A reader writes:

Seventeen years ago my son was a three year old. We picked him up
from nursery school one day and the director told us he was playing an
interesting game with another youngster. He would climb on his buddy's
back, they would both scream "BOOM" and crash apart, apparently
imitating the shuttle Challenger explosion.

Today he is a senior aerospace engineering student. He called this
morning from Houston, where he is on a college co-op assignment at
Johnson Space Center this semester. It was our first word of today's
tragic news.

"These are the days of miracle and wonder," sang Paul Simon in the 1980s. It ran through my head all morning, from out of nowhere, and I think I know why. It has to do with the impossibility, the sheer implausibility, of the facts. We are on the verge of war in the Mideast, a war springing in its modern origins from the tensions of the Arab-Israeli conflict; our president, a Texan, believes we must move on Iraq. The space shuttle that broke up today carried, for the first time ever, a Mideastern astronaut, an Israeli who won fame when he led a daring raid on a nuclear reactor in Iraq, 20 years ago. The shuttle broke up over the president's home state, Texas. The center of the debris field appears to be a little town called Palestine.

If Tom Clancy wrote this in one of his novels--heck, if Tim LaHaye wrote this in one of his Left Behind books--his editor would call him and say, "We're thinking this may be too over the top."

"We are happy that it broke up," government employee Abdul Jabbar al-Quraishi said.
"God wants to show that his might is greater than the Americans. They have encroached on our country. God is avenging us," he said.

Re-reading those lines by Magee, it is their sheer sense of fun that is so striking:

“Sunward I've climbed and joined the tumbling mirth of sun-split clouds, -and done a hundred things/You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung/High in the sunlit silence.”

Speaking on Fox News, one of the reporters has just been reminiscing about interviewing the Columbia crew as the shuttle circled our planet. The astronauts were, she recalled, exhilarated, “giggling,” excited, “like kids in a candy store”. Yes, we go into space to learn, to satisfy that urge to explore and to know that is one of mankind's finest features, but, for all the dangers (of which we have been so tragically reminded today) we go there to play too.

There’s an echo of that in a comment by Yuri Gagarin on his return to Earth after that first, glorious, orbit back in 1961:

“I could have gone on flying through space forever”.

I was deeply moved to learn this morning that Ilan Ramon, the Israeli astronaut killed on the Columbia this morning, had taken into space with him a drawing made by a child in a Nazi concentration camp. It was the child's conception of what Earth looks like from the moon. That drawing survived the Holocaust and its aftermath, and was kept in Yad Vashem, Israel's national Holocaust memorial site. Now it has perished, along with Ramon and six others, on its way back from space.

Think about that drawing: that Jewish child lived in a death camp, yet he was still able to dream of space, and these dreams no doubt brought that child some small measure of comfort in a world overwhelmed by tragedy, suffering and loss. My own son Matthew, who is three, told his grandmother on the phone this morning, almost cheerfully, "The space shuttle Columbia blew up, but that's okay, because they're going to build another one." He's on the floor now playing with some kind of foam lawn dart he's turned into a rocket. "Five, four, three, two, one...blast off!" he keeps saying. Even this morning, he's still going on, as he has been for the past couple of months (when he first became obsessed with Neil Armstrong) about how he wants to be an astronaut.

Kids and their deathless dreams. God bless them.

On this terrible, tragic day, it's worth quoting the whole of the poem from which those lines from the Challenger speech were taken.

The poem, called High Flight, was written by John Gillespie Magee, a Spitfire pilot in the Royal Canadian Air Force:

"Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth

And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;

Sunward I've climbed and joined the tumbling mirth of sun-split clouds, -and done a hundred things

You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung

High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,

I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung

My eager craft through footless falls of air.

Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue

I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace

Where never lark, nor even eagle flew -

And, while with silent lifting mind I've trod

The high, untrespassed sanctity of space,

Put out my hand and touched the face of God."

John Magee, the son of an American father and British mother, was killed in a flying accident in December, 1941. He was 19.

The Feminist Majority joined a group of women’s rights, civil rights, consumer rights, environmental, labor and other progressive groups in a press conference Friday in Los Angeles to oppose President Bush’s nomination of anti-women judicial nominee Carolyn Kuhl to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Kuhl, who has a long record of opposing reproductive rights such as contraception, is the latest example of Bush’s effort to stack the nation’s courts with far-right ideologues.
“Senator (Diane) Feinstein (D-CA) and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee must oppose judges who will take away women’s rights and roll the clock backwards,” said Katherine Spillar, executive vice-president of the Feminist Majority. “Carolyn Kuhl has openly stated that she believes Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided.”

Andrew Sullivan takes issue with my complaint about the DC judge who refused to sentence the gay Catholic activists convicted of trespassing, or somesuch offense, having to do with their refusing to leave a church after having been denied communion. The three were part of a protest against what they believe are the Catholic Church's unjustly discriminatory policies against homosexuals. The judge said she was sympathetic to the protesters' plight, and apologized to them for what the Church is doing to them. This is bigotry because it's none of the state's business how the Catholic Church decides to distribute communion. In Catholic teaching, churchgoers are not to receive communion if they are in a conscious state of mortal sin. In practice, most people who receive communion are improperly disposed, but the fault lies upon the communicant in that case. The priest assumes the communicant is in good standing. A judge may think this is crazy, but it's none of her business. The fact that she made it her business is to me evidence of prejudice against Catholicism.

In the case at hand, the three gay would-be communicants were attempting to use the holiest sacrament of the Catholic faith to make a political statement. The priest was right to deny them communion. The analogy is imperfect, but if, for example, Jesse Helms turned up at a parish of the homosexual Metropolitan Community Church on Sunday morning, and demanded to take communion (assuming they have communion), and the minister decided that Helms was either a notorious public sinner (for his right-wing views on gay rights) or was abusing their sacrament to make a political statement, she would be well within her rights to refuse him. More power to her.

And if Jesse Helms had to be dragged out of the church, and was charged with and convicted of trespassing, the judge should give him a fair sentence. If the judge said from the bench, "Jesse, I don't like that gay church any more than you do. I'm not going to sentence you at all. I'm sorry you had to go through that. It's a shame how those people are" -- Andrew would scream his head off about how a judge has no business telling a religion how to operate. And he would be right to do so. Andrew -- and anybody else -- has a right to protest practices in his religion he finds offensive. But as long as no law is broken, churches should be free of the interference of the state in their practice.

Technically, I suppose, this judge didn't interfere with the practice of the Catholic religion in this parish, but if the state were to refuse to punish those who broke the law in attempting to interfere with the freedom of Catholics to worship according to their rules, the effect is no different, because it encourages lawbreaking.

Here we have these three bizarre positions from NOW's Super Bowl ad report: The first, from NOW itself, says there were too many men in the ads. The second, from one of their "monitors," says it's bad when there are too many women in the ads. The third, from their ranking, complains that one of the ads shows one man and one woman.

What NOW says: 1. Men were again the big winners in the Super Bowl ad extravaganza‹many more men than women were employed to act in the commercials, and much of the content of the ads was directed at the male viewer.

2. "I don't mind the number of male-oriented ads. In fact, I will get worried when the ads are more female-oriented. I prefer to think that not many women care about the Super Bowl."

3. #64: Anheuser-Busch ‹ Michelob work-out "Put an intimate portrait of two thin, attractive people, of course a woman and man, and everyone will buy the beer‹and lose weight while they're at it!!!" --- I think NOW is perpetuating the stereotype that women complain all the time because they can't make up their minds...

The new law allows marriage only to citizens of Belgium or the Netherlands, the first country to allow same-sex marriage, beginning in 2001. The Netherlands is seen as an avant garde country; however Belgium -- with its small population of 10 million -- has not been a leader in European affairs. It is not likely that other countries will follow the Belgian Parliament's lead.
The bill has taken four years to pass the Belgian Parliament governed by a left-leaning coalition. The coalition disregarded the country's top administrative court, which ruled marriage was the union of one man and one woman.
The law is scheduled to take effect in approximately four months

When mighty roast beef was the Englishmen's food It ennobl'd our veins and enriched our blood. Our soldiers were brave and our courtiers were good. (Chorus) Oh! the roast beef of old England! And old English roast beef. But since we have learned from all-vaporing France To eat their ragouts, as well as to dance, We are fed up with nothing but vain complaisance. (Chorus) Oh! the roast beef... etc.

When I first met Hank he kept saying, "I want to tell you. There's something I want to tell you." Each time, he'd back out. Finally, one day we were at my dad's and we were sitting on the grass, and I said, "Hank, you've got to tell me what it is on your mind." He said, "It's my mother." I was so innocent then, I didn't know if she was dead. He said, "I want to take you home and introduce you to her," then he said, "You know what she's gonna say when she meets you? She's gonna say, 'Where did you meet this whore?'" I said, "Hank, your mother couldn't possibly say that. I know she couldn't." You know, we walked in, and that's the first thing she said. I ran back to the car. Hank and his mother fought like men would fight.
Hank's mother, Miz Lillian, was a piece of work. She raised two kids on her own in the Depression, in rural Alabama, and "We never took relief." If she had nothing to feed the kids for lunch, she'd go out in the morning with a shotgun and get a rabbit or a squirrel.

Amherst city council votes against war with Iraq.

A reader reminds me that instead of the lion joke below I could have used this exchange from the Simpsons:

Homer: No bears since the bear patrol. Lisa: Dad, that's rather specious reasoning. Homer: Thank you honey. Lisa: No Dad, I could just as easily say that this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: How does it work? Lisa: It doesn't, but you don't see any tigers around do you? Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy that magic rock.

There's a pretty useful summary on the differences between the United States and Europe in the The New York Times today. As luck would have it, my
syndicated column is sort of a response to many of the points made in Bronner's essay. There are a few stolen bases in his piece. For example he says that in the airport in Basel there are "fewer armed guards visible than at any major airport in America." Well, that may be true. But if it is it's a very new development. For most of the 1980s and 1990s Americans would arrive in Europe only to be shocked at the number of soldiers walking through airports with sub-machine guns slung over their shoulders. American airports didn't have armed soldiers in them until after September 11. There may be fewer armed soldiers in West European airports than there were -- thought I doubt it -- but if that's the case it's because Europe decided to start appeasing and buying off terrorists groups not because it talked, say, Abu Nidal into pacifism.

Also, Switzerland is famously neutral and the country least likely to fear terrorist attacks. Bronner writes his piece from Paris, but he chooses a Swiss airport for his example. Could it be because Paris airports are actually filled with soldiers armed to the teeth -- and for good reason. Richard Reid, for example, boarded his plane in Paris.

Regardless, while Bronner seems to get it right in terms of the attitudes separating Europe and America, he glosses over a lot of history to reach his conclusion. When he writes, "Through common economic interests, education and relentless talk, the Europeans have forged a new world for themselves," he downplays a single enormous fact. Europe could afford to cultivate its penchant for "relentless talk" because America was guarding the gates and ports of Europe. It's one thing to take security for granted while you push a lot of paper around. It's another thing entirely to believe that it was the paper pushing itself which secured your safety and prosperity.

It's like one of those stupid jokes where the guy pats his head to keep lions away. Another guy says, "But there are no lions in Cleveland." The head-patter responds, "See? It works." If Europeans actually believe their hotel-room symposia created their zone of peace, they're sadly mistaken.

This is worth a look.

I'm really sorry that you are so stupid. What you wrote abour French is dismaying. Everything in your so-called article smells hate and racism. You're disgusting. Poor guy. If we want that people like each other, you really do the contrary! Do you want to bolster hatred ? Hopefully, as French, I like America, and I do not despise american citizens like you do for french ones. Je ne vous salue pas.

Leaders of women's groups that oppose any changes to how the law is enforced were angered by the panel's recommendations. "We are deeply troubled by the commission's action," said Jocelyn Samuels, vice president of the Washington-based National Women's Law Center. "This authorizes the secretary of education to radically restructure current practices. . . . The proposals recommended are every bit as damaging as any that have been put on the table." Donna Lopiano, executive director of the Women's Sports Foundation, said, "The commission has opened the barn door for the Bush administration to weaken Title IX. This gives the education secretary license to do pretty much anything he wants."

Here's a must-read WaPo column by Robert Kagan, in which the Brussels-based writer explains for American readers why the pro-American stand taken by Berlusconi, Blair, Aznar et alia is tremendously brave. In Europe today, writes Kagan, "the suspicion, fear and loathing of the United States couldn't be thicker. In London, where Tony Blair has to go to work every day, one finds Britain's finest minds propounding, in sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents, the conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the 'neoconservative' (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy. Britain's most gifted scholars sift through American writings about Europe searching for signs of derogatory 'sexual imagery.' In Paris, all the talk is of oil and 'imperialism' (and Jews). In Madrid, it's oil, imperialism, past American support for Franco (and Jews). At a conference I recently attended in Barcelona, an esteemed Spanish intellectual earnestly asked why, if the United States wants to topple vicious dictatorships that manufacture weapons of mass destruction, it is not also invading Israel.

"Yes, I know, there are Americans who ask such questions, too. We have our Buchanans and our Gore Vidals. But here's what Americans need to understand: In Europe, this paranoid, conspiratorial anti-Americanism is not a far-left or far-right phenomenon. It's the mainstream view."

Aaargh! Terrible idea. Even I, an unconditional fan of Bush and decided supporter of his actions on Iraq, feel the hear in the back of my neck stand on end when I think about labeling my Spain "Bush country." These countries support America for all kinds of good reasons but they are not America. The support is freely given by nations that consider themselves equal to and not subservient to America.

France could post a map of the USA with California and New York labeled in French Blue. They could call them Chirac states. You might think that the idea is funny, but I don't think that it would do much to help France's cause among Americans, or even Californians.

PS, I am allowed to say Spaniard, right?

Aaargh! Terrible idea. Even I, an unconditional fan of Bush and decided supporter of his actions on Iraq, feel the hear in the back of my neck stand on end when I think about labeling my Spain "Bush country." These countries support America for all kinds of good reasons but they are not America. The support is freely given by nations that consider themselves equal to and not subservient to America. France could post a map of the USA with California and New York labeled in French Blue. They could call them Chirac states. You might think that the idea is funny, but I don't think that it would do much to help France's cause among Americans, or even Californians.

Great idea from a reader:

With the emergence of the letter of support for the U.S. from 8 European countries shouldn't we get a big map of Europe and paint those countries red and lable them Bush country such as we did during the election for each state that voted for him? I mean I understand the uneasiness that comes with painting European countries red since we were fighting against that for so long but, hey, we won the cold war

If you're wondering how to respond to pro-French arguments when it comes to foreign policy, this picture is worth a thousand words.

Here's Peggy Noonan on the State of the Union address. Excerpt:

This, truly, is a good man. And that is a rare thing. Agree with Mr. Bush's stands or disagree, there can be no doubting the depth of his seriousness and the degree to which he attempts to do what he is convinced is right, and to lead his country toward that vision of rightness. We have had many unusual men as president and some seemed like a gift and some didn't. Mr. Bush seems uniquely resolved to be as courageous as the times require and as helpful as they allow. There is a profound authenticity to him, and a fearlessness too.

A steady hand on the helm in high seas, a knowledge of where we must go and why, a resolve to achieve safe harbor. More and more this presidency is feeling like a gift.

In the current issue of The Atlantic Monthly, Caitlin Flanagan has a must-read essay surveying recent books about sexual dissatisfaction in contemporary marriages. She finds that couples with children are paying a big price for two-earner households: sexless, or sex-starved, marriages. The idea is that by the end of the day, after dinner is made, homework is supervised, and the kids put to bed, the working woman can be too tired for sex. Here's Flanagan commenting on a popular new novel:

"If I Don't Know How She Does It, a book about a working woman who discovers deep joy and great sex by quitting her job and devoting herself to family life, had been written by a man, he would be the target of a lynch mob the proportions and fury of which would make Salman Rushdie feel like a lucky, lucky man. But of course it was written by a with-it female journalist, so it's safe, even admired. Allison Pearson, we have been given to understand, is telling it like it is. And what she's telling us, essentially, is that in several crucial aspects the women's movement has been a bust, even for the social class that most ardently championed it."

I'll tell you what my son's stay-at-home mom is doing this week: potty training. It's hard, demanding work for a mom, and tough on a little kid (I had no idea kids would be so emotionally sensitive about this). This is going to sound stupid and cheesy to people who don't have kids, but I'm going to say it anyway: I'm so grateful that my little boy is being trained and taken care of in this by his mom, who loves him, and whom he trusts. I can see with my own eyes what a difference her being there to guide him through this is making -- it's a pitifully small thing from an adult perspective, but a Very Big Deal for three-year-olds -- and what a difference her presence makes in his life every day. Ours is a culture that undervalues the labor stay-at-home moms do. About the only real thanks they get are the hugs and kisses and "I love yous" from their children. It is a labor of love, and such thanks are priceless. I guess you have to see it for yourself to appreciate it.

Anyway, like I said, this week is Potty Training Week around my place, so if you come over, watch where you step. On my way out this morning, Matthew told me not to tee-tee on the floor at National Review. What, does this kid think we're a bunch of libertarians over here? Happily, his Uncle Rich runs a pretty tight ship, as these things go, so the lad worries in vain.

I just received the following email from a reader. Seems legit (It would be a pretty lame thing to make up):

Hey Jonah,

On the editorial page of the Times I bought in Astoria queens yesterday morning, I was especially irritated by one paragraph of Maureen Dowd's column ("The Empire Strikes First"). I was happy to see Ramesh Ponnuru take her to task for it in the Corner yesterday ("Dowd's State").

Imagine my surprise when, visiting my parents at their home on the Connecticut River later in the day, I attempted to back up my contention that Ms. Dowd was barking mad by quoting the offending paragraph, and it wasn't the same!

>From the column in the paper purchased in Queens (and remarked upon by
Ramesh): "...as long as the region plays ball with the new sheriff. They'll put pressure on Syria and Iran to abandon their support for terrorism. And then, with an American spigot, the oil will flow free--except to the French, who will pay dearly."

>From the column purchased by my parents in Essex, Connecticut: "...as long as they do what America wants. They'll put pressure on Syria and Iran to abandon their support for terrorism and everyone from the Tigris and Euphrates to the Jordan guaranteeing more security for Israel. And then the oil will flow free, under American guidance."

Is the Times afraid of frightening the mild-mannered folk of Connecticut with the fiery language of Dowd's original column? Or do the regional editions go out first, with red meat being mixed in later for city liberals?

Or is it simply standard practice for a column to vary this dramatically from one edition to another?

Military intervention in Iraq would be "legitimate" even without the approval of the UN Security Council, a French MP said. Alain Madelin, a former economy minister from the ruling party, was the first French politician so far to have voiced such a stance. "Our place is at America's side," he said, and compared the Iraq crisis to the situation before intervention in Kosovo.

I share Andrew Sullivan's exasperation with media outlets serving as transmission belts for the views of "real Iraqis." Almost every day some newspaper or TV show interviews a man or woman in the street in Baghdad who manages to say virtually exactly what the regime wants said. It feels like the New York Times getting man in the street interviews about Stalin in the 1930s. What else are they going to say?

When John F. Burns, The New York Times reporter who's done some of the best and most honest reporting from Baghdad, was still in Iraq he always made it clear that getting an honest read from people in Baghdad was hard. But it wasn't until he came back that he gave an indication of how hard it really is. Here's what he had to say about the goons who accomapny Western reporters everywhere. From last Sunday's Times:

"Minders," the men who watch visiting reporters day and night, are supposedly drawn from among the regime's harder men. But even they break down, hands shaking, eyes brimming, voices desperate, when reporters ask ordinary Iraqis edgy questions about Mr. Hussein.

"You have killed me, and killed my family," one minder said after a photographer for The New York Times made unauthorized photographs of an exhibition of statues of the Iraqi dictator during a November visit to Baghdad's College of Fine Arts.

But we're supposed to take some "hard-hitting" interview by Lester Holt in Baghdad seriously? No offense to Holt, but we consider interviews with paid spokesmen unreliable, how about interviews with people who think their families will be killed?

I have some suggestions and I would love it if we could get a groundswell of pressure against news outlets to enforce them. First, reporters should strive for "equal time" from Iraq. If one person is against liberation they need to interview someone else in favor for balance. If they can't do that, they should repeat what Iraqis are telling them in private. Also, the camera should always -- always show the minder standing there enforcing Saddam's will. Print reporters should always make it clear to the reader that the "man in the street" has a man from the government watching the interview.

But my biggest suggestion -- I'd call it a demand if I could enforce it -- is that all of these reporters go back to Baghdad and re-interview the exact same average Iraqis after Saddam is gone. If reporters think they'll be exposed as megaphones for a dictator down the road, they might voice their skepticism more. Or they might just stop doing these bogus interviews altogether.

That debate is over. After a months-long period in which the Bush Administration went to the Security Council - as the Senator called for last fall; secured a new Council resolution demanding Iraqi compliance with its disarmament obligations - as the Senator called for last fall; and pursued patient diplomacy while educating the American public about the threat Iraq poses to our interests - as the Senator called for last fall, I agree with him that, ‘Much has changed in the many months since Congress last debated war with Iraq.’

What has changed is that the Administration has pursued the careful diplomacy the Senator had urged on it and has refrained from using force unilaterally against Iraq. The President has worked to make the case for Iraqi disarmament to America and the world. The Administration was able to unite the Security Council behind our demand that Iraq disarm or be disarmed. And the Administration has worked diligently to assemble a coalition that will stand with us in the event military action is necessary.

Iraq has provided more evidence of its intentions, and its defiance, by its failure to provide anything resembling an honest declaration of its arsenal of banned weaponry, and its failure to cooperate substantively with the U.N. inspectors, as Hans Blix has stated. By its own actions, Iraq has placed itself before the world in material breach of the Security Council resolution the Senator from Massachusetts demanded the Administration seek, and honor, in the Congressional debate last fall.

Marty Peretz has a pretty good Diarist in the latest New Republic. I think he overreaches stylistically in parts, but I've always liked his writing style. Anyway, he attempts to identify the reason for French anti-Semitism. He writes:

"The sins of the Jews, after all, are obvious. They are in the American camp. They are at peace with science, technology, and the rule of law. They create material wealth. But all this still leaves a large question: What is the grand "progressive" vision for which the French left fights, which the Zionists and Jews are insidiously holding back? In the grand conflicts of the last century, there was always a left-wing structure of Manichaeanism. On the one side: imperialism and capitalism. On the other: a compelling and revolutionary dream. The dreams turned out to be nightmares. But they were dreams, nonetheless. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Che, the Viet Cong, the Sandinistas, always a man and a movement saying they aimed to build a better world, which they actually tried to describe. In the end, of course, the better world did not arrive: In its place were death camps, mass deportations, forced famines, massacres, reeducation programs, prisons of the body, and greater prisons of the soul.

So what dream do the Palestinians propose to their own people and the world? Nothing--save their purported innocence against the all-powerful Jews. What hero of the struggle have the Palestinians produced to inspire those whose aid they covet? No Gandhi, certainly. No Mandela. And no Weizmann or Ben-Gurion either. Their present hero is Saddam Hussein. Do they envision a classless society? No. A transparent society, a democratic society, an accountable society? No, no, and no again. Will they transform and free the lives of women, of despised tribes, of gay people, of skeptics? Not a chance. By what vision then will they judge themselves? Nobody says because nobody knows.

Which is why I believe that the many in France and the others in Europe (and the puny few in the United States, such as the Episcopal bishops of Massachusetts) who are entranced by the Palestinian cause, who are called and call themselves peace workers, are drawn to the empty idea of Palestine simply because they despise Jews. C'est ça. This, at least, explains their fervor. Nothing else can explain it, and nothing does.

Now, I'm not sure I agree with all of this, but I do think Peretz raises an excellent point. The Left -- like all "movements" in a way -- desperately needs to be struggling against something. But not just "something" -- because "something" could be a cold impersonal force like disease or bad weather. No, they need to be struggling against someone. There needs to be a human will behind the problems of the world. They can't just be "problems" they need to be crimes. Unfortunately, most Western governments, universities and large institutions, with the alleged exception of multinational corporations, largely agree with the aims if not the means of the Left. And, as Peretz notes, the radically exciting conduits for rebellion have imploded. So what remains?

As for causes, there's national liberation, particularly Palestinian liberation, which Peretz notes is a category more than a cause. And, in terms of criminals there are always the corporations, sure. But they seem too cold and impersonal -- like the weather. But there are also the Jews. Once victims, they now prosper while other members of the coalition of the oppressed allegedly don't. They have human will and they use it to the supposed detriment of the Palestinians. As villains, they may not be as convenient as the Robber-Barrons and Fascists of old, but they'll do. Indeed, they can be turned into Robber Barrons and Fascists with just a few dabs of painted on propaganda. That's why we so many pictures of Jews in Nazi garb or Hitlerite mustaches. Of course, we see Bush and Cheney similary doctored-up. It's not clear whether their crime is to be the dupes of Jews orr the allies of Jews. But in the end, it doesn't matter, because they'll do as either.

Abu Hamza may despise the West, but this paragon, this ‘cleric’, seems to like its money. According to the London Times he ”is thought to have been paid £100,000 [$160,000] in welfare benefits over the past three years, including three types of disability payments, income support, housing benefit and help with fuel bills.”

His son also appears to see no conflict between contempt for Britain and taking its money. The Times reports that he “served three years in a Yemeni jail after he was convicted of plotting terrorist attacks on British targets. He is now living with his father and is also believed to be claiming welfare benefits”.

Yes, that’s right. British welfare benefits.

The repellent Abu Hamza Al-Masri, an Egyptian-born ‘cleric’ is one of the UK’s most prominent advocates of extremist Islam. As a British citizen, he has not been eligible for deportation. The basis for his citizenship is his marriage to an Englishwoman back in 1980. Now the London Times is reporting) that the marriage was bigamous and thus, under English law, void.

Whoops.

Have France and Germany overreached? In a fascinating move, the leaders of eight European countries (Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic) have co-signed an article in the London Times warning that transatlantic co-operation must not become a victim of the current crisis and making clear that, in their view, the Blix report confirms Saddam’s long-established pattern of “deception, denial and non-compliance”.

The Times takes up the story:

“In what appears to be a reminder to M Chirac and Herr Schröder, [the leaders of the eight] say that “we Europeans” had reiterated backing for Resolution 1441 and the wish to pursue the UN route at both the Prague Nato summit and the Copenhagen European Council. In doing so, they sent an unequivocal message that they would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam’s deadly weapons.

“We must remain united in insisting that his regime is disarmed,” they write. “The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully.” They say the resolution is Saddam’s last chance to disarm peacefully and tell the Security Council that its task is to preserve international peace and security. To do so it must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions.

The article, the Times notes, “is likely to infuriate France and Germany.”

I'll say.

Good email in response to today's G-File:

If french PM Daladier had had the balls to reoccupy the Rhineland in 1934, as he was authorized by treaty and international law to do, there is ample evidence that the german military would have deposed Hitler. The French Army could have handled that one, the german's contingency plan for a french response was straight out of Monty Python: "Run Away!"

But instead, he chose not to exercise France's rights under law and convention - and we got WWII.

History books today would probably vilify him for his "brutal repression of a sovereign nation".

But people would simply know Auschwitz as a train stop on the way to Minsk,
and Theresienstadt would be a spa town, and Buchenwald would be a nice place
to walk Cosmo, and Dresden would not be new-built since 1945. Yeah, there
would probably have been a reckoning in Europe with the Soviets - but who
knows?

That's the difference of being a leader with vision, and a spineless jellyfish concerned with looking good to the 'right people'. i.e., the difference between Bush and Clinton.

So let's deal with 'em. Good G-file today. Good Springer column, too.

But whadda I know? I'm not a famous, rich person, with the right connections and name recognition. I'm just a soldier, military historian, and computer geek in fly-over country, right? I mean, Katie Couric ain't left any messages!

Sorry for the delay on G-File, the day kinda got away from me because of various (incredibly boring) distractions. K-Lo's got it now. Whether it's worth reading I leave to history -- K-Lo's editorial judgement. In the meantime here's my syndicated column on Jerry Springer. It's the only thing I could think to write about yesterday since the SOTU could have changed everything else.

Today's Hank Williams is... Eminem. A suggestion which I expect you will find scurrilous, preposterous, perhaps even blasphemous. Entertain the case.
Eminem is a man from that "old, weird America." He grew up in Detroit, in the bad parts, very "diverse" but in the most non-PC way.
He is popular, but I would hardly characterize him as "pop." The term is usually applied to those "artists" like Britney, Christina Aguilera, Shakira, who can be hot-swapped without anyone noticing, and whose music lacks utterly any sense of individual style or substance. Now, you may dislike Eminem's style, and despise his substance, and not without some good reason. But his style is singular, even in rap, a form which prior to his emergence had become the most cliche-ridden and mongoloid in all of music. His rhymes and formulations are far too clever to be the product of a committee. It is not singable in the way that Williams' music is, and that is indeed too bad. Truth is there are plenty of singer-songwriters out there doing folksy, singable music, but now is not their moment,
As for the contents, his songs are dark, harsh, verging on occasional evil. Well, he has lived a life to produce such feelings. In keeping with the times, he expresses rage where Hank Williams expressed sadness. This is a matter of the culture, and Eminem is a symptom, not a cause.
Lastly, Hank Williams (like Johnny Cash) was hardly considered a nice boy in his time. C.S. Lewis once said something along the lines of, "Don't mistake manners for values." HW was a rider on the fringe of society in a way that is of a part with Eminem. Fifty years' hence the comparison will seem much less controversial than it does today. Here's hoping that you shall get to see for yourself.

Derb - I know what you mean. I used to try to reason with some of my ignorant but not necessarily invidious correspondents who insisted that I must be on the Israeli payroll. I'd tell them I've never even had a conversation with a single Israeli official, never been to Israel etc. But invariably they'd reply "how can I believe you?" Which, of course, is the point of conspiracy theories, you can't disprove them because all conspirators are liars. I mean if I were on the payroll, I'd say the same thing wouldn't I?

This really hit home with me a few months ago when I attended a conference in LA. It had absolutely nothing to do with Israel at all. But one hyper-liberal college activist girl told me a story about what it was like to go to Berekley and be Jewish in radical left circles. She said she and a friend attended a pro-Palestinian march -- you know the stuff with Ariel Sharon with a Hitler mustache etc. Her friend wore his yarmulke (better to hide the horns, of course). And despite the fact that he was in complete -- or near complete -- solidarity with the whole zionism=racism gestalt, he got beaten up. Not badly, but bad enough to fear far worse could happen to him if he stuck around. The moral: There's absolutely nothing that will persuade some people and, ultimately, you're a fool for trying.

The E.U. is deadly serious. From the Times (London): Farmers throughout the country have 90 days to put a toy in every pigsty or face up to three months in jail."

Now they've really got me pegged. In this weird little rant I am a flunky of the "Zionist cartel." I'd summarize it more but I have to take a call from Ariel to get my next round of talking points. (Actually, I have to take Cosmo to the park).

Almost seemed to be in a state of panic while talking to Tom Brokaw, insisting that a lot has changed since three months ago when the Congress voted to authorize the president to use force if necessary. I will grant Kennedy that North Korea's flare up is a new development, but the rest of his examples were nonsense. Al Quaeda is still active, he said. Nothing new there. Osama Bin Laden may be alive, he insisted. Well, Osama may have been alive three months ago. And, he noted there are inspectors in Iraq now. That's true. But that's irrelevent since the UN resolution says that Iraq is in breach and must prove otherwise. Well, Iraq was in breach three months ago and it still is -- and that's the point; Iraq is still in breach. Hence he failed his last chance.

Senator Biden was being interviewed on Fox and said like three times he was on "Brit's" Sunday show. Fox News Sunday is, in fact, Tony Snow's show.

I'm with Jessica: Bush looked worn out, but in a good way, one that I think worked to his advantage. He looked like the man described in Peggy Noonan's column the other day -- the president who has trouble sleeping at night, worrying about protecting the nation. He looked sober and serious. I kept thinking: Those weary eyes see things more clearly than the Europeans do; I'm looking at Gary Cooper in High Noon.

I don't like SOTU speeches, because they're usually laundry-lists, and it's hard for any president to work up a head of steam. Bush really got going talking about AIDS in Africa, and I think a lot of people will be surprised by how passionate and sincere he was. I wish he had said something about how his administration is starting to question the AIDS establishment's strategies on fighting AIDS in Africa, which have failed, and had praised Uganda's strategy -- but it's more important that the administration does something about it, and USAID is. I think it's tremendously exciting that Bush is doing this for Africa, and he certainly came across as humane.

Bush made an important point when he said that some days go by without the American people hearing anything about the War on Terror, but not a day goes by that he doesn't. Bush's great lines have been amply ballyhooed by y'all below, but I was especially struck by: "The threat is new; America's duty is familiar. ... We accept this responsibility." Translation: Once again, the United States has to save the world's ass, because that's what America does. Along those lines, I appreciated the big kiss-off to France and Germany when Bush said, with fire in his eyes, "The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others. ... I will defend the freedom and security of the American people."

The details Bush gave about the evil nature of Iraq's regime were galvanizing. First he laid out the bioweapons Saddam has, and hasn't accounted for. Then he used the image of Saddam's secret police torturing children in front of their parents. Message: this is the kind of man who has these weapons. Then: "Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." Slam dunk.

Finally, Bush is just about the only politician I can think of who can talk about God and come across as totally sincere.

I'm no military historian, but I'm just not sure this is true:

"We need allies today in 2003, just as much as we needed them in Desert Storm and just as we needed them on D-Day in 1944, when American soldiers, including my father, fought to vanquish the Nazi threat."

I admit we need allies today, but it seems to me the US really needed the British and Russians in '44.

Will fly around Iran via internet a million times tonight.

Love the, "Let's put it this way: They're no longer a threat to America or her allies."

"One by one the terrorists are learning the meaning of the word justice."

Great stuff.

Also, it's about frickin' time he said we're winning the war on terror. We are you know. If Iraq has distracted from the war on terror, how come we've not had a single terrorist attack since 9/11 and or anthrax?

...talking about Africa and AIDS. Not only that, but it seems like the first passion he's mustered.

What's wrong with keeping your hydrogen-powered car clean? A shiny car -- no matter the source of its locomotion -- is a nice thing.

According to my bride. She thinks his eyes look puffy and he looks very tired. I'm not sure I see it. But she's convinced. It has been a rough year for him.

Well, your Francophone reader got part of the translation right, but for some reason truncated the quotation. I'm not sure why the middle clause was left out, but it makes a difference. The translation would be, The second idea is that, "For us, war is always evidence of failure, and is always the worst solution. Everything must be done to avoid war." "War is always the worst solution" means that anything else -- appeasement, surrender, or French companies selling WMD necessities to Saddam -- are all better solutions. War is always evidence of failure, and is always the worst solution, in the same sense as a police officer physically subduing a criminal: It is the failure of the suspect to obey the law and submit peaceably to lawful authority; and it is the worst solution besides letting the criminal escape."

From a Franco-friendly reader:

"The European 'lesson' seems to be that war is, as Chirac recently said, 'always a failure.' That's simply the wrong lesson" Unfortunately for Team Glib (captain: J. Goldberg), that's not what Chirac said. Here's what he said: La deuxième idée, a-t-il poursuivi, est que "pour nous la guerre est toujours un constat d'échec et c'est toujours la plus mauvaise des solutions. Et donc que tout doit être fait pour l'éviter". Agence France-Presse (and I think they're the authority on this matter) translated it as: The second is that, "for us, war is always evidence of failure. Everything must be done to avoid war." As in "evidence diplomacy has failed." It's inconvenient and may even dry up your enthusiasm for Holocaust collaboration jokes, but it's also roughly what President Bush has repeatedly said (war is the last option, I don't want to go to war etc).

I'm not sure the two statements/sentiments are identical and I don't think it diminishes any of my points any, including the jokes. But fair is fair.

For the record, I don't necessarily disagree with Rich's assesment. That's why I've concentrated my contempt for the French on their anti-Americanism and desire to hamstring American interests. I don't dispute that France is acting boldly in its own interests. Indeed, that's one of the things I actually admire about France: they are unafraid to take their nationhood seriously (I'm plainng a "What I Like About the French" column in the near future so I'll explain most of that then). But, I do think "appeasement" has a broader meaning than the mere cowardice (or cheese-eating) Rich ascribes to it.

"Appeasement" also implies a certain moral myopia. It assumes that evil can be managed or negotiated. It allows brutes and tyrants to fluorish so long as the appeaser's own selfish interests are satisfied. And in this sense the French are appeasers because they are Iraq's enablers. They are unconcerned if Iraq prospers so long as Iraqi prosperity furthers French prosperity as well (and America's headaches increase). This has been the driving motivation of their Iraq-diplomacy for several years now.

That France thinks it's more important to keep its oil contracts and screw America than do what is right for the world -- and the people of Iraq -- highlights this aspect of appeasement. I do not think that Chamberlain was a coward, I think in the grand historic sweep of things he was a fool (though this is probably unfair to the man). Similarly Bill Clinton was a grand appeaser and fool because he believed he could simply manage or put off the problems of the world with hollow deeds. In a sense Kissinger and the realpolitikers of detente were appeasers -- and fools -- too because they were willing to make peace with evil actors on the assumption that they could be reasoned with.

Yes, I may think the French jokes are funny (though I confess I've heard them all and grow weary of them), but my problem with France isn't that they will surrender to Iraq. It's that their moral compass is wildly out of whack and they would rather -- due to rank arrogance, envy and ambition -- make America's job more difficult than do what is right.

In the wake of Friday's column I've gotten a lot of angry email from serious people who think I'm too glib about the Europeans and the French. Fair enough. Glibness, after all, isn't everyone's cup of tea. So let me very quickly offer my substantive critique of the Europeans, without jokes.

The Europeans claim that they lost millions of lives and experienced war first hand in WWI and WWII. That's true and no one should discount the importance of these experiences in the collective European mind. But the question is not whether or not the Europeans learned a powerful lesson in the world wars -- they obviously did -- but whether they learned the right lesson. The European "lesson" seems to be that war is, as Chirac recently said, "always a failure." That's simply the wrong lesson. The right lesson is "never again." Unfortunately you don't hear many Europeans saying "never again" much these days or at least not about the right things. If the Europeans learned the right lessons, why did America have to stop the slaughter in Bosnia? If America is pro-oil and anti-Muslim why did we risk blood and treasure for Muslims on oil free ground? I'll tell you why. Because America learned the right lessons while the Europeans held conferences on why America is the problem.

It is a classic free-rider problem. The Europeans take the global stability largely provided by America for granted. They assume their courts and conferences are the glue holding together a peaceful world order and downgrade their militaries to glorified police forces. So when America does what it deems necessary to preserve that order -- even if it causes temporary instability -- the Europeans think America is needlessly stirring up trouble. Indeed, even if in private they believe America is doing the right thing it's difficult for them to publicly say so because it would highlight the fact that many European nations lack the means to help out in a meaningful way (See "The State of Nature"). When all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail. When all you have is a briefcase full of EU documents, everything looks like a problem for human rights and environmental lawyers.

I like Europe very much. It is the font of our culture and many of our greatest institutions. I have European friends and acquaintances I respect a great deal. Contrary to what endless angry correspondents think, I have lived, worked and travelled in Europe. But I have contempt for the reigning ethos of European elites when it comes to these issues and if I express that contempt with too much glibness for their tastes, so be it. That's just how I do things.

So I've been home sick this week, with some sort of food poisoning, or stomach flu, or something. I'm going stark-raving mad with cabin fever. My wife and son are on the move, doing things outside, away from crazy unwashed dad. Yesterday, while they were away, like a dog going back to its own vomit I watched an episode of Jerry Springer, titled "I'm Pregnant by a Transsexual." I can hear that damn haggis rustling around in the freezer, biding its time, waiting for the right moment to attack.

I've gotta get back to the office.

"Also, I really resent how this IDF guy seems to believe that the bozo Marine speaks for all U.S. servicemen when he obviously does not." I certainly do not think that this wacko represents all US Servicemen. However, I was certainly very dissapointed to read that ANY US serviceman holds this view. As someone who was risking my life on the front-lines of freedom long before 9/11 woke you guys up, it was indeed a personal affront (not just to Jonah). In fact, every Marine I've met was not only a great guy, but an A-1 proffessional soldier.

I do apologize for the point about the joint-exercises (to be honest I thought you wouldn't post that part), I agree that this is not the time to drudge up these issues ... I guess I was reacting to what was again, a very personal affront. Jonah rightly noted it is nothing more than a freindly rivalry between two very serious and friendly allies who take great pride in what they do.

The point I intended to make was the one about fighting for common interests and defending the same values of liberty, freedom and democracy.

I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation for all those straight-thinking US servicemen who have bravely and courageously fought on the side of freedom and remind everyone that America indeed has a friend to be proud of in Israel.

But the Dirty Three Dozen mac Ninjas who've already responded should do the trick. Much appreciated. It looks like a new computer is in my future.

Timothy Garton Ash has a long essay in The New York Review of Books about anti-Europeanism in America. I haven't read it through yet, but I'm featured prominently as a leading anti-European pundit. I met with Garton Ash a couple months ago and was very impressed with him. His book The File is amazing. I don't know how favorably I come out in his essay, but I'm sure he made every effort to be fair. I'm going to read it now. But I think the footnotes are particularly amusing. Here are the first seven:

[1] The Guardian, November 13, 2002.

[2] Jonah Goldberg believes he coined this term[Euroweenie], and relates it etymologically to a wiener sausage—as a metaphor for the European spine. However, an earlier coinage seems to be P.J. O'Rourke's Rolling Stone essay "Terror of the Euroweenies."

[3] Policy Review, No. 113 (June/July 2002). A book-length version will shortly be published as Of Paradise and Power (Knopf).

[4] Attributed to him by the London Times, July 9, 2002, quoting what someone told the Times journalist that Shirley Williams said that Tony Blair said that President Bush said to him. Blair's spokesman, Alastair Campbell, denied that Bush said anything of the sort.

[5] Jean-François Revel, L'Obsession Anti-Américaine (Paris: Plon, 2002).

[6] June 12, 2001. For an Englishman this does raise an urgent question: What on earth is "British bologna"?

[7] Jonah Goldberg was the only person I met who was prepared to accept that he was "anti-European," so long, he explained, as one means by "European" a certain kind of know-it-all, bureaucratic, liberal internationalist in Paris or Brussels.

I've got to say that one of the most eye-opening things about this UN kabuki dance has been how it has highlighted the differences between the editorial pages of The Washington Post and The New York Times. Let's, as they say, compare and contrast.

The first paragraph from The Washington Post editorial headlined "No More Last Chances":

The vital point of the presentations by Iraq arms inspectors to the United Nations Security Council yesterday came at the beginning. "The fundamental aim of inspections in Iraq has always been to verify disarmament," said chief weapons inspector Hans Blix. But Iraq, he said, "appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it." Mr. Blix went on to present, in a deliberately understated way, a devastating catalogue of lies, omissions and obfuscations by Iraq in the 21/2 months since the council passed Resolution 1441, which was meant to give Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity" to give up weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief of nuclear inspections, made it clear that Iraq did not embrace that chance. Yet the two men dodged the obvious question their reports raised: If Saddam Hussein did not accept voluntary disarmament, what purpose could be served by the continued inspections they both advocate?

The First paragraph from The New York Times editorial:

The mixed report on Iraqi weapons compliance presented yesterday by the United Nations' two chief weapons inspectors begins an intense week of diplomacy and decision-making on the next steps in the international campaign to disarm Saddam Hussein. Their findings argue strongly for giving the inspectors more time to pursue their efforts and satisfy international opinion that every reasonable step has been taken to solve this problem peacefully. As President Bush has repeatedly said, war, if it comes to that, must be a last resort.

From the Associated Press:

Horse of Year never ran against male competition Associated Press

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. -- Azeri became the first female in 16 years to win the Eclipse Award for thoroughbred racing's Horse of the Year, garnering support despite never running against male competition.

Laura de Seroux, the first woman to train a Horse of the Year winner, defended her decision to keep Azeri away from the boys in 2002. The 4-year-old filly won eight of nine starts, including a decisive victory in the Breeders' Cup Distaff.

Jonah, Personally, I wouldn’t have posted “Marine IV” for all the world to see. The ONLY thing most people (especially Marines) are going to remember from it is the IDF vs. Marines stuff, and there’s just no need to stir that pot, especially at this time. Also, I really resent how this IDF guy seems to believe that the bozo Marine speaks for all U.S. servicemen when he obviously does not.

I agree with Jim Robbins that the US needs to be extremely careful when it comes to compromising sources and methods. The consequences for American sources inside Iraq have to include the brutal rape and torture of their entire extended families and a slow death for the "traitor." And, obviously burning a source of good intelligence has strategic consequences as well.

That said, if there's evidence that can change the domestic and global dynamic the US needs to do what it can to present it. If that means smuggling some people out of Iraq, we should get with it. The political reality is that the Bush Administration has allowed -- perhaps for good reason -- the climate to get to the point where the intelligence will be useless because we won't use it to topple Saddam.

I do like this guy's "same war" argument but I want it to be known that I take absolutely no position on Marine-IDF match-ups. While I think friendly rivalry between allies is a good thing, I do not want to get into the middle of this argument:

Jonah,

[the Marine crank writes:]"Until you and all your other gungho Jewish buds are ready to suit up, and fight hard, keep your damn mouth shut."

I served in the IDF (very recently) and we all felt like we were fighting America's war. 9/11 just reinforced this fact. If this guy doesn't want to fight my war, then I want two years of my life back where my duties included guarding a working Coca-Cola factory in an abandonded (due to constant firefights) industrial zone outside of Ramallah and dispersing "protesters" who while they were burning American flags were shooting very real bullets at me and my Jewish friends.

Excuse me, just who is fighting whose war?

Is this guy also questioning how hard we fight? It is a fact that in joint exercises conducted in Israel a rag-tag bunch of 19 year old Israeli NCOs consistently embarrass the Marines who come to train in head-to-head exercises. It is also a fact that we are fighting in and around our own borders agianst near impossible odds and have fought off every attack in our history - attacks aimed at erasing our existence from the planet.

What kind of wacko is this Marine who doesn't realize that the sides of this war have been drawn. Not by America, not by the Jews, not by Israel, but by people who burn flags, crash airplanes into buildings, use civilian casualties for media sympathy and who if they had their way would ban the Super Bowl, Nude Beaches, Rock'n' Roll and Beer (Belgian or otherwise) in one fell swoop.

Mr. Goldberg,

I am writing in regard to the obnoxious Marine who sent you the note criticizing your support for President Bush and our impending invasion of Iraq. I just wanted to reiterate (since I am sure you already know) that if he is actually an officer in the US military, he represents a tiny minority of servicemen. I am in the service and do not know anyone who considers ridding this world of Saddam Hussien a less than worthy use of our nation's military. Additionally, the degree to which this endeavor is driven by US national interest rather than anything else is so obvious that it barely even comes up as matter of conversation.

I can not say that everyone is completely enthusiastic about going to fight in Iraq. (It obviously entails separation from family, hardship, etc.)

However, those who will be doing it are quite aware that it needs to be
done.

Keep up the good work.

Best regards,
[Name Withheld]
(aka - LCDR USNR)

From the A-10 community (for what it's worth): I flew with guys who are VERY Jewish, and I'd trust 'em with my life (and have). This is a repulsive letter and I apologize for this putz's outburst. Cheers, [Name withheld] P.S. My Yiddish is a little rusty. I hope that was the correct possessive form of "putz." P.P.S. I'm not Jewish

First of a couple letters in response to the Marine's diatribe yesterday:

I am a Captain in the Army. I will soon deploy to Kuwait. I was recently there as a liaison between the army and the marines training there. I can tell you that I have never met a single Marine or G.I. who shares the viewsof that letter writer.

Although you may not be deploying to Kuwait with us, you are making a valuable contribution. It is important for those of us who do go to know we will be fighting a just war. Your arguments help give us that peace of mind. So thanks.

Let's assume a few things for a moment. There's a war. We win quickly. With the exception of a few Tikriti thugs and diehards, the Iraqis take to the streets in jubilation. In the following months the full extent of Saddam's regime is revealed. Victims of torture and rape and murder appear nightly to give testimony on American TV. Videotapes of the mass slaughter of Kurds and Shiites are unearthed. Everything Saddam's detractors and demonizers said about the guy are proved true.

Now if all of that happens, my guess is that history will very quickly re-write the war on Iraq as a humanitarian effort. In much the same way that World War Two has been -- wrongly -- boiled down into a war to the end the Holocaust and the Civil War has been neatly summarized as purely a war to free the slaves, the liberation of Iraq will be seen in hindsight as a profoundly moral act. I think this scares quite a few opponents of the war for good and bad reasons. Surely, Germany will look like it never learned the lessons of its own history. The Germans sat idly by through the genocides of Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The evidence of Saddam's slaughters will seem just as obvious in hindsight and those who did nothing will look shameful for it. I also think some domestic opponents of war understand this implicitly and are desperate for that morality tale not to be told. Isolationists of the far right and far left have do not like American morality informing foreign policy. The Lefties don't like it because they don't think America is moral. The ones on the far right think America is so moral it shouldn't poisoned by outside influences, entangling alliances etc. Either way, a successful war which goes down in the history books as a moral triumph will be very difficult for them to counter. I'm not asserting that all opponents of the war suffer from bad faith, I'm sure most of them legitimately believe toppling Saddam is a bad idea. I think they're very wrong. But, I can't shake the feeling that, say, Edward Said or Bob Novak might feel more than a tinge of disappointment if the airwaves were filled with jubilation over the alleviation of mass suffering in Iraq, the elevation of Bush to the role of Liberator and a general consensus that the US did the only moral thing. I could be wrong.

Giving a little State of the Union advice, Peggy Noonan counsels President Bush to come forward with any information he may have that would strengthen his case for war with Iraq. Here are the money grafs:

I'm going to refer to a private conversation about another conversation, I hope in a good cause. Four months ago a friend who had recently met with the president on other business reported to me that in conversation the president had said that he has been having some trouble sleeping, and that when he awakes in the morning the first thing he often thinks is: I wonder if this is the day Saddam will do it.

Maybe my friend misheard, maybe something was misunderstood. But my friend is a careful man, and I suspect he heard exactly right. Which begs the question, what does Mr. Bush know that he hasn't said about Saddam's intentions and ability to strike America?

I think it must be in the New York Times style book. Any time the words women and sports appear in an article, the Times invariably celebrates the success of Title IX -- even when it amounts to logical gobbledygook.

In an article about women's fashion and how girls are more comfortable being "chubby" these days we have this assertion:

The reasons for the attitude shift among a new generation of girls, experts surmise, include the influence of, notably, Jennifer Lopez, and of muscular athletes like Serena and Venus Williams, who are more visible than they would have been before Title IX, the law that bars sex discrimination at institutions receiving federal funds.

I get email from military personnel every day. I also get email from people calling me a treacherous stooge for ZOG every day. Until today, there was never any overlap between the two groups of correspondents. He identifies himself as a Captain in the Marine and I take him at his word (I don't post anyone's name without permission). Anyway, I think he's making a fool out of himself to say the least. Still, it's disappointing considering how much I admire the military and particularly the Marines.

Dear J. Goldberg,

Relative to so-called American patriots like yourself, France is staking out a policy vis a vis Iraq, that it could be persuasively argued - is one as Pro-American, as you claim it's self-serving for France.

The Star of David, not The Stars and Stripes is the only flag you'll salute and mean it.

I'm just one of many NCO's and Commissioned Officers en route to Kuwait, who think that an attack on Iraq only boosts one country's interests - Our "good friend" Israel.

And, guess what, slick - fighting and maybe dying for a foreign country doesn't sit well with a lot of us. Until you and all your other gungho Jewish buds are ready to suit up, and fight hard, keep your damn mouth shut.

Israel's your country. You've got no right to an opinion, as an American. That's just a blessing of birth.

Laura Whitehorn spent 14 years in federal prison for helping to plot a 1983 bomb attack on the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C. The bomb was designed to protest the liberation of Grenada. These days Ms. Whitehorn finds herself in more congenial surroundings. She will be speaking at Duke University on March 3rd. Well, rehabilitation is always possible, and Whitehorn will be there to talk about the spread of sexually-transmitted disease among prison inmates, a topic she studied extensively during her own incarceration, and one that’s worthy of discussion.

However, belief in her rehabilitation would be rather easier to sustain without the brief biography she sent to Duke’s African and African-American Studies department, her hosts on the 3rd. According to the department’s website, she began by describing herself as a "revolutionary anti-imperialist who spent over 14 years in federal prison as a political prisoner…”

Well, it might be a while before Blair does speak out. According to this report, the police raid on that North London mosque uncovered chemical warfare protection suits. This has been kept secret for fear of causing panic.

The British government has warned that any suggestion that the mosque itself had been involved "would have worrying racist overtones".

As Instapundit asks, "It would? Why, exactly?"

Here’s a depressing piece from the London Observer on Britain’s role in nurturing (accidentally or otherwise) militant Islam in Europe. It’s worth reading in its entirety, but there’s a telling quote from one young Muslim that shows the extent of the wider problem. On hearing about a police raid on the mosque in North London now suspected of having been a terrorist haven, his initial response was:

“They are can’t do that. It’s a place of worship.”

Leaving aside the fact that, if the allegations are true, it was the extremists, not the police, who were defiling the mosque, it’s an interesting comment in the acceptance that it implies of the notion that religion can somehow be used to justify some sort of immunity from law enforcement.

That’s nonsense (and it’s nonsense whatever religion we are talking about), but will the British authorities have the courage to say so? This conflict will never be won unless it is extended to the intellectual battlefield – and that implies replacing the pieties of multiculturalism with a robust defense of Enlightenment values.

How about it, Tony?

Will Hutton is a well-known commentator on the British left and a prominent advocate for the UK’s deeper integration within the EU. He was, recently, a co-author of a pamphlet (foreword by, strangely, Paul Volcker, not a man usually associated with economic illiteracy) making the case for Britain signing up for the Euro. Like many such folk, his attachment to the idea of a European super state runs alongside a barely disguised anti-Americanism. Here he is on the US economy – and why it could represent a weak link in any run up to an invasion of Iraq.

To suggest that all is well with the American economy would be optimistic in the extreme, but the picture that Hutton paints (with barely restrained glee) of an enfeebled, crumbling structure bears so little resemblance to reality that it’s impossible to know where to begin.

Let’s just look at one paragraph. Hutton is discussing America’s current account deficit:

“To finance the…deficit, a reflection of the lack of saving, the US relies on foreigners supplying it with the foreign currency it can’t earn itself, The Old Europe that Donald Rumsfeld mocked last week has been helping prop up the US economy, buying shares and bonds on Wall Street, taking over American companies and investing in real estate, compensating for the saving that Americans aren’t doing themselves.”

Well, he is right that Americans do need to save more (tax-free dividends will help) but he misses (or chooses to ignore) one critical point. These foreign investors have invested in the supposedly sclerotic US (and it is these capital flows that boost the dollar, something that plays no small part in explaining the problems faced by US exporters) because they believe that returns here will be better, and given the alternative who can blame them? Strangely, Hutton chooses not to discuss the current state of Euroland, and given the problems in Germany, its supposed motor, that might be wise.

Or perhaps he would just rather talk about Japan.

Hmm, maybe not that either.

Schools these days appear to have given up the teaching of history, and the entertainment industry always seems ready to add insult to ignorance. Now there’s news that a new film is being made about Oliver Cromwell. Amongst the, er, highlights, Cromwell washing his hands in the blood of the executed Charles I.

The Sunday Telegraph takes up the story:

“Mike Barker, the film's director, admitted he had taken an imaginative approach with the facts, but he insisted that the film captured the spirit of the times.

He said: "We have included our own amendments and half-truths in the film because, after all, it is a drama. We do show him at the scaffold when the King is executed and we do show him putting his hands in the blood of the King. "I know those things didn't happen but we are trying to illustrate the idea that Cromwell was responsible for the execution of the King."

Dougray Scott, who plays Fairfax, defended the film as authentic and relevant to a modern audience. He said: "I think the story of a nation divided is one that will appeal to young people. You only have to look at the issue of the war with Iraq to see that there are very real disagreements in our political life."

Oliver Stone would be thrilled.