Captain's Quarters E-Mail and Comment Policy

E-Mail

You'll find my e-mail address at the top of the left sidebar. When I receive e-mail, I assume that I can quote any or all of e-mails in the blog unless you specify that you do not want it republished, which I would honor, of course. Due to the overwhelming amount of e-mail I receive, I may not answer every one. However, I do read them all and try to respond when I can.

I've had readers ask if they can post messages to this blog. I'm inclined to say no, but if an e-mail is well-written and I'm interested in the subject, I'll occasionally post it myself with appropriate credit. I encourage anyone who thinks they'd like to write posts from time to time to start their own blogs. Blogspot and Blogger have free blog programs (they sell banner advertising for revenue), and Typepad allows a more professional look for a small monthly fee, which includes the hosting service. Typepad runs on a web-based version of Movable Type, which powers this and many other blogs.

Let me know if CQ inspires you to start your own blog!

Comments

When I began my blog, I was advised to disable comments as some blogs have experienced many problems with "trolls", but I think that the comments are in some ways the best part of CQ. In my definition, a troll is a commenter whose comments are off-topic and designed to insult other readers or us or to start silly flame wars. Threatening comments also are the hallmark of the troll. Any comments from trolls may be deleted by the author of the post at our discretion, with or without warning or notice.

However, I do not delete comments that disagree with me, even when that disagreement is handled disagreeably. I have a number of fine, intelligent readers who regularly disagree with me, and I appreciate their points of view. I love the debate, so please feel free to continue to post your disagreements. I also don't worry too much about foul language, although you should remember that cursing should be handled as a spice: too much and you overwhelm the meal.

I am not inclined to host long comments. Comments should be a reasonable length and address the topic at hand. Long jeremiads will get junked by me if they make it through the filters, especially those obviously lifted from advocacy sites. My decisions are final on that score. If you want to write long comments, I'd suggest starting your own blog.

I will rarely edit anyone's comments. I would be more likely to delete it altogether. I have had people ask me to edit their comments after they have been posted for accuracy or basic grammar issues, and I will do that when asked. (Hint: the Preview button is your friend.)

I use complex spam filtering on the blog, which will toss out comments coming from known IP addresses of spammers, comments with too many URLs, comments with URLs from known spammers, etc. I do not consider it a duty to do search and rescue on junked comments, so be sure that your comments don't bait the anti-spam processes.

People who conduct themselves in an abusive manner will get banned with no warnings. I'm going to apply this standard: conduct yourself as though you were a guest in my house. If you start calling me names or insulting my guests, I'll show you the door, and probably without warning.

Otherwise, banning will only be implemented when a troll refuses to get the message that their comments do not meet my guidelines. If you find you can't comment, drop me an e-mail and I'll see if I can fix the problem, but you'll have to tell me your IP address for me to troubleshoot.

Trackback Pings

... are enabled purposely on CQ. I like Trackbacks; it allows other bloggers to continue the debate on their own blogs and spreads traffic around. For those who do not know the etiquette on Trackback pings, you must refer to Captain's Quarters or one of us by name in your blog post with a link back to the post which you've pinged. Trackback pings for posts that don't link back to CQ will be deleted.

I don't know how the Trackback ping system works, although explanations are out there. If you have a Movable Type or Typepad blog, they're fairly simple to use. I'm not sure how to do it if your blog system doesn't include it. The same spam filters in place for comments work on Trackbacks as well. If your ping isn't making it through, it may be getting flagged as junk by that process. I understand that Blogger pings use URLs that don't resolve back to the domain name of the individual blogs, and they will almost always get junked. There's nothing I can do about that; you may want to ask Blogger, or use a manual ping system instead.

Summary

Mostly, I just want people to enjoy the blog and join in the community of readers at CQ without worrying about a bunch of rules. The only reason I'm posting this is to make sure you understand my outlook on these issues so that I don't wind up disappointing you later on. If you have any questions about these policies, feel free to e-mail us.

Thank you for reading Captain's Quarters!

Al Qaeda is winning the war of ideas

In a previous post, I commented that the war in Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror. I've changed my mind. It is becoming clear the war of ideas is the most critical engagement in our efforts against Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists. Sadly, this is a battle we are losing.

The legendary Hugh Hewitt has posted a brilliant article written by a colleague. The anonymous academic describes several historical instances where great military forces have been defeated not on the battlefield, but by strategic blunders. He/she begins with the premise of the center of gravity:

“People schooled in strategy wisely and routinely consult THE giant of strategic thinking, Carl Von Clausewitz and his tome On War. The great Prussian strategist discussed the concept of an enemy's "center of gravity" (COG). If one can successfully identify an adversary's center of gravity and destroy it, the war can be won. So the questions for American strategists are: What is al Queda's COG and what is the US center of gravity that must be protected at all costs?”

The academic goes on to describe America’s defeat in Vietnam as strategic and not military in nature:

“History now shows that the assumptions of General Giap, NVN's famous strategist who engineered the victory at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, were completely wrong and that militarily Tet was a disastrous defeat for the North and the VC. Giap was relieved in disgrace. But a funny thing happened on the way to the war. The American media reported the event as a major DEFEAT for the US and the South.”

In a disturbing conclusion, Hugh’s colleague characterizes the scandal surrounding Abu Ghraib and the commentary on Nick Berg’s slaughter as a devastating attack on America’s center of gravity:

“Jump to bin Laden headquarters and imagine how gleeful Osama and his "generals" must be. An American is viciously slain for all to see and the US Congress and the victim's father blame NOT al Queda but the US Commander in Chief! Al Queda is winning this war, slowly, one newscast and daily sheet run at a time. The press sees the glory days of Vietnam and Watergate returning and it is acting in its own self interest and not in the interest of the American republic.”

“This is confirmation for the Muslim jihadists that all of the beliefs they hold with regard to America being corrupt are true, AND it adds to the strategic advantage I now believe to be held by al Queda. All al Queda needs to do now is NOT lose but to strike when able at the time and place of its choosing. Al Queda has correctly identified the US center of gravity. The US on the other hand has yet to do the same with regards to al Queda. The American elite media does not care that Nick Berg was murdered and is now wringing its hands like some Hamlet character while al Queda plots its next attack. America is losing this war, not tactically but strategically and THAT is the essence of warfare.”

All is not lost, however! The academic suggests the US go on the information offensive. (I blogged on this topic last night, see a the post Checklist for victory.) If our center of gravity is our national will to fight, our free press is a key player in that regard. We can’t force our liberal media to support the war on terror, but WE DON’T HAVE TO LISTEN TO THEM. This is not the Vietnam error, and the internet has liberated us from Tom Brokaw.

The US must also identify Al Qaeda’s center of gravity and go after it. Afghanistan was a military and logistics center, but never the heart of Al Qaeda. I suggest Al Qaeda’s center of gravity is not a terrorist stronghold or even its affiliation with its state sponsors.

Al Qaeda’s center of gravity is the moderate Muslim community. They are the ones who rationalize its behavior, celebrate its victories, and believe America is the enemy. They might utter a few apologies here and there, but they have failed to denounce the terrorists as evil murderers. This is a force we can’t diffuse by dropping bombs or announcing sanctions. Instead, we have the infinitely difficult task of winning their hearts and minds through the war of ideas.

THIS is torture

Roger Simon has a scoop on real torture video and photographs from Abu Ghraib about to be released. (Hat tip: Instapundit) According to Roger, "These are all acts performed by Saddam's soldiers and police in uniform."

According to Roger's source, the photographs show Kurds being castrated and the videos portay the following:

"Two beheadings, during one of which "Happy Birthday, Saddam" is being sung in Arabic."

"ingers being cut off one by one from a hand tied to a board."

"People being thrown off four-story buildings, one forced to wear a Superman costume."

"A man scourged ninety-nine times."

"Three different instances of gas poisonings (probably employing different types), including dead babies."

Roger comments, "I also would like to know what Senator Kennedy has to say about the moral equivalence of our actions after watching these tapes. And finally, I would like to know why it took so long for these to come out."

It is likely we seized similar evidence during the invasion of Iraq and have analyzed it to determine which Baath party members should be detained. There were valid security reasons for the US not rush out and release the evidence.

But now these horrific images must be shown to the world. The War on Terror is as much a battle of ideas as it is an actual military engagement. Saddam's evil legacy is a part of this debate, and anyone who wants to apologize for or revise the history of his regime needs to take a good hard look at this evidence when it is made public.

Gene Simmons to Islam: KISS Off!

Gene Simmons, bass player in glam-rock band KISS and no stranger to controversy for his outspoken views on religion, stirred up a hornet's nest in Australia when he called Islam "vile" and the UN useless (via The Corner):

KISS bass player GENE SIMMONS has angered the Muslim community after labelling Islam a "vile" culture on a live radio interview ...

Simmons also warned that the West was under threat, and that the United Nations didn’t work, adding the West must "speak softly and carry a big stick".

"This is a vile culture and if you think for a second that it's going to just live in the sands of God's armpit you've got another thing coming," he said. "They want to come and live right where you live and they think that you're evil."

Melbourne's 3AW radio received a large number of complaints following Simmon's statements, claiming that Simmons' insults painted an inaccurate portrait of Islam. One Muslim spokesman suggested that Simmons familiarize himself with Australia's vilification laws, hinting that criminal complaints could be filed.

Before filling the air with hosannas to Simmons' judgement, however, people may want to know a little more about his history of religious philosophy. Simmons doesn't much care for any organized religion, despite being an Israeli with a strong sense of Jewish identity, and has made similarly derisive statements about Christianity and Judaism in the past. Normally I could find about a dozen links to demonstrate this, but at the moment I can only find his interview with Bass Player Magazine, where he was mostly well-behaved.

A word of advice for the Australian Muslim community: don't take Simmons too seriously, even if you're inclined to take a man who wears face paint for a living as a serious representative of Western thought. However, if you choose to tangle with him, be prepared -- Simmons may have little by way of moral anchors, but he is extremely intelligent and not reluctant to demonstrate that.

Northern Alliance Radio Needs A New Logo - Obviously

As I've mentioned already in the Caption Contest post, the Northern Alliance Radio Network is holding a contest for a new logo. The guys at Fraters Libertas has already blogged about the contest, in a post accurately titled, "Our Logo Blows Contest". Here's the current blow-worthy logo that NARN has struggled under:

Mitch Berg cooked up the logo by spending three minutes in Microsoft Paint, which as Mitch notes in his post on the subject, was three minutes more than any of us bothered to spend on the idea. However, we were more than happy to spend lots of minutes trying to determine the meaning of the logo. Did it point north? Was it a wedgie? (The studios get pretty rough when the Fraters guys are around, after all.) Did it represent us as pointy-headed intellectuals? We do have two lawyers and an economics professor on board. Saint Paul at Fraters Libertas even surmised that it might be a single pulse on an EKG, which led us to offer the logo to Err America after we pick the winning entry in this contest:

In order to submit an entry to the contest, e-mail it to us at logo*at*northernallianceradio.com as soon as possible. I don't know what the time limit will be, but why risk missing the deadline? We're open to all sorts of ideas. Just remember that we need to display this on our show site and hopefully on the AM1280 The Patriot site, too. Nudity will result in a strongly worded reply from all members of the Northern Alliance, after lengthy review, of course ...

Paid To Hate: The Err America Experience

God bless Air America, for its bounty apparently is endless. The Star Tribune's Deborah Caulfield Rybak reviews the "bumpy start" that has plagued the netlet's first few months ... if you can call getting kicked off the air in two of the three largest markets, the mass exodus of executives, and failing to meet payroll simply a "bumpy start".

Bumps like that usually indicate ... a crash, don't they?

However, the on-air talent at Err America keep their spirits up, because despite the devastating reviews from even other liberals, they believe the shows' quality has improved:

Because, at least outside the revolving doors of the executive suites, the mood -- and news -- is good. Personalities for the various shows are beginning to emerge and the amateurish technical glitches are beginning to subside.

"People need to separate the business stuff from the on-air success," said Tom Taylor, editor of the industry newsletter Inside Radio. "I think they're doing a Herculean job."

Yes, well, it's typically leftist to hate the business side of anything, but unfortunately quality doesn't guarantee success; you could ask Preston Tucker about that, if he was still around. Even if their creative output may be in question by everyone who's reviewed it, it would still not matter, for Air America is a cause, not a job:

Among the 100 or so staffers, the mood remains defiant and the mission clear. "When they pay you to hate this [Bush] administration and to expose the lies, it's the best job in the world," said Lizz Winstead, the former Minnesotan who has taken over as programming chief in addition to her five-day-a-week show.

What a lucky break for Winstead -- she gets to sell hate five days a week, and fortunately for her, it's a seller's market! More perspective on life from Winstead:

"I don't try to squeeze in friends or a drink or a dinner party these days," she said. "I've kind of made the commitment that getting rid of George Bush is more important than having a social life."

An on life at Air America, host Al Franken has this to say:

Although Franken says most of the staff is shielded from executive-suite shakeups, "every once in a while I get called in and told, "This manager has left or this one is coming in, and I go 'Oh, OK.' But mainly we're just trying to get the show on. That's really what it's about."

Bear in mind that they've only been on the air two months. "Every once in a while" has meant almost every week for the past month. (Check out the Radio category in this blog for more.) Business investors have noticed the lack of business acumen so far in this enterprise, as Rybak reports:

"The negative news doesn't make it any more attractive for a station to break its format and sign on in any long-term basis with Air America," said John Rash, director of broadcast negotiations for Minneapolis-based Campbell Mithun ad agency.

Michael Harrison, editor of the talk radio magazine Talkers, was more blunt:

"The impression one gets from this whole thing is that it's really more of a political campaign with contributers than it is a radio business with investors. That's been the thing that's made it seem so shaky to those inside the business. It doesn't follow the pattern of a business; it's more of a political movement. And radio is not a political machine. Radio is a medium."

However, as the Elder at Fraters Libertas points out, the news is not all bad. Here in the Twin Cities, the struggling netlet has landed a more permanent home. They've purchased yet another small station, this time through Minnesota Production Network, that the Catholic radio network Starboard Media wanted to dump for its move to the higher-wattage WMNN.

McCain: The Canary In The Mine of Democratic Desperation

The New York Times continues to insist that John Kerry wants Republican Senator John McCain to fill out the bottom of the Democratic ticket in November. Sheryl Gay Stolberg and reliable Kerry hack Jodi Wilgoren report from that even some Democrats often named as potential VP choices dream abut a Kerry-McCain ticket:

Despite weeks of steadfast rejections from Senator John McCain, some prominent Democrats are angling for him to run for vice president alongside Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, creating a bipartisan ticket that they say would instantly transform the presidential race.

The enthusiasm of Democrats for Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, is so high that even some who have been mentioned as possible Kerry running mates — including Senator Bill Nelson of Florida and Bob Kerrey, the former Nebraska senator — are spinning scenarios about a "unity government," effectively giving Mr. Kerry a green light to reach across the political aisle and extend an offer.

"Senator McCain would not have to leave his party," Mr. Kerrey said. "He could remain a Republican, would be given some authority over selection of cabinet people. The only thing he would have to do is say, `I'm not going to appoint any judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade,' " the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, which Mr. McCain has said he opposes.

Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist who once worked for Mr. Kerry, said such a ticket "would be the political equivalent of the Yankees signing A-Rod," referring to Alex Rodriguez, the team's star third baseman.

This raises huge political issues for Democrats in 2004. First, McCain has repeatedly said that he won't agree to run on Kerry's ticket. In fact, McCain has publicly come out and endorsed George Bush, stating that "he has led the nation with strength and clarity since Sept. 11." For him to reverse himself and argue against Bush's re-election would destroy his credibility, the very quality for which Kerry needs McCain, thanks to Kerry's extremely flexible approach to policy principles. How would turning John McCain into a political opportunist benefit the Kerry campaign?

Next, in a narrow sense, all of this focus on McCain and his personal stories of courage as a panacea to what ails the Democratic ticket only emphasizes the very real problems Kerry has in this area. Kerry's entire campaign, thus far, has been to run on his biography, thinking that his experience under fire would simply flood the zone and reduce the amount of time speaking on policy. Unfortunately, his attempts to infuse what happened 35 years ago while declaring off-limits what happened in the years immediately following that time have been a disaster, and now Vietnam looms as more of a liability. McCain could fix that by association with Kerry, or so the Democrats quoted in the article imply.

Following that line of thought a bit farther, Wilgoren and Stolberg note that adding McCain would boost Kerry's credentials on the war on Islamofascist terror. Up to now, we had not heard any concern about credentials coming from the Kerry camp or the New York Times. However, you can feel that concern coming off in waves from this article. And again, it's interesting to note that in order to claim some gravitas on national security, Democrats have to turn to Republicans -- much like Bill Clinton did when he selected William Cohen.

In a larger sense, it also emphasizes a notion that the Times starts to explore, and that is that no other Democrat seems qualified to run with Kerry, or at least the Democrats begin to leave that impression with all of this McCain wooing. Bob Kerrey and Senator Bill Nelson of Florida go on record endorsing the notion that no one else is best suited for the Democratic VP nomination than a Republican. Either no one significant in the party wants to run with Kerry -- an indication of major difficulties in itself -- or the party admits that they can't field a qualified candidate. This desperate pursuit of a candidate for VP would be bad PR even if the candidate were from the same party, but in this case, it appears pathetic.

In the end, McCain won't do it, which only will embarrass the Democrats and make their eventual selection look like a consolation prize. If the Democrats continue to insist that the best selection for VP is a Republican, the voters may be forgiven for following the argument to its logical conclusion and decide that a Republican would be the best choice for President as well. (via Power Line)

More evidence Kerry is a war criminal

Senator Kerry admitted on several occasions he committed war crimes in Vietnam. Apparently fellow swift boat officer Thomas Wright agrees.

“I had a lot of trouble getting him to follow orders,” recalls Wright. “He had a different view of leadership and operations. Those of us with direct experience working with Kerry found him difficult and oriented towards his personal, rather than unit goals and objectives. I believed that overall responsibility rested squarely on the shoulders of the OIC or OTC in a free-fire zone. You had to be right (before opening fire). Kerry seemed to believe there were no rules in a free-fire zone and you were supposed to kill anyone. I didn’t see it that way.” …

Hat tip: Command Post.

Candidate Kerry consistently cites the so-called free fire zone as an example of a war crime committed by himself and others in Vietnam. (A free-fire zone is an area where there is known enemy activity, and the concept allows troops to launch attacks on such an area randomnly, in order to deter such activity. However, troops were expected not to use this as an excuse to fire upon innocent civilians.) It's looking more and more like Kerry's ignorance of the rules of war was the problem and not the free-fire concept.

But Senator Kerry has already confessed to his complicity in war crimes. Perhaps he should submit to the jurisdiction International Criminal Court . . . I hear they are anxious to try Americans.

A Great Example Of The Left's Hypocrisy On Race

The Left tosses another double standard at the Republicans today in an op-ed piece in today's Los Angeles Times. Lawrence Weschler, author and academic, writes a smirking, breathless piece on the audacity of George Bush to include pictures of black people on his website. Oh, the scandal! Of course, the lack of minorities in John Kerry's inner circle never quite comes up:

Quick. Before they take it down. Go to your computer, log on to http://www.georgewbush.com — the official Bush/Cheney '04 reelection website. ...

Nice big picture of Bush merrily shooting the breeze with two black teenage girls. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and you'll find a quadrant labeled Compassion Photos, with the invitation, "Click here for the Compassion Photo Album." Do so.

And let's see, what have we got? First one up: short-sleeved Bush, holding a black kid in his arms, a bleacher full of black kids behind him, and he's merrily waving to the crowd. Click "next." And it's Bush at a Waco Habitat for Humanity building site, his arm draped around a black woman, his other hand tapping the shoulder of another of the black construction volunteers. Next: Bush waving to the Urban League. Next: Bush working a crowd, a black — or maybe, in this case, South Indian — kid prominently featured in the foreground, gazing on in amazement. Bush in an African thatch-roofed schoolroom.

This goes on for quite a while, with Weschler finding it incredible that George Bush could actually be photographed with African-Americans. But why exactly does this show of diversity -- isn't that a worthy goal? -- bother Weschler so greatly? Here's part of his explanation, such as it is:

I mean, bracket for a moment some of the actual facts concerning the fate of blacks and other people of color across the years of the Bush administration. How, for instance, tax cuts massively skewed toward the wealthy favor whites, while the huge resultant deficits necessitate service cuts massively disfavoring the poor, a group that includes proportionally more blacks.

My question is, for whom is this photo gallery intended? Does anybody seriously think blacks are going to be swayed by one staged photo op after another, in which time and again their confederates are cast as the pitiable recipients of an ostentatious display of kingly compassion?

Ah, I see -- Bush has not followed Weschler's prescription for domestic policy, which means higher taxes and increased social spending, so he's not allowed to be photographed with minorities. But in answering Weschler's challenge on the last question, Bush rightly points to his track record in placing people of color (and women) in positions of power, especially in non-traditional roles. Instead of having a woman head Health and Human Services, he has women of color running the national security and Department of Labor. He selected Colin Powell to be Secretary of State and Rod Paige as Secretary of Education, and so on. Weschler, after having asked what Bush has done for blacks, then derides him for having the poor taste to answer:

Although in this context it's worth recalling Bush's own reply to a journalist in 2001 who, citing the new president's highly unusual refusal to address the annual meeting of the NAACP, had asked how he might respond to critics who said his "civil rights record was less than stellar." Smirking, the president replied: "Let's see. There I was sitting around the table with foreign leaders looking at Colin Powell and Condi Rice." End of discussion.

In the first place, it's not terribly unusual for people to avoid groups who spent most of the previous year slandering them, which the NAACP did by running ads suggesting that George Bush was responsible for the car-lynching of James Byrd, whose murderers were sentenced to death in Texas, and for running ads with Bush's face superimposed on a Confederate flag. Beyond that irrelevancy, Bush's answer to critics of his civil-rights approach was to show his own commitment to diversity. Weschler loves the question, I suppose, but hates the answer, because it shoots down his entire, and yes, bigoted notion of Republicans.

Let's take a look at the approach used by a Democrat, shall we? John Kerry, a rich Boston Brahmin who has been in politics for over thirty years as a water-carrier for liberals, has managed to create a miniscandal in his own campaign by surrounding himself with a monochromatic group of inner-circle advisors -- and that single color isn't blue. As the New York Times reported just two weeks ago, traditional constituencies of the Democrats are none too happy about it, perhaps a reason for Weschler to attack Bush for his commitment to real diversity:

For weeks, Senator John Kerry savored a Democratic Party that was unified in rallying behind his presidential candidacy. But in recent days, influential black and Hispanic political leaders whom the campaign had counted on for support have been openly complaining that Mr. Kerry's organization lacks diversity and is failing to appeal directly to minority voters.

Even as Mr. Kerry spoke here on Thursday to the National Conference of Black Mayors — an appearance his community outreach team viewed as critical to building a network of minority support — two influential Latino leaders circulated harsh letters expressing concern about the campaign's dealings with minorities.

And in interviews over the last week, more than a dozen minority elected officials and political strategists voiced concerns about what they said was the dearth of representation in Mr. Kerry's inner circle and worried that he was taking black and Hispanic votes for granted.

So what we have here is a transparent attempt to shift attention from the growing realization that minorities will only get token representation, as usual, from the Democrats in Kerry's campaign (and by extension, his administration if elected) by counting the black people in pictures on George Bush's website. You can bet that if Weschler had counted too few, this column would still have appeared, arguing that a lack of such images portended some evil, master plot to propose "Dixie" as the national anthem.

As usual, the Left targets appearance above substance, and perhaps those constituencies that have traditionally supported Democrats will realize that Bush offers a real voice in policy matters to people of all colors -- while the Left continues to count faces in the picture to demonstrate their commitment to diversity.

A kindler, gentler approach to the War on Terror?

When reading Deroy Murdock’s recent op-ed in the New York Post, I was reminded of the famous quote, “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at nigh only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." But according to Mr. Murdock:

“America's top commander in Iraq, Lt.-Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, prohibited Thursday the use of sensory deprivation and "stress positions" (uncomfortable body poses) as tools of interrogation in Iraq. Chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita admitted "the heightened scrutiny of the last couple of weeks" might have forced Sanchez's hand.”

“Such scrutiny was on vivid display as Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) hurled an accusatory question at Pentagon intelligence Undersecretary Stephen Cambone at Tuesday's hearing: ‘Secretary Cambone, were you personally aware that permissible interrogation techniques in the Iraqi theater included sleep management, sensory deprivation, isolation longer than 30 days and dogs?’”

“Levin's query suggested that these tactics should be verboten, and now some of them are. Still, one wonders if Levin, or the Pentagon, might like access to such methods, up to and including the menace of snarling German shepherds, if they yielded a basement full of Saddam Hussein's VX nerve gas or the undisclosed location of terror master Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?”

Do Americans really want a kindler gentler approach to the War on Terror? Or are we willing to let “rough men” do what is necessary to protect our way of life? Mr. Murdock certainly isn’t in favor of soft treatment for detainees; he concludes:

“Yes, excesses should be punished, and they will be. But if being forced to sit in pitch-black rooms while wearing women's panties makes Ba'athist henchmen and al Qaeda killers sing, forgive me if I fail to burst into tears."

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

On 1 May, American lawyers celebrated law day. This year’s theme: “To Win Equality by Law: Brown v. Board at 50.” For the American Bar Association, it was an unambiguous celebration of the power of the courts to improve our lives. Among the recommended talking points, the ABA suggests:

“Civil rights legislation has brought the ideal of equality closer to reality. So have the many laws passed to assure equal opportunity in the workplace for women, persons of different races and ethnic backgrounds, and persons with disabilities, among many others.”

In this week’s townhall.com, Thomas Sowell offers some much-needed scrutiny regarding the relationship between the law and the reality of equality. In his first article, he observes,

The key fallacy underlying the civil rights vision was that
all black economic lags were due to racial discrimination.
That assumption has survived to this day, in the courts,
in the media, in academia, and above all in politics.

No amount of factual evidence can make a dent in that
assumption. This means that a now largely futile crusade
against discrimination distracts attention from the urgent
need to upgrade educational standards and job skills among
blacks.

The flimsy and cavalier reasoning used by the Supreme Court,
which based its decision on grounds that would hardly sustain
a conviction for jay-walking, set a pattern of judicial activism
that has put American law in disarray on all sorts of issues
that extend far beyond racial cases. The pretense that the
Court was interpreting the Constitution of the United States
added insult to injury.

He goes on to describe additional instances of harmful judicial activism, and concludes,

Brown v. Board of Education was not just about race
or schools but was about a whole judicial mindset with
ramifications across a whole spectrum of issues -- and
reverberations that are still with us in the 21st century.
Its pluses and minuses have to be added up with that in
mind.

The intent of the justices in the landmark case – to allow black children and white children to receive an equal education – was good. But distorted reasoning has led to an dangerous judicial landscape where justices are allowed to ignore legal prescendent and shape American life to fit their own desires.

A checklist for victory

Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. With strong leadership from both President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, we can turn the situation there from one of embarrassment to resounding victory. In this week's Weekly Standard, William Kristol provides a five-step to-do list for the administration:

First, Mr. Kristol suggests the president stop apologizing and order legal proceedings regarding the prison abuses move ahead as quickly as possible. I agree the apologies are not necessary and must cease. However, the president should avoid making statements which appear to direct prosecution of the offenses; such statements could, as I discussed a week ago, be construed as illegal command influence. Instead, President Bush should declare his confidence in the military justice system, and let the military commanders prosecutors take care of the offenders.

Second, Mr. Kristol believes President Bush should order the SecDef to send an additional 50,000 troops to Iraq and provide a plan to increase the size of the armed forces to deal with the remaining goals in the war on terror. It’s hard to see how having lots of Americans on the ground will, by itself, improve the situation, but Mr. Kristol provides further clarification.

Third, he insists that the president order “combatant commanders to move aggressively to see to it that killers of Americans are killed, that those who aid those killers are held responsible, and that the insurgents are crushed.” Can’t argue with that!

Fourth, the author wants President Bush to announce Iraqi elections will be held in the fall, in advance of the original timeline. I think Mr. Kristol is getting into dangerous territory here. If we indeed give political control to Iraqis on June 30, how can we ensure this goal is met? The president should never make promises that are beyond his power to keep, and this is one.

Finally, Mr. Kristol advises, “The president cancels his own political travel for the next few weeks to engage in an intensive review with his top advisers of our strategy and tactics, to ensure that we are on, or can get onto, a path to decisive victory.”

Agreed. This is the perfect chance for President Bush to act as the commander-in-chief, he should seize this moment and lead from the front.

Love Or Let Them Be Lonely

General Ricardo Sanchez, commander of US forces in Iraq, has issued an order putting some of the most coercive interrogation techniques out of bounds, the Washington Post reports in tomorrow's edition. In fact, the Iraqi commander made it clear to his staff that anything more coercive than isolation or segregation would not even be considered:

The commander of U.S. forces in Iraq has barred military interrogators from using the most coercive techniques potentially available to them in the past, declaring that requests to employ the measures against detainees will no longer even be considered, officials said yesterday. ...

Under the new order, which was issued Thursday, Sanchez and his staff will no longer consider any extraordinary interrogation methods other than putting prisoners alone in cells or in small groups segregated from the general prison population for more than 30 days. Regular interrogation techniques such as direct questioning of detainees without physical contact will remain allowable without special approval.

This change was not unexpected in the paroxysms of self-flagellation we've experienced since the release of the abuse photographs, but questions remain about their advisability. No American wants to condone torture, with the possible and surprising exception of Alan Dershowitz, who argued that it was "inevitable" and should just be legalized, with special warrants required from a judge before using it on a suspect. However, Sanchez has ordered the elimination of any higher-pressure techniques, not just those involving physical discomfort.

The question must be asked: how effective will the remaining options be in extracting information from terrorists? While torture rarely produces any effective intelligence, loneliness hardly does much better, especially for fanatics whose deep-cover techniques require them to avoid contact with their comrades for months on end. Due to the temporary nature of our stay in Iraq especially, but also keeping in mind the vociferous opposition to any war at all here in the US, terrorists know that keeping their mouths shut long enough will allow them to outlast US interrogators, regardless of how isolated they feel.

When determining interrogation strategy, we must concern ourselves with what will effectively get vital intelligence from reluctant sources in our custody while staying within the laws and treaties of the US. Unfortunately, that point seems lost; the new policy smacks of political correctness that has spread throughout all of American politics. It's now not enough to comply with the law -- the mere appearance of unpleasantness has become unacceptable, in a weird throwback to the notion of war as a gentleman's pastime.

Worse yet, it shows just how far politics has infiltrated into the war effort. Instead of structuring the most effective interrogation policy that fits within our laws, Sanchez has structured the least objectionable interrogation policy to fit within the narrow window of what will cause the least controversy. That policy will get Americans and others killed as we lose opportunities to capture vital intelligence.

I reject torture for both humanitarian and utilitarian reasons. However, the new guidelines described by the Post puts my family and our nation at greater risk than necessary and demonstrates that even this administration may not be totally cognizant of the stakes involved in the war on Islamofascism. The time has arrived when Americans need to wake up, grow up, and finally understand that our survival depends on the outcome of the war, in massive battles like Afghanistan and Iraq, and the obscure psychological battles fought every day between Coalition intelligence officers and homicidal fanatics in places like Abu Ghraib.

Surely our survival ranks higher than political correctness?

We Have Our Ups And Downs (Updated)

If you're having trouble loading my site ... well, so am I. Not sure why yet, but I will put in a trouble ticket with my hosting service and see if I can find out why. Hopefully, this is all just a momentary glitch.

UPDATE: Well, we found out what the problem was -- someone on the same server as us got extremely popular very quickly. Apparently, another Hosting Matters client serves as an aggregator for news from Iraq, and with the news over the past couple of days, they've been flooded with traffic. HM is moving the client to a separate server.

5/13 UPDATE: Still having problems, so if you've had bad luck connecting to me today, you're not alone. This time, a power failure in one cabinet led to a cascade of failures at HM's servers. Not related to what happened yesterday, so it really was just bum luck. (No offense to the homeless intended.)

Hosting Matters stays on top of their business, without a doubt. Stuff like this will happen, but it's encouraging to get such quick and efficient response.

UPDATE 3, 5/14: Okay, now it's starting to irritate me. I've had three good months with no problems, and all of a sudden three afternoons in a row, the works get gummed up. If you had trouble loading this, please bear with us as we find out what happened this time. Right now, I can't even get to the forums to check out the announcements ...

Okay, finally got into the forums. Apparently, nine different HM customers were hosting that Nick Berg murder video and the traffic overwhelmed their entire network. They've announced that they will disable that video on any of their shared servers from now on. (They offer dedicated-server hosting service plans that would eliminate this problem.)

Big Get of Few Words. Heh.

Bill from INDC Journal scored a major blogosphere "get" by having Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, answer a few questions at Bill's blog. This may be the funniest thing you'll read in the blogosphere all week.

Indeed. Heh. Read the whole thing.

Better Late Than Never, I Suppose

In the current war on Islamofascism, we have been repeatedly warned by elites not to conflate the hooded terrorists who bomb and behead innocent civilians and the vast majority of peace-loving Muslims, who reject violent jihad in favor of internal, spiritual warfare. However, as many have noted, Islamic public-interest groups such as CAIR as well as Muslim communities have seemed much more focused on carping about anti-Islam sentiment in the US and how Americans have mistreated Muslims rather than the supposed hijacking of of their faith by genocidal maniacs. Almost three years after 9/11, it finally took the brutal imagery of an unarmed civilian having his head hacked off his body and proudly displayed to a video camera to get American Muslims off the dime:

Alarmed by resurgent anti-Muslim rhetoric in the aftermath of the beheading of an American in Iraq, U.S. Muslim leaders launched a new campaign Thursday to disassociate their faith from terrorism.

In Washington, the Council on American-Islamic Relations called on the nation's Muslims to sign an online petition to declare that terrorism betrays Islam and that American Muslims abhor it. In Los Angeles, Muslim leaders said that the beheading of American businessman Nicholas Berg would be condemned in as many as 50 mosques that are part of the Shura Council of Southern California. Berg was killed by a man identified Thursday by the CIA as Abu Musab Zarqawi, who is considered an ally of Osama bin Laden.

The Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council said it was stepping up a months-long effort to gather Muslim leaders and members of Congress on the steps of the Capitol to denounce terrorism.

The Los Angeles Times quotes several Muslims as claiming the Nick Berg beheading as "un-Islamic", and the video "a stab in the heart of Islam." For once, at least according to the LA Times, we don't hear any lectures from Muslims about how we need to understand the Islamic rage from centuries of mistreatment; they have finally made an unequivocal rejection of terrorism. While their motivation seems more a response to some bad PR than a genuine emotional response -- the CAIR spokesman mentions radio talk-show challenges -- this new effort marks a step in the right direction for American Muslim organizations.

Too bad it took almost three years after the slaughter or 3,000 American civilians for them to come around.

VDH: Taking Our Eyes Off The Ball

Victor David Hanson writes another brilliant essay for National Review Online, reminding us why we went to war in the first place, and how some people are allowing themselves to be distracted from the stakes. In particular, Hanson focuses on the silly and hysterical calls for the resignations of Donald Rumsfeld and now Richard Myers, the two men who put together perhaps the most efficient and successful major war plans ever into operation, liberating 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq from two of the worst tyrannies in recent memory (via Hugh Hewitt and Memeorandum):

The idea that anyone would suggest that Donald Rumsfeld — and now Richard Meyers! — should step down, in the midst of a global war, for the excesses and criminality of a handful of miscreant guards and their lax immediate superiors in the cauldron of Iraq is absurd and depressing all at once.

What would we think now if George Marshall had been forced out on news that 3,000 miles away George S. Patton's men had shot some Italian prisoners, or Gen. Hodges's soldiers summarily executed German commandoes out of uniform, or drivers of the Red Ball express had raped French women? Should Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell have been relieved from his command for the February 12-13, 1991, nocturnal bombing of the Al Firdos compound in Baghdad, in which hundreds of women and children of Baathist loyalists were tragically incinerated and pictures of their corpses broadcast around the world, prompting the United States to cease all further pre-planned and approved attacks on the elite in Saddam's bunkers throughout Baghdad? Of course not.

I made essentially the same point earlier this week with a narrower breadth, referring to Patton's slapping of two soldiers in 1943. That action violated a long-standing American tradition of respect for enlisted men, and regardless of Patton's motivations, his actions were deplorable. Many called for Patton's scalp for this transgression, but Eisenhower, George Marshall, and FDR refused to fire him. Should any of these been forced to resign in the middle of the war for what their underling did -- twice? Of course not -- the notion is absurd, and that action took place a lot closer up the chain of command than did the Abu Ghraib abuses.

Resignations have never been demanded because of policy differences -- policy differences are addressed at the election. Malfeasance or gross incompetence are the only valid reasons for demanding a resignation from a Cabinet member, and in a time of war, any qualifying event had better clearly have that person's fingerprints on it. No one has remotely connected Rumsfeld or Myers (who isn't even in the chain of command for Abu Ghraib, as a National Security advisor) to prisoner abuses, but we have seen that the military made the investigation public, completed it promptly, and has proceeded to try the suspects expeditiously.

Besides, many of the same people calling for Rumsfeld's hide had a much different threshold for resignations in the last administration, and the malfeasance took place a lot higher up the chain than this did.

The call for resignations just underscores the lack of seriousness from the opposition, as Hanson argues:

Very liberal people in Washington are calling for heads to roll in lieu of court proceedings and cross-examinations. Much of the angst that sent senators to the capitol steps microphones derives from their own surprise and the sensationalism of the pictures — images that put these media-savvy legislators first to shame, then to the recognition that this is an election year in which bottled piety is at a premium. They know that there is little to be gained from reminding Americans that there are now thousands of brave soldiers fighting horrific enemies in a professional and highly successful manner. The last one to damn the fewest receives the least air time. In this context, the behavior of Senator Kennedy the last few months is the real metaphor of our times. ...

One final jarring scene from the televised spectacles was the image of the lone, beleaguered Joe Lieberman calling for patience and sobriety, and worried about our troops in the field and the pulse of the war. This decent and honest man reminds us of what the present party of Ted Kennedy and Terry McAuliff used to be. The confidence of a Truman, JFK, and Scoop Jackson — caricatured now for dropping the bomb, a fiery "pay-any-price" speech, and heating up the Cold War — is now nowhere to be found.

This is a vital point, because either this year or sometime in the next decade a Democratic administration may well take the reins of power and in matters of national security it will be far to the left of the Liebermans of the world. And the disturbing events that we saw in the 1990s — constant appeasement of Middle East terrorists and their national sponsors, the emergence of a nuclear Pakistan and North Korea, sudden withdrawal from messy places like Mogadishu, a jetting special envoy Jimmy Carter — will return, though made worse through the prism of the present fury over Iraq.

Read the entire essay. It's a terrific encapsulation of what we have experienced in the past three years and a concise argument for pursuing our current policies in the Middle East. On the other hand, Max Sawicky from MaxSpeak considers the following Instapundit lead-in to this essay "McCarthyite crappola" and "fascist rhetoric" -- in fact, he insists that we "make no mistake" about its nature:

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON is talking sense. "We are doing to ourselves what the enemy could not."

Well, some people are trying to do that to us, anyway.

When I refer to the hysteria on the left, this is exactly what I mean. Any disagreement about policy automatically becomes "fascist" and any criticism "McCarthyite". When you read Hanson's piece, ask yourself why defending the US is "fascist" and why disagreeing with the Left is "McCarthyite".

Are these the people we want in charge of national security?

UPDATE: On the other other hand, here's Joe Lieberman making nothing but sense in today's OpinionJournal:

Most Democrats and Republicans, including President Bush and Sen. Kerry, agree that we must successfully finish what we have started in Iraq. Now is the time for all who share that goal to make our agreement publicly clear, to stress what unites us. Many argue that we can only rectify the wrongs done in the Iraqi prisons if Donald Rumsfeld resigns. I disagree. Unless there is clear evidence connecting him to the wrongdoing, it is neither sensible nor fair to force the resignation of the secretary of defense, who clearly retains the confidence of the commander in chief, in the midst of a war. I have yet to see such evidence. Secretary Rumsfeld's removal would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America's presence in Iraq.

But, as we are showing in our response to Abu Ghraib, we are a nation of laws, and therefore must punish only those who are proven guilty.

Not for the first (nor I suspect the last) time, I wish Democrats had demonstrated some seriousness and nominated Joe Lieberman for President. Not only would we have secured our nation's foreign policy and focus on victory in the war, but we could have had an honest debate on domestic issues. Perhaps my candidate would lose that contest, but in the end, my country would have been better off with that campaign than the one we have now.

Pvt. Christopher Tenayuca, Purple Heart

Continuing the series on telling the stories of the servicemen and servicewomen on the front lines in the Middle East, I found this account of a young man who was awarded a Purple Heart for wounds received in a firefight with insurgents. Despite being a newlywed now, he's anxious to return to his unit. Read on.

Pfc. Christopher Tenayuca received a Purple Heart May 4 at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, for a wound he received in Iraq Feb. 10.

"I'm proud of getting it because I've actually gone to war, but I'm not proud, because if I wasn't in the way of that round, I'd still be over there with my guys," he said.

Not long after arriving in Kirkuk in early February, Tenayuca's unit learned there were insurgents who often fired mortar rounds at Kirkuk Air Base. A task force was sent out on a cordon and search mission to find those responsible for the attacks.

After clearing most of the sector, word came that someone was seen running down a street with a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. Tenayuca, an assistant M240B gunner from Company A, 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, and his gunner gave chase. As they did, another four-man team tried to flank the suspected insurgent.

Eventually, the man ran into a house where Tenayuca said there were about five other people. A firefight ensued, during which Tenayuca was shot in the left elbow. The bullet went in and out but it broke the bone.

Even though Tenayuca was just married while home on convalescent leave, and a little hesitant because of that, he said “I feel like I belong with my guys over there."

George Galloway, Teenager

The London Independent -- a very left-wing newspaper in the fine British broadsheet traditions of partisanship -- reviews the new book published by disgraced Labour MP George Galloway, whose support of Saddam was apparently buttressed by numerous payoffs from the Iraqi regime. You might expect that the Independent would receive Galloway's new book with some sympathy. You would be wrong. Reviewer Johann Hari savages Galloway with a zeal one would have expected from the Telegraph or a Rupert Murdoch publication like the Sun, calling Galloway a "Saddamist" and his book an "incoherent rant" (via Memeorandum):

Unlike the vast majority of those who opposed the recent war, he has crossed over into blatant, full-throated apologism for dictatorship. Initially, he tries to keep up the pretence that he consistently opposed Saddam. He claims that when he saluted Saddam with the words, "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength and your indefatigability", he was in fact addressing "the 23 million Iraqis, not their President." If you wanted to salute the Iraqi people, Georgewhy do it in front of a man who had just murdered over 100,000 of them? ...

Take a look at Galloway's statement that, "In my experience none of the Ba'ath leaders have displayed any hostility to Jews." This beggars belief: the Baíathists had publicly hanged Jews, and the Iraqi newspapers (all Ba'ath-sanctioned) were filled with insane ranting against global Jewry. In all his many visits to Saddam's Iraq, did he not pick up a single newspaper? ...

Every single criticism of Saddam is quickly relativized in this way. When Galloway is shown the vast scale of Saddam's palaces, he replies, "Our own head of state has a fair bit of real estate herself". Yes, but British people are not - to use Galloway's words - "dying like flies" on the streets outside. The most bizarre example of Galloway's moral relativism is when he says, "Saddam was a ruthless and cruel man who thought little of signing the death warrants of even close comrades. In this regard he was little different to the leaders of most regimes: we just don't know it in our own countries yet." As if Tony Blair is about to start gassing the SWP and the Tories. As if George Bush is going to start building mass graves in California.

Galloway embodies the relativism that runs through the left -- that the West is nothing special, and that all forms of society and government are equal. What sets him apart is the extent of his rationalization and, quite frankly, the depth of his shallowness. He claims that capitalism has been far more genocidal than Hitler, for instance, and believes that suppression of all markets will bring on a global Utopia, which Hari relates to worldwide Castroism. As for his transgressions with payoffs, they're hardly mentioned, except in the manner that parents of teenagers will recognize: everyone's doing it!

I'll let Hari have the last word, but be sure to read the whole article. You can skip the book, and if you're still tempted, read Hari's conclusion:

Reading this tiny book (more a pamphlet really) in one short sitting made me feel as though I was trapped in a lift with a crack-smoking Stalin. Galloway approvingly cites a description of him from the Guardian as a "left-wing Lawrence of Arabia." It's more astute than he realises. Lawrence stood with Arab tyrants too, arguing that Arabs were too stupid and culturally backward to govern themselves, and were temperamentally suited to "strong men". So does Galloway. No George, you're not the only one. If only ...

Battle of the Valley of Peace

It appears the battle for Najaf is back on. A few hours ago, American forces pushed deep into the city and wound up engaging Moqtada al-Sadr's militia in the world's largest cemetery, ironically called the Valley of Peace:

Backed by helicopters, American tanks charged into the center of this holy city on Friday and shelled positions held by fighters loyal to cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who launched an uprising against the U.S.-led coalition last month. In a sermon in a nearby city, a defiant al-Sadr condemned the United States and its chief coalition partner, Britain.

The U.S. attack represented a strongest U.S. push yet against al-Sadr, whose forces fought intense battles with American forces this week in another holy city, Karbala. The intensifying battles have eclipsed efforts by Iraqi political and tribal leaders to seek a peaceful solution to the confrontation ahead of a planned transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30.

Much of the fighting in Najaf happened in the city's vast cemetery, a maze of footpaths and tombs that offers ample hiding space for militiamen armed with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades. Several tanks rumbled into the cemetery, known as the "Valley of Peace" and thought to be the world's largest.

US forces also cut off the road between Najaf and Kufa, where al-Sadr was known to be giving a sermon on the "heads of tyranny," George Bush and Tony Blair, and claiming that the Nicholas Berg beheading and video were "fabricated. For the moment, he has been cut off from his al-Mahdi forces in Najaf, although he has militia in Kufa. al-Sadr has refused to endorse cease-fire agreements proposed by local Shi'a, even when supported by al-Sistani, the most prestigious of the Shi'ite clerics in Iraq.

With the June 30 deadline looming, it appears that the US has decided to resolve the al-Sadr problem ahead of potential political complications after the transfer of sovereignty. With France calling for a complete US withdrawal after the transfer and with some concern that the incoming Iraqi government might not agree to the extended US military presence necessary to clean up the insurgents, the deadline appears short indeed. With the Fallujah crisis abated, it looks like a good time to finish what we started with al-Sadr.

Blair's Loyalty

The London Telegraph reports that Tony Blair made it clear in an interview that he has no intention of turning his back on George Bush, despite political trouble at home:

Tony Blair has dismissed calls for him to distance himself from President George W Bush, insisting he will not change course over Iraq. ...

Mr Blair was scathing about "this idea that at the time of maximum difficulty you start messing around your main ally", adding: "I am afraid that is not what we are going to do."

He said: "I know we are going through a difficult time. People should just take a step back and look at the fundamentals. Despite the appalling stuff about prisoner abuse, we are trying with the majority of the Iraqi people to get the country on its feet.

"The people who are attacking coalition forces and assassinating construction and aid workers are trying to stop us. We have just got to make sure we prevail and succeed. It is in the interests of the world that we do. The alternative is not one we should contemplate."

No one doubts that Blair has paid some political price for his embrace of George Bush and the war on terror, especially in Iraq. Recent polling shows that Blair may have reached the lowest points of his extraordinary popularity in Britain, although that also involves his stance on the unpopular EU constitution and its eventual referendum. But Blair, like Bush, recognizes two important truths: that despite the sensationalist press, the work in Iraq has mostly gone well, and that a failure to finish the job would result in a disaster not seen since the domino theory played out in Southeast Asia three decades ago.

I may disagree with Blair on politics and philosophy, but my admiration for his principles continues to grow. Despite having opportunity after opportunity handed to him by the British press to renounce or distance himself from the US and Bush, Blair has steadfastly refused to do so. It may cost him his career as Prime Minister, but he has decided that to do what is right instead of what is popular. We have seen far too few of this type of politician in recent years.

Power Corrupts, UN Corrupts Absolutely

Instapundit links to a breaking story regarding an important international organization that may have lost $100 billion or more to corruption. No, it's not the UN per se, but the UN subsidiary World Bank, which supposedly exists to combat poverty and provide development support for third-world countries. Senator Richard Lugar set off warning bells at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this afternoon:

Corrupt use of World Bank funds may exceed $100 billion and while the institution has moved to combat the problem, more must be done, the chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee said on Thursday. Sen. Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, charged that "in its starkest terms, corruption has cost the lives of uncounted individuals contending with poverty and disease." ...

He cited experts who calculated that between $26 billion and $130 billion of the money lent by the World Bank for development projects since 1946 has been misused. In 2003, the bank distributed $18.5 billion in developing countries.

Jeffrey Winters, an associate professor at Northwestern University, said his research suggested corruption wasted about $100 billion of World Bank funds, and when other multilateral development banks are included, the total rises to about $200 billion.

Lugar and Winters recommend that those banking institutions that do business with the World Bank implement stricter controls on audits and lending practices. World Bank executives testified that anti-corruption efforts are under way but that they have a long way to go until they effectively counter the apparently rampant problems. Winters countered that those efforts had resulted in "minimal effects". In an echo of UNSCAM (well, the first UNSCAM), Winters testified that "the lion's share of the theft of development funds occurs in the implementation of projects and the use of loan funds by client governments."

Governments skimming the loans and contracts from a UN agency? Nahh.

The World Bank website, by the way, states that one of its primary missions is to fight the trillion-dollar corruption problem that it says weighs down the economies of developing countries. The article on their site describing the problem sounds somewhat akin to what Lugar and Winters described as problems with World Bank itself:

More than $1 trillion dollars (US$1,000 billion) is paid in bribes each year, according to ongoing research at the World Bank Institute (WBI). Daniel Kaufmann, the Institute's director for Governance, says this US$1 trillion figure is an estimate of actual bribes paid worldwide in both rich and developing countries. ...

It is extremely difficult to assess the extent of worldwide embezzlement of public funds, "but we do know it is a very serious issue in many settings." For example Transparency International estimates that former Indonesian leader Suharto embezzled anywhere between $15-35 billion from his country, while Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Mobutu in Zaire and Abacha in Nigeria may have embezzled up to $5 billion each.

Kaufmann notes that a calculation of the total amounts of corrupt transactions is only part of the overall costs of corruption, which constitutes a major obstacle to reducing poverty, inequality and infant mortality in emerging economies.

I suppose one could argue that it takes a thief to catch a thief (which FDR hinted at when he appointed Joseph Kennedy as the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission), but the thief in question is supposed to be reformed before being put on the case. Right now the World Bank only demonstrates that the Iraqi Oil-For-Food debacle was less of an anomaly than commonly thought. It may be time to demand audits on all UN programs that receive significant American funding, not just OFF and the World Bank.

Interestingly, this recalls an article I read by Elizabeth Becker in the New York Times three weeks ago (reprinted in the International Herald-Tribune) that reported gossip in Washington about Colin Powell's future. Powell had dinner with WB chief James Wolfensohn at Wolfensohn's DC residence, along with economic luminaries such as Alan Greenspan and IMF president Horst Koehler. Becker used a couple of unnamed sources to claim that Powell's visit was intended to line up Wolfensohn's job for the Secretary of State, who supposedly intends to resign at the end of this presidential term whether Bush is re-elected or not.

As I blogged at the time, Becker's motive in writing an unsourced news article based on "buzz" had more to do with tweaking the Bush administration than any true news content. Here's what Becker says about the effort to get Powell to lead the World Bank:

To those pressing for Mr. Powell to make the move, what better position than as spokesman for the world's poor? He served as chairman of America's Promise, a charity aimed at helping children at risk.

While his policy speeches are replete with praise for the Iraq war and Mr. Bush's more muscular initiatives, Mr. Powell never fails to list as major accomplishments the administration's contributions to the fight against AIDS and world poverty - all items on the bank's agenda.

Perhaps the position can be viewed as a spokesman for the world's poor, but it appears to be more of a bagman for kleptocrats. Do you suppose Powell is all that eager to lend his sterling reputation to such a mess?

Stark's Constituents Not Impressed By His Responsiveness

On Monday, Best of the Web pointed us to KSFO, which reported on the response Rep. Pete Stark left on the voice mail of a constituent who disagreed with his "nay" on a resolution deploring the Abu Ghraib abuse while honoring American servicepeople. The letter-writer, Daniel Dow, had written a polite, respectful, but critical letter, summarized thusly:

I urge you to stop your contemptuous display of bitter partisanship and your politicization of this War. Your actions are very divisive and destructive to the morale of our troops and the morale of our nation. I know that a majority of the population of the 13th Congressional District are very strong in their support of our soldiers and in their support of the War in iraq [sic]. Your "NO" vote today reflects that you are way out of touch with the people of this district.

Stark's response to his constituent?

Dan, this is Congressman Pete Stark, and I just got your fax. And you don't know what you're talking about. So if you care about enlisted people, you wouldn't have voted for that thing either. But probably somebody put you up to this, and I'm not sure who it was, but I doubt if you could spell half the words in the letter, and somebody wrote it for you. So I don't pay much attention to it. But I'll call you back later and let you tell me more about why you think you're such a great goddamn hero and why you think that this generals [sic] and the Defense Department, who forced these poor enlisted guys to do what they did, shouldn't be held to account. That's the issue. So if you want to stick it to a bunch of enlisted guys, have your way. But if you want to get to the bottom of people who forced this awful program in Iraq, then you should understand more about it than you obviously do. Thanks.

You can hear the recording of the voice-mail message here, thanks to KSFO in San Francisco. Apparently a number of Stark's other constituents have already done so as well as voters across the country. One of them, reader Grant Newton, has e-mailed the Congressman with the anger-management issue to express his displeasure with Stark's unprofessional conduct. I'll run it in its entirety.

It is very difficult to take a political party seriously if its members do not take any measures to denounce or (dare I say it?) censure its members when they act like petty impetuous thirteen year old pre-teens. At this point in this paragraph, I should thank you for reading this even this far without deleting it. This is the point I believe I will make to my own congressman regarding your embarrasing message you left to one of my fellow service members (luckily not embarrasing to anyone but you).

It should be further embarrasing to the people of your own district, who (for reasons I can't fathom, unless you fill them up with pork) keep sending you back to Washington. How is it that you are as old as you are, yet can't display any kind of the wisdom and maturity that would usually accompany someone at your age and station in life? Getting riled up enough to call someone a "fruitcake" and worse seems rather childish.

I am not going to comment on your vote, except to say that it is transparent. I know that all of the normal tired excuses would be put out as a response to any allegations of partisanship on the Resolution 627 vote. However, I can tell you that your giving the symbolic finger to our servicemen (not once, but twice) in less than a month has finally given me the motivation to do whatever I can to put the spotlight on ridiculous things like that phone message. Try and backpedal all you want, or don't. Either way, it's great entertainment for us, as it is yet another loony-bin story from west of the San Andreas.

Hey, it would be great entertainment for all of us, as long as Stark didn't actually matter. Unfortunately he does, at least until November. Let's hope that Stark's raving madness convinces his district to vote for sanity this fall.

Air America Shuts Some Doors

In more bad news followed by some first-class spin, Air America announced today that it will close sales offices in Los Angeles and Chicago and will "recast" its plan, all of which follows a month that has seen the network booted off the air in the two cities and a number of executives and investors leave or get fired:

Air America has shut its sales offices in Los Angeles and Chicago and is recasting its business plan, the network's president said on Wednesday as troubles beset the liberal talk show network.

With Air America not broadcasting in those two cities after a financial dispute in April, network president Jon Sinton said, "There's not much sense in having sales offices in cities where you don't control a station."

About 15 to 20 people were laid off in the closing of the sales offices, the latest sign of problems for Air America, launched on March 31 as a liberal alternative to the country's predominantly conservative talk show culture led by right-wing icons like Rush Limbaugh.

Since it started, Chairman Evan Cohen, Vice Chairman Rex Sorensen and Head of Programing David Logan have left while co-founder Mark Walsh has stepped down as chief executive to take a smaller role in the organization.

However, when asked, the remaining few people still left at the netlet assure the public and their listeners that in reality, they have been fabulously successful. Sinton insists that they've been "moving the needle" with affiliates, which not so coincidentally is significant both in radio and in polygraph tests. The fact that they went off the air in the second and third largest markets in the US -- and closing their sales offices in both markets indicates a lack of optimism for getting back on the air in either case -- has no bearing on their "success".

Michael Harrison of the trade magazine Talkers wonders why they tried to force broadcasters to take on the entire 17-hour slate of shows, but thinks liberal talk radio is still a great concept. I'm sure NPR agrees. The problem is that listeners don't, at least not with the Err America approach, which could be called All The Laughs of NPR, but Without The Class or Intelligence!

UPDATE: Mitch picks up the scent of a scam from one of my readers ... just more Err America success!

The Media-Blackout Effect?

Instapundit notes a phenomenon related to the Nick Berg horror and the lack of media coverage of its images. He quotes Neal Boortz and Andrew Sullivan on the curious dichotomy of the media's approach to Abu Ghraib and the Berg execution, where they argue for publishing the pictures of one and spiking the pictures and video of the other. Jeff Quinton takes a look at his referrer logs today and sees an interesting bump in traffic, mostly from Google and other search engines looking for information on Nick Berg.

When I got up this morning and began to blog, I checked my own traffic stats from Sitemeter (Hosting Matters' own stats collection only updates daily, which is unfortunate because it is tremendously detailed). I know what my normal traffic in the early morning hours usually is, and I was surprised to see that traffic was well above my normal rate. I checked my referrer logs, expecting to see an Instapundit or Hugh Hewitt link, and instead found scores of Google searches all looking for the same thing: Nick Berg. Nick Berg pictures, video, mystery, all sorts of combinations, but one theme.

Obviously, the mainstream media hasn't served its constituency well on this story. I have posted extensively on Abu Ghraib and yet see next to no search-engine traffic on those posts. The lack of attention being paid to the Berg atrocity and its images by the media in defiance of the demand for their dissemination makes their editorial choice look strongly as though an agenda is at work. As Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News and NRO reports, his readers want know about it:

Our letters page today is filled with nothing but Berg-related letters, most of them demanding that the DMN show more photos of the Berg execution. Not one of the 87 letters we received on the topic yesterday called for these images not to be printed. My sense is that there's a big backlash building against the media for flogging the Abu Ghraib photos, but being so delicate with the Berg images. People sense that there's an agenda afoot here. As somebody, can't remember who, wrote yesterday, "Why is it that the media can show over and over again pictures that could make Arabs hate Americans, but refuse to show pictures that could make Americans hate Arabs?"

Why, indeed. You'd almost think that the media doesn't want the war to be successful ...

UPDATE: Perhaps the local newspapers and television stations aren't carrying the images, but two local radio stations carried the audio to their listeners after repeatedly warning about its graphic nature:

Top-rated morning host Tom Barnard of KQRS (92.5 FM) played the tape only after repeatedly warning listeners, as did KSTP (1500 AM) midmorning co-hosts Ron Rosenbaum and Mark O'Connell.

Barnard talked of little else during the show. He was particularly incensed that, while pictures of prisoner abuse at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison had been widely shown, this video was not.

"We should be outraged at what happened to this man," said Barnard, who polled listeners about whether or air the audio of Berg's screams as he was executed with a knife, while his executioners chanted "God is great" in Arabic.

I normally don't care much for Barnard, but that took some guts, especially in this market. So far, KQRS reports that feedback is positive, 4-1.

Stop The Presses: CIA Uses "Harsh" Interrogation Techniques on Al-Qaeda Leaders

The New York Times reports today that the CIA uses "harsh" interrogation techniques on top al-Qaeda leaders and often uses a rotating jurisdictional strategy in order to protect Special Ops interrogators, in an article certain to raise the ire of anti-war protestors:

The Central Intelligence Agency has used coercive interrogation methods against a select group of high-level leaders and operatives of Al Qaeda that have produced growing concerns inside the agency about abuses, according to current and former counterterrorism officials. ...

In the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a high-level detainee who is believed to have helped plan the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, C.I.A. interrogators used graduated levels of force, including a technique known as "water boarding," in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown.

These techniques were authorized by a set of secret rules for the interrogation of high-level Qaeda prisoners, none known to be housed in Iraq, that were endorsed by the Justice Department and the C.I.A. The rules were among the first adopted by the Bush administration after the Sept. 11 attacks for handling detainees and may have helped establish a new understanding throughout the government that officials would have greater freedom to deal harshly with detainees.

The last part of this excerpt is sheer nonsense. For most of the article, the Times decries the secrecy of both the location of these prisoners and the methods used to interrogate them. In almost the same breath, they then extrapolate that commanders in the field use this example in order to "deal harshly" with their own detainees. I suspect that the military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan have their hands full without getting briefed on interrogations far outside their command structure.

I don't doubt that some tough methods have been employed by interrogators, nor do I doubt that the CIA has played a shell game in dealing with jurisdiction in order to work around US restrictions on interrogation techniques. However, we are dealing with a group of fanatics who have sworn to kill us in any way possible at any time possible. They do not have claim to POW status, nor does the US need to allow human-rights advocates to have access to them, as they have no status other than unlawful or illegal combatants in the war on terror.

They are non-state actors, meaning they officially represent no government, which in Geneva Convention terms makes them about the same level as spies. They are not POWs -- POWs must wear the appropriate insignia of a government when captured in battle. The reason for this distinction in the Geneva Convention is precisely to prevent non-state actors from taking up arms against a nation, for the precise reasons we see today: they act as a terribly destabilizing force throughout regions in which they operate and hold civilian populations hostage when using them as screens for their attacks. Geneva Convention protections do not apply to these unlawful combatants -- a term which the convention specifically defines, and as the US Supreme Court decided in WWII in the case of German saboteurs captured out of uniform:

...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

Their status and determination, therefore, are at the discretion of the capturing authority, and not the Geneva Convention. Pointless invocations of this agreement only reveal an ignorance of both its text and its intent. Besides, one has to be a signatory to the Geneva Convention in order to qualify for its benefits -- presumably a bilateral guarantee for the conduct of war and treatment of prisoners -- and one has to represent a state in order to be a signatory. No one seriously proposes that Khalid Mohammed represents a GC signatory, nor is anyone under the delusion that Islamofascists operate under its code, especially after the Nick Berg slaughter that we saw earlier this week.

Getting to the heart of the matter, the CIA must act to protect Americans from attack, something that the 9/11 Commission has certainly pounded into the headlines at every possible turn, and in order to do so must gather enough intelligence to see the threats before they materialize. As long as they don't resort to out-and-out torture -- "water boarding" may come close -- they need to be allowed to do their job. I certainly don't want to wake up to a smoldering ruin of Minneapolis and yet feel good that we treated AQ leadership in a warm and caring way.

So despite the bleating of the Times, AQ suspects should not be treated like POWs or as criminal defendants. This is war and they are not criminals, they are the enemy, a point that 9/11 should have made clear to everyone. They terrorize civilian populations, they murdered Americans by the thousands, and plan on killing by the millions if left long enough. Spare me the overweening concern for their civil rights. They gave those up when they declared war on us. And if we don't start understanding the stakes in this war, our pusallanimity will lose it for us and the Western world.

The Governator Delivers

It seems that Arnold Schwarzenegger has made substantial progress in breaking through the trench warfare of California politics and will do the impossible this year -- deliver a state budget on time, with no new taxes:

Today's proposal will mark a milestone on the way to the June 30 constitutional deadline for obtaining a budget agreement from the Legislature. It is built largely on a series of deals privately negotiated by the governor, the latest of which was announced Wednesday: an agreement between the administration and local government officials that would save the state $1.3 billion in the coming fiscal year.

Despite the state's persistent multibillion-dollar budget gap, despite a Legislature controlled by Democrats who want new revenue, and despite the governor's resistance to cutting programs more deeply, he is on his way to delivering on his pledge.

When Arnold began his run for California's top spot, he received a lot of ridicule, especially from his own Hollywood crowd, about his actual ability to govern rather than stand around and look good. Everything he said or did wound up as a joke, including his pronunciation of the state name itself, although it backfired on Gray Davis when he joined in with the ridicule. No one expected him to do much with the remainder of Davis' abortive second term.

Now it looks like Arnold may wind up as the most effective governor, at least politically, that the state has seen in decades. A natural centrist and by all reports a man with plenty of personal charm and power, he has defused traditionally strong Democratic constituencies such as teachers, colleges, and mayors. By structuring deals with each group, he has managed to divide the Democrats and keep them mostly quiet heading into the November election. Only state treasurer Phil Angelides has spoken out against Arnold's budget, but other Democrats give the Governator a large measure of respect:

"It's actually been a brilliant strategy for him," said Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla (D-Pittsburg), a fiscal moderate who believes that taxes are needed to get the state out of the red, but acknowledges that it is not going to happen this year.

"He is picking off each of the natural constituencies that normally would oppose this kind of budget," Canciamilla said. "That leaves us with no one to stand with in battle. He's gotten the teachers. He's gotten the local governments. They are all satisfied. So what are you going to argue about?"

In some ways, Arnold has a lot in common with our former and current presidents. It appears that he learned a lot about "triangulation" while spending the Clinton years contemplating his future in politics. And like Bush, his opponents constantly underestimate him, to their detriment. If he can finish his first term as strongly as he started, only the Constitution stands between him and their office, and while I doubt that any amendment allowing foreign-born citizens to become President will receive ratification ... betting against Arnold looks like a losing proposition to me.

UPDATE: As Instapundit notes, SurveyUSA shows Kerry leading by only a single point in California. Quiet Democrats ... Kerry losing steam. Coincidence? I doubt it.

Watcher's Council Weekly Picks!

The Watcher's Council has made its weekly selection of the best posts around the blogosphere, and the Council has kindly nominated my post on the latest UNSCAM developments for the non-Council contest. Be sure to read all of the great posts at Watcher of Weasels ...

Should We Release The Pictures?

CNN reports that Congressional leaders have reviewed all of the confiscated pictures and video of Iraqi prisoner abuse, and the bipartisan consensus is that the images are "disgusting", "appalling", and "horrifying". Where that consensus disappears is in the ultimate disposition of the pictures -- should they be made public?

Top GOP leaders said Wednesday they oppose the release of hundreds of fresh images showing the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, saying they could compromise the prosecution of those soldiers implicated in the acts and further inflame tensions in Iraq. ...

McConnell, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, and Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, all said the pictures should be kept under wraps.

"In my view, and it's solely my view, these pictures, at this time, by the executive branch, should not be released into the public domain," Warner, R-Virginia, said, citing the possibility that more images of abuse end up "inspiring the enemy."

Most Democrats disagree, and even a few Republicans agree with their arguments:

Some lawmakers have urged the Bush administration to allow the photographs to be released in order to prevent further shocking disclosures.

"I think the only hope that we have, really, of redeeming ourselves here and winning back some of the support that this incident has cost us [is] if we act as an open society that will deal with problems openly, that will hold people accountable," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia, agreed.

"Every time we have these photographs dribbled out or some expansion of that situation, it is not good for America," Chambliss said. "And we need to conclude it. And getting all of these photographs out at one time is the way to do it."

I understand the logic behind these arguments. Part of the problem we've experienced over the past few days is the drip, drip, drip of these photographs and the revelations of how they came to be. The story itself had already come out, months before, of Americans abusing Iraqis, but the details had not. Now we've seen a small subset of the known photographs, but we know that more and worse are still being held.

Undoubtedly, these pictures will surface whatever the administration decides. The original leak reportedly came from civilian defense attorneys for accused Abu Ghraib MPs in order to push the debate from the question of a few warped individuals to a larger, shared guilt that supposedly spreads throughout the entire military. That some members of Congress have only encouraged such tactics -- Mark Dayton primarily but not solely -- practically ensures their further use.

It is this warped sensibility about the pictures, both those released and those so far held back, that convinces me that the wisest course for now would be to keep them classified. Yes, they will eventually leak out, I suppose, and tactically a mass release up front might -- might -- mitigate their impact, especially at first. However, in my mind, a few items from the past few days have already pushed the pictures to the background of events.

First, the spectacle of our own representatives using these pictures to slander the armed forces of the US, culminating in Ted Kennedy's repugnant assertion that Saddam's torture chambers had "reopened under US management," as if these abuses sprang from calculated policy instead of a lack of discipline and oversight on the scene, has created more damage to our reputation and our efforts abroad than the pictures ever could. The pictures gave Mark Dayton all the prompting he needed to lecture General Richard Myers and Donald Rumsfeld on the strategy of materiel during wartime, and if that sounds ridiculous now, it sounded much worse when it happened.

Second, we are at war. I ask myself this question: will we be safer or more at risk by releasing the images to the public? Will Americans on the front lines have their task eased or grossly complicated by them? The answer to both questions prove to me that their release accomplishes nothing except make us feel good in a civil-libertarian way. Our elected representatives have access to them, and the military has already performed a thorough investigation, so no purpose other than curiosity is served. Is a thousand dead Americans in Iraq worth that self-absorption?

Lastly, the media coverage of the horrible Berg murder proved that the pictures of such an event are secondary. I didn't need to watch the video or see the stills of the animals who committed this barbaric murder to understand its nature. Nor do I need to see the images of the abused Iraqis to understand the nature of the crimes committed there. However, I also don't need to see them to know that the Americans responsible for committing those crimes will be held accountable by their own people for their actions, while Nick Berg's murderers will be celebrated amongst their people.

That is the overriding and overwhelming concern at this moment in time, and why the war takes precedence over pointless expressions of fairness. Everything else except the war and the law takes can wait for the later date, after victory, when we can once again wallow in self-indulgence.

Nader May Accept Reform Party Endorsement

In a move that has to worry Democratic Party leadership, the Reform Party officially endorsed Ralph Nader for President today, allowing him access to ballots in seven states:

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader has been endorsed by the national Reform Party, giving him ballot access in seven states, including Florida and Michigan, party leaders announced Wednesday. Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese said Nader welcomes the support but plans to continue running as an independent. He said Nader would decide on a case-by-case basis whether to accept the ballot lines in each state.

The Democrats need to win both Florida and Michigan if they are to win the White House in 2004. Michigan went to the Democrats in 2000 by 4 points, about the same lead Kerry has in a two-way race right now. Florida, of course, went to Bush -- eventually -- by the slimmest of margins in 2000, and many Democrats blame that slim margin on Nader's run. Bush is ahead in a three-way race right now in Florida.

The Reform Party also has access for the presidential election in five other states: Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana and South Carolina, all presumed "red" states at this point. However, if Nader does choose to take advantage of the Reform Party's offer, it allows Nader to focus his ballot efforts on the other states, giving him a bit of a boost towards nationwide access.

Nader's run may not be as improbable as some think, and his candidacy may force Kerry to stop his move towards the center in order to defend against Nader's campaign.

A Letter To America, From One Of Its Sons

Amy Ridenour at the National Center for Public Policy posted a letter from a serviceman, Army Specialist Joe Roche, that explains to us what he faces on the front lines against Moqtada al-Sadr's militia and in Iraq in general. I know I'm not the only blogger to point this out, but it's important to get this out as widely as possible:

The fighting we are engaged in against the uprising of Muqtada Al-Sadr is one that is extremely sensitive and risks catastrophe. Had we entered this previously, it would not have been possible for us to win. Over the months, we have been involved in preparations and much planning. Thus, today we are scoring amazing successes against this would-be tyrant.

I ask that the American people be brave. Don't fall for the spin by the weak and timid amongst you that are portraying this battle as a disaster. Such people are always looking for our failure to justify and rescue their constant pessimism. They are raising false flags of defeat in the press and media. It just isn't true. ...

Now we today are in a climactic battle against him and his militia. When the remnants of Saddam's regime were in full uprising in Fallujah, Sadr thought his time had come to make his bid for total power and to oust the US from Baghdad. He was very wrong.

It has been subtle and very well done by our leaders. You should be proud. It would have seemed impossible to have achieved our four main goals against Sadr even just a few months ago. Now today, despite the message of the pessimists who are misleading you into despair, we are have scored all the victories needed to bring this battle to a close. First goal was to isolate Sadr. Second was to exile him from his power-base in Baghdad. Third was to contain his uprising from spreading beyond his militias. And the last goal was to get both his hard-line supporters to abandon him, and to do encourage moderates to break from him. This has been done brilliantly, and now we are on the march in a way that just months ago seemed impossible to do. Sadr is losing everything.

Read the entire letter. If you haven't been to Amy's blog in a while, she's redesigned the site beautifully.

If He Can't Figure This Out ...

John Kerry continued his irresponsible rhetoric this morning on the Don Imus show, again insisting on the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and claiming that changing DoD leadership in time of war would have no effect:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) said Wednesday any number of people, including Republican Sens. John McCain and John Warner, could replace Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, rejecting concerns that a change in Pentagon (news - web sites) leadership could hurt the war effort.

"If America has reached a point where only one person has the ability in our great democracy to manage the Pentagon and to continue or to put in place a better policy even, we're in deeper trouble than you think," Kerry told broadcaster Don Imus. "I don't accept that. I just don't accept that. I think that's an excuse. The fact is that we need a change in policy."

First off, demanding a resignation from a Cabinet official because you don't like the policy being implemented is nothing more than a partisan attack, almost by definition. Rumsfeld implements the policies of the president he serves, and those policies should be addressed at the ballot box. Resignations are only appropriate for malfeasance or incompetence. So far, Rumsfeld has directed two of the most impressive military campaigns in American history, liberating almost 50 million people at the loss of less than 1,000 Americans, thus far, to battle casualties. He accomplished this in the face of his critics (both then and now) who warned that we would suffer the same fate as the British and the Soviets in Afghanistan and that the Iraqi Army would humiliate us on the streets of Baghdad.

Even more troubling, Kerry sees no strategic or tactical issues with changing leadership of the armed services at a time of war, when an election is right around the corner that may require yet another change of leadership. That would mean that almost no sooner would a replacement Defense Secretary be brought up to speed than the entire process would have to start anew, assuming Kerry wins the election. Moreoever, during this period, Kerry makes clear, the new Secretary would be changing policies and probably leadership positions within the armed services as well.

And Kerry sees no effect on our battle readiness from all of this activity, no loss of focus on the war? Can the former Navy Lieutenant really be that ignorant of the steps involved, the changes necessary, the time lost to all of that transition? If so, Kerry has emphasized his own incompetence for the office he seeks, and all of this sucking up to John McCain's authentic heroism won't conceal it.

Caption Contest #9 Winners!

Drum roll please! Here are the winners of Captain's Caption Contest #9 (say that 5 times fast) and the photo that inspired them:

The Whiskey Award: Bryan

John Kerry models the Nuance Cycle 2004, the only bicycle that advances and retreats at the same time, allowing the rider to go nowhere very quickly.

Most popular entry: Bob Hawkins

(voiceover): "I'm George Bush, and I approved this ad."

Obscure Dean Trivia Award: Peyton Randolph

"Thank goodness that Howard Dean fought so hard for these bike paths! His courageous battle reminds me of my time in Vietnam, where I served in combat, you know."

Voter solicitation award: Mike

John Kerry courts the "Tour de France" dads.

Ain't That the Truth: Shiroi Norite

John Kerry engages in another ploy to keep people from paying attention to his Senate record.

Most likely to come from Kerry: Jim S
I didn't choose this color scheme - it was my speechwriters.

Thanks to everyone who entered! I had a great time choosing the winners and am already looking forward to seeing Captain Ed's next photographic challenge.

The FEC Calls For A Punt

Faced with a tidal wave of unchecked money flowing to 527s in this election cycle, the Federal Election Commission response has revealed it to be completely unprepared to deal with the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reforms enacted in the last session of Congress. Now FEC lawyers want even more time to review the law before making decisions on how they apply to the 527s, even though the decision would then come far too late to have any significant effect on this election:

Federal Election Commission lawyers recommended Tuesday that the agency hold off on deciding whether to impose new fund raising and spending limits on tax-exempt groups, which would allow them to spend millions on ads and other activities in this year's presidential race.

FEC lawyers urged the commission to take at least three more months to review the issue. If the FEC approves the recommendation, it would make it unlikely the so-called "soft money" groups would face new regulations before the November election. The commission is expected to consider the proposal Thursday.

We should demand that the FEC act now to clarify the rules for 527s. The FEC has had over a year to examine these issues; in fact, it's hard to imagine what else the FEC lawyers have been studying, except for the new campaign-finance reform law in the intervening period. A three-month extension does nothing except ensure that the laws will not apply to this electoral cycle, when it will most affect the people who supported and approved the law in the first place.

Make no mistake: McCain-Feingold infringes on free speech and sets up extraordinarily complicated structures ostensibly to keep money from flowing to politicians up for election, but in reality only forces the money to hide itself further from public view. Rather than allow sunlight into the election process, the new laws encourage the creation of 527s where people can stuff tons of money with no limit and no accountability, especially if the FEC does nothing to include them in the laws' oversight. In other words, it's bad law, and the only way it can be improved at all is if the FEC takes some action now.

Waiting until the next election cycle -- 2006 -- only puts off the realization of how restrictive and poorly written these laws really are, and unfortunately for this cycle creates even less accountability and more game-playing than existed pre-reform. The FEC should make decisions now on implementation to reduce some of the worst effects of the law until wiser heads prevail and eventually rescind it altogether.

9/11 Panel Grandstanding Again

The Washington Post reports today that the 9/11 Commission, whose public hearings provoked bitter partisan bickering but produced little in the way of actionable information, now wants to question al-Qaeda detainees:

The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks is trying to gain access to some members of al Qaeda in U.S. custody to pose questions to them, panel officials said yesterday. ...

The Sept. 11 panel, which has sporadically feuded with the Bush administration over access to information and witnesses during the past year, already has had access to transcripts and reports about al Qaeda detainees in U.S. custody, officials said. But an ability to directly question them would give the panel a remarkable level of access to detainees held in secrecy and generally off limits to defense attorneys.

The panel has particular interest, the Post reports, in interviewing Zacarias Moussaoui and Ramzi Binalshibh. Lee Hamilton, the ranking Democrat, claims that "they have a procedure in mind" for questioning these and possibly other detainees. What they don't explain is why they feel the need to directly question them. They have access to the interrogation reports, as the Post makes clear in the article. They also have access to the interrogators. Do they mean to imply that these politicians can somehow do a better job of interrogating terrorists than the FBI and the CIA?

Obviously, the idea here is not to gather more information; the 9/11 Commission hopes to drum up publicity by grandstanding once again. Either they get to meet the detainees, up close and personal, for no particular reason except for their own ego, or they force the Bush administration to act like grown-ups and block access, which allows the panel to paint the White House as uncooperative again. Let's remember that the panel's original mandate was to determine the mechanics of the intelligence failures that led us to be unprepared for the 9/11 attacks, not to play Clue with the crimes themselves.

Someone needs to put Hamilton and his Baker Street Irregulars back in their box. They have all the information they need to fulfill their original mandate, and we don't need them expanding their swollen mandate any further than it's already gone. Their continued efforts at self-aggrandizement have irreparably damaged this panel's reputation and have relegated its eventual product to nothing more than partisan fodder in an election year.

Besides, with all of the sensitivity towards detainees currently in vogue, wouldn't having Jamie Gorelick question Moussaoui amount to humiliation and abuse?

UPDATE: More at the New York Times:

"We think the result will be that we will have the information we need from these people," Lee H. Hamilton, the vice chairman of the commission, said at a meeting with reporters. "This has been one of the more difficult access questions."

What exactly does Hamilton think that the detainees will tell the panel? "Oh, see, where you made your mistake was in not profiling Arabs at checkpoints, and by the way, watch out for people claiming to come here to study at Chicago University"? This is what they'll hear from the detainees:

1. I'm innocent.
2. I'm a victim of George Bush's racist agenda.
3. Call NBC and ask them if they're interested in my life story.

I have an idea -- why doesn't the commission try the same effort with criminal "detainees" in regular American prisons? I'll bet they find out that the places are filled with wrongfully-convicted peace advocates.

These people simply aren't serious.

Can we condemn them now?

Yesterday, the Weekly Standard posted an article by Jonathan V. Last cricitizing the President’s paternalistic treatment of the Muslim world regarding the Abu Ghraib incidents. According to Mr. Last:

“On May 5, just days after the scandal broke, Bush rushed onto two Arab television networks, Al Arabiya and Alhurra. He apologized (or nearly apologized) to the people of Iraq for the behavior of the American abusers. Then he went on pleading with his audience to understand that these abusers are not indicative of the rest of America.”

Mr. Last quotes President Bush’s statements about the images, then contrasts this response to the lack of an administration reaction regarding the mutilation of American contractors in Falluja:

“When these images became public in America, there was no condemnation of the Iraqi people. There was no concern that American citizens might view the wider Iraqi public as savages or evildoers. There was no worry about repercussions throughout the Western world.”

“Americans and other Westerners instinctively saw these images for what they were: The product of a few deranged, dangerous men--not an example of the broader Iraqi national character.”

Mr. Last concluded with some rhetorical questions:

“So why is it that Americans were able to take the Falluja pictures in stride, yet President Bush is ‘sorry that people who have been seeing those pictures’ in Iraq ‘didn't understand the true nature and heart of America’? Is there something about the Iraqis and others in the Middle East that the president thinks makes them incapable of making reasonable distinctions? Or could it be that there are cultural differences which cause people to react differently?”

I read the article yesterday, and at that time, I thought Mr. Last made a valid point.

The first thing I saw when I turned on the TV this morning was the footage (edited, thankfully), from the vile murder of Nick Berg. That single image is causing me to change my original opinion about our chances of instilling democracy in Iraq and questioning who and where are those “moderate Muslims” that are going to work and fight for freedom in Iraq. Where are the apologies from the Arab world? Does Jordan's King Abdullah II have anything to say to us?

I agree with Mr. Last that Americans can distinguish a few evildoers from the Iraqis as a whole, but the ranks of the evil doers in Iraq are growing. The distinction is blurring.

A Sad Epilogue to Political Correctness Insanity

In a sad coda to a story we just discussed on the radio last Saturday, the subject of a socio-medical experiment in the supposed irrelevance of biology in gender has committed suicide at age 38:

David Reimer, a man who was born a boy but raised as a girl in a famous medical experiment, only to reassert his male identity in the last 20 years of his life, died on May 4. He was 38. His family says he committed suicide. ...

After a botched circumcision operation when he was a toddler, David Reimer became the subject of a study that became known as the John/Joan case in the 60's and 70's. His mother said she was still angry with the Baltimore doctor who persuaded her and her husband, Ron, to give female hormones to their son and raise him as a daughter.

After removing his genitalia, the doctors gave David female hormones in order to give him the physical characteristics of a girl, and his parents raised him as such. Sociologists who pushed the notion that gender roles were entirely determined by environment made Reimer their poster child for their arguments. But as Steven Rhoads, the author of Taking Sex Differences Seriously, told us on Saturday, David never felt comfortable at all as a female. David acted out in what we would consider traditionally masculine ways -- rough play, aggression, and refusal to wear female clothing.

John Colapinto wrote more about Reimer's life in As Nature Made Him. Reimer wanted Colapinto's book to speak out against the arrogance of supposed scientists who would use small children as experimental laboratories for their crackpot theories. One review reprinted on Amazon says this about Reimer:

As Brenda makes the decision to live life as a male (at age 14), she takes the name David and begins the process of reversing the effects of estrogen treatments. David's ultimately successful life--a solid marriage, honest and close family relationships, and his bravery in making his childhood public--bring an uplifting end to his story.

Unfortunately, the end turned out a great deal less uplifting than supposed at the publication of Colapinto's book. As Reimer's mother tells the New York Times, her son might still be alive today had it not been for the unimaginable interference and arrogance of the doctors to whom the family turned after the disastrous circumcision. As it stands, Reimer's life and tragic death should serve as a reminder to anyone who uses utopian social ideals to carve up children just to prove a point. Those physicians who participated in this travesty carry the moral guilt of a pain-filled life, a burden all would-be tinpot Gods should consider.

No more photos, no more apologies, end of discussion

It's time to stop the flood of photographs from Abu Ghraib and the pouring of apologies before our war on terrorism ends up sunk and broken a la the Titanic.

Releasing more photographs serves no legitimate government objective. It won't make international opinion swing into our favor, and it will not make us any new friends in Iraq. It will make Arab anger even more inflamed, but let's face it: the radical Islamafascists want us dead. Who cares if they want us even deader than before?

Why can't we just accept the fact that no one likes us, every body hates us. Really, they do . . . if we have something they want, they will feign agreement but it does not make them like us. Does this matter? No. What most Americans want is to have a job, a nice home, and time to watch cable TV; we do not care if this infuriates the French and Germans. If we want to keep our jobs, our homes, and our TV, we have to fight the terrorists. The horrors of 9/11 have proven how much a few murderers from the Middle East destroy.

So for the love of God or whomever the Constitution gave you the freedom to worship, let Secretary Rumsfeld and the armed forces get back to work. The military justice system will take care us those responsible for the Abu Ghraib incidents. Don't mess with it!

Outraged by the Outrage

Finally, proof I'm not the only one who is more outraged by the hysteria surrounding the Abu Ghraib incidents than the incidents themselves. According to Reuters (via Drudge Report):

"As others condemned the reported abuse of Iraqi prisoners, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe expressed outrage at the outcry over the scandal and took aim at "humanitarian do-gooders" investigating American troops."

"I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment," Sen. Inhofe announced at U.S. Senate hearing probing the case.

"I am also outraged that we have so many humanitarian do-gooders right now crawling all over these prisons looking for human rights violations, while our troops, our heroes are fighting and dying," he said.

"These prisoners, you know they're not there for traffic violations," said Inhofe, whose senatorial Web site describes him as an advocate of "Oklahoma values."

Three cheers for "Oklahoma values"! I wouldn't be surprised if most Americans outside of Washington share his sentiments.

But this is Reuters reporting, and Sen. John McCain appears as the hero of the day, stating future U.S. prisoners of war could face "very serious consequences" if U.S. forces "somehow convey the impression that we've got to do whatever is necessary and humanitarian do-gooders have no place in this arena."

Mr. McCain, there won't be any future U.S. prisoners of war if we can get over these events and get back to the war in Iraq. The longer we persist in hand-wringing and self-criticism, the stronger our enemies grow. Stop letting fear of their opinion destroy America!

Economic Expansion Continues ... Quietly

Jon at QandO notes the AFP report on the economic expansion, indicating that we can continue to expect expansion into 2005:

A robust recovery driven by productivity and tax cuts puts the US economy on track for growth of 4.7 percent this year and 3.7 percent next, the OECD reported.

The figure for this year shows a significant 0.5-point increase from the growth being forecast by the OECD six months ago in November when it pencilled in growth of 4.2 percent.

And what gets the credit for this good news?

"The expansion is now firmly established across most sectors of the economy, helped by continued stimulus from fiscal and monetary policies," the OECD reported.

Jon reminds us that our expansion continues despite a lack of growth in the European economy. Read QandO for excellent economic analysis. It's definitely on my daily-read list, for all three bloggers there -- Jon, McQ, and Dale Franks, the newest addition.

Mark Dayton, Partisan Political Hack

Mark Dayton, our illustrious senior Senator, managed to make a name for himself again today in the hearings regarding the abuses at Abu Ghraib. While the rest of the Senate asked questions of Maj. General Antonio Taguba, who spent months investigating the incidents, Dayton could not be bothered to ask one single question. Dismissing the opportunity to actually get information from an important witness, Dayton instead spewed forth with his partisan posturing during his entire ten minutes, making clear that the purpose of the public hearing was to score as many points against the military and the administration:

On the other side of the aisle, Democrat Mark Dayton of Michigan [sic] never asked a question during his time, instead using it to accuse Pentagon officials of sanitizing the abuse and obscuring the truth.

"That's why the pictures have been so important," he said. "The pictures showed us the truth. ... We were told there were papers and orders ... and everyone followed those orders except for a few people who did very bad things unbeknownst to anyone else who were all doing what they were supposed to be doing to save American lives."

"Those pictures were disruptive," he added, "because they defy that sanitizing."

Someone please tell me any purpose served by opening these hearings to the public? So far with this Senate Armed Services Committee and the 9/11 Commission, public hearings have delivered counter-productive behavior from panelists, and in this case, the volatile rhetoric tossed around so carelessly will cost American lives in the field. Now we have senators (ours, unfortunately) who don't even bother with the pretense of asking questions before drawing conclusions.

Mark Dayton has exposed himself as a partisan political hack, as well as a dullard, twice in the past week. Minnesotans need to keep this in the forefront of state politics for the next two years and commit to replacing him with an intelligent and serious individual in 2006.

NOTE: I just realized that CNN put Dayton in Michigan instead of Minnesota. Normally, I'd make fun of that, but under the circumstances I'm inclined towards gratitude instead.

UPDATE: H-Bomb sounds pretty darned happy to have CNN move Dayton to the Motor City. Check out his blog; he's a 23-year-old Minnesota conservative, an endangered species at times. I've blogrolled him under the Northern Fleet.

UN Still Obstructionist, Threatens OFF Contractors

The Wall Street Journal discloses a confidential memo sent from the UN Secretariat on behalf of Benon Sevan, the Oil-For-Food Program chief. The memo instructs their contractors to withhold any documents or information until the UN gets around to authorizing their release:

Dated April 27, the note--like earlier ones to inspection companies Saybolt and Cotecna--is signed by another U.N. official "for Benon V. Sevan," the outgoing Iraq Program chief. In this case the recipient was an individual consultant whose name was blacked out by our Capitol Hill source.

The letter informs the consultant of a contract clause stating: "contractors may not communicate at any time to any other person, Government or authority external to the United Nations any information known to them by reason of their association with the United Nations which has not been made public, except in the course of their duties or by authorization of the Secretary-General or his designate."

The purpose of the first of these letters to surface, U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard argued last week, was to facilitate evidence gathering by the U.N.-backed inquiry headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. This excuse didn't make a whole lot of sense. It's not as if the Oil for Food-related documents in question could be shared with either Congress or Mr. Volcker but not both. But this latest hush letter adds a new wrinkle, stating twice that the U.N. demands control of "documentation or information" (emphasis added). Translation: Shut up or we'll sue.

As OpinionJournal notes, these memos from the UN hardly inspires confidence that they will provide complete cooperation with Paul Volcker or any other independent investigation. Had this memo been issued within the US government in response to an independent probe, obstruction-of-justice charges would be filed against the person who wrote it. What's worse, at the same time that the UN sends out this not-so-subtle threat, they have the gall to position themselves as the only organization with the moral authority to handle the transition to representative government in Iraq.

Congress and the Bush administration need to take quick action to send the message that interference will not be tolerated and full cooperation is expected. A large amount of American dollars disappeared into the OFF rathole, along with euros, pounds, kroner, etc., that were intended to assist the Iraqi people, not perpetuate their oppression by putting the money into Saddam's pockets. But instead of the phased retention of UN dues that WSJ recommends, we should suspend all monies earmarked for the UN until cooperation increases.

In the meantime, this episode should demonstrate the futility of dealing with an organization whose overwhelmingly tyrannical, kleptocratic membership has thoroughly corrupted its bureaucracy, especially in the expectation of creating a corruption-free democracy in Iraq. The notion borders on satire. Politicians who keep demanding that the US pursue that policy should be recognized as hopelessly out of touch with reality.

Note: As always, keep checking in with Friends of Saddam, which covers this development as well. If any news comes up about UNSCAM, you can be sure to find it there.

Captain's Caption Contest #9!

I want to ride my bicycle,
I want to ride my bike ...
I want to ride my bicycle,
I want to ride it where I like ...

It's a beautiful Friday out here on the road, and so it must be time for another Captain's Caption Contest! John Kerry gave us this image to rally around, so let's kick off this week's contest in high gear. Shift into the comments and pedal [groan] your best effort to caption this delightful image. The contest will remain open until Tuesday, May 11, at 6 PM CT, when our mystery guest judge will decide on the winners!

Oooh ... a mystery guest judge, you say! Or maybe you're saying that I'm covering up that I don't have one. Nonsense! [ahem] No, really ... I'll be making a major announcement later today, and at that time I'll update this post with the name of the guest judge. Keep checking back!

UPDATE: The mystery guest judge for this week's Caption Contest will be my new partner, Whiskey! She's anxious to start posting and looks forward to picking the winners at the end of the contest. Keep a watch out for her posts...

BUMP 5/8: I want to point out another Northern Alliance contest, this one to select a new logo for our group. You can find out more at Fraters Libertas. I'm willing to throw in a smoke-free dinner for any eventual winner, but it would help if you look like this. [Yes, I'd bring the First Mate along, or at least I would now, you bunch of tattletales ...]

BUMP 5/11: Only a few hours left! Get your captions in while you can ...

COMMENTS CLOSED: Time for Whiskey to make her picks! Because of the time difference, I expect to run the winners in a post tomorrow. Thanks for all the great entries!

Get The Picture Now?

I abhor the illegal abuses that occurred in Abu Ghraib prison by a few American servicepeople. Their arrest and courts-martial please me no end, and anyone who participated in such un-American and inhumane treatment should get the punishment they richly deserve.

But before anyone starts drawing equivalencies between those actions in Abu Ghraib and the terrorists we fight, try this on for size first:

A video posted Tuesday on an Islamic militant Web site appeared to show a group affiliated with al-Qaida beheading an American in Iraq, saying the death was revenge for the prisoner-abuse scandal.

The video showed five men wearing headscarves and black ski masks, standing over a bound man in an orange jumpsuit who identified himself as an American from Philadelphia.

After reading a statement, the men were seen pulling the man to his side and cutting off his head with a large knife. They then held the head out before the camera.

My sympathy limit has been reached.

UPDATE: More from the BBC:

The victim identified himself as Nick Berg, a US contractor whose body was found near a highway overpass in Baghdad on Saturday.

One of the masked men read out a statement, saying they had offered to exchange the man for inmates of Abu Ghraib prison but the coalition authorities refused.

They then pulled the man to the side and put a knife to his neck.

The man screamed as he was executed.

His killers shouted "Allah is great" before holding what appeared to be a head up to the camera.

Bastards.

UPDATE: Jon at QandO has some stills from the video. Be warned: they are very, very graphic. And Power Line's Big Trunk notes the curious media silence on Nicholas Berg's Jewish heritage -- an odd omission, under the circumstances.

Mylroie: More Evidence of Saddam-9/11 Ties

Laurie Mylroie writes in today's Front Page that the Czechs have further confirmation of contacts between the Iraqi Intelligence Services (IIS) and Mohammed Atta, one of the leaders of the 9/11 plot that killed 3,000 Americans and launched the war on terror:

Important new information has come from Edward Jay Epstein about Mohammed Atta’s contacts with Iraqi intelligence. The Czechs have long maintained that Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers in the United States, met with Ahmed al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence official, posted to the Iraqi embassy in Prague. As Epstein now reports, Czech authorities have discovered that al-Ani’s appointment calendar shows a scheduled meeting on April 8, 2001 with a "Hamburg student."

That is exactly what the Czechs had been saying since shortly after 9/11: Atta, a long-time student at Germany’s Hamburg-Harburg Technical University, met with al-Ani on April 8, 2001. Indeed, when Atta earlier applied for a visa to visit the Czech Republic, he identified himself as a “Hamburg student.” The discovery of the notation in al-Ani’s appointment calendar about a meeting with a “Hamburg student” provides critical corroboration of the Czech claim.

Epstein also explains how Atta could have traveled to Prague at that time without the Czechs having a record of such a trip. Spanish intelligence has found evidence that two Algerians provided Atta a false passport.

Mylroie reports that the Czechs had tumbled to an Iraqi plot to bomb Radio Free Iraq, based out of Prague, and had been following the Iraqi attaché al-Ani. On April 8, their counterintelligence service noted al-Ani meeting with a "student from Hamburg" who, they had heard, was potentially dangerous. Based on that meeting and because al-Ani refused to explain the meeting, the Czechs promptly booted al-Ani from the country. But the damage was apparently done.

Even before this further substantiation, Epstein's compelling evidence has been largely ignored by the press, as even Ted Kennedy continues to bloviate about how Saddam had no connection to terror. (I'd say planning the bombing of Radio Free Iraq puts that notion to rest.) Why? Mylroie contends that the knowledge that Saddam helped out with 9/11 will shift the spotlight onto the two administrations that allowed Saddam to fester in Iraq: George H. W. Bush and especially Bill Clinton.

I would add a second line of thought to her argument: the media also would suffer a tremendous loss of credibility. Editors from around the nation have scoffed at the continuing suspicion of Iraqi involvement in 9/11, going as far as to use the prevailing wisdom of non-involvement to prove that conservatives are stupid. Any evidence that conservatives perhaps were not so stupid after all will not make headlines in this media environment, nor will anything that appears to justify the war.

Mylroie mentions in her summation that the US has hard evidence, found through the inspection of Iraqi documentation captured at the collapse of the regime, of Iraqi complicity in 9/11. If this is true, the US and UK should act quickly to declassify this data, substantiate it, and make it public. Perhaps the data won't convince everyone, but we all need to review it in order to make that decision ourselves.

Captain Brian R. Chontosh, USMC, Navy Cross

Reader Peyton Randolph forwards me the story of Marine Captain Brian R. Chontosh, who was awarded the Navy Cross last week at Camp Pendleton. Blackfive originally noted the story.

Marine Capt. Brian R. Chontosh received the Navy Cross Medal from the Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, Gen. Michael W. Hagee, during an awards ceremony Thursday at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Training Center, Twentynine Palms, Calif.

Three other Marines received medals for valor at the same ceremony.

Chontosh, 29, from Rochester, N.Y. , received the naval service's second highest award for extraordinary heroism while serving as Combined Anti-Armor Platoon Commander, Weapons Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom March 25, 2003. The Medal of Honor is the highest military award.

While leading his platoon north on Highway 1 toward Ad Diwaniyah, Chontosh's platoon moved into a coordinated ambush of mortars, rocket propelled grenades and automatic weapons fire. With coalitions tanks blocking the road ahead, he realized his platoon was caught in a kill zone.

He had his driver move the vehicle through a breach along his flank, where he was immediately taken under fire from an entrenched machine gun. Without hesitation, Chontosh ordered the driver to advanced directly at the enemy position enabling his .50 caliber machine gunner to silence the enemy.

He then directed his driver into the enemy trench, where he exited his vehicle and began to clear the trench with an M16A2 service rifle and 9 millimeter pistol. His ammunition depleted, Chontosh, with complete disregard for his safety, twice picked up discarded enemy rifles and continued his ferocious attack.

When a Marine following him found an enemy rocket propelled grenade launcher, Chontosh used it to destroy yet another group of enemy soldiers.

When his audacious attack ended, he had cleared over 200 meters of the enemy trench, killing more than 20 enemy soldiers and wounding several others.

"They are the reflection of the Marine Corps type who's service to the Marine Corps and country is held above their own safety and lives," said Gen. Hagee, commenting on the four Marines who received medals during the ceremony. "I'm proud to be here awarding the second highest and third highest awards for bravery to these great Marines."

"These four Marines are a reflection of every Marine and sailor in this great battalion," said Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, Sgt. Maj. John L. Estrada.

"I was just doing my job, I did the same thing every other Marine would have done, it was just a passion and love for my Marines, the experience put a lot into perspective," said Chontosh.

Americans In Iraq: The Contractors Connect With Iraqis As Well

Glenn at Instapundit points out that Sissy Willis has a photo up showing the oppression of the Iraqi people by the American military. Since we're back on that subject lately, I thought I'd show you how those evil contractors also continue to pursue their hatred of Iraqis:

The contractor shown is a friend of mine who currently works in Iraq, and this photo was taken, I believe, in March. I've blurred the face, with no particular skill as you can see, based on some of the reactions I received to his e-mail that I posted last month after the Fallujah murder of the four American contractors there. Some people just want to vent hatred towards anyone who doesn't believe that surrender brings peace.

Waziristan to Osama: Drop Dead

More good news, this time from Pakistan, where Pervez Musharraf has united the tribes in South Waziristan in the mission to find, capture, and/or kill al-Qaeda 'militants', as the BBC calls them:

Tribesmen in the South Waziristan region of Pakistan say they will raise a force of 1,800 armed men to capture suspected al-Qaeda militants. The force would be the biggest armed militia - or Lashkar - so far raised for such a purpose.

The decision to form it was made by the Ahmedzai Wazir tribe in the main town of Wana, 400 km southwest of Peshawar. It is the first time that all the clans and sub-clans of the region have unified against al-Qaeda.

Musharraf has not won much popularity with his campaign against al-Qaeda in the western border regions of Pakistan. The tribes have felt pushed around and under attack themselves as Musharraf's army has campaigned against "foreigners", as they are referred to in Pakistan. The tribes have long been a source of security for Pakistan, arrayed as pickets against incursions from rival tribes in Afghanistan, acting almost as a tripwire defense or a sort of DMZ. The war on terror has been a destabilizing influence on this traditional (and traditionally fractious) barrier.

The new, united effort by the Waziris will be to force all foreigners in the area to register with the tribes. Failure to register will result in "other options," and the government expresses seriousness about the consequences, saying that there will be "no compromise" if foreigners do not comply with the new program.

Politically, Musharraf has scored a major coup. As difficult as it is to get these tribes to agree on anything, Islamic militants had some degree of sympathy in these regions, whence sprang the original movement to mobilize against the Soviets in the 1980s. This agreement indicates a more stable power base than previously thought for the unelected "president" of Pakistan, who has agreed to reduce his military authority in the near future by retiring from the Army and becoming a strictly civilian leader. This proposal caused some worry that Musharraf might lose his grip on power and be replaced by someone much more sympathetic to Islamofascists. The Waziristan agreement indicates that the worry might be overblown. Hopefully, Pakistan will hold free elections, and soon, in order to ensure a stable democracy, demonstrating the wisdom of opposing Islamofascists.

Shi'a to Sadr: Drop Dead

Reuters reports that far from leading a popular uprising against the infidel Anglo-American armies, the Shi'ite general population and religious leaders have begun counterdemonstrating to push Moqtada al-Sadr and his dwindling militiamen out of the holy city of Najaf:

Hundreds of people marched in Najaf on Tuesday calling on rebel Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to pull his militia out of the Iraqi holy city. Witnesses said they marched to the central shrine area of the city before dispersing peacefully. Some Sadr gunmen fired in the air toward the end of the march, but most marchers had dispersed by then.

The demonstration, organized by Sadr's political foes, followed a smaller one on Monday and reflected increasing pressure from Shi'ite elders on Sadr to move his men out of the city as U.S.-led forces tighten their noose around it.

The al-Sadr militia have been reduced in number from continuing pressure by Coalition forces and a certain stupidity that keeps sending their members into the open to engage in fighting. The Marines have concentrated around Najaf and have been patiently closing in on al-Sadr, taking back a major building complex in Najaf late last week. Unless the al-Mahdi "army" either retreats or surrenders, a major battle will take place among the shrines of the Shi'a, something the US would love to avoid if possible. The Shi'ites do not want to see their mosques damaged either and have been pressuring al-Sadr to get the heck out of town, the sooner the better.

Such counterdemonstrations not only bely the notion of al-Sadr representing popular Shi'a opinion, but also shows how little control he has in Najaf, where he has concentrated his forces, such as they are.

NYT Indulges in Pointless Red/Blue Rhetoric

Rick Lyman writes an odd analysis for the New York Times this morning regarding the supposedly red-meat rhetoric that the two major candidates for President use when preaching to the choir. Lyman sets up his analysis based on the red/blue state paradigm, but then assigns Louisiana blue-state status when Bush carried it by 8 points in 2000 and leads by 14 points now. He seems to get closer by referring to Ohio as a red state, as Bush edged Gore there by 4 points, but only leads by 2 now. If Lyman's research is poor, the rest of his analysis is equally suspect, as he quotes the candidates and their supporters using pretty much the same rhetoric they use anywhere:

To applause and angry shouts, Mr. Kerry, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, told them not to be discouraged by Bush campaign efforts to paint him as an out-of-touch Northeast liberal. "You know why they're doing that?" he said. "Because he doesn't have a record to run away from."

Last Tuesday, in an aging ice hockey arena on Cincinnati's north side, a banner saying "America: Safer, Stronger, Better" hovered above the floodlighted stage, where a grinning President Bush scanned the crowd of more than 10,000 cheering Republicans.

"You've got to get out there and turn out the vote," Mr. Bush told them. "That's what we call the grass roots. I've come to fertilize the grass roots."

It is accepted wisdom that America is split nearly in half between red states and blue states, Republican and Democrat. But to get a taste of red and blue in their purest forms, it helps to attend a rally for each side and listen to each standard-bearer carry on a conversation with the converted. Only then does it become apparent how truly different these two Americas are, and how in other ways they are oddly alike.

Lyman quotes attendees extensively on the shortcomings of George Bush, even describing one how unhappy one Republican attendee in Baton Rouge has become with her party. We hear none of that from any of the Bush supporters quoted in the article; one could suppose that Bush supporters tend to be more polite and less classless, but I suspect that Lyman didn't want to include too many negatives about Kerry. This is an unusual choice, given Lyman's premise that one needs to go deep behind enemy lines, so to speak, in order to hear what each side really says about the other. He couldn't possibly have chosen less inflammatory quotes from the Bush rally, unless it were "Hi, how are you," and "Don't forget to vote!"

Lyman does include a bizarre incident without putting it into the broader context of the diversity issue of Kerry's campaign. He notes, more than once, that Kerry's audience is racially diverse, but in one instance shows how tone-deaf the campaign appears:

The dress code, for the most part, was blue jeans or canvas pants beneath union T-shirts or well-worn polo shirts. The crowd was a sturdy mix of black and white faces.

Billye Burns, a retired teacher from West Monroe, had driven more than two hours to see Mr. Kerry in Baton Rouge. Ms. Burns, who is black, sat at a prime table marked "white ticket holders only [emph mine]." White tickets, she explained, were for those who were active in the party.

Can you imagine the furor that would arise had the Bush campaign put signs on tables that read "white ticket holders only", regardless of the reason? In Louisiana? I'm no water-carrier for Affirmative Action, but this displays a stunning lack of historical sensitivity and has to result from an ignorance that suggests no locals were involved in the planning and staging of Kerry's rally.

Addendum: Perhaps this man headed their advance team in Baton Rouge? Hey, he's in town, and available -- it would explain the table signs ...

Is this a war we really want to win?

Deroy Murdock has a thought-provoking article in today's National Review. I thought we already lost the war on drugs, but apparently, the government has decided to expand it.

Mr. Murdock observes, "At a time when federal officials should focus obsessively on crushing terrorists, they are expanding the disastrous war on drugs into an even more pointless war on substances. From old bogeymen like marijuana to new 'hazards'like Oxycontin, Washington busybodies are knocking themselves out combating compounds that, by themselves, do not threaten public safety."

First, the Justice Department has initiated a new assault on medical marijuana:

"The Justice Department has appealed a December 2003 federal court decision that barred Uncle Sam from impeding Californians who use personally grown, locally cultivated, or charitably donated medical marijuana. In Raich v. Ashcroft, the Ninth Circuit correctly disallowed the Constitution's commerce-clause rationale for federal intervention. After all, how can interstate commerce include intrastate, noncommercial activity?"

Reasonable minds can differ on the medical marijuana issue, but that's not the only substance on the target list. The Justice Department has also taken aim at ephedra (a weight loss suplement) and Hydrocodone (Vicodin), America's most widely prescribed painkiller. According to Mr. Murdock:

"The DEA wants to make hydrocodone a Schedule II drug, track how much of it doctors prescribe, and monitor the amount each patient receives."

"Assistant U.S. Attorney Gene Rossi encapsulated Justice's profound disdain for pain specialists when he declared: 'Our office will try our best to root out certain doctors like the Taliban.'"

As an attorney, I wouldn't relish the though of prosecuting pain-ridden patients and their doctors for prescribing substances that allow sick people to live semi-normal lives. I agree with Mr. Murdock's conclusion:

"Adults should be free to stimulate, fortify, or medicate themselves however they wish, so long as they simultaneously respect the rights and safety of others. As al Qaeda prepares bloody surprises, it is simply surreal for federal officials to exert even one calorie of collective energy to battle American citizens who trim their waistlines, boost their batting averages, or soothe their pounding nerve endings."

Zogby Falls Down

John Zogby writes an entertaining essay explaining why, in his opinion, the presidential election belongs to John Kerry. Zogby, whose polling data provided equal parts entertainment and incredulity in past elections, makes the strange assumption that a focus on the economy in the middle of an expansion will hurt the incumbent:

First, my most recent poll (April 12-15) shows bad re-election numbers for an incumbent President. Senator Kerry is leading 47% to 44% in a two-way race, and the candidates are tied at 45% in the three-way race with Ralph Nader. Significantly, only 44% feel that the country is headed in the right direction and only 43% believe that President Bush deserves to be re-elected - compared with 51% who say it is time for someone new.

In that same poll, Kerry leads by 17 points in the Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000, while Bush leads by only 10 points in the Red States that he won four years ago.

Second, there are very few undecided voters for this early in a campaign. Historically, the majority of undecideds break to the challenger against an incumbent. The reasons are not hard to understand: voters have probably made a judgment about the better-known incumbent and are looking for an alternative.

Third, the economy is still the top issue for voters - 30% cite it. While the war in Iraq had been only noted by 11% as the top issue in March, it jumped to 20% in our April poll as a result of bad war news dominating the news agenda. The third issue is the war on terrorism. Among those who cited the economy, Kerry leads the President 54% to 35%. Among those citing the war in Iraq, Kerry's lead is 57% to 36%. This, of course, is balanced by the 64% to 30% margin that the President holds over Kerry on fighting the war on terrorism. These top issues are not likely to go away. And arguably, there is greater and growing intensity on the part of those who oppose and want to defeat Bush.

Let's tackle the silliness in order. First, Zogby's latest poll is almost a month old now, while other polls are much more recent. While Zogby may show Kerry ahead in a two-way race by less than the margin of error, two other major pollsters show Bush ahead and another shows a dead heat -- and all of this after a couple of very difficult months for Bush, during which Kerry has achieved little or no traction at all. In polling this month, all pollsters show Bush's approval numbers ahead of his disapproval numbers. In terms of the so-called "battleground states", Bush shows that he has gained more electoral votes than Kerry, even while taking a beating, over the 2000 election results.

Zogby then argues that a lack of undecided voters at this stage of the election favors the challenger, without providing any basis for that conclusion. Nor has he considered that the "challenger" they may break towards could very well be Nader; in fact, I would say that undecided-but-dislikes-Bush voters may tend to tilt that direction. If they already dislike Bush, they'd be inclined to go Kerry instead. Failing that, it seems that they don't like Kerry any more than Bush.

The next point given is the economy, stupid; people won't recognize that we're in growth mode and the economic votes will go Kerry's way. His mid-April polling tells Zogby that those voters are already going his way. However, those are the voters most likely to change their minds late -- if the economy keeps growing and adding jobs like it has, you can expect that gap to tighten considerably. Note too that Zogby's latest poll came well before the April jobs report.

Lastly, Zogby argues that Kerry is a good closer, but only argues two cases: his Senate election over Bill Weld in 1996 and these primaries. But Kerry's success in the primaries came not so much from his own effort but the Howard Dean implosion this winter, as the former Governor couldn't keep his mouth shut long enough to actually win a primary. As far as his victory over Weld, it hardly sheds glory on the Kennedy protege that he barely won an election in heavily Democratic Massachussetts with Teddy's support against a Republican challenger. Finishing strong meant he almost blew it.

Zogby provides an entertaining look at politics, but what he proves above all else is that his polling inconsistencies should be no surprise any more to intelligent observers. (via Memeorandum)

Victor Davis Hanson Explains It All

Victor Davis Hanson may wind up as the leading intellectual voice behind the war on Islamofascist terror. In today's lengthy essay on OpinionJournal, Hanson relates the historical context of our current conflicts and the debilitating philosophies that brought us, finally, to this pass:

The 20th century should have taught the citizens of liberal democracies the catastrophic consequences of placating tyrants. British and French restraint over the occupation of the Rhineland, the Anschluss, the absorption of the Czech Sudetenland, and the incorporation of Bohemia and Moravia did not win gratitude but rather Hitler's contempt for their weakness. Fifty million dead, the Holocaust and the near destruction of European civilization were the wages of "appeasement"--a term that early-1930s liberals proudly embraced as far more enlightened than the old idea of "deterrence" and "military readiness." ...

Most important, military deterrence and the willingness to use force against evil in its infancy usually end up, in the terrible arithmetic of war, saving more lives than they cost. All this can be a hard lesson to relearn each generation, especially now that we contend with the sirens of the mall, Oprah and latte. Our affluence and leisure are as antithetical to the use of force as rural life and relative poverty once were catalysts for muscular action. The age-old lure of appeasement--perhaps they will cease with this latest concession, perhaps we provoked our enemies, perhaps demonstrations of our future good intentions will win their approval--was never more evident than in the recent Spanish elections, when an affluent European electorate, reeling from the horrific terrorist attack of 3/11, swept from power the pro-U.S. center-right government on the grounds that the mass murders were more the fault of the United States for dragging Spain into the effort to remove fascists and implant democracy in Iraq than of the primordial al Qaedaist culprits, who long ago promised the Western and Christian Iberians ruin for the Crusades and the Reconquista.

What went wrong with the West--and with the United States in particular--when not just the classical but especially the recent antecedents to Sept. 11, from the Iranian hostage-taking to the attack on the USS Cole, were so clear?

Hanson makes clear that, in his mind, what went wrong was that the West adopted the radical-left notions of victimhood and moral relativity so evident in John Kerry's words to Congress in 1971: "I think that politically, historically, the one thing that people try to do, that society is structured on as a whole, is an attempt to satisfy their felt needs, and you can satisfy those needs with almost any kind of political structure, giving it one name or the other. In this name it is democratic; in others it is communism; in others it is benevolent dictatorship. As long as those needs are satisfied, that structure will exist."

In other words, the left felt, and still feels, that ideology and democracy are irrelevant to judgments of worthiness, and that all that matters is if a particular system meets people's needs. When a system fails, as communism and Islamocism have, then the problem is not the system but outside influences on that system. Western capitalism makes the perfect target, for a variety of reasons -- it forces people to keep up, which creates economic "victims" of those who don't, and it requires the emphasis of self-responsibility and free markets, which distribute wealth on the basis of productivity and innovation rather than guarantee an equal result regardless of effort. Based on these strategies and a stable representative government, the US has become the greatest economic power in the world, far out of proportion to our size, which infuriates those who believe in a Utopian ideal.

It doesn't take a far leap from that frustration to a knee-jerk response to believe that the West causes victimization of those cultures who refuse to modernize -- indeed, the notion itself causes offense. Why should they copy the West?, they ask; how arrogant to suggest they need to change! But it is the Islamist insistence on following the failed strategies of the twelfth century that is the problem, and our conflict of the past twenty-five years has been the inevitable result.

After reading Hanson's piece, ask yourself how the West managed the transition to stable nation-states and the liberation of its peasantry, and then compare that to conditions in Islamist states such as Iran or Saudi Arabia. It didn't happen by accident, and the West took centuries to reform itself. Islam receives no benefit by leftists declaring that Islam has no need to reform, and the West will be undermined perhaps to annihilation by the notion that we should allow Islamofascists to operate freely as some masochistic penance for imagined oppression. If liberal democracies are to survive, they must recognize Islamofascism for the cancer it is, and excise it before it metastasizes any further. (via Memeorandum)

Sharon Tries Again

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon refuses to give up on his plan to withdraw from Gaza, again announcing plans to submit a modified version which has yet to be seen. John Ward Anderson reports in today's Washington Post that Sharon's cabinet reacted strongly -- in both directions -- once the subject aired itself in his weekly cabinet meeting:

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told cabinet ministers Sunday that he was devising a new plan to withdraw Israeli troops and Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip and expected to present it to the government in about three weeks, the officials and their aides said.

Sharon's announcement reportedly set off fireworks in the weekly cabinet session between ministers who threatened to leave the government if the Gaza settlements were not evacuated and those who have vowed to quit if they are. Either scenario could lead to the collapse of Sharon's four-party coalition government or force him to dramatically revamp it.

Sharon announced his intentions on the heels of a disastrous vote in his own Likud party on the first version of the Gaza withdrawal plan. Originally favored to win approval, Sharon's plan instead lost, trounced by 20 points in the final polling. Another politician might have resigned at that point, and some observers thought that Sharon's political career had been mortally wounded. If so, he's willing to push the plan straight through to his career's demise.

All depends on the revisions Sharon will offer in Gaza 2.0. Opponents mainly objected to the unilateral withdrawal without any guarantees from the Palestinians, and the Palestinians objected to Sharon's trade-offs of West Bank settlements, as well as suspecting him of using the Gaza withdrawal as a feint for a West Bank land grab. It will be difficult to come up with a solution that satisfies Sharon's opponents without having the Palestinians involved, and they have yet to negotiate in good faith anyway.

No one really expects the Gaza settlements to survive any final negotiations with the Palestinians anyway, and their presence makes the tactical situation for the Israelis more complicated. I understand Sharon's plan, at least to the point of extricating the Israelis from a situation that provides daily provocation and makes security for Israel proper more complicated. However, it seems to me that in negotiation, you don't toss away important bargaining chips, even if the table understands they wouldn't be yours at the end anyway. No matter what, Sharon will have a tough sell on his hands, and I suspect that he understands it now, too.

It's Not The Theft, It's The Worthlessness They Steal

The New York Times reports this morning on a tempest in the teapot of the reality-TV world, as NBC and Fox duke it out over their upcoming, competing boxing shows:

The producers of NBC's "The Contender," which has secured a financial commitment of $2 million an episode, accused both Fox and Endemol, the production company behind "The Next Great Champ," of stealing their idea, an idea that Fox had had access to, because every network had bid on "The Contender."

The result has been a nasty dispute, even for television where thievery has been standard operating procedure. The Fox boxing show is now expected to get on the air before the NBC show, possibly damaging that show's chances - clearly part of the point of its creation. The dispute involves big Hollywood names - Peter Chernin, the president of the Fox Entertainment Group; Jeffrey Katzenberg, the co-founder of the Dreamworks studio; Gail Berman, the president of entertainment for the Fox network; and Mark Burnett, the most successful reality producer, with "Survivor" and "The Apprentice" on his résumé.

Mr. Burnett was unhappy enough with Fox that he and his partner in "The Contender," Mr. Katzenberg, set up a dinner last week to appeal to the better natures of Mr. Chernin and Ms. Berman. "It was a tough meeting," Mr. Burnett said. "Anyone wandering into that restaurant would have witnessed quite an animated discussion."

Network executives stealing ideas? I'm reminded of the words of Captain Louis in Casablanca -- I'm shocked, shocked to find mindless copycatting in Hollywood! Bill Carter allows the blame to mostly fall on Fox, and for good reason, as they have been the most blatant thieves of reality concepts before the originals get on the air; I suppose they can't wait for the stink to arise from the original. However, as Carter also makes clear, every network manages to run screaming towards the lowest common denominator by churning out photocopy after photocopy of reality concepts once the original has aired. How many different ways, for instance, has television copied The Bachelor?

The dispute has resulted in a large amount of ill will and mistrust among producers and the networks, specifically Fox. Instead of multiple pitch strategies, which help push the price up, producers may be forced to pitch their ideas to one network at a time. Some producers suggested they may ask network executives to sign non-disclosure agreements, a normal practice in the business world but apparently a new concept in Hollywood. (Go figure.) Michael Davies, who'c producing a new reality show called Wife Swap, says the producers have to police themselves.

The funniest part of this article is that so many people were willing to pay top dollar for The Contender, hosted by none other than Sylvester Stallone. Carter reports that the show drew a "record" amount of money in an auction between the broadcast networks, which pushed Fox into creating its own version with Oscar De La Hoya as host. Besides the painful realization that both of these stellar careers have bit the dust, it doesn't appear to have crossed the minds of these network executives that they could simply have reinstated Friday Night at the Fights and accomplished much the same thing. In fact, they could have booked better boxing talent and still have turned out entertaining interviews and behind-the-scenes drama, all without the necessity of dealing with the large egos and large paychecks of their current shows.

Hollywood reality: theft replaces common sense, or why think anything through when you assume one of the other airheads have already done so? This dynamic explains a lot about their political activity ...

Michael Mukasey, chief judge of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, provides highly readable response to the hysteria surrounding the Patriot Act on todays OpinionJournal.com.

His article is required reading for anyone wishing to engage in a rational debate on the anti-terror legislation. Some highlights:

"Most of the provisions have nothing to do with the current debate, including provisions authorizing purchase of equipment for police departments and the like, and provisions tightening restrictions on money laundering, including restrictions on the export of currency, which is the lifeblood of terrorists. Recall that when Saddam Hussein was captured, he had with him $750,000 in $100 bills."

"The statute also breaks down the wall that has separated intelligence gathering from criminal investigation. It allows intelligence information to be shared with criminal investigators, and information that criminal investigators unearth to be shared with those conducting intelligence investigations. I think many people would believe this makes sense, although a series of bureaucratic decisions and a stark misreading of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for years made this impossible, and thus prevented the government from fulfilling its most basic responsibility under the Constitution: 'to provide for the common defense [and] promote the general Welfare.'"

"What difference would this make? Well, there is one documented incident involving an FBI intelligence agent on the West Coast who was trying to find two men on a watch list who he realized had entered the country. He tried to get help from the criminal investigative side of the FBI, but headquarters intervened and said that was not allowed. That happened in August 2001. The two men he was looking for were named Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. A few weeks later, on Sept. 11, they were at the controls of the airplane that struck the Pentagon."

Mr. Mukasey also lays to rest the wild accusations regarding the use of library records and discusses the "sneak and peak" warrants, which allow law enforcement to enter a residence and just take a look, without providing immediate notice to the resident.

The Patriot Act goes far to bring search and seizure law into the digital age, and the tools provided are necessary to investigate (and hopefully prevent) terrorist activity.

Torricelli Option Goes Mainstream

Howard Kurtz, the political correspondent for the Washington Post, writes in his column tomorrow about the Torricelli option, perhaps the first time it has received mainstream attention. Kurtz notes the despair and panic amongst the Democrats about just how bad a candidate Kerry really is, and how the alternatives are being considered:

"John Kerry Must Go."

That Village Voice headline may be a tad dramatic, but stories about disaffected Democrats are spreading like wildfire through the media forest. ... Strange as it seems, given that Kerry swept to the nomination, at least a few chattering-class members are discussing the Torricelli option, a reference to the replacement of scandal-scarred Robert Torricelli on the New Jersey ballot late in the 2002 U.S. Senate campaign.

"Look for the Dem biggies, whoever they are these days, to sit down with the rich and arrogant presumptive nominee and try to persuade him to take a hike," writes Village Voice columnist James Ridgeway. Kerry also might be struck by lightning the next time he goes snowboarding.

Most campaigns go through these turbulent cycles. In early September 2000, a front-page New York Times story warned: "Prominent Republicans around the country, including several who advise Gov. George W. Bush, say they are worried that his candidacy has floundered in recent weeks." Time's cover said: "Humpty W.: How Bad a Fall?" Matt Lauer said on "Today" that "there's growing concern in Republican circles about a loss of momentum in the Bush campaign."

Kurtz doesn't think that the Toricelli option to be realistic, as he selects a few quotes from the left to dismiss it rather sharply, and for good reason -- at this time, anyway. Bush has weathered some pretty bad news, but more may be on its way, and Kerry probably can't get much worse than he's been thus far. Unless something else pops up at him, his faults have been laid out pretty clearly.

However, that analysis holds only as long as Bush continues to face bad news on Iraq. Stories about abused prisoners will likely drip out for the next couple of weeks, but there are already indications that Bush and his team are serious about getting out in front of the story this time. Whether or not the Fallujah negotiations were a wise choice, they seem to have reduced the tensions in the area, and the troops seem to have the momentum against the al-Sadr uprising in Najaf and Karbala. Domestic news has improved as well, with the economy continuing to gather steam and new jobs being added in droves. Democrats have to worry that when the bad news eventually lets up, Kerry's tenuous grasp on polling numbers will disappear entirely.

Even if Kurtz doesn't put much stock into the Torricelli option, the fact that he felt the need to address it is an indication how far into the mainstream Kerry panic has intruded. Expect more to come.

I might have been wrong

OK, in my previous post, I said there weren't very many good movies out there, despite Doug Giles' assertion (though I agreed with the rest of his cheery article). Mr. Giles has been backed up by a surprising source: the LA Times!

The Times reports:

"There's a hot new special effect headed for the multiplexes this season: the summer movie that appeals to grown-ups."

"Hollywood's usual summer lineup of over-the-top car chases, fiery explosions and gross-out comedies this year also will feature adult thrillers, a social satire, a musical portrait of the composer Cole Porter and even a couple of Oscar hopefuls."

"Among the offerings from the major studios: a remake of 'The Stepford Wives,' the Cole Porter portrait 'De-Lovely,' the latest Robert Ludlum adaptation, 'The Bourne Supremacy' and Michael Mann's 'Collateral,' in which a cabdriver picks up a passenger (Tom Cruise) who turns out to be an assassin. 'The Manchurian Candidate,' a modern-day take on John Frankenheimer's 1962 Cold War classic, is the kind of film traditionally released in the fall."

"Even the big popcorn movies this summer are carrying some extra heft, with heavy-duty directors such as Alfonso Cuaron at the helm of 'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban' and Sam Raimi on 'Spider-Man 2.'"

At least it sounds promising!

Home of the Brave, Finally

After reading countless op-ed pieces preaching nothing but gloom and doom about Iraq, the military, and America in general, I was delighted to see Doug Giles' recent entry at Townhall.com. Mr. Giles believes our nation is finally getting over our culture of protest and victimization and giving courage and bravery its due attention. According to the author:

“The United States of America originated from intelligent, freedom loving, hard working, God fearing people. They had a clear sense of right and wrong and were not afraid to face down tyrants who tried to take away their God given freedoms.”

“Our Founders were not sleepy, lethargic, passive goons who hit the brakes when they encountered the first speed bump in their path to liberty. They said, ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ … ‘Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death’ … ‘Live Free or Die’!”

“There’s been a totemic shift in what our nation exalts since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Following that epochal event and our successful strikes in Afghanistan and Iraq, bravery and courage--for things that are consequential--are back on the map."

Some of the evidence cited includes a surge in patriotism, a distinction between good and evil, and “Political correctness (finally) beginning to go down the crapper.”

Mr. Giles also points to, “Good music, uplifting TV and movies, decent men and women and worthy vocations receiving the honor that’s due them.” I wonder exactly what he’s been watching because I’ve seen a lot of terrible movies (exception for Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Pirates of the Caribbean) and even worse TV post-9/11. Though that bit is debatable, his article is “uplifting” and shouldn’t be missed.

Smash: Troops' E-Mail Not Going Away

One of the most effective and relentless advocates for our men and women on the front lines, Citizen Smash, notes a hoax floating around the blogosphere based on a misunderstanding. Rumors are swirling that the military wants to cut off Internet access to troops in Iraq, but the truth is a bit more complex -- and for those of us who sometimes take the pragmatic approach to "borrowing" bandwidth, all too familiar:

A POST by milblogger Ginmar has sparked a rumor that the military is planning to cut off Internet access to all GIs in Iraq.

At the very least, KBR is not allowing any private computers on their system for the next ninety days. There might be one other option, but if you don't hear from me for a while...

Several bloggers have picked up on this story, and speculation is rampant on why the military is asking KBR to cut GIs off from the outside world.

It turns out, however, that the story isn’t true. I’ve checked in with several milbloggers in Iraq this morning, including Doc in the Box, Stryker Mike, and Dagger JAG – and none of them seems to know anything about it.

It turns out that the issue only applies to Ginmar's unit, and for a rather mundane reason: they'd been hijacking bandwidth from KBR, who took steps to cut them off after griping about slow access times. (Smash: "Poor babies," and I'm inclined to agree.) Smash recalls how his own unit had to get their own equipment to set up Internet access. Read the entire post, and maybe the blogosphere could start a drive to get this equipment into the hands of our sisters and brothers on the front lines.

Post: Tougher Interrogation Techniques OK'd By Pentagon

Dana Priest and Joe Stephens report in today's Washington Post that the Pentagon approved a list of tough interrogation techniques designed to extract intelligence from reluctant detainees at Guantanamo, in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, given the nature of the threat, the approval process and techniques employed seem reasonable:

In April 2003, the Defense Department approved interrogation techniques for use at the Guantanamo Bay prison that permit reversing the normal sleep patterns of detainees and exposing them to heat, cold and "sensory assault," including loud music and bright lights, according to defense officials.

The classified list of about 20 techniques was approved at the highest levels of the Pentagon and the Justice Department, and represents the first publicly known documentation of an official policy permitting interrogators to use physically and psychologically stressful methods during questioning.

The use of any of these techniques requires the approval of senior Pentagon officials -- and in some cases, of the defense secretary. Interrogators must justify that the harshest treatment is "militarily necessary," according to the document, as cited by one official. Once approved, the harsher treatment must be accompanied by "appropriate medical monitoring."

"We wanted to find a legal way to jack up the pressure," said one lawyer who helped write the guidelines. "We wanted a little more freedom than in a U.S. prison, but not torture."

Predictably, civil libertarians strenuously object to any interrogation that doesn't strictly comply with approved criminal investigative techniques. Priest and Stephens quote Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch as saying that interrogative strategies outlawed by the US Constitution domestically are also illegal abroad under wartime -- a ridiculous statement. The US Constitution, for one thing, specifically places the Executive in charge of war and makes no mention of its application on the battlefield, for good reason. Does Roth expect Marines to read POWs their rights when captured during battle? If not, why should he expect them to allow the POWs a phone call and a lawyer once they get back to the compound?

Let me state this clearly, so everyone can understand: war is not the same as crime. Many people, even presidential candidates, fail to understand this. Crimes can occur during war, but war is a completely different situation than a drug bust in LA. In war, intelligence makes the difference between dead Americans, civilians as well as military, and dead enemy fighters. While torture is never acceptable, you cannot hamstring military and intelligence units with the niceties of domestic criminal investigative rules.

Look at the list of techniques described by the Post:

* Using female interrogators to question male detainees
* Force the prisoners to stand for four hours at a time
* Interrogating disrobed prisoners
* Disrupt their sleeping patterns
* Play loud music

The article notes that the Pentagon strictly prohibited physical contact -- not even poking a finger in a detainee's chest is allowed under these guidelines.

Ask yourself this: had we been in the field, attacking these same forces in 1998 after the al-Qaeda bombing of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and we had AQ suspects in custody, could these techniques have allowed us to stop the attack on 9/11? Take a look through the news over the past few months; the papers and news services have been peppered with stories about foiled bombing plots and the capture of the would-be perpetrators. Where do you think the information comes from to make those captures?

So, would a disrupted sleep pattern or two be worth the lives of 3,000 Americans? Would humiliating detainees on a case-by-case basis be an acceptable trade-off to saving the lives of 80,000 Jordanians? Would you approve the imposition of loud, obnoxious rap music in order to save Los Angeles?

This is war, and you'd better get used to the stakes involved.

NATO Won't Go To Iraq: LA Times

The Los Angeles Times reports more news on the efforts to internationalize the efforts in Iraq, this time with NATO. According to Paul Richter, diplomats and defense officials tied to NATO will not consider joining the Anglo-American efforts until, oddly enough, after the US presidential election:

The Western military alliance had expected to announce at a June summit that it would accept a role in the country, perhaps by leading the international division now patrolling south-central Iraq. But amid continuing bloodshed and strong public opposition to the occupation in many nations, allies want to delay any major commitment until after the U.S. presidential election in November, officials say.

NATO suffers from the same disease that has crippled the UN -- namely, the reluctance to commit troops to anyplace where they might take fire. Unsurprisingly so, as the same member-nations that decry the lack of international input in Iraq are the same who drag their feet to send troops to Afghanistan, where NATO had already accepted a large role. As Richter points out (well down into the body of the article), requests for more support there get the same result with a different set of excuses:

In addition, NATO has struggled to provide enough troops and equipment for its mission in Afghanistan, which holds a considerably higher priority with most members than any future assignment in Iraq. NATO officials have been trying to cajole members for months to contribute more to the Afghan effort, but continue to be rebuffed by officials of governments who say they are overstretched in other peacekeeping missions and do not have equipment designed for southwest Asia.

Even so, most members take the view that "Afghanistan is where NATO's credibility is on the line," said a NATO official. "In Iraq, it's the U.S.' credibility that's on the line."

If NATO won't support the mission where they admit their own credibility is at stake, why bother asking them to take on Iraq? Why should we continue to bang on doors that simple economics and domestic politics should clearly demonstrate will remain closed to us? Europe, with the exception of the UK, has never invested serious money in its own defense, instead relying on the US and to a lesser extent the UK to defend them instead. In fact, our a significant portion of that American defense infrastructure remains in place. This lack of investment enabled Western Europeans to build the socialist entitlement systems that now strangle their economies. They don't have the resources to build large armies, even for peacekeeping, and won't have them until they make significant changes to their internal economics. Moreoever, the changes required will enrage their populations as pensions upon which they relied will disappear. Under those circumstances, what likelihood does any US administration have of receiving militarily significant assistance in Iraq?

One other issue deserves mention. Richter reports that the NATO diplomats intend on waiting until after the American election to make a decision. Why? I could understand if they wanted to wait until after an Iraqi election, in order to speak with popularly-elected officials there instead of appointees; that would make some sense, although I think it communicates a dangerous lack of self-confidence for NATO. It seems our allies want to dabble a bit in our domestic politics, something to keep in mind during the next few months.

Marines Making Friends In Fallujah

After over a month of bad news, especially in Abu Ghraib, Fallujah and Najaf, Americans have been fed a steady diet of our troops under fire and under suspicion. Today's Los Angeles Times looks at another aspect of our troops on the front lines by reporting on Marine efforts to build relationships with the people of the area around Fallujah:

When the Marines in mid-March assumed responsibility for much of Al Anbar province from the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, they hoped to emphasize the first part of the 1st Marine Division's motto, "No better friend." Instead they found themselves emphasizing the second part, "No worse enemy."

Now they're attempting a new beginning. ... Accompanied by Navy corpsmen and a chaplain, the Marines spent much of the day handing out toys, candy, crackers, backpacks and soccer balls to eager children in this farming village adjacent to Fallouja. For adults, the Americans had bags of planting seed, farm tools and sluice gates to help with irrigation.

This was to be the Marines' strategy for winning friends in the restive Sunni Triangle region. But when four American civilian contractors were killed and their bodies mutilated, the newly arrived Marines were ordered to place a cordon around Fallouja, where they battled heavily armed insurgents for nearly a month.

The Marines understand that some of the people they assist are the same ones who shot at them earlier, before the truce went into effect. One anecdote reported by Tony Perry mentions the sight of certain motorcycles known to be favored by the insurgents for night attacks. However, the Marines stick to their job, because as a sergeant states, they have to remain professionals:

"You have to put that aside," said Staff Sgt. Frank Ortega, 37, of Oceanside. "You know that some of these people were probably shooting at us last week. But this week, if they don't shoot at us, we can make good things happen for them. You have to be a professional and drive on."

When you hear certain politicians or pundits claim that we've already lost because of a few idiots at Abu Ghraib or because Moqtada al-Sadr ginned up a few hundred armed fanatics, remember that we employ many different ways of fighting this war, and that these Marines are far more indicative of how we conduct ourselves in the field. We have listened to these oracles of doom before, telling us that we can't beat the terrorists, that the rest of the world hates us and so we should give up. Well, the Marines haven't given up -- they're still reaching out to the people of Iraq and slowly building trust and friendship. We shouldn't go wobbly, either.