Aim Low, Sweet Star-Tribune

I am often -- which is to say, almost never -- asked, what constitutes a hack column? Why do some columns merely display mediocrity, and how do you distinguish them from the chosen few that sink to the execrable? Sometimes that question is difficult to answer, although thanks to my local newspaper, the Star Tribune, I can offer one objective criteria. If you keep inserting verses from a union picket-line version of an old spiritual, you have officially entered hackdom, as did Terry Collins today:

They spoke out and sang their hardships, hoping that two people in particular would hear them.

"Sit down! Stop wasting time, settle the strike today," a crowd of about 40 people, many with disabilities, sang to the tune of "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot." They gathered Friday across the street from Metropolitan Council Chairman Peter Bell's office in downtown St. Paul.

At least it wasn't the 10 billionth version of "Hey Hey, Ho Ho, [blah blah blah blah] Got To Go," but it ain't Gershwin, either. Unfortunately, Collins continues to use the verses throughout the article, interspersed with Collin's sympathetic descriptions of the forty protestors, all of whom want the state to surrender to union demands:

At the rally at Mears Park, disabled bus riders shared their plight of how the three-week-old Metro Transit strike has affected them. They also sang their song, "Settle the Strike Today":

"I've worked so hard for independence, doing things for myself. But now I have to ask for rides. It's hurtin' my dignity... Settle the strike today."

A small group later met briefly with Bell in his office. But first, they wanted their messages to Bell and Gov. Tim Pawlenty to be heard publicly.

I notice that they don't seem to be protesting outside of the union's headquarters, although to be fair they don't elect the union to represent them. However, Collins lays it on pretty thick against Bell and Pawlenty, reporting on such newsworthy developments as this:

Connie Jackson, 53, of Minneapolis, who suffers from heart disease and diabetes, agreed. She tearfully told the crowd she's like many others who now can't do simple things such as get groceries without having to beg for rides. "It's awful and uncalled for. ... Gov. Pawlenty are you hearing this?" Jackson said.

"I spent 8 bucks on a taxi home, and that's a lot of dough. My money dwindles day by day. And so I'm walking more ... Settle the strike today."

Does it occur to her that by standing out on the street, haranguing Bell and Pawlenty, that she's begging for a ride from the state? I'm sympathetic to the cause -- I have friends who use the bus system -- but blaming Bell and Pawlenty for her need to ask friends to help out just seems to be a little over the top.

Carrying a sign that says he can't get to choir practice or the bank, Charles Harvel, 41, of St. Paul, said that he's starting to dip into his savings to get around by cab. "Man, 23 days is long enough," Harvel said. "People need the buses not next month, next year, but right now!"

"I'm sitting home and getting low, feeling all locked in. Hey, Mr. Governor and Mr. Bell, settle this strike. Win-Win! ... Settle the strike today."

Yes, I'm certainly unhappy that Mr. Harvel can't get to choir practice, but I don't think I need to pay $300 million a year to get him there. Besides, he seems to have found his way to the capitol just fine without the buses running.

After slogging through the sob stories interspersed between the verses, Collins ascends to mere mediocrity for the rest of the article, spending more space describing the decorations than on Bell's response, whose quoted in exactly two sentences in the third-to-last paragraph of the column. Collins doesn't even quote Bell directly on what the issues are that are keeping the two sides apart, although health-care costs are mentioned in the next paragraph.

Memo to Terry Collins, cc Star Tribune editors: While self-absorbed, whiny verses to a classic religious hymn may be entertaining performed live (although I highly doubt it), on paper it just looks ridiculous -- and what's more important, it turns a news story into a little protest of its own. That's fine for the op-ed section, but it doesn't belong in the Metro/Region news section.

Northern Alliance Radio: Big-Time Guests Today!

It's Saturday, so it must be time for another installment of the Northern Alliance Radio Network! Today we have two fascinating guests: Kenneth R. Timmerman and Thomas Lipsomb. Timmerman wrote the fascinating book, The French Betrayal of America, which I have just started -- my Reagan book will have to wait, I'm afraid. Lipscomb has reported on John Kerry's involvement in the Phoenix Project, an assassination plot that targeted pro-war American politicians in a 1971 meeting, which Kerry at first categorically denied and then was forced to recant after contemporaneous FBI reports placed him there.

If you're in our listening area, make sure you tune into AM 1280 The Patriot from noon to 3 PM today!

Watcher's Council Winners

The Watcher's Council has spoken ... and Captain's Quarters has come in at #2 for the week, on my post about the failure of gun control in Commonwealth countries. As part of my duties as runner-up, I promise to be available if the winner is unable or unwilling to fulfill her duties ... or poses naked in a men's magazine. That sort of thing reflects poorly on all of us, you know.

The winners were Citizen Smash for Down the Rabbit Hole (non-Council) and the SmarterCop for 20 Questions I'd Like To Ask John F*** Kerry (Council). Keep an eye out for the Watcher's next Council vote!

Quelle Surprise!

The BBC reports that Saddam's hired a mouthpiece. Anyone want to guess where he found one?

A French lawyer who made his reputation defending some of the world's most notorious figures says he will take on Saddam Hussein as his latest client. In his long career, Jacques Verges defended Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie, Carlos the Jackal and former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic. Mr Verges says the request came in a letter from Saddam Hussein's nephew, Ali Barzan al-Takriti. ...

Mr Tikriti sent the following message to Mr Verges: "In my capacity as nephew of President Saddam Hussein, I commission you officially via this letter to assure the defence of my uncle".

So the French stand ready to defend Saddam once again, in a truly touching continuation of the long-term Franco-Iraqi alliance. With such a client list, Saddam certainly picked the right ambulance-chaser, and Jacques Verges shows that he's moving up in the world, at least in terms of body count. It's telling, however, that Mr. Tikriti couldn't bring himself to hire an Iraqi lawyer for Uncle Saddy. That speaks volumes about the man, and both countries as well.

The Brewing War Over Judicial Nominations

In two articles today, one in the New York Times and the other from the Wall Street Journal, the battle lines over judicial nominations are being drawn in ever-starker terms. In the NYT, Democrats threaten to completly hijack the judicial confirmation process if President Bush doesn't swear to forego the recess appointment process:

"We will be clear," the Democratic leader, Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, told his colleagues Friday morning in a pointed speech on the Senate floor. "We will continue to cooperate in the confirmation of federal judges, but only if the White House gives the assurance that it will no longer abuse the process." ...

The breakdown, members of both parties said, came after Mr. Daschle met with the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, this week to warn him that Democrats would block all future nominees unless they received assurances from the White House that there would be no more recess appointments. Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat who is a member of the Judiciary Committee, said he conveyed a similar warning to White House officials. ...

"A group of us felt very strongly on the Judiciary Committee that the recess appointments were such a finger in the eye of the Constitution that we had to do something about it," Mr. Schumer said. "We went to our caucus, and there was almost unanimous acceptance."

Charles Schumer, Constitutional scholar, unfortunately must have given up the strenuous task of studying the document after the first page:

The Constitution gives the president the authority to make recess appointments, but such appointments are temporary; lifetime appointments require Senate confirmation. Recess appointees may serve until the end of the next session of Congress.

So now the Democrats, not satisfied with gumming up the works on selected candidates, insist on destroying the entire process because Bush used a well-known and perfectly legal Constitutional process to work around their intransigence. In fact, it was the same process used by Clinton to appoint a federal judge and a diplomatic post, but then the action was "courageous" instead of "a finger in the eye of the Constitution.

It's an election-year power play, and one that should backfire on the Democrats. Bush's conservative base has made noises this year about staying home because of his lack of fiscal constraint, but if Tom Daschle sets off a war over judicial nominees, you can bet your last dollar they'll all show up at the ballot box. Bush may not excite them, but the federal judiciary is a particular hot button on the right, and you can bet that the Republicans will use this to remind people that there may be as many as four Supreme Court seats that will open up in the next four years. Tom Daschle may rue the day he set off this escalation; in a state as conservative as South Dakota, Daschle will run into a buzz saw in his re-election bid with a strong conservative turnout.

The real issue that has turned what used to be a collegial and fairly non-controversial task into a political quagmire is the increasing judicial activism of courts in general, and the federal appellate courts specifically. William McGurn writes on today's OpinionJournal editorial about the corrosive effects that judicial activism has had on the political process:

As Roe ought to have taught us, when the courts substitute their own social decisions for those properly exercised by the people through their elected representatives, the battlefield moves from the ballot box to the Judiciary Committee. Absent some sharp legislative corrective, the likeliest outcome of the "tolerance" demanded by Lawrence and its progeny will be the tarring of judicial nominees as extremist for holding views shared by two-thirds of the American people.

McGurn specifically reviews the nomination of William Pryor, whose breathtaking inquisition -- there is no better word for it -- by the Senate Judiciary Committee focused on Pryor's religious affiliation. (McGurn's speculative dialogue is based on Schumer's questioning of Pryor on abortion.) Led by Senator Schumer, the Democrats focused on Pryor's Catholocism as a disqualification for the judiciary, a threshold that should surprise the many Catholics who already sit on appellate courts. Their message was that Pryor's faith made it impossible for him to apply the law, setting up a religious qualification for public service -- which is a direct violation of the First Amendment, truly putting a finger in the eye of the Constitution.

When judges stick to applying law, as Pryor did in his position as Alabama's Attorney General when he had Justice Roy Moore impeached for not removing the notorious Ten Commandments monument, then the judicial nomination process really need only focus on the competence of the nominee. However, when we allow judges to craft legislation and dictate public policy, as they did in Roe and Lawrence whether you agree with the outcomes or not (no and yes), then their political and cultural idiosyncracies take center stage and set off these kinds of partisan knee-biting.

One way or another, Congress and the Executive needs to come to grips with judicial activism, as the gay marriage wars this winter have aptly demonstrated. Either Constitutional curbs on the power of the judiciary have to be put in place, or we need to start holding direct elections for the federal judiciary. Allowing political and cultural matters to be subject to the diktat of life-appointed members of star chambers reduces us from a democratic republic to a secular theocracy, run by high priests in black robes, and steals power from the people and their representatives in Congress.

Saddam Betrayed By Bodyguard

The BBC program Panorama asserts that the Americans captured Saddam by first capturing a loyal bodyguard, getting him to crack under interrogation and having him lead the Americans right to Saddam's spider hole:

Saddam Hussein was finally betrayed by a relative who was one of his closest bodyguards, a BBC programme reveals. Panorama reports that after eight months on the run, the hiding place of the ousted Iraqi leader was given away by an aide known as "the fat man". ...

After his arrest, Mr Musslit was flown to Tikrit where he was interrogated. He was then made to point out the remote farm where Saddam Hussein was hiding. The 600 American soldiers there found nothing in the farm buildings, but discovered Saddam Hussein hiding in an underground passage.

The bodyguard and Hussein relative will not share in the $25 million reward, however. Since he was captured and did not turn Saddam over voluntarily, the reward money will be kept by the US. The "fat man" remains in US custody, and the American military still refuses to officially name him. Panorama will air in the UK on Sunday with more details on this story.

While the work of the Coalition in developing the intelligence that led them to Saddam was remarkable, the story seems appropriately tawdry for the end of the most brutal regime in recent memory. Saddam was sold out by his own relative and bodyguard. I hope Saddam thinks about that every night when the lights go out in his cell.

Kerry's Excuse Makers

The Washington Post's John Harris writes an article that seems more interested in making excuses for John Kerry's rhetorical stumbles than in genuine reporting or analysis:

Some Democrats are worried that their presumptive nominee's campaign is suffering from the candidate's inability to put a period in his sentences. They say an arguably trivial trait -- Kerry's penchant to wander off into the rhetorical woods -- has already proved damaging.

His explanation about a vote on funding for Iraq -- "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it" -- was mocked by Vice President Cheney the next day, and was on the air in a commercial for President Bush the day after that.

In context, Kerry's comment to West Virginia veterans was clear: He backed the spending request only if Bush agreed to pay for it by increasing taxes on the rich, instead of adding to the deficit. Taken by itself, the remark was a gift-wrapped contribution to Bush's campaign to portray Kerry as waffling Washington politician.

Pardon me, but Harris is all wet if he thinks that explanation makes Kerry's statement all right. Kerry made it quite clear in the run-up to the vote on the $87 billion that he wanted to fund it with a partial rollback of Bush's tax cuts. But he also said that regardless whether the rollback passed, he would still vote for the funding, stating to ABC News that anything else would be irresponsible:

Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."

Kerry argued that his amendment offered a way to do it properly, "but I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."

However, Kerry wound up doing exactly what he described as "irresponsible" a few weeks later. Why? Because in the intervening time, Howard Dean had charged ahead of him in the polls, fueled by the anti-war rage of the far left of the Democrats, and Kerry had dropped like a rock as a result. Kerry voted against the funding in a dishonorable, but ultimately successful, attempt to steal Dean's message -- to become the electable version of Dean.

So, no, this isn't an example of the American public misunderstanding Kerry's so-called "nuance"; his blunder here was much more than rhetorical, and the Bush advertisement perfectly captures the essence of Kerry's character. Reworking his speech won't undo the reversals of positions and the contortions Kerry will need to make to explain them. Unfortunately, as in this example, any explanation that even hopes to cover all the positions Kerry takes will have to be filled with "nuance".

In his case, the style fits the substance, and Harris' refusal to consider it reduces this analysis to nothing more than spin. If this is an example of the type of reporting we can expect to see from the Post during this election, I certainly hope that they've already arranged their IRS paperwork as a 527.

Why The Weird Kid In Kindergarten Will Outlive You

Courtesy of the Drudge Report, Ananova reports today on a new scientific study that gives us a breakthrough on bolstering our immune systems. One caveat -- you have to be willing to be a social pariah in order to receive its benefits:

Picking your nose and eating it is one of the best ways to stay healthy, according to a top Austrian doctor.

Innsbruck-based lung specialist Prof Dr Friedrich Bischinger said people who pick their noses with their fingers were healthy, happier and probably better in tune with their bodies. ...

Dr Bischinger said: "With the finger you can get to places you just can't reach with a handkerchief, keeping your nose far cleaner. And eating the dry remains of what you pull out is a great way of strengthening the body's immune system."

The good doctor recommends that we allow our kids to pick their noses and remove the social stigma associated with, ah ... eating boogers. If that's the secret to a long, healthy life, it's probably also the secret to a long, healthy life of solitude. Sorry, but I can't imagine kissing someone who took that approach to health care ...

Clarke's Story Contines to Crumble

Richard Clarke's testimony to the 9/11 Commission and his new book continues to be contradicted by stubborn facts, this time in today's Boston Globe:

FBI officials vehemently denied yesterday recent assertions by former White House terrorism czar Richard A. Clarke that the FBI learned in December 1999 that terrorists had been slipping into Boston on liquefied natural gas tankers from Algeria, yet failed to notify local authorities. ‘‘We did thoroughly investigate that LNG tanker situation and came to the conclusion they were not being used to transport terrorists into our country,’’ said Kenneth Kaiser, the special agentin-charge of the FBI’s Boston office. ‘‘We didn’t brief the mayor that there was an Al Qaeda cell here, because there wasn’t one.’’

According to Kaiser, the FBI was investigating the thwarted 1999 ‘‘millennium’’ plot to blow up Los Angeles International Airport when it learned that several people being questioned in Boston had entered the country by stowing away on LNG tankers from Algeria.

The Joint Terrorism Task Force, which includes members from the Boston police and the Massachusetts State Police, conducted an intensive investigation and concluded that none of the stowaways were terrorists, Kaiser said.

This is more evidence that Clarke was talking out of his rear end in his book and his recent testimony. The Boston Globe also takes Clarke to task by reprinting an interesting bit of information in a Boston Herald editorial (via Instapundit):

We'd like to know how Clarke squares his contention that he was the only one in the Bush administration truly committed to thwarting terrorism before the Sept. 11 attacks with this: It was Clarke who personally authorized the evacuation by private plane of dozens of Saudi citizens, including many members of Osama bin Laden's own family, in the days immediately following Sept. 11. ... The same sanctimonious Clarke who now claims National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice didn't even know what al-Qaeda was, could have stopped the bin Laden airlift singlehandedly.

Why didn't he appeal to Rice, or even President Bush [related, bio] himself in one of those one-on-ones in the Situation Room, to block the flights? Surely it would have been helpful to determine - without a shred of doubt - that those passengers knew nothing about the Sept. 11 plot or the modus operandi of their notorious relative.

By all accounts, Clarke made hundreds of decisions in the days after Sept. 11, many clear-headed and right. Approving those special flights seems like a wrong one, but it was a judgment call made in the aftermath of the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history. Perhaps it was the best decision he could make under the circumstances. It's too bad Clarke cuts no one in the Bush administration the same slack he so easily cuts himself.

Clarke has been unmasked as an opportunist, and a particulrly greedy one at that, and at the same time has allowed the entire paradigm over pre-emption to be turned around. The message that has been blared out over the past week was that the US did not take enough pre-emptive action against terrorist groups before 9/11. That directly contradicts the anti-Bush's gripe that Bush took too much pre-emptive action, primarily in Iraq, and has derided pre-emption as a strategy altogether. Now pre-emption is the order of the day -- as I've argued all along since 9/11 -- and that puts the Iraq action in a much different light. Had Saddam remained in power and attacked the US next year or the year after -- or gave material support to non-state actors who did, like the Taliban did -- we'd be having another commission coming up with the same questions and the same blame-throwing.

When does Bush get credit for learning the lesson of 9/11 and removing threats before we get attacked, instead of waiting for new attacks to happen first?

UPDATE: Or, as Mike over at Two Irrelevant Opinions puts it:

This column [by John Podhoretz] also reminds me of how the left is trying to blame September 11th on Bush, but I know that if Bush declared a War on Terrorism in February 2001 and he subsequently invaded Afghanistan, the left (NYT, Europe, professors, aging hipsters, etc.) would've gone absolutely bonkers. The left wants to blame Bush for not doing what they never would've let him do!

And now that he is doing in Iraq what they say Bush didn't do when he took office, they call him Hitler.

My Nominee for the PC Awards

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, will likely be excoriated by the lords of politically correctness for a speech he gave yesterday in Rome -- but more voices need to be added to Lord Carey's if we are to prevail in the war on terror:

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, launched a trenchant attack on Islamic culture last night, saying it was authoritarian, inflexible and under-achieving.

In a speech that will upset sensitive relations between the faiths, he denounced moderate Muslims for failing unequivocally to condemn the "evil" of suicide bombers. He attacked the "glaring absence" of democracy in Muslim countries, suggested that they had contributed little of major significance to world culture for centuries and criticised the Islamic faith.

Carey only says what is objectively true on its face: the Muslim world, with the notable exception of Turkey and perhaps Indonesia, has not progressed and in many ways is rooted firmly in the twelfth century. Islam has never had its Enlightenment or Renaissance, meaning that it has never gone through a process which purifies the spiritual by eventually divorcing it from temporal power. As a result, Islam remains a religion that relies on force of arms, as Carey states:

Contrasting western democracy with Islamic societies, he said: "Throughout the Middle East and North Africa we find authoritarian regimes with deeply entrenched leadership, some of which rose to power at the point of a gun and are retained in power by massive investment in security forces.

"Whether they are military dictatorships or traditional sovereignties, each ruler seems committed to retaining power and privilege."

Of course, dictatorships and autocrats are not exclusive to Islam, as a quick tour of Latin America and the Caribbean could demonstrate. However, it's almost entirely true that Islamic countries are run by either dictatorships or autocracies/monarchies whose power is near-absolute, where Western nations are much more likely to be run by democratic. multi-party systems that guarantee basic human rights.

Carey warns us not to forget the gains that Western nations have made over the past millenium. We should not be embarrassed by our progress, nor should we make excuses for Islam's lack of it, especially since that stagnation has cost us thousands of lives in senseless attacks by Islamic fanatics, with nary a peep from the "moderate" Muslims in our midst. However, you can be sure that by this time tomorrow, the PC Police of the West will have demanded a retraction and apology from Lord Carey and will have blamed his attitude for causing Islamic terrorism by promoting 'conflict' and 'misunderstanding'.

UPDATE: Here's the reaction I knew would follow:

The ex-archbishop's comments were greeted with fury by Manzoor Moghal, chairman of the Federation of Muslim Organisations in Leicester, home to 40,000 Muslims. "This is a disastrous statement from the former archbishop," said Mr Moghal. "He has fallen prey to the campaign tactics of racists in this country."

Rejecting Lord Carey's claim that Muslim leaders do not do enough to criticise terrorists, Mr Moghal said: "That is nonsense - we condemn suicide bombers, we go on radio, on television, we have made statements. What more can we do? We cannot be responsible for the criminal actions of others."

That's certainly true -- and I am not as familiar with British Muslim reaction as I am with that of their American counterparts. Here in the US, Muslim reaction has been almost entirely concerned with racial profiling and publicizing of dubious claims of harassment, rather than speaking out clearly, consistently, and forcefully against terrorism and violent jihad as antithetical to Islam. Nor has the media held them accountable for that silence.

Kerry Embraces Tax Cuts?

John Kerry, trying to tack back to economic issues, issued a promise to create 10 million new jobs over the next four years, using corporate "tax incentives" to promote job growth:

"Today, I'm announcing a new economic plan for America that will put jobs first. We will renew American competitiveness, make tough budget choices, and invest in our future. My pledge -- and my plan -- is for 10 million new jobs in the next four years."

Kerry's Jobs First plan will call for the "most sweeping international tax law reform in forty years" that would give tax incentives to companies that create jobs in the United States.

Kerry has spent most of the past year railing against the Bush tax cuts, which have put money back in people's pockets, and has already committed to rolling back a portion of them, especially those he's decried as "corporate welfare". Now he claims that tax cuts, which is what tax incentives are in practice (increased deductions and exemptions), will improve the economy. I'd like to agree with Kerry, but I don't know with which Kerry I would be agreeing!

Isn't tax reduction for economic expansion the Bush strategy? Did Kerry become a Republican while he was in Idaho?

Targeted tax "incentives" are a pretty good idea. In fact, they're so good, one is tempted to ask Kerry why he never proposed them during his nineteen years in the Senate. It's not as if Kerry has been outside of power over the last three decades; legislation can be initiated in either house of Congress, and in fact can only be initiated by either house of Congress. Presidents don't directly propose legislation -- they have to work through their party to have it introduced. So what's Kerry been doing over the past nineteen years? Voting to increase everyone's taxes:

# 1989-90: Votes against considering a capitol gains tax cut.

# 1993-94: Votes against spending reductions – an amendment to reduce budget spending by $94 billion. Votes for the largest tax increase in American history.

# 1995-96: Votes against balancing the budget – a bipartisan plan to balance the books in seven years.

# 1997-98: Votes against approving a GOP budget to cut spending and taxes. Votes against a balanced-budget constitutional amendment.

# 1999-2000: Votes against reducing federal taxes by $792 billion over 10 years.

# 2001: Votes against the Bush tax cut – a $1.35 trillion tax cut package to reduce income-tax rates, alleviate the “marriage penalty” and gradually repeal the estate tax. Votes to reduce Bush’s proposed tax cut ceiling by $448 billion over 10 years.

Then in April of 2002, Kerry doubles back on himself, calling for a tax cut even larger than the one passed in 2001, telling CNN’s "Crossfire":

“It’s not a question of courage. ... And it’s not an issue right now. We passed appropriately a tax cut as a stimulus, some $40 billion. Many of us thought it should have even maybe been a little bit larger this last year. ... [T]he next tax cut doesn’t take effect until 2004. If we can grow the economy enough between now and then, if we have sensible policies in place and make good choices, who knows what our choices will be. So it’s simply not a ripe issue right now. And I’m not in favor of turning around today and repealing it.”

But by December he'd flip-flopped again, telling NBC’s “Meet the Press” that a bigger tax cut “doesn’t make economic sense.”

I'm glad Kerry finally changed his mind about the economic benefits of reduced taxes, but I think I'll trust the man who consistently put that philosophy into practice, instead of the one who seems to say whatever's necessary to get elected.

Congress Passes Organ-Donation Funding

In a rare moment of bipartisanship, the Senate passed a funding bill for live organ donors on a voice vote, after the House passed it 414-2:

The legislation would authorize the Department of Health and Human Services to spend $5 million a year, beginning October 1, to reimburse qualified donors.

It authorizes an additional $15 million in 2005 for grants to states, public awareness efforts and studies on how to increase recovery and donation rates. It also would finance new programs at hospitals and organ procurement organizations to coordinate organ donations.

The Minnesota Legislature is considering a similar bill, but using tax deductions rather than direct reimbursement for donors. Either way, it represents an important and substantive support for people who selflessly give of themselves -- quite literally -- to save lives. Typically, a live donor has to undergo rigorous medical testing before surgery, and then the surgery and recovery can take several weeks. The recipient's medical insurance covers all costs, but lost time from work and incidental costs for medical supplies adds up and puts a tremendous burden on those who rely on that paycheck to get by -- which would be most of us.

Having a source of funding available to defray the costs of donating may not encourage those who won't donate at all, but it will allow those who would like to donate but are prevented from doing so for economic reasons to make the donation. I expect that George Bush will have no problem signing this into law.

We Keep Them Running

US and Afghan officials told the press today that the new spring offensive in the mountainous border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan -- which isn't even fully underway yet -- has impacted al-Qaeda's ability to mount their own offensive and has forced them into spending their time on the run:

Al-Qaida and Taliban fighters, increasingly pursued by American and Pakistani forces, are on the run or hunkering down rather than mounting a threatened spring offensive of their own, U.S. and Afghan officials say. ... "We're doing a great deal to disrupt operations," the spokesman, Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, said in Kabul. "The absence of violence against the Afghan people generally shows how well we're doing."

With spring "we would expect stepped-up activities against the Afghan people and aid agencies — and that's one of the things Mountain Storm is designed to prevent," Hilferty said.

Spokesmen for the Taliban militia, the deposed rulers of Afghanistan, have allegedly promised a spring offensive of their own. Whether the talk was bluster or not, Taliban offensives traditionally come in the spring. But so far, two weeks into the Pakistan and U.S. operations, retaliatory attacks have been sporadic, and borderline suicidal.

While planned suicide attacks have been a hallmark of Islamofascist strategy for the past several years, the ad-hoc nature of these latest suicide missions indicate a sense of desperation not seen with AQ terrorists before. The Pakistanis and the Americans have kept them from being able to establish positions and coordinate forces. The Pakistani effort has gotten the attention of AQ leadership, which sent a tape out today trying to get the Pakistanis to rise up against Pervez Musharraf:

A tape purportedly recorded by Ayman al-Zawahri, the No. 2 figure in the al-Qaida terror group, called Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf a "traitor" Thursday and urged people to overthrow his government. ... "Every Muslim in Pakistan should work hard to get rid of this client government, which will continue to submit to America until it destroys Pakistan." ...

It was not known when the tape was made, but the speaker appeared to be referring to the conflict in South Waziristan when he said, "I call on the Pakistani army: you, poor army, what a miserable state Musharraf has put you in ... Musharraf ruins your natural fences — those tribes on the border — by engaging you in a fight with them. Then he removes your nuclear weapons. Will you stay silent until Pakistan is divided again?"

AQ leadership initiated this Pakistani offensive when they tried twice to assassinate Musharraf, who was until then a somewhat reluctant partner in the war on terror. After having tasted AQ's 'friendship,' Musharraf has become a convert, vowing to kill every last al-Qaeda operative that Pakistan can find.

And if AQ wasn't suicidal over that, there's one more piece of news -- 2,000 Marines will soon be coming to Afghanistan to pick up bin Laden's scent:

About 2,000 Marines aboard ships in the Persian Gulf plan to go ashore in Afghanistan to join the search for al-Qaida and Taliban fighters, defense officials said Thursday.

The Marines are from the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, which began a six-month deployment on Feb. 19. They are aboard the USS Wasp, the USS Shreveport and the USS Whidbey Island, and are part of a larger expeditionary strike group that includes the cruisers USS Leyte Gulf and USS Yorktown, destroyer USS McFaul and attack submarine USS Connecticut.

Minn. Supreme Court Rules For CLE Bias Courses

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled, as expected, to uphold the state Continuing Legal Education requirement for anti-bias classes. Eliot Rothenberg had refused to comply with this requirement, as the state had certified a number of unusual courses for the CLE requirement, including a panel on the merits of Islam and a rally for Lynne Stewart, an attorney currently under indictment for supporting terrorist activities. The high court noted, however, that there were a number of other courses that would satisfy the requirement, bypassing altogether the issues of the flawed study that initiated the CLE for bias in the first place.

Power Line has blogged extensively on this issue. Start here and work your way forward through their excellent series.

Watcher's Council: New List

I'm late posting this -- at least a day late, in fact -- but the Watcher's Council has posted its list of nominations for the best in the blogosphere over the past week ... and Captain's Quarters has been nominated again, this time for my post on the failure of gun control in Commonwealth countries. As always, the Council has chosen two lists, one for Council members and one for non-members. Make sure you take some time to review all of the excellent entries on this week's list.

And next time, the Captain will make sure his ship stays on schedule ...

Minnesota Soft Money Goes to Democrats

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune notes that the amount of "soft" money spent in 2002 put Minnesota fourth nationwide, coming in behind only Florida, New Jersey, and California, despite being ranked 21st in population in the US:

The Minnesota DFL and Republican parties and affiliated organizations pulled in just under $40 million, the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity found. Only Florida, New Jersey and California state parties pulled in more.

The report's author, Derek Willis, noted that Minnesota had two prominent statewide races in 2002 - for governor and the U.S. Senate. ... The study found that DFL and affiliated groups raised $22.7 million in the 2001-02 election cycle, while the state Republican Party and affiliated groups pulled in $17 million. The money went toward things like voter registration efforts and advertisements.

Most of the state party money came from national parties in the form of ``soft money,'' the large, unregulated contributions that have since been banned by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

The final numbers don't really tell the whole story. The largest soft-money contributor was the Norm Coleman Leadership Committee, which held a number of fundraisers for the Republicans and wound up giving $807,000. But the next eight on the list all went to the DFL:

-American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, $727,000 to Democrats

-Service Employees International Union, $382,000 to Democrats

-John & Sage Cowles, $233,600, all but $5,000 to Democrats

-International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, $202,000 to Democrats

-Laborers' International Union of North America, $198,000 to Democrats

-Key Investments Inc., $171,000 to Democrats

-Vance Opperman, $171,000 to Democrats

-Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., $150,000 to Democrats

The Democrats (called the DFL here, for Democrats-Farmers-Laborers) have always had a big party machine here in Minnesota, and for decades controlled state politics. The DFL still controls the state Senate, but their control has eroded, and now the Republicans control the state House and the governor's office. It's not for lack of spending, as the figures demonstrate; the $5.7 million edge was huge in 2002, especially for a state with only five million people. It's not for lack of support from unions, either; over a million dollars came from just the two unions that represent state and federal workers (AFSCME and SEIU).

The DFL's money couldn't save them from the DFL's message, which was higher taxes, more government control, and more intrusiveness in business and the market. They ran on the ridiculous notion that canceling a large increase in government spending amounted to "drastic cuts" in social services, preferring scare tactics rather than responsible efforts to get control over a state budget that had ballooned during the past decade. Pawlenty and the Republicans argued that the state's budget woes could be resolved by holding the line on state spending -- and so far, they've been proven right.

In short, Minnesota voters grew up, while the DFL didn't. All the money in the world can't save them from themselves.

Ukrainian Missiles Missing?

The BBC has a disturbing report from the Ukraine about their inability to account for several hundred ballistic missiles that were decommissioned after the collapse of the Soviet Union:

Ukrainian Defence Minister Yevhen Marchuk has said that several hundred of his country's missiles are unaccounted for. The weapons were supposed to have been decommissioned in the years that followed the break-up of the USSR. But it is now being claimed that there is no record of them being destroyed. ... "Each of the missiles contained gold, silver, platinum. But where are the results of their recycling?" he asked.

Call me a worry-wart if you will, but I hardly think that the most pressing issue of losing several hundred ballistic missiles is their potential recycling revenue. I'm a bit more concerned about the warheads and the fuel that those missiles carried, either or both of which may have wound up in the hands of people who would use them to carry on massive "recycling" projects of their own -- like "recycling" building materials in New York, London, Tel Aviv, along with "recycling" the millions of people that live there.

Rich Lowry Dissects Richard Clarke

Rich Lowry, in today's New York Post, takes apart Richard Clarke and outlines why Clarke has sacrificed his credibility for thirty pieces of silver (via Instapundit):

DEAN Acheson famously titled his memoir of his years as secretary of state after World War II "Present at the Creation." Anyone close to Richard Clarke these last few days could write a memoir called "Present at the Self-Immolation." Rarely has a former public servant with such a sterling reputation shot it all away so quickly. ...

For evidence of this, look no further than Clarke's August 2002 briefing for reporters while he was still at the National Security Council. ... In his 2002 briefing, Clarke said that the Bush administration decided in "mid-January" 2001 to continue with existing Clinton policy while deciding whether or not to pursue more aggressive ideas that had been rejected throughout the Clinton administration. Nowhere does this appear in his book. He said in 2002 that the Bush administration had decided in principle in the spring of 2001 "to increase CIA resources . . . for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaeda." Nowhere is this mentioned in his book.

In 2002, Clarke emphasized that the Bush team "changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda." This is mentioned in his book, but - amazingly - as an afterthought.

Lowry continues with several more examples of Clarke's contradictory public record, so be sure to read the entire article. This merely confirms what I wrote earlier: that the 9/11 Commission and the various players around it are only interested in garnering as much publicity as possible. Clarke is only the crassest and most transparently greedy example. If you doubt that, ask yourself this: why did Clarke wait until 2004 and his book publication date to go public with his concerns, when Bush's supposed "terrible job" on terrorism would put all of us at risk? If you take Clarke's accusations at face value, then the answer must be that our safety is secondary to his potential publishing royalties.

I suspect -- I hope -- that Clarke's 15 minutes is just about over.

Now the Carrot

Tony Blair has taken the lead in working the diplomacy front of the war on terror by taking a politically risky trip to Libya and welcoming Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi back into the international fold:

Tony Blair has shaken hands and is the middle of his controversial meeting with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. Thursday's Tripoli talks follows Libya's decision last December to renounce weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Blair's visit has been criticised by some politicians and received a mixed response from relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing.

No doubt, many issues separate Libya from the West, both specific (the Fletcher murder case) and general (Libya's human-rights record). However, if we are to convince rogue states like Libya to cough up their WMDs and to fight terrorism, the West has to provide some positive incentives for that transition. Libya also demonstrates that the West doesn't have imperial ambitions in North Africa and Asia Minor, and that we will be happy to work with those governments that don't support and shelter terrorists and don't stockpile the kinds of weapons that could fall into their hands, with disastrous results.

Blair faces some resistance at home on this, mostly because of the mixed messages Libya sent out a few weeks back on the Lockerbie bombing and the Fletcher murder case, where a young policewoman was shot to death in 1984 by a gunman inside the Libyan embassy compound. The gunman has never been identified, nor have the Libyans been terribly cooperative in the investigation. Obviously, these issues will have to be addressed by Blair and Gaddafi, or at least by their representatives, but in the face of Gaddafi's extraordinary cooperation in the past year, refusing to engage with him now would send a terrible message to other nations that may be considering choosing our side in the war on terror.

Kerry's Phoenix Project Connections Debated on MS-NBC

The work that Thomas Lipscomb has done at the New York Sun exposing John Kerry's participation in a debate on whether to assassinate several US politicians in 1971 may be gaining some traction. Last night on Joe Scarborough's show, Lipscomb himself appeared with Pat Buchanon and Lawrence O'Donnell, who apparently couldn't keep from going into hysterics over the questioning, according to Tim Graham at The Corner:

"Scarborough Country" was a little wild on MSNBC last night, since usually calm liberal Lawrence O'Donnell was yelling and refusing to shut up. The topic? Whether young John F. Kerry was present at a meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War when they debated assassinating pro-war politicians. O'Donnell was loudly protesting that no one can remember what they were doing 33 years ago, so why would anyone focus on what Kerry did in 1971? Youthful indiscretion! Youthful indiscretion!

It would have been nice if liberals like O'Donnell had tried that line when the networks were doing 63 stories on Lt. Bush's dental records and other minutiae of his National Guard service.

I've arranged for Thomas Lipscomb to appear on the Northern Alliance Radio Network this Saturday, in our second hour, where we'll also have Kenneth Timmerman, the author of The French Betrayal of America. It should be a great hour -- if you're in our broadcast area, make sure you're tuned in.

I'm also still waiting for responses on my e-mails to reader reps from the Washington Post and the New York Times as to why their articles on Kerry's FBI surveillance failed to mention this topic for proper context. I got a mesage from the Los Angeles Times yesterday informing me that my concerns had been passed along to the National news editors and the original reporters, but nothing further. As soon as I hear something substantive, I will pass it along immediately.

Maybe The Wrong Kerr(e)y Is Running For President

The 9/11 Commission has been mostly a dog-and-pony show for venting a lot of rage and frustration and for generating a lot of partisan blame-throwing for supposed security lapses that led to the deaths of 3,000 Americans in the worst attack on American soil ever. It's one of those political exercises that you know is obligatory, under the circumstances of its time, but the public aspect of it will only serve to reward grandstanding and the press that covers it.

A great example of this is the griping by members of the commission and the press about NSA Director Condoleezza Rice's insistence on testifying in private. If the point of this process is for the panel to make a determination of how we can avoid another 9/11, then private testimony from someone who is actively pursuing terrorists shouldn't keep the commission from doing its job. But when commissioners like former Senator Bob Kerrey publicly speculate on how they'd rip her apart in public questioning, then you know the point isn't to search for truth but to make headlines for its members.

That being said, it's apparent that Kerrey has rapidly become the star of the televised hearings -- which leads one to wonder whether the Democrats have the wrong Kerr(e)y in the presidential race:

Bob Kerrey is speaking in italics and exclamation points again. The former senator from Nebraska holds nothing back as a member of the Sept. 11, 2001, commission taking public testimony this week. He has a friendly face, he smiles like Tom Hanks, but don't get him started on how many times al Qaeda got away with attacking U.S. interests in the eight years before Sept. 11 with little retaliation.

"What we have is a serial killer on our hands" -- Osama bin Laden.

"We had a round in our chamber and we didn't use it."

"Honestly, I don't understand if we're attacked and attacked and attacked and attacked, why we continue to send the FBI over like the Khobar Towers was a crime scene or the East African Embassy bombings was a crime scene."

The witnesses -- top officials of the Clinton and Bush administrations -- take it like a breaking wave that briefly knocks them speechless. But family members of the Sept. 11 victims in the front rows break into applause after another display of Kerrey's passion. They trust him to get at the truth of what led up to the terrorist attacks and how future attacks might be prevented.

It's difficult to dispute Kerrey's arguments, and there's no doubt that he's connecting emotionally with all sides on this debate. Pundits from all points in the political spectrum have expressed admiration for Kerrey, who retired from politics a couple of years ago after having made an extraordinary admission of guilt for war crimes in Viet Nam. His anger and his barbed questioning of everyone who comes before the committee fits the national mood, at least outside the Beltway, which is that a lot of people from both parties dropped the ball on terrorism over the past decade or so.

Will there be a political future once again for Bob Kerrey? Possibly, although his retirement from politics was completely self-imposed; I'm sure he could have won his seat again had he chosen to stand for re-election. However, his participation in this commission has given Kerrey a national identity that he couldn't win for himself in his failed bid for President twelve years ago, and if he came back at all, I think it would be to do something more significant than the Senate.

I wonder if we'll see a Kerry-Kerrey ticket in November, because I think it would take Bob Kerrey to carry John Kerry to the White House.

Howard Dean Erratic, Undisciplined, Self-Defeating: Aide

The Washington Post will publish a story in tomorrow's edition that gives a sobering, behind-the-scenes look at former Democratic front-runner Howard Dean, whose phenomenal rise stunned everyone, not least Dean himself:

Paul Maslin [Dean's pollster] also reveals that Dean was so adamant about keeping his Vermont gubernatorial records sealed that he told his staff in December: "I'd rather end the campaign than have the world see everything." Although Dean maintained he was acting to preserve the principle of confidentiality, the real reason, Maslin says, is that the candidate was sure he had insulted important Democrats and liberal interest groups in the documents. ...

Dean's "erratic judgment, loose tongue and overall stubbornness wore our spirits down," Maslin writes. "He refused to be scripted, to be disciplined or to discipline himself."

In a twist eerily reminiscent to us in Minnesota, Maslin reveals that Dean never believed he would win the nomination and began to crack under the pressure of being the frontrunner:

Maslin quotes then-campaign manager Joe Trippi recounting a meeting with Dean after the staff insisted he release the Vermont records: "He just lost it in here. He basically told me that he never thought he'd be in this position. Never thought he could ever win. . . . He was just about in tears, and for once, I really feel for him. He said, 'I don't know why I say the things I do.' "

"Seldom," writes Maslin, "have I seen someone on the brink of political success more conflicted about it."

Jesse Ventura, the so-called maverick who won a third-party bid for Governor in 1998, also was reportedly stunned by his success; rumor has it that his first action on hearing of his surprise victory on the morning after Election Day was to throw up. Like Ventura, Dean apparently ran in order to shift the debate -- in this case, to the left -- not to actually win. Dean rolled up huge amounts in on-line donations and fired up his base, and generally appeared to be untouchable, until he actually had to run from the front of the pack after the novelty wore off. That's when the rhetorical mistakes and the flashes of temper got Democrats worried about Dean's 'electability', and sent them to the candidate who was busy stealing Dean's message: John Kerry.

The real story here is that the campaign process weeded out a candidate who clearly could never have handled the presidency, or even the general election campaign, for that matter. However, the Post's Howard Kurtz buries the lead once again by focusing on Dean's reluctant endorsement of John Kerry in the first paragraph, which isn't mentioned again in the article.

Georgia Sinking Towards Civil War

No, I'm not talking about Zell Miller's endorsement of George Bush and his leadership of Democrats for Bush, although he's certainly making news today. The other Georgia -- the former Soviet 'republic' -- may be on the verge of civil war, after a breakaway region's leader had his passport revoked in response for barring Georgia's president from entering:

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili has annulled the diplomatic passports of the leader of the breakaway region of Ajaria and 500 other officials. He also accused Ajaria's authorities of planning to bring in mercenaries to fight in a possible conflict.

The latest move is part of a continuing war of words between Tbilisi and Ajaria's leader, Aslan Abashidze. The two sides stood on the brink of war after Mr Saakashvili was denied entry into the region earlier this month.

Ajaria borders Turkey to its north, sharing the Black Sea shoreline, and not too far from the Kurdish areas that currently trouble the Turks. In short, this isn't a great time for the Georgians and the Ajarians to square off against each other. Georgia just threw off its previous regime, and the instability looks to continue for some time.

Bad Fiction, Worse Reality

If someone wrote this as a detective novel, it would never sell -- but unfortunately, this one's a true story:

A French policewoman who led a double life as a prostitute appears in court tomorrow as police investigate suspicions that she conspired to murder her rich elderly husband. ... Since arresting Mlle Louis, the police have found that before her marriage, while she worked as a police officer, she led a second life as a call girl under the name of Maud, specialising in rich old men.

Mlle Louis, who denies the conspiracy accusations and will apply for bail tomorrow, says she heard a strange noise in a wheel of their car as they drove in Spain. Her husband got out to investigate and was run over by a white 4 x 4, which then sped off.

I suppose if a woman wanted to make a living as a call girl, specializing in "rich old men" would go along with the job ... er, position ... well, you know what I mean. Maud apparently had maintained a sexual relationship with the father of her 17-year-old son during her marriage to the deceased (who was worth three million pounds), and the police allege that he was the driver of the 4 x 4. She only attracted suspicion because she had her husband cremated, and as a practicing Jew, his friends knew that he would wanted to have been buried instead. The lover, one M. Vaze, claims he had nothing to do with the husband's death, even though he was staying in a nearby hotel when the death occurred, he drove a white 4 x 4, and forensics has determined that the husband was laying down on the ground when he was run over by the vehicle, instead of being knocked to the ground as his wife claimed.

It appears that the ever-adaptable Mlle. Louis bears little relation to M. Poirot.

Reason: Administration Critics On Iraq Missing The Point

Michael Young, the opinion editor of the Daily Star in Lebanon, published a thoughtful column on the debate over Iraq in Reason today, reminding his readers about the overall strategy of Bush's approach to terror and why Iraq is central to its success:

The last pillar, however, was the most interesting, and went to the heart of the strategy adopted by Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and, ultimately, Bush. By intervening in the relationship between the brutish Iraqi regime and its long-suffering subjects, the US adopted a policy of enforced democratization. As far as the Bush administration was concerned, a democratic Iraq at the heart of the Arab world could become a liberal beacon in the region, prompting demands for openness and real reform inside neighboring states. Ridiculous you say? The Syrian regime, faced in the past two weeks with protests by individuals seeking greater freedom and a revolt by disgruntled Kurds, would surely disagree.

This is where Clarke's allegations, and those of critics who see a disconnect between Al Qaeda and Iraq, are misleading. Iraq always was essential to the anti-terrorism battle precisely because victory there was regarded as necessary to transform societies from where terrorists, spawned by suffocating regimes, had emerged. One can disagree with the practicability of such a strategy, but it is difficult to fault its logic.

Read Young's entire piece. It reminds readers of the fundamental reasons that terror exists, and it's not strictly about oppression; it's about the need for the autocracies to have an excuse for oppression, a scapegoat for the misery of the masses. Nowhere is this more true than in Gaza and the West Bank, of course, but it s equally true under the stifling rule of the Wahhabi Sauds and the Iranian mullahs.

In Iraq, the administration had the luxury of already being in a state of war (remember, the 1991 war had never been resolved, only a cease-fire agreement having been implemented and repeatedly violated by Iraq), and Iraq had not only used WMDs in its past, but it had sheltered Islamic/Palestinian terrorists and paid money out to others. Toppling the brutal Ba'ath regime set loose powerful forces of self-determination in the northern Kurdish areas that already operated under loose democratic structures, and the southern Shi'ite areas where Saddam's brutality and oppression reached its zenith after 1991. Creating a democratic Iraq, the administration thought, would change the dynamics of the entire region and motivate other oppressed peoples to pressure their governments for more openness and more self-determination. It's already begun in Syria with the Kurds and in Iran with just about everyone.

Iraq was not a distraction, in other words; it was a bold move to change the entire nature of the game in order to deprive al-Qaeda and others of their most precious resources: hate and despair.

It's Literally Rocket Science, You Know

Does the overuse of pet phrases annoy the hell out of you? When someone tells you that they literally died, do you feel like asking them what God looked like? Do you want to strangle someone when they talk about prioritization and half-full glasses?

Take heart; the Guardian feels your pain. (Uh, sorry about that.) After running an article on cliche overload, the Guardian 'translates' one of the most well-known British speeches of the last century into current English patois. Here, then, is Winston Churchill in a less-than-stirring rendition of "We Shall Literally Fight Them On The Beaches":

Basically, we shall literally prove ourselves once again able to defend our island home, to ride out the awesome storm of war and, at the end of the day, outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.

Because, with all due respect, it's not exactly rocket science.

At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do at this moment in time. Because the fact of the matter is that the blue sky thinking and resolve of His Majesty's government, literally every man of them, will address the issue. That is, basically, the ongoing will of parliament and the nation - all of us singing from the same songsheet.

Never have so few given so many laughs to a subset of the demographic ... well, you know the drill. Read the whole thing.

Scientologists Get Special Tax Breaks?

A lawsuit resulting from an IRS audit has revealed that the IRS reached a secret agreement with the Church of Scientology to allow tax breaks for religious education that it denies to all other religions, the New York Times reports in today's paper:

A trial is to begin here on Wednesday morning to determine whether a Jewish couple can deduct the cost of religious education for their five children, a tax benefit they say the federal government has granted to members of just one religion, the Church of Scientology.

The potential ramifications are huge, for a ruling in favor of the couple could affect the millions of Americans who send their children to religious schools of all types. At stake is whether people of all religions can deduct the cost of religious education as a charitable gift, as Scientologists are allowed to do under an officially secret 1993 agreement with the Internal Revenue Service.

Scientologists argue that the secret agreement -- which is still under seal -- puts them on the same plane as "Catholics, Mormons, and Hindus," but no practitioners of those religions are allowed to deduct the cost of private education from their taxes. The IRS agreed to this unique benefit despite the deduction being disallowed in court in 1989. Now this couple wants the same rules applied to their costs for sending their children to Hebrew school -- and the IRS has responded by auditing them and their tax clients.

This appears to be a straightforward case of equal protection, at least as far as the courts are concerned. However, the IRS needs to answer for its 1993 secret agreement with Scientology that allowed this discriminatory behavior, and to explain what motivated them to negotiate it in the first place. Somehow, I suspect that the impetus for this secret arrangement came from somewhere outside the IRS. Hint: What changed in 1993, and who helped make that change possible?

Bush Clarifies Position on Yassin, Israel

George Bush clarified his position on Israel after a press release from the White House left some doubt as to the administration's position on the fate of terrorists:

President Bush yesterday defended Israel's "right to defend herself from terror," one day after a spokesman said the administration was "deeply troubled" by the assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin and concerned it could derail efforts to jump-start the peace process.

Bush made his remarks to reporters shortly before the U.N. Security Council began a debate on the Israeli action and as a group of Israeli officials met with White House officials to discuss Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to unilaterally separate from the Palestinians. Bush announced that next week a team of senior U.S. officials will likely make their third trip to Israel in two months to continue discussions on the Sharon plan.

What peace process? You cannot have a peace process where only one side is willing to allow the other to live. The various collection of terrorist organizations in Gaza and the West Bank have never for a moment suggested that they would be willing to allow Israel to continue its existence in any form. Only the Palestinian Authority has said that, and their al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (a subsidiary of Arafat's own Fatah faction) has made it clear that the PA talks out of both sides of its mouth on this issue.

Once again, the world has a double standard for Jews, and unfortunately that applies in the US in some circles. Yassin was no different than Osama bin Laden, except that he was easier to find and that he was confined to a wheelchair. Israel had tried arresting him, and after other nations interceded on Yassin's behalf, they tried releasing him. Neither of those approaches worked as he continued to kill and maim Israeli civilians by the score.

I suspect that my fellow Americans would have no trouble with blowing up Osama, even if he were hooked up to that apocryphal dialysis machine he supposedly needs at the moment of impact. In fact, we're having Congressional hearings this week to find out why it hasn't happened yet. Other nations who decry our action in Iraq accuse the US letting Osama off the hook while we chased Saddam. Damned few people anywhere argue for Osama's capture or for the West to negotiate with al-Qaeda.

Given that this approach works just fine for America and the rest of the world, why is it unacceptable for Israel? Because from where I sit, the answer looks pretty ugly.

Surprise! The Appeasers Aren't Safe, Either

Germany learned a lesson last night about the fate of all appeasers, and fortunately for them may have learned it the easy way -- this time:

German President Johannes Rau canceled a trip to Djibouti Tuesday after receiving threats that Islamic terrorists were planning to try and assassinate him, his office said.

Rau had planned on wrapping up a three-nation African tour in the tiny country on the Horn of Africa on Wednesday, where he was to meet with German naval troops patrolling the Indian Ocean coast as part of the U.S.-led war on terror.

Germany, of course, offered up a very public Nein! when asked to support the Anglo-American proposal to topple Saddam Hussein for its twelve-year nose-thumbing of UNSC demands for compliance to 1991 cease-fire terms. Gerhard Schroeder hitched his wagon to Jacques Chirac and Dominique de Villepin in joining the Axis of Weasels, although Germany never went as far as France did in attempting to intimidate other European countries into opposing the US. Despite all of this open-mindedness, Germany still got targeted by Islamofascists for an assassination attempt.

Memo to Germany: Figured it out yet? Appeasing terrorists don't make you their friend; they hate you because you exist, not because of complex international or financial reasons. When you appease, all you buy is time, but as history shows, you buy it for the enemy -- time inevitably works against the appeaser, allowing evil to gain credibility, support, and further growth. Time makes the eventual day of reckoning that much more painful.

Once upon a time, Germany taught the West that lesson. Perhaps Germany can figure it out quicker this time.

Captain's Caption Contest #4 Winners

If you all have "Stand By Your Man" by Tammy Wynette playing in the background, we can announce the Caption Contest winners, as selected by Linda from Auterrific -- a great blog, and one you should definitely visit, by the way.

Here's the picture:

And the winners --

Captain's Award:

Senator Kerry comforted an unidentified patient at the Central Vermont Medical Center where he unveiled his Mental Health Initiative.

Posted by Jim at March 21, 2004 10:57 PM

You Have The Conn #1:

Don't worry Howard I learned this in a teamwork seminar. Fall back and I promise I will catch you. Trust me!

Posted by N.E. Republican at March 20, 2004 03:30 PM

You Have The Conn #2:

That's right, Howie, hold that position. Steady....steady... Now, on the count of three say "Welcome to WalMart!"

Posted by spd rdr at March 22, 2004 06:54 AM

You Have The Conn #3:

The Secret Service guys say they have an opening available

Posted by J_Crater at March 23, 2004 12:20 PM

Report to Sick Bay (On The Double):

I'm your daddy...b@#ch

Posted by Goerge Soros at March 20, 2004 10:37 PM

LINDA’S SPECIAL CYNICISM AWARD

They say that behind every great man is a great woman. I don't know what to say about this picture, then:
I don't see any men in the picture...

Posted by andy at March 23, 2004 05:59 PM

Thanks to everyone for all the great entries -- and come back on Friday, when we'll have our next Captain's Caption Contest!

How We Will Win in the Middle East

Tomorrow's New York Times analyzes the Kurdish uprising in Syria that has spread over the past few weeks, and determines that the cause of the unrest originates with the Iraqi Kurds -- and their newfound freedoms in a liberated Iraq:

Kurdish Syrians, 2 million of Syria's 17 million people, say that watching rights for Kurds being enshrined in a new if temporary constitution next door in Iraq finally pushed them to take to the streets to demand greater recognition. In their wake is a toll of blackened government buildings, schools, grain silos and vehicles across a remote swath of the north.

"What happened did not come out of a void," says Bishar Ahmed, a 30-year-old Kurd whose cramped stationery shop sits right next to a cluster of blackened buildings in Malikiya. "The pressure has been building for nearly 50 years. They consider us foreigners; we have no rights as citizens."

Clashes on March 11 between fans from rival soccer teams set off the sudden squall, which officially left 25 people dead and dozens wounded. But the raw emotions shocked Syrians and left officials painting a sinister picture of foreign plots to partition the country.

I don't know why the Syrian officials would be shocked; like elsewhere in the Arab-dominated Middle East, the Kurds have long been an oppressed minority, and oppression breeds deadly resentments. It is a microcosm of a main principle at the center of the strategy of the Bush administration's war on terror -- to introduce democracy as a way to destabilize those governments that provide shelter and succor to terrorists.

The Iraqi Kurds have their best opportunity in centuries to achieve some sort of self-determination, and Kurds elsewhere have begun to notice. Soon, it won't just be the Kurds who want the ability to control their own destiny, and as that momentum builds, the petty kleptocracies of sawdust Caesars like Bashir Assad won't be able to keep a lid on the pressure. As the Times notes, the ruling class in Syria belongs to a narrow ethnic minority, the Alawites, and this sudden affinity for democracy means nothing but trouble for them.

Afghanistan was first for obvious reasons. But Iraq always provided the best opportunity to plant the seeds of democracy as well as eliminating the most dangerous dictator in the region. The Kurds had already implemented a representative local government system under the no-fly zone in the north. Now the Bush administration hopes that the "hydroponic" democracy grown undercover in Kurdish Iraq will begin to bloom across the entire region, now that Saddam's removal has allowed the sun to shine on them at least.

Just For The Record

I know that this has been commented on in the blogosphere, but I feel the need to make it clear here as well. There seems to be a lot of blather from the Left about how Bush somehow didn't do enough in eight months to eliminate al-Qaeda; Richard Clarke claims that Bush should have attacked al-Qaeda in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 to prevent AQ terrorism from reaching American soil.

However, when Bush took action against Saddam's Iraq -- who, after all, tried to assassinate a former President, was involved in the first World Trade Center bombing, had been shooting at our aircraft in the no-fly zone, and was harboring Abu Abbas, among others -- in order to make sure Saddam couldn't perpetrate an act of terrorism against the US, the Left has done nothing but scream at him ever since.

Hmmm.

Also, as a somewhat related note, do you notice that the same people who are scolding Israel for killing Yassin are the same that claim to be committed to fighting terrorism? Makes me wonder about that "commitment". It sounds like they prefer the oft-tried, oft-failed strategy of issuing arrest warrants.

Hmmm.

John Kerry Strongarms Witnesses to 1971 VVAW Meeting?

Yesterday's New York Sun ran a story by Thomas Lipscomb following up on the attendance and participation of John Kerry at the November 1971 Vietnam Veterans Against the War debate on whether to assassinate several pro-war politicians, including Senators John Stennis, John Tower, and Strom Thurmond. Unfortunately, it requires a registration -- but Lipscomb kindly authorized my Northern Alliance colleague, Big Trunk at Power Line, to post it in its entirety today. One witness to Kerry's participation tells Lipscomb that the Kerry campaign may be engaging in a bit of witness tampering:

A Vietnam veteran who said he remembers John Kerry participating in a 1971 Kansas City meeting at which an assassination plot was discussed says an official with the Kerry presidential campaign called him this month and pressured him to change his story.

The veteran, John Musgrave, says he was called twice by the head of Veterans for Kerry, John Hurley, while a reporter for the Kansas City Star worked on a follow-up piece to a New York Sun article about the November 1971 meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War at which a plot to kill U.S. senators was voted down. Asked by The New York Sun if he felt pressured, Mr. Musgrave said, "In the second call I did." Mr. Musgrave said Mr. Hurley said Mr. Kerry had told him "he was definitely not in Kansas City."

According to Mr. Musgrave, Mr. Hurley said, "Why don't you refresh your memory and call that reporter back?"

Make sure you read the entire article. I share Trunk's pessimism that the mainstream media will do their best to ignore this story, but at least Mr. Musgrave isn't fooled. The thrice-wounded Marine veteran of Vietnam tells Lipscomb that he has no plans to vote for someone who calls him a liar.

UPDATE: Here's a link to the Sun article that doesn't require registration (courtesy DC at Brainstorming).

Captain's Caption Contest #4!

They say that behind every great man is a great woman. I don't know what to say about this picture, then:

Maybe I don't know what to say about this picture, but I'll bet that you all do! Join our weekly Captain's Caption Contest and win the respect of your peers, the envy of your enemies, and the glory of concocting the perfect quip! Our guest judge this week will be Linda from the terrific blog, Auterrific. She's sharp and discerning, like all CQ readers (except possibly the Captain himself), so wind up your wits and start posting your comments. The contest closes at 6 PM CT on Tuesday, March 23rd.

Good luck! And thanks for the link, Hugh!

BUMP 3/20: Good entries so far -- Linda's got her work cut out for her!

BUMP 3/21: Keeping it on top ...

BUMP 3/22: Keep going! ...

BUMP 3/23: Only a few hours left ...

3/23 6:16 PM CST: Closing comments now! Thanks for all your great entries -- Linda and I will announce the winners later tonight or tomorrow morning. Keep checking back!

Telegraph Can't See Past the Wheelchair

A foolish and ignorant editorial in the normally sensible London Telegraph had me seeing red, and led to a sharp exchange at NRO's The Corner, where they're having trouble analogizing Sheik Yassin. The Corner's Andrew Stuttaford posted this quote with the admonition that the US needed to be saying the same thing:

Whatever Yassin's death was meant to achieve, its symbolism is disastrous for Israel. Did Mr Sharon and his advisers consider how the spectacle of helicopter gunships rocketing an old man in a wheelchair outside his mosque would appear to the world? Did they intend to turn this merchant of death into a victim - the Palestinian equivalent of Leon Klinghoffer?

Of course, this equation of Yassin with Klinghoffer is nothing less than repulsive. Just to remind everyone, Leon Klinghoffer was executed by Palestinian terrorists (aligned with Yassin, if not working directly with him) in the 1980s while taking a cruise in the Mediterranean. He was shot in the head and dumped overboard in front of his wife for no good reason other than his Jewishness. As far as is known, Klinghoffer headed no organization, ordered no mass murders, sent no one to commit suicide bombings; he just wanted to enjoy his retirement. Oh, and one other item: he was confined to a wheelchair.

Yassin, on the other hand, ordered the killings of hundreds of men, women, and children, the maiming of thousands more, and despite the odd eulogies that he's received in the past couple of days, was one of the most radical and bloodthirsty clerics in a region where that's saying something. He preached hate and genocide and did his best to put both into practice. He died in the same manner as his hundreds of victims, although he certainly had a lot more to do with his status as a target than any of his victims did.

Oh, yeah, and he was confined to a wheelchair.

Jonah Goldberg, in a later post, notes his disagreement with Stuttaford:

But if you think it's "well put" or a good idea to compare Yassin to Leon Klinghoffer I think you're way, way, off base. I would very much like to know how that comparison is well put. Klinghoffer was nothing more than an old Jewish man on a cruise. Sheik Yassin was the mastermind of vicious mass-murder. Is there something -- anything -- beyond the apparatus of a wheel chair that makes you think that the two men are similar? If Osama Bin Laden is in a wheelchair when we bomb him, would he be like Leon Klinghoffer too when we kill him? If Stalin was in a wheelchair, does that make him an innocent victim? What strange alchemy does a wheel chair work on a man's soul to absolve him of his crimes?

Unfortunately, it's not the only repulsive analogy at The Corner today. Goldberg, despite his response to Stuttaford, for some reason couldn't resist putting in a reader response comparing Yassin to Jesus Christ:

To suggest (no, to claim) that if we can create a democracy in Iraq that will eliminate the reason people in that region support terrorism against us is completely absurd. Did not the Irish in democratic America support the IRA terrorists? Do not the Jews in democratic America (not to mention a lot of non-Jews) support the thuggish tactics of Ariel Sharon (I mean, assassinating the leader of Hamas - that is almost like killing Jesus Christ.)

No, it is most decidedly not like killing Jesus Christ. Perhaps you can make an argument that killing Yassin turned him into a martyr, a role he sought, but to make that analogy is to imply that Yassin was some sort of sacrificial lamb, an innocent slaughtered for the sins of others. Yassin died for his own sins and those that he inspired through his sermons and his direction.

The usually sane and rational folks at The Corner seem to be sipping from the internationalist Kool-Aid this afternoon. I would suggest them getting a king-sized grip on reality and quit fantasizing about the legacy of a bloodthirsty murderer little different from Osama bin Laden except in his ambulatory state.

UPDATE: Stuttaford tries to explain the Telegraph's point and his own, and only digs his hole deeper:

What he is saying, and saying quite clearly, is that the particular circumstances of Yassin's death will allow him to be portrayed, however unfairly, as a Klinghoffer. He and, it should go without saying, I, obviously think that such a comparison is ridiculous - and offensive. The fact that people have now been given the opportunity to make it and, effectively, to thereby try and turn a monster into a "martyr" is further evidence that Sharon may well have made a major mistake. And that, not Yassin's death, is the tragedy.

So what? Using that logic, we can't ever go after leaders of terrorist organizations. That same logical argument could be used if we blew up Osama bin Laden, who is revered throughout the radical Arab world as a hero. His death might motivate thousands of them to join up. But all that means is that we will need to continue to kill the command and control personnel for these organizations, which is exactly what Israel plans on doing. Anything else is a surrender to the maniacs.

Quite simply, I don't give a damn what martyrs they choose to celebrate; they're celebrating murders of women and children regardless. To shy away from taking out the terrorist leaders because their death might make the terrorists madder is a ludicrous position to take. It's a surrender, and it's just a continuation of the defeatist attitudes that brought us 9/11 and brings Israel suicide bombers by the score.

Five-Year-Old Boy Brings Marijuana to School

The AP reports on a new low in child care -- Miami police report that a kindergartener brought a bag of marijuana to school and sprinkled some over another student's lasagna at lunchtime:

A 5-year-old boy took a bag of marijuana to school and was sprinkling it over a friend's lasagna like oregano when a monitor intervened, police said. The lasagna was confiscated before the other boy had a chance to eat it Monday in the cafeteria at Gratigny Elementary School. ...

Police and child welfare authorities were investigating the boy's family. "The focus is on the child's environment and what issues could have led to a child having a bag of marijuana in school,'' Villafana said. Police also were looking into whether an older friend may have asked the boy to hold the bag.

Also on Monday, authorities in Indianapolis said a 4-year-old boy took crack cocaine that police said was worth up to $10,000 to his preschool class and showed it to classmates, saying it was flour.

Sometimes my libertarian impulses lead me to believe that we are wasting time, money, and resources on a drug war that we can't win and perhaps shouldn't be fighting. Stories like these make me wonder if the prohibition isn't strong enough, although you can make the same arguments over handguns as well.

What's beyond dispute is that the parents of these children need to be thoroughly investigated and the children protected from the dangerous environments that produced these incidents. In the latter case, the parents are already wanted for drug charges and other issues; Indianapolis authorities need to explain why the child was still with these parents.

Israel Signals The End of One-Sided Negotiations

Israel has clearly signaled its refusal to take part in any more meaningless negotiations, announcing that it intends to kill the leadership of any organization that targets its citizens, including the Palestinian Authority:

With tension between Israelis and Palestinians at intense levels following the assassination of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin (search), an Israeli security official on Tuesday said they will continue the targeted killings of the entire Hamas leadership without waiting for the terror group to strike again. ... Israel's army chief also suggested Tuesday that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah could eventually be assassinated by Israel.

"I think that their (Arafat's and Nasrallah's) responses yesterday show that they understand that it is nearing them," Yaalon said. "In the long term, I hope that this will be a sign to all those who choose to hurt us that this will be their end," Yaalon said.

I am sure that this rhetoric will result in all the usual moaning from the usual (EUsual?) suspects, who somehow believe that Israel should continue to hold meetings with the leadership of terrorist organizations that have made clear that Israel must not be allowed to exist. Israel has done exactly that during the so-called intifadas, and it resulted in absolutely no respite from bombings. Israel tried building a wall, and the EU dragged them into the Hague. Israel announced a plan to simply withdraw from Gaza and take the settlers with them, and even that wasn't good enough for Israel's allies.

So Israel has decided, in a clear and rational moment, that its allies weren't helping to keep Israelis alive and likely would never quit blaming Israel for Palestinian terrorism no matter what Israel did, up to and including ending the occupation. In light of that, Israel's decision to put the "war" back into the war on terror makes perfect sense. And since the leadership of their enemies can't be counted on to act rationally, killing them first holds no special risk for Israel. Until the Palestinians change their approach, no other strategy makes any sense for Israel.

Kerry, The FBI, and The Phoenix Project: The Whitewash Continues

After the Los Angeles Times ran their story on the FBI surveillance of John Kerry in yesterday's paper (reprinted dutifully by the Star Tribune, of course), it was inevitable that other outlets would pick it up. One would hope that the larger news organizations -- ones that write their own content rather than reprint what comes across the wires -- would investigate the issues on their own and provide better context. Unfortunately, that proved not to be the case.

For instance, the Washington Post put two reporters on this story, and came up with essentially the exact same article that the Times ran. The New York Times' David Halbfinger -- the same city as the paper where Thomas Lipscomb first revealed the Phoenix Project, a VVAW assassination plot against American politicians -- actually managed to come up with less than the LAT. As the story was carried worldwide, even less context was provided than given stateside.

Only CNN managed to put together that the surveillance and the assassination plot might somehow be related, but wrote the article as an exoneration of Kerry, and not before ironically deriding the paranoia of the Nixon White House:

"Nixon and the FBI saw VVAW as a major, major threat to the United States," said historian Gerald Nicosia, who wrote the seminal "Home To War: A History of the Vietnam Veterans' Movement." "They really believed that these veterans were going to come to Washington with rifles and armaments and create a coup, storm the White House, kill the president, take over the government," Nicosia says. ...

Kerry's break with VVAW came at the end of 1971 during a four-day convention for VVAW national coordinators. The organization's minutes record that Kerry and three other fellow moderates "resigned" their posts. But before that gathering adjourned, there was some discussion about the idea of assassinating American leaders who voted to prolong the war, said Nicosia and three veterans who attended the gathering.

Scott Camil, a Florida vet who put forward the idea, says the notion didn't get very far. "If people considered our plans to be so bad, we would have been charged, and they would have made a big stink about it."

As the joke goes, it ain't paranoia if they're really out to get you, is it? CNN manages to bury this all the way at the bottom of their piece, but at least they wrote something about it. I find it interesting in the extreme that the mainstream media finds a debate over whether to murder US leadership so mundane that it's barely worth mentioning. If Operation Rescue had held a debate on whether to assassinate pro-choice judges in the 1980s, do you think that information would be buried at the bottom of an article on Randall Terry? Do you think it should be? Because I don't; it legitimizes the use of force for political purposes, the antithesis of democracy.

In the meantime, I have written e-mail to several of the newspapers who saw fit to write their own articles on this issue without mentioning the proper context of the issue. I've included the text from my e-mail to the Los Angeles Times in the extended entry as an example. I will update you if and when I receive any response. (cross-posted at Oh, That Liberal Media)

UPDATE 3/24: I have received a quick note fron the LA Times' reader rep informing me that my concerns have been passed along to the National desk, and that any further response would come from them. Also, just to remind everyone, please make sure you take a look at Thomas Lipscomb's excellent reporting that started the story.

I am extremely disappointed in the Times' decision to run John Glionna's article today on John Kerry and the FBI surveillance that he experienced as an anti-war activist and leading light of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Glionna writes extensively on the various domestic surveillances that J. Edgar Hoover's FBI initiated, equating Kerry with Martin Luther King, Jr., among others. The only response given by anyone is by Kerry himself, who says:

"I'm surprised by the extent of it," he said. "I'm offended by the intrusiveness of it. And I'm disturbed that it was all conducted absent of some showing of any legitimate probable cause. It's an offense to the Constitution. It's out of order."

However, Glionna fails to provide the context necessary to understand this story. He uses as his source on the FBI files the historian, Gerald Nicosia, who got the files under a Freedom of Information Act request in order to investigate a story about a debate on an assassination plan that took place at the November 1971 meeting of the VVAW. In fact, Nicosia uncovered this plot, called the Phoenix Project by its creator, Scott Camil, and established that the VVAW moved its meeting venue twice in order to avoid FBI surveillance while they decided whether to proceed withe the assassinations of several pro-war American politicians, including Senators John Stennis, John Tower, and Strom Thurmond. Camil himself readily admits to bringing the Phoenix Project to the VVAW at that meeting, complete with willing assassins, and proposed launching the project. Witnesses who were at the meeting recall seeing Kerry there, despite his earlier contention that he had quit the VVAW in July of that year at the St. Louis meeting.

In this context, the issue of the date that Kerry quit the VVAW becomes more than just a memory problem, and the FBI surveillance of the VVAW and its leaders becomes a lot more understandable. Organizations that plot the assassinations of American politicians for political ends (or any reason) are hardly in the same league as Martin Luther King, Jr. Kerry's participation in the debate -- confirmed by witnesses -- requires an explanation as to why he never notified authorities of the plot, even if he did argue against it and resigned shortly afterward. The Los Angeles Times missed an opportunity to tell a story, instead subordinating its news reporting to the spin of John Kerry's campaign, unwittingly or not.

I've posted on the subject on my own blog as well as at Oh, That Liberal Media, at which I am a contributor. I look forward to your response, and I thank you for your attention.

Russian Nuclear Fleet Collapsing?

A Russian admiral ordered a nuclear cruiser back to port today, warning that the Northern Fleet was on the verge of collapse and that this cruiser might suffer a nuclear explosion:

The flagship of Russia's northern fleet has been ordered back to port as it is too dangerous to be at sea, says Russia's naval commander-in-chief. Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov said the nuclear cruiser Peter the Great "could go sky high at any minute". ...

"In those places on board where the admirals actually go, everything's fine, but where they don't go, everything's in such a state it could go sky high at any minute," he said. "And by that I also mean the state of the nuclear reactor.

"It is this attitude to the upkeep of their ships on the part of commanders that is leading to the collapse of the fleet."

While the BBC speculates that this could just be a ploy to wrest more funding for naval maintenance from Russia's federal government, it points out a potentially dangerous instability in Russia's infrastructure at the same time that Islamofascists are pressuring Putin from the south. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it's been no secret that the armed forces have been put on a starvation diet, which the US didn't mind a bit, at least at first. But if Kuroyedov isn't just posturing for political effect, it not only means that there are several potential nuclear meltdowns sailing the North Sea and beyond, but that the Russian armed forces may not be all that far away from a complete collapse.

Our pursuit of Islamofascists in the Caucasus and the surrounding areas is somewhat predicated on Russian strength in the area, acting as a sort of anvil against our hammer. If the anvil goes away, it would not be all that difficult for al-Qaeda to disappear into the underbelly of the Russian state, and while Vladimir Putin may not be an enemy, he certainly won't allow US troops to operate freely in Russian areas.

Bummer of a Birthmark, Yasser

Now that Israel has signaled to the Palestinians that it's tired of negotiating with people who want nothing less than their extermination by executing the leader of Hamas, another leader in the Palestinian Authority has realized that he might be next:

The missile strike that killed Yassin may have shaken Arafat in more ways than one. The killing sparked huge demonstrations throughout the West Bank and Gaza, showing just how formidable a rival Hamas has become to Arafat's Palestinian Authority. ... After Yassin's killing, Arafat expressed concern he, too, might be targeted. "Arafat feels he is threatened, and we feel he's threatened because when they target Sheik Yassin, they are not far from Arafat," said Palestinian Communications Minister Azzam Ahmed.

Well, the reason he may be targeted is that Ahmed is more correct than I suspect he wants to be: Arafat is little different from Yassin in his terrorist tactics. The only difference between them is that Arafat hasn't built a reputation as a "holy man" like Yassin, and probably isn't anywhere as esteemed as the dead cleric. Furthermore, Arafat is the head of the Fatah faction of the PA, which also includes the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which has claimed responsibility for scores of dead Israeli civilians. The only thing keeping Arafat alive is Israel's reliance on the West. For now:

Roni Daniel, military correspondent for Israel's Channel Two TV, cited a senior Israeli defense official as saying Arafat could be a target soon. However, a security official told The Associated Press that Israel's campaign would focus on Hamas. The official said strikes were expected to intensify.

That's due to the target-rich upper structures of Hamas, and Abdel Aziz Rantisi should be next on Israel's hit list. There's no sense in going after Arafat first, but eventually after Israel clears the decks with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Arafat's number will come up.

Clearly, Israel has nothing left to lose except their alliance with the US, and while we will frown at Israel and cluck our tongues, we can offer them no other course except to protect themselves. We've provided the structure for one peace agreement after another, and the Palestinians have proven that they won't negotiate in good faith, and that they won't stop killing Israeli civilians regardless of negotiating status. We simply cannot hold Israel to a different standard than we use when dealing with terrorism. It's past time for us to quit forcing Israel to negotiate with those who would exterminate them, and let them do what they need to protect their own citizens.

In providing Israel no other choice, Arafat may have signed his death warrant. Once Arafat understands that the US will not ride to his rescue any longer, we may find Arafat a changed man. Until then, he should get used to those concentric circles on his back.

CBS Fails to Disclose Financial Ties to Richard Clarke

While CBS gave Richard Clarke the star treatment in a rare double-segment interview on CBS's 60 Minutes and promoted the appearance for several days prior to airing the segment last night, CBS hid the fact that Viacom -- the network's parent company -- published Clarke's book, through Viacom's Simon & Schuster under their Free Press imprint (via Drudge and Instapundit):

60 MINUTES aired a double-segment investigative report on the new book "Against All Enemies" -- but did not disclose how CBSNEWS parent VIACOM is publishing the book and will profit from any and all sales! ... 60 MINUTES pro Lesley Stahl is said to have been aware of the conflict before the program aired.

CBSNEWS.COM did add a disclaimer to its Internet coverage of the book over the weekend: "Against All Enemies," which is being published Monday by FREE PRESS, a subsidiary of SIMON & SCHUSTER. Both CBSNews.com and SIMON & SCHUSTER are units of VIACOM." And CBS RADIO did carry a disclaimer in its news coverage of the book.

According to Matt Drudge, this is not the first time CBS has concealed its financial interest in an investigation by their news organization:

Earlier this year, it was Stahl who also profiled another author on 60 MINUTES -- for another book owned by VIACOMCBS -- without any disclaimer!

"The Price of Loyalty" by former Treasury Secretary, turned Bush critic, Paul O'Neill was financed, produced and released [and rolled-out at CBSNEWS] by VIACOM's SIMON & SCHUSTER.

CBS News has apparently decided to publish anything by anyone with a grudge against George Bush, and part of their marketing is to hijack the reputation of the news organization that Edward R. Murrow built in order to push their political agenda. Laura Ingraham wondered on her show today why Lesley Stahl tossed Clarke softball after softball during the interview, and now we know why.

CBS News President Andrew Heyward needs to address this financial conflict of interest immediately if CBS News wishes to retain any credibility whatsoever. Heads need to roll over this, beginning with the person who greenlighted the interview. Until CBS comes clean, we will know that CBS News whores out for Viacom, and Andrew Heyward is apparently its pimp.

LA Times, Star Tribune Spin Kerry Participation in VVAW Assassination Meeting

As I posted late last week, John Kerry's campaign has backed off its earlier assertion that Kerry hadn't attended the November 1971 Vietnam Veterans Against the War meeting, where the Phoenix Project was debated and put up for a vote. The Phoenix Project was a plan by Scott Camil to assassinate several pro-war elected officials, including Senators John Stennis, John Tower, and Strom Thurmond. Their recantation sprang from the discovery of FBI informant reports -- at least five of them -- of the meetings, which put Kerry firmly in the debate in Kansas City, unearthed by pro-Kerry historian Gerald Nicosia. This was reported earlier in the month by Thomas Lipscomb at the New York Sun, in an excellent piece of journalism.

So what does the Los Angeles Times and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune (who reprinted the article) highlight on this episode? The trampling of John Kerry's rights by J. Edgar Hoover, of course:

As a high-profile activist who crossed the United States criticizing the Nixon administration's role in the Vietnam War, John Kerry was closely monitored by FBI agents for more than a year, according to intelligence documents reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. ... Kerry, now the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, has long known he was a target of FBI surveillance but only last week learned the extent of the scrutiny, he told the Times. The information was provided late last week by Gerald Nicosia, a San Francisco Bay Area author who obtained thousands of pages of FBI intelligence files and who gave copies of some documents to the Times.

The Times wastes no time allowing Kerry to spin this as an affront to Kerry's civil rights:

Kerry said he was troubled by the scope of the monitoring documented in the papers. "I'm surprised by the extent of it," he said. "I'm offended by the intrusiveness of it. And I'm disturbed that it was all conducted absent of some showing of any legitimate probable cause. It's an offense to the Constitution. It's out of order."

Kerry took part in debating the ways and means of assassinating prominent political figures, and he wonders why the FBI was conducting surveillance on him and the VVAW? In fact, the VVAW meeting was moved - twice - because VVAW leadership wanted to avoid FBI surveillance on that particular meeting, for obvious reasons. Kerry knew that the FBI was watching the VVAW. But in 2004, the knee-jerk response for this political debacle is to blame the whole thing on Hoover, and Kerry obviously has people in the media willing to play along.

John Kerry debated the assassination of Americans as a political means to an end of the war, and during this campaign lied about his whereabouts in order to cover it up. It's telling that the only issue the LA Times and Strib cares about is FBI surveillance on the VVAW. (cross-posted at Oh, That Liberal Media)

UPDATE: I decided to e-mail the LA Times' reader representative about this article. I'll let you know if I get any response.

UPDATE II: Welcome, Instapundit readers! If you're coming from Instapundit, you've probably already seen Junkyard Blog's excellent post -- but if not, check it out. He catches another spin in the same issue of the LAT. I also cleaned up some poor grammar.

UPDATE III: More here.

UPDATE IV: Reason linked back to this post but disagrees that this is an issue:

Surely, no one believes his attendance at meetings where Vietnam Veterans Against the War supporters bruited about plans to assassinate American officials means that the Kerry of today intends to frag Bill Frist and Tom Delay anytime soon.

So why did he lie about his attendance there, and try to pressure witnesses to change their story? It's about his character. I don't think that Kerry will frag DeLay, although I suspect that Brian Doherty might not be too unhappy with that result. (Just kidding, Brian, just kidding.) But it tells me something about the man that he could participate in a meeting where the Phoenix Project could be seriously discussed and not go to the police to make sure the plot wasn't carried out, especially as he planned to run for office again.

Power Line on Richard Clarke

I wanted to write a detailed debunking of Richard Clarke, but I found Power Line's Hindrocket has already written the best one I've seen -- much better than I could have written. Here's a taste of Rocket Man's in-depth expose:

But let's pursue a little further the question, who exactly is Richard Clarke? What do we know about him?

First, we know that before September 11, he was professionally committed to the idea that al Qaeda represented a new form of "stateless terrorism" that could never cooperate with a country like Iraq:

Prior to 9/11, the dominant view within the IC was that al Qaida represented a new form of stateless terrorism. That was also the view promoted by the Clinton White House, above all terrorism czar, Richard Clarke. To acknowledge that Iraqi intelligence worked with al Qaida is tantamount to acknowledging that all these people made a tremendous blunder--and they are just not going to do it.

We now know that this dogma was false, and Iraq did in fact support and collaborate with al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups. But there is no one as resistant to new information as a bureaucrat who has staked his career on a theory.

Second, we know that Richard Clarke was very willing to justify pre-emptive attack, on the basis of imperfect intelligence, when the attacker was Bill Clinton:

I would like to speak about a specific case that has been the object of some controversy in the last month -- the U.S. bombing of the chemical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger wrote an article for the op-ed page of today's Washington Times about that bombing, providing the clearest rationale to date for what the United States did. He asks the following questions: What if you were the president of the United States and you were told four facts based on reliable intelligence. The facts were: Usama bin Ladin had attacked the United States and blown up two of its embassies; he was seeking chemical weapons; he had invested in Sudan's military-industrial complex; and Sudan's military-industrial complex was making VX nerve gas at a chemical plant called al-Shifa? Sandy Berger asks: What would you have done? What would Congress and the American people have said to the president if the United States had not blown up the factory, knowing those four facts?

Is it really a crazy idea that terrorists could get chemical or biological weapons?

Well, no, it's anything but a crazy idea. But Clarke seems to have gotten a very different attitude toward that possibility once a Republican became President.

Read the whole thing -- and ask yourself this question (again): if the outgoing Clinton administration had all of this information about al-Qaeda, why didn't they ever do anything about it? Sounds a lot like retroactive CYA to me.

Iraqi Militias to Disband

The Anglo-American led Coalition administration in Baghdad is close to reaching a deal to disarm two of the largest Iraq militias, absorbing them into a centrally-controlled security apparatus and defusing one of the biggest obstacles to domestic stability:

Leaders of Iraq's two largest militias have provisionally agreed to dissolve their forces, according to senior U.S. and Iraqi officials. The move is a major boost to a U.S. campaign to prevent civil war by eliminating armed groups before sovereignty is handed over to an interim Iraqi government on June 30, the officials said.

Members of the two forces -- the Shiite Muslim Badr Organization and the Kurdish pesh merga -- will be offered a chance to work in Iraq's new security services or claim substantial retirement benefits as incentives to disarm and disband. Members of smaller militias will also be allowed to apply for positions with the new security services, but those that choose not to disband will be confronted and disarmed, by force if necessary, senior U.S. officials said.

The militias in the north and the south assisted in providing security for the Coalition in the vacuum created by the disbanding of the Iraqi Army, and both the Kurds and the Shi'ites were more reliable than the Sunnis, who were more closely aligned with Saddam's regime and caused most of the security problems bedeviling the Coalition. However, the existence of these armed forces loyal only to their tribal affiliations would present a huge problem for the incoming native Iraqi government.

The US diplomatic victory in disbanding or co-opting these militias into the central security forces will ease the transition from the occupation to the interim government on July 1st and allow the Iraqis to concentrate on developing the necessary infrastructure for nationwide elections. Although the article indicates some warning flags about troop loyalty, their willingness to reach these agreements speaks volumes to their focus on holding Iraq together as a political unit.

The Left Tastes MoveOn's Meddling

MoveOn.org, a thorn in the side to Republicans and the Bush Administration and the group most involved in the rise of Howard Dean, has branched out from presidential politics to involve itself in environmentalism. However, not all of the environmentalists are happy about this turn of events at the Sierra Club -- and MoveOn isn't the only outside group agitating there:

The Southern Poverty Law Center is known for fighting hate groups but is not usually a player in environmental politics. Neither is the neo-Nazi group White Politics Inc. But in the Sierra Club's current board elections, they are just two of a potpourri of groups seeking to influence the outcome of a contest that could radically reshape the 112-year-old organization. ...

The controversy centers on three insurgent candidates, including former Colorado governor Richard Lamm (D), who are intent on curbing immigration to the United States in the name of environmentalism.

"I feel very strongly population and immigration is an environmental issue," Lamm said in an interview. "Sierra Club has avoided this issue for too long."

The battle has spawned at least three lawsuits, a flurry of mailings to members, as well as two outside groups devoted solely to shaping the future of the Sierra Club. The battle intensified last week when the Internet-based liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org urged its members to help defeat the three insurgent candidates, triggering the latest in a series of complaints from both sides about the involvement of outside groups.

"I'm outraged that MoveOn.org would get involved in the Sierra Club elections and others are as well," said Marcia Hanscom, who is allied with the anti-immigration cohort.

Both MoveOn and the SPLC want to prevent the Sierra Club, with its $83 million annual budget, from being hijacked by what it sees as a neo-Nazi movement. The anti-immigration people within the Sierra Club resent the intrusion of two outside political non-profits in what it sees as an internal issue for their own voters. What no one really disputes now is that outside money has been flooding into the Sierra Club's board elections.

In a way, the irony is laughable. These people who are decrying the flood of outside money are from the same part of the political spectrum who believe that George Soros should be allowed to buy the presidency, and who have no problem with MoveOn funding various 527s to purchase ads to that same purpose, such as the ones that compared Bush to Hitler. They're getting a taste of their own medicine in microcosm, and they're finding it rather bitter.

No one wants to see neo-Nazis take over anything -- but I don't know that Dick Lamm really qualifies as a neo-Nazi, either. I think everyone at the Sierra Club may be getting hysterical, which is also no great surprise for this Chicken Little organization of environmental hysterics, as well as MoveOn and the SPLC.

Sheik Yassin Killed in Gaza

Israeli military forces killed Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the "spiritual leader" of the Hamas terrorist group, in a raid on his Gaza City neighborhood:

Witnesses said Israeli helicopters fired three missiles at Yassin and two bodyguards as they left the mosque, killing them instantly. Hamas officials confirmed that he had been killed.

Yussef Haddad, 35, a taxi driver, said he saw the missiles hit and kill Yassin and the bodyguards. "Their bodies were shattered," he said.

Yassin was by far the most senior Palestinian militant killed in more than three years of Israeli-Palestinian fighting.

Predictably, hundreds of Palestinians called for revenge. But here's the problem -- over 75% already support the indiscriminate killing of Israeli citizens that this "spiritual" leader directed, so calling for revenge is nothing but a redundancy. The Israelis literally have nothing to lose anymore by targeting senior terrorist leadership, since none of them have ever given any indication that they will accept anything less than the extinction of Israel, one bus or coffee shop at a time.

Quite frankly, the Palestinians themselves are becoming irrelevant. Until they quit blowing people up, I really have no interest in their self-inflicted misery. Let's hope that this is just the beginning of a string of Israeli military successes against the same kind of people who bombed Madrid and slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

Goodbye, Mr. Yassin. You won't be missed by any but a select few, and with any luck they'll be joining you. Soon.

UPDATE: The Commissar at the Politburo Diktat awards Yassin the Order of the Red Banner ... POSTHUMOUSLY. Yup.

The High-Water Mark for Islamists?

Islamists suffered an unexpected setback in Malaysia, where they wound up on the wrong end of an electoral landslide that put moderates firmly in control of the world's largest Muslim nation:

Malaysia's ruling moderates have won an unexpected landslide victory over the fundamentalist Islamic opposition in Sunday's elections.

The results are being seen as a personal endorsement for Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and a setback for Islamic hardliners.

Voters were choosing 219 members of paliament and 505 state assembly members. Abdullah's National Party has so far taken almost 90 percent of parliament's seats giving the prime minister a mandate for change. Abdullah, who took over from longtime leader Mahathir Mohamad in October, was always expected to win, but the margin was a surprise.

While we hear the worries on the left that George Bush is radicalizing Muslims around the world, we're seeing the opposite: Iran negotiating compliance on non-proliferation, Libya surrendering its WMD programs, the Afghanis establishing their own democratic constitution, and now even the Malaysians have thoroughly rejected militant Islamism in favor of moderation, even cooperation on the war on terror, even if the former leader of the moderates, Mohammed Mahathir, is a moonbat anti-Semite.

Malyasians have given moderates a stunning mandate and Islamists an embarassing defeat. Now the question is whether the Islamists will attempt to wrest power with force from the moderates since they failed so miserably with the ballot.

Why The Law-Enforcement Approach Doesn't Work

The AP reports on the legal front of the war on terror -- and the news is not looking good:

The post-Sept. 11 war against terrorism is suffering as much in the courts as in the streets with several legal setbacks involving suspected 20 members and other groups around the world. The biggest reversal came in Germany when a court threw out the only conviction of a Sept. 11 suspect. But other cases have been hindered, too, including against a militant Indonesian cleric and Zacarias Moussaoui, the only alleged Sept. 11 conspirator charged in the United States.

The U.S. reluctance to let witnesses in custody testify and the sheer complexity of cross-border investigations are mostly to blame.

The article goes on to define the lunacy of treating al-Qaeda terrorists as defendants in civilian courts. In order to defeat al-Qaeda, Western nations need to stop the terrorists before they strike -- and that means that a great deal of the effort must go into intelligence work. Building intelligence assets takes time and secrecy, which is hardly compatible with Western court systems. It's the same problem that the US government had to overcome when trying the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing. They only overcame the hurdles in that case because they planned on doing nothing further ... because no more crimes had been committed.

And that is the true limitation of using a law-enforcement approach against al-Qaeda terrorists. Law enforcement is by its nature reactive. In order to apply that strategy, you have to wait for a crime to be committed. Unfortunately, 9/11 made clear to us that we cannot allow that to happen again, and so we have to use other methods to stop the attacks before, rather than after, they occur. That's why we call it a war on terror -- it's both an intelligence and a military war at the same time.

The natural impulse of Western countries is to take those terrorists we can manage to capture and put them in the dock; some insist that this is the only way to prove the supremacy of the democracies over the fanatics. Hogwash. We aren't required to commit suicide in order to prove we're better than bombthrowers. If we are to avoid another 9/11 -- or worse, as the enemy claims that they have nuclear briefcase bombs now -- we must protect the integrity of our intelligence networks. Captured terrorists should be tried by military tribunals, where their rights can be protected, as well as our efforts to keep our nations safe.

Liberal Radio Launch

Today's Washington Post takes a revealing look at Air America, the new liberal radio network that will launch soon in four cities: New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Spearheaded by Al Franken and funded in the multimillions by people like George Soros and the Hollywood left, they intend on providing another choice in talk radio. Mitch Berg and the guys at Fraters Libertas have written extensively on this topic and have much more familiarity with the personalities involved than I do. In fact, we spent the final hour of our own radio show yesterday discussing the upcoming launch.

I don't quite see the market for Air America, although we won't know for sure until they go on the air. After all, no one's arguing that NPR is fair and balanced, and it has much more intellectual heft than Al Franken, Chuck D, and Janeane Garofalo will provide Air America (or as Mitch loves to refer to it, FrankenNet). While the Washington Post piece refers to the liberals' mistrust of "mainstream media", it would be hard for anyone to imagine that the most powerful news organizations in their launch markets -- New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and just about every periodical in San Francisco -- are somehow overly conservative. (Perhaps in Chicago one could make an argument that the Sun and the Tribune aren't as left-oriented as the broadsheets in the first three markets, but I don't think you could describe them as part of any vast right-wing conspiracy, either.) Conservative talk radio in these markets thrive because of that lack of balance in the mainstream media, but generally only occupy one or two stations in a very crowded dial.

However, ratings won't really be a problem anyway, as the fledgeling netlet has not been able to sell itself to any radio stations, and instead has had to spend its money buying stations rather than leasing time on others. This rather expensive strategy has cost Air America most of its capital and limited its ability to expand, but it also frees the operation from attracting advertising dollars, at least in the short run. Eventually they'll have to have some cash flow in order to pay salaries, but for now they're free to operate in any way they see fit -- and if they can keep capital flowing in from their wealthy benefactors, that could continue for some time.

For an idea of how the gang at FrankenNet plan to approach their new air time, here's Lizz Winstead, formerly of Minnesota's "Lutheran police state":

"We're not going to call anybody names," Lewis says. "I don't think we're trying to make people mad. There are a lot of people out there who are already mad." ... "I'm not a crazed 'I hate all conservatives' person," Winstead says in Air America's 40th-floor office on Park Avenue. "One thing we're not about is 'Doesn't Bush suck?' That's boring." She disdains hosts "who can incite hot-button issues and hot-button answers."

Limbaugh, she allows, "is highly entertaining. He has emotion, highs, lows, passion. But so did Hitler."

Glad to hear that name-calling is off the agenda at Air America. Here's an unbiased opinion from the Washington Post of their chances at building a market:

Marty Kaplan, a former Walter Mondale aide now at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication, says that "the power of radio is extraordinary, and I don't think it's ever been tried as a mood button for progressives. There's an audience for bile. One hopes there is equally an audience for irreverent comedy and smart deconstruction of the foibles of the right, which has become the establishment."

The Washington Post looks for an expert in radio and marketing, and finds one who coincidentally worked for Walter Mondale -- who then dismisses conservative talk radio as "bile" while describing Air America's programming (which so far doesn't exist) as "irreverent comedy and smart deconstruction of the foibles of the right, which has become the establishment."

Yes, I can see why the Air America group thinks that there's no liberal media bias. Kaplan didn't get a chance to mention that the right were a bunch of hate-filled bigots. Shame on the WaPo for silencing Kaplan! Thank goodness that Air America will soon fill the airwaves, freeing us from the oppressive conservatism of the Post and the other corporate-greed media barons.

Kerry: Flip-Flop Partisan Hack All The Way

Glenn Kessler writes a fairly balanced piece on John Kerry's foreign policy experience and philosophy in today's Washington Post. At least, Kessler's article provides more balance than those I've read before on Kerry and his election run, especially in the East Coast media. The general tone can be summed up in this excerpt:

Throughout his career, Kerry generally had been rated among the left-of-center members of the Democratic caucus on foreign policy issues, according to organizations such as the National Journal that rank lawmakers based on key votes. Kerry displayed skepticism about costly weapons systems, such as the B-2 bomber and President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (though he supported a 1999 bill to deploy a national missile defense). He supported measures promoting human rights in China and questioned U.S. support for the contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s. At the same time, he also embraced free trade pacts, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.

But it is difficult to draw a complete picture from a few floor votes -- or even hundreds of votes -- because so many reflect the political agenda of the party in power.

Kerry earned some of his most conservative ratings from the National Journal on foreign policy in the two years -- 1993 and 1994 -- during which the Democrats held both the White House and the Senate during his tenure.

If nothing else, remember that last piece, because it explains the nature of Kerry's voting record -- and his history of contradictory voting and political positions throughout his nineteen-year Senate career. For instance:

Kerry displayed skepticism about costly weapons systems, such as the B-2 bomber and President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (though he supported a 1999 bill to deploy a national missile defense). He supported measures promoting human rights in China and questioned U.S. support for the contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s. At the same time, he also embraced free trade pacts, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.

B-2 Bomber: Reagan in White House.
SDI: Reagan.
Contra Support: Reagan.
NAFTA: Clinton in White House.

While this explains a good deal of Kerry's shifting positions, as the article itself hints, sometimes Kerry's shifts are prompted by good, old-fashioned hindsight:

When Kerry rose before the Senate on Jan. 11, 1991, to explain his vote against the Gulf War resolution, he charged that the George H.W. Bush administration had done too little to involve the rest of the world in its campaign to oust Iraq from Kuwait.

"Can it really be said that we are building a new world order when it is almost exclusively the United States who will be fighting in the desert, not alone but almost, displaying pride and impatience and implementing what essentially amounts to a pax Americana?" he asked. "Is that a new world order?"

Eleven years later, when Kerry discussed the resolution for last year's war against Iraq, his opinion of Bush's father's efforts had changed: He praised the coalition that had been formed for the Gulf War, in part to complain that the current president had thus far failed to secure the same level of cooperation.

Of course, the problem is that we couldn't afford to wait eleven years for a President Kerry to figure it out.

As for Kerry's overall philosophy, Kessler says that Kerry is all about "engagement"; he consistently votes against any action that he feels has not had enough "engagement" with other countries. In 1995, for instance, while Bosnians were being massacred by the Serbs, he voted against lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia -- one of only 29 Senators to do so -- because he felt that the US had not coordinated properly with Europe on the issue. However, Kerry had no problem putting US troops on the ground as buffers between the Serbs and the Bosnians instead of just letting the Bosnians defend themselves, as long as Europe wanted the US there. Nine years later, we're still there.

Bush has accused Kerry of wanting a permission slip from the UN before taking any action internationally, a charge at which Kerry bristles. "Never. Never have. Never ever, ever in my life in the United States Senate have I ever ceded our authority to the U.N. or have I recommended it," he said. "Never. Not once in one vote; not in one speech. Never. That is a lie."

Well, never in the US Senate -- but that qualifier is huge. In his first run for Congress in 1970, Kerry had this to say to the Harvard Crimson:

"I'm an internationalist," Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." Kerry said he wanted "to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care."

The Kerry campaign, celebrating primary victories in Virginia and Tennessee last night, declined to comment on the senator's remarks. As a candidate for president, Kerry has said he supports the autonomy of the U.S. military and has never called for a scale-back of CIA operations

At best, Kerry is a rank political opportunist, much like Bill Clinton, but without Clinton's charm, and -- it must be said -- without Clinton's instinct for getting it right more often than not. For all of Kerry's education and resume, he's simply not very bright when it comes down to making the right choices in history. He supported the Sandanistas when it turned out that the Nicaraguans detested them. He opposed the Gulf War even though the UN approved it and it turned out to be a success, as far as it went. He voted against weapons systems that turned out to be crucial to our military preparedness. And he did all that because a Republican was in the White House at the time these issues were on the table. Kerry had no problem supporting NAFTA or regime change in Iraq or military action in the Balkans without UN approval -- because a Democrat was in the White House.

All of which points up the real problem with Kerry, and that is that you can't pin down which Kerry is the real one. Here's the best assessment I've seen, from one of Senator Kerry's own political allies:

Robert Kagan, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said he senses that Kerry in recent years has been refashioning his foreign-policy persona, making it appear tougher, in preparation for a run for the presidency. "The question, setting aside the campaign, is: Where is John Kerry's heart?" said Kagan, who has advocated a muscular U.S. approach to world affairs. "My sense is his heart is in the anti-Vietnam, '70s-'80s left."

You bet. And all of this overweening concern for "engagement" is nothing but a smokescreen for analysis paralysis, allowing the anti-war leftist the wimpy way out of having to make the tough national-security actions. Because history shows that if you wait for unanimous UN approval on anything significant, you can procrastinate forever.