Like Groucho Marx, I wouldn’t want to belong to any club that would have me.

To me, that’s a most American statement of principle, and I think applies to most Americans. The 4th of July is Independence Day. That independence includes from most cant and credo.

Americans are essentially iconoclastic. We don’t pay obeisance to any organization’s doctrine and enjoy puncturing the pompous and self-righteous. Our views are not ideologically consistent. Polls repeatedly confound commentators to show majorities holding views that on the surface of the questions or demographics conflict or contradict imposed categorization.

Ideologues say that this demonstrates confusion, or pernicious effects of their opposition’s propaganda, and call for more intense organizing and education. But, the apparent contradictions persist.

For example, the estate tax in 2004 affected about 30,000 estates, and will drop to 5,100 in 2011 if the current House bill is enacted. Yet, the latest Pew poll has 44% of Americans opposed to the estate tax. Meanwhile, the income tax on Social Security benefits now affects 11.8 million tax returns, and the Alternative Minimum Tax affects 18.9 million tax filings. Yet, there is no serious effort in Congress to eliminate or significantly reduce these taxes’ impacts. The revenue reduction is too severe.

In all three cases, it is real that previously taxed income – often several times previously taxed – is taxed once again. In the case of Social Security benefits and AMT taxation, the impact is far wider, extending well down into the middle-class, and that impact is widening.

One can posit that Congress is unrepresentative, but that belies repeated evidence that it is at least laggingly responsive to public outcries.

Or, one can posit that Congress is largely representative of the national consensus on most of government’s spending, including the partisan positions that are blocked or compromised as neither political party has the uniformity or majority or super-majority necessary. Even if one takes the $102.1 billion that the Republican Study Committee identifies as aggressive federal budget savings for 2006 (and, that includes “pork”), that’s only about 4-5% of the federal spending budget. Even most of those cuts are unlikely.

Moving away from spending, a majority now regrets entering Iraq. Yet, a majority favor staying reasonably long enough to conclude the task. One can argue that one judgment contradicts the other, and logically or factually in part they may. Or, one can argue that reflects a pragmatic reflection, based on many disparate threads of thinking, which has a larger consistency. Wider considerations of potential impacts of precipitously exiting outweigh retrospective blame games for errors that weren’t clear at the time.

A majority favor aggressive efforts to protect national security and prevent foes from harming us. Yet, a majority favor use of our Constitutional processes to permit or monitor measures that do so. The debates over the New York Times’ revealing wiretaps or fund flows among possible terrorists are really three debates. The majority favors such measures. The majority prefers wider consultation and, as needed, authorization. The majority dislikes unilateral actions by the President or the media. The consistency is in the support for U.S. democracy as we widely know it, and even the confidence that means can be devised to further enforce security by both working together and firmer enforcement of reasonable secrecy laws.

A “safe” Congressional seat is usually measured at 55% of the vote, even after partisan gerrymandering. That still leaves 45% voting for the other candidate. Very rarely, a candidate may receive 70%, but that usually reflects long-standing harmony with a broader range of their electorate (as well as seniority power to “bring home the bacon” of pork spending in their district).

My argument is not that some serious differences do not exist between the political parties, and even wider differences between partisans. My argument is that there’s more division between partisans, not to mention ideologues, attached to each party than there is among Americans generally.

Further, my argument is that there’s more in common between apparent “liberals” and “conservatives” than may appear in our media. The dramatic presents a stronger story line. This is compounded by the filter of most mainstream and alternative reporters and commentators who themselves are strongly partisan.

Most of us come from families and belong to organizations with self-described or depicted liberals and conservatives. On any specific matter, differences can be sharp. Yet, there is at least tacit appreciation among us that we agree on wider principles of patriotism and democracy, and that ongoing unity is overriding to a current matter. Indeed, when there is civil discussion, as common, most differences on specifics disappear or are resolved.

That’s American. To me, that essential comity of speech and means is what allowing extreme partisans to define or separate us undermines. For the 4th of July, Independence Day, and everyday, let freedom of thought and the self-restraint of civil discussion rule, not cant or credo. That’s American independence.

The New York Times, like any major news organization, consults legal counsel before publishing material that may land it in court. In the case of the publication of the SWIFT program, the purely legal advice received must have given the OK, and correctly.

The New York Times’ executive editor Bill Keller may be a naïf about national security matters, having no training or background in such matters, and he may be disingenuous about the New York Times’ attitude toward the Bush administration or the GWOT given its unrelenting attacks on the conduct of both, and he may be factually incorrect that no harm is done, as various governments and bodies seem to be now hesitating in participation and our foes are now further alerted to operational methods they can seek to avoid.

But, Keller does seem to understand the law as it applies here.

Further, although Keller may have been counseled that such behavior may lead to either exposure of sources, legal jeopardy to reporters who hide sources, or even to new legislation to punish publication of secrets, these risks would justifiably appear minimal, and even in some respects besides the point to Keller’s judgment.

First, it is clear adjudicated constitutional legal principle that there can be no prior legal restraint on publication. Additionally, there is no clear legal penalty once published.

Second, the United States does not have an Official Secrets Act, like the British. Even the British sometimes have difficulty enforcing that act in their courts. The Congress did pass such a similar law in November 2000, which the following month President Clinton vetoed -- after intense lobbying by the major media organizations -- as too broad in extending to all “properly classified” information whether national security related or other.

Attorney General John Ashcroft concurred in October 2002, responding to Congress’ request for a “comprehensive review,” that at that time there did not need to be a new statute, as other laws were sufficient. Ashcroft reported to Congress that:

Although there may be some benefit from a new comprehensive criminal statute, such a statute standing alone would be insufficient in my view to meet the problem…Accordingly, I am not recommending that the Executive Branch focus its attention on pursuing new legislation at this time.

The report continues:

But, he said, “a wide range of administrative measures” should be activated “to significantly improve our capacity to stem the practice of unauthorized disclosure of classified information.”

These notably would include an amended non-disclosure agreement signed by all authorized recipients of classified information that “sets out liquidated damages” in the event of a finding that the person leaked information; and a requirement that a suspected leaker certify under penalty of perjury that he or she had not engaged in a particular unauthorized disclosure.

Ashcroft’s letter to the Congress provides further detail:

Although there is no single statute that provides penalties for all types of unauthorized disclosures of classified information, unauthorized disclosures of classified information fall within the scope of various current statutory prohibitions….

Regardless (emphasis added), the vital need in protecting national security secrets must include rigorous investigation of unauthorized disclosures of classified information to identify the individuals who commit them, and vigorous enforcement of the applicable administrative, civil, and criminal provisions already available.

Ashcroft went on to recommend that all government agencies,

…take aggressive steps…to identify and impose sanctions on those who reveal classified information without authority….

Until those who, without authority, reveal classified information are deterred by the real prospect of productive investigations and strict application of appropriate penalties, they will have no reason to stop their harmful actions.

Nonetheless, Ashcroft recognized that prior efforts had been slight.

Clearly, that only a single non-espionage case of an unauthorized disclosure of classified information has been prosecuted in over 50 years provides compelling justification that fundamental improvements are necessary and we must entertain new approaches to deter, identify, and punish those who engage in the practice of unauthorized disclosures of classified information.

Watergate’s informant, John Dean, wrote in September 2003 he thinks that,

by cobbling together provisions from existing laws, Bush’s Justice Department has effectively created one of the world’s most encompassing, if not draconian, official secrets acts.

Well, it’s now 2006, and John Dean seems to have overestimated the administration’s capabilities or will to find and prosecute and to have underestimated the willingness of government employees to thwart existing security pledges or regulations. Subsequent national security leaks have continued, perhaps increased, and -- with the resignation of one CIA analyst -- enforcement does not seem to have been too effective. The Special Counsel investigation of the Valerie Plame Wilson matter, however, has clarified that reporters must divulge their sources or face personal penalties, but their media organizations continue to act with apparent impunity.

The toothless resolution currently before Congress condemning such leaks seems to reinforce that real impunity.

I wrote on June 25 that,

The furor over the New York Times and other newspapers’ publication of national security secrets disguises a larger problem: the media and government knowingly collude in leaking secret information.

I recommended:

What is required is new legislation that broadens the existing U.S. Code to include all matters of national security, applicable to all present and former government employees and officials, Congressional members and staff, and the media, coupled with confidential prior judicial consideration and enforcement mechanisms, and strict prosecution of those not abiding.

To flesh out a bit, the special national security court established by the Patriot Act may be an appropriate venue for the government to file its concerns about revealing a secret. Then, if and when published, there will be even clearer grounds for subsequent prosecution of reporters and their media organizations. They will have been formally warned. The “he-said, he-said” between Bill Keller and Treasury Secretary Snow will be on-the-record for evidence in prosecution.

Ironically, although in the current Congress and upset at the media it is unlikely to pass, the proposed federal shield law for journalists may offer some insight. It may, also, engage the media in serious self-responsibility for national security, through the inducement of the federal shield law it so eagerly wants.

Former Soliciter General of the U.S., and defender of media, Theodore Olson op-ed’s in today’s Washington Post:

Unfortunately, the rules regarding what reporters must disclose, and under what circumstances, remain a hopelessly muddled mess.

Olson recommends the Free Flow of Information Act of 2006, proposed by Senator Specter, to be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The proposed shield law’s Section 9, according to the analysis by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, “creates a national security exception.”

The privilege can be overcome when there is clear and convincing evidence that disclosure "(i) is necessary to prevent an act of terrorism or to prevent significant and actual harm to the national security, and (ii) the value of the information that would be disclosed clearly outweighs the harm to the public interest and the free flow of information that would be caused by compelling the disclosure." A second provision in this section related to leaks of classified information allows the privilege to be overcome when "(i) such unauthorized disclosure has seriously damaged the national security, (ii) alternative sources of the information identifying the source have been exhausted, and (iii) the harm caused by the unauthorized disclosure of properly classified Government information clearly outweighs the value to the public of the disclosed information."

Some sort of a national security exception almost certainly must appear in a shield law to gain passage in Congress, and this may be as good as can be expected. Overcoming the privilege clearly would require an examination of the public interests at stake, which is more protection than any federal circuit appears to currently provide. And requiring those issuing subpoenas in leaks investigations to prove serious damage and to have exhausted alternative sources gives reporters more protection than they have now.

As a practical matter, the second and third conditions of Specter's national security exception provide legal, security, time and delay loopholes that would make prosecution extremely unlikely and ineffective. Eliminate these loopholes, and leave the matter at “necessary to prevent an act of terrorism or to prevent significant and actual harm to the national security,” with the adjudication and imposition of penalties against reporter and employer decided by the national security court established by the Patriot Act. Then, there will be a reasonable demonstration of harm and expectation of enforcement.

At the same time such clarification of responsibility and enforcement should lead to greater openness by government, as hollow overclassification would be less easy to defend. I wrote on June 25,

A new paradigm of government-media-public interaction should not stop there, with more secrecy. It must simultaneously entail more openness and transparency by administrations. Justified or excessive paranoia by an administration leads to over-classification. A legislated procedure to both protect and prosecute excessive revealing of legitimate secrets, should encourage more, not less, attributed openness by government officials.

The pressure for public disclosure of government programs and policies will not cease. The government must speak “on the record” more openly about its policies and programs. Sure, critics will harp on this or that matter, but at least the lines of information and responsibility will be clearer to the public.

The time, and seriousness, for government and media to end their tap dance, and stomping each other, around this issue is over.

Many of us bloggers have served in the military, some during wars, and been away from home on the 4th of July. Many bloggers haven’t served in the military, but just the same appreciate what it’s like to be away from loved ones. Regardless, we all carried with us our love of flag and country, and salute those who are at the front for our liberties and safety now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wherever freedom is at issue, our flag proudly flies. It does because of those willing to serve. We’re proud of you and your contributions. Have a very joyous 4th of July, and know we’re with you. You make the 4th of July possible.

My column, “I don’t want to be a milblogger,” is up online at the Washington Examiner.

I don’t want to be a milblogger. However, they, and I to a lesser extent, are forced to be by the severe and serious failure of our mainstream media to provide even elemental balance, not to mention factual reliability.

For the milbloggers and the men and women in our military, your service in both capacities is much appreciated. Americans appreciate you and the fine job you do in defending us and in keeping us informed.

Why Have Haditha Families Fought Exhuming Victims?

Hammurabi’s Denials Raise More Questions

Unlike Murtha, Iraqis Say They Are Better Off Today

Anti-Israel Divestment Collapses

VIOLENCE IN IRAQ: A COMPARISON

Amid Iraqi Chaos, Schools Fill After Long Decline

Enrollment in Iraqi schools has risen every year since the American invasion, according to Iraqi government figures, reversing more than a decade of declines and offering evidence of increased prosperity for some Iraqis.
Despite the violence that has plagued Iraq since the American occupation began three years ago, its schools have been quietly filling. The number of children enrolled in schools nationwide rose by 7.4 percent from 2002 to 2005, and in middle schools and high schools by 27 percent in that time, according to figures from the Ministry of Education. …
But while life in Baghdad grows more paralyzed — it was the only province in the country where primary school enrollment fell — the figures for the rest of Iraq show that everyday life goes on, particularly in the largely peaceful south, which experienced the biggest jumps, with some regions having above 40 percent enrollment increases since 2002….
It is a complex phenomenon. Increases in some places, for example, are being driven by bad news: among the highest increases in secondary and high school enrollment were in provinces that have received families who are fleeing the violence of Baghdad and its dangerous outskirts, including Babylon, with a 44 percent enrollment rise; Najaf, with 35 percent; and Kirkuk, 37 percent.
But the growth is too broad to be explained only by migration patterns. According to American government estimates, Iraq's population grew by about 8 percent to 26 million from 2002 to 2005.
Even in provinces that have experienced population declines, for example, school enrollment is still up. In Anbar — the large desert province in western Iraq, where insurgents regularly battle American soldiers, causing residents to flee — enrollment in primary school is up by 15 percent, and in secondary and high school it is up by 37 percent.
Economics is driving much of the rise, officials say. Public sector employees, who make up almost half the work force in Iraq, according to the Ministry of Planning, used to collect the equivalent of several dollars every month under Mr. Hussein. But since the American invasion, Iraq's oil revenue has been earmarked for salaries instead of wars, and millions of Iraqis — doctors, engineers, teachers, soldiers — began to earn several hundred dollars a month.
Income from oil covers more than 90 percent of the Iraqi government's spending, officials say. American money finances investment and reconstruction projects, but no current costs, like salaries.
"Fathers can provide food for their families," said Abdul Zahra al-Yasiri, a teacher in Karbala in southern Iraq. "Kids don't have to work to help their parents anymore."

Show your support for Operation Iraqi Children

The furor over the New York Times and other newspapers’ publication of national security secrets disguises a larger problem: the media and government knowingly collude in leaking secret information. There is a federal law against leaking communications intelligence (U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37, Paragraph 798) that has not been enforced. For those who wonder why there are not prosecutions of leakers of national security programs, this wider collusion between the media and government officials may be partly responsible.

To expect the media to refrain from publishing leaks is futile, maybe even hypocritical. The pressure to “scoop” outweighs responsibility for national security. This is compounded by some who seek from within to undermine and reporters who seek out selective scoops that injure this administration.

However, leaking is a two-edged sword, as the administration and those close to it employ leaks to get their side of stories published or to lead discussion of selected issues. The revelation of the secret briefing by General Casey about the proposed draw down schedule of U.S. troops in Iraq, subject to events and negotiations with the Iraqi government, may be aimed at defusing Democrat calls for setting a rigid timetable.

Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald did not file charges of illegal leaking regarding the revelation of Valerie Plame’s travel agency for her husband Joe Wilson, whose op-ed lies about his findings in his Niger trip undermined one of the administration’s justifications for going into Iraq. The Special Prosecutor, instead, resorted to torturous perjury charges about leaking. Still, the fact remains that either a high-ranking administration member or a lower level government source leaked information that led reporters to publicize her role.

Some in Congress clamor for wider and more detailed briefings by the administration about secret programs. Yet, some in Congress think little of leaking selective details or impressions from those briefings. This adds to the hesitancy by the administration over revealing sensitive information even to our elected representatives for their informed oversight.

This issue of leaks, and pseudo-leaks, extends beyond the formal government, either feeding or confusing the media’s presentation of government programs and policies. Ryan Lizza wrote in The New Republic last year,

...how much reporters now rely on GOP operatives outside the White House to tell them what’s going on inside of it….This is partly the White House’s own fault. The Bush administration has promoted an explosion in the use of “sources close to the White House”…This White House’s stinginess with information has sent reporters scurrying to find knowledgeable outsiders, even if those sources don’t always know what they’re talking about. “They fill a vacuum,” says Richard Wolfe, who covers the White House for Newsweek.

One can point to a long tradition of presidents and senior administration officials “speaking off the record” to reporters on sensitive issues. However, one can also point out that self-restraint by the media on matters of national security was greater in previous times. This means of communication to further the public’s understanding of issues and to build mutual trust was useful to the government, to reporters, and the public.

However, that time has passed. The media no longer respects national security. Government officials have good reason to no longer trust the media. Both are drawn deeper into mutual animosity, the media revealing sensitive secrets or the government seeking to obscure programs and policies.

In both cases, speculation is increased, not decreased. Public trust in the media and in government suffers.

This is not to argue moral or professional equivalence, or to measure relative culpability. It does argue there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed seriously.

The soundness and future of government leadership, regardless of political party in control, and the public reliance upon and commercial viability of our major media are in serious jeopardy, and the biggest loser is the American people.

What is required is new legislation that broadens the existing U.S. Code to include all matters of national security, applicable to all present and former government employees and officials, Congressional members and staff, and the media, coupled with confidential prior judicial consideration and enforcement mechanisms, and strict prosecution of those not abiding.

If this or any administration has something worth keeping secret, it should be willing to seek prosecution of its own employees who break that trust. If Congress needs more information to perform its representative functions, it must be willing to be policed for those who break trust. If media are to be a “fourth estate” instead of a “fifth column,” it must respect judged national security and be willing to be restrained.

Britain’s Official Secrets Act indicates that such a broader law does not destroy democracy. The details of ours will be different, but the broad outlines are there.

A new paradigm of government-media-public interaction should not stop there, with more secrecy. It must simultaneously entail more openness and transparency by administrations. Justified or excessive paranoia by an administration leads to over-classification. A legislated procedure to both protect and prosecute excessive revealing of legitimate secrets, should encourage more, not less, attributed openness by government officials.

The pressure for public disclosure of government programs and policies will not cease. The government must speak “on the record” more openly about its policies and programs. Sure, critics will harp on this or that matter, but at least the lines of information and responsibility will be clearer to the public.

As a model, for example, the administration spoke openly about its extensive efforts to “follow the money” of terrorist operations and supporters. The Washington Post editorially acknowledged this legal pursuit. The New York Times and a few others, however, saw fit to reveal the specific methods, despite pleas from the administration not to reveal to our enemies our specific means that they can then evade. The line of national security responsible behavior couldn’t be clearer.

Without arguing for prior restraint over publication, it will then be clearer that New York Times editor Bill Keller is not the sole judge of national security, that there are more important issues than his paper’s circulation or agenda, and that publication of national security secrets judged as such will be prosecuted.

The “public interest” that Mr. Keller pleads will be better served by more transparency in government and more legislated restraint over those whose self-interest exceeds their national interest.

Veteran Reporters

The most frustrating thing about the antique media's coverage is the lack of perspective. It's true that most reporters are biased against our military; but the reality is much dumber: the reporters are simply too ignorant about the military and warfare to be coherent.
Many reporters have no basic knowledge of the armed services: not only have they never served in the military, they don’t even have a friend who has. Consequently, they don't understand how military operations work, what to expect, how missions are carried out, how long it takes, the overall strategy, or how one battle relates to another. That is why we hear random reporting of a battle here, an engagement there, without anyone ever engaging the reader. We "news consumers" have no idea if we are making any progress, because the media has never told us what "progress" would even look like.
Decades ago, we had a draft. While an army of conscripts has a lot of problems (just ask the Soviets), near universal conscription had one benefit: every male in America had either served himself or at least had close friends, relatives, and coworkers who served; and every woman had brothers, sons, or husbands who were in the military... so everybody knew who the servicemen were; they were not "others" or "outsiders;" the men on the wall peopled our own communities, from doctor to grocer to banker

Suskind Book Suspect

Suskind and others may have been able to get away with a book like this before the new media. I predict there's going to be enough information which didn't originate with the Bush administration to make Suskind's book look more like swiss cheese, than red meat for the CIA and the Left, both so obviously intent on hurting the Bush administration.

Haditha, the Marines, and the Duty of Every American

If these men should be guilty, it will be determined and they would be unfortunate aberrations of a noble group, but if they prove innocent, we should be able to say we stood with these men when they needed us, not against them because some coward told a lie to the media.

Hammurabi’s Other Member?

Followers of the Haditha news will recognize the name Abdul-Rahman Al-Mashhadani as the "Chairman" of the newly formed Hammurabi Organization for Human Rights and Democracy Monitoring….

No "Social Conservatives" in the Career Military?

Nidra is in Tel Aviv covering the Gaza Beach blood libel. Here is her seminal report, unedited.

On close examination, it looks like the Gaza Beach tragedy was a Hamas-produced exploitation video passed off as news. Western media with a claim to integrity should explore their readiness to pick up and relay these lurid stories. The cynically exploited image of Huda running across the sand, discovering the dead bodies, throwing herself around hysterically, crying, and mouthing inappropriate accusations should be reviewed, cleansed of the twisted emotional impact it was designed to provoke, and studied as an example of blood libel.

End Restrictions on Domestic Offshore Energy Production

How Oil Lubricates Our Enemies

It’s time for Human Rights Watch, to retain credibility and respectability, to fire Mark Garlasco.

Like any large organization, and one dedicated to a strong human rights defense, Human Rights Watch produces many analyses that some may welcome and others not, often depending on whose ox is gored. I, for one, depend on HRW’s thorough work in many areas of concern.

But, when one of its prominent employees – Mark Garlasco -- is clearly and repeatedly excessive in his comments, and on thin grounds, that employee has become more than a temporary embarrassment, instead a dangerous hindrance to HRW being taken seriously on other matters. Really oppressed individuals and groups around the world, then, will suffer more for such irresponsibility.

Garlasco’s description as a bomb-damage expert is questionable. See here.

Garlasco rushed to judgment of the Marines at Haditha, saying it “appears to be outright murder,” although admitting he had "no idea of the facts."

Now, his admission that his world-publicized accusation is false against Israel artillery fire killing eight Palestinians at a Gaza beach. (Note: This being the same beach that Palestinians use to launch rockets against Israeli civilians.)

Human Rights Watch’s reports on Israel-Palestinian matters are tilted against Israel.

That’s bad enough, although reasonable people can differ on some of the details. But, the continued employment of Garlasco is beyond the pale and inexcusable.

Following the explosion on the Gaza beach that killed eight Palestinians, headlined across the world’s media as an Israeli atrocity, and even though he visited the scene after it was altered and didn’t agree to video near the time of the incident, so-called military expert Mark Garlasco of Human Rights Watch was quick on the trigger to claim:

My assessment [is] that it's likely that this was incoming artillery fire that landed on the beach and was fired by the Israelis from the north of Gaza.

The Israelis have shown their investigation to HRW, which now causes Garlasco to admit:

"We came to an agreement with General Klifi that the most likely cause [of the blast] was unexploded Israeli ordinance," Garlasco told The Jerusalem Post following the meeting.

As usual, the world’s press has already moved on, leaving behind the irresponsible assertions of Garlasco.

One of the pleasures of getting back into the habit of blogging is the reading the must precede most posts. If you haven't already availed yourself of what Mark Tapscott is doing at the Examiner, I highly recommend it, for reasons both professional and personal (more below).

The Examiner is a free daily that can be picked up all around metro Washington, DC and plans to expand. When I lived there I read it often, and since Mark (a long-time friend of Democracy Project) took over the editorial page, it has become a daily stop on my morning reading rounds. Today, Mark warns of the danger to free speech posed by the tendency of some in power to punish those whose speech they deem "intolerant." In this case, Robert Smith, a member of the Metro board, was fired for expressing thoughts deemed "intolerant" by some of his peers and by Maryland Gov. Robert Erlich. The subject: homosexuality, which Smith called a "deviancy."

As I see it, the question here is purely political, in the sense that the First Amendment guarantees our right to political speech. Are Smith's beliefs on this issue, as he expressed them in the act that cost him his job, themselves so deviant--so intolerable--that they cannot be tolerated? Intolerance is, like discrimination, a slippery term that can be stood on its head by any cleaver demagogue. Some behaviors and words are indeed intolerable in a public official, and no one has an obligation to tolerate just anything at all in order to be tolerant of others. Similarly, all of us discriminate--in the careers we choose, the jobs we hold, the food we eat, the cars we drive, the friends with whom we associate, and the neighborhoods in which we live. But discrimination, like tolerance, can be misused and abused in a way that is, well, intolerable.

What Mark's editorial draws our attention to is the politicized (and selective) use of the concept of tolerance. By this manner, the threshold of tolerance isn't widened in any broadly liberal sense, but is rather applied selectively to one's opponents so as to enforce one's own beliefs (and, let us not forget, repay one's allies). These aren't the virtues of a republic based on a healthy civil society, but the machinations of an entrenched elite bent on driving from the public square speech it had rather not hear.

The personal note: I am fortunate to have been chosen by Mark to contribute an occasional op-ed to the Examiner's pages. Other contributors to this space are also bloggers (see below). My first installment will run on July 11, not long after I return from a policy wonkish trip to Belgium and Germany. Today's installment is by a blogger familiar to DP's readers: Stephen Bainbridge. Steve's piece is titled "Why Cut and Run Won't Work in Iraq." Money graf:

As an Army brat growing up during the Vietnam War, I saw the damage our strategy of just declaring victory and going home did to Army morale and prestige, to the tone of our national politics and our nation’s standing in the world. Later, we cut and ran from Lebanon. More recently, we cut and ran from Somalia. I have no doubt that this pattern of cutting and running emboldened al-Qaida. We simply cannot afford to cut and run from Iraq, lest our foes be emboldened to new and even more devastating attacks. A global hegemon that keeps running away when the going gets tough will not command any respect.

The other blogger contributors to the Examiner column are: Betsy Newmark; Ed Morrissey; Jeralyn Merritt; Mary Katherine Ham; LaShawn Barber; Lorie Byrd (whose first piece appeared June 13); and Robert Cox.

‘Kinder and gentler’ warmaking may itself go on trial in the haditha matter

No one disputes the notion that if the Marines committed atrocities they should be severely punished. But the New Media will not sit idly by and watch US Marines get railroaded so that the brass can make a problem go away. And that in turn may well expose and highlight some difficult questions about the kind of complex, hair-splitting, warmaking the US has been doing in Iraq.

Iraq War Vet Fighting The Good Fight At Home

Vince Micco is an Iraq War veteran still fighting for the troops by taking on five-term Liberal Democrat opponent, Steve Rothman, in New Jersey's 9th District.
"I'm an Iraq war veteran, and it really bothers me the way the war is being portrayed by the president's critics," said Micco, a former Army sergeant who was a counterintelligence specialist in Iraq and an Army reservist for nine years.
"I am running because the American people can and should be proud of what we're accomplishing in Iraq, and throughout the Middle East," Micco said.
Today, Rothman is bragging on his site about having voted against funding for the troops.
Today, Congressman Rothman voted against a $94.5 billion emergency supplemental spending bill, most of which would directly fund President Bush's ongoing war in Iraq.
But Micco is going to need help. Running against a five term incumbent can be hard enough, running in the 9th District can be challenging in and of itself.

Venezuelan Press Assault

groundbreaking academic study

Illegal Hiring Is Rarely Penalized

The Bush administration, which is vowing to crack down on U.S. companies that hire illegal workers, virtually abandoned such employer sanctions before it began pushing to overhaul U.S. immigration laws last year, government statistics show.

exclusive dispatch from the biennial meeting of the Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly meeting in Birmingham, Alabama

China censorship: Yahoo, Google and Microsoft compared

If Yahoo! is going to keep on like this, they might as well just change the name of their Chinese service to that of their Chinese partner Alibaba, which now runs Yahoo! China anyway. Then at least they'd be a bit more honest with Chinese users about what they really are.
More seriously though, the biggest concern is that according to my sources in the industry, Google and MSN are feeling a lot of pressure from Chinese authorities to be just like Yahoo! China. Employees of certain competitors do not hesitate to tattle on Google and MSN in order to gain competitive advantage. So the point is this: Unless companies band together and push back against Chinese government censorship pressure, it's going to become a very rapid race to the bottom.

Israel will cooperate with int'l probe on Gaza blast 'five minutes after similar probe on Qassam fire on Sderot is concluded'

Note this beach scene description at Meryl's:
...Gaza beach, just to the south of Beit Lahiya beach, the scene of an explosion last Friday that killed seven family members and orphaned 11-year-old Ghalia Huda, was yesterday bustling with daytrippers.
Kids frolicked seemingly free of fears of more shells. Some peddled chocolates to passers-by...
...But as a boy ran through the sand to launch his kite, a more sinister launching took place behind him.
Out of the sand dunes burst a Qassam rocket, soaring skywards towards Israel through a brilliant blue sky.
The children froze in their tracks and looked for their parents. Some started to run, the ghosts of the week before still fresh in their minds. A mother called out to them and their panic quickly stopped.
“She said the Israelis won’t send their bombs again,” a small girl said before scampering back to her sandcastle...

The New York Times has developed quite a reputation for springing “weekend surprise” stories, to circulate widely and set a media meme, before those with more complete information return on Monday to start to disassemble the story’s veracity.

The Saturday NYT’s, online Friday night, carries “Contradictions Cloud Inquiry Into 24 Iraqi Deaths.” And, so the “contradictions” do. However, the New York Times, citing two anonymous sources, inadequately identified or qualified, proceeds to contradict most of the defense of their actions presented so far by some of the Marines via their lawyers.

Many of the assertions and “witnesses” headlined for two weeks by the New York Times and other major media about what happened at Haditha have been undermined by subsequent coverage in blogs and by contrary, compelling accounts just emerging from some of the Marines through their lawyers. So, the New York Times takes another tack at undermining the Marines, citing two anonymous informants whose qualifications are quite inadequately supported.

The article begins soberly:

What really happened in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005?
On that day, marines killed 24 Iraqi civilians, including 10 women and children and an elderly man in a wheelchair. But how and why it happened and who ultimately bears responsibility are matters of profound dispute.

Interviews with marines who were present that day or their lawyers, Iraqi residents who witnessed the attack and military investigators provide broadly conflicting accounts of the killings. This article, based on those interviews, does not resolve those discrepancies. But it does lay bare the task facing investigators as they try to square the accounts with ambiguous forensic evidence, and suggests that the work will be hindered by the passage of time, the tricks of memory and the fog of fast-paced action at several different locations in Haditha, a tense Euphrates River valley city, seven months ago.

The narrative is presented of several Marines present who have spoken through their lawyers. The conflicting contending views of several self-proclaimed Iraqi “witnesses” is briefly presented, although the speciousness of several formerly highlighted in the media is not explored.

The “bomb” dropped by the NYT’s account, however, is in its presentation of what is presented as “initial findings” of the investigation by the military.

However, investigators have found evidence that the men in the taxi were not fleeing the bombing scene, as the marines have told military officials. Investigators have also concluded that most of the victims in three houses died from well-aimed rifle shots, not shrapnel or random fire, according to military officials familiar with the initial findings.

The houses where the killings took place show no evidence of the violent room-clearing assault described by the marines and their lawyers, the officials said.

The bodies have not yet been exhumed for autopsies, and defense lawyers can be expected to challenge the narrow use of photographic evidence on these points.

That car, described as a “taxi” in the media, as if one can visualize a Yellow Taxi with a cab light on top, is only later identified by “Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, the leader of the squad…He said he had seen a white car, now usually referred to as a taxi, containing a driver and four young men. The marines suspected that those men were spotters for the bomb.”

Without exhuming the bodies for autopsy, which the Iraqis’ families refuse, it is impossible to determine the type of damages done them and by what weapons. The article states the following, without noting the “morgue director” is an Iraqi known hostile to U.S. forces, and the “death certificates” similarly prepared.

The wounds of the dead Iraqis, as seen in photographs and viewed by the morgue director, were not consistent with attacks by fragmentation grenades and indiscriminate rifle fire, Colonel Watt found. The civilian survivors said the victims were shot at close range, some while trying to protect their children or praying for their lives. The death certificates Colonel Watt examined were chillingly succinct: well-aimed shots to the head and chest.

Here’s where the key problem pops up in the NYT’s account. It is based on “two people briefed on the investigation.” One is identified as a “Defense Department official… who would only discuss the continuing inquiry on the condition of anonymity because the matter remains under investigation.” The other is merely identified as “A second person who has been briefed on the inquiry.”

First, the way the article is written, it may appear that a Colonel Watt is one of these informants to the NYT’s, but is actually being cited -- whether accurately or out-of-context or not -- by one of the anonymous sources. One informant may be a “Defense Department official”, but is not identified as civilian or military, or of what rank. The other may be anyone of whatever background.

Second, these two anonymous sources are not further qualified in the article for how much of the investigation and how currently they are aware. Nor, are they qualified in the article as how knowledgeable about the incident, the investigation, or combat conditions in Iraq they themselves are.

Third, although it is noted “the matter remains under investigation”, their leaks are not qualified by how far along the investigation has proceeded, and how tentative or even superceded, or contradicted by other facts, their leaks may be.

Fourth, but of course of little importance to the NYT’s, is that these two anonymous sources are completely out of line in leaking: for the act of leaking itself, for adding to the prejudgment of our Marines before the investigations are complete, and for the prejudicial damage they may be doing to any case that may result, all of which is contrary to military regulations and elemental decency.

In short, the New York Times has done a fairly transparent job of just adding more “fog” as it tries to further undermine the Marines’ defense.

The back page of the Local news section of my morning newspaper carried this story:

Background: During his two-week leave from Iraq, Marine Capt. Andy Christian of Carlsbad ran in the Rock 'n' Marathon for a special cause, finishing the 26.2-mile course in 3 hours, 23 minutes. At the finish line, he was greeted by 1st Lt. Justin Waldek, who was part of Christian's 10-man team that was attacked in Iraq on Feb. 20. It was the first time Christian had seen Waldek since that day, making for an emotional end to the race.

Running to remember: Christian, 37, dedicated the race to his injured and fallen comrades, including Waldek, Staff Sgt. Chris Claude, who lost his right leg, and Staff Sgt. Jay T. Collado, who was killed in the attack. Part of the reason Christian and his wife, Sarah, ran in the marathon was to raise money for an education fund for Collado's daughter, Kaiya. So far, they've surpassed $20,000 in donations.

Patriotic: Wearing red, white and blue shorts and carrying the American flag that was in the back of the Humvee destroyed in the roadside bombing, Christian ran the marathon to shouts of “flag man” and “go USA.” He shouldered the flag on a pole with a yellow ribbon bearing Collado's name, which many runners noticed and assured Christian that Collado would be proud.

Carrying the flag: On Memorial Day, the Marine officer did an early-morning test run with the flag, after which he decided to buy a pad for his shoulder. The pad didn't work well and Christian was scheduled to return to Iraq on June 12 still bearing a gash that started at his collarbone. The abrasion, he said, would go away, but the memories will last forever. Not once did he think of passing the flag off to his wife, who also wore stars and stripes on her shorts, hat and socks.

Touching, and true representation of what our servicemen do every day, personal risk or injury or death secondary to their duty to comrades, honor and country.

President Bush said in June 1989, “Ours would not be the land of the free if it were not also the home of the brave.” How long will we remain free if we don’t honor our brave?

Home of the Brave: Honoring the Unsung Heroes in the War on Terror by former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Wynton Hall brings to the printed page the honors, the highest military medals, awarded 19 of our warriors. It’s a fast read, and the most instructive correction to how their stories and those of the so many others who serve honorably and bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan is being ignored in the mainstream press.

Marine Navy Cross (second only to the Medal of Honor) awardee Justin LeHew, at the battle of An Nasiriyah in March 2003, says: "You can’t blame people for their ignorance; you just hope you can educate them.”

It’s 3-years later, and most of the media has stubbornly refused to be educated.

The authors comment:

It isn’t that liberal reporters are incapable of singling out the actions of U.S. soldiers and featuring them prominently. They do it all the time. The problem is that their knee-jerk response when covering the U.S. military is to portray members of our armed forces only as victims or villains….

But what about the words battle of Tarmiya?…

Many in the media find words like hero too black and white, too judgmental, too certain of our nation’s purpose and essential goodness. In a world where there is no distinction between good and evil, by definition, heroes cease to exist.

(Before going further, I don't personally know the details of Mark Garlasko's personnel file at the Defense Intelligence Agency, nor do I personally know the person who claims to have worked with Garlasko there. The sources through whom I received this are known to me as sane and credible, but until more is revealed the question remains. I urge them and the DIA, and Garlasko and HRW to completely address this quickly.)

Mark Garlasko, a day after the incident at the Gaza beach, under the eyes and help of Palestinians, contradicted the detailed results and evidence of the Israeli investigation. Never mind that his “physical evidence” was different than what appeared on film the day before. Never mind that it well may have been placed there for him by the Palestinians, not an unknown activity of theirs.

Now, never mind, that Mark Garlasko’s technical qualifications to make such a judgment may be questionable. The world’s media echoed him.

A yet unnamed military intelligence person who worked with Mark Garlasko in the prewar targeting effort at the Defense Intelligence Agency says of Garlasko, a friend of his reports in an email I received, Garlarsko

“is not technically qualified to point to a depression in the sand on Gaza beach and state uncategorically that it was caused by an Israeli 155 MM round. Why? He had no scientific training required to do bomb damage assessessment – typically a USAF function…”

Mark Garlasko is billed as:

the senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch (HRW), and is HRW’s resident expert on battle damage assessment, military operations, and interrogations. Marc also leads HRW’s work on Abu Ghurayb, civilian military contractors, and non-lethal weapons.

Before coming to HRW, Marc spent seven years in the Pentagon as a senior intelligence analyst covering Iraq. His last position there was chief of high-value targeting during the Iraq War in 2003. Marc was on the Operation Desert Fox (Iraq) Battle Damage Assessment team in 1998, led a Pentagon Battle Damage Assessment team to Kosovo in 1999, and recommended thousands of aimpoints on hundreds of targets during operations in Iraq and Serbia. He also participated in over 50 interrogations as a subject matter expert.

Very impressive, on the surface, if true. Now, there’s some real doubt that Mr. Garlasko should explain.

Mr. Garlasko’s rush to judgment on the Marines at Haditha (“What happened at Haditha appears to be outright murder.”) was admitted by him that he had “no idea of the facts.”

Is that so again, and shouldn’t he and Human Rights Watch quickly clarify whether he is similarly shooting off his mouth and the U.S. and Israel unjustly?

Time's massacre

As counter-evidence goes, Time's misreporting unfortunately does little to clear up what happened in Haditha. But as a case-in-point lesson in how the media can artfully angle a story, it's evidence enough.

Gulf bloggers: a new breed of Arab activists

Internet blogs are giving rise to a new breed of Arab activist as ordinary residents increasingly use them to press for more political rights and civil liberties in conservative Gulf states….

HELLO MUDDA, HELLO FADDA, HERE I AM AT CAMP AL QAEDA

The NYTimes, tribune of the oppressed, has now launched a campaign on behalf of misunderstood Jihadis. It has found a former Gitmo inmate to jerk our tear ducts with a tale of woe. Mourad Benchallali's Op-ed weeper follows a familiar form: the Western coming-of-age story, in which a young, innocent and idealistic boy seeking adventure, leaves home for a "dream vacation", has a series of dangerous experiences, then returns, sadder but wiser. Mr. Benchallali's variation on this time honored form, derives its impact from the way it employs fictional devices to create an appearance of verisimmilitude. We are required to suspend disbelief in the 'reality' of what is being described, when we're told that the author/narrator chose, for a "dream vacation", Afghanistan in the summer of 2001….

Vietnam: Montagnards Face Religious, Political Persecution
Returnees from Cambodia Detained and Beaten

(New York, June 14, 2006) - Vietnamese authorities have detained, interrogated, and even tortured Montagnard refugees and asylum seekers who have returned to Vietnam from U.N. High Commissioner for Refugee (UNHCR) camps in Cambodia, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The government is violating an agreement with UNHCR, which is supposed to monitor returning refugees and ensure they are safe.

Drawing on eyewitness accounts and published sources, the 55-page report, "No Sanctuary: Ongoing Threats to Indigenous Montagnards in Vietnam's Central Highlands," provides fresh information about ongoing religious and political persecution of Montagnards, or indigenous minority communities, in Vietnam's Central Highlands.

"The Vietnamese government continues to persecute Montagnards once they are out of the sight of international observers," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "The international community should oppose their forced return to the Central Highlands as long as the authorities continue to persecute them."

Human Rights Watch urged the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees to review its participation in promoting and facilitating voluntary repatriation, given the disturbing accounts of mistreatment of returnees, as well as weaknesses in UNHCR's monitoring mechanisms. It also called on the U.S. government to keep Vietnam on its list of "Countries of Particular Concern" for religious freedom violations, and urged Cambodia to continue to provide temporary asylum to Montagnards, in line with its obligations as a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Vietnamese officials continue to force Montagnard Christians to sign pledges renouncing their religion, despite passage of new regulations last year banning such practices. Authorities in some areas restrict freedom of movement between villages - in particular for religious purposes not authorized by the government - and ban Christian gatherings in many areas unless they are presided over by officially recognized pastors.

More worrisome, the Vietnamese government persists in criminalizing peaceful dissent, unsanctioned religious activity and efforts to seek sanctuary in Cambodia, by arresting and imprisoning Montagnards who engage in those activities. The most harshly treated are evangelical Christians who belong to independent or unregistered house churches and supporters of a non-violent movement for the protection of, and greater control over, ancestral lands.

More than 350 Montagnards have been sentenced to prison since 2001, largely for peaceful political or religious activities. Most have been charged under Vietnam's Penal Code with vaguely worded national security crimes. These include "undermining the unity policy," "disrupting security" and "causing public disorder". More than 60 Montagnards have been imprisoned after being forcibly returned from Cambodia, where they were seeking asylum….

BBC: GAZA ROCKETS REAL THREAT TO ISRAEL

This is a very sobering BBC Special Report and a most welcome change from the previous one which referred to the rocket attacks as "symbolic."
Qassam rockets are homemade weapons that have been fired by Hamas and other Palestinian militants in their hundreds at Israeli communities near the Gaza Strip.
Read the entire article. It goes a long way towards explaining the reason Israel must preempt the shooting of these rockets.

“Happy Birthday, ARMY!”

Two hundred thirty-one years ago today, when Britain owned our country and only a few men had the nerve to cry “enough!”, a small but determined band was organized. Before there was even an America, there was the American Army. These brave men took on the British and all the odds against them, and made the world better through their courage and sacrifice.

That legacy lives on in today’s generation. Say it loud, say it proud: “Happy Birthday, ARMY!”

CLIMATE SCIENCE (CHOCK FULL OF INTERESTING LINKS)

Like Rathergate, only the EXACT OPPOSITE!

Rove attorney Robert Luskin speaks to a bit of new media overreach, specifically, to partisan attempts by many bloggers and (fringe) journalists—the vast majority of whom list leftward, politically—to practically will his client’s phantom indictment….

Lots of lawyerly precision there, but to put it layman’s terms: policing the MSM by keeping them honest, good; making up news to try to sink a political opponent whom you very clearly despise, and whom you’d like to see frog marched across the White House lawn in a hoop skirt and a Marlo Thomas “That Girl” wig, not so good.

Standing Up For Our Servicemen

… The common thread here seems to be the willingness of military brass to knuckle under to political pressure rather than stand up for our servicemen.

In Marines We Trust

The failure to communicate responsibly and strategically in this case, coupled with the rush to judgment in the international court of public opinion, has hurt not only the Marines under investigation, but also all our military men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

House to Consider Federal Spending Database Proposal

Looks like the House will consider a proposal directing the U.S. Office of Management and Budget to establish a publicly accessible database of all federal spending…. such data will greatly improve the public's ability to understand what actually happens to their tax dollars after Congress approves spending bills.

House panel approves line-item veto bill

Congress is moving to give President Bush and his successors greater power to try to weed bills of certain spending, though the new power would pale compared with the line-item veto law struck down by the Supreme Court in 1998…. Under the proposal, it would take a simple majority in both House and Senate to approve the items over the president's objections. The idea is that wasteful "pork barrel" spending would be vulnerable since Congress might vote to reject such items once they are no longer protected by their inclusion in bigger bills that the president has little choice but to sign.

In a first for Democracy-Project.com, and I think either a first or very rare for RealClearPolitics.com, most respected selecter of worthwhile mainstream and blog columns, RCP chose to feature as an article of its own in full length a post by our newest blogger, Fr. Paul W. McNellis. Fr. Paul’s thoughtful analysis of “Hitchens, Haditha and My Lai,” is a sample of what one can expect from Fr. Paul’s remarkable life. For a taste of what he’s experienced, enough to fill several lives, see Fr. Paul’s CV at Boston College’s site, where he is an adjunct professor of philosophy: warrior, news correspondent, refugee worker, Jesuit priest at the Vatican, now working hard and successfully to prepare our children for the future.

When our media jump on allegations of U.S. or allies’ wrongdoing on the field of battle, especially when coming from known suspect sources, the media is not doing its job of informing – its excuse for shoddy journalism. Quality journalism would require thoroughly vetting one's sources, and investigating the facts. Tabloid journalism is working directly for our strategic enemies. Our enemies know well how eager our media is for headlines, and how gullible or agenda-driven it is, and take full advantage.

I realize these are harsh words, but how else should a citizen consider the behavior of most of our major media after its stampede to judgment on Haditha, and now the Gaza beach explosion in which Israel was falsely held to wanton blame.

For a more complete detailing of the facts about the Gaza fraud, go here for Honest Reporting.

Then wait to see what apologies, corrections, and more accurate news stories appear in the major media, if any, and how far back in the pages. The damage has already been done, both to the U.S. and its allies. The enemies won, and our media did it. We all lose when such tabloid journalism is tolerated.

SEE this for the comparable behavior, though he admits to knowing nothing, of a major NGO spokesman.

UPDATE: The testimony by John Eastman before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on May 26, 2006 is in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal. It must all be read. Here’s the concluding paragraph:

Every citizen, including--particularly including--those employed with major media organs have a responsibility to prevent ongoing operational secrets from falling into the hands of our enemies by complying with the law regarding classified information. It is one of those "basic and simple duties" of citizenship that rests equally "on taxi drivers, Justices, and the New York Times." We may never know how great the damage to our national security the recent disclosures of classified, highly-sensitive intelligence-gathering information have caused, but with the seriousness of the threat to our lives and liberty posed by terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, it is certainly the right, and may well be the duty, of the executive to prosecute those responsible for them.

Anthony Ippoliti, a Marine “grunt” (that’s infantryman) writes his hometown newspaper, the Ridgefield Press in Connecticut, “They’re not supporting the troops.” Excerpts:

I am fortunate enough to receive The Ridgefield Press every few weeks and enjoy keeping abreast of the local issues currently pressing in our small town. I am a U.S. Marine Infantryman currently serving in Fallujah, Iraq, and my mother usually includes The Press in the many care packages she sends me.

Since we have very limited access to telephones, The Ridgefield Press is the primary means by which I receive local news.

Almost every week, I open The Press and find an article or letter to the editors denouncing the coalition effort in Iraq. Invariably, the individuals behind these anti-war letters and rallies mask their political agendas by asserting that they “support the troops but not the war.”… carrying a yellow-ribboned coffin and signs that say “Bring Them Home Now.” They read off the names of the dead and claim to “show support for our troops” while urging lawmakers to “bring them home.” They believe that the U.S.-led coalition should never have entered Iraq and that the current effort is a never-ending quagmire that has made no progress. They believe that things are progressively getting worse and think that our forces should just pick up and leave.
They do all this under the pretense that they are supporting the troops. However, what they are really doing is using our lives and the issue of our safety and well-being as a means to achieve a political end….

As a matter of fact, I assert with a considerable degree of confidence that their efforts make our already difficult job even more difficult. I’ll go so far as to say that their rallies and protests cost more and more servicemen their lives and limbs every day….

In Fallujah, the people watch Al Jazeerah. However, they also watch CNN. A lot of them fear that the United States will soon cut and run. The people of Iraq see when our country is divided. When they see rallies to “Bring The Troops Home,” they see that as a sign that we will end our efforts prematurely.

Furthermore, they know that the insurgents will not end their efforts early. That leads them to the conclusion that when we leave, the insurgents will still be there. Therefore, if they help us, their lives and the lives of their loved ones will be in great jeopardy the minute we leave — if we don’t finish the job.

Much that they see on American television leads them to believe that we intend to abandon our efforts before the new Iraqi government is capable of defending itself and its citizens.

The actions of these aforementioned organizations and the heavy media coverage their rallies often generate serves as fuel for the insurgency. Insurgents believe they can drive us out through the idea of “death by a thousand cuts.” The longer they persist in their efforts, the more the American public becomes disenchanted with the coalition effort.

The insurgency sees this as a result. These criminals will continue to kill Iraqi civilians, Iraqi Police, Iraqi Army and coalition forces so long as they see that their efforts are alienating the American public from its military….

Let me now emphasize that I respect an American citizen’s right to voice his or her opinion in a public forum. Such a right is granted in the U.S. Constitution.

However, voicing one’s opinion in such an irresponsible way is something I do not support. Additionally, using deployed service members as a mask to serve your purely political purpose is downright shameful. If your desire is to protest the war, then protest the war, but don’t use me or any reference to our troops as a tool to bolster your purpose….

PA TV falsifies video of Gaza deaths

Also see:
· Egyptian TV promotes anti-American hatred
· How the PA makes suicide bombers
· Hamas: "Children fight alongside the adults in the resistance"
· Hamas Duplicity: Talk Peace in English and deny it Arabic
· Suicide terror for children glorified on Hamas children's web site
· PFLP forecasts murder of Israeli leaders
· Terrorist-murderer Quntar awarded honorary Palestinian citizenship
· PA daily: Western Leaders are Hitler copies and Neo-cons are Nazis
· Hamas Encouraging Children to Die for Allah on Website
· A Self-Portrait of Suicide Terrorists
· PA TV: Mom sad daughter arrested, but not because of bombing attempt
· Hamas and Nuclear Terror

Abbas's gamble is doomed

Hamas seems incapable of endorsing the "prisoners' covenant." Prime Minister Ismail Hanyeh has excelled in making rhetorical concessions to secure the survival of the government, but will not succumb to the president's pressure and radically change the entire Constitution, and indeed the very raison d'être of Hamas, under the threat of a presidential ultimatum.

The flaws in Abbas's initiative stem not only from his wrong assumption that he can reconcile his domestic needs with his peace policy, but also from the weaknesses of the "prisoners' covenant." The covenant simply falls short of meeting the requirements of the international community for Hamas to be granted international legitimacy. It contains no explicit recognition of Israel, it does not advance a commitment to stop violent activities, and it does not endorse existing agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

The covenant's provisions are considerably more difficult for Israel to swallow than those of the all-Arab peace initiative of 2002, and will therefore inevitably strengthen the Israeli government in its determination to pursue its unilateral "convergence plan." For example, the prisoners' repetitive insistence on the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their former lands in Israel, using a formula that is considerably less flexible than that of the 2002 Arab League peace initiative, does not exactly serve as an invitation to negotiations that Israel will rush to accept.

In his eagerness to enhance the legitimacy of his challenge to Hamas by enlisting the support of the prisoners, the living martyrs of the Palestinian cause, Abbas has abandoned the legitimacy offered to him by the Arab League's peace plan, and has undermined the efforts of Arab leaders to bring Hamas into the peace process by coaxing it into endorsing the all-Arab peace platform.

Iranian Regime Thrashes Women's Rights Protesters in Tehran!

Improved European Cooperation Is Helping To Connect The Dots On Terrorism Financing

Iran Connects the Dots: The mullahs and the global war on terror

The Beat Didn't Go On

Contrary to the AP's uncorroborated witness who claimed that American servicemen beat Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to death, an autopsy performed on his corpse reveals that the al-Qaeda leader died from injuries consistent with close encounters to two 500-lb bombs. This should put an end to a very strange episode where people accused soldiers of murdering a man by beating him instead of blowing him up:
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi lived for 52 minutes after a U.S. warplane bombed his hideout northeast of Baghdad, and he died of extensive internal injuries consistent with those caused by a bomb blast, the U.S. military said Monday.
Col. Steve Jones, command surgeon for Multinational Forces, said an autopsy concluded that the terrorist leader died from serious injuries to his lungs. An FBI test positively identified al-Zarqawi's remains. ...
"Blast waves from the two bombs caused tearing, bruising of the lungs and bleeding," he said. "There was no evidence of firearm injuries."
The al Qaeda in Iraq leader also suffered head and facial wounds, bleeding in his ears and a fracture of his lower right leg.
Now that we have that information, perhaps someone can explain what the fuss was all about. Zarqawi never operated within the rules of war, and also did not surrender. When faced with such an enemy in the field, soldiers kill them rather than attempt an arrest. Had they discovered that Zarqawi had survived the explosion and could still present a danger, they would either shoot him or attempt to capture him, depending on their orders. If the latter was the case, the methods used to restrain Zarqawi would appear rough and violent -- and since this isn't a law-enforcement exercise, such tactics in handling an enemy would not be out of place.
As it stands, though, the entire story has now been discredited. Now we must ask the AP about their witness and their decision to publish the uncorroborated story. Based on the descriptions of the site and its remarkable isolation, the AP should have treated "Mohammed's" story with considerable skepticism. Without having any sort of corroboration, the editors need to weigh the informative value of the story against the damage done to the soldiers involved and the military as a whole by promulgating what amounted to gossip and conspiracy theorizing. Since the entire point of war is to kill one's enemy -- and no one doubted that Zarqawi qualified as such -- the publishing of this story under the circumstances is indefensible.
The AP owes its readers an apology and a retraction. Will we get either? Doubtful. We must maintain the level of skepticism that the AP itself failed to keep in this instance. Unlike with the US military, we have a long history of transgressions with the AP on its reporting for our assumptions.

Some more good economic news

You probably won't see this story headlining the evening news, but you know it would have when Clinton was president….

Thomas Lipscomb, in the second of a 3-parter at RealClearPolitics.com, “John Kerry’s Skimmer Scam”, details why Kerry’s version of his first Purple Heart doesn’t hold water.

For those who need a quick refresher: John Kerry – mysteriously after his commanders who knew better had left Vietnam -- was awarded his first of three Purple Hearts in Vietnam, three allowing a quick ticket out of there, from a tiny splinter in his arm skin after a mission. His commanders at the time had denied him his request for a Purple Heart, as there was no enemy action involved.

Kerry maintains there was enemy action involved, necessary for a Purple Heart, that the senior officer, Bill Schachte (later senior uniformed JAG officer of the Navy), who skippered all (but one, another) such missions is a liar that he was there as the skimmer could only hold three and Schachte wasn't one of them, and lies that there was no enemy action.

Lipscomb interviewed all involved, with the exception of Kerry himself who wouldn’t be interviewed by Lipscomb.

Lipscomb, based on one of Kerry’s sailor allies, demonstrates that the skimmer boat could hold more than the three that Kerry says was its capacity, so Schacte could have been aboard. Indeed, the senior commander of the unit and Schachte and other Swift Boaters knowledgeable know that a rookie trainee – Kerry – would never have been given lead on such a mission.

Indeed, again, Kerry’s own journal entry afterward said, “we hadn't been shot at yet.”

Kerry’s been shot at now, by Lipscomb, and Kerry once again is shot down, as with his many other self-inventions.

Whether it takes a shoehorn or a crowbar, the Mainstream Media have decided that all Iraq reporting must be squeezed into the Vietnam template. Thus the immediate link, before we had any facts, between Haditha and My Lai. But Christopher Hitchens is having none of it.

“All the glib talk about My Lai,” Hitchens writes, “is so much propaganda and hot air.” Indeed, any comparison between Iraq and Vietnam offends Hitchens, not because the comparison might be a slander against American troops in Iraq, but rather because it slanders the Viet Cong. For in Vietnam, unlike Iraq, according to Hitchens, the Americans

were vainly attempting to defeat a people’s army with high morale and exalted standards. I, for one, will not have them insulted by any comparison to the forces of Zarqawi, the Fedayeen Saddam, and the criminal world now arrayed against us. These depraved elements are the Khmer Rouge.

In an earlier article for Slate, Hitchens explained “why there is no reasonable parallel of any sort between Iraq and Vietnam.” Let’s consider Hitchens’ claim against the background of the following press accounts.

For weeks in advance, Al Qaeda had roamed the countryside, making their position grimly clear: the village elections were an “American trick,” and candidates for office would be assassinated and blown up. Then, just to make sure that the villagers got the message, Al Quaeda terrorists methodically murdered four candidates and kidnapped ten others as election day drew near.

Or this story.

“Demons weep, God grieves, and anyone who goes out will vomit blood.” Such was the fearful forecast that Al Qaeda agents circulated ... to discourage those who were inclined to go to the polls ...

Or, from a story describing the killing of 100 villagers.

Thursday’s attack had been preceded by warnings. Al Qaeda had left notes warning villagers that they would be beheaded unless they stopped collaborating with the Americans.

I must confess, I have altered the above quotations, though only slightly. If you replace “Al Qaeda” with “The Viet Cong,” you have the verbatim accounts from Newsweek, April 17, 1967, Newsweek, September 19, 1966, and The Washington Post, June 16, 1970.

In a cover story on My Lai, Time magazine (Dec. 5, 1969) also included a sidebar report titled, “On the Other Side: Terror as Policy.” The story begins:

For shocked Americans, what happened at My Lai seems an awful aberration. For the Communists in Vietnam, the murder of civilians is routine, purposeful policy. Terror is a part of the guerillas’ arsenal of intimidation, to be used whenever other methods of persuasion have failed to rally a village or province round the Viet Cong flag.

In a long war, no one knows just how many civilians have been attacked by the Communists. The U.S. has listed well over 100,000 separate incidents of terrorism against the South Vietnamese population since 1958. During the past eleven years, the Communists are known to have killed more than 26,000 South Vietnamese, injured hundreds of thousands, kidnapped at least 60,000 in their campaign of terror.

The story goes on to describe the massacre at the Montagnard village of Dak Son in 1967. A year earlier the villagers had fled the Communists for the South Vietnamese government side. For the crime of refusing to change their minds and their political allegiance, the Viet Cong attacked the village with flamethrowers and then executed the 60 villagers who survived the initial attack. As Time concludes: “Altogether, 252 unarmed Montagnards, nearly all of them women and children, were murdered, 100 kidnapped, 500 listed as missing.”

But surely there is some exaggeration here, for killing on such a scale would have been more widely reported at the time, would it not? Not really. Newsweek (May 15, 1967), in a summary of terror incidents it described as “typical,” concluded:

Since mid-1957, long before U.S. troops were on the scene, incidents like these have been a routine affair in South Vietnam--so routine that most Vietnam-based correspondents no longer find them newsworthy.

Notice the date on the above report: 1967, before the Tet offensive. The “exalted standards” of the Viet Cong, which Hitchens so much admires, were on full display during the Tet offensive, especially in the city of Hue. While they held the city, Viet Cong cadre went from house to house with specially prepared “blood lists” of enemies to be eliminated. When South Vietnamese government troops retook the city, they eventually found mass graves containing nearly 3,000 bodies.

Is Hitchens aware of this history? It’s hard to tell. Hitchens claims that “No car bomb or hijacking or suicide-bombing or comparable atrocity was ever committed by the Vietnamese, on American or any other foreign soil.” Does Hitchens mean there were no atrocities, or that they occurred only on Vietnamese soil? If the former, it is simply false; if the latter, what difference would it make if you were Vietnamese? Nor does Hitchens mention the gulag that spread over Vietnam after 1975, the boat people, the expulsion of ethnic Chinese, or the stultifying intellectual life and lack of freedom in today’s Vietnam.

Hitchens is correct that Haditha is not My Lai. And even if Haditha proves to be as bad as the worst press reports would have it, it will not be My Lai. But Hitchens’ claims notwithstanding, there are some parallels between Vietnam and Iraq. To be classified an “enemy of the people” by the Viet Cong or an “infidel” by Al Qaeda yields similar results: your humanity is denied, and your life becomes expendable as you become a mere means to someone else’s ends.

There were millions in South Vietnam who did not want the “liberation” the Communist north imposed on them, just as there are probably millions in Iraq who want no part of the new Caliphate. Hitchens will no doubt reject this reading of Vietnamese Communism, but I can only suggest that he have more conversations with Vietnamese Americans.

Although Hitchens sees his current position on Iraq as entirely consistent with his earlier antiwar principles, I think his former colleagues at The Nation are right: He’s changed more than they have. This time around he is opposed to the forces of oppression, and that’s why he’s more interesting to read than they are.

Relevant Links:

For two-weeks the newspapers and TV of the world have been filled with heart-rending but conflicting narratives by Iraqi “witnesses” to a Marine massacre at Haditha. Editorialists and columnists, even ones not hostile toward the Iraq war or Marines, have stampeded to fill their space with a little obligatory caution or caveat as they condemn the Marines for a massacre, for going off the handle, for overreacting to the stress of war.

Now, for the first time, one of the Marines directly involved has spoken up. The Washington Post, to its credit, carries his description of events on the front-page.

Rules of engagement were followed, as the Marines chased terrorists through the houses where they’d purposely hidden among civilians. This is in an area known for hostile and harboring civilians. Civilians were killed. With all regrets for that, at least no further Marines were killed by holding a cotillion that some armchair commentators imagine would be appropriate. (I’d like to see them dance in any dangerous circumstances like these.)

It well may be possible that there’s more to be found out and to clear up.

It’s well past time the media waited to find out before jumping to more conclusions, and harming the honor of our Marines, our country, and our ability to wage a war. If they don’t, their purpose is very clear.

UPDATE: What’s in your newspaper this morning?
The front page of my local newspaper, the San Diego Union Tribune, this Sunday morning is “Wartime convictions a tough march: U.S. servicemen found guilty of killings often end up serving little time” by Alex Roth, Staff Writer.

Only after 32 paragraphs bemoaning any leniency or understanding of the conditions of war, and accusations that our justice is racist, do we hear that defendants are often railroaded by our own military:

Although defense lawyers have enjoyed their share of recent success in military hearings and courts-martial, they also face their own challenges.
San Diego lawyer Jude Litzenberger, a retired Navy lieutenant commander, said a defendant's comrades are often reluctant to testify for the defense out of fear of alienating the military brass.
Although the doctrine of undue command influence forbids a service member from pressuring a subordinate to testify a certain way, it happens nonetheless, Litzenberger said.
And there's often political pressure for the military to find someone to blame and punish, “especially in a case that puts egg on the face of the military,” she said.

Elemental standards of journalism include that headlines should accurately reflect the story, and that a story should be verifiable and corroborated. Instead, much of the major media is too often engaged in tabloid journalism: rumor-mongering and sensationalism.

The MSM has not been forthcoming about its policies and controls in its use of Iraqi stringers. The MSM has not been forthcoming in verifying the statements of “witnesses”, instead echoing their statements.

Right or Left bloggers may catch some of this. BUT, what is really needed is transparency from the MSM, and qualified independent investigation of the MSM's policies and controls in Iraq.

Americans, whether in favor of or not of U.S. policy in Iraq, at least, deserve reliable journalism upon which to base their judgments. A good deal of the heat in domestic debate would be reduced or eliminated, and a good deal more light shown, if the major media enforced elemental standards of journalism.

As any rookie cop or crime reporter knows, even multiple “witnesses” may be contradictory or unreliable, and that complete investigation is necessary.

In Iraq, this problem is compounded by remote news article writing and editing, by the heavy use of local stringers to report whose qualifications, affiliations, sympathies or intimidation against them may result in suspect reports, and by the prominence given to self-proclaimed witnesses whose story is not vetted for reliability, their background or agenda.

I wrote about the first issue, not-on-the-spot reporting, and referred to the second, in Editor & Publisher. Powerline has a post today about lack of reporters on the scene with our troops.

The report from a “young Iraqi journalist” or “human rights organization” related to Haditha witnesses presented as reliable have been trumpeted across the front-pages and TV news of the world. Yet, it seems the “young Iraqi journalist” is not what was presented. And, it seems the “witnesses” stories have difficulty adding up. (I also wrote about one of these non-tabulations here.)

Another illustration from today’s reporting of the circumstances of Zarqawi’s death.

The Associated Press’ report is headlined, “ Iraqi raises questions on al-Zarqawi death.” This Iraqi says Americans beat the live Zarqawi to death. This would be important news if not for the narrative. “No other witnesses have come forward to corroborate the account…” The AP story is bylined “Associated Press Writer.”

So, where’s the story? Why a story at all when such allegations are frequently made and unsubstantiated, as a Pentagon spokesman is quoted in the narrative? Why not a headline, if there is a story worth reporting, that more accurately informs headline skimmers, like “One Iraqi…” or “Unverified Iraqi…”?

The MSM has a responsibility to itself and to Americans to start coming clean and clear about its reporting policies and practices, and enforcing them. Or, admit to being a tabloid journalism, not claim to be reporters of record.

UPDATE: Protein Wisdom has more on “witnesses”:

what CBS News and Associated Press Television News don’t tell you is that another local man—who also refused to give his name or show his face on camera (or even provide proof of his existence outside of the mind of those who might use his testimony to some peculiar propaganda effect)—disputed the first gentleman’s story, calling it “a questionable recollection of events,” and noting that, if anything, “the US troops who arrived on the scene showed remarkable humanity” in dealing with Mr Zarqawi, with one US serviceman purportedly kneeling beside the mortally wounded terror leader “to apply a soothing poultice made with palm fronds and an herbal paste much favored by the locals” while comforting him “with a stirring version of the Eagles’ ‘Desperado’ in a rich, throaty Alabama twang.”
Me, I’m not sure who to believe here.

How long before MSM reporters start asking whether we only showed a head photo of Zarqawi because we shot him when found alive?

Seems our crack conspiracist media is hard at work. Powerline has the scoop:

General William Caldwell told a press conference this morning that Musab al-Zarqawi survived the bombing of this safe house, at least briefly, and was still alive when the first U.S. and Iraqi forces arrived on the scene. This strikes me as a point of little importance, although I would like to think that, at least for a brief moment, Zarqawi knew what hit him.

But the journalists who participated in the press conference, apparently by satellite, seemed to think they were on the trail of a Cover-Up. I saw most of the press conference early this morning. News of Zarqawi's brief survival immediately led to questions about whether he had been finished off by the troops, and whether our soldiers had tried to render first aid....

How long before we see Zarqawi T-shirts on the campuses or on middle-aged Code Pink ladies?

Zarqawi surely meets up to Che Guevara’s legacy, of: (As chronicled by Alvaro Vargas Llosa in the New Republic, “The Killing Machine: Che Guevara, from Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand”, July 11, 2005)

· Torture and killing of thousands in Cuba’s prisons and of more by his guerrillas;
· Writing of “"hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine."

UPDATE:
Dr. Juan Cole, whose MidEast “scholarship” may work in the desert bereft of critical facts, or on the New York Times’ editorial slant, but doesn’t withstand scrutiny even at Yale, has a commentor “Dr. Victorino de la Vega”, whose blogger bio bills himself as “Chair of the Thomas More Center for Middle East Studies, at Amaurot, where he teaches econometrics and applied anthropology.” Dr. Vega writes:

At 4:33 PM, Dr Victorino de la Vega said...
Striking resemblance with Latin America’s most “subversive” revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara…
Pervasiveness of the proverbial Semitic-Arabian-Iberian “ethnic traits” threatening the integrity of our beloved Western civilization?
Common use of the advanced mortuary toileting techniques in vogue at the CIA?

Allah and Huntington only know…

Webb flier on Miller adds fire to campaign

The flier put out by Jim Webb's campaign for U.S. Senate described his opponent as a corporate lobbyist who made money by sending American jobs overseas.
But what caught Dan Smolen's attention was the cartoon that accompanied the text: That of a man with a hook nose and money spilling from his pockets.
It was a caricature of Harris Miller, Webb's opponent in Tuesday's Democratic primary who happens to be Jewish.
The image made Smolen, who is Jewish and Stafford County's Democratic chairman, uncomfortable….
"That doesn't look so good. There's no question to me that's replete with anti-Semitic stereotypes," said Mark Feldstein, an associate professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University. "I'm not someone who readily cries anti-Semitism, but I think it's hard to look at this and not see a number of anti-Semitic stereotypes plugged into this ad, from the hook nose to the 'antichrist' to the money-grubbing character."
Bruce Newman, a professor of marketing at DePaul University and editor of the Journal of Political Marketing, said it reminded him of 1930s German propaganda, where the Jewish character was subtly made out to be the thieving villain.
"It very much crosses the line," said Newman, who is Jewish. "I'm speaking with my professional hat on now. It's a modern-day caricature of the quote-unquote villain, the one who's out to make life difficult and hurt people in the town. I've seen literature from those days and this offends me quite a bit."
University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato said the flier wasn't really any worse than other campaign literature he'd seen in hotly contested races.
"I think that's a real stretch to call that anti-Semitic, and I'm not usually inclined to give candidates the benefit of the doubt," Sabato said.

China’s oil Cards

Long overlooked on the world scene, China has been a great destabilizer of several regions of the world by its strategy in seeking to lock up supplies of oil. Sudan. Iran. Venezuela. Ecuador. China is a player in all of these areas and more. China’s efforts to lock up oil may not be as barbaric in means as the Japanese, who went on resource conquests just before World War II but it is the same idea. In any number of ways, it could lead to World War III. It’s no good for anyone. Fausta at Fausta’s blog has an illuminating post with many different links here.

DEATH TAX REFORM DIES

Our friend Daniel Clifton at Americans for Tax Reform sends us this angry note about the defeat of death tax reform in the Senate today:
The vote to proceed to Estate Tax Repeal failed 57-41 falling short of the 60 votes required to even CONSIDER the legislation. Many members of the Senate have talked about how they are for reform but not repeal but today’s vote showed this was just a red herring. You can not reform the estate tax if you vote against considering the legislation which is the vehicle to implement that reform. As such, a vote against considering the estate tax legislation today is an endorsement of the pre-2001 rates of 55 percent with a $1 million exemption, which go into effect in 2011….

China-Japan tensions? Follow the money!

Brin says Google compromised principles

Google Inc. co-founder Sergey Brin acknowledged Tuesday the dominant Internet company has compromised its principles by accommodating Chinese censorship demands. He said Google is wrestling to make the deal work before deciding whether to reverse course.
Meeting with reporters near Capitol Hill, Brin said Google had agreed to the censorship demands only after Chinese authorities blocked its service in that country. Google's rivals accommodated the same demands - which Brin described as "a set of rules that we weren't comfortable with" - without international criticism, he said….
"Perhaps now the principled approach makes more sense," Brin said.
The Paris-based group Reporters Without Borders said Tuesday that Google's main Web site, http://www.google.com, was no longer accessible in most Chinese provinces due to censorship efforts, and that it was completely inaccessible throughout China on May 31.

CAMBODIA: World Bank Freezes Funds to Protest Corruption

The Bank's move to confront the graft that is ubiquitous in Cambodia -- giving rise to a common view that "everybody is on the take" -- is receiving glowing endorsements from economists and sections of the country's civil society. "It is a timely move. This is the role of donor countries and agencies," Sok Hach, director of the Economic Institute of Cambodia, an independent think tank in Phnom Penh, told IPS.

"They have to make sure that the funds reach the people. Others should follow the World Bank's decision," said Hach….
BUT

Three major conditions laid down for aid during the current year were the introduction of a comprehensive anti-corruption law, judicial reform across the board and a campaign to control the destruction of the country's natural resources.

In agreeing to those conditions, Phnom Penh received 600 million U.S. dollars in aid, much more than the Cambodian government had requested -- 513 million U.S. dollars.

Showdown Over Divestment Resolution Set for Upcoming Presbyterian Parley

When the more than 500 national delegates convene June 15-22 in Birmingham, Ala., for the 217th General Assembly, they will be presented with a trove of proposals — known as "overtures" — calling on the church to rescind its current divestment policy. That policy, enacted two years ago at the last General Assembly, called on the church to begin "phased selective divestment in multinational corporations in Israel."
A firestorm of debate has raged within the church's 173 presbyteries — regional governing bodies that submit overtures to the General Assembly — since the divestment measure first passed in July 2004. The initial vote came as a surprise to many within the church itself and shocked Jewish communal leaders, who feared that it would prompt other mainline Protestant churches to follow suit. But Jewish leaders' concerns were allayed the following year, when the Episcopal Church of America rejected a similar divestment proposal.

39 million enroll for Medicare drug plan

The numbers are in line with what the Bush administration projected in January 2005. At the time, it said about 43 million Medicare beneficiaries would be eligible and that about 39 million would participate - either voluntarily or through automatic enrollment, or drug coverage would continue through their former employer.
Leavitt lowered the projections shortly after he become secretary in January 2005. He often referred to Wall Street estimates of 28 million to 30 million enrollees as reasonable.

Somalia Symposium

Tagesspiegel Characterizes US Military as “White Trash” and Minorities

Akaka is Flushed

Israeli air strike kills Gaza security chief

An Israeli military spokeswoman confirmed the strike, saying it targeted the camp rather than anyone specific. Abu Samhadana, on Israel's wanted list for his role in a more than 5-year-old Palestinian revolt, had survived previous attempts on his life.

A Moral Victory : The meaning of Zarqawi's death

It will take courage for normal Iraqis to blow the whistle on the insurgents among them. Take Haditha, site of the alleged Marine massacre that global publicity has made a household name for moral collapse. But how about this for moral collapse: Haditha is mined with IEDs, the remote bombs that kill U.S. soldiers. A source with contacts among the Marines there called this week to explain how this works: Insurgents offer Haditha residents $100 to plant an IED; if they decline, the insurgents promise to murder them and their families, and they do murder non-collaborators. These are villages where everyone knows everyone, not Paris in 1942. As a result of the insurgents' Satanic kill-or-die policy, my source said, any conceivable bond between U.S. troops there and the local population has been broken.
Getting Zarqawi doesn't solve this. But it helps. It shows average Iraqis that someone--their new government, the U.S., the Jordanian intelligence service and people like themselves--are capable of organizing to resist the insurgency's stone killers.
It is ironic that Hamas's statement yesterday described Zarqawi as "martyred at the hands of the savage crusade." "Crusade" was one of the favorite words used by the "slaughtering sheik." While the West gave up holy wars centuries ago, Zarqawi and al Qaeda have made it explicit that moral claims justified their murders, and many Muslims believe this. We understand that. We should then understand that the defeat of al-Zarqawi is a moral victory, and an important one.

How long before we get MSM reports of the number of “innocents” killed who just happened to “innocently” be hanging around Zaeqawi’s lair and the 17 or more related others raided that followed soon after?

UPDATE: Didn’t take the wacked-out Left bloggers long to howl at the moon. Dr. Sanity has a roundup, before they get rounded up for the rooms with soft walls. Example:

left i on the news - "Zarqawi is dead...in an airstrike on a "terrorist safe house." And the obvious question (obvious to m