Greens Give Red Light To Nader

Ralph Nader recently reversed himself and publicly campaigned for an "endorsement" from the Green Party, the third-party outsiders who nominated Nader in 2000 and the candidate rejected last December. The Greens gave their answer today by blowing a raspberry at the consumer advocate and instead nominating David Cobb, a longtime party activist:

The Green Party on Saturday refused to back Ralph Nader in his independent run for the White House, a move that could reduce his chances of being a factor in this year's election.

Delegates to the half-million-member party's presidential convention voted to nominate party activist David Cobb, a California lawyer who led the delegate count going into the meeting.

Nader had announced his selection of Green Party stalwart Peter Camejo as his running mate earlier this week in order to convince the Green's nominating convention to fall in with his proposed consolidation of various third-party movements. The Reform Party has already agreed to endorse Nader/Camejo, giving the pair access to ballots in seven states. The Greens held the key to 20 others, but now Cobb's name will sit atop the Green entry on those ballots.

For Nader, who abandoned the Greens and added their alienation and disillusionment to that of the Democrats from 2000, the selection of Cobb only represents a tactical setback, and one that had to have been anticipated. Camejo and Cobb stand to be the real losers in this scenario. Camejo gambled that his party would follow its most productive elective prospect outside of Nader, and now that the Greens selected Cobb, Camejo stands to lose all of the momentum and goodwill he's built since switching over from the Socialist Party earlier in his career. Cobb may have won the nomination, but Cobb is a non-entity whose selection will convince few donors to switch their support from Nader or the two major parties.

The Greens may well wind up losing their automatic ballot entries in most (if not all) qualifying states, as Cobb will never outshine Nader, Bush, and Gore to collect the 3% the Greens need to keep their exemption from collecting signatures. The Republicans may also be somewhat disappointed, although in the long run a weakened Green party helps to reduce the radicalism that has broken through this election cycle. The only real winner from the Greens' decision may be John Kerry, and only in a mild way, as he may well face Nader in fewer key states as a result.

Expect to see another Democratic effort to get Nader to withdraw, only this time the envoys should be from a group other than the Congressional Black Caucus, who not only failed to convince Nader to withdraw but antagonized him so much that Nader threatened to focus his campaign on the battleground states that Kerry needs so badly. The Democrats can still transform this good fortune into an albatross if they're not careful.

Oh, And You're Fat, Too

Speaking of Ralph Nader, he sent a message to Michael Moore on his campaign blog accusing him of selling out his progressive credentials to the Establishment, in the form of the Democrats (via Instapundit):

Once upon a time, there was Michael Moore the First. He never forgot his friends. Come time for the Washington, DC premiere of Bowling for Columbine a while back, he invited his old buddies in Washington—gave them good seats and spent the rest of the evening with them. During his other movie's premiere, he affectionately recognized how much those old friends helped him and supported him after he was mistreated and let go by Mother Jones. He was generous with his words and time.

Now there is Michael Moore the Second. Last night he hosted the Washington, DC premiere of Fahrenheit 9/11, and who was there? The Democratic political establishment, the same people whom he took to such mocking task on the road with us in campaign rally after campaign rally in 2000. Who was not there? His old buddies! Not personally invited, not personally hung out with.

A few weeks ago, Michael, I sent you a message: "Hey, Dude, where's my Buddy?" It is attached. It has gone without reply. It simply asked you to come back to your progressive constituency and take on the two-party monopoly of our rigged election system—to challenge the pro-warlike, corporate party with two heads, wearing different makeup when it comes to playing toady for Big Business.

I'm not sure why Nader bothered to write to Moore, or why Nader felt the need to get an invitation to the premiere of F-9/11. As a humorist, Moore makes a poor documenatarian, and as a documentarian an even worse humorist. Nader could easily have picked up the phone and called John Kerry or Tom Daschle, and I'm sure that either would have bent over backwards to get him a ticket. Speaking of which, how can Nader cluck his tongue at Moore for hanging with the Demmy homeboys when he spent his time the last couple of weeks meeting with Kerry, the Congressional Black Caucus (all Democrats), and offering his suggestion for Kerry's running mate (John Edwards)? He's spending more time with Democrats than Moore spends at McDonalds. He's hardly the progressive's model of sanctity when it comes to canoodling with the "pro-warlike, corporate party with two heads, wearing different makeup."

Speaking of eating, Nader even extends weighty opinions on Moore's size:

Your old friends remain committed to blazing paths for a just society and world. As they helped you years ago, they can help you now. They are also trim and take care of themselves. Girth they avoid. The more you let them see you, the less they will see of you. That could be their greatest gift to Moore the Second—the gift of health. What say you?

I'm no fan of Michael Moore, but I'll offer him this advice: use the Dick Cheney response to this last bit of advice, because Nader's doing his best Pat Leahy impression.

More Unilateralism On Display

George Bush demonstrated more of his notorious "go-it-alone" cowboy unilateralism today in Ireland as he negotiated an agreement with the EU to back an Iraqi request for NATO military support:

The United States and the European Union offered strong support for Iraq's urgent request for NATO military help Saturday. "NATO has the capability and I believe the responsibility to help the Iraqi people defeat the terrorist threat that's facing their country," President Bush said. ...

The United States and the European Union agreed in a joint statement to back Iraq's request for NATO military and support the training of Iraqi security forces, and to reduce Iraq's international debt, estimated to be $120 billion.

So that's what unilateralism looks like? Seems to me that the unilateralism about which the left complains so much appears awfully crowded at news conferences.

The Minneapolis Hotbed Of AQ

For some reason, the Twin Cities keeps coming up as a critical location for al-Qaeda operations. This dynamic first appeared shortly before the 9/11 attacks with the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui in the Captain's home port of Eagan, and now Power Line reports that the latest instance occurred yesterday with the arrest of an associate of Abu al-Zarqawi:

A Lebanese national who allegedly told Minneapolis FBI agents he trained with Al-Qaida and knew three of its leaders, including one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq, has been charged in connection with an international terrorism inquiry.

On Friday, a federal judge in New York ordered the suspect, Mohamad Kamal Elzahabi, who has lived in Minneapolis, transported to Minnesota without bail on charges of lying to federal agents.

During a series of voluntary interviews in April, Elzahabi told Minneapolis FBI agents that while in Afghanistan in the late 1980s and 1990s, he knew Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the Al-Qaida figure now suspected of engineering several deadly kidnappings in Iraq; Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and Abu Zubaida, a top Al-Qaida leader.

Elzahabi is charged with lying in denying that he sent walkie-talkies to Pakistan and that he helped get a Massachusetts driver's license for a man later convicted of plotting to bomb American and Israeli tourists in Jordan.

Unfortunately, most of our Twin Cities neighbors have chosen to shade their eyes to this threat. We have a wonderfully diverse community in the Twin Cities, one of whose components is an active and vibrant Somali community. While the vast majority of these people celebrate their freedom in the US, their presence allows al-Qaeda operatives some manuevering room here, as the arrests of six other men in our area for their AQ connections since 9/11 indicate, including that of Mohammed Abdullah Warsame, whose arrest sparked a short-lived protest from Twin Cities Somalis.

This action shows that the FBI has not let up in its counterterrorism efforts and remains vigilant in the area. However, it also shows that al-Qaeda has not given up in its efforts to infiltrate American cities, using blameless immigrants to hide themselves from justice and in some cases to manipulate immigrant communities into protesting on their behalf. AQ's continued focus on this area worries me, especially after the FBI smashed the conspiracy to attack a Columbus shopping mall earlier this month. After all, the largest and most famous shopping mall in the US is located minutes away from my house.

Big Trunk has posted the entire article on their site, as the Strib only leaves their articles available on their web site for seven days. Be sure to read the entire article.

Iraqis Discover A Sense Of National Mission?

The decision by the American-led CPA to remain steadfast in its decision to transfer sovereignty to the interim Iraqi government has, predictably, resulted in more desperate measures by Islamofascist terrorists in Iraq, with a wave of coordinated attacks this week resulting in over 100 dead Iraqis. Now even the more radical native elements within Iraq have come out in support of the new government, decrying the hijacking of Islam by the foreigners and calling for their expulsion from the new nation of Iraq:

The objections -- from anti-U.S. Shiite and Sunni Muslim leaders, including rebellious cleric Moqtada Sadr, and even from militia fighters in the embattled city of Fallujah -- arose in part from revulsion at the fact that victims of the car bombings and guerrilla assaults in six cities and towns Thursday were overwhelmingly Iraqis. But they also betrayed Iraqi nationalist concerns that the fight against U.S. occupation forces risked being hijacked by Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian whom U.S. officials describe as a paladin in bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

"We do not need anyone from outside the borders to stand with us and spill the blood of our sons in Iraq," Ahmed Abdul Ghafour Samarrae, a Sunni cleric with a wide following, declared in his Friday sermon at Umm al Qurra mosque in Baghdad. ... "Which religion allows anyone to kill more than 100 Iraqis, destroy 100 families and destroy 100 houses?" raged Samarrae in his sermon. "Who says so? Who are those people who do this? Where did they come from? . . . It is a conspiracy to defame the reputation of the Iraqi resistance by wearing its dress and using its name falsely. These people hurt the Iraqis and Iraq, giving the occupier an excuse to stay longer." ...

In Baqubah, where scores of fighters proclaiming allegiance to Zarqawi attacked police stations and government buildings in Thursday's offensive, clerics called on the faithful not to support such attacks. The attackers, they said in their Friday sermons, were foreigners attacking Iraqis.

"This is the first time we have heard the minaret broadcast support for the Iraqi government," said Edward Peter Messmer, the occupation authority's coordinator for the Baqubah region, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad. "And it couldn't come at a better time."

Terrorists have made the predictable and probably fatal error to target Iraqis after attacks on CPA forces demonstrated little effect on their determination to stay. Also, as more and more terrorists were caught or killed in attacks on American security forces, it forced the gangsters to look for easier targets, such as hotels, buses, and other civilian-dominated areas. Iraqis that cheered on attacks on "occupiers" suddenly found themselves not just to be collateral to those attacks but to be the main target -- and now even those who oppose occupation understand that the terrorists are a far worse threat to their safety and freedom.

Iraqi national pride, at this point, provides a helpful dynamic in setting the nation back on its own footing after decades of Ba'athist tyranny. Now that Zarqawi has demonstrated the al-Qaeda plan for Iraqis, and with the promise of full sovereignty looming, they have made the decision to get rid of those foreigners who murder Iraqis by the score before the foreigners who want to rebuild a free Iraqi republic.

UPDATE: Rocket Man notes this passage from the Washington Times' coverage and is less than impressed:

"What sort of religion condones the killing of a Muslim by another Muslim?" asked Sheik Abdul-Ghafour al-Samarai, a member of the influential Sunni group the Association of Muslim Scholars, during a sermon in Baghdad's Umm al-Qura mosque.

Sheik Ahmed Hassan al-Taha said at Baghdad's al-Azimiya mosque, Iraq's foremost Sunni place of worship, that "it makes me sad to see that all the victims yesterday were Iraqis."

Muslim "religious" leaders don't seem to care much when infidels get beheaded, but draw the line when fellow Muslims start getting killed. My sympathy for these guys is limited.

To me, this was more of a rhetorical mechanism for making the point that Zarqawi is no Muslim and no friend of Iraqis than a discounting of non-Iraqi lives, but I understand Rocket Man's disdain.

Labor Down Under Puts Target On Australia

Leaders of the Australian Labor Party have already forgotten the lesson of Madrid and have pledged to unilaterally withdraw from Iraq if given a majority in their upcoming elections:

An Australian Labor Party opposition pledge to withdraw troops from Iraq will present a major challenge to US ties if his party wins office in elections later this year, a senior party figure has warned. ... The policy has become a key issue in the election, with the government accusing Labor leader Mark Latham of anti-Americanism and reiterating its policy of remaining in the US-led campaign "until the job is done".

Spanish Socialists made essentially the same argument and were trailing in the polls until helpful terrorists killed 191 Spaniards and changed the outcome of the election. One has to wonder if that thought has even occurred to the Australian Labor's leadership. After all, scores of Aussies lost their lives in an al-Qaeda bombing in their backyard just 20 months ago, and AQ openly operates a lot closer to their shores than ours.

Beyond that argument, AQ killed 88 Australians and Labor proposes to simply sit out a major battle against them. Regardless of whether one considers the Iraq phase a "distraction" from the war on terror or a major component -- and the NY Times article yesterday clearly shows Iraqi collaboration with AQ -- no one doubts that al-Qaeda is in Iraq now, chiefly in the presence of Abu al-Zarqawi and his minions. Labor doesn't endorse a principled stand on international conventions; they argue for retreat, a chance to hide under the covers and hope the bad men go away. It worked for the Spanish Socialists, at least for the election, but Australians sadly delude themselves if they think a withdrawal from Iraq will make the terrorists love them. After all, the Bali bombing occurred well before Iraq, demonstrating that even if the Laborites don't want to make war, war is being made on them.

It took us ten years and 3,000 dead civilians before we learned that lesson, and even today some of us haven't learned it. Despite the blatherings of Labor leader and NSW Premier Bob Carr, we're not "ultranationalists", we're simply unwilling to pretend we're not being attacked, and to die in mass quantities while France and Germany dither. Let's hope that Australians don't put themselves in the position of having to learn the hard way that war has already been declared on them.

You're The Vice-President. Act Like It. That Is All.

Dick Cheney attempted to dress down Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy on the floor of the Senate Tuesday by suggesting a new form of entertainment and self-actualization for the partisan hack:

On Tuesday, Cheney, serving in his role as president of the Senate, appeared in the chamber for a photo session. A chance meeting with Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, became an argument about Cheney's ties to Halliburton Co., an international energy services corporation, and President Bush's judicial nominees. The exchange ended when Cheney offered some crass advice.

"Fuck yourself," said the man who is a heartbeat from the presidency.

Forget, for the moment, the breathless reporting from the Washington Post. Forget the fact that just about everyone I know says this word from time to time. We are talking about one of our nation's leaders speaking to a representative from Vermont on the floor of what has been called the shrine of democracy. It's absurd, it's unimaginative, and it's completely inappropriate -- even more so than when John Kerry slipped the ol' effenheimer into a Rolling Stone interview to look hip. I didn't like it then, and I sure as hell don't like it now.

Mr. Cheney, you are the Vice President. We expect you to act with proper decorum during official business in our capitol. You owe Senator Leahy an apology.

UPDATE: People seem to be misinterpreting what I wrote, or I didn't make myself clear enough. I have no problem with Cheney getting ticked off at Leahy et al for their slanderous falsehoods. I have no problem with him dressing down the little weasel on the floor of the Senate. What I have a problem with is the foul, uneloquent, and unimaginative manner in which he conducted himself doing it.

Michelle Malkin says much the same thing, and her readers offer suggestions as to how Cheney could have cut Leahy into little pissant ribbons, as he deserved. Hugh Hewitt disagrees with me, and suggests a donation to the NRSC to help unseat Leahy, a cause I enthusiastically support. But he's still wrong to have used that language.

Democrat To Address Republican Nominating Convention

Every Republican's favorite Democrat, Georgia Senator Zell Miller, will speak to the Republican Nominating Convention in order to formally endorse George Bush's candidacy. Miller, who's hardly been shy about his disenchantment with his own party's direction, provides the "unity" campaign that John Kerry tried to build with John McCain, and failed:

According to the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Miller will give his address on Wednesday night of the four-day convention in New York that begins Aug. 30. The Bush-Cheney campaign was expected to make an official announcement later in the day.

The speech by Miller, a former two-term governor, comes 12 years after he delivered the keynote address for Bill Clinton at the 1992 Democratic National Convention, also held in New York.

Miller, who is retiring in January, has voted with Republicans more often than his own party and has been a key sponsor of many of Bush's top legislative priorities, including the Republican's tax cuts and education plan.

Since last year, when Miller began writing op-eds in the Wall Street Journal decrying the choices of candidates from his party, Miller has made his preference for Bush clear:

This is a president who understands the price of freedom. He understands that leaders throughout history often have had to choose between good and evil, tyranny and freedom. And the choice they make can reverberate for generations to come. This is a president who has some Churchill in him and who does not flinch when the going gets tough. This is a president who can make a decision and does not suffer from "paralysis analysis." This is a president who can look America in the eye and say on Iraq, "We're not leaving." And you know he means it. ...

Believe me, I looked hard at the other choices. And what I saw was that the Democratic candidates who want to be president in the worst way are running for office in the worst way. Look closely, there's not much difference among them. I can't say there's "not a dime's worth of difference" because there's actually billions of dollars' worth of difference among them. Some want to raise our taxes a trillion, while the others want to raise our taxes by several hundred billion. But, make no mistake, they all want to raise our taxes. They also, to varying degrees, want us to quit and get out of Iraq. They don't want us to stay the course in this fight between tyranny and freedom. This is our best chance to change the course of history in the Middle East. So I cannot vote for a candidate who wants us to cut and run with our shirttails at half-mast.

I find it hard to believe, but these naive nine have managed to combine the worst feature of the McGovern campaign--the president is a liar and we must have peace at any cost--with the worst feature of the Mondale campaign--watch your wallet, we're going to raise your taxes. George McGovern carried one state in 1972. Walter Mondale carried one state in 1984. Not exactly role models when it comes to how to get elected or, for that matter, how to run a country.

So, as I have said, my choice for president was an easy decision. And my own party's candidates made it even easier.

Discovering that Miller would speak at the convention may provide mild surprise, since it is such an overt renunciation of his own party, but his book has already made that renunciation clear for everyone. However, the news apparently caught some members of Miller's party unaware, as the reaction from the state Democratic machine makes clear:

Miller drew a sharp rebuke from the dean of Georgia's congressional delegation, Democratic Rep. John Lewis, who called the senator's decision "a shame and a disgrace." ... "I think he has sold his soul for a mess of pottage," Lewis said, a reference to a speech Miller gave 40 years ago in which he argued that President Johnson was abandoning his Southern roots by pushing some civil rights issues. Pottage is defined as a thick soup or stew of vegetables.

Apparently the AP is unfamiliar with the original reference from the Old Testament about the "mess of pottage," or insists on avoiding biblical references.

Another member of the Georgia party says he's not surprised, and offers a glimpse as to why the senior Senator feels that his party has betrayed him and not the other way around. Bobby Kahn, the party's state chair, had this to say:

"Maybe I'll switch to the Republican Party so I can speak at the Democratic Convention and bash Bush," Kahn said. "It makes about as much sense."

Only to Kahn. Zell Miller has repeatedly attempted to convince his fellow Democrats to look beyond partisan squabbling and focus on the security of the nation and the survival of Western civilization. He's written essays, made speeches, and finally published a book explaining his philosophical issues with the Democratic Party. Kahn, on the other hand, applies his own small-minded thinking to Miller and comes up with nothing except a spiteful, and wholly inaccurate, characterization of Miller's actions.

This small-mindedness of the Democrats continues to be displayed in their wholesale embrace of the conspiracy-theory lunatics such as Michael Moore and their own Al Gore, where party leaders not only tolerate their inclusion but actively participate in their paranoid and inaccurate ravings solely to gain an electoral advantage. Every day, people like Kahn, Gore, Lewis, Tom Daschle, Tom Harkin, and others demonstrate Miller's assertion that his party has moved away from him, and not the other way around.

Fox Poll Shows Bush Pulling Ahead

A new Fox poll of registered voters -- still not as reliable as likely voters, but better than the sampling done by the recent Washington Post/ABC poll -- shows Bush pulling ahead of Kerry by six points, gaining strength from the booming economy and the approaching transfer of sovereignty to Iraq:

Even as insurgents increase their attacks in the days leading up to the June 30 handover, the public’s belief that going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do is holding steady. Majorities believe there was a partnership between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and that military action abroad is necessary to protect from having to fight terrorists on U.S. soil. In addition, brightening impressions on the condition of the economy helped President Bush improve his standing against Democrat John Kerry this week, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.

President Bush currently has an advantage over Democratic candidate John Kerry in both the two-way matchup and three-way matchups. If the election were held today, the poll finds Bush at 48 percent and Kerry at 42 percent. When independent candidate Ralph Nader is included he receives three percent, Bush 47 percent and Kerry 40 percent.

Since I've been critical of other polls recently, I should also note that this sample is a bit small, just 900 registered voters. However, the differences between this poll and the WaPo/ABC poll are striking. The electorate has not lost confidence in the Iraq phase of the war, although Bush's approval ratings for his command of it still fall below 50%. More importantly, the new poll shows daylight between Bush and Kerry in key battleground states such as Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, where Bush's approval numbers all exceed 50%, and in Florida, he leads Kerry by nine points.

It will be interesting to see how much play this poll gets in the media today. (via Power Line)

What WMD Scientists? And Where Did That WMD Come From?

Via the excellent compendium Memeorandum, I found that Fox News has reported that terrorist groups in the Middle East are wooing Iraqi WMD scientists for assistance in developing their own weapons:

Al Qaeda-connected terror chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search) and other terrorists are apparently trying to recruit Iraqi weapons of mass destruction experts and resources for possible future attacks against the U.S.-led coalition, the head of the Iraq Survey Group (search) told FOX News Thursday.

In an exclusive interview with FOX News’ Brit Hume, Charles Duelfer (search) — whose ISG is leading the hunt for weapons of mass destruction — said terrorists in Iraq are “trying to tap into the Iraqi WMD intellectual capital.”

“When we have investigated certain labs and contacted certain former experts in the WMD program, we have found that they are being recruited by anti-coalition groups,” Duelfer told FOX News. “They are being paid by anti-coalition groups. We’re seeing interest in developing chemical munitions.”

Duelfer also notes that a dozen sarin and mustard-gas shells from the first Gulf War have been found, weakened but still dangerous -- and undeclared, as required by the UNSC resolutions. Those are starting to add up, no? Even if only half of them were sarin, that amount applied in aerosol form could have killed up to 300,000 people -- about the population of St. Paul, MN, or also about the amount confirmed to have been sent to mass graves under Saddam's regime.

But what I want to know is how terrorists could find Iraqi WMD scientists. After all, weren't those programs disbanded years ago, and the scientists put in charge of giving food from the OFF program to starving babies? Weren't they busy working on medicines for the Iraqi populace that Saddam tried desperately to save by emptying his bank accounts?

Oh ... never mind.

Iran Thumbs Its Nose

The Islamic mullahcracy of Iran has thumbed its nose at the international community, announcing it will resume enriching uranium in defiance of its agreement to comply with IAEA requirements for non-proliferation:

Iran has announced a "substantial resumption" of its uranium enrichment program and may have already stockpiled chemical weapons, a State Department official said Thursday.

In testimony before the House International Relations Committee, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton said Iran had reneged "on the commitment it made to the United Kingdom, Germany and France" to stop enriching uranium.

Bolton said Iran told the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, that beginning next week the country will restart "the production of uranium centrifuge parts assembly and testing."

Once again, the titans of Europe have taken us on a rollercoaster ride on WMD, and once again, the trip has been as pointless as an amusement-park ride: we are right back where we started. The New York Times reports that the mullahs decided to tweak the noses of France, Germany, and Britain in its refusal by sending them each diplomatic notes blaming them for their decision, saying that the three Continental powers didn't do enough to normalize relations. This position seems a bit odd, considering that Iran captured eight British servicement this week and threatened to try them, a diplomatic breach bordering on an act of war, but expecting rational behavior from Iran usually leads to sharp disappointment, as the British themselves note in this instance:

"They've sent letters saying we haven't lived up to our commitments to normalize relations," said a spokesman for Britain, which received the note, along with France and Germany.

"Among Europeans and the U.S., there will be deep disappointment," he added. "There is no good reason for it. Europe will be urging them to reverse this decision."

The Times says that the US will interpret this as an indication that Teheran "has chosen to defy the International Atomic Energy Agency," an obvious point -- how can it be interpreted any other way? The Europeans need to quit stalling and allow this matter to come to the UN Security Council. Either the international community has to act to enforce its treaties and agreements or, once again, risk becoming irrelevant. And if they avoid the UNSC because they know that the US and the UK will force them to actually act upon their decision, then that battle has already been lost, and the French and Germans should just acknowledge that and get out of the way.

Even The NY Times Finds Collaboration, But Hides It From Its Readers

The New York Times, less than a week after demanding apologies from George Bush and Dick Cheney for supposedly misleading Americans on ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, publishes a report detailing even more ties and evidence of collaboration between Saddam and bin Laden (via Power Line):

Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.

American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden's organization, before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization. He was based in Sudan from 1992 to 1996, when that country forced him to leave and he took refuge in Afghanistan. ...

At the time of the contacts described in the Iraqi document, Mr. bin Laden was little known beyond the world of national security experts. It is now thought that his associates bombed a hotel in Yemen used by American troops bound for Somalia in 1992. Intelligence officials also believe he played a role in training Somali fighters who battled Army Rangers and Special Operations forces in Mogadishu during the "Black Hawk Down" battle of 1993.

Note the contradiction in those final two passages above. Ten paragraphs separate those last two, and the latter utterly negates the former. The Times wants to eat its cake and have it, too; if bin Laden's "associates" bombed Yemeni hotels in 1992 and took part in Mogadishu, then they had already become a terrorist group, and Saddam's contacts with them prove the Administration's point.

The Times also makes an effort to muddy up the timeline in order to make bin Laden's status as a terrorist more ambiguous at the time of the contacts. In paragraphs 14-16, reporter Thom Shanker writes:

The document details a time before any of the spectacular anti-American terrorist strikes attributed to Al Qaeda: the two American Embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998, the strike on the destroyer Cole in Yemeni waters in 2000, and the Sept. 11 attacks.

The document, which asserts that Mr. bin Laden "was approached by our side," states that Mr. bin Laden previously "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative," but was now willing to meet in Sudan, and that "presidential approval" was granted to the Iraqi security service to proceed.

At the meeting, Mr. bin Laden requested that sermons of an anti-Saudi cleric be rebroadcast in Iraq. That request, the document states, was approved by Baghdad.

Shanker says that this meeting took place before any of the "spectacular" attacks on American assets, an important and misleading qualification, which I'll explain momentarily. Shanker then reports that the meeting was initiated by the Iraqis, with "presidential approval" -- meaning Saddam himself initiated the talks with bin Laden. At that meeting, the Iraqis agreed to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda from Iraq.

Does that not sound like collaboration to you?

The impression you get from Shanker is that this meeting took place in the short period of time between Saddam's defeat in 1991 at the hands of the American-led coalition and the point in 1992 when bin Laden conducted bombings in Yemen and got involved in Somalian efforts against the US in 1993. Shanker reveals only in the last two paragraphs that the Iraqis reached out to bin Laden in 1994 and met with him in 1994 and February 1995.

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

So we have evidence that Saddam himself approved approaching bin Laden and his terrorist organization -- not the other way around, as some have reported -- and agreed to collaborate on propaganda designed to create unrest in Saudi Arabia. At least two meetings between the IIS and al-Qaeda took place in the Sudan, where discussion of the means of conducting attacks on American assets in the region took place and specific proposals for such brought back to Baghdad. While these efforts took place before most civilians had heard of Osama and al-Qaeda, security experts certainly knew that AQ was a terrorist organization responsible for attacks on Americans, and Saddam sought OBL out specifically for that reason.

Under these circumstances, not only would it be reasonable to conclude that Saddam and al-Qaeda had a collaborative relationship, but that the more pressure the West put on Saddam to knuckle under, the more likely that collaboration would blossom into proxy attacks on the US and its allies. With the vast fortune and resources of Saddam supporting al-Qaeda, reasonable and prudent people would conclude that resolving the twelve-year quagmire in Iraq had to be a top priority after Afghanistan.

The Times makes this curious statement a few paragraphs into the story:

The new document, which appears to have circulated only since April, was provided to The New York Times several weeks ago, before the commission's report was released. Since obtaining the document, The Times has interviewed several military, intelligence and United States government officials in Washington and Baghdad to determine that the government considered it authentic.

So the Times has had in its possession a document that details contacts and collaboration which it determined that the government found authentic, and still editorialized about the purported dishonesty of Bush and Cheney? Obviously, someone's being dishonest, but more and more it looks like the supposed defenders of truth at the Gray Lady.

UPDATE: Brant at SWLiP also notices the hypocrisies in the Times article:

The whole article is in this same vein of wanting desperately to bury one's head in the sand. The writer makes no effort to account for a number of contradictions. For example, there's this oddity early in the piece:

American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden's organization, before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization.

But the article also asserts that the first key meeting occurred in 1994, which was after the first WTC bombing. Wasn't Al Qaeda involved in the first WTC bombing, and wasn't one of the bombers given safe haven in Iraq?

And the article notes, without a trace of irony:

The document details a time before any of the spectacular anti-American terrorist strikes attributed to Al Qaeda: the two American Embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998, the strike on the destroyer Cole in Yemeni waters in 2000, and the Sept. 11 attacks.

I suppose that the writer meant for us to draw the conclusion that, since these contacts occurred in an age of relative innocence (during Clinton's first term, actually -- why hasn't the Left come up with a theory that Bin Laden only went "bad" after the Republican takeover of Congress?). But a more sensible conclusion is that these contacts marked the early stages of a collaboration.

It depends on the definition of sensible. If one's ultimate motivation is truth, then Brant is correct. If one's ultimate motivation is to commit libel in order to keep Bush from being elected, you get the Times' article.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! I've also cross-posted this at Oh, That Liberal Media. Be sure to bookmark and/or blogroll both of our sites.

La Fonda: The No-Lose Scenario

When I moved out to Minnesota seven years ago from California, one thing I knew I would miss is the great Mexican cuisine readily available throughout my home state. You can't hardly drive a mile in the LA area without passing a Mexican restaurant of at least moderate adequacy. Here in the Great White North, however, finding anything worthwhile is well-nigh impossible. For one thing, beef dishes rarely feature anything other than ground beef instead of the far-superior shredded beef, and in some places, the ground beef is left unseasoned. Most of the suburban restaurants use the store-bought hard shells for their tacos, even the Don Pablos chain, at least until recently.

By far the worst experience I had occurred before I'd even moved out here. Well-meaning friends took me to a local eatery called La Fonda's, which (as luck would have it) is located around the corner from the house we bought the next year. When we walked in, I could tell the place was a dive. Cheap tables, tiny plastic tumblers for drinks that you'd use for your youngsters, and the food was just ... atrocious. I ordered a beef enchilada and was presented with a tortilla wrapped around plain ground beef that looked and tasted as if it had just come out of the microwave, with a splash of cheap enchilada sauce. The taco was even worse, with a stale hard shell and a few strings of lettuce and cheese on top. The chips were the best thing about the meal -- mostly because I love Fritos, even right out of the bag.

Ever since, for the last eight years, I have recounted my experience at La Fonda's as a warning to friends and family about Minnesota Mexican cuisine, even after other, new restaurants improved the local situation. I swore I'd never return to La Fonda's despite its convenience. However, since my sister came to town this week and has the same twisted sense of adventure that I do, we decided to have one really bad Mexican-food meal that we could gripe about later on. I even took my digital camera with me to record the catastrophe.

I was in for a huge shock.

When I walked in, I couldn't believe it was the same place. The interior had been completely renovated and appeared inviting. We sat down, still giggling about the notion of deliberately eating bad food just for a laugh, and when the chips arrived, we rolled our eyes. While the Fritos had disappeared, their replacements seemed just as bag-bought ... but at least they scooped the salsa well, and the salsa had some kick.

My sister ordered the fajitas, and I was tempted to do the same, but I thought that if I wanted to make sure I had their worst effort, fajitas weren't going to do it. Instead, I ordered a trio combo of a cheese & onion enchilada, chile relleno, and beef tamale. As I told my sister, I fully expected to leave the restaurant hungry.

However, when the plates arrived, I could hardly believe my eyes. My plate, as you can see in the slightly shaky picture here, looked like ... Mexican food! (I turned off the flash after startling the couple next to us on a test picture. Yes, I got some strange looks.) Not only had La Fonda not skimped on sauce, but the cheese overflowed from every entree, and the beans and rice, which I just sample, even looked good. I broke open the steaming tamale to find shredded, seasoned beef!

Didn't these guys know we were in Minnesota?

My sister's fajitas came a moment later. Piled high with chicken, onions, and bell peppers, it easily outstripped the three tortillas that came with the meal, and would have outstripped the two extras the waitress brought as well. Sis says the fajitas were terrific, and the quick bite I had seemed to bear that out.

Now I felt pretty danged foolish. I had promised my sister a really lousy time, and instead stumbled onto a good Mexican restaurant in the suburbs. How could I have made such a terrible error? The waitress told me that the ownership changed hands a couple of years ago, and the new owners closed it for awhile for a remodel and revamp. So, while I spent the last couple of years bitching about the lack of good Mexican cuisine, I drove by La Fonda's every day to go to and from work.

What an idiot.

If you're in Eagan, check out La Fonda. I won't say it's the height of Mexican cuisine -- a couple of places in the Twin Cities are actually pretty good -- but this turned out to be an unexpected pleasure.

I'm Not Bragging Or Anything, But ...

My sister just bought my son a physics textbook off of his Amazon wish list, and we've all had a pretty good laugh reading one of the reviews. First, you have to understand that my son considers this his pleasure reading for the summer ... and you'll understand why we're all laughing.

Proudly laughing, my sister adds ... but laughing just the same.

The first few chapters (homotopy, homology) are rather dry, but the text picks up after that. The manifold chapter is really good, particularly the Lie groups section which gives a geometric viewpoint of the objects which get very little attention in a typical particle physics course. Unfortunately, nothing is said on representation theory, but that can be found in Georgi's book. The cohomology chapter is wonderfully quick and to the point. I found myself having to tell myself to slow down because of the excitement I had in reading it.

Can you feel the excitement? That chapter on cohomology sounds gripping!

The Riemannian geometry chapter reads wonderfully and serves as a great reference for all those general relativity formulae you always forget.

Right along with my keys ...

The end of that chapter has an exquisite little bit on spinors in curved spacetime. The complex geometry chapter is also wonderful. I find myself going back to it all the time when reading Polchinski's string text. The chapters on fiber bundles seem a bit on the overly mathy side, but then again, all the pain is in the definitions which becomes well worth it in the end.

Sounds vaguely R-rated, doesn't it?

I haven't read the last few chapters (spending all of my time in Polchinski!) but I definitely will when I have some spare time. The notation in Nakahara is also really self explanatory and standard. It is written with the physicist in mind who doesn't mind a bit of sloppiness or ambiguity in his notation.

With regards to Frankel, Nakahara is much more modular than Frankel. Each chapter of Nakahara is pretty much self contained whereas Frankel kinda needs to be read straight through. I find it very difficult to just look up a random thing in Frankel and learn about it on the spot, whereas this seems to work in Nakahara just fine. Frankel is a bit more respectful of proper mathematics which also makes it a harder text to read for physicists.

Nakahara is a great text. When I visited Caltech I noticed it on the bookshelf of every theorist that I talked to. Anyone who wants to understand how it is that geometry is so important in modern theoretical physics would do himself a favor in buying this book.

Well, don't all line up at once ...

AP: SCOTUS Divided Into Conservatives And "Moderates"

In an otherwise dry report on an esoteric Supreme Court ruling, the AP injects a little bit of bias into the story. In describing the split court on the 5-4 decision to deny the appeal of death-row prisoners sentenced to death by judges rather than jurors prior to the SCOTUS ruling against such processes, reporter Gina Holland notes:

Chief Justice H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas agreed with Scalia.

On the other side were four of the court's more moderate justices [emph. mine -- CE]: John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

In fact, only Souter among these could reasonably be described as a moderate, and most observers consider O'Connor and Kennedy the moderates at the Supreme Court. Stevens and Ginsburg have always been unabashed liberal activists on the bench, and Breyer only somewhat less so. As we have seen so often, the "moderates" in fact determined the outcome of this case, a decision with which I disagree, mostly because I oppose the death penalty anyway.

In order to see the liberal trio as "moderates", one has to be approaching the bench from the far left. Not only is the description completely incorrect, it's irrelevant and superfluous. One has to wonder what Holland's editor was thinking.

Somehow, I Feel Dirty

I'm not really following the Laci Peterson trial, since (a) I'm not a relative of the victim, (b) I don't live in her community, and (c) the media has spent so much time blowing it out of all proportion that I'm getting flashback nightmares of the OJ trial. However, I do follow the media, and Romanesko links to a story at SFGate regarding the juror who just got the boot from the judge -- and the media maelstrom that ensued:

The same media people who maligned Juror No. 5 a few days ago, threw themselves at him Wednesday.

News producers grabbed at him, television bookers blocked his path and reporters stuck cell phones to his ears with famous talk-show hosts murmuring sweet nothings on the other end.

He was wooed with promises of limo rides, hotel rooms and round-trip fares to New York with his whole family. He was even offered a Metallica CD. And all they wanted in return was for him to appear on their morning programs, talk shows and round-table discussions.

Bear in mind that this is the same person who, despite explicit instructions from the judge, conversed with one of the family members in attendance, so we're not talking about a legal genius here. The media quoted Justin Falconer yesterday as expressing his doubts about Peterson's guilt, even though the trial has just begun, and expressing his opinion that pregnant women are crazy. Despite these less-than-stellar qualifications, media outlets went into a feeding frenzy as soon as he was released from his obligations:

Like hawkers at a Turkish bazaar, the media tried to sell him on themselves. A producer from Court TV pleaded with him to go on the air. Someone shouted, "That's Nancy Grace's station. She's the woman your girlfriend wants to kick the crap out of."

The Court TV producer fired back, "Come on, Justin. Take her on."

A booker from the "Today Show" was shouting: "Me. Me. Me." Greta Van Susteren was on the phone, and a Fox producer pushed the cellular to Falconer's ear.

Someone was offering to pick Falconer up at his house and drive him to the studio. He said almost horrified, "You're not coming to my home."

"We'll put you up at the Marriott, then," yelled someone else. "Do you like that hotel?"

I'm surprised that the networks didn't bring on some dancing girls and booze, although it's not clear that didn't happen; perhaps the folks at the Chronicle simply spared us from that spectacle. Apparently, fans of the media, like those who love sausage and the law, need to shade their eyes when news is being made. Especially when the news is non-news like a disqualified juror on a trial that's eating up way too much attention as it is.

UPDATE: Here's the transcript from Larry King with media-star-for-a-day Falconer, explaining the comment about expectant mothers:

KING: I didn't see this but someone said that you made a strange comment today, that pregnant women are crazy. Did you say that and if so, what did you mean?

FALCONER: Now I'm going to have every woman on the planet mad at me. No, I just meant that they're emotional. Women are emotional during pregnancy and their activities can be crazy. The way that they act because one minute they can be completely upset, emotional, not want to move and then the next day they're out shopping or running around, and very very physically active. So the comment that I made was crazy, it wasn't meant like that. Please don't take it that way.

Yeah, well, thanks for that explanation, Justin.

Florida To Tax Home Networks

Wired carries a report this morning from Michelle Delio that the state of Florida, in order to recover lost revenues from businesses that use their own networking architecture rather than the local phone companies (and the tax they carry), enacted a law taxing the do-it-yourselfers. Now the state is considering applying that law to homeowners who string wires between their PCs:

Florida state officials are considering taxing home networks that have more than one computer, under a modified 1985 state law that was intended to tax the few businesses that used internal communication networks instead of the local telephone company.

Officials from Florida's Department of Revenue held a meeting on Tuesday to see whether the law would apply to wired households, and exactly who would be taxed. About 200 people attended, including community and business representatives. ...

The law is so broad that it would apply to networked computers, wireless services, two-way radios and even fax machines -- or "substitute communications systems," as the state calls them. The tax would be applicable (PDF) to the costs of operating such a substitute communications system, not to the purchase of the system's components.

Well, thank the Lord I don't live in Florida -- I have both a hardwired and wireless network inside my house. I can't think of a dumber application for tax revenue than computer networking. First off, the components tend to be a little pricey, which creates sales-tax revenues. People use these networks to shop on line and create their own revenue, which brings in taxes on both. Most of the people I know create these networks to take advantage of their broadband internet connections -- most of which have their own state and federal tax anyway.

However, as Delio notes, all considerations of logic and proportion go out the window when the state looks at the potential $1 billion in revenue an expansion of the network tax would bring. It's another example of the junkie nature of government at all levels; like any other addict, all they care about is their next fix.

An Angry Tenet Fires Back

After the release of a scathing report by the House Intelligence Committee calling the CIA "dysfunctional" and on the verge of incompetence, outgoing DCI George Tenet fired back in an angry letter to the committee's chairman, Porter Goss:

Outgoing CIA Director George Tenet has fired off an angry letter to the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, after the committee issued a scathing report criticizing the agency's human intelligence gathering as "dysfunctional" and averse to risk.

"Dysfunctional organizations do not perform the way the Directorate of Operations performed in Afghanistan and in support of the military in Iraq before and after the conflict," Tenet wrote to Rep. Porter Goss.

"Dysfunctional organizations do not take down or eliminate the most dangerous proliferators in the world ... nor do they aid in the disarmament of a country like Libya. To suggest that the organization that was key to all these victories, not to mention the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and more than two thirds of the al Qaeda leadership, is on the verge of being incapable of the 'slightest bit of success' is frankly absurd."

The report oddly criticized the CIA for being too focused on counterterrorism and counterproliferation efforts, which should raise some eyebrows after the treatment the CIA (and the Administration) got from the 9/11 Commission. In nan age of Islamofascist terror, the focus has to remain on counterterrorism -- in fact, the only way to prevent another 9/11 is the maintenance of a high alert from Homeland Security and the CIA. Tenet agrees:

"Countering the threat from terrorism is, of course, and should be, at the top of the CIA's list of collection priorities," the report said. "But the Central Intelligence Agency must continue to be much more than just the 'Central Counterterrorism Agency' if America is to be truly secure, prosperous and free."

To that, Tenet responded in his letter that "I find it hard to accept that any serious observer would believe, as the committee apparently does, that there is an unhealthy emphasis on counterterrorism and counterproliferation efforts."

Perhaps if the committee feels that too much effort is being spent on counterterrorism, they could provide more funding for other efforts instead of advising the CIA to reduce its counterterror operations. Their report loses credibility on this point, and one can understand why Tenet got angry reading it. Perhaps it would be instructive for Porter Goss and the rest of the House Intelligence Commitee to hear from their constituents about their feelings on the importance of counterterrorism.

Iraqi Terrorists Stage Desparate Attacks

Iraqi terrorists staged a wave of coordinated attacks across Iraq today, six days before the CPA transfers sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government that intends on establishing a representative democracy in the heart of the Middle East:

Rebels bent on disrupting a handover to Iraqi rule bloodied five cities Thursday with coordinated assaults on local security forces in which about 75 people, including three U.S. soldiers, were killed. The violence in Baquba, Falluja, Ramadi, Mosul and Baghdad intensified a sustained campaign by Iraqi insurgents and foreign militants to sabotage Iraq's formal transition from U.S.-led occupation to an interim government in six days' time.

Scores of black-clad gunmen, some claiming loyalty to Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, attacked a police station and other government buildings in Baquba, 60 km (40 miles) northwest of Baghdad, in a dawn assault. A U.S. military spokesman said two American soldiers had been killed in an ambush. U.S. forces had responded with air strikes after gunmen captured the civic center and attacked another government building. Two insurgents were killed.

Many of the fighters wore yellow headbands bearing the name of a Muslim militant group "Saraya al-Tawhid and Jihad" (Battalions of Unification and Holy War). They handed out leaflets warning Iraqis not to "collaborate" with Americans.

"The flesh of collaborators is tastier than that of Americans," the leaflets said.

None of this surprises observers. In fact, George Bush has warned Americans and Iraqis that the violence was likely to crescendo as the transfer date drew near, as groups such as Zarqawi's attempt to do all they can to derail the nascent Iraqi state. Nor is this tactic anything new to Islamofascists. Israel was rewarded for its Oslo and Wye River land-for-peace concessions by the intifada, launched by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Any time, any place where peace threatens to break out, Islamofascists intend on ensuring the continuation of war through the terrorization of civilian populations.

This single-minded pursuit of murder and death is one of the main reasons that Bush has stuck to the June 30 transfer date. While some people consider that too soon, and some have thought so all along, once the date was set, it became critical for us to meet it. Not only would a pushback damage our credibility in the region, it would reward the terrorists by responding to their provocations. It would, in effect, put them in charge of Iraqi sovereignty, just as the PA has allowed Hamas and Islamic Jihad control over Palestinian autonomy by refusing to deal with them (and likely collaborating with them) and advance the peace process.

We will still be on the ground in Iraq after June 30, providing security while the new government builds its own police and army to handle it. But the Iraqis will be in charge of Iraq, not the CPA, and the terrorists will not be able to stop that.

McCain-Feingold's First (Really) Big Victim?

The DC newspaper The Hill reports that the FEC may decide that Michael Moore's new film, Fahrenheit 9/11, qualifies as a political advertisement on behalf of John Kerry and is therefore subject to the same restrictions on advertising as any political commercial (via Drudge):

In a draft advisory opinion placed on the FEC’s agenda for today’s meeting, the agency’s general counsel states that political documentary filmmakers may not air television or radio ads referring to federal candidates within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.

The opinion is generated under the new McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, which prohibits corporate-funded ads that identify a federal candidate before a primary or general election.

The proscription is broadly defined. Section 100.29 of the federal election regulations defines restricted corporate-funded ads as those that identify a candidate by his “name, nickname, photograph or drawing” or make it “otherwise apparent through an unambiguous reference.”

The new campaign-finance regulation now allows the FEC to act as a censor board, at least in terms of advertising for films, and they may just be getting started. F-9/11 is not the only film to fall under the FEC's increased scrutiny, either, and all of the other documentaries mentioned in the article target George Bush. (Well, there's a shocker.) Upcoming films such as Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War, The Corporation (an anti-capitalist screed), and even a John Sayles film called Silver City which criticizes the Bush administration may be prevented from advertising its films on television and radio after July 30.

Conservatives and libertarians predicted exactly this kind of mischief when McCain-Feingold was being debated. In fact, we assumed the Supreme Court would have predicted this outcome, among many deleterious possibilities, when it reviewed the constitutionality of the measure. Instead, SCOTUS and Congress cut a substantial portion of our freedom away for the dubious goal of removing money from politics -- and what benefit have we seen? Massive check-writing by billionaires like George Soros who publicly state their desire to buy the election and massive growth in unaccountable 527s like Americans Coming Together, who plan on spending $100 million to send sex offenders and thieves to your door.

Quite frankly, although I may chortle with glee to see Moore run into the FEC buzzsaw, I'm not delerious enough to agree with the process just on the basis of that outcome. McCain-Feingold suppresses free speech, it's designed to suppress free speech, and if the first victims lack sympathy, it doesn't mean that the next ones will. Moore and Sayles should be allowed to advertise their films, just as Americans should be allowed to exercise their unfettered rights to political speech and political action. The FEC needs to enforce the law as written in order to see it destroyed.

A Poor Response

The AP has updated its story on the use of convicted felons in door-to-door canvassing for Democratic voter registration drives by Americans Coming Together. The story now includes a response from the Kerry campaign, which figures to be the beneficiary of ACT's $100 million effort this election cycle, a response that certainly does nothing to bolster confidence in Kerry's concern for public safety:

Although it works against the re-election of President Bush, ACT is an independent group not affiliated with Kerry's campaign — federal law forbids such coordination. Yet ACT is stocked with veteran Democratic political operatives, many with past ties to Kerry and his advisers.

Allison Dobson, a spokeswoman with the Kerry campaign, said there is no coordination with ACT, and of the policy: "We're unaware of it and have nothing to do with it."

The Kerry campaign site's press-release page doesn't mention it at all. Instead, today's entries cover the Senator's position on increasing international participation in Iraq and, unbelievably, a scolding essay on HMOs. John Kerry wants to argue about health care while his allies send convicted sex offenders and thieves to your house to get your personal information!

I fully understand the necessity of not coordinating with 527s, but as ACT apparently has received the funding necessary to do the lion's share of the Democrats' voter-registration drives this cycle, it falls to party leadership to let us know in no uncertain terms whether they intend to tolerate ACT's dangerous policies. Does the former district attorney think that hiring sex offenders, burglars, and other assorted felons to handle your identity information and visit your families is the best policy for maintaining public safety? After his election, does Kerry plan on using the same people into law-enforcement and other sensitive government positions, and if not, why do the Democrats countenance their involvement now?

I think that giving opportunities to ex-cons can be admirable, as long as the situations remain controlled and the potential for public harm is kept to a minimum. Let the felons work in the office, answering phones and coordinating logistics for events, but keep them away from my house, my family, and my identification. If John Kerry and the Democrats can't understand this basic concept, then it confirms their poor understanding of security and law enforcement. If Kerry understands it but simply refuses to take action to protect us (or even declare his disapproval), then it's even worse -- it demonstrates a willingness to sell us out for his personal gain.

Kerry's Dukakis Moment?

The Kerry campaign will scramble this afternoon with this AP report that one of their critical support groups has hired convicted felons -- in some cases, sex offenders -- to conduct door-to-door voter registration drives:

A Democratic group crucial to John Kerry's presidential campaign has paid felons — some convicted of sex offenses, assault and burglary — to conduct door-to-door voter registration drives in at least three election swing states.

America Coming Together, contending that convicted criminals deserve a second chance in society, employs felons as voter canvassers in major metropolitan areas in Missouri, Florida, Ohio and perhaps in other states among the 17 it is targeting in its drive. Some of the felons lived in halfway houses, and at least four returned to prison. ...

Although it works against the re-election of President Bush, ACT is an independent group not affiliated with the Kerry campaign — federal law forbids such coordination. Yet ACT is stocked with veteran Democratic political operatives, many with past ties to Kerry and his advisers.

ACT responded by expressing its belief that convicted felons deserve a second chance in society and that former armed robbers and sex offenders present no extraordinary risk if they show up at your door:

ACT does not believe the felons it sends door to door pose a threat to the public, said Mo Elleithee, a Washington-based spokesman for the group. "We believe it's important to give people a second chance," Elleithee said. "The fact that they are willing to do this work is a fairly serious indication that they want to become productive members of society."

I want to believe that I'm writing this as a satire, but I'm not. Apparently, the Democrats feel very comfortable sending sex offenders, burglars, and drug dealers to the door of your house to get such information from you as your telephone number, Social Security number, and driver's license number. I agree that someone who has served their time deserves another chance, but that doesn't mean I want my kids or my granddaughter meeting them at the door, nor do I want my private information in their hands.

What could ACT be thinking? They have $100 million in funding -- apparently they must be a 527 -- which means they can afford to hire people who haven't been convicted of violent crimes to approach houses looking to register new voters. ACT instead acts with callous disregard for the safety of the public, offering us as a sacrifice on the altar of political correctness. The Kerry campaign has to answer for this breach of common sense. Is this how Kerry plans on "protecting America"? Next he'll be hiring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to run the Department of Homeland Security.

Now that I know this, I plan on bolting my door whenever anyone knocks on my door and identifies themselves as working to register Democrats. I suggest that you do the same. Your safety and your family's safety may be at risk.

UPDATE: Longtime reader Pennywit, who often provides intelligent counterpoint in the comments section, agrees with me in principle but feels I am being a bit of an alarmist. I don't think so, but then again, I'm telling y'all to bolt the doors, so ... Pennywit has sent an e-mail to ACT asking them seven questions to clarify the issue, and has promised to let me know if/when they respond.

Here's my problem with ACT. First, they act as though this presents no problem whatsoever, and uses as proof the desire of the felons to do the work to demonstrate their rehabilitation. No one at ACT seems to realize the attraction a legitimate excuse to approach peoples' homes holds for those who later may want to burglarize them (gives them a great opportunity to case the place, doesn't it?), or for sexual offenders to identify potential future victims. The personal data given for voter registrations can easily be used for identity theft as well, a non-violent but highly destructive crime, as its victims can attest.

The AP article makes clear that ACT hires these former felons to do the actual canvassing and to handle the information gleaned from the effort. To what extent felons do the actual work is anyone's guess; ACT wouldn't answer that question for the AP reporter. In the absence of such hard data, and with the $100 million in funding that ACT plans on using this year, it's a safe guess that their efforts will drive most of the voter registration efforts of the Democrats, and I suppose it's up to us to guess the danger.

In other words, since I live in Minnesota, and since my wife is visually impaired and home alone for parts of the day, I'd say locking the door and putting up the NO SOLICITORS sign is hardly being alarmist. In fact, it's good policy.

Washington Post's Crystal Ball A Little Cloudy

Thanks to alert reader Paul Escalona from Trenton, NJ, the Washington Post has been caught in another instance of allowing its editorial bias creep into its news reporting. In today's story about the brutal beheading of a South Korean interpreter by al-Qaeda terrorists, the Post makes this odd statement:

But Kim's death appeared almost certain to broaden opposition in South Korea to the country's already unpopular involvement in Iraq. Public opinion polls show that more than 56 percent of the population opposes the troop deployment. More than a thousand South Koreans took to the streets for a second day on Tuesday, demanding a withdrawal from Iraq, while hundreds more took part in candlelight vigils for Kim.

That passage precedes quotes from two South Koreans, who apparently agree with Jackie Spinner and Anthony Faiola's assertion that the killing should spark renewed calls for appeasement. However, the Post does not give any explanation about how such a groundswell of opposition might arise, other than the conjecture of the reporters. As Amy Ridenour notes at the excellent National Center blog:

A well-edited, objective paper would have run the beheading murder and the Abu Ghraib update as separate stories. The story about Kim Sun Il's beheading belonged on page one. The minor update on judicial proceedings against U.S. soldiers charged in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal belonged deep inside the paper, assuming it belonged in the paper at all.

The same article reported that "Kim's death appeared almost certain to broaden opposition in South Korea to the country's already unpopular involvement in Iraq," but the Post did not explain why it believes this is so. A good editor would have removed the assertion, or required support for it within the text.

And as Mr. Escalona notes, the Post's assertion appears to be flat-out incorrect anyway. The Asia Times reports that Abu al-Zarqawi's murdering thugs have enraged the South Koreans, and they want more engagement, not less:

The execution has galvanized the people, pushing many into the deployment camp. Preliminary surveys indicate a 20+% jump in the number of respondents who now support the government's plans [emph mine - CE].

Once again, we see the mainstream press pushing its editorial policies in the news section and making predictions, which belong in analyses and editorials and not in news stories.

Finally, A Newspaper With Guts

Today's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review contains an apologia from the editor, Frank Craig, regarding his decision to carry photographs of the decapitated body of American Pual Johnson, a hostage of al-Qaeda who was brutally murdered earlier. Not many news outlets carried the photographs of Johnson, but just about every broadsheet and media Internet site carried photo after photo of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and Craig won't tolerate the hypocrisy any longer:

Like many newspapers and magazines, we previously published a photo of a smiling Pennsylvania soldier leaning over a corpse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. I felt that image was important to see, because it inarguably conveyed the cruelty that occurred there. ...

I decided to publish the letter and its photos on an inside page, in black-and-white rather than in color and in a scale far reduced from the original size, to somewhat minimize its gruesome impact. I added a translation of the terrorists' statement. I placed a note prominently on Page 1 to warn readers of the material inside. ... Because the statement with its photos - issued so casually, like some bland press release - demonstrate compellingly the brutality, the inhumanity, and the deadly danger of the enemy we face. Words alone could not fully convey the cold-blooded savagery of this graphic declaration, with its gloating tone and its threat of more such acts.

Three cheers for Frank Craig and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. I notice that not only do Abu Ghraib pictures regularly appear on news sites accompanying a story on the abuse, but often appear with stories whose only relation is that they come from Iraq. The AP feed on Yahoo! is particularly egregious in this regard; one story on the selection of Allawi as PM had the notorious picture of the detainee standing on a box under a poncho, with wires attached to him. Nowhere in the story was Abu Ghraib discussed; the picture just served as a mute reminder of the editorial bent of either the AP of Yahoo!.

If we are strong enough to see the pictures from Abu Ghraib, which I believe we are, then we need to see the pictures of the work of our enemies as well. The savage brutality of their handiwork doesn't disqualify from publication -- in fact, that's the point. Only then will the American public understand the nature of the people who want to kill Americans by the thousands, regardless of location or political stripe. Frank Craig understands this. Too bad more editors do not.

Who Asked You?

Senator Joe Biden really knows how to wear out a welcome, according to Reliable Source, the quasi-gossip column for politics edited by Richard Leiber in the Washington Post. Leiber notes the following report from the upcoming issue of Rolling Stone:

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) might not be invited back to the Oval Office anytime soon to do his Donald Trump imitation. In May he dispensed blunt advice to President Bush on whom he would fire. As Biden recounts in the new Rolling Stone:

"I turned to Vice President Cheney, who was there, and I said, 'Mr. Vice President, I wouldn't keep you if it weren't constitutionally required.' I turned back to the president and said, 'Mr. President, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld are bright guys, really patriotic, but they've been dead wrong on every major piece of advice they've given you. That's why I'd get rid of them, Mr. President . . .' They said nothing. Just sat like big old bullfrogs on a log and looked at me."

Their silence probably resulted from shock at the rude nature of Biden's uninvited advice. Either that, or they were trying to remember when Neil Kinnock said those words before. The funniest part of the story is that Biden tells it himself, trying to make himself look good to Rolling Stone, when all it demonstrates is the arrogance and hostility that the opposition has shown towards the Republicans, and not just recently, either.

If George Bush needed advice -- even from a Democratic leader -- would he select Joe Biden as his sounding board, or perhaps someone who hasn't spent the last three years cheering on his party to new heights of obstructionism? (via Wonkette)

INDC Journal Goes Undercover

If you haven't yet read INDC Journal's new post, Moonbats In The Mist, you have to check it out now. Bill does an anthropological study of anti-war protesters, bringing along a couple of (virtual) partners, and the results are hilarious:

Reminder: This INDC Science Series is best appreciated if my portions of the narration are read aloud with an Australian or Queen's English accent. Thank you.

Good day, my fellow moonbat watchers and amateur scientists! The Spring and Summer moonbat season has really got into full swing here in Washington, DC, and I recently had an opportunity to witness a significant gathering of countercultural species in Lafayette Park, a popular moonbat greenspace located directly across from the White House.

Like any good anthropologist, Bill took plenty of pictures, so you can understand the narrative that much better. Be sure to check out this excellent, National-Geographic level analysis of tribal life; it's sure to be a blogosphere classic. And next time, Bill, invite me along for the ride ...

In 'My Life', They Love Him Less

Bill Clinton's new autobiography, My Life, should have had a ready-made audience, at least among the left-leaning intelligentsia. After all, his presidency still remains the gold standard for the left, eight years of supposed peace and prosperity that turned out to be an illusion, one revealed to us all on 9/11 as the culmination of a series of attacks in a war we refused to recognize being waged against us during his presidency.

At any rate, his personal popularity remains high among the literati, which one would expect to receive his new book with heightened sympathy. If this was ever so, then it speaks even more ill of Clinton's efforts. The New York Times, which still spends prodigious amounts of ink defending his presidency, savaged My Life earlier this week:

The book, which weighs in at more than 950 pages, is sloppy, self-indulgent and often eye-crossingly dull — the sound of one man prattling away, not for the reader, but for himself and some distant recording angel of history.

In many ways, the book is a mirror of Mr. Clinton's presidency: lack of discipline leading to squandered opportunities; high expectations, undermined by self-indulgence and scattered concentration.

Now the Washington Post has weighed in on the weighty tome (950 pages) in not one but two reviews in today's edition, and neither of them differ much from the Times' Michiko Kakutani. In its lead editorial, the Post notes the prerogative of former presidents to write self-serving memoirs, but casts My Life as an "alternative universe":

Mr. Clinton's new book, "My Life," is also part of a long effort on its author's part to deny, and not just breeze over, his profound disrespect for the law when it inconvenienced him.

In Mr. Clinton's alternate universe, in which many Democrats have also decided to live, his impeachment reflects nothing bad on him but is -- as he put it recently -- "a badge of honor," a defense of the Constitution against the ravages of his Republican enemies. So even as Mr. Clinton's book overflows with apology for his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, the former president still seems indignant that anyone would have investigated his public misconduct -- that is, his lies under oath, including to a grand jury, and other affronts to the justice system. In fact, you wouldn't know from reading Mr. Clinton's book that he had lied under oath, much less that he had at least tacitly encouraged others to as well.

The editorial ends with a caveat emptor warning, one to which Anne Applebaum adds her own caution, although she acknowledges in her summary that it probably won't make much difference:

It isn't just that it's dull, like so many political memoirs, or that the sections on Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky are weirdly abrupt and uninformative; it's utterly lacking in perspective. Apparently, Clinton dawdled over the book for several years, concentrating on his childhood, and wound up racing to finish the final, presidential chapters this spring. The haste shows. On Page 689, to take a random example, Clinton mentions his veto of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, his veto of the Republican budget, his submission of his own "seven-year balanced budget plan," a conversation with Shimon Peres about a plan to cede territory to the Palestinians, the agreement to end the Bosnian war, an encounter with Slobodan Milosevic, and Chelsea Clinton's appearance in the "Nutcracker" -- all in five paragraphs. ...

For all his faith that he is on "the right side of history," he doesn't engage much with his policy opponents at all, or even acknowledge that they have any arguments worth engaging. The comparison to another former president is impossible to avoid: Maybe Ronald Reagan thought air pollution came from trees, but in the end he stared down the Soviet Union, and that's what he was remembered for. Clinton, by contrast, has left us with mind-numbing lists of foreign trips, throwaway references to long-forgotten political battles, meetings with the pope, Rabin, Yeltsin, whoever. Because there is no central argument, no clear explanation of what his presidency was about, one is left, in the end, with nothing other than an emotional reaction to the man himself -- as always.

Much has been made of the fact that this former Rhodes scholar wrote the book himself, longhand, rather than rely on a ghost writer or biographer for the heavy lifting. However, had anyone remembered Clinton's predilection for self-aggrandizement, they would have considered a ghost writer to be the remedy for heavy lifting at the end of the process.

And this is what Clinton's natural allies say about his book. Imagine what his old opponents will be saying about it ... if they can manage to finish it.

Iran: Second Thoughts Or Point Made?

Bowing to international pressure -- or simply having made its point -- the Iranian government announced it would release eight British sailors and Marines captured in the waterway shared by Iran and Iraq:

Iran says it has released eight British sailors detained for illegally entering Iranian waters, according to The Associated Press news agency.

Three British boats were stopped and the eight British service members -- two sailors and six marines -- were detained Monday after Iran said they crossed into its territorial waters in the Shatt al-Arab waterway.

"The eight British sailors, including six soldiers and two ranking military officials, have been released," a Iranian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman told AP.

After making threats yesterday to put the eight on trial for illegal incursions into Iranian territory, it appeared that the Islamic Republic had deliberately attempted to start a diplomatic row with the UK, and by association the US. However, the rather sudden reversal either indicates that the mullahs have had a change of heart -- as I pointed out yesterday, neither Tony Blair nor George Bush could be confused with Jimmy Carter -- or they already got the intended result, which was a big splash in the international news media.

It's also possible that the UK cut a deal for the detainees' release, although I highly doubt that any such negotiation would have taken place this quickly. My guess is that the mullahs got cold feet after gauging the Western response. I think we can expect to see a heightened security response along the Shatt al-Arab waterway, and it's possible that the Iranians may try the same thing again later.

AP Indulging In Moral Relativism

The AP reports today that the US has retaliated against Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in an airstrike earlier today for the beheading of Kim Sun-Il. Zarqawi's Monotheism and Jihad terror cell also threatened to continue assassination attempts against Iyad Allawi, the interim Iraqi PM:

U.S. forces launched an airstrike targeting militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi after his group beheaded a South Korean who had pleaded "I don't want to die" in a heart-wrenching videotape. Another audio recording purportedly made by al-Zarqawi and found online Wednesday threatened to kill Iraq's interim prime minister. ...

Al-Zarqawi's Monotheism and Jihad movement is believed to be behind Tuesday's slaying of Kim Sun-il, the third foreign hostage decapitated in the Middle East in little over a month.

So how does the AP describe the murder of Kim? By describing how he was dressed, in a somewhat subtle attempt to draw parallels between the treatment of hostages by AQ fanatics and detainees by Americans:

The Arabic language satellite television channel Al-Jazeera broadcast a videotape of a terrified Kim kneeling, blindfolded and wearing an orange jumpsuit similar to those issued to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba [emph. mine].

Kim's shoulders were heaving, his mouth open and moving as if he were gulping air and sobbing. Five hooded and armed men stood behind him, one with a big knife slipped in his belt.

I'm a bit surprised that Robert Reid couldn't find a way to squeeze in a mention of Abu Ghraib, but you know how it is working under a deadline. Perhaps Reid doesn't know that many prisons and jails in the US also use orange jumpsuits; maybe Zarqawi just likes the color orange. What the hell does Guantanamo have to do with the beheading of civilians? Is this truly what the AP thinks -- that somehow our detention of fighters out of uniform during the Afghan campaign somehow equates, or is even similar, to al-Qaeda kidnappings and beheadings of civilians in Iraq? If so, let them have the guts to print it outright instead of making cowardly references like the one in this piece.

Blogenheit 551?

My Northern Alliance colleague and all-around great guy, John "Rocket Man" Hinderaker, has agreed to appear in a new documentary on Minnesota bloggers, along with Scott "Big Trunk" Johnson. The documentarian is a blogger himself at the left-wing site Blogumentary, and he has already announced the interview on his site, sounding a bit nervous:

I reassured him that I'm no Michael Moore, and I'm not out to make anyone look bad. Conservative blogs represent a huge chunk of the blogosphere, and I would be remiss not to include them and their perspective. I'm fortunate (err, as a blog filmmaker) to live in a state chock full of prominent right-wing blogs: The Northern Alliance of Blogs.

Wish me luck.

Come on, man, we don't bite! (They're lawyers. They sue. It's worse.) I suspect he may be more nervous about the response from his regular readers, though. I noticed that this was his only post where he has disabled comments.

Problems with free speech on the left?

UPDATE: Chuck has reopened comments after explaining why he needed to close them briefly. (Hey, it happens to all of us.) It looks like Chuck has a good sense of humor and fair play, so Rocket and Trunk should be in good hands. I'll post more when Chuck's ready to release the film.

No Ties?

Either this qualifies as a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden or, as Glenn Reynolds says, it demonstrates a lot more foresight and media savvy than Bush's critics may be willing to credit him (also via reader Soybomb):

February 13, 1999 Web posted at: 10:55 a.m. EST (1547 GMT)

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday.

Bin Laden's whereabouts were not known, said the sources who declined to be identified. ...

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers. [emph. mine -- C.E.]

Glenn also points out this Guardian article from the week before that:

By Julian Borger in Washington Saturday February 6, 1999 The Guardian

Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.
The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.

So the geniuses on the 9/11 Commission have all the power of the federal government at their disposal and can't even do a Lexis-Nexis search? And if the commissioners are idiots, what does that say for CNN and the Guardian, who have acted incredulous at the notion of Iraqi-AQ collaboration?

Wanted: Fawning Strangers, No Experience Necessary

Glenn Reynolds points out a want ad in the New York Times Job Market section that may explain the enthusiastic crowds lining up to buy My Life, the new autobiography by Bill Clinton:

Job title: Part Time/Temporary Employer: Confidential Date Posted: 06-20-2004

Description: P/T CLINTON BOOK TOUR People needed immed Tu 6/22 & Wed 6/ 23, to work at book signing. Cash paid.

No word in the ad as to how many positions were open, but it certainly appears to be a very short job. Do you suppose the job paid a "living wage," or do you think they cheaped out and paid minimum?

Caption Contest #15 Winners!

The judge has made the selections for this week's Captain's Caption Contest! Cameron Wood, the writer of the fine blog Way Off Bass, has had to wade through a number of excellent entries (and some non-judge voting, for that matter!) in order to come up with these great winners.

Just to refresh everyone's memory first, here's the picture:

Captain's Award (Goin' Large) -- Thief:

"This is John. John recently talked to his doctor about Enzyte, the once a day pill for natural male enhancement. Now John has a fresh burst of confidence, rising poll numbers, and a very happy missus on the campaign trail."

You Have The Conn #1 (People's Choice Award) - Wacky Hermit:

"In an effort to show his multilateralism through solidarity with the Iraqi insurgents, John Kerry demonstrates the technique of using women as human shields." (a special good luck to the very-much-ready-to-give-birth Wacky Hermit!)

You Have The Conn #2 (Me ... and my ATM) -- LRFD:

"Presidential candidate John Kerry discovers that if he squeezes his wife hard enough, money pops out."

You Have The Conn #3 (His Life, Not Mine) -- Mattezuma:

"If I win I get my own interns? Bill was telling me how great they are!"

The Hills Are Alive, With Bastardized Music (in the Sick Bay) -- Retired Military:

to the tune of "American Pie"

A long, long time ago,
I can still remember
How tax hikes used to make me smile
And I knew if I had my chance,
That I could make the welfare recipients dance
And maybe they'd be happy for a while

But global warming made me shiver,
With every promise I'd deliver
Bad news on the doorstep,
Higher poll numbers from brother Jeb

I can't remember if I cried
When I read about how Benvenista lied.
But something touched me deep inside
The day my presidency died

(the rest is in the extended entry -- he actually wrote all eight verses)

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 Cameron'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 Way Off Bass, 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.

*Chorus*

So bye, bye Kerry’s Presidency
Drove his SUV to the French Riveeeriaeeee
And them good old boys had Cognac in them
Singing if only those voters had chosen Dem
Kerry would be Pres instead of him

Did you write the Harris poll
And do you have faith in AlGore
If the DNC tells you so?
Now, do you believe in taxing more
Can John McCain save your mortal soul
And can you teach me to nuance real slow?

Well, I know the public is in love with him
'Cause I saw the soldiers cheering in the gym
Everyone kicked off their shoes,
Man they dig ribs and bbq!

I was a lonely Senate smuck
With a NOW button and a Suburban truck
But I knew that I was out of luck
The day the my presidency died

I started singing

*Chorus*

Now for thirty years I’ve been out of Vietnam,
And Swift boat captains dropped the truth bomb
But that's not how it used to be
When I testified before the Senate Committee
About atrocities and my fellow recruits
I tossed my ribbons and my medals too

And while Howard Dean was looking down,
I stole his nomination crown
Congress was adjourned,
No sixty voters were returned

And while Bill read "My Life" on a lark,
And Nadar practiced in the park
We all sang “Hail Mother Russia” in the dark
The day the my presidency died

We were singing

*Chorus*

Saddam confessed in the summer swelter
WMD came out of the fall out shelter
Ten tons of Sarin and mustard gas
It made me look like an ass
The DNC tried for a Toricelli pass
While I was in the polls and fading fast

Now, the October air had a foul perfume
While Osama was caught singing a tune
We all cried "This was a staged surprise",
Oh, but we never got the polls to rise
'Cause the voters went to the polls
Elected Conservatives by the droves
Do you recall what was revealed
The day my presidency died?

We started singing

*Chorus*

Oh, and there we were in Boston city
A generation lost in obscurity
With no time left to start again
So come on, Bill be nimble,
Bill be quick
Hillary get off that Senate stick
Because the left is the devil's only friend

Oh, and as I watched Bush on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage
No flip flop or lie that I could tell
Could break that Texan's spell

And as the blue states numbers climbed high in the night
To give rise to the Conservative right
I saw Hillary laughing with such delight
Saying “There's always 08 for me”

She was singing

*Chorus*

I saw Teresa singing the blues
And I asked her for some happy news...
But she served the divorce papers and turned away
I went down to Moveon.org
Where I'd heard the lies for months before
But George Soros said “Why dont you just go away”

And in France, Chirac just screamed
The terrorists cried and Michael Moore schemed
But not a word was spoken
All their hopes had been broken

And the three men I admire most
Fidel, Kim Il Sung and Stalin's ghost
They caught the last train for the coast
The day my presidency died

And they were singing

Bye, bye Kerry’s Presidency
Drove his SUV to the French Riveeeriaeeee
And them good old boys had Cognac in them
Singing if only those voters had chosen Dem
Kerry would be Pres instead of him

Pvt. Dwayne Turner: "No One's Going To Die On My Watch"

Reader Peyton Randolph sent me a link to this story. It again demonstrates the courage and excellence of the men and women serving this grateful nation.

FORT CAMPBELL, Ky., Feb. 11, 2004 - A 101st Airborne Division soldier who, despite being critically wounded himself, repeatedly exposed himself to enemy fire to treat wounded comrades in Iraq received the Silver Star here Feb. 5.

Pvt. Dwayne Turner, a combat medic assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 3rd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, provided life-saving medical care to 16 fellow soldiers April 13 when his unit came under a grenade and small-arms attack 30 miles south of Baghdad.

Turner and two other medics from Company A of that battalion were part of a work detail that came under attack as they unloaded supplies in a makeshift operations center.

"I moved to (my vehicle) just before the first grenade came over the wall," Turner said. "The blast threw me even further into the vehicle, and I took on some shrapnel."

Ignoring his own injuries, Turner ran to the front of his vehicle and saw a soldier with eye injuries.

"I checked him out, and tried to get him into a building," Turner said. The other two medics established a triage system under the cover of a building while Turner ran back outside to bring more soldiers into the makeshift clinic.

"I just started assessing the situation, seeing who was hurt, giving them first aid and pulling them into safety," he said, downplaying his actions on that day.

Turner, his legs wounded by shrapnel in the initial attack, was shot at least twice while giving first aid to the soldiers.

"I didn't realize I was shot," he said. "A couple of times, I heard bullets going by, but I thought they were just kicking up rocks on me."

At one point during the attack, one of Turner's fellow medics told him he was bleeding. "Someone told me, 'Doc Turner, Doc Turner, you're bleeding.'" he said. "I looked down at my leg and saw I was bleeding, and kind of said, 'Oh hell, if I'm not dead yet, I guess I'm not dying.'"

"I don't think he realized how much blood he lost," said Sgt. Neil Mulvaney, from the same unit as Turner.

"After I got the first patient inside the building, I sort of slumped down in the corner," Turner said. "I didn't think there was any way we were going to get out of there, and it would have been really easy to just stay in that corner.

"Then I heard (the wounded) calling for medics," he continued, "and I realized I could let them continue to get hurt -- and possibly die -- and not come home to their families, or I could do something about it."

Turner chose to do something about it. He continued to give first aid and to bring soldiers in from the barrage of gunfire outside the compound until he finally collapsed against a wall from loss of blood. A bullet had broken his right arm. He had been shot in the left leg. Shrapnel had torn into both of his legs.

The Silver Star is awarded for gallantry in combat, but Turner does not see himself as a hero.

"Nobody gets left behind," he said emphatically. "We were the medical personnel on hand. You're not relieved from your duty until someone comes. No one else was going to get the job done, so we did."

Although Turner downplays his heroism, the Army believes that at least two of the 16 soldiers he treated would have died had he not been there.

"He risked his life for 16 other men without noticing his own injuries - that's heroism in my book," Mulvaney said.

"I was just doing my job," Turner insisted. "As far as the values of the Army, it's not to 'earn' a Silver Star; it's to uphold what you signed on for. Other people may see me as a hero; I see myself as doing my job. No one is going to die on my watch." Turner's Silver Star is the highest award given to any 101st soldier during Operation Iraqi Freedom thus far. He received the Purple Heart in July.

Thank you, Private Turner.

A Young Protestor's Story

Many people, especially in the media, comment that this generation lacks either courage or convictions. However, as we can see in our men and women in the armed forces, that certainly cannot be true; too many of them have voluntarily put their lives on the line in defense of freedom and their country. Ah, but that's a small percentage, naysayers will tell you. Universities and colleges abound with apathy or worse, as activists seem to fade from sight.

Perhaps they're fading because people don't want to hear the message they support. Longtime reader Brian Scott e-mailed me today with the story of Bryan Henderson, a high-school conservative who decided to risk the wrath of his classmates and his teachers to protest the leftist indoctrination he received at school:

At the end of the day, my fellow PW chapter members and I felt it was time to fight back and strike at the public education indoctrination machine that seemed to be running out of control. Our school desperately needed some ideological balance, so we decided that the next day we would up the ante and place 500 signs in the halls of the school.

I got to a quick start the next morning ... and just when we posted about 200 of our 500 signs, we heard a rustling around the corner. Upon investigating the noise, we found a fellow student tearing the signs from the wall and ripping them into shreds. We made no attempt to stop her, but she quickly abandoned her pursuit when I removed my camera from my backpack. Apparently, her being conscious of her own hypocrisy was not enough to prevent her from forcibly suppressing our dissenting point-of-view. But facing the prospect that others might be made aware of her hypocrisy, and it's cut-and-run. Typical.

Replacing the fallen signs we ran into a teacher who didn't find the signs appropriate, objecting to their pro-war message. She then told me that if I was responsible for placing them I would have to take them down. After I refused, her true colors came shining through. Abandoning her pacifist ways she summarily began to tear down the signs from the wall. My fellow ProtestWarriors and I sat back and photographed the action.

Since I was the "ring leader" (as if we were some sort of street gang), I was escorted to the office while the remaining signs were confiscated. However, the fight did not end there.

Bryan has a number of pictures from his protest, including that of teachers tearing down his posters, students agitating against Bryan's "hatred", and a very believable account of threats made against him by both other teens and an adult who injected herself into the maelstrom. Be sure to read the entire article. Even though I think a couple of his handouts were unnecessarily incendiary, Bryan shows exactly how to stage an intelligent and legally defensible protest. It's a great story.

UPDATE: Bryan's not the only one; Athena is making her mom and dad proud by standing up for what she believes in, too.

Memos: Rumsfeld Disapproved "Waterboarding", Other Coercive Techniques

CNN reports that internal memos about to be released by the Pentagon regarding interrogation methods will show that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld specifically denied approval to such techniques as "waterboarding" and other strongly coercive physical measures, and in fact only approved light, noninjurious physical contact:

The White House and Pentagon are expected to release a series of memos Tuesday related to U.S. military policy on prisoner interrogation and the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

The release of the Pentagon memos will show that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld never approved a controversial interrogation technique called "water boarding," according to a source who had told CNN the opposite on Monday.

The senior defense official who provided the original information to CNN now says Rumsfeld only approved "mild, noninjurious physical contact" with a high-level al Qaeda detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and specifically did not approve a request to use water boarding.

CNN's source apparently has changed its story on Rumsfeld. The media has held Rumsfeld personally responsible for the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal, in part because Pentagon sources such as CNN's had implicated Rumsfeld in the approval of harshly coercive techniques under controlled conditions. Instead, the same source now says that Rumsfeld received requests to approve four different techniques on high-ranking al-Qaeda detainees, and only approved the mildest:

The list of requested aggressive tactics included:

* Use of scenario to convince the detainee that death or severe pain could be imminent for him or his family

* Exposure to cold weather or water

* Use of a wet towel or dripping water to induce a perception of suffocating.

* And mild noninjurious physical contact such as grabbing someone's arm, poking them in the chest or light shoving.

Only tactic number four, mild noninjurious physical contact, was approved.

Expect to see the memos roundly ignored by a national media that has invested too much effort and ink into the notion that Rumsfeld and Bush intended a full-scale rollback of the Geneva Conventions. While I am sure they will cover the story, I suspect you'll need to look in the back end of the news sections to read much about it, and the broadcast news services will avoid it as much as possible.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! I've also cross-posted this at Oh, That Liberal Media, a group blog dedicated to media bias and malpractice. Be sure to check it out.

UPDATE II: Rocket Man from Power Line notes that the media may be missing an opportunity to paint the administration as soft on terror:

I hate to disillusion liberals, but as a trial lawyer, I routinely use two of those four techniques in cross-examining witnesses, and I use at least one of the other two on my children. Frankly, I find it appalling that those in charge of terrorist prisoners may only "reward or remove privileges from detainees" with the permission of the Secretary of Defense. If the Democrats had any sense, they would argue that these documents indict the administration as soft on terrorists.

Hmmm ... I recall using the first on numerous occasions with my son ... should I expect a call from the World Court sometime soon?

Have They Gone Mad?

Reuters reports that the Iranian mullahs apparently intend to inflame tensions even further in the Gulf region. Yesterday they captured three British patrol boats and held eight British sailors prisoner. Diplomatic scuttlebutt implied that the Iranians just wanted to make sure everyone knew that they had an eye on the CPA in Iraq and that the sailors would be shortly released. Now, however, the Iranians have decided to try the soldiers for violating Iranian waters:

Iran will prosecute eight British naval personnel seized in its waters, state television said on Tuesday, turning what seemed a minor border incident into a serious diplomatic spat. ... The eight were arrested on Monday on the Shatt al-Arab waterway which marks the southern stretch of Iraq's border with Iran. Britain said the group were training Iraqi police and were delivering a boat to an Iraqi river patrol.

Quoting unnamed Iranian military sources, Iran's Arabic language news channel al Alam said the men would be prosecuted on charges of "illegally entering Iran's waters."

Unlike the US, the British have maintained diplomatic relations with the mullahcracy in Iran, attempting to keep a line open into the heart of Islamofascism. Instead of operating with some flexibility for the British, the Iranians have paid the Brits back by humiliating them on the world stage and promises of more embarrassment by staging show trials of their servicemen. It's the 1979 hostage crisis redux, instead this time the captives are British ... and the Anglo-American leaders aren't Jimmy Carter and James Callaghan.

Someone needs to take the temperature of the mullahs who signed off on this idea. First, it is widely accepted that the source of most support for Islamofascist terror, especially in Israel and Southwest Asia, is the Islamic Republic of Iran. They continue to intrigue in southern Iraq, mostly to failure with Moqtada al-Sadr, but have built up four divisions on its border with Iraq as well. They fund and host Hezb' Allah and provide support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Some intelligence reports that Iran has provided material assistance to al-Qaeda, and Iran itself admitted having AQ leadership "in custody" at one point in 2002. In a war on terror, Iran will at some point rise to the top of the target list if they continue this pattern.

Given all of that, and throwing in the strongly-worded IAEA report that Iran has not been forthcoming in its compliance with nuclear nonproliferation agreements, and it seems as though the mullahs are almost begging for a military engagement with the West. Perhaps they think that the nascent Iranian nuclear program will provide some deterrence, but trying prisoners captured in uniform is an act of war, and Tony Blair and George Bush have already shown little patience for such provocations. Expect to see the UK ramp up the diplomatic pressure and perhaps even introduce a UNSC resolution demanding the release and promising significant consequences for refusal.

The mullahs may have begun the process of Iranian liberation, although I doubt they'll appreciate the irony.

UPDATE: Not mad at all, at least not according to National Review's Michael Ledeen:

... [I]f an Iranian action seems stupid, you're probably misinterpreting it. There's a perfectly straightforward explanation for the whole episode: The Brits were laying down a network of sensors to detect the movement of ships toward major Iraqi oil terminals. The Iranians considered that a bit of a threat. So they attacked.

And why, you might ask, did the Iranians feel threatened?

Because they were planning to attack (or have their surrogates attack) the oil terminals, silly.

And why attack the oil terminals?

Because they want to defeat President Bush in November, and they figure if they can get the price of oil up to around $60 a barrel, he'll lose to Kerry. Not to mention a considerable side benefit: At $60 a barrel, they can buy whatever they may be lacking to get their atomic bombs up and running.

It's not that hard to understand the mullahs once you learn to think as they do, and understand their hopes and fears.

It sounds plausible, but if the Iranians think that they can continue to control the Brits by publicly humiliating them (as Ledeen claims), I think the mullahs may be in for a bit of a surprise. I also think that the US may start patrolling the waterway, just in case Ledeen and the mullahs are right.

Republican Senate Candidate Aims For Libertarian Vote

GOP hopeful Jack Ryan, currently slated to run against Democrat Barack Obama for the Senate seat being vacated by retiring Republican Peter Fiztgerald, has seen his candidacy blow up with the unsealing of his divorce records from TV star Jeri Lynn Ryan of "Star Trek: Voyager" and "Boston Public". Jack Ryan apparently did not sufficiently prepare GOP party leaders for the revelations contained in his ex-wife's filings:

Before Republican U.S. Senate candidate Jack Ryan finished a news conference in which he discussed allegations by his former wife that he pressured her to have sex in clubs while others watched, calls for him to get out of the race began. ...

Jeri Lynn Ryan charged during a custody hearing that Ryan took her on surprise trips to New Orleans, New York and Paris in 1998, and that he insisted she go to sex clubs with him on each trip. She said that after going out to dinner with Ryan in New York, he demanded that she go to a club with him.

"It was a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling,'' she said. She said Ryan asked her to perform a sexual act while others watched, and she refused.

She said they left and Ryan apologized to her and said it was out of his system. But then, she said, he took her to Paris and again took her to a sex club. She said she cried and became physically ill at the club, and her husband got angry with her. She said she could never get over that incident.

Divorce cases, especially those involving young children, often generate extreme accusations in order to push judges into treating their claims sympathetically. Anything contained in such filings should be taken with a grain of salt, especially since in this case, both Ryans fought the release of the information. Chicago media outlets sued the California court for the information and Judge Robert Schnider agreed to make it public even though it would damage the Ryans' young son and would obviously impact Jack Ryan's election chances. Given all of that, it's not terribly clear why Judge Schnider would agree to unseal the affadavits; it looks like a pretty poor decision to me. If this is the only issue to come out of these files, I see no compelling reason to violate the Ryans' privacy in this manner.

All of that being said, the public revelation has shown Ryan to be less than honest with his GOP supporters. Ryan initially told party leaders that the files contained nothing more damaging than a mention of a club visit in Paris that they left by mutual agreement when the entertainment turned overtly sexual. Republican officials and supporters trusted Ryan when he made that claim, and that trust has obviously been abused. While the core issues involved in their divorce have little relevance to Ryan's candidacy, his attempt to cover up what he knew would damage both himself and the state GOP should cause Illinois Republicans to reconsider Ryan as an effective candidate in the fall. Some already are:

U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Peoria, said Ryan needs to quit the campaign for the good of himself, his family and his party.

"There's no way the people of Illinois are going to countenance this behavior from a Senate candidate from the Republican Party,'' LaHood said.

Former Gov. Jim Edgar also distanced himself from supportive comments made earlier on Monday, before documents containing the allegations by Ryan's former wife, actress Jeri Lynn Ryan, were released. Edgar had said he had talked to Ryan about the custody documents related to the Ryans' divorce and was satisfied that they contained nothing "monumental'' and "we ought to move on.''

But after the documents were released, an aide said Edgar had not been given a full description of what was in the divorce files.

One voice that has remained quiet, so far, is that of Barack Obama, Ryan's opponent in the general election. The television station's web report notes that Obama's office declined to return phone calls from the media on this subject. It might indicate that Obama has more political savvy than Ryan, adhering to the rule that when one's opponent is intent on self-destruction, the best strategy is to get out of his way.

UPDATE: More here, including more evidence of feelings of betrayal among the local GOP:

Ryan refused requests from his opponents to release the file, saying it could harm his son and only dealt with custody matters. At one point, State Republican Party Chairwoman Judy Baar Topinka said she asked him flatly whether there was anything embarrassing in the file. Topinka said Ryan assured her there was not.

"I consider him an honest man and I take him at his word," she said shortly before the primary, which Ryan won over seven opponents.

On Monday, a source close to Topinka, who is also the state treasurer, said she felt Ryan had misled her. "She stuck her neck out for him and he assured her nothing in those files was embarrassing to him or to the Republican Party," the source said. "There's a general feeling by a lot of people that they've been lied to."

The AP reports that Ryan intends to stay in the race. Expect that to change. Republicans police their own ranks, and I expect that within a week or two, Ryan will pull out and another candidate will be found to run against Obama.

Besides ... would you vote for a guy who needs more stimulation than this?

Nader Picks Running Mate From California

Independent candidate and potential spoiler Ralph Nader made two major announcements yesterday, selecting his running mate and announcing his openness to the Green Party endorsement in the fall. For his dance partner in November, Nader selected Peter Camejo, a man who once ran for President with the Socialists and who was last seen vying for Gray Davis' job in the California recall:

Nader's selection of Camejo gives further shape to a left-leaning, antiwar campaign many Democrats fear will spoil their effort to unseat President Bush.

It bolstered Nader's quest to win an endorsement from the Greens at their national convention, which begins Wednesday in Milwaukee. If Nader succeeds, he could win ballot access in 22 states — including California — and the District of Columbia.

Camejo also improves Nader's access to an important constituency. A fluent Spanish speaker of Venezuelan descent, Camejo plans to campaign vigorously for Latino votes coveted by Democrats and Republicans.

For all those reasons, many Democrats were unsettled by the emergence of a Nader-Camejo ticket.

Appearing to reverse his earlier abandonment of the Greens, Nader now embraces any party that wishes to endorse his candidacy:

But no sooner had Mr. Nader announced Mr. Camejo's selection in Washington than he upstaged it by saying that he would accept the party's endorsement if offered.

He said he would continue to run as an independent but welcomed support from alternative parties because his campaign, he said, aimed to be "an ecumenical gathering of third parties."

Nader has reached back towards the Green Party he seemed to spurn last year when he announced his candidacy in selecting Camejo. The erstwhile gubernatorial candidate from 2003 has been one of the Greens' most visible activists in California and his inclusion on Nader's ticket helps to build a bridge to another outside group, or in this case, rebuild it. Garnering the support of the Green Party would allow Nader automatic ballot access in 22 states, making his once-Quixotic quest to appear on all 50 ballots almost a certainty.

Nader's selection of a prominent Hispanic activist threatens both parties, but leaves the Democrats especially vulnerable. Democrats have long counted on Hispanic voters for their overwhelming support, but in this election cycle, it looks like the Republicans may be successful in peeling off the more conservative Hispanic voters. Pollsters (the reliable ones) had already said that the GOP could be competitive among this demographic in November. Now, with Nader selecting Camejo and his Green connection raising the probability of Nader appearing on every ballot, the Democrats face a real squeeze from the left, and not just among Hispanics.

Addendum: The Los Angeles Times' Nick Anderson and Susannah Rosenblatt do a good job of presenting Camejo and the dynamics of his selection. However, the New York Times' analysis, presented by Mark Glassman, anemically avoids his ethnicity and its potential impact on the election as well as any reaction from the Democrats. Instead, Glassman settles for a single quote from one Green Party member that still rejects Nader. If this is what passes for analysis at the Gray Lady these days, it looks like their staff can mail it in for the next four months.

WaPo/ABC Poll: Skip It

The new Washington Post/ABC Poll released yesterday is yet another poorly sampled poll in a season full of pretenders. In this case, the WaPo/ABC sample was not the most reliable type, likely voters, or even registered voters; it was the least reliable indicator of elections, "randomly selected adults":

Public anxiety over mounting casualties in Iraq and doubts about long-term consequences of the war continue to rise and have helped to erase President Bush's once-formidable advantage over Sen. John F. Kerry concerning who is best able to deal with terrorist threats, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Exactly half the country now approves of the way Bush is managing the U.S. war on terrorism, down 13 percentage points since April, according to the poll. Barely two months ago, Bush comfortably led Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, by 21 points when voters were asked which man they trusted to deal with the terrorist threat. Today the country is evenly divided, with 48 percent preferring Kerry and 47 percent favoring Bush.

One has to wonder why large media organizations would go out of their way to conduct an election poll by using the least reliable sample. It's not like their pollsters were too busy to limit responses to likely voters. In fact, out of 1201 adults polled for this study, only 1015 of them described themselves as registered voters, meaning that they were asking the question. It shows that 18.3% of their sample are ineligible to vote, undermining the credibility of their conclusions and the pollster's motivations.

Based on this data, it appears that the Post and ABC conducted a poll for a specific result, trying to drive the story they want to write. Their results differ wildly from other polling from more reliable samples, which show Bush ahead by a thin margin (Pew) or more substantial (the somewhat-suspect Harris Poll). Once again, we have news organizations more interested in making the news up rather than reporting reality.

Kerry Takes Tainted Money, Returns It

Howard Kurtz (scroll way down) thinks this will be a problem for John Kerry:

John Kerry's campaign collected a maximum $2,000 check from the recently arrested son of South Korea's disgraced former president, and some of its fund-raisers met several times with a South Korean government official who was trying to organize a Korean-American political group.

The Kerry campaign said it did not know about the $2,000 donation from Chun Jae-yong or his background until informed by The Associated Press and has decided to return the money to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

"We are sending the check back," spokesman Michael Meehan said.

Eh. I don't share Kurtz's interest in this story. For one thing, according to the story, the Kerry campaign attempted to vet this donation as good as could be expected, especially in the heat of a fundraising hurricane. Now that they've discovered the problem, they're returning the money. As far as organizing the political-action group, that's hardly an issue for the Kerry campaign, it's a problem for the PACs raising funds.

For my money, this one's a yawner. If you want to talk about shady fundraising on Kerry's behalf, take a look at these stories and get back to me.

The Failure Of European Socialism

If anyone in the United States points out the relative stagnation of the European economy in relation to ours, that person would be castigated as a closed-minded Americacentric demagogue. Fortunately, as yesterday's OpinionJournal article informs us, the Europeans have reached much the same conclusion. A new study by Sweden -- a bastion of cradle-to-grave nanny-statism -- shows that the European standard of living has fallen far off the pace of American life:

The study, "The EU vs. USA," was done by a pair of economists--Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag--for the Swedish think tank Timbro. It found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita. Most European countries would rank below the U.S. average, as the chart below shows. ... U.S. GDP per capita was a whopping 32% higher than the EU average in 2000, and the gap hasn't closed since. It is so wide that if the U.S. economy had frozen in place at 2000 levels while Europe grew, the Continent would still require years to catch up. Ireland, which has lower tax burdens and fewer regulations than the rest of the EU, would be the first but only by 2005. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, and Britain would get there by 2010. But Germany and Spain would need until 2015, while Italy, Sweden and Portugal would have to wait until 2022.

Not only does Germany's GDP barely surpass that of Arkansas, one of the poorer states in the US, but the standard of living of our poor almost outstrips that of the European average. For instance, those Americans designated as living in poverty dwell in a space averaging 1200 square feet, while Europeans as a whole average 1000 square feet. 77% of Americans living in poverty have air conditioning, a luury item in Europe and the lack of which in France led to over 15,000 deaths last summer, during a prolonged heat wave.

Why are the standards for these highly industrialized nations lagging so far behind the US? The study's authors conclude that their "expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states" probably has caused their economic progress to lag. As the editorial notes, this is hardly a cause for celebration in the US. For one thing, the poor GDP keeps Europe from contributing to its own defense and the overall defense of the West, and that's hardly likely to change when the new EU ossifies the nanny state across the entire continent. The "guaranteed" entitlements provide little motivation for innovation and production; although this means that the US continues to lead in innovation, the creative gap will continue to exacerbate hard feelings on both sides of the Atlantic, as we have seen with various merger proposals such as GE-Honeywell being shot down by the EU. Lastly, the easy lure of the nanny state continues to exert a sort of siren's call for the American Left, and Europe's now-obvious decline -- even to Europeans -- may not be enough to keep such programs from being enacted here in the name of economic normalization.

The Timbro study should give the Western nations a much-needed slap to awaken them to the realities of socialism. Let's hope the slap is hard enough to keep them awake. (via Memeorandum, where you can not only get the hottest stories in the blogosphere, but also see the reactions from both right and left)

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: We Were Wrong

Jack Kelly at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette makes an extraordinary claim in today's edition -- that they bungled the coverage of the interim staff report from the 9/11 Commission. What's even more interesting is their review of the media coverage surrounding the report:

On Thursday, the lead headline in the Post-Gazette was "Saddam, al-Qaida Not Linked. Sept. 11 Panel's Conclusion at Odds with Administration." In the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that day, the banner headline read: "9/11 Panel Debunks Saddam Link. Report: No Evidence of al-Qaida Ties."

This was false, as the chair and vice chair of the 9/11 commission hastened to make clear. ...

The Post-Gazette and Tribune-Review were by no means alone in getting the story wrong. The erroneous PG story Thursday was from The Washington Post. The story we ran Friday, headlined "Bush, Cheney Defend Linking Iraq, al-Qaida" -- which avoided mentioning that both the chairman and co-chairman of the 9/11 commission agreed with Bush --was from The New York Times.

The Gray Lady and the Post seem to be the sources of all the misleading and corrupt journalism on the Zelikow report, but as Kelly points out, they're hardly in it alone:

Television news was worse. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann began his broadcast Wednesday night with the announcement: "Memo to the vice president: 9/11 commission finds, quote 'no credible evidence,' unquote, of any link between al-Qaida and Iraq." CBS's John Roberts said the Bush administration "took a devastating hit when the 9/11 commission declared there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. The report is yet another blow to the president's credibility."

Either all of these people simply take marching orders from the NY Times or they don't bother to read their source material very carefully, and likely the problem is a combination of both. I especially enjoy the revelation of Olbermann as an empty suit; easily one of the most arrogant and self-righteous talking heads on TV, he has revealed himself here as a poseur in opposition to his carefully cultivated populist-intellectual image. Perhaps he couldn't find anyone in the studio to explain the big words in the Zelikow report to him, but in any case, he can't claim that he read the actual report before going on air.

Kelly, meanwhile, uses a great analogy that demonstrates the folly of relying on a lack of evidence to connect Saddam to the 9/11 attack in order to undermine the argument for the war in Iraq:

Reasonable people can differ on how significant were the linkages between Saddam and al-Qaida. But it is certainly possible for linkages to be dangerous even if one party is not privy to the operational planning of the other. Nazi Germany and Tojo's Japan had a "collaborative relationship" before and during World War II which was, to put it mildly, troublesome for the United States, even though there is "no credible evidence" that Hitler was involved in planning the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Iraq provided money, weapons, training and safe harbor to al-Qaida and other terror groups. The 9/11 commission concluded that the support Saddam pro-offered wasn't as extensive as Osama bin Laden desired, but it was extensive enough to cause reasonable people to conclude that Iraq's support for terror was a danger to the United States.

Exactly. What the "no connection" argument holds, even after the statement by Vladimir Putin last week, was that because Saddam had not yet launched a terror attack in the US -- or more accurately, that we had no evidence of his participation in such an attack -- somehow that means we needed to stand idly by until such time as he did so. That argument should have died on 9/11, along with 3,000 Americans left vulnerable because our government, through successive administrations, insisted on treating Islamofascist terror as a criminal matter rather than as a war. Those who espouse the notion that we had to wait until Saddam struck not only display a fundamental disconnect with the reality of war but also the danger of WMD. One sarin shell contained enough material to kill tens of thousands of people, up to 15 times the toll of 9/11.

Still feel like waiting around? The media apparently does. The New York Times, CBS News, and Keith Olbermann may actually be bad for your health, and Jack Kelly provides the warning label. Read the whole thing.

AQ Accuses Saudis Of Assisting Johnson Abduction

According to an al-Qaeda website, sympathizers within the Saudi security forces assisted the AQ abduction of Paul Johnson, both materially and tactically, CNN reports:

Islamic militants who abducted and beheaded American engineer Paul Johnson say sympathetic Saudi security forces aided their kidnapping operation with police uniforms and vehicles -- an allegation a top Saudi official denied. ...

In a lengthy narrative about the kidnapping that was posted Sunday on the Islamist Web site Voice of Jihad, Johnson's kidnappers said they stopped his car at a fake checkpoint, transferred him to another car and took him to another location.

The VoJ site claimed that security forces supplied the terrorists with uniforms and vehicles as well as some operational security for the abduction in a scenario that some had already hypothesized. The Saudis, predictably, refuted the notion:

But Adel al-Jubeir, the foreign policy adviser to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, told CNN the claim fell "in the realm of fiction."

"It's very easy to obtain police uniforms, military uniforms," he told CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. "You go to a surplus store, and you get all you want." ... "The notion that our security services are infiltrated by the terrorists really doesn't hold," he said. "If that were the case, they would not be going after soft targets. They would be going after government installations."

Al-Jubeir is probably right. First and foremost, if the AQ cells were receiving assistance from security forces, why would they advertise it? It seems to me to be a classic misdirection tactic -- get the security apparatus to waste time chasing its own tail while AQ does what it pleases during the confusion. Somewhat like the Nazi strategy of putting on American uniforms during the Winter Offensive of 1944, it attempts to undermine the authority of actual police and military personnel while they wreak havoc. Revealing actual methods of attacks and abductions, however, just to make a few headlines is too stupid and shortsighted for even these lunatics.

Safire: 9/11 Commission "Manipulated" By Runaway Staff

In his column today, William Safire excoriates the 9/11 Commission (well, who isn't?) for allowing its staff to issue an incendiary interim report without any of the commissioners' signatures or, for that matter, supporting evidence. Safire points out the enthusiasm demonstrated by the broadsheets -- including his own -- in trumpeting the fallacious conclusions reached by staff partisans such as Philip Zelikow:

"Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie" went the Times headline. "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed" front-paged The Washington Post. The A.P. led with the thrilling words "Bluntly contradicting the Bush Administration, the commission. . . ." This understandably caused my editorial-page colleagues to draw the conclusion that "there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. . . ."

All wrong. The basis for the hoo-ha was not a judgment of the panel of commissioners appointed to investigate the 9/11 attacks. As reporters noted below the headlines, it was an interim report of the commission's runaway staff, headed by the ex-N.S.C. aide Philip Zelikow. After Vice President Dick Cheney's outraged objection, the staff's sweeping conclusion was soon disavowed by both commission chairman Tom Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton.

Safire asks what can be done to rescue the commission's non-partisan standing. In my opinion, nothing. Commissioners spend their time making allegations on national talk shows that demonstrate little difference in tone or accuracy from the Zelikow report. Safire writes as if the staff suddenly went in a completely different direction than their leaders, but that's not the case. The commissioners themselves clearly made this a partisan process, at least during the public hearings, as they took turns outdoing each other in emoting outrage at members of the current administration, and in some cases at the survivors of the 9/11 attacks, in order to garner headlines. At the same time, they received witnesses who served under previous administrations -- when the bulk of the planning and preparation for the attacks took place -- as visiting dignitaries. They publicly chastised Condolleezza Rice for not testifying in front of cameras on subjects of a highly sensitive nature, even though she offered to give as much testimony as needed in camera. Commissioners implied that George Bush wanted to avoid them, forgetting the Constitutional issues implied in Presidential testimony, and then one of the most vocal members couldn't be bothered to stick around for Bush's testimony.

In all, the 9/11 Commission may well wind up as the most partisan, incompetent, and self-aggrandizing special-function panel in DC history, truly a remarkable accomplishment but one which Congress did not foresee. Safire offers these suggestions for its rescue, but I rather doubt that they'll be adopted, and even if they are that they will contain the damage:

1. Require every member to sign off on every word that the commission releases, or write and sign a minority report. No more "staff conclusions" without presenting supporting evidence, pro and con.

2. Set the record straight, in evidentiary detail, on every contact known between Iraq and terrorist groups, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's operations in Iraq. Include the basis for the Clinton-era "cooperating in weapons development" statement.

3. Despite the prejudgment announced yesterday by Kean and Democratic partisan Richard Ben-Veniste dismissing Mohammed Atta's reported meeting in Prague with an Iraqi spymaster, fairly spell out all the evidence that led to George Tenet's "not proven or disproven" testimony. (Start with www.edwardjayepstein.com.)

4. Show how the failure to retaliate after the attack on the U.S.S. Cole affected 9/11, how removing the director of central intelligence from running the C.I.A. would work, and how Congress's intelligence oversight failed abysmally.

5. Stop wasting time posturing on television and get involved writing a defensible commission report.

Good luck on getting any of these adopted, Bill, especially the last one.

9/11 Commission Wakes Up, Smells Coffee

The Washington Post reports in tomorrow's edition that the 9/11 Commission has just heard about new evidence supporting the Bush administration's contention that the Saddam Hussein regime had serious connections to al-Qaeda:

The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has been told "a very prominent member" of al Qaeda served as an officer in Saddam Hussein's militia, a panel member said yesterday. Republican commissioner John Lehman told NBC's "Meet the Press" that the new intelligence, if proved true, buttresses claims by the Bush administration of ties between Iraq and the militant network believed responsible for the attacks on the United States. ...

"Some of these documents indicate that [there was] at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al Qaeda," Lehman said. "That still has to be confirmed, but the vice president was right when he said that he may have things that we don't yet have," said Lehman, a former Navy secretary.

If this sounds familiar, it should -- you read it here on my blog three weeks ago, and prior to that in the Wall Street Journal:

One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.

This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. The U.S. has never been sure whether he was there on behalf of the Iraqi regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamicist who hooked up with al Qaeda on his own.

The story has also been covered by reporter Stephen Hayes, both in the Weekly Standard and in his excellent book on Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda and Islamofascist terrorists in general, The Connection. The fact that John Lehman and the rest of the 9/11 Commission had no clue about Shakir until this weekend underscores the incompetence of this supposed blue-ribbon committee. How could they have not known of Shakir and his connections to both al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime? The 9/11 Commission had no idea about intelligence reports that Americans can read on the newstand and in the bookstores?

What have these commissioners been reading during their investigation? Mother Jones and the funny pages?

UPDATE: More reactions from the commission. Reuters reports that Richard Ben-Veniste, one of the partisan hacks on the panel, told NBC that he hoped Cheney would provide information "on a current basis ... with respect to the individual that John Lehman has talked about." The report includes Republican co-chair Thomas Kean's wish that someone get them the information, and fast:

"Obviously, if there is any information (that) has to do with the subject of the report, we need it, and we need it pretty fast," Kean said on ABC's "This Week" program. "We'll ask for it and see."

He said the final report would be modified to take any new intelligence into account.

Excuse me, but what's the rush? Is this Beat the Clock? The commission shouldn't be writing reports until they have all of the information, and they sure as hell shouldn't be releasing them without checking the facts first. If Kean and Ben-Veniste are in such a hurry, it begs the question of motivation. Are there some panel members who are pushing to get the reports out early in order to embarrass the Bush administration, even while evidence disputing their conclusions is already out in the public domain?

The New York Times' Susan Jo Keller, meanwhile, buries the lede in her report on the statements by the commissioners. She starts off by focusing on Kean's assertion that the staff report claiming no collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda does not conflict with the Bush administration's statements (which is mostly true), and publishes this statement by Senator Carl Levin before getting to the main point which makes him a liar -- in the ninth paragraph:

"I find it, frankly, shocking that the exaggerations of the administration before the war relative to that connection continue to this day," Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said in an interview on the CNN program "Late Edition." ...

Another Republican member of the commission, John Lehman, said Sunday that new information — not yet confirmed — suggested that a lieutenant colonel in Mr. Hussein's Fedayeen fighter force was a "very prominent member" of Al Qaeda.

"Not yet confirmed" and "new" means, of course, "not yet acknowledged by the NYT editorial board". Keller doesn't want to admit that this information is far from new and has been reported by a major broadsheet in the same city weeks ago.

Captain's Caption Contest #15!

It's Friday, so it must be time for another Caption Contest! Whiskey selected the picture this week from reader Cameron Wood, who will be our guest judge this week. Whiskey and I make a great team -- better than this one, judging by one of the people pictured:

You have until Tuesday, June 22 at 6 PM CDT to enter your best captions in the Comments section of this post for Cameron 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.) 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 ... and don't forget to check out Cameron's blog!

BUMP 6/20 ...

COMMENTS CLOSED: A little late, since Cameron has already selected his winners, but better late than never!

Happy Father's Day!

Now that the kidney transplant is over, we decided to celebrate the Little Admiral's birthday this weekend. We had my father (Admiral Emeritus? First Lord of the Admiralty? Queeg?) and his wife out here this past week to help the First Mate out with her recovery, and my sister also flew out on Friday to help out this coming week. This meant that we could all celebrate Father's Day together for the first time since 2001, when we celebrated it in a pub in central Dublin.

After the Northern Alliance Radio Show on Saturday afternoon, we all got together for my granddaughter's second birthday, which we delayed because of my wife's sudden hospitalization. As you can see, the Little Admiral did pretty well! She got a new Minnie Mouse dress with matching purse and suitcase, which you can see in this picture, and two new bubble machines, videos, and lots of other stuff, too. The bubble machines seem to be her favorite.

Today, we all went out for a brunch, but we gave our father his cards before we left. If he looks a bit winded, it's because we had to take back a door I'd bought -- incorrectly, as it turned out -- to replace the slider on the back of the house. We went to a restaurant in the neighborhood and had a great brunch with my son and daughter-in-law, after which we went to show the youngest member of the family the dancing waterfountains behind the row of restaurants.

We saw my father off to California, and since he didn't fly Northwest, he landed there on time, instead of early in Arizona. The First Mate has gone to bed after a busy day, and since I spent my time visiting with my sister, I've skipped blogging for most of the day, except for the Northwest Airlines story, which I just couldn't resist. I hope you enjoy the pictures, and I hope you all had a terrific Father's Day.

More later ...

Northwest Airlines: We Get You There ... Eventually

As a resident of the Twin Cities, I have flown Northwest Airlines for many years. While I don't necessarily agree with the local nickname for the pride of Eagan -- Northworst -- after hearing about their navigational talent, I'm not so sure:

Robert Morrell wondered what was up after his Northwest Airlines flight touched down.

Nobody from the flight crew got on the intercom to welcome passengers to Rapid City, S.D. He looked out the window and saw barracks-like structures and military officials. And then the crew told passengers to pull down their window shades.

Turns out it wasn't Rapid City Regional Airport. It was Ellsworth Air Force Base.

The Northwest pilots landed at the wrong airport! Ellsworth is a few miles short of the Rapid City Regional Airport, and apparently the crew mistook one for the other. Passengers who expected to disembark on landing were instead told to shut their window blinds, and waited on the tarmac while Air Force security personnel interrogated the flight crew. Eventually, three hours later, Northwest sent a new flight crew to put the plane back into the air for the lengthy flight to Rapid City.

How did something like that happen? After all, pilots have to be in contact with the flight tower on approach, and that assumes that someone is watching the radar screen. Didn't the tower let them know they were descending too short for their runway? For that matter, didn't the lack of terminal facilities and the plethora of fighter jets give the pilots an idea that they may be landing at the wrong facility? Of course, two Northwest pilots made national news a few years back when they got pulled over for FWI -- flying while intoxicated -- when airport personnel at their departure point notified security officers at their arrival point that they were drunk. Somehow, one has to suspect tht alcohol played some part in yesterday's misdirection.

The passengers yesterday, according to Morrell, made up their own mind about what happened:

"Everyone is surmising it was pilot error. The presumption is that the pilot just landed at the wrong ... airport.''

Anyone want to guess what word the ellipsis replaced? Anyone? Don't all volunteer at once ...

Al-Qaeda Under Fire

So far, June has been the worst of months for the terrorist association al-Qaeda. First the Pakistanis kill a tribal leader, one of their allies in Waziristan. Now over this weekend, two more AQ leaders have gone on to their 72 virgins (or white raisins of wisdom, take your pick). Saudi terrorist chief Abdel Aziz al-Muqrin's death after the beheading of American Paul Johnson is considered a "major blow" to AQ's network in the Saudi kingdom, according to CNN:

"A major blow" has been dealt to al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia with the killing of four of its top leaders in the kingdom, Saudi foreign policy adviser Adel al-Jubeir said Saturday.

Among the dead is Abdel Aziz al-Muqrin, the nation's most-wanted militant and the self-proclaimed leader of al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Al-Muqrin claimed responsibility for the beheading of U.S. hostage Paul Johnson Jr.

CNN also reports that al-Qaeda has selected a new terror chief for Saudi Arabia, Saleh al-Oufi, but the new honcho will inherit a degraded network and bring less experience and talent to the position:

Al-Oufi, a former prison guard, holds the number five spot on Saudi Arabia's list of 26 most wanted terrorists, although Saudi security sources told CNN that he lacks some of the operational experience of al-Muqrin, who was killed in a shoot-out with Saudi security after the murder of American hostage Paul Johnson. ... On the Web site Saturday, the group vowed to continue to fight "jihad" as it has "promised God," and said the killing of its "brothers" will make the group "stronger."

Algerian forces have helped to make al-Qaeda stronger there as well by killing off the leader of their largest radical Islamist group:

The leader of Algeria's largest Muslim radical group, linked to al-Qae'da, has been killed by the armed forces, according to state television.

Nabil Sahrawi, leader of Sahrawi, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, was reportedly shot dead along with four other senior militants in the Bejaia area, east of the capital Algiers, on Friday.

Has anyone else noticed that we seem to be winning this war? Our partners in the war on Islamofascism have now eliminated the senior leadership of two major terror networks. Why are we not seeing this progress reported as such in the major newspapers? It would be the equivalent of the Allies beating Rommel in North Africa, and having that news reported in the back of the news section behind stories about homeless Tripolites and analyses of Fascism as the "philosophy of peace".