UPI correspondent and antiwar blogger Steve Sailer read my piece on Friday, and concluded the following on his blog:

In contrast, at certain other outlets, tempers are on edge and friendships are being destroyed: 'Ex-Friends: Casualties of This War' by Rod Dreher is all about how much he and his political allies now hate their old friends who disagree with them about the war, demonizing them as 'irrational,' and vice-versa. This struck me as bizarre, especially because Rod's much more of a human being than some of the names that make modern opinion journalism resemble 'Attack of the Ideological Clones.' I couldn't imagine breaking up with an old friend over this war, especially because it's so easy to see that everybody has at least one good argument on his side. Boy, you must have to have whipped yourself into a real frenzy to let this interfere with your friendships.

This is quite wrong. My piece in no way said I, or anybody who agrees with me, now "hate" our friends who are antiwar. I certainly don't, and find it hard to imagine hating anybody I'd otherwise come to call my friend because we disagree on political matters. In fact, any fair reading of my article would see real sadness over the fact that we can't talk to each other about the war any longer, because in some cases, the anti-war friends have become emotional and irrational. Calling them irrational is not "demonization;" it's true.

Being against the war is not evidence of irrationality. I do believe there are rational arguments against the war, by which I mean arguments based on reasonable premises. I don't happen to find any of them convincing, but they are certainly there. My complaint is about friends I know and care about who become very angry when talking about the war, and start fulminating about Jewish and/or capitalist conspiracies, who start talking about what an inherently evil country America is, or who start yelling about the "rush to war" (yeah, 12 years of sanctions, and months of debate in Congress and in the media, to say nothing of fooling around in the UN Security Council for weeks and weeks). Regrettably, to these friends, one simply has nothing useful to say -- and one fears that the friendships may be permanently damaged, and perhaps even abrogated, by the rancor.

I plainly stated in that article that I have chosen not to discuss the war with most of my antiwar friends, for the sake of preserving friendships for which I care a great deal. Yet somehow, Steve concludes that I'm so obsessed with the war that I'm wanting to abandon friends for not agreeing with me! I've written him about his errors, and he's promised to correct his blog entry. I hope he will.

UPDATE: He did. Thanks, Steve.

MSNBC reporting that suspicion for that terrorist attack is falling on two translators. But Fox, relying on a Sky News reporter in the camp, says the translators appear to have been cleared, and now military authorities are looking for a soldier based in the camp, who has gone AWOL. Also, two grenades may have gone missing from the weapons supply case. Two grenades, as you've read, were used in this attack on the officers' tent.

UPDATE: Fox no longer indicating that translators might have been cleared, only that they are being investigated.

UPDATE.2: NBC reports that the soldier is in custody now, and is a suspect in the attack. It is not being considered a terrorist attack any longer, but is a criminal investigation. Brokaw speculates that it might turn out to be a case of a soldier going nuts and turning on his own kind.

‘Peace’ demonstrators in San Francisco seem to have turned violent. There’s a nice comment from police sergeant Rene Laprevotte on the struggle:

“After 16 hours of fighting communists and anarchists, a Red Bull can help us go another 16 hours. We’re here as long as they are.”

Red Bull? Good choice. Dr Pepper certainly wouldn’t do the trick.

Here’s a good account from the Guardian of the liberation of Safwan.

“You just arrived,” he said, “You’re late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush. We came out of the grave.”

Note too the concern that this too is another false dawn. The memory of 1991 lingers on.

Rod, like you I read that story from France with disgust. The heading doesn’t do it justice, however, except, I suppose, ironically. It refers, of course, to Au Revoir, Les Enfants, a brilliant (and heart-breaking) movie that tells the (true) tale of some Jewish children sheltered by the astonishingly brave staff of a Catholic school in war-time France.

Now read how their successors are said to have behaved:

“When [the Jewish child] broke free from his tormentors in the shower, he ran for help to the teachers’ lounge but none of the faculty rose from their chairs to help the disheveled and distraught boy.”

Bastards.

From the UK Press Association:

“ [British] Public opinion has rallied sharply in support of the war against Iraq now British forces are in action, according to two new opinion polls. A YouGov survey for The Sunday Times found that 56% thought Britain and the US were right to take military action, with 36% opposed. The figures were almost the exact reverse of a similar poll before the outbreak of hostilities when 36% backed military action with 57% against.”

Mr Goldberg,

When I read that letter this morning, I immediately identified with the author's feelings towards my home country. Until recently, I have proudly identified myself as a Canuck, no more. I find Canada's fence sitting attitude represensible, its refusal to support our best friends despicable. Let it be known that there exists a small faction of clear-headed, rational thinking Canadians. We're with you, we support you, and God Bless America.

[Name Withheld]

Montreal, Canada

This past week I decided to be a good conservative and help my liberal friends out. While I am a proud Sailor's wife, I must say that the ignorance of these people regarding our military and our foreign policy is astounding. (I live in the largest Naval town in America) In spite of this, I decided to help pull the blinders off of their sorry vision. So? I sent in my little card (I know..I should have done it online) to renew my own subscription and ordered 5 subscriptions for them. If that isn't patriotism and compassionate conservatism, I don't know what is. Have a great one, Carolina A Proud Sailor's Wife

A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the [Jordan] border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

From The National Post:

Today, I am embarrassed to be a Canadian. I am embarrassed to be represented by a Prime Minister who is so detached from reality and a sense of Canada's true interests. I am embarrassed by a political system which is impotent in the face of a Prime Minister descending into perfidy. I am embarrassed that the Prime Minister was accorded a standing ovation in Parliament by his party for having decided to let others take up Canada's cudgel in the war against terror.

While I am increasingly impressed by the man and his character (he seems sincerely aggrieved by the limlight), I have to say that briefing wasn't very impressive. I understand that he has to be vague about some things, but I was left feeling like I knew less than I did before the briefing. And the video images were worse than the ones offered 10 years ago. A great propaganda opportunity was missed, it seemed to me. Why not show video of surrendering Iraqis? Why not show pictures of Coalition soldiers being greeted? Why not explain that while it is technically true that we are bombing "downtown Baghdad" we are not bombing civilian areas? We are bombing military complexes forbidden to most Iraqis.

From a reader responding to my piece about the impossibility of having a civil discussion with many antiwar types, who have descended into irrationality and emotionalism:

"As a Catholic conservative ( who also happens to be Black), I agree with your observations. My mother hung up the phone on me after I challenged her assertion that George W. Bush was engaged in Satanic rituals. She also denied that Saddam was guilty of any atrocities. She told me that the accusations were only made up by the white man. It is almost impossible to have an intelligent conversation with many of my family due to kooky conspiracy theories. Another trick that I have noticed among my friends is to be ultra-skeptical when confronted with the atrocities of Saddam or Castro; but then to expect me to accept their assertions about continued slavery in America or CIA infecting people with AIDS as obviously true. Among several of my Catholic friends, they seem ready to believe anything bad about Israel. I think that this emotionalism which has corrupted many liberal minds and now has infected many conservatives. Now I know how Socrates must have felt. Pass the hemlock!"

A good primer.

One perhaps unforeseen benefit of embedding reporters with the troops is that we have needed many fewer military briefings such as the one now being given by Tommy Franks. These briefings are always frustrating for reporters and the audience because the military spokesman can reveal so little about the nature of the conflict. With this division of labor, professional communicators--called "reporters"--are conveying the images of the battlefield, while the military can spend more of their time planning and executing the war. Combined with the new satellite technology, embedding reporters with military units allow the American public to get the sense of the battle as it unfolds and involves them vicariously in the war in an unprecedented manner.

Below, I quoted an American bishop from Iraq's Assyrian Church of the East as saying on Vatican Radio that the war is "a necessary evil." I identified the Assyrian church as one of the Eastern Rites of the Roman Catholic Church. A Roman Catholic reader writes this morning to say that's not true, that the Assyrians are one of the ancient churches of the East that broke away from Catholicism after the Council of Ephesus. The Catholic Church in Iraq, the reader said, are the "Chaldeans." Sorry for the mistake.

Incidentally, a reader who knows something about the Church situation in Iraq says that non-Chaldean Catholic Christians there have long viewed the Chaldean Catholics as collaborators with Saddam. The reader predicts that there is going to be hell to pay for the Chaldean Catholics after the fall of the Saddam regime, as other Iraqi Christians hold them accountable for their relationship to the dictator. The Vatican's strong objection to this war has been duly noted by non-Catholic Iraqi Christians, the reader says, and the post-war fallout from that is not going to be pretty.

I work in the Financial District of San Francisco. The antics of the demonstrators yesterday was absolutely appalling. Blocking building entryways, yelling epithets at people, working people like me, who tried to gain access to their buildings. There was some sporadic violence, and one chilling scene, during the early evening commute, of protesters surrounding a young woman in her SUV. She was only trying to inch through the throng of people, ostensibly to get home (or just to get the hell out of there) when a group of these yahoos, many with bandanas or handkerchiefs around their faces, started to pound on the vehicle windows and hood with their signs. One idiot actually got up on the hood and was driven forward a few feet. According to a news crew on the scene, the protesters were debating whether to forcibly remove the driver and have her walk home, leaving her car behind. Luckily, it didn't get that far; a smaller group of protesters prevailed upon the idiots, saying it wasn't right to do, and the woman was then allowed to drive off.

But that's not the worst of it. SFPD confiscated from backpacks of those arrested items such as: knives of various types and lengths; a few crowbars; some bolt-cutters, cans of spray paint; and cans of what appeared to be accelerants of some kind. This morning, the website for one of the local tv stations reported that the police also found a cache of Molotov cocktails. Some peace demonstration.

I consider myself to be a moderate liberal (I know, the "l" word makes your skin crawl) who happens to be a hawk on defense/security issues (where have all the Democratic hawks like Acheson, Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson, et al, gone?). I'm no fan of either the extreme right or left. But the left is really marginalizing itself (if it hasn't already done so). The intellectual dishonesty ("dude, it's not about Iraq, it's about an unrestrained United States!") makes me want to, well, vomit. Check out sfgate.com to see an opinion piece written by a Silicon Valley venture capitalist about yesterday's protest and protesters. Spot on, as the Brits like to say.

Coalition forces plan to "knock off" Iraqi TV within 2-3 days.

Mexican and US authorities searching for 6 Iraqis with toxic chemicals. Joint US-Mexican investigation been underway for several days. Chemicals require "temperature controls" which could mean radiological or biological items.

On House Continuing Resolution 104: "Expressing the Support and Appreciation of the Nation for the President and the Members of the Armed Forces Who are Participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom": 392 Yeas, 21 "presents," 11 nays.

The Nays:

Conyers
McDermott
Towns
Honda
Rangel
Waters
Jones (OH)
Scott (VA)
Watson
Lee Stark

Present:

Brown (OH)
Jackson (IL)
Paul Brown
CorrineJackson-Lee (TX)
Payne Carson (IN)
Johnson, E. B.
Rush
Clay
Kilpatrick
Sabo
Cummings
Kucinich
Schakowsky
Davis (IL)
Lewis (GA)
Watt
Doggett
Meeks (NY)
Farr
Owens

Our guys even had the good taste to put an * in "F*ck France and Germany." In a German magazine no less.

Steve Centanni embedded with Navy SEALS says the SEALS have secured Iraq's two main oil terminals. "In a very dramatic pre-emptive move last night" they arrived "just in time" to prevent rigged explosives to be detonated. Many signs that the place was set to blow. Prevented huge environmental catastrophe.

If you really need a break from the war stuff. This is a great great time-waster.

In response to my column:

Jonah,

I fought as a tanker in the first gulf war and it was just outside Safwan as we secured the ceasfire site that my Company commander said to me, "in ten years we'll be back." I'm glad this time we aren't just going to give it back to the thugs in Baghdad. The things I saw around Safwan are what made me realize just how bad Saddam was and is for the Iraqi people. I remember how impotent we felt sitting on our tanks listening to radio reports of the slaughter of the Kurds and the "marsh arabs" who had foolishly believed that we would support their rebellion. I am glad that the day of their liberation is at hand but also a little sad that it took 12 years longer than it should have to arrive.

I can't get any word about how the Robert Blake trial is going.

I really am emailing to respond to your corner posting "CNN's Rumsfeld Treatment" about the audio levels of the bombing being raised during a particular portion of Rumsfeld's speech. While it is possible that was done on purpose and for the effect you claim, it is entirely more likely that it was completely unintentional and due to any number of factors: 1) the tape was cut with no audio off the top for whatever reason and then when it ran past a specific point, audio was left on and the control room was caught by surprise. 2) some crazy producer was screaming at the director/a.d. because there were these beautiful silent pictures dying for some audio, and the tech boys just pumped it up at an inopportune moment 3) the audio guy just slipped Many, many things happen at CNN by mistake. That's the nature of 24-7 t.v. As a former employee, the only time I automatically assume bias is when Judy Woodruff (or her husband) happen to be speaking. Outside of that, I generally (I said generally) give them the benefit of the doubt.

We all know who runs Wall Street.

I just overheard a colleague, who is the wife of a soldier in the Gulf, say "I can't wait for him to come home so I can give him a big Freedom kiss"! Another reason why I should've joined the Service.

I only caught part of this because I was flipping, but a reader caught the whole thing, sounds like I thought I caught:

CNN is using a split screen to show the Rumsfeld press conference, and also replay the most spectacular Baghdad footage. The sound on the replay footage was off. But when Rumsfeld began advising that the bombing was discriminate and controlled, they turned up the sound. Turned it up so much, in fact, it came close to drowning out Rumsfeld's remarks.

The effect was to make Rumsfeld's statements appear laughable.

Someone at CNN made a deliberate and very suspicious decision.

From a reader:

Mr. Goldberg, I'm 50 with no military experience. Does anyone else get lulled into complacency? Our soldiers only die in accidents! The Iraqis will surrender en masse! We'll go to Baghdad in a cakewalk! The TV images reinforce that.

But that complacency disparages the dedication and discipline of these young
soldiers; from time to time, I realize that wherever they are in this war,
whatever they are doing, they are doing their jobs with a degree of courage
I'm unfamiliar with.

I've been trying to finish a book proposal in the time you guys have nearly finished a book.

Tell me about it, Rich. I'm so glad my wife is down in Texas, and can't see the result in our lovely little windowless apartment, of bachelor, book-writing entropy. I'm burning the midnight coffee, trying to finish a book, and I've set the table up in front of the TV, which I can't turn off. I've been falling asleep the past two nights on the couch, with the TV on, and blaring. This morning I was awakened just before six a.m. by CNN's Walter Rodgers, giving a riveting, adrenalin-stoked report from a military unit in which he's embedded, rocketing toward Baghdad. He described it as a "steel wave," which struck me as a terrific phrase. Naturally, I couldn't get back to sleep.

OK, back to the book.

The French president said at a European Union summit he would "not accept" a resolution that "would legitimize the military intervention [and] would give the belligerents the powers to administer Iraq."
"That would justify the war after the event," Chirac told reporters.

Yes Derb, that's sounds glum. But how often do you get to watch the news while doing your taxes and take as much pride in where your tax dollars are going?

Tom Brokaw: "Okay David Bloom, you stay with the 3rd Infantry as we head back to Peter Arnett in Baghdad...."

Um...where else is Bloom going to go?

Seems to have the best footage right now. Some exclusive shots.

Reporting that Pentagon officials increasingly convinced Saddam was wounded in attack.

The negotiations with Senior Republican Guard officials went south since the shocking and aweing began.

They are kicking Western Media out of Baghdad. This could mean they want to control the message getting out, especially if they start torching the place by using Iraqi troops in Western military uniforms. Things could get really ugly now. Of course, they could also be trying to plug up the intelligence leak that led the US to try the decapitation strike. Who knows.

I needed to drop off for a bit in order to deal with lil' Lucy and to write a G-File. The formers staring at her mobile and the latter is with NRHQ. I'm back baby.

US advance stopped by Iraqi resistence at the Euphrates.

From a loyal reader:

Jonah,

Just a quick word of advice (based on my experience as a two-time commander of combat units):

The Corner is great...keep it up and PLEASE don't take this the wrong way, but anybody can get caught up in these kinds of things and I just respectfully ask y'all take an extra minute before hitting the "Send" key on your posts...

Don't speculate how many are killed in an operation, either by accident or direct enemy action.

Rule #1: The first intelligence reports are usually wrong.

Rule #2: Every time a family with members deployed hears something went wrong, their stomachs do somersaults...don't make it worse by guessing how many were involved.

Again, I know this is probably something you are well aware of, but I thought it needed to be said--no intent to offend.

Says Iraqi News Agency reports that Iraqis are offering $28K for enemy captures.

Most of you think the U.S. wants Iraqi to know about the B-52s. Here's one e-mail:

It appears to me that the Administration and the military folks
understand that there are cameras literally everywhere. I suspect that they
have planned for this. I suspect that the timing of embedded reporter
reports are not coincidental but probably part of the overall plan. We have
B-1 bombers at Diego Garcia, an island on which no reporters are present. We
have F-117 Stealth and other fighters on our carriers, where the military
controls the reporters.

If B-52s have taken off from England, I suspect the military know that
reporters might mention that fact. Perhaps this was the equivalent of a
Defense Department press release to the Iraqi leadership: The big guns are
coming. . . Perhaps it is the duty of reporters to go along with this and
report what they see (don't tell ABC).

If we really capture Basra soon, that will be huge militarily and strategically speaking. What would perhaps be even more significant is if the Iraqi civilians there are happy to see American troops. If they pour into the streets celebrating the "liberation" we will have a very good sign that the political assumptions of the adminsitration -- and us hawks -- were correct. If not, that could be a big uh-oh.

From a reader:

Whereas it is your birthday,

Whereas it is soon my Daughters birthday,

Whereas your job security seems to rest upon subscriptions,

Whereas my daughter idolizes you,

Therefore I have gifted her a subscription to NRODT.

Further, I feel free to shamelessly send you a link to said daughter's blog which is not about the Mall. She makes none of
this up.

Cosmo and I were just in the park routing the Squirrilo-Baathist menace in the park, and I listened to NPR on my walkman (yes, I'm very cool). NPR -- much like several news networks -- keeps referring to reports that we bombed "Saddam's family home" or his "family's houses."

They make it sound like the Widow Hussein, no doubt living on food stamps in a aluminum panneled single family shack was bombed while taking care of her grandkids. Doesn't Saddam have a gazillion "Presidential Palaces" which are bigger than the District of Columbia? If that's what we bombed, the press should stop using the Iraqi Ministry of Information's words, and say we bombed his palaces. If we bombed something else, say so. But please, enough talk about bombing Saddam's home-sweet-home.

If all the ships and planes are loaded with shock and awe-ing armament and if all our troops have their heads and their hearts wire together for some full tilt boogie for freedom and justice, George Bush could say: "Kim, boobie, we can just move all of this stuff to the Sea of Japan."

A reader knocks some sense into me:

I did ponder it, and think you need to stop overthinking things.

First, on the rout. If we're performing this invasion partly for North Korea's benefit (in that we deter him from his present course of action), then undoubtedly Kim Jong Il also recognizes that his regime is vulnerable to a similar collapse. He has to be. Tyrants may be able to spout a line to the masses, but in their heart of hearts they are truthful and realize that they must maintain the iron fist or else everything will fall apart. I also disagree with it "seeming" that Iraq is collapsing under its own weight anyway. It's fairly obvious that were it not for our recent actions, the Hussein regime would be toddling merrily along, murdering and raping as usual. It took the system shock of the EGBU and the U.S. Marines to start the collapse. But without that shock, I doubt any collapse would have happened, at least not in a timeframe to be useful. Kim probably recognizes the same thing, that if we turn our serious attention to ousting him, he will have a battle on two fronts...the external (us) and the internal (the house of cards he himself has built).

Even though he wanted more time for inspections, Blix said yesterday that he didn't know if he could ever be sure that Iraq wasn't hiding the illegal missiles.
"I could not guarantee that we would come to clear conclusions even after some months more," he said.

Our friends at TCS have several good pieces on the doodads that help make up the Arsenal of Democracy.

Like everyone else, I'm 100% behind US efforts to win this thing without a major war. Getting the Senior Republican Guard to surrender would be great because it would save American lives and end this thing sooner. And, if it can be pulled off, it is the only moral and responsible route for the US to take. It will save lives, infrastructure and preserve American moral authority.

All of that said, it seems to me that some of the benefits of victory might be reduced if Iraq collapses all on its own. First and foremost, we'll be left with thousands of Republican Guard and Baathist functionaries who will be able to claim they should be part of the new regime because they did the "right thing"-- a the last second with no other choice. Second, I wonder -- just wonder -- whether the lesson for the likes of North Korea will be lessened if it seems Iraq collapsed from its own weight. Just something to ponder.

David Bloom, who's been doing great work for NBC, is riding with the 3rd Infantry. He's on top of some sort of vehicle and he has been for a long time apparently. One half of his face is terribly sunburned and the other remains TV studio pale.

Pretty glum stuff.

WASHINGTON - Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix yesterday said Iraq violated its agreement with the United Nations if the missiles it fired at American troops were Scuds. "I'm very interested to know whether they used Scuds," Blix said in an interview with the Fox News Channel. "If they're firing [Scuds], of course that shows that there's a violation," he said.

Of Americans support Bush's decision now.

Here in NYC tonight, cops filled up a couple of paddy wagons with anti-war protesters who got out of hand in Times Square. A few minutes ago, on one of the cable channels, I was watching anti-war protesters filling the streets of West Hollywood and San Francisco tonight. By way of contrast, I got a phone call yesterday afternoon from my wife, who was driving around Dallas, and said one of the big Christian radio stations there had people live on the air, praying for the President and our troops, and even praying by name for individual soldiers in the Gulf. I don't know if that means anything, but I thought I'd tell you.

By the way, let me thank all of the NR readers who have written to wish me well with the move to Dallas. We really do have some pretty damn great readers. One of them, who lives in Dallas, even offered to come over and help me unload the moving van when I got to town.

That's what I used to say in science class when I mumbled a guess at what we call those flashy star thingies.

I just received this email and I think it warrants a response:

Jonah:
Might I offer a suggestion to you NRO contributors regarding the current debate/rant about the "Paleoconservatives"?

I would suspect that many NRO/NRDT readers are committed Christians, from a number of denominations. As you folks have had this debate, I have detected a subtle sarcasm, even ridicule, of Christians creeping into the tone of the posts. It is true that Pat Buchanan received a lot of support from Christians through the early efforts of the likes of the Christian Coalition, however I think that the NRO contributors should be a bit more discriminating and avoid flinging generalizations around.

I'll use a couple of your posts today as examples:

"But if Frum is engrossed, Buchanan is obsessed to the point of dementia. Unless, that is, obsession with ones Christian faith and Irish upbrining doesn't count."

A bit too general, nearly stereotypical, wouldn't you say? Christians do not like to be sterotyped any more than other groups, like Jews for example.

"One question: Can the paleos buy their mattresses from just anybody? Or do they have to be made in South Carolina?"

I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this one. Sure, many South Carolinian Christians supported Buchanan a while back, but do you not think that they are intelligent enough to see through his malarky by now? Another stereotype? Shame on you, Jonah. I really had come to expect better from you.

This is not the first and only time this sort of snide stereotyping of Christians has occured on NRO. Since I have been reading NRO (about 1 year now), I have seen this stuff pop up on a regualr basis. Mr. Dreher is especially prone to dangerous and inaccurate generalizations every time he forrays onto a discussion of some aspect of Christianity, in spite of his personal claims of faith.

In all friendliness, please be more careful.

For full disclosure- I am a Christian, and I currently live in South Carolina. I grew up, however, in Massachusetts.

My response: I appreciate the criticism and the spirit in which it is offered. But, in my own defense I plead not guilty (I can't speak for Rod, but I'm sure he can). I've written too many sincere defenses of Christian Conservatives to concede this charge. In terms of the Novak example, my reference to Buchanan's "obsession" is sarcastic. Personally, I don't care if Buchanan-- or anybody else -- invokes his or her faith or ethnicity in relation to their politics. My point was that if Novak is going to hold Frum to such a standard Novak shouldn't say something as factually dumb as he did. It makes Novak look as if what makes him uncomfortable is not discussions of ones own ethnicity so much as revelations of ones own Jewishness. I stand by that and, frankly, I don't see anything wrong with what I wrote.

As for the South Carolina line, well, I may have been sloppy. But let me explain that my intent had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with the fact that Pat Buchanan is a raving protectionist of the Roger Miliken variety. If that didn't come across, my apologies. I really hope that nothing I have written about the Paleos -- or about anything else for that matter -- is construed as anti-Christian. Now, I'm off to drink some Jameson's. (What? It's not like I can just pour the French-owned stuff down the drain).

Friends, readers, NRO-addicts:

Forbes.com is running a poll of the best warblogs and the Corner/NRO is not even mentioned. We are not killing ourselves to churn this stuff out to be ignored by the likes of Forbes. Shut them down! Shut them down! Say it with me: Shut them down!

Okay, I'm tired and cranky. But some polite email, ("Or maybe a dead fish," yels the couch" might be in order.

From a reader:

Jonah,

It doesn't end with Buchanan. The Kennedy aides were so engrossed in their ethnic roots they're still called the "Irish Mafia." Didn't Chris Matthews work for Carter? (In fact, the Irish never let up on their Irishness regardless of party-See Don Regan). Also, Jody Powell and Ham Jordon sure did lay on the "southern white" ethnicity pretty thick, especially as excuses for why they couldn't work well with D.C. politicos. I haven't read Stephonopolous' (don't know when to stop spelling it) book but it would be strange if the son of a Greek orthodox priest didn't dwell on it. Also, I think Monsignor Vaghi down at St. Pat's received Novak into the Catholic Church a few years ago so maybe he's really an agent of the Pope now? Novak is hell of a reporter but he really hates Israel. I guess the wily Vaghi didn't tell him this Pope recognized Israel.

I was tired and in the middle of my syndicated column when I posted that Blair email. Of course Blair is the head of government. Here's an email that sets the record straight:

Jonah, The e-mailer whose comments you just posted in the Corner is wrong on multiple points. First, while a British prime minister may not be head of state (that's the monarch), he or she most certainly IS head of government. Second, the PM is not "first among equals in the House of Commons"--that would be the Speaker. Finally, you're right: there are plenty of better settings than this. It's completely ridiculous to say that giving Blair a halfway-decent backdrop would upstage the Queen. I've been in 10 Downing Street, and it's an immaculately maintained Georgian townhouse with all the accoutrements thereof, so this was virtually inexplicable for the vaunted New Labour PR machine. Yours in Anglophilic pedantry,

Name Withheld

Ramesh - Not only is Novak's review repugnant, it's based on an absurdity. Novak declares: "While Frum calls himself 'a not especially observant Jew,' he repeatedly refers to his Jewishness. It is hard to recall any previous presidential aide so engrossed with his own ethnic roots."

Well, he says this in Pat Buchanan's magazine. Pat Buchanan was a "previous presidential aide." And, I happen to have his book, "Right from the Beginning" right here. It drips with nostalgia about his Irish Catholic upbringing. Page after page has statements like "The impact of the Catholic Church upon my parents' outlook on life, and upon our family, is almost impossible to overestimate." I literally found that at random. There are whole chapters dedicated to his "Catholicness," with titles like "Blessed Sacrament" and "The Pope's Marines." He glides seamlessly between his own faith and ethnicity and his politics as if they are one and the same. Novak may think Frum is "engrossed" with his Jewishness -- though it seems to me that Novak is the one who is engrossed by it. But if Frum is engrossed, Buchanan is obsessed to the point of dementia. Unless, that is, obsession with ones Christian faith and Irish upbrining doesn't count.

A reader makes a good point re Tony Blair's "Wayne's World" set for his announcement:

With respect to Prime Minister Blair's speech, you need to remember that he is not the head of state, not the head of government. He is first among equals in the House of Commons. With the possible exception of Margaret Thatcher, symbols of majesty have been reserved for Her Majesty.

A deaf reader who reads lips insists that the Saddam who gave a speech today speaks differently than the one in the Dan Rather interview. For what it's worth.

Tony Blair's strong speech explaining the use of force is, once again, impressive. I have only one criticism and it is mighty petty. They have him sitting in a brightly lit room with nothing but a blank wall behind him, half a lamp and the side of a door. Maybe it's the former television producer in me, but come on. It's not like the Brit's don't have some impressive backdrops.

By Fred in Monterey:

BALLAD OF THE HUMAN SHIELDS
(to the tune of "Ballad of the Green Berets")

Carrying signs, they scream and curse:
"Saddam is bad, but America's worse!"
As U.S. forces take the field,
Some fools rush in...as human shields.

Huddling where they think we'll bomb,
Misguided souls only help Saddam.
Iraqi troops take to their heels,
But these fools stay...as human shields.

Smart bombs rain down from the sky.
But we don't want innocents to die.
Precision-guided swords we wield,
Much sharper than...the human shields.

War is all hell, how well we know.
But evil falls to the well-aimed blow.
All soldiers cry from the grief they feel,
Tears more sincere...than the human shields.

To speak one's mind is freedom's right.
To win that right, brave warriors died.
They lie unmarked in battlefields.
They gave their lives...for the human shields.

This song is dedicated to all who work constructively for freedom, justice,
and peace, with prayers for everyone in harm's way.

Look around NRO, the Corner, the homepage, etc.
Then: Ask yourself if anybody is doing what we're doing better than us.
Then: Tell your friends -- and your enemies (eyeballs are eyeballs).

Apache helicopter down.

Jeez, we have some smart readers:

Mr. Goldberg,

I just saw the Rembrandt painting "Belshazzar's Feast" in London at the National Gallery on Tuesday. Unfortunately, being able to read the Aramaic (Daniel 2:5 - 7 is in Aramaic) made me aware that Rembrandt may have painted the last letter of the last word incorrectly. It looks like a zayin instead of a nun. The National Gallery's caption points out this possible mistake as well. I hope this doesn't lessen for you the powerful effects of this masterful painting. It was on my mind as well when studying the book of Daniel in seminary, and the parallels between that event and now are eerily similar in some very striking ways. One aspect of the end of Belshazzar's rule (his father Nabonidus was actually the king, but was often away in Harran worshipping the moon god Sin) that will (hopefully) soon have a modern parallel was his death at the hands of the invading army of Cyrus the Great in the otherwise mostly peaceful takeover of Babylon. Apparently, the Babylonians weren't too sorry to see Belshazzar go, a gross understatement when it comes to the Iraqi people and Saddam Hussein.

Someone explain how this constitutes unilateral.

UPDATE: I just fixed this link, if you were confused.

God, I hope they find these guys.

How our coalition -- now 40 strong -- keeps growing. I guess it's the smell of victory.

WASHINGTON (AP) _ The FBI issued a worldwide alert Thursday for Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, a Saudi national believed to be plotting terrorist attacks as part of al-Qaida.

The FBI is asking for help from law enforcement officials as well as the public in locating El Shukrijumah, who officials say may have been last seen in Miami before he disappeared. His current whereabouts are unknown.

``El Shukrijumah is possibly involved with al-Qaida terrorist activities and, if true, poses a serious threat to U.S. citizens and interests worldwide,'' the FBI said in a statement.

I've got to write a syndicated column. Will somebody please join in here?

Hilarious, yet touching, story about Optimus Prime. A must read.

War Ousts Sex and Britney in Internet Searches

Bombed.

Bombed.

For those of you without TV. Earlier today one of the CNN correspondents embedded with the Marines reported back to (I think) Paula Zahn something to the effect of: "Paula, Iraq has made a grave tactical error. When they launched a scud missile at this camp, they clearly hoped to deter the Marines. Instead, Paula, they've made them very, very angry."

Every time Shep Smith of Fox says "embedded" you take a drink. Every time he says, "I'm not sure I'm pronouncing this correctly" you finish the beer.

I'm being told that Jameson's is French owned. I refuse to believe this.

From a reader:

Ok, the guilt, and convenience to satisfy many gifts at once, added up to an unpassable opportunity. As a happy birthday present to you, K-Lo, and Andrew, and an anniversary present to my wonderful husband, I subscribed to NRODT. Sorry, no tasty brown liquors on the way. But, happy birthday to all of you and thanks for the excellent blogs. I feel no loss at having no daily paper. I just read the Corner regularly and haven't missed on anything important in the news.

Death to Bush, burning American flags, etc. Yes, yes, I know not all Palestinians.

Pentagon says this is merely more opportunistic target-whacking not the full tilt boogie for freedom and justice.

And I'm not describing the apparatus around Louie Farrakhan's head. A reader informs me:

The suits have rigged the system to prevent you from getting the credit you deserve. I tried to subscribe as you urged (JamesCosmo) and was instantly defeated. The first name field on the subscription app won't allow more than JamesCos. Bummer!

I guess it's Jameson's direct.

But I assume, like James Kirk besting the Kobayashi Maru war game, you people will figure something out if you really try!

I am reminded that subscribers have another option besides sending me fine brown liquors as a sign of their appreciation for National Review Online or for me (I love Balvenie by the way). They can also donate directly to our efforts by clicking here. Okay, "clicking" alone won't do the trick. You also have to follow through with the shmundo. But you get the point.

A reader asks: Would you rather a bottle of Jameson's or for me to subscribe to National Review?

This is a tough, tough question. I'm very tempted to borrow a page from the New Democrats and say that I believe this is a "false choice." There's no reason you cannot do both. But, I suppose if push came to shove (and I don't mean the suits shoving me instead of just pushing me), I would prefer you subscribed to National Review. The success of this site, this magazine, and most of all, my career depends heavily on the support of people like you (yeah you the guy in the cubicle pretending to be cleaning his mouse pad).

In fact, since tomorrow is my birthday, I would be mightily pleased if you bought a subscription based upon my pleading. This would send the suits the proper message (and maybe even get them to buy me some Jameson's). You could even send them a signal by adding "Cosmo" to your first name when you fill-in the subscription info (i.e. JohnCosmo Smith...). And, of course, those of you eager to get me a birthday present but already subscribe, there's really no choice at all. I like the twelve-year olds -- but not in a Michael Jackson kind of way.

I have news. I'm leaving NR to join the Dallas Morning News as an editorial-writer and columnist. My last day at NR is April 2, and I'll start at the News on April 10.

I'm excited to be going to Dallas, moving closer to family, and putting down roots. When I wrote this a couple of years ago, I knew that it was only going to be a matter of time before we left our beloved New York. Osama helped push us out the door. My three-year-old, Matthew, thinks Texas is paradise, and is so excited to be moving to the same state that President Bush calls home). There are very good things happening on the News' editorial page, which recently came under the leadership of a dynamic new editor who identifies herself as a crunchy-con! Besides, how can a conservative (and conservative Catholic) not be excited by living among people who do things like this and this? Verily, verily, thou shalt not mess with Texas.

But I will miss National Review and New York City more than I can express (and maybe I will express it on NRO before I take off for Texas in a couple of weeks). I've never had a better job, never been prouder to be associated with a group of journalists, and never lived in as great a city. I can't do anything about holding on to NYC, but Rich has graciously agreed to allow me to continue contributing to the whole NR/NRO world. So I'll still be in touch, because I can't stand to think about losing contact with the most loyal readers in the world.

It's going to be a very long night over there -- and extremely difficult to pay attention to the hilarious variety show "Super-Terrific-Happy-Saddam-Hour."

According to Fox News correspondent at the Kuwaiti-Iraqi border as the battle commences.

From a reader:

I am in the "Corner" every few minutes because you are the fastest way for me to get information here at work. Thanks a million.

From an American reader working in the Gulf (exact nation withheld at his request):

Dear Mr. Goldberg:

I'm an American living in one of the Gulf states. One of the nicest benefits of being here is receiving the Iraqi satellite TV station. It's a treat.

I write to report one fact and one opinion.

Fact: Iraqi satellite TV stopped broadcasting from sometime mid-morning until late this afternoon. 'Twas unscheduledly off the air. It's back on now, showing the same old stuff. It would take many, many thousands of words to describe Iraqi satellite TV. Again, it's a treat.

Opinion: As we don't get CBS, I didn't see Dan Rather's interview with Mr. Hussein. That's a heartbreaker, I know. However, for some months now, I've made a point of checking the Iraqi station several times each evening to see what might be playing. The Saddam Show. The Saddam Quote Show. Saddam-Is-Great Music Television. Same shocking Saddam-Is Great karaoke shows. The Death-to-Bush and Saddam-is-Great Show. Reruns of the aforementioned. And so on.

Anyway, though I didn't see Mr. Rather's recent interview, I do get to see quite a lot of Mr. Hussein and hear his voice by regularly looking at Iraqi satellite TV. It is my opinion that the tape shown this morning was indeed Mr. Hussein.

The face was right. The voice was right. He's an old man, and new footage isn't all that common. Most of the images seen of him these days are from some years back. The newer footage shows the same man seen this morning.

My wife and I have seen at least one fake Saddam on Iraqi television, and I assure you, you'll know the fake Saddam when you see the fake Saddam. The effort was slapdash and amateurish and weak. It was pitiable. It was hilarious. We laughed uproariously.

Woops. I need to correct myself. A reader reminds me that the phrase "numbered days" harkens back to the phrase "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin." Which of course was the original "writing on the wall," written by the finger of God, and seen by Belshazzar. The story is chronicled in the Book of Daniel. Translations differ slightly but it means essentially: "God has numbered your days. You have been weighed in the eyes of God and been found wanting. Your kingdom has been divided." Please, no emails with different translations.

The scene is captured in my absolute favorite painting, "Belshezzar's Feast" by Rembrandt. I've had a framed copy of that painting on my wall for years.

So, I've got to say, in this case the use of the phrase for Saddam is perfectly appropriate.

Ground commanders have been given authority to engage "any target" that comes up in front of them. Look for large number of surrenders. Possible "suicide surrenders" in Saddam's plan. Suicide bombers disguised as surrendering soldiers. They may go ugly early. If so, our guys will respond with restraint. Up to a point.

Following this attack Saddam Hussein - or who appears to be Saddam Hussein - appeared on a tape, pre-taped or otherwise - for the first time in public with glasses and without makeup - and called on the Iraqi public to unsheathe their swords against the enemy and read what I am sure he regarded as a inspiring poem. We do not know how many so called "canned" tapes he may have prepared. Reports that he was wounded are unconfirmed. Intelligence officials do think some of the Iraqi military leadership have been killed.

I've never liked that phrase, because hyper-technically speaking, all of our days are numbered -- unless you're Shirley Maclaine.

Two Iraqi oil wells on fire.

Sullivan and blogger Donald Luskin express some cynicism about Burns' openness on PBS compared to his fairly circumspect reportage in a co-bylined piece in today's NYT. But there are a couple things to keep in mind. Burns' reportage has been admirably honest when under his solo byline. He wrote a wonderful essay in the Week in the Review (no longer available for free) about the brutality of the Iraqi regime and the threats and manipulations foreign media are subjected to by the Iraqi government. And, last, as Howard Kurtz reports , Burns is not being permitted to leave Iraq. Perhaps he believes he can get away with a level of honesty in a live PBS broadcast he can't get away with in the paper of record. Whether it's pressure from the Baathists or Howell Raines which convinced him of this, remains a mystery.

John Burns, the New York Times reporter who's done some of the best work from inside Iraq had some interesting comments on PBS last night. Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for posting it:

"Along with all of this apprehension I think America should know that there is also a good deal of anticipation. Iraqis have suffered beyond, I think, the common understanding of the United States from the repression of the past 30 years here. And many, many Iraqis are telling us now, not always in the whispers he have heard in the past but now in quite candid conversations, that they are waiting for America to come and bring them liberty.

"It's very hard though for anybody to understand this. It can only be understood in terms of the depth of the repression here. It has to be said that this is not universal of course...

"All I can tell you is that as every reporter who has come over here will attest to this, there is the most extraordinary experience of the last few days has been a sudden breaking of the ice here, with people in every corner of life coming forward to tell us that they understand what America is about in this. They are very, very fearful of course of the [?] bombing, of damage to Iraq's infrastructure. They are very concerned about the kind of governance, the American military governance, that they will come under afterward. Can I just say that there is also no doubt -- no doubt -- that there are many, many Iraqis who see what is about to happen here as the moment of liberation."

"ABC radio playing Kate Smith singing God bless America" -- they play it every night at 1 a.m. It comes at the end of the indispensable John Batchelor and Paul Alexander show, which started broadcasting September 12, 2001. One of the best sources for inside information and analysis about all fronts of the war. They had the great Jed Babbin on for a while last night.

With apologies to "A Fish Called Wanda":

North Korea: All right, all right, we apologize.

The United States: You're really sorry!

North Korea: We're really really sorry, we apologize unreservedly.

The United States: You take it back?

North Korea: We do, we offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and we deeply regret any distress that our comments may have caused you, or your family, and we hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

The United States: OK.

Cosmo's search for Baathist vermin was postponed due to rain.

Derb - (How ya like "vexillological"?) Interesting observation. But maybe France beats Israel and the US if you count all of those white table cloths and napkins as flags.

Saddam and Dan.

“Saddam” tonight (a.k.a. this morning)

In case you're up war-blogging in the wee hours of the morning I thought you might get a chuckle out of this. I heard a bump in the night last night and after checking around to see that nothing was amiss I got back into bed and realized I had been having the strangest dream about NR!! Apparently there had been a coup, the old guard (Lowry, Nordlinger, Buckley) had been deposed by an uprising of the young Turks (Goldberg, Lopez, Ponnuru, Dreher). The old guard had been interred in some sort of re-education camp which involved lessons on how to use a computer, how to post to the corner, the uselessness of cats, etc. The NR headquarters, which for some reason was located in the basement of Edison Field (where the Anaheim Angels play), was in full party mode with Cosmo chasing frisbees, empty jars of Marmite everywhere, half filled cans of Dr Pepper on the carpet, and a giant Shatner poster (ok, the poster wasn't really there I just made that up). Anyway, that's when I woke up so I didn't get a chance to find out how it turns out. But the fact that my first thought was to write to you to say, "Way to go!" instead of writing to Lowry to say "Look out!" seems to indicate I was on your side. Fight the power. Thanks a lot for your great work. I live and work in China and the first thing I do when I get into work in the morning is read through the Corner postings from the day before sometimes checking back during the day here in case Stuttaford is posting from Europe or Dreher has insomnia. It helps me keep a grip on reality, which sometimes comes loose with the things that go on around here.

"You run such wonderful articles on NRO, most recently the latest Derbyshire piece. It’s been some time since you’ve given us a chance to contribute to NRO. Please put up a link we can follow to contribute. I think in the past you’ve used PayPal, which worked fine for me."
Here's the link. Use your credit card at will.
P.S. Readers are asking for a snail mail address:
National Review Online
215 Lexington Ave
New York, NY 10016

The text of the president's speech:
My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition
forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free
its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of
military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These
are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35
countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases,
to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units.
Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor
of serving in our common defense.

To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the
Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people
now depend on you. That trust is well placed.

The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The
people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American
military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for
conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops
and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and
children as shields for his own military -- a final atrocity against his
people.

I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make
every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh
terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult
than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country
will require our sustained commitment.

We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization
and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except
to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who
serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you
for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For
your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And
you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure.
The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the
mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and
Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters
and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply
decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures,
and we will accept no outcome but victory.

My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be
overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of
peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will
prevail.

May God bless our country and all who defend her.

Most bizarre opinion from a leftist Swedish journalist: "The US has no right under international law to attack Iraq. However can Iraq now claim the right of self-defence under international law."

Prayers, crossed fingers and all good thoughts for the good guys and the innocents. The bad guys are on their own.

For a full take on Bailey's libertarian foreign policy, click here.

Talk about painting with too broad a brush. Mark, I hate being the Great Defender of the 'Toids, but I think it's really unfair to say that "utopian libertarians" -- which I read as "pretty much all libertarians" -- are unpatriotic or disloyal let alone dismissive of the constitution. Some of the most passionate defenders of the constitution I know are hardcore libertarians. Some of them talk about "Mr. Jefferson this" and "Mr. Jefferson that" to the point where you have to remind them that Mr. Jefferson is dead. My friend Ron Bailey preaches "libertarianism in one state" precisely because he considers America a shining city on a hill.

To flack my syndicated column too.

EU headquarters bugged.

Jonah, You smear LewRockwellians as "Von Mises" worshippers, as if that's a pejorative. Mises was one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century (I tend to think arguably the greatest). If you are unfamiliar with Mises, it would be decent of you to refrain from criticizing him. Okay, maybe Lew Rockwell et al. are fair game, but by dismissing Mises himself, you are besmirching the memory and corpus of a great thinker and champion of freedom and western civilization. You are impugning a man who does not deserve it, one you would, I suspect, greatly admire if you knew his work. I assume you are unfamiliar with the main thrust of his writing--especially on economic theory--because as smart and pro-free market as you are, I would be astonished that you would hold him in low esteem and sneeringly dismiss him if you really knew his thought.

OLYMPIA -- A man spent hours chained to the wrong building Tuesday in an ill-planned effort to protest war with Iraq, police said.

Jody Mason padlocked himself to an entrance of the Washington State Grange building at 924 Capitol Way S., thinking it was a sub-office of the U.S. Department of Energy.

Grange employees found him about 11:45 a.m. Tuesday and asked what he was doing....

From a reader:

It took me a while to figure it out, because at one time I was in touch with some fairly principled and knowledgeable local free-marketers and small-l libertarians, even one who ran a credible campaign for senator on the Libertarian ticket.

But a few years later a funny thing happened. The LP of Illinois started propagandizing on behalf of the genocidal Serbs. When I tried to resign (having just rejoined as a result of their getting onto the primary ballot) the party chair refused to take my name off the list and instructed me to get in touch and "work with" one of his henchmen until I saw it their way.

This was to include coming to my home so they could explain things they had already gone on at great length about in the newsletter. (Gist of the
argument: The genocide is a figment of people's imagination and also the other side is doing the same thing too.) Apparently they saw no conflict between libertarian principles and their refusal to respect my decision about whom I would associate with. It took a rather more pointed e-mail on my part to convince them that I had no intention of ever communicating with them ever again or of rejoining the party until it repudiated and apologized for their stance. I think I complained to the national party but got either no response or "ain't nothing we can do". Ugh. And don't even get me started about the hypocrisy of Ayn Rand.

So I took to calling myself a "P.J. O'Rourke Republican" or a "live-and-let-live conservative". At present I will answer to either or both, since I consider them far less oxymoronic than "serious libertarian".

A friend of mine just sent me this:

I cant wait for lance armstong to win the Tour De France AGAIN this summer and give the crown the hook'em horns sign all the way thru that stinkpot country. USA USA USA.

Judging from some email, I should clarify: I do not think Cato is a loony bin or anything of the sort. Some jokes of mine notwithstanding, I've always thought Cato does serious work and has lots of serious people. And, I should note, one of my best friends is Ron Bailey, the science correspondent for Reason (I will deny this if it gets him in trouble). My point is that these bastions of libertarian authority are quick to denounce and criticize liberals and conservatives but too often seem to have an 11th Commandment -- assuming for the moment they subscribe to Commandments 1 thru 10 -- which says "thou shalt not criticize any other libertarian." I think that's not only irresponsible, it undermines the oft cited libertaran assertion that they are an independent and intellectually consistent political movement.

I suppose it might be unseemly to praise one's own magazine, but I am proud to be associated with a publication responsible for David Frum's magnificent and necessary essay. I've never paid much attention to the paleocons, to be honest. I find the interest many of them have in traditional forms of Christianity to be appealing at some level, and I share too their concern over the loss of certain aspects of traditional culture, particularly in light of the role the free market plays in exacerbating and accelerating this destructive dynamic.

Since 9/11, however, I've been increasingly disturbed by anti-American and racialist rhetoric emanating from the paleos. I suppose it may have been there all along, but not paying close attention to them, I never saw it. Not long after the 9/11 attacks, I investigated what I came to believe were credible reports that paleocon students at a conservative Catholic college were going around saying the terrorist assaults were a good thing, because wicked America deserved it -- and that there were professors at this college encouraging students, from a rightist perspective, to see the American founding as illegitimate. I found it hard to believe that there were actually people on the Right saying these kinds of things, but as Frum details, this vile sentiment is now something some leading paleocon writers are willing to say publicly. I met a traditionalist Catholic at a party who, upon learning that I worked for NR, said cheerily, "Well, I'm anti-American." He himself was born and raised in America, a country which, for all its problems, is still a land where the Catholic faith is practiced to a degree no longer known in the European countries he and his sort revere. I've heard some of this same crowd, who have been untiring in their declaration that Pope John Paul II has been a disaster for the Church, now talking of the Holy Father as a prophet because the pontiff has set himself against America in the cause of war on Iraq.

I am in no way a "my country, right or wrong" man, but neither do I understand irrational hatred of this country, one's native land, and its institutions as a virtue, particularly a conservative virtue. And Jew-hatred is a sin and a disgrace. National Review has acted in the past to rescue conservatism from this lot, and has done so again.

While we're still in a free-fire zone, let me unload another peeve. Time and again, Libertarians demand to be taken seriously as an independent and coherent political movement distinct from "the Right." As I've written -- some would say exhaustively -- I don't buy that. Still, reasonable people may differ. But I have to say I think it is galling that Reason and to a certain extent the Cato Institute have taken little to no effort to police their own -- allegedly independent and consistent -- political movements. Never mind the Libertarian Party which is little more than a Star Trek convention without the laughs. Look instead to the Von Mises worshipping Rockwellians who claim to speak for libertarians everywhere. It seems elemental to me that if you want to have your movement taken seriously, you must first argue and debate with those who claim to speak for you. National Review has long recognized its obligations in this regard, tackling head-on fellow conservatives who would have conservatism stand for something it should not. In the past William F. Buckley made painful choices in his efforts to police the conservative movement for bad ideas he did not want to be associated with. Meanwhile, libertarians internalize an ideological imperative against "judging others" to the point they tolerate libertarian "spokesmen" who sully their ideas and their "movement."

You see Kathryn, that's a sign of our monumental growth. Only recently arrived readers wouldn't know what NRODT stands for. Delighted to have the newbies. But maybe this means I should do another NRO-G-File FAQ column.

Derb - I hear ya. But it might be fun to come up with the X Canons of NR Conservatism a la Russel Kirk's 6 Canons. I'd be curious to know what everybody agrees on. We could also do something similar with NRO. Here we might have room to include certain general sentiments perhaps inappropriate to NR. Such as "An abiding allegiance to liquors hailing from the lands of Derb's forebears." Although, I'm partial to Irish Whiskey, so even that may be a problem.

I fixed the Delta Force link below.

When the Vatican says that those responsible for war will be judged by God and history, that's not really news is it? I mean that's also true of those who advocate peace at all costs too, right? And it's true of people who don't care either way as well. I mean nobody gets a free pass in the whole judged by God department. Or am I missing something?

Now that the decision's been made to use force, the Left-Right/should we-shouldn't we stuff is over. Now it's just one articulate former Army, Navy, Airforce or Marine officer explaining how the war will be fought and -- God willing -- won. We don't see an anti-war activist come on to declare "Wolf, that's simply not the best way to navigate through a mine field."

A reader offers an alternative:

How unoriginal. A rational conservative would come up with "Jonah-tional Review". Cheers!

We disagree on immigration, no doubt. But I do agree with you that fringe groups can offer pearls amidst the swill when it comes to ideas. And, obviously, I don't disagree with paleos on everything. But, when it comes to immigration I think there's something important that needs to be added. Ramesh Ponnuru, for example, has written with great intelligence in favor of a more restrictionist immigration policy. Rather than greet Ramesh's efforts as good news and opportunity to build a pragmatic consensus etc, they respond with sophomoric taunts about his ethnicity and suggest that anybody who disagrees with them "isn't serious" and is part of the problem. Even on immigration, even if I disagree with you, I don't see that they offer much by way of new "ideas." They offer a sentiment, a pang, a grievance and when serious people try to translate that pang into policy they reject it out of hand in the name of purity -- purity of politics and purity of ethnicity since Ramesh (born in Kansas) has committed the sin of having Indian immigrants in his family tree.

Pretty cool. Delta Force commandos on a mission to track down Saddam and his sons.

David Frum delivers a devastating broadside against the so-called paleoconservatives in the upcoming issue of National Review [No, link yet]. I must say I am torn about it though. In general National Review has followed a policy of ignoring the fever swamps which claim to be to our right and I am loath to give these folks even a thimble of satisfaction. They pound on their high chairs and shout nasty curses and think they are great thinkers if anybody pays attention. On the other hand, partly because of the levelling effect of the web, this coalition of cranks and malcontents (with a few decent but mislead types as well) has gained a smattering of influence. And, because Pat Buchanan retains credibility with many for his past accomplishments and his eloquence, some paleo ideas leak like contaminated water from below into mainstream debates. And, sometimes bad arguments must be fought with good ones rather than ignored.

Also, I should point out that I am also a bit envious. David Frum is undoubtedly more qualified to lead this charge than I, but as I feel I have a personal stake in this, I hate it when I feel like others are making my fight for me. Of course, this is larger than me, but the paleos have been goading and mocking me for so long and with such intensity I sometimes expect to find Lew Rockwell sitting outside my house in a gray Buick wearing a trench coat. I have had several email exhanges with several Lewrockwell and VDare authors and scores of their readers. My contempt, with a few exceptions for individuals who've mistakenly aligned themselves with these people, is total. With a sophomoric joy one usually finds with skinhead wannabes just smart enough to be dangerous, they call National Review, "Goldberg's Review" -- something they would never do were my last name O'Mally but my politics the same. They talk about preserving the genetic stock of America, they blame their shabby careers on Jews they've never met, they compare Lincoln to Hitler and America to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. And the misguided few who don't write such things, have no problem associating themselves with those who do. They've made their bed as far as I'm concerned.

I do not know how long the window on the "let's ignore them" policy will be, or should be, open. But let me take this brief intermission to salute David on a job well done and the editors of National Review for deciding that the job must be done. And hopefully this sad crowd will continue to scoot themselves ever deeper into the dustbin of history where they belong.

I have been burned by Debka before. I don't think they're bogus or illegitimate by any means, but they aren't 100% reliable either. Nevertheless, that report they're floating that Tariq Azziz has been captured by Kurdish forces while trying to flee would be pretty cool if it turns out to be true.

My wife and I have been having an ongoing argument about how bad -- or good -- a role irony and to a lesser extent cynicism play in our culture. She thinks ironic mocking and winking is bad because it erodes our allegiances to the important and permanent things. I take a kinder view to ironic detachment and, at times, cynicism because the most earnest people in American politics and culture tend to be wrong on the important issues. It's the PC crowd which hates irony because it undermines their attempts to foster a goody-goody enthusiasm for the causes they choose and the arguments they want. Dissenters and mockers are not welcome. In my view, without cynicism and irony, these guys would win the culture war and America would be run by politically correct brown shirts from Up With People who'd beat -- albeit with nerf bats (they'd probably call them "happy sticks") -- anyone who wanted to spend the day on the couch drinking beer. "Turn that frown upside down, mister!"

Anyway, this argument went by the wayside after September 11 because, for once, there was something to be truly and legitimately earnest about. But reading that execrable Courtland Milloy column reminded me of this argument. He writes:

Peta Lindsay is one of those people who gives me hope that all is not lost in America. It's not just that she refuses to be duped by the Bush administration. Even more inspiring is her ability, at age 18, to help others understand just how much manipulation, hypocrisy and dishonesty has gone into making war with Iraq appear necessary.

And...

Lindsay, a freshman at Howard University, is national student coordinator for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, or ANSWER, an international coalition of antiwar groups. The organization was formed Sept. 14, 2001, to challenge the warmongering and the racial and religious profiling that emerged after 9/11. Lindsay, who was a 17-year-old senior at the District's School Without Walls at the time, joined the next day.

Now, in a world without cynicism, skepticism or irony we'd have to take this text at face value. Those who pointed out, for example, that the amount of racial and religious profiling taking place in the 72 hours after September 11, was hardly the sort of thing to arouse an "international coalition's" ire -- unless of course that "international coalition" was actually cynically exploiting the tragedy for its own purposes -- would be ridiculed as "meanies" by the sincere forces of anti-irony. Those of us who noticed that ANSWER is nothing more than a potemkin storefront for a loose cabal of America-hating Stalinists and weirdos, would be poo-pooed by those demanding niceness from everyone. And those of us who suggested that Courtland Milloy is a sucker of world-historic proportions for writing this drivel without a scintilla of skepticism would be beat about the head and neck with happy sticks.

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

I posted this late last night, but I thought I should post it again, because people might miss it. And I've got a sense it'll catch on:

This takes a while -- and can be a little painful -- but it's really worth listening to.

This takes a while -- and can be a little painful -- but it's really worth listening to.

Don't forget to tell readers and subscribers (although that should be redundant) that they can do something right now to support our friends. Virtually every nation in the coalition has embassy websites. It only takes a few second to dash off a note of thanks to our allies. It may seem a small thing, but it feels good, and it can only help give positive reinforcement. And it's the right thing to do.

Over on Touchstone's blog, senior editor David Mills, an orthodox Catholic, does a splendid job of putting into perspective the absurd comments from the Romanian Catholic archbishop, which I blogged on earlier, and outrageous remarks made by Archbishop Renato Martino of the Vatican yesterday, in which (among other risible statements) he compared President Bush to Pharaoh, one of the archvillains of the Bible.

Writes Mills: "This is what I think the various bishops, archbishops, and cardinals, with all their windy statements about 'peace,' are doing to the average Catholic. (And other religious leaders are doing to their people.) They are teaching him to ignore them, even when they speak the word of the Lord.

"By speaking as they have done, they have made it harder for their sons to listen to them with the trust and confidence sons ought to have for their fathers. And so they are partly responsible when the sons do what the fathers tell them not to."

The guy with the tractor is distraught because he received a John Deere letter!

Okay I sorta got that from a reader, but if you saw some of the deliberately awful puns I had to wade through you'd give me some credit.

Read this and let the ground-shaking stupidity sink in. Let the fact that many respected people in America and the larger "international community" wanted to put the decision of whether the US should or shouldn't go to war into the hands of this man:

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix said on Tuesday he doubted Iraq (news - web sites) would use chemical or biological weapons in a war with a U.S.-led coalition because world opinion would turn against Baghdad if such weapons were used.

Here are the relevant quotes:

"I think it is unlikely they will do that because I think world public opinion, which they study quite a lot, is in large measure feeling that going to war is too early, Blix said. "So there is a fair amount of skepticism about armed action."

"That skepticism would turn immediately around, if they used chemical weapons or biological weapons," he said. "My guess is they would not."

If we need to give this the piñata treatment, we can. But I think it speaks for itself.

Call Amnesty International! Human Rights Watch! The ASPCA! These people are getting me soapy! I've been denied my God-given right to smell like the great outdoors! Or, as you people know the odor, wet socks! This outgrageous. I'll be in the house where the barks are coming out in Morse code for T-O-R-T-U-R-E!

Tim Graham of the Media Research Center reminds me that Howie Kurtz certainly hasn't escaped their ire, making the case that he's a pro-conservative pundit even harder to swallow.

From a reader with the subject header "Fratisfaction":

Dear Jonah,

Many of us thought of you as one of our brothers while undergraduates at Sewanee--we circulated your columns so often during our meetings. Now that I'm a conservative pursuing post-graduate work, I get the "frat guy" swipe fairly often. Some folks just can't accept that you can be intelligent, smooth with the ladies, AND funnel cheap gin.

Please accept honorary membership.

But I never, ever, funnel gin of any kind. Gin is my evil booze. I have a pavlovian aversion to it. I can only now, more than a decade after the troubles, stomach Tanqueray and tonics. But cheap gin? Never. But that's a different story.

Can't think of joke to make from phrase "tractor standoff" .... processors down.... must try harder.

To further confuse the issue, St. Patrick is considered a saint by the Eastern Orthodox churches. It makes perfect since, inasmuch as he lived and died before the Great Schism. All saints considered to be so by the Roman church prior to 1054 are also saints in Orthodoxy.

UPDATE: I was mistaken. I am now being informed that this isn't strictly true, that many, but not all, Western saints from the pre-schism days are venerated by the East. St. Augustine is a notable example; the East views him as a holy man, but not a saint, owing to what Orthodoxy holds to be certain theological errors.

Mickey Signorile gets his panties in a bunch over Howard Kurtz. Lord knows I'm not one to whine too much about name calling, but I do try to attach some logic or rationale, unpersuasive though they may be, to my barbs. Time and again this joker just throws the stuff around like a drunk buffoon who won't settle down about the fact the world's against him (this is hardly the first time Mickey's mentioned me, by the way; I think he's a little obsessed.). Anyway, the relevant passage:

It’s certainly true that Kurtz, among the most influential pundits in America, hardly ever comes under scrutiny. We often see blistering criticisms from right-leaning commentators and journalists about Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd, or, from those on the left, about Coulter and Andrew Sullivan. But hardly anyone ever criticizes Howard Kurtz, even though, as Alterman shows, Kurtz is clearly partisan. Indeed, Kurtz often promotes a conservative agenda, has given the Bush administration a free ride and regularly showcases as "mainstream" such gasbags as Rush Limbaugh and National Review’s idiotic frat boy, Jonah Goldberg.

Just for the record, I've criticized Kurtz. But anybody who knows the guy or follows his writing knows this is hysterical nonsense. Kurtz may be partisan or he may not be, I have no idea because the one thing he isn't is "clearly partisan." As for me, I never belonged to a fraternity, but even idiots know you're not supposed to call them frats.

28 Days!?!!? Please. please say that was a joke. The corner will dissolve before the worlds eyes into a Star Trek/Church scandal/Bay Watch versus Fox News mess. It will be the electronic equivalent of a frat house bedroom after a long weekend, covered with cyber beer cans, e-underwear, and virtual pizza piled and molding on Jonah's couch. I was prepared emotionally for the war, but not for this.

This isn't a typo on Kathryn's part in her "BTW" post. Rather, it is a little-understood holiday celebrated by the Orions (the greenskinned aliens from the original Trek. Think of the spicey green gal. You geeks know who I'm talkin' 'bout. Rowr.). On your Borthday you get all of the borth you can eat -- an intoxicating goo similar to 80 proof fat free yogurt. Shatner has a Borthday in part because part of the ritual involves spoken word poetry in esperanto.

What's that nurse? Oh, I've got to go. It's time for my red pill.

Dear Jonah,

Greetings from Peace Corps Cameroon! Someone State-side sent me your column (which I read religiously on NRO back in the US -alas now I only see the Internet about twice a month from my provincial capital). Anyway, I would like to say for the record that most people are not drinking their urine here, but instead copious quantities of urine-like tasting palm wine and millet beer. No offense taken, just wanted to clear-up the confusion.

cheers,
[Name withheld]
Peace Corps Volunteer
Foumbot, Cameroon

Bill Clinton in the Guardian today:

“After 150,000 US forces were deployed to the Gulf, they [France, Germany etc] concluded the US was not willing to give inspections a chance anyway. The problem with their position is that only the threat of force from the US and the UK got inspectors back into Iraq in the first place. Without a credible threat of force, Saddam will not disarm.”

Bill Clinton before a bunch of Upper-East Side liberals last week:

"the White House sent 150,000 troops to the gulf, which convinced everybody we weren't serious about UN inspections. That's how we got into this political mess.”

NRO and the Corner will, once again, step up to the plate in its coverage of the war. As we have during every other major news event over the last few years, we will do our very, very best to provide the sort of 24/7 coverage and commentary loyal NRO readers have come to expect. This is especially easy for me to say, because Kathryn & Co. will be doing most of the hard work to make this possible, while I will be basking in the reflected glory.

Stanley's post reminded me of a point I've been meaning to bring up for a while. Many Arab anti-Semites like to say "I can't be anti-Semitic, I am a Semite!" This is, of course, an ignorant dodge. The word "anti-Semitism" was coined by Wilhelm Marr in Germany in 1879 because the common word for Jew-hatred, Judenhass, had gone out of style. The only major population of "semites" in Germany at the time were, of course, Jews and Marr hated them. Anyway, because the word is a dodge, many Jew-haters in the US get to play silly games with it too.

But the opposition to this war by the anti-Semites simply underscores how they really are Jew-haters. After all, a real anti-Semite should love this war because Arabs are, in fact, Semites too. In this sense the US is simply hunting where the ducks are. Yet even at this level these guys are hypocrites, because its not Semites they dislike, it's just the Hebrew ones. Just a thought.

JANET RENO SAYS that you don't deal with a crazed, weapon-accumulating, charismatic leader by sending in tanks. Sorry -- I'm suffering an irony overload right now.

As readers of NRO know, there are numerous writers around here who are deeply skeptical of the notion that violence never solved anything. Violence ended the Holocaust and slavery. Police carry guns because sometimes they run into problems which require a violent solution. Etc.

Well, as war looms, I think it makes sense that we all, readers and writers alike, keep an eye out for problems being solved by the mature and moral application of force. For example, diplomacy couldn't win the cooperation of the Turks, but lo and behold, American commitment to violence did the trick. Or, for those who believe that improvement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict must come before anything else, you might want to note that the Palestinian parliament rebuffed Yasir Arafat yesterday. Arafat desperately wants to retain his dictatorial control of the Palestinian Authority. But he could not win support from the parliament for his gambit to diminish the power of a new prime minister (who is a longtime critic of Palestinian terrorism). How could this burgeoning quasi democratic reform happen? After all, it's taking place against the backdrop of Ariel Sharon's hardline policies and, perhaps more important, as the armed might of the United States is asserting itself in the region. Perhaps the reformers feels that history is, for once, on their side.

Anyway, even if you disagree with these interpretations, I think we should all be on the lookout for successes where "diplomacy fails" and we give war a chance. Yes, war has unitended consequences, but that doesn't mean they're all bad consequences.

I'm hoping this guy will bring me Uday Hussein's Kegerator:

JG,

Thanks for the 17 March G-File! I am an American soldier with the Army's 4th Infantry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, and I will be going into harm's way soon.

I am amazed how the anti-war people always say that THEY need to protect service members from war. What a crock! We're the ones doing the fighting and dying, and they talk about saving us, wrapping themselves in the "sons and daughters of America" rhetoric.

Trust me on this point: close to 99% of the soldiers I work with want to go to war with Saddam. Our morale is high. The only thing diminishing our morale is having been kept on the leash for these last 2-3 months. We want to kick his ass so that there will be no future "9/11s." As a New York City native, I took that attack very personally.

Thanks again for your support. I'll try to bring you back a souvenir.

The President's motivation is perfectly plain and perfectly rational: he
doesn't want to lose a city. Taking out SH doesn't eliminate the
possibility of this happening, but it sure reduces it.

My personal guess is that GWB wants to roll up all these nuke and
incipient-nuke dictatorships. (I heard a story that at a Cabinet meeting
after the Taliban fell, he turned to Condi Rice and asked: "Who's next?")
After Iraq, massive pressure on Iran would be logical--or some sort of
ultimatum to them, followed by a pre-emptive strike. Then North Korea,
which will be tricky & involve real diplomacy, with some nonzero probability
of war (I'd say 30 percent).

We simply can't let these nutso states get nukes, or in NK's case keep them.
We have to stop it, or else face losing a city or two. That's the lesson of
9/11. GWB is on the case. Of course he might fail--any human enterprise
might fail. He'd be violating his oath of office if he didn't try, though.

I like this man and I support what he's doing. Let's roll.

Oh, wait. I was watching something else.

That was a tremendous speech. It wasn't a tremendous piece of rhetoric, but this grave moment doesn't call for it. The president was plainspoken, stern and unrelenting. He laid the case out for the war as cleanly as he could. Here are the notes I took:

1) "Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again, because we are not dealing with peaceful men." Time for the illusions about human evil to end.

2) "Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course for safety. ... This danger will be removed." America is not going to sit around waiting to be hit again; we're going to do something about it.

3) "This is not a question of authority. This is a question of will." This is not an illegal war. The two UN Security Council resolutions authorizing the Gulf War are still in effect, and Saddam Hussein has clearly violated Resolution 1441.

4) France, Germany, Russia and others (he named none of these countries) are cowards. America and her allies are not. "These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. ... The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours."

5) America is coming not as the conqueror of the Iraqi people, but as their liberator.

6) The American homeland may face terrorist attacks because of the coming conflict. Be prepared.

7) Given the realities of the world we live in today, there is more risk in not acting against tyrants like Saddam than in acting. The president recalled the 9/11 surprise attacks, and said that given the existence of WMDs, "a policy of appeasement can bring forth a destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth." America's enemies today don't play by the old rules. "Responding to those enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense; it is suicide." (I hope the Pope was listening to that.)

It can't be clearer than that. Resolved: this is a just war, a necessary war, and a war that will be led by a commander-in-chief we can believe in.

I don't know that it was a perfect speech, but it's hard to think of how Bush could be expected to do better. I think the direct appeal to the Iraqi people and military will be the most effective part -- for the American people. It reinforced the the non-cowboy image and it underlined that Bush isn't looking to kill anybody needlessly. I think as a matter of substance, it's probably a mistake to limit the ultimatum to solely Saddam and his sons. However, limiting it to just three men, underscores how this is a war to get rid of a few selfish and brutal men.

Last one for a while:

Jonah,
I am getting sick and tired of hearing the same thing as you. "What would you say to the men and women risking your lives for a war you wanted?" We joined the military of our own free will. Frankly, if you don't want to be put in harms way or you have moral objections to being in war or this military, you can get out.
Chances are those people asking that question could give a rats ass about
those in the military. They probably loathe members of the military and think we are automatons incapable of reasoning or understanding much more
than how to clean a toilet. I think the question reveals more about the person who asked it. The question possesses a condescending tone, like one a question or statement you make about someone who is incapable of defending
themselves, e.g. dumb/injured animal, child, etc. "Think about the children!!!" Except it's "Think about the service men and women!!!" For Pete's be quiet and let us do the job we signed up to do. Just as Bill Bennett said in his recent column "Why we must fight". We are the rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression. That is who we are and it is our honor. Thanks for your appreciation and support.

Sir,
I just finished your column "The Last Prewar G-File". While I'm not comfortable speaking for the entire Armed Forces I do feel that I can speak for those I work with directly.

"To the brave men and women who've voluntarily decided to defend the United States of America and risk their lives in the process, I say in all sincerity: Thank you, you make me proud and I am grateful. Thank you, a thousand times, thank you."

You're welcome. Thank you for acknowledging us and it is our honor to serve.

"I'm saddened," Daschle, D-South Dakota, said in a speech to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "Saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country. But we will work, and we will do all we can to get through this crisis like we've gotten through so many."

Ramesh: Welch makes perfectly legitimate points and I agree that the dead children number was always -- in all likelihood -- outrageously inflated. But let me offer a couple objections.

First, so what if UNICEF never used the word "containment"? Containment is a catchall for, among other things, the no-fly-zones, sanctions, the oil-for-food program etc. In fact, the word "containment" has only really come into wide usage in the last few months, from what I can tell, as anti-war types have discovered they can sound tough by adopting the formerly hawkish position viz a viz Iraq and the Soviets. As you well know, none of these people favored "containment" or sanctions prior to 9/11.

Second, when Welch headlines his piece "When the Hawks Co-Opt the Doves Bullsh*t Math" I think he and you miss the reason so many hawks liked Mead's piece. Or, not wanting to speak for my fellow raptors, why I liked the piece. Mead argues the case for war on the doves own terms, using the doves own "facts" and logic. Much like Jonathan Chait's excellent TNR piece making the liberal case for war, I enjoy it whenever conservatives win the argument on our terms and their terms.

The British poet Philip Larkin (1922-1985) wrote a poem called "Myxomatosis," which was the name of an animal disease deliberately introduced by British scientists to cull the rabbit population. The poem is written in the voice of a man (Death) approaching a fevered, dying and unaware rabbit, to put it out of its misery.

Caught in the centre of a soundless field
While hot inexplicable hours go by
What trap is this? Where were its teeth concealed?
You seem to ask.
I make a sharp reply,

Then clean my stick. I'm glad I can't explain
Just in what jaws you were to suppurate
You may have thought things would come right again
If you could only keep quite still and wait.

This poem, its last two lines in particular, make me think of all the hopeful people in Europe and North America who believe that the deadly scourge of Islamofascism armed with weapons of mass destruction can be fended off without having to fight.

Under the subject header "Thanks":

For calling my Dad and I 'the best' (as in "Our best died in Korea and Vietnam because of containment."), though obviously Dad and I didn't die. But you reveal yourself there... 'they' don't believe 'Our best' died there. Just the chumps and ignorant crackers and exploited minorities - and neanderthals like Dad and I who were their officers. The true 'best' avoided the war.

From a reader in the military:

As you know, the whole "chicken hawk" thing is BS. Just a way for the champions of "free speech" to stifle debate. I have a simple answer for anybody trying the chicken hawk routine -- "OK, fine, then you can never discuss the economy or taxes if you haven't tried to start a business".

On the whole, I'd still rather have lunch with Rush than John Kerry.

Apparently those 40 or so soldiers will stay in the Gulf.

The issue of 30 Canadian troops is far more serious than you might think.How can the US allow Canadian officers and troops train with their military if they might disappear? How can our forces be interoperable if we are unreliable? Will NORAD survive, or will the US defend itself?
There has been a major break between these two countries. While BUsh has decided to be an active player in the world, Chretien has shrugged and nitpicked. Whenever the US asks something of Canada, like tightening continental border security, the PM doesn't even give them an answer, which is worse than saying no. Maybe you can trade us to Europe for Britain.
Canada and the EU deserve each other.

Rush transcript:

And significantly, Mr. Speaker, in all the discussions in the Security Council and outside, no one -- no one -- has claimed that Iraq is in full compliance with the obligations placed upon it.

Given this, it was my belief up to about a week ago that we were close to achieving the consensus which we sought on the further resolution. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, one country then ensured that Security Council could not act.

President Chirac's unequivocable announcement Monday last that France would veto a second resolution containing this or any ultimatum whatever the circumstances inevitably created a sense of paralysis in our negotiations. And I deeply regret that France has thereby put to a Security Council consensus beyond reach.

They're both getting bombed on St. Patrick's Day.

Is laying it all out for the House of Commons right now. Turn on your CNN or Fox.

While it would have been nice if the Turks were behind us from the get-go, it's nice to see that when the Security Council hits the fan, some countries get serious and come to our aid. They may be a day late and a lira short, but better late than never too.

APNewsAlert ANKARA, Turkey _ Top Turkish leaders say government will urgently take action toward allowing in U.S. troops.

No link yet.

According to the people who are setting up the webcam
there.

A priceless article in The Christian Science Monitor on the human shields in Iraq who are having a hard time grasping that a fascist totalitarian regime isn't brimming with peace, love and understanding:

But there is no shortage of reminders of how the image of the human shields - to the chagrin of many of them - has been tied to that of Hussein. During a friendly soccer match on Saturday, at which shields wearing boots and tennis shoes tied 4-4 with a well-cleated Iraqi squad, Belgian human shield Jean-Michel Houplina released a white dove to "symbolize peace in every man's heart, all over the world."

But when child cadets dressed in military fatigues began a common chant at half-time - "Yes, yes, our heart and soul for you, Saddam" - Mr. Houplina went to the group and implored: "Please don't sing that!"

"When you hear the chanting, that just made me think: 'That's it, I'm going. I'm not here for this,'" says Sands. "The tension and dilemma of it is horrible - we've been used by both sides.".....

....The experience has been an eye-opener for many Westerners here, unfamiliar with Iraq's authoritarian regime. "A lot of shields were thinking it was black and white, and that we were on the side of good like Che Guevara," adds Sands. "But it's not black and white at all."

I just saw on Fox that Saddam has re-issued his demand that America disarm itself of its weapons of mass destruction. I hope he free-lanced that. I'd hate to hear that this idea worked its way up through the Iraqi bureaucracy.

A reader cuts to the heart of the issue:

The G-File Teaser says "The Last Pre-War G-File"

Does this mean if we put off the war, Jonah will shut his pie hole for a few weeks? I can support France... or I can listen to Jonah... Aaargh! Must...Find....Solomanic... Solution...

I've noticed, with regret, that it has become impossible to discuss the war with friends who oppose it. Mind you, I live in New York City, so I suppose it's possible that people who are against the war are having similar problems offering their views in Red America. A liberal neighbor of mine stopped his car in the middle of the street the other day when he saw me on the sidewalk, and shouted out, "Your president is dragging us into a war nobody wants!" An old friend down South who is very liberal, and who denounced me in a scathing letter when I told her I voted for Bush (I then had to "confess" that I worked for NR), seems to have cut me off after a letter of months ago in which I said I supported war with Iraq. Haven't heard a word from her since. This past February was the first birthday of mine in 22 years on which she hasn't sent me a card.

Much more difficult for me to deal with are many of my anti-war conservative friends, with whom I have much more in common, and around whom I spend vastly more time. I've had no luck discussing things with them. I do believe there is a coherent conservative case to be made against war with Iraq, but in my experience, things from their side quickly degenerate into hot-tempered, paranoid expectorating about -- you guessed it -- the Jews. And once it goes that far, it's game over. No rational discussion is possible.

And this is before the shooting has even started! I wonder if friendships are going to be a casualty of this war. Do you?

Got this great e-mail just now from Texas reader Leif Olson:

Went to the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo last night to watch Alabama (I think the wife went to watch the cowboys, but I can't be sure). The two loudest cheers of the night:

The loudest boos? Between the parade and Alabama, the big monitors hanging over the stadium showed an ad for "Country Weekly" magazine. The ad consisted of old covers of the magazine running across the screen.
When an old Dixie Chicks shot came on the monitor, I thought the jeering was going to take the roof off. I don't know if you've ever heard 60,000 people boo at once, but it's quite striking.

Former Senator Patrick Moynihan is in critical condition in a Washington DC hospital.

Sorry, for my inattention to the Corner during these momentous goings-on. I got stuck with single-parent duty this morning. Hard to write a column and post to the Corner and watch the news and explain to lil' Lucy that crying and explosive pants are not the sort of show of strength all Americans need to make right now.

Diplomacy has failed. Security Council now the answer to a trivia question. Bush to speak tonight.

It gets worse. Saramago ‘distinguished’ himself last year by drawing parallels between the plight of the Palestinians and Auschwitz.

(Thanks to the reader who pointed this out)

Thanks to the reader who sent me this story with its enjoyable last sentence (italics added):

"Proceeds will go to the Stop the War Coalition and the Campaign against Nuclear Disarmament."

Editor of the London Spectator and Tory MP, Boris Johnson makes an unexpected appearance on the op-ed page of today’s New York Times. Despite the comments about Grenada, the piece makes interesting reading, not least for its spirited defense of the word ‘chips’ as an alternative to the ridiculous ‘freedom fries’ and this extract is too good not to repeat here:

“According to the American secretary of defense, it seems that having the Brits in on the operation is a bit like asking Hugh Grant to tag along in a remake of The Dirty Dozen to give it some jolly old British class; kind of nice, but not essential.”

Ouch.

Today’s New York Times contains a report about an anti-war demonstration in Spain. One of the speakers was Jose Saramago, described by the Times as “the Portuguese writer and Nobel laureate”. That’s a true enough description so far as it goes. However, there’s more to Saramago than his Nobel Prize, as, needless to say, the Times fails to point out.

A hard-line Communist, Saramago played a major role in purging ideologically “unsound” elements from their positions in the Portuguese media at the time that that country seemed set to succumb to a Communist coup.

In his invaluable Intellectuals and Assassins, Stephen Schwartz records the fact that, only hours before he received his Nobel, Saramago spoke at a seminar during the Frankfurt Book Fair. His topic? “Being a Communist Author Today.”

Yet again: two death cults, two standards.

There’s a revealing story in today’s New York Times about an auction (“the Mao sale”) of Chinese communist artwork and other artifacts through Sothebys. Now, there’s no doubt that some of this stuff does have a certain interest, both historical and aesthetic, but I just wonder how the Times would have reacted to a similar sale devoted to the relics of the Nazi era.

Just as a reminder, Communism in China is responsible for the deaths of some 6-10 million people as a result of ‘direct action’ (to use the chilling terminology of The Black Book of Communism), with another 20-40 million perishing in the ideologically-motivated famine that followed Mao’s ‘Great Leap Forward’). To add to the carnage, it is estimated that a further twenty million died in the Great Helmsman's concentration camps.

Communism and Nazism: two death cults that continue, it seems, to be judged by two very different standards.

Here’s an interesting article from today’s Observer. It comes with that newspaper’s predictably liberal slant, but it makes an important, if obvious, point. The moral case for an invasion will be greatly strengthened if the successors to Saddam are democrats rather than strongmen.

Meanwhile, the prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan has written a piece in which he wonders why the Left are ignoring the facts of Baathist terror:

“For the Kurds, weapons of mass destruction are not about dry accounting; they are tools of practical repression. Chemical weapons have been used against us more than 200 times.”

That's worth remembering.

CAIR official arrested in terror-probe. You've got to scroll down to the end for this tidbit: "At the time of his arrest, Khafagi was community affairs director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, based in Washington, D.C."