Canada's Corruption Scandal Breaks Wide Open

A political scandal involving the Public Works Ministry, a government effort called the Sponsorship Program, and allegations of corruption in the ruling Liberal Party has Canada abuzz with rumors of payoffs, Mob ties, and snap elections. For the last two years, Canadian politics has been gripped by the so-called “sponsorship scandal” – tens of millions of dollars in government contracts which were funneled into advertizing firms closely connected with the Liberal government for little or no work, but with shadowy rumours that much of the money found its way back into Liberal coffers. Prime Minister Paul Martin, himself a Liberal, appointed the Gomery Commission to investigate these charges and determine whether to bring charges against government officials for corruption and malfeasance. (See the blog Small Dead Animals for some excellent background on the case.)

Most of the testimony heard by the Commission has been public, but Judge Gomery has decided to create a publication ban on the testimony of three key witnesses: Jean Brault, president of the ad agency Groupaction, Charles Guité, an officer of the Public Works ministry who worked on the Sponsorship Program, and Paul Coffin, president of the ad agency Coffin Communications. The potential damage of their testimony has so unnerved the Liberal Party that they have reportedly started working towards a snap election so that they will not have to face the voters once the facts surface from the record.

And well they might, if Brault's testimony gives any indication of what they will face. Thanks to a friend of mine, CQ readers can get a taste of what Brault has already told the Gomery Commission. For obvious reasons, I cannot reveal this person's name or position, but this person is in a position to have the information. Bear in mind that this comes from a single source, so while I have confidence in the information, you should consider the sourcing carefully.

Payoffs And Kickbacks

On Thursday, Jean Brault began his testimony, subject to the publication ban, and revealed a massive pattern of corruption going to the highest levels of the Liberal party and government. Brault testified to hundreds of thousands of dollars of bogus transactions designed to benefit the Liberal Party of Canada over a period from 1994 to 2002.

Most of the illegal campaign contributions involved Brault either hiring “employees” -- who were in fact working full time on Liberal Party activities -- or paying invoices for Liberal Party campaign expenses (which were never declared as such) or making untraceable cash donations to Liberal officials. In exchange for helping the federal Liberals in Quebec, Brault received millions of dollars in federal advertising contracts.

Brault said he met with Jean Carle, a key aide to then Prime Minister Jean Chretien to propose a more direct way of ensuring that Groupaction got a large share of federal advertising dollars in Quebec. Carle referred Brault to federal bureaucrat Charles (“Chuck”) Guité and told him that “there was room for everybody.” Guité later put together the sponsorship program, in which five Liberal connected firms -- including Groupaction -- were guaranteed a monopoly on government “sponsorship” advertising (e.g. federal
advertising at sporting or cultural events) and related work. The sponsorship program eventually became a huge slush fund into which over $250 million was poured, over $100 million of which was paid in fees and commissions to these five advertising firms, with little or any evidence of work done or value for money.

In exchange for these large contracts for little or no work, Brault kicked back generously to the Liberal Party, putting Liberal organizers on his payroll while they continued to perform party work (including, at one point, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s brother, Gaby Chrétien), paying invoices to other companies for work actually done for the Liberal Party, and giving large donations -- in cash -- to the Liberal Party through Renaud or Liberal Party organizer (and close associate of Public Works Minister Alfonso Gagliano) Joe Morselli.

Protection Racket?

Towards the later part of the sponsorship program, the friends and associates of Public Works Minister and former ambassador to Denmark Alfonso Gagliano, some of whom have been linked to organized crime, played a larger role in the schemes.

At one point, Gagliano associate Tony Mignacca told Brault that if he didn’t rehire Renaud (who had left Groupaction to start a new company), he would lose his newly acquired contract with Via Rail -- Canada’s state-run passenger rail service. Brault broke down in tears after he recounted this testimony. At a meeting in 2001 with Joe Morselli, Brault said that he arranged to have the meeting in an overheated room in a restaurant -- so that Brault could ask Morselli to take off his coat and ensure that he wasn’t carrying a body pack.

This is just the beginning of Brault's testimony. If the Gomery Commission can corroborate Brault, then the reek of corruption goes through all levels of the Liberal party and may explain their ability to out-campaign the Conservatives. After all, they've siphoned off hundreds of millions of government dollars to promote their own party and to guarantee their monopoly on power. They hijacked the Canadian tax base to fund their own campaigns and hide the financial trail.

More will be forthcoming, but it isn't difficult to understand why Liberal politicians have begun to panic already.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!

Gray Lady Plays Pauline Kael At Pope's Death

My friend John "Rocket Man" Hinderaker caught the New York Times exposing its elitist sensibilities in reporting the death of Pope John Paul II. In its initial release on the Pope's passing, the Times reveals that they had a firm grasp on criticism of John Paul, but apparently no one in their newsroom knew anyone who liked one of the greatest Popes of the modern Church:

Even as his own voice faded away, his views on the sanctity of all human life echoed unambiguously among Catholics and Christian evangelicals in the United States on issues from abortion to the end of life.

need some quote from supporter

John Paul II's admirers were as passionate as his detractors, for whom his long illness served as a symbol for what they said was a decrepit, tradition-bound papacy in need of rejuvenation and a bolder connection with modern life.

"The situation in the Catholic church is serious," Hans Kung, the eminent Swiss theologian, who was barred by from teaching in Catholic schools because of his liberal views, wrote last week. "The pope is gravely ill and deserves every compassion. But the Church has to live. ...

In my opinion, he is not the greatest pope but the most contradictory of the 20th century. A pope of many, great gifts, and of many bad decisions!"

Among liberal Catholics, he was criticized for his strong opposition to abortion, homosexuality and contraception, as well as the ordination of women and married men. Though he was never known as a strong administrator of the dense Vatican bureaucracy, he kept a centralizing hand on the selection of bishops around the world and enforced a rigid adherence to many basic church teachings among the clergy and Catholic theologians.

Obvoiusly, this article went into publication prematurely, but the fact that Ian Fisher could not find any celebration of John Paul II's life or work, when the cable channels have had numerous luminaries speaking about almost nothing else for the past 48 hours says volumes about the elitism and isolation of the NYT. Even its updated version only inserts this paragraph where Fisher or his editors meant to provide some balance:

John Paul II's admirers were as passionate as his detractors, for whom his long illness served as a symbol for what they said was a decrepit, tradition-bound papacy in need of rejuvenation and a bolder connection with modern life.

What an appalling effort on behalf of the so-called Paper of Record. Such laziness on the part of a reporter and editors cannot simply be accidental. It reminds one of the cluelessness of Pauline Kael who exclaimed her disbelief about Nixon's landslide re-election: "No one I know voted for him!" If the New York Times can ever be capable of embarassment, this incident should shame them greatly.

UPDATE: Here's a screenshot of the original article that John got before they updated it (click for larger image):

President Bush's Announcement On John Paul II's Death

Laura and I join people across the Earth in mourning the passing of Pope John Paul II. The Catholic Church has lost its shepherd, the world has lost a champion of human freedom, and a good and faithful servant of God has been called home.

Pope John Paul II left the throne of St. Peter in the same way he ascended to it -- as a witness to the dignity of human life. In his native Poland, that witness launched a democratic revolution that swept Eastern Europe and changed the course of history. Throughout the West, John Paul's witness reminded us of our obligation to build a culture of life in which the strong protect the weak. And during the Pope's final years, his witness was made even more powerful by his daily courage in the face of illness and great suffering.

All Popes belong to the world, but Americans had special reason to love the man from Krakow. In his visits to our country, the Pope spoke of our "providential" Constitution, the self-evident truths about human dignity in our Declaration, and the "blessings of liberty" that follow from them. It is these truths, he said, that have led people all over the world to look to America with hope and respect.

Pope John Paul II was, himself, an inspiration to millions of Americans, and to so many more throughout the world. We will always remember the humble, wise and fearless priest who became one of history's great moral leaders. We're grateful to God for sending such a man, a son of Poland, who became the Bishop of Rome, and a hero for the ages. (via The Corner)

Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II, Dies At 84

Pope John Paul II died today at 1:37 pm CT.

Pope John Paul II, the Polish pontiff who led the Roman Catholic Church for more than a quarter century and became history's most-traveled pope, died Saturday night in his Vatican apartment. He was 84. ... "The Holy Father died this evening at 9:37 p.m. (2:37 p.m. EST) in his private apartment. All the procedures outlined in the apostolic Constitution `Universi Dominici Gregis' that was written by John Paul II on Feb. 22, 1996, have been put in motion." ...

Since his surprise election in 1978, John Paul traveled the world, inspiring a revolt against communism in his native Poland and across the Soviet bloc, but also preaching against consumerism, contraception and abortion.

John Paul was a robust 58 when the cardinals stunned the world and elected the cardinal from Krakow, the first non-Italian pope in 455 years.

I offer St. Brigid's Prayer in honor of his passing.

Lo, unbroken silence, I adore thee.
Forsake me not during my time of prayer.
Guardian angels, convene around me.

Shimmering dreams foretell that I may see
The path God has chosen for me with such care.
Guardian angels, convene around me.
Lo, unbroken silence, I adore thee.

Don't forget to read The Anchoress for her well-written and touching thoughts during her live-blog.

China Harasses Catholics As World Watches The Vatican

With the world's attention turned to the Vatican and the final hours of Pope John Paul II's mission drawing to a close, the Communists in China have decided to note the Pope's passing in their own special way. Chinese authorities have rounded up more Catholics who have refused to renounce their ties to the Pope and the Vatican and swear fealty to the Communist authority and their "approved" Catholic Church:

The Vatican said Saturday that Chinese authorities have carried out a new series of arrests of officials from that country's non-government controlled Catholic Church.

The most recent arrest occurred Wednesday, when a priest was picked up in Hebei, the same diocese whose bishop was arrested Jan. 3.

The statement said security forces also detained the 86-year-old bishop of Wenzhou, Monsignor James Lin Xili, on March 20 and two days later a lay official of the diocese.

China refuses to allow Catholics, and Christians of other denominations, to practice their faith unless they do so in the state-approved manner. For Catholics, that means they have to disavow the Pope and accept the atheists in charge of the government as the ultimate eccesiastical authority for their religion. Four million Chinese attend these approved churches, but an estimated 12 million worship illegally, sometimes in private homes.

One might think that even the notoriously tone-deaf Chinese politburo might think twice about such a crackdown on Catholics while the most powerful and influential Pope in modern history captures the world's attention at his passing. However, the Chinese have studiously ignored the Pope's illness, censoring any mention of John Paul II or his illness from their state-run press.

While we're praying for the Pope, let's remember our brothers and sisters in Christ living under this oppression in China.

Islamists Increasingly Irrelevant In Pakistan

Pakistan has long been considered one of the centers of radical Islam, from its madrassas to its early support for the Taliban and ties to al-Qaeda. However, more than three years after 9/11 and Pervez Musharraf's open opposition to Islamists -- and surviving two assassination attempts by them -- their appeal in Pakistan has waned almost to the point of non-existence, if the result of their latest call for a general strike gives any indication:

Pakistani police fired tear gas and used batons in on Saturday to disperse small groups of Islamists whose call for a nationwide general strike fizzled in most parts of the country.

The Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) alliance of six Islamic opposition parties called the strike to demand that President Pervez Musharraf give up power.

Police in the eastern city of Lahore said they fired tear gas to disperse a group of activists who hurled stones at shops to try to force them to shut and observe the strike. ...

In the port city of Karachi and some other big cities such as Peshawar and Quetta, some shops were shut and traffic was light in the early morning, but most business operated as normal.

What a perfect snapshot of the Islamist movement this provides. Its failing fascism has driven support away, and instead of taking advantage of the rage that political oppression creates, the Islamists naturally turn to physical intimidation and coercion in order to get people to demonstrate on their behalf. As if that wasn't clueless enough, they claim that having 500 or so of their supporters arrested for their riotous actions shows the popular nature of their movement -- in a country of 160 million.

The fall of the Taliban and the rise of its democratic replacement showed the people of Southwest Asia the folly of supporting terrorists like Mullah Omar as leaders. Demonstrations such as those broken up by Musharraf simply reminds people what life under Islamofascism would be. Given the choice, people of all nations and creeds will choose freedom over oppression and tyranny, and the wave of democratization across the Middle East shows them that the choice really does exist, if they have the courage to make it.

One Final Piece Of Cruelty

USA Today reports that the autopsy on Terri Schiavo has been completed, and her remains have been released to her husband, as ordered by the Florida courts long ago. This gives Michael Schiavo an opportunity to exact one more bit of cruel revenge against Terri's parents:

The autopsy of Terri Schiavo has been completed, and the body is ready for release to her husband, who plans to cremate her remains and bury the ashes without telling his in-laws when or where. ...

The Schindlers have scheduled a funeral Mass for Tuesday in Gulfport. The Mass will be preceded by a gathering for people to express their condolences.

Michael Schiavo's family has said he plans to take the cremated remains to Pennsylvania, where Terri Schiavo grew up, but her parents and siblings want to bury her body in Florida so they can visit her grave.

I can understand the family disagreement over where and how the dead are interred; those happen all the time. But for those who continually argued that Michael had Terri's wishes in mind all along, please explain to me how Terri would wish that her parents would never be able to visit her grave, would never know where to place flowers in remembrance, would never have a place to gather and mourn her passing. I can't imagine anyone wishing that for their funeral arrangements. Such actions reveal an undeniable selfishness and cruelty that belies his supposed devotion to Terri's wishes.

The results of the autopsy will not be released for several weeks, and may or may not answer the nagging questions surrounding the Schiavo case. One way or the other, I'll report the findings when they're released.

Sunni Clerics Tell Followers To Join Government

Sunni clerics in Iraq surprised Coalition forces -- and likely their followers -- by urging Sunnis to join the security forces supporting the interim government:

Influential Sunni Muslim clerics who once condemned Iraqi security force members as traitors made a surprise turnaround Friday and encouraged citizens to join the nascent police and army.

If heeded, the announcement could strengthen the image of the officers and soldiers trying to take over the fight against the Sunni-led insurgency. ...

Ahmed Abdul Ghafour al-Samarrai, a cleric in the Association of Muslim Scholars, read the edict during a sermon at a major Sunni mosque in Baghdad. He said it was necessary for Sunnis to join the security forces to prevent Iraqi police and army from falling into "the hands of those who have caused chaos, destruction and violated the sanctities."

Iraqis across all divisions will welcome this development. It shows that the Sunni resistance to representative democracy has faded as the new government has turned out not to be the Shi'ite theocracy they feared. The reversal also comes at a time when the ex-Ba'athist elements of the insurgency have almost given up their efforts altogether and may be looking for a face-saving way into the new political system. Joining the security forces ensures that Sunni representation will restrain the new army and police forces from becoming a Shi'ite bludgeon on the Sunnis that brutally dominated them for decades.

Once again, the Iraqi elections keep forcing the terrorists to give up their weapons and accept the new move towards self-determination. The Sunni clerics understand that the window will soon close on the opportunity for their people to get the representation they need to secure their rights in the future, liberated Iraq. Only full participation and a sense of shared purpose will allow them to seize that opportunity, and sharing the risk of providing security will give them the credibility they need to do so. (via Politburo Diktat)

Godspeed, John Paul, From A Changed And Grateful World

With the life of our Pontiff, John Paul II, now being measured in hours, our prayers must continue for his soul and for the Body of Christ he leaves behind for new leadership. We mourn for our loss of the most charismatic and substantial leader the Roman Catholic Church has been blessed to have in at least a century. We also give thanks to the Lord for the privilege of having the leadership of such a giant when we needed him the most.

When John Paul II took over the Papacy in 1978, the first non-Italian Pope in more than four centuries, he came from a land that had suffered under the domination of two different kinds of tyrannies for over 40 years. The Communist oppression under which the new Pope had lived created a love of liberty and justice in the amazingly vital John Paul. He survived an assassin's bullet in what seemed to be a season of miracles; Ronald Reagan had barely survived a similar attack just weeks earlier. Both men would emerge as strong as ever, and together they would apply the pressures needed to destroy the communist nightmare of Eastern Europe and free millions who lived behind the Iron Curtain.

John Paul II commanded no armies and had no weapons on hand except for his love of God and compassion for humanity. Many disagree with the Pope's positions on the issues of the day, but no one can deny the essential goodness and humility that he exemplified. He did not distance himself from his flock, even when he became so ill and so disabled that we wondered if his calling would end his life. He loved his Church so much that he could not keep himself from celebrating Mass on his regular schedule until finally his health simply would not permit it.

John Paul II left us a number of books and encyclicals that defined and focused Catholics on their faith and their responsibilities for the world. His words and his example set the bar high, as it should be for the followers of Christ, but he always reminded us that God's love would give us the strength to meet those challenges. In his final weeks, he became the living example of that belief.

Please join me in prayers of mourning for our sake, and prayers of thanksgiving for the grace of God in allowing us twenty-six years of John Paul II's remarkable leadership.

Be not afraid,
I go before you always,
Come follow me ...
and I will give you rest.

The Anchoress is live-blogging events at her site. I will update this as events dictate.

The New Axis of Evil

Voices on both the left and right have criticized the Bush administration for failing to progress in the so-called War on Terror. Now that one player from the original Iraq-nK-Iran Axis of Evil has been taken out, where do we go from here? Does war require striking terrorists everywhere? Probably. Does eliminating Iraq mean we have to focus on North Korea or Iran next?

Charles Krauthammer thinks not. In today's column for the WaPo, he proposes Syria as the logical replacement in a "New Axis of Evil." Citing the recent bombings in Lebanon and trysts in Iran, he concludes:

All this regional mischief-making is critical because we are at the dawn of an Arab Spring -- the first bloom of democracy in Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Palestine and throughout the greater Middle East -- and its emerging mortal enemy is a new axis of evil whose fulcrum is Syria. The axis stretches from Iran, the other remaining terror state in the region, to Syria to the local terror groups -- Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad -- that are bent on destabilizing Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and destroying both Lebanese independence and the current Israeli-Palestinian rapprochement.

Iran is the senior partner of this axis of evil. Syria is the crucial middle party allowing a non-Arab state to reach into the heart of the Middle East.

Krauthammer believes defeating Syria (through political pressure)would be a strategic victory:

Syria is the prize. It is vulnerable and critical, the geographic center of the axis, the transshipment point for weapons, and the territorial haven for Iranian and regional terrorists.

If Syria can be flipped, the axis is broken. Iran will not be able to communicate directly with the local terrorists. They will be further weakened by the loss of their Syrian sponsor and protector. Prospects for true Lebanese independence and Arab-Israeli peace will improve dramatically.

I think all of us from the left to the right can agree that Syria=terrorism and driving its military and secret police from Lebanon is a worthy pursuit. Certainly, the president has declared this goal loudly and clearly, though I did not hear (but may have just missed) an equation of a Syria-free Lebanon with the GWOT. Of course, should President Bush articulate Krauthammer’s approach, I’m sure those voices on the left will suddenly find Syria’s terrorist ploys quite defensible and surely a Euro-weenie Hans Blixish character will chime in. I find both of these excellent to support an aparently sound strategy.

Left Descends To Food Fights

The American Left, having apparently run out of rhetorical gas and losing every argument it makes on foreign and domestic policy, now has opted for food fights to stop debates. Pat Buchanon became the latest target of the Left's childishness at a Western Michigan University debate:

Commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan cut short an appearance after an opponent of his conservative views doused him with salad dressing.

"Stop the bigotry!" the demonstrator shouted as he hurled the liquid Thursday night during the program at Western Michigan University. The incident came just two days after another noted conservative, William Kristol, was struck by a pie during an appearance at a college in Indiana.

After he was hit, Buchanan cut short his question-and-answer session with the audience, saying, "Thank you all for coming, but I'm going to have to get my hair washed."

If the attacks weren't so pathetic, they'd be dangerous -- and that may yet come as the International ANSWER/MoveOn faction descends further into its immature, neurotic state. I'm no fan of Buchanon, but he does debate rather well, as does William Kristol. It seems that the Left has no answer for their skill, and so they instead sabotage the debate by hurling food. When that fails, as it did with Kristol, what comes next? Smoke bombs? Worse?

Before that happens, expect to see universities quit hosting such conferences, out of concern for student and guest safety. That's what the radical Left wants; they will brook no dissent from the pseudo-Utopian orthodoxy they've spent a lifetime building in Academia, and will fight any attempt to inject reality by any means necessary.

UPDATE: ABC News describes yet another incident, this time at a debate between Howard Dean and Richard Perle, where a conservative got physically assaulted by a Leftist:

Howard Dean, the newly minted leader of the Democratic Party, and former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle made clear their opposing views on the war in Iraq during a debate marred by a protester who tossed a shoe at Perle.

Perle had just started his comments Thursday when a protester threw a shoe at him before being dragged away, screaming, "Liar! Liar!"

Now we're up to shoes. Paul Krugman wrote earlier this week that conservatives would start assassinating politicians simply out of passion from debating weighty issues. How come Krugman hasn't written a word about the escalation of actual violence from the Left?

AJR Post-Mortem On Eason's Fables: Exempt Media Blew It

Tapscott's Copy Desk points readers to a new article in the American Journalism Review which combines an in-depth interview of Rony Arbovitz with an analysis of the firestorm he touched off at Davos by reporting the comments made by Eason Jordan to the blogosphere. Arbovitz fires his guns at the mainstream media that ignored the story far too long for mere coincidence:

When Jordan dropped his bombshell, contending that 12 journalists had been targeted and killed by U.S. forces in Iraq, Abovitz felt compelled to challenge the CNN executive to back up the charges. "My reaction wasn't that he was lying; my reaction was that he was telling the truth," Abovitz recalls. "I thought what he was saying was going to be blown open wide by CNN in some major exposé, that he was letting us in on some huge Abu Ghraib-type scandal, but much, much bigger."

And so, Abovitz says he told Jordan at the session, "You have just accused the United States of something quite terrible in front of a lot of people who might be quite hostile to the United States, a lot of foreigners, in a pretty anti-American environment. I hope you have something to back it up." ...

Abovitz says he didn't decide to post anything on the forum blog until it became clear to him that journalists in attendance weren't going to write about the episode. So, late that night, Abovitz returned to his room, wrote down his impressions and filed his 1,094-word post. ...

In quick succession he got calls from the Miami Herald, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NPR, the BBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Bill O'Reilly and conservative radio host and blogger Hugh Hewitt, of whom he had never heard. He marvels at the fact that reporters in Japan and Australia wanted to interview him. He's not especially pleased with most of the coverage, believing that the mainstream press tended to explain away Jordan's statements while the blogo-sphere wanted the CNN executive's head. He's especially critical of the way CNN handled the controversy and believes that the network could have defused the situation by responding more openly and urging the WEF to release the session videotape.

"It's like no one learned anything from Clinton and Monica," he says, "that evading and hiding and spinning [don't] work."

Let's be clear on this point; most of us in the blogosphere had the same reaction that Arbovitz had at the conference. We assumed that his statement portended some upcoming exposé by CNN based on his accusations. After all, Jordan ran one of the largest media empires in the world. If he had information that the US military deliberately targeted journalists -- an allegation that AJR and Arbovitz fail to mention he'd made more than just at Davos -- Jordan had ample opportunity and facility to show the proof. Instead, he remained silent, and it quickly became apparent that he had no proof at all to substantiate his allegations.

We didn't want his head, at least not at first. We wanted his proof. The head of a news organization owes it to the public to back up such allegations with specific evidence supporting them. After all, the Exempt Media has been scolding us for months now that they have editorial checks and balances to keep spurious information from publication -- and here we have the top man at CNN making spectacular charges of murder and conspiracy reaching the highest ranks of the American military.

When it became apparent that Jordan had no proof, we waited impatiently for the rest of the Exempt Media to put their checks and balances into action to demonstrate their superiority. Instead, no one in the traditional press or broadcast networks even covered the story until the night before Jordan's resignation, two weeks after the blogosphere had exposed not only the Davos lie, but a series of statements Jordan had made in foreign venues alleging and/or implying that American and Israeli military wanted to kill journalists. Just as he had sold out to Saddam Hussein during the 1990s for continued photo ops inside Baghdad, Jordan sold out to the anti-American global press to increase his credibility and access with people like Al-Jazeera and others.

Jordan got himself fired. The bloggers merely performed the checks and balances that the Exempt Media claim they employ on themselves, but which have been increasingly shown to be another journalistic urban legend.

'It Was Not Inadvertent'

Today's more detailed report on Sandy Berger's plea deal in the Washington Post underscores the intent of Berger to hide and destroy information that would either embarass or incriminate himself or Bill Clinton before the 9/11 Commission could gain access to it. Far from the "accidental" removal he insisted occurred, Berger now admits to intentionally removing and destroying classified material, a condition of his plea bargain:

The deal's terms make clear that Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them.

He described the episode last summer as "an honest mistake." Yesterday, a Berger associate who declined to be identified by name but was speaking with Berger's permission said: "He recognizes what he did was wrong. . . . It was not inadvertent."

In return, the government will convict Berger of a misdemeanor, fine him $10,000, and merely suspend his national-security clearance for three years. The government apparently feels that Berger could possibly qualify for a renewed clearance after doing this:

Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.

He should face obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress just for this action alone, both felonies. The Post, meanwhile, insists on calling these "copies". They were not exact copies; each memo started off as a copy of an original draft by Richard Clarke, but the memos had handwritten notes from each recipient as comments, requests for revision, and suggestions for possible action. Each document was unique, and their destruction by Mr. Scissors means that we will never know what some did with Clarke's information. All we know is that it must have reflected badly on Berger, Clinton, or both. Otherwise, why would Berger destroy them?

This is a travesty. If a lower-level cleared worker had done a fraction of what Berger did in this case, he would face years in prison. Berger gets off with a fine that any of his well-connected friends will wind up underwriting, a gracious gesture of gratitude for pulling their chestnuts out of the fire.

UPDATE: Bill at INDC Journal makes this compelling point:

So, let me get this straight: Sandy Berger intentionally destroyed the only copies of top secret documents about this country's knowledge of looming terrorism threats for clearly political purposes, even though a bipartisan Congressional commission was requesting and utilizing all such documents in an effort to make recommendations about how to protect America from another terrorist attack.

In my world, that's not a "$10,000 fine ... three-year suspension of his national security clearance" offense, it's approaching treason. Former NSA or not, this man should suffer a permanent revocation of any security clearance, and probably sample the cuisine at a federal prison.

That sums it up nicely, I think.

WaPo Opts For Nixon In UN's Watergate

Today's editorial in the Washington Post accomplishes the remarkable feat of both understanding that the Volcker Report doesn't exonerate UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan at all, and then using that fact to endorse Annan's continued leadership of the UN. Confused? So, apparently, is the Post's editorial board:

While the investigators found that Kojo Annan misled the secretary general about the length of his employment, and while it seems all too clear that he intended to profit from his U.N. connections, the probe did not find any evidence that Cotecna won its U.N. contract thanks to Kofi Annan's intervention. Nevertheless, the report does not, as Mr. Annan claimed this week, amount to an "exoneration."

For while Mr. Annan was not found guilty of direct corruption, the portrait of the secretary general's office, as it emerges from the report, is not attractive. Mr. Annan's former chief of staff, Iqbal Riza, is found to have authorized the destruction of three years' worth of documents -- a procedure that began, perhaps not coincidentally, right after the investigation was launched. The head of the United Nations' office of internal oversight, Dileep Nair, is also found to have paid the salary of a staff member using money that had been designated for the administration of the oil-for-food program. This is particularly disturbing, given that Mr. Nair was the person responsible for monitoring U.N. management systems and the staff member was employed to design an anti-corruption program. These new revelations, when added to the portrait of dicey procurement practices outlined in the previous oil-for-food investigation report, don't exactly make the United Nations look like a model of efficiency.

No, it does not, and while we're looking at inner-circle Annan aides like Nair and Riza, let's also consider Benon Sevan. All three directly reported to Annan, all three served at his pleasure, and not coincidentally, all three have participated in corruption, cover-ups, and obstruction of justice. All of these men have one major point in common: they took orders from Kofi Annan. At some point, if based on nothing else other than sheer incompetence, Annan should be held accountable for their crimes and corruption.

Not according to the Post, however. The Post argues that the humiliation of discovery will motivate Annan to clean house and end corruption at Turtle Bay:

Mr. Annan has indeed been personally damaged by the oil-for-food scandal, but many of the United Nations' problems predate his arrival and will continue after he leaves unless they are addressed. And that, in the end, is precisely why he should stay on in the job: Both he and his staff should now have the motivation to carry out an ambitious, vital program of reform.

I'm not concerned about Mr. Annan's personal damage. What should concern all of us is his inability, at best, to recognize and stop corruption at the highest levels of his own organization, among his own closest aides. What the Post suggests equates to an argument for keeping Nixon in office to correct the excesses of Watergate. This editorial points out that Annan's own chief of staff obstructed justice, that another key aide paid off internal watchdogs to keep silent about corruption, that Annan's son got paid handsomely by a key contractor, and obliquely refers to a third aide who stuffed his pockets full of humanitarian-aid money intended for starving children.

This is the kind of leadership that the Post endorses?

Lo, how the mighty have fallen.

France To Kill Off The EU?

Oh, the delicious irony ...

Europe's most ambitious dream, a continent-wide constitution, may founder on a most unexpected rock. France, long a driving force behind the European Union (EU), is increasingly hostile to the charter, a key symbol of Europe's march toward integration.

As voters prepare for a May 29 referendum on the subject, five opinion polls in recent days put opponents of the constitution clearly ahead of supporters. But as the government went into high gear this week to try to turn the tide, public debate suggests that French doubts are rooted less in the legal text than in skepticism about the very idea of a united Europe.

The French seemed perfectly pleased with the concept of a united Europe -- as long as an EU meant basically Greater France, complete with its highly socialized nanny state, severe limitations on economic competition, and control from Paris. The French people wanted a new French empire handed to them by a voice vote, or at the least a Continental sphere of influence not seen since the days of Louis XIV. As long as the EU consisted of France, Germany, Spain, the Scandinavian countries, and Ireland, the French got exactly what they wanted.

Now, however, most of Europe has joined in, and the 25 states currently in the EU have very different ideas about the economic structure of the union and the amount of influence they will tolerate from the French. Especially the Eastern Europeans, who famously were told by Jacques Chirac to "shut up" about Saddam Hussein and the liberation of Iraq; their sovereignty and self-determination have been hard-won and they do not see the need to willingly place themselves under the thumb of another foreign government, no matter how benign.

If anyone believes that this is an ovestatement, listen to the French objections in opposing the new EU charter:

At a deeper level, though, many in France see the European Constitution, which enshrines the free market economy as a guiding principle, as the embodiment of a new, economically liberalizing union that they do not like. ... One of the leaders of the "no" campaign in France, Socialist Senator Jean-Luc Mélenchon, voiced such fears forcefully on French radio the other evening. "This is the law of the jungle turned into a constitution," he complained. "I do not want a constitution that imposes a principle - free and unfettered [economic] competition - with which I do not agree."

The anticonstitution forces have enjoyed particular success with their attacks on a proposed EU law that would allow service providers such as architects, computer consultants, or hairdressers from one member country to work freely in any other. ...

The sudden uproar over a piece of legislation that merely extended the fundamental rules of a single market - the EU's raison d'être - to the services sector is a sign, says French commentator Alain Duhamel, that "Europe is an anxiety generator" in today's France.

"Once, Europe was France writ large in the French imagination, and it was a comfortable idea," he adds. "Now the French don't think Europe looks like France at all."

Europe doesn't look like France at all -- which tells us exactly why the French wanted the EU in the first place. Their economic system is failing and they needed European integration to keep it afloat, but not through liberalization; they wanted it subsidized by the other European nations. What they got instead was a plan to impose badly-needed economic reform on France, a reform which will require the French to compete for jobs and start working on productivity. Jacques Chirac compares this unfavorably to communism:

Fearful that the planned law was fueling the "non" campaign, and unhappy with it himself, French President Jacques Chirac forced the commission last week to take the bill back to the drawing board, thundering at an EU summit that "ultra-liberalism is as great a menace as communism in its day."

When Chirac can point out a liberal democracy that killed tens of millions through deliberate starvations, political purges, and the like, then perhaps the EU will reconsider the French position. I'd say he missed an excellent opportunity to keep his mouth shut.

In the meantime, it appears that the French will scuttle the new constitution, which doesn't mean that the EU will draft a new one. It will likely mean the end of the EU, as French motives have become crystal clear and their neighbors will put no further trust in Parisian sweet talk. If France cannot face reform, then France will collapse on its own, instead of sucking its European partners dry to maintain their 32-hour work weeks and August vacations while their economy decays. Instead of creating a Greater France across Europe, the French will have only confirmed their anachronistic nature, their utter irrelevance in their obstinate reliance on a failed economic model.

The $21 Million Report

Remember Henry Cisneros? He served on Bill Clinton's Cabinet until 1999, when he pled guilty to lying to FBI investigators about paying off his mistress. Cisneros coughed up a $10,000 fine for the crime and left politics. However, the independent-counsel investigation his corruption touched off still continues to this day, and has racked up over $21 million in costs -- over a million of which was spent in the last half of 2004:

Nearly a decade after he was appointed to investigate then-Housing Secretary Henry G. Cisneros, independent counsel David M. Barrett spent more than $1.26 million of federal money in the last six months of fiscal 2004, the Government Accountability Office reported yesterday.

Since its inception, the Cisneros investigation has cost nearly $21 million, a total rivaling some of the largest independent counsel investigations in history. Much of the money has gone for pay and benefits, travel, rent and contractors. ...

Barrett stayed in business to investigate whether anyone in the Clinton administration had attempted to obstruct justice during the probe. In July 2001, the three-judge panel gave Barrett permission to continue, but Judge Richard D. Cudahy questioned the expense.

"Whether a cost-benefit analysis at this point would support Mr. Barrett's effort is a question to which I have no answer," Cudahy wrote, noting that Barrett had been spending about $1 million every six months.

Despite spending more than half the total money after Cisneros' resignation and guilty plea, Barrett's investigation has resulted in no other convictions or even indictments. Barrett has informed Congress that the final report has already been written this past August, and that it should be released "soon", but no explanation has been given as to why the investigation continues to spend money like a drunken sailor if it is complete. The total for the last half of 2004 was the highest six-month spending level for Barrett's investigation since 2001, suggesting that Barrett might be squeezing the goose for as many golden eggs as possible in the investigation's final days.

This investigation is a costly joke. Other than Cisneros himself, whose conviction cost $10 million and resulted in a $10,000 fine, it produced no indictments and ate up an additional $11 million and five years to write a 400-page report on its own uselessness. Even the report's release is a joke; it's purportedly already written, but more than seven months have passed and it has yet to see the light of day. I suggest that the GAO immediately commence an audit of Barrett's books to find out where all the money went.

Berger Cops To Misdemeanor

Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton's former National Security Advisor, will plead guilty to a single misdemeanor tomorrow for taking a raft of classified documents out of the National Archives just ahead of the 9/11 Commission's investigation:

Former national security adviser Sandy Berger will plead guilty to taking classified material from the National Archives, a misdemeanor, the Justice Department said Thursday. ...

The former Clinton administration official previously acknowledged he removed from the National Archives copies of documents about the government's anti-terror efforts and notes that he took on those documents. He said he was reviewing the materials to help determine which Clinton administration documents to provide to the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

He called the episode "an honest mistake," and denied criminal wrongdoing.

Sorry, that explanation simply doesn't fly. As anyone who has ever held a clearance can testify, the security briefings regularly delivered to cleared personnel make absolutely certain that no one misunderstands the consequences of taking classified material out of secured areas. Simply moving documents into another unsecured room can easily get someone fired. Taking them out of the facility altogether not only will definitely get someone fired, but also charged with a crime -- and destroying the material would get anyone but Berger charged with a felony for each missing document. After all, the only evidence we have that the documents no longer exist is Berger's testimony. Who can prove a negative?

The people who signed off on this deal probably just want to get Berger off the national stage for good, and see little gain in staging a sensational trial of the former Cabinet officer. Unfortunately, the message that this plea deal sends is that the violation itself was little more than a political faux pas instead of the obstruction of justice and clumsy cover-up that it was. The material missing was unique, with specific handwritten notes that directly related to the work the 9/11 Commission did to reconstruct the history of why we were so vulnerable to al-Qaeda's attacks. That information will never come out, which includes Berger's role in dithering while al-Qaeda gained strength at our expense.

The image of Berger stuffing his pants may be humorous, but I assure you that his crimes were anything but. Charging him with a single misdemeanor so that he can collect his wrist-slap and go back to the lecture circuit fails the American public that Berger should have protected all along. (via Michelle Malkin, graphic courtesy of CQ reader Peyton Randolph)

UPDATE: Rocket Man agrees.

Coalition Holds American Aide To Zarqawi

The Associate Press reports that the US forces in Iraq have held an American citizen who they claim served as a chief aide to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi since late last year. The Pentagon has declined to identify the man, but describes him as a Jordanian-born naturalized US citizen who has lived in several different American cities over a 20-year span:

U.S. forces in Iraq are holding a senior operative of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who has joint American-Jordanian citizenship, defense officials said Thursday.

The man was captured in a raid by U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq late in 2004, said Matthew Waxman, the Pentagon's deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs.

"Weapons and bomb-making materials were in his residence at the time he was captured," Waxman said.

Waxman described the man as an associate of Zarqawi and an emissary to insurgent groups in several cities in Iraq. Zarqawi, who has declared his allegiance to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, is the most-wanted man in Iraq and is blamed for numerous bombings since the U.S.-led invasion removed Saddam Hussein from power two years ago.

Defense officials also believe the captured American helped coordinate the movement of insurgents and money into Iraq, Waxman said.

No reason was given for the secrecy of his capture or his identity, or why the Pentagon decided to release the information now. The easy tactical conclusions would indicate that the aide provided useful information to American interrogators, and that would appear to lead to the conclusion that his assistance has reached its end. Another possibility is that the secret of this aide's fate kept Zarqawi from knowing fully whether his American assistant hadn't broken under questioning, forcing the terrorist mastermind to abandon old plans and reorganizing networks to avoid capture, undermining their effectiveness. It could well be both.

However, the terrorist's American citizenship will soon cause headaches for the coalition forces and the Pentagon. Despite his capture in a foreign territory by military forces in a war zone, the courts will inevitably demand to take jurisdiction over his case, just as with John Lindh. That would also explain why the Pentagon delayed announcing his capture, although probably only a secondary consideration.

The question facing the US now is whether to try him in an American civil court, as happened with Lindh, a military tribunal, or to just turn him over to the Iraqis against whom his crimes have been targeted. If I had a vote, it would go in support of the latter option. Let the greater victim seek the greater justice.

Pope In Serious Condition, Gets Sacrament Of The Sick (Update)

The Pope has taken a turn for the worse, suddenly running a high fever as a result of a urinary-tract infection. CNN reports his condition as "serious", but radio reports have the Italian authorities sealing off the streets around the Holy See:

Pope John Paul II's condition remained "serious" early Friday, but he appeared to be responding well to antibiotic treatment for a urinary tract infection that caused him to develop a fever, a Vatican official said.

Thursday night, as his health deteriorated, the pontiff was given the last rites of the Roman Catholic Church, a Vatican source told CNN.

The sacrament does not necessarily mean that the pope is dying. Last rites -- also known as the sacrament of the sick or extreme unction -- are commonly given to people who are seriously ill as well.

The First Mate, in fact, has received the sacrament prior to her transplant surgeries, so it should not necessarily be seen as a sign of surrender. However, given all of the recent changes in his health, we Catholics (and many others, I'm sure) want to pray for John Paul now, that he recover if that is God's will, but that he remain comforted regardless.

UPDATE: The Pope appears to be stabilizing, according to Reuters:

"The Pope's health is stabilizing," said Father Konrad Hejmo, who is in charge of Polish pilgrims to the Vatican and has close ties to the Pontiff's inner circle.

Hejmo told reporters that the Pope's latest health crisis came about because he had lost a lot of weight following his recent throat surgery and because of a reaction to having a feeding tube inserted into his stomach. "The fever and the fall in (blood) pressure was the reaction of his body to the loss of 42 lb and being fed via a tube," he said.

Despite the highly disturbing news that the Pope has lost 42 pounds during his illness -- an undeniably bad indication for regaining his long-term strength -- the positive response to his treatment gives us hope that he may yet recover. Prayers continue.

TNR: Bush Deserves More Credit For Democracy's Spread

The New Republic's Martin Peretz ventures into nearly uncharted territory for the Left, even the center-Left, in the latest edition of TNR. He argues that George Bush deserves more credit for tranforming the Middle East than given him by the media and punditry, and takes them to task for their "churlishness":

If George W. Bush were to discover a cure for cancer, his critics would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others. He pursued his goal obstinately, they would say, without filtering his thoughts through the medical research establishment. And he didn't share his research with competing labs and thus caused resentment among other scientists who didn't have the resources or the bold--perhaps even somewhat reckless--instincts to pursue the task as he did. And he completely ignored the World Health Organization, showing his contempt for international institutions. Anyway, a cure for cancer is all fine and nice, but what about aids?

No, the president has not discovered a cure for cancer. But there is a pathology, a historical pathology, that he has attacked with unprecedented vigor and with unprecedented success. I refer, of course, to the political culture of the Middle East, which the president may actually have changed. And he has accomplished this genuinely momentous transformation in ways that virtually the entire foreign affairs clerisy--the cold-blooded Brent Scowcroft realist Republicans and almost all the Democrats--never thought possible. Or, perhaps, in ways some of them thought positively undesirable. Bush, it now seems safe to say, is one of the great surprises in modern U.S. history. Nothing about his past suggested that he harbored these ideals nor the qualities of character required for their realization. Right up to the moment Bush became president, I was convinced that his mind, at least on matters Levantine, belonged to his father and to James Baker III, whose worldview seemed to be defined by the pecuniary prejudice of oil and Texas: Keep the ruling Arabs happy. But I was wrong, and, in light of what has already been achieved in the Middle East, I am glad to say so. Most American liberals, alas, enjoy no similar gladness. They are not exactly pleased by the positive results of Bush's campaign in the Middle East. They deny and resent and begrudge and snipe. They are trapped in the politics of churlishness.

Read the entire article, if it can be accessed without subscription. Peretz goes into a lengthy analysis of the efforts over the past two administrations to handle Middle Eastern turmoil, and he surprisingly savages the Clinton Administration's fumbling efforts to avoid being seen as losers rather than take any bold initiatives to transform it. He faults the first few months of the Bush administration along similar lines -- fairly, in my opinion -- but gives Bush credit for learning his lesson after 9/11, a lesson Peretz notes that the American Left still has yet to comprehend. In fact, as Peretz concludes, the greatest irony about George Bush and the Middle East is that history may show that one of the most conservative administrations in ages (Peretz' opinion) managed to be the first to actually spread liberalism throughout a region most liberals thought to be hopeless.

Oupatient Hospiblogging For Today (Updated)

I'm sitting in a treatment room at the Transplant Center this afternoon as we have combined a couple of appointments for the First Mate and eaten up most of the afternoon here. I haven't posted an FM update in quite a while, mostly because not much has changed. She still hasn't required any additional insulin since the days after her release from the hospital, and her blood levels for kidney function have been the best since ... well, since I've known her. She's completely off of blood-pressure medication now -- she used to take three different hypertension meds in combination to get it under control -- and her appetite has even improved a little.

Unfortunately, her anemia has returned, and she needs iron infusions via IV for the next few weeks, which is one of the reasons we're here today. She has a nasty cough that she picked up from someone, and although her chest X-ray came back clean, the center wanted a CT scan to be sure she doesn't have pneumonia. The doctor will probably prescribe a big ol' dose of Cipro for the next few days if the CT scan doesn't show anything, and hopefully that will take care of the cough, because neither one of us has gotten much sleep this week.

In fact, last night I started losing my voice and picking up a lighter version of her cough, and today I have total laryngitis. I started calling myself the Hoarse Whisperer in the office this morning on e-mail (since I couldn't answer my phone), and I'm afraid I may miss my NARN appearance on Saturday unless it improves greatly over the next 36 hours. I did miss an opportunity to join Hugh Hewitt on today's show, which kills me because working with Hugh and Duane is about as much fun as one can have while avoiding illegality, and that's the truth. Be sure to tune in Hugh to hear what I missed.

We'll be here another couple of hours, so I may get more blogging time in this afternoon. The iron infusion just finished, but maybe they'll let the FM just sleep in the bed until the doctor comes to see her.

UPDATE: The CT scan didn't go all that well. The radiologist saw some fluid in the FM's right lung, so she'll need a bronchoscopy tomorrow to determine what kind of infection she's got going. It's an all-day kind of test, so our "second son" will take her in the morning and I'll pick her up in the afternoon when she's done. It's likely either bronchitis or a mild form of pneumonia, and the test should tell us which by Monday. The doctors don't feel that this is anything to get panicked about, but once they know what it is, they can treat it correctly.

Kennedy Follows In Krugman's Freaked-Out Footsteps

Earlier this week, Paul Krugman asserted that the greater political participation by conservative Christians would lead to politically-based assassination attempts, and blamed talk radio and cable news for the phenomenon. Never one to leave a hysterical rant aside, Dan Kennedy today picked up Krugman's paranoia and predicted that conservatives would one day murder Michael Schiavo, and the blame would fall on Sean Hannity and Joe Scarborough -- all because they had the audacity to air a dissenting opinion about Terri Schiavo's diagnosis:

IF THERE WAS an emblematic moment in the religious right’s crusade against Michael Schiavo, it might be said to have taken place on March 21. It was a Monday, three days after Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube had been removed. And William Hammesfahr, a neurologist who claims to have examined the all-but-brain-dead woman for some 10 hours several years ago, was a guest on Sean Hannity’s radio show.

What Hammesfahr had to say was — quite literally — incredible. He told Hannity that Terri Schiavo was "completely conscious." That she "tries to communicate." That she was "a very, very, very aware, alive, vibrant individual trapped in a body that’s preventing her from communicating properly." Hammesfahr wouldn’t answer Hannity’s question as to whether he believed Michael Schiavo was "trying to murder" his wife, explaining that he didn’t want to get sued. But he did have this to say when asked whether Terri could recover from the state in which she had lain for some 15 years: "I would expect with treatment — proper medical treatment — I would expect her to be able to talk again at some point, and to return to her family and start to live her life again, be able to go out, see movies, enjoy life."

It was an extraordinary declaration. Just in case you missed it, Hammesfahr repeated it that night on Fox News’s Hannity & Colmes, and took his traveling media show to MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, as well as to other outlets. Thus did the media help to advance the monstrous notion that Terri Schiavo is a fully sentient woman suffering only from a serious disability, a lack of treatment, and a husband and judicial system who’d rather see her dead than rehabilitated.

Because of Hammesfahr, Hannity, and others like them, Michael Schiavo has reportedly received numerous death threats. Florida state judge George Greer, who has presided over this fiasco for many years now, is under armed guard. Last Friday a North Carolina man named Richard Alan Meywes was arrested and charged with sending out an e-mail promising a $250,000 reward for the murder of Michael Schiavo, and another $50,000 for bumping off Judge Greer. According to reports, FBI affidavits revealed that the e-mail, supposedly written on behalf of an unidentified multimillionaire, said in part: "It is my understanding that whoever eliminates Michael Schiavo from the planet while inflicting as much pain and suffering that he can bear stands to be paid this reward in cash."

Now, William Hammesfahr may or may not be sincere, but he is almost certainly wrong in his assessment of Terri Schiavo. Yet by spouting his views before every television camera and microphone that popped up, he helped contribute to an atmosphere of hysteria that placed the lives of Michael Schiavo and George Greer in danger.

Kennedy makes as much sense here as someone attempting to blame Democrats for Squeaky Fromme's assassination attempt on Gerald Ford, because the Manson Family somehow was emblematic of the Left. Nutcases are nutcases, and Kennedy completely succumbs to the bigotry against those who believe in religion. In fact, he goes farther than Krugman, associating those who believe in preserving life with nutcases who feel they can kill whomever they please to make a political point.

Kennedy also makes a chilling argument against freedom of speech. Did Hammesfahr get up and say, "We should stop Michael Schiavo by any means necessary"? No, and in fact he said nothing except that in his opinion, Terri could improve with therapy -- an argument the Schindlers had made for years. Other doctors have made the same argument, and others have disputed it. Does Kennedy now think that the purpose of the media is to give full reporting to an informed electorate -- or that it should only exist as a mouthpiece for the official government position? Because that is precisely what Kennedy argues here, and it's a mind-boggling screed coming from a journalist.

If some psycho attacks Michael Schiavo, then that person should be held responsible for his actions. Period and end of story. If Kennedy doesn't like debate or thinks it's too dangerous for the American public to hear, then he should find another line of work, or else explicitly state that he intends on only reporting one side of every issue from now on. We've heard plenty of screeching from the Left these last two weeks about the impending threat to the Republic from the Christians, but the mindless associations between debate and hypothetical violence made by irresponsible and irrational pundits like Krugman and Kennedy promise to do much more damage to our freedom than any prayer or faith-based morality can ever do.

The Boston Phoenix and the New York Times needs to tell us if they support free speech, or if they join in the conclusions of their featured writers that Americans will turn into raving lunatics at the mere hint of dissent from the media orthodoxy.

Terri Schiavo, RIP

The AP reports that Terri Schiavo has died this morning after 13 days of court-ordered dehydration:

Terri Schiavo, the severely brain-damaged woman whose final years tethered to a feeding tube sparked a bitter feud over her fate that divided a family and a nation, died Thursday, her husband's attorney said.

Schiavo, 41, died quietly in a Pinellas Park hospice 13 days after her feeding tube was removed despite extraordinary intervention by Florida lawmakers, Congress and President Bush — efforts that were rebuffed at every turn by the courts.

Her death was confirmed to The Associated Press by Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, and announced to reporters outside her hospice by a family adviser.

Out of respect for the family and all concerned, I plan on offering no further comment on this issue today, other than to implore CQ readers to please pray for Terri, her family, and all who mourn her passing.

American Intelligence 'Dead Wrong' On WMD: Panel

The presidential panel report on WMD intelligence has determined that the spy agencies got its information "dead wrong" but did not politicize or distort its findings to suit any particular policy, the AP reports this morning:

In a scathing report, a presidential commission said Thursday that America's spy agencies were "dead wrong" in most of their judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the war and that the United States knows "disturbingly little" about the weapons programs and threats posed by many of the nation's most dangerous adversaries.

The commission called for dramatic change to prevent future failures. It outlined more than 70 recommendations, saying that President Bush must give John Negroponte, the new director of national intelligence, broader powers for overseeing the nation's 15 spy agencies.

It also called for sweeping changes at the FBI to combine the bureau's counterterrorism and counterintelligence resources into a new office.

On the oft-leveled charge of politicization, the panel unanimously rejected the notion that anyone bent the intelligence agencies' arms to get the analyses either administration wanted:

But the commission also said that it found no indication that spy agencies distorted the evidence they had concerning Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, a charge raised against the administration during last year's presidential campaign.

"This is not `politicization'," the panel said of its own report. "It is a necessary part of the intelligence process."

Hopefully we will see the unclassified report released later today in PDF format so that a more detailed look at their post-mortem and recommendations can be had by all. Please scroll to my previous post for an analysis of the recommendations made by the panel regarding even more bureaucratic shuffling in response to their concerns.

When Bureaucracies Grow, They Tend To Collide

One of my main criticisms of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was that the ultimate resolution called for a greater bureaucracy rather than a reorganization along functional lines. In other words, rather than take the alphabet soup of intelligence services and reorganize them into two agencies -- FBI for all domestic counterintelligence and the CIA for everything else -- the 9/11 Commission recommended that two more layers of management be added on top of all the existing agencies and that a new Director of National Intelligence would become the President's sole advisor for all intelligence work.

At the same time, the 9/11 Commission recommended the creation of the National Counterterrorism Center to act as a clearinghouse for all these agencies to coordinate their efforts. Again, had the Commission exercised better judgment, the NCTC wouldn't be necessary as the only coordination required would be between two agencies, the FBI and the CIA, with the President and his national-security advisor acting as arbiters on final policy. That history becomes important when analyzing the latest flack on the recommendations from the presidential investigative panel on WMD intelligence, whose recommendations have stirred controversy even before their release:

One proposal being questioned calls for restructuring the FBI's counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations and analysis under one director, and having that individual report both to the new director of national intelligence as well as to the FBI director.

Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies, who had been briefed by FBI sources on the proposal, said that giving the DNI, whose prime concern is foreign intelligence, a role in domestic counterterrorism operations could create civil liberties issues. ...

The panel makes suggestions for better organization of the intelligence community. The report acknowledges a "problem" in the potential conflict between the new position of DNI and the director of the National Counterterrorism Center but, according to sources, does not make a recommendation for addressing it. The position of DNI, which will be filled by Iraq Ambassador John D. Negroponte, and the NCTC were part of the intelligence reorganization legislation adopted by Congress in December. The NCTC's mission is to fuse all foreign and domestic terrorism intelligence, and to conduct strategic planning for counterterrorism operations at home and abroad.

Under the new intelligence reform statute, the NCTC director is tasked to brief the president on counterterrorism operations, a role that some officials say will undercut the authority of the DNI, who is supposed to be the president's chief adviser on all intelligence activities, including terrorism.

Again, had the 9/11 Commission thought about reducing bureaucracy to improve efficiency, the entire civil liberties issue would have remained moot, or nearly so. By blurring the lines of management between domestic and foreign CT but not creating any partnerships between the two in the trenches, the 9/11 Commission gave us literally the worst of both worlds. We still have multiple agencies doing intelligence work, especially overseas, but they don't coordinate at all except at the executive level. Instead of allowing the president greater access to raw information and the primary analysts, two more layers of political appointments have been added between them. And for panels which faulted two administrations for not having enough contrarians in positions of authority to challenge the conventional wisdom, both seem far too eager to promote the DNI as the only person allowed to advise presidents on intelligence matters.

Now we have a conflict between the NCTC and the DNI, and possibly between the FBI and both of them, as the top-heavy bureaucracy starts to sink our responsiveness and efficiency at gathering intelligence and acting on it. I propose that we start over from scratch, using the template of two agencies only to maintain the customary divide between domestic and foreign CT activities to protect civil liberties, but which will allow greater cooperation in the field and more efficiency at information gathering and analysis. Make the domestic agency separate from the FBI and the Department of Justice, if necessary, so that both agencies can then report to the president.

Most importantly, let's get rid of the excess bureaucracy that causes petty jurisdictional infighting like we see now. None of that makes us any safer, now or in the future.

Abbas: OK, Now I'm Serious

Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas has had a credibility problem ever since Yasser Arafat named him as Prime Minister. He has never had a mandate for action of any kind, as the Palestinian electoral fraud that hoisted him into the presidency demonstrated. His Fatah faction has only minority support, as the Palestinians have openly endorsed Hamas by a 2-1 margin in the only election cycle that Hamas contested.

Now it appears that even his Fatah faction may be deserting Abbas, as their al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade has now overtly turned their guns on their leader -- and Abbas suddenly has become a convert to the rule of law:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas ordered a crackdown on Thursday on Ramallah militants who defied demands that they lay down their arms under peace moves he had agreed with Israel.

Abbas took a tougher line after half a dozen gunmen from his own ruling Fatah faction fired at his Ramallah compound on Wednesday night while he was inside and then went on a rampage in the West Bank city, damaging several restaurants and shops.

In another sign of lawlessness plaguing the Palestinian territories, an angry crowd burned down tents used as offices by Palestinian police in the West Bank town of Tulkarm early on Thursday after police shot and wounded three suspects.

"President Mahmoud Abbas has issued an order to prevent any security violations and harm to citizens' property," a spokesman said. "Security units have been deployed to prevent further attacks."

Expect to see more of this infighting, probably escalating to the point of civil war in the territories, if Abbas cracks down and tries to reach a compromise with Israel. The Palestinian people have made clear their preference for the Hamas approach to Israeli relations, which means that any agreement that falls short of the Mediterranean for the Palestinians will not be accepted by them. His Fatah faction can only count on about 30% of the electorate's support at any time, and this clearly shows that even Fatah's loyalties are split -- and since they qualify as the moderate party in the Palestinian Authority, Abbas' presidency is puttering on political Empty.

Abbas has nothing to lose with his new get-tough policy, and perhaps it will lead to one of the key goals of the so-called Road Map: the elimination of the militias in favor of a state-controlled security apparatus than can get the nutcases under control. With the thin support he enjoys inside and outside his own power base, however, one must conclude that Abbas needs a lot of luck and tremendous strategic stupidity on the part of his opponents to succeed. Given the history of the PA, that's still possible, but it looks more and more unlikely.

Maybe The UN's Problem Is Mathematical Illiteracy

CQ reader Marc Landers thinks he's discovered why the United Nations can't keep track of the money it gets, allowing so much of it to wind up in the pockets of its own managers, such as Benon Sevan, and tyrants like Saddam Hussein. It may not happen through maliciousness -- it might be that they just don't know how to do simple math. For instance, a new report from the UN on the children of Iraq claims that the starvation rate has doubled since the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, as the BBC reports this morning:

Increasing numbers of children in Iraq do not have enough food to eat and more than a quarter are chronically undernourished, a UN report says.

Malnutrition rates in children under five have almost doubled since the US-led invasion - to nearly 8% by the end of last year, it says. ... When Saddam Hussein was overthrown, about 4% of Iraqi children under five were going hungry; now that figure has almost doubled to 8%, his report says.

Governments must recognise their extra-territorial obligations towards the right to food and should not do anything that might undermine access to it of people living outside their borders, it says.

That point is aimed clearly at the US, but Washington, which has sent a large delegation to the Human Rights Commission, declined to respond to the charges, says the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva.

Sounds absolutely horrid, right? The bloody Americans came in and wrecked all those baby-milk factories (shades of Peter Arnett!) and now the little children of Iraq suffer more under democracy than they did under tyranny. Only that's not exactly how the UN painted the picture during the invasion, as UNICEF's earlier report shows:

The children of Iraq have been caught up in war for the third time in 20 years. Although a clear picture of the impact of the fighting on civilians has yet to emerge, UNICEF is deeply concerned by the deteriorating conditions facing children in the country.

Almost half of Iraq’s total population is aged under 18. Even before the conflict began, many children were highly vulnerable to disease and malnutrition. One in four children aged under five is chronically malnourished. One in eight die before their fifth birthday.

So before the war -- "even before the conflict began" -- UNICEF reported that 25% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 were chronically malnourished, and that 12.5% of them died before even reaching the age of 5. Now that the war is over, only 8% of them are chronically malnourished, and the UN doesn't even talk about excess mortality in that age group any more. Somehow that gets transformed in Turtle Bay as "doubling", rather than "reducing by two-thirds".

The report obviously aims itself at Washington, as the BBC reports. What the BBC fails to mention is that the report is dishonest, mathematically illiterate, historically inaccurate, and a terrific demonstration why the UN cannot be trusted with money or policy. Its timing appears to have been strategized to take the heat off of Kofi Annan and the massive and grotesque scandals wracking the United Nations. All it does is underscore the underlying reasons all of these failures have occurred -- a lack of accountability and an endemic anti-democracy motivation from the member-nations that comprise the General Assembly.

UPDATE: Marc sent me the URL, so I've updated with the link to USS Neverdock.

PFAW Finds Republican Against Filibusters ... In Union That Supported Kerry

Radioblogger listened to the press conference held by People for the American Way and its president, Ralph Neas, as they launched their new ad campaign against a proposed rule change eliminating filibusters on judicial confirmations in the Senate. [Why? Well, someone had to do it, I guess -- CE] Apparently, Neas bubbled over with joy at finding a "common sense Republican" to front PFAW's ad blitz, hoping it will convince other GOP voters to demand their Senators vote against the ban.

So who did Neas find? Brent Scowcroft? Henry Kissinger? Jim Jeffords? The ghost of Nelson Rockefeller? No! Neas found ... Ted Nonini.

You know ... that Ted Nonini.

Still stumped? Welcome to the club. Ted Nonini, as it turns out, works as a Los Angeles firefighter -- obviously a brave man -- but as a politician, he doesn't have much of a track record. A Google search on Fireman Ted turns up 25 hits, most of which come from PFAW itself. Only one other link hints at anything political, a story from January 2004 where he defends a pay increase for LA firefighters despite a budget deficit in LA. That article lists Ted as a director of UFLAC, the firefighters' union in LA; in fact, Ted sits on the executive board as treasurer.

And here's where the Republican designation makes a little less "common" sense. UFLAC is the local International Association of Fire Fighters union, and the IAFF endorsed a political candidate in last year's presidential election. Want to guess who that was?

In fact, the IAFF endorsed John Kerry, and only after supposedly polling their membership across the country. Only they didn't actually do that, according to Jack Dunphy at NRO, who wrote last summer about the controversy:

Don't just take my word for it. Visit Fire Fighters for Bush on the web and read the postings from firefighters disaffected by the leftward leanings of the IAFF leadership. A message board asks firefighters if they were polled prior to the IAFF's endorsement of Kerry. An illustrative sample response from a fireman in Kentucky: "No IAFF unions in Kentucky were polled. After receiving the IAFF magazine yesterday and reading [IAFF General President Harold] Schaitberger's excuse for the IAFF endorsement I resigned as VP of the union today. I also quit the IAFF after being a member for 39 years."

At the website Dunphy mentions, this firefighter of 26 years also resigned from his union and wrote the following about the IAFF fraud:

But how did the IAFF decide who they were going to support? Many in the public would believe that the members were given the opportunity to voice their opinion. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Seattle Times wrote “The [IAFF's] Kerry endorsement came after a survey of union members.” I have yet to talk to one member that received any such survey. I thought that maybe it was just sent to officials of the locals, but I was just told by a local president that he had received nothing from the IAFF in the form of a survey prior to the endorsement. So, who were the individuals filling out these “surveys??" I have heard there were 800 participants, but I have not found one.

I have found, however, that it was not really a “survey” in the usual sense. What these elusive members were given was not a list of candidates, but they were asked about what “attributes” they would like to see in a President.

How convenient is that for a man like Harold Schaitberger? After sending out a “survey” for his political cover, Harold Schaitberger then gets to decide which candidate fulfills the list of attributes these members desire.

In the Seattle Times article, Schaitberger admits that the union never really considered endorsing President Bush's re-election, even though more of the members identified themselves as Republicans than Democrats or Independents. Schaitberger also claimed that the IAFF is “really bi-partisan in our politics”, although 83 percent of the $1.8 MILLION dollars it spent in 2002 went to Democrats.

Now, with all of this going on, and with Ted "the Common Sense Republican" working as a treasurer in an IAFF local, one would expect Ted Nonini to have joined his fellow IAFF brethren who spoke out against Schaitberger's fraud. But Nonini doesn't appear on any of the FF4B site's pages. The man who says that "I like that my party controls the White House and the Congress" didn't utter a public word about the flim-flam used by his own union to misrepresent him.

Does that make sense to you -- even "common" sense?

I suspect that Neas found the nearest thing to a Republican he could find to stand up in front of the cameras and mouth a script from Norman Lear. Unfortunately for PFAW and Ralph Neas, the best they can do is to get Ted Nonentity to front for their pathetic ad campaign. If nothing else, we can all get a laugh out of this absurdly earnest and richly ironic meltdown of PFAW's credibility.

Photo IDs The New Form Of Jim Crow?

Three states have begun debating the need for better identification at polling places during elections, especially after seeing the voting debacles in Washington and Wisconsin. Seeing how a driver's license or a state-issued photo ID has become necessary for almost any business transaction in modern life, one might expect such a mundane requirement to attract little passion, let alone serious opposition. However, lawmakers in two of the three states -- Indiana and Georgia -- walked off the job and out of the debate in protest, and Wisconsin's governor again threatened to veto any legislation requiring identification at the polls:

Legislation that would require voters to show photo identification before casting ballots has touched off fierce debate in three states, with opponents complaining the measures represent a return to the days of poll taxes and Jim Crow.

Lawmakers in Georgia and Indiana walked off the job to protest the proposals, which they say would deprive the poor, the elderly and minorities of the right to vote. Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, has already vetoed a similar measure and has vowed to do so again. ...

Georgia's proposal, for example, would allow people without photo IDs to cast provisional ballots but require them to return within 48 hours with a picture ID.

State Sen. Vincent Fort, an Atlanta Democrat, said that amounts to "an updated form of Jim Crow," referring to segregation-era laws that kept blacks from voting. About 100 people rallied outside the Georgia Capitol last week to protest the legislation, which passed the state Senate on Tuesday and now goes to the House.

Can anyone tell me what Jim Crow has to do with proper identification at the polls? Nothing. The argument typifies the usual Democratic response to anything that threatens their ability to exploit the shamefully lax methods we use to secure the vote for eligible citizens across the nation. When that ability is threatened in any way, the Democrats squeal about racism and classism, and in this case drag out the homeless as well.

Excuse me for injecting a little common sense into this argument, but voting has its responsibilities as well as its rights. The voter should be responsible for properly registering in advance for an election. People who want to ensure that their votes count properly should welcome better polling security. After all, voter fraud dilutes the impact of legitimate votes. Just ask the people of Milwaukee, or the non-felons in Washington.

Getting a photo ID in advance of an election should not present a difficult task for anyone with an address. For the homeless, a serious question of eligibility exists. If they do not have a residence, in which precinct and district should they vote? That isn't just a flippant question. Often, local initiatives are decided by a handful of votes in a community, and having transients vote with no stake in the result skews the democratic process. If states want to offer the homeless an option for voting by having them register using government buildings for addresses, why not simply allow them to get state photo IDs (not drivers' licenses) at those same addresses?

Calling a requirement for proper identification to ensure the elimination of fraud from our basic democratic process a new form of Jim Crow demonstrates demagoguery at its worst. The injustices of Jim Crow were much too profound for these empty suits to hijack them just to protect their back-door method of ballot stuffing. The legislators who walked out rather than defend an intellectually and morally bankrupt position showed cowardice, not principle. This display clearly marks the Democrats as the party of hysteria and race-baiting, and voters should chastise them where it counts: at the polls.

Robed Pot Calls Kettle Black?

In denying the Schindlers a final en banc appeal, the opinion for the denial includes a shot at Congress and the President by Justice Stanley Birch:

Birch went on to scold President Bush and Congress for their attempts to intervene in the judicial process, by saying: "In resolving the Schiavo controversy, it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people our Constitution [sic]."

Talk about judicial arrogance! Not only did the Eleventh Circuit openly disregard the law written by Congress, this justice arrogantly tells the other equal branches that the only branch guaranteeing a free people is the one not accountable to the will of the electorate. Bear in mind that none of the courts that reviewed this case after the passage of the emergency legislation found it unconstitutional; that at least would have put the court on record. Instead, the judiciary simply and contemptuously disregarded a law which to this moment remains legal and valid.

If Birch thinks that this law constitutes such a serious threat to the Republic, then the court should have ruled it unconstitutional. However, that would have meant a hearing on its merits, which the 11th Circuit cravenly refused to provide. Birch instead reacted in keeping with the hyperinflated notion of the judiciary in modern times as a superlegislature with veto power over actions taken by the other two branches without any due process whatsoever.

Birch's comment demonstrates that this out-of-control judiciary constitutes the main threat to the Founding Fathers' blueprint. They have set themselves up as a star chamber, an unelected group of secular mullahs determining which laws they choose to observe and which they choose to ignore. The arrogance of this written opinion will resonate through all nominations to the federal court over the next several years. It will motivate us to ensure that judges nominated will start respecting the power of the people's representatives to write and enact laws, and the duty of the judiciary to follow them or to specify their unconstitutional nature in the explicit text of the Constitution itself.

In the meantime, perhaps the Senate may want to read this opinion closely and discuss impeaching Justice Birch for his inability to apply the laws of Congress as required. This statement should provide all the proof necessary.

Karami Unable To Form Unity Gov't In Lebanon

Omar Karami, who had earlier resigned in the face of massive anti-Syrian protests following the assassination of Rafik Hariri, now admits that he cannot form a unity government and may have to resign again. Emile Lahoud may need to find a prime minister with more credibility among the Lebanese nationalists and democracy activists in order to stave off the inevitable for a short period:

Lebanon's pro-Syrian Prime Minister-designate Omar Karami confirmed Wednesday he would abandon his bid to forge a national unity government, but stopped short of formally tendering his resignation. ...

The anti-Syrian opposition had always rejected the idea of a unity government. Karami's doomed effort to form one, and his slow-motion resignation, have fueled opposition suspicions that the authorities are maneuvering to postpone the polls.

"Since the beginning, the government was trying to delay the elections," Christian former President Amin Gemayel told Reuters. "We are pushing to have the elections on schedule."

The elections will clearly result in Lahoud's ouster and the replacement of the puppet government with an independent, nationalistic Lebanese parliament. When that happens, the risks for Lahoud and the rest of his collaborationist allies -- such as Hezbollah -- will face the wrath of those who have fought to free themselves from Syrian hegemony while Lahoud dithers and delays. The new political movement may treat their former masters and their lackeys with openness and forgiveness, as in South Africa, but usually those who cooperate with foreign dictators in oppressing their own people get the Vidkun Quisling treatment instead.

In other words, delaying the election comes down to a life-and-death decision for Lahoud and his friends. He wasn't smart enough to put himself at the front of this popular movement in its early stages. A window for his leadership may still exist, if he is smart enough to recognize it and courageous enough to grab the chance. So far, though, Lahoud has only proved to be little more than Bashar Assad's messenger boy, especially in his efforts to prop up Karami when the latter clearly has no credible following any longer.

The Lebanese people have proven their mettle by refusing to retreat or los interest in their freedom. Karami and Lahoud may have one or two cards left to play, but so far bombs and political machinations have failed to shake them off. They either need to quickly join the forces of freedom or hitch themselves to the last Syrian personnel carrier heading for Damascus.

Curiouser and curiouser

Eric Pfeiffer of NRO has an interesting piece on Michael Schiavo’s attorney, George Felos. Apparently he can do more than move juries with his advocacy skills, but he believes he has the ability to mentally control aircraft as well. Pfeiffer checked out Mr. Felos’ book (Litigation as Spiritual Practice) and observed the following passage:

Felos claims to have used his mental powers to cause a plane he was passenger on to nearly crash. By simply asking himself, "I wonder what it would be like to die right now?" the plane's autopilot program mysteriously ceased to function and the plane descended into free fall. Felos then observed, "At that instant a clear, distinctly independent and slightly stern voice said to me, 'Be careful what you think. You are more powerful than you realize.' In quick succession I was startled, humbled and blessed by God's admonishment."

Mr. Felos also claimed to use his spiritual advocacy skills to communicate with mentally disabled Estelle Browning. He wrote:

As Mrs. Browning lay motionless before my gaze, I suddenly heard a loud, deep moan and scream and wondered if the nursing home personnel heard it and would respond to the unfortunate resident. In the next moment, as this cry of pain and torment continued, I realized it was Mrs. Browning.

I felt the midsection of my body open and noticed a strange quality to the light in the room. I sensed her soul in agony. As she screamed I heard her say, in confusion, "Why am I still here ... Why am I here?" My soul touched hers and in some way I communicated that she was still locked in her body. I promised I would do everything in my power to gain the release her soul cried for. With that, the screaming immediately stopped. I felt like I was back in my head again, the room resumed its normal appearance, and Mrs. Browning, as she had throughout this experience, lay silent.

I was out of work with the flu last week, and I spent my days lying on my couch trying to follow the Schiavo story through cable news. I was frequently awoken from my codeine-induced naps by that man ranting and raving about the Schindlers and Congressional members being “fanatics.” I see nothing fanatical about trying to keep a mentally disabled woman alive. But claiming you can control airplanes through your mind power is just crazy.

Down with da flu

I'm finally starting to look and feel more alive after coming down with the flu last week. Unfortunately, I have yet to regain my energy or my appetite, I only want to eat chocolate. This is even more unfortunate considering that swimsuit season is around the corner and due to recent Easter holiday chocolate bunnies are in abundance at home and at the office. Every year I get the flu shot and I always catch the flu anyway, but I don’t recall that illness being followed by an irrepressible urge to bite ears off helpless edible rabbits . . . .

EU Endorses Wolfowitz For World Bank

The European Union finally gave their blessing to the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank after weeks of speculation that they would attempt to sink it:

European Union governments gave their endorsement to World Bank president nominee Paul Wolfowitz on Wednesday after he affirmed his commitment to multilateralism and said he would make the fight against poverty his top goal as head of the Washington-based global lending institution.

Belgian Development Aid minister Armand De Decker told reporters "there are no objections of EU countries" to Wolfowitz, who met for two hours with development and finance ministers at EU headquarters.

The specter of having a Bush administration official so closely aligned with the US policy in Iraq and on the war on terror leading the World Bank made a number of European nations uneasy. Undoubtedly, their concerns spring from their own domestic politics rather than any particular issue Wolfowitz would cause in his new position. Voting for Wolfowitz will clearly be played as an endorsement of the so-called "neocon" agenda by radical leftists looking for a lever to greater power in Europe.

In return for this capitulation, the EU wants Wolfowitz to add more Europeans to his staff as a balance between Washington and the EU. France in particular wants the chairman of the Paris Club, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, to serve as Wolfowitz' deputy, presumably to ensure that the World Bank does not invade Iran. Hopefully, Wolfowitz will choose his deputies more carefully, from countries that have proven themselves to support the spread of democracy -- the only way to introduce the stability and responsiveness needed to end the corruption and tyranny that causes endemic poverty. He can start looking in Britain, Poland, and the Czech Republic.

11th Circuit To Hear Schindlers' Appeal On 13th Day

After watching Terri Schiavo struggle to stay alive for thirteen days without food and water, the Eleventh Circuit appellate court has finally decided that she may have some rights to due process after all. The court agreed to hear the Schindlers' appeal to reinstate her feeding tube in a dramatic thirteenth-hour development:

A federal appeals court early Wednesday agreed to consider a petition by Terri Schiavo's parents for a new hearing on whether to reconnect their severely brain-damaged daughter's feeding tube.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled without comment on Schiavo's 12th day without nourishment. Last week, the same court twice ruled against Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, who are trying to keep her alive. ...

[T]he court will consider the request for a new hearing, rather than whether previous Florida court rulings have met legal standards under state law, which is what federal courts have done in the case until now.

I presume the basis of this appeal pertains to the emergency law passed by Congress demanding a de novo approach to the case in federal court, a law that Judge Whittemore completely disregarded in his action. The appellate court should have taken this up the last time it heard this case, but took the same approach as Whittemore did -- to insist on Judge Greer's finding of fact in defiance of Congress' clear intent.

Accepting the appeal at this point is certainly a welcome development, but it also comes late in the day for Terri. They may order her rehydration, but without a doubt even if that started this hour, they've damaged her by their incomprehensible inaction and defiance of Congress. They allowed a non-terminal woman to suffer severe neglect with the intention of killing her based on the recollection of off-hand comments made years earlier to her estranged husband and two of his relatives.

Let's hope they get it right this time, and quickly.

UPDATE: John Hawkins has a FAQ on the Schiavo case which people should read.

UPDATE II: The Eleventh Circuit has turned down the Schindlers' appeal en banc:

A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday rejected a last-minute request from the parents of brain-damaged Florida woman Terri Schiavo for a rehearing on a petition to reconnect their dying daughter's feeding tube.

A three-judge panel at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta had last week rejected an appeal by parents Bob and Mary Schindler against a Florida court ruling denying them an order to have feeding resumed.

The court on Wednesday denied a request by the parents for the full court of 12 judges to review that ruling, the court said.

So apparently the Schindlers requested the en banc hearing, which was approved for submittal, only for the purposes of having the entire 11th Circuit reject the request on its merits. One wonders why the court accepted the submittal at all.

ABC, Washington Post Stand By Schiavo Memo ... Mostly

Howard Kurtz addresses the controversy over the memo released by ABC under the headline "GOP Talking Points Memo" by claiming that neither ABC nor the Washington Post meant to imply that the memo originated with Republicans -- only that it was circulated to them:

ABC and The Post say their reports on the Schiavo memo were accurate and carefully worded. The document caused a stir because it described the Schiavo controversy as "a great political issue" that would excite "the pro-life base" and be "a tough issue for Democrats," singling out Florida's Sen. Bill Nelson. Two days after the memo was reported, the Republican-controlled Congress approved a bill, signed by Bush, to transfer jurisdiction of Schiavo's case from Florida courts to the federal judiciary in an effort to restore the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube. ...

The controversy erupted March 18 when veteran correspondent Linda Douglass reported on "World News Tonight": "ABC News has obtained talking points circulated among Republican senators, explaining why they should vote to intervene in the Schiavo case."

Two days later, a Post article by Mike Allen and Manuel Roig-Franzia said: "An unsigned one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators, said the debate over Schiavo would appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters."

Neither report said Republicans had written the memo, although they may have left that impression, and they included no comment on the memo from party leaders. ABC's Web site went further than Douglass's on-air report with the headline: "GOP Talking Points on Terri Schiavo."

They may have left that impression? Yes, they may certainly have -- which is why the entire press corps has treated the memo as genuine and the ABC and Post reports as accurate in that regard. When ABC titled the memo, "GOP Talking Points Memo", that's more than just an impression. It identifies the memo as sourced by the GOP, an allegation from which Kurtz and the Post have now retreated. Now we hear that no one can determine the actual source of the memo, and that neither of the initial reporters apparently even asked anyone from the GOP about its origin. (Michelle Malkin notes that this article, with a Washington Post byline, states specifically that the memo was given to Republican politicians by "party leaders".)

Howard Kurtz can talk about how "carefully worded" the reports were, but the fact is that they clearly meant to associate the memo -- the unprofessionally typed, factually deficient, and improperly formatted memo -- with the GOP. If they didn't, then Kurtz by implication must condemn the rest of the press corps for a type of functional illiteracy for not getting the nuance of their careful wording correct. And for all the care that Kurtz says the two media outlets put into the wording to avoid that characterization, he never asks about how the ABC headline got onto the story, nor does he mention any steps either organization have taken to correct the impression their articles have obviously left with fellow journalists in the Exempt Media.

Kurtz once again acts as an apologist rather than an objective news critic, yet another disappointment he can add to his non-coverage of the Eason Jordan scandal.

Because The UN Has Done Such A Great Job Everywhere Else

Just when we thought that the United Nations had enough problems trying to keep its peacekeepers and mission management off of prepubescent girls in Africa and its hands off of aid money intended for the starving and oppressed, we find out that Turtle Bay wants to take on a whole new mission. Now the UN, which brought you the Oil-For-Food scandal and the rape of the Congo, wants to take over the Internet:

The International Telecommunication Union is one of the most venerable of bureaucracies. Created in 1865 to facilitate telegraph transmissions, its mandate has expanded to include radio and telephone communications.

But the ITU enjoys virtually no influence over the Internet. That remains the province of specialized organizations such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN; the Internet Engineering Task Force; the World Wide Web Consortium; and regional address registries.

The ITU, a United Nations agency, would like to change that. "The whole world is looking for a better solution for Internet governance, unwilling to maintain the current situation," Houlin Zhao, director of the ITU's Telecommunication Standardization Bureau, said last year. Zhao, a former government official in China's Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, has been in his current job since 1999.

The whole world looks for a better solution? Says who? Perhaps the Chinese look for a solution that would result in an easier way to suppress thought and speech that undermines their autocracy. Zhao seems to answer this in his response to the final question:

People say the Internet flourished because of the absence of government control. I do not agree with this view. I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service? If there are any Internet governance structure changes in the future, I think government rules will be more important and more respected.

All one needs to do is to look around the General Assembly to understand which government rules will get "more respected". The UN mostly consists of dictatorships and autocracies, which have little use for the free speech and open information that the Internet provides people all over the world. A free Internet threatens their power and their oppressive regimes. Nothing would please them more than to get their hands on the engines of the Internet in order to suppress the information that would inspire their subjects to throw off their shackles and claim freedom for themselves.

Let me put it to all in this light. Will we trust the same organization that put Libya and Cuba in charge of human rights and Syria in charge of counterterrorism to manage the Internet and safeguard free speech?

Right-Wing Theocrats For Life!

Today brought out two more voices of the right-wing theocracy threatening America, according to Paul Krugman, arguing to reconnecting the feeding tube for Terri Schiavo and to stop her deliberate starvation and dehydration. The first right-wing Bible thumper to speak out today comes from a religious background (WARNING: ACLU members should protect themselves from any contact with Christianity before proceeding):

As Terri Schiavo entered her 12th full day without food or water, the Rev. Jesse Jackson prayed with her parents Tuesday and joined conservatives in calling for state lawmakers to order her feeding tube reinserted. ...

"I feel so passionate about this injustice being done, how unnecessary it is to deny her a feeding tube, water, not even ice to be used for her parched lips," he said. "This is a moral issue and it transcends politics and family disputes." ...

Jackson said he asked Michael Schiavo for permission to see the brain-damaged woman but was denied. George Felos, Michael Schiavo's attorney, did not return phone messages seeking comment.

Jackson also telephoned black legislators in a last-ditch effort to bring back a bill that would prohibit severely brain-damaged patients from being denied food and water if they didn't express their wishes in writing. Lawmakers rejected the legislation earlier this month and appeared unlikely to reconsider it.

Jackson apparently did not read Krugman this morning, instead focusing on the tragedy and shame of withholding food and water from a non-terminal disabled woman for over twelve days now. He's too busy trying to get some Florida state senators to change their votes in a last-ditch effort to save her life to notice that radical Christians have staged an effort to turn America into a right-wing theocracy. Jackson joined his son in supporting the Schindlers, apparently another of those right-wing radical Democrats who split on the Congressional action over a week ago.

All right, perhaps Jesse Jackson might be a bit more centrist than that, and he's just getting sucked into the Rovian conspiracy to put a crucifix on every government building. Fortunately, another voice confirms the overwhelming reactionary nature of the people who believe that forcing an otherwise healthy brain-damaged woman to die in a manner that we wouldn't allow used on the worst of criminals to be an injustice singular in American legal history. Nat Hentoff -- that Dr. Dobson groupie of the crypto-Christian Village Voice -- writes that withdrawing food and water from Terri amounts to "judicial murder":

For all the world to see, a 41-year-old woman, who has committed no crime, will die of dehydration and starvation in the longest public execution in American history.

She is not brain-dead or comatose, and breathes naturally on her own. Although brain-damaged, she is not in a persistent vegetative state, according to an increasing number of radiologists and neurologists.

Among many other violations of her due process rights, Terri Schiavo has never been allowed by the primary judge in her case—Florida Circuit Judge George Greer, whose conclusions have been robotically upheld by all the courts above him—to have her own lawyer represent her. ...

While lawyers and judges have engaged in a minuet of death, the American Civil Liberties Union, which would be passionately criticizing state court decisions and demanding due process if Terri were a convict on death row, has shamefully served as co-counsel for her husband, Michael Schiavo, in his insistent desire to have her die.

In fact, Hentoff tees off on both Judge Greer as the only finder of fact on record for any litigation regarding Terri and Michael Schiavo as the only legal guardian given any status in the court system. The Village Voice article even excoriates the ACLU with which it normally celebrates with great joy, mostly for its incompetence in researching the legal issues surrounding Terri's case.

With the Exempt Media continuing to paint this case as a putsch by Christians against the American way of life, one can expect these new voices to get little in the way of coverage the next couple of days. Either that, or suddenly Jackson and Hentoff will simply get lumped in with the supposed nutcases of Christianity that the media loves to disparage, such as the New York Times and Krugman's idiotic column in today's edition. That makes a better story, in their opinion, than the reality that Terri's forced death has disgusted a wide swath of the American public -- and the longer she defies the attempt to put her to death, the more apparent her will to live becomes.

UPDATE: Edited post to remove undeserved pot-shot at atheists. Atheism, while very obviously not my cup of tea, has its own honest and forthright philosophy and deserved better. Thanks to CQ reader Eric K for calling me on that one.

Boy Howdy, Dan's Happier Than A Dog With Two Bones

The Philadelphia Inquirer's Gail Shister catches up with Dan Rather, who keeps himself busy nowadays trying to rescue 60 Minutes Wednesday and what's left of his career. Shister finds Rather in an exceptionally good mood -- so good, in fact, that The Dan can't resist trotting out that Texas homeboy facade that he uses to disarm critics:

Rather, 73, who had an unprecedented 24-year run as anchor, was also surprised at how easy it was to relocate from the CBS Broadcast Center across 57th Street to 60 Wednesday and mother ship 60 Minutes.

"I moved from the 'hard-news' side of the street to what we called the 'carpet-making, basket-weaving' side of the street. It turns out it's not basket-weaving at all. That was vastly overstated."

Though he's juggling several pieces with his usual intensity, Rather sounds almost, well, laid-back on his new voice-mail message. It begins, "Howdy, this is Dan Rather," and ends, "For now, adios."

"I always dreamed of having that voice mail. That's who and what I am, the way I grew up. Now I'm able to let that side out a little more than before."

That's laying on the happiness just a bit too thick, methinks. Rather has to make the case for keeping his new home on the air, or else he'll be sent to his old home on the range, and he knows it. The Shister article overflows with his glee at having this new quest, delighting in the challenge of trying to convince Les Moonves that a dying quail like 60MW and his already-dead credibility has any reason to occupy an hour of prime-time programming. In fact, his first assignment to this new, hard-edged part of his career was an interview with Jack Welch and his new wife Suzy! That promises to be relevant -- to rich retirees that have recently remarried.

Rather's new producer, Jeff Fager, has a more realistic take on why Rather has joined the crew and the motive for his too-earnest enthusiasm:

Four CBS News staffers lost their jobs because of Memogate, in which discredited documents were used in Rather's report on 60 Wednesday about President Bush's National Guard service.

Rather was forced to leave the anchor chair a year before he had planned.

"Having Dan here is a way for us to move on," says Fager, also e.p. of 60 Minutes. "It's over. It happened. It was a bad mistake, and a lot of people have paid a very high price for it."

Give Fager some serious credit here. He at least admits that CBS blew it with their fraudulent TexANG memos. Rather hasn't even admitted the memos were anything less than genuine. As long as he continues to push fables like that onto his shrinking audience, CBS can expect to have zero credibility, even when The Dan spends his time tossing softballs at Jack Welch. We won't trust either Rather of CBS any more than we'd trust a desert coyote near an open-grilled side of Texas beef .... y'all.

Red Lake Shooter Not Exactly A Loner

After the spate of news stories following the Red Lake Massacre that killed ten people painted gunman Jeff Weise as a loner, Minnesota will be surprised to find out that the FBI has arrested another teenager as a co-conspirator. Louis Jourdain, the son of the tribal chief, was taken into custody last night and charged with conspiracy to commit murder, according to the Star Tribune:

The teenage son of Red Lake Tribal Chairman Floyd Jourdain Jr. was charged with conspiracy Monday in connection with the March 21 shootings that killed 10 people, according to a source with knowledge of the investigation.

The source said that Louis Jourdain, who is believed to be 16 or 17, plotted with the gunman, Jeffrey Weise, to violently attack Red Lake High School.

One witness told reporters that Jourdain hid out with her in the library and knew without looking that Weise was the shooter, a development which apparently has led to evidence that the attack was to have been larger and more coordinated. At the moment, no one says that Jourdain actually took part in the shooting. It looks more like the FBI thinks that Jourdain helped to plan it and was supposed to assist Weise in the massacre, but for some reason didn't and failed to warn anyone of Weise's intentions.

The native community at Red Lake sounds very much on edge, and their reaction indicates that more may be at the bottom of this massacre than first met the eye:

Some of the victim's relatives, such as the mother of Dewayne Lewis, declined to comment on the arrest. A family member of another victim was afraid to talk about it because "someone might come by and shoot at the house." ...

Tonya Lussier, the older sister of victim Chase Lussier, said Monday that she was shocked when she learned about the younger Jourdain's arrest -- and is concerned that there could be more people involved.

"I hope they catch everybody who was involved and knew what was going on," she said.

Said Victoria Brun: "I won't feel safe. These kids won't feel safe. This community won't feel safe until they're all brought in custody."

Was Weise the loner that the FBI initially portrayed -- or did he have a group of likeminded teenagers who helped him plan this out? Jourdain's arrest may portend even further revelations that could tear Red Lake apart. This demonstrates the risk of the easy characterization of murderers as anomalies and "loners" without ensuring more monsters aren't in our midst.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has more on the possible conspiracy:

One of the sources, who spoke on the condition his name not be used, said Jourdain and Weise exchanged e-mails that discussed Weise's intent to go on a shooting rampage at the school. Other teenagers who were in e-mail contact with Weise also could face charges in the coming days...

...One source with knowledge of the case said the alleged e-mails between Jourdain and Weise took place days and weeks before the shooting, and involved discussions in which Weise - and perhaps others - expressed an intent to commit an act of violence at the school.

So what exactly were the kids at Red Lake doing in their spare time?

Democracy Spreads To Bhutan

When the wave of democratization reaches all the way into the Himalayan hinterlands, people can bet on its power to transform the world. The latest nation to embrace democracy is the mountain kingdom of Bhutan, an isolated agricultural nation between India and China that has been ruled by an absolute monarch since the days of the British raj. Interestingly, the impetus for this radical shift came not from the Bhutanese but apparently from the king himself:

The king of the Himalayan state of Bhutan announced the end of a century of absolute royal rule yesterday with the publication of a draft constitution to establish a multiparty democracy.

King Jigme Singye Wangchuck said that by the end of the year his 700,000 subjects would be given the right to elect two houses of parliament, whose members would be empowered to impeach the monarch by a two-thirds vote.

While the National Assembly has had the impeachment power since 1998, King Jigme's sudden and radical shift towards multiparty democracy will probably take his subjects by surprise. Most of them had little or no contact with foreigners at all until five years ago, when Jigme opened the country up to tourists for the first time. They've only had widespread telephone service for a few years, and their first Internet access points just came on line four years ago. If a country could be described as isolated in today's era of globalization, Bhutan would fit the bill.

And yet even its absolute monarch sees the writing on the wall for tyranny, no matter how benevolent. We may have started the most potent political movement in Asia since Mao wrote his Little Red Book -- and this movement could bring peace to an entire continent once it runs its course.

Kyrgyzstan Resolves Parliamentary Crisis

In a major development for the one-time Soviet republic, Kyrgyzstan old parliament has agreed to peacefully disband after the new parliament -- formed in the questionable election that wound up running Askar Akayev out of office -- named interim leader Kurmanbek Bakiev as prime minister:

Lawmakers on Tuesday ended a damaging battle for legitimacy between rival parliaments, boosting prospects for political stability in Kyrgyzstan after last week's ouster of longtime leader Askar Akayev. ...

The old parliament's upper house ended its defiance and disbanded Tuesday, one day after a similar move by its lower house, deferring to a new legislature packed with lawmakers who had Akayev's support during the disputed elections that fueled the push for his ouster.

The move apparently signaled a measure of accommodation between the old elite and the former opposition leaders now in charge of the country, who swung their support behind the new parliament and called for the old one to disband.

Tensions had raced so high that at one point the new interior minister, Felix Kulov, threatened to arrest the very people that sprang him from jail a few days before. With this agreement in place, however, the Kyrgyz run the risk of allowing Akayev's supporters back into power. After all, if they got elected with the same rigged polling that Akayev employed, it only makes sense that at least some of them owe their seats to Akayev and might cause problems for reformists as a result. Bakiev himself noted that 20 seats out of 75 might not be legitimately decided, but he conceded that only those seats should be challenged and not the entire new parliament:

Bakiyev, who maintains that about 20 of the 75 seats in the new parliament are in dispute, reiterated pledges that those races would be reviewed by the courts and Central Election Commission. "We cannot dissolve the whole parliament," he said.

That statement won support from Kuban Orozov, a smartly dressed 20-year-old student standing in the sun on a Bishkek street corner.

The compromise appears to have cleared most of the political hurdles to the upcoming presidential election on June 26th. Another potential problem has also been resolved, at least temporarily, with the withdrawal of Kulov as a candidate in that election. Kulov, who served as the Kyrgyz military chief of staff and the leader of the successor agency to the KGB for years, had appeared headed for the top job as he has more popularity among reformers than Bakiev. However, the similarities between Vladimir Putin and Felix Kulov portended ominously for the future of democracy in Kyrgyzstan, pointing instead to a Russo-centered autocracy.

The Tulip Revolution appears back on track. Let's hope they can keep it going.

Jack Shafer Takes David Shaw To The Woodshed

The Los Angeles Times ran an opinion piece by David Shaw on blogging that argued against extending First Amendment protections to the "solipsistic, self-aggrandizing journalist-wannabe genre." He wrote that bloggers didn't deserve such consideration because we do not have editors and fact-checkers to ensure that we don't make errors or slander people.

Then Shaw used Matt Drudge, who even Shaw acknowledges as a questionable blogger, to make his point. Somehow his editor missed that. (He's not a blogger; he's a news aggregator. Different animal.)

Jack Shafer at Slate didn't miss it, or the irony of Shaw's screed, and he takes Shaw to the woodshed in his response at Slate this morning. Not only does Shafer point out the goofiness of Shaw basing his entire argument on quality while failing to use a correct example, but Shafer also teaches Shaw a little First Amendment history along the way:

Giving every indication that he's read a lot of stories about bloggers but not that many actual blogs, Shaw disparages the form as the error-filled rants of amateurs in his piece, "Do Bloggers Deserve Basic Journalistic Protections?" ...

These nameless bloggers don't deserve the "same constitutional protections as traditional print and broadcast journalists," Shaw writes. Specifically, he opposes their right to use state shield laws to protect their confidential sources when subpoenaed, as are three bloggers who are facing down Apple Computer in a trade secret case.

What gave Shaw the impression that the law accords print and broadcast journalists the same rights? The "Equal Time Rule" for political candidates requires broadcasters to treat legally qualified candidates the same whenever it sells air time or gives it away (unless a waiver is granted, as in the presidential debates). It must also sell advertising at discount rates to political candidates. No such rules apply to print, which can't be forced to sell ads at all.

Also, until it was repealed 1987, the "Fairness Doctrine" forced all TV and radio broadcasters to present balanced and fair coverage of controversial issues. Again, no such requirement has ever been imposed on print journalists. Whatever First Amendment parity Shaw thinks broadcast journalists enjoy with print journalists, they've had to fight for every step of the way, and many of those "rights" could be legislated away tomorrow.

What compels Shaw to write such slapdash copy? Is he trying to get his opinions out there as fast they pop into his brain?

Shafer also notes that the so-called legitimate press makes plenty of mistakes that never get prominent corrections. In fact, Shafer takes his examples from such prominent stories as 9/11, Monicagate, and the granddaddy of all press achievements, Watergate -- and shows how the revered Walter Cronkite and CBS ran a seriously misleading story without checking the facts. Does anyone remember the white van with the bomb on 9/11 that the FBI supposedly found on an NYC bridge? Jack Shafer does, even if the newspapers and broadcasters who pushed that story have forgotten it.

Read all of Shafer's delicious scolding. Shaw predicted he would get ravaged by the blogosphere, but an article that obtuse makes an easy target for anyone who defends freedom of speech for writers. Shafer proves himself once again to fit that bill.

First Amendment Takes Another Hit

Let's imagine that a reporter (or a blogger!) attends a political event where a politician accuses specific opponents of being homosexuals and child molesters. The journalist writes a report about the event that includes the charges leveled by the unbalanced politician, quoted verbatim. The article even includes a rebuttal from the slander victim. Nevertheless, the writer and the publisher of the article eventually find themselves as defendants of a slander action, presumably along with the idiot who made the comments in the first place.

Would the case get thrown out of court, as it amounts to nothing more than a truthful account of a public event? Not if the writer works in Pennsylvania, or apparently even in the United States:

The Supreme Court refused Monday to step into a lawsuit against a newspaper, leaving the media in Pennsylvania legally vulnerable when they report defamatory comments by public figures. ...

The justices' decision not to consider the case was a victory for the former mayor and current council president of Parkesburg, Pa., who sued when the Daily Local News in West Chester, Pa., reported that a council member claimed they were homosexuals. The newspaper reported the councilman also had issued a statement strongly implying that he considered the two officials to be "queers and child molesters."

The newspaper quoted the council president as saying that if the councilman had made comments "as bizarre as that then I feel very sad for him and I hope he can get the help he needs."

At issue is the neutral reporting privilege which allows the press to convey a reputable public figure's defamatory comment as long as it is reported neutrally and accurately.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that no such privilege exists, though the privilege is recognized by some state and federal courts.

I wish I could be shocked at the Supreme Court's refusal to affirm what should be common sense, but after watching them approve the BCRA, they've completely lost any credibility on the First Amendment. This is just another example of a court so devoid of common sense that they cannot distinguish between the idiot who makes slanderous statements and the people who make sure that the idiot gets identified. Shouldn't the people of West Chester know that their elected official uses character assassination for political gain?

The Daily Local News did not create the accusations; they only reported them, fairly and accurately. The citizens of West Chester found out what a despicable character they had elected to the city council and that allowed them to kick him off the council at the next election. It appears that the plaintiffs only included the Daily Local News in their lawsuit in order to take advantage of the deep pockets of the newspaper, rather than appreciating their role in shaming a backward and ignorant fool.

So the reward for telling the truth to the citizens of West Chester is that the Daily News and the reporter now have to defend themselves in the same manner as the idiot who made the public statements they reported. Anyone with a lick of common sense and any understanding of free speech would see the injustice inherent in this resolution. Unfortunately, those qualities elude the Pennsylvania legal system and apparently a majority of the Supreme Court.

Google Makes Good

Yesterday I asked whether I had angered the Google powers, as suddenly CQ had disappeared from the results of their searches. Rob from Say Anything told me that he and I had made the same mistake: selling ad space and subdomains to a company that creates "link farms" that leverages Google searches for sales opportunities. Neither Rob nor I did enough investigation to understand the implications of the business plan. Although the folks at Business Barn treated me well and never lied to me, had I known that their business practices would get CQ banned from Google, I would have declined.

I received an e-mail from Business Barn ending our current relationship -- perhaps because my Google ranking disappeared overnight -- but offering me a new deal with free hosting and unlimited bandwidth. I have turned it down and deleted the subdomains that caused the problems with the Google search engine. I also replied to the comment that Google left on my original post explaining what happened -- and they were kind enough to send this response:

Thanks for letting us know; I'd expect captainsquartersblog.com to come fully back into the index within 1-2 days.

So just to make sure everyone knows, Google didn't delete CQ from their search engines for political reasons, and they've actually been very good about letting me know what the problem was and responsive to my solution. I'll be looking forward to visitors from Google searches later this week ...

Housecleaning In Iraqi Security Services?

The newly-elected Shi'ite leaders of Iraq want to clean out the ex-Ba'athists who have returned to work in the new Iraqi police, setting up what could be a major division within the forces that Iyad Allawi has slowly rebuilt to credibility:

Members of the Shi'ite coalition that won Iraq's elections are demanding that the new government, when it is formed, cleanse the security services of terrorist informers and Saddam sympathizers as its first order of business.

Pressure for a purge of the new services is coming from within the ranks of the United Iraqi Alliance, many of whose mainly Shi'ite members complain of being harassed by Sunni officers much as they were persecuted under deposed dictator Saddam Hussein.

"There's a certain grass-roots feeling on the Shia side, a concern at what they claim to be a sort of re-Ba'athification process in the security ministries," said a senior British diplomat, who spoke to a small group of reporters on the condition of anonymity. "They feel that something needs to be done about it."

The Shi'a have a point, although they may carry it too far. Having true Saddamite sympathizers in the police and security forces will eventually undermine the confidence that Iraqis must place in them for security to improve. The significant numbers of Saddam's henchmen who continue to operate outside the law and target civilians and security personnel make these people suspicious; to whom is their loyalty given? No one can blame the Shi'a for being nervous about that or wanting to minimize the risk.

At the same time, as long as ex-Ba'athists remain outside the system, they will remain a threat. If de-Ba'athification can be done properly, having men with experience in security that have loyalty to the new democratic government will allow for more efficient progress in creating a secure and stable Iraq. It also shows that the Sunni do not need to consider themselves pariahs, but partners in a multilateral representative government. Simply flushing out everyone who ever had a connection to the old regime may simply convince the dead-enders that they have no future in either direction and take their frustration out on everyone.

The US is right to caution the new government about acting precipitously. The best solution for the moment is to get as many Sunni participating in the democratic process and give them hope that their voices will be heard.

Congress To Debate Life And Death

After the passions have cooled a bit, Congress intends on taking up the central issues that surrounded the Terri Schiavo case to determine whether federal action is needed to protect the rights of the disabled under guardianship regarding so-called "end of life issues". The New York Times report makes clear that partisanship does not appear to be a problem, as both parties have called for hearings to make sure people like Terri have better protection in the future:

On Sunday, lawmakers of both parties agreed that Congress has a role to play in such cases and should contemplate legislation that would give added legal recourse to patients like Ms. Schiavo. While it is difficult to predict whether such a measure could pass, the Schiavo case has clearly pushed thorny questions about end-of-life care to the fore on Capitol Hill, as well as in state legislatures around the nation.

The Republican-controlled House already passed a bill that would allow the federal courts to review cases like Ms. Schiavo's, in which the patient has left no written instructions, the family is at odds and state courts have ordered a feeding tube to be withdrawn. That bill evolved into one that was narrowly tailored to Ms. Schiavo.

Now some Democrats, prodded by advocates for the disabled, say Congress should consider whether such a law is needed.

"I think we should look into this and very possibly legislate it," said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who opposed Congressional action in the Schiavo case. Mr. Frank was speaking on Sunday on the ABC News program "This Week With George Stephanopoulos." Mr. Frank added: "I think Congress needs to do more. Because I've spoken with a lot of disability groups who are concerned that, even where a choice is made to terminate life, it might be coerced by circumstances."

While I disagree with the NYT's analysis of this as an "end of life" issue -- Terri's life only became endangered when Judge George Greer ordered her death by dehydration -- I think that the developments in Congress provide some hope that we can avoid a repeat of this situation. We seem to have moved from a presumption of life to a presumption of whatever one's spouse or guardian wants, regardless of any conflict of interest, and that rightly worries advocates for the disabled under guardianship. Most disabled people who require guardians cannot speak for themselves, and absent written instructions on their wishes for care, the decision to kill them when they suffer no terminal disease -- and especially when other family members want to care for them, as in Terri's case -- should receive the strongest kind of skepticism.

Mark Steyn puts it brilliantly, as always, in his column today, titled "No Compelling Reason To Kill Terri Schiavo":

I'm neither a Floridian nor a lawyer, and, for all I know, it may be legal under Florida law for the state to order her to be starved to death. But it is still wrong.

This is not a criminal, not a murderer, not a person whose life should be in the gift of the state. So I find it repulsive, and indeed decadent, to have her continued existence framed in terms of ''plaintiffs'' and ''petitions'' and ''en banc review'' and ''de novo'' and all the other legalese. Mrs. Schiavo has been in her present condition for 15 years. Whoever she once was, this is who she is now -- and, after a decade and a half, there is no compelling reason to kill her. Any legal system with a decent respect for the status quo -- something too many American judges are increasingly disdainful of -- would recognize that her present life, in all its limitations, is now a well-established fact, and it is the most grotesque judicial overreaching for any court at this late stage to decide enough is enough. It would be one thing had a doctor decided to reach for the morphine and ''put her out of her misery'' after a week in her diminished state; after 15 years, for the courts to treat her like a Death Row killer who's exhausted her appeals is simply vile.

There seems to be a genuine dispute about her condition -- between those on her husband's side, who say she has ''no consciousness,'' and those on her parents' side, who say she is capable of basic, childlike reactions. If the latter are correct, ending her life is an act of murder. If the former are correct, what difference does it make? If she feels nothing -- if there's no there there -- she has no misery to be put out of. That being so, why not err in favor of the non-irreversible option?

The facts of the Terri Schiavo case are complicated, contradictory, and evoke the strongest of emotions. That is precisely why we need to have a system set up to protect those who cannot speak for themselves. We cannot wait until one of these cases becomes so emergent that we have no recourse but demonstration and raw emotion. Bad decisions inevitably follow from that. Congress should take up this question and others like it, including whether the solutions should come at the federal level at all or rather provide a second line of fact-finding after the state level.

This is how we work within the system to keep injustice from occurring again. Encourage your representative to get involved in reaching a bipartisan consensus on how to protect those who are not dying from being killed through legal machinations.

Hijacking Terri

When does advocacy turn from focusing on an injustice to focusing on yourself? After spending Saturday taking phone calls on our radio show and reading today's USA Today article about the increasingly chaotic demonstrations outside Terri Schiavo's hospice, I would say that the time has arrived. Randall Terry, the radical anti-abortion activist who had mostly disappeared from national view over the past few years, has suddenly grabbed the stage in Florida, and his followers have stopped taking their cues from Terri's family:

Tension mounted outside Woodside Hospice here, where Schiavo was in her 10th day without food or water. Bobby Schindler, Schiavo's brother, told the protesters they aren't helping his family by getting arrested.

Karl Henderson, 25, of Denver Bible Church, took issue with Schindler. "We should be able to take her water if she's dying," he said.

"You're not speaking for our family," Schindler said.

Randall Terry used his platform as a self-styled spokesman for the Schindlers to accuse Jeb Bush of lacking manhood and stirring the natural anger over this injustice to demand that Bush act outside the law to override the courts:

"If Gov. Bush wants to be the man that his brother is, he needs to step up to the plate like President Bush did when the United Nations told him not to go into Iraq," Randall Terry, a protest organizer, said of the governor. "Be a man. Put politics aside." ...

Among the messages on protest signs Sunday: "Barbara Bush: Are you proud of your sons now?" "Stop the American Holocaust!" "Send in the National Guard!"

It wasn't just the Schindler's suppporters who appear to have hijacked the demonstrations, either. The Communists arrived to tell the world that people should die when their brains don't function, a piece of advice we wished they would have taken a century ago:

After remarks by Randall Terry -- an activist against abortion rights who has been acting as a spokesman for Terri Schiavo's family, the Schindlers -- members of a group calling itself the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigades seized control of the microphones and blasted Terry as a "Christian fascist thug" trying to interfere in "the most intimate affairs of life and death."

"[Terri Schiavo's] brain is not functional. It's not going to recover. Let her die in peace," pleaded Sunsari Taylor, a member of the group.

OK, folks. This has dissolved into a tragic circus, where the people supposedly supporting the Schindlers won't listen to them and the Communist Youth Brigades steal microphones to get themselves air time. The emotions have run away with the argument, to the point where conservatives have now started to argue for the executive to outgun the judiciary and impose its will regardless of the law.

It's time to put the signs down, and start praying for Terri. We need to fix the system, not trash it completely, and we need to stop giving air time to the most radical elements on both sides so we can determine the best way to do so.

How To Treat A Legend

For decades, no one has embodied the spirit of the Los Angeles Dodgers more than Tommy Lasorda. As a player, his heart far outstripped his talent, despite his oft-repeated (and hilarious) claims that the Dodgers would have been better off optioning off Sandy Koufax and keeping him on their major-league roster. As a talent scout and a minor-league coach, he developed some of the Hall of Fame talent that he later coached to two World Series with Walter Alston, and himself led the team to four World Series appearances in twenty years, winning two of them.

But more than his impressive record, Lasorda has imprinted his personality on his beloved Dodgers and the Los Angeles region. He still lives with his family in the middle-class neighborhood of Fullerton instead of tony digs in Bel Air or Beverly Hills, and rather than shut himself off from baseball's fans, he seems to light up in their presence. I met him briefly twenty-three years ago after his first World Series win, late at night at a Los Angeles hotel with his family waiting for him. Instead of just graciously shaking my hand and moving on -- which I would have understood entirely -- he spent at least 20 minutes talking to me and my friends about the Dodgers and the Fernando Valenzuela phenomenon. He clearly loves the Dodgers, the fans, and Los Angeles itself.

Unfortunately, during the brief ownership of Fox, the organization appeared almost ashamed of Lasorda. They gave him a title but obviously never felt comfortable with him, giving him almost nothing to do. Lasorda never said a word about it but his enthusiasm noticeably dimmed for the team and organization that he spent a lifetime building and promoting. Now that Frank McCourt has taken over the ownership of the Dodgers, the Los Angeles Times reports that Lasorda almost seems reborn:

In one week alone, he led the pitchers through bunting practice, coached first base in an extra-inning game, tossed high-decibel motivational gems at minor leaguers as he walked around the clubhouse, hit ground balls to infielders during batting practice and chased foul balls during a simulated game.

He mingled with fans, signing autographs and posing for pictures. He entertained the 14-month-old son of General Manager Paul DePodesta, granted numerous interviews and appeared via satellite on Fox News and CNN to discuss steroids in baseball.

The Dodgers appointed their Hall of Fame manager senior vice president in 1998, after he served as interim general manager. The ill-defined position sometimes left Lasorda wondering what to do, and vulnerable to charges of forcing himself on a baseball operations department that did not seek his advice.

But new owner Frank McCourt has embraced him, and Lasorda has returned the embrace. McCourt last month asked Lasorda to serve as a senior advisor, reporting directly to the owner, and to represent the Dodgers whenever needed.

"There are so many things he can do for us," McCourt said. "Nobody loves the Dodgers more. There is so much knowledge Tommy has. He knows everybody. I can learn a lot from him."

I know that some baseball fans have never felt much affection for Lasorda, considering him something of a clown or a fool with his many motivational stories of his years in baseball which often transform themselves into rather tall tales. No one can question his lifetime commitment to the game, however, or his heart. He continues to demonstrate why so many more people continue to hold so much affection and respect for the man who swears he bleeds Dodger Blue. Three cheers for Frank McCourt for understanding how to honor Lasorda -- by allowing him to keep contributing meaningfully to the game and the team he loves so much.

Iraqis Grab 131 Terrorists Targeting Kerbala

Iraqi security forces have demonstrated their increasing effectiveness by leading a raid on a terrorist stronghold outside of Kerbala, capturing 131 operatives, many of them the foreigners that cause the worst attacks on Iraqis and Americans:

Iraqi soldiers, backed by US helicopters, are reported to have seized 131 suspects in a dawn raid on insurgents planning attacks on the holy city of Kerbala.

The Defence Ministry says troops also retrieved tonnes of explosives.

The Defence Minister, Hazim al-Shaalan, described it as a very successful operation based on intensive surveillance.

Several suspected militants were reported killed in the operation, which began late on Friday and culminated in the dawn raid just outside Kerbala, about 100 kilometres south-west of Baghdad.

Officials say say those arrested included foreigners using fake Iraqi identification papers.

Next week brings an expected large pilgrimage to Kerbala for Arbain, one of the mourning rites of the Shi'a. Undoubtedly, the Wahhabist Sunni foreigners expected to cause a civil war by butchering Shi'ite pilgrims during one of their major observances. With the foreign networks already declining due to significant leadership losses and the general contempt for them that has grown tremendously in Iraqi society, the loss of 131 terrorists signifies a tremendous blow to their operative capacity.

I wonder if Joe Biden and the editorial board of the New York Times, who spent so much oxygen eight weeks ago telling Condoleezza Rice that the Iraqi security forces had zero credibility, might be considering that their own credibility has dropped farther into negative numbers with each successful operation they conduct.

Dueling Parliaments In Bishkek Threatens Tulip Revolution

The Tulip Revolution continues to sputter along in the Kyrgyz capitol of Bishkek, where a conflict between the old parliament and the new one elected as a result of the rigged election has caused such confusion that the new security chief briefly threatened to arrest members of the old parliament that had freed him from prison:

TWO rival parliaments competed for power in Kyrgyzstan yesterday, fuelling more political uncertainty three days after the former Soviet country’s longtime leader fled and his government collapsed amid massive demonstrations. ...

Some fear the division - and the competing parliaments - could plunge the shaken central Asian country into deeper turmoil. Both parliaments - the new one elected in the disputed vote that sparked massive discontent and the one that lost the election - met in separate chambers over the weekend, each claiming to represent the people.

Felix Kulov, a former opposition leader who was freed from jail Thursday, warned lawmakers in the old parliament - led by his own allies - that they should step down.

"The new parliament is legitimate and the old parliament’s term has expired," said Mr Kulov. He warned the former parliament that "if you get people out, I will take measures to arrest you".

Mr Kulov later apologised when Azim Beknazarov, the prosecutor-general, challenged him, saying: "These are the people who freed you, will you arrest them?"

Political reality has begun to dawn on the Kyrgyz, now that Akayev's regime has collapsed. One might have considered that since the fulcrum of that collapse was the discredited election, the simple solution would have been to declare their results void and re-run the election as soon as possible. However, that obviously won't satisfy the people elected in the last election, some or most of whom probably truly won without any rigging.

The result? Separate governments -- one parliament which chased Akayev out but whose terms, as Kulov noted, have expired, and the other elected under a shadow of fraud. Kulov now controls the security forces of Kyrgyzstan thanks to the old parliament but has suddenly and inexplicably insisted that they cede power to the new parliament. Undoubtedly Kulov doesn't want a return of Akayev, who imprisoned him before abdicating power himself. Failing that, however, it's pretty hard to figure out exactly what Kulov wants.

It looks like the Kyrgyz revolution fired itself off about six months too early, before the revolutionaries themselves had any idea what they wanted. Their movement has progressed aimlessly and clumsily, and the conflict between the two parliaments shows that little thought about its implications has been applied to the emergent situation. The problem won't be intractable, but unless the Kyrgyz people in power now act to fully define their goals and immediate steps to implement them, no one can feel confident that democracy will result from this putsch.

UPDATE: More on Kulov's position and rationale:

"I think that violating the constitution will hurt the image of our republic, because if we go outside the law, it will give us very big problems," Kulov said.

"First of all, it will give President Akayev an opportunity to try, through international organizations, to return again (to power)," he said. "Because he has not resigned from his office." ...

Speaking to AP, Kulov reiterated his support for the new parliament and said challenges of the official results should be resolved on a case-by-case basis.

"But why dissolve the new parliament?" he said, adding that doing so left the country in control of an acting prime minister and acting president Kurmanbek Bakiyev while the old parliament's mandate was expired.

"Don't tell me that's democracy," he said.

His attentiveness to constitutional law sounds reasonable enough, and his concern for his own hide if he deviates from it appears genuine. I think Kulov will have one hell of a time dislodging the old parliament from their seats using that argument, given their victory over Akayev and the taint of the previous election.

Have I Angered The Google Powers That Be?

While Charles at Little Green Footballs and Michelle Malkin point out that Google refuses to acknowledge their sites as "news" despite Google's linking to other, less savory sources as news, it appears that Google has stopped recognizing Captain's Quarters' existence on the Internet altogether. I received this e-mail from CQ reader Ed Davidson this morning:

I have been using the search criteria "captains quarters" on Google for a considerable time. Your blog was always the lead link returned and it was a convenient way for me to do a two click connection. She's-a-no-work-no-more. Google no longer will return your link with "captains quarters" or "captains quarters blog" or "www.captainsquartersblog.com" in their search function.

Of course, I decided to check this out -- and sure enough, Ed's alert is accurate. Check out this search. While my old Typepad site comes up as the first hit, my main site has disappeared entirely. You can find Captain's Quarters Family and Golf Resort and a number of other similarly-named hotels and inns, but you can't find my blog -- not even when you redo the search to include the word "blog".

Now why would that be? I haven't ever criticized Google, as far as I know, and I use it almost every day. Maybe that will change. Ed's explanation is as rational as anything I can figure out:

You must have been bad. Real bad. Congratulations.

Thanks!

UPDATE: Apparently, I have angered the Google powers, but it has nothing to do with politics. See this post at Say Anything for an explanation. I've removed the links -- the company that contracted me for them wants to back out anyway -- and I'll give Google a few days to see if they fix the issue.

Kofi Bumming Out Over His Incompetence

The London Times informs us today that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has struggled with depression and might quit his United Nations post over the continuing and deepening scandals surrounding his leadership of the world debating society. The report seems like an attempt to paint a sympathetic portrait of a man torn by circumstances between his career and his family rather than the natural progression of the revelation of Annan's incompetence and corruption:

KOFI ANNAN, the United Nations secretary-general, is said to be struggling with depression and considering his future. Colleagues have reported concerns about Annan ahead of an official report this week that will examine his son Kojo’s connection to the controversial Iraqi oil for food scheme.

Depending on the findings of the report, by a team led by the former US Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, Annan may have to choose between the secretary-generalship and loyalty to his son. ...

One close observer at the UN said Annan’s moods were like a “sine curve” and that he appeared near the bottom of the trough. ...

“Kofi Annan is going to find his position increasingly untenable,” said Nile Gardiner, an expert on the UN at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “There is a strong possibility he will resign voluntarily because of his declining credibility.”

In the end Annan’s feelings may be more decisive than the facts.

What a ludicrous conclusion! It has always been about Annan's "feelings", since the UN has steadfastly shown that the assembly intends to do nothing about holding Annan accountable for the multitude of corruption and abuse uncovered during his leadership. The only two ways Annan would leave his post early were either by resigning or dying, a fact everyone knew after the revelations of the Oil-for-Food Program in 2003 and the multiplying sexual abuse scandals in 2004.

The Times report makes it sound as if Annan's only concern involves protecting his son. His son certainly plays into Annan's problems, but the latest revelation about Kojo -- the massive hidden payments -- only have an impact because of the simultaneous exposure of heretofore secret meetings Kofi had with Kojo's bosses, one in his Turtle Bay offices. The covert nature of the meetings and the timing of the payments make it clear that Cotecna hired Kojo for access to the highest levels of the UN, and that they didn't suffer any disappointment for their efforts.

Perhaps Annan truly suffers some depression over his low state, but he fully earned his position. As Michelle Malkin notes, he has a handy way to start atoning for his corruption and incompetence: he can leave as soon as possible.

Second British Newspaper Notices We're Winning, American Media Still Clueless

The Guardian (UK) follows up on a report yesterday by the Financial Times that the Iraqi elections have severely undermined at least the native insurgency, and have even resulted in an internecine war among them:

The Iraqi resistance has peaked and is 'turning in on itself', according to recent intelligence reports from Baghdad received by Middle Eastern intelligence agencies.

The reports are the most optimistic for several months and reflect analysts' sense that recent elections in Iraq marked a 'quantum shift'. They will boost the government in the run-up to the expected general election in May. ...

One foreign intelligence report cites a recent incident in which members of the al-Dulaimi tribe, previously known for their antagonism to the coalition and the new government in Iraq, shot dead a number of Islamic militants from outside Iraq, whom they believed responsible for killing a senior al-Dulaimi sheikh. Although the sheikh was a senior police official and thus a 'collaborator', tribal elders felt that his death had to be avenged. The killings show tribal allegiances will triumph over any supposed 'international jihad', the report said.

The number of attacks on coalition forces has fallen since the election in January while strikes on the new Iraqi police forces and army have continued. Analysts say that this shows that locals - who favoured international targets - are abandoning violent tactics for the moment while the 'jihadis' - previously responsible for most of the attacks on locals - are still active.

Last week militants killed 15 Iraqi soldiers, assassinated a senior commander and murdered five women in an ambush.

Intelligence officials believe that ordinary Iraqis are increasingly turning against the militants.

Now they're starting to fighting amongst themselves, which usually indicates a terminal condition for insurgencies. After all, the native Ba'athists want to live in Iraq, while the foreign Islamists only want to stay in Iraq for specific reasons that have nothing to do with joining Iraqi society. They want to use the Iraqis to create a greater ummah and an Arabian tyranny that has passed from favor.

The combined pressure of credible American power and Iraqi freedom has created a crucible which has crushed the so-called insurgency and will cause it to completely collapse, probably within weeks. If the Saddamite remnants can work out a realistic amnesty program, probably involving the identification of Zarqawi network managers, the Sunni will finally start fully participating in the political process and the Islamists will have lost Iraq for good.

Remember when we spoke last year, in the apex of the insurgent attacks prior to our election, how the terrorists attempted to stage a Tet Offensive? It appears that's exactly what happened -- except this time, the majority of the American public didn't fall for it. They've lost, and they know it, even if the Washington Post and New York Times still has failed to report it for a second day now.

Dowdifying The Vatican Response To The Da Vinci Code

Maureen Dowd greets the most holy of Christian holidays by reducing the conflict between the Catholic Church and Dan Brown, the author of the Da Vinci Code, to a whiny complaint about the all-male priesthood. Typically, she talks about a subject on which she knows little and focuses on the most superficial aspect of it to make a facile point about the supposed misogyny of the Church.

And a Happy Easter to you, too, Maureen:

Some may mock the Vatican for waiting until everyone on earth has read "The Da Vinci Code" to denounce "The Da Vinci Code."

I am not one of them. It's Easter, and I don't want to blot my catechism.

Of course she's not one of them. Oh, wait, yes she is:

Mr. Brown's zippy version has Jesus and Mary Magdalene marrying and having children. This "perverts the story of the Holy Grail, which most certainly does not refer to the descendants of Mary Magdalene," Cardinal Bertone said. "It astonishes and worries me that so many people believe these lies."

The novelist is not the first one to conjure romantic sparks between the woman usually painted as what one writer calls "the Jessica Rabbit of the Gospels" and the eligible young Jewish carpenter and part-time miracle worker.

For years, female historians and novelists have been making the case that Mr. Brown makes, that Mary Magdalene was framed and defamed, that the men who run Christianity obliterated her role as an influential apostle and reduced her to a metaphor for sexual guilt.

The church refuses to allow women to be ordained as priests because there were no female apostles. So if Mary Magdalene was a madonna rather than a whore, the church loses its fig leaf of justification for male domination and exclusion.

Oh, please. The book bases itself on an ancient heresy called Gnosticism, as anyone familiar with early Christian history knows just from reading the summary. (Disclosure: I have not read anything else but that, which I will address in a moment.) Gnostics believed that the Gospels and Jesus' teachings hid deep secrets that the Apostles never directly revealed about God and the world. Instead of accepting the Word as revealed in the Gospel as the full truth and voice of God, they insisted that Jesus left secret instructions about salvation that God wished to remain hidden except to the select few in on the secret.

This heresy had two destructive elements to it. One, it dismissed the Gospels as subordinate to this supposedly secret series of teachings. Two, it turned what was meant to be the salvation of the entire world into Christendom's first tinfoil-hat brigade, where conspiracy theories about the nature of Christianity abounded. It didn't help that Christianity spent much of its first three centuries underground, its adherents persecuted by the Romans. Gnosticism failed, largely as a result of its own exclusionary nature, but the peculiar desire in humanity to see patterns and conspiracies where none exists always made us vulnerable to Gnostic-like fables.

As the primary apologetics resource for Catholics shows, the Catholic Church has several points besides the fantasy about Jesus and Mary Magdalene on which it objects to Brown's novel:

The problem is that many of the ideas that the book promotes are anything but fact, and they go directly to the heart of the Catholic faith. For example, the book promotes these ideas:

* Jesus is not God; he was only a man.

* Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.

* She is to be worshiped as a goddess.

* Jesus got her pregnant, and the two had a daughter.

* That daughter gave rise to a prominent family line that is still present in Europe today.

* The Bible was put together by a pagan Roman emperor.

* Jesus was viewed as a man and not as God until the fourth century, when he was deified by the emperor Constantine.

* The Gospels have been edited to support the claims of later Christians.

* In the original Gospels, Mary Magdalene rather than Peter was directed to establish the Church.

* There is a secret society known as the Priory of Sion that still worships Mary Magdalene as a goddess and is trying to keep the truth alive.

* The Catholic Church is aware of all this and has been fighting for centuries to keep it suppressed. It often has committed murder to do so.

* The Catholic Church is willing to and often has assassinated the descendents of Christ to keep his bloodline from growing.

Catholics should be concerned about the book because it not only misrepresents their Church as a murderous institution but also implies that the Christian faith itself is utterly false.

It appears that the Church has quite a few more problems with Brown than just the depiction of Mary Magdalene as the wife of Jesus or even that she had the authority of an Apostle, an idea that only has credence if one consults the Apocrypha, those early Christian writings that have always been specifically excluded from the Gospel. However, in MoDo's narrow and shallow little world, the biggest complaint that she sees is the one which appears to animate all of her writing -- the victimization of women. She ignores all of the assertions made by Brown's novel that strike at the very heart of the faith, such as stripping Jesus of His divinity and the notion that the Church condones murder to cover up the supposed fraud on which Christianity is based, to deduce that the Vatican's biggest problem is that The Da Vinci Code might endorse the ordination of women as priests.

I have not yet read Brown's book, but not because the Vatican tells me not to do so. I don't have much time for outside reading, thanks to my blogging schedule, although I'm working on a non-fiction book about Ronald Reagan which I hope to review for you soon. My study of Christian history would probably keep me from enjoying this fantastical and essentially ludicrous plot anyway, plus the pompous nature of Brown's claim to have researched the issues involved (see the Catholic Answers link for their specific rebuttals) would make it off-putting to me. Also, my friend North Star Steve has read the book -- and told me he hated it, mostly finding it utterly predictable and poorly written.

Should the Vatican have given the book any further credence by warning Catholics about reading it? Given the plot of the novel, remaining silent in the face of such insult would be asking a lot of any organization, even the Church. Unfortunately, Brown's research claims might convince less-prepared Catholics to swallow some of his fiction as fact, a complaint I often have with Hollywood historical movies as well. For the truly shallow, such as Dowd, it probably can't possibly do any more damage to their intellect than they have already experienced.