Al-Reuters Doctors War Photos In Lebanon

Charles Johnson at LGF demolishes Reuters for publishing a laughably doctored photo of Beirut, attempting to make it look like the Israelis bombed the city indiscriminately. Readers do not need any particular expertise in photography or digital editing to spot this phony -- smoke patterns get exactly duplicated over and over again. Even buildings get duplicated in this amateurish attempt to manipulate images for political purposes. And guess who gets the credit for the photography? Adnan Hajj -- the same photographer who documented the Qana attack that now looks more and more to have been a phony story as well.

This isn't just one reporter and a producer going nuts at a network news division. This shows that Reuters has either complete incompetents as editors or that the entire British wire service has chosen one particular side in this war. Check all the links in Charles' post, and try to keep from laughing out loud at how utterly stupid Reuters considers its customers to be.

UPDATE: Here's the link to the photo itself. Take a read of what sports photographers think of this image.

Iran Tried To Get Uranium From Tanzania

The London Times reports that the Iranians bought uranium from Tanzania and attempted to smuggle it into the country, disguised as another non-radioactive commodity. However, as a UN report indicates, Tanzanian customs officials discovered the ruse and stopped the transport:

IRAN is seeking to import large consignments of bomb-making uranium from the African mining area that produced the Hiroshima bomb, an investigation has revealed.

A United Nations report, dated July 18, said there was “no doubt” that a huge shipment of smuggled uranium 238, uncovered by customs officials in Tanzania, was transported from the Lubumbashi mines in the Congo.

Tanzanian customs officials told The Sunday Times it was destined for the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas, and was stopped on October 22 last year during a routine check.

The disclosure will heighten western fears about the extent of Iran’s presumed nuclear weapons programme and the strategic implications of Iran’s continuing support for Hezbollah during the war with Israel.

The Iranians disguised the uranium as coltan, a component of computer chips and a legal commodity for trade. Tanzania, however, scans cargo with Geiger counters, mindful of the uranium mining in its country and the potential for illegal trade. When the counters started clicking, the customs officials started pulling the containers off the ship. Each drum contained over 100 pounds of ore, and several had uranium rather than coltan.

If this sounds familiar, it should. This scenario was exactly what the Brits determined might be the aim of Saddam Hussein, that time in Niger. As in Tanzania, the uranium mines had been shut down -- but in both nations, illegal mining had been known to occur. Hussein tried to get Niger's government to clandestinely arrange for trade in the one commodity they could not openly sell, but the Nigerien PM refused. Iran went behind the backs of Tanzanian officials and dealt directly with the illegal mining operations to get their nuclear material.

Prairie Pundit suggests sending Joe Wilson to Dar es Salaam for a few more mint juleps, but unfortunately for Wilson, the cat is already out of the bag this time -- and the UN has documented the attempt. Intriguingly, this happened in October 2005, almost a year ago, and Tanzanian officials were asked to keep quiet about it. Americans helped dispose of the material. In its way, it appears to be a reverse Wilson -- no one revealed the attempt until well after Iran announced its success at uranium enrichment.

So have they bought more elsewhere? And would the UN tell us if they did?

Where's Raul-Do, Redux

More information and less confirmation keep coming out of Cuba. The government in Havana keeps insisting that the Castro brothers still control the island, and the Castro brothers keep failing to appear:

With Fidel Castro still nowhere to be seen, military reservists, retired officers and decommissioned soldiers are under orders to check in daily at military posts.

Burly men who appear to be plainclothes security agents are stationed along a stretch of waterfront that saw rare anti-government riots in 1994. There are more police and army reservists throughout the capital, and dissidents said the military was telling citizens in eastern provinces that they could use force against those criticizing the government.

Repelling an invasion from the United States has been a constant theme in state media since Castro announced Tuesday that he undergoing intestinal surgery and temporarily handing power to his brother Raul. ...

Cubans said that their friends and relatives who are decommissioned or retired military officers are being ordered to report their whereabouts daily and be reachable at all times.

Despite having power for the last five days, Dear Placeholder has yet to appear publicly on his brother's behalf. Fidel himself has supposedly issued terse statements saying that he feels great but that his health is a state secret. Now the Cuban military has ordered its reservists to stay in touch in case of a Yanqui invasion, but everyone knows that's poppycock.

The military needs to keep track of their reservists to make sure that they haven't begun a counter-revolution. And since an appearance by Raul would effectively quell any such thoughts, one has to assume that both Fidel and Raul have disappeared for a reason. The reason, according to Brazilian sources, is terminal stomach cancer for Fidel, as Oak Leaf at Polipundit reports:

“Cuban authorities” informed Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and his party’s leaders that Castro’s health is worse than publicly acknowledged. The newspaper reported Castro, 79, apparently has abdominal cancer, and that the unidentified Cuban authorities said he would be too incapacitated to reassume power.”

Well, maybe. One problem in dictatorships is that they tend to grow strange theories and rumors in the darkness, and this situation is about as opaque as it gets. Stomach cancer would explain Fidel's disappearance, but not Raul's. Something other than a medical problem has occurred in Cuba, but no one's talking -- except to order the Cuban military to march in circles where they can be watched.

Strange days -- and dangerous days -- in Cuba. The explosion may come soon.

Santorum Sneaking Up On Casey

Don't look now, but the one Republican incumbent in the Senate that the media has given up for dead may just be making a comeback. Real Clear Politics notes a new Pennsylvania poll that shows Rick Santorum has erased a double-digit deficit to Bob Casey and may have the momentum back on his side:

Santorum started closing the gap in late spring, those polls found, and seems to have momentum. An April Morning Call/Muhlenberg College survey showed Casey 8 percentage points ahead. Keystone had Casey up 16 points in February, and then 6 points in May.

To be sure, two other statewide polls still show the race to be a blowout. June surveys by Quinnipiac College and Rasmussen Reports both put Casey ahead by double digits.

But experts and the candidates themselves have long said they expected the race to tighten. And behind the horserace numbers, the latest Morning Call/Muhlenberg College survey found evidence of other good news for Santorum -- fewer people view him in an unfavorable light than in the spring. And although President Bush remains a drag on Santorum and other GOP candidates, the drag appears to be lessening.

Rasmussen has, as the article states, Santorum behind by a wide margin still, and Rasmussen has proven fairly reliable. The July 26th poll showed Santorum down 11 points and still struggling with a 50% disapproval rating. Lynn Swann actually looked closer to Ed Rendell than Santorum to Casey. Both, however, still showed significant improvement over Rasmussen's June 19th poll, from which both candidates gained four points.

If this poll shows an accurate trend, Casey may have already peaked. He still has a slim majority in most polls, but his support looks weak. His "very favorable" rating only amounts to 14%, well below Santorum's 23%. The bulk of his approval numbers shows up as "somewhat favorable" at 42%, putting three-quarters of his support in a somewhat less than enthusiastic light.

The GOP could still hold Santorum's seat -- and if it does, it will be a major blow to Democratic hopes of a takeover in the upper chamber this November.

Keep John & Annie Glenn In Your Thoughts

Forget about all the dangers of the early space program and the issues of being the first septuagenarian to ride the Space Shuttle -- it turns out that Ohio freeways will really get you. Space pioneer, decorated Marine, and Senator John Glenn and his wife suffered minor injuries in a traffic accident early this morning:

Former senator and astronaut John Glenn and his wife were taken to a hospital with minor injures after being involved in a car accident, police said. Glenn, 85, and his wife, Annie, 86, were in fair condition early Saturday morning at Grant Medical Center, a nursing supervisor said.

The driver of the other car, Amy Myers of suburban New Albany, said she was driving east late Friday night when Glenn, who was headed west, tried to turn left onto a highway ramp.

Myers, who was not injured, said her car hit the front of his.

Glenn was "very sincerely sorry," Myers said.

Hopefully the hospital stay is just precautionary. It was only eight years ago that he flew on a Shuttle mission after passing the physical for mission specialists. We hope that the Senator and his wife, two great Americans, recover fully and quickly to enjoy the rest of this summer.

UPDATE: Hey, folks, we may not have liked Glenn much as a politician -- I certainly didn't -- but this man put his life on the line on many occasions for this country. He flew combat missions in both World War II and Korea -- 59 and 63 missions, respectively -- just as my late father-in-law did in the Corps. He stuck a rocket on his back when most of them blew up a hell of a lot sooner than designed during the Mercury program. This man may not win kudos for his politics, but he has more than earned our respect as an American. I consider him a great American for his service to our nation, and I think people need to rethink some of their comments in this thread.

No Saudi Sympathy For The 'Devil'

Hezbollah's war continues to inspire some unprecedented politics in the Middle East, this time in Wahhabi Saudi Arabia. An influential cleric who helped inspire Osama bin Laden's war on the West has issued a fatwa demanding that Saudis oppose the 'devil' in this conflict -- but if you think that means the yahoud, you'd be mistaken:

A top Saudi Sunni cleric, whose ideas inspired Osama bin Laden, issued a religious edict Saturday disavowing the Shi'ite guerrilla group Hizbullah, evidence that a rift remained among Muslims over the fighting in Lebanon.

Hizbullah, which translates as "the party of God," is actually "the party of the devil," said Sheik Safar al-Hawali, whose radical views made the al-Qaida leader one of his followers in the past.

"Don't pray for Hizbullah," he said in the fatwa posted on his Web site.

The edict, which reflects the historical stand of strict Wahhabi doctrine viewing Shi'ite Muslims as heretics, follows a similar fatwa from another popular Saudi cleric Sheik Abdullah bin Jibreen two weeks into the conflict with Israel.

"It is not acceptable to support this rejectionist party (Hizbullah), and one should not fall under its command, or pray for its victory," bin Jibreen said at the time. That fatwa set off a maelstrom across the Arab world, with other leaders and people at the grass roots level imploring Muslims to put aside differences to support the fight against Israel.

The war has sundered the Sunni community in the region. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has rejected the Saudi rejections, pitting two of the most influential Sunni factions against each other. Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri called for support for the Shi'ite terrorists in Lebanon even while killing Shi'ites in Iraq, a position that Zawahiri doesn't even bother to try to rescue from incoherence.

People have warned about unifying Islamists around a terrorist culture through Israel's attempt to dismantle Hezbollah's military capability after years of provocations. They may eventually prove prescient, but at the moment it looks like Hezbollah has driven even deeper fractures into the Islamic world. In any event, ignoring Hezbollah has done nothing to either solve the terrorism or to garner a consensus among Islamic nations to end it, so these warnings sound almost as incoherent as Zawahiri on this issue.

We should quit worrying about the so-called Arab street on this point. Not only is it not a one-way thoroughfare, it looks like a street that can't even pick out two distinct directions.

UPDATE: AJ Strata links to this as well, but his primary point sounds intriguing:

If Hezbollah is as well armed and trained as the Syrian and Iranian militaries, then maybe we have been overestimating the ability of these nations while we underestimated Hezbollah. Syria is looking especially vulnerable since their military has not been in a fight for decades and therefore is not battle hardened. In fact, I would wager Syrian and Iranian elements are inside the Hezbollah units right now. One thing is for sure. As this battle rages on, those who fear confrontation at all costs get shriller as we saw in Qana. But those who are not afraid of confrontation in self defense are watching how the last bastions of Islamo Fascism in the Middle East are looking like less and less of a force to deal with. As long as the other side doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.

And that is what the handwringing media has lost site of. This conflict was started because Iran was willing to start a regional war to hold onto their hopes for nuclear power and possible state-initiated martyrdom.

Read the rest of his thoughts.

France, US Agree On Cease-Fire Formulation

France and the US have reached accord on the wording of a UN cease-fire proposal for the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. It calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities by Hezbollah, which started the conflict, and allows Israel to respond if Hezbollah does not comply:

The United States and France agreed Saturday on a draft U.N. Security Council resolution that calls for a "full cessation" of fighting between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas, but would allow Israel to defend itself if attacked.

The draft, obtained by The Associated Press, "calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations."

That language would be a major victory for Israel, which has insisted it must have the right to respond if Hezbollah launches missiles against it. France and many other nations had demanded an immediate halt to violence without conditions as a way to push the region back toward stability.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton and French President Jacques Chirac's office confirmed that agreement had been reached. The full 15-nation Security Council was to meet later Saturday to discuss the resolution, and it was likely to be adopted in the next couple of days, Bolton said.

France lost the manuevering room to dictate Israel's position when their foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, heralded Hezbollah's sponsor Iran as a "stabilizing force" in the region. Douste-Blazy then had to backpedal furiously when Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad openly called for Israel's destruction days later and told Muslim nations that the cease-fire France was peddling amounted to a good first step. Iran embarrassed France further yesterday by publicy announcing that it had armed Hezbollah with rockets and missiles in the past.

The cease-fire proposal addresses that very issue. It demands that Lebanon ensure that no non-state militias purchase arms, which means that Beirut has to attend to its borders. They will have the responsibility to keep Syria and Iran from resupplying the terrorist group, and failure makes them responsible for attacks on Israel.

South of the Litani, Lebanon would then become a demilitarized zone. The UNIFIL contingent still in the area would stay long enough to verify that the cease-fire had taken place, and then the UN would send a larger and presumably competent peacekeeping force into the area. Their job would be to support the Lebanese Army in assuming military control all the way to the Blue Line. Once that happened, then the UN could start brokering the other issues involved in the conflict, such as Shebaa Farms and the prisoners captured by both sides.

It sounds intelligent and rational, and it places the onus on Hezbollah, where it belongs. They started this war, and either they have to stop or the Lebanese have to stop them. The Israelis will not depart Lebanon under fire this time, nor should they.

Rightroots: Michele Bachmann Interview

After five full days of the Rightroots initiative, we have raised more money than we thought possible. We're up to $35K, and most of our candidates have over $1,000 in contributions already.

Today we spoke with Michele Bachmann, one of the Rightroots candidates, along with Rep. Phil English from Pennsylvania, a key member of the Ways and Means Committee. The two are campaigning in Michele's district today and took a half-hour to talk with us about the election as well as key issues facing Congress now and in the next session. I have podcasted the interview in two segments:

Segment 1
Segment 2

Be sure to listen to the whole interview, and hit the contribution page at Rightroots for Michele and the other fine candidates!

Northern Alliance Radio Hits The Air At New Time

Talk about a New Dawn Coming! The Northern Alliance Radio Network airs today at its new time, 9 am CT, with Mitch Berg from Shot in the Dark and me starting off the festivities. Brian and Chad from Fraters Libertas and John from Power Line take the second shift in their normal start time of 11 am. King Banaian is still in Mongolia -- no, seriously! -- and will join us next week.

Today we will be talking with Steven Vincent's widow on the first anniversary of the author's death in Iraq. We will also speak with state senator Michele Bachmann, currently campaigning for Congress and a recent endorsee of the Rightroots initiative. You can tune us in at AM 1280 The Patriot, or catch our Internet stream at their website or at Townhall. Give us a call at 651-289-4488 to join the conversation -- and don't forget to start your morning off Right!

UPDATE: Lisa Ramaci-Vincent wants to continue Steven's work at her foundation in her memory. Contributors can send cash via PayPal using stevenvincentfoundation@yahoo.com, or to the following address:

Steven Vincent Foundation
534 E. 11th St #18
New York, NY 10009

IG: DoD Did Not Lie To 9/11 Commission

Despite complaints made public by 9/11 Commission members and staff this week, the Department of Defense did not knowingly lie in testimony to the panel, according to the Inspector General. The New York Times reports this morning that the IG's report blames the inaccuracies on poor record-keeping:

The Defense Department’s watchdog agency said Friday that it had no evidence that senior Pentagon commanders intentionally provided false testimony to the Sept. 11 commission about the military’s actions on the morning of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The agency, the Pentagon’s office of inspector general, said the Defense Department’s initial inaccurate accounts could be attributed largely to poor record-keeping.

The Pentagon initially suggested that the North American Aerospace Defense Command, the military’s domestic air-defense operation, had reacted quickly to reports of the hijackings and had been prepared to intercept and possibly shoot down one of the hijacked planes.

The Sept. 11 commission, which uncovered the inconsistencies in the Pentagon’s account, made a formal request in July 2004 for the inspector general to investigate why senior military officials who testified to the commission had made so many inaccurate statements.

This investigation lasted two years, and yet suddenly it made news this week when the 9/11 Commission members went public with their accusations of perjury. The media jumped all over this, playing up the frustration of the truth-seekers of the panel with the dastardly witnesses determined to keep the truth from them. Now we find out that no one did anything of the sort, but that they had poor record-keeping -- another scandal, but not a conspiracy -- and didn't do enough to correct their assumptions based on those records.

Does anyone else smell a plan to get ahead of the IG's report? Why would the Commission suddenly make this a big issue just before the release of the investigation they themselves requested? It certainly looks like a pre-emptive attack on the DoD by panel members hoping to get the public's blood boiling regardless of what the report would finally indicate. It certainly gave them yet another opportunity to burnish their own image as truth-seekers, when the ABLE DANGER fiasco showed otherwise.

The DoD has problems it needs to fix, and hopefully the report will expedite that effort. However, this cynical ploy by the 9/11 Commission should remind everyone yet again how the members exploited their positions for their own aggrandizement and to shelter the bureaucrats from blame.

UPDATE: A Newer World says that I am misleading readers, in a post titled "More Inattention To Detail". He (?) says that the report got released Friday and so the 9/11 Commission had nothing to do with this story. I know that -- this story exonerates the DoD based on the IG's report. Had ANW bothered checking my links, he would have found that the Washington Post reported on this on Wednesday with the accusations of perjury -- and Dan Eggen based his story on "several commission sources". Readers can judge the motives behind those "commission sources" and attention to detail for themselves.

UPDATE II: ANW has updated again, but still misses the point. Two days before the report was released, "several commission sources" went to Dan Eggen to get their allegations of perjury in print -- without waiting to see what the IG found. They got their headlines and pre-empted the weekend release of the actual report, which found no evidence of perjury. Which version of this story got the most play, and who got to define it first? That was the point of this post. No one disputes that the DoD gave the commission incorrect information. The point is that "commission sources" set out to spin this story ahead of the IG report, a continuation of their efforts to cover a mediocre performance on their own part.

Israeli Commando Raid On Tyre Nets Hezbollah Captives

Israeli naval commandos raided the Mediterranean port of Tyre early Saturday, destroying a missile-launch site and capturing Hezbollah terrorists, including senior members. The operation comes after Israel destroyed the last major road link to Syria, cutting off escape and resupply routes for the beleagured terrorists in Lebanon:

The operation, which was conducted based on military intelligence, targeted terrorists that were responsible for firing long-range rockets at Israel, including those that reached Hadera on Friday.

The commandos entered an apartment building in a crowded residential area in northern Tyre, where they engaged with Hizbullah operatives, including three senior members.

When the elite unit left the apartment, they were fired upon from several directions. IAF aircrafts and drones covered the force and cleared an exit for it. Seven Lebanese were killed in the operation.

Head of Naval intelligence told Army Radio that an aerial assault on the building was avoided since it was not known whether there were civilians in the building. He also mentioned that the ground operation sent a strong message to the fighters, indicating that the IDF can reach deep into Lebanon.

The IDF has now conducted two impressive commando operations far to Hezbollah's rear without much loss. Two commandos received serious wounds in this operation and six others light wounds, while the Baalbek raid resulted in no casualties at all. The efficiency and success demonstrates the difference between a group of zealous terrorists and a professional military force. While zealots may fight with surprising tenacity and insane levels of self-sacrifice, they cannot conduct complicated operations such as these raids, and therefore have little hope of ever beating Israel militarily. That, plus the advantage of Israeli air supremacy, puts Hezbollah at a serious disadvantage in open war.

This is the reason why they objected to Israel's response to what was supposed to be a simple abduction. It's also the reason why Israel and the US object to an immediate cease-fire agreement; Hezbollah retains the advantage in a low-level conflict, and no one expects them to stop fighting one.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah has continued its Baghdad Bob public-relations strategy. They still have not acknowledged that the Israelis they claimed to have trapped in Baalbek do not exist, and now they claim to have repelled the commando forces in Tyre. The Jerusalem Post, however, displays a picture of the results of their missile attack on a road during the raid, which tends to belie the Hezbollah description of events. As for the operatives captured by the IDF, perhaps Al-Manar will tell us that they are on their way to visit Fidel Castro in the hospital ...

Plan B Didn't Work Out Too Well

Floyd Landis got fired from the cycling team Phonak and the Tour de France director indicated that his win would be invalidated as Landis' B sample came back as positive for doping. The second test confirmed the finding of the first, which found unnaturally high levels of testosterone after the 17th stage, when Landis came from behind in spectacular fashion to put himself in position for victory:

Floyd Landis is set to lose his Tour de France title and faces a two-year ban after returning a positive B sample for excessive levels of testosterone. The American's Phonak team dismissed Landis on Saturday when it was confirmed he produced levels more than twice the legal limit after stage 17.

Landis, 30, has said the high levels detected were a "natural occurrence". ...

The official decision to strip Landis of the victory rests with the International Cycling Union (UCI), but Tour de France director Christian Prudhomme said: "It goes without saying that for us Floyd Landis is no longer the winner of the 2006 Tour de France."

The B testing took place with his Spanish attorney present (no word why Landis did not have a French lawyer), and the results confirmed that something happened to Landis that apparently did not occur at any other time in the race. One would presume that if, as Landis states, he naturally produces testosterone at these high levels that he would fail every test he takes. We would have seen this at other testing points in the Tour de France and not just stage 17, at the very least.

Phonak doesn't buy the excuses. They have terminated his association with their team for "violating the team's internal Code of Ethics," which translates to: Landis cheated. They acknowledge that he has more legal options but make clear that they want no part in them, which tends to affirm that they have no faith in Landis' explanation either. Phonak would hardly assist in disqualifying their team's victory in the world's most prestigious cycling event if they though Landis might be telling the truth.

It's a shame, in the literal sense. Landis has embarrassed himself, his team, and the people here in America who celebrated his victory. His doping also tarnishes Lance Armstrong, who had to defend himself against untrue allegations of this variety for years. Landis should consider the option of sparing everyone further embarrassment.

UPDATE: For those who still hold our hope that Landis is just twice as manly as the rest of us, the AP has a little cold water for you:

Floyd Landis was fired by his team and the Tour de France no longer considered him its champion Saturday after his second doping sample tested positive for higher-than-allowed levels of testosterone. The head of France's anti-doping commission said the samples contained synthetic testosterone, indicating that it came from an outside source.

Rightroots: Michele Bachmann Interview Tomorrow

I just took a look at the Rightroots page, and we have had an excellent start to our effort! In just four days we have raised almost $35,000 for the eighteen candidates supported by the Rightroots initiative. The money has been spread around, too. Fourteen of the eighteen have received over $1,000 so far. Diana Irey has been the most popular candidate, pulling in more than $6,500 already. Considering that she had just $160K on hand at the end of June, the money will definitely come in handy. Her opponent, John Murtha, had $1.8 million in his campaign chest, although an amount almost equal to Irey's fund came with no disclosure. Does Murtha have contributors he wants to hide from his constituents?

Another early Rightroots favorite is Michele Bachmann, running for Rep. Mark Kennedy's seat in MN-06 (Kennedy, another Rightroots candidate, is running for Minnesota's open Senate seat). We will be interviewing Michele on our Northern Alliance Radio Network show, which starts at our new time of 9 am CT and can be heard on our Internet stream at Townhall and AM 1280 The Patriot. Be sure to listen tomorrow as we discuss the Rightroots initiative and much more with Michele!

Iran Defies ... Well, Everyone

We have known for years that Iran has funded and sheltered Hezbollah, along with Syria, in an effort to undermine Israel's security. Up to today, Teheran couched that assistance in humanitarian terms, arguing that it wanted to promote the social activities of Hezbollah and its spiritual jihadism. According to Jane's, a respected military publication, Iran will send arms to the non-state militia:

Iran will supply Hezbollah with surface-to-air missile systems in the coming months, boosting the guerrillas' defences against Israeli aircraft, according to a report by specialist magazine Jane's Defence Weekly, citing unnamed Western diplomatic sources.

In a meeting, held late last month, the Lebanese Shiite Muslim militia called on Tehran to "accelerate and extend the scope of weapon shipments from Iran to the Islamic Resistance, particularly advanced missiles against ground and air targets."

Hezbollah's representatives pressed for "an array of more advanced weaponry, including more advanced SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems," Jane's said Friday.

"Iranian authorities conveyed a message to the Hezbollah leadership that their forces would continue to receive a steady supply of weapons systems,"it added.

Iran obviously will not announce this themselves, but Jane's has been a reliable source of military information. If true, it just underscores what we already know about Iran and Hezbollah. The Iranians have not been all that covert about their political support for the terrorist group, and arming them should surprise no one.

However, if one of those missiles ever take out an Israeli aircraft, the Iranians will make themselves an open target for retaliation. Whether Israel decides to act on that will be the question.

UPDATE: Not that Iran is bothering to hide it:

A senior Iranian official admitted for the first time Friday that Tehran did indeed supply long-range Zelzal-2 missiles to Hezbollah.

Mohtashami Pur, a one-time ambassador to Lebanon who currently holds the title of secretary-general of the "Intifada conference," told an Iranian newspaper that Iran transferred the missiles to the Shi'ite militia, adding that the organization has his country's blessing to use the weapons in defense of Lebanon.

Pur's statements are thought to be unusual given that Tehran has thus far been reluctant to comment on the extent of its aid which it has extended to Hezbollah.

For a nation to openly admit arming non-state actors should result in heavy sanctions in the UN, if the UN had any worth. This goes against the very notion of sovereignty and undermines the Westphalian concept of nationhood.

More Racism From The Left

It appears that Democratic racism has spanned the nation from coast to coast. After a Ned Lamont campaign volunteer* posted a blackface picture of Joe Lieberman at the Huffington Post, the leader of the California state senate referred to conservatives demanding an end to illegal immigrations with a racial slur:

The state Senate leader ridiculed some San Diego-area opponents of illegal immigration yesterday by describing them as “crackers,” often used as a disparaging term for poor, white people in the South.

During a media briefing, Oakland Democrat Don Perata was asked about whether it was politically wise going into an election to push a bill that would give illegal immigrants the ability to obtain driver's licenses.

“No. Let's face it. Immigration is a red-meat issue,” Perata said. “You've got all these crackers down in Southern Cal – ah, where is it, San Diego, taking on the governor. You know, even the governor was shocked. He said he was embarrassed, and I agree with him.”

These two events demonstrate yet again the obsession with identity politics that plagues the Democratic Party. One does not see Republican campaign volunteers photoshopping opponents' pictures to make them appear in blackface. No one from the GOP would get away with using a term like "cracker" in an interview, or something similarly objectionable about another ethnic or religious group. Trent Lott got hounded out of his leadership position just for saying something nice (but very foolish) about Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday, and he never even mentioned race at all.

Will Democrats take Peralta to the woodshed? Will Leftists finally reject identity politics and rely on rational argument instead of scare tactics in their campaigning? It seems doubtful. Instead of the kind of outrage that we saw on the Right when Lott blew it at Strom's birthday, we will likely get a whole lot of insincere apologies for any offense we take, and a long explanation about how it's our fault that Democrats play the race/ethnic card.

That's worn so thin it's transparent -- to everyone but the Left.

* - Jane Hamsher helped shoot an Internet campaign ad and traveled extensively with the Lamont campaign. That qualifiers her as a campaign volunteer in my estimation; YMMV.

Cooking The Books In DC

Despite the coming disaster in entitlement spending, just the mention of entitlement reform brings yawns and not-so-surreptitious glances at watches. One of the reasons why the issue gets such low interest from the public is that the costs do not appear in financial reporting for the government. Thanks to the adherence to rules that the government forbids businesses to use, the budget deficit has been chronically and vastly underreported for decades. This practice goes back through administrations of both parties, and Congress under control of both as well.

Remember how we balanced the budget and ran surpluses in the 1990s? Well, we didn't, and we didn't even come close.

My new post at the Heritage Foundation Policy Blog discusses the problem in some detail. The discrepancy arises from the government's decision not to report retirement benefit commitments in the year made, but in the year paid. The SEC strictly forbids this practive in private enterprise because it distorts a company's valuation; once the commitment is made, the company cannot simply rescind it. However, the federal government rationalizes its decision to violate this same principle on the basis that Congress can simply vote to stop paying Medicare and Social Security benefits whenever it desires.

Not only does that distort the deficit picture, but the government doesn't provide audited balance sheets from a quarter of federal agencies, so there's no way to tell exactly how much money was spent. While Congress forces publicly held corporations to waste billions on Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, 25% of the agencies -- including the largest, Defense -- produce records so poor that no auditor will approve them.

If the government truthfully reported the deficits adding up each year, we would get an outcry for entitlement reform like no one has ever heard. Be sure to read the entire post.

Not The End

One of my favorite columnists, E.J. Dionne, asks an interesting question about the future of conservatism in today's Washington Post. It relates to the ongoing debate over whether conservatives should stay within the GOP or create an ideologically pure movement:

Is conservatism finished?

What might have seemed an absurd question less than two years ago is now one of the most important issues in American politics. The question is being asked -- mostly quietly but occasionally publicly -- by conservatives themselves as they survey the wreckage of their hopes, and as their champions in the Republican Party use any means necessary to survive this fall's elections. ...

President Bush, his defenders say, has pioneered a new philosophical approach, sometimes known as "big-government conservatism." The most articulate defender of this position, the journalist Fred Barnes, argues that Bush's view is "Hamiltonian" as in Alexander, Thomas Jefferson's rival in the early republic. Bush's strategy, Barnes says, "is to use government as a means to achieve conservative ends."

Kudos to Barnes for trying bravely to make sense of what to so many others -- including some in conservative ranks -- seems an incoherent enterprise. But I would argue that this is the week in which conservatism, Hamiltonian or not, reached the point of collapse.

I doubt that many conservatives would defend Bush for creating "big-government conservatism", an oxymoron under any circumstances. In fact, the conservative base has been most restive about his spending habits and that of the leadership in Congress, which has completely abandoned the tenets of conservatism in federal government. On domestic policy, the last five years look much more like Rockefeller Republicanism than any brand of conservatism espoused over the last generation.

In that sense, conservatism has definitely moved to life support. The conservative movement has grown so frustrated with what they see as a giveaway administration that an open debate broke out among conservative pundits about the benefits of forming a third party and breaking away from the GOP altogether. That debate may have receded with the midterms approaching, but it will surely come back to the front burner in the next session of Congress.

However, the truth about ruling coalitions in democracies is that power comes from a big tent, not a narrow ideological group. Conservatives who believe that they must purge the party of unbelievers tend to forget that 25% of the votes win one nothing in a representative democracy. The only manners in which an ideological group can control the levers of governent are either by convincing a majority of people to agree with this ideology in toto or to align themselves with enough other groups to hold a majority. Parliamentary democracies do this through multiple parties and explicit coalition-building after the election; Americans do it by convincing voters to vote in one of two coalitions at election time.

Conservatism, just like progressivism and socialism, won't end with one particular election cycle. Hell, socialism has shown itself as a train wreck everywhere it has been tried, and we still have die-hard socialists in the Democratic Party attempting to implement as much of their agenda as possible. Dionne is a bit inaccurate in his description, because we still haven't seen conservatism actually used as a template for government since the Reagan administration. We do see conservative judicial nominations, which has been the part of the agenda we did manage to win in this coalition over the last six years -- but even then we had to wage an open battle with the Bush administration to get it.

Coalitons come and go, and the influence of their component groups wax and wane. The survival of conservatism relies on the intellectual vitality of its philosophical thinkers and the ability to convince people of its applicablity. The conservative movement has plenty of gas left. If anything, the big-spending habits of this generation of Republican leadership will motivate us to press harder for our candidates and our goals.

The Unbearable Lightness Of Ned Lamont's Honesty

This week has provided some revelation about the honesty of Ned Lamont, whose primary run to unseat Joe Lieberman has captured the nation's attention. Earlier today I posted about his sudden case of amnesia when one of his key blogosphere supporters decided to use race-baiting to attack Lieberman on Lamont's behalf. Now it appears that Lamont used Wal-Mart, the liberal bete noir, as a punching bag without telling anyone that he owned a chunk of the retailer's stock:

Connecticut millionaire businessman Ned Lamont, who sharply criticized the employment practices of Wal-Mart this week in his campaign to unseat Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democrat primary, owns stock in the company, Senate records reveal.

"This is about waking up Wal-Mart, and this is also about waking up corporate America," Mr. Lamont said Wednesday at a Bridgeport rally against the retail giant, hosted by many of the same liberal bloggers who have boosted the former cable executive far ahead of Mr. Lieberman in the polls.

But Mr. Lamont and his family are part owners of the company, according to financial disclosure records he filed earlier this year with the secretary of the Senate. Mr. Lamont, his wife and a dependent child own as much as $31,000 in Wal-Mart stock.

Mr. Lamont and his wife jointly own two accounts containing as much as $16,000 in Wal-Mart stock. Their Wal-Mart holdings spin off as much as $3,500 in annual dividends. In addition, a trust fund he set up for one of his children contains as much as $15,000 in Wal-Mart stock and spins off as much as $1,000 in dividends.

In his remarks at the anti-Wal-Mart rally this week, Mr. Lamont never mentioned his shareholder status in the company. He did, however, criticize Mr. Lieberman for not doing more during this three terms in the Senate to help the workers he says are so mistreated by Wal-Mart.

These purchases do not come from a market fund or retirement portfolio. The Lamonts deliberately purchased Wal-Mart stock for themselves and their child. One presumes that the Lamonts did so because of Wal-Mart's performance and delivery of dividends to their stockholders -- all of which come from the same business practices that Lamont publicly blasted this week.

It gets worse. While he and his family continued to get thousands of dollars in dividends, Lamont supporters castigated Lieberman at the event for taking a one-time donation from Wal-Mart's PAC of $1,000. Lieberman says he sent the money back, but will Lamont's supporters now demand to know what their candidate did with his Wal-Mart money.

Lamont bills himself as a new kind of politician, but from what we've seen this week, he looks like the same old model we see too often in Washington: dishonest and hypocritical.

Run Away!

After Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's maiden speech focused on the critical need for entitlement reform, done on a bipartisan basis, we hoped that this would prompt a new dialog on correcting the bloated programs to stave off the impending finanical crisis they will cause. Today's Washington Post editorial scolds the Democrats for rejecting this promising start for Paulson:

YOU MIGHT THINK that a call from the new Treasury secretary for reform of entitlements would get a respectful hearing from Democrats. If entitlement programs are not reformed, they will squeeze out other spending programs that Democrats care about; they will create a budget crunch that no responsible party could want. But some Democrats do not appear to understand this. Yesterday an e-mail sent out on behalf of Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, dismissed Henry M. Paulson Jr.'s comments on "privatizing" Social Security, adding that this policy has been "soundly rejected by the American people." ...

[T]he idea that the American people rejected Mr. Bush's plan is only half true. The president failed to get traction not least because Democrats were doing their best to scare voters into thinking that their retirement checks would be confiscated.

Pelose wants nothing to do with entitlement reform, rejecting even the thought of discussing it on a bipartisan basis. This ignores the coming burden even if no new benefits get added to Medicare and Social Security. Entitlement spending under current rules will increase the cost of these programs from 8% of GDP currently to 17% of GDP in 2060 -- which is almost the same level as the entire federal budget today.

Democrats apparently don't want to solve problems; they just want to blame and complain. This demonstrates just more of the same. Pelosi and her party want to grab control of Congress with no plan to deal with the largest financial issue facing the United States. If the Republicans have not been perfect on budget and spending -- and they have been far from it -- at least they have the courage to address the problems and try to reach solutions.

Don't Stand So Close To Me

John Dickerson in Slate takes Ned Lamont to task for feigning ignorance of the blogroots he cultivated in his run for Joe Lieberman's seat now that one of the blogroots leaders has embarrassed his campaign. While everyone understands that Jane Hamsher ran the minstrel-show photoshop of Lieberman on her own accord, Lamont clearly lied about knowing nothing of blogs and bloggers:

"I don't know anything about the blogs," he said according to Dan Balz in the Washington Post. "I'm not responsible for those. I have no comment on them."

Oh my.

If Lamont wants to get to Washington, he's going to need to learn one of the most important senatorial clichés: "I'd like to revise and extend my remarks." He can't run from the bloggers. And he can't run from Hamsher, who has raised money for him, boosted him tirelessly, and even helped him shoot