UN Retaliating Against Whistleblowers?

Three UN workers who collaborated on a whistleblowing book with the provocative title Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures have faced sanctions for their part in uncovering corruption within Turtle Bay, according to the London Telegraph:

One of its three authors, Andrew Thomson, a New Zealander who has been a doctor on UN missions for more than 10 years, will no longer work for the organisation because his contract has not been renewed.

Heidi Postlewait, a peacekeeping official, was officially reprimanded when the book was published in June because she did not ask for permission to write it.

She has since been told that she must "explain herself" for continuing to speak out against the UN. The third author, Kenneth Cain, has left the organisation.

Why has Dr. Thompson suddenly seen his contract waived by the UN? Possibly for having the temerity to testify in Washington to assist in the independent investigation of the Oil-For-Food fiasco. For this disloyalty, the UN has refused to re-employ the doctor. The UN, for its part, offers the explanation that whistleblower retaliation has nothing to do with Thompson's termination because the book contains "nothing new" -- an explanation both utterly true and completely meaningless. No one thinks that corruption at the UN as anything new, but the fact that Dr. Thompson offers testimony to its existence and its details is intolerable to the powers that be in the UN.

The fact that whistleblowers such as these three cannot be abided by UN executives gives a clear indication of the entrenched corruption within the organization.

Northern Alliance Radio Today (Update!)

We'll be on the air for our last show of the year this afternoon, 12-3 pm CT, discussing a plethora of topics. You can expect plenty of Nick Coleman talk, especially in the third hour, as the Strib columnist has engaged in a series of phone calls and e-mail exchanges with Mitch Berg that frankly has had us in stitches all week long.

Also, in the first hour, the First Mate has a Christmas gift for me that she insists I have to open on the air. The Mystery Gift should be opened sometime during the last half of the first hour, so be sure to tune in!

UPDATE: The Mystery Gift turned out to be a terrific captain's hat:

I haven't taken it off yet. I'll have a better picture from our Christmas dinner tonight with the Admiral Emeritus and our son's in-laws. (Shown laughing in picture -- Big Trunk and Rocket Man from Power Line.)

Interviews For Inspectors Begin At The Cash Bar

The city of San Antonio has decided on a high-tech way to attack strip-club prostitution and ordinance violations -- starting on January 1, exotic dancers will be required to wear ID badges while performing:

The City Council on Friday approved a measure requiring exotic dancers to apply for permits and wear them while performing.

Law enforcement authorities said the rule, which was unanimously approved by the 11-member council and goes into effect in 10 days, will allow them to quickly identify dancers who are breaking nudity ordinances. (Among other things, full nudity and contact with customers are not allowed in San Antonio strip clubs.)

Thanks to a series of rather stupid Supreme Court rulings, cities are unable to protect themselves from the deleterious effects of strip clubs on their communities after having ruled nude dancing a form of speech. In fact, nude dancing currently enjoys more legal protections than political speech after McCain-Feingold, a development that must have Thomas Jefferson spinning faster than a disco ball in his grave. Instead of outlawing the practice to protect themselves, cities have to use silly laws like ID badges to annoy the dancers while doing little to stop prostitution.

On the other hand, actions like this do have an entertainment value all their own, especially when news agencies interview the ladies affected by the new regulation. One dancer, Tempest, has an interesting sense of irony:

"I really don't know where we're supposed to place it," complained a dancer who called herself Tempest. "It's definitely going to get in the way of our performing, and it might just look a little bit tacky."

A Slow Syrian Retreat In Lebanon?

Syria seems to have responded to international pressure -- and the presence of 150,000 American troops on its eastern border -- and has "redeployed" its Lebanese contingent, moving them closer to Syria and out of the Beirut area:

Syria, under intense pressure to quit Lebanon, pulled out its security forces from three key positions in Beirut and north Lebanon on Saturday and redeployed them in eastern Lebanon.

The Lebanese army said in a statement the security positions that were vacated were in Beirut's international airport, the capital's Shi'ite southern suburb and one in northern Lebanon.

Syria has around 14,000 troops in its tiny neighbor.

Syria has been pressured for years to end its occupation of Lebanon, but has resisted closing out its second front against Israel. Since the American invasion of Iraq, however, Syria has learned that the politics of the region have changed rather dramatically. With George Bush's re-election, the Syrians understand that the forward strategy of engagement will continue for at least another four years.

The likelihood of a continued American military presence in western Iraq makes the Ba'athist regime in Damascus realize that after Iraq stabilizes, the US can act in one of two directions next to continue its war on terror. It appears that Bashir Assad just nominated Iran for that role.

The Wheels Of Iraqi Justice Begin To Turn

After being liberated by the Anglo-American coalition of nations in spring 2003, one of the big questions was whether the Coalition would try the captured members of the Saddam Hussein regime for war crimes, á la Nuremberg, or if the Iraqis could establish a system of justice that could handle the task themselves. Today the Iraqis begin to give the world its answer as investigative judges start questioning the prisoners as the opening of the trial process:

Iraqi judges on Saturday started interrogating Saddam Hussein's former defense minister and the notorious general known as Chemical Ali, who is accused of gassing thousands of Kurds in the 1980s, the lead judge said.

The investigative hearings for Sultan Hashim Ahmad, Saddam's last defense chief, and Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as Chemical Ali mark the opening of the trial process — the first among 11 Saddam deputies who, along with Saddam himself, face prosecution for alleged crimes during the ousted dictator's three decade rule.

"Ali Hassan al-Majid and Sultan Hashim have been interrogated and their lawyers attended the investigative hearing," said Raad al-Juhyi.

Despite some reporting this week that the trials themselves would soon begin, these hearings are more like grand juries. Just as in many legal systems, Iraqi judges take a more active role in the prosecution, acting as investigators and retaining the ability to bring charges themselves. The choice to start with "Chemical Ali" is both interesting and understandable, as the evidence on his complicity in crimes against humanity makes a conviction a slam-dunk. It's critical that the first effort produce a success, as the battered Iraqi population needs to acquire confidence that the fledgling justice system will protect them.

One question may be why they didn't start with Saddam. I suspect that they want to work their way up to Saddam for a couple of reasons. They know that Saddam's trial will garner extensive international scrutiny and starting with Chemical Ali allows them to work out the kinks before the full weight of media pressure is brought to bear. They also may hope that the regime's underlings will, like Tariq Aziz, turn on their former master and make the final connections between the atrocities and the man who ordered them.

One more issue will impact their credibility, the same as at Nuremberg -- how to structure the trials to allow for a fair defense. No one doubts that the Iraqis want to see these men hang from the nearest horizontal apparatus for their long and brutal repression, but without a credible trial, the executions would be nothing more than vigilantism. That probably wouldn't trouble too many people, but in order to build a new social structure based on the rule of law rather than the rule of the gun, the judicial system has to work for both parties.

It's a tough challenge. So far, it appears that the Iraqis are up to it.

One Of The Chief Rats Abandon The Sunken Ship

Tariq Aziz, the Chaldean Iraqi that helped prop up the genocidal maniac Saddam Hussein in his quest for first a pan-Arab and then pan-Islam empire, has now decided that indiscretion is the better part of avoiding the Iraqi execution squad. MS-NBC reports that Aziz has been warming up his singing voice and could become the star attraction at the trials of Saddam and his aides:

David Kay — a former U.S. adviser in Iraq — spent months questioning Aziz and others. He says Aziz quickly turned on Saddam and could testify at any trial.

"He talks about direct orders to murder, to assassinate, to kill," says Kay.

Even more interesting, the US and the Volcker Commission intend on interviewing Aziz about the UN Oil-For-Food program. As the face of the Hussein regime and the de facto foreign minister, Aziz conducted most of the regime's diplomacy and would have critical knowledge of payoffs to not only suppliers and buyers but the UN personnel who greased the skids for Saddam.

Will his testomony be reliable? Perhaps not by itself, but he could verify the documentation that US armed forces captured from IIS files and explain their significance. He could also point investigators to other documents and maybe even where some of the money disappeared so that Iraq can put it to better use than Saddam and Aziz did. Aziz may be a rat, but at least this rat can do some mighty impressive tricks when properly motivated.

And Now The Loyalists Spring To The Defense

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld finally got a show of support from GOP leaders in the Senate after taking a beating all week long from his own party. Senators Bill Frist and Mitch McConnell both spoke out in Rumsfeld's defense today:

"I am confident that Secretary Rumsfeld is fully capable of leading the Department of Defense and our military forces to victory in Iraq and the war on terror," Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said in a written statement. "Most importantly he has the confidence of his commanders in the field and our commander in chief."

Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the GOP whip, said Rumsfeld "is an excellent secretary of defense and we are fortunate to have a man of his courage and vision serving the president at this critical time."

It certainly took Frist and McConnell long enough to speak up. Perhaps the eruption of dissatisfaction with Rumsfeld among the Republican ranks took them by surprise, but after Wednesday the momentum should have been obvious to both. Quelling the public revolt should have been their highest priority; instead, they appear to have dithered until the end of the week, when their statements of support would receive less attention.

In some cases, this would be called "damning with faint praise."

If Frist and McConnell seriously wish to support Rumsfeld, then they need to get Coleman and Lott back on board. McCain, Hagel, and Collins can be disregarded. As whip, that is McConnell's job, and as Senate Majority Leader, it's Frist's job to get McConnell on the case. The lack of urgency in their response suggests that their enthusiasm for the task leaves something to be desired. Bush needs to call both men to the White House -- and the woodshed -- and get the troops back in line. If he can't, and Frist and McConnell fail, then the second term risks failure even before it begins.

Controversial Ruling Stops King County Ballot Mining

A Washington state judge has stopped King County from counting any of the 723 ballots it discovered during the hand recount, ruling that state law prevents previously rejected ballots from reconsideration regardless of the circumstances of the rejection:

A judge Friday granted a state Republican Party request to block the counting of hundreds of recently discovered King County ballots in the governor's race, which the GOP's candidate is winning by just a few dozen votes.

Even if the election workers wrongly rejected the ballots — 150 of which were discovered Friday — it is too late for King County to reconsider them now, Pierce County Superior Court Judge Stephanie Arend said.

The ruling matches an earlier state Supreme Court decision that prevented reconsideration of other rejected ballots in the hand recount. It seems likely that the Supreme Court will get another chance to revisit its earlier decision next week, as the mysterious ballots that King County keeps finding represent Democratic candidate Christine Gregoire's best hope for pulling ahead of Republican Dino Rossi.

All I Can Tell You Is ...

... he who owns the biggest tires wins -- just like I told Hugh.

UPDATE: Oh, sure. First Hugh starts this meme, and now Instapundit broadcasts it all over the blogosphere.

At least he didn't call me something like Peeps. Er, well, not yet, anyway.

Braving The Shopping Frontier

My father, the Admiral Emeritus, is visiting this weekend and I'll be joining him shortly for lunch at the Mall of America, the largest US insane asylum for holiday shoppers. Later, we're taking him and his wife out for a holiday sleigh ride and bonfire dinner in Jordan at Minnesota Harvest (pictures certain to be forthcoming!).

I'l be back on the blog later, but in the meantime, read this hilarious post about the Vagina Monologues by the Anchoress:

My vagina and me, we're just fine as we are. My vagina is exclusive - do you hear me, EXCLUSIVE - given over for the enthusiastic romping and procreating of one good man, and the deliverance of two blessed other good young men. My vagina is no weeping sister of eternal caterwauling! I do not have to keep my legs crossed in order to muffle the sound of its distress! The walls of my vagina do not thwack together in hiccuping hysteria and hyperventilation at the cruelty of men and unenlightened women. Tampons are my friends! My non-queer, unagendized, non-inclusive, politically incorrect, focused warrior vagina could beat hell out of any other pansy-assed, whiney, mediocre, liberal vagina in the whole wide world!

In fact, I am ready to launch my barbaric yawp of a vagina into the University of Oregon's neighbor, Washington State, where the ongoing attempt to steal a Gubernatorial election for the Democrats is starting to really piss my vagina off!

Watch out, King County! Be sure to read the entire hilarious essay -- it's a classic. Back later.

UPDATE: Thanks to the several grammatical correction posts and e-mails, I have changed "he" to "him". Yes, I know the difference, but I was typing very fast to get out to the mall ...

Washington's Electoral Meltdown

The ongoing soap opera of Washington's gubernatorial election continues today with two new developments. The AP reports now that King County, a Democratic stronghold, has discovered yet another batch of supposedly uncounted, valid absentee ballots, bringing the total to over 700 that are in dispute. This follows a suggestion from the state GOP that only another election will restore confidence in the results:

With Washington state in the middle of a recount of its amazingly close governor's race, election officials in Seattle's King County entered a warehouse Friday and found a plastic tray containing 150 misplaced ballots.

The discovery brings the number of belatedly discovered ballots to 723 in the heavily Democratic county — potentially enough to swing the election to Democrat Christine Gregoire.

Republican Dino Rossi won the Nov. 2 election over Gregoire by 261 votes in the first count and by 42 after a machine recount of the 2.9 million ballots cast. On Thursday, with every county except King, Pierce and Spokane reporting, Rossi had pulled ahead by 74 votes.

These ballots continue to appear in dribs and drabs and seem to have some relationship to the number needed in the 60-40 Democratic split that King County reported in their initial vote counts. Whenever Republican Dino Rossi has expanded his lead through recounts in other counties, King County has miraculously discovered new absentee ballots that supposedly are eligible but have yet to be counted. Either King County election officials may be the most incompetent in the nation or someone is manufacturing ballots to throw the election.

The frustration from these miraculous apparitions has the GOP seeing re-vote in Washington, as Michelle Malkin noted earlier:

Former Secretary of State Ralph Munro, a key supporter of Republican Dino Rossi during the contentious recounts in Washington's race for governor, says it may be time to toss out all of the votes and do the election over.

Munro, who oversaw the state's elections system for 20 years before retiring in 2000, said a new vote is probably the only way to restore voter confidence and get a clear winner. ...

"This thing could just degenerate and spiral downward," Munro said yesterday. "Whoever eventually becomes governor is going to have a very hard time governing, and we're going to go through four years of flopping around."

Democrats attacked the proposal, which admittedly sounds a bit far-fetched and could establish an uncomfortable precedent. However, it shows how far the process has disintegrated in Washington and why electoral laws established prior to the election have to govern any recount or challenge process afterward. Fashioning as-you-go solutions to the nightmare of a disputed election does nothing but undermine the eventual outcome, a lesson we learned in Florida four years ago and in San Diego and Ohio this cycle.

So far, Washington courts have forced everyone to stick to the law. God help them if the courts try to emulate the Florida Supreme Court's approach and gin up a new process that trumps the legislature. Washingtonians may never know who actually won the election if that happens.

CQ On The Air Today

I will be appearing on Kevin McCullough's show in a few minutes, part of his On-Air Blogroll. I am not sure exactly what Kevin wants to discuss, but I hope to talk about the European fright over free speech and the continuing political difficulties facing Donald Rumsfeld. Kevin is one of the few on-air personalities that really understands the blogosphere (Hugh Hewitt being pre-eminent among this select fraternity) and his support and friendship to CQ and me personally is very much appreciated. You can listen live here.

UPDATE: As always, Kevin's show is a blast, and a big thanks to his producer Gary as well. Keep listening!

Hollywood (Finally) Goes To War

The Guardian (UK) reports in today's edition that Harrison Ford has signed onto a project depicting the Battle of Fallujah based on a book coming out in the spring. This film would be the first Hollywood has produced that looks at the Iraq War, an odd omission noted by several prominent entertainment figures including Roger L. Simon:

Hollywood has joined the war. Universal Pictures announced yesterday that it is to make The Battle for Falluja. To prove it is serious, it has enlisted Indiana Jones himself, actor Harrison Ford, to help defeat the insurgency. The film - Hollywood's first foray into the second Iraq conflict - is due to go into production next year and will be based on a yet-to-be-finished book, No True Glory: The Battle for Falluja by Bing West, a former marine, politician and now war correspondent.

The movie and book take as their starting point the killing of four civilian contractors in Falluja and the ensuing decision to order an assault on the city by US marines. That first assault, which was abruptly stopped by the White House, was led by General Jim Mattis, who will be played by Ford.

Hollywood has been oddly reluctant to make movies based on the war effort, so the choice of No True Glory is rather unusual. West has reported on the Iraq War in pro-Western tones. One would have thought that the first movies on Iraq Phase II would have been similar to the one movie it produced on Iraq Phase I, Three Kings, a cynical and anti-Western look at the war to drive Saddam out of Kuwait. The Guardian dryly notes that it's "unlikely that the plight of the Iraqis will figure too prominently in Hollywood's take on the subject."

It's progress. Apparently some decision-makers in Hollywood have discovered that a majority of Americans support their government and the effort to liberate Iraqis, and the attempt to transform Southwest Asia from a terrorist production facility into a region of democratic stability. Let's hope they make the kind of movie that tells the truth rather than produce a Trojan horse for anti-war activists.

Do You Think This Means Us?

The Council of Europe has recommended that its 46 member nations enact laws requiring Internet media outlets to allow governments the right to publish responses to articles correcting "false information" on their sites:

The Council of Europe has called on its 46 member-states to introduce legislation on the right of reply to correct false information on online media.

It said the Committee of (Foreign) Ministers, executive of the European human rights watchdog body, had adopted a recommendation on the right to reply for online Internet media.

This recommended that members consider introducing legislation on the "right of reply or any other equivalent remedy, which allows a rapid correction of incorrect information in online or off-line media......"

A statement said the recomendation "urges member-states to extend the right to reply which until now applied to the written press, radio and television, to online communication services providing information edited in a journalistic manner."

Is it just me, or does that description of Internet media seem overly broad? After all, Captain's Quarters is read in Europe, as well as North and South America, Africa, and the Middle East. While I do not pretend to be a journalist, I hope that my writing and presentation are professional enough to fit the description of "information edited in a journalistic manner". Of course, I do not reside within any of the 46 member-states of the CoE, but a number of high-quality bloggers do -- and this appears to give governments the right to hijack their virtual press to publish state-sponsored propaganda.

One could interpret this as highly flattering to the blogosphere at which it obviously aims. After all, most of these governments have their own media outlets, or at least have private media concerns who regularly publish and dissect government pronouncements. It isn't as if the nations have no voice in the world. The notion, though, that their voices are less powerful than online news and commentary sites boggles the mind. Even if it isn't true, their anxiety over a perceived imbalance of power causes me to wonder how much the world really has changed since the advent of the blogosphere.

The CoE recommendation doesn't have any force, and the governments may decide that the effort to enact and enforce the provisions aren't worth the investment. In my opinion, it represents an intolerable incursion on freedom of expression. After all, a privately-owned site should not be forced to publish views that go against the beliefs of its owners, and for patently untrue articles, other legal recourses exist, such as libel torts. The fear and loathing of a free and unfettered electorate with influence and power beyond that of presidents and potentates, however, should delight the citizen journalists of Europe and the entire world.

Norm Coleman Sends Warning Message On Rumsfeld

Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman, usually a staunch ally of the Bush administration, sent a message to the White House yesterday with a warning that explanations about the slow supply of armor to Iraq has not satisfied him. He said he didn't want to point fingers, but he intends on opening hearings if better explanations are not forthcoming:

Sen. Norm Coleman said he had "serious misgivings" about the process of providing armored vehicles for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I have reservations about what the secretary and the Army have done in this regard," the Minnesota Republican said, but later added, "I'm not at the point of pointing fingers. I don't who did this. I don't know what happened."

Coleman said he anticipates an Armed Services Committee investigation, but if that doesn't happen he would consider looking into the matter as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

This came at the end of a day where a number of Republican Senators gave unprecedented GOP criticism of Rumsfeld. John McCain, Chuck Hagel, and Susan Collins all belong to a centrist-left coalition that the Bush administration could conceivably ignore on Rumsfeld's status. Trent Lott, more conservative but at odds with Bush since his fall from the Senate leadership position, might also be easily written off as a sorehead. But Norm Coleman has been a loyal voice for Bush in the Senate, so much so that the freshman Senator was given the lead in the UN investigation and is the subject of speculation for the national ticket in 2008.

If Coleman has lost confidence in Rumsfeld to the point of threatening an investigation over the armor issue, then the White House -- as I said yesterday -- has a potential meltdown with its own loyalists in the Senate. It's becoming apparent that the GOP expected Bush to replace Rumsfeld in the second term and are quite unhappy with his failure to do so. This has to be about more than up-armoring Humvees; something else is at play here. Whatever it is, the White House needs to either tamp it down quickly or start exploring its options for SecDef in 2005. The issues of Social Security reform and judicial nominations -- not to mention the successful prosecution of the war -- cannot be risked due to disunity over a Cabinet officer.

Japan Blinks, For Now

After having been insulted by the North Koreans over fraudulent remains of kidnapped Japanese citizens, Japan threatened economic sanctions if Kim Jpng-Il's regime did not answer for its intransigence. This led to a threat from Pyongyang that Japanese sanctions would amount to war and that the DPRK would respond in kind. This morning, Japan blinked, at least for the moment:

Japan says it will give North Korea more time to resolve a dispute over kidnapped Japanese citizens before imposing sanctions.

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi made the pledge after talks with visiting South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun.

The Japanese government is under pressure to impose sanctions over a row concerning kidnapped Japanese.

Japan had a lot of company, with Roo's voice joining that of China and the US advising that Japan essentially do nothing but complain. Kim Jong-Il has won another minor battle in the multilateral talks without much of a fight.

Over the past decades, the North Koreans kidnapped a number of Japanese citizens and enslaved them -- there is no better word for it -- in order to learn how to infiltrate Japanese society and plan for its destruction. No one knows for sure how many were taken, but Pyongyang finally admitted to the practice earlier this year and promised to return the remains of those who died as slaves to Kim Jong-Il. After all that, with the families of those kidnapped waiting for the chance to inter their loved ones, the Kim regime pulled a bait-and-switch and sent back the cremains of others. Apparently Pyongyang had no idea that cremains can be tested for DNA analysis.

Under any other circumstances, these revelations should provoke a strong response, and indeed the Kim regime appears to practically beg for it. Still, the appeasement approach to Kim Jong-Il continues, and like Hitler in 1938, Kim must be wondering exactly what it takes for his enemies to finally figure out that he won't ever settle for peace.

Cerdip Immortalizes CQ In Cartoon

Blog artist Cerdip has taken our ongoing battle against Brave Sir Dayton and immortalized it in cartoon form:

Hmmm ... looks a lot like me, too ... [cough cough] Okay, maybe I have slightly less hair ...

Be sure to check Cerdipity for the latest in artistic depictions of the news and the blogosphere!

Ohio -- One Step Forward, One Step Back

The comedy continues in Ohio today, where the ACLU and Jesse Jackson continue their efforts to manufacture a voting controversy in order to claim victimization for the next four years. Hanging chads have returned to the American electorate as recount teams try to divine voter intent from incompetence, while a federal judge tells Jackson to read the law before filing a complaint:

In a scene reminiscent of Florida circa 2000, two teams of Republican and Democratic election workers held punch-card ballots up to the light Wednesday and whispered back and forth as they tried to divine the voters' intent from a few hanging chads. ...

The scene is being repeated statewide this week in a recount in the state that put Bush over the top in the election last month.

We should have learned the lesson four years ago: any process in which ballots get reviewed for "voter intent" is inherently subjective and should be rejected. Either a voter successfully casts a ballot or not at all. The threshold should be that a ballot can get counted properly by the machine designed for that purpose. Anything else lends itself to partisan mischief.

On a brighter note, a federal judge tossed out another complaint by Jesse Jackson because of his own demonstrated incompetence at understanding electoral law:

The Ohio Supreme Court's chief justice on Thursday threw out a challenge to the state's presidential election results. ...

Chief Justice Thomas Moyer ruled that the request improperly challenged two separate election results. Ohio law only allows one race to be challenged in a single complaint, he said.

The challenge was backed by the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Cliff Arnebeck, a Columbus attorney for the Massachusetts-based Alliance for Democracy, who accused Bush's campaign of "high-tech vote stealing."

I find Jackson incredibly boring and inconsequential; fumbles like this provide the only remarkable aspect to his public works. His racebaiting and paranoid delusions make for interesting copy, but as long as Democrats continue to follow his destructive strategies, they will continue to lose ground among rational voters. How hard can it be to do the legal research necessary to file a valid complaint?

Not only did they screw up the form of the suit, the substance also fails to meet the laugh test. Jackson wants the court to throw out the election results because of an exit poll -- later shown to be preliminary -- predicted that John Kerry would get 52% of the vote. In other words, Jackson wants to give more legal weight to the few hundred people approached on their way out of polling booths than the actual votes cast in the election. While the ruling today leaves open the possibility of the complaint being refiled, it deserves more to be buried in a landfill.

A Warning Signal From Yanukovych?

Ukrainian Prime Minister and presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych gave a statement that sounds suspiciously like a warning of a potential military takeover of the nation if the rerun of the final election stage goes against him:

Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, facing a new election battle against a liberal challenger buoyed by vast street protests, said on Thursday Ukraine had been cast into a crisis which could turn to disaster after the new vote. ...

Speaking at his headquarters, Yanukovich restated his opposition to the Supreme Court ruling that led to the new vote.

"This is not a conflict between the opposition and the authorities. It is a crisis which is determining the future of Ukraine," he said, while declining to answer questions.

"Moreover, a real danger exists that after Dec. 26, Ukraine may be on the brink of a full-scale crisis."

At first blush, this statement comes across as either (a) preparation for another hijacked election and the inevitable street protests that would follow, or (b) Yanukovych's refusal to accept any losing result by claiming fraud in the new runoff -- and using the military to retain power in either case. There doesn't seem to be any other reason for Yanukovych to make that dire prediction. It sounds like Yanukovych wants to prepare a case for declaring a national emergency, one that would keep him in power indefinitely.

Yanukovych, however, may find that power denied him as his one-time allies have started to jump ship. Current president Leonid Kuchma has apparently cut ties with his protegé now that Yankovych's support has all but collapsed in Ukraine:

The prime minister was backed in the earlier vote by outgoing President Leonid Kuchma, but he has since turned on his former ally, saying the president did nothing to stop more than two weeks of street rallies by Yushchenko's supporters.

Nor is Kuchma alone in backpedaling away from the suddenly radioactive prime minister. Yanukovych's prior campaign manager and now-former head of Ukraine's central bank has repudiated the PM as well. Yanukovych's public support is drying up, making it highly unlikely that he will retain control of Ukrainian security forces after another election debacle like the last. If he loses a fair election -- an almost certain outcome now -- he won't have a prayer of convincing the military to install him in a putsch. That may not keep him from trying it, and today's missive shows that Yanukovych intends on keeping his options open.

Eroding, Eroding

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld took another political body blow yesterday as a key Republican Senator called for his removal in the coming months. Joining John McCain's no-confidence remark earlier this week, Trent Lott told a Biloxi Chamber of Commerce audience that he wants Rumsfeld out in 2005:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should be replaced sometime in the next year, Sen. Trent Lott says.

"I'm not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld," Lott told the Biloxi Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. "I don't think he listens enough to his uniformed officers." ... Lott, speaking to the civic club Wednesday, said the United States needs more troops to help with the war and a plan to leave Iraq once elections take place in late January. The Mississippi Republican doesn't think Rumsfeld is the person to carry out that plan.

"I would like to see a change in that slot in the next year or so," Lott said. "I'm not calling for his resignation, but I think we do need a change at some point."

Pressure continues to build on Rumsfeld, surprising after the near sweep that the GOP engineered in this last election. Normally such a mandate would have embraced those cabinet members Bush chose to stay on for the second term. It appears that Rumsfeld has had significantly less support from Capitol Hill Republicans than previously thought. I suspect that many assumed Rumsfeld would have been replaced this term and are unhappy that Bush kept him aboard.

The primary issue appears to be the handling of post-war Iraq. Earlier the White House (or someone in the GOP) leaked that Colin Powell was the one who fought for an extended occupation rather than Rumsfeld, who purportedly wanted to turn the keys over to the Iraqi National Congress in May 2003. That dog apparently won't hunt on the Hill. Rumsfeld's brilliant campaign in the spring invasion has passed from memory, and whether he opposed it or not, he owns the debate over troop commitments for the occupation.

For my part, I think the criticisms have been unfair and more than a little hysterical -- but I also think that Rumsfeld's characteristic bluntness and stubbornness has contributed mightily to both his victories and his losses and probably inspired much of the hostility from the GOP. Bush's stubbornness can be legendary, too, but he also understands politics. If Rumsfeld has lost the confidence of the GOP leadership, Rumsfeld should go.

UPDATE: Senator Susan Collins, one of the GOP's liberal contingent and a key member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, adds her voice to the mix today:

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has joined other Republicans in criticizing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. ...

"I am very concerned that it appears the Pentagon failed to do everything in its power to increase production" of the vehicles, Collins wrote.

Collins stopped short of asking Rumsfeld to step down, but the long knives are out, and it's the GOP who's holding them. Having some knowledge about procurement issues, I find it difficult to believe that all of this is over armor for Humvees. I think Rumsfeld has generated an extraordinary amount of ill will amongst Republican lawmakers and they're using the armor issue as an excuse. At this point, the real truth about the armor is secondary to the political support that Rumsfeld has obviously lost. If Trent Lott was willing to go on record with John McCain, Chuck Hagel, and Susan Collins, then the Bush administration has a real problem on its hands.

Showing Why "The Chevy Chase Show" Was No Fluke

Richard Leiby reports in today's Washington Post on an appearance by actor/comedian Chevy Chase at the Lincoln Center Tuesday night that was so embarrassing that even People For The American Way felt it necessary to scold Chase for his tasteless remarks against George Bush. Chase launched a profanity-laced tirade from which even Norman Lear disassociated himself:

After actors Alec Baldwin and Susan Sarandon delivered speeches accepting their Defender of Democracy awards, Chase took the stage a final time and unleashed a rant against President Bush that stunned the crowd. He deployed the four-letter word that got Vice President Cheney in hot water, using it as a noun. Chase called the prez a "dumb [expletive]." He also used it as an adjective, assuring the audience, "I'm no [expletive] clown either. . . . This guy started a jihad."

Chase also said: "This guy in office is an uneducated, real lying schmuck . . . and we still couldn't beat him with a bore like Kerry."

I have to ask where this meme of the "uneducated" President originates. George Bush has a bachelor's degree from Yale and a Harvard MBA, not exactly diploma-mill colleges. It puts him one degree ahead of John Kerry, Al Gore, and even Chevy Chase himself, who wangled a BA in English from Bard College. Bush's political opponents often accuse the President of lacking education, but this only reveals their own ignorance of the man who they love to hate.

The last funny movie that starred Chase came out in the 80s, "Christmas Vacation", and that designation may be debatable. Why the PFW wanted Chase as an emcee escapes me, but they soon regretted it. As anyone who has seen Chase operate without a script -- I had the utter misfortune to tune in the execrable "Chevy Chase Show" debut episodes -- he is simply incapable of extemporaneous humor. (Why did I watch more than one? I couldn't believe it could get any worse. I was very, very mistaken.)

The reactions of those in attendance actually gives hope that the Left has not completely lost their minds. Norman Lear remarked that "it was utterly untoward"; Ralph Neas, PFW's president, shot back at Chase by issuing a statement that "Chevy Chase's improvised remarks caught everyone off guard, and were inappropriate and offensive." After Whoopi Goldberg's hatefest last July, the Left appears to know how to contain the damage done by clueless and ignorant celebrities. When they finally stop bestowing awards on them as well, we'll know they've decided to rejoin the rational world.

UN Report: Massive Sexual Abuse By Peacekeepers In Congo

The United Nations has received a report from its own investigators detailing years of sexual abuse, extortion, and bribery in its own peacekeeping operation in Congo. Just as in other major operations conducted by the UN over the past decade, corruption and a lack of accountability has allowed the victims of genocidal dictatorships to be victimized again and repeatedly by the very organization that purports to champion them:

The 34-page report, which was obtained by The Washington Post, accuses U.N. peacekeepers from Morocco, Pakistan and Nepal of seeking to obstruct U.N. efforts to investigate a sexual abuse scandal that has damaged the United Nations' standing in Congo.

The report documents 68 cases of alleged rape, prostitution and pedophilia by U.N. peacekeepers from Pakistan, Uruguay, Morocco, Tunisia, South Africa and Nepal. U.N. officials say they have uncovered more than 150 allegations of sexual misconduct throughout the country as part of a widening investigation into sexual abuse by U.N. personnel that has plagued the United Nations' largest peacekeeping mission, U.N. officials said.

"Sexual exploitation and abuse, particularly prostitution of minors, is widespread and long-standing," says a draft of the internal July report, which has not previously been made public. "Moreover, all of the major contingents appear to be implicated."

The UK newspaper Independent uncovered these allegations back in the spring, when they first reported on the ongoing prostitution and sexual extortion at the UN facilities. Seven months later, the UN has just gotten around to kicking out one official, and that only because he continued to associate openly with prostitutes even while the investigators worked on the case. The peacekeepers themselves still remain, along with their commanders who allow this conduct to occur.

Will anyone be held accountable for these atrocities -- as even the UN defines them? No, because the UN has no enforcement authority over the troops. All that Turtle Bay can do is to send them home. However, the UN hasn't even held its own people accountable for this catastrophe and has dragged its feet while more women and children get raped and forced to submit to sexual demands simply to eat enough to stay alive.

Why doesn't the member-nations of the UN hold its leadership accountable for these managerial and moral incompetencies, to put it as mildly as possible? Probably because most of the member nations see nothing wrong with the activities in the Congolese camps. The dictatorships and kleptocracies in the General Assemblies operate in much the same manner within their own countries and will not be in any hurry to condemn the practice elsewhere. It's one of the reasons that Kofi Annan has survived in office well beyond any reasonable Western expectations. Far from being an embarrassment to the twisted, murderous governments that form his political base, his incompetency protects them from any effective reform efforts.

The UN has transformed itself into a complete catastrophe for any who are unfortunate enough to gain its attention for humanitarian assistance. Too often that results in mass extermination (Srebrenica) or mass exploitation (Congo). It's far past time for Western democracies to construct a parallel organization that actually upholds the notions of accountability. If the UN won't clean its house, then we should build another one.

Intelligence Reform: The New Way To Get Kicked Upstairs

If anyone harbors doubts that the new intelligence-reform act represents anything more significant than an expansion of the American patronage system, this Washington Post report by Walter Pincus should remove them all. Titled "President Gets To Fill Ranks Of New Intelligence Superstructure," Pincus blithely lists the lengthy list of new managers sitting atop an already hidebound intelligence bureaucracy:

President Bush is searching not only for a new director of national intelligence to become his chief adviser on intelligence but also for three other senior officials who will work atop the new organization created by the intelligence reform act he is scheduled to sign into law tomorrow.

Along with the job of the intelligence director, or DNI, there is to be a principal deputy DNI, a director of a new national counterterrorism center, and a general counsel to the DNI, all of whom must be presidential appointees subject to Senate confirmation.

In addition, the new chief information officer for the DNI, who is to put together a computerized information-sharing system for the 15 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community, will also be a presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate, under a provision of the fiscal 2005 intelligence authorization bill.

Further, the intelligence reform bill requires the president to name a chairman and a vice chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, which will review regulations and policies related to the war on terrorism. They, too, are subject to a Senate vote.

The intelligence reorganization, set in motion by the Sept. 11 commission and approved earlier this month by Congress, has created a personnel challenge for the Bush administration, which must fill a range of new senior positions as it embarks on the task of making a new intelligence organization work.

It creates more than a personnel challenge; the new positions give Congress even more opportunity to hold televised hearings while adding at least a half-dozen more filters to intelligence analysis before the President sees anything. This list of political appointees requiring Bush's attention shows that Congress and the 9/11 Commission, being bureaucrats themselves, gave the critical intelligence-reform exercize the only solution with which they have any familiarity.

And who will the President select for these open positions? Apparently not analysts or operatives, but the same people who created this "superstructure" -- politicians and bureaucrats. Porter Goss originally was considered for DNI until he cleaned house at the CIA. Now John Lehman, not coincidentally a member of the commission, has had his name added to the short list. Pincus also notes that retired military leaders would suit the new position well, in a turn of phrase that probably has Pincus' journalism professors pounding their heads on tables this morning:

One possibility for DNI is an active or retired military officer, because another provision of the bill indicates that Congress expects either the DNI or his principal deputy to be an active or retired military person.

I suppose that a job description with that expectation might make a military officer a "possibility". Tommy Franks might get the DNI position with those expectations, especially since Franks has been so supportive of Bush during the past election season. Pincus also mentions Brent Scowcroft, although he does note that Scowcroft's numerous editorials opposing Bush's foreign policy makes that rather unlikely. (No kidding.)

So what do we expect from this new superstructure that just got welded onto the defective machinery that failed to catch 9/11, missed the collapse of the Soviet Union, and fell asleep while India and Pakistan tested nukes? A dumping ground for retirees and political allies. Mind you, all of these people have good records in serving their country, but with that list of candidates, the notion of reform seems to have flown out the window in favor of adding to the status quo.

Wake us when all of that additional management results in better production.

Brave Sir Robin Now Demands More Equipment

Our own fearless Senator Mark Dayton has latched onto the meme du jour amongst the left, the rather esoteric issue of the lack of up-armored Humvees in the battle regions of Iraq. After a planted question during a military town-hall session with Donald Rumsfeld brought this issue national attention, the Democrats have suddenly transformed themselves into armor-plating experts of a sort. Dayton has amusingly tried to top all of them, calling for the resignations of ... well, everyone:

Sen. Mark Dayton urged President Bush Wednesday to order an investigation into the government's failure to provide enough armored vehicles for soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a conference call with reporters, the Minnesota Democrat called the failure "outrageous and indefensible" and said Bush should ask everyone responsible to resign.

Dayton said he is upset by recent reports that makers of the armored vehicles and armor kits had the capacity to produce more armament upgrades but hadn't received orders to do so.

While an inquiry into the lack of armor for vehicles wouldn't hurt anyone, the hysterics who chalk up the shortage to the cold-hearted incompetence of the Secretary of Defense demonstrate a shortage of experience themselves with military procurement processes, most of which have been mandated by Congress. Those of us who have seen this process first-hand understand why it takes so long to even generate the orders to purchase materiel of any kind. As John Guardiano, an enlisted Marine in Iraq wrote for the Wall Street Journal, the procurement mess has been one of Rumsfeld's highest priorities (hat tip QandO):

If you’re an American soldier or Marine whose life is on the line now, clearly that’s not good enough. On the other hand, it simply isn’t true that U.S. military leaders have callously ignored the troops’ request for up-armored vehicles and other protective equipment. In fact, most of our troops in Iraq have up-armored vehicles, and units there take force protection quite seriously.

Delays ought to be blamed on the military bureaucracy, which Secretary Rumsfeld has been trying to reform. Indeed, that’s what military transformation--a Rumsfeld priority--is all about. Yet, many of the same people who are most vociferously denouncing the lack of up-armored humvees in Iraq also fight military reform tooth and nail.

In other words, it would be more helpful for those who go into screaming hysterics over every individual issue of procurement to fix the disease rather than blame the players for the symptoms. In fact, of all people, Mark Dayton should be the last to complain about a lack of heavy, armored equipment in Iraq. Only this past spring he lectured Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers on the danger of sending heavy vehicles to a war zone:

You're increasing the number of forces, the number of tanks over there. How can this have anything to do but to escalate the level of violence, the opposition of Iraqis, intensify the hatred across the Arab world to the United States, and more atrocities? How can this have any result other than to put us deeper into this situation and make the conditions there worse for our forces and for our nation and for the world?

Senator Mark Dayton. He was against armored vehicles before he was for them. What a perfect microcosm of the hysterical Left in American politics.

Ohio Rules Punch-Card Ballots Not An Eeevil GOP Conspiracy

At CQ today, it's all Ohio, all the time (notify Hugh Hewitt) ... In a ruling sure to disappoint tinfoil-hat brigade members throughout the nation, a federal court ruled this afternoon that the use of punch-card ballots does not amount to racial discrimination, denying an ACLU lawsuit springing from the 2004 Presidential election:

Voting rights are not denied to those who use punch-card ballots, a federal judge ruled in the nation's first trial to challenge the system blamed for woes in Florida in the 2000 presidential election.

The American Civil Liberties Union argued that the punch-card system is error-prone and ballots are more likely to go uncounted than votes cast in other ways. The group claimed Ohio violated the voting rights of blacks, who predominantly live in punch-card counties.

U.S. District Judge David D. Dowd Jr. disagreed.

"All voters in a county, regardless of race, use the same voting system to cast a ballot, and no one is denied the opportunity to cast a valid vote because of their race," Dowd said in his ruling Tuesday.

If it's a conspiracy, then California must have been the epicenter of it, as I voted with punch-card ballots every election until I moved to Minnesota a few years ago. We even used butterfly ballots in almost every major election cycle and managed not to have civic riots, although we also didn't have Republicans winning control of the Legislature, either -- so perhaps the ACLU just didn't notice the evil nature of the process back then.

As far as arguing that punch card balloting represents some sort of racial discrimination, it seems to me that the ACLU wants to argue that certain ethnic types are incapable of punching a ballot card properly. Is that an argument that the NAACP and Urban League want to endorse? Talk about condescension and patronizing attitudes!

The ACLU maintained that punch-card ballot machines were used in primarily African-American areas, while the rest of the state used more recent technology. Never mind, of course, that the Democrats complained about that technology as well. As far the ACLU's assertion goes, though, it appears that no one in their legal offices have any familiarity with a process called research:

Punch-card ballots are used in 69 of 88 Ohio counties, representing nearly 73 percent of registered voters. About 92,000 ballots cast in last month's presidential election failed to record a vote for president, most on punch-card systems.

Punch card systems were used to service 73% of all Ohio voters. The US Census Bureau reports that African-Americans comprise 11.5% of Ohio's population, and that non-white people account for a total of 15%. That adds up to one heck of a lot of non-minorities using punch card systems, making hash of any argument that punch-card use reveals a grand vote-rigging conspiracy.

When do you think the Democrats will regain their senses? 2006? 2008? At this rate, the Greens will have surpassed them before they recover from their paranoia and persecution complex.

Iraqi Terrorists Target Sistani Aide While Sunnis Sign Onto Election

A bombing in Karbala attempted to kill a key aide to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in order to discourage the upcoming elections, the AP reports. The bombing killed seven people, mostly bodyguards, and wounded Sistani's aide:

The attack in Karbala, which wounded the representative of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, came hours after the campaign kicked off, with Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi announcing his candidacy. Allawi's defense minister accused Iranian and Syrian intelligence agents of helping insurgents in Iraq. ...

The blast went off at the western gate of the Imam Hussein Shrine in Karbala, killing seven people and wounding 31, said Dr. Abdul-Abbas Al-Timimi, director of Al-Hussein hospital.

Al-Sistani's representative, Sheik Abdul Mahdi al-Karbalayee, was among the wounded, and an al-Sistani spokesman said al-Karbalayee was the intended target of the blast. Several of his bodyguards were among the dead and wounded, the spokesman — Hamed al-Khafaf — told Al-Jazeera television.

Today's attack isn't the first time the Imam Hussein shrine has been a target for the Islamofascist terrorists. A series of bombs at a religious festival in March killed 181 Shi'a celebrating at the tomb of Shi'a founder Ali's son. These attacks demonstrate that the terrorists have no interest in defending Islam against infidels, but merely want to impose their own totalitarian vision of the world on a prostrate Iraqi nation. Islam merely provides an excuse, one they easily discard whenever favorable tactical situations arise near so-called holy shrines.

This strategy seems to be failing, as two major Sunni groups registered for the upcoming elections after initially calling for delays or boycotts:

Elder Sunni statesman Adnan Pachachi, who had previously called for a postponement of the elections, said Wednesday he will take part. Pachachi, a former foreign minister, heads the Independent Democratic Gathering and said he would lead a list of at least 70 candidates.

Another Sunni group — the more religious Iraqi Islamic Party — has also put forward its own candidates. Wednesday was the cutoff day for parties or independents to register as candidates in the elections.

As Ayad Allawi and George Bush have remained firm on the election date, the waverers now see that time has run short to join the political process. Perhaps they also now see that the only way to discredit the insurgency and beat them in the long term is to get a viable government elected as soon as possible. Delays and postponements only accrue more credibility and power into the hands of the lunatics, and only a truly representative Iraqi government will have the authority with the Iraqi people to dispose of the nutcases in the most effective manner possible.

Even More Ohio Nonsense

The Democratic myth-building in Ohio continues in Washington DC, where Congressman John Conyers wants to ask the FBI to open a vote-tampering investigation in order to cast doubt on the veracity of the presidential-election results. The New York Times reports that Conyers will complain about "inappropriate and likely illegal election tampering", as if there's any such thing as legal election tampering. Conyers bases his complaint on the testimony of one election worker, Sherole Eaton, who questioned the conduct of a technician for the company whose machines tabulate the vote as he prepared the machines for the recount:

Ohio recount rules require that only 3 percent of a county's votes be tallied by hand, and typically one or more whole precincts are selected and combined to get the 3 percent sample. After the hand count, the sample is fed into the tabulator. If there is no discrepancy, the remaining ballots can be counted by the machine. Otherwise, a hand recount must be done for the whole county.

Ms. Eaton contends that the Triad employee asked which precinct Hocking County planned to count as its representative 3 percent, and, upon being told, made further adjustments to the machine.

Here's the result of this obvious and egregious attempt to disenfranchise Ohio voters:

County officials decided to use a different precinct when the recount was done yesterday. No discrepancies were found.

So apparently whatever the tech did after engaging Ms. Eaton in some harmless shop talk had absolutely no effect on the counting of the vote -- and the recount, apparently, did not differ from the original tabulation. Holy cow, we have a conspiracy to conduct an election going on in Ohio! No wonder Conyers wants the FBI to use up its resources to investigate why the Democrats lost instead of other, less pressing issues -- oh, say, like counterterrorism.

All of this wailing and gnashing of teeth is designed to give the Democrats an extension on their Florida martyrdom, which has served them so well over the last two election cycles, of course. Two more years of spouting conspiracy theories and sobbing like spoiled children who can't get their every desire handed to them should firmly establish the GOP as the majority party at state, federal, and electoral levels by 2006.

UPDATE: Corrected Conyers' title; hat tip, reader Jimmy's Attack Rabbit.

Pentagon Not Playing The Grinch

The Washington Post reports that the Pentagon will not transmit packages or letters addressed to "any soldier", a common practice at the holidays that has been banned since the 9/11 attacks:

The Defense Department has a stern message for those considering playing Santa Claus this holiday season to troops abroad: If you don't know them, don't send it.

The agency is reminding the public that it does not accept unsolicited packages -- even holiday gifts -- to troops stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, the Pentagon explains that unsolicited gifts not only overtaxes their mail-delivery system, delaying packages and letters from family and friends back home, but it also represents a security risk that they hardly need in a time of war. The Pentagon suggests a reasonable alternative -- giving our thanks and our gifts, letters, etc to the families of those deployed overseas during the holidays. That way, we get to show our support and also our recognition of the sacrifice that an entire family makes when one chooses to serve our country in uniform.

If you still want to donate directly to servicemen and women, the Pentagon suggests going through recognized charitable organizations like the Red Cross, which have their own delivery systems. Hopefully, these changes won't impact the Soldiers Angels program, which has been a favorite of the blogosphere for at least the past year. They have a great system designed to "adopt" soldiers, sailors, and Marines stationed overseas, and even includes men and women from the other nations of the Coalition.

Of course, you could also donate to the Spirit of America's Friends of Iraq Blogger Challenge for efforts that create friendship and hope between our men and women in Iraq and the Iraqi people. The contest ends today, and we have already raised over $72,000 in funding. The Northern Alliance team has contributed over $11,000, easily outstripping the nearest competition in the team category, the Fighting Fusiliers from Castle Aaaargh!

In Ohio, The Whining Continues

Micheal Powell and Peter Slevin report on Election Day difficulties in Ohio, using spot reports to extrapolate a massive electoral collapse that their own numbers show didn't happen. As Ohio voted in record numbers, the notion that heavy turnout would bring long lines appears to have surprised Democrats, who interpret them as part of an evil plan to disenfranchise inner-city voters:

Tanya Thivener's is a tale of two voting precincts in Franklin County. In her city neighborhood, which is vastly Democratic and majority black, the 38-year-old mortgage broker found a line snaking out of the precinct door.

She stood in line for four hours -- one hour in the rain -- and watched dozens of potential voters mutter in disgust and walk away without casting a ballot. Afterward, Thivener hopped in her car and drove to her mother's house, in the vastly Republican and majority white suburb of Harrisburg. How long, she asked, did it take her to vote?

Fifteen minutes, her mother replied.

"It was . . . poor planning," Thivener said. "County officials knew they had this huge increase in registrations, and yet there weren't enough machines in the city. You really hope this wasn't intentional."

In Minnesota, in my predominantly white, middle-class suburb, the line snaked out the doors of the polling place (the local fire station) and out into rainy, 35-degree weather. In fact, that line did not significantly shorten most of the day. Why? Because we had a higher turnout than normal, which most of us agreed was a positive sign. We did have several polling booths, but that might be because we planned better than other counties for that contingency. Seeing as how the counties are run by Democrats in most of the areas that the Washington Post investigated for this article, I would chalk up Thivener's experience to incompetency on the part of Democrats and not a conspiracy by the GOP.

The entire report is filled with contradictory data. On one hand, Powell and Slevin give credence to these wild conspiracy theories by talking about long lines and the underinvestment in machines, and yet they also report this:

On Election Day, more than 5.7 million Ohioans voted, 900,000 more voters than in 2000.

That's an increase of 19% over the last Presidential election who successfully voted, and yet Powell and Slevin want to keep the meme of voter suppression alive. If increasing voter participation by almost twenty percent amounts to a conspiracy to suppress the vote, then the conspiracy failed by any rational analysis.

Nor do the other anecdotes provided by the Post make their argument more convincing. At one point, they scold Ohioans for using punch-card ballots:

Congress imposed only the minimal national standards and included too few dollars. Tens of thousands of machines -- including 70 percent of Ohio's machines -- still use punch-card ballots, which have a high error rate.

But then Powell and Slevin turn up their noses at the replacement touch-screen machines that advocates swore would be the solution for addled Florida voters who couldn't figure out the punch-card system:

Berkeley sociologist Michael Hout, who directed the study, said the problem in Florida probably lies with the technology. (Florida's touch-screen machines lack paper records.) "I've always viewed this as a software problem, not a corruption problem," he said. "We'd never tolerate this level of errors with an ATM. The problem is that we continue to do democracy on the cheap."

And then they complain when an indirect-recording system like the touch-screen machines get out of calibration:

In northeastern Ohio, in the fading industrial city of Youngstown, Jeanne White, a veteran voter and manager at the Buckeye Review, an African American newspaper, stepped into the booth, pushed the button for Kerry -- and watched her vote jump to the Bush column. "I saw what happened; I started screaming: 'They're cheating again and they're starting early!' "

It was not her imagination. Twenty-five machines in Youngstown experienced what election officials called "calibration problems." "It happens every election," said Thomas McCabe, deputy director of elections for Mahoning County, which includes Youngstown. "It's something we have to live with, and we can fix it."

The proof of the election, and Ohio's preparations for it, is in the final numbers. Ohio was able to successfully record 19% more votes in this election than four years ago. Did individuals have problems voting? Of course; that happens in every election. Did machines fail or need adjustment? Yes, and that also happens in every election. Did some county boards penny-pinch and spend too little money? Apparently so, but the fault of that lies with the counties -- and voters should hold them accountable in the next election.

Find the problems and fix them, but quit whining about voter suppression when the US just experienced its best turnout for an election in several cycles.

Making No Bones About It

The North Korean regime of Kim Jong-Il resumed its sabre-rattling today, threatening to go to war with Japan if the latter imposed economic sanctions against the DPRK. Earlier, Japan protested that the bones released by the DPRK that supposedly belonged to Japanese citizens kidnapped by the DPRK turned out to be a hoax, enraging Japanese citizens and inspiring suggestions of retaliatory sanctions:

Calls are growing from the Japanese public and politicians for the government to impose sanctions on North Korea after Tokyo said bones Pyongyang had identified as those of Japanese it had kidnapped were from other people.

"If sanctions are applied against the DPRK (North Korea) due to the moves of the ultra-right forces (in Japan), we will regard it as a declaration of war against our country and promptly react to the action by an effective physical method," a spokesman for North Korea's Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency, monitored in Tokyo.

Kim now wants Japan excluded from the six-nation multilateral talks designed to strip North Korea of its nuclear-weapons capability and stabilize the security situation in the Asia-Pacific rim. This demand intends on unraveling the entire process, since Japan and South Korea are the two most interested parties in the result. North Korea has routinely threatened Japan with attack, and few doubt that a DPRK missile launch would target anywhere else but Tokyo for its first salvo.

This latest wild threat clearly shows that Kim has become desperate to control the outcome of the talks. He needs outside capital to feed his starving nation and to build some kind of economic momentum, but the only way to make that work is either by nuclear blackmail or opening DPRK up to Western influences, since that's where the capital originates. Kim so far has chosen nuclear blackmail and sees it as a winning strategy, at least in the near term.

Like any other sociopath, Kim lives to manipulate people and systems for his own purposes. Take, for example, the remains DPRK sent to Japan. How difficult would it have been for the NoKos to ID the skeletons before sending them to Japan? Not terribly so, and yet Kim deliberately insulted the Japanese by sending them faked remains, knowing that the Japanese would test the bones themselves. Why? Because Kim knew he could use the diplomatic row that erupted as an excuse to demand Japan's exclusion from the talks. If the other nations refuse to agree, Kim will walk out of the negotiations, and if Japan withdraws, he will have scored a diplomatic coup.

The other nations in the talks need to start getting on the same page. Instead of South Korea's insipid response -- that sanctions would be counterproductive -- the multilateral partners should instead act in concert to get tough on Kim. If China and Russia seriously want to eliminate the nuclear threat that Kim trots out whenever he throws a tantrum, then they need to make clear that any more such outbursts will result in a complete blockade of North Korea, and any attempt at retaliation will bring a swift and overwhelming military response.

Under those circumstances, Kim's underlings may decide that the continuance of the Kim "dynasty" is no longer productive and remove him themselves. If not, the unity and strength of the message will call Kim's bluff, and even sociopaths understand when they're outgunned. Negotiations and dialogue only work when both sides understand that they have a stake in reaching a solution. Up to now, Kim's only good result is a stalemate, which the multilateral talks have allowed him through wild threats and appeasing replies. It's time to quit giving Kim his victories on a platter.

Lieberman Says No

CNN reports that the Bush administration has made at least two overtures to Senator Joe Lieberman to join the Cabinet -- but Lieberman has passed on both occasions:

Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman has twice in recent days said "no" when approached about the possibility of a major job in the second Bush administration, CNN has learned.

The Cabinet vacancy at the Department of Homeland Security was the subject of the latest overture, according to congressional and other government sources. Those sources said the earlier overture was to see whether Lieberman might be interested in becoming the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

I'm not sure why the White House would have considered Lieberman for the DHS post, except for Lieberman's role in creating the department. Senators do not make great executives, for the most part, which is one of the reasons why none have been elected directly from the Senate to the presidency since 1960. The UN position would have been a better fit for Lieberman, whose credibility there and his tough stance on American security here could have helped melt some diplomatic ice between Turtle Bay and Washington DC.

CNN has no speculation on Lieberman's reluctance to represent Democrats in the second Bush term. It's possible that Lieberman simply likes being in the Senate. If he's contemplating another run at the presidency in 2008 -- he could have won this election if Democrats had been smart enough to nominate him -- joining Bush's cabinet would probably be too damaging in the primaries.

Bush could have demonstrated a great deal of bipartisanship if Lieberman had agreed, but he also would have lost one of the more moderate Senate Democrats to approach for deals and advice. Since Bush already won his last election opportunity, that transaction would have been a net loss, especially since it looks like Harry Reid intends on being every bit as instransigent as Tom Daschle in working with the White House. Lieberman may be doing Bush a favor.

Washington State Supreme Court Affirms Electoral Law

In a late decision today, the Washington state Supreme Court unanimously rejected a lawsuit from Democrats to review previously rejected ballots in the race for governor. The justices agreed that state law defines recount as only the retabulation of already-approved ballots and does not give any opportunity to review those rejected:

The state Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously rejected the Democratic Party's request that previously rejected absentee and provisional ballots be included in the hand recount of Washington state's contested governor's race. ...

In a brief written opinion, the high court said that under Washington law, "ballots are to be 'retabulated' only if they have been previously counted or tallied" — excluding those that had been disqualified by canvassing boards.

Democrats had estimated in their lawsuit that an additional 3,000 ballots should be reconsidered during the recounts -- in other words, changing the rules for voting after the fact. The Supreme Court thankfully refused to sanction opening that can of worms; otherwise, Washington voters would have had front-row seats to another round of Guess That Voter Intent, where partisan poll workers stare at improperly-cast ballots and pretend to divine the desires of the persons casting them. Floridians and the rest of the nation had enough of that in 2000 to last a lifetime.

Unfortunately, that ruling may not apply to 561 ballots that Democrats claim were mistakenly rejected by election workers. These ballots came from the Democratic stronghold of King County, where Gregoire topped Rossi 60-40. If that same margin holds up in these new ballots, it would give Gregoire just enough votes to go ahead of Rossi on the recount. Those ballots have to be verified by a canvassing board tomorrow, at which point we should know whether they tip the election to the Democrat.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!

Missing The Point

Media Matters for America will announce its intention to protest the Sinclair Broadcasting Group, the Los Angeles Times reports today. Elizabeth Jensen writes that MMA will launch a new website and encourage a letter-writing campaign to highlight Sinclair's supposed political bias, stopping short of an advertiser boycott for the moment:

A coalition of liberal political groups is launching a nationwide protest against Sinclair Broadcast Group, charging that the 62-station TV broadcaster, which was also the target of intense criticism during the presidential campaign, is misusing public airwaves with partisan news programming.

The groups, led by Media Matters for America, today will announce a campaign to pressure Sinclair's advertisers with letters. The groups, however, are stopping short of demanding an advertiser boycott. ...

The main focus of the protest is the nightly "The Point" commentary by Mark Hyman, who is Sinclair's spokesman and also oversees the company's Washington lobbying.

A recent Media Matters analysis of "The Point" editions from Nov. 2 to Dec. 1 found that the commentaries repeatedly attacked former Democratic candidate John F. Kerry, former President Clinton and other Democratic politicians. Hyman has referred to Democrats as the "Angry Left," charged that there is a liberal bias in the media and expressed support for Bush administration policies.

The commentary airs on about 40 of the 62 stations that Sinclair owns, programs or manages, reaching about one-fourth of U.S. homes with televisions.

The Sinclair Group has had a target painted on their backside ever since they announced that Sinclair affiliates would air a documentary by the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, "Stolen Honor". A threatened boycott forced Sinclair to retreat and instead air a special one-hour news overview of the Swiftvet challenge, which people generally regarded as fair and balanced. Despite this victory, MMA and affiliated liberal groups intend on hoisting Sinclair on a gibbet to prove their allegations of pervasive conservative bias in today's news media.

However, MMA and the rest of the lunatics seem to have overlooked one thing: The Point is a commentary, an editorial that does not pretend to be news reporting. Sinclair advertises it as such. In effect, MMA seeks to condemn Sinclair for doing exactly what newspapers and broadcast stations have done for decades -- editorialize as owners see fit.

Pervasive media bias has nothing to do with op-eds and editorials, although they certainly indicate where an organization stands. When Minnesotans debate bias in the Star-Tribune, we focus on reporting, not editorials. (When we do focus on editorials, we most often highlight the logical and factual deficiencies, but that's not the same thing.) MMA is no babe in these woods, and they understand the difference perfectly. They just want to intimidate Sinclair into silence.

If MMA wants to see bias in the media, they need look no further than CBS, which violated its own internal checks, disregarded its own experts, and aired a story based on forged and fraudulent documents in order to affect an American election. Mary Mapes had been vainly flailing away at George Bush's National Guard service for five years, as if that issue was a vital national interest. Mapes also coordinated her attack with the John Kerry campaign, getting her source an entreé to Kerry's high-level advisors. CBS still can't bring themselves to admit that Mapes screwed them for her own political interests.

Or how about CNN? Remember when CNN's managing editor Eason Jordan revealed that the news network deliberately covered up stories about Saddam's atrocities in Iraq just so it could keep its Baghdad bureau operating? CNN had no problem reporting on stories coming out of Iraq that made the genocidal dictator look good, enabling Saddam to keep his grip on power even longer. Why do you think CNN would be so eager to placate Saddam?

Or one could turn to NBC instead. Tom Brokaw deliberately edited a passage from his interview with John Kerry in order to remove a damaging admission from Kerry that he had not released all of his Navy records as he claimed. Or ABC, where political news director Mark Halperin instructed reporters to support John Kerry in their reporting. And so on, and so on. These demonstrate an actual bias in news reporting, not an adversarial editorial position.

MMA and its allies want to protect the support that the mainstream media has given the American left for decades by creating a mythology of conservative bias, and they deliberately misrepresent editorial positions for news reporting to do so. It's a pathetic and dishonest attempt by David Brock and his staff, neither of which should surprise anyone unfortunate enough to read their product.

Correction: David Brock, not David Brooks. I had also just read Brooks' column. Mea culpa.

Weblog Awards Winner!

I wanted to wait a day for all of the polls to officially close before posting about the results of the 2004 Weblog Awards. Kevin has finalized the polling and Captain's Quarters won for Best Conservative Blog, taking an amazing 36% of the overall vote for the category. My colleagues at Power Line won the award for Best Overall Blog in what turned out to be a squeaker. Having worked with all three Power Line gentlemen now, I can only say that the voters knew what they were doing in that competition, although many fine blogs were featured.

You can see the entire list at the above link, but I wanted to note a few other results. In my category, I had the misfortune of being squared off against some fine bloggers, including LaShawn Barber, who traded notes with me during the contest. I'm a big fan of VodkaPundit, who came in second, and Right Thinking and Ann Althouse. Be sure to check them out.

I have another category in which I can claim a small part of a victory. The group blog Oh, That Liberal Media, in which I too-infrequently contribute, won for the Best of the Top 500-1500 Blogs category. That win really goes to Patterico, XRLQ, and the rest of the gang there. Speaking of Patterico, he won his own category, Best of the Top 100-250 blogs. Congratulations!

If you haven't had the chance yet, be sure to check out all of the results and discover a few new blogs at the same time. Big thanks to Kevin Aylward for putting together such a fun contest!

Getting Closer To Omar (Updated)

The London Telegraph reports that Afghani security forces captured a key lieutenant of Mullah Omar and a Taliban commander yesterday after a tip from an inside informant:

The personal security chief for Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar has been captured in southern Afghanistan.

The arrest of Toor Mullah Naqibullah Khan as he travelled in a van to Kandahar, gives hope to US and local forces searching for other key Taliban figures and Osama bin Laden.

"We have arrested top Taliban figures Toor Mullah Naqibullah Khan and Mullah Angar on the way between Arghandab and Kandahar," provincial security forces said.

"They were carrying a satellite telephone and some important documents. We are hopeful we will arrest more Taliban figures and we hope that we can arrest their leader Mullah Omar."

Finding a satellite phone on the prisoners is an interesting development. Most of the al-Qaeda hierarchy had given up on satellite technology after American military forces started using it to track the fugitives a few years ago. It either indicates a belief that the US is too focused on Iraq to track Taliban communications, or a desperation in establishing communications with disparate parts of their command that they're willing to risk capture to try it. It's hard to imagine that anyone would believe the former -- even our own Michael Moore crowd would probably laugh at that -- and so I would guess that the Taliban has permanently lost their command and control functions.

The "insider tip" credit may be on the level, or it may just be a tactical bit of disinformation designed to keep the Taliban suspicious of each other while the Afghanis and Americans exploit their technology. In either case, the Taliban appears to have fallen apart, and Omar's capture looks more certain with each new prisoner the Afghanis take.

UPDATE: More information here:

Mullah Naqvi and Mullah Qayum were active in the ousted regime's insurgency and were believed responsible for a series of terror attacks in southern Afghanistan, said Abdullah Laghmani, the intelligence chief in Kandahar province.

Both men were on "most-wanted" lists, Laghmani said. During the Taliban's rule, Naqvi was in charge of security for Mullah Omar's home in Kandahar city, and Qayum served as a military commander in the province, said Abdullah Laghmani, the province's intelligence chief. ...

Laghmani said Naqvi and Qayum were caught Monday night at a home in Kandahar city. Another suspect apprehended in the city earlier in the day, driving a vehicle containing 460 pounds of explosives, allegedly intended for Taliban fighters, led Afghan security forces to the two commanders.

"These two commanders were involved in every terrorist activity in Kandahar province against the government and coalition forces," Laghmani said.

When low-level delivery boys know where to find top insurgency commanders, the organization is either extremely small or very incompetent. I'd say that both are probably true in this case.

Delay In Securing Russian N-Arms Due To Russians, Lawyers: USA Today

During the 2004 presidential campaign, the Democrats tried making the status of programs designed to render Russian nuclear-weapon fuel harmless a major issue, accusing George Bush of ignoring this gaping vulnerability to terrorism. The Democrats failed to get much traction on this issue, and today's USA Today report explains why. The holdup on securing this dangerous material turns out to originate with arguments over verification techniques from the Russians and threats of liability lawsuits:

U.S. programs to help Russia protect and destroy its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are far behind schedule, despite President Bush's warning this fall that terrorists getting such weapons is "the biggest threat facing this country."

A half-billion dollars set aside by Congress in the past two years to secure or scrap Russian weapons sits unspent, a USA TODAY review of figures provided by program managers finds. Federal audits released in the past 18 months show hundreds of millions more have gone to ineffective projects.

The delays in safeguarding the stockpiles stem largely from disputes between the United States and Russia over how much access Americans need to inspect Russian weapons sites and verify that U.S. aid is spent properly. The U.S. government also has had trouble reaching binding agreements with Russia on how to manage U.S.-funded storage and disposal facilities — and who will be liable if one has an accident.

The liability issue is no mere rhetorical hurdle, either. The Russians and especially the Ukrainians remember the Chernobyl nightmare, which proved Russian designs and maintenance for nuclear reactors dangerously flawed. No one knows how much that cost the old Soviet Union just to contain the damage; and in a free society, the lawsuits would easily outstrip the other costs of such a catastrophe. I have no doubt that Russia wants the US to shoulder the liability while Russia runs the facilities, an arrangement that should make every American taxpayer blanch with fear -- not to mention any Russians in the vicinity of the facilities.

It's not just the liability, either. The US has already built the Russians at least one conversion facility that the Russians immediately converted to another use: building commercial rockets. They have reneged thus far on providing the US clear-cut plans for the use of a second facility in Schuchye, bringing our construction to a halt. We continue to have problems with Russian internal-security agencies allowing the US access for verification of the work. Under these circumstances, why would we spend more money on a failed program?

Developments like this are the reason an extension of the agreement is in doubt:

The bilateral agreement authorizing the programs expires in 2006. And disputes on liability and other issues threaten its renewal.

"Without (a new pact), I think all of our programs would have to stop," says Paul Longsworth of the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration. "Obviously, we're concerned if we don't get resolution soon."

But renewal talks haven't begun. ...

The programs, spending about $1 billion a year, have destroyed thousands of nuclear warheads, missiles and submarines, and big stocks of chemical and biological agents. But they're controversial.

"On (the U.S.) side, there are people who say the Russians are cheating, they just want the money," says Vladimir Rybachenkov, counselor at the Russian Embassy. "On our side, there are some who say the Americans just want to get their noses into our" military sites.

These remarks indicate a more contentious relationship than that of true allies, pointing to the difficult nature of the Russian moves towards autocracy. We need a strong Russia to help us combat terrorism, but we may be seeing the rise of another imperial government -- one that wants its nukes right where they are to cement their status as a world power.

Even that would be tactically acceptable in the short term if we could be certain of Russian control over the weapons material, but unfortunately, Russian security only seems to work well when keeping Americans out. Also, many of the weapons passed from Russian hands at the end of the Cold War to the new republics on its borders, which may have been more cooperative before Putin's rise as a dictator-in-waiting. The newly-independent states may have a lot less enthusiasm for going nuke-free with the rise of a statist government in Moscow. They've seen this play before.

As is usually the case, instead of the knee-jerk Democratic reaction to blame Bush for everything, the truth is a lot more complicated. In this instance, Bush has had no choice but to slow down and untangle every roadblock placed in our way to get the mission accomplished. Congress needs to ask if Americans are willing to simply stuff hard cash into Putin's pockets without any assurance of our strategic aims being addressed.

Abbas Says Intifadas A "Mistake", Calls For End To Attacks

Palestinian interim leader and presidential candidate Mahmoud Abbas today called the intifadas against Israel a "mistake" and called for an end to violence as a means of ending the occupation, the AP reports:

The armed uprising against Israel is a mistake and must end, interim Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview published Tuesday, signaling his determination to change direction after Yasser Arafat's death. ...

In an interview with the London-based Arabic newspaper Asharq al-Awsat published Tuesday, Abbas said Palestinians should resist Israeli occupation without resorting to violence.

It is important to "keep the uprising away from arms because the uprising is a legitimate right of the people to express their rejection of the occupation by popular and social means," Abbas said.

"Using the weapons was harmful and has got to stop," Abbas said, referring to shootings and bombings by Palestinian militants that have killed hundreds of Israelis since the outbreak of fighting in September 2000.

Abbas' comments won't generate a lot of popular support, especially in the Hamas-rich areas of Gaza and the West Bank border, and I doubt he would have made them unless Marwan Barghouti pulled out of the race, as he did again earlier this week. Poll after poll has shown broad support for the terror campaign against Israeli citizens among Palestinians, although polling in a dictatorship where free speech usually gets a bullet for a reward does have certain accuracy issues. It seems like a risky political move for Abbas; the comments open him up to another candidacy on the radical flank, even if Barghouti fails to take advantage of it.

Getting past the immediate electoral implications of Abbas' statement, the fact that he aired these opinions publicly shows how fragile Arafat's legacy has become. Abbas would not have dared to give a contradictory policy statement like this to any newspaper, let alone a Western-based publication, while Arafat was alive. The statement appears to acknowledge the dead end towards which the old terrorist led the Palestinians over the past ten or more years. The new Fatah party line may well be to revere Arafat the revolutionary but to eschew the revolution.

All of this is predicated on the assumption that Abbas believes what he says and intends to bring an end to the intifadah and the violent strategies used by the Palestinians. It also assumes he has the ability to do so; even Abbas recognizes the chaotic state of his security forces, without mentioning their infiltration by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Skeptics will shrug and chalk up Abbas' remarks to simply another public-relations ploy, which I agree could very well be possible. On the other hand, if peace is to come, it will have to come from a man like Abbas speaking truths like this at first.

Perhaps Abbas may succeed in convincing his fellow Palestinians to wake up from their brainwashing and approach their situation from a rational basis. In this day and age, bombthrowing no longer gets a people to the bargaining table; it gets them assassinated, as Hamas increasingly has learned. It loses them support, as Egypt continues to warn in its recent diplomacy. It gets the American military pulling people out of foxholes and driving them into the desert, as both Saddam Hussein and Mullah Omar have experienced. The world has changed, and the Palestinians need to realize it.

When We Can't Win, We'll Act Like We Did

The Washington Times published a revealing blurb about the strategy Senate Democrats will take in the next session of Congress -- pretending they won the last election:

Senate Democrats Monday signaled they would continue to try and unofficially oversee the Bush administration.

Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D., and Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced several oversight hearings on a range of subjects next hear.

The Democratic leadership in the Senate claim that the Republicans in Congress have not exercised their oversight responsibilities, but that's not why they've scheduled these hearings. The GOP has been happy enough with the performance of the Bush administration. The Democrats simply can't handle the fact that they've been sent packing three election cycles in a row. In order to make themselves feel better, they plan on holding circus-atmosphere hearings to air their complaints on TV. They're hoping you tune them in to hear their bitch sessions about the GOP.

You may as well. You're paying for them.

Democratic Competence On Display In Minnesota

Either one of the DFL's electors in Minnesota decided to make a political statement, or he or she could not remember the name of the Democratic nominee to write on the Electoral College ballot. Whichever the case, it does not reflect well on the DFL's efforts to project competence and relevance:

One of Minnesota's 10 presidential electors broke from the pack and cast a vote Monday for John Edwards, the Democratic vice presidential running mate for John Kerry. ...

"I'm sure somebody made a mistake," said elector Michael Meuers of Bemidji. "I'm certainly glad that the Electoral College is not separated by one vote."

With all of the uproar from the Democrats about the importance of counting each vote, one would expect to see massive condemnations for the DFL elector who just disenfranchised 10% of the Minnesota vote in the Electoral College. Was it a mistake? In order to believe that, you have to believe that the Democrats chose an elector incapable of remembering their presidential nominee, a name in the news for a few days over the last year, after all. That option speaks well of neither the elector, the DFL party members who selected him or her, nor of the thoroughly forgettable candidate who ran a thoroughly forgettable campaign.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that the elector filed the vote as some sort of weird protest against both John Kerry and George Bush. That would be an indictment of the relevancy of the DFL in this state, a party full of stupid, pointless gestures. Nice work, DFL.

McCain: Still No Confidence In Rumsfeld

In an indication to everyone except the John Kerry Perpetual Campaign For Political Martyrdom that the presidential election is over, Senator John McCain made clear the feelings towards Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to which he alluded last week with only slightly veiled rhetoric. McCain bluntly told an AP interviewer that he had "no confidence" in Rumsfeld:

U.S. Sen. John McCain said Monday that he has "no confidence" in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, citing Rumsfeld's handling of the war in Iraq and the failure to send more troops.

McCain, speaking to The Associated Press in an hourlong interview, said his comments were not a call for Rumsfeld's resignation, explaining that President Bush "can have the team that he wants around him."

Asked about his confidence in the secretary's leadership, McCain recalled fielding a similar question a couple weeks ago.

"I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence," McCain said.

McCain has no problem with the decision to go to war in Iraq, nor apparently with the initial invasion phase, in either planning or execution. Rather, McCain cited differences in opinions on troop levels, troop constituencies, and the overall post-invasion strategy -- sounding themes consistent with criticism from many across the aisle. The difference is in the timing, of course; McCain did not make these kinds of broad criticisms before the election. One suspects that he did not trust Democrats to use his words constructively -- and that he saw little to his liking in the contradictory and mostly isolationist strategies of the opposition.

It's no secret that McCain would love to be SecDef, but with Rumsfeld deciding to stay on (and with a Democratic governor to appoint his replacement), that opportunity simply will not appear during this term. McCain instead seems to be positioning himself from the hawkish center for a Presidential run in 2008, even though he will be 72 years old at that time. Another AP analysis shows McCain taking steroids (as an issue!!) to beef up his visibility on domestic politics.

All of this may well launch John McCain to the front of a crowded pack for the GOP's 2008 nomination. One wonders, however, if the GOP mainstream will have any enthusiasm for a maverick Senator who launched his bid by undermining confidence in a Defense secretary in what looks suspiciously like a ploy to suck up to the national news media.

A Turkish Checkmate?

The long-proposed entry of NATO member Turkey to the EU has generated much controversy, especially in the context of the war against Islamofascist terror and the Muslim population explosion in central Europe. While the EU powers have stalled Turkey's application, time had started to run out on their delays. However, today France played the genocide card, complicating the politics to such an extent that Turkey's EU entry may be a dead letter:

France has said it will ask Turkey to acknowledge the mass killing of Armenians from 1915 as genocide when it begins EU accession talks.

French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said Turkey had "a duty to remember". ... Mr Barnier said France did not consider Turkish acknowledgement a condition of EU entry, but insisted his country would raise the issue once talks opened.

Speaking to reporters after a meeting of EU foreign ministers to discuss plans to invite Turkey for accession talks, Mr Barnier said Turkey "must carry out this task as a memorial".

France started out softly, not couching the demand as an ultimatum but informing the Turks that they will be expected to answer the question. However, the Turks do not care to revisit the Armenian genocide/uprising of 1915, when Armenians allege -- and historians generally concur -- that the Young Turks movement that precipitated the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the doddering Islamic caliphate slaughtered 1.5 million restful Armenians in the 20th century's first genocide. As historian David Fromkin put it in his history of the region, A Peace To End All Peace, the Turks left Armenia as quiet as the grave.

Ever since, the Turks have vehemently denied that they did anything except put down an uprising by the accepted military method. Of course, their denials have more at stake than just a defense of national pride. Admitting the slaughter would create a moral if not legal obligation to provide some reparations to the survivors of the 1915 victims and their descendants, as well as to the now-independent nation of Armenia. France appears to have gambled that the Turks will simply find the price too steep and withdraw from its EU application.

It's a crime that Turkey has yet to acknowledge its part in the mass murders in Armenia. Positive action on their part could have defused a major issue with the West (and the East as well). It remains a black spot on the history of the Turkish people. But what price will all concerned pay for France's gambit?

First, once this card was played, there really is no way to bury it again. Either Turkey will have to acknowledge some form of responsibility, or the EU entry is dead. Now that France has raised the issue of 1915, no Western nation will openly support disregarding a genocide for political and military expediency. (Can you see Germany openly supporting Turkey without some contrition for the Armenian genocides?)

Turkey's moderate Islamist executive is highly unlikely to budge, mostly because any admission would result in their ejection from office, and possibly a more radical Islamist government forming in its place. That has some implications for the war on terror, potentially destabilizing an important ally and resource to combat al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups. A disconnect between Turkey and the West at this point does more than just remove the intelligence assistance of the Turks; it isolates Pakistan in the Islamic world in the terror fight as the only major Muslim player against AQ. Alienating Turkey could also have major implications for the western border of Iraq and the Kurds who populate both sides of that border.

Much depends on how offended the Turks become at the late French demand for humility on the world stage, no matter how well-deserved. While I applaud the call for Turkish accountability, I can't help but regret the timing.

Oh, Let's Just Hold Another Election So They Can Gripe Some More (Breathless Update!)

Now Democrats want federal election officials to stop the Electoral College from certifying the 2004 presidential election until hand recounts are completed in all 50 states, according to this report from the Arizona Republic. CQ commenter Spectregunner directs our attention to a protest at the Arizona state capitol by 200 people, including a Democratic state representative, who insist that the election results have no credibility:

About 200 protesters from around Arizona gathered at the state Capitol on Sunday urging electors to delay the Electoral College vote until each state performs a hand recount of the popular vote.

The event was timed to pressure the electors, who are meeting in each state today, to cast electoral votes for president and vice president. President Bush won Arizona's 10 electoral votes with 55 percent of the vote, besting Sen. John Kerry.

On Sunday, the protesters' primary aim, as described by one hand-lettered sign, was to "rage against the voting machines."

Protesters said that discrepancies between pre-election polls and the final results were evidence of fraud and should be investigated.

I keep shaking my head, wondering when the nuttiness of Democratic self-delusion will reach its limits. In every pre-election poll conducted in Arizona, George Bush handily led John Kerry. In fact, the final national results tally closely with most predictive outcomes from the various national pollsters. Even John Kerry's own pollster predicted a 3-point win in the popular vote for George Bush the day of the election, although he also wrote that he hoped to be proven wrong.

Now the Democrats -- including an elected official -- consider sample polling more reliable than actual voting in determining voter intent, a concept that stands 200 years of elections on its head. Moreover, their argument is internally inconsistent. They decry the lack of paper trails with electronic voting, but insist on hand recounts of ballots that don't, therefore, exist:

State Rep. Ben Miranda, D-Phoenix, said he would push for legislation that would mandate printed records of individual votes. He also called for more accountability for poll workers who handle voting machines.

"We want to make sure that whoever touches that machine, it's documented," he told the crowd, which responded with cheers, applause and occasional tabla drumming.

Well, the occasional tabla drumming certainly convinces me! However, I think that Democrats need sense drummed into their heads instead of continuing the monotonous beat of we-was-robbed, we-was-robbed that has formed the core belief of the Leftist religion the last three election cycles.

BREATHLESS, SIREN-SIGNIFIED UPDATE: The grown-ups thankfully remain in charge:

The Ohio delegation to the Electoral College cast its votes for President Bush on Monday, hours after dissident groups asked the state Supreme Court to review the outcome of the state's presidential race. ...

"The vast majority of people understand this election is over," said Gov. Bob Taft, who was at the electors' voting session in the state Senate chamber.

While I believe the governor overestimated the extent of the GOP majority status in America, I commend him for his optimism. One or two more cycles of delusional Democratic tantrums and he may just be proven prescient.

The Other Shoes Keep Dropping On Kerik

As I suspected on Saturday, the nanny problem Bernard Kerik cited when he withdrew his nomination as DHS chief does not appear to be the only issue that his confirmation hearing would have revealed. Today, two new revelations about Kerik's tenure in New York demonstrate the poor job done in vetting his candidacy prior to the nomination.

First, the Daily News reveals that Kerik managed to conduct two simultaneous extramarital affairs, using a "secret" corporate-rental apartment. One of the women was a publishing magnate, while the other worked for Kerik in Corrections:

The first relationship, spanning nearly a decade, was with city Correction Officer Jeanette Pinero; the second, and more startling, was with famed publishing titan Judith Regan.

His affair with Regan, the stunningly attractive head of her own book publishing company, lasted for almost a year.

Dramatically, each woman learned of the existence of the other after Pinero discovered a love note left by Regan in the apartment.

Who sleeps with whom does not usually concern me in regards to job qualificiations -- except when a manager or executive carries on a sexual affair with an underling. Jeanette Pinero worked in Kerik's command structure, a gross violation of ethics for any manager or executive, the exact same kind as we saw in the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. This relationship has led to two separate lawsuits against the city of New York, both claiming that Kerik retaliated against managers who disciplined Pinero for job violations. The city settled one suit for a quarter-million dollars; the other id now in depositions and subject to a gag order. (Newsweek reports that Regan hired bodyguards to keep Kerik away after the affair collapsed.)

The New York Times picked up on another potential problem in Kerik's administration in NYC, first reported by the Daily News. Kerik had been accused of taking payoffs, a fact that seems to have been missed by the White House staff, although the charges were under review by New York:

While serving as New York City correction commissioner in the late 1990's, Bernard B. Kerik spoke to the city's Trade Waste Commission on behalf of a close friend who was helping a company suspected of mob connections try to get a license from the city, according to a former commission executive.

The conversation was part of a web of relationships Mr. Kerik developed with officials of a New Jersey construction company long suspected by New York authorities of connections to organized crime. The company, Interstate Industrial Corporation, hired Mr. Kerik's close friend Lawrence Ray, the best man at Mr. Kerik's wedding, to help with its licensing problems. Mr. Ray said yesterday that he gave Mr. Kerik more than $7,000 in cash and other gifts while Mr. Kerik was commissioner of correction and the police. The gifts were first reported in The Daily News yesterday.

Put all of this together and it adds up to political toxic waste, the kind that vetting staffs are supposed to keep well away from presidents. For the most part, the White House staff has done a good job in keeping this administration clean of scandal -- which makes the revelation-a-day embarrassment of the Kerik nomination difficult to fathom. Obviously, Rudy Giuliani's considerable assistance in the election gave him huge credibility with the Bush team. Perhaps it gave Rudy too much credibility, which is why he went out of his way to apologize to Bush this weekend:

Giuliani was at the White House on Sunday night, one of several dozen guests at holiday dinner party. The former mayor and his wife, Judith, also rode in the presidential limousine with Bush and his wife, Laura, back to the White House after they attended the taping of the annual "Christmas in Washington" concert.

McClellan noted that even though Giuliani offered an apology Sunday night to Bush, "I don't think the president felt that one was necessary."

Giuliani spokeswoman Sunny Mindel said in New York that the White House dinner Sunday had been planned several weeks ago. "The president was very gracious," she said. "They remain good friends."

Word has it that Kerik will return to his former position with Giuliani Partners now that he has withdrawn from the nomination, and that Giuliani will welcome him back. Expect that welcome to be short if Giuliani entertains any ideas about jumping into the presidential race in 2008.

UPDATE: I missed this excellent post on the subject by Michelle Malkin until she linked back to this one. I like her pick for the DHS position, too:

My dream pick: Peter Nunez, former United States Attorney, Southern District of California (1982-1988), former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement (1990-1993) overseeing all law enforcement components of the Treasury Department including Customs and BATF, lecturer in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of San Diego and Chairman of the Board of Directors at the Center for Immigration Studies.

Nunez has been in the trenches, has demonstrated his ability and determination to enforce our immigration laws, and has worked with law enforcement officials and agencies on both the northern and southern borders. He gets it.

If he doesn't get the DHS nod, let's hope whoever does has the sense to put Nunez in charge of immigration issues.

Just to recap Kerik's disastrous nomination:

* Don't be fooled by the notion that the process has been too rough for Kerik and that we won't get anyone to serve if our standards are this high. Plenty of good people remain and are willing to serve.

* The nanny problem is no mere distraction. If Kerik had followed the law, he would have paid her Social Security taxes, which would have immediately shown whether the servant had work eligibility in the US. As a law-enforcement agent, Kerik knew the requirement, and as a politician, he knew the Kimba Wood/Zoe Baird precedent. The failure to pay the taxes demonstrates that he knew her status and lied about it.

* Sleeping with your employees may not be illegal, but it's highly unethical, and the city of New York continues to pay for it. It destroys morale, and more so, it demonstrates a self-centeredness that we really don't need at DHS. Either we take homeland security seriously or we don't. The White House should.

Kerik turned out to be a bad candidate, a huge mistake for the White House, and fortunately flamed out before the Senate confirmation hearings. No excuses necessary.

More Lawrence Mischief

The Army Court of Appeals has thrown out a heterosexual sodomy conviction based in part on the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, throwing the ban on gays serving in the military into doubt. The New York Times reports that the impact on military policy will likely be indirect but cumulative:

The decision, issued late last month by the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, was based in part on the Supreme Court opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which declared last year that the Texas sodomy statute violated the right to privacy.

The case before the Army court involved a male Army specialist who admitted that he had engaged in consensual oral sex in a barracks room with a female civilian whom he had met at a nightclub. But those seeking to abolish the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and some legal experts, say the ruling is also applicable to private gay sex - thus cracking the foundation of the military's rationale for requiring gays to serve in silence.

Once again, Lawrence raises its ugly head, constraining public policy -- and now military policy -- out of a ridiculously broad privacy expectation regarding public behavior. In this case, the behavior wasn't even private; the couple engaged in oral sex in an Army barracks, yet the appellate court applied the silliness of Lawrence. The Times quotes C. Dixon Osburn, a gay-rights advocate for military personnel, as saying that "Private, consensual conduct in the bedroom has no impact on the battlefield," but it happened on Army property. Since when does the Army have no control over the behavior of its members on their own bases?

I think the ban on gays serving in the military is silly and should be discarded. Just as Barry Goldwater once remarked, I'm only concerned that they shoot straight. However, that decision is a public-policy question, not a Constitutional one, regardless of what Lawrence says. The spreading nature of that decision keeps confirming the worst fears of those who opposed it. No one has a "right" to privacy when they conduct sexual activity on a military base, regardless of whether the sex was oral or copulatory. The breakdown in discipline does affect battle readiness, no matter what Mr. Osburn claims; when enlisted personnel suddenly get granted carte blanche to conduct themselves in any manner of sexual activity in the barracks, does Mr. Osburn really think that soldiers will have their mind on training?

The Army should appeal this decision back to the Supreme Court, which should take the opportunity to narrow the application of Lawrence -- or better yet, reverse it. Bad law and policy is not necessarily unconstitutional, and the Court should belatedly recognize the potential for mischief it unleashed in the earlier decision.

Everything Not Regulated Will Be Banned

The Guardian (UK) reports today that British victims groups have called for tougher weapons laws. Of course, Britain already has strict gun-control laws, but now the effort is to regulate knives:

Families of stabbing victims will today call on the government to make carrying a knife as serious an offence as carrying a gun.

The group, which includes Damilola Taylor's father, will demand that ministers introduce a five-year minimum jail term for carrying an object with a blade longer than three inches, which would equalise the penalties for knives and guns.

They also want to see a six-month minimum jail term for carrying a blade shorter than three inches, or three months for juveniles.

Once again, we see a push for criminalizing the use of a tool that can just as easily be used for defensive as well as offensive purposes -- and unlike guns, has practical uses as well. One British politico proposes jailing those who carry knives "for the wrong purposes", as though one could divine intent without the commission of a crime.

I have no problem for giving long jail sentences to those who use knives (and guns) during the commission of a crime. Upsentencing is one of the reasons the law distinguishes between robbery and armed robbery, after all. But criminalizing knives only serves to disarm an already-disarmed law-abiding citizenry while the rest of the nutcases get an even larger margin of firepower over their victims. What's next? Will one need a plumber's licence to possess a lead pipe? Will people be required to show a mountaineering certificate to buy rope?

Steelers Clinch Division, Bettis Tops 13,000 Yards

The wheels on the Bus go round and round ...

The Pittsburgh Steelers clinched the AFC North division yesterday in a game when two running backs topped 13,000 career rushing yards each, the first time in NFL history that has happened. But it wasn't the rushing yards that made the Steelers' Jerome Bettis remarkable yesterday:

In a game that featured two of the NFL's best young quarterbacks, the pass that launched the Pittsburgh Steelers to a 17-6 victory over the New York Jets and their eighth division title in 13 seasons was thrown by 32-year-old running back Jerome Bettis.

His tiebreaking fourth-quarter toss to Jerame Tuman was as unlikely as it was spectacular, a moment that warmed the hearts of many of the 63,581 who endured sub-freezing temperatures Sunday at Heinz Field.

Jerome Bettis -- who played for Notre Dame, by the way -- has had a storybook season. Considered washed up for all but goal-line offenses, Bettis hung onto his job even after Pittsburgh signed star running back Duce Staley from the Philadelphia Eagles. When Staley seriously injured a hamstring, Bettis made the most of his opportunity, rushing for 100 yards in four straight games and transforming the Steelers back into a smashmouth, pounding offense that won games by controlling the line of scrimmage.

The combination of rookie QB Ben Roethlisberger and a rejuvenated Bettis has the Steelers at 12-1, a record they have not seen in almost 30 years, and close to clinching home-field advantage throughout the playoffs. It looks like the best chance the Steeler have had since they made it to the Super Bowl ten years ago, only to lose to the Dallas Cowboys on two blown reads resulting in interceptions run back for touchdowns. Pittsburgh has reason to be excited for the Steel Curtain again.

Say ... did anyone see how the Cleveland Browns did yesterday?

Brownstein: Beinart Is Wrong

Peter Beinart wrote a long column two weeks ago for the New Republic that called on Democrats to hearken back to post-WWII tradition and coalesce around a strategy of muscular liberalism in a Trumanesque fashion in order to restore their credibility on foreign policy and especially terrorism. Beinart argued that today's Democrats lack the anti-totalitarian fire they had during the Cold War and fail to recognize Islamofascism as the same enemy as Communist oppression. During his appearance on Hugh Hewitt when we filled in, we questioned Beinart's recollection of Democratic resistance to totalitarianism, especially in places like Nicaragua and Cuba, challenges that Beinart left unanswered.

Ronald Brownstein picks up the thread in today's Los Angeles Times and also questions Beinart's analysis, this time in his assumptions regarding the circumstances in which Americans for Democratic Action formed and set Democratic foreign policy until the late 1960s:

Beinart is surely right that in this uneasy new era, as at the height of the Cold War, Democrats are unlikely to win the White House unless voters trust the party to protect them. But he glosses over the principal reason the ADA generation could articulate a positive foreign policy agenda more easily than Democrats can today.

When the ADA was formed, a Democratic president, Harry S. Truman, was developing America's strategy against the spread of Soviet communism. Although Truman didn't neglect military might, his vision of "containment" put much greater emphasis on economic aid (through the Truman Doctrine for Greece and Turkey and the Marshall Plan for Europe) and international alliances (NATO). Truman made it easier for the ADA to embrace a positive agenda, because he set a course for the Cold War most Democrats could support.

Brownstein makes a good point; not only did Democrats control the executive branch when the ADA was founded, but Democratic executives had just successfully prosecuted a global war -- a brutal, costly, but necessary and transformative war that changed America from an isolationist backwater to a global power. They had credibility on foreign policy unlike anything we have seen since the late 1960s, when the party began its slow sell-out to the countercultural, radical elements that MoveOn, International ANSWER, and Hollywood represent today.

But Brownstein misses more than Beinart does with that focus, mostly because neither one of them see the profound changes that have occurred since the ADA. To both Beinart and Brownstein, this is still their fathers' Democratic Party. Yes, with Democrats mostly out of power in the executive branch for the past generation, Democratic foreign policy has necessarily been reactive. Neither, however, answer the question as to why Democrats have been shut out of the White House since Viet Nam, with two exceptions: two Southern governors, one whose election came in reaction to one of the worst political scandals in American history, and the other who won when conservatives split the ticket (and governed from the center out of political survival).

Put simply, the cacaphony of the American Left, which Beinart casts as a fringe element that receives inordinate attention, causes the American electorate to mistrust Democratic commitment to represent American interests instead of utopian, one-world ideals. That doesn't spring from Hollywood idiots such as Michael Moore getting too much press; that mistrust has been underscored by a generation of Democrats getting essential parts of foreign policy badly mistaken. Jimmy Carter kissed Leonid Brezhnev and scolded Americans for fearing Communism -- and then watched as the Soviets overran Afghanistan, threatening our vital security issues in the Persian Gulf.

Senators such as John Kerry insisted that Communists in Central America represented the will of the people and refused to address Communist expansion on our doorstep. When the US pressed the Sandanistas in Nicaragua by supporting the contras and forcing elections, Kerry and his friends on the left (notably Ed Asner) predicted that Daniel Ortega would win handily and give the Reagan Administration a well-deserved bloody nose. When the Nicaraguans tossed Ortega and his minions from office, they recovered from the shock just long enough to complain about voting "irregularities". (Sound familiar?)

Finally, in the Cold War to which Beinart asks Democrats to hearken, the party opposed every measure meant to win that conflict without military action. They believed -- believed -- that the world was condemned to a binary existence. Indeed, as John Kerry has said on more than one occasion, they did not consider Communism a problem to be solved, but just another strategy in governing that worked for some people. The Democrats fueled No Nuke rallies when Reagan updating aging weapons systems; they fought against defense spending when Reagan wanted to engage the Soviets on the economic front; and they made their preference for the status quo plain, even though millions of Eastern Europeans suffered under Soviet occupation for decades.

The Democrats didn't pursue all of these foreign-policy objectives strictly out of gainsay of the Republican executive as Brownstein proposes. These represented the Democratic core values! Moral relativism in the face of evil and an isolationist, none-of-our-business outlook results in retreat and surrender. Those policies and that track record does not represent mainstream American values any more, if they ever did at all.

That is the hurdle that Democrats must clear if they expect America to trust them on foreign policy in the executive -- or they have to win on every other issue besides war and diplomacy. Beinart comes closer than Brownstein in diagnosing the true illness, but neither of them understands that the issue runs so deep that a party split may be the only cure. Until the Democrats cut the Hollywood and International ANSWER crowd loose -- and I mean overtly rejecting them and their apologetics for Stalinism -- Americans will never trust them to represent our interests abroad.

Slouching Towards Florida 2000

Slowly and inexorably, John Kerry keeps moving towards mounting a vote challenge like the one in Florida that paralyzed the executive branch in 2000. Last night, the AP reported that the Kerry campaign now wants to inspect ballots cast without a vote for president:

Democrat John Kerry is asking county elections officials to allow his witnesses to inspect the 92,000 ballots cast in Ohio in which no vote for president was recorded, a Kerry lawyer said Sunday night.

The request is one of 11 the Kerry campaign made in a letter sent over the weekend to Ohio's 88 county boards of election, which will begin recounting presidential ballots this week.

"We're trying to increase the transparency of the election process," said Donald McTigue, the lawyer handling the recount for the Kerry campaign. But he added that several requests — such as using independent experts to check election equipment, "are trying to push the edge of envelope."

It's not just pushing the envelope, a phrase that McTigue can't even get correct; these new requests attempt in a cowardly, passive-aggressive way to create a demand for a full recount and a withdrawal of Kerry's concession. What they want is Ohio to rise up and do what Kerry himself is apparently too much of a chicken to do himself.

So far, Ohio has responded with a yawn, so Kerry's lawyers keep requesting more and more provocative measures to garner headlines and create more controversy -- hoping that controversy will generate pressure to re-open the entire Ohio vote count. Failing that, Kerry wants to delegitimize Bush's victory in the Buckeye state and start yet another stolen-election mythology. Why? Kerry has made no secret of his desire to run again in 2008, but running as the man who lost a winnable election doesn't give him much hope for the next one. On the other hand, running as the man from whom Bush stole an election allows Kerry to focus on revenge instead of his own gaping inadequacies as a candidate. It also allows Democrats the same myopia about their party.

Ohio responded by reminding Kerry that the state conducts recounts according to state law, not to conditions set by the candidates. We can expect to see those laws and any others that stand in the way of Democratic mythmaking and Kerry's self-delusion to be challenged in court, derided as Republican conspiracies, and used to smear the officials upholding them. After all, we saw the playbook four years ago.

Blog Notes

Just a few notes to bring everyone up to date at the behind-the-scenes machinations at CQ ...

First, the lower output this weekend is due to the Christmas shopping season and an opportunity to babysit the Little Admiral. Instead of watching Papa sit behind his computer, we decorated the Christmas tree (somehow, it's inexplicably become "Gamma's Tree" this year), watched "Finding Nemo", and played with her Little Peoples toys. I love blogging, but that beats writing every time, which I'm sure CQ readers understand.

Speaking of the Little Admiral, she performed in her very first show this week, a Christmas recital her day-care center put on. I have video and hope to post a capture later tonight of her singing ...

I'd like to welcome a new sponsor aboard CQ. I'm very grateful to all of my sponsors -- please patronize them as much as possible! -- but today Kevin McCullough joined CQ's premium sponsorship. I met Kevin at the Republican Convention and have had the pleasure of appearing on his radio show several times since. He's a great guy with a sharp perspective on current affairs, and I'm honored by his sponsorship. Be sure to tune him in if you're in the Tri-State Area, or make his blog a regular stop in the blogosphere ...

Voting in the 2004 Weblog Awards is almost closed, and I'm amazed that I have accrued almost a third of all the votes in the Best Conservative Blog category, especially given the competition in this area. I hope that CQ readers have found the wealth of new options in the blogosphere that these awards reveal. I haven't posted my list of recommendations, mostly because I have more than one friend in most categories, but I would urge you to cast a vote for Patterico in his category. It's a razor-thin margin, and Patterico has long been a friend of CQ. Your assistance today could put him over the top!

Finally, I'd also urge you to contribute to the Friends of Iraq Blogger Challenge at Spirit of America, a great charity that allows US servicemen and women to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis through positive interactions, like sports and entertainment. The Northern Alliance squad has raised over $11,000 and leads the team competition, but we'd like to catch Charles's LGF efforts for the overall lead. In this competition, fortunately, everyone wins!

More later tonight ...

Barghouti's New Pre-Re-Entry Withdrawal

Marwan Barghouti remains on target in his quest to become the Moqtada al-Sadr of Palestinian politics. In yet another tiresome reversal, Bargouti will now withdraw from the Palestinian presidential election:

Imprisoned uprising leader Marwan Barghouti is dropping out the Jan. 9 election to replace Yasser Arafat as head of the Palestinian Authority, associates said Sunday. ...

Barghouti's wife, Fadwa, called a news conference in Ramallah to read a letter from her husband harshly critical of the Fatah leadership but implying that he would pull out of the race. Associates said Fadwa would formally withdraw his candidacy on Monday.

His harsh criticism of Fatah leadership springs from their sudden focus on creating the possibility of a negotiated settlement on statehood with Israel and the sudden dearth of financing now that their sponsor Saddam Hussein got pulled out of his spider hole. Before Arafat's death, Fatah may have been pleased to run a candidate from an Israeli prison, especially when the American military wasn't blanketing Southwest Asia. Low on funds and with Egyptian pressure to make a deal now, Fatah wants to hold onto power, and Mubarak has already made its preference for true negotiations known. Without Egyptian support, Fatah would dissolve.

However, if the track record of Barghouti means anything, we should expect to see him re-enter the race sometime next week.

St. Paul Snobs Strike Snoopy Statues

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that a local beautification group has filed an objection to bronze statues of "Peanuts" characters in Rice Park, complaining that the memorialization of perhaps the most beloved and influential comic strip in American culture demeans the historic nature of the area:

The Ross Group is an 11-member organization that's been involved in city beautification efforts for the past dozen years. They say bronze statues of Peppermint Patty and Marcie don't fit with the historic character of the park in the middle of downtown St. Paul. In particular, they say the characters clash with the park's statue of St. Paul-born author F. Scott Fitzgerald.

The group says the "Peanuts" statues could jeopardize the park's possible designation as a historic site.

The snobs at the Ross Group apparently do not understand -- or care to learn -- the influence of Charles Schulz on American culture, one that arguably outstrips that of F. Scott Fitzgerald. I don't intend on demeaning Fitzgerald at all, but who can doubt that Schulz' depiction of childhood life in St. Paul and its allegorical reach into all aspects of American culture was and is historic and influential? The Ross Group must believe that cartoons do not qualify as art, nor does Schulz rise to their notion of importance, a perception that nagged Schulz during most of his prolific and amazing career.

The Ross Group should try expanding their horizons from dry, timeworn tomes that ironically ridiculed the very snobbery they practice and look towards the possibility that other St. Paul natives may have contributed positively to American culture. Their snobbish rejection of Schulz indicates that Fitzgerald may have had much less influence on Twin Cities culture than they maintain.

A Stupid (And Apparently Public) Gamble

The Washington Post reports today that the US has tapped IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei's phones in an attempt to gather evidence of corruption that would enable the US to oust him from his post. So far, the Post reports, the only crime that ElBaradei has committed is diplomacy:

The Bush administration has dozens of intercepts of Mohamed ElBaradei's phone calls with Iranian diplomats and is scrutinizing them in search of ammunition to oust him as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to three U.S. government officials.

But the diplomatic offensive will not be easy. The administration has failed to come up with a candidate willing to oppose ElBaradei, who has run the agency since 1997, and there is disagreement among some senior officials over how hard to push for his removal, and what the diplomatic costs of a public campaign against him could be.

Although eavesdropping, even on allies, is considered a well-worn tool of national security and diplomacy, the efforts against ElBaradei demonstrate the lengths some within the administration are willing to go to replace a top international diplomat who questioned U.S. intelligence on Iraq and is now taking a cautious approach on Iran.

The intercepted calls have not produced any evidence of nefarious conduct by ElBaradei, according to three officials who have read them. But some within the administration believe they show ElBaradei lacks impartiality because he tried to help Iran navigate a diplomatic crisis over its nuclear programs. Others argue the transcripts demonstrate nothing more than standard telephone diplomacy.

Want to bet that the three "US government officials" left unnamed by Dafna Linzer work in the CIA?

Nevertheless, the only way this could have worked was to have found conversations between ElBaradei and the Iranian mullahcracy discussing the IAEA chief's new digs in a trendy Tehran suburb. Conducting wiretaps on the IAEA creates diplomatic tensions we don't need at the moment, and the publication of the effort will damage our war efforts as other nations chalk it up to American arrogance.

The moral of the lesson is that a high-stakes gamble is only worth it when you win. An intelligence mission like this should only have been approved if solid information showed it would reveal the kind of evidence we wanted and needed. ElBaradei is too public, and simultaneously too impotent, a target for this kind of overt-the-top intelligence offensive. People will ask how many resources American intelligence committed to this project, and how else they could have been used ... perhaps against Syrian support for terrorists?

More Signs Of Progress In Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

After an unexpected full-court press by Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak over the past month, events seem to be accelerating towards better relations in the dispute between Israel, the Palestinians, and the larger Arab world. Israel announced plans to release hundreds of jailed Palestinians in order to both thank Egypt and to bring more enthusiasm to the Palestinian Authority elections to be held next month. On the same day, the Palestinians have finally attempted to reconcile with the Kuwaitis whose oppression they once cheered:

The prisoner release was part of a pact with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. That accord resulted in the release last week of six Egyptian students in exchange for the return of Azzam Azzam, an Israeli jailed by Egypt on espionage charges.

The new release, which could involve 100-200 of the 6,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, would only include those not involved in the killing of Israelis and who had served most of their sentences, government spokesman Raanan Gissin said.

While the release was mainly a gesture of goodwill to Mubarak, "it shows also our intention to change the general atmosphere and to move forward with the (peace) process," Gissin said, adding that more prisoners could be freed in the future.

"Changing the general atmosphere" refers to the concerns on the part of the PA, Israel, and other nations involved in the peace process that a signficant boycott of the elections will drain legitimacy from the eventual winners. With the death of Yasser Arafat, the region now has a historic opportunity to resolve the status of the territories and the people in them. Even Hamas has signaled, intermittently, a willingness to set aside its war on Israel if the Palestinians negotiate a truce. While this has been heard before, if the elections and truce hold for several years -- the Hamas leader suggested ten years -- and the Palestinians can establish their own democratic state in the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinians would be extremely unlikely to follow Hamas into another war with Israel at the end of the process. Releasing these prisoners can help invigorate the electoral process and give Palestinians hope and confidence in the outcome.

In a related move, the Palestinians themselves did some fence-mending of their own. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and stole their oil fields, the Palestinians ululated with delight. The Kuwaitis, once restored, have never forgotten the Palestinian betrayal and have used their power and money to oppose Palestinian political efforts. Again, Arafat's death gave Palestinians an opportunity to change directions and build more support for a new PA government:

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas apologized to Kuwaitis on Sunday for the Palestinians' support of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, making a gesture many here have long demanded as he launched a tour to repair relations with Arab nations.

Asked by reporters about Palestinian support for Saddam's invasion, Abbas responded: "Yes, we apologize for what we have done."

The Kuwaiti government, in a reconciliation gesture to the new Palestinian leadership, had said Abbas was welcome and apologies were not important. Abbas is widely expected to be elected in January to succeed Yasser Arafat, who died in November and had stormy relations with many Arab leaders at one time or another.

Last year, Abbas stopped short of apologizing for Palestinian support of the invasion, calling it "incorrect". This enraged some members of Kuwait's parliament, who called for Abbas to stay out of Kuwait until the Palestinians could bring themselves to apologize. The press conference at the airport in Kuwait City was probably intended to address that demand. The implication is clear that an apology was not possible while Arafat was still alive, nor was a significant change in policy. Now that the old terrorist has gone on to his, er, reward, Palestinians are losing no time in reversing the disastrous course Arafat charted for Palestinians over the past ten years.

Vatican Supports Tariq Aziz

One of the greater disappointments of the Iraq phase of the war for this Catholic was the reaction of the Vatican to the effort to unseat Saddam's genocidal government. The Vatican ignored the suffering, torture, and mass murder of Iraqis by Saddam Hussein's Ba'athists in order to buy peace at any cost, claiming that the failing sanctions regime and continuing the twelve-year "negotiations" could still free Iraqis from their plight.

Now that Saddam's regime has been removed and the full extent of the corruption and genocide he caused has been revealed, one would expect the Vatican to act in at least mild repentance for averting their eyes to evil. Instead, the Vatican now supports one of the murderous regime's top officials, trying to get Saddam's right-hand man and Western-style mouthpiece, Tariq Aziz, off the hook:

Saddam Hussein's former foreign minister and right-hand man has persuaded sympathisers in the Vatican to arrange free legal advice for his defence against war crimes.

Tariq Aziz, a practising Christian who acted as foreign spokesman for the Iraqi dictator, secured the services of Italian lawyers after contacting a group of Roman Catholic priests and bishops.

He wrote to his family from jail in Baghdad urging them to contact Father Jean-Marie Benjamin, a Left-wing priest who had previously brokered a controversial meeting between Aziz and the Pope before the war last year.

Fr Benjamin, who has said he is acting with the Vatican's unofficial blessing, is now orchestrating religious and legal support for Aziz, the former dictator's deputy prime minister, who has yet to learn the exact details of the charges against him.

The London Telegraph reports that the Vatican's actions might embarrass Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian PM who supported and assisted in removing Saddam and ending the systematic torture, rape, and genocide of the Iraqi people. The Telegraph has it backwards. The seat of the Roman Catholic Church has embarrassed its millions of adherents in supporting evil over the poor and downtrodden, and now it follows by not merely professing peace at any price, but actually supporting key regime players whose rule resulted in mass murder.

Since when did the Catholic Church's leadership become advocates for evil? Tariq Aziz defended Saddam and callously lied about the status of suffering in his country while Saddam and his sons opened the rape chambers and cut out the tongues of their political opponents. Aziz traveled the world, convincing the nations of the West to oppose Saddam's removal by the Anglo-American coalition, knowing full well what Saddam did to Iraqis and others who crossed his path. Aziz could have left Iraq at any time and told the world what truly went on in his country; instead, he remained defiant right up to the night of the March 2003 invasion.

As a Catholic, I am furious that the Church's resources have been given to such a man, unrepentant in his evil and craven in his denials. Aziz's Clintonian statement to the court shows the mettle of the man that the Vatican intends on defending: "I never killed anybody by direct act." Of course not! The Saddams and the Azizes of the world consolidate their power by having others kill, rape, and mutilate for them. The moral decay in Church leadership that allows such a despicable excuse for a human being to hide behind the skirts of the Virgin Mary appalls and disgusts me. So much for the Pope who stood up to communism; I suppose evil only counts if it enslaves the Poles.