Wherever you stand on the great British foxhunting controversy (Tony Blair’s government is forcing through legislation to ban it, for motives that owe little to animal welfare but much to class hatred), there’s no doubt that the debate itself has thrown up an entertaining range of characters for the rest of the world to enjoy.

Here’s an interview with one of the principal activists on the pro-hunting side, one Otis Ferry, the youngest master of fox hounds in the country and, incredibly, the son of Roxy Music’s Bryan Ferry (their first two albums were among the greatest ever recorded, but as Kathryn once told me their music was ‘ancient history’, I had better not continue with this digression).

The interview makes for great reading, not least for this description of what happened (initially) to Otis after he stormed the chamber of the House of Commons:

“Instead of being killed, he was tackled to the ground by attendants wearing knickerbockers and tights, then taken off to office of the Serjeant at Arms. “It was actually quite comical as they tried to grapple us with their swords. Afterwards, they were charming and very polite, giving us their chairs. They brought us chicken chow mein and shepherd’s pie to eat, and let us watch the football. It was all very civilised.”

A sense of civility, alas, that is doomed by the times in which we live.

Skydiving?

"The explanation used to be simple: jumpers were crazy! Some psychologists talked of Freudian death wishes while others believed in fear displacement or denying one fear in their lives by directing their attention to another more manageable one. Others theorized that participants in high risk sports were acting out psychopathic fantasies in an attempt to make up for feelings of inadequacy or to demonstrate omnipotence."

or

"Fortunately, in the last 25 years, the shrinks have decided that pursuing a high risk sport is not all that bad... Bruce Ogilvie, professor emeritus of psychology at San Jose State University conducted a study of 293 high-risk competitors including skydivers, race car drivers, fencers and aerobatic pilots in 1973 using psychological batteries and personal interviews. Ogilvie found risk-takers to be success oriented, strongly extroverted, above average in abstract ability and superior in intelligence when compared to the general population. He found these athletes are rarely reckless in their risk taking; their risk-taking is cool and calculated. He estimates that 6% of the athletes compete out of anger or out of deep feelings of inferiority or because they are trying to prove something about themselves. The other 94% are emotionally stable."

I report. You decide.

In a new introduction to the updated edition of this "story of one young American's Vietnam War odyssey," eminent historian Brinkley makes his position on recent campaign maneuvers clear: "A group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, aided by Republican money, formed to challenge Kerry on everything from whether he deserved his first Purple Heart to whether he committed treason when he testified about atrocities in front of J. William Fulbright's Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971. But it was too late. The reality of Kerry's 'Band of Brothers' on the campaign trail . . . had already seared itself on the American imagination. The only question that remained following the Democratic Convention in Boston was whether Kerry's moving Vietnam-era patriotism would help send him to the White House."

From a reader:

Ever just think how the rest of the mainstream media would be acting now if say Foxnews had used obviously forged documents from a Kerry- hating lunatic to run an attack on John Kerry. The laid-back journalistic snipes that CBS has endured and the all but nonexistent calls for Rather's and his producers' firing would be a dim flickering candle next to the supernova intensity of the effort to discredit Foxnews and have anyone remotely connected to the story, including the cameraman working that fateful day fired immediately. god only knows they never would have tolerated Rather's stonewalling and would certainly be making more of his use of "unimpeachable source" now.

Every American now knows that there's something really screwy about George Bush and the National Guard, and they know that John Kerry was not the war hero we thought he was," said Douglas Brinkley, the historian and author of a friendly biography of Mr. Kerry's war years, acknowledging that Mr. Kerry's opponents had succeeded in raising questions about his service.

In between speculating on an October surprise, Teresa Heinz Kerry tells a fundraiser that she was 'embarrassed' to receive the George Bush tax cuts. Ah, I see. Perhaps that is why she has been so reluctant to release her full tax returns.

Oh, the shame of it.

Richard Cohen makes some fair points today. This is not one of them:

The bloggers who were quick to spot the typographical discrepancies in CBS's tainted documents did their job. But it is only a piece of the larger job, which is to report the news. This is what Rather and CBS did -- not well enough, I grant you. But what animated them was good old-fashioned lust for the scoop. Believe me, those of us who have known such lust know it is blind. Rather would have done the same story on Kerry. It as, as Mario Puzo once pointed out in a somewhat different context, nothing personal. Just business.

I have no doubt that lust for a scoop was part of the story, part of the equation, one of the motives. But the motive wasn't simply for a scoop, it was for an anti-Bush scoop. And, frankly, I am flummoxed that Cohen or any of the other journalistic bigwigs circling around Dan or attacking Bush are incapable of admitting this. The race for the scoop and the race to nail Bush are not incompatible theories of the case; they are mutually reinforcing.

EJ Dionne complains about Bush's soft treatment by the press. That's right. He runs through a list of "distortions" and lies that Bush supposedly gets away with. The weird thing: None of them seem that bad or outrageous. Here's his biggest complaint:

At the top of my personal hit parade of Bush Distortions is a statement the president has made over and over, notably during his speech at the Republican National Convention. "If you say the heart and soul of America is found in Hollywood," Bush said to loud cheers, "I'm afraid you are not the candidate of conservative values."

Bush has repeated variations of that sentiment so often that I bet you didn't know that Kerry never said that the heart and soul of America is found in Hollywood.

What Kerry actually said, after a fundraiser in which a group of stars performed on his behalf (and, yes, during which some of them said distasteful things about Bush), was this: "Every performer tonight, in their own way, either verbally or through their music, through their lyrics, have conveyed to you the heart and soul of our country."

And by the way, Kerry didn't even make those comments in Hollywood. The fundraiser was held in New York.

Maybe it's me, but who cares? That was a who's who of Hollywood types -- from whom Kerry raises vast sums of money. The real distortion was that Kerry ever said he was the candidate of conservative values in the first place. His other examples don't stun me either. I'm not saying there isn't a kernel of truth to EJ's complaint, but he surely knows that none of these things are even remotely outside the norm of presidential elections.

Besides, I don't recall any rage from him about the press not sufficiently clarifying the accusation that the Contract with America would destroy All Human Life. Okay that is a distortion too. But some did call it genocide or compare it to the Holocaust. And Clinton et al did say Newt wanted to eradicated Medicare etc etc. And during this campaign how many distortions have flowed forth about Bush "lying," hatching this scheme in Texas etc etc.

New York Times' media bias continues to worsen, even without Howell Raines. Check out today's front page article by Edmund Andrews, titled "Deal in Congress to Keep Tax Cuts, Widening Deficit". You would think the bill was titled the "budget deficit expansion act," as the actual policy enacted -- extending the lower- and middle-income tax cuts from 2001-- is virtually ignored. You have to wade through four paragraphs and two Charles Rangel quotes before Andrews even bothers to tell us which taxes are being cut!

Its funny, I can't recall this obsessive deficitphobia when Congress created a Medicare drug benefit or increased education, health research and foreign aid spending (imagine "Deal in Congress to Hike Education, Widening Deficit.") Who knew that only tax cuts created budget deficits?

My favorite part of the day was in the Rose Garden when the reporters kept asking Bush about how horribly things were going and Bush finally said (paraphrasing here) "because I ask him and talk to him," referring to Allawi, "and I believe him," he said looking right at the reporter. It was great. Similarly, another reporter asked Bush another question about how the conditions in Iraq, he was flustered and said "why don't you ask him" referring again to Allawi, "you have the Prime Minister of Iraq here, why ask me?" Again, great point. You could see that the reporters didn't care a bit about what Allawi had to say about what his firsthand impression of Iraq was, they just wanted to hammer Bush over and over. I don't think they succeeded. It was pretty obvious they were desperate to ignore Allawi and the positive message he was bringing.

Actually, in all seriousness, if either Mrs. Bush or Mrs. Kerry wore this how badly do you think their husbands would lose the election?

Michael: I think one of the original arguments for the Earned Income Credit was that it was an offset to payroll taxes. Conservatives have tended to argue that tax credits, if they should exist at all, should be applied only against income taxes and not against payroll taxes. I can see some arguments on both sides of that question. What I don't get is why conservatives have tried to make this into a huge point of principle.

And now I really will get going.

Russ Meyer, "king of the nudies", dies.

From the Guardian:

"In 1970 Meyer made a rare foray into the Hollywood mainstream when he directed Beyond the Valley of the Dolls for 20th-Century Fox. In later years he would remember this as his career high point. "That's the best film I ever made," he said. "Don't talk to me about art and all that crap. That movie made me a ton of money."

Refreshing.

John Kerry went after President Bush on Social Security today. Here's what his press release says: "In his West Palm Beach town hall meeting, Kerry referenced a new study by Chicago Business School Professor Austan Goolsbee that focuses on Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security. Goolsbee finds that financial institutions, not seniors, stand to gain from Bush’s plan.

"According to the study, the 45 million Americans who count on Social Security will see up to a 45 percent cut in their benefits, while Bush’s biggest backers – the financial services industry – will reap billions as part of the largest windfall in Social Security history."

The study does indeed find that administrative costs would amount to a huge windfall for Wall Street. Proponents of private accounts are sure to argue that Goolsbee's estimate of those costs is too high. But the study says nothing about benefit cuts for current retirees (or even future retirees). Goolsbee tells me he's surprised the campaign is citing him to predict a 45 percent cut for 45 million people. "That's weird," he says. "I don't know how they got that." His paper, he says, didn't deal with benefit levels.

For the record, I am deleting ALL email with this subject header because some annoying people are spamming around letters to folks like me pleading for the libertarian candidate to be allowed in the presidential debates. I think it'd be hilarious to have a libertarian up there and I'm all for it. But if you guys keep sending me this junk I'm going to shred my copy of Our Enemy, The State and revive my support for free urban wireless networks at the taxpayers' expense!

I think this is probably unfair to Sullivan in parts, but the history is interesting. From a reader:

I've long come to regard Sullivan as a total defeatist, but some more ammunition for him if you want:

Churchill presided over numerous military disasters. The Greek campaign in 1941 resulted in so many New Zealanders being captured that the Kiwis became gunshy - and still brame British callousness for their losses.

The fall of Singapore was an unmitigated calamity, so was the surrender of Tobruk in 1942. The raid on Dieppe was also massive fumble for the Allies.

Churchill faced several attempts to break up his government and skillfully put them down.

Churchill did however have one advantage over George W. Bush, at least as far as maintaining unity: the Wehrmacht 20 miles across the English Channel.

Sullivan has got a lot of nerve to throw stones at Bush's leadership. He is demanding a standard of perfection that is unattainable. We've lost less soldiers in Iraq than in one afternoon of WW II fighting, yet Andrew's ready to fly the white flag and throw Bush overboard.

It seems to me Andrew's real hero is Stanley Baldwin, who achieved a huge majority for his party, got on good terms with the opposition - and did nothing to stop the rise of Nazi Germany.

But at least he didn't make any mistakes.

Again...

"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday signed into law what some advocates describe as one of the state's most important public health policies in two decades - a five-year experiment to reduce the spread of AIDS and other diseases among intravenous drug users by making needles and syringes available without a prescription."

A co-worker and I were on that flight from London. We had no idea what the issue was until we got home. The first story from the crew about a half hour before scheduled landing was that weather was forcing a delay which didn’t sound plausible from the forecast I had checked just before departure. Then we break out of the clouds and I couldn't match anything on the ground with what I know about Dulles from living next door for three years. As we crossed the runway threshold I saw a building with a Maine Air National Guard sign, knew it wasn't Dulles, and couldn't understand any reason why we weren't told of this change unless there was a major national security problem underway. Suspicions were reinforced when we were told to stay in our seats and not use cell phones. In due time the captain informed us it was a TSA/FBI issue, and we were going to disembark to go through Customs/Immigration in Bangor, and then back through TSA to get on the airplane. I guess this was the plan to nab the Cat-man. After disembarking, my colleague and I decided to bail on the flight and drive home (Newport, RI) to avoid possible RON (remain overnight) at Dulles. I arrived home sometime after 11 p.m., and my son looked up the news in Google to discover it was Heathrow/United not figuring out that Cat Stevens was on the watch list. I'm thankful that our worst fears were not realized. Though it was a surreal/awkward experience, I can tell you that everyone in Bangor was extremely courteous and helpful, and quite military friendly (bonus points).

From another reader:

The attack on the soldier was disgusting and deserves publicity. But your correspondent's attempt to generalize one attack on one soldier to smear the entire left is wrong and unfair. The article didn't mention any other similar attacks, so, thankfully, this does not appear to be a trend.

The correspondent's logic is as valid as the logic in some of the letters to the editor I sometimes see: "Someone tore down my Kerry (Bush) yeard sign. Bush (Kerry) supporters are all thugs who hate the First Amendment."

I hope they catch the bastard that did this, but this was the act of one criminal, not a political party or movement.

From my Airpower Guy:

Jonah

That incident was no news to me, really. As cadets at the Air Force Academy in 1973, we were told not to stroll the campus in groups of less than 50 at the University of Colorado before/after a USAFA/CU football game there. Yeah, it was 1973, but the Left hasn’t changed a bit. In fact, after the War on Terror kicked off in earnest, they probably had to practice saying, “We support the troops, but…” in front of a mirror to make sure they at least looked sincere.

This is just a taste of things to come…

Two views:

Jonah,

This story illustrates something I have been telling people for awhile now.
For all the Lefts talk of "We support the troops but not the war", what a
good number of them want is a return to the days when spitting on soldiers
in airports and yelling baby killer was considered socially acceptable.
You watch, incidents like these will proliferate as the Left becomes more
desperate. Eventually, their political leadership will be on board as well
albeit more subtly to be sure.

And this one from a guy I suspect came in from a Daily Kos link (given his first email to me), but I don't know that. I asked him if he wanted his email public and he declined:

Honestly Jonah, What did the soldier expect...? Toby Keith is a buffoon, why should anyone expect his fans wouldn't be as equally stupid and violent? By the way, any confirmation that the decorated soldier's Purple Heart was in fact merely one of those cute widdle RNC bandaids? The guy sounds like he couldn't defend himself against a ham sandwich. Good riddance he's not in Iraq trying to protect good ol' American freedom, lest my kids be forced by Osama to speak Arabic. Cheers, Dave

The only bigger clue that Mapes is a goner than this USA Today piece would be if a huge hairy dude with bad teeth and a black hood was standing outside her office sharpening his enormous axe.

A few readers mistakenly criticized me for saying Churchill was Prime Minister during Dunkirk. He was Prime Minister, but he'd only been in office for a couple weeks. Andrew Sullivan makes a different point, noting that Dunkirk wasn't Churchill's failure at all. That's fair. I was basically looking -- hurriedly -- for a symbol of a setback in a just war everyone had heard of. No one would dispute, of course, that there were plenty of setbacks on Churchill's -- and FDR's -- watch.

Sullivan goes on to talk about how Bush divided the country etc etc. in un-Churchillian fashion.

Let's offer two points in Bush's defense on this score. First, the Democrats made the deliberate and cynical decision to make dividing the country a priority. Perhaps not that much -- or not uniformly -- before the 2002 elections. But afterwards, and most especially once the WMDs didn't materialize the entire Democratic leadership decided that Howard Dean and Teddy Kennedy should set the tone of the debate: "lies, lies, lies, Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam." The war was hatched in Texas, it was for Israel, it was for oil, it was for Halliburton, it was for whatever Teddy, Howie and Michael Moore said it was (recall that the chairman of the DNC has fully embraced Michael Moore. This poisonousness even infected the unanimity around 9/11. For example, Howard Dean -- then the Democratic frontrunner -- even floated conspiracy theories about Bush, the Saudis and 9/11. In short, if we are going to take these Churchillian analogies this far, let's also conjure the British -- and American -- tradition of a loyal opposition.

And, second, let's note that this is not a wartime press corps of the sort we had in WWII. The hostility of the media to Bush in the last two years has been staggering. Recall the press conference where all the reporters could ask about was whether or not Bush could admit mistakes? Or how the New York Times almost instantly declared both Afghanistan and Iraq quagmires (see your own "Von Hoffman Awards" Andrew). Sure, I think Bush could have and should have acknowledged more mistakes -- as a tactical matter at minimum. But if you look at the environment he's operating in -- only partially his creation and largely his inheritance -- you can find all sorts of other players who did not want to be united. If the charge is that a better leader could have overcome these obstacles, ok. But that's purely hypothetical. If the charge is that he didn't try, I think that's grossly unfair. The sad fact, I think, is that disunity has been institutionalized in 21st century America. But that's a subject for a column some day.

Well, K-Lo, the full name is "The Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo," so it's not just a bunch of kids with their sows. Have an NRO gathering there. You'll probably like all the cowboys strutting around in their tight Wranglers. I know my wife does.

From a reader:

Hello,

I'm a big fan. This is your first really MAJOR blooper I've noticed:

"2. The failure to find WMDs is the material evidence (or lack thereof)
necessary to make this the worst intelligence blunder since Pearl Harbor."

You should really read more about the history of WMD intelligence against
totalitarian regimes. It's ALWAYS BEEN WRONG. There's nothing new about
this. (And isn't 9/11 a worse intellligence failure? But I digress.)

1. Against Stalin, the CIA estimate was off by five years --- too late.
2. In India and Pakistan, the CIA not only underestimated their
capabilities, but also totally overlooked actual Indian preparations to
explode their first bomb.
3. In North Korea, Clinton's CIA consistently underestimated their readiness
to go nuclear;
4. The CIA was apparently unaware of the AQ Khan network which spread nuke
technology to North Korea and Iran. (Khan worked for a Dutch nuclear
research institute and apparently just walked off with blueprints for
centrigures). The Dutch are apparently as idiotic on weapons security as we
are in Los Alamos.

We know it's nearly impossible to uncover top secrets in totalitarian
countries. For that reason I'm surprised that YOU are surprised that we
were wrong about Saddam's WMDs. You might recall that Saddam's own frontline
officers expected OTHER units to have WMDs. It was always the next unit that
was supposed to have them. Saddam either lied to his troops, or his WMD
scientists lied to him, or both. Just like the Soviet Union, remember?

The Daily Kos seems to think I'm an idiot for relishing the news that Americans are teaching Iraqi kids to play baseball. It's often a good sign that someone's preaching to their choir when they think your position is self-evidently wrong (which, of course, it can be). But in this case I don't get it. Apparently I shouldn't be jazzed about American soldiers teaching kids to play baseball because things can go wrong like they did in Beirut. I think that's an absurd "argument." I use quotation marks because it strikes me more as a brain burp or something.

Of course things can go wrong. How does that make doing good by some Iraqi kids bad? I suppose I could've ended my post noting that a car bomb might kill all off the kids and GIs. But, hey, I guess I'm just a rose-colored glasses kind of guy.

Some folks at the Democratic Underground are planning on leaving the country. Apparently Rather's capitulation was too much. I particularly like the poster #7 who thinks staying behind would make him/her akin to a Jew left behind in Nazi Germany.

This is the sort of news I love to hear from Iraq:

ALTUN KUPRI, Iraq – Minus the sound of Muslim prayer on a loud speaker from a nearby Mosque, the Iraqi baseball game played here on Sept. 15 was reminiscent of a Little League game back in the states.

Even though baseball games are commonly witnessed throughout America, it was a very rare sight in this soccer-crazed country.

More than 20 Iraqi youth, dressed in complete baseball uniforms, made history when they played in the five-inning baseball game. Because there are no previous records of an official baseball game played during or after Saddam Hussein’s regime, the Altun Kupri youth played the country’s first one in decades.

“Outlaw” Soldiers of Company C, Task Force 2-11 Field Artillery put the game together for the Iraqi youth. All of the coaches and umpires were Outlaws or their interpreters who helped guide the youth in the game.

Throughout the game, there were visual signs that Iraq was still a soccer-dominated country as some of the fielders stopped ground balls with their feet instead of gloves. There was even frustration seen among the faces of players learning the new sport.....

Dan Rather won't let go. Here he is in today's Chicago Tribune:

"Do I think they're forged? No," Rather said. "But it's not good enough to use the documents on the air if we can't vouch for them, and we can't vouch for them."

Okay I lied. I like this email:

Ok, now I am mad. Jonah, being from Oklahoma I am not unique in being part American Indian (not native American mind you) and I am very tired of the worn out pathos such as found in the statement “…Americans bent on taking their territory from them and in the process committed genocide-…“. American Indians did not understand the concept of owning land. They took what they wanted when they were able, knowing that it could be taken from them the same way. While there were abuses in both directions, our ancestors conquered this land and subjugated the indigenous people. To quote Spike, “that’s what conquering nations do”. Tell your e-mailer to get over their 21st century feelings of guilt and make this life we have paradise on earth if that is what they long to do and to quit handing out moral “holier-than-thou claptrap.

Last word on this non-debate, from another military guy:

Jonah,

From a military point of view, the WoT is an indian fight. And this idiot is a keen example of why the left is incapable of winning it. There is no room for PC on the modern asymmetrical battlefield. Any talk about worrying what the islamicist will think is horse crap (cavalry term). This country is in very real danger and if we do not succeed in ensuring that the war is fought on ground we choose then the fanatics will bring the war to us. I'd rather look for WMDs in Iraq than find them the hard way in the US. These people are savages and we must steel ourselves as a nation if we hope to survive. The time for wishy-washy, touchy-feely hand wringing has long since passed. OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE. It's war.

Yes, yes, even from just the pics I could feel the magic! Reminds me of pictures of Elvis' '68 Comeback. Same magnetism, same raw sexuality. I almost feel like I'm there with the Derb moving, panther-like around the room. Whoever says we conservatives are stuffy, geeks are going to have to contend with these pics! WOW!

From another reader:

That Army guy's comment was inappropriate- the Indians were not unified and not fighting a religious war, they were fighting an invading force of Europeans and eventually Americans bent on taking their territory from them and in the process committed genocide- we are not trying to seize Iraq or eliminate all Arabs or Muslims in the process. Referring to the extended bloody wars waged against native Americans in the formation of this nation is not right. I should think you would not want Muslims to think that is what America is doing in fighting the terrorists. BTW- your army guy should look up, scalping was not a practice largely practiced by Indians but the Spanish, also might want to look up where the term Redskins come from and why lots of native Americans legitimately think having football teams named after the term is wrong. I would hope that Muslims don't think we are trying to wipe them all out so we can have the DC islamists team one day or the Jeep Iraqi.

From a retired Army guy:

Jonah, It's an Indian fight -- a violent and bloody struggle against an enemy without morals or values as we understand them, and a way of life alien to us. In an Indian fight they took scalps; now they take heads. The US Army fought the Indians on this continent for 115 years; the British Army and Colonial militias had fought them for 150 years before that. The War on terror is going to be long and bloody, and fought on many fronts. It won't be won in the next four years, but it could be lost.

Serrin Foster, Feminists for Life president, will be speaking at the University of Richmond on tonight.

Serrin Foster will be speaking on "The Feminist Case Against Abortion"
Tonight, September 21
University of Richmond
Jepson Hall Room 118
7 PM
Reception to follow

From a reader:

Terrific column!

Some points:

1. I haven't heard anyone arguing with the proposition that we must take the fight to the Islamicists. The question is, where is that fight? For those of us who say that a good part of it is on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, we'd have to admit that we're getting more-than-expected cooperation from Musharraf. How'd we manage that? Whatever we're doing to get Musharraf to cooperate, we ought to be doing more of that in Jordan, Egypt, Syria, etc.

2. Our "war burden" in Iraq is far higher than you acknowledge. We had to be 100% dead-on accurate in our reasons for war, and supermen in the way we prosecuted that war and the recovery afterward, because we were playing for the world's acceptance and cooperation in future wars of preemption. In an hour, we'll see an example of just how poorly our prosecution of the war and the recovery played throughout the world (when Bush addresses the U.N.).

3. Point #2 is critical because we don't want to have to draft 20 million Americans to fight wars against Islamicists. We want the Pakistans, Jordans and Egypts to do it for us. Yeah, we can go it alone if we have to -- but we'll be in WWII again, or worse.

4. On a different note, I am always amazed by conservatives' descriptions of Soviet mentality. You describe the Soviets as "rational." If the Soviets were rational, they would have recognized that the US was never going to attack them with nuclear weapoons, right? Why, then, did the Soviets arm themselves to death? You don't see France arming itself to the teeth against us.

Me:
1. Fair enough. However, this notion that al Qaeda -- never mind the Islamist threat -- can be destroyed if we destroy those guys in Afghanistan is, I think, fanciful. We just saw an American beheaded by the al Qaeda chief in Iraq. That al Qaeda chief has made it clear that the battle for Iraq is vital to al Qaeda's cause. Moreover, the source of the problem isn't Afghanistan it's the Arab Middle East. You cannot fix the problem without fixing the source. Also: I think Pakistan and those Arab countries are apples and oranges, alas.

2. That just doesn't wash. It was clear from the begining that the war was unpopular with the rest of the world and would have been even if we found WMDs.

3. That's a pretty far reaching hypothetical. And it misses the point. I for one still believe in the reverse domino theory. If we stand-up a prospering and democratizing Iraq, it will be very difficult for the neighbors to stay tyrannical for long.

4. I think you over-read my use of the term "rational." The Mafia is rational in that it approaches issues with a cost-benefit mentality. That doesn't mean a "rational person" would choose to join the mob. As for France, I have given up trying to explain when, where or why it chooses to pick fights and when it doesn't.

Every journalists who gets a shot at asking Dan Rather about this story must get him to explain what he meant when he said his source was "unimpeachable." If he meant Burkett, Rather's a liar and a fraud. If he meant the person Burkett allegedly claimed they were from -- a Guard officer now in Europe by the name of George Conn -- he needs to explain how he could consider the source "unimpeachable" without ever having spoken to him. In fact, to say that your source is "unimpeachmable" without ever having met him sounds likee pretty shoddy journalism. If I gave Rather some documents and said they were from Jimmy Hoffa, does that mean his source is me or Hoffa?

It seems to me that the most plausible explanation of his "impeachable" declaration was an old-fashioned stonewall. And for that alone, he should go.

Danish ping pong.

From a reader:

Remember the outrage when it was discovered that an attorney for the Bush campaign had given legal advice to the Swift Boat Vets? Collusion! Scandal! Now CBS thinks it the most natural thing in the world for the producer of a hit piece on Bush to pick up the phone for a little chat about upcoming stories, the weather, a source of some serious dirt on GWB, just the normal stuff. Perfectly ethical. Perfectly normal.

I haven't been on Wolf Blitzer's 5:00 O'Clock show in a long while, so I guess there are some people out there unaccustomed to, and uncomfortable with, um...me. I got lots of nice email from sympathetic sorts. And nice pile of email from those who are less so. Here are my two favorites. I've asterisked the naughty words -- for the children:

Jonah, You and the country know full well that every word reported in that CBS piece on the deserter Bush's NG lack of service was true, documents be damned! You're a smarmy little c**t who is unfit to even kiss Dan Rather's ass. You should resign after four years of your right wing muckraking lies, you CRACKER wannabe bastard! You're fired sh*thead.

And this one from someone who email address suggests he works at a Democratic-lefty sight I'd never heard of:

You have some nerve criticizing Dan Rather when you, Frum and other neo-cons are responsible for lying to get the United States into a war that has killed 1000 Americans and severely wounded 7000 more. As pieces of sh*t go, you're at the top of the heap. By the way, I now support the Palestinians and Arabs instead of the Israelis.

Anyone who knows anything about campaigns of any significance knows that the communications guy is busy six weeks out from election day, particularly if he's parachuting in to fix a lackluster campaign and a lackluster candidate. In other words, Joe Lockhart is busy. And yet, he took a call from Bill Burkett to discuss Bush's guard service. Why? Because the producer of the 60 Minutes broadcast felt it was vital that he do so. Because the producer of the now infamous 60 Minutes broadcast felt it was vital that he do so.

But -- pshaw! -- there's no bias at "60 Minutes."

I know conventional wisdom says that the incumbent wants to limit the number of debates while the challenger wants more. And I'm sure that the Kerry campaign is operating on that assumption. And yeah I agree with John Miller and others that the townhall style meetings are awful on the merits. But I'm not sure three debates hurts Bush. He may be a garbled speaker and all that. But the more Kerry talks the worse he does. People have already absorbed Bush's speaking style. While Kerry's ability to pull his foot up along his back, over his shoulder and into his mouth still leaves many of us speechless. I'm sure that Bush will come armed with numerous taunts to get Kerry to explain his record. And that's bad news for Kerry. Indeed, the more people see Kerry, the less they like him.

Yeah, yeah I know undecideds think the debates are supposed to be about the issues. But that's never been the case.

My guess is that the Bush campaign was able to win a great many concessions from the Kerry campaign -- format, notes, times etc -- in exchange for that third debate when in fact the Bushies didn't really mind having it.

I reiterate my position on this: Not only should they dump Schieffer, but CBS should lose all access to the White House and direct campaign access until CBS makes this whole Memogate thing right (e.g. Rather apology to Prez, somebody fired, re-education camps, etc).

Buffoonery Delenda Est!

From a reader:

Considering Dan's rampaging bull elephant of an ego, if he truly was duped, he'll uproot every tree in the jungle to get at the parties responsible for causing him this public humiliation. If he takes this lying down... you'll know he was a willing participant.

The New York Times reports on California's $3 billion bond initiative for research that kills human embryos. John Broder and Andrew Pollack write, "This promising but ethically controversial field of biomedical research is now severely limited by the Bush administration's policy restricting public money for research on embryonic stem cells." Especially in the context of a state-funding initiative, that should be "restricting federal money." But "severely limited" is a controverted statement and shouldn't be presented as though it weren't.

But that statement isn't the biggest problem with the article. It's that it accepts the claim that embryonic stem-cell research shows great promise in generating cures for Alzheimer's--have these guys bothered to read Rick Weiss's reporting in the Washington Post, which debunked that claim months ago?--and that the research could benefit "[h]alf of California families." I assume that the bond-initiative advocates get that number the same way the Democrats generate the figure of 100 million Americans who could benefit from expanded federal funding for the research: by assuming that the research might lead to cures for cancer, heart disease, and the like, no matter how little evidence there is for these conclusions. (The Times ups this national figure to 125 million. At the present rate of growth, the number of Americans who will be said to gain substantial benefits from subsidizing the research will soon exceed the actual population of the country.) If the Times wants to quote someone making these laughable assertions, it should at least indicate that there are people who disagree (and have good reasons for disagreeing).

For the record, I think it would be disastrous to leave for leaving's sake. Sure, if there's some way that we could leave and keep Iraq on course to stability and democracy, that'd be great. But I know of no technology nor of any replacement troops -- Iraqi or allied -- that could manage that. I see absolutely nothing wrong with pulling American troops out of South Korea, for example, if we can provide the same deterrent without them being there. I'd love to pull troops from just about everywhere if their missions wouldn't be compromised in the process.

And while I cannot muster the Kremlinology required to figure out what's going on with Novak's column, I would like to make one general point. Pulling out would be a perfectly principled thing to do according to a certain straign of conservatism. A good realist could say "Right or wrong, we did what we thought was necessary to protect ourselves. Now we're getting out." Now I think this would be a mistake. But the principle of smashing and leaving others to pick up the pieces is intellectually -- if not always morally -- sound. I think we have to stay there for the long haul, as long as the long haul is necessary.

However, there is no principled reason for a liberal to want to bug out. Unless, that is, he or she honestly believes the Iraqi people would be better off by an American bug-out and civil war. But that's a hard case to make. Liberals have had a total of one idea about foreign policy in the last two decades: nation-building. That's their thing. All of the arguments for nation-building which applied to Somalia, Haiti, Yugoslavia etc apply even more to Iraq. Moreover, there's the additional issue of our national interest. Indeed, if you believe any of the "root-causes" rhetoric of liberal foreign -- and domestic -- policy then you should believe that rebuilding Iraq is a vital national and global interest.

That's what's so repugnant about John Kerry's basic position and the Democrats' support of it. Kerry shouldn't be complaining about how much we're spending he's should be complaining about how little we're spending. Some honest liberals -- like the editors of the New Republic (see their latest editorial if you have access) -- acknowledge this. But most are perfectly fine with any line of criticism against Bush's Iraq policy so long as it comes from a Democrat or is likely to help John Kerry. That's one reason why John Kerry and John Edwards sound so much like Pat Buchanan on foreign policy these days.

MAN WHO GAVE CBS NEWS DISPUTED DOCUMENTS DESCRIBES HOW HE OBTAINED THEM; IN TELEVISION INTERVIEW, HE ADMITS HE DELIBERATELY MISLED CBS NEWS PRODUCER

CBS NEWS ACKNOWLEDGES THAT, BASED ON SUBSEQUENT REPORTING ON QUESTIONS ABOUT DOCUMENTS, IT CANNOT PROVE THEY ARE AUTHENTIC AND, THEREFORE, THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED IN THE "60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY" REPORT.

CBS NEWS AND CBS MANAGEMENT ARE COMMISSIONING AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Bill Burkett, in a weekend interview with CBS News Anchor and Correspondent Dan Rather, has acknowledged that he provided the now-disputed documents used in the Sept. 8 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY report on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. Burkett, a retired National Guard lieutenant colonel, also admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source. Burkett originally said he obtained the documents from another former Guardsman. Now he says he got them from a different source whose connection to the documents and identity CBS News has been unable to verify to this point. Burkett's interview will be featured in a full report on tonight's CBS EVENING NEWS WITH DAN RATHER (6:30-7:00 PM, ET/PT).

In light of this and other developments reported by CBS News and other news organizations, CBS News President Andrew Heyward issued the following statement: "60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY had full confidence in the original report or it would not have aired. However, in the wake of serious and disturbing questions that came up after the broadcast, CBS News has done extensive additional reporting in an effort to confirm the documents' authenticity. That included an interview featured on last week's edition of 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY (15) with Marian Carr Knox, secretary to the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the officer named as the author of the documents; the interview with Bill Burkett to be seen tonight (20); and a further review of the forensic evidence on both sides of the debate. Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret. Nothing is more important to us than our credibility and keeping faith with the millions of people who count on us for fair, accurate, reliable, and independent reporting. We will continue to work tirelessly to be worthy of that trust."

CBS News and CBS management are commissioning an independent review of the process by which the report was prepared and broadcast to help determine what actions need to be taken. The names of the people conducting the review will be announced shortly, and their findings will be made public.

From a reader:

He gave the documents to CBS, and lied to their producer about them (implying that he knew they were fake, but told her they were not fake, if you believe what he says or what CBS says, which I really don't at this point) in order to *protect the actual source of the documents* which he, logically, was not. Somebody gave them to him, and he gave them to CBS. He said that it was "another Guardsman," and has now admitted it was not another Guardsman, but has not said who it was. We therefore still don't know.

Burkett was the conduit between the source and CBS. Who was the source?
That's the entire question, and always has been. Whoever it was has
committed at least one federal felony, perhaps two. And if the
"unimpeachable," as yet unidentified source has a return address at Kerry's
campaign or the DNC, Kerry's finished, and this scandal will make everything
up to this point look like a paper cut.

This scandal is just beginning, and Rather and his boss won't survive it.
But even that is small stuff compared to what I think will unfold.

From MSNBC.com:

CBS said Burkett, a retired National Guard lieutenant colonel, had provided the documents. In a press release accompanying Heyward's statement, CBS said that Burkett "also admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source."

What an unbelievable journalistic scandal. Is it even imagineable that "60 Minutes" would have taken documents from a "Clinton hater" with a similar background and then, in a rush to smear him, short-circuit all of the normal rules to get to air?

Basically this story was based on the words of Ben Barnes and Burkett, two known partisans with a Big League gripes against Bush and -- in Barnes' case -- monumental ties to the Kerry campaign. CBS not only served as a transmission belt for this stuff but they willfully cut journalistic corners in the process. Then, when caught, they stonewalled. Rather said his source was "unimpeachable." Unimpeachable!!!! If Burkett is unimpeachable in Dan Rather's eyes. Someone needs to re-open his stories from the very first hurricane.

This is flatly outrageous. Rather should be fired. Mapes should be fired. Period.

Grrrr. Many nice folks are writing in to tell me that all I need to do is hit Command "F" and then type in the words etc. I know how to do that folks. My problem is that when I use the find-function on my computer(s) it doesn't work when searching for content. Searching for names of files works just fine. But when I try to search for documents containing the word foombalakachoomba -- for example -- it just doesn't work. Either it searches and searches forever and comes up with nothing or it just comes up with nothing really fast. Also, most of the time when I try to "index" my hard drive it never completes the task. Meanwhile, back in OS9 this function -- in "sherlock" -- worked pretty well. I'm sorry to waste everyones time with this sort of thing but, hey, I'm selfish.

A reader writes:

Jonah, love your columns and all that you and the crew do o'er yonder, but I think Novak and the rest of the media are being played. I saw a front-page story on the LA Times (while in line at Starbucks) that cited criticism from "prominent Republican" senators like Hagel and McCain concerning the administration's handling of the situation in Iraq and calling for "reassessment" of what and how we're doing over there. Then we get the Novak line about possible withdrawal shortly after the elections.

Here's the thing: Allawi is coming to visit with Bush and co. this week in
DC. Therefore, isn't it very possible, indeed likely, that a group of
Republican senators and Novak's "administration sources", i.e. those who
undoubtedly want to see our policy over there succeed and the President
reelected may be trying here to orchestrate the news cycle leading up to the
visit to increase the administration's bargaining position and pressure on
Allawi concerning whatever is to be discussed/negotiated on his visit?
Isn't it possible that all this carping and raising possible early-exit
strategy fears is meant for the Iraqis' ears and the press is yet again
playing the fool by going into palpitations over the renewed fear of
"quagmire"/failure?

Perhaps it's too soon to tell, by a few days anyway. Nonetheless, I'm
surprised no one's raised this idea yet; is it that obvious or easily
dismissable?

Lot's of email along these lines:

Jonah, Lots of talk around the virtual water cooler about Novak's column. I'm confused, though: I thought President Bush was a puppet of the neoconservatives?! And how does this jibe with Kerry/Edwards' unsubstantiated attack-of-the-week, re: Bush's supposed secret plan to call up and deploy more National Guard troops? I suspect this is yet another example of infighting spill-over. I'd be very surprised (and angry) if after all we've been through, President Bush suddenly decided to throw up his hands in defeat.

I doubt Robert Novak's column is the final word on this, but he says that the administration is planning for a post election (US and Iraqi) withdrawal from Iraq.

The TNR cover story is definitely worth reading. Yossi Klein Halevi & Michael Oren lay out how Sharon succeeded in beating back the worst terrorist campaign in modern history. There are a few subtle asides which seem to be aimed at Bush -- winning the war on terror requires being more bipartisan and such -- but even those points are fair and the whole thing offers a very useful overview.

Thanks to all the advice from readers. Lots of folks said I could do what I wanted with Adobe Reader 6.0. I can't. I don't know why. But I did go to the Mac store and buy Readiris 9.0 and it seems to do everything I wanted and more. Though I have to read the instructions a bit more because some graphics and column heavy docs are a bit problematic.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for the help. Now if someone could explain why searching my harddrive by content (i.e. trying to find docs with specific words in them) just doesn't work on OSX....

Several folks have emailed to ask how Coz's dewclaw is doing. He cracked it last week. We took him to the vet and they cut off the dangly end. They said this was necessary because of the high rate of infection. Anyway, he's doing fine, on antibiotics etc. But he's very sensitive about it. He won't chase balls yet and if he bangs it he runs back to you to make sure it's okay. But he'll be fine.

It really was a grand time. Thanks to everyone who came. The O'Beirnes were, as always, generous hosts. I'm still coping with the fact I actually saw Derb sing a Chinese Revolutionary song. Everyone was very sweet to lil' Lucy who liked to give people NR buttons and then take then back. There were a great many requests for Cosmo, but he doesn't do parties like that -- too much close-in foot traffic and drunken lunging stangers who think that Cosmo will tolerate sudden movements from people who are "good with dogs" that he doesn't know. Maybe one day we'll have a giant outdoor NRO picnic where everyone can bring dogs and kids. He'd like that.

One other thing that was great about the get-together was that we NROniks got to see our "colleagues." We never get to meet/see each other. Kathryn and I see each other at most a half-dozen times a year. I'd never met Mac Owens before (Guess what? He looks like a military guy and how I'd like to appear when the first boys come a'courtin' my daughter). Andrew Stuttaford's an extremely decent dude and fun to hang around with (even though, I've learned, he eats whale). And, while I could do without seeing Ponnuru as much as I do -- obviously -- his bride April is always the life of the party as far as I'm concerned.

HAMM: Let us pray to God [ . . .] Off we go. [ . . . ] Well?

CLOV: (abandoning his attitude). What a hope! And you?

HAMM: Sweet damn all! (To Nagg.) And you?

NAGG: Wait! (Pause. Abandoning his attitude.) Nothing doing!

HAMM: The bastard! He doesn't exist!

CLOV: Not yet.

[from Beckett's ENDGAME (1958)]

Subject: Did you all take a holiday?

Don't you realize that once you get us hooked on The Corner we have a difficult time going without? It's been some 12 hours since the last post, and I'm getting jittery. Do something, for God's sake - do something!

Every problem looks like a nail.

For weeks, perhaps months, the kibbitzers in the Democratic Party have been insisting that Kerry "go on the offensive" more, attack more, criticize more, etc. Where is John Edwards? Why isn't he attacking? When will Kerry respond more fiercely? Etc etc. A lot of these messages have been transmitted via the New York Times which now seems to see be John Kerry's corner man. If he gets knocked down, they snap some salts under his nose, give him some water and then instruct the man to deliver some body blows.

What I don't get is, well, how should I put this, What the Hell They Are Talking About. All Kerry does is attack, attack, attack. That's ok in the sense that I like rough elections. But, what I don't understand is how the likes of Begala et al can think Kerry's been doing something else. Moreover, what does it say about the candidate and his party that the answer to any shortcoming is to offer more insults, more below-the-belt punches, and distortions?

Here’s more on a story that the Daily Telegraph has been running with for a few weeks:

”The Italian businessman at the centre of a furious row between France and Italy over whose intelligence service was to blame for bogus documents suggesting Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy material for nuclear bombs has admitted that he was in the pay of France.”

Forged documents, eh? Maybe Dan Rather would like to investigate.

Goat cheese is a bizarre and repulsive product, an insult to any self-respecting plate, drab, tasteless muck that humiliates the taste bud and should revolt all but the starving. That said, it’s difficult not to sympathize with the two Czech farmers who have discovered that Brussels’ regulatory embrace is threatening to crush the life out of their goat cheese business. It’s difficult too not to be impressed by the way that these latter day Schweiks are trying to circumvent the bureaucrats.

They are marketing the cheese as an animal feedstuff in the following way:

"Goats' cheese. Home-made to a family recipe handed down through six generations. Completely in violation of EU regulations, should be used as animal food. Tested on humans."

Unfortunately, as EU Referendum’s Richard North points out, there’s a problem.

This comes from a letter to the London Observer from a Professor at Sussex University:

“A radical social analysis should depend upon the recognition of, and respect for, the dexterity by which most people negotiate an active self in this world.”

Last time I looked, letters were meant to be about, um, communication.

Stephen Pollard is not impressed.

Ms Lopez,

Two days ago I mailed a check for $200, but given the delay between Iraq and the US, it will inevitably be held up. I have had packages take up to a month to arrive; letters generally take one to two weeks from point to point. Unfortunately, PayPal is too graphics intensive for our sensitive Internet Pipeline, so I was reduced to snail-mail.

Please forgive in advance my donations' tardiness [for NRO's post-defense legal defense fund], but know that at the very least you have the support of myself and my unit. One must find a balance to CNN and the BBC in order to provide perspective, and I have found that NRO is the premier site for an alternative opinion source.

Thank you again for your service.