It Ain't Raindrops Falling On Your Head, Lady

We criticize the New York Times often on this blog, and rightly so. However, a story in New York Magazine may explain why the newspaper doesn't perform as well as it should. How can its editors and writers do their best work when they worry about maggots falling on their heads?

I'm not kidding (via Truth Laid Bear):

The soaring new New York Times tower — already known for its weird toilets (when flushed, they apparently sound like a kitten being strangled), its weirder elevators (no buttons, and no indication of what floor they're on), a leak problem (editor Bill Keller's office got soggy in a recent rainstorm), and a mouse problem (reported by Gawker) — still has a few more surprises between the floorboards: maggots. "It's hard to put out a newspaper when you're worried about what might fall on your head," one Times staffer told us this week. "One of the photo editors was sitting at her desk and maggots started falling from the ceiling tile on to her head."

That wasn't all. The maggots — Webster's says they're "legless, soft-bodied, wormlike larva of various flies of the order Diptera, often found in decaying matter" — were not alone. They were "followed by a rat," our source said. A dead rat, that is, "that had been eaten by the maggots." You could hear stifled screams ripple through the newsroom as word spread, said the source. "We all scanned our own ceilings for any loose tiles," the source continued. "With maggot-y ceilings and rats falling out of the air, it's like the dark ages in this building that was supposed to bring us into the 21st century."

Interestingly, the New York Times building website -- which advertises to lease empty space in the high-rise -- fails to mention the charming wildlife that roams between the floors. I can't imagine why.

We Did What?

According to the New York Times, Donald Rumsfeld declined to take action against an al-Qaeda site and capture its leaders two years ago because it would have taken too many troops inside Pakistan to accomplish the mission. The Pentagon decided that they wouldn't be able to get permission from Pervez Musharraf to send hundreds of special-forces troops into Waziristan, and apparently left the camp alone (via Hot Air):

A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.

The target was a meeting of Al Qaeda’s leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group’s operations.

But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected the 11th-hour appeal of Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.

Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.

The decision to halt the planned “snatch and grab” operation frustrated some top intelligence officials and members of the military’s secret Special Operations units, who say the United States missed a significant opportunity to try to capture senior members of Al Qaeda.

Republicans have long criticized the Clinton administration for its refusal to pull the trigger on a mission to kill Osama bin Laden in the 1990s. The Times reports that the reasons this time were more complicated than just concern over collateral damage. The mission intended to capture Zawahiri and everyone else attending the meeting, if possible, which requires a lot more personnel. As planners began considering mission security, lines of communication, and the necessities of a raid for taking suicidal enemies alive, the numbers went from a small raid to a major incursion -- and Rumsfeld called it off.

That much seems understandable. However, if the raid got nixed, then why not attack the meeting and kill the attendees, including Zawahiri? If the US was willing to at least contemplate a raid, why not a remote attack? Rumsfeld reportedly called this attack off as the special forces were boarding the aircraft to deliver them to the camp, so it's not as if sovereignty played a large role in the decision to cancel. Why would we pass on the opportunity to take out AQ's #2 man?

The only explanation that comes to mind is that perhaps the Pentagon felt it necessary to leave Zawahiri alive and trackable in order to find Osama bin Laden. If so, then it perhaps make sense, but the two years since would tend to indicate the failure of that excuse.

This being the New York Times, one has to take some of this with a grain of salt. Its publication on a Saturday afternoon makes it unusual, unless they felt the story was about to get scooped elsewhere. The Pentagon and the Bush administration need to fill in the blanks on this event, or tell us what the Times got wrong.

NARN, The Bleat Goes On Edition

The Northern Alliance Radio Network will be on the air today, with our six-hour-long broadcast schedule starting at 11 am CT. The first two hours features Power Line's John Hinderaker and Chad and Brian from Fraters Libertas. Mitch and I hit the airwaves for the second shift from 1-3 pm CT, and King Banaian and Michael Brodkorb have The Final Word from 3-5. If you're in the Twin Cities, you can hear us on AM 1280 The Patriot, or on the station's Internet stream if you're outside of the broadcast area.

Mitch won't be able to make it today. Never fear, though, because James Lileks will join me while I take care of the board and the calls. James and I will discuss the Libby commutation, and the political fallout from that. We'll also cover other stories of the week, and take your calls at 651-289-4488!

UPDATE AND BUMP: We'll also cover the latest hit piece on the Thompsons, the New York Times article on Jeri Kehn Thompson asking whether America is ready for a trophy wife.

Putting The Green In Greenland

Researchers have found the DNA of beetles, moths, and flies as well as traces of plant life in ice core samples from Greenland, the Los Angeles Times reports today. It demonstrates that the world was significantly warmer than previously thought, and that the glaciers of Greenland may have been a more recent development:

Ice-covered Greenland really was green a half-million or so years ago, covered with forests in a climate much like that of Sweden and eastern Canada today.

An international team of researchers recovered ancient DNA from the bottom of an ice core that indicates the presence of pine, yew and alder trees as well as insects.

The researchers, led by Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, say this is the first proof that there was forest in southern Greenland.

Included were genetic traces of butterflies, moths, flies and beetles, they report in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

Historians have long known that Vikings established colonies on coastal Greenland over a thousand years ago, but that it disappeared as the Little Ice Age waxed. The creep of the glaciers killed the agricultural efforts of the colonists, and they eventually abandoned Greenland. Researchers had assumed that the colony took advantage of an exceptionally warm temporary weather pattern that freed the land from its normal icy status, but this discovery could show that the glacial period of Greenland is the exception rather than the norm.

That has some implications for the climate-change debate. Advocates of anthropogenic climate change use Greenland as key evidence in their argument. They claim that the loss of Greenland's glacial mass -- which is still in dispute -- shows the effect that mankind has had on the Earth's climate. If Greenland's glaciers have only recently formed, then that argument makes little sense. Some estimates of the age of the DNA from the central portion of southern Greenland have them as recent as 116,000 years ago.

The entire notion of anthropogenic climate change needs much more study. Some people joke that when the Vikings begin farming Greenland again, they'll begin to consider it. Now it looks like we can abide a forest in central Greenland and still have little over which to panic.

Will They Invite Quentin Tarantino To The Funeral?

The NAACP plans to bury an old adversary and, unfortunately, for some an old friend. Chairman Julian Bond says that the group plans to symbolically bury the N-word on Monday at its annual meeting in Detriot:

Julian Bond wants people to understand that when the NAACP symbolically buries the N-word on Monday, the effort will be led by the younger members of the venerable civil rights organization.

"Seven young people are on our board of directors, and they are spearheading this initiative," said Bond, the group's chairman. "This is the continuation of a long fight against the denigration of African Americans in popular culture. If it's someone black or someone white, it's equally wrong."

I agree, but most of the word's use over the past few decades have come from the rap industry, which seems to have a love affair with the word. It didn't start with rap, though; that started with its acceptance in the black community as a term of rough endearment, the same as in rap today. I recall discussing this with African-American co-workers over twenty-five years ago at my first full-time job, who explained to me that it meant something different when Caucasians said the word. I understood their point, but I never understood why anyone would want to perpetuate such an ugly slur, even for the irony.

So good for the NAACP, but it's interesting that it took this long for them to stand up to the rap industry, which is the subtext here. It wouldn't have happened at all if it hadn't been for the fallout from Don Imus and his use of racially-charged insults on the air. Imus didn't use the N-word, but when the outrage of his bone-headed quip peaked, people began asking why Imus got such harsh treatment when rappers said much worse on almost every record. Under that pressure, chief Imus antagonist Al Sharpton attacked the recording industry, and the word finally got the disgust it deserves.

It's worth pointing out that it isn't just rap that has a problem with the word; Hollywood does as well. For some reason, Quentin Tarantino seems to regard the word as a talisman for authenticity in his overblown and mostly overrated grindhouse genre flicks. Other indie producers have followed suit. I loved Pulp Fiction, but nothing in that movie makes me cringe more than when Tarantino as Jimmy keeps barking the N-word at Samuel L. Jackson in their scene together.

Perhaps Bond should invite Tarantino to the funeral, as well as rap producers, singers, and filmmakers. The most ironic point of this burial is that the people who used it most in the last couple of decades are those who exploited it for financial profit, rather than for any racial animus. That's why, despite this well-intentioned and long overdue burial, I expect to see the Night Of The Living N-Word shortly thereafter, as the term is simply too lucrative to stay dead for long -- which is another sad commentary on our culture.

The Pending Mudslinging (Update: Show Me The Money!)

It's easy to tell when a candidate has the potential to do well in a campaign -- the opposition starts throwing mud as early as possible. This appears to be doubly true with Fred Thompson, as the Los Angeles Times will shortly publish a new story about a purported client of Fred's when he worked as a lawyer and lobbyist. The American Spectator steals the Times' thunder:

The Washington Prowler column has learned that the Los Angeles Times intends to publish a story that would attempt to link former Sen. Fred Thompson to a Washington-based, pro-abortion organization. Thompson, through a spokesman, is said to go on the record in the story as having no recollection of ever doing work for the organization in question during a period in 1991 when the first Bush administration was in power.

During that time, Thompson, was "of counsel" at the Arent Fox law firm in Washington, D.C. (meaning he was not a partner, but was provided an office for his use, in part because Thompson's own practice was based in Nashville, TN), and was used by the firm's partners as a "draw" for clients and potential clients, according to a source at the firm familiar with the arrangements with Thompson and others with the "of counsel" designation. ...

In the story that the L.A. Times will report out within the next 24 to 48 hours, the paper will claim that Thompson was "hired" by the National Family Planning and Reproductive Rights Association, whose director, Judith DeSarno, was acquainted with a then-partner at Arent Fox, former Congressman Michael Barnes. In fact, DeSarno worked as a senior aide to Barnes during his time in Congress. According to Arent Fox insiders, Barnes, who now directs the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and DeSarno are both well-known left-wing activists. Most recently, both were active against the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Thompson was an adviser to Roberts, and served as his Senate "sherpa" during the confirmation process.

If the Times and its sources want to launch attacks on Thompson, they'll have to do better than this. Lawyers represent clients, and sometimes they do so for ideological support -- but most of them do it to earn a living. Even if Fred had done work for NFPRR, his political position on abortion has been rather clear. According to Project Vote Smart, Fred got solid zeroes from Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America, while the National Right to Life Committee have Fred a 77% rating.

Besides, one has to question where this information got sourced. The law firm, Arent Fox, hardly qualifies as a conservative bastion in the legal community. They contributed over $12,000 to Hillary Clinton's exploratory committee. Their employees appear to heavily favor Democrats so far in this cycle as well, with at least three attorneys at the firm donating the maximum to Hillary already.

News flash to the Times: attorneys represent clients. It doesn't have a great deal to do with their political positions, if in fact Fred ever did any work for NFPRR at all. His voting record on abortion has enough clarity to make this innuendo appear a non-starter. We'll keep a close eye out for the article to check its sourcing, but I already suspect that it will primarily be "sources close to the firm" who prefer to remain anonymous.

UPDATE: I have sources, too. One of them insists that Fred never did any formal work for NFPRR and never represented them. He did a lot of meet-and-greets for Arent to help them boost their client list, and it's possible that he met and spoke with people from NFPRR, but that's as far as it went.

UPDATE II: Here's the story; it looks like the LAT put it out on the Internet after the story got attention in the blogosphere. The sourcing for the Times is the NFPRR, specifically one of its members and a Democratic Congressman -- who naturally might have some animus to a Fred presidency:

Judith DeSarno, who was president of the family planning association in 1991, said Thompson lobbied for the group for several months.

Minutes from the board's meeting of Sept. 14, 1991 — a copy of which DeSarno gave to The Times — say: "Judy [DeSarno] reported that the association had hired Fred Thompson Esq. as counsel to aid us in discussions with the administration" on the abortion-counseling rule.

Former Rep. Michael D. Barnes of Maryland, a colleague at the lobbying and law firm where Thompson worked, said DeSarno had asked him to recommend someone for the lobbying work, and that he had suggested that she hire Thompson. He said it was "absolutely bizarre" for Thompson to deny that he lobbied against the abortion counseling rule.

In the same story:

Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo adamantly denied that Thompson worked for the family planning group. "Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period," he said in an e-mail.

In a telephone interview, he added: "There's no documents to prove it, there's no billing records, and Thompson says he has no recollection of it, says it didn't happen." In a separate interview, John E. Sununu, the White House official whom the family planning group wanted to contact, said he had no memory of the lobbying and doubted it took place.

So they hired Thompson to lobby John Sununu, and claim he worked for them for "several months," and that they were satisfied with his work in representing their interests to a pro-life administration. Further into the article, Sununu gets categorical:

Sununu said in a telephone interview: "I don't recall him ever lobbying me on that at all. I don't think that ever happened. In fact, I know that never happened." He added that he had "absolutely no idea" whether Thompson had met with anybody else at the White House, but said it would have been a waste of time, given the president's opposition to abortion rights.

In response to Sununu's denial, DeSarno said Thompson "owes [the family planning association] a bunch of money" if he never talked to Sununu, as he said he had.

Well, fine. Ask for a refund. In fact, let's see the billing records for Thompson's work on behalf of the NFPRR. If the NFPRR can't produce them, then I'd call this story bogus, and Barnes and DiSarno mudslingers.

Where's The Mother For This Drunk Driver?

This story is so wrong on so many levels that it's hardly possible to know where to begin:

Police who chased a car for miles along a highway at speeds up to 100 mph said the driver was drunk, hardly a rarity in this resort town. But there was more: When they looked inside the flipped vehicle with guns drawn, they found an 11-year-old girl at the wheel.

Eleven. The girl probably just got out of the fifth grade. Good Lord.

It gets worse:

[Assistant police Chief Greg] Duck said the girl, whose name was not released because of her age, told police she was on her way to pick up her sister at a concert.

The eleven-year-old had to pick up her sister in the family car? How old was the concert-goer -- six?

The questions just bubble up on this story. Where are her parents? How did she get the car keys? Where did she get the alcohol? And by the way, where the hell are her parents?

Someone had better get the answers to these questions, and quickly. The girl turns 12 next month -- and she'll be lucky to make it.

Here's the video from USA Today.

CQ Radio: Duane "Generalissimo" Patterson

Today on CQ Radio (2 pm CT), Duane "Generalissimo" Patterson joins us again to review the week's top political stories. We'll talk about the effect that Pete Domenici's statement about Iraq will have on the political fortunes of the war, plus Joe Lieberman's essay today on the same subject. I'm sure that the topic of Libby's commutation will come up, especially in relation to the criticisms coming from the Clintons. We'll also talk about the fundraising numbers and what it means -- maybe including the odd fact that John McCain and Ron Paul have the same amount of cash on hand, according to Ron Paul.

Call 646-652-4889 to join the conversation! Also, you can subscribe to CQ Radio through iTunes now by clicking this link:

UPDATE: Fausta has a great show scheduled for today at 3:30 PM ET, which is in the middle of my show -- but you can download it after mine finishes, too. Fausta has Gateway Pundit and Publius Pundit discussing the Free Trade Agreement.

Also, Silvio Canto has Don Surber on his latest show -- so be sure to catch up on all of the BTR hosts!

Dionne: Commutation Protects A Redundancy (Update: Survey Says -- A Flop)

E.J. Dionne takes up the topic of the Scooter Libby commutation in today's Washington Post column, admitting to feeling uncharacteristic rage after hearing about the presidential reprieve from prison. After venting and then making a very kind reference to my posts on the subject -- which I'll address in a moment -- Dionne explains why he thinks George Bush decided on commutation at this time and left a pardon open for later (h/t: nandrews3):

Bush purported to be seeking a "third way" (forgive me, Tony Blair) between an outright pardon and allowing the law to follow its course. "I respect the jury's verdict," the president said. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. . . . The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting."

But if Bush meant that, he'd declare that a full pardon for Libby is out of the question. The day after he commuted Libby's sentence, Bush explicitly refused to do so. Moving back to stonewalling, the president said, "As to the future, I rule nothing in or nothing out."

Notice the pattern: When the heat was on in the CIA leak case, Bush issued a strong pledge to fire anybody involved in leaking. He didn't. When Libby was indicted, Bush ducked comment until Libby was at prison's door. Now, by keeping Libby free, Bush can conveniently postpone a full pardon until after the 2008 election. In the meantime, Libby has no incentive to tell prosecutors anything new about what happened in this case. As liberal blogs have noted, since he was not pardoned outright, he can use the pending appeal of his conviction to avoid testifying before Congress.

I've heard this accusation before, although not written as cogently as Dionne does today. It's not a terribly convincing argument. For one thing, there are no prosecutors to tell. The Department of Justice washed its hands of the Plame leak investigation years ago under pressure from the Democrats who now control Congress. Patrick Fitzgerald, who we can all hope will be the last "special prosecutor" ever, has concluded his investigation. Fitzgerald made it clear that no other indictments would be forthcoming, even though he named three people who leaked the information, one of whom (Richard Armitage) would be a ridiculous figure to accuse of assisting Dick Cheney.

As for Congress, they could start an investigation on any topic they desire. That doesn't mean a Plame investigation will get far. Fitzgerald got the nod because Congress at the time opted not to conduct its own investigation, and his independent work will discredit any partisan cudgels taken up now. Besides, what would Libby tell Congress that he wouldn't tell Fitzgerald to keep himself out of the perjury trap? Does anyone think that Libby would now spill the beans on this supposed conspiracy to attack a critic of the administration by knowingly outing a covert CIA agent after having spent the last three years insisting that no such conspiracy existed -- and with Fitzgerald apparently agreeing on that point?

Bush has little risk of Libby testifying to anything. He didn't commute Libby's sentence to keep him quiet; he commuted it to mollify the conservative base, which had demanded some sort of clemency for Libby that would keep him from prison. Of the options open to Bush, this was the least intrusive for that purpose.

As Dionne notes, I'm not entirely sold on the idea that Bush should have taken that action. Of the options for action available to him, this was the most wise, but should action have been taken at all? Dionne capsulized my thoughts:

Bush said Libby's sentence was excessive. But as Ron Fournier of the Associated Press reported, "the 2 1/2 years handed Libby was much like the sentences given others convicted in obstruction cases."

In fairness, Fournier also pointed to a certain inconsistency on the issue of perjury on the Democratic side (Bill Clinton and all that). Ed Morrissey, a staunch conservative who runs the influential Captain's Quarters blog, also went after the Clintons, but Morrissey's own sense of consistency wouldn't allow him to embrace Bush's decision. "I'm not convinced that the administration should have intervened at all," Morrissey wrote. "The sentence fit within the sentencing guidelines championed by Republicans for years as a bulwark against soft-on-crime federal judges, even if it was on the long end of the guidelines by some interpretations. The underlying crimes go to the heart of the rule of law, and those who commit perjury and obstruction should go to prison."

He has my argument correct on the commutation, but I do want to clarify about the Clintons. I wasn't arguing so much for consistency with Bill Clinton's perjury treatment, although that makes an interesting but flawed argument. Clinton's perjury came as a single count in a civil court case, which I think should have resulted in both impeachment and removal, but not jail time. Obstruction of justice and perjury in a criminal investigation have much more damaging impact on the rule of law, especially when committed by high-ranking government officials during investigations of government misconduct, even if no misconduct ultimately gets found.

Also, Bill Clinton is ineligible for a presidential pardon. The Constitution excludes impeachment from the otherwise plenary powers of the President to pardon offenses against the United States.

My argument about the Clintons had to do with their criticism of the Libby commutation, as did Ron Fournier's. Dionne complains that Bush never consulted the DoJ on the commutation, but Clinton rejected the advice of the DoJ on the Rich pardon. Dionne believes that Bush commuted Libby's sentence to keep him from testifying before Congress, but the Rich pardon allowed a fugitive with dozens of counts of tax fraud and evasion -- and a man who had traded illegally with Ayatollah Khomeini, an enemy of the US -- to escape trial altogether, not coincidentally after his wife gave the Clintons hundreds of thousands of dollars for Bill's presidential library. Also not coincidentally, Hillary's brothers made tens of thousands of dollars representing successful pardon applicants, and Tony Rodham got his through supposed loans from his clients, the Gregorys, who saw their fraud convictions erased just in time to run out on their creditors yet again.

I think that the Libby issue will fade very quickly from the forefront in the next few weeks. If anything, that's the primary motivation for the commutation. Given the recent history of highly questionable clemency actions, this should be a nine-day wonder.

UPDATE and BUMP: If the idea behind the commutation was to soothe the base, a survey by American Research Group indicates that President Bush will experience disappointment. Voters disapprove of the commutation by a 69-26 margin, a margin that falls into the "whopping" category. Eighty percent of independents disapprove, slightly more than the 76% of Democrats.

Half of Republicans approved of it -- but 47% disapprove. Does that mean they wanted to hold out for a full pardon? Hardly. Only 23% of Republicans favor a full pardon for Libby, and 70% outright oppose it. Ninety-seven percent of independents disapprove of a full pardon, more than the 82% of Democrats surveyed.

I think the commutation didn't have the calming effect that the White House hoped. (via Hot Air)

Oversight Overkill

Republicans have criticized the White House for its poor communications skills and its inability to get its message out to the general public. Those critics will find themselves happy with the latest White House pushback against the Democrat-controlled Congress. The Hill reports that the Bush administration has quantified the amount of time Congress has spent on oversight hearings, and compared that to the amount of actual legislation Congress has managed to produce.

At Heading Right, I argue that this shows some responsiveness on the part of the Democratic leadership that has been lacking on other parts of their program. That sets up a big conundrum for the Democrats in next year's elections, as these efforts have left them rather vulnerable for a big fall.

Court Reverses Anna Diggs Taylor

CQ readers will recall the decision by Detroit federal judge Anna Diggs Taylor that ruled Bush's warrantless surveillance of international communications illegal and demanded a cessation of the NSA's activities in this program last fall. At the time, I argued that her reasoning was flawed, especially regarding the legal standing of the plaintiffs. Today the appellate court agreed, directing Taylor to dismiss the charges:

A federal appeals court Friday ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging President Bush's domestic spying program, saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.

The 2-1 ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel vacated a 2006 order by a lower court in Detroit, which had found the post-Sept. 11 warrantless surveillance aimed at uncovering terrorist activity to be unconstitutional, violating rights to privacy and free speech and the separation of powers.

U.S. Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, one of the two Republican appointees who ruled against the plaintiffs, said they failed to show they were subject to the surveillance and therefore do not have standing for their claims.

U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman, a Democratic appointee, disagreed, saying he felt the plaintiffs were within their rights to sue and that it was clear to him that the surveillance program violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

The argument that allowed Taylor to approve the standing of the defendants was the novel supposition that the NSA program violated the First Amendment as well as the Fourth. The ACLU and other plaintiffs argued that the existence of the program had already chilled free speech, forcing the complainants to restrain their speech because of their knowledge of the surveillance. Otherwise, the plaintiffs would have to prove that they had been surveilled as a result of the program and had suffered an actual and provable violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.

Thankfully, the court threw out this novel and dangerous argument. Had it succeeded, anyone could file a lawsuit on the basis of imaginary intimidation to speech, especially as it relates to law enforcement and counter-terrorism efforts. Any program would have been vulnerable to harrassing lawsuits, regardless of their legality and efficacy.

Instead, the propensity for filing lawsuits has met an all-to-rare rebuke from the courts, and rightly so.

Let's Maintain Our Sense Of Humor

Having seen the film License to Wed on its opening day, I am surprised to see a critical reference to it in the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal as unfair to marriage preparation courses. As a person who volunteers for an organization dedicated to marriage preparation, the tone of Christine Whelan's article seems a little too defensive over a harmless bit of fun:

This week, Hollywood takes the focus off of "bridezillas" and puts it on marriage preparation courses. In "License to Wed," which opened Wednesday, Robin Williams plays the "Reverend Frank," a clergyman of unspecified denomination who puts his charges through a series of tests--including an exercise in the diapering of urinating robotic twins--to earn the right to marry. Off the silver screen, marriage preparation courses are about shared values rather than simulated disaster drills, and are increasingly popular. ...

"License to Wed" paints a terrifying picture of marriage preparation courses as bizarre rituals that a couple must endure to prove their worthiness. Certainly rabbis, pastors and priests have the right to refuse to marry a couple they don't believe is ready for marriage, but most courses simply reinforce a couple's commitment to marriage.

This is a demonstration of why people think that conservatives and the devout have no sense of humor. Anyone who thinks that a Robin Williams farce about marriage paints any kind of picture about real life probably thinks that Down Periscope accurately portrays life in the submariner corps. Comedy is based on exaggeration, and the best comedies play on the fears and hang-ups of the audience and twists them into laughs License to Wed falls somewhere in the middle, but never once pretends to be representative of real marriage preparation.

The First Mate and I have volunteered for Twin Cities Marriage Encounter for the last eight years, the last two as president couple for its board. We have also volunteered for the Catholic Prepare pre-Cana counseling during that time. We have never seen ministers bugging couples, nor have we seen church choirs swing into a four-part harmony scolding parishioners who show up late. (We did have a pastor at one time who would have endorsed that, though, and I imagine that priest will have a good laugh at that part of the movie.) We still laughed all the way through the movie, and so would Whelan if she allowed herself to not take it seriously.

It's just a movie -- and one that, in the end, makes the case for marriage preparation, although I wouldn't wish Reverend Frank on anyone.

The rest of Whelan's essay gets it right, and she hits on one particularly good point. One reason why more Muslim marriages fail in the West, Whelan asserts, is because arranged marriages lack the societal support that used to exist in tribal communities. That's undoubtedly true for most Western marriages over the last few decades, too. Our mobile and disconnected society reduces the cohesion that bolstered struggling marriages. It makes it even more incumbent on young couples to gain the communication skills necessary to make strong marriages and to discuss the issues that will arise before they become insurmountable problems.

If you're inclined to have a few laughs, go see License to Wed. If you're inclined to get married, go to Engaged Encounter or another marriage preparation course. If you're already married, try Marriage Encounter to help make your marriage stronger. These options, fortunately, are not mutually exclusive.

Note: Twin Cities Marriage Encounter is a non-profit group that can always use a helping hand. If you're so inclined, please toss a few dollars into their tip jar.

Lieberman Warns On Iran

With the focus of the Senate apparently shifting to Iraq and the use of the ISG report as an exit strategy, Joe Lieberman has issued a warning on the nature of the basic conflict that fuels the war on terror. In today's Wall Street Journal, Lieberman warns that Iran has its fingers in every conflict in that region, and that our withdrawal from Iraq will entice the Iranians to expand their violent bids for hegemony:

Iran's actions in Iraq fit a larger pattern of expansionist, extremist behavior across the Middle East today. In addition to sponsoring insurgents in Iraq, Tehran is training, funding and equipping radical Islamist groups in Lebanon, Palestine and Afghanistan--where the Taliban now appear to be receiving Iranian help in their war against the government of President Hamid Karzai and its NATO defenders.

While some will no doubt claim that Iran is only attacking U.S. soldiers in Iraq because they are deployed there--and that the solution, therefore, is to withdraw them--Iran's parallel proxy attacks against moderate Palestinians, Afghans and Lebanese directly rebut such claims.

Iran is acting aggressively and consistently to undermine moderate regimes in the Middle East, establish itself as the dominant regional power and reshape the region in its own ideological image. The involvement of Hezbollah in Iraq, just revealed by Gen. Bergner, illustrates precisely how interconnected are the different threats and challenges we face in the region. The fanatical government of Iran is the common denominator that links them together.

No responsible leader in Washington desires conflict with Iran. But every leader has a responsibility to acknowledge the evidence that the U.S. military has now put before us: The Iranian government, by its actions, has all but declared war on us and our allies in the Middle East.

Iranian adventurism has been a matter of record long before the war on terror started hitting American assets, or rather, long before Americans recognized that terrorists had declared war on us. Iran has backed attacks on US interests ever since the 1983 Hezbollah attack on our Marines in Beirut. They funded and ran the groups responsible for hostaging Americans in Lebanon during the 1980s before Osama bin Laden was a speck on the Afghanistan horizon.

In truth, the Iranians have been at war with us since 1979, a fact that Jimmy Carter ignored for 444 days and almost every President since did for the entirety of their terms. Now the Senate wants to take up the ISG's recommendations and pass them into law, based on the notion that we can negotiate for good terms with a nation that has done nothing but attack our interests for a generation. It moves American denial from the absurd to an art form -- and Lieberman seems to be the only statesman in Washington pointing out the obvious.

We have tried negotiations with Iran for two decades. People seem to forget the Iran-Contra scandal at convenient times, but the heart of the issue was Ronald Reagan's misguided attempt to gain the freedom of hostages in Lebanon by trading with the mullahcracy. It worked -- as far as it went. Iran had the hostages released after Iran got its military hardware, and afterwards went right back to fomenting terrorism in Lebanon and throughout the Middle East. Reagan's efforts only had two merits: he got the hostages released and proved that engagement with the Iranians had little consequence towards curtailing their sponsorship of terrorism.

The EU tried it fifteen years later. After Iran finally acknowledged its nuclear program, the EU-3 took the lead in negotiations to end the drive towards nuclear weapons. The US deliberately allowed Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, and Gerhard Schroeder to take the lead, all three major trade partners with Teheran and all three seen as sincerely desiring a peaceful nuclear energy program for a country with more oil than it could possibly refine. The result? Iran stiffed the EU-3 on every occasion, defying the UN afterwards, and announcing uranium cascades that could produce nuclear weapons in less than two years.

Iran isn't interested in peaceful coexistence. Its interests lie in regional domination, and they will use every weapon in their arsenal to achieve it. Lieberman makes the case well in this essay, a must read for all.

Addendum: Small wonder that Lieberman is keeping his options open for endoring a presidential candidate in 2008.

Domenici Wavers

George Bush's efforts in Iraq took a blow yesterday when Republican Senator Pete Domenici announced that he wants American troops out of combat areas in Iraq by early next year. Oddly, he insisted that he didn't want a withdrawal, leaving his vision of American involvement unclear:

White House efforts to keep congressional Republicans united over the Iraq war suffered another major defection yesterday as Sen. Pete V. Domenici (N.M.) broke with President Bush and called for an immediate change in U.S. strategy that could end combat operations by spring.

The six-term lawmaker, party loyalist and former staunch war supporter represents one of the most significant GOP losses to date. Speaking to reporters at a news conference in Albuquerque, Domenici said he began to question his stance on Iraq late last month, after several conversations with the family members of dead soldiers from his home state, and as it became clear that Iraqi leaders are making little progress toward national reconciliation.

"We cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress," Domenici said. "I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops. But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home."

Strategically, Domenici sounds a little incoherent. Where in Iraq would he like the troops moved to get out of "combat operations"? If so, why not just opt for an immediate withdrawal instead of just leaving them as sitting ducks, a la Beirut 1983? They're safer engaging the enemy on their own terms, rather than waiting for the enemy to attack them.

Politically, however, he sounds more coherent. He joins other Republicans, like John Warner and George Voinovich, who want Iraq off the table for the 2008 elections. He has endorsed a bill that would require the implementation of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations sponsored by Ken Salazar and co-sponsored by Republicans such as Robert Bennett, Judd Gregg, Susan Collins, and John Sununu. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee was the original co-sponsor of the bill.

All of this adds up to a real problem for Bush when the Senate reconvenes. Clearly his party caucus has begun to collapse on the war, and not even Joe Lieberman can save him through a cloture vote on some demand for change. The Salazar bill would not require an immediate withdrawal, but a quick perusal of the ISG's recommendations makes it clear that the bill would force some fundamental changes, some of them fairly divorced from reality. Given its reliance -- as a prerequisite for other actions -- on the benevolence of Iran and Syria, it's a plan that cripples the US and Iraq from the start.

The ISG billt will have quite a bit of opposition, however, and not just from the Republicans determined to remain firm on the war. Democrats will likely form a majority of opposition to it as well, thanks to the ISG's warning on precipitate withdrawal, which it notes would "almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions." It would create a clear propaganda victory for al-Qaeda, and even more importantly, leave them Iraq as their new base of operations. If Salazar's bill actually follows the ISG recommendations, then it means American troops will remain in Iraq for quite some time, if not in the numbers presently seen -- and Democrats will not agree to that. It would kill them in the next election, possibly splitting the anti-war activists off to support third-party candidates.

This sounds like a recipe for stalemate. In fact, it looks like another immigration-reform debacle, with the center getting squeezed by both sides. If that happens, the President may get his extension by default, as Congress runs out of time again for retooling the war before the funds for the deployed troops run out.

You Are The Interviewer

Here's the situation. You're a New Media reporter, and you have an invitation to interview an intriguing guest: the ambassador from Afghanistan, Said T. Jawad. What questions would you like to hear answered?

CQ readers can leave those questions in the comments. I'll be interviewing Ambassador Jawad in early July, most likely live on CQ Radio, and I'm interested in what questions you have for both him and me.

UPDATE & BUMP, 6/24: This has now been confirmed. I will interview Ambassador Jawad live on CQ Radio from the Afghanistan Embassy on July 9th, at 2 pm ET. I'll travel to DC on Sunday and stay through Tuesday on other BlogTalkRadio business, but be sure to mark your calendars for that very special broadcast.

UPDATE & BUMP, 7/5: It's a great thread, and I'm going to push it to the top one more time. Keep the questions flowing! I'm going to try to hit the most popular topics on this post.

Rasmussen: Fred, Hillary Tied

Given Fred Thompson's decision to enter the primaries late, one might expect him to fare poorly in head-to-head matches, especially with candidates of the other party. Rasmussen's latest polling will surprise some, as it shows Fred in a dead heat with Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) tied with former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (R) in an Election 2008 match-up. Both candidates attract support from 45% of voters. Given a Clinton-Thompson match-up, 5% of voters say they’d pull the lever for some other candidate and 4% are not sure.

The survey also found Clinton holding a four-point advantage over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R), 46% to 42%. In that match-up, 9% would prefer some other candidate and 3% are not sure. The survey was conducted June 27-28, 2007, just before the July 4th holiday festivities began to unfold.

Compared to our previous survey of these matchups, conducted early in June, Clinton has lost a net five points against both Thompson and Romney. In May, Clinton led both of these GOP hopefuls by three points.

For Fred, this gives him much more credibility as he prepares to enter the race. Rudy Giuliani has positioned himself as the one Republican with the ability to beat Hillary in a general election. John Podhoretz wrote his book, Can She Be Stopped?, on that very premise. The primary race has been framed as a challenge to decide between a movement conservative or a centrist who can marshal support outside the party in order to prevail in November 2008.

This poll suggests that Republicans don't have to make that concern a priority. Not only does it speak to Fred's strength, it shows Hillary's weakness. She has not broken through the 50% barrier on these matchups, primarily due to the extraordinary percentage of voters determined to vote against her in a general election. While she continues to blow away her primary competitors, she has made no headway in alleviating those negatives at all.

For Fred, this comes at the most propitious moment possible. He's close to announcing the official start to his campaign, and it answers the question on everyone's mind -- can he win as a conservative? If the Democrats nominate Hillary, it appears he has the opportunity to do so.

CQ Radio: Rob Bluey & Patrick Ruffini

Today on CQ Radio (2 pm CT), Robert Bluey of the Heritage Foundation joins us in the second half of the show. We'll talk about the fallout of the Libby commutation, the David Broder column, and much more. We've also got Patrick Ruffini, an insider in GOP circles, talking about the primary race so far!

Call 646-652-4889 to join the conversation! Also, you can subscribe to CQ Radio through iTunes now by clicking this link:

Guiliani Conference Call

The Giuliani campaign invited bloggers to a conference call on Rudy Giuliani's fundraising numbers for Q2.

Total cash on hand: $18 million
Spent: $11.2 million in Q2
Donors: over 60,000

Proof of success in both finance and polling. They are the only GOP campaign to increase their numbers from Q1 to Q2. Very proud of the fact that they have zero debt; shows efficient and disciplined campaign and stewardship of donor money.

They feel very strongly that they have the best positioning to win a general election. They claim they can put New Jersey, New York, and the New England states, which other candidates cannot. They rattled off their #1 position in state polling, arguing that they're also positioned well to win the primaries. Most of them fell outside the first races, although they rattled it off so quickly that I can't recall all of the states where they claim a lead.

Questions:

What was the reaction to John McCain's Q2 numbers? They're not going to comment on other campaigns; they want to focus on their own.

What is the rate of fundraising -- they only started in February? They feel very comfortable with the rate. They raised $14 million in Q1 for the primary, so they did increase the overall total. {It seems to me like the actual rate has dropped -- CE.]

Why the disparity between GOP and Democrats in fundraising? The two are "completely separate," according to Team Rudy. They don't consider this an issue until much later in the campaign.

You have fewer donors than Romney; what's the average donation? Team Rudy sees the lower number as indicative of the growth potential for the campaign.

Overall, I'd say this didn't tell us much we don't already know. I also find it interesting that alone among the top-tier declared candidates, Team Rudy hasn't make their candidate available to bloggers yet. I wonder when they plan on engaging to that level. I'm going to take a wild guess that it won't take Fred Thompson five months to get around to that.

UPDATE: The Giuliani campaign reminds me that they did make the Mayor available on May 16th for a conference call. I stand corrected on that point, and hope they will do it again sometime.

Broder's Petulant Rant

What really sets off a nationally-syndicated columnist whose essays appear in hundreds of publications each week? Apparently, it's when average people influence their elected representatives on policy, instead of opinion leaders like himself. That seems to be the takeaway from David Broder's new column today on immigration.

At Heading Right, I take a look at Broder's cri de coeur over the use of "modern communications" in intimidating Congress into rejecting bad legislation. The paradigm has changed, and Broder appears unaware of it or incapable of understanding it -- perhaps because he has so much to lose.

Contemplating Navels In Iowa

Politics had a harmonic convergence in Fairfield, Iowa this Fourth of July, thanks to the campaign stop of the Left's Messiah at an event heavily attended by the town's Transcendental Meditation practitioners. As Obama aligned himself with the rotation of the earth, the followers of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi proclaimed him as their own Messiah as well:

To the frustration of the cameramen in the Fairfield town square, Obama delivered his remarks facing east, with the setting sun behind him blotting out their shots.

But here, there’s a power even higher than the television networks: Obama had positioned himself in alignment with the rotation of the earth, in accordance with the teachings of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, whose followers moved en masse to this small Iowa city more than 30 years ago.

The Maharishi’s transcendental meditators, along with vacationing pilgrims from the East Coast, turned out in large numbers in the town’s traditional green square to hear the Illinois senator deliver his stump speech on the night of July 3 – more people, Fairfield’s sheriff said, than had come out to greet a sitting president.

“I saw him and I thought, ‘Oh my god, this is somebody who could lead us into a new era,’” said Nancy Watkins, an international student advisor at the Maharishi University of Management.

How does a candidate win over the TM troop? Avoid talk about federal deficits and discuss "empathy deficits" instead. Repeat the assertion that voters want candidates to stand for something rather than against something -- but avoid specifics for either approach. It's a campaign tailor-made for a thin resumé, which explains Obama's success.

You see, it's easy to talk about inclusiveness and healing divisions when one isn't discussing actual policy. Voters differ on priorities and solutions, and when it comes to discussing those, politicians don't get to shrug off those differences. It doesn't take a lot of political courage to stand in front of a group and talk about "being a uniter" and "healing the world". Who wouldn't want that?

The question is what policies the candidate will champion once elected to office, and how they will effect world healing, unity, and so on. Despite each cycle's promises of peace, love, and brotherhood, we still need to address real problems such as entitlement programs that are bankrupting us, politicians who use government money to buy and retain power, terrorists who want to kill us, and more. So far, the same politicians who talk about unity and healing have only offered to silence critics through efforts like the Fairness Doctrine rather than actually solving the problems themselves.

Let's leave the harmonic convergence aside, and start talking about policy instead.

Doctors Without Scruples

The Telegraph reports that three radical Muslims conducted an Internet forum which issued threats against the US and UK -- and warned that doctors would form the next assault wave. The three, who have pled guilty to making terrorist threats on the Internet, warned that 45 doctors would attack Jacksonville strip clubs and naval harbors:

A group of 45 Muslim doctors threatened to use car bombs and rocket grenades in terrorist attacks in the United States during discussions on an extremist internet chat site. ...

One message read: "We are 45 doctors and we are determined to undertake jihad and take the battle inside America.

"The first target which will be penetrated by nine brothers is the naval base which gives shelter to the ship Kennedy." This is thought to have been a reference to the USS John F Kennedy, which is often at Mayport Naval Base in Jacksonville, Florida.

The message discussed targets at the base, adding: "These are clubs for naked women which are opposite the First and Third units."

These messages started appearing in 2005, which the Telegraph waits until the end of the article to note. They don't have any direct connection to the attacks this week in Britain and Glasgow, at least none discovered so far. The revelations came from reports from their trial and sentencing, and the references to doctors immiediately raised eyebrows.

These three have connections to al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to the prosecution. That does provide an indirect link to the attacks this week, which British authorities say originated with AQI leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The dead terrorist is believed to have initiated a recruitment drive for doctors in 2005 to take advantage of fast-track visa systems in the UK for physicians, an effort he began at around the same time that these three started posting jihadi messages on their Internet forums.

Some of this seems fanciful, however. The threat included using muscle cars to conduct attacks in Florida, certainly not outside of the realm of possibility but sounding a little like an adolescent fantasy. One of the defendants mused over winning the lottery and using the proceeds to become the next Osama bin Laden -- an odd fantasy for a radical Muslim, for whom gambling is forbidden.

Nevertheless, the three are expected to receive long prison sentences today. Not many will miss them nor mourn their incarceration. One can only hope that the purported 45 doctors take a lesson from this week's events and opt for more healthy pursuits.

Who Knew $400 Was A Discount?

The Washington Post extends the story of John Edwards' haircuts by interviewing his stylist in today's Section C. We find that Joseph Torrenueva had his feelings hurt by Edwards when the presidential candidate attempted to convince people that his staff had arranged the appointment as a one-off, when Edwards has been a Torrenueva customer for years -- and that $400 wan't the least-expensive do Torrenueva did:

It is some kind of commentary on the state of American politics that as Edwards has campaigned for president, vice president and now president again, his hair seems to have attracted as much attention as, say, his position on health care. But when his campaign reported in April that it had paid for two of his haircuts at $400 each, the political damage was immediate. With each punch line on late night TV his image as a self-styled populist making poverty his signature issue was further eroded.

Edwards said that he was embarrassed by the cost and that he "didn't know it would be that expensive," suggesting the haircuts were some kind of aberration given by "that guy" his staff had arranged. His wife, Elizabeth, made lots of jokes at her husband's expense and the campaign wished the whole issue would go away.

But Torrenueva's account of his long relationship with Edwards -- the first he's given -- probably guarantees that won't happen quite yet. And if $400 seemed a lot for a haircut, how about one for three times that? ....

Torrenueva said one haircut during the 2004 presidential race cost $1,250 because he traveled to Atlanta and lost two days of work.

For the record, the issue on this point isn't the cost of the haircuts, but the fact that Edwards paid for them with campaign contributions. When the story broke in mid-April, that was the real scandal -- that a rich lawyer and hedge-fund manager would eat up money sent by his contributors to get him elected on Hollywood-level hairdos. He has plenty of his own money for hair stylists and spa days. The Washington Post apparently didn't ask who footed the bill for that $1250 haircut, but I'd suspect that came from campaign coffers as well.

Now it looks like Edwards has an honesty problem as well as questionable use of campaign funds. This wasn't some one-off; Edwards has used Torrenueva for over three years. The Edwards campaign's attempt to spin this as a single case of bad judgment by a staffer shows a less-than-honest approach to errors by Edwards, which should concern people considering his candidacy seriously, a number that appears to drop on a weekly basis anyway.

Torrenueva hasn't cut Edwards' hair in three months, a few weeks before the story broke, and likely won't do it again after going public like this. The question remains as to how much of Edwards' personal grooming gets charged to contributors -- and why Edwards can't find local stylists to effect what appears to be a rather mundane style.

Kinsley Pokes The Gray Lady's Eye

Michael Kinsley slams the media for their relentless non-pursuit of a critical element in the Valerie Plame leak -- the journalists. He does so in the opinion pages of the New York Times, one of the papers that demanded an investigation into the leak, only to screech about the First Amendment when Patrick Fitzgerald put reporters on the hot seat, including their own Judith Miller:

There is nothing wrong with a perjury trap, as long as both sides of the pincer are legitimate. The abuse comes when prosecutors induce a crime (lying under oath) by exploiting an action that is not a crime. The law about “outing” C.I.A. operatives is apparently vague enough that it isn’t clear whether Mr. Libby violated it. But let’s leave that aside. Exposing one of your country’s intelligence officers is a bad thing to do. If it isn’t against the law, it ought to be, right? Well, this is where the press comes in. At first many in the press supported appointing a special prosecutor to investigate.

The crime, if there was one, was leaking government secrets to journalists. If you were investigating that crime, where would you start? Yes, of course, by questioning journalists. The government leakers, if you found them, would be protected by the Fifth Amendment. You would need more and different evidence, and only journalists had it.

The special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, followed this commonsense logic straight into a First Amendment buzz saw. News organizations that insisted on the need to get to the bottom of the leak also insisted that no journalist should have to supply information to this investigation. ...

It takes two to leak. How can it be fair that one party to the leak doesn’t even have to testify about it, because leaks are so vital to the First Amendment, while the other party might go to prison for it? And if that is unfair, how is a perjury trap fair when it forces a leaker to choose between going to prison for the leak and going to prison for lying?

So as much as I dislike the war in Iraq, as much as I dislike President Bush, as much as I expect that I would dislike Mr. Libby if I ever met him, I feel that he should not have had to face a perjury trap: the choice between prison for lying, or prison for his role in a set of transactions that the press regards as not merely O.K. but sacrosanct. In fact, if journalists had a more reasonable view about this, the reporters whom Mr. Libby tried to peddle this story to would have said, “Look, outing C.I.A. agents is bad and we are not going to help you do it anonymously.” I bet that today, commuted sentence and all, Mr. Libby wishes they had done just that.

Ironically, it was Miller who did exactly what Kinsley suggested -- she didn't write about it, for whatever reason. She still went to jail for months for contempt when she refused to name Libby as her source on a story she never wrote. In the meantime, the source that resulted in the publication of Valerie Plame's name and role at the CIA had outed himself months before to the special prosecutor, all while Miller's employer both demanded an investigation into the leak and an end to questioning the reporters who received it.

I've remarked on this piece of hypocrisy for almost two years now. The New York Times and other newspapers make their living on leaks. The Gray Lady has published leaks on critical national-security programs all during the time when they cheerleaded Fitzgerald's investigation, including one that successfully tracked terrorist financing and resulted in at least one capture of a high-level al-Qaeda leader. They published that even though their own reporters, Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, acknowledged that the program broke no laws.

Shouldn't we follow the Gray Lady's editorial advice and investigate that leak, too? After all, it looks like the leaker wanted to damage national security and release highly classified material, putting our nation in grave danger. Shouldn't we start by setting up perjury traps by getting Lichtblau and Risen to sing, just as Fitzgerald did with Libby by forcing journalists to talk?

It's somewhat satisfying to see Kinsley's article in the New York Times. I can't think of another editorial board who needs to read it more.

Addendum: Kinsley does forget one key point here, though. Libby had the option to take the Fifth Amendment, which Kinsley references but for some reason doesn't think all the way through. Had Libby done that, he never would have been in the perjury trap at all.

EU: Let's Be Like China

The EU wants to ban the communication of bomb-making instructions on the Internet. That might seem rational, even for some free-speech advocates, since even in the US free speech does not cover incitements to violence. However, the EU's plans go too far in holding ISPs criminally responsible for the actions of their customers, and they may find themselves doing more damage than good as a result:

Placing instructions on how to make a bomb on the internet will become a criminal offence across Europe under plans outlined by Brussels yesterday.

Arguments about freedom of expression will not be allowed to stand in the way of criminalising the publication of bomb-making information that could be used by terrorists, a senior EU official said.

It will be part of a range of antiterrorist proposals to be published in the autumn that will also include the collection of airline passenger data from every flight in and out of the EU. The extension of measures was promised yesterday by Franco Frattini, the EU Justice Commissioner, after the British car bomb plot and the murder of Spanish tourists in Yemen.

Internet service providers (ISPs) would face charges if they failed to block websites containing bomb-making instructions generated anywhere in the world, EU officials said.

In one sense, this effort seems quixotic at best. The Internet does not have the kind of central, global control that would keep this information off the network. If such plans exist on servers outside the EU's control, users can find it easily enough. A quick Google demonstrates just how easy that can be, and unless the EU plans on isolating its DNS servers to only EU servers, this law will be next to useless.

The attempt to criminalize ISPs is even more daft. If the EU means hosting services when it flags ISPs, then hosting services will simply move outside of the EU's control. Hosts simply cannot police the websites of all customers on a constant basis to check for compliance. It would create a massive oversight burden for the providers that would drive costs through the roof, and they would lose most of their business as a result. Even in a complaint-based system, they could suspend accounts, just to have the information return in another form in new accounts, and that exposure to constant criminal liability would drive smaller players from the market.

However, it looks like the EU means to hold all classes of ISPs responsible, including those that just provide Internet access. They want the ISPs to block sites where such information is available:

EU officials denied that it would be impossible to track down websites based in remote places, insisting that the local provider based in the EU could be held to account. One said: “You always need a provider here that gives you access to websites. They can decide technically which websites to allow. Otherwise how would China block internet sites? There are no technological obstacles, only legal ones.”

Well, that's certainly a great example to follow. The EU wants their Internet access to resemble China's. European i-surfers can look forward to losing access to blogs, foreign nodes, and pretty much everything but CNN and Microsoft. China imposes its blackouts on a rather broad basis, and still Beijing finds it difficult to control the exchange of communication it fears so much.

This portends darker days for Europe's freedom of information. What else do the elders of the EU want to keep from their citizens? Once this kind of system is in place, it could easily be used to block out any other information deemed dangerous by the star chamber in Brussels. Today they'll drop Big Brother onto the Internet to keep people from learning what they can find in dozens of books on bombs, physics, and the like. Tomorrow they may decide that conservative politics might be too dangerous to the EU, or that criticism such as this should be kept from Europeans for their own safety.

After all, China does that, too.

The Disappearing Nuclear Devices

Canada has discovered a problem in its management of radioactive devices -- the darn things keep coming up missing. Either through theft or carelessness, or both, Canada has dozens of radioactive devices missing, and counterterrorism agents there are very worried (h/t: CQ reader Stoo):

Radioactive devices -- some of which have the potential to be used in terrorist attacks -- have gone missing in alarming numbers in Canada over the past five years.

A new database compiled by The Canadian Press shows that the devices, which are used in everything from medical research to measuring oil wells, are becoming a favoured target of thieves.

At least 76 have gone missing in Canada over the past five years -- disappearing from construction sites, specialized tool boxes, and generally growing legs and walking away.

Some of the devices could be used in a "dirty bomb," where conventional explosives are used to detonate nuclear material, spreading the contamination over a wide area, said Alan Bell, a security and international terrorism expert from Globe Risk Security Holdings.

This information isn't new, but it is the first time it has been compiled into a database and reported. Of the 76 missing devices, 35 have been confirmed as stolen, and the rest have just disappeared from the system. In Canada, the various agencies that handle these devices do not coordinate control of them, which has caused some confusion as to how many of the unaccounted devices may have gone from official control.

How much damage could these devices do? The CP report suggests that one of these, strategically placed in a city like Toronto, could contaminate a 4-kilometer area, creating havoc and economic devastation. Officials in Canada heavily criticized the report, which named the site in question, asking why the CP wanted to give target analyses to potential terrorists, but it's clear that anyone who stole one of these devices for the purposes of a terror attack would probably have some idea what to do with it.

However, if they didn't, the CTV report at the link provides helpful graphics, just in case.

Obviously, the Canadian authorities need to improve their systems of security and accountability regarding these devices, and this provides a belated opportunity for all nations to do the same, including the US. In the meantime, we have to hope that the devices got stolen by either idiots who have no clue what they have, or honorable thieves that will only extort money from Ottawa to return them.

UPDATE: Welcome to readers of The Corner, courtesy of Jonah Goldberg! Take a look around, and if you have a moment, try out Heading Right as well.

Leave Him Alone

I understand the impulse to treat politics as a bloodsport, but even those who prefer that mode should really limit their attacks to the combatants. Today's story about the arrest of Al Gore III provides a case in point:

The 24-year-old son of former Vice President Al Gore was arrested for drug possession on Wednesday after he was stopped for speeding in his hybrid Toyota Prius, a sheriff's official said.

Al Gore III -- whose father is a leading advocate of policies to fight global warming -- was driving his environmentally friendly car at about 100 miles per hour on a freeway south of Los Angeles when he was pulled over by an Orange County sheriff's deputy at about 2:15 a.m.

The deputy smelled marijuana and searched the car, said sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino. The search turned up a small amount of marijuana, along with prescription drugs including Valium, Xanax, Vicodin, Adderall and Soma. There were no prescriptions found, he said.

I know that some bloggers are having fun with this, and I don't mean to be too critical of my friends, but it's at the same level as the attacks on Jenna and Barbara Bush. We may dislike Al Gore's policies and sanctimony, but that shouldn't apply to his son. His misfortunes tell us nothing about his father's policy or sanctimony, and as an adult, Al III answers for himself. Attacking Gore through his son amounts to a cheap shot.

To the extent that the younger Gore broke the law and endangered people, he should be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the law and precedent of California. Let the folks in California deal with it. Mocking the Gores has little to do with any substantive victory but merely personal attacks that do nothing to advance a political cause.

Note: I exchanged some snarky schadenfreude-laden quips with a longtime reader about this earlier today, so I am also scolding myself in this instance, too.

A Cinematic Fourth

I hope that all of the CQ community has had or is having a wonderful Fourth with their families. This year, the First Mate and I decided to celebrate a little differently. Last year, when both of us had major health problems, we went to the town's parade and a family brunch, but this year, we went to the movies to beat the humidity and heat.

We did an a la carte double feature today. The first movie we saw was Evan Almighty, the sequel to Bruce Almighty, starring Steve Carell as a newsman-turned-Congressman. In this movie, Morgan Freeman returns as God to instruct Carell to build an ark. Carell turns into Noah,and his family has to decide whether to stand by him -- and the multitude of animals that follow Carell.

It's an entertaining movie, not terribly challenging but with some heart. The politics of it are tiresomely predictable; it revolves around a plot by John Goodman as a Congressional leader to exploit public lands for his private profit. Carell provides much of the fun, and Lauren Graham as his wife much of the heart. It's worth a family trip to the cinema.

The second movie was better. License to Wed stars Robin Williams as Reverend Frank, a minister with a big interest in premarital counseling. Mandy Moore and John Krasinsky are his latest project, and he gleefully makes their lives miserable. His antics, which include bugging their apartment and egging the groom-to-be to insult the bride's family, creates so much tension between the two that they begin to question their commitment.

Earlier in his career, Williams would have ad-libbed this role to death. While he clearly has fun with the material, Williams sticks to character for the most part. This movie has more heart, in its way, than Evan Almighty. Although excellent actors such as Christine Taylor and Peter Strauss find themselves underutilized, the overall effort makes the movie worthwhile. The opening-day audience laughed fairly constantly throughout the film, and I overheard many murmurs of agreement and recognition of the foibles exposed in the movie. It's also worth a trip to the cinema, maybe more so than Evan Almighty. Neither will be on anyone's Top 10 list, but both are entertaining.

Now we're back home, watching the Ken Burns documentary, The Civil War. Tonight's episode covers Gettysburg. It seems a fitting end to a cinematic Fourth.

Happy 231st Birthday, America

Note: This post will stay at the top all day. Newer posts will be below.

Today we celebrate the birth of our nation, as conceived by a group of men in a Pennsylvania hall who many considered at the time as traitors. They dared to imagine a nation whose leaders would not be derived from notions of royalty nor from the power of arms, but chosen by free people as leaders accountable to the populace. They took the ethereal notions that sprang from the Enlightenment and dared to make them a reality -- hoping that this radical experiment would take root in the North American continent, but having no clue that it would become a shining beacon for the entire world over the next two centuries.

It wasn't a model of perfection, and indeed, our birth has resembled our journey ever since. Dissent over the nature of a representative democracy appeared from the very start. The first structure of the government would have to be scrapped and re-imagined from scratch just a few years later. It would take decades more before the nation finally dealt with the inherent contradiction in the Declaration of Independence and its assertion that "all men are created equal," and the detestable institution of slavery -- and another century after that before the government finally took action to ensure that those words prevailed. Arguments about the division of power between the states and the federal government have continued from the first moments until this moment.

We have been far from perfect, but we have recognized our failures and prevailed over them in the fullness of time. Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others -- and we have been the model for that, for better and worse. America has been a beacon of hope for the world for centuries, not just because of the words in our Declaration and Constitution, but because we as a people try our best to live up to them.

Conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, independents and centrists, and those who cringe when they hear any of those labels -- they want America to live up to its best ideals, our best selves, each in their own way. Happy Independence Day to all of us, and may we continue in our efforts as our ancestors have to continue to keep America as the shining city on the hill.

In 1981, three months after surviving an assassin's bullet, Ronald Reagan talked about our nation's birth in his Independence Day speech:

Thomas Jefferson wrote that on that day of America's birth, in the little hall in Philadelphia, debate raged for hours, but the issue remained in doubt. These were honorable men; still, to sign a Declaration of Independence seemed such an irretrievable act that the walls resounded with cries of "treason'' and "the headsman's axe.''

Then, it is said, one unknown man rose to speak. He was neither young, nor strong in voice; yet, he spoke with such conviction that he mesmerized the hall. He cited the grievances that had brought them to this moment. Then, his voice failing, he said: "They may turn every tree into a gallows, every hole into a grave, and yet the words of that parchment can never die. To the mechanic in the workshop, they will speak hope, to the slave in the mines, freedom. Sign that parchment. Sign if the next moment the noose is around your neck, for that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the bible of the rights of man forever.'' And sign they did.

What makes our revolution unique and so exciting, then, is that it changed the very concept of government. Here was a new nation telling the world that it was conceived in liberty; that all men are created equal with God-given rights, and that power ultimately resides in "We the people.''

We sometimes forget this great truth, and we never should, because putting people first has always been America's secret weapon. It's the way we've kept the spirit of our revolution alive -- a spirit that drives us to dream and dare, and take great risks for a greater good. It's the spirit of Fulton and Ford, the Wright brothers and Lindbergh, and of all our astronauts. It's the spirit of Joe Louis, Babe Ruth, and a million others who may have been born poor, but who would not be denied their day in the Sun.

The men without the words would have been little more than mutineers. The words without the men would have been long forgotten, if ever remembered at all. On the Fourth of July, we honor them all, and all those who came after to preserve and promote the Union.

AP: Hypocrisies Abound

Ron Fournier, the AP's political analyst, takes a look at the effect that the Libby commutation has had on the political scene -- and sees hypocrisy everywhere. While he slams Bush for disregarding the same federal sentencing guidelines he espoused as both candidate and President, Fournier saves his most biting criticism for the wife of his predecessor:

"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

It was a brazen statement from a woman entangled in many Clinton White House scandals, including the final one: On his last day in office, President Clinton granted 140 pardons and 36 commutations, many of them controversial.

One of those pardoned was Marc Rich, who had fled the country after being indicted for tax evasion and whose wife had donated more than $1 million to Democratic causes.

Clinton's half brother, Roger, who was convicted of distributing cocaine and lobbied the White House on behalf of others, also received a pardon.

Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, was paid tens of thousands of dollars in his successful bid to win pardons for a businessman under investigation for money laundering and a commutation for a convicted drug trafficker. Her other brother, Tony, lobbied successfully for clemency on behalf of a couple convicted of bank fraud.

Fournier failed to mention the entirety of the Tony Rodham situation. Not only did Tony lobby on behalf of the Gregorys, he got over a hundred grand in "loans" which the Gregorys never bothered to collect, and on which Tony never paid a red cent. That only came to light when the Gregorys -- fresh from the presidential pardon for their fraudulent activities -- declared bankruptcy and listed the Rodham loans as an asset.

Oddly, Bill Clinton seems to have forgotten some of those aspects of his pardons:

In Iowa to promote the presidential candidacy of his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Mr. Clinton was asked by a radio host, David Yepsen, “You had some controversial pardons during your presidency; what’s your reaction to what President Bush did?”

“Yeah, but I think the facts were different,” Mr. Clinton said. “I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted. You’ve got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle.”

Clinton fails to mention that his most controversial pardon recipient, Marc Rich (represented by Scooter Libby himself), skipped the country for 17 years to avoid trial altogether. Clinton pardoned Rich over the objections of his own Justice Department, endorsing Rich's flight from justice. That endorsement also came after Denise Rich donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Clinton's presidential library fund.

There is plenty of room to criticize Bush's commutation, particularly on the basis of hypocrisy on sentencing restrictions. Bill and Hillary Clinton have no room to make that argument, given their track record on smelly pardon decisions.

The Fallacy Of The Oasis

On Independence Day in 1941, America watched as the world burned. Hitler and Nazi Germany had overrun France, Poland, and the Balkans in the previous eighteen months, and had just taken on Soviet Russia the month before. They appeared to be on their way to realizing Napoleon's quest of taking Moscow. In the Pacific, the Japanese had overrun much of eastern Asia and threatened the British and the US; in five months and three days, they would make war on us in surprise attacks on American military bases throughout the region, including Pearl Harbor.

Sixty-six years ago, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to warn us of the danger. America had adopted an obstinate isolationism in the hope of avoiding the second World War, a strategy FDR knew was useless. He told America that we could not watch liberty extinguished abroad without soon losing it ourselves:

My fellow Americans: In 1776, on the Fourth day of July, the representatives of the several States in Congress assembled, declaring our independence, asserted that a decent respect for the opinion of mankind required that they should declare the reasons for their action. In this new crisis, we have a like duty.

In 1776 we waged war in behalf of the great principle that government should derive its just powers from the consent of the governed. In other words, representation chosen in free election. In the century and a half that followed, this cause of human freedom swept across the world.

But now, in our generation in the past few years a new resistance, in the form of several new practices of tyranny, has been making such headway that the fundamentals of 1776 are being struck down abroad and definitely, they are threatened here.

It is, indeed, a fallacy, base on no logic at all, for any American to suggest that the rule of force can defeat human freedom in all the other parts of the world and permit it to survive in the United States alone. But it has been that childlike fantasy itself that misdirected faith which has led nation after nation to go about their peaceful tasks, relying on the thought, and even the promise, that they and their lives and their government would be allowed to live when the juggernaut of force came their way.

It is simple I could almost say simple-minded-for us Americans to wave the flag, to reassert our belief in the cause of freedom and to let it go at that.

Yet, all of us who lie awake at night all of us who study and study again know full well that in these days we cannot save freedom with pitchforks and muskets alone after a dictator combination has gained control of the rest of the world.

We know that we cannot save freedom in our own midst, in our own land, if all around us our neighbor nations have lost their freedom.

That is why we are engaged in a serious, in a mighty, in a unified action in the cause of the defense of the hemisphere and the freedom of the seas. We need not the loyalty and unity alone, we need speed and efficiency and toil and an end to backbiting, an end to the sabotage that runs far deeper than the blowing up of munitions plants.

I tell the American people solemnly that the United States will never survive as a happy and fertile oasis of liberty surrounded by a cruel desert of dictatorship.

And so it is that when we repeat the great pledge to our country and to our flag, it must be our deep conviction that we pledge as well our work, our will and, if it be necessary, our very lives.

FDR knew that the idea that we could disengage from the world, ignore the forces gathering against liberty and freedom, and exist as an oasis was a dangerous fallacy. Much of what he says in this speech rings as true today as it did then -- and like then, many of us simply aren't listening.

Abraham Lincoln, At Ease

Abraham Lincoln wrote one of the nation's greatest speeches, even perhaps its greatest speech, in the aftermath of the terrible carnage at Gettysburg. For three days, vast armies collided in a small Pennsylvania town, fighting over the nature of liberty and equality. Lincoln returned to the site in November of that year to deliver his most eloquent and somber address.

In the days immediately following the battle, in which the hopes of the Confederacy were dashed, Lincoln felt far more celebratory than somber. His armies had finally broken Robert E. Lee and forced him back into Virginia, and Washington would never face serious threat again. The capital was in a joyous mood, and Lincoln delivered his Independence Day speech on the 7th as part of that festive atmosphere:

Fellow-citizens: I am very glad to see you to-night. But yet I will not say I thank you for this call. But I do most sincerely thank Almighty God for the occasion on which you have called. [Cheers.] How long ago is it? Eighty odd years since, upon the Fourth day of July, for the first time in the world, a union body of representatives was assembled to declare as a self-evident truth that all men were created equal. [Cheers.]

That was the birthday of the United States of America. Since then the fourth day of July has had several very peculiar recognitions. The two most distinguished men who framed and supported that paper, including the particular declaration I have mentioned, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, the one having framed it, and the other sustained it most ably in debate, the only two of the fifty-five or fifty-six who signed it, I believe, who were ever President of the United States, precisely fifty years after they put their hands to that paper it pleased the Almighty God to take away from this stage of action on the Fourth of July. This extraordinary coincidence we can understand to be a dispensation of the Almighty Ruler of Events.

Another of our Presidents, five years afterwards, was called from this stage of existence on the same day of the month, and now on this Fourth of July just past, when a gigantic rebellion has risen in the land, precisely at the bottom of which is an effort to overthrow that principle "that all men are created equal," we have a surrender of one of their most powerful positions and powerful armies forced upon them on that very day. [Cheers.] And I see in the succession of battles in Pennsylvania, which continued three days, so rapidly following each other as to be justly called one great battle, fought on the first, second and third of July; on the fourth the enemies of the declaration that all men are created equal had to turn tail and run. [Laughter and applause.]

Gentlemen, this is a glorious theme and a glorious occasion for a speech, but I am not prepared to make one worthy of the theme and worthy of the occasion. [Cries of "go on," and applause.] I would like to speak in all praise that is due to the the [sic] many brave officers and soldiers who have fought in the cause of the Union and liberties of this country from the beginning of this war, not on occasions of success, but upon the more trying occasions of the want of success. I say I would like to speak in praise of these men, particularizing their deeds, but I am unprepared. I should dislike to mention the name of a single officer, lest in doing so I wrong some other one whose name may not occur to me. [Cheers.]

Recent events bring up certain names, gallantly prominent, but I do not want to particularly name them at the expense of others, who are as justly entitled to our gratitude as they. I therefore do not upon this occasion name a single man. And now I have said about as much as I ought to say in this impromptu manner, and if you please, I'll take the music. [Tremendous cheering, and calls for the President to reappear.]

It's an interesting look at Lincoln, and probably more true to his nature. The crowd had pressed him for remarks, as they finally began to realize that the North had turned the tide of the war, and that Lincoln's tenacity would save the Union. Lincoln didn't prepare for the speech (historian James R. Heintze reconstructed it from contemporaneous accounts) and probably thought that the world would truly little note what was said on that day. While he took care in November to eschew triumphalism, he had no problem indulging it four days after the end of the battle, insinuating cowardice on behalf of the Confederate Army fleeing Pennsylvania.

Even so, Lincoln retained his sense of the historic, and his basic sense of humility as well. He spoke nothing of himself except to excuse any further remarks, but instead talked of the men who came before him, and the men who had actually won the great battle. He left for history the "I told you so" that must have been on his mind, if not on his tongue. This shows us Abraham Lincoln at ease, and delightfully so.

UPDATE: Several e-mailers note that I was in error on KIA at Gettysburg, confusing casualties -- which include missing, wounded and killed -- with deaths. They're correct; my apologies.

The First Element Of The American Character

In doing research on Independence Day and searching for appropriate speeches to quote, it became clear that the breadth of material meant that any comprehensive representation of it would become impossible in a blog format. Instead, I decided to look for surprises -- nuggets of insight in unlikely places. I discovered this speech, which in part emphasized the foundational nature of religion in the American character. Can you guess its author?

A nation's character, like that of an individual, is elusive. It is produced partly by things we have done and partly by what has been done to us. It is the result of physical factors, intellectual factors, spiritual factors.

It is well for us to consider our American character, for in peace, as in war, we will survive or fail according to its measure.

Our deep religious sense is the first element of the American character which I would discuss this morning.

The informing spirit of the American character has always been a deep religious sense.

Throughout the years, down to the present, a devotion to fundamental religious principles has characterized American thought and action.

Our government was founded on the essential religious idea of integrity of the individual. It was this religious sense which inspired the authors of the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." ...

Today these basic religious ideas are challenged by atheism and materialism: at home in the cynical philosophy of many of our intellectuals, abroad in the doctrine of collectivism, which sets up the twin pillars of atheism and materialism as the official philosophical establishment of the State.

Inspired by a deeply religious sense, this country, which has ever been devoted to the dignity of man, which has ever fostered the growth of the human spirit, has always met and hurled back the challenge of those deathly philosophies of hate and despair. We have defeated them in the past; we will always defeat them.

How well, then, has DeTocqueville said: "You may talk of the people and their majesty, but where there is no respect for God can there be much for man? You may talk of the supremacy of the ballot, respect for order, denounce riot, secession--unless religion is the first link, all is vain."

Which revered American leader rejected atheism, collectivism, and materialism as pillars of the State? Click on the extended entry for the answer.

The answer is:

John Kennedy, in his Independence Day speech to Congress in 1946. How do you think that speech would be received today?

An Independence Day Trivia Entry

Despite the fact that this document has been in existence for 218 years, it appears that it has escaped the notice of many pundits decrying a presidential commutation as an "obstruction of justice". For those unfamiliar with the Constitution, I direct you to Article 2, Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

That seems pretty clear to me, and it did when Bill Clinton was in office as well. The President has the power to pardon anyone he sees fit. Nothing in the Constitution limits that power -- even though in several other instances, the President is limited by "the advice and consent of the Senate," among other limits. The pardon power is plenary, fully within the law, and therefore not an obstruction of justice at all -- and commutation even less so.

I'm not going to bother to deconstruct the rantings of sportscasters-cum-shriekingly-hysteric-newsanchors, although Rick Moran does a splendid job of it. I'm just going to note that Scooter Libby's commutation does nothing to impede any investigation, even if one was ongoing in the Plame case, which it is not. Fitzgerald could have offered Libby a deal before his conviction if he thought Libby could provide evidence of further wrongdoing, and he could still offer him a deal now. However, Fitzgerald has already shut down his investigation and announced that he would have no further indictments -- and none on the original complaint that launched his investigation.

Justice has not been obstructed by a commutation. The action may have been politically questionable; I have explained my own reservations about it twice. The commutation did not keep Libby from having to answer for his actions in court, as say the Marc Rich pardon did, a pardon that denied the American people a chance to recover taxes that Rich should have paid. Both presidential clemency actions will reflect on their authors, as they should -- but by definition and by the Constitution, neither represent "obstruction of justice". Anyone who argues otherwise demonstrates a lack of education in our nation's founding documents.

UPDATE: My CQ Radio guest from yesterday, Jules Crittenden, has more thoughts on this subject.

UPDATE II: The Washington Times takes a principled stand on the commutation:

Perjury is a serious crime. This newspaper argued on behalf of its seriousness in the 1990s, during the Clinton perjury controversy, and today is no different. We'd have hoped that more conservatives would agree. The integrity of the judicial process depends on fact-finding and truth-telling. A jury found Libby guilty of not only perjury but also obstruction justice and lying to a grand jury. It handed down a very supportable verdict. This is true regardless of the trumped-up investigation and political witch hunt. It is true regardless of the unjustifiably harsh sentence.

Had Mr. Bush reduced Libby's sentence to 15 months, we might have been able to support the decision. Alas, he did not.

Media Alert

I'll be appearing on CHQR's The World Tonight with Rob Breakenridge, appearing at 9:05 Central. The main topic will be the Libby commutation, although knowing Rob, he'll want to cover other topics as well. Be sure to tune in; if you're not in Calgary, the station has a live stream over the Internet.

A Ridiculous Voice Of Criticism

George Bush has received plenty of criticism for commuting Scooter Libby's sentence, from both the Right and the Left, and at least a good portion of it justifiable. However, one voice that should have remained silent has decided to pile on:

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton drew a distinction between President Bush's decision to commute the sentence of White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby — which she has harshly criticized — and her husband's 140 pardons in his closing hours in office.

"I believe that presidential pardon authority is available to any president, and almost all presidents have exercised it," Clinton said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "This (the Libby decision) was clearly an effort to protect the White House. ... There isn't any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent." ...

Her husband's pardons, issued in the closing hours of his presidency, were simply routine exercise in the use of the pardon power, and none were aimed at protecting the Clinton presidency or legacy, she said.

Oh, please. None of them? How about the one granted to financier Marc Rich -- ironically, represented by none other than Scooter Libby -- after his wife donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library? That certainly sounds like a bit of legacy building to me.

Also, let's recall that Rich had fled the country to avoid prosecution for tax evasion. He also was charged with 51 counts of tax fraud, and had spent the Iranian hostage crisis trading illegally with Ayatollah Khomeini. Nor did his 17 years on the run bolster his patriotic spirit. Rich also played a significant role in the Oil-For-Food scandal that helped but billions into the pockets of Saddam Hussein.

Let's also not forget the generosity of the Clintons with their pardons. Bill helped enrich his brother-in-law, Tony Rodham, who got over a hundred thousand in "loans" from Edgar Gregory and his wife, who ran United Shows. The Gregorys had defrauded several banks but needed pardons in order to win federal contracts, and Rodham was well connected. They got their pardons, and they never even attempted to collect on the loans; they only surfaced after the Gregorys went bankrupt and their creditors called for repayment. Rodham had to be hauled into court to repay the payoff.

Most critics of the Libby commutation have an honest basis for their arguments, even if I don't agree with them. The Clintons have absolutely no room to talk about the propriety of Bush's action.

Romney, Giuliani Announce Their Numbers

The campaigns of Mitt Romney and Rudy Giulani announced their second-quarter fundraising numbers -- and neither of them set the world on fire. Rudy raised as much in three months as he did in the previous two, and Romney dropped off his Q1 numbers by a third:

Republican Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign reported an estimated $15 million in primary election contributions from April through June and Mitt Romney trailed closely behind with $14 million raised. ...

Overall, Giuliani saw an increase in his fundraising over the first quarter, when he reported nearly $16 million in contributions. About $1 million of that sum was for the general election.

Romney's fundraising fell short of his first quarter, when he raised $20.6 million and lent himself $2.35 million. All of Romney's money is for the primary election.

The Romney camp reported $12 million cash on hand, equal to the amount he had in the bank at the end of the first quarter. Aides said the campaign also boosted its number of donors from 32,000 in the first quarter to 80,000 for the first six months of the year.

Rudy's increase only comes to about a million or so over his Q1 numbers, but most people will recall that Giuliani only had two months of fundraising in that quarter. This time, he had all three months and only netted a million more in primary money. That's still better news than Romney got for his organizational efforts. Despite riding high in the Iowa and New Hampshire polls, Romney took in about a little under 33% less in Q2, and Romney has had to loan himself an additional $6 million to keep his financing edge.

Consider, then, the stories over the last two days about the McCain campaign's woes. He dropped about $2 million from his Q1 numbers. He only trailed Romney by less than $3 million in Q2 despite taking a beating over immigration, and Rudy by $4 million in primary funds. His campaign may need a lot of work and probably remains Quixotic at best, but in comparison, his performance doesn't appear as bad as it looked yesterday.

What's happening with Republican fundraising? The Democratic frontrunners both increased their take over their terrific Q1 totals. Have Republicans punished the entire field over immigration? Or are GOP donors holding their breath for Fred Thompson, who is expected to announce later this month? If it isn't one of those two explanations, it may be that the GOP isn't generating a lot of enthusiasm -- and that could mean big trouble for the Republicans regardless of who they nominate.

Guess Who Likes Earmarks?

Those of us who rail against earmarks and pork-barrel politics argue in part that the resultant spending usually goes to functions that have nothing to do with federal authority. These usually serve as incumbency protection efforts, attempts to drown the district in enough cash that it pressures voters to retain incumbents, in order to maintain the gravy train. One might think that a more libertarian incumbent would eschew such grubby tactics -- but the Houston Chronicle's investigation into Texas earmarks proves that theory incorrect (h/t: CQ reader Kirk H):

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Lake Jackson, the Libertarian-leaning contender for the Republican presidential nomination, long has waged war on the widespread federal spending he views as outside constitutional boundaries.

But the congressman, who often votes against spending bills, including funds for the Iraq war, leads the Houston-area delegation in the number of earmarks, or special funding requests, that he is seeking for his district. He is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 — neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function. ...

Paul defended his support of earmarks, which also include numerous water and highway projects in his Gulf Coast district, saying that, although he does not like the current budget process, he wants money returned to his district as funding is doled out nationwide.

"I don't think they should take our money in the first place," he said. "But if they take it, I think we should ask for it back."

The way it works in Paul's office is that local groups and officials from his district make pitches to him for federal funding. The congressman passes along those recommendations to the Appropriations Committee as earmark requests. Paul said he tries to treat everyone equally and rejects few requests. He said it would be unfair "for me to close the door and say this is a bunch of junk."

I missed this yesterday; Betsy Newmark didn't, and she notes the irony. Ron Paul and his legion of supporters routinely tell us that Paul is the only real conservative in the presidential race, dedicated to a return to a constitutional federal government. He will fight against federal involvement in any function outside of their clearly delineated tasks, as Paul has said on a number of occasions, including the presidential debates.

Obviously, Paul doesn't put our money where his mouth is. He uses the same tired explanation as everyone in Congress regarding earmarks -- "Everyone else is doing it, and why shouldn't my constituents benefit?" It's precisely that kind of reasoning that keeps earmarks a lively trade for influence peddlers and government expansionists, and Paul's enthusiastic engagement in that process perpetuates it.

Paul is far from the worst offender when it comes to earmarks. In fact, a fellow Republican, Jerry Culberson, wants $1 billion in earmarks for his district, a rather astonishing sum that would cost taxpayers almost a half-trillion dollars if replicated in every district, or about 13% of the overall federal budget. However, for a man who regularly expounds on unconstitutional federal intrusions, this record seems rather hypocritical.

UPDATE: Commenter Buckwheat offers this counter-argument:

In a nutshell, Paul only requests these earmarks *after* money has been set aside for a bill, so his requests don't increase the overall size of these bills. And he usually votes against them anyway.

Well, I thought Paul's entire argument as a Constitutionalist was that those monies don't belong there in the first place, and they're going to functions that don't belong at the federal level. Shouldn't he stop encouraging that kind of spending? As for the second part of the argument, it seems very hypocritical to initiate earmarks, get them included in spending bills, and then vote against the bill when Paul knows it will pass over his belated objections.

If Paul wants to end earmarks, he should stop creating them, and encourage his colleagues to do the same.

CQ Radio: Jules Crittenden

Today on CQ Radio (2 pm CT), Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald joins us. We'll discuss the Libby commutation and the political landscape afterwards, as well as the attacks in Britain and other hot topics of the day. We'll look for some contrary opinions from callers for a good debate on the Libby commutation, so be sure to call 646-652-4889 to join the conversation!

Also, you can subscribe to CQ Radio through iTunes now by clicking this link:

Splitting The Baby Gains Bush Little

Gauging from the reaction of pundits, George Bush did himself few favors in commuting Scooter Libby's sentence yesterday. As I predicted, critics of the administration railed against his supposed abandonment of the rule of law, while conservatives complained that Bush didn't go far enough. The end result may be a net zero for Bush politically, but according to Mike Allen at The Politico, that wasn't Bush's concern:

What were the calculations? One of the few people who actually knows something about the deliberations tells Playbook that no political factors were considered.

That seems to be the reason Bush chose this outcome. He could have pardoned Libby outright, and he could have chosen to do nothing at all, and he could also have commuted the fine and probation. In the end he chose none of these options, only acting to keep Libby from prison but leaving all other punishments in place. It puts Libby on a par with Sandy Berger, who stole classified information and destroyed it, and ultimately pled guilty to a felony and paid a $50,000 fine but avoided incarceration.

That hasn't quieted his critics, however. From the Left, the New York Times inveighs against what it sees as Bush's contempt for the rule of law:

When he was running for president, George W. Bush loved to contrast his law-abiding morality with that of President Clinton, who was charged with perjury and acquitted. For Mr. Bush, the candidate, “politics, after a time of tarnished ideals, can be higher and better.”

Not so for Mr. Bush, the president. Judging from his decision yesterday to commute the 30-month sentence of I. Lewis Libby Jr. — who was charged with perjury and convicted — untarnished ideals are less of a priority than protecting the secrets of his inner circle and mollifying the tiny slice of right-wing Americans left in his political base.

And from the right, the Wall Street Journal takes Bush to task for a lack of courage:

President Bush's commutation late yesterday afternoon of the prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby will at least spare his former aide from 2 1/2 years in prison. But by failing to issue a full pardon, Mr. Bush is evading responsibility for the role his Administration played in letting the Plame affair build into fiasco and, ultimately, this personal tragedy.

Mr. Libby will have to pay a fine of $250,000 and serve two years probation. This reflects the leniency that was previously recommended by the federal probation office but was rejected by Judge Reggie Walton in his vindictive sentence.

These columns have had cause to defend the Bush Presidency from what we've seen as often meritless or exaggerated partisan attacks, notably over national security and the Iraq war. This, however, will stand as a dark moment in this Administration's history.

Overseas, the Financial Times warns that Bush has unleashed a hornet's nest:

Some political analysts viewed the move as an attempt to restore morale among Mr Bush’s conservative base - much of which viewed the case against Mr Libby as a liberal conspiracy - after a torrid few months of political setbacks for the Republican party.

But the decision threatened to further poison the political atmosphere in Washington and galvanise Democrats to step up a series of investigations into alleged wrongdoing by the Bush administration.

Even the Washington Post, which editorialized that Libby's sentence was excessive, criticized Bush's actions in commuting it:

IN COMMUTING I. Lewis Libby's prison sentence yesterday, President Bush took the advice of, among others, William Otis, a former federal prosecutor who wrote on the opposite page last month that Mr. Libby should neither be pardoned nor sent to prison. We agree that a pardon would have been inappropriate and that the prison sentence of 30 months was excessive. But reducing the sentence to no prison time at all, as Mr. Bush did -- to probation and a large fine -- is not defensible.

It's a good thing that Bush didn't take political calculation into consideration, because he's not going to benefit from splitting the difference. The Financial Times has this correct; the commutation will increase the momentum for an array of crippling Congressional investigations and political fishing expeditions, just when it had petered out in the Justice probe of the fired prosecutors. It won't mollify most conservatives angered over Bush's attacks on them in the immigration debate. It probably won't satisy Libby's legal team, which has publicly pressured the White House to issue a complete pardon.

Could the President have reduced the sentence rather than commuting it altogether? The Post seems to indicate that as a possibility, although my understanding of his commutation power has it limited to eliminating a prison sentence altogether and not reducing it to anything other than time served. Perhaps CQ readers can illuminate those possibilities; if that option was open, would it not have been better for Bush to act to reduce the "excessive" sentence rather than eliminate it altogether, down to the 12-15 month range suggested by some as more appropriate? For an administration that has insisted on strict adherence to federal sentencing guidelines, probation looks rather hypocritical for offenses that carry prison time for anyone else.

If Bush wanted to take action, commutation in some sense makes the most sense, and was the wisest choice among options for action. I still think it will eventually reduce the Libby issue to yesterday's news. However, I'm not convinced that the administration should have intervened at all. The sentence fit within the sentencing guidelines championed by Republicans for years as a bulwark against soft-on-crime federal judges, even if it was on the long end of the guidelines by some interpretations. The underlying crimes go to the heart of the rule of law, and those who commit perjury and obstruction should go to prison -- especially those who occupy high offices in our government.

After all, Libby had plenty of opportunity to take the Fifth Amendment. Had he done that, he could have avoided the entire problem. He would have found himself discredited and probably out of a job, but not a convict who needed extraordinary relief to avoid prison.

UPDATE: Timothy Noah surprisingly says that Bush did the right thing in commuting the sentence:

I don't take lightly the fact that Libby lied to federal prosecutors about his role in unmasking Valerie Plame as a covert CIA employee. The underlying offense probably wasn't illegal—because Libby probably didn't understand that Plame's identity was a government secret—but it was nonetheless disgraceful. Libby understood that, and that's why he committed perjury. His prosecution was appropriate because Bush administration officials need to know that they are not above the law. Libby's trial and conviction, I hope, got that message across to at least some of them.

But Judge Reggie Walton went overboard in sentencing Libby to 30 months. This was about twice as long as the prison term recommended by the court's probation office, and if Libby hadn't been a high-ranking government official, there's a decent chance he would have gotten off with probation, a stiff fine, and likely disbarment. Walton gave Libby 30 months and a $250,000 fine, then further twisted the knife by denying Libby's routine request to delay the sentence while his lawyers appealed it.

Noah's wrong about the "routine request". Federal courts normally only extend bail in cases that have a substantial likelihood of reversal on appeal, and the 4th Circuit ruling yesterday upheld Walton's judgment on that score. That's what prompted the commutation order.

CBS: Attacks An Al-Qaeda Sleeper Operation

CBS News reports this morning that the attacks in Britain started with a proposal by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to infiltrate the West. At least one of the attackers got their training in Zarqawi's organization, and the use of doctors was a deliberate part of the deception:

British intelligence services increasingly believe that the failed car bombings in London and Glasgow bare the fingerprints of al Qaeda in Iraq, CBS News has learned.

Intelligence sources tell CBS News that the people behind the attempts were directly recruited by Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, the present leader of the terror group's Iraq franchise. ...

Sources tell CBS News that al-Muhajir recruited the men between 2004 and 2005, while they were living in the Middle East, upon orders from then-al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Al-Muhajir was told to recruit young men who could easily move into Western countries, assimilate and lay low until the time came to attack. Britain has a fast-track visa program for medical students which makes it easier for them to enter the country.

It's still early in the investigation, and more information may change some of the conclusions drawn from this attack. However, the failures of all three attacks have allowed the British to get a much clearer picture of the conspiracy sooner than with the 7/7 attacks two years ago, chiefly because they caught everyone alive. They have been able to roll up an international network comprised mainly of physicians, and have learned that that is no coincidence.

Why physicians? The British had a fast-track entry program to get doctors into the country from abroad. Does that sound familiar? The US had a similar system for students before 9/11.

This tells us that the jihad in Iraq presents a direct threat to the West, and that it didn't begin with the invasion -- and the invasion didn't entirely stop it, either. Zarqawi had set up shop in Iraq before the Americans arrived with the complicity of the Iraqi government and ramped up his organization in the aftermath of the invasion. He had always threatened to reach outside of Iraq with AQ-Iraq, and almost a year after reaching room temperature, he almost succeeded.

This should make it official -- Iraq is a center in the war against radical Islamist terrorism. People can debate whether it would have been so absent an American invasion honestly and with evidence to support either position, but none can escape the fact that al-Qaeda operates in Iraq and that they have used that base to attack the West at home. They failed, which gives us optimism that we can beat them both at home and in Iraq, but it doesn't negate the threat.

Congress will debate the Iraq war policy in the next two months. They need to recognize that we cannot simply disengage and allow Iraq to serve as a base of operations for al-Qaeda. In the event of a successful attack from this group, we would have to re-invade all over again. Better that we stomp out AQI now and ensure a stable Iraq that can keep terrorists out in the long term than to pretend that the biggest problem in Iraq is the American forces fighting the terrorists.

Rasmussen: Thompson Still Leads

The new Rasmussen poll out this morning shows Fred Thompson continuing to lead the GOP presidential primary race, 27%-24% over Rudy Giuliani. Rasmussen declares the contest "stabilized", with Fred holding an advantage among conservatives:

After weeks of turmoil and change, the race for the Republican Presidential nomination has stabilized.

Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson remains on top in Rasmussen Reports national polling with 27% support. That’s unchanged from a week ago. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is three points behind at 24%.

Thompson has a 16-point advantage over Giuliani among conservatives while Giuliani holds an even larger edge among moderate voters. However, in the race for the Republican Presidential nomination, there are always more conservative voters than moderates.

A separate survey found that Thompson is currently viewed as the most conservative of all GOP candidates. Giuliani remains the best liked candidate. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans now have a favorable opinion of America’s Mayor. Thompson’s numbers among the GOP faithful have been moving in the opposite direction. Sixty-four percent (64%) of GOP voters have a favorable opinion of the actor while just 12% have an unfavorable view.

Mitt Romney and John McCain remain almost deadlocked in a tie for third place. That makes four surveys in a row showing this structure, with Fred and Rudy competing for the top spot and Mitt and John for the bronze medal. The percentages have changed very little for the past month and show no sign of movement That may help bolster John McCain's hopes for remaining in the race, as his precipitate drop over the last two months has stopped.

The rest of the crowd has all but disappeared. Mike Huckabee, who continues to impress in debates and on the stump, tops the second tier at 3%, with all other candidates only polling 4% combined. The race has settled to the four men at the top, but the others may remain in the race, hoping for a VP spot, if it doesn't go to whomever among the top four fails to win the nomination. Of those, Huckabee and Duncan Hunter appear to have the best chance of vying for a #2 slot.

Although Romney trails by a significant margin nationally, he leads in two critical places -- Iowa and New Hampshire. Rasmussen has him nine points ahead in his political backyard in the Granite State. At the moment, he has 26% of likely voters supporting him, nine points ahead of a tie for second place. Rudy should do better in New Hampshire, as it is his backyard as well, but the surprise is Fred Thompson. He's tied Rudy for second at 17% despite only making one brief visit, in a state notorious for demanding dedication from candidates in its primary. The Southerner has already tied one Northerner without even breaking a sweat, and the other Northerner has to worry what Fred can do in New Hampshire once he's unbound.

It's a Fred field at the moment. He looks poised to clear the table, if he can remain poised and energetic on the campaign trail.

The Elusiveness Of Low-Hanging Fruit

Now that the comprehensive immigration bill has died on the floor of the Senate, it seems that few in Washington have the stomach to address the most pressing components of the issue. Some in the House want to do just that, The Hill reports, although they may not get a lot of support for an approach that focuses only on borders and visas. Leadership in both chambers and both parties would rather avoid immigration for the rest of this session.

At Heading Right, I take a look at the politics of this effort. With over 70% of the public favoring action to secure the borders and fix the visa system, it seems like this should be the low-hanging fruit of the political season. Will this Congress, which has accomplished next to nothing, be smart enough to pick it -- and who wins if they don't?

Why Schools Fail

In the wake of the recent Supreme Cout decision that limits race-based solutions for desegregation efforts in schools, the Democratic presidential candidates have reacted as though the Roberts court threw out the 1954 Brown v Board of Education decision that ended state-imposed segregation. However, the problem no longer is the state imposition of segregation, nor is it a lack of funds to the schools. Rather, it is the strange mix of incompetence and lack of accountability that keeps our largest school districts from educating our students, as Richard Cohen notes:

The eight Democratic presidential candidates assembled in Washington last week for another of their debates and talked, among other things, about public education. They all essentially agreed that it was underfunded -- one system "for the wealthy, one for everybody else," as John Edwards put it. Then they all got into cars and drove through a city where teachers are relatively well paid, per-pupil spending is through the roof and -- pay attention here -- the schools are among the very worst in the nation. When it comes to education, Democrats are ineducable.

One candidate after another lambasted George W. Bush, the Republican Party and, of course, the evil justices of the Supreme Court. But not a one of them even whispered a word of outrage about a public school system that spends $13,000 per child -- third-highest among big-city school systems -- and produces pupils who score among the lowest in just about any category you can name. The only area in which the Washington school system is No. 1 is in money spent on administration. Chests should not swell with pride.

The litany of more and more when it comes to money often has little to do with what, in the military, are called facts on the ground: kids and parents. It does have a lot to do with teachers unions, which are strong supporters of the Democratic Party. Not a single candidate offered anything close to a call for real reform. Instead, a member of the audience could reasonably conclude that if only more money were allocated to these woe-is-me school systems, things would right themselves overnight.

The decision last week to end racial quotas in "balancing" schools has little effect on districts like Washington DC, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia, where whites make up a small percentage of the students in any of their schools. The problem, unlike in Brown, does not arise from a disparity in investment between "separate but equal" schools. As Cohen points out, these districts get more funding per student than anywhere else in the nation -- and continue to fail.

Juan Williams made the same point last week, when he took his turn scolding critics of the Supreme Court decision. He argued that Brown has become irrelevant, and so had the games in engendered:

In a series of cases in Atlanta, Oklahoma City and Kansas City, Mo., frustrated parents, black and white, appealed to federal judges to stop shifting children from school to school like pieces on a game board. The parents wanted better neighborhood schools and a better education for their children, no matter the racial make-up of the school. In their rulings ending court mandates for school integration, the judges, too, spoke of the futility of using schoolchildren to address social ills caused by adults holding fast to patterns of residential segregation by both class and race. ...

Racial malice is no longer the primary motive in shaping inferior schools for minority children. Many failing big city schools today are operated by black superintendents and mostly black school boards.

And today the argument that school reform should provide equal opportunity for children, or prepare them to live in a pluralistic society, is spent. The winning argument is that better schools are needed for all children — black, white, brown and every other hue — in order to foster a competitive workforce in a global economy.

We need better schools, and we have been willing to pay for them -- but pouring money into the schools doesn't work. In fact, the problems grow worse as federal spending increases Between 2001 and 2006, federal spending on education has risen 129%, a statistic that doesn't often make it into media reports. We spent over $93 billion on education from the federal government alone in 2006. Yet the schools that receive this money do not show a 129% improvement in performace, nor even a 10% improvement Why?

Accountability has suffered in the same way it does in government. Any movement of power away from the governed makes accountability more difficult and less likely. Local school districts and superintendents now routinely shift blame for their failures to Washington, which really has no business involving itself in education at all. Instead of holding their local officials accountable, parents direct their ire to Congress and the President, who then dump even more federal dollars on what is a local problem, only making results marginally and temporarily better.

We need to call a halt to this cycle of incompetence. The federal government should get out of the education business and force local and state governments to take responsibility for educating children. It would allow communities to control their own funding and force accountability for performance where it belongs -- on the school boards, administration, and teachers, as well as the parents themselves.

African Unity?

Members of the five-year-old African Union have begun floating the idea of a single continental government, somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between the EU and the US. Advocates call the pan-African government the only solution to the legacy of colonialism on the continent. Unfortunately, those leaders who back it are the ones Africa needs least:

Southern and East African leaders have rejected plans to set up a pan-African government, as suggested by Libya's head of state Col Muammar Gaddafi. ...

Some of the 50 leaders at the African Union (AU) summit in the Ghanaian capital, Accra, fear the issue will push the crises in Zimbabwe, Somalia and Darfur off the agenda.

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe said unity was vital to make the continent truly independent of the West, as he spoke to a crowd of cheering Ghanaians.

"Unless we put our act together... and start pooling our resources together, we will never, ever prosper from any aid from any source outside Africa," President Mugabe said on Sunday in a speech at the tomb of Ghana's first president.

This probably falls into the category of right message, very wrong messengers. If the nations of Africa could unite in an economic and political confederation of some sort, it might alleviate the constant warring between the nations on the continent -- but that might be putting the cart before the horse. Much of the war in Africa causes the economic and political fractures, and in most cases comes from tribal conflicts. That's not a legacy of colonialism, but the result of stubborn tradition. If the various tribes cannot settle their difference under the construct of statehood, then a pan-African government would probably make the problem worse, not better.

In any case, the leaders least likely to instill confidence in a continental government would be Moammar Ghaddafi and Robert Mugabe. Both hardly qualify as enlightened leaders. Ghaddafi runs one of the most paranoid dictatorships in the world, although he has mellowed somewhat since giving up his nuclear-weapons program. Mugabe has turned Zimbabwe from a breadbasket to a wasteland in a single generation, thanks to his insane economic policies. Inflation has gotten so bad there that traders refuse to buy and sell Zimbabwe's currency.

Neither man should be in charge of a neighborhood watch program, and yet they want to be the leaders of a continental government. Given their proclivity for personal aggrandization at the expense of their already-unfortunate subjects, this looks like nothing more than a naked power grab, a chance for both to realize personal power over any benefit to Africa.

So far, their colleagues aren't buying it. Some nations want to pursue the plan anyway, figuring that the balkers will eventually accede. The nations of Africa would be better advised to reform their politics within the existing national borders, and to hasten the exit of incompetent and brutal dictators before allowing them a path to greater abuses and personal enrichment.

Jihadicko Expands

The curious inclusion of working physicians in the latest Islamist attacks in Britain has expanded. British investigators have announced three more doctors as suspects in the conspiracy behing the attacks, and another doctor in Australia has been arrested:

At least three physicians were identified Monday among suspects arrested in Britain's failed car bomb attacks, and authorities announced three new arrests including a doctor in Australia as the investigation spread overseas.

British media reports said at least five of the detainees in Britain were physicians. British police confirmed a Palestinian doctor and Iraqi physician were among those held, while Australian officials said an Indian doctor working there had been detained in the case. ....

Hours after police announced the arrests of two more people in the Glasgow area, officials said an eighth suspect was detained "abroad by local authorities" Monday.

Australian authorities later said he was arrested at the airport in the eastern city of Brisbane while trying to leave the country.

All of the doctors involved trained abroad and emigrated to the UK, it appears. That would have to be rather recent in at least one of the cases, as the first physician to be arrested -- in the Glasgow attack -- was said to be in his mid-20s. One trained in Baghdad, another in Pakistan, and the third in India. Among the arrested was a Palestinian doctor traveling on a Jordanian passport.

This shouldn't really surprise. After all, Ayman al-Zawahiri is a trained physician as well, and other doctors have worked in the al-Qaeda network. Most of the AQ network consists of middle- and upper-class Muslims with radical ideologies, trained and educated at universities. The most curious part of the story is how so many doctors got involved in one conspiracy -- and it certainly piques the curiosity to know how many more in the UK's NHS may have been involved, and how many more may belong to other networks.

Another point of note has been the origin of all the plotters. For a while, the West has experienced the "home-grown jihadi," but not in this plot. At least so far, every suspect in the plot emigrated to the UK as an adult. It might be that the radical Islamists have had a more difficult time recruiting native-born Westerners than first assumed, especially for coordinated attacks.

Hopefully at some point we will discover why so many foreign-born doctors were involved in this plot. It seems compelling to think that it's no coincidence.

Splitting The Baby

George Bush took immediate action after Scooter Libby lost his appeal to maintain bail while attempting to overturn his convictions on perjury and obstruction of justice. He commuted Libby's prison sentence, while leaving his fine and his probation in place. The question now will be whether that satisfies Libby's supporters, and how angry it will make his detractors:

President Bush has commuted the prison term of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, facing 30 months in prison after a federal court convicted him of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators. ...

In a written statement issued hours after that ruling, Bush called the sentence "excessive." But he also rejected calls for a pardon for Libby.

"The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting," Bush said.

But he said Libby was given "a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury."

Bush could have pardoned Libby, but clearly did not want to go so far in rejecting the decision of the jury. He wanted to send the message that government officials have to hew to high standards, while attempting a humane gesture for a man who has led an exemplary life of public service, at least to the point where he committed perjury and obstruction of justice. In opting for commutation, Bush has attempted a Solomonic decision to split the baby.

Unfortunately, like Solomon, Bush will probably find neither side satisfied. Critics of the administration and Plame-conspiracy activists want a scalp, and thought they'd enjoy the sight of Libby walking into Club Fed for a spell. Conservatives who believed that the entire investigation was bogus from the start want Libby cleared altogether. The $250,000 fine will stick their craw most especially. Don't expect conservatives to let up on a full pardon, which will allow Libby to clear the felonies from his record, until Bush leaves office.

If Bush wanted to take any action -- and I would have advised against it -- this is as far as he should go. It allows Libby to remain free while he pursues his appeal, but it makes it clear that the White House won't undo convictions for official misconduct. It strikes a balance that few will appreciate now, but later will accept as wise, as far as it goes. If Libby has a good case for reversal, let the courts make that decision.

UPDATE: Rudy approves, although rather tersely:

"After evaluating the facts, the President came to a reasonable decision and I believe the decision was correct."

Recall that Rudy got rather demonstrative in the first debate where the subject of Libby arose.

Cancel The Lawyers And Guns ...

... but feel free to send the money. Comcast completed its installation while I conducted my CQ Radio show today, rushing to complete the Internet connection before the show started. They made it with two minutes to spare; after a lifetime of watching bad movies where bombs get stopped at the 00:00:01 mark, it hardly even raised the blood pressure.

Everything is up and running as it should be, and my download speed has increased from around 500K to something well north of 6M. I'll have more, but right now I have to redo two entertainment systems. No nightmares!

CQ Radio: Tom Bevan, Real Clear Politics

Update: Libby loses his appeal (see below). We'll take your calls on this in the first half hour -- be sure to tune in!

Today on CQ Radio (2 pm CT), we'll have Tom Bevan from Real Clear Politics to talk about Barack Obama's big fundraising quarter and what it means for Hillary Clinton and the Republicans. We'll also catch up on their latest polls for the presidential primaries and talk more about RCP's expanding role in political punditry. The first half of the show will be an open forum for CQ Radio listeners to call about their hot topics of the day.

Call 646-652-4889 to join the conversation! Also, you can subscribe to CQ Radio through iTunes now by clicking this link:

UPDATE II: Rick Moran is liveblogging Congress -- the Continental Congress, that is! Be sure to keep up with Rick's celebration of Independence Day. I wonder if he'll live-blog the post-Declaration party, which as I recall was a meltdown of alcohol and heat ...

Libby Loses On Appeal

Scooter Libby lost his appeal to remain free on bail pending review of his conviction on perjury and obstruction of justice. He can try for a stay from the Supreme Court, but the opinion from the three-judge panel indicates he won't have much success (via Memeorandum):

A federal appeals court Monday rejected former White House aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s request to remain free on bond while appealing his March conviction on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

In an order handed down Monday, a three judge panel wrote Libby “has not shown that the appeal raises a substantial question” that regular appeals court will consider when its next term begins in September.

Since this court will hear the Libby appeal on the merits of the case, it sends a grim message to Libby's supporters. They may find themselves disappointed in the weight of the legal arguments for reversal, such as the provenance of Patrick Fitzgerald's appointment and the exclusion of certain testimony. The appellate court obviously did not find those arguments compelling enough to conclude that Libby has a good chance of succeeding on his appeal; otherwise, they would have granted bail.

Undoubtedly, this creates a big problem for George Bush. The President would prefer not to address the Libby conviction until after the November 2008 election, and it is customary to have the judicial process play all the way out before issuing pardons. He could commute the sentence, leaving the convictions in place (and the fines) while keeping Libby out of prison. That would allow Libby to continue appeals to get his conviction reversed through the courts -- but a commutation would still create political problems for both Bush and the Republicans running to replace him.

If Libby can't get a stay on the start of his imprisonment, Bush will have a tough decision to make in just a few days.

UPDATE: Former Ambassador Richard Carlson makes an interesting point:

"I hope it puts pressure on the president. He's a man of pronounced loyalties and he should have loyalty to Scooter Libby," said former Ambassador Richard Carlson, a member of Libby's defense fund. "It would be a travesty for him to go off to prison. The president will take some heat for it. So what? He takes heat for everything."

The politics of this moment seem rather delicious. The President just enraged his base by attempting to push a deeply unpopular immigration bill through the Senate. He could regain a lot of that ground with a commutation of Libby's sentence, or an outright pardon. Will he take advantage of the opportunity?

McCain Camp Expecting Cutbacks

Rumor had it that the John McCain camp would have organizational news, and the AP says the news is layoffs. Fifty staffers will lose their jobs as the second quarter numbers have apparently come in, and come in low:

John McCain's campaign, trailing top Republican rivals in money and polls, is undergoing a significant reorganization with staff cuts in every department, officials with knowledge of the shake-up said Monday.

Some 50 staffers or more are being let go, and senior aides will be subject to pay cuts as the Arizona senator's campaign bows to the reality of six months of subpar fundraising, these officials said. ...

Once considered the front-runner for the GOP nomination, McCain came in third in the money chase behind Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, raising $13.6 million in the first three months of the year. He is struggling to reach that total in the second financial quarter.

Officials said the fundamental leadership of the campaign will not change; Terry Nelson, a veteran of President Bush's winning 2004 campaign, will remain campaign manager but may volunteer his time instead of drawing a salary.

Many had believed that McCain would end the campaign altogether if he had a sub-par Q2, but this should put an end to that rumor. With less money coming in than expected, a downsizing effort would seem a natural response -- an attempt to do more with less. It certainly sends a poor message for the prospects of a McCain nomination, but the Senator apparently still believes he can turn it around.

Departing staffers will have to look elsewhere for employment. One has to think that Fred Thompson's team may already be looking among the recently terminated to bolster their own campaign staff, supposedly disadvantaged by their relatively late start.

Another Swing And A Miss At Thompson

Apparently the New York Times has not found much on Fred Thompson to derail his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination -- so the Gray Lady decided to take on his sons. The lobbying careers of Tony and Daniel Thompson get a load of innuendo, but in the end, the Times can't even find smoke, let alone fire:

But attending Brentwood Methodist Church in Nashville that night, Tony Thompson ran into the departing incumbent senator, Harlan Mathews, a Democrat. Mr. Mathews invited Tony to join him in a Nashville lobbying business, a job that would let him capitalize on his father’s new position.

“I don’t just believe in the tooth fairy,” Mr. Mathews said. “A lot of people were seeking access — not necessarily unfair access, but seeking access — so Tony was employed in a number of areas where his father had made a reputation or his father’s advice or whatever was going to be valuable one of these days.”

Now the elder Mr. Thompson, who also worked as a lobbyist before and after his eight years in the Senate, is aiming for an even higher post, preparing a run for the Republican presidential nomination. In the folksy drawl that built him a lucrative sideline as a screen actor, Mr. Thompson is presenting himself as a reform-minded outsider taking on Washington, just as he did when he campaigned for the Senate as “Ol’ Fred” the “real live country lawyer,” and cruised Tennessee in a rented red pickup truck.

But the lobbying work that Tony Thompson and another son, Daniel, did after their father won his Senate seat suggests how far the family has traveled from Fred Thompson’s early career. Not only has he parlayed his own political background into a lobbying business — a fact his opponents have seized on to challenge his outsider image — but his sons have also made lobbying a family affair.

The Times sets this up as a story about how Tony and Daniel have followed in their father's footsteps, presumably by leveraging their familial connections. Unfortunately, once readers get past the misleading headline and the first few paragraphs of the story, the meme falls apart. Neither son lobbied the Senate, whether Fred was in or out of office, and Daniel only handles state lobbying.

The rest of the article is a tired rehash of Fred's lobbying career. Once again, the Times rehashes the Lockheed Martin relationship to Oak Ridge. Lockheed lost that contract bid, of course, despite hiring Tony -- which demonstrates that Fred wasn't pressuring the federal government on behalf of old clients or for his son's career. Most of Tony's clients continued to employ him long after his father left the Senate and appeared to retire from politics altogether.

If the Times wants to run exposés on father-and-sons lobbying efforts, perhaps they should follow the Los Angeles Times' lead and look at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Unlike the Thompsons, the Reids' lobbying efforts involved the Senate, including Reid himself, who pushed for legislation favorable to his own interests and those of his sons. My column in last year's New York Post should have tipped them off to the shady dealings that prompted the Philadelphia Inquirer to call for Reid's resignation, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to demand a full ethics inquiry.

The Times, in ignoring the real Reid scandal for threadbare innuendo on Fred Thompson, demonstrates its status as a shill for the Democrats rather than an honest journalistic enterprise.

UPDATE: Mac has more at Heading Right, including the Times lack of reporting on the career of Nancy Pelosi's son, and the largesse earned by Bill Clinton from the same firm.

An Interesting Improvement

The new surge strategy appears to have had at least a temporary effect on violence in Iraq. Civilian deaths dropped dramatically from May to June, according to a new report from Iraq:

Iraqi civilian deaths dropped to 1,241 last month, according to figures issued on Sunday, the lowest since a US-led crackdown was launched in February in Baghdad and other violent regions of the country.

The latest numbers, compiled from interior, defence and health ministry figures and made available to AFP, indicate that 1,241 civilians died last month, compared to 1,951 in the previous month. ...

The June casualties are the lowest since the February 14 launch of the US and Iraqi military crackdown known as Operation Fardh al-Qanoon (Imposing the Law) in and around Baghdad.

In that month 1,626 civilians were reported killed.

That's a notable drop, one that caught the attention of most major American newspapers. The Los Angeles Times notes that more Iraqi security forces got killed in June (221, 174 in May) but also more terrorists got killed, rising to 416 from 297. The US lost 331 over the last three months, in comparison.

The American military has reacted cautiously to the new numbers. The Pentagon's spokesman in Baghdad refused to take credit for the drastic reduction, saying that Centcom wants to take more time to study the data. McQ and QandO also sounds a word of caution, reminding readers that a one-month drop could be a statistical anomaly rather than a trend. The numbers in July and August will tell more of the story.

However, one cannot help but be optimistic. A 37% drop doesn't look like a statistical burp. Even the 25% from the beginning of the surge looks pretty solid. The beginning of the new strategy was almost assured to create higher casualties at first, as the aggressive tactics it featured would create more contacts between American and Iraqi security forces and the terrorists. If this trend continues, and that's a big if, it will demonstrate that the new plan by General David Petraeus is the one that will bring stability back to Iraq.

If the numbers turn south this summer -- which they did last summer -- it will put more pressure on George Bush to bring the deployment in Iraq to an end. If the numbers continue to improve, it may force Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to retreat themselves, and highlight the defeatist rhetoric of the past several months coming from the Democrats in the next election.

Why Is This Man Smiling?

Doesn't Lindsey Graham know that his poll numbers are sliding downhill? Hasn't the national spotlight on his angry attacks against opponents of his immigration bill made him nervous about his re-election bid next year? At Heading Right, we look at The Politico's report on Graham's prospects and discover why he felt so comfortable in going apoplectic this summer.

London Bombers Drove To Glasgow

CNN now reports that the Glasgow attack was staged by the same men who drove the car bombs in London. British authorities have arrested two more men in connection with the series of failed attacks, and they have concluded that al-Qaeda planned and launched the attacks:

Authorities suspect the two men who rammed an explosives-laden vehicle into Glasgow's airport on Saturday are the same people who parked two car bombs in central London a day earlier, security sources told CNN. ...

One of the suspects, who is in critical condition at Royal Alexandra Hospital near Glasgow, is a doctor at the hospital where he is being treated for severe burns, according to the woman who owns his rental house.

It is believed that he shared the house on Neuk Crescent Street in the small Scottish village of Houston, about 3 kilometers (2 miles) from Glasgow's airport, with the other suspect who is in police custody.

Investigators had "been on the trail" of the men as they launched the last pitiful attack on Glasgow's airport, which did little damage to anything but the car and the men themselves. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that al-Qaeda had masterminded the plot:

"It is clear that we are dealing, in general terms, with people who are associated with al-Qaida," Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Sunday.

Meanwhile, police blew up a car at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley, where the burned terrorist is in critical condition. They said the car was linked to the London car-bomb attempts, reinforcing the link between those attacks and the Glasgow attack. Raids occurred throughout Britain as investigators have used the initial evidence to start rolling up support resources for these terrorists, who apparently did not hide their trail very well.

One interesting point about CNN's coverage: even though they included quotes from Gordon Brown's statement, they never mention his identification of al-Qaeda as the culprit.

Obama Raises The Stakes

The presidential campaigns continue to release their second quarter numbers, but Barack Obama has put an exclamation point on Q2. His announced total, $31 million, exceeded expectations again, both in total and in organization, and the gap between himself and Hillary is even more significant than it looks. Their combined draw sends a big message to the GOP, too:

Sen. Barack Obama raised $31 million for his presidential primary campaign over the past three months, surging past Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's fundraising machine by nearly $10 million for the quarter to take the lead in contributions in the crowded Democratic field.

Obama became the first Democrat to surpass $30 million in a quarter during a non-election year, a feat his campaign said was accomplished not just with help from wealthy, traditional donors but also with a strong showing among small contributors.

The Illinois senator trails Clinton in most polls, but the favorable performance reported yesterday is expected to increase the pressure on Clinton's team. Obama was able to outrun Clinton, of New York, even after she began turning for fundraising help to her husband, Bill Clinton, the most prolific money-raiser in Democratic history. The former president will join his wife today in Iowa for their first high-profile joint campaign appearance.

Although thrilled by the financial performance, Obama's campaign yesterday sought to temper expectations with a note to supporters predicting that the candidate is unlikely to overtake Clinton in the polls before the Iowa caucuses early next year.

Obama also raised another $1.5 million for the general election, bringing his Q2 total to $32.5M. Hillary's total of $27 million includes $6 million for the general election, which brings her $10 million under Obama for the primaries. This seems very surprising; the Clinton machine has been considered one of the most formidable political organizations in the game. However, it looks like Obama's inexperienced team has equalled and beaten Clinton in two successive quarters, eating into her perceived invincibility.

Even that $10 million gap outpaces the rest of the field. John Edwards expects to limp into third place with $9 million, and even that thanks to a fundraising effort that relied on a last-minute assist from Ann Coulter. Bill Richardson will bring in $7 million. Chris Dodd, who has made almost no noise in this race, will have a little over $3 million. Put together, these three fall short of Hillary, and it has begun to look like a two-person race for the Democrats.

These numbers look bad for the GOP. Mitt Romney's campaign has already indicated that it won't meet its Q1 total, a certainty since Romney has had to loan the campaign his own money. The top three or four Republicans will probably not combine to have the numbers of Hillary and Obama, which may mean a tough campaign in the general election. If Hillary wins the nomination, however, she may already have maxed out some of her contributors early, a potential weak spot for the Democrats after the primaries.

Given Obama's ability to raise money, Hillary has to think that both of them will be on the ticket in November. If Obama can find a quarter-million new donors and beat her organization so handily, she can't afford to leave him off the ticket if she wins the nomination -- and the same can be said for Obama if he manages to pull the upset in the primaries. His Q2 performance proved that his Q1 numbers were no fluke, which raises the stakes for the Democrats in this race.

Hezbollah Operative Further Proof Of Iranian Involvement

The announcement yesterday of an arrest in March of a high-ranking Hezbollah terrorist in Iraq gives more credence to the accusations of Iranian involvement in Iraq's insurgencies. The US caught Ali Moussa Dadouk in southern Iraq after he masterminded a Karbala attack that killed five American soldiers -- and Dadouk fingered the Iranians for much more:

Iran's elite Quds force helped militants carry out a January attack in Karbala that killed five Americans, a U.S. general said Monday. U.S. military spokesman Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner also accused Tehran of using the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah as a "proxy" to arm Shiite militants in Iraq.

The claims were an escalation in U.S. accusations that Iran is fueling Iraq's violence, which Tehran has denied, and were the first time the U.S. military has said Hezbollah has a direct role.

A senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative, Ali Mussa Dakdouk, was captured March 20 in southern Iraq, Bergner said. Dakdouk served for 24 years in Hezbollah and was "working in Iraq as a surrogate for the Iranian Quds Force," Bergner said.

The general also said that Dakdouk was a liaison between the Iranians and a breakaway Shiite group led by Qais al-Kazaali, a former spokesman for cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Bergner said al-Kazaali's group carried out the January attack against a provincial government building in Karbala and that the Iranians assisted in preparations. Al-Khazaali and his brother Ali al-Khazaali were captured with Dakdouk.

It turns out that Dadouk and the Quds forces took a page from the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge. They used stolen American fatigues to send a dozen terrorists into the government compound in January, allowing them to pass through checkpoints so they could launch their attack. They killed one US soldier outright and abducted four others, who were later killed.

How were they able to do that? The Quds operatives have extensive intel about American installations in Iraq -- a not terribly surprising development, considering the alliances they have with Iraqis in the area. The intel includes detailed information about the personnel, shift changes, duty assignments, and so on. Quds shared the information with the terrorists, using Dadouk as an intermediary.

Dadouk got himself captured with an intel trove of his own. He had detailed instructions on attacking convoys, instructional material for other techniques that he shared with his insurgency clients, and diaries of his meetings with them. Al-Khazaali had plans for eleven different attacks on American forces. They comprise part of the 18 high-level Iranian special agents the US has captured since February, but are lucky not to have been among the three killed.

Hezbollah is known as a client of Iran, a terrorist group that receives direction from Teheran via Damascus. Hezbollah so far has refused to comment on Dadouk's status with their group, but after playing deaf and dumb for a month to American intelligence, Dadouk has himself confirmed his status as a high-ranking member. That clearly shows that Iran has violated any claims to neutrality in this conflict. The US and the UN need to deliver consequences to Iran for their acts of war -- not invasion certainly, but some clear consequences that will make the mullahcracy think twice about its meddling in Iraq.

If You Don't Hear From Me, Send Lawyers, Guns, And Money

After struggling for a few years with Qwest's DSL service, I'm changing to Comcast this afternoon. I'll be replacing my local phone service and Direct TV programming at the same time, a move that should give me much faster Internet access while saving me close to $60 per month ... if it works.

My DSL has always had its share of problems. I live in one of those neighborhoods that sits too far from a central office to get normal DSL. Qwest installed repeaters nearby to give service to my area, but no other CLECs followed suit. As a result, the only DSL I can get is Qwest's business class (for networking in the house), and while the down/up pipe isn't bad -- usually 512/256K -- it's cranky. If I run a trace route on any domain, it times out.

Cable hadn't been an option for a while here either, but I had another problem -- the previous owner of the house had inadvertently cut the cable line over ten years ago when adding a retaining wall. When I called Comcast, they told me that they now routinely bring a new line into the house in this area, so it wouldn't cost me anything extra. I placed the order for Triple Play, and my new speed should be 6M, roughly twelve times faster, as well as allow for movies on demand and free long distance service to the entire US.

We'll see. Friends of mine have had trouble in the past with Comcast installations, and Glenn Reynolds recently wrote of his issues with Comcast's service. If you don't hear from me this evening, keep my post title in mind -- or send me lots of Panera gift cards, because I'll move in there instead.

Jihadicko

What are the causes of terrorism? Many would have them as poverty, a lack of education, and little exposure to Western values. It's rather interesting, then, that two of the five terror suspects rounded up by the UK in the wake of three mostly failed attacks are doctors working in their National Health System:

Two of the five terror suspects being held in the wake of the failed car bombings in London and Glasgow are hospital doctors working in the UK.

The majority of the five terror suspects being held in police custody in connection with bomb attacks in London and Glasgow are not British and at least one is still at large, according to Sky sources.

Sky sources believe one of the men arrested at Glasgow airport and a 26-year-old man arrested on the M6 with a 27-year-old woman in Cheshire are both doctors.

Sky Crime Reporter Martin Brunt said: "This is very far removed from the picture we normally have. These are professional people with highly paid jobs who are intent on killing people."

The British may want to check on their work in the hospital system, too. It seems like terrorists who really wanted to frighten Brits would have a field day by killing patients with just enough plausibility towards seeming like natural deaths. It certainly will give patients a new reason to feel uncomfortable about going to hospital.

I wonder what Michael Moore would make of this?

Senatorial Karma's Gonna Get You (Democrats)

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have come under tremendous pressure to start achieving the ambitious goals they set for the 110th Congress after winning control for the first time in 12 years. However, the two Democrats find themselves looking foolish as this Congress has done less in its first five months than any in recent memory -- and both Reid and Pelosi blame the Republicans for obstructionism in the Senate. They seem to forget that the two of them played the same exact game for their own political advantage over the past few years of Republican control (via Memeorandum):

Pelosi sounded more apologetic than celebratory Friday when she announced with her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democrats' list of accomplishments six months after they seized control of Capitol Hill and promised "a new direction" in Washington.

"I'm not happy with Congress, either," Pelosi, of San Francisco, conceded.

She pinned the blame on "the obstructionism of the Republicans in the United States Senate." ...

"The Republicans are doing what the Democrats did," said Julian Zelizer, a history and public affairs scholar at Boston University. "They're using the power of the Senate filibuster, and the power in the House when you have narrow majorities, to make a do-nothing Congress -- even when there's a lot of issues on the table, even when there's a lot of interest in accomplishing things."

The Democrats in their years in the minority made a filibuster-proof 60-vote supermajority -- rather than a 51-vote simple majority -- the threshold needed to pass any legislation in the Senate. Democrats routinely blocked all but the most noncontroversial bills. They created a Senate crisis in 2005 by filibustering Bush's judicial nominees, provoking Republican leaders to threaten to do away with the filibuster. That showdown was averted only by the intervention of a dozen moderates in both parties.

Payback is a ... bummer. Having set the precedent, now Pelosi and Reid want to complain about its use against them. Both Democrats proved that the strategy works in making the majority party look incompetent, and the GOP have just decided to follow their playbook against them.

Is this wise? Not in the long run. We have serious problems that require cooperation and compromise. However, listening to Harry Reid complain about Senate obstructionism is somewhat akin to hearing a small child complain to his mother that his sibling hit him back.

Rap -- The New Disco

The London Telegraph reports that rap music has suddenly plummeted -- sales have dropped more than twice as fast as the entire ailing recording industry. Sales in 2006 came in at 21% below 2005, and this year looks even worse. The reason? Listeners have tired of misogynistic lyrics, crude paeans to violence, and the garish jewelry that once fascinated America's youth:

Confronted with haemorrhaging sales, the most assertive popular music movement since the Sex Pistols has lost its swagger and is suffering a crisis of confidence.

This year rap and hip-hop sales are down 33 per cent, double the decline of the CD album market overall, which is under pressure from music download sites such as iTunes, where fans can buy individual songs.

In 2006, rap sold 59.1 million albums, down 21 per cent from 2005. Not one rap album made the American top 10 sellers of the year - a list headed by the saccharine tunes of the soundtrack to Disney's made-for-television High School Musical. The bad boys of rap are now trailing the cowboys of country and the headbangers of heavy metal. ...

Rap has been deserted by many white fans and middle-class blacks, apparently tiring of the "gangsta" attitude to women, racism, violence and bling - the gold rings and medallions that have made hip-hop a byword for vulgarity.

Some see this as a period of adjustment for a long-lived art form, which began in the late 1970s and exploded in the following decade. Michael Dyson, a professor of African and religious studies at Penn, says that "horrible hip-hop has to die so that regal hip-hop can live." Most others are not as sanguine. Even media outlets that have feasted on hip-hop over the years have begun pulling away, such as Ebony Magazine removing Ludacris from its cover, and Verizon dumping Akon after his simulated sexual assault of a fifteen-year-old fan on stage.

The concerns of the language and the imagery certainly play a role in rap's sudden decline. The case of Don Imus using common rap slang to describe the Rutgers' women's basketball team put the issue in high relief this year, and even race-baiting demagogues like Al Sharpton decided to go after rappers as a result. Suge Knight, who founded the worst of the gangsta-rap labels, Death Row Records, now says he will withdraw its entire catalogue and only re-release it with every single mention of the N-word bleeped out.

Can rap make a comeback? To some extent, certainly, but probably not to the levels it once enjoyed. The movement became a parody of itself, with its celebration of pimp culture and the ridiculous excesses like grilles (gaudy jewelry for the teeth, for those unfamiliar). Snoop Dogg's selling Girls Gone Wild videos and 50 Cent is selling mineral water. The fans have tired of the power trip and have grown up. If rap artists can do the same, then maybe they'll experience a renaissance.

A Salute To Our Northern Neighbors!

Via Newsbeat1, I'm reminded that today is Canada Day. In fact, it's the 139th year of Canada Day, which began as Dominion Day in 1868. (This is the 25th anniversary of the event as "Canada Day".) As fitting for our northern neighbor, it celebrates no particular military victory or political event, but just humbly celebrates the nation itself.

From your neighbors to the South, happy Canada Day, and may our friendship celebrate many, many more of these days together.

Canada has a special place in my heart. To see why, please read through my archive.

Brits Hold 4 In Glasgow Attack

The attack on a Glasgow airport apparently resulted from an Islamist conspiracy, as suspected yesterday in its aftermath. British authorities have four people in custody, including two arrested in Chesire:

Early Sunday, after a day of fast-moving developments, the London police announced that two people had been arrested in Cheshire, in northwest England, “in connection with the events in London and Scotland.”

The arrests were in addition to those of the two occupants of the blazing car at Glasgow Airport. A witness to the attack said on BBC television that one of the car’s occupants had been ablaze from head to foot, and as he struggled with the police, “was throwing punches and shouting ‘Allah, Allah.’ ”

Britain’s threat level is now at “critical,” meaning another attack is considered imminent. The threat has not been as high since last year, after authorities discovered what they called a plot to attack trans-Atlantic airliners with liquid explosives.

A British security official, who like many other officials who disclosed information insisted on anonymity, said Saturday that the heightened level reflected an assessment that the London and Glasgow cases were “linked in some ways and, therefore, there are clearly individuals who have the capability and intent to carry out further attacks.”

The links relate to the way the London car bombs and Glasgow airport attack were planned, using vehicles and gasoline, the official said.

Clearly, radical Islamists have planned these attacks for quite some time. The attacks took some planning and materiel acquisition, which indicates coordination between the two cells in terms of at least the timing. Since cells typically operate independently, that indicates a higher-level involvement, probably from al-Qaeda, rather than home-grown terrorists working spontaneously.

If so, then AQ has hit some hard times in terms of competence. The two London bombs failed to detonate, perhaps from design flaws, or perhaps from the incompetence of the bombmakers. However, the Glasgow attack seems highly amateurish and very poorly conceived. The terminal at Glasgow has significant barriers to defend against vehicular attacks, which the attackers apparently didn't take into consideration. Instead of blowing up the terminal, all they succeeded in doing was to light themselves on fire -- which no one will consider any great loss.

That doesn't make AQ harmless by any means. It does, however, indicate that our years-long aggressive strategy of attacking AQ as an enemy at war rather than a criminal gang has paid off. They have lost a large number of their leadership, and apparently a great deal of their organizational skills. They used to excel at coordinated bombing attacks, but now their bombs misfire, and they're reduced to banzai attacks on concrete barricades.

As I said yesterday, Jihadi U seems to have suffered from massive grade inflation.

Evidence For Global Warming Evaporating?

Al Gore has transformed global warming from scientific theory to political crusade, writing books and producing a documentary to scare people into action. Gore and his supporters claim that scientific consensus is nearly unanimous that the climate changes measured over the last two decades are anthropogenic, and that we may already have run out of time to save the planet. However, James Taylor, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, points out that Gore has some of his "evidence" completely wrong -- and that consensus does not exist on his central argument:

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

Taylor has more refutations in yesterday's Sun-Times column. Gore has claimed that African deserts have begun expanding, eating up valuable arable land on the continent. However, five years ago New Scientist noted that Africa's deserts were in "spectacular retreat," opening up even more arable land than before. Claims that the Antarctic ice sheet had lost mass turns out to be incorrect, as a British scientific journal concluded last September; it has actually gained mass between 1992 and 2003, during the period of supposed global warming. Greenland has lost ice at its margins, but the central ice cap in Greenland has actually grown, resulting in an overall gain of mass -- and it has just had the coldest two decades in 90 years.

With all of this contradictory evidence, not only can one not conclude that man has had much effect on the climate, one cannot clearly conclude that the climate is changing much at all, outside of natural cycles. Recent studies of Mars'climate shows that it too has experienced some rapid warming, indicating that the sun probably has caused the warming of both planets.

However, that would not suffice to force radical environmental policy on the world -- and primarily the West. The effort to cap industrialization seems very similar to the decades-long demand by environmentalists that have always been antagonistic to industrial economies. They have played Chicken Little for almost half a century, and "global warming" serves as the latest scare tactic.

We should stop spewing poisons in the air, and it behooves us to find cleaner methods to generate energy -- but carbon dioxide is not a poison. We need to move away from petroleum for lots of reasons, but national security is primary among them, not some anthro-centric view that we change the climate. We need to take time and find the right solutions, not get stampeded like shrieking cattle into adopting a 1930s standard of living. We need facts, not hysteria -- and the facts show that anthropogenic global warming is a dubious theory, not fact.

UPDATE: And, like clockwork, Al Gore appears in today's New York Times today in full hysteric mode:

Our home — Earth — is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings. ...

As a direct result, many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could — within 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization. ...

This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue, one that affects the survival of human civilization. It is not a question of left versus right; it is a question of right versus wrong.

Gore then evokes Venus as an example of what will happen to Earth:

Earth and Venus are almost exactly the same size, and have almost exactly the same amount of carbon. The difference is that most of the carbon on Earth is in the ground — having been deposited there by various forms of life over the last 600 million years — and most of the carbon on Venus is in the atmosphere.

As a result, while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star; Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. It’s the carbon dioxide.

It's because the Venusian atmosphere is 96% carbon dioxide, and the fact that it's much closer to the sun. Mercury isn't "right next to the Sun" in any real sense other than it's the closest planet. Its average orbit puts it closer to Venus than the Sun. Venus is not "three times hotter than Mecury on average," but only slightly hotter. Mercury's mean temperature is 354 degrees Fahrenheit, but ranges from -290 degrees at "night" to over 840 degrees during its "day", which lasts over a month. Venus is slightly hotter and has no real temperature variations, but it isn't "three times as hot".

It's the kind of misinformation and bad science that plagues Al Gore and the climate-change crowd, but then again, science isn't really what concerns them.

'Bless The Beasts And The Children'

Michael Yon continues reporting from the front in the new US/Iraqi push to clear Baqubah of al-Qaeda forces. His post title will need explaining, but first, Michael embeds with an armored unit to a village on the outskirts of Baqubah. A firefight ensued, and when the Americans had driven off the AQI terrorists, an unsettling quiet came over the battlefield:

On 29 June, American and Iraqi soldiers were again fighting side-by-side as soldiers from Charley Company 1-12 CAV, led by Captain Clayton Combs, and Iraqi soldiers from the 5th IA, closed in on a village on the outskirts of Baqubah. The village had the apparent misfortune of being located near a main road—about 3.5 miles from FOB Warhorse—that al Qaeda liked to bomb. Al Qaeda had taken over the village. As Iraqi and American soldiers moved in, they came under light contact; but the bombs planted in the roads, and maybe in the houses, were the real threat.

The firefight progressed. American missiles were fired. The enemy might have been trying to bait Iraqi and American soldiers into ambush, but it did not work. The village was riddled with bombs, some of them large enough to destroy a tank. One by one, experts destroyed the bombs, leaving small and large craters in the unpaved roads.

The village was abandoned. All the people were gone. But where?

In this case, Michael has documented the answer to that question with plenty of pictures. The villagers went underground -- literally. AQI forces massacred the men, women, and children of the village, burying most of them before the battle and their subsequent withdrawal. Michael's pictures show very disturbing images of the victims of AQI. Michael told the Iraqi and American commanders on this mission that it was important that Americans see this, and he's right.

And the title of the post? It comes from a favorite tactic of AQI in Iraq. They "bless" the corpses of children and dead animals with explosives -- in order to kill anyone who attempts to clear them.

Be sure to read the entire post -- and to throw a few dollars into Michael's tip jar while you're there.

Japanese Anger Over The Truth

Anger over remarks about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki forced the Japanese defense minister to apologize today. Fumio Kyuma had told an audience the previous day that he held no grudge against the United States, as the bombings forced Japan to surrender before the Soviet Union had a chance to invade:

Japan's defense minister apologized on Sunday for comments about the 1945 U.S. atomic bomb attacks on the country which outraged survivors and drew criticism from the ruling bloc ahead of a key election in late July.

Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma said he had not meant to offend the victims when he said on Saturday the bombings "couldn't be helped" because they had brought World War Two to an end and had prevented the Soviet Union from entering the war against Japan.

"If my remarks were seen as lacking regard for the feelings of atomic bomb victims, then I am sorry," he told a news conference.

On Saturday, Kyuma had said in a speech: "My understanding is that it ended the war and that it couldn't be helped ... I don't hold a grudge against the United States."

The remarks infuriated victims of the bombings and others in Japan, who continue to see themselves as more sinned against in World War II than sinners themselves. Ten days ago, Japan's government started a firestorm of protest by toning down significant aspects of their wartime atrocities in history textbooks. Okinawans reacted in fury to one change, which downplayed the Japanese Army's role in forcing thousands of civilians on the island to commit "suicide" rather than to surrender to the American military.

That reaction paled in comparison to the worldwide condemnation of a group within Japan's ruling party, who declared that the Rape of Nanking was a fabrication. In six weeks, the Japanese killed between 150,000-300,000 civilians in a city that presented no wartime threat to Japan. The disciplined Imperial Army turned into a pillage movement, raping women, killing civilians indiscriminately and purposely. They put the city to the torch -- and it wasn't an isolated incident. After getting a bloody nose from the Chinese in Shanghai, they pillaged all the way to Nanking.

The Japanese have refused to acknowledge these atrocities, and many more besides, which gives them the intellectual cover to consider themselves victims in the final two bombings of the war. In truth, the Japanese had conducted themselves as brutally and as cruelly as any army could possibly have. In Okinawa, they made it clear that they would murder their own people before admitting military defeat, and they had even less compunction about murdering civilians in other nations, as the Chinese and Filipinos can attest.

Faced off against that kind of enemy, the US had no choice but to use the most powerful weapon in its arsenal to avoid the inch-by-inch massacre of an invasion of the main island. The Japanese refused to surrender, still believing in their megalomaniacal mission to rule Asia to the very end. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were significant cities for Japan's war effort, and the US warned Japan that we would target them with a terrible new weapon if they did not surrender. And as Kyuma notes, the Soviet Union had finally declared war on Japan, and they would have been more than interested in carving up the islands as they were with Germany and eastern Europe.

Kyuma has no reason to apologize. The Japanese should pull their heads out of the darkness and start acknowledging that their brutality and bloodthirstiness in a decade of war in Asia led to the inevitable in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.