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