Advisory Opinion

Attn: Leftists, Communists, Socialists, Progressives, Greens, et al.

Please follow your leaders, it is the only path to redemption and, er, peace:

In a newly released book, author Greg Bates reveals that noted linguist, author and political analyst Noam Chomsky and historian Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States, have both decided to vote for independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader this November.

Ralph Nader is the only moral choice. Take a stand. Send a message. Reject the status quo. Vote Nader.

Euro Celebrity Chic

Fahrenheit 9/11, the film which has divided America, held its British celebrity screening tonight. . . .

Tonight politicians and celebrities turned out for the film’s screening in Leicester Square.

Those who came to see the film, which presents the American president as foolish and out of his depth in the White House, included Jude Law and his girlfriend Sienna Miller, Elton John’s partner David Furnish, singer Anastasia and actor Peter O’Toole.

Politicians Claire Short and George Galloway were also at the screening, hosted by Miramax co-chairman Harvey Weinstein.

Speaking before the film Furnish said: “Elton is a supporter of Michael Moore as a documentary maker. He enjoyed Bowling for Columbine and he’ll definitely be watching this new film.” . . .

Tonight Bianca Jagger said before the film began that she hoped the film would make people realise that they “shouldn’t vote for Bush again.

“Not only is he dangerous for America he is dangerous for the rest of the world.

“Michael Moore is a candid film-maker who uses a language that people understand, “ she said. . . .

O’Toole confessed that he didn’t know much about the documentary maker but added: “I don’t like war at all. I’ve been in one. I had bombs dropped on my head when I was seven.”

Asked what he knew about the film O’Toole replied “not a sausage.”

Duran Duran star Nick Rhodes said the war was an “unmitigated catastrophe”. While Claire Short said: “It would be better for the world if Bush went.

I often wonder whether these people deserve the freedom they take for granted. O'Toole -- who doesn't like war at all -- must be referring to the Nazi bombing of London in WWII in recollecting his experience at the age of seven. One wonders if he wouldn't be been happier if Britain would have just surrendered to the Nazis. That indeed would have ended the war.

Bottled Piety

A couple clutch Victor Hanson Q&As:

Q: What are your thoughts on the International Institute of Strategic Studies' Strategic Survey 2003-4, which contends that Al-Qaeda has grown because of the war in Iraq and that there are still 18,000 Al-Qaeda members still active around the world?

Hanson: If true, that is equal to a division- far less than the 20 million or so Japanese, German, and Italian combatants that we took on in World War II, much less the 2 billion Chinese, Russians, Eastern Europeans, and African and Asian states that made up the so-called communist bloc. I am wary of the "because of Iraq" logic-the rationale of all phony wars. It is like saying, "because of the battle of Midway" now we are fighting the Japanese all over the Pacific, or "because of B-17 raids in 1942" we got ourselves into a war in North Africa and Sicily. The fact is we have made amazing progress in dismantling bases in Afghanistan, pressuring Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, taking out Saddam Hussein, and shutting down terrorist enclaves in Europe, America, and Asia. Once you go to war, of course, the enemy fights back even more fiercely. Those holed up in Fallujah or Mr. Sadr's followers are either Baathist holdouts, al Qaeda operatives, or pro-Iranian militants who were our enemies long before March 2003.

What we are witnessing is a coming showdown, where lines are drawn, the sides become clear, and the stakes apparent. So al Qaeda has not "grown" so much as grasped that it is now in a war for its existence and must either come out and fight or slowly be strangled. Witness the situation in Saudi Arabia that is at least clearer than the last decade, when the Royal Family paid bribe money to deflect the killers against us. I suspect that there are fewer al Qaeda members now than before the invasion of Afghanistan. If they are so smart, how did they turn a friendly Saudi government into their enemy, lose Afghanistan, make an enemy of a once neutral Musharraf, and are without the intelligence and succor of Saddam's Iraq? And they are about to turn 350 million timid Europeans into perturbed hosts ready to expel or at least closely monitor all foreign Arab nationals.

* * *

Q: As far as morality is concerned, from the get-go the U.S.-imposed regime of sanctions upon Iraq was grossly immoral, just like the English blockade of Germany after the end of the Great War. These policy decisions caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in both instances. Was Hussein a bad guy? Sure. Then why did NR's hero, Don Rumsfeld, and Washington arm Saddam in the 1980's? Because he was "our" bad guy then, when it seemed he was about to lose to Iran. Morality, indeed. Do you want to invade China, next, Professor Hanson?

Hanson: Calm down and quit the boilerplate hyperbole that only reflects a hysteria rather than reasoned analysis. The English mistake in 1918-9 was not the blockade, but allowing a mostly victorious German army to surrender in France and Belgium-"we were stabbed in the back by Jews and communists and never lost"- rather than to be crushed under an Allied counterattack that ended up in Berlin. Not "hundreds of thousands," but rather 50 million died for that blunder a mere twenty years later.

But enough of bottled piety. We gave some intelligence to Saddam and allowed a few arms sales-less than 2% of his aggregate arsenal that otherwise was supplied by the Russians, French, Germans, and Koreans. I did not agree with that decision, but was aware of the reasoning-a radical theocracy in Iran had taken our diplomats, organized killers of Americans in Lebanon, and promised our destruction. The realpolitik was not unlike our decision to arm the mass-murdering and former Nazi-partner Stalin in 1942, albeit on a much smaller scale-a policy rarely criticized today by the Left although we knew at the time that 30 million Russians had been liquidated, and our aid would only strengthen such repression both during and after the war. There is little morality in war, and states are faced with choices between bad and worse. Only utopians from the campus or newsroom have the luxury of hindsight and leisured perfection. China? Rather than worrying about a hypothetical and nonsensical US invasion, why not turn your attention to China's real invasion of Tibet and its subsequent near annihilation of Tibetan culture. Criticizing the US for not being divine is easy, but taking on an autocratic government whose predecessors killed 50 million of their own people is quite another thing.

Taking Down Sadr

Belmont Club has an informative post on the U.S. military's victory over Sadr's militia. I found this bit particularly striking:

In what was probably the most psychologically revealing moment of the battle, infantrymen fought six hours for the possession of one damaged Humvee, of no tactical value, simply so that the network news would not have the satisfaction of displaying the piece of junk in the hands of Sadr's men. The enemy understood the rules of engagement too well, but from the other side. "Squeezed into a few downtown blocks, Sadr militants began using children to shuttle ammunition, soldiers said. Youngsters carrying large plastic bags darted from corner to corner, and the soldiers would not shoot them. 'We all grew up knowing you don't hurt women and children,' Taylor said. 'And they used that to their advantage.' The US estimates that 20 civilians were killed in operations around Najaf. The Najaf hospital claims 81. When the Russians retook Grozny after a disastrous first foray, they returned to the operational formula of Marshak Konev in Berlin and rained down 8,000 artillery shells per hour on the town, killing perhaps 27,000 before attempting it again. The vastly more powerful Americans did not, yet triumphed. They are inept, as everyone knows.

Ted Koppel was determined to read the names of 700 American servicemen who have died in Iraq to remind us how serious was their loss. Michael Moore has dedicated his film Farenheit 9/11 to the Americans who died in Afghanistan. And they did a land office business. But at least they didn't get to show Sadr's miliamen dancing around a battered Humvee. The men of the First Armored paid the price to stop that screening and those concerned can keep the change.

Iraqi Sovereignty

An Iraqi perspective from Iraq the Model:

I was on duty-call in the hospital all yesterday and I was in the ward when I heard the news that Mr. Bremer had already transferred the power to the new government two days ahead of the expected date. I was so happy about this news and I couldn’t wait until I finish my tour to celebrate the occasion.

My friends all seemed thrilled and optimistic, yet they seemed to have no interset in celebrating the event. I decided to do something so I asked one of my colleagues to cover for me for an hour; I told him that I have to get something from outside.I directly headed to the nearest bakery and ordered a nice cake and returned to the hospital as fast as I could. On the way, I didn’t see any large calibrations but I noticed that the streets were busier than usual and people looked lively and relaxed.

I invited some of my friends, one of us volunteered to get some beverages and we gathered around the cake to celebrate the happy event. I took some pictures but sadly not all the doctors (female mainly) agreed on me posting their pictures and I’ll respect their will.

Some of us were celebrating regaining sovereignty, some were celebrating the end of occupation, others were happy because they think the new government will bring safety and order. I was celebrating a new and a great step towards democracy, but we were all joined by true hope for a better future and by the love we have for Iraq.

After wards we sat for a while discussing different matters. The hall was busy and everyone was chatting and laughing loud. They had Al-Jazeera on (something I never managed to convince them to stop doing). Then suddenly Mr. Bremer appeared on TV reading his last speech before he left Iraq. I approached the TV to listen carefully to the speech, as I expected it to be difficult in the midst of all that noise. To my surprise everyone stopped what they were doing and started watching as attentively as I was.

The speech was impressive and you could hear the sound of a needle if one had dropped it at that time. The most sensational moment was the end of the speech when Mr. Bremer used a famous Arab emotional poem. The poem was for a famous Arab poet who said it while leaving Baghdad. Al-Jazeera had put an interpreter who tried to translate even the Arabic poem which Mr. Bremer was telling in a fair Arabic! “Let this damned interpreter shut up. We want to hear what the man is saying” One of my colloquies shouted. The scene was very touching that the guy sitting next to me (who used to sympathize with Muqtada) said “He’s going to make me cry!”

Then he finished his speech by saying in Arabic,”A’ash Al-Iraq, A’ash Al-Iraq, A’ash Al-Iraq”! (Long live Iraq, Long live Iraq, long live Iraq).

I was deeply moved by this great man’s words but I couldn’t prevent myself from watching the effect of his words on my friends who some of them were anti-Americans and some were skeptic, although some of them have always shared my optimism. I found that they were touched even more deeply than I was. I turned to one friend who was a committed She’at and who distrusted America all the way. He looked as if he was bewitched, and I asked him, “So, what do you think of this man? Do you still consider him an invader?” My friend smiled, still touched and said, “Absolutely not! He brought tears to my eyes. God bless him.”

Another friend approached me. This one was not religious but he was one of the conspiracy theory believers. He put his hands on my shoulders and said smiling, “I must admit that I’m beginning to believe in what you’ve been telling us for months and I’m beginning to have faith in America. I never thought that they will hand us sovereignty in time. These people have shown that they keep their promises.”

As Andrew Sullivan wrote, you won't read that in the New York Times -- which is really a shame.

Taking My Stuff

That's what the Democrats want to do. At least they're being honest:

Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters -- some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend -- to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

The common good? They're obviously not talking about liberty.

John Keegan on Nation Building in Iraq

An interesting and somewhat pessimistic column from the preeminent military historian.

Gitmo Case

Eugene Volokh (see here, here, and here) and Professor Bainbridge have serious problems with the Supreme Court's decision concerning the al Qaeda types held at Guantanamo Bay. And rightly so.

Housing Bubble?

Arnold Kling has a helpful column up at TCS on the putative housing bubble. He's offering financial advice too.

Michael Moore Hates America

Yes, he really does, as David Brooks points out:

Like Hemingway, Moore does his boldest thinking while abroad. For example, it was during an interview with the British paper The Mirror that Moore unfurled what is perhaps the central insight of his oeuvre, that Americans are kind of crappy.

"They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy]," Moore intoned. "We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

It transpires that Europeans are quite excited to hear this supple description of the American mind. And Moore has been kind enough to crisscross the continent, speaking to packed lecture halls, explicating the general vapidity and crassness of his countrymen. "That's why we're smiling all the time," he told a rapturous throng in Munich. "You can see us coming down the street. You know, `Hey! Hi! How's it going?' We've got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down."

Naturally, the people from the continent that brought us Descartes, Kant and Goethe are fascinated by these insights. Moore's books have sold faster there than at home. No American intellectual is taken so seriously in Europe, save perhaps the great Chomsky.

Before a delighted Cambridge crowd, Moore reflected on the tragedy of human existence: "You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe." In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: "It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton."

In the days after Sept. 11, while others were disoriented, Moore was able to see clearly: "We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants."

This leads to Michael Moore's global plan of action. "Don't be like us," he told a crowd in Berlin. "You've got to stand up, right? You've got to be brave."

In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, "Should such an ignorant people lead the world?" Then he began to reflect on things economic. His central insight here is that the American economy, like its people, is pretty crappy, too: "Don't go the American way when it comes to economics, jobs and services for the poor and immigrants. It is the wrong way."

In an interview with a Japanese newspaper, Moore helped citizens of that country understand why the United States went to war in Iraq: "The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich."

But venality doesn't come up when he writes about those who are killing Americans in Iraq: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win." Until then, few social observers had made the connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Paul Revere.

Propagandist trash.

Kerry Campaign Rot

Instapundit has a must read post on the dishonesty of the Kerry Campaign. Make sure not to miss this OxBlog link from Instapundit's post.

Fellow Travelers Part Ways

Ralph Nader has written an open letter to Michael Moore. Apparently Moore has abandoned his old friends:

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

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

A few weeks ago, Michael, I sent you a message: "Hey, Dude, where's my Buddy?" It is attached. It has gone without reply. It simply asked you to come back to your progressive constituency and take on the two-party monopoly of our rigged election system—to challenge the pro-warlike, corporate party with two heads, wearing different makeup when it comes to playing toady for Big Business. These are the giant multinationals who have no allegiance to our country or to communities like Flint except to control, deplete or abandon them. It is not that your views have changed, with an exception or two. It is that your circles have changed. Too much Clinton, not enough Camejo.

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

Best wishes,

Ralph Nader

I guess this makes Moore a disloyal liar. Go Ralph! (Via Instapundit.)

Blogging Slowdown

I'll be blogging intermittently over the next few weeks. I'm moving to another city and starting a new job, and also traveling for a week in Colorado. Please stop by every now and then, but steady blogging won't resume for a couple of weeks.

Meanwhile, I knew there was a reason I liked Dick Cheney. (Via Drudge.)

Leading Democrats Sanction Propagandist

WASHINGTON - Michael Moore introduced his Bush-bashing documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11," to the nation's capital on Wednesday in a private screening for a nearly all-Democratic audience.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and California Sen. Barbara Boxer were among the 800 invited guests.

Have they no shame?

Divorced from Reason and Logic

A Victor Hanson Q&A:

Q: I have no question that America will achieve its military goals in Iraq. My fear is that the liberal press will somehow make it a defeat. If this is our most serious enemy, how do we defeat it? Should changing public opinion be a military objective? Should national defense also include the weapons to achieve a national will to stay the course?

Hanson: Iraq is now a symbol for the Left, divorced from reason and logic, perhaps like Vietnam circa 1971. It represents preconceived stereotypes -America is imperial, exploitative, crass, cruel, and run by mean, white Republican males who connive to profit at others' expense-which are not supported by the facts of liberating 26 million from fascism, providing billions in aid, and supporting democratic reform. Had Bush bombed Serbia for 8 weeks, he would have been called a "coward" who was afraid to have "boots on the ground" and a war-criminal who incinerated babies from 30,000 feet. In turn, had Clinton invaded Iraq, he would be praised for bringing Wilsonian idealism and American sacrifice back to foreign policy by promoting democracy, feminism, and freedom abroad. By the same token, if we persist in Afghanistan and Iraq, within ten years Bush will be considered a great president, in the manner that the removal of Milosevic is considered Clinton's only major foreign policy achievement.

Sadr Update

He's apparently done. Great news of course. It's surprising we're not hearing more about this success. (Via Andrew Sullivan.)

War Agendas

More evidence of lying about the war in Iraq here. Have they no shame?

Iraq-Al Qaeda

More Bush-Cheney lies about the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection here.

Paul Krugman: Blinded by Hatred

Paul Krugman is so blinded by his irrational hatred of Attorney General Ashcroft, he'll stoop as low as necessary to take a cheap shot. His column in today's New York Times is a series of sloppy, recycled falsehoods and innuendo that essentially argues Ashcroft is soft on racist and right wing armed terrorists because he agrees with them. If not preposterous enough on it's face, an analysis of Mr. Krugman's syllogysm reads:

1. Ashcroft ARRESTED a white supremacist with tons of firearms and some chemical weapons, but didn't hold a press conference, so he's clearly not serious about the problem of armed white supremacists.

2. Ashcroft only focuses on muslim terrorists, like Jose Padilla, because of Ashcroft's alleged racism, and not because (i) al Qaeda killed 3000 Americans in one attack and has pledged to kill as many more as it can; and (ii) one of the strategic leader of al-Qaeda, Abu Zubeyda, gave credible information in interrogations that he had trained Padilla to build a dirty bomb and set it off in America. After all, who would really believe that al Qaeda presents a serious threat to Americans when we have lots of armed right-wingers out there?

3. We know Ashcroft's a racist because he gave an interview to a distasteful magazine. And besides, everyone knows he's religious, and right-wing, and his political opponents have confirmed he's a racist, despite the fact that his civil rights record as Missouri Attorney General, Missouri Governor, and as Attorney General, are if viewed honestly, beyond reproach.

4. Ashcroft only caught this latest criminal because of a "fluke" - also known a tip (which is how cases are usually solved) - but if Ashcroft weren't so obsessed with trying to stop al Qaeda because they're muslim (and not because they demonstrate repeatedly their ability and willingness to kill scores of Americans) he would have had agents investigating everyone who belongs to fringe right-wing organizations so that tragedies like this one (not catching this guy until.. well, they caught him before he hurt anyone) can be avoided.

5. But he's really trying not to arrest armed criminals who are racists like him - which is why he arrested this one instead of simply ignoring the evidence.

6. In fact, he's very weak on gun crime, as demonstrated by the fact that under his term as Attorney General, DOJ has only spent $900 MILLION on federal gun crime prosecutions, which have increased by 32 percent (after years of decline when they were slashed under the Clinton administration). In 2002 alone, federal gun crime prosecutions increased by 20.2 percent – the highest increase since the Justice Department began recording this information in 1990. This means 10,634 defendants were charged in the federal system for violating gun statutes – the largest number ever prosecuted. But he's not really serious about prosecuting these people because he's so close to the gun lobby.

7. And to prove it, one need only look at the NICS destruction rule he implemented, and his outrageous interpretation of the Brady law that it bars searching records of gun transfers for law enforcement purposes, even though his own aides came to the opposite conclusion. The only problems with this assertion are (i) the Brady law requires the records' destruction, (ii) JANET RENO - the long-time denizen of the gun lobby - actually wrote the regulation making clear that records could not be searched for solely law enforcement purposes (as advocated by Krugman), (iii) the LEGAL OPINION from the Office of Legal Counsel actually EXPLICITLY says that a search of the records solely for law enforcement purposes is illegal, but anti-gun critics have taken to repeating this falsehood anyway, and (iv) this interpretation of the Brady law was supported by noted NRA shills such as Democratic Senator and Judiciary Committee Ranking Minority Member Patrick Leahy.

It really is amazing what people will see when so blinded by hatred.

Housing Bubble?

Tyler Cohen has thoughts and links on whether we are in a housing bubble. His small bit of advice: "If you are investing in multiple real estate purchases, as opposed to just buying a home, ask yourself the following question? If a "dirty bomb" went off in my area, would I still be a wealthy man?"

This exact concern has had me wondering for some time whether it even makes sense to buy a home here in Manhattan.

Hitchens on Michael Moore's New Flick

Every once in a while Christopher Hitchens hits the nail squarely on the head. This is one of those times. There's really so much good stuff in this essay that it would be an injustice to excerpt only a few paragraphs. Read the whole thing, even if you dislike Hitchens.

Considering Law as a Profession?

The Anal Philosopher has posted a reader's letter asking "what major would be most useful for law school." I'm going to offer some unsolicited advice: Don't do it!!!

Seriously though . . . don't do it! Okay, I'll be serious now. I'll let Keith opine on majors, and I'll offer some other advice. Don't do it!

Understand that many lawyers don't actually like practicing law. Much of the work is actually not that interesting and the hours and lifestyle are typically grueling. Lawyers are paid to worry about potential problems and to fight. Is this how you want to spend your time -- very much of your time mind you? If I had to do it over, I would study either finance and math and then go into the financial world, or I would find something that I truly loved and find a way to make a living doing it.

But if you think you really want to practice law, find out what lawyers actually do. Many people go into law without knowing what lawyers really do, and I believe that is why there are so many unhappy lawyers. So do this: Go get a job as a paralegal with the type of law firm or other legal employer that does what you think you might want to do as a lawyer. You could even take a job as a secretary. Work there for a while -- at least six months or so -- and find out what the lawyers actually do in their very long days. It might surprise you. Ask the lawyers whether they like what they do, but only after you have become friendly and they trust you enough to tell you how they really feel. Again, the answers you get might surprise you. After you do that, then decide whether you want to go to law school.

Having said all of that, there are good law jobs out there. And there are lawyers who really like what they do. But there are also many who don't and who would do something else if they had to do it all over again.

Economics and Religion

Tyler Cohen has a very interesting post on those two topics.

New York Liberals Fawn Over Michael Moore

A funny article in the NY Observer about the New York screening of Michael Moore's new film:

"How the hell do we get out of this mess?" asked a frazzled Lauren Bacall, who had once sat coolly on Harry S. Truman’s piano and campaigned majestically with Adlai E. Stevenson in the days before New York Democrats had to hide in secret meeting places like the Ziegfeld Theater on 54th Street. Ms. Bacall was emerging from the mega-screening of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 at the Ziegfeld Theater on Monday, June 14, which seemed a great deal more Party and less party than New York had seen in a long while.

The movie had ended and the celebrity-packed audience came stumbling out onto the street, with images of usurpation in their heads, seething with a passion for restoration. If Bill Clinton had walked into the theater—or John Podesta!—the place might have levitated. But they didn’t, and there was no goal in sight except bourgeois revolution, which made Ms. Bacall’s question perfectly understandable after Mr. Moore’s 110-minute piece of stunning, farce-and-shrapnel anti-war agit-prop. The film had left at least part of its audience stunned, silenced, even crying at what President George W. Bush had wrought by taking the nation to war in Iraq.

But Ms. Bacall wasn’t talking about Iraq. Mired in the crush of greasy paparazzi and rowdy civilian voyeurs, she was just trying to find a taxi among a few hundred liberal stars and a media glut.

Ha! Luckily, the article provides a handy (though incomplete) boycott list:

Before the Age of Schwarzenegger, liberal stars were a dime a truckload; now, like Munchkins, they had begun crawling back out from under their houses, new ones, old ones, ancient ones: Sean Lennon looking scruffy and bearded with lady-friend Elizabeth Jagger and Yoko Ono, Leonardo DiCaprio, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Tom Brokaw, Leslie Stahl, Ed Bradley, David Dinkins, Carson Daly, Moby, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Tina Brown, Air America den mother Al Franken.

And get this:

The day after the film, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., the 87-year old Pulitzer Prize–winning historian, former special assistant to President Kennedy and former film critic for Vogue, said, "I think it was a powerful film showing the folly and futility of the war against Iraq, but it seemed to me it could have been more effective if it had any perceptible structure. I think it could have an effect: It crystallizes a lot of apprehensions and anxieties about the war. And because the media have been in favor of the war, I think it’s very useful." [Emphasis added.]

Absurd. Apparently most of the other of the liberals liked Moore's film too -- in a sick sort of way, of course:

It left some muttering with fury about Mr. Moore’s cinematic tactics. This, after all, was not Cannes, where Fahrenheit 9/11 had been met by an ecstatic Mediterranean standing ovation. But mostly it was received with stunned, vengeful pleasure, so that when the now-expected shot of Paul Wolfowitz dousing his comb in saliva before using it was shown at the top of the film, the Ziegfeld erupted in an "ohhhh, groosssss!" groan, and when Condoleezza Rice’s face showed up on the screen, the sound of hisses rose from the red plush seats on West 54th Street.

I wonder what this particular crowd of New York liberals has against Paul Wolfowitz and Condi Rice, and why are they so hateful?

But do go off thinking it was all fun and games, there was serious strategizing going on:

"Have you seen Richard Gere? Has Richard Gere gone in? Where’s Richard?" called a panicked press agent as the actor strolled casually—and directly—behind her through a mob of screeching photographers and into the theater.

By the time he’d gotten upstairs, Mr. Gere was deep in a strategy session with the designer Donna Karan at the popcorn stand. "It’s got to be the wings, the wings of freedom," said Ms. Karan, borrowing the language of couture as she described her desire to galvanize the A-list crowd. "Because that’s my thing—that’s what I do!"

Mr. Gere nodded and began to reply, but Ms. Karan kept talking over him, with dramatic eye make-up that glowed against her very tanned skin. "What we’re working on now," Mr. Gere finally managed to say, "is to create an umbrella so that there’s a larger movement, but you don’t stop anybody from doing their thing."

"Exactly! That’s what I said," Ms. Karan said. "You and I are talking the same language."

In fact, even Leo was playing the pundit:

"I think a lot of people are going to be talking about this film," said Leonardo DiCaprio as he stood, arms folded, face broad and puffy, in front of panting reporters. "And I think a lot more people who are on the fence about who to vote for, after they see the film, they’ll be solidified in their vote."

Aren't you sorry you missed it?

9/11 Commission Manipulation

William Safire:

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

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

Cheney's ire was misdirected. Don't blame the media for jumping on the politically charged Zelikow report. Blame the commission's leaders for ducking responsibility for its interim findings. Kean and Hamilton have allowed themselves to be jerked around by a manipulative staff.

Yesterday, Governor Kean passed along this stunner about "no collaborative relationship" to ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "Members do not get involved in staff reports."

Not involved? Another commission member tells me he did not see the Zelikow bombshell until the night before its release. Moreover, the White House, vetting the report for secrets, failed to raise an objection to a Democratic bonanza in the tricky paragraph leading to the misleading "no Qaeda-Iraq tie."

The 9/11 Commission is just ridiculous.

Moral Standards

A couple of Victor Hanson Q&As:

Q: Why do you think is the Bush administration so reluctant to publicly call out the U.N. on the humanitarian crisis in the Sudan? Why is there no major media attention to this disaster?

Hanson: They tried. But look, the world cares not about the dead, but whether the United States or Israel can be blamed for them. India built a brutal $1 billion fence to cut off Bangladesh; the world snored. Muslims kill thousands in Africa; the world sleeps until the IDF kills 2-3 Hamas leaders. That is just the way it is—the UN, the EU, the Arab League these are all associations of morally inept and opportunistic elites who care very little for lives per se, but very much for the attention—both public and psychic—garnered by selectively damning the United States. Why we subsidize it all I don’t know—but perhaps this censure serves some deep psychic need within ourselves to welcome blame and rebuke.

Q: Could you address how organized crime and the subsequent corrosive effect it has on the fabric of a society may have led to the demise of a great many civilizations?

Hanson: Well, when such crime permeates down to the mundane—bribes for traffic tickets, pay-offs for insurance fraud, cash for favors at school or sports—then a society is about through. So far we have stopped organized crime from strangling our daily commerce and undermining all respect for the law. But we are fraying, and there are towns in California right now where the police, city council, and schools are neither transparent nor even honest. And it is something that weighs on us a great deal. Given the education of the past decades with its emphasis on situational ethics and moral equivalence, it will be hard to determine whether this next generation is up to enforcing codes of decorum that they themselves grew up with and expected. Throughout history a terrible problem has been a generation’s failure to be vigilant and maintain the standards handed them.

Was Saddam Linked to 9/11?

I don't know, but the NY Times has grudgingly conceded today that the Administration never said that Saddam was linked to the 9/11 attacks. The Times has got the past statements from Administration officials to prove it too.

I wonder if those on the anti-war left will now stop with their campaign of deception designed to make people believe that the Administration did try to connect Saddam with 9/11. I doubt it.

9/11 Commission Agrees that NY Times Lied

The commission's chairman, Thomas H. Kean, and its vice chairman, Lee H. Hamilton, appeared on the ABC News program "This Week" as two other commission members were interviewed on the NBC News program "Meet the Press" about initial findings of the commission. Its final report is scheduled to be released next month. . . .

"We have concluded there is no evidence that we can find whatsoever that Iraq or Saddam Hussein participated in any way in attacks on the United States," Mr. Kean said. "What we do say, however, is there were contacts."

Mr. Hamilton said he had looked at the statements "quite carefully" from the administration. "They are not claiming there was a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda with regard to the attacks on the United States," he said.

He later added that with regard to the administration's core statements, "I don't think there is a difference of opinion with regard to those statements."

So it is seems that it's now well established that the NY Times lied last week with its headline claiming the Commission found no Al Qaeda-Iraq tie.

Saddam-Al Qaeda Link?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks has been told ``a very prominent member'' of al Qaeda served as an officer in Saddam Hussein's militia, a panel member said on Sunday.

Republican commissioner John Lehman told NBC's ``Meet the Press'' program that the new intelligence, if proven true, buttresses claims by the Bush administration of ties between Iraq and the militant network believed responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.

``We are now in the process of getting this latest intelligence,'' Lehman said.

Commission Chairman Thomas Kean urged the administration to make any such information available to the panel quickly.

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

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

Lehman said the information, contained in ``captured documents,'' was obtained after the commission report was written that stated there was no evidence of a ``collaborative relationship'' between Iraq and al Qaeda.

``Some of these documents indicate that (there was) at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al Qaeda,'' Lehman said.

``That still has to be confirmed, but the vice president (Dick Cheney) was right when he said that he may have things that we don't yet have,'' said Lehman, a former Navy secretary.

As they say, developing . . .

Fallujah Update

I hope this is the beginning of cleaning out that hornets' nest:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A U.S. military plane fired missiles Saturday into a residential neighborhood in Fallujah, killing at least 20 people and leveling houses in the restive Sunni Muslim city, police and residents said.

It was the first significant U.S. military action in the city since Marines ended a bloody three-week siege against insurgents. Since the U.S. forces left, residents have said that extremist influence in the city, west of Baghdad, has only grown.

U.S. Marines declined comment and referred queries to the U.S. command, which said it had no comment.

Paul Krugman's Entitlement Problem

Keith Burgess-Jackson at TCS: "In Krugman's twisted mind (I say that endearingly), not taking your money against your will is giving you money."

Sgt Hook is in the Game

It looks like Sgt Hook may have been in on this recent success in Afghanistan. Great work gentlemen.

Putin on Iraq and Terrorism

ASTANA, Kazakhstan (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin, in comments sure to help President Bush, declared Friday that Russia knew Iraq's Saddam Hussein had planned terror attacks on U.S. soil and had warned Washington.

Putin said Russian intelligence had been told on several occasions that Saddam's special forces were preparing to attack U.S. targets inside and outside the United States.

"After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received information that the official services of the Saddam regime were preparing 'terrorist acts' on the United States and beyond its borders," he told reporters.

"This information was passed on to our American colleagues," he said. He added, however, that Russian intelligence had no proof that Saddam's agents had been involved in any particular attack.

Apparently Vladimir Putin isn't one of those mysterious unnamed foreign leaders that Kerry says supports him.

UBL Indictment

Here's the 1998 grand jury indictment of Usama Bin Laden (via Drudge). It states:

Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Finally!

The administration is vigorously defending itself against the bias of the media on the issue of al Qaeda-Iraqi contacts. For example:

Last night Mr. Cheney, who was the administration's most forceful advocate of the Qaeda-Hussein links, was more pointed, repeating in detail his case for those ties and saying that The New York Times's coverage yesterday of the commission's findings "was outrageous."

"They do a lot of outrageous things," Mr. Cheney, appearing on "Capital Report" on CNBC, said of the Times, referring specifically to a four-column front page headline that read "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie." Mr. Cheney added: "The press wants to run out and say there's a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said."

He said that newspapers, including the Times, had confused the question of whether there was evidence of Iraqi participation in Sept. 11 with the issue of whether a relationship existed between Al Qaeda and Mr. Hussein's regime.

Speaking of the commission, he said, "They did not address the broader question of a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda in other areas, in other ways." He said "the evidence is overwhelming." He described the ties and cited numerous links back to the 1990's, including contacts between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials.

And:

Mr. Cheney returned to the subject of the Times's coverage later in his appearance on CNBC when Ms. Borger began saying, "But the press is making a distinction between 9/11 and . . ."

"No, they're not," Mr. Cheney said. "The New York Times does not. `The Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Ties,' " he said, quoting the headline. "That's what it says. That's the vaunted New York Times. Numerous — I've watched a lot of the coverage on it and the fact of the matter is they don't make a distinction. They fuzz it up. Sometimes it's through ignorance. Sometimes its malicious. But you'll take a statement that's geared specifically to say there's no connection in relations to the 9/11 attack and then say, `Well, obviously there's no case here.' And then jump over to challenge the president's credibility or my credibility."

Finally.

Parasites

A Victor Hanson Q&A:

Q: Would the United States make better progress in the War Against Terrorism by de-Islamifying their environment, rather than trying to kill or capture individual hedgehogs?

Hanson: Perhaps. I wish we would quit the deference to insane things like “not fighting during Ramadan” or allowing us to be shot from mosques, and simply wage an information campaign against these mullahs: to let the world know of their relatives in America; their bank accounts; their criminal records. The American people would like to know how many children, nieces, nephews, and grandchildren are in our universities whose sires are mullahs in Iran, thugs in the West Bank, or corrupt grandees in the Gulf. That would have enormous value in undermining the pretense that the Islamicists want nothing to do with the West. In fact, they are parasitic on it, and exist for it in a strange, very unhealthy way. Osama’s webmaster did not learn his decadent Western craft in the Middle East.

Intentions for War

Over at The Ethics of War, there is a debate going on about whether the war in Iraq was justified. In that context, Len Carrier has posted the following:

Here's something else to ponder. Do intentions count in waging war? I think that they do. If one merely says that we are invading for moral reasons (e.g., self-defense, liberating people), whereas, the real reason is to set up military bases and control a country's resources, doesn't that put any invasion under a moral cloud? I think there's good evidence that we invaded Iraq with unclean intentions.

I thought this might interest Len. It goes not only to intentions but also to consequences, and is written by a Marine:

Let there be no mistake, those of you who don’t believe in this war: the Ba’ath regime were the Nazis of the second half of the 20th century. I saw what the murderous, brutal regime of Saddam Hussein wrought on that country through his party and their Fedayeen henchmen. They raped, murdered, tortured, extorted and terrorized those in that country for 35 years. There are mass graves throughout Iraq only now being discovered. 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, out of Camp Pendleton, liberated a prison in Iraq populated entirely by children. The Ba’athists brutalized the weakest among them, and killed the strongest.

I saw in the eyes of the people how a generation of fear reflects in the human soul.

The Ba’ath Party, like the Nazis before them, kept power by spreading out, placing their officials in every city and every village to keep the people under their boot. Everywhere we went we found rifles, ammunition, RPG rounds, mortar shells, rocket launchers, and artillery. When we took over the southern city of Ramaylah, our battalion commander tore down the Ba’ath signs and commandeered the former regime headquarters in town (which, by the way, was 20 feet from the local school.) My commander himself took over the office of the local Ba’ath leader, and in opening the desk of that thug found a set of brass knuckles and a gun. These are the people who are now in prison, and that is where they deserve to be.

The analogy is simple. For years, you have watched the same large, violent man come home every night, and you have listened to his yelling and the crying and the screams of children and the noise of breaking glass, and you have always known that he was beating his wife and his children. Everyone on the block has known it. You ask, cajole, threaten and beg him to stop, on behalf of the rest of the neighborhood. Nothing works. After listening to it for 13 years, you finally gather up the biggest, meanest guys you can find, you go over to his house, and you kick the door down. You punch him in the face and drag him away. The house is a mess, the family poor and abused — but now there is hope. You did the right thing.

I can speak with authority on the opinions of both British and American infantry in that place and at that time. Let me make this clear: at no time did anyone say or imply to any of us that we were invading Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction, nor were we there to avenge 9/11. We knew we were there for one reason: to rid the world of a tyrant, and to give Iraq back to Iraqis.

None of us had even heard those arguments for going to war until we returned, and we still don’t understand the confusion. To us, it was simple. The world needed to be rid of a man who committed mass murder of an entire people, and our country was the only one that could project that much power that far and with that kind of precision. We don’t make policy decisions: we carry them out. And none of us had the slightest doubt about how right and good our actions were.

Suppose this Marine's motivations for fighting fairly represent the motivations generally of the American and British soldiers who actually liberated Iraq. I wonder how this would affect Len's analysis? In particular, assuming Len is correct that the president took the country to war for unstated (and, in his view, immoral) reasons, would the war still be unjustified if the soldiers who actually fought and died in the sand of Iraq did so with the highest of moral intentions?

Incidentally, just to briefly address Len's assertion that "the real reason [for the war was] to set up military bases and control a country's resources," I haven't see any evidence supporting the military base theory, but perhaps Len can point me to some. Likewise, control over Iraq's oil resources has already been handed off to the Iraqi's, so I don't think there's any substance to that point either.

Michael Moore's Fans

I have to give it to the guy, he does manage to inspire a diverse group of admirers.

Useful idiot recollections anyone?

So far, Moore's new movie's biggest backers have been the French, various Hollywood types, and the Hezbollah. I know, they're natural allies.

Iran

Steve Antler has a helpful post on Iran. He concludes: "I read material like this and wonder how I can be living in the same universe as my buddies who divide their time between hating Bush and agonzing over global warming."

I agree.

Update: I think it's safe to say that Jim Hoagland probably agrees too.

Humiliation and Torture

Blackfive makes an interesting observation: "I've blogged about the humiliation factor in everything Arab...their existence is constantly marred by perceived humilitaion. So far, what we've seen from Abu Ghraib has been just that - humiliation. It sounds likely that worse will be revealed, but interestingly enough, that actually might sit better with the Arab world - that death or maiming is preferred to humiliation."

Given the disparity in coverage between Abu Ghraib and Nick Berg (or the various and numerous atrocities of Saddam's regime), one might conclude that the U.S. media thinks along the same lines as the Arab world.

Silly Me

CS Monitor: "In the search for answers to grinding poverty, the world's rich nations have decided on a new tack. It's radical in its simplicity: For poor people to succeed, let them start a business."

And all along I had thought the solution was world government . . .

Christianity in America

Sam Huntington writing in the WSJ:

Although the Supreme Court did not address the question directly, Mr. Newdow got it right: Atheists are "outsiders" in the American community. Americans are one of the most religious people in the world, particularly compared with the peoples of other highly industrialized democracies. But they nonetheless tolerate and respect the rights of atheists and nonbelievers. Unbelievers do not have to recite the pledge, or engage in any religiously tainted practice of which they disapprove. They also, however, do not have the right to impose their atheism on all those Americans whose beliefs now and historically have defined America as a religious nation.

* * *

Americans have always been extremely religious and overwhelmingly Christian. The 17th-century settlers founded their communities in America in large part for religious reasons. Eighteenth-century Americans saw their Revolution in religious and largely biblical terms. The Revolution reflected their "covenant with God" and was a war between "God's elect" and the British "Antichrist." Jefferson, Paine and other deists and nonbelievers felt it necessary to invoke religion to justify the Revolution. The Declaration of Independence appealed to "Nature's God," the "Creator," "the Supreme Judge of the World," and "divine Providence" for approval, legitimacy and protection.

The Constitution includes no such references. Yet its framers firmly believed that the republican government they were creating could last only if it was rooted in morality and religion. "A Republic can only be supported by pure religion or austere morals," John Adams said. Washington agreed: "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles." Fifty years after the Constitution was adopted, Tocqueville reported that all Americans held religion "to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions."

The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution, and some people cite the absence of religious language in the Constitution and the provisions of the First Amendment as evidence that America is fundamentally secular. Nothing could be further from the truth. At the end of the 18th century, religious establishments existed throughout Europe and in several American states. Control of the church was a key element of state power, and the established church, in turn, provided legitimacy to the state. The framers of the Constitution prohibited an established national church in order to limit the power of government and to protect and strengthen religion. The purpose of "separation of church and state," as William McLoughlin has said, was not to establish freedom from religion but to establish freedom for religion. As a result, Americans have been unique among peoples in the diversity of sects, denominations and religious movements to which they have given birth, almost all embodying some form of Protestantism. When substantial numbers of Catholic immigrants arrived, it was eventually possible to accept Catholicism as one more denomination within the broad framework of Christianity. The proportion of the population who were "religious adherents," that is church members, increased fairly steadily through most of American history.

* * *

But if increases in non-Christian membership haven't diluted Christianity in America, hasn't it been supplanted over time by a culture that is pervasively irreligious, if not antireligious? These terms describe segments of American intellectual, academic and media elites, but not the bulk of the American people. American religiosity could be high by absolute measures and high relative to that of comparable societies, yet the secularization thesis would still be valid if the commitment of Americans to religion declined over time. Little or no evidence exists of such a decline. The one significant shift that does appear to have occurred is a drop in the 1960s and '70s in the religious commitment of Catholics. This shift, however, brought Catholic attitudes on religion more into congruence with those of Protestants.

Over the course of American history, fluctuations did occur in levels of American religious commitment and religious involvement. There has not, however, been an overall downward trend in American religiosity. At the start of the 21st century, Americans are no less committed, and are quite possibly more committed, to their religious beliefs and their Christian identity than at any time in their history.

We Are Their Mongrels

A Victor Hanson Q&A:

Q: Do you consider it a possibility that the anti-Americanism of Western European governments will eventually morph with the anti-Americanism of the Islamists to the point where they are open allies against the U.S.?

Hanson: Well, France is sort of there now, isn’t it? It sold weapons even in the 1990s to Saddam, built his reactor, and de facto stole his oil. It denied air rights during Reagan’s strike against Libya, and actively campaigned to strong-arm our friends and neutrals to embarrass us in the UN. If you read French commentary—from the nationalist right to the socialist left—it is not just anti-American, but hostilely so. A French legislator was on record in favor of granting nukes to the Arab world. Lost in all this equation is how the Europeans can reconcile the fact that if we are as truly bad and corrupt as they say, why does most of the world look to us, not them for help in crises, for innovations—and for visas? At this point, I think we should very quietly start withdrawing from Europe. Smile to Mr. Schroeder, praise Germany, but by all means pull out most of our troops. And I would have nothing to do with France either; but the key is to separate in a congenial way as well and accept they are friends like Switzerland. Praise NATO to the skies, but then don’t make a move with it, at least unless and until the Europeans take the lead. If Kerry thinks his charm and his French will win over NATO to commit to Iraq, he should ask why they sat in the Balkans and put a tiny toe print in Afghanistan. We are their mongrels to whom are thrown a bone once in a while when a thug like Milosevic or Osama sizes them up.

Krugman Watch

Don Luskin is busting Paul Krugman.

Fallujah Update

StrategyPage:

American marines are saying that the experiment with allowing former Saddam era soldiers and security troops keep the peace in Fallujah is not working. The "Fallujah Brigade" formed for that purpose has been unwilling to face down the heavily armed Baath Party and Islamic radical gangs in Fallujah. As a result, despite the marine checkpoints on the roads coming out of Fallujah, hostile gangs continue to operate in the city. This was spotlighted recently when six Shia truck drivers were stooped [sic] in Fallujah by a militia working for a local Islamic conservative Sunni Arab religious leader. The six Shia were turned over to another radical gang, and murdered. Shia throughout Iraq are now calling for revenge. Fallujah is seen as the center of power for those who want to bring back a Sunni Arab dictatorship and Shia are now demanding that this center of terror be destroyed. The Sunni Arab controlled media from throughout the Middle East are eagerly waiting for that. Another "Battle for Fallujah" would provide dramatic video of Sunni Arabs being killed either by infidels, or Shia Arabs (who are infidels of the more conservative Sunni Moslems.)

The new interim government, dominated by Shia Arabs and Kurds, increasingly talks darkly about taking unspecified "severe measures" against those creating the violence. One of the unspecified actions apparently involves destroying Fallujah, despite what al Jazeera thinks.

Arafat Tried to Kill Abbas?

Via Milt's File, don't miss this