From readers:

Jonah,

Remember your analysis on The Corner recently about how the The Collegian's Tillman flap exposed Leftist hypocrisy and journalistic fascism? I loved your equivalent argument:

Indeed, if The Collegian "doesn't hold back" from running controversial pieces that will upset their readers -- good for them. I assume they would stand resolute after running a piece which said "Martin Luther King got what he deserved." Or maybe, just maybe, somebody in the newsroom would have said, "Hey you know what? This piece adds almost nothing to the discussion and is needlessly inflamatory."

But I am sure the Titans of the First Amendment would gird their loins and say "Forsooth No! We must not cave into the sensitivities of our readers!"

Or, as it says in the editorial, "We cannot, however, compromise the mission of our publication for the sake of ensuring the constant happiness of our readership."

Either defend the piece on the merits or don't run it you chumps. But please stop trying to sound like you aren't personally responsible for the decisions you make. That's why you're the editors.

Jonah, it seems to me that while I fully agree that CBS catered to their own obvious bias in publishing the pictures of troops committing crimes, they have every right to do so in a free market where they will live or (hopefully) die financially as the result of their actions. To suggest that they have some sort of call not to publish something you and I think is harmful to the war effort doesn't hold water. Frankly, I think such relativist thinking harms NRO's and the neo-Right's chances of being a pillar of conservatism and not group of political opportunists, looking to debate every subtlety in order to see if it can somehow be made into their pet policy.

CBS can do what it will. In short, if we don't apply basic Constitutional principles across the board, including that CBS will sleep in its own bed, we'll end up arguing relativistic minutiae way down into the noise as the Left does everyday. And look what that's got us.

Instapundit links to a post from a blogger Greyhawk who has some useful scorn for "60 Minutes'" posturing over the torture photos. This was not sleuthed-out by "60 Minutes" it was already being investigated by the army.

I agree with everything Greyhawk says, but I would add something. Whoever leaked these pictures to the press was not doing anybody any favors. Since the case was already being handled, the release of these pictures did more harm than good. I don't blame 60 Minutes for running them -- though I don't applaud them either. But a person would/could be morally obligated to leak these pictures if the army was covering it up or refusing to investigate. It doesn't sound like that was the case. So releasing the photos isn't prodding the government to do the right thing, it's encouraging millions of Arabs to hate us. That's not whistle-blowing, that's sabotage.

Indeed, recall that what happened to the Belgian peacekeepers in Rwanda was censored because to reveal the full story -- it was believed -- would cause more harm than good. I don't know about that decision. But someone will need to explain to me why releasing these pics now -- as opposed to a year from now -- didn't do more harm than good.

Is it anti-Islamic to ask a Muslim woman to unveil her face at a police checkpoint? Apparently, not even the Saudis think so:

“Saudi scholars, Imams and women say that unveiling in critical situations is appropriate, and called for establishing policewomen sections within existing male departments to help foil terrorists who disguise themselves in Abayas. Tareq Al-Hawass, a professor at Shariah College in Dammam, believes that Islam does not prohibit a woman from unveiling her face if the necessity arises and for the sake of proving her identity to a policeman at a checkpoint.”

Meanwhile, British Home Secretary David Blunkett has announced that those Muslim women who request it will be exempted on ‘religious’ grounds from the requirement to be photographed for the proposed British identity card. Before finally conceding that point, he should chat to those experts in Islam over in ‘Saudi’ Arabia.

From Otago, New Zealand:

“Shepherds found the merino sheep now known as Shrek wandering the high country after six years of evading the autumn muster. An open day at Bendigo Station on Sunday was the first opportunity for the public to meet the celebrity sheep. The Shrek theme park sprang up overnight, with enterprising locals making the most of their newfound attraction. The area is temporarily boasting helicopter rides to the caves Shrek hid in during his years lost in the wilderness, 'catch the greasy pig' competitions and displays of farm workers' strength.”

The Daily Telegraph took up the story:

“The woolly creature was shorn of his 15-inch long, 59lb fleece during a live television broadcast.”

Next week on New Zealand TV: “Watching the Paint Dry.”

Tony Blair’s belated decision to allow Brits to vote on the proposed EU ‘constitution’ looks like providing some highly entertaining political theater across the continent. Among last week’s stars:

Giscard’Estaing, the man who drafted the document in the first place. He announced that, contrary to Blair’s desperate – and characteristically dishonest – scare-mongering, British rejection of the constitution need not lead to the UK’s departure from the EU. It wasn’t all good news from Giscard, however. The diamond king did warn that a no vote might leave Britain finding itself “on the edge of the Union,” much as it was with the Euro. Well, looking at the relative performance of the UK’s economy when compared with that of the Eurozone, that ‘edge’ has looked very comfortable indeed, more like a nice, and rather well-appointed, balcony. Giscard’s supposed warning looks, in fact. like yet another good reason for a no vote. More work needed, Monsieur, on your blood-curdling threats.

And then there’s that liar and (ha ha ha ha, ‘alleged’) crook better known as the President of France. The EU’s establishment is always claiming that the people of Europe are clamoring for a constitution. Despite that, Chirac seems oddly unwilling to allow the French a vote on it. Why would that be, I wonder?

Across the Rhine, Germany’s somewhat awkward history means (conveniently) that it is not legally permitted to hold a referendum, but that’s not enough for Chancellor Schroeder. He’s looking for ways to bring in the constitution even if it is not, as required, actually ratified in all EU member states (some laws, it seems, can be dispensed with). Schroeder’s worries are shared by the reliably repugnant Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a familiar and rather annoying face from 1968. These days he’s the leader of the Greens in the EU ‘parliament’. He wants a pan-EU plebiscite on the constitution. Why? He’s worried that some pesky small countries might dare to hold things up. That would never do. His plebiscite is, he says, “the only way to move away from the principle of unanimity, which will lead to a blockage…we are now in a situation in which Luxembourg, Malta or Cyprus could block the whole EU". Message from Cohn-Bendit to Luxembourg, Malta and Cyprus: “Drop dead.”

This drama will run and run.

Junk science, junk politician, junked freedom: welcome to the world of California Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh, ‘legislator,’ busybody and clown, a man who wants to make it a crime to smoke in a car containing, yes, children.

Meanwhile in Wisconsin, fifteen self-important Madison city councilors have voted through a smoking ban in that previously pleasant city’s bars. Amongst the highlights of the discussion “a parade of middle and high school students [speaking] in favor of the ban.”

At first, I was puzzled why a bunch of schoolchildren should have any say in the matter, but then, when I stopped to think about it, I understood. These bans are introduced by lawmakers intent on treating adults as children. To them we are all immature beings, incapable of making rational decisions for ourselves, so why not make the point by rounding up a few kids to give the rest of us a lecture?

From the Air Power Guy:

Jonah,

If this is legit, then oh, my God.

When I was flying Hogs, I told my guys that we had something that overcame a
lot of shortcomings in our machines...it was the reputation of the men and
women who flew them. If we lost that, all was in jeopardy. So, fight hard,
but fight like the professionals you are.

The damage done to our cause, and our country's reputation by this appalling
conduct could be catastrophic. For all the people in the world who dismiss
the Eurotrash's sniping at America, to say nothing of the likes of bin Laden
and al Jazeera, this will be hard to explain and may very well plant a
poisonous seed.

I'm not the parent of a fallen soldier or Marine, but I can just imagine how
I would feel if, after experiencing the horror of outliving my child after
he or she died for freedom in Iraq, saw those pictures of the prisoners in
Baghdad. My kid's dead...but his memory, and his reputation as an American
fighting man, ostensibly fighting against this same barbarity, has been
sullied by guttersnipes led by a one-star witless moron.

700+ heros have taken a bullet and meanwhile...literally behind their
backs...everything they have bled and died for is being gleefully
undermined. These people pissed on their graves...and laughed. String 'em
up.

I'll be happy to spell one of the guards at Leavenworth should they need it.

Sh*t...

TAG

Worried about what looks like a rapidly crumbling future, Tony Blair has finally deigned to start looking at the immigration mess his government has created in Britain. Quoting the Daily Telegraph, Blogger Scott Burgess notes that “The Prime Minister said there were limited problems with bogus asylum seekers and some radical Muslim clerics "coming here to preach religious hate" and support terrorism. But he stressed that the number of such cases was small and claimed that the way in they had been reported in the media had blown them out of proportion."

“Good”, writes Burgess, “Given that the number of such cases is so small, appropriate action can presumably be taken quickly. Or perhaps not. Just yesterday, notorious Sheikh Abu Hamza [a grotesque ‘imam’ well-known in Britain for his hardline views] had his deportation hearing postponed until next year - in part because: "Mr. Hamza's failure to take part in the legal procedures and produce any evidence in his defence has caused delays."”

Burgess then lists a “few of the "limited problems" to which Blair refers,” basically one unrepentant – and ungrateful –Taliban, and a motley collection of ‘imams’ whose fanaticism and superstition appear to be matched only by their idleness and greed.

George W. Bush’s planned immigration ‘reform’ continues to produce results:

“SASABE, Mexico -- After a four-year decline, illegal immigration from Mexico is spiking as several thousand migrants a day rush across the border in hopes of getting work visas under a program President Bush proposed.” To be fair, “many also are trying to beat tighter security to come in June,” but it seems clear that much of the responsibility for this reversal must be put down to the administration’s irresponsible and ill thought-out scheme.

Thanks for nothing, Mr. President.

I've been running around all day and I haven't had time to focus on the tortured Iraqi prisoners. I don't know the whole story, of course, but there's really no story I can imagine that could possibly justify this. Even if all of these pictures were staged this would be an outrage. The fact that they are real makes this staggeringly awful. The awfulness is twofold. First, there's the illegal, morally corrupt -- and corrupting -- evil of torturing people for the pleasure of it (and taking pictures of it!). Second, there's the counter-productive stupidity of it. Even if these guys were the worst henchmen of Saddam's torture chambers, the damage this does to the image of America is huge. How do we look when we denounce Saddam's torture chambers now? How many more American soldiers will be shot because of the ill will and outrage this generates? How do we claim to be champions of the rule of law?

Well, there is one way. This needs to be investigated and prosecuted. If there's more to the story -- whatever that could conceivably be -- let's find out. But if the story is as it appears, there has to be accountability, punishment and disclosure. Indeed, even if this turned out to be a prank, too much damage has already been done and someone needs to be punished.

Under Saddam torturers were rewarded and promoted. In America they must bee held to account.

to our advertisers' ears. From a reader:

I don't know how many people read the corner every day, but it must be massive, because every time you post a link to something cool, the site you link to gets so bombarded with hits it goes down. Case in point, your goat link. Also, I tried to read the loathsome editorial about Tillman, but that site was overloaded as well.

I've gotta refresh the Corner more often so I can get there before the
hoards.

Kevin Drum writes, "Ponnuru is right: if abortion is murder, then anyone who gets an abortion should be jailed. Anybody who performs an abortion should be put on death row. Anybody who supports abortion rights is little better than a mobster or a terrorist. But if that's what [pro-lifers] believe — and they do — why does he think it's unwise to admit it in public? The question answers itself, doesn't it?"

It's always nice to hear that others think that I'm right about something. But I can't be right to hold beliefs that I don't actually hold. I do not believe that it follows from the homicidal nature of abortion that anyone who procures one must go to jail. (I've explained myself a little further on this point here.) I do not believe that it follows that anyone who commits an abortion should be on death row. I do not believe that anyone who supports abortion is little better than a mobster or a terrorist. I am quite certain that most pro-lifers do not believe any of these propositions, either.

It is true that I believe that pro-lifers should generally pick those true arguments at their disposal that are best calculated to win legal protection for the unborn, not those true arguments that are likely to repel people who are otherwise open to persuasion. I don't fault people on the other side of the debate from choosing their public arguments on the same basis. Everyone involved in practical politics does this, and should.

Reuters: The [Justice] department posted the documents [showing USA Mary Jo White's objection to the Gorelick wall] on its Web site late on Wednesday as "supplementary material" to Ashcroft's testimony to the panel earlier this month.

"We were not involved in it," McClellan said. "The president was disappointed about that .... He's disappointed that that information was placed on their Web site like that."

This is an amazing example of...something. Americans' capacity to self-organize, the political activist culture, the plaintiff culture or just plain old parody... I really don't know. All I really do know is that you must move your mouse over the logo.

UPDATE Okay, I looked around a bit more. It must be a parody, but it is very well done in its understatedness.

I think this reader overstates the case, as most liberals and leftists have had nothing but nice things to say about Tillman, the troops etc. But he does point to a kernel of truth here. There are a few folks on the left who really don't "support the troops." They simply say they do in public -- at ANSWER rallies and the like when the cameras are on:

Jonah:

Notice how the left likes to give the appearance that they rally around our
troops and then when America does rally around one, they can do nothing but
show their true colors and defame him? For months all I've been hearing from
that side is "They're dying because of lie! We've exploited them!" and "I
TRULY support the troops...I want to bring them home!" The story of Pat
Tillman could've provided a great moment for the left to put their money
where their mouths are, and instead we hear all those disgusting comparisons
and read cowardly, insulting editorials about how Tillman got what was
coming to him. The left blew this one big time, but then again it just shows
they want to have it both ways.........just like their guy Kerry.

I know the big USA Today/CNN Gallup poll of Iraqis has been out for a couple days, but I just looked at it this morning. It's actually pretty fascinating, with good news and bad.

First of all: The Kurds love us.

Also, 84% of Iraqis are doing the same or better financially since the war (nod to Andrew Sullivan's reader).

George Bush is not very popular but he'smuch more popular than Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein.

Huge numbers of Iraqis -- 69% total and 88% Bagdhad residents and 85% of Sunnis -- believe that if they cooperate with the CPA they or the lives of their families will be endangered.

But what I find the most amazing is that only 6%(!) of Iraqis have had personal contact with US military forces. This means A) the military hasn't been able to do nearly enough nation-building personal diplomacy B) Ninety-four percent of Iraqis have formed their views about the US military via word-of-mouth, propaganda fliers, satellite TV, etc.

Jonah, Thought you might enjoy this -- here at Cornell, there was a demonstration against the treatment and holding of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in which protestors dressed up like US soldiers and pretended to imprison and mistreat volunteers. As a counter-demonstration, a few of us from the Cornell Review dressed up as terrorists and questioned the wisdom of letting us walk free. Pictures are up here -Paul Eastlund

From a reader:

Mr. Goldberg- Obviously you must have been flooded by angry Army personnel over recipients of more than one Medal of Honor, which is to be expected. The original email that you posted actually is rather correct in a narrow sense, in that Gen. Butler is still the only Marine Corps Officer to receive two MoHs. Gy Sgt. Dan Daly is the other two-time Marine recipient. As for Gen. Butler's rather outrageous political views - Max Boot in his excellent book, "The Savages Wars of Peace" ascribes them to his defeat in the 1932 Republican primary election for open Pennsylvania Senate seat, if my memory serves me correctly. It was only after them did he embark on his pacifist bent that characterized his story until his death.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, took issue today with those Catholics who are calling for sanctions against Catholic public officials who vote in favor of abortion rights. Pelosi, who is a staunch advocate of abortion rights, defended herself as follows: “I believe that my position on choice is one that is consistent with my Catholic upbringing, which said that every person has a free will and has the responsibility to live their own lives in a way that they would have to account for in the end.”

Pelosi, a California Democrat, also criticized those who differ with her position: “I’m certainly concerned when the church comes together and says it’s going to sanction people in public office for speaking their conscience and what they believe.”

The president of U Mass lays down the hammer:

UMass president Jack Wilson issued a statement saying Rene Gonzalez's comments in The Daily Collegian "are a disgusting, arrogant and intellectually immature attack on a human being who died in service to his country."

How much you want to bet some faculty member will denounce Wilson for A) fostering a "chilling effect" on free speech, stifling the "authentic narrative of resistance" B) being insensitive to the views of a Latino C) coming out in support of the military-industrial complex D) all of the above.

From the Washington Post:

The biggest worry, however, is that relatively insignificant controversies from the candidates' youth will drown out discussion of the momentous issues that will confront the commander in chief in the coming four years. Mr. Bush's precise whereabouts in 1973, and whether Mr. Kerry threw away his medals or his ribbons -- these seem to us to matter somewhat less than how the two men might differ in policy toward Iraq or North Korea.

That's why the Kerry campaign's response to Mr. Cheney's speech this week was so inadequate. In his address in Fulton, Mo., Mr. Cheney was unsparing in his criticism of Mr. Kerry, but his line of attack had nothing to do with Vietnam. Rather, Mr. Cheney questioned Mr. Kerry's record on defense and foreign policy, asserting that he "has given us ample grounds to doubt the judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security." Some of his points were unfair; for instance, Mr. Kerry's proposed cuts in the intelligence budget a decade ago aren't evidence, as Mr. Cheney would have it, of a "deeply irresponsible" attitude toward funding the war on terrorism. But the vice president's recitation of what he termed Mr. Kerry's "inconsistencies and changing rationales" on Iraq, from the Persian Gulf War to the present, gets to the heart of what this campaign needs to be about: America's place in the world, the right and wrong times to use force and similar weighty questions. Recalling Mr. Cheney's multiple draft deferments isn't a rebuttal; both campaigns need to engage on the merits.

From a reader:

Charles Lindberg fought bravely and served his country well in combat, but his personal and policy views were abhorrent. He was an isolationist, an anti-semite, and a nazi sympathizer.

Even the great Smedley Butler, the only American to receive 2 Medals of
Honor, was a complete nut when it came to policy. I'd love to have him run
our battlefield, but there is no way he could make sound political decisions
for the US, imho.

Benedict Arnold, of course, was one of the best and brightest of the
American generals before he stabbed us in the back.

Then again, we live in a world where being a talented linguist somehow
confers political brilliance on a person, according to the left.

I share Derb's ambivalence. I think if Tillman returned alive, he would and should have received great praise, just as he deserves posthumously. But I don't think that his service -- or anybody else's -- automatically confers the presumption of his opinions being right on any save a very narrow band of issues. I trust my "air power guy," for example, to have more valuable opinions than my own on avionics, military strategy etc. But it does not follow that if he said "you're wrong on tax cuts" that I should give his opinion any more weight than anyone else's. And even if he said I was wrong about the B2 bomber, he'd still owe me an argument. "Because I say so" is a winning argument only for God and parents.

In a sense there's a vague whiff of identity politics which gets stirred up in these discussions. The left loves to say that because a person is black or a woman or if they grew up poor then their views on affirmative action or social policies deserve greater respect beyond the merits of their actual arguments. For example, statistically speaking if you grew up poor odds are you're going to be worse on economics than if you grew up rich. And yet, we constantly hear about the "moral authority" on economic issues of people who grew up poor. What does one have to do with the other? Does growing up in a refridgerator box make you better at regression analysis? I'm being crass of course, but you get the point.

When it comes to military experience, I have no problem with the traditional conservative attitude that service in uniform is a sign of good character. But good character and good thinking are not synonymous. And I think that in the modern era where the media make personality matter so much more than they did in the past many Americans, conservatives and liberals alike, confuse the two. In short, facts and reasoning should stand independent from the person offering them. Are we supposed to believe that John Kerry or John McCain are more expert than John Keegan? Maybe so, but only if we actually hear their arguments about a specific subject.

Anyway, I tried to get into all of this in a funnier way in this column.

From a reader:

Jonah,

I'd like to see you flesh out the principles that reconcile your positions
on the two Daily Collegian items. Are you saying they should have run the
political ad, but not the Tillman op-ed? Or that they should have run both,
or neither? Do 1st Amendment principles argue for printing the political ad,
even though no government censorship is involved, but running a
controversial op-ed is is solely up to editorial judgment?

Curious minds want to know...

Sure. I thought the Tillman op-ed was sophomoric and not worth publishing. The author could have easily made the same substantive points without saying this guy deserved to die in Afghanistan. To frame the argument the was he(?) did was gratuitous and offensive.

Now, the editors didn't think so. Or, they may have thought so but they didn't think the Tillman piece crossed the line. Now that they're being criticized, they're invoking the first amendment and the "principle" that they are not obligated to please their readers. This strikes me as stupid and cowardly for several reasons. The first amendment does not absolve editors of their professional obligations to, well, edit. They had to have seen some merit in the piece to begin with or they would not have run it. Now their afraid to admit that they saw merit in it. I would have a lot more respect for them if they defended their decision on those merits without crying "the first amendment made me do it!"

As for the idea that they owe it to their mission to run controversial pieces, that's fine if that's what they think. But that directly contradicts their refusal to run the Horowitz ad which presumably would have been just as controversial in many quarters on campus. The same hold with their first amendment argument since the first amendment offers the same protections of political ads as it does of political editorials (or at least it used to before campaign finance "reform"). Moreover, the editors would have had even less responsibility to determine whether the ad had merit than they do for editorials. Virtually all publications run ads for groups they disagree with. And yet, even though both of their defenses of the Tillman piece would logically require them to have the guts to run the Horowitz ad, they chickened out when the issue was offending the left and they boldly went ahead when it came to offending "the right" (I use quotation marks because I am sure countless non-conservatives were equally offended by the piece).

In short, I think the editors are free to run or not run pretty much whatever they want. All I am saying is that they should stand by their unpopular decisions without turning into a sprinkler system of B.S. about the first amendment and they should apply the same standards of excellence or controversialism (or in this case mediocrity) consistently if they are going to invoke those principles in their defense.

Also, if they're so into free speech, a lot of readers are wondering, why have they blocked all attempt to comment on the editorial in their reader forum?

It turns out the Daily Collegian was one of the newspapers which refused to run David Horowitz's anti-reparations ad. Well fellas, as anyone at the ACLU will tell you, ads of a political nature are central to the first amendment. And, yet, somehow you refused to run that even though you had far, far, far less editorial responsibility because, as an ad, the Horowitz appeal was not editorial content.

Sorry if I sound unduly miffed, but it is precisely this sort of politically correct bloviating self-congratulation I despise about A) liberal journalists B) liberal college kids and, most especially, C) liberal College journalists. They censor and condemn whatever personally offends them and then they celebrate their own willingness to be "controversial" by running things they don't mind. Then, if criticized, they don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand by their decisions crying free speech and whining about how criticism amounts to censorship.

I would keep going, but if I did, I'd end up hurling myself at the floor like John Belushi in one of his old SNL News skits.

Specter is distancing himself frum Bush, even though he concedes Bush got him the nomination:

After wrapping himself in President Bush's coat-tails for months to narrowly win the Republican Senate primary on Tuesday, U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., flew a new banner yesterday, emphasizing issues that divide him and Bush.

To squeak to his 16,000-vote victory over U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey, R-Allentown, Specter's campaign used Bush's image and voice in radio and TV ads and recorded phone messages to voters.

Specter told conservative Bush fans that the president said a vote for Specter was a vote for Bush.

Specter even conceded yesterday that Bush's role in the primary, which attracted mostly conservative Bush supporters, was "determinative," helping him clinch a 528,543-to-511,864-vote, or 51 percent to 49 percent, victory.

The Daily Collegian is defending its decision to run the "Pat Tillman got what he deserved" piece by hiding behind the skirt of the First Amendment:

Rene Gonzalez is a graduate student at the University of Massachusetts who occasionally submits columns to The Collegian. While his views in no way reflect the opinion of our editorial board or staff, we base our decisions not on whether we agree with the opinion of students submitting opinion pieces, but on the backbone of journalism: The First Amendment.

As a news organization, The Collegian lists the First Amendment as its most important value and asset. We do not hold back from printing news stories, columns or editorials that may upset our readership - instead, we seek to both inform and stir debate through our publication. Our decision to publish Gonzalez's column - an opinion piece written by a member of our campus community - is the only way for us to live up to this ideal.

What a bunch of heroes.

There's only one problem, the First Amendment has, mmmm, let me see: Nothing to do with this. The First Amendment protects against government censorship. This is a question about editorial judgement. Be men (or women) for pete's sake. If you want to defend your decision to run the piece on the merits, great. But don't pretend that the constitution made you do it.

Indeed, if The Collegian "doesn't hold back" from running controversial pieces that will upset their readers -- good for them. I assume they would stand resolute after running a piece which said "Martin Luther King got what he deserved." Or maybe, just maybe, somebody in the newsroom would have said, "Hey you know what? This piece adds almost nothing to the discussion and is needlessly inflamatory."

But I am sure the Titans of the First Amendment would gird their loins and say "Forsooth No! We must not cave into the sensitivities of our readers!"

Or, as it says in the editorial, "We cannot, however, compromise the mission of our publication for the sake of ensuring the constant happiness of our readership."

Either defend the piece on the merits or don't run it you chumps. But please stop trying to sound like you aren't personally responsible for the decisions you make. That's why you're editors.

From now on, whenever I screw up I'm going to blame you guys. After all, that's what the owner of the New York Times does. Of course, you guys aren't as passive as Times readers. From MassNews:

Pinch Sulzberger, owner of the New York Times, last week blamed the readers of the Times for the Jayson Blair scandal which rocked his newspaper last year and brought it  and him  to their knees.

Sulzberger made the charge against his readers while he was on a panel at the American Society of Newspaper Editors according to Editor and Publisher magazine, which reported the story this way:

“Sulzberger [said] the worst thing to come out of the Blair scandal was … readers who knew about the incorrect reporting did not complain…”

But Pinch, the readers may not have complained to you, but someone much more important did. And that was your editors.

More reason Gorelick should testify, from the Washington Times:

Newly released Justice Department memos show that September 11 panel commissioner Jamie S. Gorelick was more intimately involved than previously thought with hampering communications between U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies fighting terrorism. As the No. 2 person in the Clinton Justice Department, Ms. Gorelick rejected advice from the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who warned against placing more limits on communications between law-enforcement officials and prosecutors pursuing counterterrorism cases, according to several internal documents written in summer 1995.

"It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required," U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White wrote Ms. Gorelick six years before the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.

AP reporting that Marines will swap out with Iraqi soldiers in Fallujah. Very interesting deal if true.

Rod, Kathryn: I don't believe Santorum should "get a pass" from conservatives, whatever their religious affiliations. I also think, as everyone here knows, that public officials have a moral obligation to extend legal protections to unborn human beings. That means voting for pro-life bills and against pro-abortion ones. Catholic teaching on these points make it scandalous that politicians who deny justice to the unborn present themselves as Catholics and present themselves for communion.

But it does not follow that voters have a moral obligation always to support pro-life candidates over pro-choice ones, or that Catholic voters do. So, for example, assume a pro-life voter considering an election pitting a pro-life Democrat against a pro-abortion Democrat. If that voter really believed that maintaining the pro-life party in legislative control required the election of the pro-abortion candidate, his support for that candidate would be justified and might even be required. The moral obligation is to the unborn, not to particular candidates. (In most cases, I would strongly dispute that voter's judgment.)

Or assume a pro-life Democratic politician who always votes the right way on abortion bills but is deadset against the Iraq war--considers it both unjust and a disaster. Could he support a left-wing presidential candidate who promised to end the war but was pro-abortion? He might reason that presidents have more power to end war than they do to end abortion. Now don't get me wrong: I would vigorously dispute this politician's prudential judgments. But I could not dispute that these are prudential judgments rather than violations of pro-life principle. (For one thing, the politician would have to take into account that the probability that he is wrong about Iraq is greater than the probability he is wrong about abortion. Also, you would have to ask him if behind his somewhat contrived calculation lurked a failure to take the claims of 1.2 million unborn human beings seriously.)

Back to the question of Santorum. In a very important sense, Republicans shouldn't be given a pass simply because of their party: As Peter Robinson noted the other day, pro-abortion Republicans who claim to be Catholics must be denied communion as surely as pro-abortion Democrats must. But if Santorum really believed that Specter's nomination was important for pro-life goals, which is something strongly implied by his public argument for Specter, then he should be criticized for making the wrong judgment rather than failing to uphold public morality or even Catholic teaching.

Specter has to be counted the favorite to win the fall election. But it remains to be seen how many of Toomey's supporters turn out for Specter this fall. The answer will depend on Specter's own behavior in the next few months. He moved right for the primary--although I was always surprised at how much more room he left for Toomey--and will now presumably want to move left. He will have to be subtle about it if he doesn't want to have a problem with conservative turnout.

Will conservatives punish Bush and Santorum? The election-night result is the one most calculated to cause them trouble with conservatives. If Toomey had been crushed in a landslide, they would have accepted what Bush and Santorum had done. If he had won, they would not have cared. But since he lost so very narrowly, they know that Bush and Santorum are directly responsible for the result. Santorum has time to recover before he is up for re-election in 2006, but this episode may limit his potential as a conservative standard-bearer. Bush will probably be able to get most conservatives to vote for him this fall, but his task is a little harder after last night.

From a reader:

Jonah,

If Kerry was as articulate as Matt, it may not be an issue.

The problem with Kerry is that he doesn’t want to admit he was wrong. I agree with the guy in the New York Observer today. If he said I was 25 and stupid that would be the end of the story. Aren’t we all stupid at 25? And this is why he isn’t connecting with people. Elites feel like they are perfect and have the answer for all of the world’s problems and therefore cannot have any themselves. The people I hang with laugh about the stupid things they did when they were young. Come on admit it! You were an idiot too. It’s okay. It’s normal. Breath! Good news for Republicans – keep him defensive!

Most of the email is like this:

You conservatives (the "CONS") are something. I don't care if Kerry threw his medals, ribbons or whatever away. At least he has something to throw away. Your unelected, draft dodger threw away beer cans while Kerry was taking bullets. By the way where were all your other draft dodging CONS like Cheney and Rove during Vietnam? I bet YOU would have joined up to go to Nam if you weren't in dipers - right? The CONS!

From a reader:

Jonah,

I've got a defense of Kerry that "goes beyond the 'you
have no right to judge' or 'Bush is the devil' nonsense":

Kerry volunteers to fight in Vietnam. He gets sent over
there, saves some dude's life, shoots up some VC, takes
some shrapnel on three occasions. He gets medals and
ribbons for his actions. He also realizes that American
intervention in Vietnam is a collossal blunder. He comes
home determined to end American involvement there. In a
high-profile public protest, Kerry throws his ribbons and
the medals of two other veterans over some fence.

How is wanting credit for both fighting (with guns) in
Vietnam and fighting (with words and tossed ribbons) to
end the war once home "contradictory"? Both actions
required huge balls. In volunteering for action, he put
himself in harm's way to fight for his country, something
which countless other privileged college graduates refused
to do (ahem, GWB and Cheney). In working to end the war
once he got home, Kerry took an extremely controversial --
and I think, in retrospect, correct -- position that
publicly pitted him against powerful people in the
government like Hoover and Nixon. He went to the war to
fight for America, and he came home and continued to fight
for America -- to get us out of what had become a disaster
in Indochina. Both actions are consistent, and brave.

Now, the only way you can plausibly argue that they
weren't consistent is if you think protesting the war upon
his return was "unpatriotic" or wrong. If you want to
argue that the Vietnam war was salvagable by 1971 -- and
that we should have upped the ante there rather than begin
to extricate ourselves -- I'll have that argument with you
any day. But if you're unwilling to support escalation in
Vietnam in 1971, then you cannot possibly argue that
Kerry's initial decision to fight for his country and his
later decision to work toward ending the war
are "contradictory."

Thanks,
Matt

P.S. -- I can't figure out why all of you at the Corner
take such umbrage that Kerry testified that American
soldiers committed war crimes. I know it doesn't sound
good. But, sadly, there's no question that they did; it's
fact. So why the outrage that he would say so?

Me:I've heard this argument from lots of folks. It's fine as far as it goes. But Kerry's position on both fronts goes so much further. He renounced the war as dishonorable, indeed that's why he gave back the medals. How can you brag about earning those medals while being proud of returning them? That's a contradiction.

Moreover, even if there's a consistent narrative to John Kerry's actions, his explanation of that narrative is indisputably inconsistent.

By the way, I do think it approaches the unpatriotic to sit in on meetings where the assasination of Senators is discussed (Kerry denies this and witnesses say he was against it) and I do think it borders on unpatriotic to accuse your comrades in arms of "atrocities" without proof and arguably in order to advance your political career. I have no doubt war crimes were committed. But Kerry's position was that they were systemic and policy. And judging from the 800 bazillion emails I've gotten from Vietnam vets, a lot of people think that's outrageous.

Partly because there's a link to my column on Google News, I'm getting swamped with email from liberals saying how dare you raise this issue when George Bush didn't even complete his service in the National Guard and whatnot. I don't agree with their tendentious characterizations of Bush's service (and please: no emailss defending Bush). But even if I did, what does one have to do with the other? You can't say the media didn't investigate Bush's Guard service. You can't even say it under-covered his Guard service. So lack of coverage of Bush's faults isn't the issue. If the media is overdoing it with Kerry, the best you can say is that it's Kerry's turn to be ganged-up on.

Moreover, even if Bush's Guard service was the scandal of the Century -- that has nothing to do with whether or not Kerry's Medalgate story is legitimate. The case against Bush is simply not the case for Kerry when it comes to this story. Make an argument in Kerry's defense that goes beyond the "you have no right to judge" or "Bush is the devil" nonsense.

It really isn't Michael Kelly's Atlantic anymore, is it? Still a good magazine, but a decidedly and increasingly predictably liberal one. Here's the preview of the next issue's cover story which sounds particularly contrary to Kelly's views on the Brits and the war (though I haven't read the piece yet):

The Tragedy of Tony Blair by Geoffrey Wheatcroft

Tony Blair was the one man on earth, writes the veteran British correspondent Geoffrey Wheatcroft, who could possibly have stopped the war in Iraq. But Blair led his people into war against their will, for reasons that were not true—and now his mystique and his promise, almost JFK-like when he came into office, are shattered. "The man who not so long ago seemed a new ideal in himself," Wheatcroft concludes, "now stands alone, truly a great tragic figure."

From a reader:

Sometimes you just gotta love Donald Rumsfeld. From his morning briefing to the press:

There are two ways, I suppose, one could inform readers of the Geneva Convention stipulation against using places of worship to conduct military attacks. One might be to headline saying that "Terrorists Attack Coalition Forces From Mosques." That would be one way to present the information.

Another might be to say: "Mosques Targeted in Fallujah." That was the Los Angeles Times headline this morning.

Matt Yglesias writes about the Kerry Medal flap: "The real mystery in all this, if you ask me, is why Republicans persist in raising an issue that can't help but make their man look bad when the Bush and Kerry military records are contrasted."

First, I don't buy the desperate line that solely "Republicans" are raising this issue. The LA Times, Charlie Gibson and Tim Russert do not a vast right wing conspiracy make. Second, I'm mystified as to why he's mystified. Here are few plausible theories why some Republicans might think this is a good story for Bush:

1. Candidates only get one theme ascribed to them. For Gore it was "he exaggerates and lies to make himself look good" or something like that. It wasn't always fair, but it was no more unfair than the "Bush is stupid and ignorant" theme. For Kerry it's increasingly looking like his one theme is "can't take a stand on anything" or "can't be straightforward." This "I threw the medals away if by medals you mean the ribbons because I would never throw away the medals because they are too important to me even though I never saw a difference between the medals and the ribbons and I would have thrown away the medals if I had the medals with me even though that's not what I used to say or what I will be saying tomorrow" thing only reinforces this negative identification.

2. People already have made up their minds about Bush and his National Guard service. Indeed, he's a known quality in general. So while rage may still burn bright at the American Prospect over Bush' National Guard stint, most Americans stopped caring a while ago. However, people are only now being introduced to Kerry and what they're seeing is a caricature of stiff, pompous Senator.

3. As I try to point out in my column today (not up yet), Kerry has a particular problem with Vietnam. Unlike say John McCain, Kerry has two completely contradictory Vietnam narratives and he wants to brag about both and not be criticized on either. Lots of politicians have tried to have it both ways on Vietnam. But wants to get credit for fighting in a war which he says was criminal and a mistake and he wants credit for denouncing that war as criminal too. Meanwhile, lots of Vietnam vets and other pro-military types think the real Kerry is the one who came home from war, not the one who went to war. I think, given Kerry's record as a politician, that is the only logical position and the more people who realize that, the worse it is for Kerry.

4. Kerry looks like an arrogant shmuck when he's defensive. Any time the GOP or anybody else can get under his skin, the better it is for Bush. Particularly if it involves any kind of contradiction or inconsistency on Kerry's part because the guy looks like such an idiot when he insists that A and Not A are both simultaneously true.

5. During a war the Americans still support, it's always good (for the GOP) to have footage of the Democratic nominee calling American troops -- of any era -- war criminals.

6. And this one's a bit of a stretch. There are still people in this country who think the anti-war Kerry was right and the pro-war Kerry was telling the truth when he called Americans war-criminals. To see Kerry back-pedal on that doesn't only reinforce the image that he wants to have it every which-way, it might actually turn off the pugnacious doves in the Democratic electorate. I like to call these people "Nader voters."

Following is an eyewitness account of yesterday's events in Damascus.

"You are absolutely right to call what happened in Damascus last night a "staged" show. I was not far from the site and the security alert was not proportional to the event that occurred in such a sensitive location in Damascus! How could the "terrorists" be so stupid to blow up a car parked next to a vacant building that used to be occupied by the UN?! I believe that the staged theatrical event was intended to serve two purposes: 1- To scare the citizens and make them thank God for having such a powerful regime that is capable of dealing with terrorism swiftly and effectively! 2- To show the world, especially the US, that the regime in Syria is not a terrorist regime, but on the contrary, it is targeted by terrorists and the regime is fighting terrorism, thus, warding off the US accusations!

It is a smart tactic. I hope that the world would not be naïve enough to believe the official Syrian story and statements which will be released over the next few days concerning the incident and the "terrorists" behind it. One of these fabricated stories was released already within two hours of the incident; the discovery of a small arms cache several kilometer south of Damascus! That fast!!

I hope you take the initiative in uncovering the regime's lies about this fabricated incident and disclosing them to the world".

On another front, the security apparatus decided to invite the Syrian public to view the building and the crowds responded. Under usual circumstances, such locations are usually closed for weeks pending investigation.

Senate Race down to Two Points, 10,000 Votes: 77% Reporting

Specter: 51%

Toomey 49%

7212 of 9416 precincts reporting

Unknown assailants attacked an empty UN building today in the Mazza area west of Damascus with grenade launchers and small arms. Eye witnesses said that the building caught fire.

SANA, the Syrian news agency, reported that the security forces had matters under control within hours. It first said that three men were captured and one fled the scene, then they recanted and said that three were dead and one was captured. Reports from Syria also claim that a Syrian security agent and a woman died during the attack.

No explanation was given as to who might the assailants be or why they would attack an empty building in Mazza where foreign embassies and ambassadors' residences are located nearby. Reports that it could be the work of al-Qaeda were also discounted given that al-Qaeda rarely get caught and that their targets are usually large with large explosives. Further, al-Qaeda attempted to use explosives with chemical weapons that came from Syria to attack Jordanian targets so why would al-Qaeda not use the same spectacular targets and means of delivery inside Damascus?

The only explanation one finds in this bizarre episode is that the whole event might have been staged by the security apparatus of the Syrian regime for the sole reason to offset the mounting pressure on the regime. Such an event can provide a credible cover under which Baschar al-Assad can make claim to the importance work his ruthless and autocratic regime serves to protect western interests.

If you go to the Lancaster County Newspapers, you see that with 28 percent of the districts reporting, Toomey has a 5 point advantage. These are the most hard core, conservative Republican districts out there, and those numbers just don't support any contention that Toomey is going to win.

Turn out the lights, this one is over.

Specter Ahead, 5% Reporting

Specter: 56%

Toomey 44%

515 of 9416 precincts reporting

Kerry: Bush intentionally exaggerated case

‘I think the president has made some colossal mistakes’

MSNBC

Updated: 6:42 p.m. ET April 27, 2004

CLEVELAND - Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the presumed Democratic nominee for president, accused President Bush on Tuesday of having knowingly exaggerated evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, saying the president made “colossal mistakes” before, during and after the war.

More data on the young voters front:

NEW YORK, April 22 /PRNewswire/ -- Sen. John Kerry, who once held a commanding, double-digit advantage over President George W. Bush among young Americans, now finds himself in a statistical dead heat with the president among voters aged 18-29, according to the latest Newsweek and Newsweek.com GENext poll. While Kerry leads Bush within the margin of error, 45 percent to 42 percent, in February, 56 percent of 18-29 year-olds said they supported the senator versus 42 percent who said they would vote for Bush. The decline for Kerry among young voters comes as the candidate appears to be losing ground overall. An AP/Ipsos poll of registered voters taken at the time of the GENext poll showed Bush leading Kerry within the margin of error, 45 percent to 44 percent. Eight weeks ago, Kerry led Bush 48 percent to 45 percent in a Newsweek Poll.

The Gphiles suggest a cast for an NRO movie. They've got Jack Black playing me. I suppose that's a compliment, though I've got to be at least a foot taller than Black. Several years and several dozen pounds ago the missus claimed I reminded her of Vince Vaughn. I never really saw it, but the bachanalian smart-ass of Swingers seemed to be her model. My guess is that Rich will be particularly offended by the Steve Buscemi suggestion. Besides this is the first time I've ever heard anyone pick anybody else other than Tom Green to play Rich in a movie.

Obviously, Cosmo would play himself.

KJ- don't lead me on...

…about the prospect of Toomey beating the execrable Specter. As a lawyer, I am WELL aware of how damaging Arlen Specter has been for the judiciary and the nation. If you get my hopes too high, well, let’s just say I might have to nip off to the local liquor store and spend my next two paychecks to drown my sorrows.

If Toomey wins, I suggest for his first bill the "National Review Center for the Study of Limited Government Authorization Act of 2005." Proposed sites for this vital research institute to be determined by a special National Review Online fact-finding team. Actually, now that I think of it, if we'd asked Specter for something like this in exchange for revoking our endorsement of Toomey we'd have been much more likely to get it. Damn our love of limited government!

I am the recipient of the Silver Star, Bronze Star and other lesser awards. The discussion on the medals issue is totally BS. The bottom line is that when he thought it suited his purpose, Kerry claimed to have "gave back" his medals in protest. When it suited his purpose, he showed them off. The symbology of "giving medals back" or ribbons or anything else for that matter back to the government is what is at issue here. He portrayed himself as giving back the awards and that is the issue. He thought it suited his purpose at the time. Now, it obviously doesn't so he is attempting to spin it or make it go away. He was a young man and we sometimes do foolish things when we are young. Unfortunately, he will not admit doing something foolish as a young man.

It would be a cold day in hell before I ever gave up any of my awards in a symbolic fashion, however, I had my Silver Star framed with the certificate and presented it to my parents as thanks for raising me. I hope it is the only one I receive. lol.

Your infantry guy is correct about buying the ribbons, you can get them at the clothing sales store and it is very hard to replace your medals. But, the symbology of tossing them is the same no matter how much he tries to deny it and that seems to get lost in trying to explain the episode to folks without a military background. That is exactly what Kerry is hoping for.

The EU decides to make itself into a giant theme park:

Member nations of the European Union have announced plans to discontinue their status as individual countries in order to merge into one giant theme park!

The new park will be called EuroWorld and will cover the entire continent of what is now known as Europe. The decision was made by the EU countries in response to their collective realization that no one in Europe has had an innovative idea in well over a century.

With nothing new to offer visitors, the European countries decided to stop pretending they were still relevant, and to start celebrating their colorful pasts.

"Our stagnant continent has been a virtual museum for decades," explains an unnamed EU representative. "Many could argue that we already were nothing more than an amusement park. The decision to legally become a large theme park is really only a formality."

Each country will now be an exhibit within the park. For example, what was once known as Germany will now be the Germanland exhibit. Only traditional German foods such as bratwurst, sauerkraut and beer will be permitted in Germanland.

The citizens of each European country will now be considered "Euro hosts." The Euro hosts will be required to dress in traditional ethnic outfits from their respective homelands to better entertain visitors.

Thus, Germans must wear lederhosen at all times, Scots must wear kilts, and so forth.

"Did what?"

Everything says an Egyptian goverment newspaper:

"If you want to know the real perpetrator of every disaster or every act of terrorism, look for the Zionist Jews. They are behind all the violent and terror operations that have occurred everywhere in the world. [They do this] first of all in order to slap [the label of the attacks] on the Arabs and Muslims, and second to harm them, distort their image, and represent them to the world as terrorists who endanger innocents. What is even more dangerous is that after every terror operation they perpetrate, they leave a sign, clue, or traces meant to show that the perpetrators are Arab Muslims.

Don't pop the champagne quite yet, but this story certainly could use some wider play:

New evidence out of Iraq suggests that the U.S. effort to track down Saddam Hussein's missing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is having better success than is being reported. Key assertions by the intelligence community that were widely judged in the media and by critics of President George W. Bush as having been false are turning out to have been true after all. But this stunning news has received little attention from the major media, and the president's critics continue to insist that "no weapons" have been found.

In virtually every case - chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles - the United States has found the weapons and the programs that the Iraqi dictator successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons inspectors.

The Iraq Survey Group (ISG), whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, has found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official tells Insight. "There is a long list of charges made by the U.S. that have been confirmed, but none of this seems to mean anything because the weapons that were unaccounted for by the United Nations remain unaccounted for."

Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.....

A product of the Brooklyn public schools, Chuck, who was born on November 23, 1950, is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He was elected to the New York State Assembly at age 23 -- making him one of the youngest members since Theodore Roosevelt -- and to Congress at 29. In 1998, Chuck became New York's junior Senator.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great!
If even one is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

I've heard preachers preach about the duties of a wife
I've heard husbands talk about the same
They say a woman must protect a zygote's right to life
But every sperm does not deserve a name

(Chorus)
Every sperm does not deserve a name
Every sperm does not deserve a name
If so a man would found a nation every time he came
Every sperm does not deserve a name

From a reader:
Jonah,

I may be mistaken, but my understanding is that Kerry voted to kill the Apache helicopter, not the Black Hawk. The Black Hawk is a utility helicopter that was fielded back in the 70s as a replacement for the Huey. The Apache is the attack helicopter that replaced the Cobra, and it is a much newer system.

From a reader:

Dear Jonah,

I think you give Nick Confessore too much credit for his straw man. While the most basic formulation of spending = support is flawed, that is not the case the Republicans are making. The ads and stories I am reading are very specific that what Kerry was against, at the height of the cold war, were the new weapons programs that helped modernize our military to win the cold war, and are now the core of our military capabilities. There were not alternatives to these programs at the time, so had they been defeated we would not have many of these weapons systems. Some of the things Kerry wanted to eliminate were the Blackhawk hellicopter, the Bradley troop carrier, the F/A-18 fighter and the Aegis guided- missile destroyer. There is a very big difference between wanting to stop development of new systems to modernize our military and cutting back on the production of the actual weapons AFTER the cold war as Cheney did.

I basically agree with Nick Confessore that it's an unhelpful formulation to say that being in favor of spending money means you are strong on defense and being in favor of any kinds of cuts or reforms means you're soft on defense. Even Don Rumsfeld has pushed for cuts in certain programs and weapons systems, nobody thinks he soft of defense.

However, to say that being for cuts doesn't automatically mean you're soft on defense does not in any way mean that Kerry isn't truly soft on defense. Confessore certainly knows this. Cheney may have wanted military reform to make the military more effective. I think it's a major stretch to say that Kerry's positions on foreign and defense policy were ever driven by anything like a desire for a more effective and lethal military. Logic games and word play cannot hide the fact that Kerry is a life long dove and -- worse -- he used to be proud of being a dove and now he's "outraged" at the suggestion that he's anything but a hawk.

So yesterday, John Kerry is pressed by ABC News about Medalgate. Charlie Gibson declared: "Senator, I was there 33 years ago, and I saw you throw the medals over the fence."

To which Kerry replied that Gibson was wrong and that, by association at least, Gibson was part of the Republican Attack Machine unfairly going after Kerry. Kerry went on to say that Bush was behind all of it and that the National Guard story was the real story.

Guess who agrees? Here's the first couple paragraphs from the AP:

WHEELING, W.Va. - John Kerry, a decorated Navy veteran criticized by Republicans for his anti-war activities during the Vietnam era, lashed out at President Bush on Monday for failing to prove whether he fulfilled his commitment to the National Guard during the same period.

Conservative critics have questioned whether Kerry deserved his three Purple Hearts for battle wounds, an issue the Democratic presidential candidate sought to put to rest last week by releasing his military records. On Sunday, a top Bush adviser criticized Kerry for leading anti-war protests after he returned from the battlefield.

In the campaign Web site's "D-Bunker" section, which aims to set "the record straight" about him, staffers have been updating the section on the "right-wing fiction" that "John Kerry threw away his medals during a Vietnam war protest."

Last week's explanation was: "John Kerry is proud of the work he did to end the Vietnam war. ... John Kerry threw his ribbons and the medals of two veterans who could not attend the event. ..."

Over the weekend, staffers added the clause, "he has been consistent about the facts and symbolism of the medal-returning ceremony." That whole clause since has been removed from the D-Bunker section.

"Only the Kerry campaign would find it necessary to debunk their own debunker," said Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Will you now call for the excommunication of pro-choice Catholics Giuliani, Ridge, Pataki, and the governor of California?

[The proposed constitution is] essentially the work of the French. And the French think they know everything. One of the things I've been trying to get into the heads of Frenchmen…for a very long time now, is that if you want to use history to help you, study the history of how the United States was created….[A]fter all, this was the first republican constitution of its kind, [and] subject to a few amendments, it's lasted over 200 years. And…it has created the richest, most powerful country in the world. You'd think that the Europeans would want to see how it was done and…incidentally learn a bit about democracy. Not at all. No, we have nothing to learn from those barbarians across the Atlantic. That’s…what they think and sometimes they say it, too.

Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.

The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good….Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.