Oil For Nothing; Vetos for Free

Claudia Rosett has more on the U.N.'s corrupt Oil-for-anti-Americanism program. The U.N. operation was supposed to sell Iraqi oil to fund humanitarian aid for civilians hurt by trade sanctions--but probably enriched everyone except the Iraqi people.

It's increasingly likely the program's executive director--Benon Sevan--had his fingers in the till. He isn't a businessman, an oil exec or even an import/export firm. Sevan's a U.N. bureaucrat, yet he made millions (see tpfp post 3/10 9:31pm). Logically, Rosett asks:

What might Sevan have done in return, given his responsibilities for "overall management and coordination of all United Nations humanitarian activities in Iraq"?

Worse still, Saddam got cart-loads of kickbacks--which have since disappeared:

[T]he General Accounting Office estimates Saddam Hussein was able to salt away [$ 10.1 billion] in illegal revenues related to the Oil-for-Food program." By GAO estimates, recently revised upward, Saddam acquired $4.4 billion via kickbacks on relief contracts and illicit surcharges on oil contracts; plus $5.7 billion via oil smuggling. All this took place under cover of repeated Oil-for-Food "good housekeeping" seals of approval. The U.S. has so far located only a small portion of these assets. That leaves billions of Saddam's secret stash still out there. The danger is that Baathists, terrorists (with whom Saddam did indeed have connections), or some combination of the two, will get to these billions first, if they haven't already. It is worth asking if some mix of U.N. secrecy, incompetence, and corruption may have allowed the accumulation of money now backing terrorist attacks in Iraq, or elsewhere.

So U.N. cash earmarked for ordinary Iraqis is funding their murder--and the deaths of American and coalition soldiers.

Rosett's investigation shows why the U.N. rarely is right:

[T]he larger issue is the U.N. setup of secrecy and lack of accountability that fostered the Oil-for-Food fiasco in the first place. The damage at this point includes Iraqis deprived of billions of dollars worth of relief, and signs of massive corruption quite likely involving hundreds of U.N.-approved contractors in dozens of countries, as well as the U.N.'s own head of the program, Sevan. An inquiry should also look into the U.N. Secretariat's silent assent to Saddam's efforts to buy political influence in the Security Council. In this bribe-riddled program, Saddam tipped vast amounts of business to contractors in such veto-wielding Security Council member states as Russia, France, and to a lesser extent, China. In the heated debates over Iraq, leading up to the beginning of the war last March, Annan brought none of Saddam's influence-peddling to public attention, though he had access to specific information about the huge sums going from Saddam's regime to select nations, and the public did not.

My suggestion--check Swiss bank deposits in late 2002 by U.N. representatives from Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia and Guinea. At the time, these nations sat on the Security Council; none supported the Spain-U.K.-U.S. joint resolution authorizing the invasion.

Naturally the cover-up's already begun: the U.N. refuses to release either the Oil-for-Food bank statements, "held in the French bank, BNP Paribas" (I'm shocked, shocked the frogs are involved!), or the audit reports (both internal and external auditors). Yet liberals--still bitching Bush hasn't banished Enron's Board behind bars--remain deliberately indifferent to U.N.-sponsored theft. I guess fraud's OK, as long as it's multilateral fraud.

So what to think? Simple: contrary to Democrat naiveté, the U.N.'s neither a global parliament nor a source of adult supervision. It's a club dominated by the dictators and the dishonest, both of which delight in delaying individual rights and the rule of law. Established to advance trans-national enlightened self-interest, the organization downplays "enlightened" in favor of "self-interest." Rosett says "the U.N. setup of secrecy, warped incentives, and lack of accountability allowed it to supervise the transformation of Oil-for-Food into a program of theft-from-Iraqis, cash-for-Saddam, and grease-for-the-U.N." It's no coincidence the U.N. management's as corrupt as France or Russia.

The U.N.'s last significant contribution to global peace was in 1950--authorizing force to repel the NoKo invasion of South Korea. That resolution passed only because the Soviet Union boycotted the session. Alas, Russia immediately returned to deadlock the Security Council. France, unfortunately, hasn't threatened to leave.

For over 50 years, the U.N.'s been ineffective at best, an impediment at worst. It's never efficiently served the poor or the oppressed. So long as a majority of U.N. members aren't democracies, it never will.

Update:

More in Wednesday's NY Post:

U.N. bureaucrats are stonewalling requests from Iraq's new government for records from the scandal-plagued oil-for-food account set up in Saddam Hussein's handpicked French bank, officials said yesterday.

Claude Hankes-Drielsma, the British businessman advising Iraq's Governing Council, clearly is connecting the dots: "The key question in this investigation is, what was the relationship between the U.N. and this French bank?"

Mad European Disease

Apparently, appeasement's more contagious than Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, at least according to Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, who:

warned against an over-reaction in the European Union following the bomb attacks in Madrid on 11 March. . . The fight against terrorism "must be carried out with various instruments. We need better co-operation between police, justice and intelligence services. We must expose the financial sources of international terrorism and raise the safety of our public transport." . . .

Mr Solana said "Europe does not find itself at war."

America didn't want war. But on September 12, 2001, we found ourselves at war--its timing chosen by the enemy. With or without continental Europe, most Americans know our future depends on controlling the timing of the war's end. Well, everyone aside from Democrats running for president (except Lieberman) and, say, the barking mad 30 percent on the extreme left (such as this traitor from San Francisco, also shown here (via Lileks and LGF)).

President Clinton tried treating terrorism as law enforcement. The result: Bin Laden and Saddam survived to scheme another day. Sending lawyers to do a lieutenant's job doomed thousands and cost billions.

Again, Mr Solana said "Europe does not find itself at war." He could have ended the sentence after the word "itself." (via Steven Den Beste.)

Kerry Tales, Part XXXVII

On February 26th, the New York Times endorsed Kerry (surprise!) based on his complexity (see tpfp post 3/1 8:49pm):

What his critics see as an inability to take strong, clear positions seems to us to reflect his appreciation that life is not simple. He understands the nuances.

A week earlier, WaPo columnist Richard Cohen faulted Bush as insufficiently nuanced.

But Kerry denounced nuance in a March 7th Time magazine interview:

Some of these issues [foreign policy] are very complicated and deserve more than a simplistic this or that. . . I don't think war is nuanced at all. I think how you take a nation to war is the most fundamental decision a President makes, . . .and there's nothing nuanced at all about keeping your promises. There is nothing nuanced about exhausting remedies that give you legitimacy and consent to go to war. And I refuse ever to accept the notion that anything I've suggested with respect to Iraq was nuanced.

Days later, the junior Senator from Massachusetts summarized his complex position about aiding post-war Iraq (see tpfp post 3/17 1:37pm): "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." This was either nuance or nonsense.

So the Haughty Hairdo clarified his nuance policy in today's WaPo:

Foreign policy is not simplistic. . .They [Republicans] want it to be simplistic; it isn't. I can give you lots of non-nuanced positions. There is nothing nuanced about anything I've done.

I guess Kerry sides with "nonsense." As does blogger Steven Den Beste.

Candidate Kerry's numerous flip-flops are well chronicled. Now he's flip flopping on the need for flip-flopping. Mark Steyn complained Kerry's "all tied up in nuances." Reader Doug J. says the Senator's "straddl[ing] his attitude toward nuance."

Fence sitting isn't complex--it's vague, tentative and uncertain.

"Nuance" may be popular among elites, but it doesn't make for good U.S. policy. It makes for the kind of policy Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero likes. It makes for the kind of policy Kim Jong Il likes. And it makes for the kind of policy Al Qaeda likes.

A President Kerry would be as decisive as President Carter. Given current U.N. incompetence, nuclear proliferation and global terrorism, America needs a leader, not Jimmy's second term.

French Follies, Number XLII in a Series (revised Sun. Mar. 21)

Bulletin from the front: French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin is a moral cretin. You remember de Villepin: the "dashing," "eloquent" diplomat who "speaks excellent English in that oh-so-sexy French accent." He's a poet and author, including a Napoleon biography that "laments the dream that was lost at Waterloo ('a defeat which gleams with the aura of victory')." He favors "dialogue, persuasion and negotiation," and used those skills on behalf of a France that supported at least 18 U.N. resolutions condemning Saddam Hussein's Iraq and threatening force to ensure compliance. France promised to support Bush's U.N. resolution--which was a lie. When Saddam didn't play nice, de Villepin said "just foolin'": "nothing justifies envisaging military action." Somehow, the snobby Frenchman hasn't yet rebuked America, Britain or Canada for military action beginning June 6, 1944 that liberated his country from the Nazis. Given de Villepin's sensitivity, perhaps we should apologize and de-liberate France.

Of course, none of de Villepin's blather prevented continuing French colonialism in Africa (which aids African elites, but not African people) or invading the Ivory Coast--without explaining why prior U.N. authorization was no longer a prerequisite. Moving beyond former colonies, de Villepin also welcomed Zimbabwe dictator Robert Mugabe to Paris, abandoning a Europe-wide boycott of the racist murderer who destroyed Africa's second most prosperous nation. And like many on the left, de Villepin's "anti-war" policy morphed into "aiding those killing Americans" policy--the moment we liberated Iraq, he jetted to Syria to "discuss defence [sic] against U.S. accusations that Syria is helping fleeing Iraqi war criminals and . . . [that Syria was] providing support to anti-American forces in Iraq."

When terrorists toppled the Spanish government last Sunday, France and de Villepin were among the biggest winners. And de Villepin's so elated, he's discarded diplomacy. In an interview in Friday's Le Monde, the minister says what he really thinks:

Terrorism didn't exist in Iraq before. Today, it is one of the world's principal sources of world terrorism. . . It is a conviction I never ceased expressing.

Got that? As many as 290,000 Iraqis murdered and stacked in 270 mass graves--but that's not terrorism. Thousands of women raped while their husbands or fathers watched--and the men thereafter tortured and killed--a tea party, not terror. Indeed, prior to Iraqi liberation, Saddam's oldest son made rape a "hobby" (according to the son's press secretary!)--no terror there, says de Villepin. No, France wanted Iraqi oil. Last year's "anti-war" protesters were right: it's all about oil--for France, not the U.S. (More foreign policy "mirror imaging!" (see tpfp post 2:13 9:56pm.)) Small wonder de Villepin's attitude remains: "No killings, rape or torture. . . nothing to see here. . . move along. . . " (Same for Russia and Germany.)

Global Islamic terrorism, Iraqi or otherwise, wasn't a response to the liberation of Iraq. But contrary to ravings of Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and other Dems, Iraq and radical Muslim terrorists are related. As Jonah Goldberg writes, "If there's no link between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, why did al Qaeda blow up those trains?"

Because it's the same enemy. Everyone knows the terrorists now murdering Iraqi civilians also are liable for 2996 dead in lower Manhattan, including one French citizen--but perhaps de Villepin assumes they perished from natural causes. An Algerian flying Air France to Paris on Christmas Eve 1994--de Villepin thinks the hole in his head was a stroke. American Leon Klinghoffer, wheelchair-bound on the cruise ship Achille Lauro--France's Foreign Minister assumes he was tossed overboard by an unexpected gust (at least until Klinghoffer's killer was caught in Iraq). The gaping gap in the hull of French-owned supertanker "Limburg" (killing a crew member)--de Villepin suggests below-deck sailors sought a sea breeze. 500 Israelis dispatched by Palestinians between 1994 and Iraq's liberation (most of them women and children and the elderly)--de Villepin supposes 500 heart attacks, many simultaneous. 202 revelers blasted to bits in a Bali disco--France blames the "electric slide." Eleven athletes and a policeman massacred in Munich at the 1972 Olympic games--the frogs suspect steroids. Perhaps de Villepin can team with O.J.--to find the real killer.

France always had trouble with truth. The nation still overlooks its record of Nazi collaboration, substituting the myth of the Resistance. As Adam Gopnik observed, the French routinely alter facts to fit theory--and theory alone endures. Only a dedicated ideologue could pretend the Palestinian and Al Qaeda murder-sprees began after Saddam. Indeed, as explained in tpfp post 3/13 5:42pm, Bin Laden began because of Russia (Afghanistan invasion, 1979) and Spain (re-taking the country from Moors, 1492). Iraq's just terrorism's latest excuse--and the French know it. Such official ignorance dishonors the innocent victims--including murdered Frenchmen.

Radical Islam's goal isn't slaughtering Americans, Israelis, the Trilateral Commission or CIA agents who terminated Kennedy. Or, rather, it isn't just them. Terrorists want the whole enchilada--to extinguish the civilized, enlightened West. Last time I checked, that included Europe. However tolerant we are, radical Islam won't return the favor. They believe the war between secular democracy and Islamic government is a zero sum game. So appeasement works like Pavlov's bell--it makes murderers hungry for more.

After the Limburg bombing, the Islamic Army of Aden mused, "We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels." Not just Americans, not Jews, not Spaniards, Poles or even left-handed one-legged lesbian Lithuanians. Infidels. We're all infidels. Christians and agnostics. Buddhist monks and Voodoo witch doctors. Terrorists don't distinguish--so an ACLU card or San Francisco Chronicle subscription won't protect you. A "Kerry for President" bumper sticker won't bomb-proof an "infidel's" car. I grant them this--radical Muslims are equal opportunity murderers; they even kill other Muslims.

The dashing diplomat disregards it all. So to hell with France. Starting today, "Lafayette, you're on your own."

Where's Waldo?

Beeb bias update! Under the headline "Mass Rape Atrocity," an article on the BBC website describes an assault by "Arab militiamen" on the small village of Tawila, Sudan, about two weeks ago:

75 people were killed in the attack. . . All houses as well as a market and a health centre were completely looted and the market burnt. Over 100 women were raped, six in front of their fathers who were later killed . . . A further 150 women and 200 children were abducted.

Although the BBC says the Arab militia was "backed by the government" and engaged in "ethnic cleansing," the article elides the fact that Sudan's civil war pits the Arab government against the Christian and Animist south of the country. The Beeb provides no context, as if the horror sprang out of the air.

Which, for the BBC, it did. Were the Beeb actually trying to inform the audience, the article would have contained three obvious, but missing, words:

Terrorist.

Islam.

Muslim.

"How many times must a man look up/Before he can see the sky?"

The Second Coming will arrive before the Beeb gets its head out of radical Islam's ass--meaning before its news has any relation to the truth.

Kerry Tales, Part XXXVI

John Kerry, March 8, 2004:

I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," he said."

The same John Kerry, on March 14th:

Kerry refused on Sunday to name names. "No leader would obviously share a conversation if I started listing them," Kerry told reporters.

Kerry campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter, March 15, 2004, claiming Kerry was misquoted (emphasis added):

I've met more leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," he said.

Didn't her boss just confirm he said "foreign," not "more?" Moreover, the "correction" is implausible--even the liberal New Republic magazine agrees the tweaked version makes no sense.

Kerry foreign policy advisor Rand Beers, March 18, 2004:

This election will be decided by the American people, and the American people alone. It is simply not appropriate for any foreign leader to endorse a candidate in America’s presidential election. John Kerry does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements.

Flip.

Flop.

Res Ipsa Loquitur. Look it up.

Of Mice and Men

Maybe there really are two Americas: California and the rest of the country. Today's evidence is a letter to the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle printed March 17th. It's from San Leandro resident Vernon S. Burton, and it says, in its entirety

Editor -- It was very encouraging to see how the people in Spain responded this past weekend to the devastating terrorist attack they suffered last week. Instead of whining about being innocent victims and listening to a lot of jingoistic nonsense, the people of Spain accepted that they were targeted because their leaders sided with the United States and the Israelis in the Middle East. Congratulations to the Spanish people for sending their misleaders packing. Too bad Americans aren't that smart.

If Burton, or San Francisco, represent the "other" America, I'm glad they're 3000 miles away.

Kerry Tales, Part XXXV

HumaneUSA, the political action group arm of the various animal rights/humane groups, sent a questionnaire to some of the Presidential candidates. (It's not clear whether HumaneUSA sent one to President Bush, but never mind.) Senator Kerry responded (so did Dennis Kucinich, confusingly labeled "John Edwards"). Here's an excerpt from one of the Haughty Hairdo's answers:

Q: Do you have any pets that have made an impact on you personally?

A: I have always had pets in my life and there are a few I remember very fondly.

When I was serving on a swiftboat in Vietnam, my crewmates and I had a dog we called VC. We all took care of him, and he stayed with us and loved riding on the swiftboat deck. I think he provided all of us with a link to home and a few moments of peace and tranquility during a dangerous time. One day as our swiftboat was heading up a river, a mine exploded hard under our boat. After picking ourselves up, we discovered VC was MIA. Several minutes of frantic search followed after which we thought we'd lost him. We were relieved when another boat called asking if we were missing a dog. It turns out VC was catapulted from the deck of our boat and landed confused, but unhurt, on the deck of another boat in our patrol.

As James Taranto says: "Everyone knew Kerry was a pet lover, but this is the first we've heard of his having served in Vietnam." And blogger Steve Sturm says Kerry's lying. Even if he isn't, Senator Kerry's a preening poindexter, the kind we all hated in school.

I have no idea why anyone would vote for this man.

Kerry Tales, Part XXXIV

Today's NY Times quotes the Haughty Hairdo's explanation for his frequent changes of position, especially about the war in Iraq:

I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.

Let me translate: Ok, break's over--everyone back on their heads!

Does anyone share my worry about a President Kerry?

Liberal Professors Invent Bad Law

I'm pleased that someone else challenged Yale Law School Professor Lea Brilmayer--because I was sure she was nuts. Brilmayer published an Op Ed in the March 9th WSJ (mirrored here) making the extraordinary claim that authorizing gay marriage in one state would not necessarily affect any other state:

[N]obody bothered to check whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to require one state to recognize another state's marriages. It hasn't. Longstanding precedent from around the country holds that a state need not recognize a marriage entered into in another state with different marriage laws if those laws are contrary to strongly held local public policy. The "public policy doctrine," almost as old as this country's legal system, has been applied to foreign marriages between first cousins, persons too recently divorced, persons of different races, and persons under the age of consent. The granting of a marriage license has always been treated differently than a court award, which is indeed entitled to full interstate recognition. Court judgments are entitled to full faith and credit but historically very little interstate recognition has been given to licenses.

She said the same in a February 15th WaPo Op Ed and when testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in early March. At about the same time, I concluded exactly the opposite, based on an hour of legal research. Clearly, one of us was wrong.

But first some background about Professor Brilmayer. A Boalt Hall graduate, she specializes in international law and conflicts of law. She's published books (e.g., American Hegemony: Political Morality in a One-Superpower World (1994)) sharply critical of US policy since becoming the sole-superpower, and several articles (e.g., International Justice and International Law, 98 W. Va L. Rev. 611 (1996)) championing global treaties and bureaucracies instead. Brilmayer's an anti-globalist theorist and condemns torture (who doesn't?). But she also opposed U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, doubting

the legality of a U.S. offensive against the sovereign state of Afghanistan given the "private actor" status of the terrorists. 'What responsibility does the government of Afghanistan have?' she asked. 'Do they have to turn him over? Former war criminals of other countries live in the U.S.'

Forewarned is forearmed.

Ok, back to the law. Remember, Brilmayer claimed the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution would allow courts of one state to ignore an out-of-state marriage that violated the "public policy" or "morality" in the state where the court was located. She cited a half-dozen refusals to recognize out-of-state marriages, only one of which--Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726 (Conn. 1961)--was decided after 1950. By contrast, I conceded older rulings did indeed say that, but more recent cases narrowed the scope of any "public policy" exception (citing a 1953 New York case that recognized a Rhode Island marriage between uncle and niece, both of whom were New York residents, despite a law prohibiting uncle-niece marriages in New York). I also claimed that any residual exception to Full Faith and Credit was unlikely to survive last year's Lawrence v. Texas decision of the United States Supreme Court, which seemingly invalidated morality as a basis for law:

The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992).

And, I challenged the oft-cited analogy to the (aptly named) Loving v. Virginia decision, where the Supreme Court overturned Virginia's refusal to recognize an out-of-state interracial marriage that was unlawful within Virginia--that case was decided under 14th Amendment "equal protection," not the Full Faith and Credit clause.

So who's right? I am. I've double checked. And I'm supported by Matthew J. Franck, a professor and chairman of political science at Radford University. Writing in today's NRO, Franck accused the liberal Yalie of distorting the law for political purposes:

Professor Brilmayer's argument was actually a clever piece of misdirection, a bit of legerdemain in which we were invited to fix our attention on the left hand while the right hand picks our pockets.

Franck also confirmed that cases undermine the continuing constitutionality of any public policy exception. He cited two Supreme Court decisions:

Romer v. Evans (1996), where Justice Kennedy concluded that "anti gay" laws could never have a "rational basis" because they were based on "of animosity toward the class of persons affected."

Lawrence v. Texas (2003), where Justice Kennedy (again) invalidated Texas law for failing to show sufficient solicitude for "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education."

Given these decisions, Franck concludes--and I agree--that a refusal to recognize an out-of-state gay marriage (based on "public policy" or "morality") would likely be unlawful.

I still oppose any national definition of marriage--either including or prohibiting gay marriage. But I'm really steamed when lawyers lie. Particularly when law professors lie for liberalism, without investigation or challenge by the mass media. So, I say again: under current law, one state's adoption of gay marriage will decide the issue for the entire country. That's why we need a Constitutional Amendment ensuring marriage remains a state-law issue. Such an amendment has been suggested by Vice President Cheney, is being mooted by Senator Orrin Hatch, championed by fair-minded conservatives and proposed by others, including former Senators and young-ish conservative journalists. And me--because devolving controversial decisions to the smallest feasible unit of government (the principle of "subsidiarity" for you legal theory fans) is the least coercive solution.

In the current National Review, John Derbyshire wonders why "homosexual marriage -- an idea that seems not to have occurred to anyone at all in the entire span of human history until about five years ago -- is now a daily topic in our newspapers and TV programs." I'm kinda confused about that too. But the founding fathers made America a federal republic, meaning that issues not specifically allotted to the national government must be resolved by citizens under state law. Neighboring states may differ--but such a "laboratory" of varying approaches helps everyone understand the merits, and consequences, of their decisions.

Federalism's worked exactly as the founders intended for over 225 years. You don't junk the jurisprudence just because you disagree with one or the other outcome. Let 50.1 percent of the voters in each state decide.

America's constantly promoting the rule of law and voting rights in the Arab world and elsewhere, for example urging an Iraqi federal state permitting Shias, Sunnis and Kurds to co-exist. The same advice applies here at home. Democracy--it's the American way.

Update:

Today's New York Times parrots the same wishful thinking as Professor Brilmayer. The Times' article quotes gay rights advocate Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University and the author of "The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law." Koppelman concludes that "[n]o state has ever been required by the full faith and credit clause to recognize any marriage they didn't want to." I have no idea how Koppelman can be so positive, or even whether he's considered the Lawrence and Romer cases. But, as usual, the Times writes the lede before researching the story: Koppelman's argument "demonstrates that the president misunderstood the legal terrain."

No it doesn't. It just "demonstrates," as usual, that the Times doesn't fact-check liberals but will use any excuse to bash Bush. Why should anyone still believe the NY Times?

More:

Reader, and 10th Amendment fan, Michael Y disputes my narrow focus:

Why should the federal constitution single out marriage and not any other issue of states rights? Are the only things that are worthy of a constitutional amendment protecting states rights booze and sex? If you must have an amendment to preserve the states as laboratories (. . . I agree with you on the merits) I propose something more general: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people, AND THIS TIME WE REALLY MEAN IT!”

I like it! Still, a marriage-only amendment has a better chance.

Climbing Down the Spanish Steps

As usual, Derb's right, in at least two respects. On this topic, Andrew Sullivan agrees with Derb--a rare event.

First, "the Spanish election result is the worst thing to happen yet in the War on Terror. It is a huge victory for Al Qaeda, their greatest to date." I'm profoundly depressed my Saturday analysis (see tpfp post 3/13 5:42pm) was wrong; that, rather than defiant, the Spanish people heaved morality over the side of the ship of state. I actually thought the horrific bombings in three Madrid train stations would force Europe to confront terrorism. So did the French paper Le Monde, in an Editorial on Friday:

It is Europe and the democracy which were tackled Thursday March 11 in Madrid. It is the European Union which was attacked in one of its capitals; it is one of the democracies of the Union, Spain, which is aimed at three days of its general elections. . . .

Europeans share the mourning of the Inhabitants of Madrid; they must be organized together for a threat which relates to them all. If it did not know it yet, it knows it today: Europe belongs to the battle field of hyper-terrorism.

And so did Mark Steyn, writing in Monday's Australian:

In his penultimate public appearance, the late Osama bin Laden, broadcasting from his cave in the early hours of the Afghan campaign, listed among his principal grievances "the tragedy of Andalusia" -- that is, the end of Muslim rule in Spain in 1492. That's 512 years ago, but the al-Qa'ida guys are in no mood to (as the Democrats used to urge Republicans in the Clinton impeachment era) "move on". After half a millennium, even Paula Jones would have thrown in the towel. But not these fellows. They're still settling scores from the 15th century. They might not get around to Johnny-come-lately grievances such as Iraq until the early 2600s. . . .

Even if you'd avoided Iraq or Andalusia or British banks or Pilger or any other affront to Islamist sensibilities, you'd still be a target. As the PR guy for the Islamic Army of Aden said after blowing up that French tanker: "We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels."

Even the hilariously mis-named "Seattle Post-Intelligencer" (perhaps the third most liberal newspaper in America) saw the light:

The struggle to defeat Islamist terrorism is necessary for America's national security and for world peace. Simply put, that is why the public continues to support the war. . .

Recall, in contrast, what critics predicted. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. and Iraqi deaths. The "Arab street" was going to rise up. Hordes of new terrorists would be recruited and descend on us. Friendly Moslem governments in the Middle East would fall and unfriendly ones become bellicose.

But none of that happened.

The Arab street, for the first time, is learning that democracy is possible in their region. Press freedom in Iraq is the envy of other Arab countries. Women's civil rights have increased. Friendly governments were not destabilized; rather, unfriendly ones, including Syria and Iran, have come under new pressure. With Saddam gone, Iraq no longer finances suicide bombers in Palestine.

The United States, meanwhile, showed its lack of imperial ambitions by removing its troops from Saudi Arabia and the Saudis finally are cooperating in eliminating al-Qaida-affiliated cells in their country. Destroying such cells is crucial to preventing the funding and training of terrorists who could mount new attacks on the American.

This weekend in Spain, as the Seattle paper said, none of that happened. Instead, Spain's incoming Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, "vowed to withdraw troops from Iraq and criticized US President George W. Bush." According to Zapatero, "The war in Iraq was a disaster, the occupation of Iraq is a disaster." Worse still, European Commission chief Romano Prodi (a leftist former Italian Premier), agreed, in an interview published by Italy's La Stampa newspaper Monday: "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists," Prodi said. "Terrorism is infinitely more powerful than a year ago," and all of Europe now feels threatened, he told the paper. Well, all of Europe always was threatened; but I thought a consensus was building that force was the only effective response.

Silly me. I forgot Europe's history of appeasement, which began well before Neville Chamberlain proclaimed "peace for our time." The Genus "European," Species "Chicken," was fully evolved by the early 16th Century, when faced with the Barbary Pirates:

The Barbary Coast of Northern Africa consisted of the four states of Algiers, Morocco, Tripoli, and Tunis. The "Barbary Pirates" had for centuries captured vessels sailing the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. They occasionally raided coastal villages to capture Christian slaves, such as a village in southern Ireland, which was said to have been entirely captured by Muslim raiders.

Earning their living by blackmail, tribute, piracy and slavery, the Barbary Pirates received yearly sums of money, ships, and arms from foreign powers. Those who paid their tribute were allowed to sail unmolested along the Barbary Coast, and trade in the African ports. Those who did not had their ships seized and their crews held for ransom or sold into slavery. In 1662, England agreed to pay an annual tribute, in return for free passage along the Barbary Coast.

By the 18th Century, the fearsome reputation of the Barbary Pirates, and self-interest, had led most of the European powers to routinely pay the tribute demanded. The Europeans, who had strong navies, found it easier to pay tribute to the Barbary states than to try to suppress it, since it achieved the strategy of reserving the Mediterranean to those who were wealthy.

The first American ship to be captured was the brig Betsey, captured in the Atlantic by Moroccans in 1784. America was a new nation, and the Moroccans had never before seen an American flag. Any Christian ship was assumed to be fair game, however, as it was taken for granted that they were at war with every Christian nation, unless a peace treaty had been signed.

The United States Congress initially seemed disposed toward appeasement (i.e., paying tribute). But, wiser policy soon prevailed:

Secretary State Thomas Jefferson, told Congress it must choose "...between war, tribute and ransom." He believed war was the only reasonable choice, and advocated the creation of a navy. Tribute paid to the pirates was "money thrown away," and the only thing they truly understood was gunpowder and shot. . .Jefferson called for a united military alliance among the European powers, along with America, to blockade North Africa and provide for a military solution against the pirates. Europe chose to continue paying tribute.

"Would to Heaven we had a navy to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into non-existence," said George Washington in 1786. Said one American envoy, "There is but one language which can be held to these people, and this is terror."

By 1800, a phrase first uttered by founding father Charles Pinckney (1746-1825) became America's rallying cry: "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!" In 1801, Jefferson, now President, "sent American ships and U.S. Marines to the coast of North Africa to put an end to the piracies. In 1815 the Barbary rulers agreed to abolish all demands for annual payments from and acts of piracy against the United States." This victory against pirate terrorism was memoralized in the second line of the Marine Corps Hymn: "To the Shores of Tripoli." And it's worth remembering that the Tripoli triumph freed Europe from further payments.

It's now clear, as Victor Davis Hanson writes, that America's perceives justice and morality quite differently than other nations:

[W]ith the exceptions of some English-speaking allies and eastern Europeans, are in fact absolutely alone in our larger struggle for Western civilization and have been all along well before Iraq, which was merely the latest excuse for ongoing European appeasement. The Spanish will never go after the killers of their own citizens, much less the countries who provided them support and succor, just as the Western Europeans did nothing to stop Mr. Milosevic, just as they sent a token force to Afghanistan, and hardly any to Iraq, and just as the Greeks will do nothing if their Olympics are destroyed by waves of Islamic terrorists.

Western Europe has no guts--never had. They're risk adverse--remember, the peoples of Western Europe are descendents of those that didn't have the get-up-and-go to get-up-and-go to the United States, to anywhere in the Americas. Immigration to the New World mostly comes from the right side of the bell curve, each time leaving the Old World incrementally less able, less agile, less aggressive, less alert. It's our gain--and Europe's loss.

Which brings me to Derb's second point. Britain aside, Europe won't stand on principle. They have none. The continent was content to accommodate Hitler--so long as it didn't cut-off the course of coffee and croissants (think Sartre during the occupation at Les Deux Magots). Western European democracies counseled U.S.-Soviet detente--and ignored the peoples of Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968). No, Europe's "stategy" is nothing more than long-term bribery of its enemies (Barbary Pirates for 400 years, West Germany to Soviet Russia for 40). And Europe's spinelessness has been S.O.P. for more than a millennium.

Don't believe me? Just listen to Rudyard Kipling, the great English Imperial writer, from his poem "Dane-geld (A.D. 980-1016):"

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:--
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:--
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:--

"We never pay any one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost,
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"

Too bad Europe's stuck in appeasement which, though inefective, is a thousand year vintage. I doubt they'll pull up in time.

So let's be sure Europe doesn't take America down with 'um.

Lomborg Exonerated

Three years ago, Bjorn Lomborg published an English language translation of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," the single best source for rebutting the enviro-crazy. The book collects facts about the environment, uses those facts to demonstrate environmental improvements over the past 35 years, and refutes claims of environmental "Chicken Littles." You know who they are--scientists, college professors and "public interest" advocates whose funding depends on doomsday scenarios.

Lomborg has been pilloried ever since. See tpfp posts 2/13 3:13pm, 2/7 11:37pm. Within a year after the publication:

a global smear campaign has attempted to discredit the Danish academic who had the audacity to question the hysterics and distortions of the modern day environmental movement. So threatened were the professional environmental pessimists in academia, NGOs and think tanks by Lomborg's arguments and ideas, they lashed out and viciously attacked him, seeking to destroy his credibility. The attack included a one-sided smear in the pages of Scientific American, protesters throwing pies at him at speaking engagements, and a website, www.anti-lomborg.com, devoted to discrediting him.

Lomborg smearing soon went from sport to farce--a so-called "Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty" condemned the book as "objectively dishonest" and "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice." This decision was widely reported in all the old familiar places, i.e., the NY Times, Washington Post, etc.

You'd think lefties, especially the liberal media, would be suspicious when a quasi-government committee denounces science as heresy--as the 17th Century Catholic church did to Galileo. Not so. The left barely noticed when Timothy Wirth, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs for President Clinton, proclaimed "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing." Rarely reported was the fact that the Danish Committee didn't conduct it's own analysis, but relied solely on articles from Scientific American and that famous science publication, Time Magazine, written by people Lomborg had challenged--who had incentives to defend their work (and funding) to the last footnote. Few mentioned that one of the anti-Lomborg authorities, Stamford Prof Stephen Schneider, admitted that global warming pessimism wasn't neutral, but advocacy:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

I guess it depends on the meaning of "honesty."

Fortunately for science, the greens' campaign to suppress heresy failed. Late last year, the Danish Ministry of Science and Technology overturned the DCDS's "kangaroo court decision." Then, on Friday, the dishonest Committee on Scientific Dishonesty waved the white flag. Acknowledging the Ministry found its "judgment was not backed up by documentation and was 'completely void of argumentation,'" the Committee "Withdr[ew]" the case against Lomborg. Issue closed. That's good for Lomborg--and for science.

Still I wonder: why is the left so passionately committed to unproven fear mongering? Genetically modified foods, which could increase farm yields and reduce death from starvation, are widely vilified--without a single fatality. The press faithfully headlines every pronouncement of warmer (or cooler) weather, without checking their facts. The media rarely acknowledges scientists who predict no or insignificant global warming. This puts assumptions about man-made warming to the left of even the United States Senate, which called the Kyoto treaty "dead on arrival," and refused to consider ratification, by a vote of 95-0.

It's hard for layman like us to dispute science experts. But it's easy to take account of incentives and bias. Few lefties bother. The newly exonerated Bjorn Lomborg counseled skepticism. It's still the most appropriate environmental policy.

Rolling Back the "Reconquista"

The Spanish intelligence service is "99 percent certain" radical Muslims are responsible for Thursday's terrorist attack in Madrid, which killed 200 and wounded 1400. Spanish police have arrested five suspects, three Moroccans and two Indians. (Reports from Germany claim four of the suspects are Arabs.) The Norwegian government's defense research group fingers Al Qaeda, citing Arabic-language documents, dated last year, that "outline a strategy to pressure Spain. . .to stop cooperating with the United States." (via Jeff Jarvis.) A Spanish newspaper reports the government now believes the bombs were unlike those previously used by Basque terrorists. And the Spanish Interior Minister announced that police received a video of an Arab man claiming the attacks in the name of Al Qaeda. The tape appears more authentic than Thusday's email purportedly from Al Qaeda, which at least one analyst says is a fake.

If Al Qaeda's behind the bombing, their strategy's a bust. As many as 11.7 million people jammed Madrid's streets and plazas, despite steady rain, in protest; there were similar gatherings throughout Spain. Yesterday's turnout is roughly double last year's anti-war rallies. And, other than a few moral midgets, most were "defiant," not apologetic, about fighting terrorism. (via Instapundit.)

The West didn't "do" anything to warrant Islamic terror. Muslims still nursing a grudge about the "Reconquista," ejecting Islam from Spain in 1492, forget that Moors invaded and conquered Spain in 711. Complaints about medieval crusades ignore that Muslims themselves seized the Holy Land by force (late 7th Century), destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, blocking Christian pilgrims (1009), and controlled most of the Mid-East until the late 19th Century. Claims that the British and the UN unlawfully "gave" historically Arab Palestine to Jews elide mentioning that Jews first settled in Palestine before 1200 BC, well before any Arabs, and that the last independent Palestine was a Jewish state conquered by Rome about 70 AD. Moreover, appeals to history eventually point toward the oldest written record--the Old Testament, accepted as accurate by Christians, Jews and Muslims, in which God unambiguously allocates Israel to Jews (see Genesis 12:1-2, 32:28).

Even were their history accurate, Islamic terrorism isn't premised on ancient "wrongs." Osama Bin Laden founded Al Qaeda not out of sympathy for Palestinians but to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan and overthrow the Saudi government. And Muslim terrorism isn't confined to the U.S. It's aimed at any secular, democratic government (and Arab nations as well). In other words, radical Islam targets Western civilization--the rule of law that keeps us free.

I'm glad Spain isn't asking "what it did to deserve this." Neither should we. No act of man or government could justify targeting and killing civilians. No change in policy, short of surrender, will stop the carnage. "Peaceful coexistence" is impossible--because Muslim terrorists would rather murder than share.

We just have to eradicate them. Before they destroy us. It's become a zero sum game. And, more than ever before, this time it's personal.

Is Left Ever Right?

Writing in today's National Review Online, Victor Davis Hanson "gets it" right again, first recalling the anti-war arguments:

Remember the invective about perpetual American intervention? Tens of thousands of our troops poured into the Middle East after the "excuse" of September 11. Right-wingers alleged that we had turned from republic to a garrison empire in a new global ego trip. Leftists assured us that we were greedy colonialists replicating the British raj -- perhaps keen to corner the Iraqi date market or exploit at slave wages the skilled workforce around Tikrit. Arab fundamentalists prattled on about the American Crusaders and Zionists out to steal holy lands and desecrate shrines -- no doubt convinced that Billy Grahamites, if not blowing up ancient Buddhist statuary, would soon be attaching crosses to minarets.

Of course, nothing of the sort occurred since the fall of Saddam.

Hanson next examines sophisticated "post-colonial" arguments:

Surely one of the most astounding intellectual trends in our lifetime has been this transmogrification of religious fascists and Middle East autocrats -- the minions of Saddam, Arafat, Khaddafi, or the Iranian mullahs -- into some sort of exploited peoples worthy of Western forbearance for quite horrific dictatorships, theocracies, and all the assorted pathologies that we have to come to associate with the modern Middle East. . . Let's examine, instead, what really happened. While fellow Arabs did little or nothing to free the Iraqi people -- but apparently both cheated on and profited from the U.N. embargoes -- Americans set up a consensual government.

Finally, Hanson cautions against relying on allies from "Old Europe" (i.e., the chocolate producing nations):

[A] few thousand troops in Afghanistan doesn't cut it from a continent with a larger population than that of the United States, which in turn does the dirty work to ensure Europe's security. Unilateral, multilateral, U.N., no U.N., Balkans, Iraq -- it doesn't matter: The Europeans are never going to risk lives and treasure for much of anything. The predictable NATO rule: The stationing of troops is to be determined in direct proportion to the absence of both need and danger.

Liberals loved Marxists, and hysterically opposed confronting the Soviets. They prophesied famine, resource scarcity and overpopulation. Of course, they protested war in Afghanistan in Iraq.

The left was dead wrong about Marx: Reagan won the Cold War, Cuba's starving and, as soon as they could, Nicaraguans voted Danny Ortega off the island. Global food production increases every year; there's still (always!) 20 years of proven oil reserves; and the birthrate in countries from Europe to Singapore has fallen below replacement levels. Iraq--where hundreds of thousands were murdered or tortured up until a year ago--now has a interim constitution, the beginnings of democracy and a booming economy.

Next time you debate a liberal, ask this: Since Watergate, have your ever been right?

Lileks on Madrid

James Lileks says it best, yet again:

I thought at first it must be Al Qaeda, given the significance of Spain to these horrid farkwits; the whole "tragedy of Andalusia" thing figures large in their menu of grievances. You think: that was half a millennia ago. Move on. But it's not as if they are stuck in past history. There is no such thing as history for these people. There is simply a condition that must be changed. The world must submit. The aberration of the Reconquista must be reversed. These are obvious truths. They will come to pass. If you oppose these truths, you oppose God. . ..

I'm somewhat annoyed by the assertion that this act was "sophisticated," and hence the work of those brilliant stratgerists of Al Qaeda. My definition of sophistication is somewhat different: it's an unmanned drone flying over Pakistan, piloted by a guy in Florida, dropping a laser-guided bomb into the passenger cab of a truck full of Taliban. That's sophistication.

Read the whole thing--especially when he ponders advice to his daughter.

Bias Beyond Belief

Former Congressional staffer and journalist Susan Lindauer was arrested today and charged with being an agent for Iraq. If convicted, the Takoma Park, Md., resident could spend 10 years in jail.

Lindauer worked for four Capitol Hill Democrats (Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore; Rep. Ron Wyden, D-Ore; Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, D-Ill.; and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.). She formerly wrote for U.S. News & World Report and for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Lindauer also is a second cousin of Andy Card, the current White House Chief of Staff.

So what's the AP headline?

Accused spy is cousin of Bush staffer

Liberal media? You think?

The MSNBC story's even worse, as blogger RanckandFile found: Lindauer's relationship to Card is in the subhead, but you have to read 'till graph 8 before learning it was Card himself "who alerted authorities to his relative's activities." Not until graph 15 does MSNBC mention her four Congressional Democrat former employers. (via Instapundit.)

Update:

It's not just AP and MSNBC! According to MRC, the Lindauer stories on CBS and NBC Thursday evening news didn't mention that the alleged agent worked only for Democrats. Yet both networks faithfully reported her distant kinship to Bush Chief of Staff Andrew Card. Similarly, though the WaPo's initial Lindauer story--posted on its website Thursday evening--named her four Dem bosses, the version in Friday's WaPo (dead tree edition) mentions Andy Card seven times before including this vague reference to Lindauer's politics and employers:

Lindauer worked as a press aide for some Democrats in Congress in the mid-1990s and as recently as 2002.

Saturday's WaPo coverage is little better--Lindauer is a "former congressional staffer . . . to several Democratic members of Congress." Though Saturday's article never names Lindauer's ex bosses, the WaPo references Card four times--without mentioning that Bush's Chief of Staff himself alerted police to his cousin activities.

Terror Without Borders

tpfp's mourns the nearly 200 dead and over 1200 wounded in today's brutal bombings at three Madrid train stations. Initial suspicion focused on Basque separatists. But Al Qaeda claimed responsibility. And the bombings resemble those of radical Islam, not the Basques. Moreover, Madrid police found a van containing detonators--and an Arabic-language tape of Koranic verses.

A comment on Little Green Footballs, reprinted in Instapundit, says it best:

I am an American. A Californian to be exact. From nowhere special. I have never been to Spain. I may never go to Spain. I don't even speak Spanish. But today, today I am a Spaniard. We are all Spaniards.

Me siento profundamente triste acerca de las pérdidas de la gente de Madrid.

Hundreds dead, thousands wounded--for the crime of using mass transit? Liberals support mass transit. So why don't people "get it"? This war isn't cold--our civilization is fighting global terror, tyranny and theocracies. Legal/military journalist Phil Carter agrees:

[T]he "war on terrorism" is really much larger than what even America conceives of it. Liberal society, broadly defined, is at war with the forces of terror which seek to undermine the global civil society that prizes such things as liberty, equality, interdependence, free trade, self-determination, human rights, education, and science.

Inevitably some will blame America or George Bush. They are wrong. As BoiFromTroy notes (via Instapundit), "the only people in the world who believe that the liberation of Iraq was George Bush's unilateral action are the people who seek to replace him in the Oval Office."

Muslim extremists aren't targeting conservatives or Republicans. They don't just hate Jews--I doubt many of today's victims were Jewish. Neither electing Kerry nor surrendering Jerusalem will produce peace. Radical Islam doesn't spare Unitarians or atheists.

This isn't about history, land or religion. As Mark Steyn writes, it's about freedom:

"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." And by "you", they mean not just arrogant Texan cowboys, but any pluralist society - whether a relaxed tourist resort like Bali or a modern Muslim nation like Turkey or - come to that, one day down the road - a cynical swamp of appeasement like France.

If you value freedom, it's your fight too. No matter where you live; no matter what your politics.

Western Civ.--love it, defend it. Or lose it.

War or. . .What? A Tale of Two (or More) Memes

Most folks remember encountering a new idea and thinking: "Wow--yes! That makes sense; wish I'd thought of it." And thereafter, we integrate the concept into pre-existing positions and arguments. It's useful--so we adopt the idea and try to spread it.

Sophisticated PoMos have a name for this phenomenon: a meme (rhymes with dream)--"an idea that is passed on from one human generation to another." The term was invented by Richard Dawkins in his 1976 sociobiology blockbuster "The Selfish Gene." Dawkins speculated that memes were an adaptive mechanism in addition to natural selection, not shared by other species, which allowed humans "to surmount challenges more flexibly and more quickly than through the longer process of genetic adaptation and selection." Outside of evolutionary biology, however, a meme is defined more generally as "a unit of cultural transmission."

Senator John Edwards broke ground by designing his campaign around a meme. In every speech, he claimed we inhabited "two Americas, one for the privileged few, and another for everybody else." Edwards' meme didn't persuade me (see tpfp post 3/4 4:03pm) and it didn't convince Democrats. And because he didn't seek reelection, Senator Edwards will revert to citizen/ambulance-chaser Edwards early next year, trailing his flawed meme.

Though Edwards' meme is no more, I'm become a believer in "two Americas." Oh, not in the dyspeptic disparagement version pushed by economic populists (you listening Al?). No, I'm convinced by a new meme of two Americas, as set forth by two savvy minds in Minneapolis (blogger FrozenNorth and Star-Tribune columnist James Lileks), law professor/talk radio star Hugh Hewitt, with an assist by National Review's Victor Davis Hanson. These four independently published articles within a span of 36 hours (March 4-5th) reaching an essentially identical conclusion.

My eureka moment came when reading FrozenNorth on March 5th:

[T]he biggest political division in America right now is the division between those who believe we are at war, and those who don't.

"Wow--yes!" FrozenNorth's idea essentially is a one sentence distillation of Steven Den Beste's debate questions (see tpfp post 2/18 3:28am). And FrozenNorth details the differences:

In the "We Are At War" camp, the events surrounding and following 9/11 are central. The lack of another attack on American soil is the result of either good luck or good leadership. In either case, al Qaeda and groups like it remain an imminent threat, and another attack in the U.S. is not only a possibility, but likely. The bear may be wounded, but that just makes it angrier. The war in Iraq is either necessary (Republicans), or a dangerous distraction from the real threat (Democrats).

In the "We Are Not At War" camp, 9/11 was important, but other issues have since become more important. The fact that there hasn't been a follow-on attack to 9/11 proves that al Quada is no longer an imminent threat, probably because our attack in Afghanistan and subsequent events have effectively eliminated much of the organization. Other issues, like the economy, the ballooning federal deficit, social issues, and threats from places like North Korea, are of more immediate importance than what is now a mop-up operation in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"That makes sense!"

FrozenNorth's post is merely descriptive. Lileks' version (already quoted here, see tpfp post 3/4 4:03pm) takes sides:

[I]t's the war. That's what counts. If I had a choice between an isolationist Republican who would withdraw all American troops from everywhere and cast Israel adrift, OR a Joe Lieberman Democrat who understood the threat and wanted to take the fight to them - and nevermind what our valiant allies thought, like Russia - I'd pull the lever for the D. As I've said before: we can argue about the future of Western Civilization after we've ensured Western Civilization will survive.

"Right again!" I shouted, remembering that Victor Davis Hanson said much the same also on March 5th (see tpfp post 3/7 1:16pm).

Hewitt uses different words, but describes the same dichotomy:

The dividing line between Americans runs between those who are serious about the world and the nation and those who are silly on these subjects.

Silly people listen to Michael Moore. Silly people issue marriage licenses to couples ineligible to receive them because they feel that it is important to do so. Silly folks think Dick Cheney is still running Halliburton and that Halliburton is running the war. Silly people make ads for websites that feature George W. Bush morphing into Hitler. Silly people think we've got Osama bin Laden stashed away in a cave waiting for a September debut. Silly people look to Maureen Dowd for insight into the world.

"I wish I'd thought of that!"

Four different writers, Lileks, Hewitt, Hanson and FrozenNorth, wrote essentially identical points essentially simultaneously. I agree--wholeheartedly!--with their idea. In other words, those writers culturally transmitted their concept to me. So I present the latest meme: the division of America into those who believe we're at war and those who don't.

I secured early admission to group one. I'm baffled by the second bunch; weary of debating them too. Especially after today's horrifying bombings in Madrid--nearly 200 dead, over 1200 wounded--for which Al Qaeda claimed responsibility. This war is anything but cold.

But undecideds remain. So those in group one should step-up efforts to propagate the accurate "two Americas" concept. Spread the meme, baby! Because if you can convince 'um America's at war, they'll quit being silly. And a citizen 18 years or older who's serious will vote for President Bush.

Serious voters vote Bush. Call that a third meme. It's cultural; it surmounts challenges flexibly and quickly. I'm transmitting.

Anyone receiving?

Trouble and Trails at Turtle Bay

Journalist-Editor Claudia Rosett just lobbed a tasty "j'accuse!" at the UN, and Secretary Kofi Annan. Rosett, formerly on the Wall Street Journal's editorial board and now a fellow at both the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the Hudson Institute, peeks behind the kimono of the "Oil for Food" program, which supervised Iraqi relief from 1996 until the fall of Baghdad. Rosett's NRO article suggests that a firm receiving $6 million worth of UN contracts hired Kofi Annan's son Kojo as a consultant. Though tantalizing, the evidence is--so far--thin.

More importantly, Rosett confirms (see tpfp post 2/9 6:12pm) the Oil for Food program was corrupt to the core. And Rosett says the UN knew it--and has been frantically directing a cover-up since last spring:

Last May, shortly after the fall of Saddam's regime, the U.N. Security Council voted to end the Oil-for-Food program and gave the U.N. Secretariat six months to tie-up loose ends before handing over any outstanding import contracts to the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority. With Saddam's regime gone as a contracting party, the U.N. began a frenzied process of "renegotiating" billions in contracts, basically winnowing out the graft component that Oil-for-Food had previously approved.

By the end of this sudden housecleaning, the U.N. had scrapped more than 25 percent of the contracts. . . For instance, . . . there is reference to the welding-machine contractor from Lebanon, "unwilling to accept the 10% deduction"; likewise the Belgian and Jordanian suppliers of medicine, both refusing a "10% reduction." In other cases there is a vaguer note, such as the Russian backhoe supplier, who "refused to accept extra fee deduction." Or the supplier of "fork lift and spares" from Belarus who "stated that the supply of remaining parts cannot be cost effective under the current circumstances." Asked to further explain these notations, an Oil-for-Food spokesman offers no comment except that all available information is already posted on the U.N. website.

Altogether, according to U.N. records, 728 previously approved and funded deals were "removed from the list of amendable contracts," a few because the supplies had already been delivered, but many because the contractors appear to have run for the hills. For instance, there's the Jordanian supplier of school furniture, whose contract was dropped during the U.N.'s post-Saddam frenzy of "prioritization" because the "Company does not exist and the person in charge moved to Egypt." Or the Russian supplier of "vehicle spare parts," who "could not be contacted despite all efforts." Or the Algerian seller of "adult milk" who "has no interest in renegotiation"; the Egyptian seller of "generator" for educational purposes, who "is not enthusiastic about proceeding with the amendment"; the Syrian seller of "laboratory equipment" who is "not possible to contact."

Another 762 contracts set aside indefinitely by the U.N., post-Saddam because of their "questionable utility" were deals for goods that sound handy and humanitarian enough on the generic U.N. face of it. These include medicine from China; sugar and ambulances from Egypt; laboratory materials and medical equipment from France; educational materials from Pakistan; wheat, medical equipment, and ambulances from Russia; and yet more wheat, from Saudi Arabia.

The UN ran this program. Though they claim not to have known about Saddam's 10-percent-overpricing-and-kickback scheme, the UN approved every contract. Hardly ignorant--they were Saddam's poodles:

The disturbing implication is that the U.N. -- while collecting a commission of more than $1 billion on Saddam's oil sales to cover its own overhead in administering Oil-for-Food -- was indifferent to Saddam's short-changing the Iraqi people, whose relief was supposed to be the entire point of the program.

Clearly, the UN never learned the lesson of Watergate: It's always the cover-up, not the crime.

But, overall, there's really no surprise here. Well, perhaps one: Why do liberals expect anything better from the UN bureaucracy?

Update:

Therese Raphael, editor of the WSJ Europe, names another name: Benon Sevan, director of the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Program. In a publicly available article in the March 11th Wall Street Journal, Raphael quotes from an Arabic-language chart listing "Quantity of Oil Allocated and Given to Mr. Benon Sevan" from December 1996 through June 2003--and shows Sevan receiving at least 9 million barrels of oil. At $30 per barrel, that's worth $27 million, which (given the discounted contract amounts) might net between $3 and $10 million. Mr Sevan denies the allegation. Yet, curiously, Raphael notes that a "U.N. spokesman said yesterday that Mr. Sevan is on extended vacation until late April, after which he retires at the month's end."

How convenient. The UN gives its fox keys to both the Iraqi hen-house and a multi-lateral get-away car.

Like Rosett's National Review article, the WSJ story speculates about Secretary Annan's ties to Oil for Food contractor Cotecna:

One prominent former employee of Cotecna is Kojo Annan, Kofi Annan's son by his first marriage. The young Mr. Annan was employed by Cotecna in the mid-1990s. He reportedly continued a consultancy relationship with Cotecna through his Nigerian-based company. Philip Henebry, Cotecna's CFO, confirmed that Kojo Annan had been employed there, but would not confirm any dates. Asked how Cotecna was able to underbid competitors on the Iraq contract by as much as half, he replied that "We felt that the margins with competitors were very, very high."

Which explains why my trust in the UN is very, very low.

Who Said This?

When questioned about confronting Saddam Hussein despite objections from other countries:

Clearly the allies may not like it. . . Where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity?

The administration is leading. The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by [U.S. weapons inspector Richard] Butler.

I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests.

President Bush? Dick Cheney? Paul Wolfowitz? A random (Jewish) neo-con?

Nope. It was Senator John Kerry, in a November 1997 appearance on CNN's "Crossfire." (Via LGF.)

Flop.

Flip.

Self Hating Australians

Though he now lives in England, John Pilger is one. Oh, he also hates Americans and Britts--and freely admits it:

[QUESTION]: Can you approve in that context the killing of American, British or Australian troops who are in the occupying forces?

JOHN PILGER: Well yes, they're legitimate targets. They're illegally occupying a country.

Why are the people who benefit most from free speech--journalists such as Pilger--so eager to support dictatorships? (Via Instapundit.)

Outsourcing Kerry

At each campaign stop, Senator Kerry's been inveighing against outsourcing jobs overseas. So it's interesting that the Haughty Hairdo outsourced campaign workers to Canada while his wife's company, H.J. Heinz & Co., outsourced 57 of its 79 factories outside the U.S.

Flip.

Flop.

McCainiacs for Kerry?

There's a word for Republican Senators considering teaming with candidates from the opposition. The word is: Democrat. It's time McCain admitted it.

Kerry Tales, Part XXXI

It wasn't a good weekend for the Haughty Hairdo. Forget the Bush campaign television commercials; ignore the scorn from us conservatives. I'm talking about Kerry's bad press--from liberals!

Take Marjorie Williams, in yesterday's WaPo. Williams concedes her anti-Bush bias in the second sentence. Yet the article, called "Win One for the Flipper," could not be more scathing:

Bay State political junkies trade their favorite Kerry flip-flops like baseball cards. Bush is already having fun with Kerry's zigzags of the past three years alone: Kerry voted for so many of Bush's major initiatives that in order to disown them now he can only argue that they were wrongly or dishonestly "implemented." This amounts to a confession that his opponent made a chump of him for the past three years.

Well, yes, Marjorie, though Kerry's made it awful easy. Williams is particularly annoyed by Kerry's gay marriage position. Er, a, positions:

I finally lost my grip, though, when I opened my newspaper a few days ago to read of Kerry's latest lunge in the direction of some politically feasible position on gay marriage. In general, Kerry, like most Democrats, has taken shelter in the mantra that (a) it's a matter that should be decided in the states, and (b) civil unions are the acceptable way to go about conferring equal rights on gays; marriage itself is off the table. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman," Democrats say, as if that took care of the matter. . . .

But Kerry was managing this footwork just fine until Feb. 4, when the Supreme Court of Massachusetts interpreted the state's constitution to require the option of gay marriage. Kerry responded by endorsing an amendment to the state's constitution that would forbid gay marriage but allow civil union. . .

But never mind. On Feb. 27, Kerry quietly told a group of unhappy gay donors that he would work to confer full federal benefits, including Social Security survivor benefits, the right to file taxes jointly, and more than a thousand others, on gay couples joined by any state-sanctioned union -- which would of course include marriage. So while wishing to forbid gay marriage in his own state, he is promising to reward it in others.

Conservatives certainty wouldn't dispute a word of Williams' conclusion:

To watch Kerry floundering in the impossible contradictions [on these issues] is to see starkly how little he is guided by core principle -- or even by a consistently wise sense of where his political interests lie. To respond to every unpleasant political stimulus that presents itself is to throw away the chance to make even an expedient long-term commitment to something.

Though delicious and well-reasoned, Williams' article wasn't even the best liberal Kerry-bashing of the weekend. That honor belongs to Maureen Dowd's column in Sunday's NY Times. Apparently, MoDo recently interviewed candidate Kerry--which makes President Bush look even better:

In what may be an interesting harbinger for their debates, W. raced through his whole interview in the same time Mr. Kerry took to answer the first question about his favorite movie. After he had roamed through 37 movies, ranging from his "Fellini stage" to his Adam Sandler period, from "National Velvet" to "The Deer Hunter" to "Men in Black," Mr. Kerry's aides began to hover.

And I've never seen Dowd nastier than this:

Still showing his phantom Irish side, he pronounced Leon Uris's "Trinity" his favorite novel, and said he once explored making it into a movie. Then he tacked on Huck Finn, Tom Sawyer and the Hardy Boys -- "all those good dudes." Then, remembering he's in an alpha race, he added portentously: "We all were affected by Hemingway."

So much indecision about authors--imagine how long Kerry requires to react to a genuine threat to America?

Finally, there's former and still quasi-liberal Andrew Sullivan. He's no fan of President Bush. But Sullivan's frustrated by Kerry's addiction to pandering every voter and the policy flip-flops that follow:

Over the many years that John Kerry has been in the United States senate, the Democrat from Massachusetts has accumulated an astonishing ability to have been on every side of most issues. There's a polite way of saying this, of course. The Washington Post recently reported that "Kerry's past support for policies he now condemns is complicating his run for the White House, strategists from both parties say, and could prove problematic." Or here's how the editors of the New York Times expressed it: "What his critics see as an inability to take strong, clear positions seems to us to reflect his appreciation that life is not simple." Well, life isn't simple. But it doesn't have to be as subtly, preternaturally, systematically complex as John Kerry makes it out to be.

According to Sullivan, there only principle behind Kerry's shifts is the lack of principle:

People who have been in public life a long time are allowed, of course, to change their minds, to move when new facts emerge or new arguments persuade them. And it is one of George W. Bush's weaknesses that he doesn't seem able to adjust his convictions in the face of empirical evidence that they might need adjusting, changing or fixing. But Kerry goes further than most. And almost all of his adjustments have been in order to serve his immediate political interests rather than to stand up for principle.

Finally, Sullivan supplies additional anecdotes confirming MoDo--that Kerry has no ability to simplify. Such as this example, from the February 25th Boston Globe coverage of a campaign stop in Ohio:

Kerry led a question-and-answer forum with workers at a Youngstown manufacturing plant, where the senator drew polite applause at points but also some lengthy silences. He answered seven questions over 27 minutes; three of his answers lasted more than five minutes apiece.

I'm grateful our current President can manage national security issues without days of dithering. I'm thankful the country's run by someone who doesn't have to recall 37 movies to formulate one favorite. I'm thrilled decisionmaking doesn't drag from endless, Clintonian, "on the other hand" debates.

And I'm scared to death what could happen to America were that to change.

More Time Wasters from Jonah

Though not yet recovered from helicopters or duct tape (see tpfp post 2/13 4:58pm), I've already lost a full hour on this. (Via The Corner.)