Poodles on Parade

Remember the memo unearthed in Iraq listing the recipients of Saddam's "Oil-for-UN-Veto" bribes? (See tpfp post 2/9 6:12pm.) The Middle East Media Research Institute provides another English translation--with bios of the beneficiaries. Here's a excerpt, selected purely at random, describing the recipients from America's long-standing ally France:

Former interior minister Charles Pasqua (12 million barrels ) denied any involvement and suggested another, unnamed former French interior minister may have been the beneficiary. According to The New York Post Mr. Pasqua, "a close friend and former colleague of Chirac . . . fought to allow visits by top Iraqi officials to France in 1993."

Patrick Maugein, CEO of the oil firm SOCO International (25 million barrels), was quoted as saying that he did a lot of business in Iraq under the Oil for Food program, "but none of it was illegal." It was mentioned that the 55-year old businessman "appears to wield [influence] with President Jacques Chirac."

Bernard Merimee (3 million and another 8 million barrels) was the French Ambassador to the United Nations and France's representative in the Security Council.

Michael Grimard (17 million barrels) is the founder of the French-Iraqi Export Club.

Gilles Munier, secretary general of the Franco-Iraqi Friendship Association, said his organization introduced numerous businesses, oil and otherwise, to contracts in Iraq, but that it was all perfectly legal. For each successful introduction, he said he "received a commission."

Next: a stampede to join the French-Iraqi "Export" Club.

Bush's Secret Weapon

Newspapers are bursting with polls predicting that, were the election today, any Democratic Senator named John would defeat President Bush. It's depressing. Similar concerns prompted a gloomy electoral vote tally in this space ten days ago. (tpfp post 2/8 7:48pm.)

I'm more optimistic now, for many reasons. One reason is Bush's secret weapon. It's not WMDs (obviously). And it's not the absence of a follow-up terrorist attack on the United States--though, as Charles Krauthammer noted, it's Bush's greatest accomplishment. It's certainty not the Administration's latest pork-larded budget--though the increased spending will attract some voters. The secret weapon isn't even Senator John Kerry--though I'm puzzled Dems chose their most liberal candidate: a 92, according to far-left Americans for Democratic Action. (Even the wacky Kucinich is only an 86.)

No, President Bush's secret weapon is--President Bush. He's a normal, decent guy. Yes, lefties loathe Bush beyond all reason. But Bush wasn't ever going to win their support. Moderate voters decide most elections. And moderates neither hate the President nor understand those that do. The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan gauges the gulf between Bush haters and mainstream Americans:

Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man. He's normal. He thinks in a sort of common-sense way. He speaks the language of business and sports and politics. You know him. He's not exotic. But if there's a fire on the block, he'll run out and help. He'll help direct the rig to the right house and count the kids coming out and say, "Where's Sally?" He's responsible. He's not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world. And then when the fire comes they say, "I warned Joe about that furnace." And, "Does Joe have children?" And "I saw a fire once. It spreads like syrup. No, it spreads like explosive syrup. No, it's formidable and yet fleeting." When the fire comes they talk. Bush ain't that guy. Republicans love the guy who ain't that guy. Americans love the guy who ain't that guy.

Some smart people are wise (Richard Feynman, for example). Some seemingly average people also are wise (e.g., Ronald Reagan). But other very bright people can't be trusted with car keys, much less the Presidency (you listening Jimmy?). Other than leftist academics in the Philosophy department (see tpfp post 2/15 9:21pm), most people instinctively and accurately can tell the difference. Not good for the Haughty Hairdo.

That's why President Bush will be re-elected. Because he speaks our language. And Americans love that kinda guy.

Worth a Thousand Words

Remember all those Palestinians claiming that Israel = Nazi? Well here's how Hezbollah demonstrates devotion to der Fuhrer. (Via LGF.)

Presidential Diplomacy

The only wisdom more conventional than "Bush is a liar and a moron" is that America's foreign policy failed because the President is "undiplomatic." If only Bush had reasoned with "Old Europe" and the UN, so they say, all would be well. The Administration's heavy-handed "unilateralism" supposedly unnecessarily complicated the Iraq war. (Candidate Kerry agrees; see tpfp post 2/18 3:28am.)

This time, the conventional wisdom is wrong. The UN Security Council ratified 17 resolutions threatening Iraq with military force and then--at the last moment--decided they were kidding. Once France and Russia said "Nyet," America had two options: continue or capitulate. Wisely, Bush persevered. But Russia and the chocolate-producing nations (France, Germany, Belgium) never intended to fight, no matter the volume of Foggy-bottom flattery. This may be because many of our "allies" (and their politicians) were poodles on Saddam's payroll. (See tpfp post 2/9 6:12pm.) In any event, further protracted but polite palaver would not have prevented war.

That's old news. The real question is why the pro-diplomacy crowd won't credit Bush's unquestioned foreign policy successes. Last month, American diplomats got Libya to end its nuclear program--which the CIA hadn't even detected! Col. Gaddafi volunteered the information, and the commitment, because he feared becoming another Iraq. And Saturday's WaPo revealed a new agreement with Liberia permitting our navy to board and search Liberian-flag ships we believe are carrying illicit weapons. (Also noted in a subscriber-only WSJ article today.) Because Liberia has the second largest ship registry (after Panama), the agreement will enhance our ability to track and interdict illicit weapons. Neither the UN nor continental Europe have a navy; today, only America can help.

Both agreements are diplomatic triumphs. Each genuinely could make the world safer. There's even precedent for a super-power using sea-power unilaterally to enforce emerging morality: that's how Britain's Royal Navy halted the slave trade in the mid-1800s. But does President Bush get credit? Hardly. The Administration barely gets a mention, much less praise. And the smart-set still "knows" the President's a dreadful diplomat.

Diplomacy is more than just honey and bullshit. (Sometimes, one must eat cocktail party Canapes! Kidding.) When two countries disagree, silver tongued State Department bureaucrats can't just pretend otherwise. Well, they can, but hedging resolves nothing. Such dithering can kill--as it did in Rwanda, Burundi, Bosnia and Kosovo.

Since World War II, America has endeavored to nurture democracy and protect the weak worldwide. We're proud of this record--and should be. Americans also are friendly, anxious to please and be respected. These ideals can clash. Bill Clinton persuaded the world to love him--and so let Osama and Saddam snowball. President Bush deploys military clout to protect America and topple tyranny--even if reviled as a result. Perhaps Plato's ideal philosopher-king could be equally assertive and admired. No mortal President can--or should.

America must remain respected and effective. In other words, Americans want to be both loved and feared. Me too. But, if I must choose, I'd rather be feared. I'll bet the Afghani and Iraqi people agree.

Another Time Waster

Help me; help me!

If You Can't Do, Advise

George McGovern has some advice for the Democrats: cut and run. In a letter to the editor in the NY Times, McGovern says regime change in Iraq:

is not worth risking the death of one additional American. Thousands of young Americans bled and died in Vietnam to keep a series of political frauds in power in Saigon. . . Let's walk out of Iraq.

Thus speaketh the candidate of "amnesty, acid and abortion." It's not surprising McGovern's stuck in 1972. What's amazing is the number of Democrats still drinking George's Kool-Aid 30 years after the sell-by date.

Will and Den Beste Debate Debate Questions for Kerry

George Will's Sunday NY Post column listed questions the media should, but isn't, asking John Kerry:

[W]hat does the adjective mean n the phrase "special interest"? Is the National Education Association a special interest? The AFL-CIO?

You abhor "special tax giveaways for the privileged and special interests." When supporting billions in ethanol subsidies, mostly for agribusinesses, did you think about corn-growing, caucus-holding Iowa?

Is the National Rifle Association a "special interest"? Is "special" a synonym for "conservative"?

There's lots more. It's a good list. But I prefer uber-thinker Steven Den Beste's list (formed with help from readers). Den Beste's proposal is simple, succinct and short:

1) Do you believe we are in a war?

2) If so, do you intend to win this war?

3) If so, how do you intend to win this war?

I don't think Kerry could answer, in part because he'd choke on myriad previous (but opposite) positions. Even better, Den Beste's approach might force voters to identify priorities. As Byron York discovered on "Super Tuesday," Democrats have forgotten the war:

In four of the five states for which exit polls are available--Arizona, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Carolina--Democratic voters placed national security/terrorism at the bottom of the list. Only in tiny Delaware, on the east coast and not far from Ground Zero, did Democrats place more emphasis on the issue--and even then, it was in next-to-last place.

This seems crazy, but is echoed by Jim VandHei's description of the Democrats' election strategy, in the WaPo:

Voters this year likely will be presented with two clear, but not dramatically different, approaches to solving the nation's domestic problems, ranging from failing schools to soaring drug costs.

The President's re-election campaign must challenge such torpor. Bush should remind America that there is one, overriding domestic issue in this election: protecting civilians from murder by Muslim extremists. Three thousand already are dead, and the President's most important duty is minimizing or preventing further terrorist attacks.

Despite the exit polls, I think most Americans consider the war the nation's top priority (the far-left is over-represented in Democrat primaries). This election will be decided by voters horrified that irrational bandits could threaten their family or its prosperity. We're a nation of immigrants, proud of our achievements, and of America's too. We detest terrorists--Arab or home-grown--who prefer chaos to cultivation and murder to forward movement. We, our fathers or our grandfathers, came here to escape similar anarchy or authoritarianism; we'll be no man's slave. We've thrived under American democracy and the rule of law. So far, it's been a fairy tale--but we know magic alone won't thwart 21st century foes.

Democrat presidential candidates are stuck in the fairy tale. They yak about something--anything--other than war, hoping no one lifts the foreign policy curtain, or stays awake for the third reel. That's because the left hasn't had a foreign policy since Vietnam. Unless you count "unilaterally" revoking promises to defend South Vietnam; ignoring Soviet medium-range missiles in Europe while insisting America's maintaining parity threatened global annihilation; kissing, and funding, Arafat; and downplaying or ignoring Saddam--except to distract from scandal.

Senator Kerry's typical of the breed. In campaign speeches, Kerry's always opposed war--or peace, or anything proposed by anyone named Bush. Except, er, when he didn't.

Kerry [has a] dual stand on the military campaign that liberated Iraq -- he voted for it but vehemently condemns it. In 1991, by contrast, he did the opposite: He voted against using force to roll back Iraq's invasion of Kuwait yet he claims it was an operation he firmly supported. "I believed we should kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait," Kerry told The Washington Post last month.

This is expediency without consistency. Even his manner is odd--on any other issue, Senator Kerry is the "Knight of the Woeful Countenance." Yet, when the subject turns to war--particularly Kerry's service in Vietnam--his macho bellicosity undercuts the "peace at any price" message.

Kerry's been worse since he's been winning. It's almost as if he's deliberately inarticulate on war and peace. In Sunday's Wisconsin debate, Senator Kerry ranked his foreign policy number one with a bullet:

This is one of the reasons why I am so intent on beating George Bush and why I believe I will beat George Bush, because one of the lessons that I learned -- when I was an instrument of American foreign policy, I was that cutting-edge instrument. I carried that M- 16. I know what it's like to try to choose between friend and foe in a foreign country when you're carrying out the policy of your nation.

And I know what it's like when you lose the consent and the legitimacy of that war. And that is why I said specifically on the floor of the Senate that what I was voting for was the process the president promised.

There was a right way to do this and there was a wrong way to do it. And the president chose the wrong way because he turned his back on his own pledge to build a legitimate international coalition, to exhaust the remedies of the United Nations in the inspections and to go to war as a matter of last resort.

So, Kerry proposes morphing into Rambo, grabbing a rifle, ducking friendly (e.g., French) fire, and bringing the fight to. . .who? Not Iraq--quelle horror! Certainly not the U.N. Hmmm. On second thought, let's recall Rambo until we've played "mother may I?" with 191 U.N. nations. Oops!, they're all out to lunch, but I'm told we've won a significant concession from the Mali delegation, which promised to meet sometime next fall.

More seriously, though Kerry clearly faults Bush's diplomacy, the Senator's shy on practical alternatives. Andrew Sullivan says such Kerry's tales aren't enough:

The president went to the Security Council twice to achieve support. Twice--after twelve years of Democratic and Republican administrations grappling with the perceived threat from Saddam. The relevant question therefore is: What would Kerry have done after the failure of the second resolution? Stand down the military? Retreat before Saddam and Chirac? Demobilize? Call for more inspections? Unless he can tell us precisely what he would have done differently in this "process," his positioning is just, well, positioning.

Issues like re-vamping social security, tort reform, economic growth and Judicial appointments are important. But, post 9-11, America needs leaders who deliver more than small-ball. Sketchy platitudes and a hairdo won't do.

John Kerry wants to be Commander in Chief of a country at war. Applicants for that position must first pass an exam--Steven Den Beste's three questions. This threshold test is mandatory for the job seekers, whether their resume came from a search firm (Kerry), from the "inside" (Cheney) or even from the boss (Bush). Of course, final consideration will be limited to candidates whose exam scores are 100 percent or better.

Now everyone pick up your number 2 pencils.

Two, Two, Two Bias in One

A few hours after tpfp posted the press bias quote of the year (tpfp 2/17 5:51pm) Rush Limbaugh and blogger Ed Driscoll up the anti. BBC's story, covering speculation about Kerry's private affairs, included this admission from Washington Post London correspondent Glenn Frankel, a Pulitzer winner:

Nobody would be too shocked if Kerry lied about an affair. Even if someone came to us with photographs we still wouldn't run it.

Ok; an apparently straight-forward confession by a long-time journalist that (1) Kerry's a sleaze; but (2) the liberal media would spike any evidence of sleaze. Bad enough, right? As late-night TV ads say, but wait--there's more: the quote's been removed from the article and no longer appears in the web version.

In sum, a seasoned reporter admitted his bias and his sourced quote was included in a BBC story. Next, someone--probably a member of the Union of Media Blowhards and Liberals (meets daily noon-3:30 pm, Post Pub, 1422 L Street NW)--spotted a lapse by the Ministry of Truth (HQ, the Black Rock, 51 W. 52nd Street). Winston Smith was summoned; the old quote dropped into the memory hole; only white-washed deceit remains.

I prefer WaPo's admission of bias (see tpfp post 2/10 6:27pm) to BBC's airbrushing of bias. Unfortunately, we're stuck with both. All men are mortal; individual politicians rise and fall; ashes to ashes, dust to dust--but media bias endures.

Press Bias Quote of the Year (So Far)

Sunday's WaPo carried the AP story on Bush attending the Daytona 500 in Florida. Written by Scott Lindlaw, here's the seventh paragraph (quoted in full):

With his wife, Laura, trailing him, Bush walked the pit, mingling with drivers, shaking hands with fans. He peered into car No. 16, sponsored by the National Guard, and if the car reminded him of the tempest swirling around his own service in the Texas Air National Guard, he didn't show it.

Apparently, when reporting on Republicans, no shot is too cheap for the liberal media. (via InstaPundit.)

This Story Is no More, Ceased to Be, Expired and Gone to Meet its Maker!

Unlike Monty Python's Parrot, journalism's not dead yet. Though most media confuse bias with reportage, some papers actually investigated Democrat claims that Bush shirked his National Guard service, either in Texas or Alabama. As noted below (tpfp post dated 2/11 3:07pm), the Boston Globe suggested one Terry McAullife source was lying. Today's New York Post challenges the only other accuser:

Retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, the 187th's Tactical Reconnaissance Group's former commander, recanted his statement that he couldn't remember if Bush reported for duty, now saying his memory is faulty because he's in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's disease.

Even the NY Times is back-peddling, conceding today (after rehashing each accusation) the AWOL claim "appears to be exaggerated."

The "Bush was AWOL" meme is impervious to facts; it won't disappear. Expect it on the Internet, at all the "smart" cocktail parties, and in anonymous leaks from McAullife and others. It's already conventional wisdom in "blue states," along with a smug certainty of a cover-up by the Republican-biased press (!). The same folks also think the CIA shot Kennedy from the grassy knoll; don't waste time talking 'um down from the ledge.

The real issue is the press' double-standard. As evidenced by Joe Conason's quotes below (tpfp post 2/15 8:43pm), unsourced rumors about Republicans are page 1, 42-point type news. Unsourced rumors about Democrats are scurrilous libel. The media tried, convicted and hung Lt. Bush before even investigating. Even after Bush is cleared, the press remains silent.

Jonah Goldberg doubts "a fact like this would have been ignored if a Bill Clinton accuser were in a similar plight." He's right. Just imagine the howls were criminals treated like Republicans--sentence first, verdict afterward.

Update:

Via InstaPundit, Roger Mitchell's concise summary of the Bush National Guard story. Click to see why dental records--valid on every prime-time crime drama!--aren't enough for liberal news departments.

Duke Prof "Explains"

Robert Brandon, chairman of Duke University's Philosophy department, is the very model of a modern liberal professor. Last week, he denied academia was monopolized by leftists, explaining that conservatives simply are stupider than liberals, and thus unqualified. (See the tpfp post on 2/11 4:16pm.) Academics doubtlessly agree, but it's not polite to admit it. So when everyone squawked, Brandon clarified his position:

the only viable hypothesis left is something like the following: There is a statistical association between the qualities that make for good academics and those that lead to left-leaning political views. Said another way, a larger proportion of academics are likely to be liberal.

Got it? Feel better now? Remember, this guy's the chairman of the Philosophy department; he must have mastered "syllogism" and "logic" by now.

Left-wing profs, and liberals in general, think they know what's best for students. Hell, these geniuses claim to know what's best for America.

When stuck, most people know the first step is "stop digging." If Brandon and other academics are so smart, how come they never learned Rule 1?

Bias, What Bias?

Mickey Kaus exposes the latest journalistic malpractice:

The always provocative Spy takes the plunge - some might say right into the sewer of sleaze and unnamed sources.

The cover story of its July/August issue discusses George Bush's supposed infidelities and publishes the name of longtime aide Jennifer A. Fitzgerald, around whom rumors have long circulated. The piece by Joe Conason also details other supposed liaisons, including a 1980 relationship with ''Ms. X,'' then a 30-ish news agency employee.

--"Slinging Sex on Bush's Campaign," USA Today, June 17, 1992


Is American politics suddenly returning to the bad old days, when Washington journalism became frenzied with sheet sniffing and keyhole peeping? ...

Once again, Drudge has raised questions -- but they may not be the ones he seeks to raise. The first is about journalistic standards. The second is the identity of his anonymous sources. Journalists must ask themselves why the rumor of a private peccadillo deserves their attention and resources in the 2004 campaign.

--Joe Conason, Salon, Feb. 13, 2004

It's too familiar to shock. Still, if the liberal press is so smart, why haven't they learned that, on the Internet, "we can fact check your ass."

Well Mickey can anyway.

Make Love, Not War
(Revised and Expanded Sunday Feb. 15, 2004)

Europeans and American left-wingers swoon for Palestine. This love often reflects uncomplicated anti-Americanism. Israel and America have long-standing and strong political and military ties; Bush and Sharon both reject passivity, "colonial guilt" and anguished self-examination. Only America and Israel challenge terrorism at its source. And Europe and the American left divorced Israel and started wooing Palestine only after Israel emerged as the dominant military power in the region, analogous to America's global might.

So, ire at Israel and ardor for Arafat actually is aimed at Washington. Ok, fine. It's pointless to argue with someone who wants America to fail.

Another bunch claims the Palestinian conflict would vanish if Israel withdrew from the West Bank and Gaza. Those guys really bug me. For the most part, they're a less offensive incarnation of the species. They'll even concede, in a pinch, that America is a land of plenty and a fountain of opportunity. But they're impractical dreamers, huggy-bear types who actually believe that "all you need is love" and war would vanish if only "[e]verybody [got] together" and tried "to love one another, right now."

This notion is dangerous and ignorant. Dangerous because it appeals to the noble Western preference for peace rather than war--without considering whether this assumption is shared by radical Islam. Ignorant because it's been tried--and has failed. Peace will not blossom in the desert even were Palestinians granted 1) an independent 2) sovereign nation 3) with the 1967 borders. I'll prove it--without citing either the Bible or any wartime "right of conquest."

Answer 1: The 1947-48 U.N. partition created a Palestine larger than the 1967 version. Did that bring peace? No--the Palestinians and five neighboring Arab states declared war two days later and invaded Israel. The Palestinians had a state, with boundaries approved by two thirds of UN members--and they preferred conflict to compromise.

Answer 2: Israel won that war, and the 1949 armistice boundary was the border until 1967. Thus, by definition, the Palestinians had the state they claim to seek. Was the Middle East peaceful then? No. The Arab states refused to negotiate and remained formally at war with Israel. And Palestinians expanded terrorism inside Israel: Between 1951 and 1956, fedayeen attacks killed over 400 Israelis and wounded 900 more. In 1956, Egypt escalated the conflict by blockading the Straits of Tiran (Israel's only access to the Red Sea) and nationalizing the Suez Canal. This provoked another war (Israel drove through the Sinai and occupied the canal), settled only when Eisenhower forced Egypt to end their blockade and re-open the canal (including for Israel) and Israel to withdraw from Sinai. Thus, before the Suez crisis, Israel occupied neither the West Bank or Gaza--but that didn't satisfy the Arabs.

Answer 3: How interested are Palestinians in "independence?" Who knows? In 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank (but not Gaza). In other words, Arabs themselves carved up Palestine without regard to Palestinian sovereignty. Most countries refused to recognize the annexation. But neither the Palestinians nor any Arab country protested. And terrorist attacks on Israel were undiminished. So the Palestinians had, then lost, their independence--without diminishing their hatred of Israel. (Also remember that Syria invaded Lebanon a generation ago and remains as puppeteer--without Syria condemned an "aggressor" or Lebanon called "occupied.")

Answer 4: Recent experience confirms that Israeli withdrawal doesn't induce peace. In the early 1980s, Israel invaded Lebanon to create a buffer zone between Lebanese-based terrorists and Israelis. Four years ago, Israel unilaterally pulled all troops from South Lebanon. But that wasn't enough for Hezbollah, which still attacks northern Israel via terrorism and occasional shellings. Lebanon got what it wanted--and it wasn't enough. When even surrender fails, peace is impossible.

Reasons for Answers 1-4: Simple. Contrary to peacenick claims, Arabs won't settle for "Israeli withdraw" and a two state solution. Instead, Palestinians want to eliminate Israel and annihilate all Middle-East Jews. They don't hide this ambition. Look at PA maps, created by the State Information Service. "Palestine" includes all of Israel. The PA websites incorporate Israel as well. FrontPageMagazine posted a chilling slide presentation with more maps, including school texts and the map on Arafat's own uniform.

If you don't believe maps, listen to Palestinian Imans. According to the indispensable Little Green Footballs, they're all "on the payroll of the Palestinian Authority;" one or more appear Friday on PA-owned and -operated television. Start with Mufti Sheikh Ikrimeh Sabri in 2000 and 2001:

The land of Palestine is not only Jerusalem; this land stretches from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea. . . . From an Islamic point of view, [Palestine] stretches from the Mediterranean to the Jordan [River]. It is Palestine in its entirety . . ..

And here's Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya speaking in 2000:

We shall not forget Haifa, and Acre, and the Galilee, and Jaffa, and the Triangle and the Negev, and the rest of our cities and villages. It is only a matter of time. ? Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them? We will not give up a single grain of soil of Palestine, from Haifa, and Jaffa, and Acre, and Mulabbas [Petah Tikva] and Salamah, and Majdal [Ashkelon], and all the land, and Gaza, and the West Bank.

There's plenty more. Yet, the aging hippies never acknowledge these uncompromising and genocidal ambitions; they also scoff when shown the data. The PA's probably tickled by leftist gullibility--and grateful for their support.

Why are so many Westerners fooled? That's also easy to explain. The problem is foreign policy "mirror-imaging:"

[P]rojecting your thought process or value system onto someone else . . . is one of the greatest threats to objective intelligence analysis. Not everyone is alike, and cultural, ethnic, religious, and political differences do matter. Just because something seems like the logical conclusion or course of action to you does not mean that the person or group you are analyzing will see it that way, particularly when differences in values and thought processes come into play.

During the Cold War, this error prompted leftists to restrain U.S. power (so as not to "threaten" the Soviets). It fooled Nixon (and others) into concentrating on arms-control treaties, all of which mistakenly assumed that the Soviets--like us--preferred peace to hegemony and would--like any gentleman--keep its word. But that wasn't true. Instead, a CIA critic concluded, "[t]he threat of civilian and city destruction is no deterrent in Soviet thinking; they think in terms of the destruction of military, industrial, and administrative targets rather than worrying about how much of the population will die." The same error may have influenced CIA assessments of Saddam Hussein's Iraq--after all, Hussein and every senior military commander claimed they had chemical weapons and were developing nukes. Whoops, the enemy lied; didn't see that coming.

So Europeans (liberal and conservative) and U.S. lefties assume radical Muslims reason like Westerners, prefer peace to war like Westerners and would be content with self-rule and sovereignty in accordance with the Peace of Westphalia (the dawn of the modern nation-state). They pre-suppose Palestinians are rational and seek only "justice"--like they do. Pro-Palestinians claim the "two-state solution" is appropriate, reasonable and acceptable--because it is to them.

This is folly. We should learn from our mistakes. Victor Davis Hanson, in National Review Online, is dismayed by those who naively "Imagine" dreams are real:

After listening to a variety of American, Middle Eastern, and European pundits, I wish that their understanding of the way the world works were true--or at least even that they believed it to be true. If so, just imagine . . . [t]hat when all the Israelis vacate the Gaza Strip and, like most of the Arab world elsewhere it is free of Jews, indigenous Palestinian consensual government will at last quickly bring peace and tranquility there to its own delighted native citizenry.

Euros and American lefties still seem cuckoo for the cause. But passionate affairs often end abruptly; love can evaporate by morning, triggering lingering regret.

Israel can't settle the Middle-East conflict by itself. Nor should it be expected to commit suicide. A sovereign Palestine with the pre-1967 borders won't end the war--Arabs want the whole pie. Why should it be different this time? And, even if it might, would you risk your life, the lives of your friends and neighbors, plus the future of your entire nation?

Would you?

Back to the Future

Jonah Goldberg is evil. First penguins, then duct tape and helicopters. Just like that--three weeks gone. But now he's unearthed the gravest threat to American productivity since Jimmy Carter. Damn you, Spock!

Losing My Religion

Alert reader Stewart Olson notes the March 2004 issue of Scientific American includes a James Hansen article defending global warming (subscribers and dead tree only). The issue also contains an editorial titled "The Climate Leadership Vacuum." Can you guess the conclusions?

I'm suspicious. Remember that the January 2002 Scientific American was an un-scientific lynching of Bjorn Lomborg and his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. So, as recently as two years ago, the magazine preferred punishing deviation from liberal orthodoxy to publishing verifiable data or describing reproducible experiments. I'll post an analysis of the article next week.

France Follies, Nombre Vingt Trois

Today's International Herald Tribune details the de riguer anti-semitism of everyday France:

Sarah Aguado, a precocious 13-year-old, . . . the only Jew in a school with a large Muslim minority, [was] repeatedly insulted and attacked and finally forced to flee. Classmates called her a "dirty Jew." One student slapped her and made a racist remark.

Barbara Lefebvre, who teaches history at a French public school agrees:

Just about every week I see students in my class - where there are no Jews - insulting each other by saying, 'Stop it, you Jew.' Or 'No, you can't borrow my pen, it's not yours, Jew.' Or if their pen is broken they'll say: 'What's wrong with my pen? It's a Jew.' When you point it out, they say, 'This is just a way of speaking.'

That's why French President Jacques Chirac proposed a bold new plan safeguard French Jews . . . No, never mind. Instead, President Chirac tried to minimze the story, claiming France "is being unfairly criticized . . . as anti-Semitic while France is leading a 'tireless struggle' against such discrimination."

I am surprised at this. I am told that in the streets of Tel Aviv, in newspaper cartoons and in conversations, the image of France as an anti-Semitic country is gradually spreading. These caricatures deeply hurt French people.

According to the OED, "caricature" is a "[g]rotesque or ludicrous representation of persons or thing by exaggeration of their most characteristic and striking features." In other words, caricatures are ugly descriptions of well-known facts. According to the Israelis, "anti-Semitic incidents across the globe fell by almost half last year to 983 from 1,979 in 2002, [but] doubled in France." This is both factual and ugly--making the caricature distressingly accurate.

Until recently, anti-semitism was associated with the political right (notwithstanding Stalin's brutal treatment of Jews). Like many, Monsieur Le President overlooks the "new anti-semitism" promoted by the political left (an odd alliance between liberals and Muslims). This blind spot encourages and prolongs violence against France's Jews.

Update:

Has Redmond, Washington, become French? Conceding they were "unacceptable symbols," Microsoft removed the swastika (both original and reversed Nazi versions) from its Bookshelf Symbol 7 font. Personally, I think scrubbing fonts an unnecessary surrender to PCism. But here's the punchline: at the same time, Microsoft removed the star of David from the same font. (The link above includes before and after screen shots.) Translation: Microsoft believes the Jewish star, which also is the official symbol of Israel, is equivalent to, and equally unacceptable as, the emblem of Hitler's Third Reich. Microsoft's decision both affirms and enhances the baseless accusation that zionism is racism and Sharon is Hitler.

Maybe I should buy Apple. (via LGF.)

The FCC Reviews VoIP--and Splits the Baby

On Tuesday, tpfp previewed today's FCC meeting on voice over the Internet services. Here's what actually happened.

In general, the Commission retained its "hands off the Internet" policy. It confirmed that one particular VoIP offering (pulver.com) qualifies as an "information service" largely exempt from regulation. (Oddly, the FCC did not address a similar petition by AT&T, despite pressure from Billy Tauzin (R-La)--outgoing Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Commission.) The agency also initiated a new proceeding to re-examine the appropriate regulatory treatment of VoIP and tentatively proposed "that Internet services should continue to be subject to minimal regulation." That's the good news.

Now the mixed news: the 3-2 vote was especially contentious and split on party lines (Democrat commissioners favoring increased oversight of VoIP; Republican commissioners preferring the unregulated status quo). The VoIP proposal won't be resolved until next year--beyond any change of Administration. This suggests "President Kerry's FCC" might not be "good for the Internet."

Moreover, the FCC's pro-market language doesn't square with its proposal. Rather, the Commission signaled VoIP providers should expect to pay more:

Mechanisms to implement important social objectives, such as public safety, emergency 911, law enforcement access, consumer protections and disability access, may change as communications migrate to Internet-enabled services.

Indeed, the FCC promised draft new rules applying wiretapping laws to VoIP networks.

Whenever your government cites "social objectives," watch your wallet. Even the Republican majority wants to straddle the issue: deregulatory in approach and tone, the FCC proposes to reaffirm Internet deregulation but force VoIP providers 1) to subsidize needed services (e.g., rural, 911 emergency access, hearing-impaired teletypes); 2) to pay for network changes needed for electronic surveillance; and, perhaps, 3) to compensate local exchange providers under the "access charge" regime.

Neither the first nor second proposal is unjust. Both probably are politically inevitable. The third proposal is the most controversial. Of course, VoIP providers will object to access charges--but VoIP providers are relatively new and tiny; most haven't yet bought a Congressman or Senator. The real battle is between local exchange carriers (such as Verizon) who want access charges and interexchange carriers (such as AT&T) which are migrating traffic to VoIP to avoid such charges). Both sorts of carriers employ scores of Washington lobbyists and have well-established relations on the Hill.

So the new FCC proceeding will resemble the fight between King Kong and Godzilla--fun to watch and nearly impossible to predict. Well, not completely impossible. Consumers probably will lose.

I Blog, Therefore, I Am

California blogger Catherine Seipp's charming article on NRO is a must-read modern tale. Titled "She Was a Teenaged Blogger," Seipp writes approvingly of her 14 year-old daughter's weblog. Mom agrees that the Internet's anyone-can-be-a-publisher-or-the-press is radically anti-authoritarian:

Blogging is essentially an unregulated, free-agent activity, and that can drive people who prefer rules and regulations and decision-by-committee crazy. From its earliest days, I noticed a tone of disapproval towards bloggers that reminded me of school, what with all the carping from magazines like The Nation and The American Prospect about the blogging world's sorry lack of supervision.

Best yet, Seipp's moves beyond cliche to suggest that the Internet allows students to bypass monolithic, thoughtless PC public school teaching:

I think [my daughter's] regular stops in the blogosphere . . . [are] an antidote to [teacher group-think indoctrination]. . .. Now that so many teens have blogs, concerns about doctrinaire teachers may be passe. Our sons and our daughters are beyond their control.

I wish Seipp had finished with the accurate Bob Dylan lyric ("command" not "control"). Other than that, it's a perfect piece.

Not A Science--It's a Religion

Like John Kerry, Sir David King, the UK's chief scientific advisor, is panicked about global warming. In Science magazine, King said "climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today - more serious than the threat of terrorism." Dr. Roy Jenkins rubbishes that view:

[P]unishing the production of energy (which is the net effect of the Kyoto Protocol) . . . will lead to much greater social and political instability around the world than current terrorist organizations can currently muster. Al Qaeda would become a minor player in a chaotic world where political and social unrest are the norm.

If only Kerry and Sir David were engaged in harmless hype--but they actually believe it! Science is supposed to be grounded on evidence--of which little exists. Isn't this stretching faith a bit far?

The Arab Street

Steven Den Beste's latest is even more laugh-out-loud, milk-comes-out-of-your-nose funny than usual. Here's how he begins:

Arabs are criticizing an Arabic satellite channel produced by the US. It is intended to provide more balance in news coverage. But even some who don't condemn it think it's the wrong approach: But Dahroug added that Washington's image won't improve among Arabs until it changes its policies toward them.

Hey, you dumb Yanks! Appeasement, OK? That's how you make us friendly. It's all your fault, so you do all the changing and sacrificing!

But wait, there's more:

Arafat's wife, who lives in Paris, is being investigated for money laundering. She blames the Israelis.

Do yourself a favor--read the whole thing.

Kerry Tales, Part XX

Jeff Jacoby has a great piece in yesterday's Boston Globe on Massachusetts' junior Senator:

In the 2004 presidential field, there is a candidate for nearly every point of view. His name is John Kerry.

Equivocating politicians are sometimes accused of trying to be "all things to all people," but few have taken the practice of expedience and shifty opportunism to Kerry's level. . . Here's how it works: Say you're in favor of capital punishment for terrorists. Well, so is Kerry. "I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country," he said in December 2002. "I support killing people who declare war on our country."

But if you're opposed to capital punishment even for terrorists, that's OK -- Kerry is too! Between 1989 and 1993, he voted at least three times to exempt terrorists from the death penalty. In a debate with former governor William Weld, his opponent in the 1996 Senate race, Kerry scorned the idea of executing terrorists. Anti-death penalty nations would refuse to extradite them to the United States, he said. "Your policy," he told Weld, "would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail."

What does Kerry really think? Who knows? He seems to have conveniently switched his stance after Sept. 11, 2001, but he insists that politics had nothing to do with his reversal. Either way, one thing is clear: His willingness to swing both ways fits a longstanding pattern of coming down firmly on both sides of controversial issues.

And what's Kerry's view on gay marriage? He's been campaigning against it. But just two years ago, Kerry supported homosexual marriage. So which is it? Jacoby's not sure: "Where Kerry will ultimately come down on this issue is anybody's guess. But it's safe to say that wherever you come down, he'll be able to claim he was there all along."

Similar stories are common among the Washington-based press, who--in my experience--consider Kerry a self-promoting opportunist. [ed.--what politician isn't? ed.'s ed.--quiet Mickey.] As does Garry Trudeau.

In the 1972 campaign, Nixon pasted McGovern with the famous "flipping sides" ad. Expect something similar from President Bush soon. And it will be effective.

Our Diverse, Multicultural Society

Yesterday, ABC 'fessed-up to left-wing media bias. The same day, Duke University confirmed (albeit unintentionally) the leftist slant in academia. Duke's "Conservative Union" had protested the absence of diversity among the faculty: "I don't think it's a coincidence that 32 Democrats are in the history department, and zero Republicans." But never fear!--Robert Brandon, chair of Duke's philosophy department, can explain:

"We try to hire the best, smartest people available," Brandon said of his philosophy hires. "If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire."

Ok, mystery solved: Liberals are smart; conservatives dumb. This isn't the first time some crack-pot college professors said that, though the last bunch nearly prompted a Congressional investigation for misuse of Federal funds.

Ignore the insularity, insult and inanity for a moment. Brandon's defense is that diversity must yield to intelligence and achievement. I fully agree, but how is that consistent with minority preferences for college admissions? Answer: it isn't. Don't expect philosophic consistency from Democrats, especially academics. Especially from Democrat academics in the Philosophy department.

Still, as I said below, February 10th was "startling admission" day. Wish I'd played the lottery. (Via The Corner.)

What Happened to the Dems (or Why I Became a Neo-Con)

Jonah Goldberg's article in today's NRO points to a story in the current New Yorker by George Packer. Packer blasts Bush for failing "to make the struggle to liberalize the Muslim world the concern of ordinary Americans." (Packer's recommendation: high school exchange-student programs. Really. I'm not kidding.) But, the article still manages to stumble into the truth, and it perfectly captures why I became a Republican:

Vietnam, of course, badly divided Democrats, turning some into Republicans and others into pacifists. And here is a remarkable fact: since the nineteen-sixties, the Democratic Party has had no foreign policy. Its leaders have continued to speak the language of liberal internationalism, but after Vietnam most Democrats haven’t wanted to back up the talk with power. They continued to put their faith in institutions like the United Nations (where Saddam’s Iraq was a member in good standing and Libya chaired the human-rights commission) long after it was apparent that these institutions needed repair. By the nineteen-nineties, liberal internationalism had become an atrophied muscle, with little fibre or sinew left.

Proposed John Kerry slogan: vote for the party without a backbone.

Lieutenant Bush, Texas Pilot

Today's Washington Times prints a letter from a pilot who served with President Bush in the Texas Air National Guard between 1970 and 1971. The letter, from Colonel William Campenni (retired), doesn't address Bush's time in Alabama (though there's ample evidence there as well). Nonetheless, the story rebuts any critique of Bush's performance or patriotism:

Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2 1/2 years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.

The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life.

Terry McAullife's assault on the President's service record was bogus from the beginning. But the charge was serious: the Democrats attacked both Bush's veracity and his patriotism. That's not just "negative campaigning," it borders on slander. Especially because Dems always whine when they believe Republicans question their patriotism, even though Republicans actually are disputing their commitment to America's defense and security. All of which makes refutation of Terry and the Dwarfs even sweeter.

We now return this station to the real issues facing America.

Update:

The Boston Globe reports that a principal advocate of the Bush-lied-about-his-military-service story was, uh--how do I say this?--lying.

More:

Another Guardsman remembers Lt. Bush--in the Alabama Guard! Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun says:

I saw him each drill period. . . He was very aggressive about doing his duty there. He never complained about it. ... He was very dedicated to what he was doing in the Guard.

Bush's Guard service officially is an ex story.

Gore and Dean and Otis Day and the Nights

Al Gore and Howard Dean flopped for the same reason: passion without substance is nothing. And nothing is a tough sell. So enjoy some schadenfreude and listen while Al and Howard drive off the cliff, with soundtrack.

Old Europe Redux

Euro-sclerosis will be the death of Europe. As the EU shifts from a free-trade internal market (which was good for Europeans) to an odd trans-national sovereign (no evidence this would work, much less help Europeans), the arteries become ever harder. Like porridge in a fairy tale or beds in Greek lore, EU directives and Europe's policies are either too large (marginal tax rates, unemployment, pension obligations) or too small (work week, age of retirement). Result: Europe's best and brightest flee for more choice and broader opportunity:

Germany's brightest and best qualified young professionals are leaving the country in droves and securing lucrative positions abroad. . .. After investing tens of thousands in education and training costs, Germany is losing its best qualified professionals to better paid positions elsewhere, economists complain. And the growing brain drain is compounding Germany's economic woes through the loss of skilled labor and human resources. Nearly 118,000 people packed up and left the country in 2002 for jobs abroad, the German Statistical Office reported. . ..

Of course, the last German brain-drain cost them a war. This time, it might only wreck their economy. (via InstaPundit.)

Update:

How Europe increasingly resembles decadent Weimar (pre-Hitler) Germany: French President Chirac just allowed a woman to marry her dead boyfriend. The groom died in a motorcycle accident 18 months ago. At least the happy couple didn't have to rent another tuxedo.

If it's Tuesday, Attack Jews

Brussels Blog reports that "Jewish children going to the Athénée Maimonide Bruxelles, a Jewish school, are not allowed to take the subway at the nearby Lemonnier station anymore. . . [b]ecause of frequent attacks by 'muslim youths.'" Uh, haven't we seen this movie before? I remember how it ends. . .

(via LGF)

Media Bias Conceded; Writer to Be Fired?

They're throwing snowballs in hell today, the Pope's become a Hindu, and large brown furry mammals can read while sitting on the throne. The evidence: an astonishingly candid self-assessment by the news division of a major television network--ABC:

[T]he Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.

They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions."

They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories. . .

The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war -- in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies.

It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer spending.

It remains fixated on the unemployment rate.

It believes President Bush is "walking a fine line" with regards to the gay marriage issue, choosing between "tolerance" and his "right-wing base."

I'm still suspicious ABC's note is a parody or the product of a 15 year-old hacker. But, if authentic, I'd advise buying lottery tickets and dropping your life savings on double zero.

(Via Best of the Web)

Auschwitz Again, Again

On Sunday, Jeff Jacoby--the token conservative at the NY Times-owned Boston Globe--wrote more about the mis-named "Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea." Jacoby says that the so-called labor camps "are so hellish that 20 percent or more of their prisoners die from torture and abuse each year." None of this is new; yet no one pays any attention.

Conditions inside North Korea--what NoKo does to its own--are enormously relevant to responding appropriately to North Korea's nuclear threat. A decade ago, President Clinton signed a fuzzy and un-verifiable deal, which North Korea flouted almost immediately. In contrast, President Bush has maintained a multilateral dialog (especially including the Chinese), but insists on clear and obvious disarmament by the NoKos before any deal.

Candidate Kerry disagrees:

[The President] steadfastly refused to talk directly with the North Koreans. . . It's time to lay aside the failed efforts of the past year and engage in a negotiation process that, mindful of the hard realities on the Korean peninsula, promises a comprehensive solution to the challenges we and our allies face there.

"Talk directly?"--how can Senator Kerry criticize Bush for unilateralism in Iraq and for multilateralism in Korea? "Harsh realities on the Korean peninsula?"--that's of North Korea's own making inflicted on its own people. Negotiation?--Clinton's been there, tried that and failed. As VodkaPundit Stephen Green says:

North Korea has never lived up to anything its [sic] agreed to, making direct negotiations pointless. What is required is pressure, and China is in the best position to apply it. And China can't be made to do so if we're taking full responsibility (as indicated by bilateral talks) for the outcome.

Who's view is more persuasive--Kerry's or Bush's? Well, there's historical evidence on the question: flying to Munich to negotiate with a mad dictator didn't work. So, we start with six million no votes (Jews, Communists, Gypsies, homosexuals, Poles, clergy, etc.). Add marks for the hundreds of thousands of WWII casualties. Final tally: 1 "Aye," 7 million "Nay" on Chamberlain's 1938 folly. How many Americans will vote to appease similar Asian genocide this November?

As Tom Lehrer says, "let's not always see the same hands."

(Via InstaPundit)

When Worlds Collide: Voice over Internet

For years, philosophers and physicists debated the outcome were an "irresistible force to meet an immovable object." In Washington, that occurs when two cherished goals become inconsistent. Something like that is happening this week in telecom policy. Two trains are set on a collision course and will crash Thursday morning at 9:30 am at the FCC. The issue? Voice over Internet.

First some background. Voice over the Internet (called VoIP--Voice over Internet Protocol--or Internet Telephony) is a recent competitor to local and long distance for businesses and residential service. Although VoIP quality may be imperfect, its principal advantage is price: it's very cheap (less than a penny/minute) and relatively distance insensitive. Lots of folks are dropping traditional phone services (mostly long-distance) and switching to VoIP.

Part of the distinction between VoIP and traditional telephony is technology--historical networks use "circuit switching," while the Internet routes traffic via "packet switching." Now that most voice transmissions are converted to digital before handed to a long distance carrier, "packet switching" may be a cheaper, more efficient way to send a telephone call.

However, much of the difference between VoIP and current phone systems stems from disparate regulatory treatment. Under the Clinton Administration, continued by the Bush Administration, policymakers at the FCC and in Congress favored a "hands off the Internet" policy. This left the essentially unregulated Internet tremendous commercial freedom to evolve with changing customer needs. From games to Google, Americans unquestionably have benefited from this decision.

As a service run through and over the Internet, VoIP has so far been exempted from regulation--even if the Commission had to mangle or ignore existing law. But, as VoIP providers gained marketshare, the backlash began.

And, VoIP opponents made some good points. First, because VoIP is essentially indistinguishable from traditional telephone, fairness and "technology neutrality" suggest that the two services be regulated similarly. Second, exempting VoIP from FCC regulation also exempts VoIP from wiretapping laws--and the law enforcement community is understandably reluctant to ignore a seemingly identical offering available to terrorists yet immune from electronic surveillance. Third, VoIP providers bypass the "access charges" that traditional long-distance carriers (e.g., AT&T) pay local exchange carriers (e.g., SBC, Verizon), diminishing the revenues of the latter companies--yet VoIP providers use the local networks essentially the same as do long-distance carriers. Finally, so long as VoIP is not regulated by the FCC, VoIP providers do not contribute to programs for rural customers telephone services.

The fourth objection proved decisive: the most powerful group in Washington has long been Senators and Congressman from rural states. That group is mocked as "the farm team" or "representing the square states," but it can't be ignored. (When determining what is a rural state, Alaska is considered square but Pennsylvania isn't.) And rural state Senators and Representative love the so-called "Universal Service" subsidy system that ensures that phone service costs about the same in the badlands as it does in the boroughs.

Here's where the policies collide. Ted Stevens (R-Ak.) and Conrad Burns (R-Mt.) are, respectively, Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications. They're normally reliable supporters of deregulation, including deregulation of the Internet. But they're also from square states--really big square states. When faced with a choice between "hands off the Internet" and "no more subsidies," well, you can guess the result. . .

So, in response to pressure from Congress, from the FBI and from competing carriers, on Thursday Morning, the FCC will begin a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" addressing VoIP regulation. Such a process takes about a year, and normally results in final regulations settling the question. The FCC still favors little or no regulation of the Internet--but the agency must also consider the parity, law enforcement and rural subsidy policies. Can the FCC make everyone happy? Can it square the circle?

Probably not. Proposed compromises will be filed and debated continuously for the next 12 months. Inside-the-Beltway lawyers will reap big bucks, ultimately benefiting Porsche dealers and gin distillers worldwide. Then, by next Spring, three of the FCC's staff and three Hill staffers (none being more than 29 years old) will meet--unannounced--and cut a deal. It's the American way.

And even though the staff will meet in private, you'll hear it. A train wreck is loud.

Telecom in National Review Online! (Lions and Tigers and Bears; Oh My!)

Neal Freeman, one of the key figures behind the U.S. efforts to privatize the Intelsat global satellite system, looks back on the difficult task. The article includes a charming quip about U.S. naivete towards entrenched international bureaucracies:

Reagan appointed me to represent him in the international satellite system, asking me to look into "this privatization thing." I saluted, clicked heels, and strode off to shape up the international satellite business. That was 1983. As I remember it, I was young then. What the Great Communicator had failed to tell me was that the Intelsat organization was governed by a treaty and that privatization, accordingly, would require the approval of (ultimately) 146 signatories to that treaty. Some of these countries, I now confess, were new to me. Many of them were difficult. One was French.

Mr. Freeman, I feel your pain.

Iraq and Al Qaeda, Perfect Together

Both the NY Times and the WaPo report that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is plotting more evil. Mr. Zarqawi's name should be familiar: he's a Jordanian long under scrutiny for ties to Al Qaeda, for being the conduit between Saddam and Al Qaeda and under indictment in Jordan for assassinating an American USAID diplomat. According to the Post, his latest plan:

was outlined in a 17-page letter that appealed to al Qaeda leaders outside Iraq for help in waging a campaign of violence meant to destabilize the country. The document was on a computer disk that was found in a raid on a terrorist safe house in Baghdad about a month ago, officials said.

Intelligence analysts who have looked at the document believe that stage one of the plan was to attack Shiite Muslims to further divide them from the Sunni Muslims who have traditionally ruled Iraq. Shiites, who make up about 60 percent of Iraq's population, were brutally suppressed under the three-decade rule of former president Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network is also led by Sunni Muslims.

The Times explains that inciting civil war in Iraq would

rally the Sunni Arabs to the religious extremists. . . [The memo] says a war against the Shiites must start soon--at "zero hour"--before the Americans hand over sovereignty to the Iraqis. . ., scheduled for the end of June.

The good news is the memo's assessment of the coalition efforts:

[E]xtremists are failing to enlist support inside the country, and have been unable to scare the Americans into leaving. It even laments Iraq's lack of mountains in which to take refuge. . .

[T]he writer details the difficulties that he and his comrades have been experiencing, both in combating American forces and in enlisting supporters. [Even] after significant losses, he writes, "America, however, has no intention of leaving, no matter how many wounded nor how bloody it becomes. . . We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has happened in so many lands of jihad. Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence information increases. . . By God, this is suffocation!"

Translation: we're winning.

Let me sum up here. The mainstream media reports: 1) a terrorist already suspected of being a crucial link between Saddam's Iraq and Bin Laden is operating within Iraq against coalition forces; 2) that terrorist seeks Al Qaeda assistance in Muslim-against-Muslim violence in Iraq; 3) the aim of such a civil war is to kill more coalition forces--especially Americans--in Iraq; and 4) the object of the plan is to eject the coalition and re-establish a Sunni dictatorship in Iraq. Yes, it's a bit "Rube Goldberg." But very cold-bloodedness of it evokes the fantastic schemes of Hitler and Stalin--which, however crazy, were quite real to 60 million victims.

Three questions: First, do you still believe Al Qaeda had no connection with Iraq? Second, even if you did, now that the relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraqi terrorists is proven, shouldn't the coalition continue its Iraqi mission, particularly given the apparent initial success? And finally, how can anyone--other than Dean or Kucinich fans--answer "no" to question two?

Take your time answering: the exam's not 'till November.

Update:

The CPA provides an English translation of the memo.

French Follies

Today's WSJ suggests further reasons for Chirac's refusal--under any circumstances--to join the war on Iraq. The story also explains Russia, Syria, the Palestinians, the entire U.N. and nut-case British MP George Galloway. In a subscriber-only article, Therese Raphael reacts to a memo, recently discovered in Iraq, listing friends of Saddam along with oil shipments (in barrels). Headlined "Saddam's Global Payroll," the article says those named were all on the take via the U.N.'s supposed "Oil for Food Program:"

It's clear where [Saddam's] best, best friends were. There are 11 entries under France (totaling 150.8 million barrels of crude), 14 names under Syria (totaling 116.9 million barrels) and four pages detailing Russian recipients, with voucher allocations of over one billion barrels. Many of the names, transliterated phonetically from Arabic, are not well-known or are difficult to identify from the information given. Others stand out. There's George Galloway, the Saddam-supporting British MP recently expelled from the Labour Party, who has always denied receiving any form of payment from Saddam. Other notables include Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri (also listed separately as the "daughter of President Sukarno"), the PLO, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Russian Orthodox Church, the "director of the Russian President's office" and former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua.

This makes sense. In France, principle has never trumped money, certainty not regarding oil.

The issue is not petty corruption. The amounts in question total tens of billions of dollars. Moreover, this sort of bribery "leakage" is routine in international bureaucracies, but particularly here:

The system was ripe for abuse, in part because a divided Security Council gave Saddam far too much flexibility within the program. Oil-for-Food not only gave Iraq the power to decide with whom to deal, but also freedom to determine the official price of Iraqi oil, revenues from which went legally into the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food account. U.N. rules did not allow it to order Iraq to deal directly with end-users and bypass all those lucky middlemen who got deals from Saddam. Nor was the U.N. allowed to view contracts other than those between the oil ministry and the first purchaser, so it had no way of verifying that surcharges were being imposed by the middlemen on end-users. That enabled him to add surcharges to finance his own schemes while still making the final price competitive.

It is not merely that the interests of the U.N., France, etc. diverge from those of the United States. It's that of the 191 U.N. nations, around 160 are brutal, thuggish dictatorships, more interested in personal Swiss accounts than their citizens' health or welfare. No amount of phony "uniteralitism" will change that behavior.

I'm not suggesting we withdraw from the United Nations. Only that we ignore 'um. France too.

Even Boston's Not THIS Bad

A 16 year-old Pakistani boy claims his Muslim cleric school teacher dumped acid on him after the boy refused the teacher's sexual advances. The boy, then 14, was both blinded and maimed in the attack. Just a routine day at the Madrassa, I guess.

I'm Not Fonda Jane

A younger John Kerry teams with Hanoi Jane in groovier times.

Gore "Out-Deans" Dean

Al Gore has slipped off the train tracks of reality. No wonder he endorsed Dean. No wonder both Dean and Gore are losers.

Kerry Tales, Part XIX

In today's WaPo, Helen Dewar and Dan Balz examine the positions and votes of Senator John Kerry. The article draws three (unsurprising) conclusions. First, Kerry (unlike Clark or Dean) has a 19-year record on virtually any issue of interest to voters. Second, that Kerry is no moderate, but a typical Massachusetts liberal:

[O]n most issues, Kerry built a solidly liberal record, including support for abortion rights, gun control and environmental protection, and opposition to costly weapons programs, tax cuts for wealthy Americans. . .

[H]e ranked as the ninth most liberal senator in the National Journal's comparison of voting records for 2002. He ranked even higher -- more liberal than Kennedy -- on economic issues, although about the same on social issues and more conservative on foreign policy. Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal group, rated Kerry more liberal than Kennedy during the time they served together in the Senate, although by only 1 percentage point.

Finally, many of Kerry's votes conflict with his current speeches. This is especially apparent regarding candidate Kerry's frequent references to his (unquestionably heroic) service in Vietnam, designed to imply that a President Kerry wouldn't jeopardize U.S. defense and security:

But 20 years ago, in his first Senate campaign, Kerry talked a different language about national defense, denouncing President Ronald Reagan's military buildup and calling for cuts of about $50 billion in the Pentagon budget, including the cancellation of a long list of weapons systems, from the B-1 bomber to the Patriot antimissile system to F-14A, F-14D and F-15 fighter jets.

And not just his first term: Kerry supported a nuclear freeze in the mid 1980s and sought to cut CIA funding in the 1990s. The Senator says he's since changed his mind on many defense issues.

Maybe so. But Kerry's record stands for itself. And someone should ask Kerry (proposed debate question number two) why he revised his views on defense and how America can be sure it's not voting for a Kennedy in DLC clothing.

Doing the Math

I've been toying with that clever interactive electoral vote map all weekend. My conclusion: the election is closer than I thought.

Here's how I see it (270 votes needed to win):

Solid Republican (226): Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida(!), Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Alaska.

Solid Democrat (232): New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Mexico, California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii.

Battleground States: Maine (4), Pennsylvania (21), Tennessee (11), Indiana (11), Missouri (11), Iowa (7), Nevada (5) and Arizona (10).

Among states in the third group, I consider Maine and Pennsylvania "leaning Democrat," which would give the Democrats 257 votes, or 13 short. I call Tennessee, Indiana, Missouri and Nevada "leaning Republican," summing to 264, or 6 short. Iowa and Arizona are too close to call. And, remember, I'm counting Florida as solid Republican (based on Jeb Bush's 2002 landslide and the Democrats' probable failure to nominate anyone more than one quarter Jewish).

If I'm correct, President Bush must take EITHER Iowa or Arizona to win. The Democrats must capture BOTH Iowa and Arizona to win. Or, if Bush wins Pennsylvania, he could lose Indiana, Iowa and Arizona and still be re-elected. Unless Democrats also win in Nevada--in which case the vote is TIED!

Of course, I'm not writing off Maine or Pennsylvania. Bush has a good chance in both states (and won Maine four years ago). But I'm also concerned about Missouri, Indiana and Nevada; the latter two states have been trending Democrat for some time.

Yikes!

Bush on Meet the Press

I missed the President's appearance this morning, and so was looking forward to the transcript and reviews from colleagues and pundits. Well, never mind, because it's all over the map: Several of my friends thought it a disaster. Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner quotes one pundit as saying "If he loses this year, this will be the day he lost it," and Tim Graham appears to agree. Yet Andrew Sullivan--no friend of the President--sees the glass more than half full: "It's his best self-defense yet. And I liked his modest way of putting it." And Cliff May (also on The Corner) was positive:

I thought it possible that Russert would wrestle him quickly to the mat and pin him for a three-count. It did not seem to me that that is what took place. Bush will never be a silver-tongued smoothie, but there's a benefit to that. He also never sounds rehearsed--and no amount of rehearsal is likely to change that.

Also: Bush genuinely holds beliefs and convictions, and that comes through. It is one of the characteristics that make millions of Americans trust and admire him--even while it repels tens of thousands of relativist intellectuals who are convinced that ambivalence and Hamlet-like indecision are the natural conditions of the thinking man.

A couple of other friends were equally upbeat.

So which is it? I dunno. But Justin Katz provides (via InstaPundit) a stark example of the daily media distortions that--strangely enough--always err to the left, never to the right:

AP story Bush said former chief weapons inspector David Kay, who has said that U.S. intelligence was "almost all wrong" about Saddam's arms, said Saddam found the "capacity to produce weapons.

David Kay's actual language [M]any governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, [Jacques] Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD. The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD. It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.

Katz highlights the crucial gap between the press and the truth:

Kay is clearly saying that everybody was wrong about the extent of Iraq's existing WMD stockpiles, not that anybody in particular was wrong about everything. One could perhaps suggest that the AP just let a little bit of a grammatical error slip in--which would be unforgivable enough for an international news wire to do--except that reporter Deb Riechmann used "U.S. intelligence" to represent a group that included such varied parties as David Kay himself, the French, and the Germans (and perhaps even Saddam Hussein).

This is precisely the reason that I find myself instinctively searching for original transcripts. Now, that would be a worthwhile service: a wire that provided the actual words that people use, in context.

I'm more convinced than ever that there's two sets of media: the dominant newspapers and TV that hate Bush regardless of his policy, and another bunch prepared to consider the President on his merits. Press bias probably ensures negative headlines about Bush's interview in tomorrow's papers. I hope Americans are more like the second bunch and judge for themselves come November.

Update:

Rob Dreher, part of the panel of the MTP interview, give his review at The Corner:

The thing that gets to me after having read the MTP transcript a second time is how buried in many of the president's answers are solid points. I think Bush has a knockout case for the Iraq war, and his handling of the war on terror. I also know that quite a few people disagree with me. Bush, of all people, should be able to make the case powerfully. If he can't, that telegraphs to people confusion and a lack of confidence in the case, I think. This stuff matters. And because I thoroughly agree with you, John, that the war on terror is the only thing that really matters this fall, I urgently want the president and his team to master this stuff before the Democratic attack machine, aided and abetted by the anti-Bush media, get cranked up. There's far too much at risk here.

To which I can add only: Yeah, what he said.

Further Update:

Peggy Noonan agrees that Bush's "performance was not impressive."

Moviestar Idiots--A Continuing Series

Bill Dawson spotted another Hollywood howler, this time from Renee Zellweger, in an interview for the Austrian magazine "Woman" (who knew Austria spoke English?):

Once, for example, the largest anti-war demonstration since Vietnam happened in San Francisco, yet when I wanted to discuss it with my friends in Los Angeles, they knew nothing about it. They simply didn't believe me.

Uh, does this make sense? Dawson thinks not:

Yes, Ms. Zellweger, . . . there has indeed been a massive conspiracy on the part of all big media corporations in America, who, because of their blatantly pro-war beliefs, decided together that they would not air anything concerning anti-war demonstrations. My American readers can confirm this, right? I mean you're thinking, "What demonstrations?!"

Renee, if you and your Hollywood buddies would read newspapers or even watch TV, rather than chat about personal trainers at Beverly Hills cocktail parties, you might have an f*ing clue!

Nah--too much to ask. (via The Corner.)

Satellites--On the Rise or Rest in Peace?

Since the early 1970s, two technologies have competed to carry telecom traffic--satellites and cable. (By cable, I mean a wire--what today is called fiber optic cable--not cable television.) Let's look at the history of these technologies, their regulation, and their relative positions today.

Before creation of the global satellite system (INTELSAT) and U.S. coverage "domsats," telecom traffic was distributed via copper wire. Large strands of wire for long-distance routes, a pair of wires into each home (the red and green ones--the yellow and black are either unused or for a second line). But, by the mid-1970s cable and satellite fought for the same traffic--long distance voice, data and video.

For some time, the pace of technological improvement ensured that no single technology dominated. Any innovation resulting in greater efficiency in satellites was matched soon after by progress in cable transmission. In essence, the two technologies "leapfroged" each other for years and fought for each customer--exactly the outcome you'd expect in a competitive market.

Naturally, the government couldn't keep its hands off. Instead, the FCC developed a complex set of policies to "balance" the "loading" of traffic between satellite and cable. In other words, the FCC split the market, requiring that each U.S. international carrier put half its traffic on satellite, half on cable. If AT&T and Western Union tried this, it would be unlawful under the antitrust laws. But, the FCC assured all it was protecting the larger public interest. Whatever.

Anyway, this lasted until the early-mid 1980s when two thing changed. First, Ronald Reagan named a new FCC chairman, Mark Fowler, a free market conservative. Chairman Fowler opposed governmental intervention in private decisionmaking, and began to narrow balanced loading rules. By the end of the Reagan Administration, the FCC repealed the remaining requirements. Distribution of United States International Carrier Circuits Among Available Facilities During the Post-1988 Period, 3 FCC Rcd 2156 (1988).

Second, cable technology suddenly got much better--bigger, cheaper--with the change from electrons on copper wire to photons on fiber optics. (As an example, the last analog cable across the North Atlantic (TAT-7) could carry fewer than 4,000 simultaneous voice calls; the first North Atlantic fiber cable (TAT-8) could carry nearly 40,000.) This led to dramatic price reductions. By the early 90s, for some traffic, cable and satellite were no longer competitive--and cable kicked satellite's butt.

But not for everything. Today, virtually all voice calls and most data traffic transmit via fiber optics. (Remember the echo formerly on overseas calls? That was a satellite call. When was the last time you heard echo?) Nonetheless, satellites retain one crucial advantage: they have wide coverage. A trans-ocean cable extends between a few pre-established locations--for example Los Angeles, Hawaii, Guam, Japan, Korea, China for a trans-Pacific cable. That's great for transmissions with a single origin and a single end point, like a long-distance call. But what if you want to feed several locations simultaneously with same transmission? Such "point-to-multipoint" offerings still use satellite, because everywhere within the downlink "footprint" can receive the same signal without diminishing the signal available to anyone else.

In other words, satellites are great for broadcasting. That's why direct-to-home providers (DirecTV, EchoStar for television, XM and Sirius for radio) still use satellites. But those companies have their own, specially designed satellites, operating at different frequencies from conventional satellites. What of the pre-existing satellite networks that used to compete with cable?

Many of those companies are gone, the unlucky ones forfeiting their licenses when the money dried up. Others consolidated into larger organizations (something like 70 percent of "regular" global satellite capacity comes from just three firms: SES Astra (Luxembourg), Hughes/PanAmSat (Rupert Murdoch), and Intelsat (U.S./Bermuda/U.K.)). Those that remain face a declining demand plus huge overcapacity. Something's got to give.

And something will. Expect still more mergers and maybe bankruptcies. I'm not a stockmarket expert, but I don't see a long-term investment strategy involving non-broadcasting satellites. But as any economist knows, bankruptcy often signals a healthy market, because it suggests strong competitive pressures to reduce prices and increase service quality. In short, it's good for you and me.

What's the lessons? First, government regulation is justified only where the market demonstrably has failed. (If there had been, god forbid, a "Federal Personal Computer Commission," we'd all still be typing on an IBM "Peanut" because each successive innovator would have been required to prove that it's entry would not hurt existing manufacturers.) Second, competition, coupled with technological progress, actually will provide better, cheaper services for the public, just like in the textbooks!

Of course, individual businesses may fail along the way, creating some disruptions, including short-term unemployment, thus provoking Congressional consternation and calls for increased protectionism for American firms. These populist outcries must be resisted. Low prices and improved services are good--and when the government intervenes, they are imperiled. So tell Congress "hands off!" After all, Adam Smith never promised competitors a rose garden--just consumers.