Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]

More information is emerging about the ordeal endured by freelance CSM reporter Jill Carroll:

BAGHDAD Jill Carroll's kidnappers reportedly warned her before her release that she might be killed if she cooperated with the Americans or went to the Green Zone, saying it was infiltrated by insurgents.

The freelance writer for The Christian Science Monitor, who was freed by her captors Thursday and dropped off at a branch office of the Iraqi Islamic Party, was later escorted to the Green Zone by the U.S. military, the newspaper said Friday.

At first, she was reluctant to go, but a Monitor writer in Baghdad, Scott Peterson, convinced her it was safe, the newspaper said.

The Monitor quoted her family as saying that her kidnappers had warned her against talking to the Americans or going to the Green Zone. They told her it was "infiltrated by the mujahedeen," the newspaper said.

Her captors, calling themselves the Revenge Brigades, had demanded the release of all female detainees in Iraq by Feb. 26 and said Carroll would be killed otherwise.

In a video purportedly from her kidnappers that was posted on the Internet, her abductors said Carroll was released because "the American government met some of our demands by releasing some of our women from prison." The video was found on an Islamic Web site where such material has appeared before.

But U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Thursday there was no connection between the recent release of several female Iraqi detainees and Carroll's freedom.

"No U.S. person entered into any arrangements with anyone. By U.S. person I mean the United States mission," he said.

"What we did before had no connection with Jill Carroll," Khalilzad said. "We still have a few female detainees — four — and that's all I can say on that."

The Monitor's editor, Richard Bergenheim, also said no money had been exchanged for Carroll's release. "We simply know she was dropped off at the Iraqi Islamic Party headquarters," he said.

Carroll, who was kidnapped Jan. 7 in Baghdad, said Thursday she was not harmed by her captors and added that she did not know why she was released.

Also on the Internet video, Carroll is shown answering questions, presumably from her captors, and saying that Iraqi insurgents were "only trying to defend their country ... to stop an illegal and dangerous and deadly occupation."

"So I think people need to understand in America how difficult life is here for the normal, average Iraqis ... how terrifying it is for most people to live here every day because of the occupation," she said on the video.

Bergenheim said Friday that Carroll's parents, who spoke to her about the video, told him it was "conducted under duress."

"What emerged was that they actually started filming this tape the night before and then there was a power outage. Jill had been told the questions, asked to translate them from Arabic into English," he told ABC's "Good Morning America."

"When you're making a video and having to recite certain things with three men with machine guns standing over you, you're probably going to say exactly what you're told to say," Bergenheim added.

After yesterday's Podhoretz comment that Carroll may be a latter-day Patty Hearst, Podhoretz's little acolyte (and the LA Times' newest columnist) Jonah Goldberg is "getting a very bad vibe" by Carroll: "MAYBE IT’S JUST ME... But Jill Carroll is increasingly starting to bug me... But it would be nice to hear her say something remotely critical of her captors..."

Judd Legum comments: "Apparently, Jonah Goldberg, who has spent the last 82 days in safety, knows what Jill Carroll should be saying better than Jill Carroll herself. And when she doesn’t say it, it means something is very wrong with her."

Morning frat-jock Don Imus's producer Bernard McGuirk said that "She may be carrying Habib's baby," and that "She strikes me as the kind of woman who would wear one of those suicide vests. You know, walk into the — try and sneak into the Green Zone." [VIDEO].

Is it so absurd to think that maybe someone who had their senses about them and their moral center in good order, would be less thankful about her treatment and more upset that the translator she asked to come with her was murdered while working for her? I understand that the logic of the left cannot escape the orbit of “you wouldn’t understand” identity politics. But come on. Does anyone in their right mind think that Think Progress would be rallying to this woman’s side if she emerged from her captivity saying George W. Bush was right and the people who kidnapped her were terrorist animals? Please. They’d be prattling on about how she lost her mind.

Save it, Jonah. P.R. 101 says apologize to Jill Carroll and her family and get on with your miserable life in the Republican bunker.

In less infuriating news, E&P has a fascinating piece on how the initial 48 hour news blackout on Carroll's abduction may have saved her life, and the story -- and uncropped version -- of the most famous photo of her.

Update: More outrages from the blogosphere, but also a sign of some class. First, though, a roundup of were we've been (some of the comments about Jill are just too disgusting to reprint, so I'll just thank David at ISOU and the folks at Crooks and Liars for doing it, so I don't have to):

Michelle Malkin channels Howard Kurtz, doubts and all, and links to some in the right wing blogosphere who are acting like total, freaking idiots (Debbie Schlussel... who by the way has come up with the so funny it could have been written for SNL caption: "Jill Carroll Hates America . . . & Israel, Too" ... I love the ones you don't even have to parody, because they do all the work themselves...)

...Like this armchair warrior, who thinks that in Carroll's place, he would have thrown off the hijab in favor of "a baseball cap with a flag on it and the words, 'These Colors Don't Run.'" Yes, right. I'm thinking of a different slogan you might have used: "I think I just crapped my pants..."

...or this brilliant mind who surmises that the whole 82-day abduction thing might have been a publicity stunt... after all, Ms. Carroll denounced the Dear Leader ... on tape!!!

...and then there are blogers like Macsmind, whose tin foil hat view of Jill Carroll's capitivity in stems from a video taken by Carroll's captors long before her release (as described in the story at the top) and obviously intended for propaganda use, and they now believe she was never a hostage in the first place, or was released months ago, I suppose as some sort of terrorist double agent... Sorry, but do these ... people ... know the basics of how hostage taking works? Coercion and forced confession or denunciation of one's government are fairly standard, no? Maybe these jokers should watch a little less "24" and a lot more History Channel...

Remember the Australian hostage, Doug Wood (a U.S. contractor) who was freed by Iraqi forces last year? Wood also was forced to make videos denouncing U.S. and Australian policy in Iraq, later apologized for the recordings, which were ... wait for it ... made under duress.

And who can forget the final video statement of WSJ bureau chief Daniel Pearl, who was forced to make statements about his religion (Judaism) and against the war before he was brutally killed and beheaded (one of the most disturbing pieces of video I've ever seen, second only to the Daniel Pearl beheading -- both of which I watched in their entirety in a newsroom, to my eternal regret...)

Ditto for hostage Margaret Hassan, who issued a painful, tearful plea for her life and for Britain to pull its troops out of Iraq before she was killed by her captives.

In all of these hostage-takings, the videos -- not the hostage -- are the product -- whether the propaganda speeches the victims are forced to recite, or the beheading videos used to amp up the jihadists. (In the case of the Carroll videos, they seem to be part of some sort of Sunni insurgent P.R. strategy, which in the end could be why she wasn't killed... there certainly was a P.R. strategy on the other side -- which included showing Carroll in the hijab, looking pious, and holding off on the news of her abduction to try and sway her captives to let her go...) If the right wingers -- who have wrapped their lives around the notion of terrorists hiding around every corner and whose almost paranoid need to hear approval for President Bush pouring forth from every available mouth is becoming ... well... just wierd at this point -- don't get this basic point, then there's no help out there for them. They have totally lost the plot. (Cue the ALL CAPS, unhinged emails accusing me of Siding With The Terrorists Because I Hate America and President Bush... Moonbat, Islamofascists blah blah blah...)

Of course, you've also got the kinder, gentler, less eye bulgy but somehow equally creepy, "give Jill a chance to find her own voice with which to denounce the terrorists and praise the Dear Leader in the manner to which he has become accustomed" crowd, too ... it seems they, along with the eye bulgers, want to see Ms. Carroll make yet another hostage video, only this one's for them...

So then just when you thought they had let all the crazies out of Bellvue, some sanity emerges. First, a blogger named Xrlq:

Oh my God, can you believe the crazy stuff Jill Carroll said on video while still in the custody of the guys who had murdered her translator and publicly threatened to murder her (but not to hit her, which apparently is all that matters)? The nerve of that woman! The world must know immediately what an America-hating traitor she is. After all, we never said all that crazy stuff the last time we got kidnapped by terrorists for three months, so how can she?

>March 31, 2006
Blaming the Rape Victim: Jill Carroll

... It's disturbing that so many are willing to begin naysaying the character of one who has been victimized for the past three months. Debbie Schlussel's post here, especially (Hat tip: Allah).

What would you say to your captors after months as a prisoner? You'd tell them exactly what they want to hear. Remember, the only video we have of Jill Carroll are two segments taped while she was still a prisoner--under a considerable amount of duress. The second video we have is one taped in the offices of The Islamic Party of Iraq--the political front for the same terrorists who had victimized her!

Well said. It's also becoming increasingly disturbing to witness the almost mindless rage of many on the right, who have this knee-jerk, vicious reaction to anyone, even a hostage, for god's sake, who doesn't constantly mouth a programmed screed of platitudes about "the terrorists!" and swear undying loyalty to George W. Bush. What is it that they want from Jill Carroll? If she's not in the cult, then she really wasn't abducted? She's "one of them?" Commenters and even bloggers on some of these sites are actually saying this stuff... and none has produced a scintilla of evidence, despite Ms. Carroll's long record of published journalism, that proves she somehow "hates America."

Realtiy check. Ms. Carroll has been through hell. And she, along with 86 other journalists still held captive in Iraq, have exhibited more bravery by going into the war zone to get vital information to the public, than the armchair Jack Bauers tapping away at their keyboards could ever pretend to. I'd like to see Debbie Schlussel do something braver than tease her hair before she criticizes what Jill Carroll did to survive, and how she's coping now.

By the way, in his column, Kurtz did manage to make two important points:

... As my colleagues in Baghdad point out, when that interview was taped, Carroll was still in the custody of a Sunni political party with ties to the insurgency. It may have just made sense for her to be especially cautious. And they tell me that Carroll did cry -- off camera -- when the subject of her murdered translator came up. Still, people are buzzing because her taped remarks have been played over and over again on television. I hope she'll be able to share a fuller account of her ordeal soon.

Despite the happy ending, Carroll's kidnapping has driven home how dangerous Iraq remains for Western journalists, who admit it's getting increasingly difficult to do their jobs, even as they challenge the administration's claims that they are excessively focused on violence and negative news.

...Not to mention the tin foil hatters and amateur Jack Bauers in the blogosphere...

Previous:

• Attack the hostage
• Jill Carroll free at last

“I know (they) shouldn’t have burned the Mexican flag,” said Jacob Stewart, a 16-year-old sophomore. “I heard it was raised above the American flag and that just irked me.”

He said the turbulence was tied to the newsmaking debates in the state Legislature and in Congress, where ideas from offering illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship to making them felons are being considered.

Freshman Chelsea Garcia, 15, and junior Brittany Ramage, 16, said the unrest had more to do with longrunning racial tensions at the school.

“(This week’s events) might have sparked a little more anger,” Ramage said. “But kids are not very deep about that stuff.”

The Hispanic student who brought the Mexican flag said he was responding to a racist remark directed at him Wednesday. The flagraising, flag-burning and shoving match that followed happened before most students arrived at school.

Six students — three Hispanic and three white — will be disciplined, principal Chad Wilson said.

• Immigration 101

"We can fight terrorism without breaking the law. The rule of law is central to who we are as a people. The president must be held accountable for breaking the law. ... if we as a Congress don't stand up for ourselves and for the American people, we become complicit in the breaking of the law. ... A little over 30 years ago, a president was held to account by members of his own party ... and by people like John Dean, who put the rule of law ahead of [party loyalty.]"

• Censure hearings, take two
• Orrin Hatch's worst nightmare: the Feingold hearings begin

"I understand that I am not a member of Congress and thus cannot be definitive (on the matter of disclosure). I am a citizen of the United States and interested in living in a republic and not a monarchy, and thus am interested in having this body carry out the checks and balances that it has the authority to under the Constitution, whether or not this body wishes to undertake that charge."

(paraphrased) "The president's argument is that he has the inherent constitutuional authorty, uncontrollable by Congress, to gather intelligence. One way to gather intelligence is by domestic spying. Another way is by breaking into homes. Another way is by opening our mail. Another way to gather that is by torture. That is the logical conclusion of this argument, and when asked aobut it they haven't denied it. They've just said we haven't gotten there yet."

While we know that the eavesdropping ordered by President Bush is exactly the eavesdropping which FISA makes it a criminal offense to engage in, we do not yet know -- thanks to the frenzied efforts of Bush defenders to suppress any and all investigations into the Administration's eavesdropping activities -- the nature and extent of Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program. We do not, for instance, know which Americans were eavesdropped on, how many Americans were subject to this illegal surveillance, how it was determined who would be eavesdropped on, what was done with the information, whether purely innocent Americans had their communications intercepted without judicial approval, etc.

The White House has repeatedly assured us that there is no reason for us to know any of this, and there is nothing for us to worry about, because they are eavesdropping only -- to use a The White House's formulation -- on the "very bad people."

In that regard, John Dean is an excellent witness for the hearings today, since he was part of an Administration which invoked exactly the same rationale. According to this July 25, 1969 article from Time Magazine, which was reporting on public fears over new surveillance powers given to the Administration by the Congress, Nixon's Attorney General John Mitchell told Americans they had nothing to worry about:

During his presidential campaign, Richard Nixon said that he would take full advantage of the new law-a promise that raised fears of a massive invasion of privacy. To calm those fears, the Administration last week issued what amounted to an official statement on the subject.

In his first news conference since becoming the President's chief legal officer, Attorney General John N. Mitchell pointedly announced that the incidence of wiretapping by federal law enforcement agencies had gone down, not up, during the first six months of Republican rule. Mitchell refused to disclose any figures, but he indicated that the number was far lower than most people might think. "Any citizen of this United States who is not involved in some illegal activity," he added, "has nothing to fear whatsoever."

• Orrin Hatch's worst nightmare: the Feingold hearings begin

"I say let the prisoners pick the fruits," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California, one of more than a dozen Republicans who took turns condemning a Senate bill that offers an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants an opportunity for citizenship.

"Anybody that votes for an amnesty bill deserves to be branded with a scarlet letter 'A,'" said Rep. Steve King of Iowa, referring to a guest worker provision in the Senate measure.

Their news conference took place across the Capitol from the Senate, where supporters and critics of the legislation seemed determined to heed admonitions from both Bush and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to conduct a dignified, civilized debate.

The House has passed legislation to tighten border security, while the Senate approach also includes provisions to regulate the flow of temporary workers into the country and control the legal fate of millions of illegal immigrants already here. Bush has broadly endorsed the Senate approach, saying he wants a comprehensive bill.

It was the second day in a row that congressional Republicans aired their differences on an issue that directly affects the fastest-growing segment of the electorate. Under Bush's leadership, the Republicans have made dramatic inroads among Hispanic voters, and party strategists fret that the immigration debate could jeopardize their gains.

On Wednesday, leading GOP senators disagreed whether the legislation amounted to amnesty.

There was no such debate at the news conference in the House, where not a word was spoken in defense of the Senate bill and even Bush was not spared criticism.

"I don't think he's concerned about alienating voters, he's not running for re-election," said Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado. He said Republicans could lose the House and Senate over the immigration issue, and he said of the president: "I wish he'd think about the party and of course I also wish he'd think about the country."

Referring to a wave of demonstrations in recent weeks, Rep. Virgil Goode of Virginia said, "I say if you are here illegally and want to fly the Mexican flag, go to Mexico and wave the American flag."

King analyzed the issue in class terms.

"The elite class in America is becoming a ruling class and they've made enough money by hiring cheap illegal labor that they think they also have some kind of a right to cheap servants to manicure their nails and their lawn, for example.

"So this ruling class, this new ruling class of America, is expanding a servant class in America at the expense of the middle class of America, the blue collar of America that used to be able to punch a time clock, buy a modest house and raise their families. ... Those young people are cut out of this process."

Rep. J.D. Hayworth of Arizona and others said Republicans would pay a price in the midterm elections if they vote for anything like the Senate legislation. "Many of those who have stood for the Republican Party for the last decade are not only angry. They will be absent in November," he said.

Rohrabacher said Americans should be able to "smell the foul odor that's coming out of the U.S. Senate."

Asked a few moments later whether the same odor was emanating from the president, he said, "I have no comment."

• Immigration 101
• Somebody's gonna have to restrain Lou Dobbs...
• The first Hispanic president?
• In the name of Jesus...
• The radio report: immigration nation

Tags: Immigration, Politics, border, Homeland Security, MEXICO, Illegal aliens, Illegal-Aliens, Illegal immigration

While the discussion of the proposed censure of President Bush has largely focused on the Democrats' hesitance to take a position, today's debate actually reveals failures by Congressional leaders in both political parties. Republicans refuse to investigate their President's misconduct while Democrats keep waiting for Godot, hoping for investigations that will never happen.

Many Democrats are stalling on censure with an old Washington tactic: Demand an investigation and wait. While Congressional inquiries can be valuable, they should not substitute for taking a stand. Yet it is the Republicans who control Congress and its investigatory committees. Their failing is graver than inaction -- they are abdicating their constitutional duty to conduct meaningful oversight of the Executive Branch.

• Bruce Fein, former GOP counsel during Iran Contra;
• John Dean, White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon, author, Worse than Watergate;

• Lee Casey, a former Justice Department official and currently partner, Baker & Hostetler law firm in Washington, D.C. ;
• John Schmidt, Partner, Mayer Brown Rowe Maw LLP Chicago, Illinois -- a Democrat who was the number three associate attorney general in the Clinton adminstration and who says he has "no bias in favor of the president," but who believes Bush had the authority to order the wiretaps;
• Robert F. Turner, Associate Director, Center for National Security Law University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA and a man well on-record as supporting the president's position, not only on domestic surveillance, but on the expansion of presidential power;

Update: After the opening statements, Specter came right out of the box slamming Dean and Fein, saying they had not demonstrated that the president exercised bad faith with Congress. Orrin Hatch may not have to say much if Specter keeps up this way.

Previous:

• Strategery: Operation S.O.D. (Save Our Dubya)
• Observations
• Feingold up
• The trouble with Democrats
• Go ahead and spy on me: the Capitol Hill...
• Feingold vs. the Dems
• Feingold stands alone

Tags: Democrats, Bush, Feingold, Censure

... A source familiar with the Austin event tells me that at least one attendee was surprised by the fact that many who showed up were Republican women, lots of them first-time donors. I mention this not to argue that Hillary has crossover appeal, but to show how aggressively her fundraisers are working to tap diverse constituencies around the country. Her schedule also shows events in Washington, DC, Rhode Island, and Missouri -- an amount of national activity that, for someone who's so far ahead in polls and money for reelection, is striking.

Lieberman has held public office in Connecticut since 1970. He was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1988 and has pulled in upwards of 60 percent of the vote in his reelection contests. He leads comfortably in early polls that match him against Lamont or former governor Lowell Weicker, who briefly threatened to challenge Lieberman over the war. With more than three decades in public office, Lieberman’s favor bank overflows with chits he can call in.

The most significant of these? His financial hold on the party apparatus. Lieberman provided nearly $1 million to the state party in 2000, the year he ran simultaneously for reelection to the Senate and as Al Gore’s running mate. The senator is up front about the consequences a primary would have on the state party’s treasury: If he must fend off a challenger, money just won’t be available to Connecticut Democrats for their own campaign operations, their May convention, or for tough, targeted House races against Republicans Chris Shays and Rob Simmons. “A credible primary challenge would make that difficult,” Lieberman campaign manager Sean Smith says.

Lieberman, said one state party official, has been “incredibly generous” to the party in the past -- a generosity the hierarchy clearly would like him to sustain.

HH: I'm sitting in the Empire State Building. Michael, I'm sitting in the Empire State Building, which has been in the past, and could be again, a target. Because in downtown Manhattan, it's not comfortable, although it's a lot safer than where you are, people always are three miles away from where the jihadis last spoke in America. So that's ... civilians have a stake in this. Although you are on the front line, this was the front line four and a half years ago.

Bloggers are raising questions about the authenticity of a photo -- purportedly of a Baghdad street -- posted on the Web site of Howard Kaloogian, a Southern California Republican running for the seat of the freshly incarcerated Duke Cunningham. Kaloogian's site says that "We took this photo of dowtown [sic] Baghdad while we were in Iraq. Iraq (including Baghdad) is much more calm and stable than what many people believe it to be. But, each day the news media finds any violence occurring in the country and screams and shouts about it -- in part because many journalists are opposed to the U.S. effort to fight terrorism."

Josh Marshall picks up on speculation from Daily Kos and elsewhere that the photo was taken not in Baghdad, but in Turkey. Dissecting the picture, Marshall points out that "With the white arrows I've highlighted what appear to be cedillas under the roman 'C' and 'S' on the yellow sign. Add in the other contextual clues and that looks very much like the Turkish alphabet. And in fact the letters 'C A R S I' (which seems to be what this sign says) make a word in Turkish, 'carsi' which means 'shopping center' or 'market.'" Marshall also posts an email from a reader in Baghdad who asked his Iraqi staff what they thought of the picture and reported that "they all just laughed."

Memorandum

To: Ken Mehlman
From: Jan van Lohuizen
Date: March 3, 2006
Re: Bush -- Congressional Republicans

Per our conversation, we took another look at the way voters, Republicans specifically, link President Bush and Republicans in the House and the Senate. There are several points worth making:

1. President Bush continues to have the strong loyal support of Republican voters. Despite slippage in approval ratings among all voters, the President's job approval among Republicans continues to be very high. Most members will be elected with between 80% and 100% of their support coming from Republicans. I don't see that Republicans driving a wedge between themselves and the President is a good election strategy.

2. My read of the current environment is that our problem will be turnout. '06 could become an election like '82 or '84. In '82 Republicans showed up at relatively normal turnout rates, while Democrats, because they were angry, showed up at abnormally high turnout rates. In '94, Republican turnout was elevated, while Democratic turnout was depressed. We have every reason to believe '06 could become the inverse of '82. We don't see signs of a depressed Republican turnout yet, but we have every reason to believe Democrats will turn out in high numbers. Anything we do to depress turnout, by not running as a unified party for instance, could very well lead to serious consequences in November.

3. The President is seen universally as the face of the Republican Party. We are now brand W. Republicans. The following chart shows the extremely close correlation between the President’s image and overall ratings of the party.

President Bush drives our image and will do so until we have real national front-runners for the '08 nomination. Attacking the President is counter productive for all Republicans, not just the candidates launching the attacks. If he drops, we all drop.

Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged if it was publicly disclosed that he had been personally warned that a key rationale for going to war had been challenged within the administration. Rove expressed his concerns shortly after an informal review of classified government records by then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley determined that Bush had been specifically advised that claims he later made in his 2003 State of the Union address -- that Iraq was procuring high-strength aluminum tubes to build a nuclear weapon -- might not be true, according to government records and interviews.

Hadley was particularly concerned that the public might learn of a classified one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, specifically written for Bush in October 2002. The summary said that although "most agencies judge" that the aluminum tubes were "related to a uranium enrichment effort," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons."

"Presidential knowledge was the ball game," says a former senior government official outside the White House who was personally familiar with the damage-control effort. "The mission was to insulate the president. It was about making it appear that he wasn't in the know. You could do that on Niger. You couldn't do that with the tubes." A Republican political appointee involved in the process, who thought the Bush administration had a constitutional obligation to be more open with Congress, said: "This was about getting past the election."

Most troublesome to those leading the damage-control effort was documentary evidence -- albeit in highly classified government records that they might be able to keep secret -- that the president had been advised that many in the intelligence community believed that the tubes were meant for conventional weapons.

... The one-page documents known as the "President's Summary" are distilled from the much lengthier National Intelligence Estimates, which combine the analysis of as many as six intelligence agencies regarding major national security issues. Bush's knowledge of the State and Energy departments' dissent over the tubes was disclosed in a March 4, 2006, National Journal story -- more than three years after the intelligence assessment was provided to the president, and some 16 months after the 2004 presidential election.

“It’s inaccurate and deceptive of him to say there was no vulgarity in the moment,” said Peter Smith, the Boston University assistant photojournalism professor who made the shot.

Despite Scalia’s insistence that the Sicilian gesture was not offensive and had been incorrectly characterized by the Herald as obscene, the photographer said the newspaper “got the story right.”

Smith said the jurist “immediately knew he’d made a mistake, and said, ‘You’re not going to print that, are you?’ ”

Smith was working as a freelance photographer for the Boston archdiocese’s weekly newspaper at a special Mass for lawyers Sunday when a Herald reporter asked the justice how he responds to critics who might question his impartiality as a judge given his public worship.

“The judge paused for a second, then looked directly into my lens and said, ‘To my critics, I say, ‘Vaffanculo,’ ” punctuating the comment by flicking his right hand out from under his chin, Smith said.

The Italian phrase means “(expletive) you.”

... For the 2006 elections, Democrats cannot increase their advantage among independents any further than they already have. This is the largest Democratic lead among independents in 24 years, and historically is only clearly surpassed by the advantage they held among independents in 1974.

Given this lead among Independents, there has to come a time when Democrats realize that success in this election depends less on continuing to target and appeal to Independents, and more on building a political machine that can make their current appeal and potential majority into a reality at the ballot box. At the same time, there needs to come a point within the progressive activist base when we realize that in our lifetimes it is entirely possible that there will never be a better opportunity than 2006 to wreck permanent damage on the conservative movement and all for which it stands. Pass up this chance, and the next time an opportunity of this level comes around there is a good chance you will be either dead or retired.

...I suppose I should be a smart, non-vindictive blogger and trumpet this as good news. After all, it does not really matter how different polling firms compare with each other. Every polling firm has a different "house effect" that skew in one direction or the other on average, and so the more salient results are found within the historic trends of any individual polling firm. Thus, it isn't really important how Gallup's numbers compare to Harris, Pew, or the National Election Survey, but rather how Gallup's numbers compare to themselves. In this regard, for Gallup to show a shift in favor of Demcorats is undeniably a good thing for Democrats.

However, I am a vindictive blogger that holds long-term grudges against a small number of people and organizations, and as such I would like to point out how the only thing historic about this shift is probably that Gallup is now at least somewhat in line with the other three major polling organizations that conduct major studies of national partisan self-identification. While Gallup showed a very narrow one or two point Democratic lead for 2005, Harris, which polls about 6,000 people a year, showed a 6-point Democratic margin for 2005. In late 2004, when Gallup was showing a 2-point edge for Republicans, the National Annenberg Election Survey of over 67,000 registered voters showed a 2.8% edge for Democrats (PDF). In 2004, when Gallup was showing a 2-point edge for Republicans, Pew, which polled 19,000+ registered voters, showed a 4-point edge for Democrats (I can't find Pew info on 2005).

In other words, no matter how many people they poll (roughly 8,000 every three months), Gallup has consistently measured the country about 5% more in favor of Republicans than the other three major pollsters who conduct huge, national studies of partisan self-identification. Rather than trumpeting a historical shift that was only historic because their data from 2004 and 2005 disagreed with everyone else's, maybe Gallup should develop some sort of explanation as to why their random sampling methodology consistently turns up more Republicans than every other major public, political polling firm in the country.

Today, Christian Science Monitor reporter Jill Carroll released after three months of being held in captivity in Iraq by kidnappers. The National Review’s John Podhoretz responded by attacking her mental state:

It’s wonderful that she’s free, but after watching someone who was a hostage for three months say on television she was well-treated because she wasn’t beaten or killed — while being dressed in the garb of a modest Muslim woman rather than the non-Muslim woman she actually is — I expect there will be some Stockholm Syndrome talk in the coming days.

It should be remembered by all that the only statement we have from Jill Carroll was one given by her just after her release in the offices of the Islamic Party and with cameras rolling. Further, it is not necessarily "Stockholm Syndrome" to claim that captors often treat hostages well--they often do.

... "Why was she kidnapped at first, and how did the Jihadists exploit her captivity" are the first set of questions. What is the importance of the Islamic Party in this equation? Why would the kidnappers release her to a location close by the headquarters of this particular party? Who was she interviewing when she was kidnapped, and why was her translator killed? Then one would look at her writings before and after she was kidnapped and see if the Jihadists had another wider issue on their mind. Ms. Carroll said she didn't know why she was kidnapped nor who were her abductors, even though she speaks Arabic. However, she used specific words to describe them politically when she was released. Each word used by the ex-hostage before and after the abduction, are now of great importance to better understand the matter.

The reason for the rise of illiberal democracy is the lack of true alternatives. The only safe way to criticize most Middle Eastern governments is from a fundamentalist direction, so citizens are forced to protest the ruling regimes by voting for the Islamist opposition. Thus, in our promotion of voting, we may be unwittingly empowering our enemies.

...the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates how many people out of a workforce of 143 million are unemployed. Last month, 7,193,000, or 4.8 percent, were out pounding the pavement.

The Center for Immigration Studies, which is in favor of some restrictions on immigration, recently issued a report looking at jobs and undocumented workers. One of its conclusions was that between March 2000 and March 2005, only 9 percent of the net increase in jobs for adults went to people born in the US.

"This is striking because natives accounted for 61 percent of the net increase in the overall size of the 18- to 64-year-old population," writes Steve Camarota, director of research.

Howard Hayghe, an economist at the Department of Labor, confirms that this number is correct. But he also points out that by 2005, the economy was doing a better job of producing jobs - and the percentage of native-born residents finding jobs rose to 41 percent. In other words, the stronger economy absorbed more workers of all educational levels. "The more office buildings you build, the more people you need to clean them. The more roads you build, the more workers you need," says Mr. Hayghe.

In addition to the 7 million Americans looking for jobs, another 1.5 million are considered to be "marginally attached" - that is, not actively looking for work. Moreover, some 386,000 are counted as "discouraged" workers. And there are about 19 million, including students and senior citizens, who are not in the workforce.

"If we close the borders and have less undocumented workers, it would put some upward pressure on overall wages," says Mr. Chan. "It's no secret business will have to pay workers more money."

But it's not a given that business will do that. "They may just outsource a larger percentage of the work, or the jobs may just disappear," Chan says.

America, the only developed nation that shares a long -- 2,000-mile -- border with a Third World nation, could seal that border. East Germany showed how: walls, barbed wire, machine gun-toting border guards in towers, mine fields, large, irritable dogs. And we have modern technologies that East Germany never had: sophisticated sensors, unmanned surveillance drones, etc.

It is a melancholy fact that many of these may have to be employed along the U.S.-Mexican border. The alternatives are dangerous and disagreeable conditions for Americans residing near the border, and vigilantism. It is, however, important that Americans feel melancholy about taking such measures to frustrate immigration that usually is an entrepreneurial act: taking risks to get to America to do work most Americans spurn. As the debate about immigration policy boils, augmented border control must not be the entire agenda, lest other thorny problems be ignored, and lest America turn a scowling face to the south and, to some extent, to many immigrants already here.

But control belongs at the top of the agenda, for four reasons. First, control of borders is an essential attribute of sovereignty. Second, conditions along the border mock the rule of law. Third, large rallies by immigrants, many of them here illegally, protesting more stringent control of immigration reveal that many immigrants have, alas, assimilated: They have acquired the entitlement mentality created by America's welfare state, asserting an entitlement to exemption from the laws of the society they invited themselves into. Fourth, giving Americans a sense that borders are controlled is a prerequisite for calm consideration of what policy that control should serve. ...

Well what do you know? More reasonable rhetoric from Mr. Will... Now for the surprising part: Will stands with the president on this one:

Conservatives should want, as the president proposes, a guest worker program to supply what the U.S. economy demands -- immigrant labor for entry-level jobs. Conservatives should favor a policy of encouraging unlimited immigration by educated people with math, engineering, technology or science skills that America's education system is not sufficiently supplying.

And conservatives should favor reducing illegality by putting illegal immigrants on a path out of society's crevices and into citizenship by paying fines and back taxes and learning English. Faux conservatives absurdly call this price tag on legal status "amnesty." Actually, it would prevent the emergence of a sullen, simmering subculture of the permanently marginalized, akin to the Arab ghettos in France. The House-passed bill, making it a felony to be in the country illegally, would make 11 million people permanently ineligible for legal status. To what end?

Within a decade the New York and Washington metropolitan regions will join the Miami, Houston, Los Angeles and San Francisco regions in having majorities made up of minorities, partly because immigrants have higher birthrates than whites. Since 2000, births, not immigration, have been the largest source of growth of America's Latino population.

Urban immigrant communities, with their support networks, are magnets for immigrants. Good. Investor's Business Daily reports a new study demonstrating that "over the past 30 years rising immigration led to higher wages for U.S.-born workers. Cities that served as migrant magnets did better than others. Why? Hiring one worker creates wealth with which to hire more workers."

Not for nothing, but I've become, if not a fan of the sometimes huffy Mr. Will, a respecter of his opinion, on Iraq in particular. On this, he may have a point, and for once, Mr. Bush (along with Mssrs. Kennedy and ... gag ... McCain ... probably deserve some credit for trying to come up with a reasonable solution.

I agree that illegal migrants should have no claim on a "right" to be in this country. (The protests asserting such a right, while waving the Mexican flag, struck me as off message, at the least.) They broke the law coming in, and it's incredible cheek for them now to demand the right to stay, collect social services, and bring their relatives. Based on any decent respect for the rule of law, amnesty is not an option. There has to be some penalty for having crossed our borders illegally (or overstayed a visa). But the U.S. has a demonstrable interest in knowing who is in this country -- their backgrounds, work status, etc. Not all of those in this country WANT to be citizens -- many simply want to work here and send money home (boosting the Mexican economy to the tune of some $21 billion a year -- second only to oil revenues as a money maker for that country.) For them, a guest workier program probably is best, since they have no pretensions to loyalty to this country, making any sort of amnesty for them a double atrocity. Let those true "guest workers" undergo a background check, get some sort of ID, and travel back and forth, pay some sort of tax while in this country, and -- importantly -- renounce any future claims to automatic permanent residency for themselves, if not for their kids.

For those who are here and want to stay, that's a tricker issue. At the least, they should be made to pay a fine, learn English, pass a background check, pay back taxes and get to the back of the line to apply for residency or citizenship like everyone else (which sounds an awful lot like Kennedy-McCain.) I would actually favor a stiffer penalty of making migrants who've been here a shorter time return to their countries to await residency papers, which many immigrants fromt he Caribbean already are forced to do. Of course, getting people to come forward on that (or any other) basis is probably next to impossible. There has to be a major carrot to stop someone who's been getting away with living here illegally to step out into the light. And paying a fine and going home to wait for papers are no carrots.

So what to do? I would rather see the U.S. impose onerous fines and in egregious cases, jail time, on employers who insist on getting around the current EB visa laws by hiring illegal migrants as cheap, indentured servants, but I don't see the corporate hacks in the GOP-led Congress going that route. (Another solution could be aggressive job training programs for unemployed Americans emphasizing trade skills like carpentry and tile laying, and tax and other incentives to businesses who hire out of this pool, particulalry since these jobs pay $10-20 an hour...)

In terms of legislation, since illegal migration is already illegal by definition, why pass a new law saying it's even more so? (And why would we want to fill our prisons with tens of thosands of brand new felons we have to warehouse to stop them from working, rather than fill a few a few minimum security prisons with felonious, exploitive employers?) The Sensennbrenner and Frist bills, by that reading, are useless, self-serving, race-baiting crap of the worse (and unfortunately, typically Republican) sort, and they should be rejected (though the temptation for border state Republicans to glom on may be irresistible.) So, again, what to do?

First and foremost, there should be actual enforcement of the penalties already on the books for alien smuggling, illegal migration and employment of workers without green cards, and true border and immigration enforcement, before we even begin to talk about immigration reform. A radical idea, I know, but in my opinion, it's the place we should start.

Okay, enough about me. Here's what's on other blogs:

Immigration Daily channels James Pinkerton in saying "no more immigration reveries..."

At the heart of the immigration debate is the basic issue of the social contract between the governed and the government. The government has broken its side of the contract; now the governed will have to step up and force a solution. So our bipartisan betters -- President Bush and Sens. Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Edward Kennedy -- are about to get a lesson in the power of small "d" democracy. And all those marchers, parading through downtown Los Angeles chanting mostly in Spanish and carrying, many of them, Mexican flags -- they are about to get the same lesson.

George Will makes his conservative case for the moderate approach to immigration reform, giving enough room for hard-line enforcement while arguing for eventual absorption of the illegals already inside the US. However, he starts out with an almost unforgivable analogy that will have border-enforcement readers seeing red before they ever get to the rest of his arguments:

America, the only developed nation that shares a long -- 2,000-mile -- border with a Third World nation, could seal that border. East Germany showed how: walls, barbed wire, machine gun-toting border guards in towers, mine fields, large, irritable dogs. And we have modern technologies that East Germany never had: sophisticated sensors, unmanned surveillance drones, etc.

East Berlin? Perhaps George doesn't quite recall the purpose of the Berlin Wall, but I guarantee you it wasn't to keep West Berliners out of East Berlin. The East German government and its Soviet masters built that wall to keep people from fleeing the despair and poverty imposed on the unfortunate half of the city and killed anyone they caught trying to cross it. It wasn't part of an overall interdiction effort that promised to stop illegal immigration, drug traffickers, and terrorists from entering Communist territory; it formed the prison wall for the Gulag State and its inmates.

The Captian comes down about where I come down: border enforcement first, then we can have a reasonable debate about remedies.

On the other end of the reasonableness spectrum, conservative blogger Carolyn Hileman has a case of alien derangement syndrome... and she wants you to go off the meds with her (psst! Carolyn! You're focusing on Kennedy, but did you know that John McCain and the president are in on this thing, too?...

Darleen is probably wondering whether these guys realize Bush is on their side...

Redneckin picks apart the legalization arguments...

Jollyblogger has a conservative Christian perspective (and links to LaShawn Barber's latest earth-scorching anti-(whoever) rant... sorry, but I don't even find her intersting anymore.)

Michelle Malkin is all geeked up about the Mexican flag...

So is Wizbang, but they focus on the upside-down American flag...

Okay, now for the other side:

Blogger Steven Gilliard says, this argument is about race...

ThinkProgress calls out Fox News Channel...

Robert Scheer (h/t to Talkleft) says there is no immigration crisis, and we should legalize ... um ... everybody...

Some 2 million immigrant workers now earn less than the minimum wage, and millions more work without the occupational safety, workers’ compensation, overtime pay and other protections that legal status offers. Consequently, when the president says that immigrants perform work that legal residents are unwilling to do, he may be right — but we don’t know. The only way to test that hypothesis is to bring this black market labor pool above ground.

Xenophobia today is no more warranted than it has been in the past. The number of claimed “illegal aliens” as a percentage of the population is clearly absorbable by the job market, as our low unemployment rate demonstrates. Yet, the Republican Party and the Congress it dominates are currently teetering between driving undocumented workers further underground and taking a saner compromise approach.

The former, a draconian bill already passed by the House of Representatives, would legalize witch hunts of undocumented workers, by reclassifying them as felons; their employers would be subject to a year or more in prison and punitive fines, as would even church and nonprofit organization members that offer succor to them.

Because employers are not trained to play cop, they will simply be driven to discriminate against job applicants based on “foreignness” determined by ethnicity or accent. The more reasonable alternative, co-authored by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and embraced as the heart of the proposal adopted by the Judiciary Committee on Monday, shuns the criminalization of the undocumented, instead offering paths — albeit long, arduous and uncertain ones — to legal status for undocumented workers already here.

This is a moment of truth for America. It is time to acknowledge that we need the immigrant workers as much as they need us, and to begin to treat them with the respect they deserve.

Journalist Jill Carroll Released in Iraq

By Jonathan Finer and Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, March 30, 2006; 8:09 AM

BAGHDAD, March 30 -- American journalist Jill Carroll, abducted in early January by gunmen in Baghdad, was released to a Sunni Arab political party in the capital Thursday morning after 82 days in captivity.

"I was never hurt, never hit," she said in an interview with an Arabic-speaking questioner at Islamic Party headquarters. "I was kept in a safe place and treated very well."

Carroll, 28, a freelance reporter working for the Christian Science Monitor, was brought to party headquarters just after 1 p.m. and was able to borrow a phone from a party member and speak with her parents and her twin sister. She also spoke with a Washington Post reporter, who drove to the office and transported her back to U.S. officials in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone.

Clad in traditional Muslim women's garb, a light gray and blue abaya and headscarf, she said in the interview that she was "happy to be free, and I want to be with my family."

She said she did not know where she had been held captive, or why her kidnappers decided to release her. "I don't know. I don't know what happened," she said in the interview, which was broadcast later in the afternoon by the Islamic Party's Baghdad TV station . "They just came to me and said, 'Okay, we're going to let you go now.' "

"Unknown people," released Carroll to the Iraqi Islamic Party's branch office in Amariyah in the western part of the city, Tariq al-Hashimi, the party's secretary general, said in a telephone conversation at 12:30 p.m. local time. The party then transported her by armed convoy to its headquarters in the Yarmouk district.

"She is OK. She is safe. She is more or less scared," Hashimi said. "I told her calm down and we would take care of her."

Carroll said she spent her days sitting in a room with one window, which she could not see through because the glass was opque. She "walked two feet" to the shower, she said, and had almost no information from the outside world, watching television only once.

After the interview, Hashimi was shown presenting Carroll with gifts: a plaque bearing the party's emblem and a boxed copy of the Koran.

"What you have received today from the Iraqi Islamic Party is exactly the teachings of the Koran," Hashimi said, smiling, as Carroll thanked him.

Monitor editor Richard Bergenheim said, "this is an exciting day, we couldn't be happier. We are so pleased she'll be back with her family. The prayers of people all over the world have been answered."

...An Afghan Christian convert who had faced the death penalty for abandoning Islam has arrived in Italy where he has been offered asylum, the Italian prime minister has said.

"He is already here," Silvio Berlusconi told a news conference in Rome on Wednesday. "He has asked for political asylum and is currently being looked after by the interior ministry."

Earlier in the day, the Italian cabinet unanimously approved the offer of asylum to 41-year-old Abdul Rahman, the prime minister's office said.

"The decision has been made," Roberto Maroni, the welfare minister, said. "The case is resolved."

The move followed an apparent last minute push by members of Afghanistan's parliament demanding that authorities bar the convert from leaving the country.

Shortly before the morning cabinet meeting, Berlusconi said: "I say that we are very glad to be able to welcome someone who has been so courageous."

• Another take on the Rahman case and the West's view of Islam
• A home for Rahman
• Where is Abdul Rahman?
• I hope he gets a really good bodyguard...
• The perfect storm
• Meet the Afghans
• Quotable: How do you say "put to death" in Bushspeak?
• Death before apostasy

Tags: Afghanistan, Islam, Religion, Christianity, Bush administration, Abdul Rahman

It may seem as though it's been moving along at a snail's pace, but the second part of the federal investigation into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson is nearly complete, with attorneys and government officials who have remained close to the probe saying that a grand jury will likely return an indictment against one or two senior Bush administration officials.

These sources work or worked at the State Department, the CIA and the National Security Council. Some of these sources are attorneys close to the case. They requested anonymity because they were not permitted to speak publicly about the details of the investigation.

In lengthy interviews over the weekend and on Monday, they said that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has started to prepare the paperwork to present to the grand jury seeking an indictment against White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove or National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.

Although the situation remains fluid, it's possible, these sources said, that Fitzgerald may seek to indict both Rove and Hadley, charging them with perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy related to their roles in the leak of Plame Wilson's identity and their effort to cover up their involvement following a Justice Department investigation.

Neo-con cabal blocked 2003 nuclear talks

So intent were neo-conservatives in the Bush administration on isolating Iran that when in 2003 Tehran proposed a "grand bargain" with the US, the Swiss envoy who relayed the message received a swift rebuke from Washington. Three years later, after tens of thousands of deaths and billions of dollars, the US is only now talking to Iran over stabilizing Iraq, and Tehran's nuclear program has evolved into a major trigger for conflict. ...

WASHINGTON - The George W Bush administration failed to enter into negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program in May 2003 because neo-conservatives who advocated destabilization and regime change were able to block any serious diplomatic engagement with Tehran, according to former administration officials.

The same neo-conservative veto power also prevented the administration from adopting any official policy statement on Iran, those same officials said.

Lawrence Wilkerson, then chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell, said the failure to adopt a formal Iran policy in 2002-03 was the result of obstruction by a "secret cabal" of neo-conservatives in the administration, led by Vice President Dick Cheney.

"The secret cabal got what it wanted: no negotiations with Tehran," Wilkerson wrote in an e-mail to Inter Press Service (IPS).
The Iranian negotiating offer, transmitted to the State Department in early May 2003 by the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, acknowledged that Iran would have to address US concerns about its nuclear program, although it made no specific concession in advance of the talks, according to Flynt Leverett, then the National Security Council's senior director for Middle East Affairs.

Iran's offer also raised the possibility of cutting off Iran's support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad and converting Hezbollah into a purely socio-political organization, according to Leverett. That was an explicit response to Powell's demand in late March that Iran "end its support for terrorism".

In return, Leverett recalls, the Iranians wanted the US to address security questions, the lifting of economic sanctions and normalization of relations, including support for Iran's integration into the global economic order. ...

Iraq left to rebuild itself
By William Fisher, Asia Times

NEW YORK - Last week's announcement that Iraq will now have to pay for its own reconstruction has left some observers wondering whether the country's yet-to-be-formed government will be up to the task.

Iraq's Deputy Finance Minister Kamal Field al-Basri said it was "reasonable" for the United States to sharply cut back its reconstruction efforts after spending about US$21 billion. "We should be very much dependent on ourselves," al-Basri said in an interview with USA Today.

That will prove to be a very tall order. In 2003, the World Bank estimated the total rebuilding cost would be $60 billion. Current estimates put the bill at $70-100 billion. The new estimate comes at a time when little progress has been made in increasing Iraq's oil production - which represents more than 90% of the country's income. Slowed to a near halt by insurgent attacks, Iraq now spends about $6 billion annually to import oil. ...

Approximately 16-22% of each reconstruction dollar spent by the US has gone to protect projects and contractors.

Speaking on condition of anonymity because he is involved in the current Iraqi political process, a leading Middle East expert said, "Because the US did not understand Iraqi culture, it did not anticipate the insurgency. Because it did not anticipate the insurgency, it could not have planned for the huge sums that would have to be spent on security."

Critics of the Bush administration see the end of US reconstruction funding as vindicating this position. Typical is Beau Grosscup, professor of international relations at California State University at Chico.

"Having destroyed Iraq, the US now refuses to put it back together again," he said. "This decision reflects the disastrous reality of the US occupation for the Iraqi people as it is obvious there won't be peace until the US leaves. Meanwhile, the makeover of the Iraqi economy has been completed."

Iraq: Headless chickens run amok

An increasingly desperate US is talking to Iran's Shi'ite leadership as Iraq drifts into civil war. At the same time, the American military is alienating Shi'ite sympathizers within Iraq by taking the fight to Muqtada al-Sadr's militia. Iraq's Shi'ite-dominated interim government is now demanding that the US hand over control of the country's security. Meanwhile, the Kurds have fallen out with their Shi'ite allies and are courting Sunnis - to Tehran's concern; the Iraqi president and prime minister are at loggerheads; and there is still no sign of a real government. President Bush's "long haul" is getting longer.

• Says who?
• But does it really matter now?
• The Krauthammer strikes back

Tags: Bush, Iraq

The West in an Afghan mirror
By Spengler

Death everywhere and always is the penalty for apostasy, in Islam and every other faith. It cannot be otherwise, for faith is life and its abandonment is death. Americans should remove the beam from their own eye as they contemplate the gallows in the eye of the Muslims. Philistine hypocrisy pervades Western denunciations of the Afghan courts, which were threatening to hang Christian convert Abdul Rahman until the case was dropped on Monday.

Afghanistan, to be sure, is a tribal society whose encounter with the modern world inevitably will be a train wreck. The trouble is that the West has apostatized, and is killing itself. There turned out to be hope for Rahman, but there is none for Latvia or Ukraine, and little enough for Germany or Spain. That said, I wish to make clear that I found the persecution of Rahman deplorable.

The practice of killing heretics has nothing to do with what differentiates Islam from Christianity or Judaism. St Thomas Aquinas defended not just the execution of individual heretics but also the mass extermination of heretical populations in the 12th-century Albigensian Crusades. For this he was defended by the Catholic philosopher Michael Novak, author of learned books about the faith of the United States of America's founding fathers (see Muslim anguish and Western hypocrisy, November 23, 2004).

Western religions today inflict symbolic rather than physical death. One's local priest does not like to preach such things from his post-modern pulpit, but the Catholic Church prescribes eternal hellfire for those who come into communion with Christ and then reject him. Observant Jews hold a funeral for an apostate child who is spiritually dead to them (retroactive abortions not being permitted).

The last heretic hanged by the Catholic Church was a Spanish schoolteacher accused of Deist (shall we call that "moderate Christian"?) views in Valencia as recently as 1826. Without Napoleon Bonaparte and the humiliation of the Church by the German and Italian nationalist movements, who knows when the killing of heretics would have stopped?

"Where are the moderate Muslims?" sigh the self-appointed Sybils of the Western media. Faith is life. What does it mean to be moderately alive? Find the "moderate Christians" and the "moderate Jews", and you will have the answer. "Moderate Christians" such as Episcopalian priests or Anglican vicars are becoming redundant as their congregations migrate to red-blooded evangelical denominations or give up religion altogether. "Moderate Jews" are mainly secular and tend to intermarry. There really is no such thing as a "moderate" Christian; there simply are Christians, and soon-to-be-ex-Christians. The secular establishment has awoken with sheer panic to this fact at last. In response we have such diatribes such as Kevin Phillips' new book American Theocracy, an amalgam of misunderstandings, myths and calumnies about the so-called religious right. [1]

The tragedy of Abdul Rahman also is the tragedy of Western religion. Islam differs radically from Christianity, in that the Christian god is a lover who demands love in return, whereas the Muslim god is a sovereign who demands the fulfillment of duty. Christian prayer is communion, an act of love incomprehensible to Muslims; Muslim worship is an act of submission, the repetition of a few lines of text to accompany physical expression of self-subjugation to the sovereign. The People of Christ are pilgrims en route to the next world; the People of Allah are soldiers in this one. Contrary to all the ink spilled and trees murdered to produce the tomes of Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, Christianity and Islam call forth different peoples to serve different gods for different reasons.

But the fact that Christianity and Islam educe different peoples for different gods should not obscure that one cannot be either Christian or Muslim without belonging to a People of God in flesh as well as spirit. Christianity demands that the gentile, whose very origin is redolent of death, and whose heathen nature is sinful, undergo a new birth to join God's people. Whether this second birth occurs at the baptismal font for a Catholic infant or at the river for an evangelical adult is another matter. The Christian's rebirth is also a vicarious death - the death of the Christian's heathen nature - through Christ's sacrifice. No vicarious sacrifice occurs in Islam; the Muslim, on the contrary, sacrifices himself (The blood is the life, Mr Rumsfeld!, October 5, 2005).

Where is the moderation? The Christian either joins the People of God in its pilgrimage to the Kingdom of Heaven, or he does not; the Muslim either is a soldier of the ummah, or he is nothing. Religious conversion is not mere adaptation to another tradition. It is a change of people. If God is "able of these stones to raise children of Abraham" (Matthew 3:9), Christians are the Gentiles made into sons of Abraham by miracle. In Islamic society, the convert to Christianity instantly becomes an alien and an enemy.

God may be able to raise sons of Abraham from stones; that is not necessarily within the power of earthly churches. European Christianity, as I have argued often in the past, made a devil's bargain with the heathen invaders whom it made into Christians in the thousand years between the fall of Rome and the conversion of the Balts. It permitted them to keep one foot in their national past and another in the Catholic Church, under the umbrella of universal empire. The peoples revolted against church and empire and reverted to their pagan roots, and then fought one another to a bloody standoff in the two great wars of the 20th century.

In parallel to Christianity, but in a different way, Islam made its own compromise with the nations it absorbed. It would defend the pure traditional society of tribal life against the encroachment of the empires that encircled them: first the Byzantines and Persians, then Christian Europe, and now America. Traditional life inevitably must break down in the face of globalization of trade and information, and the ummah closes ranks to delay the time when the descendants of today's Muslims will look with pity upon ancestral photographs, as they turn momentarily from their video game.

Europe's Christians could not summon up the "moderation" necessary to tolerate their Jewish neighbors until after 1945, when Europe was conquered and rebuilt by the Americans. Once the ambitions of Europe's peoples were crushed in the world wars, European Christianity became "moderate" indeed, so moderate that Europeans no longer bother about it. They also do not bother to reproduce, so that the formerly Christian populations of Europe will disappear, starting with the captive nations of the former Soviet Union.

No Christian People of God emerged from Europe. In a century or two, few European peoples will exist in recognizable form. Americans, by contrast, arrived in the New World with the object - at least in the case of the Massachusetts Bay Colony - of becoming a new People of God in a new Promised Land.

• A home for Rahman
• Where is Abdul Rahman?
• I hope he gets a really good bodyguard...
• The perfect storm
• Meet the Afghans
• Quotable: How do you say "put to death" in Bushspeak?
• Death before apostasy

Mr. Khalilzad said Mr. Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Mr. Jaafari as the next prime minister, according to Mr. Taki, a senior aide to Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Shiite bloc. It was the first "clear and direct message" from the Americans on a specific candidate for prime minister, Mr. Taki said.

The Shiite bloc, which won a plurality in the parliamentary election in December, nominated Mr. Jaafari last month to retain his post for four more years.

American officials in Baghdad did not dispute the Shiite politicians' account of the conversation, though they would not discuss the details of the meeting. A spokeswoman for the American Embassy confirmed that Mr. Khalilzad met with Mr. Hakim on Saturday. But she declined to comment on what was said.

"The decisions about the choice of the prime minister are entirely up to the Iraqis," said the spokeswoman, Elizabeth Colton. "This will be an Iraqi decision."

In Washington, the State Department said it would not comment on diplomatic conversations, but Adam Ereli, the deputy spokesman, reiterated American support for "a government of national unity with strong leadership that can unify all Iraqis."

The Americans have harshly criticized the Jaafari government in recent months for supporting Shiite militias that have been fomenting sectarian violence and pushing Iraq closer to full-scale civil war.

Mr. Khalilzad has sharpened his criticism in the last week, saying the militias are now killing more people than the Sunni Arab-led insurgency. American officials have expressed growing concern that Mr. Jaafari is incapable of reining in the private armies, especially since Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric who leads the most volatile militia, is Mr. Jaafari's most powerful backer.

Haider al-Ubady, a spokesman for Mr. Jaafari, said the prime minister had received the ambassador's message and accused the Americans of trying to subvert Iraqi sovereignty.

Bush said U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told him Iraq's political leaders are resuming talks on creating a government, a key step in Bush's strategy to give Iraqis more responsibility for their own security. The president tomorrow will give the third in a series of speeches he plans to quell growing public unease over the war shown in recent polls.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday it's ``entirely probable'' the U.S. may reduce the number of its troops in Iraq in the next 12 months if that country's own forces can handle more responsibility for security.

Zacarias Moussaoui wanted to be a witness for the prosecution -- and against himself.

On the eve of his death penalty trial last month, Moussaoui met with prosecutors and offered to testify for them in exchange for better jail conditions before he was put to death, jurors were told late yesterday. The al-Qaeda operative withdrew the offer when he realized he had the right to testify on his own behalf and when prosecutors insisted that he also tell them about other terrorist plots.

"Have you ever heard of a defendant in a capital case offering to testify against himself?" defense attorney Edward B. MacMahon Jr. asked an FBI agent who took the stand after the news was revealed to the jury.

"No, not in my experience," said agent James M. Fitzgerald.

It was the latest bizarre turn in a trial that is expected to go to the jury today. Before defense attorneys rested their case that Moussaoui is not eligible for the death penalty, jurors heard testimony that one of Moussaoui's terrorist bosses thought he was "not right in the head" -- and that several disputed Moussaoui's testimony that he was supposed to crash a hijacked airplane into the White House on Sept. 11, 2001.
In an effort to save Moussaoui's life, his attorneys ended their case by trying to discredit their client. They told jurors that Moussaoui had said the opposite when he pleaded guilty last year to conspiring with al-Qaeda, insisting then that he was "not 9/11 material." ...

...Moussaoui, whose attorneys have vehemently objected to allowing him to take the stand, said he would testify for prosecutors about his plan to fly a fifth hijacked plane into the White House. In exchange for incriminating himself, he did not ask that his life be spared.

"He wanted better jail time between the time he was given a death sentence and the time he was executed," Fitzgerald told jurors. He said the meeting, described as civil, ended when prosecutors told Moussaoui he had an "absolute" constitutional right to testify.

• Doubting Moussaoui
• You are the jury
• Stop making sense
• Coaching the witnesses
• A spark of common sense?
• Flashback: September 30, 2001
• The man who wasn't there

Tags: Moussaoui, Terrorism, bin Laden, 11, Law, Bush

• Where is Abdul Rahman?
• I hope he gets a really good bodyguard...
• The perfect storm
• Meet the Afghans
• Quotable: How do you say "put to death" in Bushspeak?
• Death before apostasy

Tags: Afghanistan, Islam, Religion, Christianity, Bush administration, Abdul Rahman

WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats promise to "eliminate" Osama bin Laden and ensure a "responsible redeployment of U.S. forces" from Iraq in 2006 in an election-year national security policy statement.

In the position paper to be announced Wednesday, Democrats say they will double the number of special forces and add more spies, which they suggest will increase the chances of finding al-Qaida's elusive leader. They do not set a deadline for when all of the 132,000 American troops now in Iraq should be withdrawn.

"We're uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart and will provide the real security George Bush has promised but failed to deliver," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday.

His counterpart in the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said the Democrats are offering a new direction — "one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security."

The latest in a series of party policy statements for 2006, the Democrats' national security platform comes seven months before voters decide who will control the House and Senate and as Democrats seek to cut into the public perception that the Republicans are stronger on national security.

Bush's job approval ratings are in the mid- to high-30s, and Democrats consistently have about a 10-point lead over Republicans when people are asked who they want to see in control of Congress. ...

The 10-page brochure, printed both in English and Spanish, outlines the party's strategies with regards to securing the US from terrorist attacks and "restoring" the US position abroad. Broken into five parts, the document outlines the party's strategy for the "21st Century Military," the "War on Terror," "Homeland Security," "Iraq" and "Energy Independence."

Democrats say their first goal if elected to a majority will be the immediate implementation of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. The plan repeats this goal, or objectives relating to it, several times, calling for tighter screening at chemical and nuclear plants and key parts of America's transportation and agricultural infrastructure. Specifically, it alludes to the Dubai ports deal, saying the party won't cede ports to "foreign interests that put America at risk."

In the area of energy independence, Democrats plan on "eliminating reliance" on Middle East oil and exploring alternative energy sources. They say they intend to ensure independence from foreign oil by 2020.

The focal point of Democrats' plan for the military is to guarantee certain levels of pay and ongoing benefits to American soldiers, to secure nuclear materials and to expand US Special Forces. They call for the U.S. to prevent the creation of future terrorists through the "elimination of terrorist breeding grounds."

On Iraq, the party seeks accountability for intelligence failures and intends to "repair" alliances and ensure Iraqi self-reliance. ...

• Kadima (centrists) - 28 Knesset seats
• Labor (left) - 20 seats
• Shas (Sephardic ultra-Orthadox) - 13
• Yisrael Beiteinu (Russian-dominated ultra-conservative party that advocates religious/ethnic cleansing of Arabs via mass deportation -- ) - 12
• Likud - 11 seates (down from 38 with Ariel Sharon in 2003)
• Arab parties - 10 seats

Totals: Center-left parties: 62-66 seats, in an election with record-low turnout...

...I am sure Krauthammer, when he calms down, will rethink this column and rewrite it about something entirely different. Until then, I will amuse myself by rereading this very mean-spirited column. I’m guessing that the news from Iraq has got Krauthammer seeing red. He is fighting the enemy (Fukuyama) here so that he doesn’t have to fight the enemy there.

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (Reuters) - Top al Qaeda operatives and others in U.S. custody said in testimony on Tuesday that Zacarias Moussaoui was untrustworthy and not part of the September 11 attacks.

One day after Moussaoui gave shocking testimony that he was meant to fly a plane into the White House as part of the September 11 plot, the detained enemy combatants contradicted him.

Most of the testimony was read aloud from detainees who were forbidden from testifying because of national security concerns. Much of it questioned Moussaoui's competence, and the man said to be the financier of the September 11 attacks said he had had no involvement with Moussaoui. ...

...In a clear effort to rebut Moussaoui's own damaging admissions on Monday, the defense presented a statement from Sayf al-Adl, a senior member of al Qaeda's military committee, who said Moussaoui was "absolutely not" going to take part in the September 11 mission.

Mustafa al Hawsawi, the financier who gave several of the hijackers airline tickets to the United States, said he had "no knowledge" of Moussaoui's financial dealings.

A senior al Qaeda operative, known as Khallad, said Moussaoui broke security by phoning him every day during a trip to Malaysia in 2000.

Khallad, who was connected with the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in east Africa and masterminded the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, was eventually forced to turn off his telephone.

In testimony from Riduan Isamuddin -- better known as Hambali -- a top member of Jemaah Islamiah, an Asian group linked to al Qaeda, Moussaoui was depicted as "not bright in the head and having a bad character."

"According to Hambali, Moussaoui managed to annoy everyone he came in contact with," Hambali's testimony said, adding that Hambali said he did not trust Moussaoui. ...

I will add one legal argument: No one should be executed for what they planned on doing, rather than what they did.

• You are the jury

Tags: Moussaoui, Terrorism, bin Laden, 11, Law, Bush.

KABUL, Afghanistan - An Afghan man who had faced the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity quickly vanished Tuesday after he was released from prison, apparently out of fear for his life with Muslim clerics still demanding his death.

Italy's Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini said he would ask his government to grant Abdul Rahman asylum. Fini was among the first to speak out on the man's behalf.

Rahman, 41, was released from the high-security Policharki prison on the outskirts of Kabul late Monday, Afghan Justice Minister Mohammed Sarwar Danish told The Associated Press.

"We released him last night because the prosecutors told us to," he said. "His family was there when he was freed, but I don't know where he was taken."

Deputy Attorney-General Mohammed Eshak Aloko said prosecutors had issued a letter calling for Rahman's release because "he was mentally unfit to stand trial." He also said he did not know where Rahman had gone after being released.

He said Rahman may be sent overseas for medical treatment.

On Monday, hundreds of clerics, students and others chanting "Death to Christians!" marched through the northern Afghan city of Mazar-e-Sharif to protest the court decision Sunday to dismiss the case. Several Muslim clerics threatened to incite Afghans to kill Rahman if he is freed, saying that he is clearly guilty of apostasy and deserves to die.

"Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it," said senior Cleric Faiez Mohammed, from the nearby northern city of Kunduz. "The Christian foreigners occupying Afghanistan are attacking our religion."

Asked whether the U.S. government was doing anything to secure Rahman's safety after his release, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington that where he goes after being freed is "up to Mr. Rahman."

• I hope he gets a really good bodyguard...
• The perfect storm
• Meet the Afghans
• Quotable: How do you say "put to death" in Bushspeak?
• Death before apostasy

Tags: Afghanistan, Islam, Religion, Christianity, Bush administration, Abdul Rahman

Radioactive Matter Gets Into U.S. in Test

WASHINGTON - Undercover investigators slipped radioactive material — enough to make two small "dirty bombs" — across U.S. borders in Texas and Washington state in a test last year of security at American points of entry.

Radiation alarms at the unidentified sites detected the small amounts of cesium-137, a nuclear material used in industrial gauges. But U.S. customs agents permitted the investigators to enter the United States because they were tricked with counterfeit documents.

The Bush administration said Monday that within 45 days it will give U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents the tools they need to verify such documents in the future.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., seeking re-election this fall in his border state, said the bill offered amnesty to illegal immigrants, and sought unsuccessfully to insert tougher provisions. He told fellow committee members that the economy would turn sour some day and Americans workers would want the jobs that now go to illegal immigrants. They will ask, "how could you have let this happen," he added. ...

...The most controversial provision would permit illegal aliens currently in the country to apply for citizenship without first having to return home, a process that would take at least six years or more. They would have to pay a fine, learn English, study American civics, demonstrate they had paid their taxes and take their place behind other applicants for citizenship, according to aides to Kennedy.

"Well over 60 percent of Americans in all the polls I see think it's OK to have temporary workers, but you do not have to make them citizens," said Kyl.

"We have a fundamental difference between the way you look at them and the way I look at them," Kennedy observed later.

Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain, a potential presidential contender who worked with Kennedy on the issue, told reporters the street demonstrations had made an impact. "All those people who were demonstrating are not here illegally. They are the children and grandchildren" of those who may have been, he said.

• The first Hispanic president?

• Do you, the jury, unanimously find that the Government has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally participated in an act, i.e. lying to federal agents on August 16-17, 2001.
  
  
• Do you, the jury, unanimously find that the Government has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant participated in the act, i.e. lying to federal agents on August 16-17, 2001, contemplating that the life of a person would be taken or intending that lethal force would be used in connection with a person, other than one of the participants in the offense.
  
  
• Do you, the jury, unanimously find that the Government has established beyond a reasonable doubt that victims died on September 11, 2001, as a direct result of the defendant's act, i.e. Mr. Moussaoui's lies to federal agents on August 16-17, 2001.

LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.

Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush's extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government's plan.

“A temporary guest worker program is vital to securing our border. By creating a separate legal channel for those entering America to do an honest day’s labor, we would dramatically reduce the number of people trying to sneak back and forth across the border...”

According to the Pew Hispanic Research Centre, about 7.2m of these [11 million estimated] unauthorised migrants were employed, representing 4.9 per cent of the work force. They accounted for 24 per cent of farm jobs, 17 per cent of cleaning work, and 27 per cent of butchery jobs. Mr Bush noted many foreign workers “fill the jobs that Americans are unwilling to do.”

Since 2000, the report found, the growth in the unauthorized population had averaged 500,000 per year. In 2005, Mexican migrants represented 56 per cent of the total unauthorized population in the US. Later this week Mr Bush will meet Vicente Fox, President of Mexico, in Cancun, where immigration tensions will be discussed.

“About 85 per cent of the illegal immigrants are from Mexico and most are sent back home within 24 hours,” said Mr Bush, discussing US efforts to tighten border security

Bound, Blindfolded and Dead: The Face of Atrocity in Baghdad
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 25 — Mohannad al-Azawi had just finished sprinkling food in his bird cages at his pet shop in south Baghdad, when three carloads of gunmen pulled up.

In front of a crowd, he was grabbed by his shirt and driven off.

Mr. Azawi was among the few Sunni Arabs on the block, and, according to witnesses, when a Shiite friend tried to intervene, a gunman stuck a pistol to his head and said, "You want us to blow your brains out, too?"

Mr. Azawi's body was found the next morning at a sewage treatment plant. A slight man who raised nightingales, he had been hogtied, drilled with power tools and shot.

In the last month, hundreds of men have been kidnapped, tortured and executed in Baghdad. As Iraqi and American leaders struggle to avert a civil war, the bodies keep piling up. The city's homicide rate has tripled from 11 to 33 a day, military officials said. The period from March 7 to March 21 was especially gruesome, with at least 191 corpses, many sadistically mutilated, surfacing in garbage bins, drainage ditches, pickup trucks and minibuses.

There were the four Duleimi brothers, Khalid, Tarek, Taleb and Salaam, seized from their home in front of their wives. And Achmed Abdulsalam, last seen at a checkpoint in his freshly painted BMW and found dead under a bridge two days later. And Mushtak al-Nidawi, a law student nicknamed Titanic for his Leonardo DiCaprio good looks, whose body was returned to his family with his skull chopped in half.

What frightens Iraqis most about these gangland-style killings is the impunity. According to reports filed by family members and more than a dozen interviews, many men were taken in daylight, in public, with witnesses all around. Few cases, if any, have been investigated.

Part of the reason may be that most victims are Sunnis, and there is growing suspicion that they were killed by Shiite death squads backed by government forces in a cycle of sectarian revenge. This allegation has been circulating in Baghdad for months, and as more Sunnis turn up dead, more people are inclined to believe it.

"This is sectarian cleansing," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of Parliament, who has maintained a degree of neutrality between Shiites and Sunnis.

Mr. Othman said there were atrocities on each side. "But what is different is when Shiites get killed by suicide bombs, everyone comes together to fight the Sunni terrorists," he said. "When Shiites kill Sunnis, there is no response, because much of this killing is done by militias connected to the government."

The imbalance of killing, and the suspicion the government may be involved, is deepening the Shiite-Sunni divide, just as American officials are urging Sunni and Shiite leaders to form an inclusive government, hoping that such a show of unity will prevent a full-scale civil war.

The pressure is increasing on Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a Shiite, but few expect him to crack down, partly because he needs the support of the Shiite militias to stay in power.

Haidar al-Ibadi, Mr. Jaafari's spokesman, acknowledged that "some of the police forces have been infiltrated." But he said "outsiders," rather than Iraqis, were to blame.

Now many Sunnis, who used to be the most anti-American community in Iraq, are asking for American help.

"If the Americans leave, we are finished," said Hassan al-Azawi, whose brother was taken from the pet shop.

He thought for a moment more.

"We may be finished already."

HOLYOKE, Mass. -- To drive through the mill towns and curling country roads here is to journey into New England's impeachment belt. Three of this state's 10 House members have called for the investigation and possible impeachment of President Bush.

Thirty miles north, residents in four Vermont villages voted earlier this month at annual town meetings to buy more rock salt, approve school budgets, and impeach the president for lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and for sanctioning torture.

Window cleaner Ira Clemons put down his squeegee in the lobby of a city mall and stroked his goatee as he considered the question: Would you support your congressman's call to impeach Bush? His smile grew until it looked like a three-quarters moon.

"Why not? The man's been lying from Jump Street on the war in Iraq," Clemons said. "Bush says there were weapons of mass destruction, but there wasn't. Says we had enough soldiers, but we didn't. Says it's not a civil war -- but it is." He added: "I was really upset about 9/11 -- so don't lie to me."

It would be a considerable overstatement to say the fledgling impeachment movement threatens to topple a presidency -- there are just 33 House co-sponsors of a motion by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) to investigate and perhaps impeach Bush, and a large majority of elected Democrats think it is a bad idea. But talk bubbles up in many corners of the nation, and on the Internet, where several Web sites have led the charge, giving liberals an outlet for anger that has been years in the making.

"The value of a powerful idea, like impeachment of the president for criminal acts, is that it has a long shelf life and opens a debate," said Bill Goodman of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted last month to urge Congress to impeach Bush, as have state Democratic parties, including those of New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina and Wisconsin. A Zogby International poll showed that 51 percent of respondents agreed that Bush should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, a far greater percentage than believed President Bill Clinton should be impeached during the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal.

And Harper's Magazine this month ran a cover piece titled "The Case for Impeachment: Why We Can No Longer Afford George W. Bush."

"If the president says 'We made mistakes,' fine, let's move on," said Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-Mass.). "But if he lied to get America into a war, I can't imagine anything more impeachable."

Religious and political figures meeting at a Kabul hotel, including former prime minister Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai and Shia cleric Asif Mohsenia who commanded anti-Soviet forces in the 1980s, said the government should ensure that Islamic law is enforced.

It said if its demands were ignored, "the Muslim people of Afghanistan would consider struggle their legal and religious duty". ...

...Virtually everyone interviewed in a small sample of opinion in several parts of the deeply conservative, Muslim country on Friday said Rahman should be punished.

Several clerics raised the issue during weekly sermons in Kabul on Friday, and there was little sympathy for Rahman.

• The perfect storm
• Meet the Afghans
• Quotable: How do you say "put to death" in Bushspeak?
• Death before apostasy

Red America, my new blog at washingtonpost.com, has been under attack since its launch. It is a conservative blog on a mainstream media site, so many of the attacks were expected. If one bothers to read it, I believe it stands as a welcome addition to the opinion debate.
The hate mail that I have received since the launch of this blog has been overwhelmingly profane and violent. My family has been threatened; my friends have been deluged; my phone has been prank called. The most recent email that showed up while writing this post talked about how the author would like to hack off my head, and wishes my mother had aborted me.

But in the course of accusing me of racism, homophobia, bigotry, and even (on one extensive Atrios thread) of having a sexual relationship with my mother, the leftists shifted their accusations to ones of plagiarism. You can find the major examples here: I link to this source only because I believe it's the only place that hasn't yet written about how they'd like to rape my sister.

I know that charges of plagiarism are serious. While I am not a journalist, I have, myself, written more than one thing that has been plagiarized in the past. But these charges have also served to create an atmosphere where no matter what is said on my Red America blog, leftists will focus on things with my byline from when I was a teenager.

I can rebut several of the alleged incidents here. The most recent accusation, is that I stole a music review from Crosswalk and passed it off at National Review Online. In fact, I wrote both lists myself; I was one of Crosswalk's music review contributors at the time. ...

To my friends: thank you for your support. To my enemies: I take enormous solace in the fact that you spent this week bashing me, instead of America.

• A pain in the blogside
• There goes the neighborhood
• WaPo's Red Stater

Tags: Blogs, Bloggers, News, Media, Politics, WaPo, Washington Post

In the past 24 hours, we learned of allegations that Ben Domenech plagiarized material that appeared under his byline in various publications prior to washingtonpost.com contracting with him to write a blog that launched Tuesday.

An investigation into these allegations was ongoing, and in the interim, Domenech has resigned, effective immediately.

When we hired Domenech, we were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings. In any cases where allegations such as these are made, we will continue to investigate those charges thoroughly in order to maintain our journalistic integrity.

Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit or be accused of. Washingtonpost.com will do everything in its power to verify that its news and opinion content is sourced completely and accurately at all times.

We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations. Despite the turn this has taken, we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism.

We also remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area.

• There goes the neighborhood
• WaPo's Red Stater

Tags: Blogs, Bloggers, News, Media, Politics, WaPo, Washington Post

• Afghanistan is a free, sovereign democracy, thanks to the blood, sweat and treasure of the U.S. and European powers...



• Afghanistan has a new constitution, based in large part on Sharia law...



• Afghanistan is, by that theory, free to carry out its own internal policies regarding the punishment for religious transgressions, and to ignore the American and European powers who feel compelled to intervene to stop that country from executing the accused apostate, Abdur Rahman... Right?

Top Muslim clerics: Convert must die

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Senior Muslim clerics are demanding that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to "pull him into pieces."

In an unusual move, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telephoned President Hamid Karzai on Thursday seeking a "favorable resolution" of the case of Abdul Rahman. The 41-year-old former medical aid worker faces the death penalty under Afghanistan's Islamic laws for becoming a Christian.

His trial has fired passions in this conservative Muslim nation and highlighted a conflict of values between Afghanistan and its Western backers.

"Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate and was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban before the hard-line regime was ousted in 2001.

The trial, which began last week, has caused an international outcry. U.S. President George W. Bush has said he is "deeply troubled" by the case and expects Afghanistan to "honor the universal principle of freedom."

Rice spokesman Sean McCormack said she told Karzai it is important for the Afghan people to know that freedom of religion is observed in their country.

Her direct appeal to a foreign leader in a judicial proceeding in their own country was unusual. But in deference to the country's sovereignty, Rice evidently did not demand specifically that the trial be halted and the defendant released.

"This is clearly an Afghan decision," McCormack said.

The word is out. Their position is clear. Last week, Sen. Russ Feingold floated a reckless plan to censure the President, and some Democrat leaders have ecstatically jumped on Feingold's bandwagon.

And, if they gain even more power in November, they won't stop there.

Feingold says that censure actually represents "moderation" and calls the terrorist surveillance program an impeachable offense. Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate, fails to rule out impeachment if Democrats retake Congress. Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin is talking "high crimes and misdemeanors." And 31 House Democrats are calling for a committee to look into impeachment. Their leader? John Conyers, who would become House Judiciary Committee chairman under Democrat control.

The Democrats' plan for 2006? Take the House and Senate, and impeach the President. With our nation at war, is this the kind of Congress you want? If your answer is a resounding "NO", I need you to make an urgent contribution to help us win this fight.

http://www.GOP.com/WinThisFight/

Democrat leaders' talk of censure and impeachment isn't about the law or the President doing anything wrong. It's about the fact that Democrat leaders don't want America to fight the War on Terror with every tool in our arsenal. Your immediate action will send these reckless Democrats a message and help preserve our Republican majorities.

http://www.GOP.com/WinThisFight/

And what happens if we stand on the sidelines, and give the likes of Russ Feingold, John Kerry, and John Conyers control of Congress? Here's what the The Wall Street Journal says: "In fact, our guess is that censure would be the least of it. The real debate in Democratic circles would be whether to pass articles of impeachment. ... [E]veryone should understand that censure and impeachment are important -- and so far the only -- parts of the left's agenda for the next Congress."

http://www.GOP.com/WinThisFight/

The world is watching. Using every tool at our disposal to fight terrorists should not be a partisan issue. Democrats should to be focused on winning the War on Terror, not undermining it with political axe-grinding of the ugliest kind.

Sincerely,



Ken Mehlman
Chairman, Republican National Committee

P.S. Russ Feingold's censure resolution and Democrat talk of impeachment have raised the stakes for 2006. Make your contribution, sign the petition, and help make sure this fight is won.

Iraq, with a population of approximately 25 million, is a republic with a freely elected government. During the year [2005] unsettled conditions prevented effective governance in parts of the country, and the government's human rights performance was handicapped by insurgency and terrorism that impacted every aspect of life. In such an environment and supported by elements of the population, three groups with overlapping but largely different memberships violently opposed the government: Al‑Qa'ida terrorists, irreconcilable remnants of the Ba'thist regime, and local Sunni insurgents waging guerrilla warfare. The ongoing insurgency, coupled with sectarian and criminal violence, seriously affected the government's human rights performance; elements of the security forces, particularly sectarian militias, frequently acted independently of governmental authority. ...

...Throughout the year the prime minister renewed the "state of emergency" originally declared in November 2004 throughout the country, excluding Kurdistan. The state of emergency was based on the dangers posed by the ongoing campaign of violence aimed at preventing the establishment of a broad-based government and the peaceful participation of all citizens in the political process. The state of emergency allows for the temporary imposition of restrictions on certain civil liberties. Where there is specific evidence or credible suspicion of the crimes outlined by the law, the prime minister may impose curfews and certain restrictions on public gatherings, associations, unions and other entities; put a preventive freeze on assets; impose monitoring of and seizure of means of communication; and allow for the search of property and detention of suspects. Notwithstanding such powers, the law prohibits the prime minister from abrogating the TAL in whole or in part and provides for judicial review of all decisions and procedures implemented pursuant to this law. The government exercised these powers throughout the year.

The following human rights problems were reported:

• pervasive climate of violence
• misappropriation of official authority by sectarian, criminal, terrorist, and insurgent groups
• arbitrary deprivation of life
• disappearances
• torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment
• impunity
• poor conditions in pretrial detention facilities
• arbitrary arrest and detention
• denial of fair public trial
• an immature judicial system lacking capacity
• limitations on freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association due to
• terrorist and militia violence
• restrictions on religious freedom
• large numbers of internally displaced persons (IDPs)
• lack of transparency and widespread corruption at all levels of government
• constraints on nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
• discrimination against women, ethnic, and religious minorities
• limited exercise of labor rights

Civic life and the social fabric remained under intense strain from the widespread violence, principally inflicted by insurgency and terrorist attacks. Additionally, the misappropriation of official authority by groups—paramilitary, sectarian, criminal, terrorist, and insurgent--resulted in numerous and severe crimes and abuses. ...

...A climate of extreme violence in which people were killed for political and other reasons continued. Reports increased of killings by the government or its agents that may have been politically motivated. Additionally, common criminals, insurgents, and terrorists undermined public confidence in the security apparatus by sometimes masking their identity in police and army uniforms (see section 1.g.). ...

...Insurgents and terrorists killed thousands of citizens (see section 1.g.). Using intimidation and violence, they kidnapped and killed government officials and workers, common citizens, party activists participating in the electoral process, civil society activists, members of security forces, and members of the armed forces, as well as foreigners.

Insurgent and terrorist groups also bombed government facilities, mosques, public gathering spots, and businesses resulting in massive losses of life and grave injuries. There were no indications of government involvement in these acts.

Three years' worth of negative stories from Iraq, filed without even a cursory attempt to show balance, have finally come back to haunt the MSM. The media people see this, and that's why they're trying to address the matter now by talking about the "perception" of bias on their part. That they're talking about it at all shows just how worried they are.

The narcissists in the elite media are coming to realize, finally, that the average American no longer sees them as credible providers of information, and they can't handle it. After all, what good are their monolithic soapboxes if people simply tune out what they're saying from them?

The Public Weighs In On Media Coverage of Iraq

One of the questions in the new CBS Poll (pdf) dealt with how Americans feel about the way the media describe the situation in Iraq. The poll found that 24% of respondents felt the media were "making things in Iraq sound better than they really are," 31% felt the media were making things sound "worse than they really are," and 35% felt the media were "describing the situation in Iraq accurately." (10% did not give an answer.) ...

...To better understand these results, it's worth looking at the party breakdown of the responses. Among Republicans, perhaps unsurprisingly, only 8% thought the media were making things in Iraq sound better than they really are, whereas 57% thought the media were making things sound worse than they really are. 30% of Democrats, meanwhile, thought the media were making things sound better than they really are, and only 14% thought they were making things sound worse than they really are. (Democrats, incidentally, seem to have the most faith in the media, with 43% saying that the media were describing the situation in Iraq accurately. Only 30% of Republicans said the same.)

Now consider how people responded to the previous question, which asks respondents if they think George W. Bush, when he talks about how things are going for the United States in Iraq, is making things sound better than they are, worse than they are, or if he's describing the situation accurately. The key finding? 43% of Republicans think the president is making things in Iraq sound better than they actually are. That figure isn't quite as high as the percentage of Republicans who think the media is making things look worse than they are, but it's still quite high. That seems to suggest that while many Republicans don't totally trust what the media reports, they don't totally trust what the president says, either, and thus presumably conceive of the reality in Iraq as somewhere between the portrait painted by the press and the one painted by the president.

One more point to consider: while 26% of independents think the press is making things look worse than they are, a whopping 71% think the president is putting a happy face on the situation. The press' credibility may be relatively low among independents – only 31 percent said the media describe the situation in Iraq accurately – but it's better, at the moment, than that of the president when it comes to the war. ...

Notice of the lawsuit came today in a letter from attorney Michael Rains' office to the agent for authors Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams. They are reporters for The Chronicle and authors of the book "Game of Shadows.''

In a phone message, Rains said he will also ask a federal judge to initiate contempt proceedings "for the use of illegally obtained" grand jury transcripts and other documents that the authors used in writing the book.

The book, published today, concerns the Bay Area laboratory known as BALCO and the athletes, including Bonds, who allegedly were illicitly supplied with performance-enhancing drugs.

According to the letter, Bonds' attorney will ask a San Francisco Superior Court judge on Friday to issue a temporary restraining order forfeiting all profits from publication and distribution of the book. In the phone message, Rains said the request would be made under the theory that the transcripts were "illegally obtained and possessed under federal law."

The company was not identified by name for legal reasons and it is unclear whether collagen made from the skin of prisoners was in the research stage or in actual production.

“A lot of the research is still carried out in the traditional manner using skin from the executed prisoners and aborted fetus," the agent was quoted as saying. The material, he said, was being bought from “biotech" companies based in Heilongjiang Province and was being developed elsewhere in China.

He suggested that the use of skin and other tissues harvested from executed prisoners was not uncommon. “In China it is considered very normal and I was very shocked that Western countries can make such a big fuss about this," he said.

“Our hearts are filled with joy today as we heard that Harmeet Singh Sooden, Jim Loney and Norman Kember have been safely released in Baghdad,” Pritchard told a news conference, but he added: “We remember with tears Tom Fox. ... We had longed for the day when all four men would be released together. Our gladness today is bittersweet by the fact that Tom is not alive to join his colleagues in the celebration.”

Pritchard said that the former hostages “knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers”.

“We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by multinational forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq today,” he said. “The occupation must end.”

Some go because they think armies are the best way to keep peace - I'm not judging their motives. But why shouldn't people who have a different approach towards justice and peace also take risks? Some go because they think armies are the best way to keep peace - I'm not judging their motives. But why shouldn't people who have a different approach towards justice and peace also take risks? Some go because they think armies are the best way to keep peace - I'm not judging their motives. But why shouldn't people who have a different approach towards justice and peace also take risks? Some go because they think armies are the best way to keep peace - I'm not judging their motives. But why shouldn't people who have a different approach towards justice and peace also take risks?

• Peace activists rescued

"Seriously, I won't have anything left," Harris said. "To get to that point I would have to sell everything."

Nelson's spokesman, Dan McLaughlin, wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press that Harris' comments Tuesday were misleading.

"Katherine Harris would have Florida voters believe she's on the verge of being destitute because, she claims, she has put all her inherited $10-million fortune on the line," McLaughlin said. "But public records put her remaining net worth at up to $39 million. You simply cannot believe a single thing Katherine Harris says, about this or anything else."

• God, the devil and Katherine Harris
• The persistent Ms. Harris
• Duke residue
• Abreast of her fortunes, Kathy Harris rides again
• The Florida chess board...
• Radio report: Hot off the 'net
• The Cunningham metastasy
• Staying the course
• Nobody likes Kathy
• Sunshine State space cadets

Tags: Jack Abramoff, Katherine Harris, Republicans, Bush, Corruption, Religious right

If she somehow bows out at the last moment like Mario Cuomo in 1991, you can consider yourself the luckiest border-state governor in America.

But otherwise, you will face in Hillary the most formidable presidential front-runner in modern political history. (And, yes, I am counting George W. Bush in 2000.) Here are 10 reasons why the junior senator from New York will be a daunting foe:

1) Universal name recognition. (In contrast, JPW, only 3 percent of likely Democratic primary voters know that you were originally the president in the Gershwin classic "Of Thee I Sing.")

2) Her capacity to raise $100 million without once working late into the night cold-calling strangers to beg and grovel for money.

3) The ability to dominate the free media. Hillary will never make a public appearance in this campaign without being tracked by 100 reporters. (In contrast, JPW, imagine how much coverage you will get for your first press conference bragging about your gubernatorial record and the "Tennetucky Miracle.")

4) Her emotional support from a significant percentage of women voters out to make history.

5) Nostalgia for the Clinton era of peace and prosperity in the 1990s.

6) Continuing Democratic resentment over impeachment.

7) Hillary's over-cautious political style that avoids risk and, quite likely, deliberate mistakes.

8) The most potent candidate surrogate in political history in the form of Bill Clinton.

9) The ability of the Clinton name and legacy to attract 75 percent of the African-American vote and a large slice of the Hispanic vote.

10) At least a half-dozen candidates (including JPW) who will divide the anti-Hillary Democrats, so that she could win major primaries with just her hardcore base of, say, 35 percent of the vote.

Best/worst magazine covers, 2005: Taking a look at how magazines fared in 2005, one trend is clear: Talent does not equal sales. While covers featuring Jessica Simpson and Ashlee Simpson were top sellers, issues with Reese Witherspoon and Natalie Portman sold the worst. A Britney Spears cover was Allure's best seller of the year, while its Hilary Swank issue was its worst. Tom Cruise, at the height of his summer of madness, was Details' biggest seller, while Jamie Foxx was GQ's lowest, back in January. (Media Industry Newsletter)

Sheen's conspiracy theories: During an interview on Wednesday on the GGN Radio Network program "The Alex Jones Show," Charlie Sheen aired his own skepticism over the official story of what happened on 9/11, suggesting the U.S. government may be covering up what "really" happened. "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with boxcutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory," said Sheen. "It raises a lot of questions. A couple of years ago, it was severely unpopular to talk about any of this. It feels like from the people I talk to, and the research I've done and around my circles, it feels like the worm is turning." Saying also that the destruction of the Twin Towers looked like "controlled demolition," Sheen called for a thorough investigation: "It is up to us to reveal the truth. It is up to us because we owe it to the families, we owe it to the victims, we owe it to everyone's life who was drastically altered, horrifically, that day and forever. We owe it to them to uncover what happened." (Page Six)

• The official story

• Following the Washington Post's recent hiring of Republican activist Ben Domenech to launch the Red America weblog on washingtonpost.com, Media Matters for America has begun a review of some of Domenech's more interesting comments posted on Redstate.com, a partisan Republican blog he helped establish, and other sites. As we noted earlier today -- March 22 -- Domenech recently referred to Coretta Scott King as a "communist." Our ongoing review has also uncovered the following quote from Domenech, under his reported pseudonym "Augustine," in which he was apparently referring to the upholding of a woman's right to an abortion by the federal courts: "In the past 30 years, how many innocent lives has the KKK ended? How about the Judiciary?" ...
  
  ...On Redstate.com, Domenech also has:
  
• Called a pro-choice poster "a pathetic little Kossack."
  
• Agreed with a commenter who called Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin "an embarrassment to the saner heads at the paper."
  
• Posted portions of an article by First Things magazine editor-in-chief Richard John Neuhaus. In the passage, Neuhaus cited the "astonishingly inordinate incidence of crimes committed by young male blacks and the equally inordinate incidence of abortions procured by black women," adding that "[i]t just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime." Neuhaus went on to state that "those who style themselves black leaders, especially political leaders, are overwhelmingly in support of the unlimited abortion license, thus maintaining their distinction of being the only ethnic or racial leadership in history to actively collaborate in dramatically reducing the number of people they claim to lead," and that "[w]hite racists have reason to be grateful for what is sometimes still called the civil rights leadership." Domenech did not comment on Neuhaus's statements. ...

• WaPo's Red Stater

Tags: Blogs, Bloggers, News, Media, Politics, WaPo, Washington Post

enator Hillary Rodham Clinton invoked the Bible yesterday to criticize a stringent border security measure that, among other things, would make it a federal crime to offer aid to illegal immigrants.

"It is hard to believe that a Republican leadership that is constantly talking about values and about faith would put forth such a mean-spirited piece of legislation," she said of the measure, which was passed by the House of Representatives in December and mirrored a companion Senate bill introduced last week by Senator Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican and the majority leader.

"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself," she said. "We need to sound the alarm about what is being done in the Congress."

Mrs. Clinton, who is running for re-election this year and is leading in polls for the Democratic presidential nomination, spoke at a news conference in Manhattan with more than 30 immigrant leaders after meeting with them privately.

The meeting took place in an atmosphere of mounting urgency, as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops called on its flock to oppose the measure, and tens of thousands of immigrants around the country stepped up a series of protest rallies in anticipation of a Senate vote on competing immigration bills next week.

Mr. Frist's bill, like the House measure, would make it a crime to be in the United States without proper papers and would add guards and fencing along the Mexican border, and speed deportation.

Some versions, including one proposed by Senator Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, would expand the definition of alien smuggling to include help to illegal immigrants already here.

God do we love this woman. Let’s just skip the whole “election” thing and make her president right now

Anyway, this is just ridiculous. We learned just last week tha Hillary and McCain were skipping around holding hands with illegals, now she's comparing them to Jesus? I'm surprised that Michelle Malkin only noted the story's headline as the "headline of the day", which reads: "Clinton vows to block bill criminalizing illegal immigrants", when the outrage is really her ridiculous comparison. Congress = Plantation? Illegal Immigrants = Jesus? What's next, "The White House is like those American Pie movies!"? Oh wait, wrong President.. Scratch that.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to be heading to my local (insert any restaurant in Nashville, or most cities in the country now), walk back to the dish room and worship my Lord and Savior(s) Juan, Jose, Javier and the gang...

• The Iraq war has been the deadliest conflict for journalists since World War II, with 86 killed in that country so far... here's a profile of some of them, and here are the latest two...
• CPJ: the number one threat to journlists in Iraq today, is murder...
• CSMonitor's Jill Carroll is still missing... Bob Woodruff is still recovering, and David Bloom is still dead...

Major hat tip to Keith Olbermann (and TV Newser). Helluva commentary Wednesday night:

"A note about Laura Ingraham's comments. I've known her a long time. I'll in fact give you the caveat that I've known her socially. But that hotel balcony crack was unforgivable.

It was unforgivable to the memory of David Bloom. It was unforgivable in consideration of Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt. It was unforgivable in the light of what happened to Michael Kelly and what happened to Michael Weiskopf. It was unforgivable with Jill Carroll still a hostage in Iraq. And it was not only unforgivable of her -- it was desperate and it was stupid."

• When good news goes Baghdad

Tags: laura ingraham, talk radio, journalists, Mainstream Media, Media Bias, Politics, CountDown, MSNBC, Bill O'Reilly
Iraq, Keith Olbermann,

A radio personality at 550 KTRS was fired on the spot this morning after using the word “coon” on the air in a conversation about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Dave Lenihan was dismissed after what he called an inadvertent slip of the tongue. Within 20 minutes, station CEO Tim Dorsey apologized on the air to listeners and announced that Lenihan, who had been with the station for less than two weeks, had been let go.

“I don’t know what was in Mr. Lenihan’s mind,” Dorsey said in an interview. “I know what I heard. I know it was reprehensible.”

Lenihan’s comment was made during a discussion about Rice’s credentials to become commissioner of the National Football League, a topic that has been fodder for sports talk radio since the current commissioner announced he would retire later this year.

Lenihan was listing what assets Rice could bring to the league, including her tenure as a top academic officer at Stanford University and the fact that she is African-American.

“She’s just got a patent resume, of somebody that’s got such serious skill,” Linehan said on the air. “She loves football, she’s African-American, which would kind of be a big coon, a big coon – oh my God, I am totally, totally, totally, totally, totally sorry for that, OK? I didn’t mean that. That was just a slip of the tongue.” Lenihan later said he meant to use the word "coup."

Reached at home, Lenihan said he was still trying to figure out what happened, and was drafting a letter of apology to Rice.

"I was trying to say 'quite a coup' but it came out 'coon,"' he said. "I caught myself and apologized. It wasn't anything I was meaning to say. I never use that word.

"I think she's a fantastic woman. I was even talking about if she ran for president, I'd work on her campaign."

Feingold: I was taught that the congress makes the laws and the president is supposed to sign them and enforce them. He's not supposed to make them up.---How many times are we going to let George Bush and Dick Cheney say you guys don't support the troops, you're not patriotic and let them push us around?

"It is deeply troubling that a country we helped liberate would hold a person to account because they chose a particular religion over another." -- President Bush addressing the case of Abdul Rahman, who could be sentenced to death in Afghanistan for converting from Islam to Christianty. Bush made the remarks during a speaking engagement in Wheeling, West Virginia.

In America, we must make doubly sure no person is held to account for a crime he or she did not commit, so we are dramatically expanding the use of DNA evidence to prevent wrongful conviction. Soon I will send to Congress a proposal to fund special training for defense counsel in capital cases because people on trial for their lives must have competent lawyers by their side.
Source: 2005 State of the Union Speech Feb 2, 2005

"I was sworn to uphold the laws of my state. I do believe that if the death penalty is administered swiftly, justly and fairly, it saves lives. My job is to ask two questions. Is the person guilty of the crime? And did the person have full access to the courts of law? And I can tell you, in all cases those answers were affirmative. I’m not proud of any record. I’m proud of the fact that violent crime is down in the state of Texas. I’m proud of the fact that we hold people accountable. But I’m not proud of any record, no. " -- Bush to the St. Louis debate Oct 17, 2000, answering a question on whether he is proud of the fact that Texas leads the state in executions...

"How can we congratulate ourselves for liberating Afghanistan from the rule of jihadists only to be ruled by Islamists who kill Christians? ... President Bush should immediately send Vice President Cheney or Secretary Rice to Kabul to read [Afghan President] Hamid Karzai's government the riot act. Americans will not give their blood and treasure to prop up new Islamic fundamentalist regimes. Democracy is more than purple thumbs." -- Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, as quoted by right-wing writer/blogger Michelle Malkin

• Death before apostasy

• RedState diarist #1: Liberals should accept their media/sociopolitical defeat with equanimity...
• RedState diarist #2: Damn the equanimity, liberals are midgets...
• John Aravosis is canceling his subscription to the WaPo (dude -- why subscribe when you can read it for free online?
• The Prospect points out what should probably be obvious: (psst! Righties! Dan Froomkin: journalist... Ben Domenech: not journalist ...)
  

  Nothing written by Dan Froomkin or Dana Milbank is as florid or self-satisfied as Domenech's writings will be. Nor can his perspective be said to balance theirs, because the blogosphere equivalent of a Domenech would be a John Aravosis, not a Froomkin or Milbank. A conservative equivalent of Froomkin would be a more of a Clive Crook or Ross Douthat type, which is to say, someone who is MSM through and through, has a conservative perspective on many issues, and is also a responsible journalist. Domenech is more of a political operative, movement activist type, who, if he's had any connection to the MSM or its standards, has left no imprint of such on Nexis. (Though the Post did profile him when he was 18 years old way back in...May 2000. Guess that makes him about 24 years old now -- at most.)

• The Wizbangers are in a mood for promotion...
• Shhh! This blogger thinks there are no other conservatives at the Washington Post...! Whatever you do ... don't ... tell ... Krauthammer...!

Tags: Blogs, Bloggers, News, Media, Politics, WaPo, Washington Post

The case has sparked alarm in Germany, the US and Italy -- all NATO countries with peacekeeping troops in Afghanistan. German politicians weighed into the debate this week which has increasingly drawn the battle lines between religious conservatives in Afghanistan and western diplomats pushing a reformist agenda.

"We will do everything possible to save the life of Abdul Rahman," German Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul told the Bild newspaper.

Christoph Strässer, spokesman on human rights for the Social Democrats, part of Germany's governing coalition, said it was no surprise that the issue had inflamed passions in Germany, a country which is deeply involved in Afghanistan's postwar reconstruction and peacekeeping and currently has 2,700 soldiers deployed there.

"For one, Germany is fundamentally against the death sentence, independent of whether it's sanctioned by different cultures," Strässer said. "And secondly, religious freedom is extremely precious to us and should be respected by an Islamic society too."

Spokesman on Foreign Issues, Naser Khader, Social Liberals, Jyllands-Posten, March 21:The government must act on this matter and show that Denmark is at the forefront in the fight for Human Rights and international rule of law. That is why we are in Afghanistan. If necessary, the Danish forces in country must liberate Abdul Rahman and offer him asylum in Denmark. This case underlines the need for Sharia law to be fought wherever it is found.”

Spokesman on Foreign Issues, Søren Espersen, Danish People’s Party, Jyllands-Posten, March 21:“I don’t give a damn what laws they think they have. We are sort of an authority in Afghanistan and the President must prevent an execution, or we’ll give it to him good. If the Americans, the British and the Danes weren’t there, President Hamid Karzai would be butcher’s meat in the roadside before long. He knows the stakes and he better do what the Allies say in this matter.”

Some readers write in that no one knows who makes Danish-based LEGO toy pieces. Have you all been snoozing through the Cartoon Jihad conflagration or what? If you can't see the poster for the Islamist-pandering piece of propaganda that it is, there's nothing I can do to help you.

“We regret that the United Nations did not seek our permission. The poster may as well create an impression that LEGO is connected with racism or is completely racist,” said Lego Spokeswoman Charlotte Simonsen.

1. Black striped puzzle pieces too often unite against the red LEGOs in their midst...
2. It's hard out there for a red LEGO, when everybody but you fits in...
3. Red LEGOs are afraid -- perhaps because of racism -- to get too close to black puzzles

Malkin's take, that the LEGO is the racist one in the picture ... strikes me as the oddball choice. I mean, after all, the LEGO is all alone, out there by its lonesome on the side, while the "unified" black puzzle pieces have each other. It hardly looks like the angry, menacing face of racism. Besides, assuming its the red LEGO that's racist just because it's Danish is, well, downright racist. ... or is that recreational passtimist...?

Think this whole argument is stupid yet?

Earth to Michelle: this is about 50 percent about patent infringement -- using the LEGO image without permission, and 50 percent about product marketing. LEGO would have reacted in exactly the same way had their product been depicted along side a picture of a child molester. They're not fighting the cartoon wars with you, they're defending their brand.

Meanwhile, Poliblogger offers a dose of sanity, with lego people! Don't you just have to love LEGO people? Even if the little bastards are Danish... (I kid! DON'T email me...)

Tags: LEGOs, Lego, Cartoons, Denmark, United Nations

• Don't mess with Clooney: The HuffPo capitulation
• Don't mess with Clooney, Gorgeous George update
• Don't mess with Clooney

Tags: politics, News, George Clooney, Arianna Huffington, HuffPo

Well here, here’s what I think David. I think with all the resources of networks like NBC. The Today show spends all this money to send people to the Olympics, which is great, it was great programming. All this money for Where In The World Is Matt Lauer? Bring the Today show to Iraq. Bring the Today show to Tal Afar. Do the show from the 4th ID at Camp Victory and then when you talk to those soldiers on the ground, when you go out with the Iraqi military, when you talk to the villagers, when you see the children, then I want NBC to report on only the IEDs, only the killings, only, only the reprisals. ...

A timorous Gregory replied: "And you think Iraq is safe enough [to do what Laura proposed]?" Ingraham: "Yes. I was not on the hotel balcony. I was out with the U.S. military. It can be done in any part of the country." Laura attempted to continue, but Gregory cut her off: "I get the anti-network point." ...

... The Department of State continues to strongly warn U.S. citizens against travel to Iraq, which remains very dangerous. Remnants of the former Ba’ath regime, transnational terrorists, criminal elements and numerous insurgent groups remain active. Attacks against military and civilian targets throughout Iraq continue, including in the International (or “Green”) Zone. Targets include convoys en-route to venues, hotels, restaurants, police stations, checkpoints, foreign diplomatic missions, international organizations and other locations with expatriate personnel. These attacks have resulted in deaths and injuries of American citizens, including those doing humanitarian work. In addition, there have been planned and random killings, as well as extortions and kidnappings. U.S. citizens have been kidnapped and several were subsequently murdered by terrorists in Iraq. U.S. citizens and other foreigners continue to be targeted by insurgent groups and opportunistic criminals for kidnapping and murder. Military operations continue. There are daily attacks against Multinational Forces - Iraq (MNF-I), Iraqi Security Forces and Iraqi Police throughout the country.

There is credible information that terrorists are targeting civil aviation. Civilian and military aircraft arriving in and departing from Baghdad International Airport and flying to other major cities in Iraq have been subjected to small arms and missiles. Civilian aircraft do not generally possess systems, such as those found on military aircraft, capable of defeating man-portable, surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS). Anyone choosing to utilize civilian aircraft to enter or depart or travel within Iraq should be aware of this potential threat, as well as the extremely high risk to road transportation described below. Official U.S. Government (USG) personnel are strongly encouraged to use U.S. military or other USG aircraft entering and departing Iraq due to concerns about security of civilian aircraft servicing Iraq. ...

The mess hall experience--two meals already--has been a blast. Of course the security situation here is still terrible. The continuing terrorist threat is obvious by the number of cement barricades and checkpoints, the practical limits on where we can go ...

Hang on! I thought you could go, and string up a show, from anywhyere in Iraq and be perfectly safe ... a bit of a contradiction there, old girl... But please to continue:

... and the security sweeps even inside military bases. The asymetrical warfare being waged by the Islamo-fascists continues to be a difficult challenge.

The good news is that training of Iraqi forces continues apace and more of the security operations are being turned over to them every month. I will meet some of these brave men on Monday. I wish every American could see even the small part of the operation here that I've seen so far. They'd be more proud of our military and more grateful to be Americans. ...

Day two...

... You wouldn't know it by reading the New York Times, but IED attacks are actually down since December. I headed over to the Iraqi side of the base, where I saw the Iraqi troops being trained, with interpreters on site, of course. The men-about 30 of them-were friendly and seemed dedicated. They also risk their lives just by being part of the new Iraqi security forces-so most didn't want their pictures taken. Their American counterparts seem genuinely fond of these men-and not happy that the whole story is not being told by the "major media." More of the battlefield control is being turned over to the Iraqis later in the spring. "When the Iraqis see one of their own on top of a tank, they seem really proud," said one of the military trainers. "We need that to be the norm, as quickly as possible," commented one of the smart young majors riding with us. After checking out the the 4thID Aviation Brigade's helicopter fleet, chatting with the pilots (all of whom are poised and impressive), and seeing the Air Force's digital weather center, I was driven back to the air field for the Blackhawk flight back to Baghdad.

In September 2002, at a meeting of the U.N.’s General Assembly, Sabri came to New York to represent Saddam. In front of the assembled diplomats, he read a letter from the Iraqi leader. "The United States administration is acting on behalf of Zionism," he said. He announced that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that the U.S. planned war in Iraq because it wanted the country’s oil.

But on that very trip, there was also a secret contact made. The contact was brokered by the French intelligence service, sources say. Intelligence sources say that in a New York hotel room, CIA officers met with an intermediary who represented Sabri. All discussions between Sabri and the CIA were conducted through a "cutout," or third party. Through the intermediary, intelligence sources say, the CIA paid Sabri more than $100,000 in what was, essentially, "good-faith money." And for his part, Sabri, again through the intermediary, relayed information about Saddam’s actual capabilities.

The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case.

The sources say Sabri’s answers were much more accurate than his proclamations to the United Nations, where he demonized the U.S. and defended Saddam. At the same time, they also were closer to reality than the CIA's estimates, as spelled out in its October 2002 intelligence estimate.

For example, consider biological weapons, a key concern before the war. The CIA said Saddam had an "active" program for "R&D, production and weaponization" for biological agents such as anthrax. Intelligence sources say Sabri indicated Saddam had no significant, active biological weapons program. Sabri was right. After the war, it became clear that there was no program.

Another key issue was the nuclear question: How far away was Saddam from having a bomb? The CIA said if Saddam obtained enriched uranium, he could build a nuclear bomb in "several months to a year." Sabri said Saddam desperately wanted a bomb, but would need much more time than that. Sabri was more accurate.

On the issue of chemical weapons, the CIA said Saddam had stockpiled as much as "500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents" and had "renewed" production of deadly agents. Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had "poison gas" left over from the first Gulf War. Both Sabri and the agency were wrong.

intelligence sources say, the CIA relationship with Sabri ended when the CIA, hoping for a public relations coup, pressured him to defect to the U.S. The U.S. hoped Sabri would leave Iraq and publicly renounce Saddam. He repeatedly refused, sources say, and contact was broken off.

When war broke out, Sabri was defiant and outspoken. "Those aggressors are war criminals, colonialist war criminals. Crazy people led by a crazy, drunken, ignorant president," he said.

After the war, former CIA director George Tenet once boasted of a secret Iraqi source.

"A source," he said in a speech on Feb. 5, 2004, "who had direct access to Saddam and his inner circle." Sources tell NBC News Tenet was alluding to Sabri. Tenet said that the source — meaning Sabri — had said Iraq was stockpiling chemical weapons and that equipment to produce insecticides, under the oil-for-food program, had been diverted to covert chemical weapons production. However, in that speech, Tenet also laid out what Sabri had disclosed: that there was no biological program, that Saddam wanted nuclear weapons but had none.

DURING World War II, American soldiers en route to Britain before D-Day were given a pamphlet on how to behave while awaiting the invasion. The most important quote in it was this: "It is impolite to criticize your host; it is militarily stupid to criticize your allies."

By that rule, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is not competent to lead our armed forces. First, his failure to build coalitions with our allies from what he dismissively called "old Europe" has imposed far greater demands and risks on our soldiers in Iraq than necessary. Second, he alienated his allies in our own military, ignoring the advice of seasoned officers and denying subordinates any chance for input.

In sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.

The former hostages of Iran have benefited from two laws, passed in 1980 and 1986, that among other things gave them tax breaks, paid their educational expenses and provided a "token detention benefit" of $50 for each day in captivity. In bringing a lawsuit, they must overcome the terms of the diplomatic agreement that led to their release but has also put the State Department directly in their path.

The agreement, known as the Algiers Accords, codified the 1981 deal between the United States and Iran under which the hostages were released, billions of dollars in Iranian assets were unfrozen, and an arbitration tribunal was established in the Netherlands to settle claims between the two countries. In the first part of the document, the United States pledged that it "will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs." Elsewhere, the United States pledged to "bar and preclude" any claims filed by the hostages against Iran.

For the hostages, the situation is rich in irony. The State Department, in legal arguments and on Capitol Hill, has maintained that allowing the hostages' case to go forward will violate the Algiers Accords. But Rice has announced a $75 million plan to bolster democracy in Iran and to foster opposition to the theocracy that controls the country. The hostages say Rice's program violates the prohibition on interfering in Iran's affairs; Iran has also filed a complaint with the United States through the Swiss Embassy, which handles U.S. interests in Tehran.

"This administration has not been shy about breaking international agreements," said Barry Rosen, who was press attache at the U.S. Embassy and who now heads the Afghanistan Education Project at Columbia University's Teachers College. "The administration appears to be in contradiction of itself. It seems to me the Algiers Accords should be dead and buried."

Rosen, angry that others have "laid claim to millions and millions of dollars of compensation," added: "This may sound weird, but if I were made aware of that agreement, I would have stayed in Iran."

U.S. officials say that supporting democracy does not amount to interference under international law. And they say abrogating the Algiers Accords, though not a formal treaty, would be viewed overseas as a serious breach of international norms, harming U.S. interests. U.S. banks and companies have been able to settle claims with Iran because of the accords, while the United States has been forced to pay about $900 million to Iran for contract violations and property damage.

William J. Daugherty, a CIA employee who spent 425 days in solitary confinement during the crisis and is now a college professor, said the State Department is being "deceitful and dishonest." He added that "you can't argue that getting people to rise up against their government is not interfering in a country's affairs." He said that, after taxes, the check he received under the 1986 detention benefit was $17,000. "This came from the U.S. taxpayer, which none of us wanted to happen," he said. "We have always wanted Iran to pay for what it did."

BALTIMORE — Black men in the United States face a far more dire situation than is portrayed by common employment and education statistics, a flurry of new scholarly studies warn, and it has worsened in recent years even as an economic boom and a welfare overhaul have brought gains to black women and other groups.

Focusing more closely than ever on the life patterns of young black men, the new studies ... show that the huge pool of poorly educated black men are becoming ever more disconnected from the mainstream society, and to a far greater degree than comparable white or Hispanic men.

Especially in the country's inner cities, the studies show, finishing high school is the exception, legal work is scarcer than ever and prison is almost routine, with incarceration rates climbing for blacks even as urban crime rates have declined.

Although the problems afflicting poor black men have been known for decades, the new data paint a more extensive and sobering picture of the challenges they face.

¶The share of young black men without jobs has climbed relentlessly, with only a slight pause during the economic peak of the late 1990's. In 2000, 65 percent of black male high school dropouts in their 20's were jobless — that is, unable to find work, not seeking it or incarcerated. By 2004, the share had grown to 72 percent, compared with 34 percent of white and 19 percent of Hispanic dropouts. Even when high school graduates were included, half of black men in their 20's were jobless in 2004, up from 46 percent in 2000.

¶Incarceration rates climbed in the 1990's and reached historic highs in the past few years. In 1995, 16 percent of black men in their 20's who did not attend college were in jail or prison; by 2004, 21 percent were incarcerated. By their mid-30's, 6 in 10 black men who had dropped out of school had spent time in prison.

¶In the inner cities, more than half of all black men do not finish high school. ...

...First, the high rate of incarceration and attendant flood of former offenders into neighborhoods have become major impediments. Men with criminal records tend to be shunned by employers, and young blacks with clean records suffer by association, studies have found.

Arrests of black men climbed steeply during the crack epidemic of the 1980's, but since then the political shift toward harsher punishments, more than any trends in crime, has accounted for the continued growth in the prison population, Mr. Western said.

By their mid-30's, 30 percent of black men with no more than a high school education have served time in prison, and 60 percent of dropouts have, Mr. Western said.

Among black dropouts in their late 20's, more are in prison on a given day — 34 percent — than are working — 30 percent — according to an analysis of 2000 census data by Steven Raphael of the University of California, Berkeley..

The second special factor is related to an otherwise successful policy: the stricter enforcement of child support. Improved collection of money from absent fathers has been a pillar of welfare overhaul. But the system can leave young men feeling overwhelmed with debt and deter them from seeking legal work, since a large share of any earnings could be seized.

About half of all black men in their late 20's and early 30's who did not go to college are noncustodial fathers, according to Mr. Holzer. From the fathers' viewpoint, support obligations "amount to a tax on earnings," he said.

• McCain the Bushie
• The real McCain?
• John McCain's Tennessee waltz
• Shocker! John McCain is a self-serving phony!