AFP (Agence Française de Presse) reports that a document obtained by Radio France Internationale's Beruit office is an Al-Qaeda-produced strategy book filled with top Al-Qaeda officers' thoughts on America's war against terrorists. Reporters are paying particular attention to its strategy for knocking the Spanish out of the war in Iraq -- something at the terrorists succeeded in pulling off, unfortunately.

Most likely written in early February of this year and distributed before the 3-11 attack in Madrid, it states: "We consider that the Spanish government cannot suffer more than two to three strikes before pulling out (of Iraq) under pressure from its own people." And: "If these (Spanish) forces remain after the strikes, the victory of the socialist party would be near-guaranteed and the pullout of Spanish forces from Iraq would be on its agenda."

Al-Qaeda clearly planned the attack to do precisely what it did. It also outlines strategies to harass American troops in Iraq by concentrating on a "Sunni strategy."

Given their prescience in these matters, special attention should be given to their fear of America's ability to change the Middle East to the disadvantage of terrorists.

AFP reports: "It [the document] said the US plan was 'to build an Iraqi state as conceived by the United States...and enslave Saudi Arabia politically, fight against Islamic proselytism as a salafist and jihadic movement.'

"'This would be (for the US) the first step toward the eradication of hardline Islam in the entire world.'"

The rhetoric about enslaving Saudi Arabia is typically false, since Al-Qaeda defines enslavement as freedom from radical Islamists. But yes, contrary to the left's charges against the administration, America's aim in liberating Iraq is indeed to eradicate hardline Islam worldwide, the better to protect ourselves while freeing millions from brutal dictators. Severely curtailing the proselytization of jihadic Islam is a necessary step in changing the political structure of the region.

All of which leads me to ask: If Al-Qaeda gets it, why doesn't everyone else?

Yesterday President Bush gave a speech in Istanbul that, read in its entirety, lays out the reasons for supporting American efforts to put the Middle East on the road to legitimate government. Although the Washington Post gave the speech page one prominence, the New York Times buried it on page A13. But it deserves wide circulation, because it argues that democracy is inherently superior to other forms of government and serves as a stabilizing force wherever it is instituted. In time, stability breeds prosperity and a reduction of terrorists' ability to garner the sympathies of an oppressed people.

As the Post notes, this speech echoes another Bush gave in November, in which he tied political reform in the Middle East directly to national security issues in the U.S. It's a theme that needs to be repeated until fall, because it reduces the potency of claims that the war in Iraq and, by extension, the war against terrorists, are based on nothing more than revenge, or WMDs, or oil, or whatever else the left chirps on a given day.

A choice quote: "The best way to prevent corruption and abuse of power is to hold rulers accountable. The best way to ensure fairness to all is to establish the rule of law. The best way to honor human dignity is to protect human rights. Turkey has found what nations of every culture and every region have found: If justice is the goal, then democracy is the answer."

The latter point about Turkey's increasingly democratic rule is vital, for it helps vanquish race or culture-based arguments that Muslims are incapable of establishing democracies. That assertion (it rarely is argued) is made by far right pundits such as Pat Buchanan and Samuel Francis and echoed by the pro-multicultural left, for whom all American ideals, including apparently freedom, are inherently evil. The extremists' positions are examples of ethnocentrism run amok, for they deny both experience (witness democratic developments in Asia, not to mention Europe) and hope (let bloody dictators slaughter locals with abandon).

It's obviously true that American culture cannot be exported in toto, and neither Bush nor his advisors have advocated such a facile policy. One radio report yesterday claimed that Bush said that Middle Eastern countries needn't adopt "Western culture" as they moved toward democracy. That, too, is wrong, because democracy itself is a Western creation.

What the president actually said to his audience in Istanbul wasn't too different from what he's argued at home. He acknowledged the vulgarity and crassness of some elements of American popular culture -- hardly a debatable point among most people -- and argued (not asserted) that freedom and virtue are natural allies, not enemies:

The circumstances surrounding yesterday’s brutal murder of U.S. Spc. Keith M. Maupin by Islamic fanatical killers should be raising some eyebrows. Americans should be asking: After holding Maupin hostage for more than two months, what was the catalyst for the sudden decision to kill?

It is possible, and quite likely, these hoodlums killed Spc. Maupin out of frustration and anger at the news the United States transferred sovereign power to Iraq two days early — before the terrorists had time to subvert and derail the process.

By acting early, the U.S. government swept the ball into its own court, and the only thing terrorists could do was kill their unarmed prey. Terror had failed, and its perpetrators had no other recourse because they knew the game had been played and that they had lost. “That’ll show ’em,” they probably thought.

It did.

It showed us they have mercy for nothing, for nobody. It showed us their motives are anything but honest, their logic anything but rational. And it showed us that, despite Keith Maupin’s tragic death, American troops are fighting a just and noble fight against terror.

But they are fighting an even greater battle: one for freedom. The death of Keith Maupin showed us that above all else, military action is overdue everywhere the shadow of tyranny prevents the blossom of freedom.

This is but one frame in an ongoing cinema that justifies U.S. presence in Iraq. In the past 18 months, we’ve seen that Islamic terrorists supplant themselves to places where tyranny is under siege. These terrorists will stop at nothing to prevent democratic progress in a nation ruled for so long by their own. Saddam Hussein was just one such savage.

But the deed has been done, and the people of Iraq are free, as are the people of Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein will stand trial, and terrorists soon will see their efforts are futile. That moment likely will occur as they stare at the dangerous end of a U.S. military rifle.

And at that moment, the terrorists who killed Keith Maupin will know that though he meant nothing to them, his execution did not go unnoticed by America. They will face justice, Keith Maupin’s death will be avenged, and the senselessness of the terrorists’ cause will be unveiled before their very eyes.

That’ll show ’em.

Imagine a patient in a hospital bed. He has an unhealthy, even violent, medical history. After growing up in increasing poverty, he was abused by people who should have protected him and received inferior medical care for decades. He's had two major operations in short order, received pint after pint of blood, and is pumped full of medicines.

Yet his health has improved visibly in the year since he began receiving modern care. He's now able to walk a bit on his own, can at times feed himself, and believes he's on the mend. His family and friends are encouraging and understanding, and although he's not out of the woods, the prognosis of his attending physicians is that he has a better than even chance for a productive future.

Now imagine that a team of doctors from New York, Washington, and Paris arrive. The patient knows that most of them wanted to refuse him any treatment last year. Rather than examine him, they stand at the door of his room and scorn him. Several advocate pulling the plug now in order to save money, while others predict he'll be dead within months if not weeks. All mock the doctors and nurses who continue to treat him at considerable personal sacrifice. When presented with evidence that most of his vital signs are up, they deny that anything is better. When the man protests that he feels better in spite of his ailments, the hostile team scoffs that no ignorant peasant could possibly possess such advanced knowledge.

Right on cue, this morning's New York Times weighs in with an editorial that belittles the efforts and sacrifices of everyone who made yesterday's handover of sovereignty in Iraq possible. The good doctors on 43rd Street pronounce the patient hopeless, the attending physicians evil dopes, and anyone who dares to cheer him on naive if not opportunistic.

This is a note from National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice to President George W. Bush informing him sovereign power had been transfered to Iraq today. Rice passed the note to President Bush during the summit in Istanbul. It reads: "Mr. President, Iraq is sovereign. Letter was passed from Bremer at 10:26 a.m. Iraq time — Condi"

Bush wrote back: "Let freedom reign."

I was up early this morning to watch the second half of Brian Lamb's Booknotes interview with author Simon Sebag Montefiore. His book, Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, promises to be a superb (and long) summer read. Since that program began at six and ended at seven, I didn't learn of the surprise transfer of sovereignty in Iraq until the story was fairly developed. Given Montefiore's remark that Saddam Hussein was a great admirer of Stalin who sought to emulate his cult of personality and even traveled to many of his dachas, it was fitting that the news from Baghdad was juxtaposed to such an insightful look at the bloodiest man who ever lived.

The early transfer to the Iraqis, designed to throw the terrorists off balance, was a brilliant stroke. After so much bloodshed and chaos, following the brutal regime of Saddam and his henchmen, the ice cold water of sudden sovereignty might be just what the Iraqi populace needs as a source of renewed determination and vigor. It's clear that much blood will be spilt in the coming weeks as the deadly combination of Iranian meddling, Saudi-educated terrorists, and Baathist holdouts continue their efforts to block the path to stability, much less to a more liberal polity. Pluralism is the principal enemy of radicals worldwide, and resisting it to the death is the only choice they have beyond flight to a neighboring country.

But I find myself hopeful and even proud this morning. Hopeful that progress will continue to be made (read Fred Hiatt's report in this morning's Washington Post) in the face of violence in Iraq and an opportunistic, cynical opposition at home. And proud of what America has done for Iraqis and ourselves.

It appears sovereign authority was handed over to the new Iraqi government last night — two days ahead of schedule. Isn’t that Karl Rove a tricky fellow?

This is a great day for freedom and democracy worldwide. Iraqis are living under the rule of one of their own, and they are cloaked by the greatest military forces the world ever has seen.

To the thugs and hoodlums who terrorize the streets of Baghdad and elsewhere, your day is coming. Soon.

The Associated Press reported this weekend that terrorists killed several Afghanis Friday simply because they were carrying voter-registration cards.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is why we are over there. And that, too, is why we are here.

“News of the deaths emerged a day after a bomb ripped through a bus carrying female election workers in the eastern city of Jalalabad, killing two of them and wounding 13. A spokesman for the Taliban claimed responsibility,” AP reported.

The terrorists — selfish and maniacal thugs and fools — prove time and again they cannot be dealt with rationally or reasonably. Their end goal isn’t displacement of Western “infidels” or restoration of their perverted beliefs. Their actions are part of a conquest for global domination, and there are no terms under which they will stop senseless killings of their own people.

These fanatics want Americans gone so they can fill the vacuum with their merciless heel, which they promptly would place on the necks of the people of Afghanistan. And until every one of these bullies has been purged, freedom and democracy everywhere remain in harm’s way.

More than 5 million people are registered to vote this fall in Afghanistan, a country that only three years ago was ruled by an oppressive regime of dictators who killed and tortured at will. U.S.-led military action has brought freedom there, though, and Afghanis are seeing the fruits of economic exchange, opportunity for learning and the ability to communicate ideas.

Freedom really has redefined Afghanistan. And as that nation takes this major step toward democracy — in which the people will choose their leaders — terrorist thugs will do everything they can to derail progress. So show mercy to all except those who would keep free people from being free. For them: to the inferno of damnation.

Terrorists seek to stop the elections not because they oppose democracy — although they do — but because elections are a sign of the end of an era, a sign that the nation has moved across a stream and out of the hell in which the Taliban would have Afghanis live. These brutal ways of controlling people cannot exist where freedom thrives.

The people of Afghanistan have tasted the sweet nectar of liberty, and they aren’t likely ever to allow anyone to control their lives again. Democracy is like wildfire, and the United States is pumping a pretty big bellows. We’re not likely to be outpaced in the ammunition department, either.

A couple of insightful columns by Daniel Henninger and David Brooks highlight the nihilistic world of the elite left. In both cases, we see more clearly the intellectual bankruptcy of modern liberalism. This decline, decades in the making, manifests itself in the move by liberal intellectuals from reformers to critics to parasitic scolds. Once the ideas that animated the left -- civil rights, women's rights, and the like -- went mainstream, they've searched in vain for something else to rally around. Yet today they're faced with a nation whose safety is threatened at home by Third World aggression. This has befuddled the left to no end (post-colonials can't be bad, can they?) and in part explains their inability to articulate an opposing position that demonstrates a serious, adult grasp of the nature and scope of terrorism's threat.

Dan Henninger argues persuasively that the left has either ceased to believe in the existence of evil, or is embarrassed to admit such things publicly. This is part of the devolution of liberal moralism into malign nihilism, a narcissistic, adolescent worldview that relies upon the honor and decency of others to survive.

David Brooks writes today of Michael Moore's recent European tour, during which he described Americans as ignorant, greedy, and generally repulsive. Beyond looking in the mirror to confirm at least some of his charges, Moore might read a few books. He can begin with the authors Brooks cites to illustrate the heights from which modern liberalism has fallen: Reinhold Niebuhr, John Dewey, Martin Luther King, Jr. But that was then; today liberals look not only to Moore for intellectual guidance, but to the likes of Al Gore, Noam Chomsky, and Eric Alterman. Fallen indeed.

It's odd, but modern conservatives, hardened by decades spent forming a coherent philosophy in the face of withering criticism, are almost rooting for the left to get its intellectual house in order. They know that a loyal opposition is better for the nation and for conservatives themselves. Today the most interesting battle of ideas is between factions of the right. That's a sure sign that the left has abandoned the battlefield -- or has it been vanquished? -- for the less taxing role of eternal adolescent.

Both Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney need to take a vacation, especially from the New York Times and Washington Post. Newspapers nationwide are reporting that Vice President Dick Cheney and Vermont Senator Pat Leahy had a heated exchange on the Senate floor after taking the official session photograph. Leahy mistakenly greeted the Vice President in a "lighthearted" way, while attacking the Vice President just days before -- asserting that Cheney gave preferential treatment to his old company Halliburton when awarding military contracts. Them are fightin' words. Earlier in the week, no doubt because of the extreme frustration of reading the "elite" media's take on the Iraq War, Paul Wolfowitz before a congressional committee said, "Frankly, part of our problem...is a lot of press are afraid to travel very much. So they sit in Baghdad, and they publish rumors." Of course, Wolfowitz has subsequently "apologized" for his statement.

Both Cheney and Wolfowitz, and for that matter the President's entire foreign policy team need to take a vacation from the daily fodder and focus on the reality that is Iraq and elsewhere. The president is doing well in state-by-state polls and the last thing the President needs are unhinged advisors causing him more headaches. I respect Cheney and Wolfowitz's inability to pander to the Democrats and their media machine. Real men of principle don't shake hands with the likes of Pat Leahy and play nice. However, ignoring him is the better option. The Bush Administration must trust in the American people to make the right decision in November. They need to remember in Grand Rapids and Columbus and Reno and Tallahassee few know who Maureen Dowd is and fewer give a damn about what she has to say.

Last week I remarked on Michael Brandon McClellan's essay "Why Neoconservatism Best Defends America," the first of a three-part series on the Bush administration's foreign policy. His second essay, "The Alternatives are Dangerously Insufficient," is now up at Tech Central Station.

McClellan analyzes three possible alternatives (isolationism, liberal multilateralism, and realism) and finds them all ill-suited to current dangers. The plan advanced by paleoconservatives and some libertarians, isolationism, is characterized by McClellan as the "strategic withdrawal paradigm." Premised as it is on the belief that American withdrawal from the Middle East would relieve us of the burdens and dangers emanating from that area, this plan dangerously misjudges the militants' reasons for hating us. Even if we abandoned Israel to its own defenses, an idea Buchanan toys with, McClellan agrees with Harvard scholar Joseph Nye, whom he quotes: "Even if the United States had a weaker foreign policy, such groups [like al Qaeda] would resent the far-reaching power of the American economy. American corporations and citizens represent global capitalism, which some see as anathema. Moreover, American popular culture has a global reach regardless of what the government does. There is no escaping Hollywood, CNN, and the Internet."

Our withdrawal would leave the area even more vulnerable to Taliban-style regimes, which could come to power in areas far richer in resources and more strategically placed than Afghanistan. Given the availability of lethal weapons and delivery systems, broad oceans would not protect us in the future, any more than they did on September 11.

McClellan's critiques of liberal internationalism and realism are equally on target. As he shows, whatever their merits in decades past, neither approach can adequately safeguard America in a post-Cold War world. The former binds American sovereignty to the whims of the UN Security Council, where Russia, China, and France seek to limit US influence worldwide. The latter serves to support precisely the Middle Eastern dictators whose corrupt and brutal regimes have spawned terrorist organizations. Islamic terrorists have no political refuge but the mosque, which they have turned into Bolshevik-style cells spreading death at home and abroad.

McClellan's third essay, which will examine the democratic realist framework for winning the war on terror, will appear next week.

Earlier today on CNN, Richard Quest asked the prominent historian Niall Ferguson about how future American -- European relations might be influenced by the outcome of this fall's U.S. presidential election. The transcript isn't yet available on CNN's web site, but the exchange, verbatim, was as follows:

CNN's Richard Quest: "Niall Ferguson, the Europe Transatlantic relationship, one year from now, being in thind it's a matter of a U.S. election between now and then -- which could alter the issues. What do you think?"

Niall Ferguson: "There's always more than one plausible future. I'll give you two. In one future, President Kerry succumbs to European pressure to reduce American presence in Iraq prematurely and the country plunges into civil war. An alternative scenario, President Bush hangs in there and the Europeans get real about the Middle East. The American troop levels are maintained, and a year from now Iraq is starting to look like a rapidly recovering economy."

Tough love is usually good for all involved -- in this prediction especially for Iraqis.

With Tuesday's primary victory by GOP Representative Chris Cannon of Utah's 3rd Congressional District, anti-immigration candidate Matt Throckmorton and the race-baiting, pro-eugenics groups that flooded his campaign with cash lost out to the good will and common sense of Utahns -- 58 to 42 percent. As I wrote last week, several extremist groups backed Throckmorton's campaign to unseat Cannon. The Salt Lake Tribune says Throckmorton's backers, aided by $100,000 in out-of-state funds, did their best to smear Cannon by alleging that he solicited contributions and votes from illegal immigrants. As the Tribune editorialists put it, "While the guards, dogs and barbed wire crowd says it seeks immigration 'reform,' it is Cannon's proposals that deserve to be called that. He would, with the Bush administration, allow legal ways for foreign workers to be matched up with employers and to, in limited cases, earn the right to move down the road to citizenship."

The Tribune's rival, the LDS-owned Deseret News, takes a similar approach -- itself a sign of just how poorly xenophobia played in Utah: "Federal officials oversaw the elections after reports that immigration reformist groups would challenge some voters in the belief that Cannon campaign workers had encouraged illegal immigrants to register to vote."

All of this is put into perspective by Tamar Jacoby in today's Wall Street Journal ($), who argues that Rep. Cannon's victory demonstrates that fear-mongering and race-baiting plays poorly among Americans whose legitimate concerns over immigration are best addressed by promising realistic control of the border, opportunity for immigrants, and a compassionate, orderly approach to the problems caused by large numbers of illegal workers.

I would add that the Utah election also demonstrates the ineffectiveness of outside extremist groups' efforts to sway voters on key issues. The people of Utah, like most Americans, resent such interference in local politics, especially when the ideas espoused are overtly extremist in nature. Outside groups can prove helpful on matters where extant local concerns mesh with the groups' agendas, but manufacturing crises using radical ideologies seldom works.

I can't help but be disappointed in the Bush Administration today. Amid new revelations that Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld did authorize the use of dogs and the stripping of prisoners as authorized interrogation techniques. This is conduct unbefitting the United States. Americans understand we are held to a higher standard; human rights are important.

And to that end, Bush screws up again. The New York Times reports Bush is ready to make an "arms for aid" deal with North Korea that doesn't include Kim Jong Il making concessions on human rights. The article says:

"Under the plan, outlined by American officials on Tuesday evening, in response to pressure from China and American allies in Asia, the aid would begin flowing immediately after a commitment by Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader, to dismantle his plutonium and uranium weapons programs. In return, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea would immediately begin sending tens of thousands of tons of heavy fuel oil every month, and Washington would offer a 'provisional'' guarantee not to invade the country or seek to topple Mr. Kim's government."

With Republicans like this, why not Kerry? Both presidential candidates represent the worst of the baby-boomer generation: relativism and wishy- washiness. Bush no longer has a coherent vision of the world; he's just trying to get through each day. It won't work. With days like this, he alienates his base into not voting in November.

UPDATE: A very senior member of the Administration has reported to me that the Times got it wrong. In particular the part about Bush guaranteeing not to topple Mr. Kim's government through peaceful methods, i.e. Democracy Project methods. More soon...Developing.

The term “Orientalism” has fallen from favor, taking on as it has the odor of racism, cultural imperialism, and paternalism. Most famously in the late Edward Said’s book Orientalism, but throughout post-colonial studies, Orientalism is employed as a term of opprobrium against previous generations of Western scholars and, by extension, the West itself. It charges that Western scholarship on the Middle East is hopelessly racist toward that region’s peoples and history; that Western authors construct grand edifices that serve to obscure and distort, rather than clarify, the East.

Yet today, as our need to understand the Middle East has risen dramatically, the specter of Orientalism haunts scholars of the area and serves as a foil for politicized anti-Western and anti-American partisans who oppose all efforts to liberalize oppressive Muslim regimes. That’s why it’s a welcome sign to read a newly translated article, “The Favor Western Orientalists Did Muslims,” by Ahmad Al-Baghdadi, who is described by the indispensable MEMRI as a “progressive Kuwaiti author.” That it appeared originally in a Kuwaiti newspaper is a most hopeful sign.

Al-Baghdadi, who holds a Ph.D. in Islamic thought from the University of Edinburgh, writes bluntly and truthfully about the intellectual pathologies that stifle scholarship and debate among Arabs. Unlike the East, he says, the West has an academic tradition; Westerners do not blindly rely upon a text, but dissect it, study it, translate it, and develop an understanding of it in a way unknown to Arab scholars living in their homeland. Indeed, he differentiates Arab students who study in the West into two groups: The “unfortunate ones” return home to be “shocked by the great extent of the natural and deliberate ignorance in their countries.” Their “hopes shatter on the rocks of reality, and evaporate into the aridity of ignorance.” The fortunate ones who remain in the West “continue developing; their methodological capabilities mature, and they become productive in their specialized scholarly fields.”

He continues: "What is important during the period [of study] is that when they read, the students are given an opportunity to compare the complexities of Western thought with the primitive nature of Arab and Islamic thought, as compiled by the scholars on each side.”

What’s more, Prof. Al Baghdadi writes, Western Orientalists have preserved the learning of Arabic countries: “ . . . libraries in the Western world contain unique Arabic and Islamic manuscripts, well-catalogued so that the researcher can easily locate the information. [These libraries also contain] many books of our heritage, which, were it not for the West and the efforts of the Orientalists, the Muslims would never know exist. Thanks to this intellectual heritage, the West was able to master the East, as it still does [emphasis added].”

That's a question I've posed to professors, students, experts, and radio hosts for years. Another construction might be, education or ignorance? If the health and well-being of a republic depends upon the ability of its citizens to make intelligent and informed choices, as the Founders and others asserted, then the quality of the education provided by our institutions of higher learning is crucial to a prosperous, free future.

Paul J. Cella poses an interesting question: does modern higher education make us more or less susceptible to propaganda? He defines propaganda as "malicious manipulation of the mind," and, after exploring the matter, answers that today higher education is likely as not to enable the propagandist as to arm the citizen subjected to manipulation.

Years ago I taught in the great books program at Michigan, and I used to tell students that reading the Greeks and Romans, the medieval and Renaissance writers, made them less susceptible to being suckered by every con man they encountered. Absent expanding their mental horizons into the past, they would have to rely only on what they learned in their own lives, and none of us lives so fully as to make our story very interesting or helpful.

One of the most bandied-about canards over the past year is that the war in Iraq is a "unilateral" undertaking by America. It now appears that the vision behind that war, which sees a freer Middle East as a key to greater security around the world, isn't unilateral, either. In spite of very real problems in reconstructing and pacifying Iraq, the spread of Bush's vision -- even when it isn't acknowledged as such -- is a sign real progress in shifting world opinion.

Jackson Diel, deputy editorial editor at the Washington Post and a columnist there, writes this morning about the spread of enthusiasm for promoting pro-democracy forces to camps not always on board with the Bush administration.

Diehl writes: "[T]here . . . now exists the beginning of a broad pro-reform coalition in and outside the region. It includes a handful of people in Arab governments, but many more outside, in rapidly growing civic and human rights movements. There are European parliamentarians and policymakers in expanding numbers, especially in Germany. And in Washington, there are not only Bush's neocons but an important group of Democrats."

A group of policymakers and politicians from America and Europe are set to release a paper this week arguing for what Diehl calls a "more muscular" version of Bush's policy "without the compromises forced by transatlantic tensions and the blow back from Iraq." Positively, it calls on democracies to back home-grown democracy movements in the Middle East. Diehl quotes from the paper: "'The West cannot export democracy as such. At the same time, the West can and in our view, must play a critical supporting role from the outside -- as it has in democratic breakthroughs and transitions in other parts of the world,'" says the paper, which was developed in months of transatlantic discussions sponsored by the German Marshall Fund. "'This is a generational project for which we must summon historic staying power.'"

These pro-democracy forces should openly acknowledge their debt to Bush's actions in the region, without which their own ideas might amount to little more than an addition to the well-intentioned literature of foreign policy wonks. A concrete example of the effects of Washington's new tone is Jordan's King Abdullah's remarks, also reported by Diehl, that Bush's actions "frightened people" but that "[I]t also allowed some of us to say that if we don't come up with our own initiative, something will be forced on us. And once you say you are going to reform, you trigger a process that you can't turn back."

This is precisely the point that Bush and some of his aids have made, though not often enough. Demonstrating America's willingness to overthrow brutal regimes catches the attention not only of Saddam's peers, but of authoritarian rulers whose regimes can be modified to the great benefit of their people and regional stability. And a freer, more stable world makes America safer, which after all is the principal responsibility of any president.

Yesterday I began writing an essay on anti-Americanism among our elites, the ways this weakens us in the war on terror, and what it will take to convince some people that this really is war. Paul Johnson's murder was the catalyst for the piece, but it's grown into a longer work that I'll post when it's finished, which will most likely be tomorrow. One thought for today: we mustn't allow such acts to appear routine or portray them as the costs of doing business in that part of the world. It's good that his killers met their end, if reports are accurate. But his death is part of a much larger conflict; let's not retreat to a pre-9/11 worldview to lessen its horror.

The plight of Cubans is a perennial topic of this blog. On June 15 I wrote about Oswaldo Payá , who heads the Varela Project in Cuba, a pro-democracy effort that David Brooks calls "one of the most inspiring democracy movements in the world today." Today Brooks, in one of his best columns in weeks, nails John Kerry's guiding vision of foreign policy by calling attention to a recent Kerry interview with the Miami Herald. Astonishingly, when asked about his opinion of the Varela Project, Kerry said it "'has gotten a lot of people in trouble . . . and it brought down the hammer in a way that I think wound up being counterproductive.'"

As Brooks argues, this comment from the man-who-would-be-president deals a crushing blow to dissidents in Cuba and around the globe. It demonstrates a callousness and cynicism toward captive peoples unworthy of any man seeking our highest office, but too common among Bush critics who'd rather bed down with dictators than lend moral and diplomatic support to democracy activists. Imagine, Brooks writes, "if in the 1980's Ronald Reagan had called Andrei Sakharov or Natan Sharansky or Lech Walesa or Vaclav Havel 'counterproductive' because, after all, what they did spawned crackdowns, too."

This is a recipe for strengthening dictatorships all over the globe: in China, Burma, Iran, Belarus, Zimbabwe, Sudan. It signals to Hugo Chavez that Venezuelan pro-democracy forces may be dealt with as he sees fit if a Kerry administration comes to power.

Of the realist school of foreign policy, Brooks writes: "[I]f we are going to turn realist, let's be clear about what that means in practice. It means worrying less about the nature of regimes and dealing with whoever happens to be in power. It means alienating people who dream of living in freedom while we luxuriate in ours. It means doing little to confront crimes against humanity; realism gives a president a thousand excuses for inaction. It means betraying people like Oswaldo Payá — again and again and again."

The moral bankruptcy of the left began years ago, and under Kerry its implosion is nearly complete. Oswaldo Payá and his fellow dissidents in the broader Cuban community should spread the word on Kerry's low opinion of dissidents. If he's elected, they're likely to continue to suffer under the boot heal of Castro.

Perhaps with the exception of Tony Blair, it's difficult to find leaders with backbone in Europe. This is not to say they don't exist though. We're reminded of that today in an article by former Czech President Vaclav Havel saying it's time to act on North Korea.

Known for telling it like it is, Havel does just that. He rightly blames the South Korean government for its "sunshine policy, which, however well-intentioned, is based on constant concessions and appeasement. The policy costs South Korea hundreds of millions of dollars, but it is not helping in the effort to save innocent lives. In the end, the policy only keeps the leader of Pyongyang in power."

It's true that the South Korean government (under the feckless President Roh) is the number one enemy of their brothers and sisters in the North. Fearful of the economic and social repercussions of millions of malnourished, uneducated North Koreans immigrating to their land; they'd rather live in peaceful coexistence. The policy is ridiculously naive and to boot, risks alienating South Korea's greatest ally: The United States. Accompanied with this so-called "sunshine policy" is a growing anti-Americanism that is at root for why Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is pulling troops out of the DMZ.

The courage of men like Havel (and Reagan for that matter) remind me why the Democracy Project mission is so crucial. Let's keep up the fight. If you read this blog, let us know. We need feedback, we need support, and yes, your money would be nice. But less than money, we want a crew to rally and work for freedom for North Koreans, Cubans, the Chinese, the Tibetans, the Sudanese in Darfur, and many millions of others.

Back during the Cold War, relations between America and Western European countries were at times strained -- think of the Suez Crisis or France's perennial prickliness -- but by and large warm feelings persisted among the folk. I spent several days with a middle class German family in 1979 and recall their genuine love of the US. The father of that family was a WWII veteran, as was my father, and when we left he hugged us and openly wept, not so much because he would miss us, as because of the reconciliation our visit symbolized. Like many in his generation, he (and we) knew how much better off we all were.

I had the same experience that year in Finland, where again I stayed with a family whose hostility to the Soviet Union was matched by their admiration of American values and power. Walking down a street in Helsinki, I became aware of two adolescents watching me as if they recognized me. When I turned to face them, one of them said, "Are you an American?" (My jeans and flannel shirt -- de rigeuer in those days -- gave me away.) When I affirmed their guess they beamed -- an American! -- and asked me how many people lived in New York! To boot, a family at whose house we spent several evenings drinking vodka (but not in the quantities those Finns managed) and taking sauna had a dog named Jimmy Carter. I'd quibble with their choice of presidents there, but any sitting US president would have been similarly honored.

If those feelings of solidarity have faded in recent years, reasons exist beyond the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the war in Iraq. This morning's WSJ ($) drew my attention to a new study by a Swedish think tank called Timbro. Titled "EU versus USA," the report reveals significant economic disparity between EU members and individual US states. Free marketers know that unnecessary government intervention and high taxation retard the creation of wealth (my campaign slogan would be "create wealth, don't confiscate it"), and Europe's long affair with cradle-to-grave welfare has left its people poorer and, it seems, bitter.

According to the study: "If the European Union were a state in the USA it would belong to the poorest group of states. France, Italy, Great Britain and Germany have lower GDP per capita than all but four of the states in the United States. In fact, GDP per capita is lower in the vast majority of the EU-countries (EU 15) than in most of the individual American states. This puts Europeans at a level of prosperity on par with states such as Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia. Only the miniscule country of Luxembourg has higher per capita GDP than the average state in the USA. The results of the new study represent a grave critique of European economic policy."

The Journal points out that this reduces the buying power of Europeans so that they enjoy fewer amenities than even most low income Americans. For example, while the average living space for poor Americans (defined as those with annual incomes of less than $25,000) is 1,200 square feet, the average for all Europeans is 1,000 square feet.

I would add that the study's results also reveal a risk-averse, backward-looking region whose populace lacks the motivation and vision to compete not only with Americans but, increasingly, with the emerging entrepreneurial societies of Asia. Individual initiative, so central to the American character, has been reigned in by the group-think of welfare state planners and an intellectual class too ready abandon the exhilaration of freedom for the boredom of security. (Think of Bertrand Russell's quip that he'd "rather be Red than dead." Of course, he was already Red, and now he's dead, so he got it both ways in the end.)

Not to be chauvinistic, but surely one lesson of the Timbro study is that Europe's ruling classes are a poor model for American elites to ape. The eye-rolling classes here are fond of comparing ostensibly vulgar Americans to sophisticated Europeans as a sign of their own intellectualism. Of course, most of those Americans' garages take up at least 1,000 square feet, and I doubt their GDP would peg them as residents of Mississippi or West Virginia. It's something for them to ponder over their next Grande Special Reserve Estate 2003 – Sumatra Lintong Lake Tawar.

We've commented before about the seemingly strange (and growing) alliance between elements of the far right and far left. Since the start of the Iraq war, these odd bedfellows have made common cause to disparage President Bush and the "neoconservative cabal" that is ostensibly running the country for the benefit of Israel. Now, it seems, they're teaming up to defeat the administration's immigration reform proposal.

Today the WSJ editorializes that some anti-immigrant Republicans are calling in representatives from anti-growth, anti-free market, and pro-eugenics groups as expert witnesses during Congressional debates on the Bush proposal. These same groups spend much of their budgets targeting pro-immigration Republicans for defeat in this fall's elections.

The Journal points out both today and in a March piece by Jason Riley that the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Numbers-USA, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), Numbers USA, and Project-USA, among others, that some Republicans have become "disturbingly comfy with, were founded or funded (or both) by John Tanton, a retired doctor in Michigan. In addition to trying to stop immigration to the U.S., appropriate population-control measures for Dr. Tanton and his network include promoting China's one-child policy, sterilizing Third World women and wider use of RU-486." Riley wrote in March that that "By Dr. Tanton's own reckoning, FAIR has received more than $1.5 million from the Pioneer Fund, a white-supremacist outfit devoted to racial purity through eugenics."

Another key paragraph in today's editorial tells an astounding story: "Representative John Hostettler of Indiana, one of the most pro-life Republicans in Washington, chairs the immigration subcommittee that featured representatives of CIS and NumbersUSA as the Republican witnesses. The third GOP witness at the hearing, if you can believe it, was Frank Morris, who at the time was running for a seat on the Sierra Club board and actively campaigning for the defeat of President Bush. Apparently, unless you're a certified Malthusian, dedicated restrictionist or someone who knows next to nothing about economics, the Republican Congress isn't interested in what you have to say about immigration reform."

For Republicans to debate immigration reform among themselves is not only expected, but a sign of intellectual vitality and honesty within party ranks. But those ranks are violated when members enlist the services of far-left ideologues in efforts to defeat their own colleagues with differing views on immigration. At least in the future more people will know just who the "expert witnesses" being called in by some Republicans really are.

After September 11, the topic of national defense resumed the prominence in public debate it enjoyed during the Cold War. With the death of Ronald Reagan has come comparisons of his presidency George W. Bush's -- comparisons based on newfound analyses between yesterday's struggles with communism and today's war on terrorism. An obvious difference in the debate is that today, some groups who were allied against communist totalitarianism are at odds over how best to deal with Islamic terrorists. This often pits so-called neoconservatives against a new alliance made up of isolationists, realists, and the anti-American left.

I say so-called neoconservatives because the name has been bandied about so carelessly, and not infrequently maliciously, that it has been evacuated of most of its meaning. Nevertheless, Michael Brandon McClellan's essay at Tech Central Station, titled "Why Neoconservatism Best Defends America," makes a compelling case for what Charles Krauthammer has dubbed "democratic realism."

Key paragraph: "More commonly known as the '4D' strategy, the plan [the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism] sets forth four essential elements for attaining victory in the War on Terror. The US must: 1) defeat existing terrorist organizations, 2) deny terrorists the support of nation states, 3) diminish the underlying factors that lead people to embrace rather than shun terrorists like Bin Laden, and 4) defend the US homeland and its interests abroad. While the defeat and defend elements of the strategy address the immediate short term goals of crushing al Qaeda and bolstering homeland security, the deny and diminish elements address the long-term necessities of making Islamic terrorism less deadly, and permanently eroding its base of support."

McClellan's piece today is the first in a three-part series that will appear over the next two weeks.

Last night in New York Daniel Henninger, deputy editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, was presented with the 2004 Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism. The award is presented by the Eric Breindel Memorial Association and funded by the News Corporation, the parent company of the New York Post and Fox News Channel, among other entities. Breindel, editorial page editor of the Post, died of cancer in 1998 at the age of 42.

An editorial in this morning's Post notes that the annual award "recognizes the work of a columnist, editorialist or reporter whose work best reflects the twin spirits that so animated Breindel's own writings: love of this country and its democratic institutions, as well as bearing witness to the evils of totalitarianism."

While I've never met Dan Henninger, I've been a fan of his writings for years. Upon the promotion of Paul Gigot to editorial page editor, Henninger began writing a weekly column, Wonder Land, for the Journal every Friday. Opinionjournal.com provides links to the five Wonder Land columns for which he received the award.

Previous winners of the Breindel Award include Victor Davis Hanson and Jay Nordlinger. Congratulations to Dan Henninger on this recognition of his excellent work.

The new Chronicle of Higher Education, a leading source of information on higher ed., carries an article (subscription) on President Reagan's legacy in academe. By and large it's a fair overview, more historical than polemical. It includes quotations from both sides of the aisle, including that of David W. Breneman, dean of the Curry School of Education at UVA, who takes the hackneyed view that Reagan was a mere ideologue:

"The whole policy discussion about higher education that had been so active in the '70s really seemed to end with the budget approach that Reagan took," said Breneman. "Suddenly I had this sinking feeling that empirical policy analysis was going to become passé, that ideology was in the saddle. The attack on higher education wasn't so much on educational policy per se as it was on price, inefficiency, and on arrogance."

Chester Finn counters: "'He energized ... people who actually had ideas, to actually do something about them,' Mr. Finn says. 'It was a tone set at the top. The Education Department was a pretty happy ship, with a sense of team camaraderie, and of a team pulling together.'"

The reader is also reminded of the opposition to "Star Wars," which every sophisticate knew wouldn't work -- no ideology or arrogance needed, of course. And that Reagan's clashes with higher education officials began with Clark Kerr back in California and continued through his efforts to reign in affirmative action.

The article doesn't quite capture the seething hatred for Reagan common among professors nationwide. Much of this was based on his attempts to reduce universities' dependence on federal largess, but it also stemmed from his hard-line stance against the spread of communism. No anti-anti-Soviet professors are interviewed, perhaps because, as I argued last week, it's embarrassing for such folks to admit just how profoundly wrong they were.

A better understanding for the reasons behind Reagan's clashes with the intelligentsia is offered by Victor Davis Hanson, who writes in the June 28 issue of National Review: "In the end Reaganism encompassed the very strange ideas that a conservative who wished to cut government entitlements could be more popular with the People than their liberal benefactors; that a wealthy, self-made man could feel more at home with a ranch hand or a policeman than would a Marxist Harvard professor; than an 'aw shucks' naïf could out-debate the best-prepped policy wonk; and that a Hollywood actor could take the measure of a Soviet apparatchik or a Third World cutthroat far better than the brain trust of the U.S. State department. Only in America."

Government officials in Cuba are thwarting political opposition the old fashioned way -- through intimidation. Oswaldo Paya, head of the Varela Project democracy drive, says that government thugs are warning activists who favor the restoration of civil society in Cuba to back off from voicing their thoughts.

In more news from Cuba, Cubanet.org reports that four dissident civil society organizations sent condolences to Nancy Reagan after the death of former President Ronald Reagan. In addition to thanking Reagan for founding Radio Marti, the message lauded him: "We want to recognize such an illustrious American citizen for having fulfilled his protagonist role in the U.S. fight against the forces of evil, as Reagan called international Communism."

During 1941-42, the collaborationist Vichy regime in France rounded up 4,500 Jews and gypsies and held them in a concentration camp in Rivesaltes, near Perpignon in the southern part of the country. In an attempt to brighten the days of the children, 400 of whom were later murdered at Auschwitz (along with about half the camp's prisoners), a Swiss nurse at the camp asked them to paint typical Swiss scenes on a wall. According to the Daily Telegraph (registration), the children painted a mural depicting "bucolic scenes from the Swiss countryside, with joyful characters, musical instruments, cows, chalets and pine-covered mountains."

The mural was later abandoned and rediscovered in 1999 underneath a coat of whitewash. A memorial to the prisoners in Rivesaltes is being built and authorities had planned to showcase the children's mural. Those plans will now have to be revised as anti-Semites utterly destroyed the painting using chisels to chip it away from the wall. An art historian discovered the destruction on Friday.

No one has been charged with this crime, as is true for some 80 percent of the 180 anti-Semitic incidents in France so far this year. It is a fact, however, that the perpetrators of many anti-Semitic incidents in France are Muslims from North Africa who remain unassimilated despite years spent in-country and fluency in French. Their hatred for Jews and the West is flamed by radical clerics and racist educational literature, much of it courtesy of Saudi financing.

While it would of course be an exaggeration to claim that things are no better for French Jews now than they were during the war, one can't help but notice the sickness of this particular act. Children whose innocence was violated by racist monsters born in the early twentieth century have been violated again by racist monsters born during the lifetimes of death camp survivors. The Telegraph's article also notes that up to 30,000 French Jews, alarmed at the rising tide of anti-Semitism around them, are considering immigrating to Israel.

Only a few major news outlets are covering the disturbing detention of Chinese medical doctor Jiang Yanyong and his wife, who's also a doctor, Hua Zhongwei. Dr. Jiang rose to prominence last year after he exposed the government coverup of Beijing's SARS epidemic. He and his wife were en route the U.S. embassy on June 1 to arrange their visas for a trip to visit their daughter in California when they were re-routed to an unknown place. Communication with the couple has been limited to a few notes stating that they're safe and well but will not be flying to California; the last communication was on June 10.

Human Rights in China reports that the doctors have visited their California daughter almost yearly. This month's intervention follows Dr. Jiang's public criticism of the government for its failure to admit that the massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989, was a mistake. As the WSJ news pages ($) state:

"A move to discipline Dr. Jiang would reflect the depth of vulnerability China's leadership still feels about its role in the events of 1989, and to public criticism in general. The surgeon, by virtue of his role in exposing cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome last year, is probably the most widely recognized government critic in China today, and an arrest or indictment would invite a flurry of criticism from overseas. Within China, Dr. Jiang, while not quite a household name, has nonetheless attained a hero's status within the medical community and among many people who support a faster pace of political liberalization in China."

The Journal's editorial page ($) argues correctly that the detention of such high-profile persons reveals the inability of Beijing to control the flow of information in the Internet age and that their actions will "fan contempt among the Chinese people for their Communist Party masters." Let's hope that fame is also fanned by the outrage of Westerners whose patience with dangerous dictatorships runs out.

Former Reagan speechwriter Peter Robinson offers a unique look at the former president’s outlook on the Cold War in a piece published this weekend in the Wall Street Journal. Robinson’s story should remind Americans of lessons of the past and affirm -- if not enhance -- our resolve to win the War on Terror.

Robinson recounts the California governor’s epiphany on how to best confront the growing Soviet threat: “We win and they lose,” Reagan said in 1977. We did. They did. The rest is history.

Shouldn’t that also be America’s approach to the War on Terror? Yeah. So enough with the pandering and equivocation. Enough with the kid gloves.

America’s decades-long communist adversary sought to overwhelm the United States with superior strategic forces and a more abundant cache of weapons -- a nuclear juggernaut, if you will. Ronald Reagan defied that effort with a weapon the Soviet Union could not match: a free economy.

The president made clear in the 1980s that the driving force behind his policy chiefly benefited one goal: the demise of iron-fisted Soviet sovereignty. His economic plan fit into that scheme, and he brought to bear all of American’s warring resources, including our tenacity and patriotic spirit. And he won his war.

How quickly we forget. Only 15 years since Mr. Reagan left office, we are again debating about how to handle a growing and ominous threat. And the answer is so clear: We win and they lose. We smash them with the mighty fist of our military, and we yield to nothing, to nobody, until the homeland is safe and peace is restored.

Islamic radicals’ war on freedom knows no borders, no rules of war, no sanctity for humanity. It is without reason, without justice and without honor. And until every last one of them has been purged, we remain threatened as we live, work, eat and sleep.

Appeasers aren’t worried about this threat. They pretend it does not exist, that we need not live under a cloak of American protection. They say 9/11 was a fluke, and some even say it was our fault. They’re wrong.

And unless wiser thought prevails, they could be dead wrong.

That’s the dimension of this conflict critics fail to consider. There is but one course of action: We win and they lose, lest they live and we die.

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher delivered a poetic and altogether beautiful eulogy to President Reagan at this morning's service at the National Cathedral. Although it was a recording, it goes quite a distance in affirming the undiluted partnership -- friendship -- the United States and the United Kingdom have shared over the over the last 100 years.

Here are some recent articles on Reagan I've found worthwhile.

Daniel Henninger on the ideological war in Washington that Reagan started; Charles Krauthammer on "Reagan Revisionism"; Ralph Kinney Bennett on Reagan's character; and Tom Purcell with a eulogy.

We're hearing more each day from disenchanted liberals and others that Ronald Reagan, in death, supercedes the President he was in life. Listening to C-SPAN earlier this morning, I heard a man who, I'd guess, was in his 40s call to excoriate Reagan, going so far as to state: "Without Michael Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan was less than nothing." Brian Lamb's guest, the ubiquitous Grover Norquist, defended Reagan's legacy ably, as have so many others this week.

But some voices carry more moral authority than those of even the best activists, and among them is Lech Walesa. In an op-ed in today's WSJ, Walesa, a key figure in the demise of the Soviet empire, sends a post-mortem thank you note of sorts to President Reagan. He begins: "When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our freedom."

Ponder that last sentence: We owe him our freedom. Beyond owing another our life, as we do our parents or anyone who sacrifices his life for ours, what greater compliment can be paid to another than to say, publicly, that we owe him our freedom? Walesa, an electrician by training who, after being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983, rose to become free Poland's president from 1990 to 1995, writes that Reagan's vision of a liberated Eastern Europe was backed by action -- by tackling problems rather than hoping they would fade away.

I wrote yesterday about greatness. Walesa easily bests me:

"I distinguish between two kinds of politicians. There are those who view politics as a tactical game, a game in which they do not reveal any individuality, in which they lose their own face. There are, however, leaders for whom politics is a means of defending and furthering values. For them, it is a moral pursuit. They do so because the values they cherish are endangered. They're convinced that there are values worth living for, and even values worth dying for. Otherwise they would consider their life and work pointless. Only such politicians are great politicians and Ronald Reagan was one of them."

He closes by recalling the potency of a poster printed for the first "almost-free" parliamentary elections in Poland in 1989. It featured Gary Cooper as Marshal Will Kane in "High Noon" with the headline "At High Noon" and the red Solidarity banner with the date of the elections, June 4, 1989. Walesa says the Communists derided the freedom movement in Poland as "an invention of the 'Wild' West, especially the U.S."

But, he says, "[T]he poster had the opposite impact: Cowboys in Western clothes had become a powerful symbol for Poles. Cowboys fight for justice, fight against evil, and fight for freedom, both physical and spiritual. Solidarity trounced the Communists in that election, paving the way for a democratic government in Poland."

Westerns were of course a staple of Hollywood for decades. More often than not, they were "honest and true," fighting the good fight against the forces of chaos and evil. Deriding them became easy sport among the cognoscenti from the 1960s on, not so much for any artistic merit they lacked as for the virtues they imbued. Their unforgivable sin was to operate in a world in which their characters knew the difference in right and wrong; producers and directors took for granted that their audiences would do the same.

When Reagan or George Bush are derided as cowboys, think of what those men stood for among the masses imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain. And remember that they were attacked by elites who ran things back then, just as their virtues are ridiculed today by those who'd love to run things again back here.

It's difficult to write about anything else this morning. Like millions of others, I watched the funeral procession for former President Reagan from its beginning at 16th Street and Constitution Avenue until all the dignitaries had left the Capital rotunda. Even after that, we watched as normal folks filed by the flag-draped casket, their casual dress in the summer heat a bit at odds with their formal demeanor. Men had removed their hats, many clasped their hands behind their backs, and not a few wept or crossed themselves.

As the caisson rolled down Constitution Avenue, reporters from several networks commented on the extraordinary quietness of the thousands who lined the street. Fox News Channel's Brit Hume had the good sense and respect to allow the procession to pass mostly in silence. One heard only horse hooves, the military bands, and the occasional siren in the distance, but almost no talking. Like the solemn display in the rotunda a bit later on, this unusually formal behavior demonstrated that we Americans haven't lost our sense of decorum, pop culture's oft-lamented vulgarities notwithstanding.

I confess that I never took a shine to Nancy Reagan while she was First Lady, but her dignity and bearing yesterday brought tears to my eyes several times. The crowd applauded her when she emerged to oversee the transfer of the coffin to the caisson; one man's yell of "we love you Nancy" pierced the silence. Inside the Capital, as she caressed the flag on the coffin and spoke a few words to her Ronnie, she told (I think) her escort Dick Cheney that she didn't want to leave. I despise the word "heartbreak" in all its variants and would strike it from any student's paper or author's essay, but I suspect that most of us experienced precisely that as we watched.

I was particularly moved by two figures from the past: former Secretary of State George Shultz and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Shultz, whose strength and commitment to advancing democracy I always admired, placed a hand on the coffin and bowed deeply. Thatcher touched the flag, genuflected, and turned toward the coffin once more as she walked away. Both looked stricken, yet they still carry that inner fire that made them great in their day -- and in ours, also.

Greatness can be described verbally, but, like athletic prowess, its qualities are best grasped when seen in action. It's a cliché to say we're bombarded by the visages of those others call great, or that fame is too often confused with importance. Yesterday we saw the reaction of a free people to real greatness, to importance of world historical dimensions. In such a display, our republican pageantry in all its glory becomes ancillary and inadequate to the great life we celebrate. The dissonance between the civic act of a state funeral and the largeness of the man is measured by our inability to capture him within the act itself. Paradoxically, it's that inadequacy that separates such public displays from empty ceremony. You can't contain or deconstruct true greatness, but you can certainly feel its presence.

That's a good question to pose to the folks at the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which yesterday released a large study on news consumers' attitudes toward their sources of information. The large survey contains much valuable information and includes most forms of news outlets -- local and national newspapers, news magazines, talk radio, cable news, network news, although it omits blogs or other less conventional sources.

The principal conclusion from Pew is that news audiences are more politicized than in previous years, with conservatives and liberals voting with their time and dollars to receive information from organs more likely to tilt their way politically. A somewhat different reading of the data would note that, in earlier years, conservatives had significantly fewer choices from which to gather their news. Fox and the Net, are new to the scene. It's true that talk radio has always been conservative (as I argued in this essay), but the rise in alternative media outlets allows conservatives to skip the undeniable partisanship displayed by the mainstream media.

That partisanship is on display in the categorization employed by Pew, which researched the readership of three "literary magazines": The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and Harper's. At least two of these are reliably liberal (and the Atlantic post-Michael Kelley seems to be returning to form, alas), a fact that goes unmentioned by Pew. They do note that the networks failed to take advantage of the war-driven growth of audiences for news programs, but again fail to note the partisanship of those aging outlets.

The study purports to show that conservatives are less trustful of CNN and the networks than they once were, but this measurement is demonstrated in part by conservatives' preference for the new alternatives. Take away these alternatives, an act that would effectively dump conservatives and liberals back into the same audience, and the means Pew used for determining their distrust of the older news outlets fades.

I wasn't surprised by another finding that you'll hear about on talk radio within the hour: Rush Limbaugh's listeners follow hard news more closely than that of any other broadcast outlet on radio or TV. So much for the stereotype of his listeners as mind-numbed robots. (No other conservative radio hosts were included in the data.) Fully 56% of Rush's audience falls into this category, as compared with only 40% of NPR's listeners. Bo-Bos need educating, and now they have a choice. Spread the word.

Today's WSJ ($) carries a front-page story on new types of protesters in Tiananmen Square. They're actually demanding many of the same rights as their predecessors 15 years ago, but their frustrations are more pragmatic -- at least on the surface. It seems that unscrupulous developers, in cahoots with corrupt local officials, have engaged in bait-and-switch with many new middle class professionals in Beijing and other cities.

After buying new apartments in high rises promising pools, parking, and retail shops, many new home owners are unsatisfied with their surroundings. The promised amenities have a way of never appearing and, what's worse for any city dweller, newer buildings that were never in the original plans are going up right next door. This obstructs the views the home-buyers paid for, increases parking problems, and has led more than a few to protest violations of their property rights. The lack of rule of law is creating new classes of civic activists.

The Journal reports on their Tiananmen protest: "In July [of 2003], defying a police ban on demonstrations in Tiananmen square, about 200 residents printed up signs and T-shirts declaring 'Protect our rights,' piled into their new Hondas and Volkswagen Passats and paraded through Tiananmen Square to the Beijing city planning office."

Furthermore: "Propelled by market reforms that in the past six years have privatized the once state-controlled housing market, homeownership has become increasingly common, especially in Beijing. Traditionally assigned apartments by their work units, many Chinese now live in neighborhoods defined by their income. Until she bought her new apartment three years ago, for example, Ms. Liu, a lawyer who used to work for a legal newspaper, was assigned to live in a complex with neighbors including workers from the company cafeteria and janitors.

"Economically, the surge in homeownership is boosting industries like construction, durable goods and interior design. Politically, homeownership is giving people a new stake in society, emboldening them to make more demands of their local governments."

Such demands are precisely what the architects of America's foreign policy toward China have hoped for and follow patterns already seen in South Korea, Taiwan, and elsewhere. Not that the Chinese leadership is likely to knuckle under to sign-wielding white collar workers and grant broad political freedoms voluntarily. But the creation of a property-owning middle class, many of whom were educated in the West and know first-hand the wonders of a free society, is having an impact at the grassroots level, especially in urban areas.

Episodes like these also demonstrate the symbiotic relationship between private property and other liberties. Once large numbers of people have a personal stake in their homes, they seek to protect them and demand redress for wrongs committed against them. It's been noted time and again that the middle class won't be satisfied with mere economic rights, and that's true. What's overlooked in such statements is that, in practice, it's impossible to bifurcate such rights in the long run because they're intrinsically related. Owning property is a foundational building block of civil society, and, bearing in mind that China is still a dictatorship whose leaders have a brutal record on human rights, the Journal's story is nevertheless encouraging.

“Whatever else history may say about me when I’m gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears; to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty’s lamp guiding your steps and opportunity’s arm steadying your way.”

~Ronald Wilson Reagan, February 6, 1911 - June 5, 2004

What made Ronald Reagan different? Acccording to Associated Press accounts, "Californians converged by the tens of thousands to pay their respects to former President Reagan, choking freeway traffic, shuffling in long lines and forcing surprised organizers to extend Tuesday's viewing period." The viewing hours at the Reagan library had to be extended well into the late evening.

Those interviewed for the AP article say that Reagan was a different type of Republican; one who attracted Republicans and Democrats alike. But ironically, the Republican Party of today is largely molded in Reagan's image. It's his agenda that dominates: tax cuts, democracy promotion, deregulation. Perhaps what's different is that when Reagan said it, everybody knew he meant it.

Reagan had nothing to lose if he lost the California gubernatorial race in 1966 or the presidential race in 1980. Unlike Bill Clinton who sought the presidency from the day he came out of the womb, Reagan had lived a full life prior to making a play in politics. He entered politics because he believed in the power of his ideas, not in power alone.

In many respects current President Bush is the same, but for precisely the opposite reasons. Bush lived a full life prior to becoming Governor of Texas, but it was full of nothing much. He wasn't much of a businessman, he wasn't much of a baseball team owner -- he owned less than 2% at one point (which later escalated to about 12%) -- he was nothing but a son of a President. But this son of a President had something that the Father didn't -- a backbone. Reared in the gritty dustbowl that is Midland, Texas, George's values were rooted in the heartland so deep that Andover and Yale made little impression. Therefore, George W. Bush is polarizing; George W. Bush is firm; George W. Bush's world won't end with a loss in November.

And if I were a betting man, this is exactly why Bush, like Reagan, will be a two-term President.

With so much being written and said about President Reagan, it's difficult to wade through the mass of material. Although by no means exhaustive, here are links to some of the better pieces I've read thus far.

Frank Gaffney on Reagan's arms build-up and our ongoing war against terrorists; John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge on Reaganism and American conservatism in today's WSJ (free); the WSJ's editors (free) on "The Reagan Restoration"; former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky on what Reagan meant to those in the Gulag; Mark Steyn on Reagan's strengths; Thomas Sowell on why Reagan was right and the left wrong; William F. Buckley, Jr., with a Q & A on his friend; John Eastman on Reagan as statesman; and, for good measure, Reagan's speech at Pointe de Hoc, Normandy, on June 6, 1984.

My first memory of Ronald Reagan as politician is of his challenge to Jerry Ford’s renomination in 1976. As a 16-year-old, I rooted for Reagan and then, after Reagan’s defeat, urged my parents to vote against Carter, whose commitment to pull U.S. troops out of South Korea alarmed me. Not many Georgians shared my views, and Carter went on to become one of the most feckless presidents in history. I’ve always wished that Reagan had won the opportunity to oppose Carter then, both to save the country from Carter’s malaise and to allow him to hold office at a younger age – something that might have reduced the loss of momentum that marked his last years in office.

Like many observers, I am struck by the extraordinary praise heaped on Reagan in death by those who, in life, reviled him. I knew he was at death’s door but didn’t hear of his passing until Saturday afternoon when, turning on NPR in the car while running errands, I heard one reliably left-wing reporter after another speak of him in glowing terms. It was almost as if they’d lost a favorite old uncle or grandfather – someone with whom they agreed on little but nonetheless loved. Yet they openly credited him with winning the Cold War, playing again and again his famous speech calling on Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall.

If the left’s principal attacks on Reagan during the 1980s were more a reaction to his foreign policy than his domestic plans, and I think they were, then much of this postmortem praise stems from the simple fact that he was right about communism. Not that they embraced his attacks on the welfare state or government regulation – he was caricatured ad nauseum as heartless and uncaring. But the Cold War overshadowed those days to an extent that many have forgotten. It provided an opportunity, perhaps an obligation, to see the world as it was in clear, stark light. One system was, as Reagan said, based on evil: oppression, labor camps, mass executions. The other was based on hope, liberty, and the prospects for a better future. Reagan knew communism was a failure and said so at every opportunity.

When he called the Soviet Union the “evil empire,” professors swooned, Beltway elites fainted, and the lot of them rolled their eyes at the madman with his finger on the nuclear button. Yet only a few years later, the same gang engaged in posterior-covering as the dust settled from the Wall’s collapse by claiming, ex post facto, that of course everyone’s anti-communist. Humiliated by a plain-spoken populist without a graduate degree, what could they do but pretend to have agreed with that part of his vision all along? While the current campaign shows the reactionary left still has plenty of bile, media elites can’t get away with the type of Reagan-bashing they once employed. The ground has shifted markedly in the ensuing years; history has proved Reagan right, and everyone loves a winner.

All this matters because most people, including most Americans, want to be led, but not abused or condescended to. Ronald Reagan led by word and deed. He looked and talked like those we now call red state Americans because he was one. The crowds loved him because he told them what they knew was true instinctually even though many of them had never articulated it. Like a great novelist who carries along his readers by telling them something they didn’t know they already knew, Reagan tapped into that great center of the American psyche where the “shining city on a hill” isn’t mere metaphor. People wanted to believe him and follow him both because he revealed their own best side and because he was right. Their common sense and memories of wars taught them what intellectuals considered themselves too sophisticated to admit: America really was the home of the free, and it was worthy of our love and defense.

So what’s a member of the elite media to do in the immediate aftermath of Ronald Reagan’s death other than tacitly acknowledge the ground lost in the ensuing years? It’s not only tacky to attack the recently deceased, it’s a fool’s game to say he was wrong about communism. After all, except for those who still take The Nation and Eric Hobsbawm seriously, who’s left to disagree? It’s another matter to consider the strategies Reagan advocated to defeat communism on a worldwide basis, not to mention his faith in the innate decency of the American people and the domestic policies he advocated. But that’s another essay.

The death of President Ronald Reagan comes at the end of a significant week for Americans, one that was capped on one end by Memorial Day and the opening of the national World War II Memorial; on the other we paused to remember the 60th anniversary of D-Day. These ceremonies honor fallen heroes and are a fitting tribute to their sacrifices and a greater ideal itself: freedom.

Mr. Reagan was no less such a hero, and freedom was the cause for which he fought so much of his life. He leaves this Earth 20 years -- almost to the day -- since he delivered his own eulogy to those who died fighting on D-Day.

“You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man,” President Reagan said at Pointe du Hoc, France, on the 40th anniversary of D-Day. “All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.”

Today, we can say the same about Mr. Reagan. Humble, cavalier and never without wit, he was the right man at the right place at the right time, America’s warrior against the last great bastion of tyranny. Mr. Reagan was America’s infallible leader in a dark time of need; he was willing to fight tyranny, and the people of our country were behind him.

Today, America’s generation of young people -- my generation -- pays its respects. We owe him so very much.

President Reagan said in his speech after the Challenger disaster that Americans had grown used to the wonders of the 20th century -- “It’s hard to dazzle us,” he said. That observation still holds true in this century, even more so among young Americans. It is hard to dazzle us, especially with politics.

But we know who Ronald Reagan was.

The bizarre truth, in fact, is that for the most part American 20-somethings are the Reagan generation. We grew up during his days in the White House, a time during which politics meant little in our lives but a lot more for our parents, who struggled to make the best of the bad times and the good times just a bit better. And in the end, Reagan’s words and actions defined the course of a society that taught us how to be Americans.

Many folks our age never knew Mr. Reagan had been shot -- or why -- and our knowledge of high interest rates, soaring inflation and large deficits is based not on what we experienced at the time but, rather, what we have since read and learned. And what many of us learned is that, above all else, Ronald Reagan was a remarkable leader whose lasting legacy was kindness, moral clarity and reverence for America’s founding values. In our eyes he is a patriotic icon whose vision shaped the world of today.

Reagan’s leadership forged the political attitudes and values of many young Americans. He was a role model whose ideas for our nation were based on common sense. But he wasn’t afraid to talk about them, and they progressed from ideas to ideals -- and yielded a revolution.

As we grew up, we realized Mr. Reagan’s true significance in our lives was abstract as much as tangible. Our memories of his presidency are molded not by what we recall from those days, but from the freedom we inherited from his leadership. We came of age as he rode into the sunset, not knowing the full measure of his contribution to our national prosperity and way of life.

Today, we know.

Nary one of us had been born when Mr. Reagan said in 1964, “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny,” yet we know that such an intersection of liberty and government occurred at a “Shining City on a Hill.” In that place, Mr. Reagan cut taxes, scaled back government and bolstered our national defense, and he did so with an optimistic smile that gave Americans a renewed sense of hope.

Today, we know Mr. Reagan’s ideas were founded on his belief that Americans could accomplish great things when given the freedom to do so.

When the Challenger exploded after takeoff in 1986, our young minds could realize little more than that a teacher had died on a spaceship. But today we can look back to Mr. Reagan, who told us the astronauts died in a noble pursuit, that they had “slipped the surly bonds of Earth” to “touch the face of God.”

Peggy Noonan later wrote that it was those days “when character was king.” Indeed they were. And today we know Mr. Reagan’s heart felt our pain and shared our joy, and we are thankful for the comfort and solace he shared. We extend the same to his family.

Our generation knows little about the Cold War Mr. Reagan won, and we know even less about how he did so. Most of us don’t remember his daring demand, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” but we know the wall is gone. We know the Soviet Union, the “Evil Empire,” collapsed under the pressure of its own weight, and that Mr. Reagan proved to the world that freedom and unbridled capitalism were the best medicines for an ailing economy and a dreary national outlook.

Today, we know Mr. Reagan stared in the face of an enormous communist adversary and did not blink despite long odds and criticisms from his political foes. We know, as Lady Margaret Thatcher said, he won the Cold War without firing a bullet. We know he achieved peace and preserved freedom. We know he saved the world for tomorrow, a world in which future generations could live.

And today we know Mr. Reagan has left his mark on our great nation, certainly in more ways than one. This time, it’s a tear of admiration and respect.

He once said, “You can tell a lot about a fellow's character by his way of eating jellybeans.” Well, you also can tell a lot about a man by the way he is remembered, and our memory always will regard Mr. Reagan as a great man.

Perhaps the greatest testament to this is that, as he passes, we remember him not for what he did but for who he was. For our generation, Mr. Reagan was the patriarch of American ideals, humble service and fervent patriotism who said he’d “leave with the greatest love for this country.”

He did, and this country loved him back. Thank you, Mr. President.

I was a graduate student in Ann Arbor, Michigan, when Chinese troops opened fire on demonstrators in Tiananmen Square 15 years ago today. I recall following the build-up to the violence with great trepidation, as the demonstrators' strength and international fame threatened the rulers' grip on power. Some analysts, including one of Michigan's star professors of Chinese studies, naively pronounced fears of a crackdown unfounded. There was much talk that Chinese soldiers, drawn as they were from the very masses they watched over from their tanks, would never fire upon their own.

I heard the same arguments during the 1981 crackdown on Poland's Solidarity movement. Polish soldiers wouldn't kill to preserve the corrupt rule of men they hated, we were assured. I was correct in predicting violence in each case not because I'm an expert on Poland or China, but because I have some understanding of human nature and the power of the state. Raised on WWII stories and the tensions of the Cold War, I've never assumed that a man wouldn't kill his own kin given sufficient indoctrination by hyper-nationalists or rabid ideologues. That's particularly true in societies that punish rather than reward virtue.

There are many stories and commentaries today marking the anniversary. Among those worth reading are Wu'Re Kaixi's in the WSJ ($); Rep. Christopher Cox's speech to the House of Representatives; CNN's report that its coverage of the anniversary is being jammed from Beijing; Human Rights in China's updates on news from China; The Guardian's story on recent arrests of would-be demonstrators in the Square; and the BBC's coverage of the event from 1989.

CIA Director George Tenet resigned today amid allegations by Ahmad Chalabi that it was Tenet who falsely accused Chalabi of passing to the Iranians his knowledge that the United States had broken their intelligence codes. No matter Tenet's involvement, his going has been a long time coming. As I mentioned earlier in the day, before news broke of Tenet's resignation, Bush has been ill-served by many of his top advisors and Tenet was surely one of them.

Despite Tenet's assertions that he's leaving because of "personal reasons," there is little doubt he was forced out. The slow summer months just looked like the opportune time to do it. A bit later, we'll take a trip down memory lane to explain, why Tenet deserved the door.

There is nothing more frustrating than a traitor. The Wall Street Journal ($) reports today that all indications suggest Ahmad Chalabi told the Iranians that the United States was eavesdropping on its intelligence chatter. Might I remind you that Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress received $340,000 a month courtesy of United States taxpayers until the Pentagon turned off the spigot May 18.

If the allegations are true, and all indications so far suggest they are, then Chalabi will be remembered as the Benedict Arnold of the Iraq War and deserves nothing less than the punishment afforded to Arnold's co-conspirator John Andre: hanging. His actions have imperiled the thousands of brave and valiant troops who protected him; and even worse will likely mean that any terrorist plot hatched by the radical Iranian government against the United States or its interests overseas will not be foiled.

It's right for the FBI to be investigating Pentagon officials to determine if they leaked this critical information to Chalabi. But, as the article in the Wall Street Journal indicates, it also appears that the allegations may be coming from foes inside the CIA and State Department who seek to cause upheaval for the Bush Administration. Such upheaval and backbiting against President Bush means it's time he does a house cleaning and it must be done before the election. Without naming names, Bush has been severely ill-served by many of his top lieutenants; who in my estimation have been nearly as traiterous as Chalabi or Arnold.

In his remarks yesterday to the graduating class of the U.S. Air Force Academy, President Bush took the offensive against naysayers by placing our current fight against worldwide terrorism in historical perspective. Likening today's war with WWII -- and thereby linking the graduates with those who sacrificed so much to preserve our freedoms 60 years ago -- the President's speech was a much-needed reminder of the scope and importance of our struggle. He compared today's events to the Cold War, except that the center of gravity today is the Middle East rather than Europe. And he said plainly that the "best way to protect America is to stay on the offensive."

Many who recognize the necessity of the war have longed for just this type of speech, in which opportunistic critics along with elites who see America as a dangerous hegemon are put on the defensive via historical analogy. First came the comparisons with WWII:

"Like the Second World War, our present conflict began with a ruthless, surprise attack on the United States. We will not forget that treachery, and we will accept nothing less than victory over the enemy."

"Like enemies of the past, the terrorists underestimate the strength of free peoples. The terrorists believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent, and with a few hard blows will collapse in weakness and in panic. The enemy has learned that America is strong and determined, because of the steady resolve of our citizens, and because of the skill and strength of the Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard and the United States Air Force."

Then with the Cold War:

"Just as events in Europe determined the outcome of the Cold War, events in the Middle East will set the course of our current struggle. If that region is abandoned to dictators and terrorists, it will be a constant source of violence and alarm, exporting killers of increasing destructive power to attack America and other free nations. If that region grows in democracy and prosperity and hope, the terrorist movement will lose its sponsors, lose its recruits, and lose the festering grievances that keep terrorists in business. The stakes of this struggle are high. The security and peace of our country are at stake, and success in this struggle is our only option."

The use of historical analogies make the speech relevant to millions and should be repeated often. But later in the speech Bush took aim at the foreign policy establishment at State and Defense by singling out the realists for upbraiding:

"For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability, and much oppression. So I have changed this policy. In the short-term, we will work with every government in the Middle East dedicated to destroying the terrorist networks. In the longer-term, we will expect a higher standard of reform and democracy from our friends in the region. (Applause.) Democracy and reform will make those nations stronger and more stable, and make the world more secure by undermining terrorism at it source. Democratic institutions in the Middle East will not grow overnight; in America, they grew over generations. Yet the nations of the Middle East will find, as we have found, the only path to true progress is the path of freedom and justice and democracy. (Applause.)"

And: "Some who call themselves 'realists' question whether the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality. America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat. America is always more secure when freedom is on the march."

To poseurs who ask with furrowed brow what we did to deserve 9-11, he said:

"As we fight the war on terror in Iraq and on other fronts, we must keep in mind the nature of the enemy. No act of America explains terrorist violence, and no concession of America could appease it. The terrorists who attacked our country on September the 11th, 2001 were not protesting our policies. They were protesting our existence. Some say that by fighting the terrorists abroad since September the 11th, we only stir up a hornet's nest. But the terrorists who struck that day were stirred up already. (Applause.) If America were not fighting terrorists in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and elsewhere, what would these thousands of killers do, suddenly begin leading productive lives of service and charity? (Laughter.) Would the terrorists who beheaded an American on camera just be quiet, peaceful citizens if America had not liberated Iraq? We are dealing here with killers who have made the death of Americans the calling of their lives. And America has made a decision about these terrorists: Instead of waiting for them to strike again in our midst, we will take this fight to the enemy. (Applause.)"

Finally, the President warned that this war, like the Cold War before it, is a long-term effort: "[T]he struggle we have entered will not end with success in Iraq. Overcoming terrorism, and bringing greater freedom to the nations of the Middle East, is the work of decades."

The White House should stay the course not only on policy, but on PR. At every opportunity, the gist of this speech should be repeated -- to students, veterans, labor groups, and citizens of every vocation and state. The Academy was an appropriate locale for its first run, but its potential effectiveness in shaping public opinion is too great for it to turn to yellow now that graduation day is past.

The Wall Street Journal and New York Times each carry two pieces on the 1989 massacre in Tiananmen Square, the 15th anniversary of which is June 4. Each paper has a news article and an op-ed piece, and the contrast between the papers' take on modern China is stark.

That's especially true if you consider the Times's news story, a "Letter from Asia" by Howard W. French, and the Journal's op-ed, written by Wang Dan ($). The former is a fawning piece on China's leadership, which, we're told, has opened a window on "really big ideas." You see, intellectual elites are now invited in to address Hu Jintao on such matters as: "[H]ow great powers rise and fall; global economics; constitutional law; crisis management; changes in the world's military forces; and regional security." What's more, Mr. French gushes, "At least indirectly, for the intellectual elite, the study sessions raise the question whether this country's autocratic system of government can open itself and become flexible enough to harness the country's brainpower in order to manage China's rise to the first rank of nations."

This faith in a top-down approach to reform, which no doubt appeals to the Times's readership among America's academic elite, contrasts sharply the thesis of Wang Dan's Journal op-ed. Mr. Dan, a leader in the 1989 democracy movement who spent six years in prison, much of it in solitary confinement, for his efforts to bring liberty to China, is now a doctoral candidate in history at Harvard. His time in prison somehow didn't convince him of the benevolence of China's rulers, as he seems not to have been included in the chatty sessions on vital matters held by Mr. Hu.

In a clear-eyed manner entirely lost on Howard French, Mr. Dan argues that the true legacy of Tiananmen is clear: democracy cannot come from within the communist party, but rather must originate among the people of China.

Key paragraph: "The experience of the 15 years since then has confirmed what we failed to understand in 1989. Namely that Communist leaders, be they conservatives or reformists, are all wedded to retaining the current political system, complete with its problems such as corruption and lack of accountability. Look for instance at how even relatively enlightened officials such as Premier Wen Jiabao -- who visited us in Tiananmen Square in 1989 -- and President Hu Jintao have shied away from political reform since taking office. Instead the issue remains a taboo subject in Beijing. And far from easing its iron grip on all forms of political dissent, the new leadership now seems intent on extending it to Hong Kong."

He concludes: "The 1989 student movement played an invaluable role in pointing out the path to democracy in China. Without it, we would still be clinging to the myth that a small group of enlightened Communist officials could rescue China from totalitarian rule. Instead we have learned from our mistakes that year, and realized that China's democratization must be a bottom-up process, driven by forces outside the Communist system. And when that happens, as it inevitably will, I will be able proudly to say that we, the 1989 Generation, were part of the process that brought freedom to my home country."

Mr. Dan is optimistic about the future of freedom in China, as he sees shoots of civil society taking hold throughout the country. This view is shared by the Times's Nicholas Kristoff, the gist of whose op-ed is that China's communist party is losing its grip on the country. Driven by foreign ideas brought in with outside investment, China is being opened up whether the leaders like it or not. As he says, "No middle class is content with more choices of coffees [via Starbucks] than of candidates on a ballot." He ends by recalling the peasant rickshaw drivers who braved gunfire and death on June 4, 1989, to retrieve wounded and dead protestors while others, including himself, watched horrified from safer positions.

The Journal's news story ($) supports Wang Dan's contention that political reforms are still in their infancy. With political reform "frozen at the top," "mu