be Senator John Kerry, looking like a gloomy, aged retainer trying to remind the big guy that he's running late. In this case, four years late.

If I were a Democrat, that picture would have been more depressing than one of the oxymoronic "Kerry rallies". Clinton in the formulation adopted by various aggrieved campaign advisers and political observers, "sucks all the oxygen" out of the Senator's campaign.

Now, if you ever read Primary Colors, the fictionalized account of the Clinton campaign written by Joe Klein, one of the first things that grabs you is Klein's description of how powerfully the Clinton character listened. He'd listen with an intensity that was almost frightening.

In 1992, that was Clinton's most powerful advantage over the tongue-tied George Bush. Bush was such an emotional man that, to protect himself, he made himself emotionally distant, in order to avoid being overcome by emotion.

Clinton was the polar opposite. He listened intently. He'd bite his lower lip. He'd feel our pain. He'd nod judiciously as we were talking. Clinton seemed honestly interested in what other people were saying.

Now, it seems, his only interest is in what he's saying. He has all the good ideas. He knows the way where others get lost. We should all listen to him.

That's a big change, and it points not to a flaw in Clinton, but in humanity.

Imagine you are president of the United States. You are surrounded every day by people who owe their livelihoods to you, and whose careers or public prestige you could destroy with a single word. Every one of those people will tell you, at every opportunity, what a wonderful leader you are, how wise your decisions are, how fortunate the country--no, the world--is to have your leadership.

No matter how well-grounded you think you may be, that surely must have an effect on you, especially over the course of eight full years.

I noticed this with Margaret Thatcher, and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, too. By the end of their premierships, they were increasingly autocratic, and unwilling to listen to others, convinced their judgment was superior. After all, they'd been premiers for a decade. Surely they were the people to whom their countries needed to listen. Weren't they?

Well, maybe they were, but the nice thing about democratic governance is that, when our leaders start getting a bit big for their britches, we can toss them out, and replace them with someone a trifle less imperious.

It must be tough for a man to become president so young. It doesn't happen too often, but when it does, it's often not pretty.

Like Clinton, Teddy Roosevelt became president at a younger age than usual. When his second term was over, he fidgeted for four years, then ran for president in 1912 against the incumbent president he had personally chosen as his successor, William Howard Taft. All that did, of course, was make Woodrow Wilson the president. So, in 1916, Teddy decided to run for president against him, too.

Teddy's run against Taft in 1912 crippled the Republican party for a decade, splitting the progressive and conservative wings of the party ("progressive" meant something far different than it does today) in 1912 over Taft's fitness for the job, and again 1916 with the formation of the "Bull Moose" party, which was essentially built around Teddy Roosevelt, personally.

Taft, who'd never really wanted to be president, nevertheless never forgave Teddy for what he considered to be a personal betrayal. As an aside, however, Taft did end up getting the job he'd really wanted for his whole life, when he was chosen by President Harding to serve as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, a post he held until his death in 1930.

Teddy was, like Clinton, a restless and strongly motivated man. And, like Clinton, Teddy couldn't bear to sit on the sidelines while other--and in his estimation, lesser--men ran the government. The difference is that Teddy wasn't term limited in 1912. Bill Clinton is.

And, so, like Teddy, he is finding that he is a relatively young man with a powerful urge to do something important, eight years of experience with being assured of his vital contribution to the nation, but with nothing to do.

So, now, according to even close Clinton associates, he does the only thing he can do: He talks. Apparently, he talks incessantly. He's always the last guest to leave the party. He's like a conversational remora, unwilling to be attached until you've heard whatever he has to say.

It's a part--and a sad part--of what presidential power does to you, unless you are very well-grounded. It turns you from a listener into a talker.

UPDATE:
Thinking about the office of ex-President also reminds me of Lyndon Johnson. When he returned to the ranch in Johnson City, he began to hold morning staff meetings with the ranchhands to discuss the status of their work and hand out new assignments. Having grown up in rural Texas, I can personally assure you that morning staff meetings aren't a usual feature of ranch life.

The Free Market

A couple reasons I passionately believe in the free market as a force for both economic and social progress....

Michelle Malkin...

When private schools fail, they shut down. When private nursing homes fail, they shut down. But when negligent government social service agencies fail, they stay open, get more money, and claim more victims. The latest horror story out of Washington state involves Suzy Sclater, a woman with cerebal palsy and the developmental abilities of a toddler, who was raped in a state-operated group home..... [...]

DSHS lawyers take a different view of the matter, suggesting that Suzy could have gotten the bruises in a series of falls and inserted the semen into herself....

It's not just that federal programs continue to get more money - after all, Enron continued to make money after raping California. No, what is ultimately bothersome is that government programs will continue to take money from you and I, whether we approve or not. If you dislike the business practices of a Wal-Mart--or whomever--you may not be able to shut them down, but you can remove your support. Not so with government run programs. They are above the social and consumer censure implicit in the free market.

Steve Verdon...

SpaceShipOne is to attempt to fly to the outer reaches of Earth's atmosphere. If successful this will be the first civilian financed, constructed and flown space flight.

And it will be done for a bit over $20 million - a fraction of the price of a NASA spaceflight. And not a dollar out of my pocket or yours.

Ken Lay to be charged soon

Remember all the snark about the relationship between George W Bush and Ken Lay? Kenneth Lay, you see, wouldn't go to jail because he had contributed to the Bush campaign. Bush was simply protecting his "super secret cabal", don't you know.

Except, not so much...

Federal prosecutors are preparing to seek criminal charges against former Enron Corp. chairman Kenneth L. Lay, capping a 2 1/2-year-old investigation into the collapse of the Houston energy company, said sources involved the probe.

Lay, 62, will face charges for urging investors and employees to buy Enron stock while he allegedly knew about the company's mounting financial troubles in the months before its Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in late 2001, the sources said.

Charges against Lay, first reported by the Houston Chronicle, would mark a climax of the long-running government investigation.

Expect to hear crickets chirping--and very little else--from the left about this story.

Insults Unpunished

Robert Prather announces...

I have an axe to grind and plenty of fury to turn the wheel.

That sums up how I felt two years ago when I started this, but the feeling didn’t last.
[...]
...I’m genuinely burned out. I also have a lot of changes in front of me in the coming months that will diminish the importance of the site substantially.
[...]
To my blogging friends and frequent visitors, I say adieu. [...] I’ve learned a great deal from this experience, had my views challenged (sometimes thoughtfully, sometimes inanely) and have modified them when it seemed appropriate. All-in-all, not a bad hobby if you have the time. Thank you.

Robert Prather's Insults Unpunished has occupied my blogroll--and my attention--for quite a long time. I hate to see him go, but wish him the best of luck.

I like what Steven Taylor wrote about this: "Insults Sufficiently Punished (at Least for Now)"

Memorandum

Gabe, creator of Memeorandum, writes...

Just like any blogger, I'm grateful for the links and recommendations driving growth and recognition of the site.

He deserves those links and mentions, and I'm sorry I haven't mentioned Memeorandum more often than I have. It is simply one of the most useful and well-designed aggregator sites available. I can't tell you how often I've posted on a story that interested me, then gone to Memeorandum to find out what else is being said on the topic. Best of all, it is completely nonpartisan, so there's no danger of Memeorandum becoming an echo-chamber for like-minded opinions.

So, if you haven't checked it out yet, do so. And bookmark it. Gabe is doing the 'sphere a valuable service.

Spencer James?

While engaged in a debate with other bloggers, Brian Leiter makes a statement so utterly inane that it positively demands the "point and laugh" treatment.....

...when there are legal arguments on both sides of a question--say, whether the Establishment Clause applies to the states--to adopt the side that has repulsive moral and political consequences is lunatic.

Let me preface this by pointing out that I'm very much in favor of separation of church and state. I subscribe to the "separate spheres" concept described by John Locke - it is wrong to mix religion with coercion, and government is coercion. So, with that out of the way...

Has Leiter thought this through? One suspects he has not. In fact, one suspects Leiter is simply casting about for any rhetorical device to gain the upper hand. With the cited statement, he's failed miserably.

Unless Leiter proposes that an argument is a stark contrast between Good and Evil - that one side has "repulsive" consequences, while the other is all milk and honey - then it is exceedingly dishonest to pretend that the costs implicit in any course of action render that course "lunatic".

What Leiter proposes is that we sidestep the Constitution where it differs with our (read: his) preferred outcomes.

Perhaps he truly believes this though, that the ends justify the means, and that one cannot sanely defend a position that has "repulsive moral and political consequences". Presumably, then, Mr Leiter will find himself in support of the Iraq war. After all, one must concede that the continued reign of Saddam Hussein was a "repulsive moral and political consequence".

In fact, that is an argument that can be made of any authoritarian government--since, invariably, the legal use of force and fraud rests upon authoritarian government--so, Brian Leiter, to be consistent, must become a libertarian.

Leiter is one of the more interesting demagogues in the blogosphere, if for no other reason than the fact that he can maintain such an air of superiority while making such jaw-droppingly poor arguments.

UPDATE: Wait. Never mind. Leiter has no problem defending "the side that has repulsive moral and political consequences". In a recent post, Leiter defends Cuba's policy of quarantining AIDS patients - because, after all, they're imprisoned in nice facilities, and it does help lower the incidence of AIDS among the general population. To be sure, he calls it "immoral", but it has "nothing to do with concentration camps". And, besides, those sure are some nice prisons hospitals.

Die, hackers, die

The first politician to get passed a bill enforcing long prison terms for hackers, and developers and users of spyware will get my vote. I mean, double digit terms. I'm still somewhere short of favoring capital punishment, but not by far.

All that to say, I am dealing with some damned spyware that hijacks my web browser and takes me here. I've tried a couple spybot-type programs to find and delete it, and I thought it worked, but it appears to be back.

Any suggestions? And, beyond that, is there any way to retaliate? I would love to make a particular somebody's life hell.
OfcourseIwouldneverdoanythingillegal,nosir,notme,godforbid, etc...

(sigh. off to bed, to sleep this off)

Clinton, the Statesman

Now that Clinton is out of office, I find myself re-evaluating him as a figure on the political stage. When he was in office, he had the potential--and sometimes the desire--to take this country in a collectivist direction I found disturbing. Most often, though, he was a good enough politician to recognize the concessions he had to make, and to give that ground in areas that were good for the country - welfare reform, a balanced budget, and free trade spring to mind.

Now that he's out of office--and his critics are never going to cede an inch to the man, so I expect a fuss--I'm finding him much more of a respectable character than I ever found him when he was in office and trying to foist nationalized health care on us. Perhaps it is the distance I've gotten from the 90s, or perhaps it is the distance he's gotten from legislation, but things like this are positively inspirational....

Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview...
[...]
Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

His criticisms? He thinks Bush should have given the inspections more time, and that the abuses--as at Abu Ghraib--show a breakdown likely coming from "higher echelons".

You know what? Those are pretty damned fair criticisms to make. I'd tend to agree with the latter, and a very strong case can be made for the former, as well. (not that the inspections would have solved the problem from the Iraq end, but that they would have prevented post-war political difficulties)

Most of all, I'm impressed with the intellectual honesty that Clinton exhibits here, respecting the arguments from each side of the Iraq debate. This isn't an arguments of absolutes - there are costs and benefits to each side. The real, intellectually honest, useful debate occurs in the margins.

There are bloggers--and readers--who would do well to recognize this.

UPDATE: Conversely, there are journalists who would do well to get over the blowjob. It's soooo 1998. (no sarcasm intended) Kevin Drum writes...

Matt Yglesias has been watching TV this morning and says the talking heads are practically salivating at the idea of being able to talk about Clinton's blow jobs again. This will undoubtedly be followed up with a special segment on how woefully underinformed the American public is on the important issues of the day.

This issue was settled. He was impeached, lost his license to practice law, and that's the end of the story. Let's drop it. Really. There are important things to discuss, and Bill Clinton is discussing them...that is, in between all the bj questions.

Andrew Gets Email...

....about what we want in a President right now, and I could have written this myself...

1. A President for whom the War on Terror is by far the top priority and who will execute it with cold efficiency and competence. They don't mind if mistakes are made--they even expect them (omelet-making and all)--but by God they [want] someone to 'fess up to them and make them right.

This, beyond anything else the Bush administration does, baffles me. It leaves them wide open to (well-deserved) attack; it makes them look incompetent--or, at the least, oblivious; and it leaves issues on the table long after they should have been dealt with and/or dismissed. (AWOL; pre-war intelligence; etc)

One might suppose they are choosing to stay above the fray on individual "scandals"--thereby, not giving unworthy "scandals" currency--until they either drop off the radar or stick. If they stick, they deal with them then, and move on. That is quite a reasonable, even sophisticated, approach...but it doesn't explain no-brainer problems like WMDs, 9/11, the Plame scandal, and similar genuine problems.

2. A President who doesn't kowtow to every freaking interest group that beats down his door--unions, religious groups, activist groups, etc.

i.e. - Principles. Reagan had conservative/libertarian principles--the moral superiority of freedom, in both economics and foreign relations--and he could preach them powerfully. Clinton had liberal principles--the utilitarian use of government to alleviate social problems--and he could preach them powerfully.

Bush and Kerry? I follow politics pretty closely, and I still can't figure out their principles.

Perhaps they have none, except the "Price is Right" principle - you only have to be one degree more electable than your opponent.

Economics Professor?

Feast your eyes on this. This is from the "Letters to the Editor" today in the Atlanta Journal Consititution. Its not so much the foolishness you'll find in the letter that's a bit alarming, but the fact that the writer is identified as a Georgia Tech professor (emeritus) of economics.

Problems of capitalism can't be blamed on Reagan

While Ronald Reagan hastened the demise of Soviet-style communism, he had little to do with extending capitalism. On that count, I propose that: First, when Mikhail Gorbachev and his fashion-conscious wife began visiting the Reagans, they saw how good it was to live rich; second, the Russian leaders realized there was more profit in exploiting the masses as consumers than as workers. (We made that discovery in the '50s, when women were pushed from the home into the labor force, to increase consumption.)

The same process is occurring in China, where affluence is dramatically increasing demand, especially for automobiles. While that is good for corporate profits -- in the United States, China and elsewhere -- it is hastening the exhaustion of the Earth's supply of petroleum (and causing pollution and congestion in China, due to rapid urbanization).

Of more immediate concern, rising demand for oil in China is a significant factor in the run-up of gasoline prices in the United States.

MACK A. MOORE
Moore, of Atlanta, is a Georgia Tech professor (emeritus) of economics.

Does that leave you gasping for breath or what? One can only hope this is a tawdry joke played on Prof. Moore by one of his econ students.

Premise A: The fall of the USSR was hastened by the leadership's realization that there was "more profit in exploiting the masses as consumers than as workers".

So in essence the theory here is that Gorbechev was put in the position of leadership to find a way to make the USSR more profitable? Does anyone really need me to point out to the vast swaths of history this nonsense ignores? Does anyone need me to point out that Gorbechev's was there to resurect communism, not destroy it?

And then there is this line: "We made that discovery in the '50s, when women were pushed from the home into the labor force, to increase consumption".

What was WWII, a non-event? 11 million men under arms and a war industry to gear up. Guess who did the lion's share of the work. Rosie the Riveter wasn't a creation of the '50s meant to boost consumption. She was the icon of a female labor force of the '40s "pushed from the home" and into labor to help defeat totalitariansim and save the world. It changed our culture for ever.

But then there's premise B. After the usual lefty swing a profits, the "we're running out of petroleum canard" (tied to increased demand in China) and the "increase in autos is causing air pollution problems" claim, we get tihs:

Premise B: Gasoline price increases were driven by an increase in demand by Chinese for automobiles and thus petroleum products.

Holy moonbat, Batman!

Before we get to that, though, lets take a look at his pollution claim.

According to the World Resources Institute, China's air polution problems stem primarily on their heavy use of coal as a fuel for both power generation and home heating fuel. As the cited report says, " The country is expected to burn 1.5 billion metric tons of coal annually by the year 2000, up from 0.99 billion metric tons in 1990 . Without even more dramatic measures to control emissions than are currently in place, the deterioration of air quality seems inevitable."

Their second greatest problem as concerns air quality is from outdated vehicles ... not new ones. As the WRI report confirms, "The problem stems not just from the growing size of the vehicle fleet but also from low emissions standards, poor road infrastructure, and outdated technology, which combine to make Chinese vehicles among the most polluting in the world ."

So it isn't this increase in demand for new autos which is deteriorating air quality at all.

But on to the second premise. I won't bore you with the multitude of cites which point to maxed out refinery capacity, seasonal change over in petroleum products and a cut in production by OPEC as the primary causes of the temporary ... note the term ... temporary spike in gasoline prices. If Professor Moore's theory held any water at all, it wouldn't be a temporary spike, would it? The competition would most likely drive the price up permanently. But as we know, supply can be increased with the turn of a valve, and it has ... driving prices back down in what is mostly a seasonal adjustment in petroleum production and pricing.

What is really scary about this, if its not some elaborate joke, is this guy is an Economics professor at one of our more prestigeous universities. The 'reasoning' shown here isn't worthy of an ignorant 8th grader. It displays a total lack of knowledge concerning history and economics not to mention a lack of research and the ability to reason.

Does this bother anyone else as much as it does me?

More thoughts on why they aren't here

The “Why aren’t they here?” thread here on Q and O has been most interesting. A couple of things have struck me as we have discussed our ideas and assumptions concerning the jihadists.

One is that we assume we know their goals. It became clear, at least to me, that many of us are assigning them goals which may or may not be their true goals. My guess is there are multiple goals withing the loose organization of Jihadists and it would be a mistake to a) assign a single over-arching goal to all of them and b) to assume we know their ultimate goal.

But if there is an over-arching goal, one would have to believe it is more likely to be one which has some history.

Let’s take the ‘destruction of the great Satan’. This is often given as the goal of all jihadists.

Does that mean the utter destruction of the US? Or does it mean the destruction of its influence?

If you decide it’s the former, then by every measure you must regard the jihadist’s war as one of physical destruction. Going after everything and everyone American. Physically wiping the US from the face of the earth.

Reasonable goal?

Not at all. The jihadists have neither the means nor the ability to do this. Oh certainly they may be able to eventually successfully prosecute some mass casualty atrocities in the US ... but that hardly qualifies as the destruction of the country. Its not going to happen, they know it and they’re not going to waste their limited means on attempting something doomed to failure from the beginning.

A more reasonable goal, by far, is the destruction of the influence the US wields generally in the world and more specifically in Muslim countries. They already have a head start toward that goal in their part of the world. Their governments, for the most part, tightly control information distribution within their country. That gives them a leg up. And traditionally, their religious leaders are some of if not the most influential people in their culture. That too benefits their cause.

So the story which is told, which hits the Arab street, is, for the most part, what they want out there, told in the manner they want it told. Of course it virulently anti-American, filled with falsehoods, half-truths and manufactured stories which show the “great Satan” as the enemy of Islam and the “believers” as their savior. But then that’s the point, isn’t it?

Think back to the ‘80s and Afghanistan. The USSR sets up a secular communist government ... a godless government in Afghanistan. The reaction of Islam is the formation of the mujahadeen and the overthrow of that government, followed by the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR. It was this successful movement to take back the country of Afghanistan which provided the seed for today’s jihadist movement. The “believers” fought the “godless” to a standstill and eventually forced them to withdraw. Success by anyone’s measure. In the eyes of the mujahadeen, they were fighting a defensive war in the name of Islam. At that time, the crown of “Great Satan” rested firmly on the head of the USSR. Allah gave them the strength to win. And win they did.

But was their goal the utter destruction of the USSR? Or was it the forced removal of the USSR and its influence.

Yes, the latter. And I suspect that is precisely the same goal the jihadists have today.

Fast forward to 1991. What is the basis of bin Laden’s complaint against the new “great Satan”? Unbelievers on holy soil. US troops in Saudi Arabia. The “great Satan” occupies ground in a holy country and thereby defiles it. Reaction: defensive. Goal: get the US out of Saudi Arabia by use of terror.

Attainable? Of course, as they see it . Look what they did in Afghanistan. And using a group of Islamic states as their bases for training and recruiting, al-Queda was formed. It had a very limited goals even though it was a collection of groups within Islamic nations. That goal was to get the US out of their countries and to erase its political and cultural “contamination” from them once and for all. The end result would be the reassertion of their form of the ‘perfect’ Islamic state, where women are chattel and men are king. Where religious leaders are the government and Islamic law is the law. In other words, wall off a portion of the world, reestablish feudal rule and keep their portion of the population in virtual slavery.

Well we all know that’s not going to happen.

And that is the fight.

Where the Jihadists messed up in attaining their goal was with their attack on the US. As have many enemies, they underestimated America and Americans. And they completely underestimated the response. Unlike some of our recent history, we responded strongly and speedily took down two Islamic “terror” nations in the bat of an eye, historically speaking. Their network was terribly disrupted.

They found they could run but couldn’t hide. Leaders were killed, finances were grabbed, camps were destroyed and networks were rolled up. There was no official sanctuary for them as no country would admit to having them within their borders knowingly.

As some readers have suggested, these are smart guys. One suspects that sometime in the not to distant past, between scrambling for their lives and looking for a safe place to go, they may have reviewed the results of 9/11 and done a bit of a reassessment. An after action review if you will.

The question on the table?

Is it worth stirring up the “great Satan” again like 9/11 did, or is it more reasonable to concentrate our assets