Clinton: Bush Had No Choice On Iraq

First, Vladimir Putin tells people that Saddam Hussein planned terror attacks in the US, and the Left scoffed. Now, Bill Clinton says that George Bush had no choice but to remove Saddam Hussein after 9/11, based on the intelligence reports both men saw as President:

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

Clinton only disagrees with Bush on the timing of the attack. He would have preferred to wait until Hans Blix "finished his inspections," but the problem is that Blix spent over three months trying to confirm Iraqi cooperation under UNSC Resolution 1441 and reported that the Iraqis continued to evade their responsibilities. Blix wanted a longer, drawn-out inspection regime, the kind of program that had failed miserably in 1998 and earlier. After 9/11 the US could not afford to sit around for years while Saddam played cheat-and-retreat yet again.

However one cuts it, Clinton has reaffirmed what the 9/11 Commission tried to call into question -- that Saddam Hussein was a known threat against the US, no matter whether he played a part in the 9/11 attacks or not. Clinton's remarks, carried both in Time Magazine and in a 60 Minutes interview with Dan Rather (reported by the Washington Post), takes the air out of the radical left's contention that the Iraq war was based on lies or misleading statements by the Administration, an assertion made just two days ago by the Democratic nominee, John Kerry.

Now I suppose we'll hear from John Kerry that he was for the Iraq war before he was against it, and after that, too.

UPDATE: Two readers, one e-mail, and my father all said this morning that Clinton is undermining Kerry deliberately in order to leave the field clear for Hillary in '08. Normally I'd scoff at that, as political parties would much rather have the bird in the hand than perhaps have one after Bush. However, Bill has always been about Bill and not about the party (although he's rarely been about Hillary, for that matter), and combined with the timing of his book and publicity tour, it looks odd to me too.

Now maybe we can understand why Gore was so reluctant to have Clinton campaign for him.

New York Times Slams Clinton's biography

Yes, that's right. The dependable left-wing spin machine, the New York Times, actually gave Mr. Clinton's memoir a devastating critique. According to reviewer Michiko Kakutani, the tome "is sloppy, self-indulgent and often eye-crossingly dull — the sound of one man prattling away, not for the reader, but for himself and some distant recording angel of history."

Kakutani describes My Life as "a hodgepodge of jottings: part policy primer, part 12-step confessional, part stump speech and part presidential archive, all, it seems, hurriedly written and even more hurriedly edited." Though Mr. Clinton acknowledges some responsibility for the affair with Monica Lewinsky, "he spends far more space excoriating his nemesis, independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, and the press." Ditto for the terrorist threat; he stated it was growing on his watch but expresses no regret over his sporadic and failed attempts to address it.

The reviewer nails the ex-president for his obvious attempt to campaign for his wife:

"Part of the problem, of course, is that Mr. Clinton is concerned, here, with cementing — or establishing — his legacy, while at the same time boosting (or at least not undermining) the political career of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. He does a persuasive job of explicating his more successful initiatives like welfare reform and deficit reduction, but the failure of his health care initiative, overseen by Mrs. Clinton, is quickly glossed over, as is the subsequent focus of his administration on such small-bore initiatives as school uniforms and teenage smoking."

The final conclusion is that the Clinton memoir is merely a relic more fitting for the Vietnam era:

"Lies about sex and real estate, partisan rancor over "character issues" (not over weapons of mass destruction or pre-emptive war), psychobabble mea culpas, and tabloid wrangles over stained dresses all seem like pressing matters from another galaxy, far, far away."

U.S. strikes al-Zarqawi hideout

Finally, some good news out of Fallujah. The U.S. fired a missiles into the suspected hideout of al-Zarqawi, and the AP reports 16 individuals were killed. According to Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, intelligence sources indicated "a significant number of people in the Zarqawi network" were in the house at the time of the attack.

True to form, Fallujah residents accused the United States of striking twice by firing a second missile after rescuers moved into the site to help victims. But according to Gen Kimmitt, the attack set off ammunition and weapons stored in the house, triggering "multiple secondary explosions."

So the terrorists were first attacked by the US, and then others were killed by their own weapons. Perfect.

Putin's Statement: One Story, Wildly Different Treatments In Broadsheets

Yesterday's blockbuster statement by Vladimir Putin that the Russian intelligence services warned Washington on several occasions that Saddam Hussein planned terror strikes within the US has prompted predictably divergent responses from the American media. Yesterday, even after several hours, major news organizations kept all mention of the warnings from their viewers. This morning it appears that all major media outlets have at least covered the statements in detail, although some outlets insist on treating the statement with a skepticism that one expects from the editorial pages.

For instance, the New York Times puts its skepticism right into the second paragraph, reporting that Putin's allegation surprised the State Department:

President Vladimir V. Putin said Friday that Russia gave intelligence reports to the Bush administration suggesting that Saddam Hussein's government was preparing terrorist attacks in the United States or against American targets overseas.

But officials at the State Department expressed surprise, saying they knew of no such information from Russia, Reuters reported. ...

A State Department spokesman, Adam Ereli, told reporters he did not know anything about the information that Mr. Putin said Russia had passed on. No such information was communicated from Russia through the State Department, he said.

"Everybody's scratching their heads," one State Department official told Reuters.

Somehow the State Department seemed a lot less surprised to the Los Angeles Times, which covers the story in a much more straightforward fashion. Kim Murphy notes that the same State Department spokesman seemed much more in command of the subject matter:

Traveling with Bush aboard Air Force One on Friday, a White House spokeswoman said the U.S. had "ongoing cooperation with the Russians on a variety of matters, including intelligence matters," but she refused to discuss specifics.

"We've declassified as much information as we can to talk about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed," the spokeswoman said, adding that Hussein was "a threat to America, to the world."

State Department officials said they could not specify what the Russian intelligence indicated, but Adam Ereli, a deputy department spokesman, said the two countries "have a very good and close record of cooperation in the field of counter-terrorism."

The LA Times, unlike its New York namesake, also quotes more of Putin's statement before inserting the now-boilerplate recitation that Russia did not consider its warning sufficient to justify military action. In fact, the LA Times notes that Putin's statement followed an anonymous source's identical claim given to Interfax, a fact that escaped the NY Times' Steven Lee Myers. The LA Times also spent some time researching the effectiveness of Russian intelligence in Iraq:

Putin's statement came a day after an unnamed Russian intelligence officer made a similar revelation to the Interfax news agency. The officer said his nation's intelligence services had received a report in early 2002 that Iraqi secret services were organizing attacks against the U.S.

"This information was more than once passed on to our American partners in oral and written form in the fall of 2002," the officer said. He said there existed a "direct threat to the U.S. from the Saddam Hussein regime." ...

"One thing is quite clear: Russian special services had significantly more freedom to collect information in Iraq than their American counterparts, because they were always perceived as a friendly force by the Iraqis," said Stanislav Belkovsky, director of the National Strategy Council think tank in Moscow.

On the other hand, the Washington Post's Walter Pincus unsurprisingly offers almost no reporting whatsoever, even less than the NY Times. Pincus merely notes Putin's statement and then in the second paragraph does the same thing as Myers, emphasizing that Russia had no evidence that Hussein actually assisted in any attack:

Of course, this is the article the Star Tribune chose to reprint. At least the Strib covered the story, though; the Boston Globe, the hometown newspaper of the Democratic nominee for President, doesn't even provide a link to the story on the main page of its website, nor does it provide even a mention anywhere in its World or Nation sections. No wonder Kerry has won re-election in Beantown and Massachussetts so often.

WaPo Extends The Meme, Kerry's Error

As I predicted earlier this week, now that Senator John McCain has forcefully told the Democrats to find someone else for the VP slot, the media which took a Democratic fantasy and blew it all out of proportion has now scrambled to rewrite the meta-story. Mike Allen reports today for the Post that McCain and George Bush have "put aside their animosity" to campaign together for Bush's re-election, continuing the new story line of bringing two old foes back together for one last hurrah:

Bush and McCain, whose relations had been at best businesslike since they faced off in the GOP primaries of 2000, praised each other effusively as they appeared on the same podium for the first time in more than four years.

Bush, waving repeatedly to the crowd as he strode onto the stage amid applause, walked straight toward McCain and put his arms around him. The Arizonan leaned his head toward Bush's cheek, and then the president grinned as the senator whispered in his ear.

The rapprochement will be heartwarming to everyone ... except the Democrats, who foolishly inflated John McCain into an oracle of sensibility and centrism in their greed to assume his mantle. After spending three months chasing after the war hero and political maverick, praising him to the heavens and giving him an unprecedented level of support across the entire Democratic spectrum, the Kerry campaign must now sit silent while McCain appears at rallies and makes speeches like this, which I note Allen doesn't bother to quote in his article but instead runs in a separate transcript:

For we cannot make victory on the battlefield more difficult to achieve so that our diplomacy is easier to conduct. While intelligence, law enforcement and diplomacy are all important components of our strategy, none is more important than the honorable and dangerous work that is yours.

The man I introduce to you today understands all this and understands it very, very well. He heard the call to action on that terrible morning in September and summoned the rest of us to this long and difficult task. He has led this country with moral clarity about the stakes involved and with firm resolve to achieve unconditional victory.

Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for McCain's now near-untouchable credibility, and can do nothing but sit silently while he applies it to Bush's re-election. The media will continue to show this as a marriage of convenience, but in truth McCain and Bush share far stronger views on policy than McCain and Kerry. Kerry's campaign has inadvertently underscored the legitimacy of the pro-life movement and the war in Iraq by demonstrating not just a tolerance of these positions but an avaricious pursuit of their supporter. It will be difficult to cast Bush as an extremist now after so publicly wooing McCain. And any attack on McCain will only damage the Democrats' credibility from this point forward.

Kerry had better hope that Cheney stays on the ticket, and failing that, that McCain doesn't fill his slot. Otherwise, their dream VP candidacy will become their worst nightmare.

UPDATE: In the meantime, the left is distancing themselves from McCain at light speed. Billmon at the Whiskey Bar writes:

There may be Republicans out there who would be good fits for a fusion ticket to oppose the Bush-Cheney-Delay Texas mafia - although no names come to my mind that I think would bring any significant electoral benefits over, say, a John Edwards or a Wesley Clark. But Kerry McCain would have represented a consolidation of the very worst neoliberal and neoconservative instincts on foreign policy - a case of darkness reaching for darkeness. It would have further solidified the new "Cold War consensus" among the political elites in the center, and further marginalized the anti-imperialist factions on either end of the political spectrum. It would probably have driven me personally into the Nader camp.

So I suppose I should give McCain a backhanded thank you for finally lining up with his fellow militarists. He may have marginally improved Shrub's chances of pulling it out in November, but he's also helped the anti-imperialist left keep at least a foot in the door of the Democratic Party.

While (to be fair) Billmon never stumped for the Kerry-McCain idea, expect a number of those who did to adopt Billmon's rhetoric.

9/11 Commission Report on AQ/Iraq Connections Misleadingly Vague: Hayes

Stephen Hayes, author of The Connection, responds to the 9/11 Commission's assertion that no credible evidence exists of collaboration between al-Qaeda and Iraq in the Weekly Standard. He also takes the media to task for misinterpreting the already misleadingly vague staff report:

IT'S SETTLED, APPARENTLY. Saddam Hussein's regime never supported al Qaeda in its "attacks on America," and meetings between representatives of Iraq and al Qaeda did not result in a "collaborative relationship." That, we're told, is the conclusion of two staff reports the September 11 Commission released last Wednesday.

But the contents of the documents have been widely misreported. Together the new reports total 32 pages; one contains a paragraph on the broad question of a Saddam-al Qaeda relationship, the other a paragraph on an alleged meeting between the lead hijacker and an Iraqi agent. Nowhere in the documents is the "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link...Dismissed," as Washington Post headline writers would have us believe. In fact, Staff Statement 15 discusses several "links." It never, as the Associated Press maintained, "bluntly contradicted" the Bush administration's prewar arguments. The Los Angeles Times was more emphatic still: "The findings appear to be the most complete and authoritative dismissal of a key Bush administration rationale for invading Iraq: that Hussein's regime had worked in collusion with al Qaeda."

Hayes quotes the Democratic co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, during an interview on PBS' News Hour June 17, which for some reason has not been transcribed on the PBS website:

I must say I have trouble understanding the flak over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is just what [Republican co-chairman Tom Kean] just said: We don't have any evidence of a cooperative or collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda with regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me that sharp differences that the press has drawn, that the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.

Thomas Kean, during the PBS interview on the night prior, had this to say at the very start of the interview about al-Qaeda/Iraqi connections [bold emphasis mine]:

MARGARET WARNER: Your conclusion today in the staff statement was-- and I quote-- "we have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Chairman Kean, are you unanimous in that conclusion and what makes you so sure?

THOMAS KEAN: Well, first of all, this is a staff report. It's not the report of the commission or the commissioners as yet. But the staff in their investigation has found that, yes, there were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there. But as far as any evidence that Saddam Hussein was in any way involved in the attack on 9/11, it just isn't there.

Hayes reminds readers of the pre-2001 consensus that Saddam Hussein actively collaborated with al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, especially in the Sudan where the government there was an AQ front almost as transparent as that of the Taliban in Afghanistan:

According to numerous intelligence reports dating back to the Clinton administration, Iraq provided chemical weapons training (and perhaps materials) to the Sudanese government-run Military Industrial Corporation--which, along with Sudanese intelligence, also had a close relationship with al Qaeda. (Jamal Ahmed Al-Fadl and Ali A. Mohamed, two high-ranking al Qaeda terrorists who cooperated with U.S. authorities before 9/11, said Sudanese intelligence and military officials provided security for al Qaeda safehouses and training camps, and al Qaeda operatives did the same for Sudanese government facilities.)

William Cohen, secretary of defense under Clinton, testified to this before the September 11 Commission on March 23, 2004. Cohen was asked about U.S. attacks on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory on August 20, 1998. The strikes came 13 days after al Qaeda terrorists bombed U.S. embassies in East Africa, killing some 257 people (including 12 Americans) and injuring more than 5,000. The Clinton administration and the intelligence community quickly determined that al Qaeda was behind the attacks and struck back at the facility in Sudan and at an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. Almost immediately, the decision to attack the plant outside Khartoum was controversial. The Clinton administration, in its efforts to justify the strikes, told reporters that the plant had strong links to Iraq's chemical weapons program. No fewer than six top Clinton administration officials--on the record--cited the Iraq connection to justify its strikes in response to the al Qaeda attacks on the U.S. embassies. (Some of these officials, like James Rubin and Sandy Berger, now hold top advisory positions in John Kerry's presidential campaign. Kerry, however, now says he was misled about an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship.)

Be sure to read all of Hayes' rebuttal, and be sure to read Hayes' book, which is more timely than ever now. It's a quick read, and easily absorbed. (via Power Line)

Kofi's Kangaroo Court

The U.S. has moved to renew a Security Council resolution that would exempt military and civilian personnel "related to a UN-authorized operation." from the jurisdiction of the “International Criminal Court.” According to Reuters, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan scolded the U.S for its move and called on the Security Council to block the measure. He claims, "The blanket exemption is wrong. It is of dubious judicial value and I don't think it should be encouraged by the council."

Of course, Mr. Annan finds the Abu Ghraib incidents a convenient justification for his argument and claims, "I think it would be unfortunate for one to press for such an exemption, given the prisoner abuse in Iraq. I think in this circumstance it would be unwise to press for an exemption, and it would be even more unwise on the part of the Security Council to grant it."

The only thing of “dubious judicial value” is the so-called “International Criminal Court.” The U.N. has no legal authority to subject a sovereign nation to any legal system it devises unless that nation consents. There is simply no “judicial value” to the assertion that U.S. citizens can be hauled in front of such a court.

The European prosecutors are likely salivating at the thought of pressing charges against the “war criminals” George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell . . . but they will just have to wait.

The Left Covers Their Eyes And Ears

After the revelation this morning that Russia had repeatedly warned the US between 9/11 and the kickoff to the Iraq War about Saddam Hussein planning terror attacks inside the US, I expected the left to either ignore it or to create conspiracy theories on its meaning. Fortunately, they've managed to do both at the same time.

For instance, over at ABC News, their web site has not one single mention of the statement by Vladimir Putin, more than five hours after wire services broke the story. At CBS, the breaking story about pregnant Aussies postponing births to get a cash bonus seems to have driven it off the radar screen at the Tiffany Network. CNN carries the story on their main web site -- below the urgent story that Clinton slept on the couch after admitting his affair with Monica Lewinsky. MS-NBC runs the story in a similar position, but under the Cheney story from yesterday.

Gee, don't you suppose that an assertion from Russia that Saddam actively planned terror strikes in the US merits a banner headline -- or some notice at all?

Meanwhile, the port side of the blogosphere has, after a stunned silence, begun spinning their own take on Putin's remarks. For instance, the aptly named In Search Of Utopia (who was well-mannered enough to link back to me) asks two questions:

Guys, I hate to burst your bubble, but this one smells fishy to me.

1. If Putin had such Intelligence, and passed it on to the Administration, WHY did Russia oppose the war so strenuously?
2. If The Administration had this since shortly after 9/11, why has it never been mentioned by the administration before?

At least David asked fairly intelligent questions, written in proper English, so I'll answer.

1. Because Putin's government was raking in billions of dollars in legal and illegal trade with Saddam Hussein, and that money was desperately needed to stabilize the central government. War meant an end to that revenue stream, and a permanent one at that. Putin allied himself publicly with both the US and Iraq; that this should surprise anyone at this point only indicates the extent to which some people paid little attention.

2. Perhaps Bush was reluctant to out the Russians as a resource because he didn't want to eliminate future intelligence data. Putin has now made clear to everyone that he's sharing information with Bush on a high-level basis. Do you think that helps the Russian intelligence service or hurts it?

Not everything is about the election, guys.

David then goes on to claim that I'm "grasping at straws" while he concocts a secret deal with Putin to make this statement, while at the same time people the people on his side claim that Bush can't work with foreign leaders to build alliances any more. However, like I said, at least David presented a coherent argument, which is more than I can say for Oliver Willis. Willis' entire argument is presented in a post entitled (I kid you not), "Did Pooty-Poot Send Us To War?":

KGB operative turned Russian president, President Bush claimed he could see into his soul -- then Putin started rolling Russia back to communism (jailing his political opponents, etc.). Did Bush allow his affection for Putin to sway him towards going to war, now that this revelation is coming out?

At least Willis leaves out the conspiracy theories, but you get the drift -- Putin somehow wanted the US to take out Saddam Hussein even while threatening to veto the UN resolution that would have explicitly called for military action, and opposing our invasion to this day. Why? Because Putin's a communist, you see. (Uh, no, Oliver, he's not. He may be on the way to becoming a dictator, but he's not a communist, which the Russian communists would be glad to explain to you.)

What it comes down to is this: either Putin lied or he told the truth. Ask yourself this -- what possible motive could Putin have to lie about the issue? All his statement does is to confirm a solid cassus belli for a war he and his country strongly opposed. Not only that, but it strengthens the man who blew off his country in going to war. Speaking of which, the Democrats claim that Bush has no more credibility with other heads of state -- it's one of John Kerry's major themes -- so how could Bush convince Putin to lie for him? He'd have to be one persuasive fellow to get Putin to do that, especially after Bush and Blair cost Russia tens of billions of dollars in trade with Saddam.

And of course, if Putin told the truth this morning, then we attacked a country that actively planned terror strikes on US soil and US assets abroad, which made them an imminent threat to our security. Under such a scenario, our action was not only understandable, but necessary to stop such attacks. And it fit perfectly with what Bush told the world on September 20, 2001, which was that states that targeted the US for terror attacks or sheltered groups that did so could expect the full weight of US might against their regimes.

The left can spin all the paranoid conspiracy theories they want, but if Putin told the truth, the case is closed.

UPDATE: PilotCMan accuses me of running scared because the 9/11 Commission supposedly said that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. However, today, both the Republican and Democratic co-chairs vehemently denied this is what the Commission said:

Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Lee Hamilton blasted the mainstream press yesterday for distorting the Commission's findings on links between Iraq and al-Qaida, saying those findings actually support Bush administration contentions.

"The sharp differences that the press has drawn [between the White House and the Commission] are not that apparent to me," Hamilton told the Associated Press, a day after insisting that his probe uncovered "all kinds" of connections between Osama bin Laden's terror network and Iraq.

The report specified the 9/11 attacks, not overall operations between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and both Hamilton and Thomas Kean explained that the Commission stayed within its mandate. It really helps to read multiple news sources before leaping to conclusions, Pilot.

Putin: Saddam Planned Terrorism In US

Russian President Vladimir Putin told reporters this morning that Russia had learned of terrorist attacks planned by Saddam Hussein and had passed the warnings on to the Bush administration following 9/11:

Russia warned the United States on several occasions that Iraq's Saddam Hussein planned "terrorist attacks" on its soil, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.

"After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received such information and passed it on to their American colleagues," he told reporters.

The Kremlin leader, who was speaking in the Kazakh capital, said Russian intelligence services had many times received information that Saddam's special forces were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States "and beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets."

"This information was conveyed to our American colleagues," he said. He added that Russian intelligence had no proof that Saddam agents had been involved in any particular attack.

Russia had diplomatic relations with Saddam's Iraq and opposed the U.S.-led military offensive that toppled him.

Well, this puts a different shine on the 9/11 Commission's report, doesn't it? Putin bitterly opposed the Anglo-American effort to unseat Saddam Hussein, so Putin has no particular axe to grind on this issue. In fact, one would expect that any report that damages Bush's credibility on this issue logically bolsters his own. It appears from this AP report that not only did Putin make this announcement, it sounds as though he called the press conference to specifically deliver this news. Note also that Russia maintained diplomatic relations with Hussein, almost until the moment the bombs began to fall in Baghdad in March 2003.

Perhaps this comprises part of the "sensitive" reporting that the Bush administration had on its desk in the fall of 2002, when it had to decide from where the next attacks on American soil might come. Since Hussein had managed to get around the arms embargo, thanks to UN Security Council members such as Syria and to an extent France and Germany, and since the UN oil-for-food program had given Saddam billions of dollars in resources within easy reach, it isn't hard to conclude that Saddam had been a clear and present danger -- one could even say imminent danger -- given Putin's warnings. Nor could the Bush administration easily reveal their source, given Putin's stature and his relationship with Saddam, which now appears to have been very convenient for Bush and Blair.

Maybe, as Hugh Hewitt suggested on his radio show last night, we need a commission to look into the 9/11 Commission.

BBC: Pakistan Scores Victory Against AQ

The BBC reports this morning that the new Pakistan offensive against al-Qaeda and its supporters in its frontier regions with Afghanistan has produced another big victory, in this case the death of an opposition tribal leader who openly supported the Taliban and sheltered AQ operatives in South Waziristan:

Nek Mohammed, who is accused of sheltering al-Qaeda militants, had led several deadly attacks against Pakistani forces in South Waziristan.

"We were tracking him down and he was killed [Thursday] night by our hand," military spokesman Major General Shaukat Sultan said from Islamabad. ...

If the reports of Mohammed's death are borne out, a big obstacle in the army's path to bringing to the rebellious tribes under its control will have been removed, says the BBC's Paul Anderson in Islamabad.

Mohammed had been one of the most openly defiant leaders in South Waziristan, whose intransigence led to the breakdown of negotiations between the tribes and the Pakistani government. Not only was Mohammed killed in the attack, but the same attack killed his two adult sons and a senior associate, meaning that a good part of the leadership structure of Mohammed's organiztion is gone. Any efforts to coordinate with AQ leaders or former Taliban associates will either be difficult or impossible. At the same time, the other recalcitrant tribal leaders may suddenly discover that their rugged terrain does not make for an impregnable fortress, and that Pervez Musharraf is serious.

Musharraf's commitment to this policy had been open to debate, especially early on. The Pakistani mountain tribes have always acted as a first line of defense for Islamabad, a sort of semi-autonomous border guard, especially during the time of Pakistani-Taliban cooperation. The Soviet's disastrous engagement in Afghanistan confirmed, in 1980s terms, the difficulty of fighting these mujaheddin in the mountains, and the tribes (and Islamabad) figured that into their calculations. Now, however, the Pakistanis are showing success where the Soviets failed, and unlike the Soviets, they know where the tribes are.

The tribes themselves convinced themselves early on that Musharraf's demands for their cooperation were mainly for foreign consumption based on that supposed impregnability, and perhaps they were right -- at first. However, two assassination attempts by al-Qaeda have convinced Musharraf that elimination of foreign fighters from Pakistani territory will be his only security, and as the tribes are finding out firsthand, he means to get rid of them any way he can.

More Rampant Unilateralism

Two items from this morning's AP wire demonstrate the rampant unilateralism of the Bush administration. First, South Korea has increased its troop commitment to the security forces in Iraq:

South Korea will send 3,000 soldiers to northern Iraq beginning in early August to assist the U.S.-led coalition, the Defense Ministry said Friday. Once the deployment is complete, South Korea will be the largest coalition partner after the United States and Britain.

South Korea plans to send 900 troops to Kurdish-controlled Irbil in early August, followed by about 1,100 troops between late August and early September, Defense Ministry spokesman Nam Dai-yeon said. Another 1,000 soldiers will travel to Iraq later.

South Korea already has 600 military medics and engineers in the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah. They are expected to head to northern Iraq beginning in mid-July to prepare facilities ahead of the arrival of the main force, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported.

On the heels of this, Japan has also bolstered its troop commitment to the CPA despite some domestic resistance:

Japan's cabinet on Friday approved a plan for troops to join a multinational force in Iraq, despite criticism from the opposition that the government had rushed the move, which they argued violated the pacifist constitution.

The top government spokesman said Japanese troops would stick to their current reconstruction and humanitarian activities and would not engage in combat even after joining the multinational force, whose main aim is to keep the peace in Iraq.

Far from "relying on military might and righteousness, insensitive to the concerns of traditional friends and allies," as the Weenie Caucus declared earlier, George Bush has built a careful and committed alliance. Instead of it weakening, two members thought to be politically vulnerable have now strengthened their commitment instead of retreating. In that manner, the coalition partners we have are far preferable to other nations with histories of retreat in the face of enemy fire; the last lesson we want to teach the terrorists is that Western nations run at the first report of gunfire. Srebrenica and Mogadishu did enough damage to Western military prestige, and it may take years to unteach that lesson.

9/11 Commission Report: Seriously Flawed

By now, you have read that the 9/11 Commission report that found "no credible evidence" that al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq collaborated on any level, despite the 1998 indictment by the Clinton administration -- pursued by Commissioner Jamie Gorelick during her tenure in the DoJ -- alleging exactly that connection:

Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

I have more about the connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda in this post reviewing the Stephen Hayes book, The Connection. This excellent book makes hash out of any notion that Iraq and al-Qaeda had no connections, and also shows that the media and the Clinton administration had no qualms about trumpeting those connections until 2001.

However, to get a good grip on the fallacious reporting on the commission report (which is a great deal different than the media's coverage would lead you to believe), be sure to read Power Line. Rocket Man points out exactly what the Bush administration has said about Iraq/AQ connections and how that has been distorted by both the commission and the media. Big Trunk reviews an NRO article by US Chief Assistant Attorney Andrew McCarthy, who successfully prosecuted Abdul Rachman (the "blind sheik"), who takes apart the commission's report. Deacon joins in by pointing out that Tony Blair also objects to the thrust of the report, saying that "Saddam's was a rogue state which threatened the security of the region and the world."

They also highly recommend buying the Hayes book. It's well written and compelling. Hayes has appeared on our radio show in the past and hopefully we will get him again to address the 9/11 Commission report, so if nothing else, be sure to pick up The Connection for homework.

UPDATE: The backtracking begins ...

Top members of the 9/11 commission are toning down any disagreement with the Bush administration over Iraq and al-Qaida.

The panel's Republican chairman says there were "contacts" between Saddam Hussein's government and the militant group. Tom Kean says some contacts "were shadowy -- but they were there."

I suspect that more of this will continue tomorrow -- but well off the front pages where this appeared.

Pew Poll Demonstrates Bush Hatred Subsiding

Hugh Hewitt directs his readers to the latest results of the Pew Research Center poll, released today for the polling period of 6/3-9. Far from the common perception that Bush has faded, the Pew poll shows resurgent numbers for Bush in most categories, especially in war support:

Americans are paying markedly less attention to Iraq than in the last two months. At the same time, their opinions about the war have become more positive. The number of Americans who think the U.S. military effort is going well has jumped from 46% in May to 57%, despite ongoing violence in Iraq and the widening prison abuse scandal. And the percentage of the public who believes it was right to go to war inched up to 55%, from 51% in May.

The new Pew survey indicates that many Americans are becoming less connected to the news about Iraq and possibly more hardened to events there. Just 39% say they are tracking developments in Iraq very closely – down 15 points since April and the lowest level this year. In addition, 35% say that people they know are becoming less emotionally involved with the news from Iraq, a sharp increase from 26% last month.

As the handoff to the interim Iraqi government approaches, Americans have already begun to emotionally detach from events in Iraq, which may work to Bush's favor but doesn't speak terribly well of Americans. Those who do keep their eye on news have dramatically shifted their position since the last Pew poll. Where support for the Iraq mission had dropped to as low as 51% in May, the number now is 55% while opposition has dropped from 42% to 38%, giving Bush a 17-point spread, almost double from the last poll.

Bush has also reversed the numbers on the presidential race, going from five points down -- outside the margin of error -- to two points up, 48-46 in a two-way race. He leads by four, or just outside the margin of error, when Nader is added to the race. His base numbers have improved as well; the percentage of "pro-Bush" and "anti-Kerry" voters both increased, by two and one points respectively. In comparison, Kerry dropped four points and his "anti-Bush" numbers dropped five points, a serious issue for a candidate whose strongest argument thus far is Bush hatred.

Read the entire results. The news is not all good for Bush, but one definite problem for Kerry is that while those who dislike Bush mostly object to his policies, those who dislike Kerry mostly object to his character. It recalls one of the apocryphal Churchill/Lady Astor dialogues, in which she supposedly told Churchill that he was drunk. Churchill's reply: "You, Lady Astor, are ugly. And I shall be sober in the morning."

But Don't Question Their Credibility

The Chicago Sun-Times took a unique and creative approach to boosting circulation, as well as energizing recycling efforts, the rival Chicago Tribune reports. In fact, they falsified their circulation numbers by trashing large amounts of its daily run -- by some reports, as much as 25%:

A program to significantly overstate weekday circulation numbers at the Chicago Sun-Times accelerated between 2002 and 2003 as sales slipped and the newspaper's marketing budget was slashed, company sources said Wednesday.

"There was tremendous pressure to keep the numbers high," said a source with knowledge of an internal investigation into the matter. ...

Hollinger International executives wouldn't say how much the figures were inflated, but Sun-Times Publisher John Cruickshank denied a Chicago Tribune report that it was as high as 25 percent of newsstand sales. ... Though details as to how the programs worked are sketchy, a source with knowledge of the investigation said that they may have involved several individuals and that some distributors were compensated to keep returned newspapers or to just "get rid of papers."

I'm shocked, shocked to find that a member of the mainstream media would lie to suit its purposes! Such a possibility had never even occurred to me ... not even after the Sun-Times ran this hack job on Donald Rumsfeld's speech to a security conference in Singapore ten days ago. The CST ran an AP report that claimed Rumsfeld called the US efforts against terror "incoherent", when in fact his point was that some allies who fought terror on one level but continued to promote anti-Westernism at their madrassas lacked a coherent posture against terrorism. At the time, I wrote:

The Sun-Times cherry-picked Rumsfeld's words, twisted the context, and while never quite misquoting him delivered a completely different meaning to what he said. Rumsfeld, far from questioning US strategy, instead questioned the resolve and desire of some so-called "partners" in the anti-terror effort to truly stamp out its root causes.

Up to now, I never thought that the Sun-Times had a particularly egregious record in media bias. I guess they've stepped up to the Maureen Dowd/Dana Milbank threshold on this story.

Well, now they've gone beyond Milbank and Dowd to L. Ron Hubbard, whose Church of Scientology reportedly continue buying and reselling "Dianetics" to keep it on best-seller lists. (At least the Scientologists don't shred them.) Their ethics in keeping advertising problems out of their circulation reports does not seem much different than their ethics in keeping editorial policy out of their news stories.

"The Weenie Caucus" Tees Off On Bush

I had little to say initially about the statement signed by the group Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change blasting the Bush administration's handling of the war on terror, mostly because they seem to comprise the worst of the teams that kept us blinded to the fact that Islamofascists declared war on us far before we returned the favor. Reading the Post article, I was struck by the tone set in their press conference, where popularity seems to be a greater concern than security:

The former officials said the administration "adopted an overbearing approach to America's role in the world, relying on military might and righteousness, insensitive to the concerns of traditional friends and allies, and disdainful of the United Nations. . . . Motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis, it struck out on its own."

Charles W. Freeman Jr., former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, cited a "post-9/11 atmosphere of hysteria. I think we will in time come to be very ashamed of this period in history," Freeman said, "and of the role some people in the administration played in setting the tone and setting the rules."

Donald F. McHenry, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, answered a question about U.S. public diplomacy, a topic of special Bush administration focus, especially in the Muslim world. "You can embark on all the public diplomacy you wish, but if there is no substance to the policy, it's very difficult to sell," he said.

Based on their statement and their public appearance, they all propose nothing new except a return to the failed policies of the past several administrations of ignoring Islamofascist terror and hoping it goes away. Once again, we have another group of career diplomats and less-than-spectacular military thinkers who believe that the point of diplomacy is to create alliances rather than to increase security. Alliances are great as long as they work to everyone's mutual advantage, but not if they hamstring the US from protecting itself. And I note that not one of them had anything to say about the lack of UN standing for our adventures in the Balkans and our failure to ally with Russia or China on those actions.

Reader Jack Lavelle calls the DMCC the Weenie Caucus, and expressed my gut reaction perfectly:

What is it with these people calling themselves Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change?

Have they been on a "fact-finding" mission to Monaco or Fiji for the last 3 years?

Don't they get it that we are at war, that 3,000 innocent Americans were slaughtered by Islamic ideologues whose only regret is that they didn't launch 10 planes that day?

Or don't they get the part about the 'asymmetry' of this conflict and feel just because no 'nation' has chosen off against the US that there is no need to fight terrorism where we find it?

How can someone like Adm. Crowe say to enlisted men fighting the terrorists that it isn't a worthy struggle? As I recall, his record in the final days of his tenure wasn't all that shiny, so is this his attempt at resurrection?

I'm ashamed of these people. Have the brass and the striped-pants crowd forgotten the lesson taught us by Gen. Giap in Vietnam - that except for the dissension and protest by American citizens against their own government, the North Vietnamese were ready to surrender 5 years before the war finally ended?

They must have missed that one. This is no time for dithering. It's time to support the President and the troops. BOTH.

I'm disgusted.

PETA Adds Indictment To Injury

PETA has escalated its war on the Ringling Brothers circus, using the death of a high-wire artist to attack it even though the fall had nothing to do with the use of animals:

The animal-rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has asked the city of St. Paul to take legal action against Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus in the case of an acrobat who fell to her death during a performance last month at Xcel Energy Center.

Dessi Espana, 32, was performing an aerial ballet move near the top of a 30-foot-long piece of silk chiffon hanging from a frame when the equipment securing the top of the fabric failed. She landed head first on the arena's concrete floor and later died.

Lisa Wathne, PETA's captive exotic specialist, sent a letter to City Attorney Manuel Cervantes on Wednesday, calling on him to investigate the death. She cited a state law that requires acrobats to perform with a safety net. Written in the late 1800s, the statute calls for a $250 fine if a safety net is not provided. A violation is a gross misdemeanor.

"Ringling has been cited repeatedly for failing to comply with the minimum standards of the federal Animal Welfare Act," Wathne wrote, "so it comes as no surprise to PETA that the circus apparently disregards state laws intended to protect performers."

Refusing to use a safety net does amount to a petty midemeanor, which as Cervantes notes, hardly seems worthy of pursuing under the circumstances. I am always perpelexed by the insistence of some performers at eschewing the net. Some claim the net actually adds more danger than it subtracts, but most often the response is that it detracts from the drama of the event. It's that foolish attitude that inevitably, although infrequently, leads to injuries and death as in this case. (It's the same impulse, magnified and twisted, that accounts for the popularity of cage fights.) However, Espana herself chose to perform under those conditions.

Unfortunately, RB-B&B's opponents couldn't keep their glee hidden at this misfortune. Shame on PETA for using the death of a human performer to promote its animal-rights agenda. One has to wonder at the humanity of people like Wathne, who apparently greet the news of Espana's death as a delightful opportunity to grandstand. Failing to recognize that circus management may be grieving the loss of a colleague, PETA affirms its misanthropy by attempting to saddle them with a ridiculous criminal indictment.

A Slip Of The Tongue

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports this morning on a St. Paul kiss that went way, way out of control:

Passion turned to agony early Wednesday morning when a 43-year-old St. Paul woman locked in a kiss with her boyfriend bit off an inch and a half of the man's tongue, according to police.

The woman, who told police that she has been victimized by men in the past, said she became frightened when her 47-year-old boyfriend squeezed her too tightly as they were kissing at her home in St. Paul. "I guess I bit down too hard," police said the woman told them after the incident.

The boyfriend told police that the couple had been arguing and were making up when he was bitten.

The Strib declined to identify the assailant, even though they routinely identify male assault suspects. I assume the reluctance springs from the woman's apparent defense strategy of claiming that men "victimized" her in her past, making her some sort of tragic heroine suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome triggered by an enthusiastic hug. Of course, the article mentions only later that she had been drinking before attacking her boyfriend.

The boyfriend was treated at a local hospital and released, without the missing tip. Police later went back to her apartment hoping to find the piece of the man's tongue, but she apparently swallowed it.

Anyone want a date with the Vampira of St. Paul? I understand she's available. Perhaps someone could convince her to grab a bite to eat ...

George and John, Together Again For The First Time

The Washington Post, having done almost everything imaginable to feed the rumors of a John Kerry-John McCain Democratic ticket until McCain finally scotched the rumor for at least the third time, now wants to backtrack and bring their meme into reality. Today's report by Dan Balz and Mike Allen now say that Bush and McCain have reached out to each other in the personages of Karl Rove and John Weaver:

After being courted by John F. Kerry to consider joining the Democratic presidential ticket, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will join President Bush on Air Force One on Friday and introduce him at a campaign event in Reno, Nev., campaign officials said yesterday.

Bush and McCain have had a frosty relationship ever since competing for the Republican nomination in 2000, and Bush aides have fumed at McCain's occasional barbs in televised interviews during which he was asked repeatedly about the vice presidency. McCain's trip with Bush grew out of a meeting this spring between White House senior adviser Karl Rove and John Weaver, a top adviser to McCain, who became a Democratic consultant after the bitter campaign between Bush and McCain.

Isn't it nice that Weaver and Rove kissed and made up? Why, it happened just in time for Bush's campaign appearance, too! Of course, now we will hear how McCain has forgiven Bush for his hardball politics in 2000 and how the Arizona maverick may consider playing a more significant role in this election. As we near the convention, you may even read more from Balz and Allen about how McCain will reluctantly lead Republicans to Bush, overcoming his personal feelings to support his party.

Except that every word of it will be horse puckey. McCain has been co-chair of Bush's re-election campaign in Arizona for months, a fact of which he continually reminded people whenever interviewed, although it only came through during live interviews, for some reason. The media, notably the Post and the New York Times, magnified this Democratic fantasy and gave it a life of its own, hoping that the momentum of the story would carry it to reality. In some ways, it's reminiscent of what the LA Times tried to accomplish with its terribly skewed polling during the recall election.

Now that McCain has scheduled a Bush campaign appearance, significantly one outside Arizona, that fantasy is dead, and the media needs to cover their retreat. Balz and Allen's piece is merely the bugle call; the rest of the media will provide the story of the heartwarming rapprochement in the coming weeks.

UPDATE: I noticed via Memeorandum that the Columbia Journalism Review picked up this post and mentioned it in its campaign review for today. Pretty cool; maybe Al Gore will use CQ if he goes back to teach there again. Then again ... maybe not. (Welcome, CJR readers!)

AP: Vilsack VP Chances Muy Malo

The AP, analyzing the heightening suspense as John Kerry decides on his running mate, reports that Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack's prospects look poor after a review of his record shows that Vilsack signed a measure making English the state's official language:

Iowa's English-only measure and dozens like it nationwide draw virtually unanimous and vehement opposition from Hispanics, an important Democratic constituency, who view them as thinly veiled racism. Hispanics, the nation's largest and fastest-growing minority group, are being eagerly courted by Democrat John Kerry and President Bush. ...

The English-only bill was hotly debated for two years before it passed the Republican-controlled Legislature in February 2002. Liberal and labor groups urged Vilsack to veto it and staged vigils at his home and the Statehouse. Backers cited polls showing overwhelming support for the bill and said they were hardly surprised that he signed it.

The law makes English the state's official language and requires that all government proceedings be conducted in English. Exceptions are for teaching foreign languages in school, and dealing with other countries on trade and similar issues.

I suppose I agree with the AP's analysis, especially given how political correctness plays such a large part of how the Democrats relate to their constituencies. On the other hand, it's hard to understand the problem with a measure making English the official language of a state that is as close to the geographic center of the US as you can get. It also demonstrated Vilsack's flexibility to the center, as Iowans overwhelmingly favored the legislation, it came with extra funding for ESL classes, and was largely symbolic anyway.

Earlier this year, another Democrat wound up in hot water over the same issue. Former Maryland Governor and current Comptroller William Schaefer of Maryland vented his frustration over his inability to communicate with a clerk at McDonalds to simply order a biscuit and a cup of tea:

After encountering difficulty with a new worker with poor English skills, he quit going to the restaurant out of frustration. "I don't want to adjust to another language," he said publicly. "This is the United States. I think they should adjust to us."

Schaefer, of course, wound up condemned by all of the leftist groups that concern themselves with multi-culti PC. The problem, as Michelle Malkin notes, is that we are allowing the US to become Balkanized by language. No one wants to make the speaking of other languages illegal (at least, none amongst the sane), but when an English-speaking person can't order food at a restaurant in Maryland, then something has gone terribly wrong.

Furthermore, it's self-defeating for multi-culti purposes, because it won't force Schaefer and others to learn Spanish; it will simply teach them to stay out of areas where servers can't understand English. How does that bring people together? It only creates artificial divisions between groups of people and almost guarantees miscommunication and misunderstanding. We wind up strengthening the ghetto system rather than breaking it down.

As the descendants of immigrants on both sides of my family, and as a student of Irish, I understand the connection that language has to a culture, but that's hardly an argument for devaluing English. If we want to maintain open communication between all members of our society on an equal basis, we need to ensure that everyone can communicate in the same language, without forcing people to stop speaking their native languages at home and amongst friends. It's a lesson my ancestors knew well, and it's one we've forgotten.

Still Missing His Rabies Shot

Alert reader and fellow blogger Marc from Cranial Cavity forwarded me this link to a Union-Leader article from Sunday, which reports on Al Gore's screech speech to a Manchester, NH Democratic fundraiser. It looks like what James Taranto calls the "erstwhile veep" has not yet stopped foaming at the mouth regarding his nemesis from 2000, George Bush:

Al Gore last night charged President Bush has endangered America’s position in the world with a mistaken invasion of Iraq and by flaunting international convention.

“This was done in our name. This changes for many in the world the meaning of America, the image of America,” Gore told 300 Democrat powerbrokers at a fundraiser for the city party.

In a fiery 40 minute speech, the former vice president knocked the Bush administration for using wrong information to justify the invasion, in particular for relying on Iraqi dissident Ahmed Chalabi, who has since been reportedly linked to Iran.

“Which means that for 3½ years, he’s been doping the President of the United States,” Gore said. “Does that inspire confidence?”

Ahmed Chalabi, you may recall, led the Iraqi National Congress, a dissident Iraqi group that had every bit of influence over the Clinton White House as it did over the Bush administration. Dick Cheney hardly pulled the INC out of his hat in January 2001; after all, even according to the NY Times (as reprinted in the International Herald Tribune), his biggest success came when Clinton and Congress made Iraqi regime change the official foreign policy of the US:

His biggest success came in 1998. That year a group of influential conservatives wrote an "Open Letter" to President Bill Clinton calling for "regime change" in Iraq to become the official policy of the United States. Those signing the document included many of the men who came to dominate the top ranks of the Bush administration three years later: Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Armitage, among others.

Their entreaty helped propel an act of Congress that Clinton endorsed. And the letter stated clearly that the United States should "recognize a provisional government of Iraq based on the principles and leaders of the Iraqi National Congress (INC) that is representative of all the peoples of Iraq."

The Clinton Administration's Chalabi doping was not just limited to acts of Congress, either, as the Washington Post reported in November 1998, noting their continued work with Chalabi despite some reservations about his effectiveness. However, the Post makes clear that Chalabi's effectiveness outstripped that of the Clinton administration:

Previous administration efforts at mobilizing the Iraqi opposition using covert assistance from the CIA have been dismal failures. With CIA support, Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, allied with two Kurdish militias, carried out paramilitary operations in northern Iraq. But the administration and the CIA ultimately abandoned Chalabi in favor of a group of ex-Iraqi military officers called the Iraqi National Accord who claimed that they could orchestrate a military coup to topple Saddam Hussein.

The Iraqi National Accord, however, proved to be deeply penetrated by Iraqi intelligence, which foiled its coup strategy in June 1996. Two months later, Saddam Hussein's forces rolled into northern Iraq and devastated opposition camps controlled by the Popular Union of Kurdistan and the Iraqi National Congress.

So exactly who doped who and when seems a lot more ambiguous than the ranting Al Gore lets on.

Boston's 3-Ring Circus Over Budget

Washington's WTOP website carries an AP report that the Democratic National Convention is a whopping $5M over budget, with six weeks to go before the festivities begin:

The Democratic National Convention will be more than $5 million over budget due to increased construction costs and unexpected production expenses.

Construction on the FleetCenter sports arena, site of the event, began last week after a delay due to union protests and is slated to cost $13.9 million, up from an original estimate of $10.7 million, according to Democratic National Convention Committee spokeswoman Peggy Wilhide. ...

Convention organizers also approved a $9.1 million production budget this week, up from a projected cost of $6 million. Much of the increase stems from higher-than-expected labor costs, Wilhide said, and other additional expenses that were not anticipated two years ago when the budget was planned. Labor costs are 50 percent higher in Boston than Los Angeles, where the Democratic convention was held in 2000, Wilhide said.

Labor supports the Democrats, although in this case it seems to be the other way around. One can only guess how they'll stick it to the Republicans. However, it's not the only reason that costs are going up. John Kerry's special requests have run up the bill, too:

Special requests made by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who has final say on what the convention looks like, have also added to the price tag. Among the requests by Kerry aides and party officials: two side podiums in addition to the main stage.

Apparently John Kerry already recognizes that the Dems' convention will be a three-ring circus and wants to embrace the concept. With the police and other city workers protesting for better pay and benefits, deep within Red State country, and with screamers such as Al Gore and Howard Dean chomping at the bit to hit those side podiums, we can all feel sure of being entertained.

By the way, the original cost estimate for the convention was $39.5M, putting the overrun at 12.7%. Is this how the Democrats plan to operate the budget process as well? One benefit: with this kind of deficit spending, John Kerry can't afford to postpone the acceptance of the nomination and risk losing the $15M in federal funding for the show. In fact, he may need to get George Bush to accept his nomination in Boston as well in order to close the funding gap. (Via Drudge, and yes, this is tongue-in-cheek; feel free to comment on current deficit spending, and save this post if the Republicans come in over budget too. I can handle a nyah-nyah-nyah now and again.)

Forget-Me-Nots For The Commissar

The Commissar at the Politburo Diktat just received a bit of bad news from his hosting service -- they apparently dislike the Movable Type system and now want to hike his rates to keep his sites going:

The Commissar has become embroiled in Revolutionary Struggle with his hosting company, Lunarpages. Greedy Capitalist Lunarpages host now want to charge $40 per month.

In a sudden, emergency action yesterday, they moved me from one server to another and seem to have lost several hours worth of updates and Comments. (In response to Comments, I had done some nifty updates to the 'Forget the Swoosh' piece. Gone for now.)

The Commissar is looking into a new hosting service, including CQ's provider Hosting Matters. He's keeping the domain name but may have the site down for short periods of time while deciding and/or moving, so don't get discouraged if you see a 404 once or twice. The issue also affects the great oil-for-food scandal blog Friends of Saddam, the one-stop shop for updates on UNSCAM. Don't drop either from your blogroll, and if I get any updates from the Commissar, I'll be sure to pass them along.

Caption Contest #14 Winners!

Ann from Ann's Fuse Box has finished judging the entries for the Captain's Caption Contest, and let me tell you, it was tough picking the best from a selection of great entries! Even John Kerry acknowledged it to Bill Clinton: "Just between you and me ... these entries are among the most lying, crooked captions ..."

Here are the winners:

Captain's Award (and Report to Sick Bay!) -- Aaron's Rantblog:

"Look at THAT hot little humidor!"

You Have The Conn #1 (Closest to reality) -- CCWBass:

"Made you look. Man, Kerry, you're just too easy."

You Have The Conn #2 (Who's the nominee again?) -- Dennis Swanson:

"Oh, your posters??? Well we had to move them to the back to make room for my book promotion banners. They're back over there. But hey, to make it up to you, buy a book on the way out and I'll autograph it for you."

You Have The Conn #3 (Who can resist poking fun of Al?) -- Sligobob:

Clinton: Look over there. I took Al's name off the invitee list and now he can't get past the doorman. I love a good practical joke.

Thanks to everyone who entered, and congratulations to the winners! Remember, here at CQ, everyone's a winner -- just some of us have higher winning percentages than others. Comments on this post will remain open, as usual, in order for the winners to gloat, the others to disparage Ann's intellect and/or my parentage, and for any other entries submitted just for the sheer enjoyment of amazing your friends and confounding your enemies. Don't forget to visit Ann's Fuse Box, too!

Send me a photograph or an e-mail with a link to a great picture you think should be the subject of our next Caption Contest, and let me know if you'd like to be the guest judge! I'll have another picture for Friday -- so be sure to come back then for the next contest.

Sadr Retreats

Moqtada al-Sadr has ordered his forces to leave the holy city of Najaf unless individuals live there, according to the BBC and Reuters:

Radical Iraqi cleric Moqtada Sadr has told his militia to leave the southern city of Najaf, the scene of frequent clashes with US-led forces in the past. Mr Sadr issued a statement calling on his men who are not from Najaf to "do their duty" and go home. He agreed a truce earlier - although isolated outbreaks of fighting between militia and police continued in Najaf.

Last week the cleric announced he would set up a political party to contest elections next year.

Unlike the outcome in Fallujah, the US-led CPA seems to have done an excellent job in isolating Sadr, turning other Shi'ite clerics against him and stripping him of any political cover he enjoyed. At the same time, the CPA has enabled the Iraqi government to take the lead in dealing with Sadr instead of providing Sadr with more excuses for anti-American tirades. Bush's insistence on transferring sovereignty on June 30 also cut Sadr's protests off at the knees.

Now Sadr wants to form a political party to push his ideas, although Sadr himself would be ineligible for office for the next three years. It demonstrates the success of the American intervention in Iraq that militias are busy turning rifles into podiums, if not plowshares. If even the most radical of the Islamists in Iraq want to transform themselves into democrats, it shows that Bush was right all along.

Joel Steinberg: From Prison To TV

Joel Steinberg started a nationwide focus on child abuse when he beat his 6-year-old live-in ward, Lisa, to death for staring at him. His wife Hedda claimed at the time to have been chronically abused herself, and pictures backed up her story. Outraged New Yorkers gladly saw Steinberg off to prison for 8 to 25 years and blocked efforts for early parole. Steinberg remains a nationwide symbol of unchecked child abusers and the inevitable result of failing to intervene on behalf of children in those circumstances.

Now, since Steinberg has served two-thirds of his maximum sentence, New York must release him rather than parole him, and the only condition of his release is that he has to have a place to live. No word on whether he's managed to find new digs, but New Yorkers may be pleased to know he's found gainful employment (also at this link):

It has been nearly 17 years since young Lisa Steinberg, illegally adopted by Joel Steinberg and his live-in girlfriend, Hedda Nussbaum, died of brain injuries from the beating.

Now, Steinberg is about to be released from prison, even though he was denied parole five times - most recently in January. And he has a job lined up on a local cable TV show called New York Confidential. ...

After he's released, Steinberg will earn $250 a week as an intern for New York Confidential, a tabloid-style cable show that has the infamous report on the scandalous. "We're interested in a lot of different people, scandalous people ... who can do stories and have a totally different view on everything," show spokesman James Edstrom says. "There's no guarantee that he will work out. He'll start as an intern, and if he can handle it, he may end up being a reporter along with other people."

Joel Steinberg was an attorney before his conviction, not a reporter or a stringer. Let's leave aside for the moment the thousands of J-school graduates that would love a chance to intern for a television show in New York; Steinberg has no qualifications for journalism, not even prison studies, where he worked as a paralegal. NY Confidential hired Steinberg strictly for his notoriety, and if you think he'll stay behind the camera, you're fooling yourself. The producers will put him on screen as often as possible in order to generate controversy and ratings.

I have no problem with someone giving Steinberg a job, because after all he will need to eat now that he's served his time. However, the NY Confidential producers hired him specifically because he beat a little girl to death and got famous for it. They're putting their food on the table by trading in the blood of a six-year-old girl. I hope they enjoy the taste.

WaPo Shills For Kerry, Supports Forced Abortion In China

Today's Washington Post editorializes against President Bush's decision to withhold federal funding to organizations promoting abortion overseas, one of Bush's original election promises. The Post claims that Bush's position violates his 2000 election "moderate stance on social issues":

IN THE 2000 campaign, George W. Bush maintained a studiously moderate stance on social issues. Once he assumed office in January 2001, he betrayed that position and delighted his right-wing base by attaching antiabortion conditions to foreign assistance. These conditions laid down that family planning groups accepting federal money must not perform abortions, or even provide information about them to their patients. As we said at the time, forcing an organization to censor its views as a condition of receiving government money would be unconstitutional on free-speech grounds in this country.

Really? Perhaps, although I rather doubt they'd be claiming that if a university failed to support equal-opportunity practices. Besides, the Post is dead wrong that Bush has been inconsistent in this policy, and it shows that the editorial board at the Post still has not learned the art of Googling. A quick search on the topic produced the following CNN report from the 2000 election, which clearly shows that Bush opposed abortion publicly and clearly:

* Opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save a woman's life. ...

* Supports the "Mexico City Policy" which prohibits non-governmental organizations receiving U.S. funds from providing overseas abortion-related counseling or care.

It seems that far from playing politics on abortion, Bush has been very consistent in both his opposition and his policies regarding that opposition, and stuck to his word during his campaign. The Post appears to be tarring Bush with the John Kerry flip-flop brush as part of its campaign to boost the lackluster Democrat by playing a bit of "you too" with Bush.

However, far more egregiously, the first example of funding cuts mentioned by the Post indicates a support for one of the worst examples of totalitarian rule in China:

Last year Marie Stopes International, a British charity that had received State Department money for AIDS work among refugees, failed to win renewal of its grant; its sin was to have cooperated in China with the United Nations Population Fund, which has long been a target of Mr. Bush's right-wing supporters.

China supports the UNPF by forcing its citizens to have abortions after having a single successful pregnancy, an atrocity that has gone on for decades in the name of Chinese population control. For those who claim to support "choice", this seems an odd position to take, since Chinese women have no choice at all in the matter. As CNN reported just two years ago, they even apply this policy to those women who marry on Taiwan:

At least six Chinese women married to Taiwanese nationals have been requested to have abortions on visits home to the mainland, according to a Taipei Times report.

The women were reportedly cooerced to have abortions or undergo sterilization surgery by Chinese birth control personnel to comply with China's one-child policy.

What does the Post say by its support for organizations which collaborate with Chinese policies that border on genocide? Does the Post think that forced abortions should be supported by American dollars? In May 2001, the Post didn't seem to think that way when they highlighted forced abortion and infanticide for an investigative piece on the uses of sex-selective abortions in China. Of course, their major objection to the practice seemed only to be the ratio of females produced:

More broadly, Western and Chinese researchers are concerned that the trend, and the unintended consequences of family planning policies, will reinforce a sense that the lives of little girls -- and the women they grow up to be -- are less valuable than those of boys and men.

If China has policies that are antithetical to reproduction, then it stands to figure that they will value females less than males, since males cannot bear children. This thinking is what the Post decries in one article but excoriates Bush for opposing in another. Someone has a problem with consistency -- but it isn't the President.

Captain's Caption Contest #14!

It's Friday, so it must be time for another Captain's Caption Contest! This week's entry comes from Ann's Fuse Box, which delved deep into the Kerry web site to come up with this winner:

It recalls to mind the famous poem of Clarke Van Ness:

'Twas an evening in October, I'll confess I wasn't sober,
I was carting home a load with manly pride,
When my feet began to stutter and I fell into the gutter,
And a pig came up and lay down by my side.
Then I lay there in the gutter and my heart was all a-flutter,
Till a lady, passing by, did chance to say:
"You can tell a man that boozes by the company he chooses,"
Then the pig got up and slowly walked away.

But that seems rather long for a caption, so why don't you all just come up with something better? You have until Tuesday, June 15 at 6 PM CDT to enter your best captions in the Comments section of this post for Ann to guest-judge this week. (NO e-mail -- e-mailed entries will be shredded, toasted, tossed over a plate of escargot, and swallowed by Michael Moore in one smooth motion. Trust me: I'd take a picture, Jon, but I don't have the requisite wide-angle lens.) Enter as often as you like, no purchase necessary, tax and title belong to CQ, winners need not be present, and as always, bribes are most welcome ...

BUMP 6/12 ...

BUMP 6/14 ...

COMMENTS CLOSED! Thanks for a lot of great entries, and my apologies for cutting it off about 20 minutes early -- but I have to head out for a couple of hours. Ann will be reviewing the entries and I'll post the winners tonight or tomorrow morning!

Islamic Conference Recognizes Iraqi Interim Government

The American-supported Iraqi government received a huge boost as the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which consists of 57 primarily Islamic member-states, formally voted to recognize the new interim government, the AP reports:

The new Iraqi interim government received a key boost Tuesday when the country's neighbors endorsed the U.S.-backed leadership, a move that could help stem an increasingly violent insurgency. Hours later, the political committee of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the world's largest Islamic organization, unanimously approved a resolution backing Iraq's interim government and calling for help in rebuilding the war-shattered nation, a delegate who attended the discussions said.

The resolution is expected to be formally declared at the closing of the three-day meeting on Wednesday, the delegate added, speaking on customary condition of anonymity.

Formal recognition from the OIC will allow moderates within neighboring Islamic states to work directly and openly with the Iraqi government and put pressure on the extremist elements of Iraq's neighbors, such as Iran and Syria, to stop interfering with its internal politics. It certainly won't stop overnight, of course, but the insurgents will have much less political cover than before, when the OIC supported the extremists' contention that the IGC was little more than an American puppet.

So far, it appears that the Bush administration's foreign policy has paid dividends yet again. Far from being a bull in a china shop, the US has removed a stubborn and genocidal dictator from power without -- as some had predicted -- setting off a region-wide war. Now we have established a basis for free elections and a federal representative government, stabilized most of the country, and have even garnered unanimous recognition for the new government from the nations most bitterly opposed to our intervention -- foureen months after the fall of Saddam. Twenty-four million people now have the ability to choose their own leadership rather than have to fear being tortured or maimed, or worse, for offending Saddam or his sadistic sons.

If we listened to France, Germany, and John Kerry (after he voted for the war, of course), we'd still be talking about taking some kind of action against Saddam, and Iraqis would still be dying by the thousands each month. If we'd listened to the folks at MoveOn.org and editorialists from the New York Times, et al, the Taliban would still hold power in Kabul. Pakistan would still be cooperating with al-Qaeda. In other words, we would be losing this war.

Malkin: Krugman Senility, Part 37b

Michelle Malkin -- who recently added Captain's Quarters to her blogroll, thank you very much -- rips the New York Times' Paul Krugman, who scoffs at John Ashcroft's announcement yesterday:

First, there's the absence of any major successful prosecutions. The one set of convictions that seemed fairly significant — that of the "Detroit 3" — appears to be collapsing over accusations of prosecutorial misconduct.

It sounds a bit like Krugman hedged his bets there, especially (as Malkin also notes) as Krugman tripped up a month ago by claiming that no one had been successfully prosecuted for terror. Malkin gives a short but devastating response:

Oh? What about shoebomber Richard Reid? What about Taliban solider John Walker Lindh? What about Yahya Goba, Shafal Mosed, Yasein Taher, Taysal Galab, Mukhtar al-Bakri and Sahim Alwan of Lackawanna, New York? What about Jeffrey Battle, Patrice Ford, Ahmed Bilal, Muhammad Bilal, and October Lewis of Portland, Oregon? And Mike Hawash? How about Masoud Ahmad Khan, Seifullah Chapman, Yong Ki Kwon, Donald Surratt, and Hammad Abdur-Raheem from the Washington DC area? What about James Ujaama? And Iyman Faris?

Krugman is entitled to his opinion about Ashcroft, no matter how ridiculous, but as the saying goes, he is not entitled to his own facts.

Malkin's post has links to each of these cases. Be sure to read up on her new blog, too -- it's well-designed by Sekimori (the same as Power Line) and catches Malkin's wit perfectly.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt, the Commish, also has a few spot-on things to say about Krugman. He also has a link-rich post today on John Kerry. As always, be sure to catch Hugh's blog today and every day.

Don't Feed The Spammers

Over the past few days, I've had the distinct displeasure of getting buried under a swarm of virus-laden spam. Somehow I ended up on someone's broadcast list and whoever built the list has been infected by an e-mail virus. Fortunately, Hosting Matters has a built-in virus detection program that strips infected attachments before I download the mail, and changes the subject line to alert me. However, the source has been nothing if not persistent, and I have received at least a dozen such e-mails.

However, that's nothing compared to the other members of the list. I have been inundated with reply-alls from the mouthbreathers on the distribution, asking the source to quit sending the e-mails, as if they've never heard of address spoofing before. Once the first round of reply-alls went out asking for people to stop, another round of reply-alls quickly followed telling the first-rounders that they weren't sending the e-mails. Instead of having a manageable six or seven e-mails a day, now I'm getting well over a hundred.

Here, then, are a few guidelines for people to use when dealing with e-mailed viruses:

1. Replying doesn't help. Unless you know the person who sent you the e-mail (IOW, you're likely to have had a personal entry in their address book), they don't know the e-mail is being sent to you and likely they aren't the source. The newer e-mail viruses spoof sender addresses, which means you're not helping to stop the virus, you're making it worse by spreading it around.

2. DON'T REPLY ALL! Why this feature continues to be used at all outside of a business environment amazes me, and even then it mostly wastes space. Like I said above, replying only makes things worse, and reply-alls make them exponentially worse.

3. Learn how to set up a filter to delete the messages automatically. Yes, it feels like giving in. Too bad; get over it. Once you have an idea what the messages say, you can set up a rule or filter (called different things in different programs) to delete the messages without having to do it manually. If nothing else, at least it keeps you from getting annoyed at the long list of bogus messages.

4. Get a real e-mail client. If you're using Outlook or Outlook Express as your mail client, you are part of the problem. I generally love Microsoft products, but their e-mail and browser programs are full of security holes and no one in their right mind should be using them unless absolutely necessary. I use Mozilla for e-mail and most of my browsing. Mozilla also blocks pop-ups, which makes websurfing a more pleasant experience.

If you can't learn these lessons, perhaps you'd be happier keeping your computer turned off. I know most of the rest of us would be.

[/VENT]

Gephardt? He Could Do Worse

US News and World Report have a cryptic, two-sentence, anonymously sourced report that John Kerry has decided to pick Dick Gephardt, the retired House Minority Leader, as his VP nominee:

Labor leaders believe union friend Rep. Dick Gephardt has the inside track to be Sen. John Kerry 's vice president. We hear that AFL-CIO execs say it's a done deal.

Gephardt makes an interesting choice for Kerry, and in some ways a very sensible one. Gephardt has decades of experience and more political heft than Kerry outside of New England, especially (as noted) with labor. Gephardt also ran towards the center on the war on terror; only he and Joe Lieberman actually gave wholehearted support to the removal of Saddam Hussein, although both felt the aftermath was planned poorly and made numerous suggestions for changes. Gephardt also could carry Missouri, which went for Bush in 2000 by four points and in most polls runs closer than that now. (The LA Times has Bush up by eleven in Missouri, which only indicates the strength of the drugs their pollsters ingested.)

Choosing Gephardt also shows that Kerry may lack confidence in his ability to outshine his running mate. John Edwards, everyone's favorite Democratic option, is a much better stump speaker than Kerry, and the campaign could fear that comparison. I expected to hear either Vilsack of Iowa or Richardson of New Mexico, but both of those may be too esoteric to garner any votes other than the already committed, especially Vilsack, and both states went Gore in 2000 anyway.

Gephardt also has his share of problems to bring the Kerry campaign. Despite his national recognition and long record of service, Gephardt has been proven time and again incapable of building a national following. Not only has he run several times for President, each campaign garnered progressively weaker results. Gephardt also relies almost exclusively on his connections to labor, which would go with Kerry under any circumstances already -- and their involvement in his selection underscores the grip that special interests have on the Democrats at a time when they need to be seen as reaching out to Middle America. Finally, Deaniacs who may be only halfheartedly supporting Kerry right now will not be pleased to have Dean's bete noir from Iowa as the lower half of the ticket. Faced with voting for Gephardt, whom most of them blame in part for the hardball attacks leading up to Dean's implosion, they may swing to Nader or stay home altogether out of disillusionment.

I suspect that this little leak may be a trial balloon to gauge reaction. The problem with Gephardt as a candidate is that he doesn't inspire much of it, although in a certain sense, that's also an asset for the Kerry campaign.

OIC Officer: Islamic "Backwardness" Causes Extremism

The Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which consists of 57 member states, blasted members in an opening speech for creating the conditions for Islamic extremism, the BBC reports:

A top Muslim official has denounced what he called the extensive backwardness of the Islamic world. Abdelwahed Belkeziz - Secretary General of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) - made the stinging attack at meeting in Turkey. He blamed the rise of Muslim extremism on the feeling of "powerlessness" felt by members of the Islamic world. ...

Mr Belkeziz told the foreign ministers from the 57-member states that their countries had a poor record on issues ranging from education and health to economic development.

"The aggregate gross domestic product of all our member states remains lower than that of one single advanced country such as France or Britain," he said.

Mr. Belkeziz brought the meeting to the razor's edge of the basic problem -- autocratic and greedy rule by a small subset of Arabs over a vast region. The OIC may take that lesson as unspoken, as the speaker could only have been less subtle by referring to almost every member-state as a tyranny. Only a few of the members such as the OIC's host country this year, Turkey, has regular, multiparty elections; Indonesia may be the only other country. Otherwise, the national resources of almost every other representative's home country are controlled by dictatorships and proceeds funnelled into their pockets and those of their cronies and families, much the same as Saddam's oil-for-food profit machine, except without UN participation as a smoke screen.

Belkeziz is finishing his term as the OIC head and perhaps feels a bit more free to criticize than in years past. With Islamofascist terrorism peaking and the West finally responding forcefully in its own defense, more member states may be open to his message. Seeing an Islamic conference finally look inward for their problems instead of reflexively blaming Jews for all their ills gives some hope that the debate may finally turn towards productive topics, and eventually inspire real reform in the Muslim world.

Another Plot Thwarted?

Attorney General John Ashcroft announced a new criminal indictment against a Somali immigrant, whom a grand jury has accused of conspiring as part of an al-Qaeda plot to blow up an Ohio shopping mall:

According to an indictment unsealed in Columbus, Ohio, on Monday, Nuradin Abdi, 32, attended a camp in Ethiopia for military-style training in "preparation for violent jihad." Ashcroft said after receiving his training in Africa, Abdi returned to the United States and he and others "initiated a plot" to blow up a Columbus area shopping mall. ...

In the indictment handed up by a grand jury in Columbus, Abdi was charged with conspiracy to provide material support to al Qaeda and with obtaining and using fraudulent travel documents. Ashcroft would give no details on how far along the planning was for the planned attack on the mall. But he said Abdi had connections to Iyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver sentenced last year to 20 years in prison for supporting al Qaeda.

Once again, we have the Department of Justice stopping another planned attack on American soil, and once again we see the inherent cowardice of Islamofascist terrorists. What could be gained by blowing up a shopping mall, other than the indiscriminate killing of civilians -- mostly women and children? A shopping mall in the suburbs lacks even the mildest symbolism. It's simply a great place to kill a few hundred people.

This demonstrates why a forward action against terrorists is necessary; we cannot hope to protect all potential targets all of the time, because any area where civilians gather is a potential target. In order to stop these attacks, we have to capture terrorists before they strike and get enough intelligence from them to identify as many of their contacts as possible. We need to cut off their funding and support, and in too many cases, that involves sovereign states that use AQ and other terror groups as proxies. How do people think the US has been able to crack these cases before any actual attack -- through telepathy?

A recent, and flawed, poll by the Los Angeles Times indicated that people think the war in Iraq has not been worth the cost. Putting aside for the moment that we liberated 24 million people from a genocidal maniac whom National Geographic estimates killed up to 7 million Shi'a, we now have unprecedented access to the intelligence files of a government that provided a lot of that support and financing to terrorists over the past decade. Perhaps not since the fall of the Nazis has such an extensive record come to light -- and certainly the information in the Iraqi Intelligence Service files have a lot more relevance to ongoing operations than did German files in 1945.

Until we eliminate the safe harbor and hard cash that people like Saddam Hussein provided terrorists like al-Zarqawi, we will be forced to the defensive and hoping that we can simply catch people we don't know going to places we're not sure to attack almost anything they can. It's a death sentence -- an open invitation to another 9/11.

Common Sense Prevails, For Now

The Supreme Court has given a narrow and temporary victory to the advocates of common sense over shrill absolutism by turning back an attempt by Michael Newdow to strip "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance:

The Supreme Court at least temporarily preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath while sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.

The decision leaves untouched the practice in which millions of schoolchildren around the country begin the day by reciting the pledge.

The court said the atheist could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.

The justices have left the door open for further challenges to the Pledge, making it clear that the majority rested its decision on Newdow's lack of standing to bring the suit. His daughter's mother has challenged Newdow's standing by insisting that she has primary custody and furthermore prefers the pledge as written. Newdow has attracted a lot of criticism for using his daughter to further his own legal career, and perhaps a political career as well. Certainly Newdow will make the talk-show circuit this evening, and for evenings to come, as well as the leftist public-speaking lists.

Unfortunately, we will once again find ourselves at the same point, and eventually SCOTUS will not have such an easy excuse to pass on making a judgment. Another parent will sue on behalf of the tender sensibilities of their child in order to reinforce the vacuous and mythical right against offense, which appears nowhere. Nowhere, in any of the founding documents, does the United States guarantee a freedom from religious expression of any kind. Such an idea would have garnered gales of laughter from the same men who habitually wrote "in the Year of our Lord" when dating these documents, a phrase which evokes Christianity in a much more specific way than "under God".

Perhaps it is too much to hope that the ACLU and other assorted nutcases who supported Newdow's quest for political correctness and the limitation of speech in public will find better ways to fill their time. We'll keep praying they do.

Pakistan Nails One

Pakistan announced that its latest offensive against al-Qaeda terrorists has already been more productive than its last one:

Pakistani officials said Sunday that the government had arrested the nephew of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Al Qaeda's former head of operations. Separately, the government detained nine people said to be part of a newly uncovered Qaeda-linked group responsible for a series of terror attacks.

The interior and information ministers announced that Mr. Mohammed's nephew, Mosabir Aroochi, was arrested this weekend in the port city of Karachi. Sheik Rashid Ahmed, the information minister, said a $1 million reward had been posted for Mr. Aroochi's arrest.

The Pakistanis seem to be getting better at this. Let's hope they continue to push the battle in Waziristan, or at least push the terrorists into Afghanistan where we can get our hands on them.

European Union A Flop?

The European Union held an election this weekend, the first since ten former Eastern Bloc nations have been added to the confederation. However, Europeans sent a message to the EU, as even those in the new countries could hardly be bothered to vote:

Europe's voters have delivered a massive vote of no confidence in their governments in European Parliament elections, both by hammering ruling parties and by staying away in record numbers. The biggest transnational election in history, staged just six weeks after the European Union expanded from 15 to 25 states with 450 million citizens, highlighted public indifference toward remote EU institutions. ...

Only the recently elected Spanish and Greek governments escaped the voters' wrath, amplifying their national victories. A mere 44.2 percent of nearly 350 million eligible voters bothered to cast ballots in the four-day exercise, the lowest turnout since direct elections for the Strasbourg-based assembly began in 1979.

In an irony of history, voter participation was even weaker in the 10 new, mainly ex-communist east European member states, where it averaged just 26 percent, apparently due to voter fatigue after referendums last year on joining the EU.

Not only does Europe have little confidence in the multinational organization, but the profound lack of enthusiasm from the newest members should worry EU boosters. These are the same countries that have embraced democracy but with a decidedly nationalist outlook, completely understandable after decades of Soviet oppression and insistence on colorless socialism. Now that they have the opportunity to once again take pride in themselves as independent Poles, Slovaks, and Hungarians, they don't seem too keen on giving their sovereignty right back to the Western Europeans.

And while the AP seems keen on looking at the results in Britain, Italy, and Denmark as a backlash against supporting the US-led war in Iraq, the Europeans delivered bad news to the core of European opposition to Saddam's removal as well:

In Britain and Poland, hardline Euroskeptics made stunning gains, sending strident new voices of hostility to European integration to sit in the increasingly powerful EU legislature.

The UK Independence Party, which won its first three seats in 1999, was on course to grab 15 this time, while Poland's populist League of Catholic Families beat the ruling Socialists into fourth place.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's Social Democrats crashed to their worst result since World War II while French President Jacques Chirac's center-right UMP party suffered its second electoral defeat in three months.

What the vote indicates is a deep dissatisfaction with the direction of the EU, whether its entire existence or just its status as a supergovernment that sucks up even more of European tax dollars in order to support an entirely new bureaucracy. For Britain and other countries debating the adoption of the Euro as their currency, today's results have to give pause to proponents of the change. If the EU vote generates this much ennui, what effect would a currency switch have on their electorates?

First Mate Back Home

I just got back from bringing the First Mate home from the hospital. Her kidney function is excellent -- so far, the creatinine level is still 1.5, and her BUN has dropped to 32. Neither are in the normal range but they're closer than anything she's seen in years. Her bladder is still pokey, so they sent her home with a Foley catheter, which irritates her but still is better than staying in the hospital another night. She'll have to wait until Thursday to have it removed, by which time we're hoping that her bladder will have "woken up".

Fortunately, my father and his wife will be coming out to lend a hand for the next week, allowing me to go back to work, and my sister will come out for a week after that. (Posting may be a bit light during that time.) By that point in time, the doctors think Marcia will be pretty self-sufficient, but she won't be allowed to lift anything heavier than a gallon of water, or about 10 lbs. Because her old transplant may still be causing some problems with her blood pressure, she will have to have one more surgery next month to remove it. It should be a laparascopic surgery with a much quicker recovery time.

She's feeling tired, but elated to be home in her own bed. We'll have lots of doctors' appointments in the coming weeks. I'll post more as we go along.

Maybe He Doesn't Know The Law

Ralph Nader, who gained fame as a consumer-advocate lawyer, appears to need a brush-up course on electoral and tax law. The Washington Post reports that Nader has housed his campaign headquarters in the offices of his tax-exempt charity Citizen Works since October:

Tax law explicitly forbids public charities from aiding political campaigns. Violations can result in a charity losing its tax-exempt status. In addition, campaign law requires candidates to account for all contributions -- including shared office space and resources, down to the use of copying machines, receptionists and telephones.

Records show many links between Nader's campaign and the charity Citizen Works. For example, the charity's listed president, Theresa Amato, is also Nader's campaign manager. The campaign said in an e-mail to The Washington Post that Amato resigned from the charity in 2003. But in the charity's most recent corporate filing with the District, in January, Amato listed herself as the charity's president and registered agent.

As the Post points out later in the same article, these laws were used earlier to attack Newt Gingrich for ethics violations regarding the role of his own charity in his election campaign, so this is hardly an esoteric regulation. The Post's James Grimaldi refers to it as one of the few "bright lines" in electoral law. What the law intends to prevent is tax-deductible charitable donations -- which have no individual limits -- being funneled into electoral campaigns. Failure to regulate this provides an opportunity for massive cash-laundering and certainly opens the door to untraceable violations of recent campaign-finance laws.

Nader argues that the rent his campaign pays to Citizen Works covers the entire cost of all campaign work at their headquarters, and argues that because his campaign manager is an attorney, everything is quite legal, although Nader's status at the bar doesn't seem to confer the same guarantee:

Nader emphasized that Amato made sure that all tax and election laws were followed. "There's no bigger stickler than Theresa Amato," Nader said. "She's an attorney."

Others, including donors to Citizen Works, differ. Two donors contacted by the Post expressed dismay that their contributions appear to be supporting Nader's political activity, which they want to avoid. Former Nader colleague and FEC general counsel Larry Nobel also commented that the arrangement "clearly presents problems -- tax problems and campaign finance problems." In fact, most Post sources in this article seem to agree:

Stanley M. Brand, a District lawyer who specializes in campaign-finance and political law, said, "The FEC wants bright-line distinctions between campaign-related and charitable activities. And so does the IRS. A 501(c)(3) [public charity] is not supposed to underwrite or engage in political activity. If it is lending or forgiving expenses for use of its facilities, it may be creating its own problems with the IRS."

It seems that the crusading lawyer who attacked corporations and governments for violating the law takes a much more flexible approach to his own behavior. So far, since Citizen Works hasn't received much in the way on contributions lately, not much harm has been done. But then, the same exact thing could have been said for Newt Gingrich, whose situation was much more of a gray area than Nader's, and he got pilloried for it.

In this case, though, you can assume that nothing much will happen to Nader. Kerry won't attack him as he's still hoping to either get Nader to withdraw and endorse him, or failing that, to charm the hell out of Nader's supporters. Bush won't attack him because Nader attacks Kerry on his left flank, forcing Kerry to shift farther from the center to negate Nader. The only dark cloud on Nader's horizon is the self-motivating bureaucracy of the IRS and the thousand little catalysts of voter-advocate organizations, ironically the type of activism Nader helped inspire.