Well, no, but British satirical magazine Private Eye attempts to fill the gap:

”In the past three weeks, we at the BBC may have inadvertently given the impression through all our outlets that the Allied incursion into Iraq was a reckless political act which was militarily ill-conceived in every respect, unsupported by the Iraqi people, who regarded it as a ruthless invasion of their sacred homeland, and which was certain to end in total disaster. News headlines such as “Coalition Bogged Down In New Vietnam”, “Baghdad Will Be Worse Than Stalingrad”, “Blundering Coalition Forces On Brink Of Humiliating Defeat By Saddam’s Super-Elite Special Republican Guard” may have given the impression that we believed in some way that the war was not going quite as well as planned.

In the light of recent events, we now accept – albeit with a very bad grace – that the coalition forces seem for the time being to have got away with it, and that large numbers of Iraqis, though clearly paid by the CIA to do so, may have appeared to be not entirely displeased at the downfall of a regime which, whatever its faults, did at least for 30 years guarantee the stability of a potentially explosive mix of Shias, Sunnis and Kurds, who will now undoubtedly plunge the whole region into a state of chaos which will threaten the peace of the world.

Whilst apologising for any confusion to which our reports may have given rise (and allowing for the fact that they could be broadcast only under monitoring restrictions imposed by the Iraqi authorities), we now realise that the only hope for future peace is for the hated Bush/Blair imperialist aggressors to be replaced at once by a French-led UN force of Russian troops of the type who were so successful in bringing peace to the Muslims of Groszny.”

"What the Koran Really Says About Jihad"
A Lecture by Ibn Warraq
1:30 PM, Sunday April 20, 2003
Harvard Science Center
Hall D
One Oxford Street
Cambridge, MA

For a map of the campus, see here.

The Science Center is just north of Harvard Yard. If you
click on its name, you'll get an expanded map of the Law
School area. Click once more on "Science Center" and you'll
see a close-up view. You can also get to it directly here.

From English Pravda:

Russian Weapons Make All Countries Feel Safe
04/15/2003 21:19
This year might be a year of record sales for the Russian defense industry

It became obvious after Iraq ingloriously surrendered to coalition forces of the USA and Great Britain: no country could feel safe without nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

Many weeks ago, before the progress of Hans Blix's pension accrual was so rudely interrupted by the First Marine Division, the Third I.D., the Air Force, naval aviation and everything else we have that goes boom -- well, almost everything -- we invited you to complete the following limerick:

There once was a nation called France
that became such a pain in the pants...

With apologies for the delay, out of the hundreds of entries, here are the winners:

Second prize (two copies of my novel, and one NR coffee mug) goes to:

Joe St. Martin for:

There once was a nation called France
that became such a pain in the pants
folks got sick of their whine
and their lack of spine
and then gave other vintage a chance

First prize (one copy of my novel, and two NR mugs) goes to:

Doug Fuller for:

There once was a nation called France
that became such a pain in the pants
the ungrateful snobs
who protest us in mobs
can shove it when they get a chance.

Good on 'ya, guys. Please contact K-Lo by e-mail and we'll get your prizes on the way.

An entire generation of young Iraqi young men has been exterminated by million-dollar uranium-headed missiles, cluster bombs and “mothers of all bombs” over the past 13 years. Not since the European rape of Africa or the Indian wars in America has there been such an unequal conflict.

With a population more than 10 times as large as Iraq’s and a military budget that is 3,000 times greater, Washington and London are now distributing purple hearts and Victoria crosses for getting a starved and impoverished people to kneel and beg.

And the score has not been “evened,” at least not yet. Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Iran must also meet the same fate and a million more “uncivilized Arabs” have to be sacrificed at the altar of “ground zero” before the idols of America, Israel and Britain can be propitiated.

Now Iraq is under an occupying power and any request for lifting sanctions must come when there is a legitimate government which represents the people... and which can comply with its duties toward lifting sanctions," Faisal told reporters after the meeting in the Saudi capital Riyadh.

I've got a question that maybe you can pass on to all those Marines who say there is no such thing as a "former Marine." What do they call Scott Ritter?

American Airlines executives give capitalism a bad name.

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien is vacationing in the Dominican Republic this weekend, where he will tee off with former U.S. President Bill Clinton for the newly inaugurated Soft-on-Terror Masters Tournament. While Chretien golfs, his fellow countryman and favorite accused terrorist Ahmad Said Khadr is still on the loose. Khadr, an Egyptian-born Canadian citizen, is considered by intelligence officials to be the highest-ranking Canadian within Osama bin Laden's inner circle. He studied computer science at the University of Ottawa and worked for an Ottawa-based Islamic charity, Human Concern International, which was generously subsidized by Chretien's government.

From a reader:

Dear Jonah:

You got it almost exactly right about the Kabbalah. Despite my Jewish last name, I'm not Jewish - yet. I'm converting in the next couple of months not because of a marriage, but because I think its a good choice for me and my family. Because of my eminent conversion, I've been studying Judaism intensely for the last year. You are right about the Kabbalah. Jewish men were not supposed to consider learning Kabbalah until they are 40.

There are a couple of problems with the USA today article. One is that the Kabbalah doesn't "parallel" Judaism - it IS part of Judaism. In the words of one rabbi, "The Kabbalah is all nonsense, but its Jewish nonsense, so it might have some value." It's NOT studied instead of the Talmud, but only after one has become an expert in the Talmud. That's why Jews are supposed to wait until they are at least 40 to study the Kabbalah because its assumed that it would take that it would take that long to learn the Talmud. Even then it is discouraged by many rabbis (as you said.) My rabbi told me that he doesn't know the Talmud well enough to study Kabbalah himself. Or in his words, its like a doctor trying to do brain surgery without learning that the arm bone is connected to the hand bone.

Its new age stuff that is leaking out to the general public and to goofballs like Madonna. A Catholic friend of mine heard about it and came running up to me at work and excitedly asked me if I knew anything about Kabbalah. I looked around conspiratorially and in a mock whisper replied, "Yes, but I'm not allowed to tell you."

[Jewish-sounding last name withheld]

This evening I decided, for once, to crack open a good book instead of spending the evening bathed in the warm glow of The Corner. So there I was twenty pages into J.R.R. Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth by Bradley J. Birzer, when the strangest thing happened. The author, surveying reviews of The Simarillion, wrote "Even National Review, which had unwaveringly supported Tolkien since the early 1960s, gave The Silmarillion but guarded praise. There 'are gaps and bulges in the narrative,' Richard Brookhiser complained. Still, Brookhiser compared Tolkien to Dante and concluded that the book 'is a worthy prequel to The Lord of the Rings, and no discredit to the man who devoted so much time to it.'" Tell me the truth: is this one of those I-can-check-out-anytime-but-never-leave sort of deals?

I got a lot of these after publishing a "retired Navy guy" letter yesterday:

No doubt this is one of scores of correction letters
that have come in, but if I can't talk about the
Jacobites, I have to try to offer something.
If the man who served in the Navy did so from 1994
to 1999, it is not likely that he retired, even under
the most generous of early retirement programs
(doubtless Jonah is pestering the suits for a deal
like that).
The man's exit rank (E-5), was also a clue to me.
He more likely signed on for one six-year term, or two
three-year terms. No doubt some of the retired
military people have chuckled that someone who retired
from service as only an E-5 would not be that willing
to talk about it much.
I believe the standard description for your guy
would be "former Navy guy." Exception: The saying
goes "once a Marine, always a Marine", so you can't
use "former Marine guy" without getting some flak for
it, but press on with consistency. I served, and now
I'm too old and slow to make a call to get back in the
action, so I'm OK with 'former.'

ROMA - There’s war in Iraq. A war strongly opposed up to the last minute by the Catholic Church. Opposed but never condemned, judging by what was said by its supreme authority, the pope.

The media have not been clear about this lack of condemnation. They have almost always reported John Paul II’s words as if they declared an absolute anathema on this war, if not indeed on all wars.

But there isn’t a trace of this condemnation in any of the frequent, relentless speeches in which the pope has called for peace in Iraq.

...they're cheerfully on the side of TotalFinaElf, the Western corporation closest to Saddam Hussein. Total had secured development rights to 25 percent of Iraqi oil reserves, a deal that depended on Saddam remaining in power. TotalFinaElf's largest shareholder is a subsidiary of Montreal's Power Corp. Power Corp's co-chief executives are Paul Desmarais Jr., who sits on the Total board, and his brother Andre Desmarais. Andre Desmarais' father-in-law is the prime minister of Canada, Jean Chretien. Canada refused to join the war to liberate Iraq on ''principle.''

That Madonna article would annoy people. From a reader:

To say that Kaballah is a Jewish mystical tradition predating organized religion is a contradiction in terms and a completely stupid thing to say.

Hinduism, and its offshoot, Zoroastrianism (which became the Persian religion of Greek history and Jewish scripture), both go back to at least 2000 BCE. Sumerian/Assyrian and Egyptian religions are at least as old. Judaism itself -- in a historical, not a religious sense -- is a synthesis of these traditions from about 1000 BCE, just as Christianity is a synthesis of Judaism and Greek philosophy. Kaballah, like Hermeticism, and scores of Western mystical movements, comprises those elements that were left out of the Jewish and Christian syntheses.

From : USA Today:

The wake-up call came seven years ago, when Madonna began studying Kabbalah. The Jewish mystical tradition predates organized religions and offers a path to fulfillment based on spiritual laws of the universe. Some aspects parallel Judaism. Rather than studying the Talmud, an academic interpretation of Jewish law, Kabbalists embrace the Zohar, a mystical interpretation devised by decoding ancient texts rather than accepting literal accounts. Conversant in Kabbalistic teachings and origins, Madonna considers herself a student, not a guru.

Now, I'm no expert on the Kabbalah, but I know Madonna isn't either. Most rabbis were forbidden to study the Kabbalah -- I think -- at least until they were 40 years old. And I know most were discouraged from ever taking it up at all. Why? Because the Kabbalah is so complicated, so esoteric, so allusive, if you don't really know what you're talking about you can be easily and dangerously misled. How anyone could think Madonna is anything more than a New Age poser is beyond me.

This is my kind of peace rally. Print it out and give it to protestor.

UPDATE: Some people tell me this is a bad link. If it doesn't work with the www, try removing it: http://www.historyimages.com/WWII/photo-V-J-Day.jpg

I'll have a commentary on "Marketplace" the public radio show. It's not the best thing I've ever done, but it was kind of fun. I'm sure the liberals will complain. But that could be fun too.

UPDATE: It will air tonight.

As the war in Iraq winds to its inevitable end, uneasy reflections are taking over Russia's political and military elite. No one in Moscow ever seriously believed that Saddam Hussein might indeed "defeat" the allied forces. But the speed and decisiveness of the offensive has bewildered many.

From a reader:

JG:

Thanks for the return of Shecky G., last g-file.

Re; NYT China "pressure": You may need some more coffee. Conservatives pride themselves on not questioning motives, but any rational person will ram his
head into the wall if he attempts to dissect NYT arguments based on merit, consistency or even other journalistic benchmarks. As you, Nordlinger, Lowry,
Sullivan, Kaus et al continue to demonstrate, the NYT's arguments are brimming
with logical contradictions, misrepresentations, faulty logic and ad hominem
attacks.

The point is, either they are a) massively incompetent or b) hate Bush 43 like
we all hated that one kid in our old neighboorhood...with blinding, objectivity-
be-damned passion.

I was in the Navy from 1994 to 1999 and I can attest to everything that Mac Owens mentions. Doing more with less was, of course, everyone's buzz word, but you would be absolutely amazed at the levels that this would reach. My ship, a Spruance Class Destroyer, had three gas turbine generators to run our engineering plant, and we were lucky if two (the minimum required) were working in the first four years I was onboard. The third was mostly used as spare parts. Because of reductions in force, our Captains (actually holding the rank of Commander) were so concerned about their advancement position that they would volunteer for every underway opportunity, and gave their junior officers no opportunity to learn for themselves. They would have to inform the captain of the smallest, most routine things (a ship within 3000 yards) and had no authority to make decisions. Our ship was the best in the squadron, performance-wise, but there was no pride because the captain only viewed it as a way to improve his chances for advancement. It was excellence by decree. I have never seen such a large group of broken men in my life. Turnover among our best and brightest was amazing. Among our E-5's, two of the top three in 1999 (myself included) separated from the Navy at the end of their enlistments, and the numbers throughout were probably well over 50%. And I was in personnel, so I had it easy! I almost reenlisted after 9/11, and felt guilty for being out and not being able to serve when my country needed me (my wife and I were awaiting notification that a child had been placed with us from Korea), and I often wonder what it would be like to serve a Commander-in-Chief that I respected. What a novel concept.

But if I could ask readers to resist the temptation to cc me on their email to other NRO writers unless there's a real compelling need? I don't want to discourage email, I live off of it. But I'm having a very, very hard time reading just my own email about the stuff I write. If I start reading the email you guys send to Derb, Dreher, etc., all I will do is read email and nothing else. I'm not saying I don't want to hear from you if you're furious about an editorial decision -- though those really should go to K-Lo these days -- I'm just saying please use your judgement.

Lots of readers want me to switch from Baldwin-bashing to Robbins-smashing. I'm certainly open to the suggestion, but I have to admit I don't think Robbins is nearly as dumb as Baldwin. Oh sure, Robbins politics are detestable, but I do think Robbins is actually pretty bright and clever. I don't like him. But one should give credit where due. I have lots of new readers since those early days, but let me be clear: I really, really do think Baldwin is not very bright. He reminds me of a white middle class version of the self-educated prison philosophers from "In Living Color." Tim Robbins, on the other hand, has made some smart movies and if he hadn't gone into acting I'm sure he'd have turned out to be quite successful at the profession God chose for him -- managing a chain of stores specializing in scented candles and exotic beads from South America.

Rick - I hear you re the Observer. I did say it's a fun paper. I really don't dislike it, Joe C.'s column notwithstanding. But the editorial really was awful, especially when you consider the fact that you do have a relationship with them. Their etymology was bad and a Nexis search would have stopped them in their tracks. A phone call to you might have done the trick too. Anyway, I hope I didn't make the next office party uncomfortable for you.

From the New York Times editorial, "North Korea Blinks:

The breakthrough came when North Korea stopped insisting on one-on-one talks with Washington. The Bush administration wanted a broader regional meeting. The invasion of Iraq may have given North Korea second thoughts, but pressure from China was probably more significant.

Maybe I'm missing something but this strikes me as just blanket assertion and petulance on the part of the Times. After all, even if China's pressure was "more significant" than victory in Iraq in convincing the North Koreans to change their tune (I don't believe it for a moment), what proof does the Times have that the pressure from China wasn't also the product of our victory?

It's true: If we can't find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq it will be a political disaster, if not domestically than certainly internationally. I'm still confident we'll find them. I don't think it would be a moral problem -- Milosovic didn't have WMD and he was worth toppling, right? But it's a no-brainer that if the what-if scenario came true, we'd have a lot of 'splaining to do. Fair enough.

But so would the anti-war crowd too. Just as the Alterman's of the world have done another zig-zag and claimed they knew this would be a short war all along, they are now playing coy about the existence of WMD in Iraq. Alterman begins his blog today with a smirking jab:

Welcome to Day ?? of the Iraq War of Still No Weapons of Mass Destruction. Let’s see: No significant Al-Qaeda ties, no nukes, no WMD. We had to go to war in Iraq again, why? Oh yeah, never mind. We won.

Well, just to be clear Alterman and indeed almost all of the antiwar crowd were on record saying they had no doubt that Saddam had WMD. The debate was about what to do about it. If now they want to pretend like this was always a question mark, I hope they won't be cavalier when it's eventually discovered. And, heaven forbid, if it isn't discovered they are not completely off the hook either -- because they agreed with the hawks about the nature of the problem, just not the proposed solution. If you say we should starve the rattle snake and I say we should just blast a shotgun into the hole, you don't get unlimited rights to crow if the serpent turns out to be non-poisonous.

Doubts over Chirac’s ‘diplomacy’ seem to be mounting in France. On the right there are signs of discontent from the formidable interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, as well as the defense minister. On the left, Bernard Kouchner (a former Socialist health minister and a co-founder of Medecins Sans Frontieres) has attacked Chirac for effectively “pushing” America into war.

Chirac’s response? To send the presumptious, preening and incompetent 'de' Villepin to prance his way through the Middle East.

Last post at 3:50. My apologies people. I guess war decompression and the holidays have won the day.

From a reader:

"Shyster" is apparently as anti-Semitic as "niggardly" is anti-black. Its apparent etymology (as I'm sure you found) traces back to a German word for defecation. But it's not news that shyster was meant to be used derogatorily about lawyers in general.

This really boils down to an IQ problem on the part of the Observer, which you might have emphasized more, coupled with the ill-will and refusal to engage in a substantive discussion about ideas that you pointed out.

the Clinton administration misused military power during its first year in office in Somalia and then in Haiti....Morale was low, and recruitment and retention posed problems. Cuts in defense spending to help balance the federal budget went too far in some cases — until the Republican Congress stepped in an insisted on adding money for the Pentagon.

That was in reference to today's Goldberg File which you should read at least once, but click on 8 billion times.

Even the Observer's etymological argument is a mess.

Email pouring in. Jokes about Ronny hosting the dog show, opposing his Dad when he was President, etc. All good points. Indeed, this was my point. Ron Jr. is not qualified to determine who is or who is not fulfilling Reagan's legacy. He is only qualified to do jester-work for liberals who want to hear him either bad mouth his dad or bad mouth other Republicans. Yawn.

From a reader:

I emailed last week, and I think Stanley Kurtz's postings in the Corner are destined to come in 3's. Since I've said it, he hasn't let me down.

Salon is smashing the toothpaste tube with a sledgehammer in order to get the last molecules of controversy or even interest out of poor Ron Reagan Jr. In what Salon describes as "a flame-throwing conversation about the war and the Bush administration's efforts to lay claim to the Reagan legacy," Ron Jr. says nasty things about the current president Bush (or at least seems to from the teaser). Interviewing Ron Jr. just stinks of desperation for buzz.

Strong world affairs and political knowledge required, excellent writing and analytical skills in English, as well as the ability to find and set the global news agenda.

As I mentioned yesterday, I really liked Peter Beinart's tribute to Michael Kelly. (Reg required). I also said I have some quibbles. Here you go:

Well, first of all, I was delighted to hear that Kelly was a believer in "Hidden Law" -- a Burkean/Hayekian view of conservatism championed by Jonathan Rauch among others. I've written about Hidden Law a lot of times and I am a big believer and fan of the formulation. Here's how Peter neatly describes Kelly's views:

Mike's traditionalism made him a conservative, but not of the contemporary Washington variety. Many of today's "conservatives" are in love with theory, with efficiency, with remaking the world according to the abstractions in their minds. Mike was a conservative in the older, cultural sense. He wanted to preserve the unwritten rules, built up imperceptibly over time, that define morality in most people's lives. He revered the old-fashioned Capitol Hill neighborhood in which he grew up, and he believed that such communities developed organic standards of conduct far more subtle and dignified than outsiders understood, standards that needed to be protected from the sledgehammer of ideology and law. In Mike's view, the primary threat to those standards came from self-righteous liberalism—with its intrusive mandates about smoking, gender relations, and shoveling the snow from your sidewalk. But conservatives could threaten them as well. Some on the contemporary right might have fired those old ladies at the White House in the name of efficiency; others might have done so for the greater good of the conservative movement. Mike would have loathed that, too.

Good stuff. As Tommy Boy says: Me likey. But I guess my problem is this: it is precisely this sort of traditionalist conservative that Peter and the New Republic dislike the most. Oh they have bad things to say about the free-market ideologues too. It is a liberal magazine after all. But the New Republic likes conservative ideologues largely because they don't have the "taint" of old school conservatism. It's been reaching out to the Weekly Standard as kindred spirits for the last couple years. AEI scholars are welcome in the pages of TNR. Its positions on free trade, racial quotas, even the wars on terror and Iraq are in sync with the ideological and ultra-rational branch of conservatism, not the branch whose roots go back to traditional arrangements and so forth. I don't have time to go find examples, but I could swear that the conservatives who invoke tradition and ritual are the ones most likely to be called racists, homophobes and sexists by various New Republic editors.

Now, obviously, Peter has no such thing in mind when he calls Kelly a traditionalist, nor should he. Kelly was by all accounts a generous, kind and decent man. And I guess that's my point. There are plenty of other traditionalists who don't deserve that treatment either.

Oh, and the usual full-disclosure: I've happily become friends with Peter over the last year, largely because we're on CNN a lot together. Not sure if that matters to anyone.

Josh Chafetz tries to get to the bottom of the tallies. And don't forget the piece by Iain Murray -- the Barry White of statistical policy analysis -- over at TCS.

Sorry, I just thought a non-sequitur might liven things up in here.

He praised Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for their handling of the war, but said Bush should have waited longer before attacking for the "chance that either [Saddam Hussein] would have disarmed or ... we would have had far more members of the Security Council with us."

Our paradigm now seems to be: something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us," said Clinton, who spoke at a seminar of governance organized by Conference Board. "And if they don't, they can go straight to hell."