We're big fans of Andrew McCarthy. However, I'm unable to find any merit in his suggestion in today's NRO that the Bush administration consider conferring with a "bipartisan" group of Senators about judicial nominations. McCarthy notes that Senator Charles Schumer has proposed the creation of a "small, bipartisan group" of senators that "should meet with the president sometime in the next few weeks and eventually even make joint recommendations to the president of nominees that are highly qualified and could get broad, bipartisan support in the Senate." McCarthy states that this suggestion should not be dismissed out-of-hand.

I believe that it should be. There are two possible outcomes to Schumer's approach, neither good: (1) President Bush nominates fewer conservatives than he otherwise would and (2) President Bush ultimately sticks to his guns, but from a weaker position. In the second scenario, the adminstration's position would be weaker because there would be identifiable moderate alteratives to Bush's conservative nominees who will have been blessed by a "bipartisan" committee. Bipartisan recommendations always take on a special status that bears no relation to their merit. Think of the 9/11 commission's recommendations.

Had the president been sending nothing but conservative nominees to the Senate, a conciliatory position might have more to recommend it. However, the truth is that Bush at times has sent the Senate slates of nominees containing a mixture of moderates and conservatives. Early on, he proposed such a slate and, in a gesture of good will, even included Roger Gregory, an African-American Clinton recess appointee to the Fourth Circuit. Later he nominated two more African-Americans for the Fourth Circuit, conservative Claude Allen and non-conservative Allyson Duncan. The Democrats' response has been to confirm the moderates and block many of the conservatives. For example, Gregory and Duncan now sit on the Fourth Circuit; Allen does not. In short, Schumer and his colleagues have never acted in good faith, and the administration should not deal with them at this point.

There have always been only two sensible ways to respond to the Democratic obstruction of judicial nominees: (1) wage all-out war (using the so-called nuclear option to prevent a filibuster) and (2) fight, but not all-out, and let the Democrats take the political fall-out for obstructing judges. Now, these two approaches are about to merge because the Democrats have threatened to shut down the Senate if the Republicans fight all-out against their obstruction. This means that the harder the Republicans fight, the more political damage the Democrats are likely to inflict on themselves. Why should the Republicans save the Democrats from themselves.

HINDROCKET agrees: It would be hard to think of a worse idea than setting up a small, bipartisan group of Senators who would suggest the names of "highly qualified" judges who would receive "broad, bipartisan support in the Senate." As a matter of tradition, Senators already have too much influence, in my opinion, on nominations for District Court judges. But that isn't where the problems are, and it isn't what they're talking about now. The Constitution gives the President the right to name judges to the federal bench, not the Senate; still less an unofficial, "bipartisan" committee of Senators. I can understand why Senators would want to chip away at this Presidential power, but why any President would agree to it is beyond me.

The Constitution gives the Senate the right to "advi[s]e and consent" to the President's nominations; it doesn't say the Senate can "advise, consent or stall," or "advise, consent or refuse to take a vote until the President nominates a candidate preferred by the minority." President Bush and the Senate Republicans are in a commanding position, both Constitutionally and politically, which it would be foolish to back away from.

Israel says it has evidence of Syrian involvement in Friday night's suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, according to the Jerusalem Post. There are two aspects to Israel's claim: (1) that the orders came from Islamic Jihad in Syria and (2) that Syrian intelligence was involved and provided logistical support. If Israel's "irrefutable proof" (which a government spokesman told Geraldo Rivera consists of transcripts of recordings) extends to the second element, then Syria's mounting problems are about to increase significantly. At least one hopes that they would in that scenario.

Over the weekend we took note of Jacob Heilbrunn's crude New York Times Book Review essay attacking "neoconservatives" for claiming the mantle of Winston Churchill (click here for our post). Among those lumped in with the Churchill-admiring "neoconservatives" by Heilbrunn was our friend Steve Hayward, author of books on both Ronald Reagan and Churchill as well as the forthcoming (in October) Greatness: Reagan, Churchill and the Making of Extraordinary Leaders (it can be pre-ordered at the linked Amazon listing now).

Today Steve has sent a letter to the editor of the Times Book Review, where Heilbrunn's essay appeared yesterday, enclosed in an envelope bearing a Ronald Reagan commemorative stamp. Steve has authorized us to post his letter. Here it is:

To the editor:

Jacob Heilbrunn's essay “Winston Churchill, Neocon?” (Book Review, February 27, 2005) casts a jaundiced eye on whether Reagan and Bush deserve to be regarded as Churchill's heir, and whether Churchill's imperialism, which Heilbrunn once again badly caricatures, makes him worthy of admiration in the first place. Since Heilbrunn rightly implicates me in the pro-Churchill chorus (though neither he nor the Times' copy desk can seem to spell my name correctly), perhaps I might be allowed a few words to respond.

The case for Reagan's continuity with Churchill is straightforward. Reagan's affinity with Churchill went beyond borrowing the memorable quotation. Churchill said in his famous “Iron Curtain” speech that World War II could have been prevented “without the firing of a single shot.” Reagan, heeding Churchill's vivid lesson of “peace through strength” (for which liberals ridiculed him relentlessly) prevented World War III “without firing a single shot,” as Margaret Thatcher observed. (Indeed, Reagan's partnership with Thatcher in the 1980s could be seen as the very fulfillment of the Anglo-American unity that Churchill had envisioned in the “Iron Curtain” speech and elsewhere.) And this is just the most obvious of the deep parallels between Churchill and Reagan.

As to whether Bush has some claim to the same tradition, merely consult the recent thoughts of Churchill's official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert: “Although it can easily be argued that George W. Bush and Tony Blair face a far lesser challenge than Roosevelt and Churchill did-that the war on terror is not a third world war-they may well, with the passage of time and the opening of the archives, join the ranks of Roosevelt and Churchill. Their societies are too divided today to deliver a calm judgment, and many of their achievements may be in the future: when Iraq has a stable democracy, with al-Qaeda neutralized, and when Israel and the Palestinian Authority are independent democracies, living side by side in constructive economic cooperation . . . Any accurate assessment of Bush and Blair must wait, perhaps a decade or longer, until the record can be scrutinized.” (The Observer, December 26, 2004.) I'm happy to await the judgment of history, while Heilbrunn continues his heckling just as his ideological soul mates did to Reagan in the 1980s.

One final thought: When it came to American politics, Churchill usually preferred the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. Would he today?

Cordially,

Steven F. Hayward
Resident Scholar
American Enterprise Institute

Things are happening so fast in the Middle East that it's hard to stay on top of events. This morning the government of Lebanon, which has generally been regarded as pro-Syria, resigned. Outgoing Prime Minister Omar Karami said:

I am keen that the government will not be a hurdle in front of those who want the good for this country. I declare the resignation of the government that I had the honor to head. May God preserve Lebanon.

Events in Lebanon are the direct result of the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. More broadly, like much of what is now going on in that region, they are positive fallout from events in Iraq. It seems likely now--I'm tempted to say inevitable--that Syria will be forced out of Lebanon, with consequences for the region that can only be good. Especially since all indications point to a resurgence in Lebanese nationalism, which, one hopes, will temper if not supplant the violent sectarian conflict that plunged Lebanon into civil years some years ago.

It seems that Middle Easterners may not be so different from everyone else after all: when they see an opportunity to live normal lives, they seize it. Next stop, Iran?

La Shawn Barber on Chris Rock and his "triumph of ignorance and vulgarity" at the Oscars. I didn't watch. The last time I watched, Bob Hope was presiding, I think. Heck, with rare exceptions, I don't even watch new Hollywood movies these days.

To me the Oscars represent another example of the left's march through our institutions. The left has captured nearly all of the organizations and phenomena that meant something to me when I was growing up -- the New York Times, CBS News, the NAACP, the ACLU, the professoriate, Hollywood, etc. etc. But it's a meaningless triumph because these institutions have lost their authority precisely by virtue of their leftward tilt. To illustrate, a Zogby poll shows that 39 percent of Democrats, but only 13 percent of Republicans, watch the Oscars. (Hat tip: PoliPundit).

HINDROCKET adds: Those numbers are stunning; wouldn't you think that if the film industry were motivated by economic self-interest, it would try to find a way to avoid alienating the members of America's most popular political party? Plus, I can hardly be the only viewer who turned off the telecast almost as soon as it began because of the host's anti-Bush rant. On what theory does it make sense to put on a show that will drive away large numbers of viewers--and gratuitously, too, since Rock's Bush-bashing had nothing whatever to do with the subject at hand? It's more evidence that, as Michael Medved has often argued, for Hollywood it's not about profit, it's about ideology.

UPDATE by HINDROCKET: Deacon and I are probably pretty hard-core--the last comedian I really liked was Jack Benny--but USA Today, hardly a hotbed of conservatism, shared my reaction:

Unfortunately, what many viewers are most likely to remember — particularly those who feel Hollywood is out of touch with many of its customers — is Rock's lengthy attack on George Bush.

It went over big with the crowd, and if you voted for John Kerry, you probably found it amusing. But that routine had nothing to do with the Oscars, either, and it very likely sent half the audience fleeing from what was otherwise a politics-free evening.

Howard Dean was in Lawrence, Kansas, yesterday, taking his message to the party faithful. It doesn't sound as though his new status as DNC Chairman will tone down Dean's rhetoric any; here are a few quotes from the Lawrence fundraiser:

"The issue is not abortion. The issue is whether women can make up their own mind instead of some right-wing pastor, some right-wing politician telling them what to do.

"Moderate Republicans can't stand these people [conservatives], because they're intolerant. They don't think tolerance is a virtue. I'm not going to have these right-wingers throw away our right to be tolerant.

"This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."

Well, it's good to see that Dean is standing up for his right to be tolerant.

In my opinion, Dean's main problem in the 2004 campaign was not that he was too extreme; his problem was that he had a tin ear. Too often, he failed to understand how he was perceived not by hard-line Democrats, but by the general public. My guess is that Dean's tin ear will dog him as DNC Chair, too.

There's also this: How many times over the last four years have we seen Democrats ridicule President Bush as simple-minded and naive because he views the world in terms of good vs. evil? Too many to count. One wonders whether the same liberal pundits will criticize Dean's "struggle of good and evil" talk. Or whether they'll note that, however manichean Bush ostensibly is, he's never said anything remotely approaching Dean's "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for."

Earlier today, a suicide car bomber ignited an explosion that reportedly killed at least 110 Iraqis at Hillah, Iraq. The explosion took place outside a medical clinic where recruits for Iraq's police and national guard were waiting to take physicals. A group of people believed to be Sudanese were arrested following the blast.

The explosives packed into the vehicle appear to have been unusually powerful; the photo below depicts the bomber's car following the explosion. The white color is the result of being sprayed with fire extinguishers:

The terrorist insurgency seems clearly to be losing, but that doesn't mean that it is anywhere near over.

UPDATE: In better news, violence was avoided in Beirut as a crowd estimated at up to 50,000 defied a ban on demonstrations to protest against the Syrian presence in Lebanon. In the photo below, security forces appear to allow protesters into Martyrs' Square.

Please don't miss Noemie Emery's column in the Weekly Standard called "Election Shock Treatment." Noemie airs this question: can the Democrats find a way to talk about the Iraqi elections that isn't madness personified? So far, the answer is no. Instead, the Democrats are serving up "nuance" as embodied in this distillation of the utterances of Harry Reid, Tina Brown, Hendrik Hertzberg, et al:

The elections succeeded in spite of the one man who caused them, and BECAUSE of the people whose publications and candidates had fought Bush every step of the way. Or, put another way, the elections were a success and a great moral victory; but the ideas that led up to them were the purest examples of bone-headed bungling; and the man who thought them all up was a dunce.

The White House has posted the moving speech President Bush gave last Thursday in Bratislava's Hviezdoslavovo Square: "President addresses and thanks citizens of Slovakia." In the photo below by White House photographer Eric Draper, President Bush gives his thumbs up as he leaves the stage with Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda of Slovakia after the speech.

In his Washington Times column today, Lawrence Kudlow locates the common themes in President Bush's comments throughout his trip in Bush's "moral-high-ground, idea-driven foreign policy." President Bush's Bratislava speech is an excellent example of remarks illustrating Kudlow's thesis.

The late Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter was the author of the influential 1964 essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." At the time it was published Hofstadter's essay seemed to apply mostly to the denizens of the fever swamps on the right who thought that municipal water fluoridation was a Communist conspiracy. To whom does Hofstadter's thesis apply today? I'm not naming any names, so to speak, but you won't need my help after you read Deacon's brilliant Daily Standard column: "Paranoid, nous?"

UPDATE: Dr. Pat Santy writes:

Great article by Deacon! As a practicing psychiatrist, I have always been interested in the psychopathology in American politics. Recently I wrote on my blog (Dr. Sanity) a post titled "Paranoia Strikes Deep" - which you might find interesting.

We've been following with great interest the clash between Mark Steyn and Austin Bay over the future of Europe. I first commented about it here. Rocket Man linked to the latest installments earlier today.

My general take is that Steyn has the better sense of how profound Europe's problems are and how little we now have in common with the Europeans. Indeed, my comment on MSNBC last week that the U.S. and Europe are former allies is not that different from Steyn's latest reference to "the death" of "a Euro-American alliance founded on common values."

However, in my view Bay is correct to reject Steyn's certainty that the rot is irreversible. In times of crisis, it's not difficult for minds as powerful as Steyn's to "prove" that a happy ending is impossible. Yet, hidden dynamics can produce endings that, if not happy, are at least acceptable. If one believes, as we do, that the Middle East cannot be written off with certainty, it would be odd for us to agree that Europe can be.

I hope to be able to comment more substantively on this matter before too long.

I don't like the Academy Awards much, and hadn't planned on watching, although my three daughters are already glued to pre-event coverage of the "red carpet." Among other things, the last thing I need to hear is moronic anti-Bush commentary by "comedians" and actors. But, cruising Yahoo News photos as I often do, I ran across this photo, hot off the press (so to speak), of Beyonce Knowles, who will perform tonight:

I changed my mind. I'm watching after all.

UPDATE: That was a mistake, of course. One "Chris Rock," the host, whom I've never otherwise heard of, led off with an idiotic anti-Bush tirade. $70 trillion? Interesting statistic. What was noteworthy was not the host, who obviously knows nothing, but the crowd--every single person there laughed and applauded. So much for the Academy Awards. I'm curling up with a good book, about which more later.

UPDATE 2: For those interested in more of an insider's take than mine (ha! that would be just about anyone's), Roger Simon has been live-blogging the ceremony.

There are many excellent sources in the mainstream media, of course, including, frequently, bloggers like us. But the interactivity of the blogosphere gives it an edge that conventional media just can't duplicate, certainly not with the same speed or verve. A case in point: Mark Steyn argued in a Daily Telegraph column a few days ago on the future of Europe that the the idea of "the West" is dead. Austin Bay, an equally perceptive (if less funny) analyst, disagreed in a well-argued post, in the course of which he wrote:

Great writing –absolutely brilliant writing– BUT, wrong conclusion, unless you’re like the French and you think “Europe” is another word for “France.”

So far, so good. But here's the part I love: Steyn responded to Bay in a comment on Bay's site, with a collegial, constructive reply that clarified his position and extended the argument further. To which Bay in turn responded.

This is the kind of sophisticated, high-level debate that we need across a broad range of foreign and domestic policy issues. You can find it in the blogosphere, but don't hold your breath waiting for this sort of give and take in the New York Times.

Thanks to InstaPundit for noting Steyn's comment.

The beneficent effects of the administration's Iraq policy continue to be felt. Municipal elections have taken place in Saudi Arabia; Lebanese citizens march for self-rule; Egypt announces a plan for competitive elections, which, the International Herald Tribune says, responds to "stepped-up pressure from the United States," but also to the fact that the Arab world is "bubbling with expectations for political reform."

These steps are, of course, halting and imperfect, but one can only be impressed by the speed with which progress toward democracy in Iraq has sent pressure for reform through other Muslim countries. Somewhat remarkably, I think, the Bush administration is not resting on its laurels, but is continuing to press for more. Thus, Mubarak's announcement of constitutional reform in Egypt followed on the heels of Secretary of State Rice's decision to forgo a visit to Egypt to show concern over the Mubarak government's failure to allow greater political freedom.

And today, Syria demonstrated that it, too, is feeling the heat, by arresting and handing over to the Iraqi government Saddam Hussein's half-brother, Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan, along with twenty-nine other members of Iraq's Baath party who had been operating in Syria. An Iraqi official described the handover of the thirty Baathists as "a goodwill gesture by the Syrians to show that they are cooperating."

There has never been any doubt about the fact that die-hards from Saddam's regime were participating in and directing the Iraqi insurgency from what was thought to be a safe haven in Syria. The fact that the Syrian haven is no longer safe seems enormously significant, for two reasons. First, Assad is obviously worried about his own survival if his regime continues to try to undermine the new Iraqi government. Second, Syria has apparently concluded that the insurgency is being defeated and is going to fail. Why else would it turn on the Iraqi Baathists whom, until now, it has sheltered and encouraged?

The principal reason for deposing Saddam Hussein, as articulated repeatedly by President Bush and others in his administration, was to begin the process of reforming the Arab world--the only long-term strategy for dealing with the problem of Islamic terrorism that has yet been proposed. Two years ago, no one could have known how likely the administration's policy was to succeed, and today, of course, there are still huge uncertainties. Nevertheless, it seems fair to say that all current indications suggest that Bush's Iraq policy may be more successful, and sooner, than even its most optimistic backers had dared to hope.

UPDATE: Michael Barone has similar thoughts on Real Clear Politics.

Reader Cassandra Shore supplements our coverage of the Mrs. World competition last night with an informative fashion note:

I am a regular reader of Powerline, although my profession is teaching Arabic dance, a world very far removed from the world you folks inhabit (a world far removed from most everyone's daily life for that matter!). I teach said dances as an art form that has been given to the world by North African, Near Eastern and Asian cultures, and I do not inject politics into my business. My belief is that dance is a healing art, celebration of our short life on earth, and a unifying power (if only for a short time!). So I have a little trivial info for you regarding Mrs. Israel's attire.

The photo is of Mrs. Israel performing on the runway with a pair of what are known in the American & European belly dance community as "Isis Wings." They are currently all the rage among amateurs students of that slice of the Arabic dance world. Innovations quickly come and go on that scene. She is also wearing a gown that closely resembles the ancient Egyptian engravings and/or temple bas reliefs of the goddess Isis. That would be one reason it rings a bell. Iconic to say the least!

Now that the Sephardim have become more socially acceptable in Israel, belly dance and its attendant folklore dances have become all the rage. Interesting to see it turn up in the pageant. I teach worldwide, and I know many of the Egyptian teachers who regularly travel to Israel to teach workshops on this ancient tradition. Just thought you might be amused.

We are more than amused; we are edified.

Last year's election coverage in the New York Times was dominated by a succession of bogus Bush administration scandals, including stories touted by Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Dan Rather, and the Times's own special late al-Qaqaagate hit. But the granddaddy of these bogus scandals was 2003's "outing" of CIA official Valerie Plame in response to the dishonest New York Times op-ed column by Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson.

In July 2003 Wilson published the infamous column on his CIA-sponsored trip to Niger investigating Saddam Hussein's purported attempt to purchase "yellowcake" uranium ore. Columnist Robert Novak subsequently identified Wilson as the husband of CIA official Valerie Plame and as the person who had been instrumental in getting Wilson the Niger assigment. Congressional Democrats and their spokesmen among the editors of the New York Times demanded the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate and prosecute the administration officials who allegedly blew Plame's cover to Novak, who reported it, and to several other journalists, who did not.

In its interesting "Prosecutor of the Times" editorial (subscription only) earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal quoted the New York Times in hot pursuit of the bogus Plame "outing" scandal:

After an egregiously long delay, Attorney General John Ashcroft finally did the right thing yesterday when he recused himself from the investigation into who gave the name of a CIA operative to the columnist Robert Novak. Mr. Ashcroft turned the inquiry over to his deputy, who quickly appointed a special counsel."

The Times editorial from which the Journal quoted was published in December 2003. As the Journal editorial noted, by July 2004 both a British and a U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee probe found that the White House had been accurate in describing available intelligence and that Wilson was the one who hadn't told the truth on the subject in issue.

While the Times was peddling the bogus Plame "outing" scandal as involving a violation of federal law by administration officials, cooler heads at the time noted the likely inapplicability of the most frequently cited federal law (the Intelligence Identities Protection Act). Among these cooler heads were Slate's Jack Shafer in October 2003 ("Stop the investigation!"), the pseudonymous Edward Boyd of Zonitics in October 2003 (click here and here), and Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit in early December 2003 (click here).

According to the New York Times in December 2003, John Ashcroft's appointment of an independent counsel to investigate the adminstration was overdue. Indeed, it was something like an emergency. The Times failed to note at the time, however, that the Times itself was in possession of evidence relevant to the identification of the alleged lawbreakers. And of course the Times has refused to turn the evidence over in response to the subpoenas issued to it by the independent counsel whose appointment it demanded.

Times reporter Judith Miller refused to comply with the grand jury subpoena compelling testimonial and documentary evidence with respect to her contacts regarding Plame with a specified government official. The D.C. federal district court held Miller to be in contempt of court, and on February 15 the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the contempt order in a unanimous three-judge decision (click here). The D.C. Circuit quotes the Supreme Court's 1972 Branzburg opinion setting forth the applicable law: "[I]t is obvious that agreements to conceal information relevant to the commission of crime have very little to recommend them from the standpoint of public policy" and "the right to withhold news is not equivalent to a First Amendment exemption from an ordinary duty of all other citizens to furnish relevant information to a grand jury performing an important public function."

The independent counsel also subpoenaed the New York Times itself for Miller's phone records, and the Times itself also refused to comply. Last week New York federal district court judge Robert Sweet refused to enforce the subpoena and find the Times in contempt (click here for Adam Liptak's Times story on the ruling; I have not been able to find Sweet's opinion on the Internet). Judge Sweet himself acknowledges that his decision cannot be reconciled with the D.C. Circuit's.

Yesterday the New York Times celebrated Judge Sweet's ruling in its editorial "A key victory for press freedom." For my present purposes, here's the key paragraph:

[A]n even more basic issue [than the First Amendment issue] has been raised in recent articles in The Washington Post and elsewhere: the real possibility that the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity, while an abuse of power, may not have violated any law. Before any reporters are jailed, searching court review is needed to determine whether the facts indeed support a criminal prosecution under existing provisions of the law protecting the identities of covert operatives. Some judge may have looked at the issue, but we have no way of knowing, given the bizarre level of secrecy that still prevents the reporters being threatened with jail from seeing the nine-page blanked-out portion of last week's [D.C. Circuit Court] decision evaluating the evidence.

The Times has therefore now taken notice of the "more basic issue" than the legal investigation of Plamegate for which it called in 2003 -- the investigation may be an utterly misguided venture. The editorial's description of discussion of the "more basic issue" as "recent" places the editorial's accuracy on par with the usual contents of the Times editorial pages.

I don't think it's premature to conclude that the purported scandal that, according to the Times, required an independent counsel in 2003 was bogus or that there is a real scandal (or two) here. The real scandal, however, is one of which the New York Times, rather than the Bush administration, is the perpetrator.

UPDATE: The invaluable Tom Maguire of Just One Minute writes:

Nice summary of the original phony scandal. Worth noting - in a bit of a non-coincidence, the Sweet ruling in favor of Ms. Miller is in a *different* case from the Plame leak.

Fitzgerald was working an investigation into a leak on Islamic charities which involved Judith Miller; when the Plame leak case came along, he got it, partly because the press leak issues overlapped, and he was up to speed on them. Ms. Miller got involved in both cases because of the beat she covers.

However, as best I can guess, there is no reason for the rulings to be reconciled - from the quick press account I saw, the two courts applied the same standard, and Sweet concluded that the evidence sought from Miller's phone records could be obtained elsewhere. (The DC Court decided, presumably correctly, that her testimony could not be replicated from other sources.) Anyway, that distinction does not come through in your post.

CAVEAT - I am going from memory here, and would score the probability of my being right at above 90%.

And a final teardrop - to mention right wing bloggers covering the early days of the Plame Game and leaving me out makes me deeply depressed - I probably have over 100 posts on it. Well, googling my site produces over 600 hits, but that could be high.

This one from early October held up well, and makes the key point about absence of intent in a potential prosecution (click here): "Is this exoneration? Legally, it might be - the law seems to require intent on the part of the leaker, which would be absent here. It also requires that the government be attempting to conceal the agent's identity. The CIA spokesman may have compounded an error, but his ineffectiveness provides a hurdle for the prosecution."

Hmm, here is a Sept 29 2003 discussion of the significance of her covert status, and the intent of the leakers - shot through with typos, no links to anyone - I picked a bad day to blog while snorting crystal meth.

If it's any consolation, I join Tom in his depression; my apologies to Tom and our readers for missing his contribution to the analysis of the wayward Plamegate investigation.

UPDATE 2: Tom Maguire also writes to provide this link to a summary of the Plame and Islamic charities investigations.

Mark Steyn's Chicago Sun-Times column today comments on President Bush's trip to Europe and on the future of Europe: "U.S. can sit back and watch Europe implode." It is full of interesting observations.

Jack Kelly's Sunday Pittsburgh Post-Gazette column has become a must-read. Kelly is remarkably unaffected by the prevailing journalistic hostility to information circulated via the blogosphere. He not only welcomes the information, he chides his journalistic colleagues for ignoring it and getting the story wrong. Today's column emphasizes the shortcomings of his journalistic colleagues, prominently quoting soldier/columnist/blogger Austin Bay and asking "when will journalists be held to account for getting every major development in the war on terror wrong?" Kelly's column is "All but won."

On a related note, reader Steve Power has kindly forwarded us this excellent column from the Canyon News (of which I had not previously heard) by John Armor speaking up on behalf of bloggers in response to the condemnation issued by the Columbia Journalism Review's Steve Lovelady: "Eason Jordan-Gate: Confessions of a 'salivating moron.'" Is it too late for us to offer our own confessions?

UPDATE: John Armor writes:

I am honored that you put up a link to my article on Eason-Gate in the Canyon News. There are a couple stories behind that.

About a year ago, the Editor of Canyon News put a request on the Internet for a "conservative columnist." That paper circulates in Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Malibu, Laurel Canyon, and other very upscale, very liberal, communities around Los Angeles. Winter, the Editor, is quite pleased with my contributions since they are literate, occasionally funny, and generate several letters of protest each week.

For ten years now I've written a weekly column on the Internet as "the (More er Less) Honorable Billybob, Congressman from Western Carolina." I'm surprised your reader found my column through the least known of its publication outlets. The best known outlet is ChronWatch in San Francisco, which has 20 months of those columns archived as of today. Since you liked "Eason-Gate," you will probably like "The Manifesto of Pukin Dog," back in September, 2004, which made the same point about the rise of the blogosphere, but before most of the MSM could spell that word.

All my columns also appear on Free Republic. Selected ones appear in the North Carolina Conservative, a new monthly newspaper in this state.

A reader has forwarded us this article by Terence Kivlan from yesterday's Staten Island Advance (brief registration required) on Rep. Vito Fossella's letter to the Belgian Prime Minister protesting the anti-Bush urinal stickers that we noted last week at the time of the president's visit to Brussels: "Belgians get scolding from Vito." Kivlan wrote:

Photo stickers of President Bush and the American flag placed in urinals in some Belgian ministry offices in Brussels right before the president's European tour have Rep. Vito Fossella mighty peeved.

But the lawmaker's ire, expressed to the Belgian prime minister at the Belgian Embassy here, may have been misdirected.

Although Fossella (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn) accused the prime minister of responsibility for the stickers, Serge Wauthier, an embassy spokesman, noted that the Belgian government had condemned the stickers and their placement earlier this week, taking "a very clear position distancing itself from this initiative."

In his letter, addressed to Prime Minister Johan Vande Lanotte, Fossella wrote that "such cheap political humor at the expense of the American flag was beneath a country with such a rich heritage as Belgium."

Wauthier responded that, although he found Fossella's letter very moving, it was up to Belgian Ambassador Frans Van Daele to respond to it, not the prime minister.

The congressman noted that the American flag graces the graves of thousands of American troops who died while liberating Belgium and other European countries from German occupation during World Wars I and II.

He also chided the Belgians for expressing any disagreement they have with U.S. policy on such a childish level.

The stickers, which bear the caption, "Go ahead. P--- on me," are said to be a common sight in the public toilets of Belgian schools, youth clubs and pubs.

"Distancing itself from the initiative" is probably not the perfect metaphor to use under the circumstances here. Moreover, "distancing itself from the initiative" seems a little understated in commenting on the behavior involved as well. Are American diplomats abroad this ineffectual speaking on behalf of the United States?

Andy Weinstein writes from Efrat regarding one of the comments we posted from a reader on Sharon's strategy:

I just saw the following quote from Carol Herman (no idea who that is) in a post on Powerline: "The 8,000 civilians in Gaza are not holding back the tides of terrorism. They're just a costly interference. Using up taxpayer money, to sport small enclaves, where, surprise to no one, the settler's HATE the IDF! (Settlers don't join the army. Most get the "gift" of a religious pass. And, the real problem is that Israel has yet to figure out how to separate church from state, effectively.)"

Libel #1: The settlers in Gaza hate the IDF

...My colleague here at work just finished 3 weeks of reserve service there, and it's not his first time - that's his regular yearly posting with his reserve unit. The soldiers are warmly welcomed and loved, particularly by the religious settlers. I myself live on a settlement next to Bethlehem, and let me tell you, soldiers are treated beautifully and appreciated deeply by everyone in my area (Gush Etzion). There are a very, very small number of places and people who have a bad relationship with the army. I don't believe that any of those are anywhere in Gaza - I've never heard any incidents reported from there. The Gaza settlers have never been known for being part of the small radical fringe.

Libel #2 Settlers don't join the army

...Settlers comprise a highly disproportional percentage of the soldiers not only in combat units, but in commando units. This population is (for obvious reasons) the most highly motivated group when it comes to military service. This has been mentioned over and over again in recent years in the Israeli press, where it is a noticeable and important phenomenon (and a cause for concern to some). The author is confusing settlers with charedim ("Ultra-Orthodox"), most of whom use an exception for full-time religious studies and do not do regular army service (though some serve later in life in the reserves). While the majority of settlers are indeed Orthodox ("National-Religious"), their worldview and lifestyle are quite distinct from the charedim, and have been since the inception of Zionism. It is extremely easy to tell them apart, and it's easy to see the knitted yarmulkes of the National Religious on the heads of soldiers wherever you go. The two groups are conflated by ignorant anti-religious people who hate both of them.

I will not bother commenting on the more general topic of the settlements and Sharon's plan. That's a reasonable subject for thoughtful debate....Please correct this post-haste. It's bad enough being compared to Al-Sadr by Tom Friedman. We don't need Powerline contributing to this too.

We also received a message to the same effect from Dr. Steven Ohsie. Thanks to all who have written on the subject of Sharon's strategy. It's an important subject to which we will obviously have occasion to return.

UPDATE: Another Israeli correspondent writes:

Ok...now that the Sabbath is over and I've had a chance to read through some of your posts from the last couple days, I must say I'm frankly shocked...The National Relgious community (which comprises a good percentage of the settlers, myself included) serve, with distinction, in the IDF.

It takes only a limited amount of research to see that over 30 percent of the junior officers in the army (especially combat and commando units) are the product of National Religous seminaries (Hesder, Yeshivot and Pre-Army Prepratory programs), this, even though they are maybe 15% of the overall population. [Carol Herman's] statement also fails to take into consideration that almost half of the Jewish population of Gaza is not even religious. So, putting aside the fact that the vast majority of men living in the settlements serve in the army, you only need to go ask those soldiers serving about the local Jewish inhabitants relationship with them.

Everyday you see people driving by delivering hot coffee to men standing out in the cold guarding checkpoints. Dropping of bags of homemade cookies or just giving a wave and smile and quickly mouthed thank you. I personally live in Judea/Samaria, so we're not driving around in the bulletproof vehicles that they need in Gush Katif, so it's easier for us to show our appreciation of the local soldiers. But the small contingent of men and women stationed at a lookout post near our yishuv are fought over when it comes time to invite them of Shabbat meals.

If there is any anger amongst the settlement community for the actions or occasional inactions of the IDF, we know it's not the regular soldier or junior commander who is to blame. It's the politicians who give the orders. So they are to blame and most people know that very well.

Beauty pageants are Rocket Man's beat, so in his absence a reader has kindly alerted us to the Mrs. World competition just concluded in Amby Valley, India. Forty-one contestants competed for the title of the most beautiful woman of marriage in the world. Mrs. America was one of the forty-one contestants. I hadn't previously seen the pride of America, but -- please feel free to sing along -- there she is, Mrs. America, there she is, my ideal.

The AP caption reads: "Mrs. America Julie Love Templeton walks on the ramp during the Mrs. World 2005 pageant at Amby Valley, 140 kilometers (87 miles) north of Bombay, India, late Friday, Feb. 25, 2005. Forty-one contestants from across the globe participated in the pageant, held first time in India. Sima Bakhar of Israel won the title and Templeton was declared third runner up. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)"

Below Mrs. Israel vamps on the ramp. I think someone might want to cut out this photo for Secretary of State Rice in the event that she decides to run for president. There's something magical about the combination of the woman, the pose and the gown.

The AP caption reads: "Mrs. Israel Sima Bakhar performs on the ramp during Mrs. World 2005 pageant at Amby Valley, 140 kilometers (87 miles) north of Bombay, India, late Friday, Feb. 25, 2005. Forty-one contestants from across the globe participated in the pageant, held first time in India. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)"

To make a long story short, the vamp on the ramp must have had someting to do with the outcome of the competition; Mrs. Israel has been named the new Mrs. World.

The AP caption reads: "Mrs. World 2005 Sima Bakhar, left, of Israel is crowned by Mrs. World 2004 Suzanna Vicheinrut, right, of Thailand at Amby Valley, 140 kilometers (87 miles) north of Bombay, India, late Friday, Feb. 25, 2005. Forty-one contestants from across the globe participated in the pageant, held first time in India. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)"

One last photo. In the photo below, Mrs. Israel is pictured with the first and second runners-up.

The Reuters caption reads: "Newly crowned Mrs.World 2005 Sima Bakahr (C) of Israel poses with Mrs. New Zealand Sherin Peace (L) 1st runner-up and Mrs. Croatia Ivana Brnic-Boce (R) 2nd runner-up, for the photographers during a function in Lonavala, 140 km (88 miles) from Bombay, February 25, 2005. Bakahr was crowned Mrs. World from 41 contestants around the world. REUTERS/Punit Paranjpe"

I have only one question. How much do photographers like Messrs. Rahi and Paranjpe have to pay for an assignment like this?

HINDROCKET adds: I can see my vacation has gone on long enough, when the Trunk has to take over the pageant beat. One complaint, though, Trunk: "woman of marriage"? Sounds like "person of color." Be back soon.

Fox News reports that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has taken a significant step towards democratic reform by ordering the constitution changed to allow presidential challengers to appear on the ballot this fall. This decision constitutes a reversal of course by Mubarak. And, as Captain Ed notes, it occurs one day after Condoleezza Rice snubbed Mubarak by cancelling a long-planned trip to Cairo in protest of the arrest of a leading activist for democracy. The U.S. recently has been pushing for democratic reform in Egypt.

Opposition parties and reform activists contend that the changes do not go far enough and may only be cosmetic. However, Ayman Nour, a strong proponent of open elections who was arrested in Egypt last month, calls the reform "an important and courageous move" towards "comprehensive constitutional reform."

Captain Ed also notes that another opponent of Mubarak, Aida Seif el-Dawla, complained that Mubarak's decision was a concession to the U.S. rather than the heart-felt result of a national dialogue. It's hard to disagree with that assessment. And it's clear that, from Lebanon to Egypt, key figures can see the positive role the U.S. is playing in moving the Middle East towards democracy.

Hugh Hewitt continues to hold his usual position (the lead) in providing insightful comment about the looming battle to fill the next Supreme Court vacancy. Hugh notes that three of the five leading candidates (Harvie Wilkinson, Michael Luttig, and John Roberts) live in Virginia. If one of these men is nominated, it will provide Virginia Senator George Allen the opportunity to move front-and-center. Allen is up for re-election in 2006 (he could face a tricky contest against Democratic Governor Mark Warner) and, provided he is re-elected, could be a contender for president in 2008.

Trunk and Rocket Man have been appearing semi-regularly on television since last September. My first appearance came a little more than a week ago, and the first appearance in which I presented an argument was this past Wednesday. After that appearance, I wrote a paragraph about the strangeness of it all. I intended that the paragraph would introduce a longer piece, but that piece hasn't panned out.

I have decided to use the paragraph as a free-standing post. After all, this is a web log, and thus, in part, a political diary. And perhaps some readers will enjoy the paragraph.

These are strange times. A decade ago, I would labor for dozens of hours on a piece concerning a subject about which I had specialized expertise. Perhaps one out of three times, my product would be published. These days, I spend one hour writing two posts about America’s relations with Europe, a subject on which I have no specialized expertise, and in less than 24 hours I’m discussing it on television, under the guise of reporting what “conservative bloggers are saying” about President Bush's trip to Europe. Not only that, but because the sole mission of the leftist blogger with whom I appear is to include the names “Halliburton” and “Gannon” in the same sound bite, I actually end up looking like an expert by comparison.

It's been a long time since we linked to anything over at DEBKA because of concerns about its unreliability. Suffice it to say that its post on the Tel Aviv bombing discloses information that is profoundly troubling if true: "Terrorists shatter phony calm in Tel Aviv, shop for heavy weapons."

UPDATE: The report in Haaretz belies DEBKA's: "Militants: Hezbollah operative recruited PA bomber." The Haaretz story, however, relies on the word of actors who have every motive to lie.

The new issue of the Weekly Standard carries an important essay on the Summers affair by Harvard professor of government Harvey Mansfield: "Fear and intimidation at Harvard." Here's the key passage:

It takes one's breath away to watch feminist women at work. At the same time that they denounce traditional stereotypes they conform to them. If at the back of your sexist mind you think that women are emotional, you listen agape as professor Nancy Hopkins of MIT comes out with the threat that she will be sick if she has to hear too much of what she doesn't agree with. If you think women are suggestible, you hear it said that the mere suggestion of an innate inequality in women will keep them from stirring themselves to excel. While denouncing the feminine mystique, feminists behave as if they were devoted to it. They are women who assert their independence but still depend on men to keep women secure and comfortable while admiring their independence. Even in the gender-neutral society, men are expected by feminists to open doors for women. If men do not, they are intimidating women.

Thus the issue of Summers's supposedly intimidating style of governance is really the issue of the political correctness by which Summers has been intimidated. Political correctness is the leading form of intimidation in all of American education today, and this incident at Harvard is a pure case of it. The phrase has been around since the 1980s, and the media have become bored with it. But the fact of political correctness is before us in the refusal of feminist women professors even to consider the possibility that women might be at any natural disadvantage in mathematics as compared with men. No, more than that: They refuse to allow that possibility to be entertained even in a private meeting. And still more: They are not ashamed to be seen as suppressing any inquiry into such a possibility. For the demand that Summers be more "responsible" in what he says applies to any inquiry that he or anyone else might cite.

Of course, if you make a study of differences between the sexes with a view to the possibility that some of them might be innate, no violence will come to you. You will not be lynched. But you will be disliked, and you will have a hard time getting appointed at a major (or a minor) university. Feminists do not like to argue, and they consider you a case if you do not immediately agree with them. "Raising consciousness" is their way of getting you to fall in with their plans, and "tsk, tsk" is the only signal you should need and will get. Anyone who requires evidence and argument is already an enemy because he is considering a possibility hurtful to women.

This is an essay question. What do Steve Hayward, Douglas Feith, Irving Kristol and Gertrude Himmelfarb (and William Kristol), George W. Bush, Leo Strauss, Larry Arnn, and Charles Krauthammer have in common? (Hint: The article connecting them appears in tomorrow's New York Times Book Review.)

If you answered "neocons," you get full credit and you have demonstrated your understanding that that we're not calibrating intellectual affiliation at a high level of sophistication. You get extra credit if you mentioned admiration for Winston Churchill in your answer. And if you worked your way toward a conclusion that they are "in effect, inventing a new interventionist tradition for the Republican Party," well, you must also be an editorial writer for the Los Angeles Times.

Jacob Heilbrunn's crude essay is "Winston Churchill, neocon?" Should we deduct a point for Heilbrunn's failure to work Israel explicitly into the equation? Or is Heilbrunn saving that for the book he's writing on "neoconservatism"?

Steve Hayward, incidentally, has taken a break from completing the second volume of his Age of Reagan to write a short book elaborating the comparison between Churchill and Reagan. I'm pretty sure that "neoconservatism" won't be the link, but Steve's book will undoubtedly provide important evidence in support of Heilbrunn's supple thesis. (New York Times illustration by Ed Lam.)

UPDATE: Don't miss Peter Schramm's comment on Heilbrunn at No Left Turns. Among other excellent points, Schramm observes:

We will continue to see such polemics for many years to come, and...there is one massive reason (as Winston might say): The Left is lost and they have nothing to add to our current conversation about politics, especially the politics of security and war. So they pout and pant and reveal that they are in the midst of a deep intellectual malaise and they see no way out save to criticize and jabber. The parrots are jabbering, it turns out, even as the eagles act and talk. But the parrots are not being heard.

Whatever "legs" the Gannon story had are being cut off as adults in the center and on the left weigh in. Centrist Andrew Sullivan thinks that the only scandal is the gay-bashing in which the left has indulged. On the merits, he finds the matter "trivial." And leftist David Corn suggests that the matter "may be smaller than it seems" and that, to some extent, Gannon has gotten a bum rap. Liberal Rik Hertzberg dubs the story "Nothinggate" but only because he thinks the Republican controlled Congress won't investigate it. Missing from Hertzberg's piece is any statement of what it is Congress should investigate. He asserts that "Nothinggate" is of the same order of magnitude as the Clinton travel office story. But that scandal involved substantial allegations of corruption and gave rise to criminal prosecutions, as I recall. What crime did the administration commit here -- calling on a guy from a borderline news organization in the hope of fielding an occasional friendly question?

A friend writes:

This is what the Kos-sacks have left. They were enraged by the "stolen election" of 2000. Many of 'em opposed war in Afghanistan. Lost. They campaigned hard for the Democrats in 2002. Lost. Opposed war in Iraq. That happened anyway. They hoped for a quagmire. The statue came down in three weeks. They celebrated the hard times in Iraq. But they didn't last forever. They bet all their chips and threw every last bit of effort into The Most Important Election of Our Lifetimes (TM)...and lost. And lost pretty resoundingly -- the Left had to resort to hyping and celebrating Obama's victory over Unmedicated Alan Keyes.

And now they see Iraqis happily voting.

Their entire worldview has collapsed. They've been left with nothing. No sign that the House or Senate will get any closer anytime soon. They've been shown evidence that they don't have a majority of the American people; the great revolution just isn't going to happen. And so they're bitter. All they've got is hate.

And they're looking for somebody to hit. Larry Summers is one. Susan Estrich's explosion at Mike Kinsley is another example of this phenomenon. Jeff Gannon.

But this is what they've got...

Well, there does seem to be a pattern here. Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute's City Journal shines a spotlight on one frenzy referred to in the message above: "Feminists get hysterical."

We have received several thoughtful messages in response to my comment this morning on Charles Krauthammer's column prainsing what he deduces to be Ariel Sharon's strategy as well as my reference to Neville Chamberlain. One reader who asked not to be identified writes:

I was a little disappointed by your opening piece today on Israel and its statesmen. I agree Peres falls short certainly. However, whether one agreed with Oslo or not, one must give Rabin credit for a brave attempt at peace, however flawed, foisted upon him by James Baker and George HW Bush. Oslo was the direct result of our half baked, incomplete victory in PG I, and a product of very cycnical statesmanship from the likes of Baker and Scowcroft. GWB has done an excellent job burying that cynicism, going so far as to call it out as dishonorable in his inauguration speech. I detest Oslo, but I cannot blame Israeli statesmen for it. Rabin gave his life to it. He just never properly understood the impracticality of it, not because he was a flawed statesman, but because he was a (very) flawed military commander.

Sharon's strategy, which can work with GWB's support, is pretty clear to me. And it reflects his military genius and confidence. It is oversimplification to say he is falling back to a defensible perimeter. He is creating and defining it as we speak. He will allow for the creation of a Palestinian nation state precisely because, when it is created, it will be an entity against which one can wage conventional war. By explicitly creating its borders, Sharon is ensuring Israel's ability to defeat it in the event Palestine chooses to wage war. The only way to put an end to this nonsense of factionalization of Palestinian warmaking is to make it responsible for itself. Hamas can't get away with shelling Israel from a formal nation state. The day that happens, Israel can "go all out." Under current circumstances, Israel cannot truly defeat the Palestinians, it can only impose pain. However, if a formal nation state of Palestine engages in war with Israel, she can bring the full weight of military supremacy to bear - airpower. The day Palestine is formally consecrated is the day the bleeding stops -- that's the bet anyway.

Carol Herman writes:

We live in an age of media defeatism. Sharon is a lone survivor against the libel that has been perpetrated. And, as such, he has learned to dance. He can't come out and give you his strategy, because the world stage will destroy his efforts. The bigger question is why no Israeli blog has leapt to the rescue? The numbers protecting Arik Sharon are there. He has popular support!

The 8,000 civilians in Gaza are not holding back the tides of terrorism. They're just a costly interference. Using up taxpayer money, to sport small enclaves, where, surprise to no one, the settler's HATE the IDF! (Settler's don't join the army. Most get the "gift" of a religious pass. And, the real problem is that Israel has yet to figure out how to separate church from state, effectively.)

Jews in Israel are denied their natural inclinations because their party system allows for minority parties, and extremists, to garner enormous powers in their parliamentary system. What is fantastic about Sharon is that he LEADS because he makes decisions and promotes a much healthier IDF. Look how Halutz got into the Chief of Staff's job. This is a man, just like Sharon, that was pilloried by the activist judges. They thought they were going to dictate to Sharon. And, surprise, surprise, Sharon does what he has to do in order to bring about peace in a world where Jews are hated. (France, and the UN, and the Germans thrown in for good measure, would love to rip Sharon to pieces. Brussels would love to try him in their world's court.)

So, what's the deal? Start with this. Sharon has identified the outposts that most of the Israelis HATE! And, are loath to support. Sharon, by pulling back has not lost anything. As a matter of fact, he's confused the arabs, because he's not waiting for them. And, terror is down! Don't you think the arabs would be striking at Israel if they could?

Our president also faces a hostile press. He also DANCES. What we have here, however, is a blossoming blog market. (Oh, how I miss Steve Den Beste's USS CLUELESS!) But so many have stepped up to the plate. And, explained WHY our military was really winning. Maybe, it's easier with troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq to do this? And, it's harder to do with the diplomatic situation? But Arik Sharon won in February 2000, and he immediately stretched out his hand to this president! He didn't wait for 9/11! He was always there for Bush.

Always explaining how you can deal with the terrorists...If you think Sharon's giving away inches...Well, you don't know anything about his waistline ... and how many inches he has left to spare!

I think, too, that the best stuff in Israel occurs in Hebrew. And, very little translates over to us. But please don't add to the weight against Sharon! He gets enough t'zuris from the liberal press. And, you're right. Where are the Jews? They're not here, in America, either, if you want to know the truth. Because you can't point to one decent analysis that comes off the presses or out of the TV screen. Not in Hollywood, either. So why blame little Israel?

Greg Rich writes:

On Israel...I realize your post was a rhetorical question, but I will answer it anyway! Proportional representation. I don't know why it is so popular. Presumably societies feel the need to "give voice" to vocal minorities and proportional representation certainly does that. But since it slices the electorate into so many factions, it permits old faces like Shimon Peres to hang around becasuse there is SOME sector of the electorate that will never give up on them. In a constituency based system like ours, he would have been out. Note that the British system is also a constituency based system.

Our system essentially buries extremist factions. You can even get 20% of the vote and get no electoral votes in a presidential election. But in a proportional representation system, you could live off 20% of the vote for generations.

I think that Sharon is much underestimated, although I agree that it is hard to discern his strategy. I suspect the reason he doesn't articulate it is that it is to some extent an act of faith that Israel can create a future reality different from the current reality by encouraging civil society among the Palestinians.

Both Michael Sheldon and Steve Myktyn wrote to the same effect and took up my reference to Chamberlain. Here's Myktyn's message:

1. Chamberlain continued to hold an important post under Churchill in the Cabinet when Churchill became Prime Minister.

2. Churchill never spoke ill of Chamberlain at that time, referring instead to his sincerity and integrity.

3. Even after Chamberlain became too sick to attend Cabinet Meetings, Churchill had the main telegrams sent to his home where Chamberlain
continued to read them until he died.

4. The British politicians, including Chamberlain, that had favored appeasement changed their position after Poland and were strong supporters of defeating Hitler whatever the cost.

Your point about Sharon and Peres is perhaps well-taken, but using Chamberlain and Britain to reinforce your position is not.

I'm writing from memory, but didn't Churchill comment about Hitler when the Luftwaffe bombed Chamberlain's hometown of Birmingham: "What an ingrate!" Ouch!

UPDATE: Lawrie McFarlane writes:

Churchill made his reference to German ingratitude after they bombed the factory owned by Neville Chamberlain's predecesor, Stanley Baldwin. Churchill blamed Baldwin more than Chamberlain for Britain's unpreparedness, though I've always thought that was out of loyalty to the latter, who (grudgingly) brought him into the Cabinet in 1939 after Baldwin kept him out.

And it's not true, pace Steve Mytkyn, that "British politicians, including Chamberlain, that had favored appeasement changed their position after Poland and were strong supporters of defeating Hitler whatever the cost." As the Cabinet minutes show, both Chamberlain and Halifax tried to force Churchill to negotiate with Hitler after the fall of France. After one grim session, Churchill marched out of the war Cabinet, called a meeting of the rest of his ministers, and insisted on carrying on the fight. He was given a standing ovation and used this display of resolve to put down Halifax. I think it was this confrontation that led to Halifax's subsequent dismissal and appointment as ambassador to the U.S.

UPDATE 2: Sean Brearcliffe writes:

One reader of the strategy story stated that the Oslo accords were "foisted" on Rabin by George HW Bush and Jim Baker. The Oslo accords were signed during the Clinton administration, were arrived at in secret negotiations between Rabin's government and the PLO, and then Clinton quickly tried to take credit. George HW Bush had nothing to do with that disater as near as I can remember.

UPDATE 3: Please see additonal post-Shabbat comments from Israel here.

Mrs. Trunk is on the road and missed my appearance on Kudlow & Company this afternoon. She has requested a transcript. Duane Patterson of Radioblogger has kindly supplied it: "Blog shield boundaries." What oft I was thinking was not so well expressed, but it was fun to join Kudlow in the "company" of the estimable Hugh Hewitt.

Michael Barone seems omniscient to me in his analysis of psephological data. I'm agnostic on his thesis, but I wouldn't miss this article excertped from his forthcoming new edition of The Almanac of American Politics for the world: "American politics in the networking era." (Courtesy of RealClearPolitics.)

that the noose continues to tighten around Zarqawi. Today's good news: "Iraqi forces capture key al-Zarqawi aide."

Ramesh Ponnuru reports that Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe appears to have "presented fantasy as fact" and, in so doing, taken credit for the achievement of others in his 2003 account of his role in a 1980 Supreme Court case. Last year, Tribe was shown to have failed to attribute material written by another scholar that he lifted into one of his own books.

Rocket Man knew Professor Tribe at Harvard law school, long before Tribe became the Democrats' top lawyer, and both of us were acquainted with him as college debaters. Here is what Rocket wrote at the time of the plagarism controversy. As he said, we considered Tribe a good man. I hope that he has a satisfactory answer to Ponnuru.

Although he may be less inclined than before to scream about it, newly installed DNC Chairman Howard Dean is still a traveling man. Democratic officials in red states may be inclined to scream about Dean's visits, but not enthusiastically. CNN reports that the Democratic governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sibelius, will not appear with Dean during his two day visit to that state. And CNN expects that Dean will receive a "similar reception" in Mississippi next week.

Via The Corner

I hope you enjoy this Ann Coulter column about Jeff Gannon as much as I did.

As a distant lover of Israel, I have been genuinely puzzled by its failure to produce a statesman equal to the challenges faced by the country over the past 20 years. In every area of modern life the country boasts a genius that on a per capita basis must be unrivaled. Yet on the world stage its politicians seem almost retarded.

The country has never had a public accounting for the utter disaster that was Oslo. Its politicians seem to keep the country's citizens in the dark about the nature of its national security strategy and the actions taken to pursue it. I have previoulsy observed that Ariel Sharon's deal coalition deal to make Shimon Peres his "deputy premier" seems to me a metaphorical expression of the problem.

Symptomatic of the delusional political thinking that has brought Israel so much grief is the fact that there has as yet been no public accounting for the disaster of Oslo itself. Vital advocates of Oslo such as Peres are still respectable public figures playing significant roles and urging the same policy. It is as if Neville Chamberlain (if he had still been alive -- he had the grace to die in 1940) were still advising Winston Churchill on the statesmanship of appeasement in 1942.

What about Sharon himself? He seems to have a strategy, but it is one that he does not seem to have laid open for public view and debate. As a result, its possible shortcomings have not been fully explored.

In his weekly Washington Post column, Charles Krauthammer deduces Sharon's strategy to withdraw to defeat terrorism, thus making peace possible, by drawing Israel back to a defensible perimeter. Krauthammer voices his full-throated support of Sharon's strategy. His column is "Israel draws the line."

Sharon's strategy as outlined by Krauthammer omits consideration of existing terrorist forces such as Hamas and Hezbollah (especially in Gaza) or address the shift in their tactics to breach a defensive perimeter. Notice the rockets that Hamas forces have used to fire over the Gaza border into settlements within Israel proper. Is it reasonable to leave Hamas in place while withdrawing Israeli forces from Gaza and making defensive or preemptive strikes more difficult? The security fence has already saved many lives and is a positive good for that reason alone. But it is by itself only a defense against suicide bombers. How does Israel's strategic withdrawal (described by Krauthammer) fit with a long-term strategy to defeat the terrorist forces that sit cheek by jowl with Israel?

There may be excellent answers to these questions. But it seems odd to me that Krauthammer is left to articulate Sharon's strategy more or less by inference and that obvious questions have yet to be asked of its advocates, let alone answered.

I'm scheduled to appear on CNBC's Kudlow & Company tomorrow (Friday) at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern) together with our friend Hugh Hewitt. Our segment is to be devoted to the subject of shield laws in the context of the litigation related to Plamegate. I think my contribution may be limited to explaining the law that governs the project: the law of unintended consequences.

The guest list posted for tomorrow's show includes the Wall Street Journal editorial board member John Fund and National Review managing editor Jay Nordlinger. By his own choice Jay does not frequently appear on the talking head shows; this should be a good chance to catch up with him. Coincidentally, Jay's NRO Impromptus column today is a blast. Here's the column's first "impromptu":

Can I grin over the president, just a little — even though the topic is quite serious (a nuclear Iran)? In Brussels, he said, "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table."

I can't tell you how much I love that — it's better than "Now watch this drive." President Bush has almost zero patience for boilerplate, even though he repeats it (as he must). And he just can't help showing his impatience.

Also, I tend to like it when Bush is snippy. Remember when Gore said to him, over the phone on Election Night 2000, "You don't have to get snippy with me"? I'd bet a million dollars that Bush was, in fact, snippy.

In Brussels, he said, essentially, "We don't think we have to take out your nukes right this second. But, you know? We may."

I wanted to take note of a couple of things in Bush's big Feb. 21 speech. Did you catch that opening joke? I thought it was enormously shrewd.

You know, on this journey to Europe, I follow in some large footsteps. More than two centuries ago, Benjamin Franklin arrived on this continent to great acclaim. An observer wrote, "His reputation was more universal than Liebniz or Newton, Frederick or Voltaire, and his character more beloved and esteemed than any or all of them." The observer went on to say, "There was scarcely a peasant or citizen who did not consider him as a friend to humankind."
I've been hoping for a similar reception. But Secretary Rice told me I should be a realist.

Bush also said, "...our strong friendship [that between Europe and the United States] is essential to peace and prosperity across the globe, and no temporary debate, no passing disagreement of governments, no power on earth will ever divide us."

That seems to me false, but maybe a necessary falsity. There is much that can divide us, for a very long time. If "peace and prosperity across the globe" depends on European-American friendship — well, too bad for peace and prosperity across the globe. I'm fond of quoting the adage, "We don't have permanent alliances, we have permanent interests." And it's just possible that U.S. interests and those of, say, France have seriously diverged. Alliances aren't forever. The record of mankind makes that much clear.

Said Bush, "After many false starts and dashed hopes and stolen lives, a settlement of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is now within reach." I was taken with that phrase, "stolen lives."

I interpreted what follows as a rebuke — a polite, semi-disguised rebuke — to certain Euros. See if you agree:

Together, we must make clear to the Iraqi people that the world is...with them, because they have certainly shown their character to the world.

An Iraqi man who lost a leg in a car bombing last year made sure he was there to vote on January the 30th. He said, "I would have c