A word of advice to any three-year olds that might be reading this blog: If your father or mother tells you to stop doing something and your reply begins with "But I'm just...", you're about to get yourself into very big trouble.

Instapundit is perplexed by "Bush's stinginess regarding pardons." I have no strong opinion on the appropriate number of pardons for a President to issue, but I'm not at all surprised that Bush is low on the scale.

For better or for worse, Bush delegates responsibilities and then lets go of them, intervening only if there's a conflict or on matters of policy. He's not the sort to second guess, and a Presidential Pardon amounts to second-guessing the justice system.

Bush's style works well if the people you're delegating to are competent and pulling towards the same goal, but it can run into problems if too many are incompent or overly political. To remain effective, this sort of executive has to adapt as the organization changes, deciding who to trust and who needs oversight without just falling back into a trusted "inner circle" that might not really be trustworthy (past performance is no indication of future returns - the guy who gives 120% when the company and his paycheck were on the line could turn out to be a ruthless, backstabbing political operator when the situation isn't so dire).

Two of the most spectacular organizational failures I've seen were caused in part by this dynamic. Small product teams that had been functioning very effectively with distributed responsibilities grew or evolved to the point that some of the people involved could no longer be trusted, and management made some really bad choices about who they should rely on. It doesn't take long for the wheels to come off in a pretty spectacular way.

While were doing business archetypes for politicians: Whatever the faults of the hands-off executive, he's 1000 times better than the monomaniacal micromanager who knows better than everyone else (Al Gore) or the political schemer who says or does whatever he thinks will benefit him most, without regard to the consequences or to any sort of consistency or principle (John Kerry).

Seen at the Gym
The guy on the treadmill in front of me at the gym today was wearing a shirt with an absolutely huge "Bush-Cheney '04" logo. Underneath, also in large letters, it said: "A Person of Tolerance and Diversity Keyed My Car."

Oh Come, All Ye ... Faithful?
The elder tadpole and I had a strange and somewhat disturbing encounter with a Salvation Army bellringer last week.

We were entering a local supermarket and the elder tadpole bounded ahead with the energetic enthusiasm that only a three year old can muster, to give the bellringer a dollar. He wished the bellringer a chirpy "Merry Christmas" and was rewarded with a tart correction: "Happy Holidays," said the bellringer, "and a Happy Dr. King's Day on January 17th." He followed this pronouncement with a condescending smirk.

I'm not sure what's more disturbing: A Salvation Army bellringer who is openly hostile to Christmas, or a grown man who feels the need to haughtily demonstrate his lofty political awareness to an enthusiastic three-year old.

I have nothing against any of the holidays that fall at this time of year, but that's completely beside the point. His behavior was jarring and completely inappropriate, and Mrs. Tadpole is now reluctant to give to other bellringers. A small cynical part of me wonders if the bellringer is just clueless or if that reluctance to give is precisely his goal.

Wither the Netherlands?
I'm not surprised but I am a bit appalled at how little coverage the events in the Netherlands since the brutal murder of Theo von Gogh have received. The past week has seen arson and vandalism directed at both churches and mosques, infighting within the government and a crackdown that has already led to raids on terrorist cells and training camps within the Netherlands. It seems clear that opinion is shifting dramatically in the most tolerant country in Europe, and that is a very big deal.

For those who'd like information, insight and frequent updates, Zacht Ei is your one-stop shop.

Unlike some, I'm not surprised that the Dutch are cracking down. The Dutch are renowned for their tolerance, but that tolerance is actually a manifestation of a virtue they truly cherish: practicality

The Dutch tolerate pot and prostitution (and all manner of things) because they've judged that the consequences of doing so are less bad than the consequences of attempting to eliminate them. In essence, tolerance is a policy decision, not a first principle.

The murder of Theo von Gogh and its aftermath raises serious questions about the practicality of tolerating fundamentally antagonistic elements of society. If the Dutch decide that intolerance is more practical in this case, they will move decisively to neutralize the threat. I hope they'd be as decent as possible about it, of course, but appeals to tolerance as a principle will fall on deaf ears.

Consensus is also very important and takes time to achieve. But if the scales of opinion continue to tip in the direction they appear to be heading right now, some very dramatic changes in Dutch domestic and foreign policy just might be on the horizon. For better or for worse.

Tadpole Number One was engrossed in a book this morning and didn't insist on hearing his favorite song ("Im Orient" from "Gute Laune, Gute Fahrt") over and over and over again, so I was able to catch a bit of NPR on the radio. I was a bit surprised by the callers during the segment I heard.

Instead of the expected litany of complaints about "Red" America and promises to move to Canada, several callers in a row were Bush supporters expressing their hope that the anti-Bush crowd would finally shut up about the "unelected" stuff and start cooperating again.

I'm guessing the ABB crowd are still in shock and that they won't be calling in with the "I'm moving to Canada" stuff until they get to the depression stage of the grief process. Note that the next stage includes anger along with the depression, so if you live in a True Blue area you might want to get the Bush stickers off of the car.

Hopefully they'll make it all the way to "acceptance" this time around. I suspect that the messy end to the 2000 election left a lot of people trapped between "denial" and "anger" which lead to a lot of the over-the-top Bush-bashing of the past few years.

At least I hope that's what's going on. Otherwise, the ABB crowd is likely to get even more extreme. The last thing we need is an anti-globo Weather Underground. I'm fairly optimistic at this point, but I'll be keeping an eye out for signs one way or the other.

Slate wants you...
...to commit a felony. Slate's article about voting twice is subtitled "A sudden crackdown on an old trick" but if you read it all the way through, the author (Bill Gifford) comes to the conclusion that the so-called crackdown isn't very effective:

For all the new concern about double voting, though, the odds of getting caught remain minuscule. Comparing voter databases county by county and state by state is a needle-in-haystack undertaking, even with the aid of computers. Why not vote twice then? Michael Moore probably shouldn't do it. But you probably could.

Just don't tell any reporters.

"Why not vote twice then?"?!

I may be old-fashioned, but when the question is "Should I do something that is uncivil, unethical and a felony?" my answer doesn't hinge on whether or not I'm likely to get caught.

Attention Washington Bloggers. Be on the alert for four patronising idiots with an entourage of "journalists" on a boondoggle (via Tim Blair):

The paper said it had closed the website where readers collected an address to write to and had abandoned plans to take four "winners" to visit voters in Clark County. Instead, the group would be taken to the "more tranquil" area of Washington.

It's a shame, really. I'm sure Robert Fisk was looking forward to another beating at the hands of primitive locals. He's long overdue.

As long as I'm mocking Eurocrats, I may as well go for a trifecta. It's nice to see that those highly paid functionaries in their weird expensive building don't just have really good ideas -- they also focus like lasers on the truly important issues:

There were arguments over who should properly be dubbed "Mr Euro", after the appointment of Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker as the President of the group of finance ministers from the 12 euro countries.

Mr Juncker has been widely dubbed "Mr Euro" in the press but, as the overseer of euro zone monetary policy, Mr Trichet has jealously demanded the title back.

"As far as the currency is concerned, I am evidently 'Mr Euro'", said the Frenchman, according to AFP.

I really should go through my EUObserver messages more often.

Your tax Euros at work:

Little signs in the building are supposed to help officials find their way around the maze of corridors in the 241,515m² building.

But they are not your everyday signs, instead they are colour-coded with various symbols on them.

For example, one coloured triangle contains three black dots, another contains one dot; still another is a different colour altogether - but the onlooker is clueless as to what they mean.

And there are around 40 of these symbols. Anticipating the chaos they will cause, a little booklet has been issued internally to officials to decipher them.

There's something almost poetic about this.

Can anyone explain what the European Commission was thinking when they commisioned this?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for mocking the Eurocracy -- I just never expected to see them mocking themselves. At least not intentionally.

I'm also rather taken with the "Axis of Reflexive Atlanticism," which is what happens when you let Eurocrats attempt to craft a pithy saying.

Free debate advice for President Bush (and worth every penny)
Hold Kerry's gaze, grin (the one that Bush-haters call a smirk), and say that you have some memory that is "seared - seared" into you.

In all probability, Kerry will either miss the reference to his discredited Christmas in Cambodia testimony before the Senate or he'll just let it lie, but...

There's a small possibility it'll goad him into doing something really stupid, since Kerry is exquisitely sensitive to appearances and lashes out reflexively and inappropriately when he feels he's challenged or off-balance (literally or figuratively). Being openly mocked on live television might just push him over the edge (it wouldn't be smart, but neither is insulting the guy who's job is to take a bullet for you).

And there's no downside, since any complaint about the comment would also call attention to Kerry's visit from the Ghost of Christmas' Imaginary. So in the worst case, you'll give your supporters a chuckle and your opponents a touch of dyspepsia. What's to lose?

Political Expression in the Seattle Area
I'm still seeing about as many bumper stickers for Bush as for Kerry on the Eastside (Seattle itself is a completely different story) and my car (with a relatively discrete W'04 sticker) hasn't been vandalized.

That said, the half-life of a roadside Bush sign appears to be less than a day. Driving home last Friday evening, I noticed four or five Bush signs by the side of the road. Saturday morning, all but one of the signs was gone. Signs for other Republicans were not disturbed, for whatever that's worth.

We went to the new Bellevue Whole Foods on Sunday. It's a great store, but the aisles were crawling with granola grannies wearing anti-Bush buttons and sour expressions. Interestingly enough, pretty much the only people I've seen wearing political buttons in this area are older women with sour expressions (another such was handing out "Patriot for Kerry" buttons in Starbucks last week).

Climate of Fear Update
I noted a climate of fear here in greater Seattle back in June. Actual attacks on Bush supporters (including one particularly vile incident) are now being reported around the country.

That said, the situation seems to have taken a turn for the better here on the Eastside. Bush stickers (mostly the relatively inconspicuous W'04 stickers) started appearing a few weeks ago and today they're nearly as common as Kerry stickers. I've had one for more than a month, without incident.

I've been assuming that we just reached the critical mass necessary to coax Bush supporters into risking a sticker on their car. If, on the other hand, all of these new stickers actually represent a surge in support for Bush, Kerry is a goner. If he's struggling in this area, he's dead in most of the country.

Update: Well, Kerry doesn't seem to be in trouble in Washington. Mrs. Tadpole's alternative theory is that the bumper stickers we're seeing are a show of defiance by beleaguered Bush supporters and that complacent Kerry supporters don't feel the need to show their colors.

Blogospheric Intuition
Trust your intuition. I sat down to blog this and found similar sentiments here and here. A storm is brewing.

The news that CBS will go to the mat in defense of the Killian forgeries left me curiously glum. This just isn't funny any more.

This is no longer the slapstick tale of an eager-to-believe Dan Rather (and friends) duped by clumsy forgeries. Something deeper and darker is going on.

CBS seems to be aiming for a "we'll just agree to disagree" resolution, despite the fact that pretty much everyone is on the other side of the fence. Credibility is the most important asset for a news organization and it seems unlikely that CBS would be willing to subject it to the kind of body-blow that's coming unless the alternative is far, far worse.

I don't know what CBS is afraid of, but I'm pretty sure we'll find out. The hounds have the scent and the real story will break. I'm starting to worry that it will be much, much, uglier (and much, much bigger) than any of us have been expecting so far.

Update: Beldar doesn't think this is funny any more, either.

Update: Roger Simon has gotten Tim Blair speculating, too. I keep coming back to similar scenarios though I don't have anything but a gut feeling to back it up.

Update: Rather's "Fake but accurate" defense is the surreal and sad concoction of a confused man in denial. Daniel Wiener's speculative timeline now sounds about right to me.

Update: Mark Steyn thinks there something huge lurking behind CBS' stonewalling.

I'm astounded at how frequently I've heard left-of-center commentators respond to the Ra^thergate forgeries with (something like): "These documents might be forgeries but let's get back to the real story -- George Bush's National Guard Service.

Okey doke.

The real story is that there is so litle substance to the accusations about Bush's National Guard service that his accusers have had to resort to crude forgeries to keep the story moving.

The real story is that major media figures (and left-of-center Bloggers) are so in love with the anti-Bush Narrative they've constructed that they no longer apply even a sniff test to information that fits the Narrative. Anything that contradicts the Narrative is dismissed without consideration.

The real story is Big Media's doomed attempt to stonewall the accusations and disparage their detractors as a bunch of anonymous loons in Pajamas and/or paid operatives. I know the names of Rather's accusers, and their reasoning and sources are posted for all to see. In conrast, Rather's sources are anonymous and his reasons for believing them are completely opaque; the few that were actually named have abandoned ship or been told to shut up.

So, yes. Let's get back to the real story.

Spin, Baby, Spin!
The spin from the Seattle P-I and AP is just unbelievable. As right now (9 Sep 2004 11:59 PDT), this is the banner on the PI's main page:

It links to an article (last updated at 10:01 PM) that admits the documents are questionable but still tries to spin them as some kind of evidence against Bush:

But the authenticity of the memos was questioned Thursday by the son of the late officer who reportedly wrote them. One of the writer's fellow officers and a document expert also said Thursday the documents appear to be forgeries.

Still, the documents marked the second time in days the White House had to backtrack from assertions that all of Bush's records had been released. They also raised the specter that Bush sought favors from higher-ups and that the commander of the Texas Air National Guard wanted to "sugar coat" Bush's record after he was suspended from flying.

Um. If they're forgeries, they don't "raise specters" for anyone but Dan Rather, the forger, and the MSM that accepted them uncritically. And the Kerry campaign, unless they're really quick on their feet (time to push Tom Harkin overboard and hide Susan Estrich's keyboard).

This is my favorite bit, though:

There was no explanation why the Pentagon was unable to find the documents on its own.

Um, because they're forgeries, maybe? I'm just a lowly blogger without big media fact-checkers, though, so make your own call.

Is it just me, or is the tone of today's P-I Editorial a mite defensive:

The allegations, first raised by The Globe in 2000, have returned with new fervor. And the exposure of a Bush campaign connection to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attack on Kerry naturally spurs new interest in Bush's National Guard record and renews questions of strings being pulled to help a privileged son avoid Vietnam through a coveted slot in the Guard.

If it's fair game to question whether Kerry earned the medals he was awarded for his tour of duty in the Vietnam War, it's fair game, too, to question whether Bush earned what amounted to his deferment from that war.

This "they started it" attitude is okay for a five-year old, but it's pretty embarassing when it comes from grown newspaper editors. It's even more embarassing when it's is patently and demonstrably untrue.

Two minutes' research by the P-I's crack editorial fact-checking staff would have turned up this attack on President Bush's service from the official Kerry campaign website dated April (i.e. long before the Swifties hit the scene). President Bush, in contrast, has personally denounced attacks on Kerry's service.

The press has been carrying water for Kerry for months. This mealy-mouthed excuse just shows that, deep in their heart-of-hearts, they know they shouldn't be doing it.

Update: Commenter Frank found an instance of the Bush campaign asking Kerry to release his military records, so it isn't accurate to claim that they've never done so.

Whoa there, Horsey!
See if you can spot the flaw in today's David Horsey cartoon:

Hint: Who was president on August 4, 2000?

So much for those big media factcheckers we've been hearing so much about. I swear these guys aren't even trying any more. Hell, they aren't even pretending to try any more.

The next time someone tries to pin Enron on Bush, remind them that the abuses they've heard about happened on Clinton's watch. Under Bush, Enron executives are going to jail, despite any political and/or personal connections they might have had.

Spin, NPR, Spin!
I didn't hear the whole story (I was just walking past a radio tuned to NPR), but NPR's summary of Bush's statement on 527's was something along the lines of "Now that its run is over, Bush condemns the SwiftVets ad attacking Kerry."

The "summary" misrepresents the substance of what Bush actually said (he condemned the actions of 527 organization in general, not just that one ad) and gives the impression that it's a meaningless gesture.

Far from being meaningless, it could turn out to be pivotal. Bush is actually trying to get 527's pushed out of the campaign entirely. That would be a disaster for Kerry since the Democrats are making far more use of them than the Republicans.

The Swift vets seem to be relatively independent as these things go and have much less to do with the Bush campaign than the top tier Democratic 527's do with the Kerry campaign, so it was truly reckless of Kerry to go down this path. If he's smart, he'll shut up.

I'm betting on form, though, so I expect Kerry to give President Bush another opportunity to push his anti-527 message past the media spinmeisters guarding the gates.

Another automated push poll
I just got another automated polling call. This one didn't malfunction but it was an obvious push poll. One of the questions was (approximately): "Given the current state of the economy, how important do you think it is to restore Democratic control of Congress? and the choices were: Very, Somewhat and Not.

Since most folks want to appear moderate, many people who are moderately inclined towards Republicans will choose the "middle" option. When the results are reported, though, you can bet that the "somewhat important" people will end up being lumped in with those who selected "very important" as "people who think it's important for Democrats to regain control of Congress." The end result will be to overstate support for congressional Democrats, perhaps a lot.

In case you're wondering, I selected "not important" since there was no button for "It'd be a freakin' disaster" (this administration is awfully free-spending, but the Democrats would be even worse, especially under a pander-monkey like Kerry).

More on the Press and Attitudes

Heiko comments on my earlier post about attitudes towards the press and notes that they don't describe him (he's skeptical of the German press and aware that the US press consists of more than FOX). That's certainly true, but bloggers are probably unrepresentative -- the Blogosphere as a whole (on either side of the pond) tends to be quite a bit more aware of other points of view and skeptical of media consensus than society as a whole.

What I've been struggling to understand is whether the severely hardened attitudes I encountered in that classroom are actually more typical than those I'd encountered before. The hard part is controlling out the variables.

As Heiko notes, the topic (Iraq) is a very emotional one for almost everyone, which certainly intensified the reaction. If I were to attempt something like this again, I'd probably choose another topic.

Another key factor is that none of the people in that classroom had significant direct experience of America itself. Unfortunately, that probably makes them more typical than the friends and colleagues with whom I more typically discuss politics.

If the group in that classroom is truly typical, the relentless drumbeat in the European press is building up a truly dangerous reserve of anti-American feelings. A compliant and largely unquestioned press makes it that much easier for a charismatic populist to wield that sentiment as a potent weapon. Given the right circumstances and the wrong politician, it could get ugly fast.

That's my worst case scenario, not my likely one, but the tone of this post (more downbeat than I'd intended, truth be told) comes from disappointment at the realization that I even consider it possible. (More than) a few years ago, I was manning the barricades against the likes of Laurence Godfrey (or try the ancient Net Legends FAQ and scroll down a bit), so this is a little disconcerting for me.

Sorry to just disappear like that. I was unexpectedly busy and then expectedly travelling. Posting will resume shortly.

Original Transcript
Bite the Wax Tadpole has managed to get a copy of the marked up original text of Teddy Kennedy's speech at the Democratic convention. Here's an excerpt:

We bear no ill will toward our opponents. In fact, we'd be happy to have them over for a polite little tea party. I know just the place: right down the road at Boston Harbor. I'll drive.

European Misconceptions: The Press

(Old) Europeans seem to share a nearly universal and unshakable belief that the European press and media are more accurate, objective and offer a wider range of opinion than their American counterparts. With few exceptions, they believe that the press and media in the United States print nothing but propaganda and that opposing opinions are simply not allowed. Germans in particular seem prone to believe in an active conspiracy which disseminates propaganda directly from the president to the media.

The vast majority of the people who hold that belief read American papers rarely, if ever. The claim that criticism of the government is not allowed in the American press doesn't even pass the sniff test, and it's easy to make the case that there is far more diversity among the mainstream American press and media than on the continent (the UK has a very lively press, of course).

I've been talking politics with Europeans (assorted nationalities but mostly in Germany and Holland) for a very long time, and perhaps my most disheartening discussion ever was an attempt to compare the German and American press coverage of, and editorial commentary on, the war in Iraq. I've had similar discussions on numerous occasions, but none that were quite so brutal.

This was about a year ago during a class in a German Language school that I attend regularly to keep my language skills from going stale, and the other participants were two Spaniards, an Italian, a Ukranian and a German (the teacher). A Japanese student and a Catholic Priest from India were also present but didn't participate much at all (frankly, they pretty much sat there looking stunned once the discussion got rolling).

I barely managed to state my thesis (that the German press expresses a much narrower point-of-view than the American press) before I was denounced by the others in more-or-less a single voice. When I brought out my assortment of German and American articles, in which the entire range of opinion expressed in the German press fit neatly into about 25% of the American spectrum, things turned truly surreal.

Their first line of "attack" was to change the topic. Instead of addressing the relative diversity of opinion in the US & German press, they asserted that the opinions reported in both the German and American press (uniformly anti-war) were "universal" and therefore obviously correct. Anything that was expressed only in the American press was, by the same measure, obviously propaganda unworthy of consideration.

When I pointed out that they had essentially ceded the question of diversity, they simply denied that they were doing so without offering any counterargument whatsoever.

Not having any real way to deal with "proof by vigorous assertion," I tried a new angle and pulled out articles in both German and American newspapers making a claim the others didn't want to accept (IIRC, they documented the likelihood that France and Russia were motivated by oil money and that the US was probably not). Citing their earlier principle that arguments that appear in both places were universal and therefore unassailable, I asked if they were willing to reconsider their original belief.

Their response was another (off-topic) tirade which claimed that the existence of this (lone) "pro-American" article in a German newspaper clearly refuted all claims of any sort of bias at all in the German press.

One last try. Around this time a couple of Wolfowitz interviews were being widely and wildly misquoted in the German press. I had the full transcript of both interviews handy, and tried to show the full quotes in context, so the others could decide how fairly he had been quoted. They flatly refused to even look at the transcripts.

At this point it was clear to me that they were clinging to their collective world view so dearly that nothing which might threaten it could even be considered. The fact that they refused to look (rather than confidently reading the interview on the assumption that they could dismiss it) also told me that, deep in their heart-of-hearts, they all knew just how shaky the foundation actually was. I gave up.

Please note that none of these people were zealots. They were perfectly ordinary, reasonable-seeming people with whom I'd spent many a pleasant evening drinking beer and talking about less controversial things.

That's what made this whole thing so disheartening. I love Europe (and especially Germany) and this discussion lead me to fear, deeply, for the future.

The kind of unthinking, narrow-minded blindness that was on display and which seems to be so prevalent in Europe today is fertile ground for a demagogue. The consensus opinion in Europe is already blind enough to make Jacques Chirac look like a hero and violent enough to have claimed the life of Pym Fortuyn. With the European economy continuing to struggle and its prospects for improvement looking grim, it's only a matter of time until a more palatable "savior" than Jacques Chirac arrives. I fear that day.

The Pot and Kettle Convention
Last night, Jimmy Carter took Bush to task for being a foreign policy disaster, so next I imagine we'll see Teddy Kennedy berating him for driving drunk.

Beware the malfunctioning automated (push?) poll

I just got a call from on automated poll on my mobile phone (?!), and it seems to have malfunctioned. Question 1 was Kerry or Bush. I selected Bush, and it then asked if I was voting for Kerry because I liked the Democratic platform or because I disliked Bush. I hung up the phone.

Speechless
Judith Billings, candidate for Superintendent of Public Education in Washington demonstrates her commitment to excellence in education:

"Everybody does not need to be a math whiz. Everybody does not need to be a spectacular writer."

It should come as no surprise Billings opposes both choice and accountability in education. Please vote this November to keep her away from our children.

As long as it's open season on mottoes...
Can we sue the New York Times for neglecting to print so much of the news that's "fit to print?"

Projection
So Arnold went and called the California legislature a bunch of "girlie-men" at a rally, and now his the usual suspects are up in arms, accusing him of homophobia.   Which is interesting, because he didn't say anything at all about sexual orientation. 

Arnold may or may not be guilty of clinging to negative stereotypes of gays -- I'm guessing "not" but we have no information. His protesters, on the other hand, leap effortlessly from "girlie-men" to "homosexual," which speaks volumes about their prejudices and preconceptions.

Hating America

I'm a few days behind, but Will Collier at VodkaPundit linked an long but fantastic Bruce Bawer article from the Hudson Review. Any American who has lived in Europe for an extended period (without going native) will recognize the attitudes and assumptions he describes.

Western Europeans are certain that that they know all about America and understand Americans, but if you scratch the surface, you discover that many have a crude, astoundingly negative and largely inaccurate caricature.

To be sure, most Americans have a cartoon image of Europe, but at least they don't pretend otherwise.

Over the next few days, I'll write up some of the ... interesting ... experiences I've had while living and travelling in Europe, or while dealing with Europeans in the United States.

The real "People's" Court
An Iraqi judge telling Saddam not to use such language in his courtroom amused most in the west, if it made any impression at all. We're used to judges maintaining order and decorum in the courtroom regardless of who's in the dock, so we missed the significance of this exchange.

But this is earthshattering stuff in the middle east. Here's Egpytian blogger "Land of the Pharaohs:"

I had my eyes wide open while watching Saddam Hussein in front of an Iraqi judge. What happened today resembled an earthquake in this country and in the region. For the very first time in history, Arabs are going judge their own rulers. This is unprecedented.
...
One of the most profound words I heard was from the judge. Saddam referred to Kuwaitis as "dogs" when he commented on his invasion of Kuwait. The judge firmly told him "that this is a court and any indecent words are unacceptable." Wow, an Iraqi actually told those words to Saddam. Then a simple policeman went and slowly pulled Saddam from his arms when the hearing ended.

There are a whole lot of people throughout the Arab world staring in stunned amazement at their TV, as an Arab court tries a dictator. It offers a tantalizing hope that the rule of law can actually work in the Arab world.

That's why it is absolutely crucial that the trial stays an absolutely transparent and absolutely Iraqi affair from start to finish. No US, No UN. Nobody but the people of Iraq.

If (colossal subjunctive) the rest of the trial of Saddam Hussein is handled well the exchange between the judge and Saddam could end up being cited as a historical turning point in popular attitudes, much like Reagan's "Evil Empire" statement.

Update: I was posting in a hurry and neglected to mention that this post was partially inspired by comments I was posting to related post by Athena at the always excellent Terrorism Unveiled.

Michael Moore is a big fat ... War Criminal?

You heard it here, first. Almost a month ago, I wondered what Michael Moore knew and when he knew it. Now the Associated Press finally has the story.

His stated reasons for not reporting his evidence are nonsense. Submitting his evidence quietly or even anonymously would have gotten the ball rolling without exposing him to accusations of self-promotion. The only plausible grounds for withholding his evidence of prisoner abuse is to increase the buzz around his film.

I don't have the Geneva Conventions handy, so I can't say for sure that his behavior actually constitutes a war crime, but it seems that hiding evidence of such for personal gain is more than a little dodgy.

I'll ask the question again: How much sooner could abuse have been stopped if Michael Moore hadn't sat on his evidence? How many Iraqis suffered to feed Michael Moore's vanity (and his bank account)?

While we're on the topic of Michael Moore and his crimes ... Does he have signed release forms from the prisoners and soldiers that he filmed?

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

Much of the European press reports (as uncontestable fact) that fear of being branded "non-patriotic" for daring to disagree with George W. Bush is pervasive in the United States, to the point that it inhibits people's actions. To most anyone (that I know) who actually lives here, that notion is patently absurd. I live near Seattle and won't claim to speak for the entire country, but friends and family in other major urban centers report pretty much the same thing.

The truth is that dissenters here feel far more free to proclaim their views than those who support Bush and/or the war. For example, this truck:

Is regularly parked outside the building I work in or the local Home Depot, and never has a problem. Meanwhile, cars with discrete "W '04" bumper stickers are scratched or otherwise damaged with monotonous regularity.

To see true intimidation, violence, and suppression of free speech in this area, you have to attend an anti-war, anti-globalization, or pro-intifada rally and watch what happens to those who dare to disagree.

What's next? The Qwestagon?

My wife is very upset at Bill Frist's proposal to rename the Pentagon for Ronald Reagan. We both admire President Reagan and have nothing against memorializing him in some other way, but the Pentagon is a potent symbol in its own right. Renaming it is a crass and ultimately pointless gesture that would tarnish the Pentagon without really reflecting the legacy of President Reagan.

I don't have a strong opinion about putting him on a coin or a bill (if pushed I'd probably admit to being mildly positive) but I'd actually most like to see a Reagan memorial.

Update: But not on Mount Rushmore, please.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one brave woman. And a beacon of hope for (Old) Europe.

What did he know, and when did he know it?

Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 raises an unexpected question.

It comes as no surprise that Michael Moore's latest anti-Bush polemic is a big hit at Cannes. What I did find a little surprising was the fact that it reportedly includes footage of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners:

In the light of the current controversy over pictures of Iraqi prisoners being abused, his latest film is right up to date in showing American soldiers in the field mocking and posing with hooded Iraqi prisoners.

"This is the first footage of abuse and humiliation of these Iraqi detainees," Moore said.

This raises an interesting question: When was this footage taken and when did it come into Michael Moore's possession? It sure sounds like evidence of violations of the Geneva Conventionts being committed, which should have been reported immediately to the appropriate authorities.

Considering how quickly the military moved to investigate and shut down the abuses at Abu Ghraib once they were reported, it seems likely that they would have responded equally quickly to Moore's material -- possibly reducing or even preventing the abuses that have been splattered across the media landscape for the past few weeks.

Did Michael Moore report his evidence to the authorities? Or did he withhold it, knowing that it would boost his film? How many prisoners suffered unnecessarily for Michael Moore's vanity?

Update: I've since seen a report (in print) that the film was finished just 10 days before screening, so it is possible that the material in question was added at the last minute. I'd still like to know if that's the case.

Inside every silver cloud, a dark lining

The reaction to Abu Ghraib inside of Iraq has been muted in comparison to the rest of the Arab world. According to the LA Times, that's bad news for the coalition.

In the LA Times' view, Iraqi response is muted because Iraqis have experienced firsthand the depravity of the American occupiers and expect no better. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but not very loosely.

Of course, the story was written long ago as far as the LAT is concerned -- the "journalist"'s job now is to fit whatever comes along into the narrative. One rather suspects that if more Iraqis were delighted by harsh treatment for Baathist thugs, the LA Times would take the coalition to task for pandering to their base instincts and maybe sowing the seeds for civil war.

Iraq the Model has another take on the issue, as does his friend linked above. But they're just ordinary Iraqis and can't be expected to understand the Iraqi point-of-view as well as those highly trained journalists at the LAT do.

Update: The archive at Iraq the Model appears to be wonky. If the links above don't work, go to the main page and search for the entries on May 6 & May 8 2004.

Update: Here's another report on Iraqi reaction to the scandal and its aftermath, this time from a Marine Colonel in Iraq.

In a heartbeat.

Me too. (via Greg Piper)

If you're looking for evidence that the Vatican is a political rather than a moral entity, you need look no further than this (article in German).

Vatican: Torture Worse Than September 11th

The abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers is, by Vatican lights, a greater blow to the United States than September 11th. Vatican Foreign Minister Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo told the Italian daily "La Repubblica" that the abuse scandal fuels the hatred of Arabs for the west and, above all, Christianity. (...) The torture scandal makes it even more important that the UN intervenes in Iraq and the US gives authority to Iraqi's as quickly as possible.

It's worth noting that Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo seems entirely preoccupied with political consequences of the two acts and with advancing the Vatican's political agenda (strengthen the UN, weaken the US). Nowhere does he evidence the slightest concern for the immorality of killing more than three thousand innocent people.

A Long and Interesting Read.

The Taguba report is available at GlobalSecurity.org.

The report is detailed and hard-hitting and should put paid to any notion that such abuse is typical or that the military is attempting a coverup. It won't, but that's just politics in an election year (and the press running with the narrative they prefer).

Cognitive Whiplash

If rumors of child abuse at Abu Ghraib turn out to be true, I tend to favor this suggestion, not just because it is appropriate (assuming a very high standard of proof is met) but because of what would likely follow.

In the immediate aftermath, the perpetrators of such heinous acts would be justly condemned by pretty much everyone. The European political class (and much of the American left) would, with their typical hyperbolic flair, go much further -- breathlessly placing them on the chart of historical evil-doers somewhere between Hitler and Pol Pot (though still well below President Bush himself).

Once the offenders were sentenced to death, however, the chattering classes would be required by canon to lionize them as heroes (see: Mumia).

One can only hope that such a rapid transition from "evil incarnate" to "poor, innocent saints" produces enough cognitive whiplash to snap a few necks.

Rachel Lucas comes out of hibernation, and the word "Asshat" suddenly starts appearing all over the place once again. Coincidence? We report, you decide.

In any case, welcome back Rachel - we've missed you.

The word 'Accountability' does not appear in the EU dictionary. MEP attention is apparently focused on the important stuff.

Go read the Messopotamian now for an idea of what was and is required in Iraq.

It'll be much harder now, but maybe it isn't too late. Unless of course the coalition really is planning to cut and run in Fallujah.

Anti-Mullah Secret Weapon: Cooties!
Muqtada al Sadr, You're next.

On the way into work this morning, NPR was reporting a "deal" to solve the Fallujah standoff. According to NPR, US Marines will withdraw to be replaced by "Fallujah Protective Army" (or something like that) that doesn't even exist yet but which will be constructed from former military units. This so-called Army will be far less militarily capable than US units and its loyalty questionable, at best. Even if they make a good faith effort, the Neo-Baath militia will be less effective at stopping insurgents and will likely cause more damage in the process..

This deal seems like the worst possible thing the coalition could do. It would simultaneously:

Reinforce the impression that the US lacks the political will to follow through when the going gets rough. This will cause terrorists both inside and outside Iraq to redouble their efforts. The dictionary entry for Fallujah will read "See: Mogadishu"

Reinforce Iraqi fear that the US will cut and run, leaving them to the tender mercies of a new strongman. Moderate Iraqis will be even more reluctant to work on reconstruction, due to fear that they'll be persecuted for collaboration once the coalition bails.

Legitimize what amounts to a private militia.

I arrived at work both furious and depressed, where I found a report on MSNBC that the Pentagon denies that any such deal has been struck. Wretchard also has another of his typically excellent analyses of the likely military situation in Fallujah.

Between the two, I'm a bit less worried. If Wretchard is correct (and his track record on Fallujah is very, very good) the military situation is close enough to a tipping point that the political manuvering won't matter.

In my most optimistic moments, I can imagine that the announcement of a deal is actually an elaborate psy-op. Actually building a New Baath Army is a really bad idea, but as a threat it seems pretty effective ("work with us, or we'll hand the keys over to the UN and a cadre of ex-Baathists"). I can't say that I genuinely believe that right now, though. We'll see how things play out over the next few days.

Update: MSNBC is now also reporting the possibility of a New Baath Army (also now in the article linked above).

Update: George Willl agrees and Andrew Sullivan is worried too.

Signs of Weakness

This is interesting:

In a written statement the group released with the tape, it demanded Italian citizens organize demonstrations against the presence of Italian troops in Iraq.

The group gave Italians five days to organize the demonstrations. Otherwise, the statement said, the hostages would be killed.

Notice that they aren't calling for the removal of Italian troops or any action by the Italian government, just for street protests in Italy. This is interesting and a good sign in a number of ways.

First off, I get the feeling that world reaction to Fabrizio Quattrocchi's heroic defiance has them a bit reluctant to execute any more Italians. More importantly, it means that whoever is holding the Italian hostages has decided that they're not going to get what they want from the politicians, so now they're trying to undermine them with a direct appeal to the electorate (while looking for a face-saving way to declare victory).

Does anyone know if the usual suspects are organizing a puppet show demonstration?

I think (and hope) the hostages will come home safely regardless, but this move becomes a significant tactical setback for the kidnappers if they end up completely empty-handed. Right now Al Qaeda, et al are trying to train the European public to appease (or, more properly, reinforce their training to appease) and any example of Europeans successfully standing up to terrorist pressure will undermine the appeasement reflex that has been developing so nicely.

Kick Me

I'm afraid I don't understand all of the rejoicing about European leaders rejecting Osama's "truce" offer. Of course they'll all say that -- even Zapatero tries to pretend that he isn't just cutting and running.

The real test comes after they succeed in another major attack in Europe. Will the voters of whichever country is hit (Italy is my guess) stand by their man, or will they denounce him for not accepting bin Laden's generous terms?

I'm usually an optimist, but in this case I'm betting on form.

Bad news, good news

The bad news is that a handful of unidentified Leipzig residents have filed a lawsuit to stop a planned Jewish community center on the grounds that it poses a security risk due to the likelihood of attacks.

The good news is that the citizens of Leipzig have rallied broadly in support of the community center since the lawsuit became known, with hundreds of supporters at a community meeting and more than a thousand signatures on a petition in support of the community center. "It's scandalous to argue that the Jewish community is a security risk," says Pastor Christian Wolff of the Thomaskirche. "We've had 'Jews are a danger' before," he notes.

If only the EU were as clear-headed and straightforward as Pastor Wolff and the citizens of Leipzig.

Update: Here's another straightforward denunciation of terrorism. German bishops used Easter sermons to denounce any attempt to justify terror acts in God's name, describing such acts as "absolutely perverse."

Sorry to just disappear like that, but work and life both got suddenly hectic in a big way. I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel and will be back soon.

In the meantime, keep an eye on the German media with Medienkritik, read Belmont Club or Intel Dump for great coverage of all things military and the ongoing turmoil in Iraq, or go help Michele help the Marines help Iraq.

Ur Tax � @ Work

A European MEP with too much time and too few clues has translated part of the draft constitution into "SMS" language, in a horribly misguided attempt to make it more accessible to youth.

Leaving aside the fact that he's misappropriating a jargon that he's mistaken for slang, this guy sounds like an aging hipster making a desperate and embarassing effort to prove he's still cool and in touch with todays youth.

Update: No, this doesn't appear to be an April Fools joke. At the very least, the EU Observer article and the Lib�ration article it references are dated 7 April.

If you're intent on handicapping the Presidential election at this early stage, it helps to consider the Feiler Faster Thesis and the effects of campaign finance reform.

The good news is that we won't have to face "seven more months of this." The bad news is that we'll be facing something much, much uglier starting in August.

The first thing to keep in mind is that it's still very early in the cycle. Nobody is actually even trying for a knockout blow yet; both campaigns are trying to harden their own defenses and soften up the other guy in preparation for the real attacks that will come later in the cycle.

That's not to say that the polls are irrelevent. Neither campaign can afford the perception of a sustained large decline, so both campaigns intervene as necessary to kill the other guys momentum. The end result of all of this manuvering is the back-and-forth seesawing we've seen for the past month or two.

The Bush campaign has more money than the Kerry campaign, but the Democrats have a lot more money in "527 organizations" like MoveOn. The 527's are much less constrained than the Kerry campaign itself, since they can go negative with a lot less blowback onto the candidate. The downside to the 527's is that their activities are extremely restricted within 60 days of the election.

There's all kinds of manuvering in the courts to change the rules governing 527's but, assuming nothing changes and there are no dramatic surprises elsewhere, here's what we have to look forward to:

Another couple of months of sniping and mudslinging. Both sides are doing better on offense than defense right now, so they're likely to keep hammering at the same targets. The Bush campaign will drive home the message that Kerry waffles and panders, is a big spender and is weak on defense. Kerry will keep grinding away at the perception tha Bush is stronger on defense and will push "Bush lied" for all that it's worth.

Starting sometime in August, the assorted 527's will empty their coffers (use it or lose it) and we'll be treated to a huge, extremely negative anti-Bush blitz. The handful of Republican 527's will respond in kind, but Bush himself is likely to hunker down and try to ride out the storm. He'll fight back if things get too far out of hand, but September should see a low point in the polls for Bush.

Once the 527's are out of the game, the dynamics change (mostly) to Bush's advantage. Probably most important is the fact that the Bush campaign has more money. The fact that the candidates will have to personally affirm the contents of their ads is also significant, as it means that both candidates will have to choose their attacks carefully. Bush has more latitude here since he usually comes across as folksy and genuine when he delivers a smackdown while Kerry mostly sounds strident, condescending and/or fake.

Washington will shut down as neither side will want to give the other ammunition or a free stage. High profile Democrats like Teddy Kennedy will continue go on the attack on behalf of Kerry, but I'm not sure how effective they'll be.

From September on, it's a (probably mostly tactical) slugfest, the details of which depend largely on what happens to the economy and in Iraq. If the economy clearly improves and Iraq is under control (not unlikely in November, despite the chaos right now), Bush has a strong advantage -- Kerry's only hope is to go extremely negative, and that is not his strength. If the economy is still mixed, or if Iraq is still a mess, Kerry's job is a lot easier.

In short, I expect the race to stay close and ugly right up until the end, with a low point for Bush in September followed by a gradual and uneven climb until election day.

All of this assumes no dramatic surprises. If a convincing stash of WMD's turns up somewhere (e.g. in a suddenly cooperative Syria), a lot of Bush negatives disappear. Another major terrorist attack in the US could theoretically go, but I expect that the press would turn it to Kerry's advantage (as they did with the Clarke book and the 9-11 hearings). Thwarted major attacks, or successful major attacks in Europe would probably work to Bush's advantage. And so on...

We're in for some interesting times and, given that I'm already sick of this campaign, I mean that in the worst possible way.

FWIW, I suspect that Bush actually does have something up his sleeve. His defense has been so weak on both the 9-11 hearings and the question of WMD's, that his opponents are piling on ever harder. Every time he's seemed this beleaguered in the past, he's executed a perfect political judo move that sends his opponents sprawling under the weight of their own assumptions. That's purely a gut feeling at this point, though, so don't ask where it'll come from or what form it'll take.

Dick Clarke, Man of Action

Spiegel descends (further) into parody, and drags the New York Times along. Here's their description of the events of September 11:

The entire capital seems to be on the run. Government departments, offices and official agencies are cleared, and emergency response centers are activated throughout the country. In the center of the eye of the hurricane, in the White House situation room, a room bristling with monitors, Richard Clarke, a hero and the President's special counter-terrorism advisor, takes control of the situation.

Throw in a square jaw and steely glare, a couple of heaving bosoms and a bag of popcorn and we're set for the evening. Dick Clarke action figures will no doubt be appearing in toy stores across Germany very soon now.

Despite having a rough month, President Bush's odds are holding up well on the Iowa Electronic Markets and Ideosphere's FX (an idea futures game that doesn't use real money). Glenn Reynolds wonders what information the market participants have that the conventional wisdom does not.

I think we're seeing a difference in focus rather than information. The futures markets focus on the eventual outcome, while day to day jostling drives the conventional wisdom.

If we accept the Feiler Faster Thesis, frequent reversals of fortune are par for the course these days, which means that any one setback is largely irrelevant. Barring an unlikely knockout punch (e.g. the Dean scream), this back-and-forth will continue right up to election day.

The markets have taken that into account, and they're discounting the tactical advances and setbacks as largely irrelevant. Unless a clear longer term trend emerges, they'll continue to reflect the underlying economic reality (pretty good, actually) and projections for the situation in Iraq (which I for one expect to be a lot calmer 6 months from now).

Post-Madrid, this kind of statement is reckless. However Romano Prodi intends it to play, the terrorists will hear a practical invitation to "intervene" bloodily on his behalf in the upcoming Italian elections.

Keep his day job?

It's entirely possible that President Bush just didn't anticipate the negative reaction his "where are the WMD" routine would get from the chattering classes opinion leaders, but it could well be that his detractors are misunderestimating him once again. It sure looks to me like Bush is happy to keep the issue of WMD's alive without really addressing it. Yet.

I have no idea what form it will take, but I suspect there's another rope-a-dope coming. After all, Bush has a long history of suckering his opponents into overcommitting on shaky ground, even if doing so makes his supporters really nervous.

Note: This is not a paranoid conspiracy theory and I don't think anyone is sitting on a hoard of WMD's (or bin Laden) and waiting for the right moment to announce them.

As his critics work themselves into a frenzy, they lower the bar for Bush. Six months ago finding "only" small stockpiles would have been a disaster, two months ago they would have been a victory. Today, finding anything at all would be a triumph.

In fact, his critics have since made so much noise about his "silence" on the issue (and, now, about "not taking it seriously") that a convincing and straightforward explanation of what went wrong (and right) on the subject of WMD's would end up being enough of a win for the President to take the issue off of the table.

Update: Hmmmm.

Update: Dean Esmay thinks there's a rope-a-dope coming on Condoleeza Rice and the 9-11 commission, too.

Update: Donald Sensing wonders too.

Wolfowitz on Clarke, from the Washington Post transcript of Tuesday's 9-11 hearing:

By the way, I know of at least one other instance of Mr. Clark's creative memory. Shortly after September 11th, as part of his assertion that he had vigorously pursued the possibility of Iraqi involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, he wrote in a memo that, and I am quoting here, "When the bombing happened, he focused on Iraq as the possible culprit because of Iraqi involvement in the attempted assassination of President Bush in Kuwait the same month," unquote.

In fact, the attempted assassination of President Bush happened two months later.

It just seems to be another instance where Mr. Clarke's memory is playing tricks...

I don't think the administration is covering themselves with glory in this whole process, but apart from his carefully scripted "mea culpa but they-a more culpa" Clarke hasn't been doing any better -- when he isn't actively contradicting himself or making statements that are verifiably false, he's going way out on a speculative limb, based on his memory of intangibles like body language. We have ample reason to suspect his memory is less than 100% reliable.

Perhaps that's not fair. Maybe his memory is just 100% reliably guided by whatever narrative he's settled on at any particular point in time.

You wouldn't get that from most of the press coverage, though. Wolfowitz's comment seemed to me like a pretty solid hit on Clarke's credibility, and the folks in the room seem to have had the same reaction. Here's the next questioner:

LEHMAN: Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, I hesitate to cite Mr. Clarke as an authority after the last exchange.


(LAUGHTER)

But it seems to have gone completely unreported. I went looking for this snippet because I happened to hear it and was a little surprised (okay, not really) that it didn't even rate a mention amidst the breathless accounts of how "Clarke KO's the Bushies"

.
Update: Here's a clue: Fred Kaplan (the author of the hit piece cited above) and about 15 other well-known journalists have actively helped Kerry refine his message during the campaign. Is it any wonder that "his" media-crafted message finds purchase with the media?

The Daily Stern

Sure, it's fun to wear the mantle of the politically oppressed, especially when you get to do it on hundreds of radio stations in front of millions of listeners.

But if you want to see real political suppression of a Stern, you'll have to go to Brussels, where the Bureau chief for the German news magazine was arrested last week, held incommunicado, and questioned without a lawyer present (all legal under Belgian law). I'm sure that it's the merest coincidence that the Mr. Tillack is best known for reporting on corruption in the EU.

Stern's own article (in German) about the arrest of their Bureau chief is here.

Economic indicators?

We went to a local mall (Bellevue Square) this weekend for the first time since last year, and were stunned to discover how much it has changed.

Last year, store fronts were empty and remaining stores were closing. Parking wasn't a problem, even at Christmas, and the Teddy Bear statue in front of the shuttered FAO Schwartz loomed over empty halls. It was palpably downbeat and a little depressing.

Yesterday, we had to hunt for a parking spot. The sad and looming teddy bear is gone - replaced with a shiny and well-trafficked new "Express" - and the other empty store fronts have all been filled (though some are still under construction). There were a lot more people about than I've seen in a long time.

Anecdotes aren't worth much, but it certainly didn't feel like hard times at the mall this weekend.

One Year Later...

A look at the photo retrospectives out there, one year after the start of the war.

It's... interesting... to compare the photos selected by Iraqi bloggers:

Sarmad

Zeyad

To those chosen by the mainstream media:

Tagesspiegel

International Herald Tribune.

If you come across photo galleries from other sources, please send links and I'll put them up.

If Poland wasn't next on the terrorist hitlist before, it is now.

This is just the wrong time to be saying things like this. Regardless of the merit of the underlying sentiment, this looks like is wavering resolve in the face of terror.

Facing an enemy who now seems to be thinking much more strategically, Poland has just advertised itself as the next weakest link in the chain.

How to train a dog

If he misbehaves, whack him on the snout.

Patiently explain what is expected of him.

If he behaves, give him a treat.

Now we'll see if Zapatero earns his obedience school diploma.

Much as I'd like to see him say "In that case, we'll leave our troops in Iraq," it isn't going to happen. The best thing he can realistically do is point out that he's been talking about pulling out of Iraq during the whole election and the fact that the terrorists got what they want is an unfortunate accident, rather than a direct effect of the bombing.

If he's as dumb as I think, Zapatero will use this letter as yet another excuse to rant about Bush and Blair. If he's even dumber than I think, he'll use it to pat himself on the back for "making Spain safer" or some such, thus strengthening the notion that countries can, and should, accomodate themselves to terror.

Update: The authorities are skeptical of the letter. Maybe Zapatero will just ignore it, which would at least not make things worse.

Threat level Scarlet?!
Tucked in this report about the love threatening letters France is receiving from their Islamist buddies is a tidbit I found amusing:

Berthomet said France had already hiked its security precautions up to "red" level, the highest it could do without unleashing draconian measures in the top "scarlet" level.

What are the other levels? Chartreuse? Puce?

As disappointed as I am about the results of the Spanish election, I think we should cut the Spanish Electorate some slack. A large minority voted for the PP and that the vast majority of the people who voted for Zapatero were already planning to vote do so before the attack. In the end a relatively small portion of the electorate -- perhaps enough to sway the election, but still a small percentage -- were affected by the bombing in one way or another. The number that were actually voting for appeasement or out of fear is unknown (and probably unknowable) but likely rather small.

Every voter takes a personal constellation of priorities into the booth with them, and most votes are a compromise and inherently ambiguous. To label the entire Spanish electorate or population as cowards or appeasers is an unfortunate slur.

To call Jose Luis Zapatero a fool and an appeaser is, on the other hand, completely appropriate.

The election result itself was ambiguous, and had Zapatero just focused on domestic policies until the wounds from the 3-11 attacks weren't so raw, he could have softened the connection between the bombings and changes to Spanish policy. Even if he later chose to remove the troops in Iraq the link to the bombings would have been tenuous enough that some doubt would always have remained.

Instead, Zapatero wasted no time resolving any ambiguity with his short-sighted and disastrous grandstanding. By immediately promising to remove troops from Iraq and very publicly spewing bile at Bush, Blair and Aznar, Zapatero made it crystal clear that he would dance to the terrorists tune and that his victory in the election was a triumph for the murderers who carried out the attacks and for terrorism in general.

The people of Spain did not choose appeasement, but Jose Luis Zapatero did.

Innocent victims around the world will be paying the price for his choice for years to come.

Update: This is what I mean. Don't blame all Spaniards for the folly of a few.

It seems to me that the underreported rest of Kerry's "foreign leaders" quote is actually more damning (though less entertaining) than the part that's getting all the play. The way I read this, John Kerry is openly and actively encouraging foreigners (worse yet, foreign "leaders") to launder donations to the Kerry campaign through expat intermediaries.

From the Opinion Journal:

Kerry: "I've been hearing it, I'll tell ya. The news, the coverage in other countries, the news in other places. I've met more leaders who can't go out and say it all publicly, but boy they look at you and say, you gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy, things like that. So there is enormous energy out there. Tell them, wherever they can find an American abroad, they can contribute," a reference to donations, prompting laughter from the crowd.

Having lived in Europe for years I have no doubt that there are plenty of expats who would happily "pass along" donations from locals who want to unseat Bush, but that doesn't make it legal or right.

"Support me, I'm Gullible"
Glenn's suggested slogan for John Kerry ties in nicely with something I've been thinking for the past couple of days.

It's fun to speculate about Kerry's imaginary friend the "World Leader," but to me it's at least as bad if his claims are actually true.

What exactly does Kerry think that world leaders are telling President Bush in their "private conversations"? That they hate him and hope he loses?! I'm sure that any world leader that talks to either of the candidates is schmoozing for all he's worth, just to keep the bases covered (except maybe Zapatero, who seems to be channeling Chavez and who wasn't a leader yet when Kerry made his claim).

Is Senator Kerry naive enough to genuinely accept statements like that at face value, without considering the possibility that he's being schmoozed? Or is he politician enough to know better and just assuming that the American people are dumb enough to blindly accept that sort of assertion?

If he's coming to a "town hall" near you, could you do me a favor and ask him for me? It doesn't look like he'll be in my neck of the woods (greater Seattle) any time soon, or I'd ask him myself.

Slowly coming back to life...
Sorry for the unannounced long hiatus. I had a near-job death experience in June, followed by an intense job search that ended in a great new position that's also a lot more demanding (read: time consuming) than the previous one was. Add a new baby to the mix (she's adorable!), and more than six months of "no time to post" passed in the blink of an eye...

I've been getting that itch again, though, and time is loosening up enough that I should be able to sneak in a few hours here and there.