As we suffer the biased reporting and commentary from the Israel-Lebanon front, we see another grievous example of what we’ve suffered from the Iraqi front. An abridged version of my Democracy-Project.com post of July 26, “Veteran Reporters,” about veterans reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan has been picked up for the 8-million readers of Military.com.

We’ve become accustomed to in-depth investigations of the common aspects of war, intelligence, tactics, decision-making, but ignore one of the key fronts in modern war, media.

Congress is not the venue, both for reasons of re-election timidity and avoiding any sense of government intrusion into the freedom of press. Media organizations, including drawing on outside experts, owe journalism, the American and global audiences, an immediate public self-examination, in depth, without the excuses and cover-ups journalists are so quick to accuse others.

In an age of instant communications, the media front is as important and determinative in the battle for the focus of world opinion and government leaders and for public opinion in the home-fronts and living rooms far removed. This is too fundamental an area not to be credibly investigated. That doesn’t mean in-house, lawyerly circumlocutions, like CBS’s of Rathergate, but rather one that meets the gold standard of former Washington Post editor Peter Braestrup’s Big Story, and then some, and then continues with widely disseminated programs in J-schools and newsrooms for reform.

Gross and offensive incompetence and bias among mainstream media has already cost it many millions of customers and much of its credibility. It has cost investigative journalists even reasonable federal shield protections. It is costing America, Israel, and all other peoples in the world with a hope for peace its opportunity, as it undermines almost any semblance of resolve. This goes beyond the survival of a vibrant mainstream media to the survival of a vibrant free world.

Both within the U.S. and abroad, there’s documented instance after instance of what’s called a double-standard: highlighting real or purported failures or injustices by the few resistant nations of the West, while underplaying or excusing common and purposeful depredations by terrorists, or even broadcasting their deluding propaganda with little or no caveat. Indeed, in too many cases this goes beyond double-standard to no-standard, belying the most basic standards of responsible journalism.

The latest instance, Israeli bombing in Lebanon, is the most striking abdication of factual truth.

There’s the far less sympathetic attention, if at all, to Israeli casualties and hundreds-of-thousands consigned to bomb shelters from purposely indiscriminate terror rockets compared to the featuring of Lebanese killed and injured when Hezbollah purposely places its rocket launchers and munitions among civilians. A Lebanese doctor just wrote how this works: [HT: Solomonia blog]

In a letter to the editor of the Berlin left-wing daily Die Tageszeitung (TAZ) a Lebanese Shia explains how after Israel’s withdrawal from South Lebanon, Hezbollah stored rockets in bunkers in his town and built a school and residence over it.
I lived until 2002 in a small southern village near Mardshajund that is inhabited by a majority of Shias like me. After Israel left Lebanon, it did not take long for Hezbollah to take have its say in other towns. Received as successful resistance fighters and armed to the teeth, they stored rockets in bunkers in our town as well. The social work of the Party of God consisted in building a school and a residence over these bunkers! A local sheikh explained to me laughing that the Jews would lose in any event because the rockets would either be fired at them or if they attacked the rockets depots, they would be condemned by world opinion on account of the dead civilians. These people do not care about the Lebanese population, they use them as shields, and, once dead, as propaganda. As long as they continue existing there, there will be no tranquility and peace.
Dr. Mounir Herzallah
Berlin-Wedding

Aside from clueless anchors and HQ’s editors, on top of all their talking-head former military -- almost all of whom have no experience in the area or specific methods of war they’re pontificating about, there’s the failure to analyze the actual precision bombing efforts and restraint by Israel. For example, here’s photographic bomb-damage-assessment of strikes in Lebanon.

Then there’s the acceptance of obviously staged depictions, if not actually Hezbollah created, of deaths at Qana. Only in the blogosphere does one see the contrary or mitigating evidence, as of the paraded baby and the justifiable targeting of Hezbollah use of the collapsed building and environs for rocket-firing and munition stores. Indeed, the Geneva Conventions state that it is Hezbollah committing war crimes and that Israel is not.

Both Protocol I and Article 28 of the Geneva Convention (IV) make clear that "the deliberate intermingling of civilians and combatants, designed to create a situation in which any attack against combatants would necessarily entail an excessive number of casualties is a flagrant breach of the Law of International Armed Conflict," according to international law scholar Yoram Dinstein (see his The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 129 - 130).| In short, Hezbollah is in violation of the laws of war when it places missiles and rockets in villages and homes in order to shield them from Israeli attack.

Article 51(7) of Protocol I states: "The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations." And the Geneva Convention (IV) holds that "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points of areas immune from military operations." (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949, Laws of Armed Conflicts, 495, 511.) Moreover, the Rome Statute is clear that "utilizing the presence of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations is recognized as a war crime by Article 8 (2) (b) (xxiii)". (Dinstein, p. 130)

The United Nations is given credence in media reports as a force for peace, when its record is one of continuous, repeated, one-sided attacks upon Israel, and consequent ineptitude in and acquiescence to Hezbollah’s entrenchment in southern Lebanon. Here’s the U.N. record of blame-Israel.

If war is too important to be left to just the generals, journalism is too important to be left to just the editors of the New York Times or CNN.

Some of my conservative or pro-Israeli friends get uncomfortable by my insistence on not abandoning the Vietnamese who are suffering under the regime that American war-weariness allowed to power in 1975. One can expect such from staunch leftists or confused liberals, but it is as unacceptable from the right or Israel’s defenders.

My mailbag this morning brings me an email from a former fighter pilot in the South Vietnamese Air Force, now 71 and living in southern California:

I am retired and am administering an independent, not for profit website in an attempt to rectify, undo the biased, unjust slandering of the South Vietnamese and the American Veterans of the Vietnam War by mainstream media. As an American, I am also promoting support for our troops who are currently fighting the war on terror to defend our nation and our freedom.

Another email is from the son of some old comrades:

I got your email from the web page at Democracy-Project where the text states: "In 1967, I worked with Charlie Wiley in his organization of the longest parade in New York City since World War II, the Support Our Men in Vietnam Parade held May 13." My late parents were involved in that too and while going through their stuff I found some artwork they had kept. One of the items is a commendation for Charles Wiley [whose incredible energy directed the effort] for that project and has many signatures at the bottom in the original ink, one of which appears to be "Bruce Kessler". [sic; it’s Kesler!] Is Charles Wiley still alive and if so do you have any contact information for him? My mother had asked that he be notified when she died and I also wanted to ask him if he might like to have this piece of artwork.

Wiley is indeed still alive, and working as hard as ever for American resolve.

Then there’s this email from the Donna Irey campaign to retire John Murtha:

"Today Jack Murtha put out a press release touting Thomas Ricks' new book, 'Fiasco,' about the conduct of the war in Iraq. Here's the opening line of Jack Murtha's press release:

"I want to bring to your attention a book review that appeared in The New York Times on July 25 that described the book, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, by Thomas E. Ricks. The article affirms what I have been saying about Iraq."

"I saw Mr. Ricks on Sunday morning's 'Meet the Press,' being interviewed by Tim Russert. Perhaps Jack Murtha missed that show -- because if he had, I'm not sure he'd be touting Mr. Ricks today.

"Asked by Mr. Russert at the end of the interview, 'But you do not think American troops should withdraw immediately,' Mr. Ricks replied:

"I think it would be irresponsible, to go in there and to do what we've done and walk away from it. There's a lot of Iraqis out there who have committed their lives to helping the Americans do something there, and to abandon those people would be absolutely shameful ... “

Charles Krauthammer gets the point:

Hearing the world pass judgment on the Israel-Hezbollah war as it unfolds is to live in an Orwellian moral universe. With a few significant exceptions (the leadership of the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and a very few others), the world -- governments, the media, U.N. bureaucrats -- has completely lost its moral bearings.

To grant Vietnam entry into the World Trade Organization without the U.S. using its major leverage to insist Vietnam verifiably complies with its hollow promises on human rights cannot be tolerated by those who support the Iraqis’ freedom from either Saddam’s or Shia or Sunni thugs, or the Israelis’ from the unremitting Arab and Iranian attacks. That’s “moral bearings.”

Thanks to the Internet, major media reporting on Iraq is challenged by milbloggers, and others, with first-person reporting and with facts that don’t fit in the major media, whether for reasons of space, contradiction to anti-war meme, or MSM incompetence.

For an earlier generation of now middle-aged Vietnam servicepeople, whose voices largely went unheard and whose reputations were tarred by major media echoing of Kerryesque fabrications, the rise of the milbloggers is cheered, and many are now getting their voice heard.

The condescension toward milbloggers oozes from the head of establishment journalism’s Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, for whom the truth is his fellows’ “big picture,” rather than piecing together a better picture from the individual shards of first-hand facts:

If the overall picture is one of continued violence and a significant lack of stability in many parts of Iraq, the individual shards of good news could be more of a distortion than a reflection of the truth.

The former managing editor of American Journalism Review, another major center for establishment journalism, exhibits this failure to gather all the facts, in her AJR article reporting on the mainstream reporters of the Haditha incident. Near the end of her long piece, she does get to the core of the problem, but ends on the MSM’s note of agreement with their “big picture”:

Coverage of these incidents is only going to increase as the cases go to trial, presenting a challenge for the press to provide fair and contextual reporting.
Galloway [Joe Galloway, recently retired military affairs correspondent fro Knight Ridder] and others point out that mistakes and abuses happen in every armed conflict. "The slaughter of innocents, accidental and deliberate, has occurred in every war man has ever fought," Galloway wrote in a June 7 column. "It's especially true in the wars of insurgency."
I asked Galloway if he has seen that kind of context, a more realistic picture of war, in coverage of Haditha. "I can't say that I have," he answered.
Human Rights Watch's Sifton says that the media should be looking at systemic problems, the bigger picture, not simply "incident, incident, incident." He adds, "I don't think Haditha coverage alone is a good thing."

I emailed her:

Lori
… after repeating the charges and allegations, you don't bother to mention the unreliable and changing narratives of "witnesses", the suspect provenance of the tape, or the refusal to allow exhumation (which is allowed in Islamic law; happy to send you the reference) although it has been permitted widely before and since.

Lori, it's far from a complete narrative you provide, and I guess the outcome will be different than many of the rushes to judgment. Although, then the major media will have moved on.

Bruce,
Thanks for your comments. Having not been to Iraq or talked to any of the people involved, I wouldn't want to comment too much on the case itself. Witness accounts in any situation can be unreliable and the tape in this case doesn't provide proof of what did or didn't happen -- it simply served as a tip to a reporter that he should look into it. Everyone I talked to is still waiting for the NCIS report for the final word. I know at least one reporter who would love to talk to the families about the exhumation question but hasn't been able to do that.

It does feel like the media have moved on from this, but I think they'll be there to cover the outcome -- it's been such a big story.
Best,
Lori

I replied:

Thanks for your reply Lori.

However, you don't address that you did not address these evidentiary issues, in simpler terms matters of direct relevance to the charges, but only the charges, as if or leaving them as if true in the minds of readers without deeper information.

Also, granted, the media will be there to cover the outcome of the case, but will they cover their prior coverage lapses?

The site links to some 1,400 blogs written by soldiers and veterans, mostly to correct what they see as shallow or inaccurate reporting by the mainstream media.

Vietnam veterans’ voices are, also, increasingly being heard. We often find each other in unlikely places on the Internet. I recently formed a friendship with a fellow Vietnam Marine, 1/5 grunt and then helicopter door gunner Harley Melton, when I came upon his post at the academic discussion site H-War debunking many of the myths about PTSD.
(See the Read More extended entry, below the fold, for excerpts from Melton’s posting on PTSD.)

I’m halfway through Harley Melton’s sadly funny semi-autobiographical novel, Touch Not This Wall (2004: featured by publisher Trafford at BookExpo America in New York in June of ’05; You can order an autographed copy directly from the author, for 1/3rd off, free shipping, for $14 at: Harley Melton, 5480 Laurie Lane, Memphis, TN 38120; or email him at sharhar@bellsouth.net to arrange purchase), which I heartily recommend. Harley writes within, drawing on the lessons his platoon learned from Winnie The Pooh:

Now another generation has its war….They, as we and our fathers and our grandfathers before us did, will come home to a land they do not recognize. To a people that do not know that the only thing that ever matters…is how you treat another.

Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are, also, active in gathering their literary muscle. As I wrote here, James Clark (remarkable bio) is gathering vets’ narratives for Global Security Press to publish a new book, Outside The Wire: True Stories of American Soldiers in Iraq. Clark can be reached at jclark@bootsontheground.org.

Another new book, Operation Homecoming: Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Home Front, in the Words of U.S. troops and Their Families, is supported by a National Endowment for the Arts program. The Operation Homecoming director says, “I think this book will be the book of a generation.” The book’s material came from 50 writing workshops held between April 2004 and July 2005 at domestic and overseas bases. Thousands of experiences representing more than 10,000 pages of manuscripts were considered.

Let mainstream journalists in the Green Zone, or who rely on suspect native stringers, or who’ve never been to Iraq or Afghanistan, try to match that as the true facts and history of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam are unfolded by true veteran journalists.

Ironically, fiscal conservatives’ rigidity of opposition to the new Medicare Part D prescription program is allowing the field to proponents of government-run nationalized health care, whose critiques of the difficulties of choice among the private insurance options are meant to create far larger costs and government-run programs.

As my op-ed begins:

Most partisan liberals and conservatives are in need of a reality-prescription to clarify their approach to the new Part D Medicare prescription drug benefit. This is a classic polarized left-right ideological confrontation that neglects the interests of the vast middle.

Sticking in the mud is not the answer.

Please see my op-ed, “Enlisting doctors in Part D Medicare choices,” up at the Washington Examiner.

While there, look around at the other opinion pieces, and make it a daily stop.

Some partygoers to Beirut may be inconvenienced by the Hezbollah terrorists and their rocket stores and sites targeted by Israel. Meanwhile, the media are silent about what is targeted in Haifa by Hezbollah.

What few are told by media reports is that Haifa is the chosen home of one of the world’s most pacifist sects, the Baha’i, a model of Arab-Israeli coexistence, and source of many of the world’s scientific breakthroughs for health and technology. In short, it represents everything Hezbollah opposes. Haifa represents the imagined future supposedly so dear to Western anti-war, really anti-Western civilization, activists who hypocritically speak of what a wonderful world it would be without Western defense against terrorists.

As the secretary-general of the Baha’i International Community in Haifa, with its gorgeous temple and Babylon-like gardens, says:

"Hizbullah would think it pretty neat if they destroyed our temple"…
"Shi'ites consider a Baha'i an apostate who can be killed for nothing," said Lincoln. "There are 350,000 Baha'i in Iran. They are excluded from higher education, including the last year of high school. If a Baha'i is killed in a traffic accident he is ineligible for compensation, because a Baha'i's life is worthless."
Members of the Baha'i community have been persecuted, and sometimes killed over the years by Muslims, especially by Shi'ites.

The Baha’i are a special target of Hezbollah’s Iranian taskmasters, even recognized by this latest U.N. report.

It’s not just Shia or Iran who hate the Baha’I for their faith, but others like Sunni-majority Egypt who detest its peaceful ways and persecute them.

Haifa is known as the center of Arab-Israeli constructive relations.

For the most part, “there is coexistence here, there is integration and practical cooperation in a normal and natural fashion,” said Fathi Marshood, an Arab who directs the Haifa office of the New Israel Fund’s training and empowerment center, Shatil. “It is a place where Jews and Arabs really can work together, argue, have a dialogue of equals and work toward joint interests as equals.”

There’s a history to this. When Arab states told their fellows in the Mandate to leave while Arab armies crushed the new Israel (then festered their hatreds and let them languish in squalid camps for decades), Jewish leadership in Haifa said stay:

The legacy of the city’s legendary Arab mayor, who between 1914 and 1920 ruled Haifa as the CEO of a successful Arab-Jewish joint venture, is a tradition of mutual tolerance and mutual respect. In 1948, when thousands of Haifa’s Arabs packed up to flee as the war erupted, members of the city’s Jewish labor federation — the strongest community organization in town — handed out leaflets pleading with their Arab neighbors to stay. Yahav keeps one of those leaflets in his drawer. “There is a history of coexistence, and there is almost no history of trauma here,” Yahav said. “There were no religious wars here. It’s no more than a fishermen’s village that has evolved into a thriving town. That’s all.”

Surely, there are Israeli Arabs who fearlessly support Hamas or Hezbollah, but their true fear is demonstrated by they have not put their feet where their mouth is by moving to Gaza or Lebanon, to leave the country that provides them the most rights and opportunities in the Middle East.

Then there’s Technion, one of the world’s top-ten scientific research and development sites in the world:

Known as "Israel's MIT," the Technion has earned a worldwide reputation for its pioneering work in electronics, information technology, water management, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials engineering and aerospace. It is one of just 10 universities in the world that build and launch satellites. It is also one of only five similar institutions worldwide that include a medical school, encouraging progress in the rapidly developing science of biotechnology. The Technion is a recognized leader in stem cell research. It is one of only 15 academic institutions and companies worldwide approved by the National Institutes of Health for government funded research.
Companies such as Microsoft, IBM, Intel, Hewlett-Packard and others have established their operations near or even on campus, where they can take advantage of the Technion's research power and outstanding graduates.

Hold your breath waiting for the CNN Special on Haifa, or the New York Times’ feature article, comparing its contributions to the world's hopes to the hopelessness that comes with the terrorists' agenda.

John Murthaducking’s proposal for U.S. forces redeploying out of Iraq to Okinawa, or somewhere in the Middle East, is succinctly harpooned by the experience of Israel withdrawing within its own borders from Lebanon and Gaza.

As this commenter says: [via MurthaMustGo blog]

Now think of it another way: Israel "redeployed" their troops out of danger to let the Palestinians and Islamists sort things out. We are seeing the aftermath of the Murtha plan for Iraq in Israel.
Hate Bush and hate the Iraq war but the chaos that would ensue if we left would be greater than this by several orders of magnitude.

It seems the Iraqis don’t think Murthaducker's priority for a U.S. withdrawal is their priority.

Gateway Pundit links to this report of a current poll of Iraqis:

** To the shock of American democrats and Okinawa John Murtha- "Withdrawal of coalition forces" failed to make the list.

Eighty-four percent of Iraqis list "security" as either their top, second, or third concern; 71 percent list “infrastructure”; and 54 percent list economic development/job creation. “Withdrawal of the coalition” was the top priority of only 13 percent of Iraqis, and among the top three of 33 percent.

More general measures confirm acceptance of the post-Saddam regime. A plurality of Iraqis now believe that Iraq is headed in the right direction, and that things will improve over the next 6 months, and in the next year. A strong majority (60 percent to 15 percent) expect things to improve over the next 5 years.

Asked about overall security in the nation, 23 percent of Iraqis consider it to be “good” or "fair", compared to 75 percent who rate it "poor." But asked about security in their own neighborhoods, the numbers change drastically. Sixty percent of Iraqis consider security “good” or "fair" where they live, compared to 38 percent who consider it poor.

For a practical solution to Murthaducker, go to the site of his election opponent, Diana Irey.

If experts want to get to some of the "root causes" of the troubles in the Middle East, perhaps they'd like to view this video, which Andrew Sullivan has posted on his site.

The imam's first line: "Jews are a virus similar to AIDS from which the whole world is suffering." Later: "The suffering of nations: the Jews are behind it."

This kind of vile propaganda isn't rare, or new, in the Arab world, but it goes almost completely unreported in the American media. This restraint must be part of the grand scheme by the Lobby to play their hand with great subtlety, lest they tip off someone like Pat Buchanan.

I’m gratified to see so many come around to my recommendation at the start of the current hostilities in the Middle East for a robust international peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon that actively roots out Hezbollah’s ability to wage terror war from there. (Yes, even the apologists for Hamas terrorists at Human Rights Watch have condemned Hezbollah’s terror-rockets packed with ball-bearings.)

Ed Morrissey offers a current summary of the latest about an international peacekeeper force, and his comments. It's excellent, except Morrisey errs when he says of Hezbollah, "Without guns, they are bullies and rockthrowers, and little more." Hamas and Hezbollah are more than about guns. They've provided much of the welfare services in their areas, that the PA and Beirut haven't.

The international and commentary discussions only center around the first part of what I recommended, and ignores the necessary second part, as I wrote at the start of current hostilities:

There is a way out, as outside current commentary as it may be:
· European forces – either under NATO or UN umbrella if possible, but anyway – secure the Lebanon and Gaza border areas, to neutralize and disarm terrorists and thus eliminate their threat to Israel and power over the nascent states; and
· At the same time fully engage in massive economic and infrastructure aid within Lebanon and Gaza, to replace the social role that Hamas and Hezbollah have filled and to build a more resistant civic culture, optimism and stake in peace.

Last night, with the wife and boys away, I rewatched one of my favorite flics, From Dusk Till Dawn. A quick snippet from a reviewer:

It's unpredictable and exhilarating. You have no idea where the movie will take you until it's all said and done. This is not your ordinary vampire flick, and that's what makes this movie so great. It's a breath of fresh air and so much more.

That’s what is wrong with expecting even a robustly armed and tasked international peacekeeper force to accomplish more than another sequel, although further in the future.

Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon are so deeply entrenched partly because they have delivered to the people there what others, inside or out, haven’t: a vast network of education and social services. That’s the structure underlying their vampirish above-ground activities. Unless that breeding nest is uprooted, the area and the world will continue to suffer sequels.

I’m not recommending, indeed against, such aid being funneled through existing Palestinian Authority or Beirut-government auspices. Instead, as part of any agreement on an international peacekeeping force, it should explicitly be tasked to a new joint international body – including experienced NGO’s – that includes funding for international media to be embedded so there is constant independent reporting that doesn’t go through UN or government filters.

The funding for such a vast endeavor must come largely from the rich Arab states. They do have the most at stake.

Just as the Europeans will be confronted with the requirement to put their troops where their mouth is, so will the Arab states be confronted with putting their money where their mouth is.

Sure, anyone can point out all the problems with this recommendation. But, I’ve yet to hear anything better, but instead variations on more of the same, leading to more sequels.

IMHO, nothing will move further toward removing the European and Arab governments and people from their decades of irresponsible caterwauling in the dark of their fantasy movie theater politics, and move them into a real dawn in the Middle East.

Call me an unbridled optimist, if you will, but don’t send me or yourself back into that theater of the absurd.

The details of analogies always break down, but that is still how most people choose to think, relying on easy similes of prior experience to understand the present. Just as the United States is seen to have kicked a hornet’s nest in Iraq, so Israel is seen by many to be doing so in Lebanon, with the forces of terror deeply embedded in the population – who prefer more peaceful and safe lives -- and swarming. Just as in Iraq, the world stood by as the hornet’s nest grew, and now recoils from the more extensive and painful measures of defense. Just as with the U.S. in Iraq, the media focus on the pain, especially among the population of Lebanon where the nest is, and Israel is blamed by the faint-hearted, those who think they’re safe in their distance, and those who seek other agendas on the Orkin-man.

This perceptual truth was starkly exhibited in the discussion between ardent Left Democrat Tom Oliphant and the New York Times’ tamer Republican David Brooks on Jim Lehrer’s Newshour last night. An extended excerpt:

TOM OLIPHANT: What I find a little interesting about this crisis at this point is that the polling data is starting to come in, and President Bush does not appear to be holding a very strong hand. You would expect normally to have a very sharp spike in approval for what he is doing, but it's not showing up.
Gallup is showing almost a 10 percentage-point difference, in favor of disapproval, in terms of how he's handling this. Lebanon makes Americans unusually worried because of its history, which is not favorable.
And I think it's very interesting late today to begin to see Democrats taking independent actions in this crisis, compared to what was going on in Congress earlier this week when you get these routine resolutions that pass overwhelmingly. Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, possible presidential candidate, Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, and interestingly enough, even Bill Clinton himself beginning to make noises about things like special envoys. How does it help this process...
JIM LEHRER: Yes, Biden sent a letter late today asking for a special envoy.
TOM OLIPHANT: I don't mean to be cynical about this, but I have a sneaking suspicion that some of those Democrats are aware of the polling data, and that may be why this was a late-breaking development.
DAVID BROOKS: Well, I guess I'd just say quickly that the Biden letter I don't understand, because there is a strategy. They're work on it. Joe can call them up, and they'll explain it to them, I'm sure.
The second thing on the polls is kind of interesting. I think that's partly Bush. You know, he's down, so anything he's associated with is going to be down, partly the images. But partly -- and I think this is a post-Iraq...
JIM LEHRER: Images meaning...
DAVID BROOKS: Like we saw on the top of the program.
JIM LEHRER: Absolutely.
DAVID BROOKS: But partly a post-Iraq effect, that fighting terrorists is futile. They seek into the ground, and you can never fight them, which is a difference behind the way people used to see Israel.
People used to see the Israeli army as something super-effective. They could take care of terrorists, and they could win whatever they set out to do. I think that image in the U.S. and, actually more importantly in the Arab world, has been hurt by Iraq.
Now the fact is, Israel has had a pretty effective war they've just won against Hamas, so they might be able to succeed, but people expect people to fail now.

As in war, to the victor goes the spoils and history writing. What’s added to this today is that instantaneous global media, largely of a like mindset, glories in bringing the horrors of war into our living rooms, and bemoans the toll on our foes. Any salesman will tell you that emotion is the overwhelming force behind making a sale. So it is among people whose decent emotions are stirred, overwhelming drier facts.

A “former advisor and operative in dozens of Democratic campaigns ranging from the city council to the White House,” writes: [HT Pajamas Media]

If Israel succeeds in shattering Hezbollah without much further complication and without getting bogged down, the support the unique nation-state currently enjoys should continue. If events spiral out of control, that historic support may be challenged as never before.

An advertising executive of Jewish background writes at Huffington Post of his fellow Liberal Jews:

The uneasiness mounts, the squirm factor intensifies, whenever Israel military muscle is applied. American Jews - particularly the NYC phylum - don't like to be seen as aggressors….
Some of it is also political; reflexively democratic, Jews are uncomfortable being on the side of Bush, and the implicit linkage of support for Israel and the war in Iraq. A CNN poll which reported that only 31% of Americans found Israel's response to be excessive, also noted that there is a lot of partisanship in the public's mood….
I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Too many Jews are secretly uptight about Israel's brazenness. They shouldn't be. They should be less tolerant of their own aggressive behavior when it means nothing, and have more solidarity with Israel's behavior when it means everything.

You’ve gotta read the Comments at Huffington to see the screeching from the moonbats.

Since the mere fact of bloodline allows JINO’s in Jewish Law, pockets of self-named Jewish allies of extreme Leftist causes around the world stage protests against Israel. Though they exploit their bloodline, while rarely if at all participating in anything else Jewish, they sit in fertile ground, as most Jews are determinedly liberal Democrats and admit more fealty to that than Israel. (See here.)

They are in like company in the wider Democrat Party, ignoring their former stout words – as they do with Iraq – but demuring from follow-through, to demand what it takes to enforce Hezbollah’s disarment in southern Lebanon, even though formerly promised by the UN.

In fairness and completeness, though I’ve defended U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’ “going to war with the military you have,” the Israelis have had the benefit the past several years’ experience of the price from inadequate feet on the ground. History has shown time and again, that’s essential, and air power alone or too small ground forces for the job are not enough. See here, for a discussion of the inadequacy of Israeli air against dug-in Hezbollah.

If Israel sends large ground forces into southern Lebanon, it will be very bloody, deep bunker-to-bunker fighting. Only the few in the U.S. who experienced the Pacific island campaigns of WWII or the tunnels of Vietnam appreciate the necessary carnage. Brought instantaneously to TV, most will cringe, and many seek mental shelter in denial of the necessary measures. At most, Israel has only scant time remaining to do this before the West imposes some sort of cease fire, and may have little stomach itself for this.

Isolationists, Western peaceniks, Leftist apologists for terrorists, paleoconservatives may “win” this one, at the price of the hornest nest growing and its swarms’ attacks getting closer and closer to their -- and our -- homes.

Literally, ultimately, only whatever fortitude President Bush can muster stands between the swarms and the U.S., the West, and Israel. Hornets do not provide safe passage to ostrichs' butts.

SEE Ralph Peters.

ALSO:

What we are seeing today is the direct result of the state sponsorship of a terrorist entity after it has gone unchecked for over two decades. Hezbollah has evolved from a terrorist, paramilitary group into the most effective fighting force in Lebanon, capable of conducting professional operations and using sophisticated weapons. The training camps in the Bekaa Valley are not only churning out fighters for Hezbollah, but train other terrorist organizations, exporting the dangerous tactics being used today in Lebanon, much like the training camps in Afghanistan served as a breeding grounds of today's crop of terrorists.
While Israel can degrade Hezbollah via air strikes, naval bombardments and limited raids, the Iranian proxy force cannot be defeated without putting boots on the ground in southern Lebanon and deep into the Bekaa Valley. Hezbollah fighters must be engaged on the ground to be defeated. Anything short of that - a buffer zone or negotiated settlement, both of which members of the Israel government and military has indicated it would accept - is a victory for Hezbollah and Iran. Hezbollah would have struck at Israeli cities and stood up the invincible Israeli army, while weakening the nascent Lebanese democracy and asserting itself as the true military power in the country. This would far exceed Hezbollah's victory of the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000.
The surprise and uncertainty of Hezbollah's military capabilities may in fact be the reason for pausing a massive invasion of Lebanon. Israel has yet to give up the option of a major ground strike, but there is resistance to moving into Southern Lebanon. The Jerusalem Post reports "IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz is known to be opposed to a ground incursion into Lebanon, which he has said would only be carried out as a last resort." The deputy prime minister and the minister of defense have also signaled a large scale ground incursion is not desired.
This attitude will need to change if Israel wishes to eliminate the threat on the northern border.

No one would accuse California of being a “red” state. But, this otherwise high-cost of living liberal state has among the lowest individual health insurance rates in the country. There’s several good reasons, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports:

People in San Diego pay among the lowest prices in the country when buying health insurance policies for their children or families, according to a report this week by a national health insurance broker.
In March, eHealthInsurance, which represents 140 insurance underwriters, examined 5,000 stand-alone health plans offered in the country's 100 largest cities….
Other California cities also ranked among the lowest prices, in part because of strong competition among insurance providers in the state and a more favorable regulatory environment, said Karen Auby, spokeswoman for eHealthInsurance. Both factors help keep insurance prices in California lower than they are in most other states, she said.
State regulators let insurance companies offer a wider range of products in California than are offered in other states, said Lynne Randolph, spokeswoman for the state Department of Managed Health Care. “I'm not surprised that California cities again rank among the top 10,” she said.
The proliferation of managed-care policies offered by health management organizations in California also contributed to lower prices here, said Christopher Ohman, chief executive officer of the California Association of Health Plans.
HMOs “know how to bargain hard” for favorable pricing for prescription drugs and hospital services, and they emphasize preventive care practices, such as childhood immunization, Ohman said.

I’ve written before (see here for a list of links) about Congressman John Shadegg’s Healthy Competition bill. It would allow individuals to purchase financially-sound policies from other states that don’t burden their costs with excessive mandates and regulation. It would also broaden accessibility by those in small states to the risk-sharing of larger insurance pools.

It’s not, alone, a panacea. Nothing, alone, is, including the proven worst panacea of nationalized government-run healthcare. However, it helps.

Another factor, as demonstrated in California, with its penetration of private managed care among the highest in the nation, is that – like the private Medicare Part D Rx plans – the demonstration that private managed care works to provide economic coverage. Those who want to pay more to search for the grail of miracle care, can. I’ve been a health insurance consultant and broker working nationally from San Diego for near two decades, and been in HMO’s myself most of my life. Managed care does not restrict my access to top quality care.

California’s reasonable level of regulation is the best I encounter around the country. That, managed care, wide choice of plans, vigorous competition among private insurers, all contribute to some of the lowest individual insurance rates in the country. Sure, they are high, but better than elsewhere.

And, a San Diego coastal heat wave is 80F! More affordable health insurance rates make it easier to pay the mortgage on the expensive housing, much of the blame for which lays with the reduction of supply from excessive environmental and regulatory restrictions. But, that’s another war.

“Captain” Ed Morrissey, at CaptainsQuarters blog, features this news.

The Israeli Association of Journalists decided on Thursday to suspend its membership in the International Federation of Journalists to protest the association’s condemnation of Israel’s attacks on Hizbullah’s Al-Manar television network.

The International Federation of Journalists’ general secretary twice condemned Israel for attacking Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television network infratructure. This follows years of extremely one-sided comments by the IFJ’s Aidan White.

Is Al-Manar a legitimate target? Israel’s representative to the IFJ says,

Al-Manar gets its budget from the same people firing upon us…They are not journalists, they are terrorists…

The European Union agrees, banning Al-Manar in 2000 from TV satellites in EU countries.

Below are listed the 3 Canadian and 4 US unions that are members of the IFJ. They must speak up to the IFJ and demand its secretary general to apologize to Israel. These unions’ Canadian and US members must speak up to their leadership and demand they make this demand of IFJ’s leader.

This is an important tell of the integrity of these unions and their members.

Indeed, the publication of this story in US newspapers and the presence of their staff within the IFJ umbrella will be an important tell of their integrity.

Don't hold your breath for news at 11 if US journalists and their unions behave as cravenly toward globopunk as usual.

NORTH AMERICA MEMBERS:
Canada: Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP)
Canada: Fédération nationale des communications (FNC)
Canada: TNG Canada / CWA
USA: American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
USA: National Writers Union (UAW Local 1981)
USA: The Newspaper Guild - CWA
USA: Writers Guild of America, East

The headline on the Rassmussen survey from Monday and Tuesday says, “Hezbollah to Blame for Current Strife, 56% Say.” You have to read down to see that another “18% place the blame on the government of Lebanon” and then read on to see “12% say Israel.”

So, a more complete headline would say something like “74% of Americans say Hezbollah and the Lebanon it controls to Blame for Current Strife.” One has to be a Rassmussen subscriber to see who the remaining 14% blame or if they're just confused or tuned out, after adding the 12% blaming Israel.

As interesting is the partisan breakdown:

A plurality of 46% say protecting Israel's right to exist is more important than securing an immediate ceasefire. Again, men (55%) and Republicans (62%) are more likely than women (37%) and Democrats (36%) to say protecting Israel should be the priority.

That unresounding Democrat resolve ought to provide something for pro-Israeli Democrat partyline Jews to remember.

This poll may also be something to remember at the New York Times and TV networks who focus on bemoaning casualties in Lebanon, by and among those who harbor terrorists.

While you’re at it, the editorial in the Washington Post is a must read of sense. Excerpts:

The usual means of stopping the fighting in the Middle East would only reward the aggressors…The usual options in the State Department's playbook would hand to the extremists who launched this war exactly the results they have hoped for…. That's why the best diplomatic step the Bush administration can take toward Syria is to ignore Mr. Assad. He should be excluded from any settlement of the current crisis and from the postwar order in Lebanon…. An international force would help only if it had a mandate and the capability to enforce Hezbollah's disarmament. That won't be possible unless Israel's military campaign greatly weakens the movement. There's a chance Israel's offensive will succeed, but it might take weeks …
The Bush administration does have one good diplomatic option, though not much has been heard about it this week. That is to insist on the passage by the U.N. Security Council of a resolution ordering Iran to stop its nuclear program, including the enrichment of uranium. The council's five permanent members and Germany promised to take such action last week after Tehran refused to respond to a package of incentives. The unprovoked attack across an international border by Iran's client Hezbollah succeeded in turning the world's attention from the nuclear crisis to the Middle East -- just as Iran must have hoped. The best response is to shift the focus back -- and make clear that the United States and its allies will not be intimidated through war-by-proxy.

The co-owner of Global Security Press is soliciting “letters, emails, blog excerpts, and other forms of communication from military personnel who have deployed as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom,” for an upcoming book.

His full message, and the email address to use, is:

Global Security Press is supporting the publication of a new book, "Outside The Wire: True Stories of American Soldiers in Iraq." This volume will contain letters, emails, blog excerpts, and other forms of communication from military personnel who have deployed as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Eligible contributors include active duty Army, National Guard and Reservists.

We are looking for heartwarming stories about American soldiers who did "good" things while in theater. Civil Affairs related missions are of particular interest. If you helped save children, build schools, feed the hungry, secure villages, turn on electricity, then we want to know about it.
Interested military personnel should send an email to jclark@bootsontheground.org. Please include in an email or cover letter your full legal name, rank and grade, permanent mailing address, dates of service, location of service, the type of communications (emails, letters, blog excerpts) proposed for the collection, and the submissions, of no more than fifty pages. There are no restrictions on the form of the written material - poetry, personal letters, war diaries, or journals. Do not send classified material. Photographs are welcome.

Here's James Clark's impressive bio.

Another indicator that veterans of Iraq won’t be treated as Vietnam vets were comes from, of all places, the alumni magazine of the very liberal college I graduated from in 1968, before enlisting in the USMC for Vietnam.

When I attended, the protest du jour on the green was the common sight. To my shock and delight, I opened the CUNY Brooklyn College alumni magazine to see photos of Army reservists now drilling there. Last time I was there, in 1969, in uniform, I had to scare off some protestors who tried to block my way, by issuing the trademarked Marine growl. It worked on these punk defenders of Ho.

In the alumni magazine, the coordinator of Veterans Affairs for the college speaks of her present constituency, that “academically, veterans do better than average.” (This is similar to the record of Vietnam veterans that was hidden by MSM falsehoods.)

In my surprise, I emailed a friend who is assistant professor of history at Brooklyn College, who is preparing an oral history book on Vietnam veterans from NYC, which is how we first met. I would characterize him as a common-sense liberal who has tried to follow the facts. His discovery “belies the stereotype…image of Vietnam veterans as dysfunctional in some way.” They are more than average contributors back to their communities. “They feel that they are obligated to give back to society.”

He emailed me back: “I do think we are trying to treat our vets better this time around.”

He added, about meeting with a bunch of 6th Marines during Memorial Day weekend’s Fleet Week in NY:

While there was some political division among them…they uniformly believe that the U.S. troops over there are doing good things. They spoke of building hospitals and schools, and bringing stability to the area. And, interestingly, not one of them had anything bad to say about the Iraqis they met. These guys are going back to Ramadi in March, and I hope to go down to Camp Lejeune to see them before they go. Iraqi vets are my next project.

Even most of the many putzes who haven’t grown out of their ‘60’s youthful protest memories, and those who today profit from the efforts John Kerry has spawned to defend his fact-punctured self-inflation, now demur from the extent of their prior demonization of Vietnam veterans. But, their focus on the extremely few over-the-line charges – still to be decided by U.S. rules of evidence -- brought against U.S. soldiers and Marines belies their continuing agenda of undermining U.S. resolve now as then, regardless of justice to our servicemen and women.

With the efforts like the above, they won’t succeed in tarring Iraq and Afghan war vets as they did Vietnam vets.

In my debut as a columnist for the Washington Examiner, I look at the state of German conservatism and conclude that it's quite healthy and plays a key role in the revival of a united Germany. I drew on a recent trip there sponsored by the Hans Siedel Foundation, which strives to bring policy wonks, Hill staffers, diplomats, scholars, and legislators to Germany to meet with their counterparts. While the Germans (like other Europeans) have their share of problems, most notably a low birthrate and too much state control of their labor market, I came away impressed with their newfound vigor.

What they lack, however, is crucial: a modern tradition of intellectual conservatism. I was surprised to find that, when asked about their leading conservative lights, they looked baffled at the question. But with time, they may develop the habit of examining democratic civil society, and if they do, they'll strengthen their ability to resist the left, both within Germany and throughout the E.U.

The question: When does a thoroughly distasteful position by one of an organization’s leading staff, although other organization positions are satisfactory, justify endorsing that organization?

The matter at hand: The CATO-ish libertarian The Independent Institute’s Director of its Center on Peace and Liberty, Ivan Eland, goes beyond even moral relativism, and beyond what he calls “grossly disproportionate action” (the falsity of which I dealt with here) to directly contradict the leaders of the G-8, most hardly friends of Israel or the U.S. for that matter, and to lay primary blame on Israel for the war and that Israel is the bigger terrorist. This goes even beyond the pale of mere isolationism to sheer extremism.

Eland says that Israel’s going after terrorists in Gaza launching rockets into Israel is the cause of the current wider conflict:

So the capture of the Israeli soldier by Hamas, on which the G-8 leaders and world press have focused, was not the beginning of the chain of events that have led to the current war.

Eland goes further, calling Israel, and the U.S. (and G-8) support, terrorism :

For instance, any time power is shut off to hospitals, some patients die. Thus, this response has to be labeled a terrorist act, rather than a defensive one as President Bush has claimed.

[Hezbollah] launched the latter inaccurate rocket salvos en masses only after Israel began committing terrorist acts on Lebanon…Since Israel withdrew its occupation forces from Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah had exhibited restraint…

The total civilian casualties on each side also indicate that Israel’s attacks have strayed into terrorism…

Eland concludes by calling Hamas and Hezbollah “rag-tag groups,” that “no one can excuse [for] genuine terror acts,” downplaying by no further mention and thus ignoring their holding two states in their power, numbering tens of thousands of armed forces, and possessing and using advanced weaponry.

Eland then emphasizes his comparative emphasis by saying, “the great power…the United States [should not] look the other way while the governments – read Israel – systematically kill more civilians under the guise of a disingenuous claim of offensive self-defense.”

One might dismiss Eland’s extremism, as an individual and his right of free speech. But, when he is a key leader of a major think tank, whose Advisory Board includes some of the leaders of libertarian, conservative and liberal activism in the U.S., such words are given weight.

Below are the names of the Board of Advisors of The Independent Institute. I encourage all of you, particularly those who know any of them, to contact them politely and request that they disassociate themselves to fellow Advisor Board members from Eland’s extremism. Whatever they care to do then is up to their conscience.

This is a matter of conscience, of core ethics. No more than any self-respecting conservative could fail to disassociate themselves from Welsh, McCarthy or Buchanan, or liberal from Kosites, should any self-respecting Advisory Board member fail to disassociate from Ivan Eland. Being on the masthead of an Advisory Board may be prestigious, and meeting fellow luminaries fun, but this does not excuse lending one’s name to positions fundamentally at odds with one’s beliefs, at least if they mean anything.

Here’s more from Eland, as he expounds his position:

… could the tragedy of September 11th have set in motion a chain of events even more ominous than the attacks themselves?
… Meanwhile, the U.S. has pursued a pre-emptive war and military occupation in Iraq, and the Middle East is increasingly unstable. World leaders in Europe, Asia, Africa, and around the world view U.S. military intervention with increasing alarm, and international sentiment indicates that the U.S. is more hated than ever. Could U.S. policies be provoking much of this hatred and further threats to the safety of Americans and people around the world? If so, the broader war against the “axis of evil” has played right into bin Laden’s hands.
… Will the Orwellian USA PATRIOT Act—legislation still being written when it was passed by Congress—really hinder terrorists or simply enable militant fundamentalists to destroy American liberty as the U.S. itself shreds the Bill of Rights?

If any of the Advisory Board agree with these New York Times clone positions, they are in the right place, but those who disagree must not stand idly by.

The Independent Institute’s Board of Advisors:
· Herman Belz
Professor of History, University of Maryland
· Thomas Bethell
Columnist and Author, The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages
· Thomas E. Borcherding
Professor of Economics, Claremont Graduate School
· Boudewijn R. A. Bouckaert
Professor of Law, University of Ghent, Belgium
· James M. Buchanan
Nobel Laureate in Economic Science University Professor, Center for the Study of Public Choice, George Mason University
· Allan C. Carlson
President, Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society
· Robert D. Cooter
Herman F. Selvin Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley
· Robert W. Crandall
Senior Fellow, Economic Studies, Brookings Institution
· Richard A. Epstein
James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago
· A. Ernest Fitzgerald
Author, The High Priests of Waste and The Pentagonists: An Insider's View of Waste, Mismanagement and Fraud in Defense Spending
· B. Delworth Gardner
Emeritus Professor of Economics, Brigham Young University
· George Gilder
Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute
· Nathan Glazer
Professor of Education and Sociology, Harvard University
· William M. H. Hammett
Former President, Manhattan Institute
· Ronald Hamowy
Emeritus Professor of History, University of Alberta, Canada
· Steve H. Hanke
Professor of Applied Economics, Johns Hopkins University
· Ronald Max Hartwell
Emeritus Professor of History, Oxford University, England
· James J. Heckman
Nobel Laureate in Economic Science, Henry Schultz Distinguished Service Professor of Economics, University of Chicago
· Wendy Kaminer
Contributing Editor, The Atlantic Monthly; Member, Board of Directors, ACLU
· Lawrence A. Kudlow
Chief Executive Officer, Kudlow & Company; Co-Host, Kudlow & Cramer, CNBC; Former Associate Director for Economics and Planning, Office of Management and Budget
· John R. MacArthur
Publisher, Harper's Magazine
· Deirdre N. McCloskey
Distinguished Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Illinois, Chicago
· J. Huston McCulloch
Professor of Economics, Ohio State University
· Thomas Gale Moore
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
· Charles Murray
Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
· Michael Novak
George Frederick Jewett Chair in Religion and Public Policy, American Enterprise Institute
· June E. O’Neill
Director, Center for the Study of Business & Government, Baruch College; Former Director, U.S. Congressional Budget Office
· Tom Peters
Co-Author, In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies ; Author, Liberation Management and A Passion for Excellence: The Leadership Diffference
· Charles E. Phelps
Provost and Professor of Political Science and Economics, University of Rochester
· Paul Craig Roberts
Chairman, Institute of Political Economy; Former Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy, U.S. Department of the Treasury
· Nathan Rosenberg
Fairleigh S. Dickinson, Jr. Professor of Public Policy, Stanford University
· Simon Rottenberg
Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Massachusetts
· Paul H. Rubin
Professor of Economics and Law, Emory University
· Bruce M. Russett
Dean Acheson Professor of International Relations, Yale University; Editor, Journal of Conflict Resolution
· Pascal Salin
Professor of Economics, University of Paris, France
· Arthur Seldon
Founder-Director, Institute of Economic Affairs, London, England
· William F. Shughart II
Robert M. Hearin Chair in Economics and Finance, University of Mississippi
· Vernon L. Smith
Nobel Laureate in Economic Science; Professor of Economics and Law, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science, George Mason University
· Joel H. Spring
Professor of Education, State University of New York, New Paltz
· Richard L. Stroup
Professor of Economics, Montana State University
· Thomas S. Szasz
Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus, Health Science Center, State University of New York, Syracuse
· Robert D. Tollison
BB&T Senior Fellow and Professor of Economics, Clemson University
· Arnold J. Trebach
Professor of Law, American University
· William Tucker
Author, The Excluded Americans: Homelessness and Housing Policies
· Gordon Tullock
University Professor of Law and Economics and Distinguished Research Fellow, George Mason University
· Gore Vidal
National Book Award-Winner, Playwright, Screenwriter, and Author of the “American Chronicle” Series of Historical Novels
· Richard E. Wagner
Hobart R. Hobart Professor of Economics, George Mason University
· Alan Walters
Vice Chairman, AIG Trading Company
· Paul H. Weaver
· Walter E. Williams
Distinguished Professor of Economics, George Mason University
· Charles Wolf
Senior Economist and Corporate Fellow, International Economics, RAND Corporation

My practical orientation isn’t much for philosophical musings. But, I like others can’t and shouldn’t avoid searching for broad guidance from first principles. They may not dictate THE answer. However, it helps to raise some of the needed questions.

In that spirit, law professor Steve Bainbridge wrote for Tech Central Station an inquiry into Catholic Just War doctrine relative to the current war against and by Israel, as he titles his piece “Just War for the Sake of Argument.”

Being Catholic, Bainbridge feels obligated to examine “pronouncements in this area under the just war standard.” Being Jewish, I feel obligated to examine “on-the-one-hand and on-the-other” argumentation in coming to a practical point, and being fact-oriented to consider the evidence.

Bainbridge concedes that Catholic Just War doctrine’s first three requirements are met by Israel in fighting back, but is fearful that Israel may be approaching breaking the fourth Just War principle for proportionality.

I'll assume that the conditions set forth by just war doctrine for initiating combat are satisfied.
Even so, Israel also remains bound by the fourth condition -- namely, the need for proportionality….
In short, even a just war must be waged justly. Israel is entitled to defend itself, but is not entitled to do so disproportionately or to wage war on civilians. Yet, that is precisely what Israel appears to be on the brink of doing.

Bainbridge emailed me, when I questioned his logic (I didn’t get into facts for judgment):

Deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure strikes me as problematic. Worse yet, the “collateral damage” cost in human life is spiraling upward.

Several of Bainbridge’s readers offer telling comments. One says it’s :

Time to update the theory then: It now looks like Lebanon came pre-optimized to test the bounds of the theory. It has an army of irregulars, funded and well supplied by foreign nations, making incursions into a neighboring nation and lobbing explosives at civilians inside that nation. The irregulars' supply lines just happens to be the main highway to another nation, a.k.a. national infrastructure. The irregulars have a political party, with representation in the parliament and in the cabinet. The irregulars hide themselves, their weapons, and the political apparatus within the population.

The theory may not be incorrect, proportionality being Western decency. Bainbridge’s application of it may be incorrect in the absence of military understanding, a common fault of intellectuals and those without military experience or knowledge.

Another Bainbridge reader, at Bainbridge’s blog, replies to a point made by Bainbridge (in italics below):

A country with a poor economy and poor infrastructure is a breeding ground for terrorists.
Unlike, say, Saudi Arabia, Spain, or Britain, which could never generate terrorists.
Take a look at Alan B. Krueger and Jitka Maleckova, Education, Poverty, Political Violence and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection?
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9074
"we analyze data on support for attacks against Israeli targets from public opinion polls conducted in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These polls indicate that support for violent attacks does not decrease among those with higher education and higher living standards. The core contribution of the paper is a statistical analysis of the determinants of participation in Hezbollah militant activities in Lebanon. The evidence we have assembled suggests that having a living standard above the poverty line or a secondary school or higher education is positively associated with participation in Hezbollah."

Again. The data doesn’t support Bainbridge’s application of the Catholic Just War doctrine or theory of justice in war.

Another reader of Bainbridge’s blog comments:

I'm an agnostic so I never analyze anything on the basis of religious dogma. That out of the way, let me say that you raised some points with respect to proportionality that deserve careful consideration.
The first has to do with collateral damage. As you rightly noted, "Bomber" Harris' area bombing campaign was even viewed in its day as being ethically dubious. In contrast, the U.S. daylight "precision" bombing campaign was viewed, for better or worse, differently because there was an attempt to go after purely military targets. Never mind that many, if not most, bombs fell astray. This suggests that intent - the intent to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties - be a factor in determining if a military action is being conducted in a proper way.
A second consideration is, what constitutes a "military target"? The ball bearing works at Schweinfurt employed civilians - German military personnel didn't work in factories. Yet, those ball bearings were essential to the German war machine which was being supported directly by those civilian workers. In fact, those workers undoubtedly knew they were working directly for the military so it cannot be said that they were perfectly "innocent". Likewise, it is fair to say that some number of "civilians" who have been killed in Israeli attacks are actively working for and supporting Hezbollah fighters. They are not "innocent" either.
A third consideration is one I addressed in an essay I posted on 7 March 2005 titled Preemptive war against Iran. The issue I addressed is the human cost to the potential aggressor if he is allowed to carry out his attack. Using the same analytical basis, the argument is that taking out Hezbollah now, even at the cost of some innocent lives, will actually save many more innocent lives in the future. Were a future proxy attack on Israel to consist of VX Nerve Gas, thousands or even tens of thousands of Israeli civilians would be killed. It is quite likely that the Israelis would respond with a "limited" nuclear attack on Iran in tit-for-tat fashion that would cause thousands of civilian casualties in that country.
I agree with you that, unlike our enemies, we must conduct war as ethically as possible. I trust that we also agree ethnics does not require that we render ourselves impotent and defenseless.

Again, not only the facts but also the wider issues of proportionality, undermine the unsubstantiated theoretical positing of Catholic Just War doctrine.

Bainbridge concedes Israel’s just cause. Israel Prime Minister Olmert gets to the practical point:

Radical, terrorist and violent elements are sabotaging the
life of the entire region and placing its stability at risk.
The region in which we live is threatened by these murderous
terror groups.
It is a regional - as well as global - interest to take
control and terminate their activity….
Citizens of Israel, there are moments in the life of a nation, when it is
compelled to look directly into the face of reality and say:
no more!
And I say to everyone: no more!
Israel will not be held hostage - not by terror gangs or by
a terrorist authority or by any sovereign state.
In the life of a nation there are moments of transcendence,
of purification, when political and sectarian disputes which
separate us are replaced by a sense of mutual
responsibility.

Bainbridge should also concede that the facts of Israeli actions in that cause are just and correct and proportionate. Indeed, as some have commented, only disproportionate in their past and present restraint not excess.

The editor of the Arab Times weighs in:

PEOPLE of Arab countries, especially the Lebanese and Palestinians, have been held hostage for a long time in the name of "resisting Israel." Arab governments have been caught between political obligations and public opinion leading to more corruption in politics and economics. Forgetting the interests of their own countries the Hamas Movement and Hezbollah have gone to the extent of representing the interests of Iran and Syrian in their countries. These organizations have become the representatives of Syria and Iran without worrying about the consequences of their action….
While the people of Palestine and Lebanon are paying the price of this bloody conflict, the main players, who caused this conflict, are living in peace and asking for more oil from Arab countries to support the facade of resisting Israel. With the Palestinian Authority close to collapse and the Lebanese government beginning to give up responsibility for what is happening in its territory, Saudi Arabia has been forced to come out of its diplomatic routine and indirectly hold Hezbollah responsible for what is happening Lebanon.

Without mentioning Hezbollah by name Saudi Arabia blamed certain "elements" inside Lebanon for the violence with Israel and said "it is necessary to make a distinction between legitimate resistance and uncalculated adventures adopted by certain elements within Lebanon without the knowledge of legal Lebanese authorities."…
Unfortunately we must admit that in such a war the only way to get rid of "these irregular phenomena" is what Israel is doing. The operations of Israel in Gaza and Lebanon are in the interest of people of Arab countries and the international community.

These last two comments don’t get directly at the specific tactics, of specific “proportionality,” per se, but do pretty well properly frame the issue of proportionality in its broader regional and future context as reasonable acts of war.

Neither Bainbridge’s worry about specific proportionality is merited by the specific facts or by the general situation and stakes.

Bainbridge has not yet replied at TCS or his blog to the commenters, so I sent him the above and invited him to here:

If you're right, then why not just adopt what those of us who grew up in the Army back during Vietnam used to hear called the Westmoreland solution: Put all the friendlies in boats out in the South China Sea. Nuke Vietnam into a parking lot. Sink the boats.

Either you believe a just war ought to be fought ethically or not. Hezbollah doesn't. Do you really want to descend to their ethical level? Because that's basically what you're doing.

Sadly, Bainbridge’s childhood recollections of Vietnam, and his accusation toward me, are both in error and not in the spirit of civil discussion or fact-based analysis of just war theory.

Bainbridge may dismiss as irrelevant the disproportionality of Hezbollah or Hamas. But, this from today’s New York Times presents the continuing strategy of these to purposely target Israeli civilians, not just as “collateral damage” that may occur by Israel from those killed or injured around Hamas or Hezbollah military targets, and the practical proportionate defensive result.

Some 30 rockets fired by Hezbollah hit Haifa and other parts of northern Israel. One rocket leveled much of an apartment house, critically wounding one person. Another Hezbollah rocket landed next to a hospital in Safed, slightly wounding six people….
Brig. Gen. Ido Nehushtan, on the Israeli general staff, said, “We have damaged Hezbollah but they still have significant operational capacity.” He noted the decline in rockets launched into Israel in the last two days — an average of 40 a day, down from initial highs of 150 — and said it was a testament to the damage caused by the Israelis.

Since Steve Bainbrodge declines to engage in factual or civil discussion of his musings, I’ll return to the theoretical framework, his own launch point, with this from a student of international law:

Hugo Grotius, the 17th century jurist and father of public international law, stated in his 1625 magnum opus The Rights of War and Peace that "Most Men assign three just Causes of War, Defense, the Recovery of what's our own, and Punishment." Using Grotius' criteria, Israel's recent use of force against Hamas and Hezbollah can be considered trebly justified, given that it seeks to defend itself from enemy incursions, recover its kidnapped citizens, and ensure that such invasions are not repeated.

ALSO, don't miss "Admirable Restraint" at Tech Central Station.

Last Saturday, I wrote about this “Kerry Group’s ‘actionable libel’?” Today, the so-called Patriot Project’s James Boyce punked.

First, he mentions his offending blog post at the Huffington Post. But, Boyce doesn’t mention that apparently the Huffington Post has blinked at Boyce’s irresponsible innuendos, and pulled his post from its website. Nor does Boyce mention that his own website thought better of his scurrilous innuendos and the Patriot Project didn't even post it.

Second, Boyce continues his irresponsibility by putting words in Swiftee John O’Neill’s mouth that came from mine, that the Patriot Project “may be approaching ‘actionable libel.’ “ What John O’Neill said to me and I quoted was that Boyce’s accusations are a “complete makeup.” It seems that Boyce, the Patriot Project and the Huffington Post agree, pulled their posts, before they do have to lose a suit for “actionable libel.”

Third, Boyce’s only puny comeback is to cite an August 31, 2004 payment to John O’Neill of $50,000 to “reimburse media training.” Laughable, when O’Neill funded the first tens of thousands of dollars of Swiftboat Veterans for Truth out of his personal pocket, literally within days of contributing his kidney to his ill wife then took many months away from his highly lucrative law practice, and contributed his giant royalties from Unfit For Command to charity.

Then, to cap Boyce’s effrontery, Boyce begs readers to send contributions to the Patriot Project! Yeah, throw more money down this rathole for a punk!

John O’Neill just emailed me:
“I guess this is how a weasel retracts and disappears into the shadows or to Cambodia for Christmas (as the case may be)."

James Boyce, and John Kerry too, you should embroider those words on your crests of punkdom.

UPDATE:
A fellow moonbat of James Boyce, Taylor Marsh, also affiliated with the Patriot Project, is pulled in by Boyce’s demons. Marsh supports Boyce’s payola innuendo, saying “that Boyce used public information to prove his post over at Huffington Post.” What neither Boyce nor Marsh bothered to find out is the facts. Boyce charged:

This past February 6, 2006, the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth made a $100,000 payment to Admiral Roy Hoffman one of the key defamers of John Kerry. This was on top of a $10,000 payment made in 2005, another $100,000 payment to the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation… With money like this being paid to anyone who is willing to follow orders and lie on cue, is it any wonder that this past May another Admiral who was involved in the Swift Boat lies, Admiral Bud Schachte of Charleston, South Carolina, a man who claimed he was dragged into the Swift Boat mess against his wishes, came out and did a newspaper article ready to "re-engage John Kerry" in the Swift Boat debate.
After all, with his fellow Admiral clearing a solid six figures a year on top of his Naval pension, Bud Schachte certainly wasn't going to let opportunity, or should I say $100,000, pass him by.

In fact, there was a $10,000 and a $100,000 payment from the Swiftees not to Admiral Hoffman but, as shown on the reports Boyce claims to have examined, to the Admiral Hoffman Foundation that were loans that were repaid from Unfit For Command royalties, which were donated to the Foundation to the tune of over $1.3 million (with admin and reporting costs of about $40,000) that went to grants to the families of badly wounded military servicepeople. ---- Question: Where’s John and Teresa’s hundreds of millions of dollars? Likely large amounts to the fools at the Patriot Project trying to resurrect John Kerry, and Boyce being paid by it.

Marsh is himself even too lazy to use a search engine, or to read my bio at Democracy-Project, as he wonders, “But something else about the Democracy Project is that they evidently are close enough to have O'Neill's ear. “ Marsh may be enlightened to know that John and I have been friends since 1971.

As to Marsh’s revelation that the Huffington Post is still carrying Boyce’s errors: It was removed several hours ago, and now reappears. Does the Huffington Post or James Boyce care to affirm Boyce’s charge-accusation-innuendo? That should play to their detriment in court.

These defenders of the Kerry self-imaginings demonstrate they are in the correct leaky boat with Kerry.

UPDATE #2: I just received a copy of this email from the Swiftee who served as Treasurer of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth:

Despite great personal expense Admiral Hoffmann only received just over $1,000 in travel reimbursements in the nearly two years of SBVFT existence.

SBVFT made two donations to the Admiral Roy F. Hoffmann Foundation. A $10,000 donation was made, as was a $100,000 donation, which was later reimbursed back to SBVFT by the Foundation. In the interim the Foundation used the money for payments to soldiers and Marines who had suffered grievous wounds during the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. To think that those funds were used by any individuals is a despicable distortion slandering honorable men.

Cynics of Western resolve – as justified by the past as they are -- were surprised at the G8’s priority in damning Hezbollah’s kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and rocket attacks on Israel. They may be surprised again, if the U.S. continues to exert its influence strongly to capitalize on EU moral relativism and the fear from the Arab Sunni states of Iran.

Near the start of hostilities, July 13, I recommended we think and act “outside the box” with “A European Solution to Gaza & Lebanon Problem?” The response in the blogosphere was underwhelming, although some thought it a noble attempt at being “positive” or “constructive.” Now, developments may be heading that way, at least if the U.S. can again succeed enlisting Western support again for a firm stance. I wrote:

There is a way out, as outside current commentary as it may be:
· European forces – either under NATO or UN umbrella if possible, but anyway – secure the Lebanon and Gaza border areas, to neutralize and disarm terrorists and thus eliminate their threat to Israel and power over the nascent states; and
· At the same time fully engage in massive economic and infrastructure aid within Lebanon and Gaza, to replace the social role that Hamas and Hezbollah have filled and to build a more resistant civic culture, optimism and stake in peace….
The U.S. and Europe are not that far apart. Neither wants regional conflict or it enlarging in the Middle East, but both see that the primary barrier to peace and future democratic development is in the instability created by Hamas and Hezbollah.
European, and Canadian, armed forces are actively engaged in taking the pacification of Afghanistan outside Kabul, and are succeeding in decimating Taliban insurgents. They demonstrate resolve and effectiveness when applied. They can do the same along the Gaza and Lebanese border areas, breaking Syria and Iran’s stranglehold on progress within Gaza and Lebanon and with Israel.

On July 15, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton to the U.N. spoke clearly, as usual, telling the Security Council and the world what an outcome must look like:

Let us be clear that without the financial and material support of Damascus and Tehran, Hamas would be severely crippled in carrying out its terrorist operations….We stress again our condemnation of Syrian and Iranian support of Hizballah, which has claimed responsibility for the other kidnappings along the Blue Line between Israel and Lebanon. We further call on the Palestinian Authority government to stop all acts of violence and terror and comply with the principles enunciated by the Quartet: renounce terror, recognize Israel, and accept previous obligations and agreements, including the Roadmap.

Nonetheless, as usual, when Israel is firm and successful, the equivocators at the U.N. and in the EU run forth to hobble it and recommend “solutions” that rollback and undermine Israel’s gains.

There can be little doubt that is U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan’s purpose in recommending a U.N. peacekeeping force along the southern border of Lebanon. The quick concurrence by Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair, continues his and the EU’s moral relativism and past ineffectualness in supporting a real peace from Israel’s neighbors.

Israel, of course, replied politely, buying time:

But Israel said it was too soon to talk of sending the force. "We're at the stage where we want to be sure that Hizbollah is not deployed at our northern border," government spokeswoman Miri Eisin said.
Army Radio quoted Israel's chief of staff as saying Israel planned to enforce a 1 km (0.5 mile) "security zone" to keep Hizbollah away from the border.

And U.S. presidential spokesman Tony Snow concurred:

Sending in an armed force ``may be a tad premature, although it is a distinct possibility,'' said White House spokesman Tony Snow.

Ed Morrissey presents the many reasons why such a U.N. peacekeeping presence will be worthless and counterproductive, succinctly summed:

And this is where the problem lies. UN peacekeeping forces do not fight. Historically, they run away.

Israel and the U.S. are buying time from the seemingly inevitable U.N. ineffectualness and fecklessness:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, meanwhile, signaled an openness to talk with the UN delegation when it arrives over how to end the crisis. He said that while Israel had a checkered past with the UN, it was important to bear in mind that the UN Security Council did pass Resolution 1559 which calls on the Lebanese government to dismantle armed militias and take full control of all of Lebanon. Furthermore, he said, Annan shepherded this resolution through the UN system, over Syrian objections.
Olmert told the cabinet that Israel would cooperate with the UN delegation as long as its goals would first and foremost be the return of the abducted Israeli soldiers, and the end of rocket fire on Israel both in the North and the South. "We are not going to return to the situation that existed before last Wednesday," Olmert said "That was an insufferable situation."
Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz, in his briefing to Sunday's cabinet, asked the government to give it time to deliver a blow to Hizbullah from which it would be difficult for the organization to recover.
"The way we finish this will have ramifications for the entire Middle East," Halutz said, adding that "everyone is watching" - the Syrians, the Palestinians and the Iranians. He said the goal is to severely weaken Hizbullah militarily, diplomatically, and in terms of support it gets from the Lebanese population.
Nevertheless, government officials said that everyone realizes that the time frame Israel has to act is not unlimited.

The United States has the opportunity to turn the U.N. Security Council debate over any such force into something more worthwhile, and maybe even again surprising justifiable cynics, by standing firm for any U.N. force to be required to actively inspect and destroy any Hamas or Hezbollah rocket stores or launch-pads throughout Gaza and southern Lebanon.

If unrealistic, I prefer to remain optimistic rather than defeatistically cynical.

Personally, although I seriously doubt Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert to have the experience, daring or stones of Sharon, I would prefer to first see Israel go much further in Lebanon, which Israel is in a position to do, which may also undo the little dentist’s hold on a threatening Syria, and to take advantage of this present time to setback Iran’s nuclear capacity and credibility among radical Shia in the Middle East.

Sure, the anyway timid or opposed world opinion may howl, but they do anyway. The Western and Sunni Arab states would secretly cheer, and then any peacekeeping force be properly directed and possibly even worthwhile.

UPDATE: Count on President Bush to be forthright, and Blair and others in EU to be equivocal:

It wasn't meant to be overheard. Private luncheon conversations among world leaders, picked up by a microphone, provided a rare window into both banter and substance — including President Bush cursing Hezbollah's attacks against Israel.
Bush expressed his frustration with the United Nations and his disgust with the militant Islamic group and its backers in Syria as he talked to British Prime Minister Tony Blair during the closing lunch at the Group of Eight summit.
"See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s--- and it's over," Bush told Blair as he chewed on a buttered roll.
He told Blair he felt like telling U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who visited the gathered leaders, to get on the phone with Syrian President Bashar Assad to "make something happen." He suggested Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice might visit the region soon….
Blair, whose remarks were not as clearly heard, appeared to be pressing Bush about the importance of getting international peacekeepers into the region.

ALSO SEE “Arabs Fear Iran More Than They Hate The Jews.”

Wonder how to support Israel in its battle against surrounding enemies?

Ever been cooped up with a kid in the house or apartment all day? Imagine that kid cooped in a small bomb shelter, and the wearing anxiety on their family? Ever been in the military or had a relative or friend heartened by receiving a “care package” from strangers?

That’s what you can do to help Israel’s resolve and morale: Contribute to tax-deductible funds to send Israeli children away from the path of terror rockets to safer camps in Israel’s small interior; Contribute to send “care packages” to those serving in the Israeli Defense Forces.

Like many local United Jewish Federations in the U.S., the San Diego UJF has made it quite easy to help, by setting up a webpage that allows you to contribute whatever you’re able, for both needs or to designate one, and it’s a tax-deductible contribution 100% of which will go to the designated charities. Your contribution will be charged to your credit card.

There isn’t such a national website set up. And, the tax deductibility of your contribution isn’t clear at, for example, the site of the Friends of the IDF at its website. It is at the San Diego UJF website, and you will instantly online receive your clearly designated as tax-deductible receipt. I know many of the people at the San Diego UJF, their integrity and fairness, and this effort by them is a reliable avenue for you to help.

Just go to this site at https://secure.ujcfederations.org/ft2/form.html?__id=9124. It takes only a few minutes, and will mean much.

It will also mean much if you’d email or phone the local office of your Congressperson and Senator to briefly express your expectation that he or she will support resolutions and bills that support Israel’s necessary actions against terrorists and their state-sponsors.

How can I ask you to think about the Vietnamese people when U.S. interests are absorbed by the crises in the Middle East, the nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea, or in big power diplomacy with Russia and China?

Simple answer: If our principles and efforts in those crises mean anything, some consistency is required, particularly where they can do some tangible, near-term good, and if our pledges to Iraqis or Israelis mean anything, they must be demonstrated to the people of our prior war.

The United States holds the key to Vietnam’s much desired entry into the World Trade Organization, and must first insist on concrete and verifiable compliance by Vietnam in meeting its so far hollow human rights pledges.

Instead, across political party lines, U.S. commercial interests are more committed to their potential profits foregoing this leverage regardless of the human price, and with strong Bush administration support have lobbied so far successfully for Congress to approve Permanent Normal Trade Relations for Vietnam to enter the WTO. President Bush is planned to visit Vietnam next November, and aside from the theory this would leverage relations with China, would welcome a peaceful coexistence demonstration with this former enemy.

Yet, President Bush crows in Moscow, as negotiations are unsuccessful for U.S. support of Russia entering the WTO, that

"We're tough negotiators," Bush said when a Russian reporter asked about U.S. resistance. "And the reason why is because we want the agreement that we reach to be accepted by our United States Congress."

In today’s Washington Post, a feature article trumpets Vietnam’s expanding economy and its trade prospects:

"WTO seems to be motivating quite a considerable amount of change in Vietnam," said Jonathan Pincus, senior country economist for the U.N. Development Program. "The vast majority of that change has been positive. The vast majority of that change is still to come."
Entry to the WTO would follow nearly two decades of economic liberalization that helped transform Vietnam into one of Asia's fastest-growing economies. Despite widespread corruption and bureaucratic lassitude, Vietnam's economy has expanded by 50 percent in the last five years.

But, not a word in this Washington Post feature article out of over 1200 about the sad state of human rights in Vietnam.

This is curious, to say the least, from a newspaper that along with others in the major media are so quick to headline the latest charges about U.S. purported human rights failures in the War On Terror. Even more curious is that the leftist staff in NGO Human Rights Watch’s Middle East section are the source of so many such criticisms, yet when the Executive Director of HRW’s Asia Division just issued a scathing open letter to Vietnam’s Prime Minister about Vietnam’s well documented depredations, the Washington Post and the rest of the MSM can’t find room to feature it.

Some examples from HRW:

* As you know, Article 19 of the ICCPR provides for the right to freedom of expression. In contrast, Vietnam’s Law on Publications strictly bans publications that oppose the government, divulge state secrets, or disseminate reactionary ideas. According to Vietnam’s Press Law, the role of the media is to serve as the voice of the party and state. There are no privately-owned media outlets; all publications are published by the government, the Party, or Party-controlled organizations.

In addition, the government controls the Internet by blocking websites considered objectionable or politically sensitive, monitoring email and on-line forums, and making Internet café owners responsible for information accessed and transferred on the Internet by their customers.

* Article 21 of the ICCPR recognizes the right of peaceful assembly, and Article 22 provides for the right to freedom of association with others. In Vietnam, however, political parties, unions, and nongovernmental human rights organizations that are independent of the government, the Party or mass organizations controlled by the Party are not allowed to operate. Public demonstrations are extremely rare, especially after government crackdowns against mass protests in the Central Highlands in 2001 and 2004.

* Followers of religions that are not officially recognized by the government continue to be persecuted. Security officials disperse their religious gatherings, confiscate religious literature, and summon religious leaders to police stations for interrogation.
* Hundreds of religious and political prisoners remain behind bars in prisons throughout Vietnam, including in Ha Nam, Dong Nai, Phu Yen, Nghe An / Ha Tinh, and Thanh Hoa provinces. There is compelling evidence of torture and other mistreatment of detainees. Prison conditions are extremely harsh and fall far short of international standards. We have received reports of solitary confinement of detainees in cramped, dark, unsanitary cells; and of police beating, kicking, and using electric shock batons on detainees, or allowing inmates or prison gangs to carry out beatings of fellow prisoners with impunity.

Police officers routinely arrest and detain suspects without written warrants. The judicial system is vulnerable to government or party interference and pressure. Trials of dissidents are closed to the public, the media, and often to the families of the detainees themselves. Defendants often do not have access to independent legal counsel.

Similarly, in June the

President of the Paris-based Vietnam Committee on Human Rights and Vice-President of the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), wrote to UN Secretary-general Kofi Annan, the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, Louise Arbour and the President of the UN Human Rights Council, Luis Alfonso de Alba to draw their attention to the gross and systematic human rights violations in Vietnam, which he qualified as “a veritable blight on humanity”.

Mr. Ai called on the new UN Human Rights Council to address the situation in Vietnam as an urgent priority, stating that Vietnam was “seeking to become a full member of the international community whilst cynically disdaining its binding obligations to respect human rights”.

Annexed to his letter was a new report by the Vietnam Committee entitled “2006 : Grave Violations of Human Rights in Vietnam” with a detailed overview of “Vietnam’s policy of complete lack of dialogue with UN human rights mechanisms combined with systematic abuses of its citizens fundamental rights”. (See full text).

The document describes political repression orchestrated at the highest levels of the Vietnamese Communist Party and State, and the regime’s total non-compliance with UN human rights mechanisms. Vietnam has systematically refused to invite UN Special Rapporteurs (on Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion etc.) to visit Vietnam since 1998, when the then UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, Abdelfattah Amor issued a highly critical report on the religious freedom and human rights situation following his in situ visit. Moreover, the government fails to submit mandatory periodic reports (due every 2 years) on its implementation of UN treaties ratified by Vietnam. Its report on the UN International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, one of the UN’s key human rights treaties, is overdue since 1995. Concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, not only has Vietnam taken no heed of the UN Human Rights Committee’s recommendations to bring Vietnamese laws into line with international human rights law, but has done exactly the opposite, adopting extensive new legistation to “codify” political repression and stifle peaceful dissent.

There's more examples here at the Montagnard Foundation.

Congress has demonstrated independence on other matters. Congress should demonstrate it again here, requiring real and documented progress on human rights in Vietnam before granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations and Vietnam's entry to the WTO.

A very experienced attorney with deep knowledge of the details tells me that the defend John Kerry organization, Patriot Project, may be approaching “actionable libel” by implying Admiral Roy Hoffman and possibly Admiral Bud Schacte of $100,000 payoffs from the Swiftees for their speaking out against John Kerry’s exaggerations and fabrications of his Vietnam service.

James Boyce writes at the Huffington Post, “How Much Is That Admiral In The Window?”

This past February 6, 2006, the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth made a $100,000 payment to Admiral Roy Hoffman one of the key defamers of John Kerry….
With money like this being paid to anyone who is willing to follow orders and lie on cue, is it any wonder that this past May another Admiral who was involved in the Swift Boat lies, Admiral Bud Schachte of Charleston, South Carolina, a man who claimed he was dragged into the Swift Boat mess against his wishes, came out and did a newspaper article ready to "re-engage John Kerry" in the Swift Boat debate.
After all, with his fellow Admiral clearing a solid six figures a year on top of his Naval pension, Bud Schachte certainly wasn't going to let opportunity, or should I say $100,000, pass him by.

Boyce concludes by promising more revealtions:

Note: Look for Dave Johnson's full piece on Monday at http://www.patriotproject.com

I spoke with John O’Neill of the Switees this morning. O’Neill calls the charge a “complete makeup.” Response is to be expected from the Swiftees.

Who is James Boyce, to make this charge? Boyce’s bio at Huffington Post shows him as a longtime activist working for John Kerry, and himself now profiting.

James was also an unpaid Senior Advisor to the Kerry Campaign in 2004 - taking a year's leave of absence from his company. He worked on a variety of projects including organizing surrogate and Kerry Family fundraising - raising over $18 million. James also visited over twenty states during the campaign while traveling extensively with John Kerry and his brother Cam, and more.

Currently, James is President of EKTOS, a strategic communication consultant group specializing in branding and corporate turnarounds based in Boston. Patriot Project is one of his clients.

I can’t find even a website for EKTOS. Its “contractor” status for the Patriot Project may be a matter to examine, or is Boyce even more a legal “employee”? Its “turnaround” specialization is suited to John Kerry’s efforts to turn around the exposure of his fantasy life. Boyce’s accusations, as the contractor of the Kerry Patriot Project, may open him and it to further exposures.

The Patriot Project may be hoisted by its own petard.

The Patriot Project states its mission as:

The Patriot Project will defend any man or woman, regardless of party or affiliation, who is attacked or defamed and whose patriotism is questioned simply because they exercise their rights as Americans.

The falseness and hypocrisy of this Kerry effort to rehabilitate himself by defaming others should come home to roost. Indeed, by the Patriot Project’s own avowal of purpose, it should be more legally aware of defamations that may be laid at its doorstep.

The sheer audacity and hollowness of the Kerry legal campaign against those who unmasked him in the 2004 campaign was expressed in the series of lawsuits launched against prize-winning journalist Carlton Sherwood (whose film exposed the Kerry-led Winter Soldier prophearings of 1971) and against the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation charging false portrayals of the Kerry-led Vietnam Veterans Against the War members. They sought to thuggishly use expensive lawsuits to impoverish Kerry’s opponents. Facing discovery proceedings, however, which would actually further expose the truths about Kerry, these suits were withdrawn and dismissed. A good summary of the legal wrangling can be found in this article from The Legal Intelligencer.

Now the only remaining suit is a defamation and civil rights suit brought by Sherwood himself against Kerry and his Pennsylvania campaign manager, John Podesta, that accuses them of conspiring to stop the film from being shown. The lawyer who was defending Sherwood in the libel suits, Robert C. Clothier of Fox Rothschild O’Brien & Frankel, is declaring victory, saying that plaintiff Kenneth Campbell’s sudden decision to drop his two lawsuits came on the eve of a series of depositions of his key witnesses. “The last-minute withdrawal of the lawsuits on the eve of these depositions suggests a great trepidation about what would come out at the depositions,” Clothier said.

You can say that again, Mr. Clothier. The Sherwood suit, IMHO, may turn out to be a public exposure of blithe perfidy by Kerry on the order of the Hiss trials.

Not that that stopped Hiss. And doesn’t seem to be slowing down Kerry and allies from digging their hole deeper.

SEE the update to this post, Kerry "Patriot Project" Punks, which further reveals the lack of care for facts or truth by Boyce and fellow.

[Posted from Phnom Penh, Cambodia.] Teachers in the USA have been known to worry about students receiving exam answers via text messages on cell phones. As the story below shows, cell-phone cheating is not yet a problem in Cambodia.

Cheating, Bribery Concerns During Exam Time By Kuch Naren, The Cambodia Daily (Wednesday, July 12, 2006)

Answer sheets attached to rocks and hurled through classroom windows were conspicuously absent from nationwid