Advisory Opinion

Kerry's Band of Brothers

Apparently these guys aren't looking to be in Kerry's band:

July 31, 2004 -- SCRANTON, Pa. — John Kerry's heavily hyped cross-country bus tour stumbled out of the blocks yesterday, as a group of Marines publicly dissed the Vietnam War hero in the middle of a crowded restaurant. Kerry was treating running mate Sen. John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, to a Wendy's lunch in Newburgh, N.Y., for their 27th wedding anniversary — an Edwards family tradition — when the candidate approached four Marines and asked them questions.

The Marines — two in uniform and two off-duty — were polite but curt while chatting with Kerry, answering most of his questions with a "yes, sir" or "no, sir."

But they turned downright nasty after the Massachusetts senator thanked them "for their service" and left.

"He imposed on us and I disagree with him coming over here shaking our hands," one Marine said, adding, "I'm 100 percent against [him]."

A sergeant with 10 years of service under his belt said, "I speak for all of us. We think that we are doing the right thing in Iraq," before saying he is to be deployed there in a few weeks and is "eager" to go and serve.

Great Americans. (Via Instapundit.)

What's Wrong With Kerry

Andrew Sullivan reflects on Kerry's acceptance speech:

[T]he reason the Kerry speech was so troubling is that it seems to me an indicator of what's wrong with the candidate: arrogant, prolix, unable to discipline his own tortured nuance, and too clever by half.

Indeed. But that's just a partial list.

Reporting for Duty

Creepy.

A Hedgehog, Not a Fox

A VDH Q&A:

Why does America lack the courage we had 60 years ago? Was life simpler with no TV and no "up to the minute” news?

Hanson: Partly. We are more affluent, leisured, safe, and removed from the terror of nature in all its savagery — plague, famine, natural disasters, etc. We suffer from the Hamlet disease of finding a thousand reasons not to do something rather than one to act. That fact of decisive action is the single best recommendation for George Bush; he is a hedgehog, not a fox. And his one great truth is that he grasped that these Islamicists and their autocratic patrons wish to destroy the West as represented by the United States. And he really will act — not preach like Carter and give us the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and a fascist Iran, not talk fire and brimstone and then do almost nothing in Lebanon after the slaughter of Marines like Reagan, not like his father stop short of Baghdad, and not go to Sandy Berger and focus groups and get us a cruise missile and a worried brow like Clinton. Intellectuals hate Bush for his action and failure to consult 1,000 different nuanced talking heads, but most Americans, when they get into that booth in November, are going to ask themselves one question: “does Osama bin Laden and the terrorist sympathizers want Bush or Kerry to win this election?”— and vote accordingly.

I hope he's right about the voting booth.

UPDATE: This entire batch of VDH Q&As is really quite interesting.

Kerry: Pro- or Anti-War?

The RNC has a very entertaining video out cataloging John Kerry's various positions on the war in Iraq. This is a man who will say anything if politically expedient. An empty man.

Liberals

The Anal Philosopher knows liberals better than they the know themselves:

Not only are liberals not entitled to govern; they don’t deserve to govern. They need to grow up, develop a more holistic view of the person, develop a more realistic view of human nature, and cultivate a sense of patience. They need to stop patting themselves on the back for being benevolent, compassionate, caring, and sympathetic. Benevolence is neither necessary nor sufficient for acting rightly. Caring, far from being a synonym for justice, is often an impediment to it. It’s not for nothing that we say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberals prove it every day.

There's more where that came from.

Looking Foolish

Yet another Dukakis moment.

Did you know . . .

that John Kerry served in Vietnam? Really, he did.

Reader Feedback

I laughed out loud at this email from a reader:

Just wanted to let you know I actually disagree with every single statement you made save the one regarding Vonage! There you are right on!

That's it.

Well . . . at least I got it right once.

Convention Odds and Ends

In introducing her father, one the Kerry daugters just said that if you want to drink clean water and breathe clean air, you must be involved in this struggle. Risible.

Meanwhile, Morgan Freeman has apparently narrated Kerry's Spielberg-produced canned introduction film. I wonder if Michael Moore had a hand in it. It's very slick indeed, with theme music and everything. I suppose that's okay, Kerry needs all the help he can get.

The introduction includes some great spin on Kerry's anti-war activities after the Vietnam War. The story is that he felt he had to speak up since America's leaders weren't being truthful with the public. Really? How does he explain his blatant lies and exaggerations concerning atrocities being committed by American troops?

UPDATE: In the long lead-up to Kerry speech, the obvious point the Dems wanted to drive home is that Kerry is tough, a war hero, and therefore can be trusted on matters of national security. Did you notice that in Max Cleland's speech, the applause was rather tepid throughout. But the single line that was roundly applauded by the Democratic attendees was the one about Kerry not alienating our (always unnamed) allies. Is that really what is most important to these people?

UPDATE TWO: I was wrong above. The Kerry "biopic" was produced by a Spielberg protege; Spielberg only played an "advisory role."

The Democrats' Secret Weapon

Or perhaps it's the Republicans':

Moore's got another project coming up, as well. This fall, he'll be visiting battleground states where the race between Kerry and Bush is considered close. "I'll be all over the battleground states from now until the election," says Moore. "I've got a few more things I want to say about George Bush."

Democrats from the contested states say they will welcome Moore with open arms. "He's a troublemaker and this party needs more of those," says Michael Lowery, a Howard Dean delegate from Wisconsin. "Michael Moore challenges this party. We need that kind of gadfly. He keeps us honest."

Be that the case, there were no plans to get Moore together with the other man of the hour: John Kerry.

"If they would give me 15 minutes with him, I'd love to talk to him," Moore said. "I'd tell him how to win this election."

The more Moore is identified with the mainstream of the Democratic Party, the happier I am.

John Edwards

Just watched his speech at the convention. I wasn't impressed, but I'm not inclined to be. He seemed in over his head, talking too fast and nervously smiling. His "two Americas" riff seemed artificial and much of what he said was not as well received as I would have expected. But, again, I tend to disagree with just about everything he said except for the most generic and uncontroversial slogans that in isolation no one could disagree with. Fred Barnes made a good point on Fox: Edwards's message is at war with itself; on the one hand, he tells us that there are two Americas (one for those that have lived the American dream and don't have to worry about anything and the other for those who are working for minimum wage and can't afford health care), while on the other hand, he says that this is America and anything is possible. If the latter is true then the former is meaningless.

The "War Hero"

BOSTON — A controversy has re-emerged over the home movie footage John Kerry shot of himself during his wartime service in Vietnam, with a former crewmate and critic of Kerry's saying that he re-enacted battle scenes at sites after the skirmishes had ended.

"Unfit for Command," an as-yet unreleased book by John O'Neill (search), who took over command of Kerry's swift boat after Kerry left Vietnam, depicts at least one alleged re-enactment incident. Another book, "Reckless Disregard," is said to contain more examples. O'Neill is the Republican who began Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of veterans dedicated to criticizing Kerry.

The Kerry camp confirms that at times, the current presidential candidate did carry an 8mm film camera that he and his crewmates used to record themselves. The campaign argued that these pictures were perfectly common keepsakes that soldiers shot all over Vietnam.

Kerry campaign officials also acknowledged that after a number of skirmishes and battles, Kerry and his unit did return to the various locations to film one another at the incident site. However, officials adamantly denied charges that Kerry returned to those locations to re-enact the battles.

Much of the footage appears in Kerry campaign ads and video biographies. Some of it is expected to be featured prominently in the video biography that will air Thursday night at the convention. That production was helped along by none other than director Steven Spielberg.

The man was in Vietnam for five months, requested to return home early after receiving three minor wounds, and then went on a campaign to undermine support for, and lie about, the war and the American soldiers fighting in it. Some war hero.

Will the Real Teresa Please Speak Up

From the Boston Herald (via Drudge):

Teresa Heinz Kerry, years before becoming a Democrat, railed against the party's "putrid'' politics, said she didn't trust Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and angrily called the liberal lion a "perfect bastard.''

In comments published in a little-known 1975 book about political wives called "The Power Lovers: An Intimate Look at Politicians and Their Marriages,'' Heinz Kerry lashed out at the senator she'll share the primetime convention stage with tonight.

"I know some couples who stay together only for politics,'' Heinz Kerry said at the time. "If Ted Kennedy holds on to that marriage (to ex-wife Joan) just for the Catholic vote, as some people say he does, then I think he's a perfect bastard.''

Heinz Kerry, then married to Republican Sen. H. John Heinz III of Pennsylvania, said she "didn't trust'' President Richard M. Nixon but added, "Ted Kennedy I don't trust either.''

The combustible and ever-quotable Heinz Kerry said of Democrats, "The Democratic machine in this country is putrid.'' Excerpts of the comments appeared in The Boston Herald American in January 1976.

Coming a day after Heinz Kerry was caught on camera telling a reporter to "shove it'' when the reporter questioned her on statements made in a Boston speech, the remarks could undercut Democrats' ability to showcase a positive message at the convention.

Read the whole thing if you're interested in Heinz Kerry's spokewoman's shameless spin.

The Young Kerry

Don Luskin has a good sense of humor.

The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party

The National Journal is sending out free email convention alerts. Here's a bit from today's:

"They like to wear flags on their lapels, but how many children of network news executives are in Iraq?... Nine hundred kids are dead because these f***ers haven't done their job."

-- Filmmaker Michael Moore, taking aim at the major television networks
this morning in a commotion-causing visit to the FleetCenter floor.

Will Americans elect a president from a party that is so closely tied with people like Michael Moore?

9/11 Report

The WSJ has a useful summary.

Propaganda Watch

Michael Moore's contentious film Fahrenheit 9/11 has opened in Poland, with some film critics likening it to totalitarian propaganda.

Gazeta Wyborcza reviewer Jacek Szczerba called the film a "foul pamphlet".

He said it was too biased to be called a documentary and was similar to work by Nazi propaganda director Leni Riefenstahl.

But politicians opposed to Poland's involvement in the US-led occupation of Iraq have urged people to see the film.

"In criticising Moore, I have to admit that he has certain abilities - Leni Riefenstahl had them too," Mr Szczerba said in his review.

"Michael Moore will not convince Poles with his film," the Rzeczpospolita newspaper said in its review.

(Via Instapundit.)

VoIP

The Anal Philosopher thinks he's being ripped-off by his telephone company. I came to the same conclusion concerning my phone service. Here's my solution: Drop the DSL and switch to a cable modem Internet connection. That way you don't have to pay for the telephone line (which DSL requires). Also, cable Internet is generally faster. Then use Vonage for your phone service. They're not burdened with the FCC-imposed mandatory charges and taxes that the phone companies are. So, for example, you can get 500 minutes (including long distance) for $15 bucks, plus only about $3 in taxes and other charges. A good deal.

Girlie Men

Arnold is working over his Democratic opponents in California. Good stuff.

Can They Be Trusted?

Michael Barone wonders (but I'm convinced they can't):

Official reports issued the last two weeks have conclusively refuted those who have been arguing that "BUSH LIED" about the dangers from Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction programs. The first report was that of the Senate Intelligence Committee. That committee has been rent by partisan divisions over the last year, but the report was unanimous. One prime conclusion of the report is that American intelligence organizations, like those of every other major country, did indeed believe that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction and had ongoing WMD programs. That intelligence seems to have been mistaken.

But given Saddam Hussein's documented development, possession and use of WMDs, and his refusal to account for their disposal, what intelligence evidence could have convinced a reasonable analyst that he no longer had them?

As the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon -- a frequent Bush critic -- puts it, "It would have taken an overwhelming body of evidence for any reasonable person in 2002 to think that Saddam did not possess stockpiles of chemical and biological agents." . . .

So much for the wild charges that Bush manipulated intelligence and lied about weapons of mass destruction. He simply said what was believed by every informed person -- including leading members of the Clinton administration before 2001 and Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards in their speeches in October 2002 supporting military action in Iraq.

The Senate Intelligence Committee report also refuted completely the charges by former diplomat Joseph Wilson that the Bush administration ignored his conclusion, based on several days in Niger, that Iraq had not sought to buy uranium in that country. Democrats and many in the press claimed that Wilson refuted the 16-word sentence Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, noting that British intelligence reported that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa.

But British intelligence stands by that finding, and the committee noted that Wilson confirmed that Iraq had approached Niger, whose main exports are uranium and goats, and intelligence analysts concluded that his report added nothing else to their previous knowledge. And the report flatly denied Wilson's statements that his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, had nothing to do with his mission to Niger -- it quotes Plame's memo taking credit for the appointment.

The report issued last week in Britain by former civil servant Lord Butler reaches similar conclusions. It finds that Prime Minister Tony Blair did not pressure intelligence organizations to change their findings and that there was no "deliberate distortion" of intelligence or "culpable negligence." It supported the conclusion of British intelligence that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa.

All this is significant because for the past year most leading Democrats and many in the determinedly anti-Bush media have been harping on the "BUSH LIED" theme. Their aim clearly has been to discredit and defeat Bush. The media continue to fight this battle: contrast the way The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times front-paged the Wilson charges last year with the way they're downplaying the proof that Wilson lied deep inside the paper this year.

Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis has argued that George W. Bush has transformed American foreign policy, in response to the threat of Islamist terrorism, more than any president since Harry Truman transformed our foreign policy in response to the threat of aggressive communism.

But there is one big difference. In the late 1940s, Truman got bipartisan support from Republicans like Arthur Vandenberg and Thomas Dewey, even at a time when there were bitter differences between the parties on domestic policy, and received generally sympathetic treatment in the press. This time, George W. Bush has encountered determined opposition from most Democrats and the old-line media. They have charged that "BUSH LIED" even when he relied on the same intelligence as they did; they have headlined wild and spurious charges by the likes of Joseph Wilson; they have embraced the wild-eyed propaganda of the likes of Michael Moore.

They have done these things with, at best, reckless disregard of the effect their arguments have had on American strength in the world. Are they entitled to be taken seriously?

The Democrats seem to me to want power above all else. Hence, their willingness to say anything -- no matter how irresponsible. Have they no self-respect? No honor? No decorum?

Tyler Cohen on Michael Moore

Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution (one of my favorite blogs) went to see Michael Moore's movie. He wasn't impressed:

It's late in the game to be blogging this, but I've just seen Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11. I was dragged to the movie, more or less against my will. I won't review the film's well-known problems with the facts. I was at least as disturbed by the implicit racism. For instance it portrayed the Saudis as vile connivers, in a manner reminiscent of 19th century racial propaganda. [N.B. I agree we should trust the Saudi government less, but this is not the point.] Even worse was the segment on the "Coalition of the Willing"; Costa Ricans for instance are shown as a primitive and laughable people who work with oxen.

Most of all the film shows an overall contempt for humanity. The American poor, supposedly the object of Moore's concern, come across as stupid, inarticulate, and easily duped. The only idyllic paradise we ever see is Saddam Hussein's Iraq, where all appears beautiful.

It is a sad day in Cannes and in the United States when a movie of this kind commands so much attention. There are many important and intelligent critiques of the foreign policy of the Bush Administration, but this is not one of them. On top of everything else, the film was outright boring, especially during the second half.

But isn't Tyler's critique also a critique of much of the Left these days?

Joe Wilson and John Kerry

I am already so very tired of the Democrat's tactics this election season. It's as if they realized during the Clinton years that being caught actually lying to a federal grand jury, and made a mental note: We'll get those Republicans for lying next time around. Now, of course, virtually everything Bush says that they disagree with is a lie -- no matter that lying is a particular type of falsehood, an intentional one. But they're not sweating those details.

Here's a bit from a must read column by Mark Steyn:

Well, the week went pretty much as I predicted seven days ago:

BUSH LIED!! Not.

BLAIR LIED!!! Not.

But it turns out JOE WILSON LIED! PEOPLE DIED. Of embarrassment mostly. At least I'm assuming that's why the New York Times, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, PBS drone Bill Moyers and all the other media bigwigs Joseph C. Wilson IV suckered have fallen silent on the subject of the white knight of integrity they've previously given the hold-the-front-page treatment, too.

And what about John F. Kerry? Joe Wilson campaigned with Kerry in at least six states, and claims to have helped with the candidate's speeches. He was said to be a senior foreign policy adviser to the senator. As of Friday, Wilson's Web site, restorehonesty.com, was still wholly paid for by Kerry's presidential campaign.

Heigh-ho. It would be nice to hear his media boosters howling en masse, "Say it ain't so, Joe!" But Joe Wilson's already slipping down the old media memory hole. He served his purpose -- he damaged Bush, he tainted the liberation of Iraq -- and yes, by the time you read this the Kerry campaign may well have pulled the plug on his Web site, and Salon magazine's luxury cruise will probably have to find another headline speaker, and he won't be doing Tim Russert again any time soon. But what matters to the media and to Senator Kerry is that he helped the cause of (to quote his book title) The Politics Of Truth, and if it takes a serial liar to do that, so be it.

But before he gets lowered in his yellowcake overcoat into the Niger River, let's pause to consider: What do Joe Wilson's lies mean? And what does it say about the Democrats and the media that so many high-ranking figures took him at his word?

First, contrary to what Wilson wrote in the New York Times, Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. In support of that proposition are a Senate report in Washington, Lord Butler's report in London, MI6, French intelligence, other European agencies -- and, as we now know, the CIA report, based on Joe Wilson's original briefing to them. Against that proposition is Joe Wilson's revised version of events for the Times.

This isn't difficult. In 1999, a senior Iraqi "trade" delegation went to Niger. Uranium accounts for 75 percent of Niger's exports. The rest is goats, cowpeas and onions. So who sends senior trade missions to Niger? Maybe Saddam dispatched his Baathist big shots all the way to the dusty capital of Niamy because he had a sudden yen for goat and onion stew with a side order of black-eyed peas, and Major Wanke, the then-president, had offered him a great three-for-one deal.

But that's not what Joe Wilson found. Major Wanke's prime minister, among others, told Ambassador Wilson that he believed Iraq wanted yellowcake. And Ambassador Wilson told the CIA. And the CIA's report agreed with the British and the Europeans that "Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa."

In his ludicrously vain memoir The Politics Of Truth, Wilson plays up his knowledge of the country. He makes much of his intimacy with Wanke and gives himself the credit for ridding Niger of the Wanke regime. The question then is why a man who knew so much about what was going on chose deliberately to misrepresent it to all his media/ Democrat buddies, not to mention to the American people. For a book called The Politics Of Truth, it's remarkably short of it. On page 2, Wilson says of his trip to Niger: "I had found nothing to substantiate the rumors." But he had.

That's what lying is, by the way: intentional deceit, not unreliable intelligence. And I'm not usually the sort to bandy the liar-liar-pants-on-fire charge beloved by so many in our politics today, but I'll make an exception in the case of Wilson, who's never been shy about the term. He called Bush a "liar" and he called Cheney a "lying sonofabitch," on stage at a John Kerry rally in Iowa.

Read the rest.

White House Salaries

Someone leaked the salary list for the White House staff. I wonder what the motivations of the leaker were. Anyway, now we all know what everyone makes.

The WaPo (and Dana Milbank in particular) thinks the story is that the highest paid staff are mostly male. How predictable. I think the story is that these folks, many of whom could be earning many multiples of their current government salaries, are willing to serve -- and work tirelessly -- for so little compensation.

What about the virgins?

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - A confidant of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) surrendered to Saudi diplomats in Iran and was flown to the kingdom Tuesday, a potentially valuable asset in the war on terror because of his closeness to the fugitive al-Qaida chief.

Khaled bin Ouda bin Mohammed al-Harby was shown on Saudi TV being pushed in a wheelchair through the Riyadh airport. He is the most important figure to surface under a Saudi amnesty promising to spare the lives of militants who turn themselves in.

That's odd. I would have thought al-Harby would have preferred to die in the glorious jihad and meet his 72 virgins.

Not Backing Down

After months of taking a beating in the press and Democratic primary over not finding WMDs in Iraq, it looks like the Bush administration is finally fighting back:

President George W. Bush said on Monday his administration would maintain its policy of pre-empting potential security threats despite growing doubts over the adequacy of US intelligence to assess such dangers.

In a speech at the Oak Ridge nuclear facility in Tennessee, Mr Bush made clear he would not rethink the approach after Friday's damning report by the Senate intelligence committee. The report concluded that the Central Intelligence Agency made serious errors in asserting that Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed or was developing weapons of mass destruction.

While acknowledging that the report "has identified some shortcomings in our intelligence capabilities", he said that would not cause him to reconsider the approach that led the US to invade Iraq.

"America must remember the lessons of September the 11th," Mr Bush said. "We must confront serious dangers before they fully materialise."

The president said that before the US went to war with Iraq, the administration, Congress and the United Nations Security Council all agreed intelligence showed that Iraq posed a serious threat.

And it's not letting the Democrats have it both ways, as they've been trying to do for months:

The Senate findings have fueled an already bitter election-year debate over Iraq, even though John Kerry, the Democratic presidential hopeful, and John Edwards, his running mate, both voted for the Senate resolution authorising war against Iraq.

Mr Kerry said on the weekend that the Senate findings bolster his argument that Mr Bush misled the country in launching a war that has hurt the US. He refused, however, to reconsider his vote, saying that "based on the information we had, it was the correct vote".

But Dick Cheney, the vice president, accused the Democrats on Monday of developing "a convenient case of campaign amnesia". He said Mr Kerry and Mr Edwards "are criticising the president for looking at the same information that they did and coming to the same conclusion that [he] did. If the president was right, and he was, then they are simply trying to rewrite history for their own political purposes."

Cheney is making the critical point. If Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq -- as Democrats love to imply -- then so did Kerry, Edwards, and all of the other Democrats who both voted for the war and made statements similar to the administration's concerning WMDs and the threat posed by Saddam.

UPDATE: As one might expect, the NY Times account does not mention Cheney's fine point. But why would it?

The Big Niger-Uranium Lie

Apparently it wasn't Bush who lied.

Whose kids are those?

After being smitten by the Edwards' little kids (like the rest of America), I casually asked a doctor friend "How did she [John Edwards's wife] get pregnant at age 48?" The immediate response shocked me -- "Donor egg."

This means that John Edwards provided the sperm, an unknown stranger (or friend) provided the egg, and the combination was mixed in a lab and inserted into Mrs. Edwards in a surgical procedure known as an "embryonic transfer." Why did she need a donor egg? According to my doctor friend, and corroborated by data on www.ivf-infertility.com, fertility drops to "zero" by age 45. Although there are apparently a few women who get pregnant after that age, the chances are like winning the lottery. So who is the mother of the children of the potential future vice president of the United States?

The question is not just one of prurient or partisan interest. Among certain elements of the population -- that is, highly educated, dual profession couples -- this procedure, known as IVF, is becoming quite common. And President Bush's science advisors have proposed some limits on the use of IVF (as part of the reaction to the use of embryonic stem cells generally). John Edwards is very likely the first politician of such stature who has experienced IVF, and this is very likely to become a campaign issue.

Blog Slowdown

There's not going to be much blogging from me this week. I'm in vacation in Colorado and a computer isn't handy. See you soon -- probably next week for more regular blogging.

In the meantime, try these if you're looking for something good to read: Anal Philosopher, Marginal Revolution, Milt's File, Blackfive, and InstaPundit.

Victory and Decadence

A couple Victor Hanson Q&As:

Q: What would constitute "victory" for our enemy? Were you in their shoes, what would be your goal? How would you define victory and then remain victorious?

Hanson: An enemy victory in Iraq is something most likely to be a government of jihadists, whether Sunnis or Shiites, like Iran. An agenda of such a state? Get your hands on billions of petrodollars. Form a loose alliance with Iran and understandings with Syria. Undermine the Gulf States. Follow the Iranian/Libyan model of nuclear acquisition. Daily threaten Israel. Make the Europeans sell whatever you want, through a mixture of oil blackmail and loose talks about missiles, nukes, and launching ranges. So if they could turn Iraq into a Taliban-like badlands first, and a petrofueled theocracy second, then the rest would be easier. There are only two ways for Islamist governments now to threaten us: transform their country into terrorist havens (Afghanistan) or use petrol-dollars to buy nukes (Iran). Otherwise they are about as relevant as the Sudan or Somalia.

Q: I'd like to know your thoughts about two books about Western intellectual history -- Richard Tarnas' "The Passion of the Western Mind" and Jacques Barzun's "From Dawn to Decadence." Do you admire either?

Hanson: I know the latter far better. And read a great deal of it. I have liked Barzun’s work for years. Dawn to Decadence is a brilliant commentary, truthful about the Western propensity to turn to ornamentation, levity, and self-indulgence given its ability to promote individualism and create wealth and security—but without the Germanic determinism and crazy schemas of a Hegel or Spengler. In general, the Columbia tradition of great explicators of the West going back to Gilbert Highett and before will be lost with Barzun. We simply don’t train people like that anymore and with today’s pressures on graduate students to do theory and conform to ossified political views, an entire generation has been lost. Today’s graduate student does not learn philology, master historical data, or read great literature as in the past—one day of reading Thucydides in Greek is worth a semester of Lacan. In Who Killed Homer? We talked about this tragic decline in classical education. When I interviewed graduate students for jobs, I tired of hearing “phallocentric,” “construct,” and “privileging,” and reading all the creepy titles of their dissertations like “the poetics of masculinity” and “the construction of gender difference”—especially when they could not tell you what a helot was or where Argos was. Arrogance and ignorance are a fatal combination.

Allawi Is No Ostrich

The new Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi thinks there was a Saddam-al Qaeda connection. Apparently he's not moved by the New York Times' spin.

More Moore Embarassment

This time at the hands of Michael Isikoff.

The Real Criminal

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A defiant Saddam Hussein rejected charges of war crimes and genocide in a court appearance Thursday, telling a judge "this is all theater, the real criminal is Bush."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?