Following up on our post from Sunday, Rush Limbaugh cited our red and blue state map of France today. I'm not sure, though, that we have gotten to the bottom of what these divisions mean in the context of French politics. At first I thought the pattern was very similar to our own red/blue divide, at least in cultural terms, but Michael Barone interpreted it in an email to us in almost exactly the opposite fashion. Rush reproduces the map we got from Le Monde and adopts my original interpretation of the data, but I think there are depths here that are yet to be plumbed.

We commented here on the end of Daniel Okrent's tenure as Public Editor of the New York Times, and the parting shots he took at Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd and William Safire. Krugman is not one to take criticism lying down (or any other way), so he replied to Okrent, which triggered a dialogue that you can read here.

Krugman's efforts to defend himself against the charge of slicing and dicing, and flat-out misrepresenting, economic data in order to support his far-left political positions are, I think, lame, but what really jumps out at me is the intensity of Okrent's apparent loathing for Krugman. Consider the following paragraphs:

This was the first he heard from me on these specific issues partly because I learned early on in this job that Prof. Krugman would likely be more willing to contribute to the Frist for President campaign than to acknowledge the possibility of error. When he says he agreed “reluctantly” to one correction, he gives new meaning to the word “reluctantly”; I can’t come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism. But I laid off for so long because I also believe that columnists are entitled by their mandate to engage in the unfair use of statistics, the misleading representation of opposing positions, and the conscious withholding of contrary data. But because they’re entitled doesn’t mean I or you have to like it, or think it’s good for the newspaper.

* * *

Believe me -- I could go on, as could a number of readers more sophisticated about economic matters than I am. (Among these are several who, like me, generally align themselves politically with Prof. Krugman, but feel he does himself and his cause no good when he heeds the roaring approval of his acolytes and dismisses his critics as ideologically motivated.) But I don’t want to engage in an extended debate any more than Prof. Krugman says he does. If he replies to this statement, as I imagine he will, I’ll let him have what he always insists on keeping for himself: the last word.

I hate to do this to a decent man like my successor, Barney Calame, but I’m hereby turning the Krugman beat over to him.

Ouch. Paul Krugman is a perfect emblem of the sickness at the heart of the New York Times. Notwithstanding his protestations of affection for that once-great institution, it is hard to miss Okrent's relief at putting down his "Public Editor" shovel.

David Rivkin and Lee Casey show how dishonest Amnesty International's 2005 Report on worldwide human rights is, at least when it comes to assessing the U.S. "First and foremost," Rivkin and Casey state, "Amnesty’s report is emphatically not an honest assessment of American compliance with international law. Rather, it is an assessment of how well the United States complies with Amnesty International’s political and ideological agenda — equivalent to the grading of individual members of Congress by domestic advocacy groups."

Vice President Cheney and the Washington Post may not agree on much. But both recognize that Amnesty International cannot be taken seriously on this issue.

This afternoon I participated in CNN's annual World Report International Conference for its overseas affiliates. I was part of a panel on blogging that included Harry McDougald, the famous "Buckhead" of 60 Minutes fame, Rebecca McKinnon, John Aravosis, Chris Nolan, Christopher Allbright, who self-financed a trip to Iraq as a free-lance journalist through a blog, Howard Kaushansky of Umbria Software, and someone I'm forgetting. Our moderator was Michael Holmes, an Australian who works for CNN and did a great job of keeping our segment on track. The presentations were done in the round; I took the photo below during a break between sessions:

From my perspective, it didn't seem like we were breaking a lot of new ground, but I suppose much of it was new to many of the international affiliates, and the CNN people seemed happy with the panel. I tend to view these events mostly through a personal prism, so for me, the biggest kick was meeting McDougald. The other thing that blew me away was how cordial the CNN people were. Every one of the CNN people we dealt with, including the producer who made our arrangements and rode herd over the program, Michael Holmes, Jon Klein, Chris Cramer, who succeeded Eason Jordan as head of CNN International, and hauled a couple of us bloggers out into the corridor between sessions because he was excited about the possibilities of our medium, Christiane Amanpour, who quoted our between-sessions conversation in the segment she moderated, and everyone else we met from CNN was friendlier than we had any right to expect.

I don't suppose that CNN invited us bloggers with a view toward raising our opinion of their operation, but, speaking for myself, it certainly had that effect.

In the July 1974 issue of Commentary magazine, before Richard Nixon resigned from office, Edward Jay Epstein asked in a memorable essay: "Did the press uncover Watergate?" Epstein asked more specifically "who was 'Deep Throat' and what was his motivation for leaking information to Woodward and Bernstein?" He inferred that Deep Throat was likely a high-ranking officer of the FBI. (My vague recollection is that he actually named Mark Felt, but if so it is in a part of the essay not available on Epstein's site). Epstein wrote:

Whether Deep Throat is real or fictive, it is clear that the arduous and time-consuming investigation by Woodward and Bernstein of Segretti was heavily based on FBI "302" reports, which must ultimately have been made available by someone in the FBI. The prosecutors suggest that there was a veritable revolt against the directorship of L. Patrick Gray, because he was "too liberal." Specifically, he was allowing agents to wear colored shirts, grow their hair long, and was even recruiting women. More important, he had publicly reprimanded an FBI executive. According to this theory, certain FBI executives released the "302" files, not to expose the Watergate conspiracy or drive President Nixon from office, but simply to demonstrate to the President that Gray could not control the FBI, and therefore would prove a severe embarrassment to his administration. In other words, the intention was to get rid of Gray.

Such a theory would be perfectly consistent with the information-disclosing activities of the source that led Bernstein and Woodward astray. Ironically, even on the wrong trail, the stalwart Bernstein and Woodward generated enough damaging publicity about "Watergate" to cause the White House to vilify them and the Washington Post, and thus elevate them to the status of journalistic martyr-heroes. If instead of chastising the press, President Nixon and his staff had correctly identified the "signals" from the FBI, and had replaced Gray with an FBI executive, things might have turned out differently. (But Gray, as it happened, had acquired damaging files from Hunt's safe, and could engage in his own information-releasing game, if threatened.)

Epstein subsequently concluded that Deep Throat was fictive rather than real. See Timothy Noah's excellent 2002 Slate column: "Yes, Virginia, there is a Deep Throat." Noah too speculated that Felt was Deep Throat, but Epstein's 1974 essay is a model of the kind of sophisticated analysis that has been sorely lacking in reflection on the press use of anonymous sources since Watergate. In retrospect, Epstein's 1974 analysis seems prescient.

The conclusion of Epstein's essay is of continuing relevance to the mythical role imputed to the press in uncovering Watergate. The journalistic sense of self-importance that flowed from the myth has become a dynamo of destruction. Epstein wrote in his 1974 essay:

Perhaps the most perplexing mystery in Bernstein and Woodward's book [All the President's Men] is why they fail to understand the role of the institutions and investigators who were supplying them and other reporters with leaks. This blind spot, endemic to journalists, proceeds from an unwillingness to see the complexity of bureaucratic in-fighting and of politics within the government itself. If the government is considered monolithic, journalists can report its activities, in simply comprehended and coherent terms, as an adversary out of touch with popular sentiments. On the other hand, if governmental activity is viewed as the product of diverse and competing agencies, all with different bases of power and interests, journalism becomes a much more difficult affair.

In any event, the fact remains that it was not the press, which exposed Watergate; it was agencies of government itself. So long as journalists maintain their blind spot toward the inner conflicts and workings of the institution, of government, they will no doubt continue to speak of Watergate in terms of the David and Goliath myth, with Bernstein and Woodward as David and the government as Goliath.

UPDATE: Edward Jay Epstein writes:

You are correct in your memory. I mentioned Mark Felt in my book Between Fact & Fiction in adding to my Commentary article. The entire issue is simply another attempt to pretend journalism is some deep mystery. Mark Felt had it right when [he] said DT was a composite. And you are entirely right in your interpretation.

David Maizenberg writes:

I think Ed Epstein, in that original Commentary piece, was following the model of analysis set by Graham T. Allison in the seminal Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. The "third take" in that book explains how an analysis of bureaucratic in-fighting is often the best lens through which to view political events.

I have always thought that the truly savvy political players are disdainful of journalists not because they have vulgar and transparent biases and are often sloppy (all that was obvious long before Power Line made so much hay of pointing it out), but because they are so egotistical and easily manipulated. The best journalists understand most acutely that they are being played; most journalists, however, think that they are players.

UPDATE 2: See Timothy Noah's Slate column of this evening: "Deep Throat, antihero." Also of interest are the Washington Post's backgrounder, "The motives that drove Felt to talk," and the Telegraph column by Nixon biographer Jonathan Aitken, "Deep Throat: The plot thickens."

I hope to meet some of our New York Power Line readers tomorrow, June 1, when I appear at the Overseas Press Club of America for a discussion of whether blogs are hurting or helping the American public remain informed about international news. The other participants will be Joe Trippi, Mike Moran, Rebecca MacKinnon, and Marshall Loeb. Sreenath Sreenivasan of Columbia University's School of Journalism will moderate.

The program will begin at 6:15. It will take place at the Club's headquarters at 40 West 45th Street in Manhattan.

This Associated Press report on President Bush's news conference earlier today quotes the President on various issues, including the Amnesty International report. What struck me, though, was this sentence at the end of the article:

Though he did not mention tax cuts in his opening argument, Bush said he still wants Congress to make his first-term cuts permanent. He also pledged not to give up on Social Security reform, despite intense opposition on Capitol Hill.

Opening argument? What a weird way to describe the President's statement to the press, as if it were the beginning of a trial, and the President one of the lawyers. I can't help wondering whether it's a Freudian slip; I suspect that many reporters do, indeed, view their relationship with the Bush administration in those terms. He and they represent adverse parties; they cross-examine the President and then deliver their own closing argument when they write their stories. Or maybe I'm just a little paranoid.

Thomas Friedman exhorts the government to "shut down" Gitmo. Friedman's argument is that the world is so outraged by what is happening at Gitmo (or what reportedly is happening -- Friedman doesn't seem to worry about the distinction), that for purely public relations purposes, we must release the Gitmo detainees. This is pretty naïve stuff. If Gitmo didn't exist (and there's not much evidence that, as portrayed by the MSM, it does) our enemies and elements of our MSM would have to invent it. Indeed, Friedman claims (without citing evidence) that 100 prisoners in the war on terror have died in U.S. custody. But none has died at Gitmo. If we were to close up shop there, our enemies and our MSM would simply shine their alleged light somewhere else. For all that Friedman shows, Gitmo is not the cause of anti-American sentiment; rather it's cartoonish depiction is the result of such sentiment.

Friedman also slides past the problems that would result from releasing al Qaeda and Taliban members. He acknowledges that some would probably take up arms against us, but responds, in effect, "so what?" There's been a good deal of speculation about the extent to which it remains possible for the U.S. effectively to prosecute a serious and sustained war given the anti-military sentiment of many opinion-shapers and a considerable segment of the Democratic party. I've never been too worried about this. But having seen a highly respected columnist arguing that we should release enemy detainees knowing that, if we do, they will soon be back in the field trying to kill Americans, I'm less sanguine. It's also interesting to contemplate what the reaction of Friedman and others in the MSM would be if a Gitmo detainee released by the Bush administration were to participate in the next "9/11."

Beyond the benefits of simply keeping those who have taken up arms against us off the field (a justification that has always been deemed sufficient), one must also consider the benefits of obtaining information from the Gitmo detainees. Friedman seems oblivious to them. He thus aligns himself with the simple-minded left, which appears to think that we're interrogating the detainees for no reason other than sadism. The military, of course, is reluctant to discuss with specificity what it has learned from the Gitmo detainees. However, it does claim to have obtained valuable information. For example, it says we are saving lives in Iraq through knowledge gained from Gitmo detainees about al Qaeda's use of explosive devices. Such information has enabled us to engage in reverse engineering that makes the Iraqi insurgents less lethal. The military also claims to have gained valuable information from Gitmo detainees about how al Qaeda's leadership functions -- how it communicates and moves money, for example. It has also learned the details of how al Qaeda trains its fighters. One key element of the training is to complain, if captured, about "torture."

One might argue that after all of this time, there is nothing more to be learned from the Gitmo detainees. However, such an argument would misunderstand the nature of our intelligence effort in this context. In a traditional war, low-ranking soldiers know very little. But, since this enemy has an informal, catch-as-catch-can command structure, the military says it's finding that even the low-level operatives often have pieces of information that help complete the intelligence mosaic. Obtaining these pieces of the puzzle is an ongoing process because we are always finding new pieces from around the world. Moreover, unlike in the traditional "name-rank-and serial number" context, at Gitmo it is very difficult to distinguish the low-ranking and high-ranking people. Everyone starts out claiming to be a goat herder. However, as we obtain information about al Qaeda from other sources around the world, we sometimes learn much later that a Gitmo detainee previously considered of low value is actually a high-value source. At that point, we are in position to gain valuable intelligence from that source. In addition, as noted above, the information we obtain on an ongoing basis from around the world enables us to re-interrogate detainees more effectively. And that information, in turn, can enable us to hit al Qaeda elsewhere, thereby gaining intelligence from new sources which then can be used at Gitmo.

I can't quantify, or even confirm, the intelligence benefits of past and present interrogations of the Gitmo detainees. Neither can Friedman. But he might at least consider what these benefits are likely to be before proposing that we release this deadly crew. I'm reasonably certain that, coupled with keeping terrorists under lock-and-key, the benefits outweigh any gain public relations gain, which would consist of a few week hiatus while our enemies and the MSM figure out which new American "outrage" to trumpet.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin is disappointed that President Bush didn't defend our detention policies and practices vigorously enough at his press conference. Michelle promises to do so in her column tomorrow.

Meanwhile, my former colleagues David Rivkin and Lee Casey provide an excellent rebuttal to Friedman at NRO's corner.

As always, poll results depend a lot on how you ask the question. The latest Zogby poll finds that 52% of Americans supported Social Security reform, including private accounts, when they were told that private accounts could generate a higher rate of return than Social Security. (I've never liked talking about Social Security "rates of return," since the fact is that there isn't any investment, just payment of taxes.) Here are Zogby's key paragraphs:

"The thing that is compelling in this poll is that this is the response you get when you use a positive approach on Social Security reform," Mr. Zogby said. "If you use the 'Chicken Little, sky-is-falling' approach, then voters understand that something has to be done, but don't see the connection between personal accounts and fundamental reform of Social Security."

Among supporters, the most popular reason for supporting private accounts was, "It's my money; I should control it," Mr. Zogby said. "This was true for every group except African-Americans, who chose inheritability as their biggest reason for supporting accounts."

The poll's results suggested that Mr. Bush's proposal would be much more popular if he focused "on the points in this poll," Mr. Zogby said in an interview. "Nobody can understand or relate to the system's insolvency in 2043. But it wins a majority when the issue is raised as a matter of choice and as a positive opportunity," he said. "If it's pitted as just Social Security reform because it is becoming insolvent, that's not enough."

I thnk that's right. I've always thought that the worst way to sell Social Security reform is to talk about accounting.

I'm at CNN's World Report International Conference (or something like that) in Atlanta. It's lunch time, and my panel, on blogging, will begin at 2:15. Just before lunch Wolf Blitzer did an interview with President Musharraf of Pakistan; Musharraf also took questions from the audience.

I've always been impressed by Musharraf, but have never seen him for more than a few minutes at a time. He's very, very good. He has the skills of an American politician of a generation or two ago; it's fun to watch someone as smart as Musharraf who hasn't been subjected to the Oprah-ization of American politics. A few highlights:

Musharraf began with a speech or statement in which he outlined, in a very positive way, Pakistan's progress against terrorism, especially al Qaeda. He said that Pakistan's Secret Service has penetrated al Qaeda's courier network, leading to valuable human intelligence. This is apparently the first time any government has succeeded in penetrating the organization.

Musharraf said that al-Libbi, said to be al Qaeda's number three leader, has cooperated with interrogators, and information has been extracted that has led to the apprehension of a number of terrorists. Al-Libbi did not, however, know anything about bin Laden's whereabouts. Musharraf said that he believes al-Libbi has been "deported to the United States" within the past three days. Someone asked a question about where terrorists captured in Pakistan would ultimately be tried. Musharraf said he hadn't yet "stretched his mind" far enough to think about that question. Trials for terrorists are clearly not a priority for him.

The short-term strategy against terrorism, in Musharraf's view, is military; the long-term strategy is to address extremism in the Arab world by resolving political conflicts rather than merely trying to manage them. Toward this end, he says he is seeking a definitive resolution of the conflict with India over Kashmir, which he says he is optimistic will occur while he is still in power. He also says that Pakistan is addressing the issue of the "misuse of Mosques" and is "mainstreaming the madrassas." I can only hope that's true.

Asked whether Pakistan has been sufficiently "rewarded" for cooperating with the United States in the GWOT, Musharraf bristled a bit. He said that he pursues anti-terror policies because they are in Pakistan's interest, and it "trivializes" an important issue to speak in terms of "rewards." He also noted that Pakistan had received (even though it did not solicit) significant debt relief and financial assistance.

Musharraf acknowledged that there is considerable anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, which dates from the 1990s and which he attributes mostly to the U.S. having left Pakistan "high and dry" after the war in Afghanistan, and having "denied" Pakistan the F-16. Nevertheless, he said he is confident that Pakistanis support his anti-terror policies; that they also benefit the United States is irrelevant.

Musharraf's view of the emerging conflict between Japan and China (a subject raised by a Japanese journalist) is benign. He says that the two Asian powers are pursuing ever-deeper commercial relationships, and that their economic ties will "overshadow" any political conflicts.

The interview was consistent with my perception that Musharraf is a hard man, but not a bad one. A good ally, in other words, in a place where we desperately need one.

UPDATE: Musharraf's statement that al-Libbi has been turned over to the U.S. is now being reported.

David Horowitz's FrontPage column today follows up on his book Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. The column features the execrable George Galloway and the legal assault on our terrorist incarceration center at Guantanamo: "Vindication: There is an unholy alliance." Before Horowitz wrote the book on the subject, I tried to describe the phenomenon in a FrontPage column based on my attendance at the National Lawyers Guild national convention in Minneapolis in the fall of 2003: "Face to face with Lynne Stewart."

Michael Phillips is the son of Minneapolis attorney Felix Phillips, the brother of novelist Arthur Phillips, and is himself an excellent reporter for the Wall Street Journal. Last spring the Journal published Phillips's riveting account of the service in Iraq of Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham: "In combat, Marines put theory to test, comrades believe." At I Love Jet Noise, Phillips's story was noted in "No words."

Phillips has expanded his Journal article on Cpl. Dunham into a book, published today: The Gift of Valor. OpinionJournal has posted excerpts in a column under the same title. The Journal prefaces the excerpts with the following editor's note:

"The U.S. military announced that three American soldiers were killed . . . and one wounded in two separate attacks." So read an AP report last week in phrases that are roughly familiar to anyone who has followed the battle with Iraq's insurgency over the past months.

The facts, so stated, are as momentous as any facts can be, but stripped down to an almost clinical abstraction. One is left to wonder: What happened in those fateful, final minutes? Under what circumstances did death come--with what surprise, suffering, heroism or glory? Who exactly were these soldiers and how will they be remembered by their families and comrades in arms?

In "The Gift of Valor," Journal reporter Michael M. Phillips attempts to answer such questions for the events of April 14, 2004, when a platoon of U.S. Marines in Iraq's Anbar Province came under murderous assault.

Drawing on his experience as a reporter in Iraq--and on dozens of interviews--Mr. Phillips offers portraits of the young men in Kilo Company and reconstructs the action of that day: the takeover of an abandoned building, the shock and shrapnel of a hidden bomb suddenly exploding there, the rake of surrounding machine-gun fire, the wounds, the retreat; and later, more bloodily, an ambush, as another part of the platoon, in a convoy of Humvees, draws fire from insurgents armed with rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, and a nearby Marine patrol sprints toward the sound of firing.

One member of this arriving contingent is Cpl. Jason Dunham, the main figure in Mr. Phillips's account, a likable 22-year-old squad leader from Scio, N.Y., who suffers head wounds in the course of the day's fighting and, despite the efforts of his fellow Marines and of doctors in Baghdad and elsewhere, loses his life.

Miss Canada, Natalie Glebova, won the Miss Universe contest tonight. I haven't checked for a few days, but last I knew, she was the betting favorite. Here she is, during the swimsuit competition:

Miss Canada was the only non-Latin American finalist; the others were Miss Miss Dominican Republic, Miss Mexico, Miss Puerto Rico and Miss Venezuela. So it was a New World sweep.

I wasn't able to live-blog the competition tonight, as I was on an airplane en route to Atlanta for CNN's annual meeting with its international correspondents and affiliates. I'll be on a program tomorrow afternoon, and will report anything interesting that happens.

Both Mrs. Trunk and Little Trunk have directed me to Senator Byrd's reference to one of Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales" as featured on Laura Ingraham's radio show last week. Tracking down the reference on the Internet, it appears that Byrd invoked the "Pardoner's Tale" (Lord, save me) during his announcement of the Missouri Compromise on the filibuster reached by the Gang of 14. On his Web site, Byrd refers to the deal as "a historic agreement."

In his role as the cornpone constitutionalist of the United States Senate, Byrd has not received the derision he has so richly earned. Instead, he has been celebrated by the New York Times and other members of the elite media as a latter-day Horatius.

When Lyndon Johnson nominated Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court in 1967, Byrd saw Marshall as too liberal and looked for grounds to attack him. The Honorable Gentleman from West Virginia who formerly served as the Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan called on FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to look into Marshall's possible Communist connections.

Today, of course, Byrd opposes President Bush's nomination of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on the ground that she is too conservative, as he had earlier opposed Clarence Thomas's confirmation to the Supreme Court. Byrd holds the distinction of being the only senator to have voted against both black nominees to the United States Supreme Court.

Here, if you can stand it, is Byrd on the deal: "The sceptics, the cynics, the doubters, the pharisees, those who are intoxicated by the juice of sour grapes did not prevail. The fourteen rose above those who do not wish to see accord, but prefer discord." I would add only that, unassisted by the intoxication of the juice of sour grapes, the fourteen have risen to the challenge of praising themselves in terms formerly reserved for those who have given their lives for their country.

Immediately following his praise of himself, Byrd launched into his citation of the "Pardoner's Tale." Perhaps the New York Times will come to my rescue and help flesh out the senator's train of thought. I certainly can't:

Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales," contains the "Pardoner's Tale," which most, if not all, of you will remember having read in your school days. The story took place in Flanders, where, once, there sat drinking in a tavern three young men who were given to folly. As they sat, they heard a small bell clink before a corpse that was being carried to the grave, whereupon, one of them called to his knave and ordered him to go and find out the name of the corpse that was passing by.

The boy answered that he already knew, and that it was an old comrade of the roisterers who had been slain while drunk by an unseen thief called Death, who had slain others in recent days.

Out into the road the three young ruffians went in search of this monster called Death. They came upon an old man, and seized him and with rough language demanded that he tell them where they could find this cowardly adversary who was taking the lives of their good friends in the countryside.

The old man pointed to a great oak tree on a nearby knoll, saying, "There, under that tree, you will find Death." In a drunken rage, the three roisterers set off in a run 'til they came to the tree, and there they found a pile of gold--eight basketfuls, of florins, newly minted, round coins. Forgotten was the monster called Death, as they pondered their good fortune, and they decided that they should remain with the gold until nightfall when they would divide it among themselves and take it to their homes. It would be unsafe, they thought, to attempt to do so in broad daylight, as they might be fallen upon by thieves who would take their treasure from them.

It was proposed that they draw straws, and the person who drew the shortest cut would go into the nearby village and purchase some bread and wine which they could enjoy as they whiled away the daylight hours. Off towards the village the young man went. When he was out of sight, the remaining two decided that there was no good reason why this fortune should be divided among three individuals, so one of them said to the other: "When he returns, you throw your arm around him as if in jest, and I will rive him with my dagger. And, with your dagger, you can do the same. Then, all of this gold will be divided just between you and me."

Meanwhile, the youngest rogue, as he made its way into the town, thought what a shame it was that the gold would be divided among three, when it could so easily belong only to the ownership of one. Therefore, in town, the young man went directly to an apothecary and asked to be sold some poison for large rats and for a polecat that had been killing his chickens. The apothecary quickly provided some poison, saying that as much as equaled only a grain of wheat would result in sudden death for the creature that drank the mixture.

Having purchased the poison, the young villain crossed the street to a winery where he purchased three bottles--two for his friends, one for himself. After he left the village, he sat down, opened two bottles and deposited an equal portion in each, and then returned to the oak tree, where the two older men did as they had planned. One threw his arm playfully around the shoulders of the third, they buried their daggers in him, and he fell dead on the pile of gold. The other two then sat down, cut the bread and opened the wine. Each took a good, deep swallow, and, suffering a most excruciating pain, both fell upon the body of the third, across the pile of gold. All three were dead.

Byrd appears to cite the "Pardoner's Tale" straight, as a kind of scriptural authority. Byrd proudly steps into the shoes of the Pardoner in retailing the story. The Pardoner, however, is a thoroughly disreputable character, the twelfth-century version of a confidence man. At the conclusion of his tale, he invites the pilgrims' host to buy some allegedly holy relics from him. The host replies:

"Why, you would have me kissing your old breeches,
And swear they were the relics of a saint,
Though with your excrement 'twere dabbed like paint.
By cross Saint Helen found in Holy Land,
I would I had your ballocks in my hand
Instead of relics in a reliquary;
Let's cut them off, and them I'll help you carry;
They shall be shrined within a hog's fat turd."

What oft was thought, but ne'er so well expressed. It's a shame Senator Byrd pulled up a little short of the end. In his notes on the "Pardoner's Tale" in the New Cambridge Edition of The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, editor F.N. Robinson comments:

Both the Prologue and the Tale of the Pardoner are apparently delivered while the pilgrims are still at the tavern...So a story which is in large part an attack upon gluttony and revelry is told in a tavern by a man notoriously addicted to the vices he condemns.

Dear readers, I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

UPDATE: On a related note, see Roger Kimball's Armavirumque post: "Where is Hercules when you need him?"

Today President Bush laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery. The White House has posted his remarks here. He said:

At our National Cemetery, we're reminded why America has always been a reluctant warrior. This year we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II, a victory for which more than 400,000 Americans gave their lives. Their courage crossed two oceans, and it conquered tyrants. Some of you here today fought in that war as young men, and we make this pledge to you: America will always honor the character and the achievements of your brave generation. (Applause.)

Today we also remember the Americans who are still missing. We honor them. And our nation is determined to account for all of them. (Applause.)

Another generation is fighting a new war against an enemy that threatens the peace and stability of the world. Across the globe, our military is standing directly between our people and the worst dangers in the world, and Americans are grateful to have such brave defenders. (Applause.) The war on terror has brought great costs. For those who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan and Iraq, today is a day of last letters and fresh tears. Because of the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, two terror regimes are gone forever, freedom is on the march, and America is more secure. (Applause.)

After referring to some of those who have died in our current struggle, he said:

These are the men and women who wear our uniform. These are the men and women who defend our freedom. And these are the men and women who are buried here. As we look across these acres, we begin to tally the cost of our freedom, and we count it a privilege to be citizens of the country served by so many brave men and women. (Applause.) And we must honor them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives, by defeating the terrorists, advancing the cause of liberty, and building a safer world. (Applause.)

A day will come when there will be no one left who knew the men and women buried here. Yet Americans will still come to visit, to pay tribute to the many who gave their lives for freedom, who liberated the oppressed, and who left the world a safer and better place. Today we pray that they have found peace with their Creator, and we resolve that their sacrifice will always be remembered by a grateful nation.

Below is the White House photo of the crowd inside the amphitheatre at Arlington today.

Our friend Dafydd ab Hugh is guest-blogging over at Patterico's Pontifications. One of his early posts analogizes Harry Reid's exhorting fellow Democrats to resume the filibuster before the ink on the "moderates'" "agreement" is dry to a Brady Bunch episode in which Greg has been grounded...well, you'd better just read it.

Dafydd is working on his own web site which, he assures us, is coming soon. It sounds like it will be quite a bit more complicated than a typical blog, with graphics that relate to his career as a science fiction writer.

Regarding John's post on "red state/blue state France" immediately below, Michael Barone writes:

I was just looking at your red-and-blue map of the French vote. The oui areas--Brittany, Alsace, the central city of Paris and the department including Neuilly just to the west--have this in common: they are the areas most supportive of the party of the right. It seems that Chirac's party's people voted his way more than others. Lyon, I believe, tends to vote party of the right as well. I'm not sure about the department directly east of Geneva; I think it includes Evian les Bains, site of several infamous international conferences and the place where Stanley Baldwin (who liked to paint himself as an ordinary man of the British people) vacationed several weeks a year.

But, like us, you probably knew all that already, didn't you?

JOHN adds: If that is correct, then my suggestion that blue-state France parallels blue-state America was almost exactly wrong.

UPDATE: A number of readers have also tried to explain why Brittany is blue (at least one pointed out that the blue area doesn't quite correspond to Brittany). The most common explanation is that Brittany has a historic sense of independence and, like many more or less separatist regions of Europe, tends to support the EU on the theory that it would grant more regional autonomy.

A little more on French voters' decisive rejection of the EU constitution. The New York Times has a pretty good story on the referendum, which includes these paragraphs:

At the polling place at the Karl Marx primary school in downtown Bobigny, a working-class suburb of Paris, by contrast, there was no sense that Europe's future hinged on the constitution.

With 18 percent unemployment and a large ethnic Arab and African population, 72 percent of the voters there said no.

Bernard Birsinger, the suburb's Communist mayor, accused Mr. Chirac of fear-mongering and dissembling when he predicted political and economic doom for France if the country rejected the constitution.

"We are already in a Europe of unemployment and regression," said Mr. Birsinger, adding, "We know that the destiny of France is not threatened."

I agree. The destiny of any country that names elementary schools after Karl Marx was sealed long ago.

The Sun is unabashedly jubilant:

Tony Blair, who is on holiday in Italy, will face the task of dealing with the fallout from the French vote when Britain takes over the EU presidency on July 1.

Before that, EU leaders will hold emergency talks on the treaty during a summit in Brussels.

Government insiders predict that a decision on the Constitution’s future will be made during Britain’s presidency in the autumn.

They admit there is no obvious way to save the Constitution in its current form now that it has been knifed in France.

Brussels chiefs fear the entire EU project will now be thrown into chaos.

I'm afraid that prediction is too optimistic.

The London Times takes a more cynical, and I suspect more accurate view:

Yet it is hard to claim that the practical implications of losing the constitution will be huge. The EU will muddle on, as it always has done, implementing only what it chooses rather than what it notionally has agreed. Even if the constitution were ratified, the EU would still ignore bits of it.

You have only to look at the scrapping, in effect, over the past 15 months, of the financial rules supposed to govern the eurozone. Although these are a central part of the constitution, France and Germany have found them inconveniently tough. They have now been watered down until they are almost meaningless.

If the constitution fails, as now seems likely, the EU will still salvage the parts it most needs (such as the replacement of a rotating presidency).

One interesting aspect of the referendum is the extent to which France's electoral map resembles that of the U.S.--a sea of red with a few urban islands of blue, like Paris and Lyon, which would seem to correspond reasonably well to American "liberalism." I don't know enough about French politics, however, to say why Brittany is blue:

There seems to be little doubt that the Dutch will vote "No" next week; Denmark is scheduled to hold a referendum in the fall. Great Britain is planning a referendum, but apparently it may yet be cancelled. What it all means politically, I don't think anyone knows. But the underlying reality is that "old" Europe is in deep trouble, and cannot be saved by adopting resolutions and approving documents.

I forgot to footnote an important point in linking to Clinton Taylor's excellent column on George Galloway's Senate testimony. The cybersleuthing on which Taylor relied (duly noted in his column) was performed by George Gooding of Seixon in "With all due RESPECT, Mr. Galloway." Gooding is still working the story; Roger L. Simon notes here that the information from Gooding has been forwarded to Senator Coleman via Simon's site.

File under the category of good news, Schadenfreude subfile: "French voters reject EU constitution." Bill Kristol anticipated the good news, and took some pleasure in the anticipated unhappiness of the Eurocrats in "A new Europe?" Mark Coffey anticipated the result by making Jacques Chirac his "Weekly jackass no. 25" over at Decison '08. Mark Steyn, on the other hand, predicts that "EU just won't take 'no' for an answer." (Courtesy of RealClearPolitics.)

This past Jan. 24 Army Sgt. Michael Carlson (above) was killed in Iraq. As a high school senior at St. Paul's (parochial) Cretin-Derham High School, Carlson wrote the moving credo that the Wall Street Journal published on its editorial page earlier this week. Today the Minneapolis Star Tribune tells the story of Carlson and his credo: "His words are his legacy." Here are four paragraphs of Carlson's credo:

I admire my father more than any other person on this planet, not for being a mechanic or a tough guy but for his ambition. For 30 years, he has gone to work every day, come home, gone to the garage and worked more hours. I don't know how he does it but I do know why. He does it for us. He wants my brother and me to have everything we need and most of what we want. Lots of people say that the best way to learn is by the example of others. Well, then I have one of the best teachers on how to be a man [and] how to treat others. I mean, he is not perfect by any means, but is anyone really perfect? I think that he is pretty close.

Sometimes I wonder if my dad ever thought of college. I wonder if he is happy. I sometimes even feel sorry for him. What I mean by that is that I look at him and I see a guy who has spent his entire life working. That is what he does. He works. If my mom never brought up the idea of a vacation, he would never think [about taking one]. He would work to the day he died. I love hard work, but how do you go to the same dead-end job every day knowing that you will be doing it forever?

Every now and then, someone who had my dad fix his car will stop by and need something, and every time I talk to them they always start talking about my dad's work. They compliment him on paint jobs he did 20 years ago that still look like they are brand new. That reminds me of another trait I have taken from my dad, besides my hard work ethic. "If you are going to do a job, do it right the first time, because a job not done well is a job not worth doing," so the saying goes. I take that personally. If someone has an honest complaint about my workmanship, I will bend over backwards to make it right. If people are going to pay you good money to do something, you had better do a darn good job. That is why I usually work alone. Then, if there is a problem, I know whom I can blame.

My dad hasn't taught me everything, though. A lot of it I have learned on my own. I've still got a lot to learn, but I have figured out things like how to deal with people I don't like and those who don't like me. I've also learned why, when cutting a frozen bagel, you cut away from yourself. I have the scar to prove it. My dad calls this type of learning "the school of hard knocks." Some of the knocks are harder than others.

Below is the photo of Carlson's parents by Jeff Wheeler that the Star Tribune runs with the story by Chuck Haga.

The Star Tribune caption reads: "Michael Carlson's parents, Daniel and Merrilee Carlson, find comfort in the high school assignment left by their son. The paper included a heartfelt tribute to his father, and has been widely published since being read at his funeral. 'He always took care of his friends,' Daniel said of his son. The flag that draped Michael’s coffin is folded in the box at right rear, along with his medals."

Our friend Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics writes to give us a heads-upt:

Time Mag is reporting that FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley is going to run against [Republican] John Kline in [Minnesota's] 2nd district. Look for the article, apparently she says, 'What’s the worst that could happen...I lose and get humiliated.'"

Fans of Jimmy Webb (or the Brooklyn Bridge or the Fifth Dimension) know that Rowley didn't answer the question -- "What's the worst that could happen?" -- correctly, but I understand her thinking.

Time's story appears not to be available online. The AP reported Rowley's interest last Monday in "Ex-FBI whistleblower mulls Congress bid."

UPDATE: Andy Bleiberg writes an important message for Jimmy Webb scholars:

Neat trivia about some Jimmy Webb tunes. "By the Time I Get to Phoenix," "MacArthur Park" and "The Worst That Could Happen," all written by Webb, of course, and all three about the same relationship! The woman was named Susan, and yes, she broke up with Webb and married another man, as per TWTCH. Keep up the great work!

Has anyone ever observed that "royalties are the best revenge"?

UPDATE 2: Webb scholar Lochner writes:

Also –"Where’s the Playground Susie?" (sung by Glen Campbell) was a Jimmy Webb tune about that same Susan.

Folks, it's the passion for completeness that separates the scholars from the dilettantes.

It's not quite here yet, but people are putting flags and flowers on graves all across America. This beautiful picture showed up on Yahoo News Photos this afternoon. Eleven year old Thomas McGahan, a Boy Scout, and his Cub Scout brother Nicholas, of Northport, N.Y., place flags on graves at the Long Island National Cemetery. Click to enlarge:

UPDATE: Austin Bay gave a speech at the Travis County International Cemetery, at the invitation of Tejanos In Action.

Hiawatha Bray, a member of the Newspaper Guild, of which Linda Foley is the President, has challenged Foley to either support or retract her charge that American soldiers are mass murderers of American and foreign journalists. He got a response from her, but it was, as he says, "extremely odd": Foley wrote, "I am not going to discuss this with you on the eve of Memorial Day weekend."

Foley got a round of applause from her media audience when she repeated the slander that cost Eason Jordan his job at CNN. Clearly, there are a lot of journalists who believe that our troops deliberately murder journalists; one can only assume that this belief colors their coverage of the Iraq war and other military actions. Isn't it time to put up or shut up? If journalists like Jordan and Foley have evidence to back up their claims, let's see it. If they don't, let's put this canard to rest once and for all. And stop applauding and lionizing people like Jordan and Foley who repeat it.

Via InstaPundit.

The latest comes from Broward County, Florida, where a publicly subsidized art show included more hate speech directed at President Bush:

The piece in question is a painting depicting President Bush being sodomized. Artist Alfred Phillips said images of an oil barrel and a man wearing a Muslim headdress in the work are part of a political statement about the United States being abused by oil companies.

Michael Friedman, the artist who complained to the county, said the painting is offensive and tasteless.

"Something snapped inside," he said. Friedman entered a piece depicting Pope Benedict XVI with several swastikas in the background.

"Sodomy in a public forum is not, from my perspective, considered art," he said. "I think somebody has to draw the line somewhere. I like political satire. However, that type of image ... I don't think is artistic."

Well, you know a painting is offensive when the guy who painted the Pope with swastikas thinks it's over the line. I'm a little puzzled, though, by what the show's organizers considered to be a "relevant political message," i.e., how the oil companies "abuse" the United States. That would be, I suppose, by providing petroleum products that allow us to go places, heat our homes, have offices and factories in which to work, and operate equipment so that, instead of living like the ancient Egyptians, hauling blocks of stone around with ropes, we can sit at desks and do things like operate computers. Is that how the oil companies "abuse" Americans? I suppose the idea is that without the oil companies, oil and gasoline would spring magically out of the ground (pollution-free, of course), and into our gas tanks and furnaces. For free.

Leftists are so childish that I cannot understand how anyone can take them seriously.

In a column for the American Spectator site, Clinton Taylor fact checks a few of the details in George Galloway's testimony before the Senate Permanent Subcommitte on Investigations: "Curious, George!" As an attorney who has struggled with more than a few witnesses, I was struck at the time of Galloway's Senate appearance by Galloway's apparent advantage over his interrogators in his liberty with facts. Taylor's column supports my impression.

JOHN adds: Galloway's advantage came from the fact that there was no judge presiding to tell the witness to answer the question. Nor was there a format in which the Senators could follow up on Galloway's testimony--or was it a filibuster, previewing the Senate Democrats' performance?--by placing the incriminating documents before the audience and pointing out where Galloway's explanations fell short.

AFP reports on the sky-high interest in this year's Miss Universe pageant in Latin America, where no fewer than seven contestants are among the favorites. AFP says Miss Venezuela and Miss Puerto Rico are this year's Latina "heavyweights," a metaphor I'm not sure they'd appreciate.

Apparently pageantry is to Venezuela what soccer is to Brazil:

Nothing, however, compares with the obsession of Venezuelans, who treat beauty pageants with the same reverence as neighbouring Brazilians view football's World Cup.

Take that, Deacon!

Speaking of metaphors, I also liked how AFP thought it had to explain the Super Bowl for readers who might be up on beauty pageants, but a little slow on sports:

In Latin America, the pageant is not just big beauty, it's big business.

"It's their Super Bowl," said Tony Santomauro, vice president of business planning for Miss Universe, referring to the American football championship that is routinely the most widely-watched US sports event of the year.

The AFP story focuses mostly on Miss Venezuela, who is pictured here. The pageant final is Monday evening.

Minnesota DFL (Democratic) state senator Becky Lourey is an opponent of the war in Iraq and the mother of Army helipcopter pilot Chief Warrant Officer Matthew Lourey. CWO Lourey was on his second tour of duty in Iraq; he was killed when his helocopter was shot down in central Iraq on Thursday. The Star Tribune story by Mark Brunswick, Patricia Lopez and Kevin Duchschere is incredibly painful: "State senator's son dies in Iraq."

The story runs with the photo above by Star Tribune photographer Joey McLeister. The caption reads: "A photo of Matt Lourey and his wife, Lisa, sat on a table in the Lourey family home, along with the toy airplanes Matt Lourey made when he was in school." Our sincere condolences to Senator Lourey and her family.

The White House has said it will not give the Democratic Senators the highly classified documents they are seeking in connection with John Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador. Scott McClellan pointed out:

The Democratic and Republican leaders of the Intelligence Committee have had access to this sensitive, highly classified information. The Democrats clamoring for it have already voted against the nomination. This is about partisan politics.

What I thought was priceless was the Democrats' response:

But Democrats said it's not about politics, or even about Mr. Bolton anymore. They said their filibuster is an attempt to protect the institution of the Senate against a strong and overreaching administration.

Does this mean we have to listen to Robert Byrd all over again? We just preserved the Republic last week, but I guess the Senate minority is going to have to preserve it again soon. How long do you suppose the American people will buy the line that every partisan dispute is "really" all about the Constitution's checks and balances?

I have to say, though, that I really don't understand what the Democrats are doing on Bolton. I can understand that for partisan reasons, to give the administration a black eye and to keep their contributors fired up, they think they need to choose a vulnerable appointee now and then, and pick him off.

But the U.N. ambassador seems like an odd choice. Normally, such appointments haven't even required a roll call vote. No U.N. nominee has ever had more than a handful of votes cast against him. This isn't because they have all been wonderful nominees, but because this is not a position where any significant power gets exercised. For the Democrats to expend so much capital on it seems odd.

In any event, with this pretext for delay frustrated, I assume we'll have a vote on Bolton soon.

SCOTT adds: Don't miss Senator McCain's additional contribution to saving the Republic as reported in today's New York Times: "McCain urging accord on Senate and Bolton documents."

I've written here about Elvis Presley whenever the opportunity presented itself, such as the seventieth anniversary of Elvis's birth last January (my post was "Have you heard the news?"). Most recently, in "The annotated Elvis" I compiled a short list of a few of Elvis's greatest recordings occasioned by John's post "In which I poach on my partner's territory."

One of these days I'll take a stab at writing up an account of Elvis Presley's dramatic 1969 recording sessions at the American Sound Studios in Memphis. They produced the most incredibly rich, moving material of his career, including "Suspicious Minds," "Long Black Limousine," and "Only the Strong Survive," "Kentucky Rain," and "Stranger In My Own Home Town." Catching up on everything he'd missed over the previous several years, Elvis ranged over the gamut of American popular music -- country, rock, pop, soul, gospel and the bathetic pop ballads he loved as well. The American Sound Studios sessions are now documented on the magnificent two-disc set "Suspicious Minds."

I always agonize about indulging my love for pop music here, but am almost always gratified by the responses these music posts elicit from readers. In my "Annotated Elvis" I had included the song "Suspicious Minds" and linked to the two-disc set. Mark Bauer wrote a message I now think of every time I listen to the 1969 recordings:

Read your blog today, and clicked on "Suspicious Minds." I looked at the CD on Amazon, and clicked on more details to see the list of songs. As I read, the tears started to flow.

My mom died is 1969 of uterine cancer at 40 years old. The five siblings in our family ranged from 4 to 19; I was nine. The song "Don't Cry Daddy" was played occasionally on Country Radio at the time. My Dad was not a quiet person by any means, but he wasn't a person who wore his feelings on his sleeve either. I noticed that when this song was on the radio, he would not talk during the song. I think that gave him a lot of strength to keep moving on, and stay himself, and to not give in to self pity.

Thanks for accidentally writing something that reminded me today of my departed and loved father.

Several readers wrote impassioned and knowledgeable responses to Paul's post linking Diana West's column regarding the FOX series "24" yesterday. Jonathan Burack wrote:

I am second to none among those I know in denouncing even the tiniest signs of dhimmitude when I see them. I therefore cannot believe Diane West really paid much attention to 24 on this score.

Yes, of course, there were Americans involved in the Islamist Marwan's plot in 24. Does Ms. West not think such fifth columnists exist? And yes, the temporary president in the show was also caste as a fly in the ointment -- but not because he was in on the plot, but because of his inept readiness to APPEASE it. Does Ms. West really not recognize that this fool of a "president" was being made fun of by the show PRECISELY for trying to stop Jack Bauer from applying maximum force to the real suspects. Moreover, the idea that Jack Bauer's actions in this regard were meant to illustrate moral equivalence between himself and Marwan is absurd. Only someone who failed totally to register the heavy irony in a show rich in humor as well as tough reality could interpret this in this way. Bauer and President Palmer who backed him to the hilt in this use of torture were depicted as heroes and were seen as such by everyone I knew who watched this show.

In fact, Marwan remained the key focus of the CTU's effort to thwart the plot to the very end. And the CAIR pressure earlier in the show did NOT in fact lead 24 to moderate in any way its view of the hideous Muslim suburban family featured in it at that point. (They were the focus of CAIR's original complaint.) That family remained the Islamic Munsters they were to the very end. True, as the show promised CAIR, two good Muslims were included. However, they turned out to be "good" because, as two gun shop owners, they enthusiastically JOINED in the battle against the terrorists. The entire show stuck with the radical Islamic essence of the main plotters to the end. (Did Ms. West really find Marwan's "You wake to a new reality" speech all that murky? Amazing.)

What Ms. West may reveal is her own squeemishness at Bauer's over the top use of force. I did not find this extreme behavior by them to be making the case for "moral equivalence" at all. Instead, the show did a fine job of making clear how UNLIKE the terrorists Bauer was in his use of this preventive violence. The points where Bauer uses this pressure are clearly set up so as to enlist maximum sympathetic understanding on the part of the audience. Proof positive of this is the fact that President Palmer, accorded all his usual dignity, is the one who makes the central case for going all out when he tells the pathetic temporary President, "We did not bring this crisis on ourselves, but we WILL resolve it ourselves." I relished the scenes like this one, which force all of us to consider what we would be willing to do in the face of the ultimate nihilism we confront. The central theme of this show was that, in the age of terror. ALL choices are bad ones, but you must make the right ones anyway. Is Ms West ready to do what Jack did? If so, I think that should be enough to make the point clear to her.

And, oh yes, and finally, if Ms. West thinks the Chinese are not ultimately next in line as a major adversary, she is as naïve as she think the appeasers are.

Reader Andrew Prokop wrote:

You've probably gotten a few emails from people who watch 24. Your claim that they "knuckled under pressure" from CAIR isn't really accurate.

Point 1: 24 has never before had the same group of villains throughout an entire season. Usually the first group of baddies is dispatched halfway through the year. This year was the first year that they had the same one all season: the terrorist Habib Marwan clearly orchestrated the events of the entire day.

Point 2: The author of the article seems to want to make the show fit her own personal agenda. She turns the twist about the Chinese embassy harboring a man who sold nuclear secrets to the terrorists into a "distracting subplot" simply because it does not feature Islamic jihadists, front and center.

Point 3: The terrorist leader, Marwan, employed mercenaries. Since there undoubtedly is increased suspicion of Middle Eastern men in the U.S. today, I don't think that this is too implausible.

Point 4: Since you haven't seen the show, you totally mischaracterize the "moral equivalence" exchange. Rest assured, there is no equivalence here. Marwan is portrayed as wholly evil. The exchange was an honest one...the terrorist DOES see the U.S. as evil, and he says so. But the audience sure doesn't agree with him, judging from what's on screen.

Point 5: It's a tv show. Their first commitment is for interesting plot twists.

Rest assured, it's not serving the left's political agenda... leftist blogs have been buzzing about it all year because of its portrayal of torture. Jonah Goldberg has blogged about it positively down at the Corner after an episode where the terrorist took advantage of Amnesty International to avoid interrogation. Rush Limbaugh even visited the set and bragged about how right-leaning the creators were, if that means anything to you.

P.S. I didn't really enjoy this season all that much, but the article you linked to misrepresents it, so I felt I should speak up as an informed viewer of the show.

Reader Carl Morgan wrote:

First: 24 used some of last season's characters (when it was Mexican terrorists) in this season. For instance, the "Patty-Hearst" character West describes was actually someone who biologically
poisoned the President last season. It was a cool twist seeing her
back. Secondly, they didn't whitewash anything. In the latter part of the season, the main terrorist (Marwan) recorded a classic terrorist message, complete with a black flag of jihad like you would see in Iraqi terrorists videos. Lastly, visit this blog post from Daniel Pipes about 24. It is much more informative than the West column.

One last thing: I see a lot of people who are condemning 24 for "caving in" to CAIR when they haven't even watched the show themselves. 24 has been on for 4 seasons now and God only knows what the writers originally had in store. Perhaps the jihadist line wasn't what they wanted to do for the entire season. 24 has had Muslim terrorists in the past, as well. I believe it was season 2 when it had a Muslim "spy," but it ended up actually being a double-spy, where he was helping the government. There were no CAIR press releases before any of that, meaning, they could not have been pressured to change the story. Season 2 also dealt strongly with Gitmo and it could arguably be said that season 2 had more Islamist overtones. Take a look for yourself here.

People need to watch the show's previous seasons first, and perhaps get a better idea the show is about in the first place before jumping all over the writers.

I don't think we're sufficiently familiar with the series to render our own judgment, but we'll be sure to provide any response from Diana West.

UPDATE: Bruce Kesler adds:

Not to belabor the 24 discussion, but:

1. I've been addicted to Monday at 9 PM for the last two seasons, since I became aware of 24. It's the only show to which I am addicted. It is thoroughly enveloping, and moral.

2. The '60's were "decided" by culture, not political reasoning. 24 (JAG sometimes) is the only show for the '00's culture challenge, appeasement vs. necessity, weakness vs. sacrifice, etc.

The CAIR episode was unfortunate, but as your commentators made clear, it was PR and did not affect the substance of the show.

In yesterday's Day By Day strip Chris Muir noticed something slightly amiss with the Missouri Compromise of 2005.

It's as though the gang of seven Republican senators rewrote "High Noon" to suit their own temperament. When Marshall Kane turned to his Hadleyville townsmen for help to fight off Frank Miller as he was about to arrive in town fresh from the prison Kane sent him to years earlier, they didn't just offer their personal excuses to head for the hills ("You're askin' an awful lot, Kane, considering the kind of man Frank Miller is"). They turned on Kane and shot him in the back before Miller even arrived at the station.

The Democratic senators seem to me to have played out their own version of the tense poker scene in "Cool Hand Luke." Luke's adversaries fold their hands one by one while Luke ups the ante. Luke's bluff prevails and he takes the pot. Observing the proceedings, Dragline turns over Luke's hole card and contemptuosly tells Luke's last adversary, "Nothin'. A handful of nothin'. You stupid mullet-head. He beat you with nothin'."

Luke responds, "Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand." Unless the Democrats rewrite this script as well, however, grounds for optimism can be inferred from the film's conclusion.

Reader Dean Henderson pointed out Danielle Crittenden's evisceration of lefty "novelist" Erica Jong, who compared the status of women in the United States unfavorably with that in the Arab world:

Of course women in the Middle East need the vote, an end to domestic violence and free access to contraception. But so do we. Odd that it is always easier to proselytize for feminism abroad while ignoring deteriorating women’s rights at home.

Crittenden says:

Myself, I've never understood why women’s groups weren't out front cheering the wars against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Were there ever more feminist wars than these? You'd think the National Organization for Women would be egging the administration on to Saudi Arabia and Iran. But no, and for the same reason that organized feminists have refused to applaud George Bush’s historic appointments of women to positions of high office, including most recently his nomination of two women, one of them black, to appellate judgeships. Bush is a Republican. The organized feminists are Democrats. It's as simple as that.

That's true, I think. The real fisking begins, though, with Crittenden's 24-question "yes/no" quiz. As Crittenden concludes: "If you answered “yes” to questions 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 16, 17, 18, 22,23, and 25, congratulations! You live in the freest society for women in the history of Planet Earth. If you answered “yes” to any of the other questions, Allahu Akbar!"

What's interesting, too, is that Crittenden is blogging at the Huffington Post. So it's not completely without value.

Haider Ajina has, I think, a fascinating perspective on the hypocrisy surrounding the current demonstrations, etc., protesting the mishandling of the Koran by American soldiers. Haider discusses the conference in Baghdad that reportedly was attended by terrorists, including al Qaeda's number two leader, which we wrote about here:

During this same conference you refer to in your piece (Saddam and His Terrorist Friends), Saddam boasted and showed off a Koran that he wrote in blood and was given praise and admiration (by that same congress) for doing so. He also handed out large amounts of money to the attendees at this congress (oil for food money I suppose). Most of whom were terrorist or terror enticing or terror sponsoring Islamofascists, highjackers of Islam.

Here is the hypocrisy. In Islam exposed blood is considered dirty or defiled. For Saddam to write the Koran in blood is the ultimate insult, sacrilege and heresy. He has defiled the word of God by writing it in blood.

All who attended this congress know this but they did not call for demonstrations, riots. They took their money, kissed Saddam's feet and went on with their crimson sermons enticing Muslims to hate other Muslims who do not agree with them, hate Jews and Christians and any one who does not subscribe to their version of Islam.

It was an Arab Muslim (Saddam) who defiled the Koran and was praised and admired for it. When Newsweek runs a bogus story and retracts it, the same people who praised Saddam for defiling the Koran called for demonstrations, revenge, caused the killing of over a dozen Muslims. When will we Muslims realize that our own worst enemy are most of our leaders, not Christians, not Jews, not democracy not freedom.

A great point, eloquently expressed.

UPDATE: Egyptian Blogger wrote us to point out "another Koran abuse story we haven't heard about." Check out his post on public burnings of the Koran which have generated only yawns in the Arab world, because they weren't done by Americans.

I note, too, that Egyptian Blogger seems to have appreciated our Miss Universe coverage.

It isn't time to get too excited (or, alternatively, slit your wrists) over the widely-trumpeted USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll headlined: "Poll majority say they'd be likely to vote for Clinton." What's being reported is that 53% of respondents say they'd be likely to vote for Hillary Clinton if she runs in '08. True enough. But here's the breakdown: 29% are "very likely" to vote for her, while 24% are "somewhat likely." That 29% represents the hard-core support for the Democratic Party; those people would vote for anyone the Dems nominate. The remaining 24% are "soft" Democrats and swing voters who are willing to consider voting for Hillary, given that no opponent is specified in the question.

The fact that 53% of poll respondents will, in the abstract, seriously consider voting for any given Democratic candidate for President is hardly surprising, especially when the poll is taken over a weekend, and is not, I suspect, a survey of likely voters. Conversely, 39% said they are "not at all likely" to vote for Clinton. That represents the hard-core support for the Republican party, plus some additional voters who just can't stand Hillary. This doesn't strike me as a particularly impressive performance; it took John Kerry a long time to get his negatives that high. Moreover, despite Hillary's tireless efforts to cast herself as a moderate, most people aren't buying it. 54% said they consider her a liberal, while only 30% called her a moderate. Bear in mind that the 30% includes an unknown number of liberals who actually believe Hillary is one of them, but know that it's in her interest to call her a moderate.

On the whole, this isn't an especially impressive poll performance. I think it's true that some voters have forgotten why they ultimately found Mrs. Clinton so annoying. But if she runs in '08, they may be reminded.

UPDATE: RedState has more, including the observation that Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the sample by 51% to 40%. That's too far from the actual numbers for the poll to have any value, as reported.

The initial response of conservative bloggers and pundits to the Senate compromise deal on filibusters was mostly quite negative. This has changed somewhat in the past two days, although most conservatives still are somewhat negative. Charles Krauthammer demonstrates why that's still the better view.

Diana West writes about how the television show "24" knuckled under to pressure from the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and, if I'm reading Diana's piece correctly, converted a plot line about an Islamic terrorist cell into a tale of moral equivalence in which ex-U.S. military personnel are the bad guys. Perhaps they were afraid that the Professor Hinton's of the world would complain about euphemisms, stereotyping, and desensitization.

Wretchard is the proprietor of the Belmont Club blog, one of our favorite sites. Wretchard writes:

A fault in Blogger is keeping the entire Belmont Club from operating. It's Google's policy not to offer online support and emails to them have not yielded results. I'd appreciate it if any of you would post up the notice that the Belmont Club is now here.

Tracy Allen writes in response to "It's Georgie's turn to cry":

You mentioned Voinovich's pathetic display on the floor of the Senate yesterday, but I haven't seen anyone relate that for someone who "cares" so much now, he didn't care enough to show up for the two days of confirmation hearings when testimony was given.

The heading comes from the subject line of Tracy's message. Why didn't I think of that?

DEACON adds: In Voinovich's defense, he's worried about a real problem -- the increasing diplomatic isolation of the U.S. We're losing ground with a number of key blocs -- Europe, Latin America, and Russia. China has been a major problem all along. We're making up some ground in the Middle East, but slowly and uncertainly. Only with respect to India, parts of the old Soviet Union, and Japan are things roughly where we'd like them to be. I don't blame the U.S. We're fighting a war, and the alternative to losing ground with former friends (which is not even guaranteed to accomplish that) is to fight the war less aggressively. To me, that's not acceptable. But I can understand why Voinovich is concerned. The world is a dangerous place and a scary one, especially for the faint of heart.

Thomas Lipscomb writes to his friends and colleagues in the media:

This is a key moment in media history. So far NO ONE in MSM is covering this but my Chicago Sun-Times story and an item in the Washington Times. WHY? How do you account for it? Are you going to let this drop?

If we do… are you ready to support a Eason Jordan’s suit for reinstatement? HE did exactly the same thing as Linda Foley at the Newspaper Guild. Why the separate and unequal treatment?

Email me back off the record. I’d like your opinion as to what is going on here.

Good for Editor & Publisher for having the guts to run this...

I hope this helps tee up the issues… this is something we all better look into seriously before former American MSM employees are blogging for pennies.

And if we let this pass...we don’t deserve much more.

Lipscomb's Editor & Publisher column is "The dog that didn't bark."

Today Lipscomb omits the "Keep the aspidistra flying" with which he usually concludes his messages. In the spirit of Lipscomb's usual closing, I've taken the heading above from the advertising slogan George Orwell substituted for "New hope for the ruptured" at the demand of his publisher before Keep the Aspidistra Flying was released in 1936.

Rutgers professor Alex Hinton has published an irate letter in the Weekly Standard which responds to a piece I wrote there. My piece used Hinton's absurd comparison between the Khmer Rouge's reign of terror and our current prosecution of the war on terror as a springboard for showing how many on the left seem incapable of arguing against U.S. policy, and thus resort to half-baked metaphors and analogies.

The most noteworthy thing about Hinton's letter is that, under cover of whining about my alleged "distortions and inaccuracies," he backs away from his original rhetoric and, to some extent it seems, from his analogy. In his first piece Hinton wrote of the Khmer Rouge, "in their path to evil we catch reflections of ourselves." In his letter, he says, more vaguely, that "we catch reflections of ourselves in the past." This is part of a process wherein Hinton portrays his original piece as nothing more than a "why can't we all just get along" plea, and then accuses me of taking the position that "critiquing desensitization and the dehumanizing use of stereotypes and euphemisms is a bad thing." I took no such position. In fact, in my Standard piece, I acknowledged that the war on terror itself "has given rise to many arguably valid objections." My complaint was that instead of making the objections through argumentation, people like Hinton hide behind metaphor. Hinton's letter reinforces this criticism, failing to offer any evidence that the war on terror has resulted in greater desensitization or more dehumanizing use of stereotypes and euphemisms. For all Hinton shows, the real story of the war on terror is how tolerant and solicitous we have remained toward the religion and culture that is associated with the terrorism we have been forced to combat.

It requires a difficult thought experiment to imagine what a piece by an honest and serious commentator comparing the U.S. of today to the Cambodia of the Khmer Rouge would look like. At a minimum, such an analysis would present both the similarities (if any) and the differences. Even a minimally competent analyst would begin with a disclaimer that acknowledged how different the two situations are. Hinton did neither. So I set forth the differences in my Weekly Standard piece. I noted that, unlike the Khmer Rouge, we haven't (1) instituted collectivized production and consumption, (2) forced our population into backbreaking and unceasing labor, (3) abolished freedom of worship, (4) cut off contact between our citizens and the outside world, (5) attempted to control how the public acts, (6) killed our own citizens, and (7) as far as I know, intentionally killed any of captured terrorists who are dedicated to killing us. I also pointed to the following things we have done that the Khmer Rouge didn't: (1) promptly investigated abuses and alleged abuses of foreign prisoners, (2) directed powerful and unceasing criticism at our government regarding these abuses and all other aspects of the war on terrorism, and (3) liberated the citizens of two countries from the modern regimes that most closely resemble the Khmer Rouge.

Hinton doesn't contest any of this. But, except for the fact that we aren't committing genocide, he fails to acknowledge any of it either, much less consider the damage this evidence does to his thesis that we have anything non-trivial to learn from the Khmer Rouge. Instead, Hinton merely repeats his laundry list of complaints which (apart from torture and not being critical enough of our government, both of which I've just addressed) consists of using euphemisms and stereotypes, succumbing to peer pressure, and disparaging others. But this is the human condition. We did all of these things before the war on terror began; all people in all countries do them. Hinton could have written a piece trying to show that things have gotten worse in this regard recently. But that would have required citing facts and making a genuine argument.

Short of that, Hinton could have written the piece he now claims to have penned, a general denunciation of insensitivity. That would have been mushy but unobjectionable. Instead, however, he decided to compare our insensitivity (and ours alone) to that of the Khmer Rouge. As I have shown, this comparison makes no sense unless one's goal is to take a shot at the war on terrorism without having to make an argument. That was the point of my Standard piece.

Finally, what of Hinton's claim that I have distorted (or "decontextualized") his argument? It centers around this statement that I made: "The chief lesson [that we can learn from the Khmer Rouge], according to Hinton, is that we risk heading down 'their path to evil' through our conduct 'right now in the war on terror.'" Hinton objects that he did not say there is a chief lesson to be learned from the Khmer Rouge. But he neither admits nor denies that he thinks this is a lesson they teach us. Even as he back-pedals, Hinton still wants to have it both ways -- smearing our government and the American people by references to the most evil regime in recent memory but, when called on this, pretending that he just wants us to learn "about the past." The past has many lessons to teach. The notion that we resemble the Khmer Rouge in any meaningful way is not one of them. This, one hopes, is why Hinton quietly backed away from that formulation in his letter. If so, the professor himself may have learned something.

JOHN adds: This reminds me of a story I heard long ago about William F. Buckley. Someone was wondering why a liberal (I think it may have been Ted Kennedy) kept declining Buckley's invitations to appear on Firing Line. Buckley replied: "Why does baloney fear the grinder?"

SCOTT adds: Buckley's reference was to Robert Kennedy, but the comparison applies.

Today is the anniversary of Peggy Lee's birth. Lee had an improbably winding path to success from her hometown of Jamestown, North Dakota, to Fargo (where she took on her show business name), to Minneapolis and St. Louis, and to Chicago, where she was discovered by Benny Goodman at the moment he needed a replacement for Helen Forrest. In between St. Louis and Chicago were a couple of premature attempts on Hollywood. Once she caught on with Goodman in 1941, however, she never looked back.

She wrote several of her most successful songs, such as "It's a Good Day." She equally owned the songs she covered, including of course Little Willie John's "Fever" and the Leiber-Stoller composition "Is That All There Is?" They carry her personal stamp every bit as much as her own numbers.

She was a musician's musician. Think of her terrific duets with Bing Crosby and Mel Torme. Recall that Paul McCartney proudly contributed the title track to Lee's 1974 "Let's Love." Listening to her music today, one is struck by how far she could go on an innate sense of swing and pure taste. For a heartfelt contemporary tribute to Ms. Lee, check out the beautiful "Fever" by the Twin Cities' own Connie Evingson.

UPDATE: Reader Bob Dodd captures a couple of important points about Ms. Lee:

She was indeed a fantastic musician, which I wouldn't say of many people who were strictly singers. Did you know that she was given her stage name by Ken Kennedy of WDAY? I mention that only because you, as a fellow Fargo native of about my age, are probably one of a handful who might actually remember who Ken Kennedy was. By our era he had mostly moved from radio to TV.

One great thing about Peggy Lee was that she always seemed to maintain a fairly "down home" awareness that she was really Norma Egstrom of Jamestown, who played a character named "Miss Peggy Lee." Once, when she was going up in a hotel elevator to put on her make-up, stage clothes and jewelry for a show, a woman stared at her and finally asked, "Are you Peggy Lee?" She replied, straightforwardly, "No, not yet."

Peggy Lee strikes me as an almost Gatsbyesque creation of her own imagination, a point I couldn't quite figure out how to make last night. Thanks also to Gary Larson (not the cartoonist) for his message about the man who gave Peggy Lee her show business name.

Received in the mail, as promised by Lance McMurray of Red State Rant, is Senator Zell Miller's new book A Deficit of Decency. Senator Miller has inscribed the book: "To Scott at Power Line -- I'm proud to be your favorite Democrat -- Zell Miller." Thanks both to Lance and to Senator Miller. It seems appropriate to mark the occasion with a separate entry in this long-running series.

A reporter called me today and asked whether I had noticed an interesting point relating to the story of the airplane that inadvertently strayed into prohibited airspace over Washington, and caused the Capitol to be evacuated. I hadn't; but I checked it out, and he was right.

Yesterday, the Washington Post carried a rather sensational article titled "Military Was Set to Down Cessna." The very first sentence of the article said:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld gave military officials the authority to shoot down, if necessary, a small plane that wandered into restricted airspace over the nation's capital May 11, according to two senior federal officials.

The Post's report was immediately met with a denial by Rumsfeld that he had ordered any such thing, as the Post reported this morning: "Rumsfeld Disputes Plane Story":

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld yesterday denied giving military officials authority to shoot down, if necessary, a small plane that violated restricted airspace over Washington on May 11.

Speaking in Philadelphia, Rumsfeld disputed accounts of two senior federal officials reported by The Washington Post yesterday, saying, "It was totally not true."

According to a Reuters news service report, Rumsfeld said: "It was two anonymous sources, and, of course, it wasn't true. I never even got on the phone to discuss the circumstances of the little plane."

Here is the interesting part: if you keep reading in today's story, you get to this:

The officials said they were told that Rumsfeld gave authorization to shoot down the plane if military officials declared it a hostile threat. Because of such factors as the aircraft's slow, constant speed and course and the apparent disorientation of its pilots, that declaration was never reached, they said.

"I was told at the time . . . if this individual is threatening, authority has been given to take it down," one of the officials said yesterday. He added, "I was told that Rumsfeld gave that implied authority."

So the two officials whom the Post relied on for its original story had no first-hand knowledge of Rumsfeld giving any such orders; they were "told" that he had done so. Yet the Post's first story clearly implied that the "two senior federal officials" were relating facts, not hearsay or surmise.

So the Post's lead sentence--someone apparently thought it important that Rumsfeld himself had issued the order--reported anonymous hearsay as fact. What is important here is not so much the error itself; I assume that someone other than Rumsfeld did indeed issue some kind of order authorizing the plane to be shot down under specified circumstances. But it does illustrate, I think, one of the problems with the mainstream media's addiction to anonymous sources. When we don't know who the source is, we can't evaluate whether the source is in a position to know the facts that he claims to be true. And now we know that the Post will print anonymous hearsay as fact.

This is one more item of evidence, I think, supporting the conclusion that the whole issue of anonymous sources needs be rethought from the bottom up.

We've been tough on Minnesota Senator Mark Dayton here as his performance in the Senate seemed to manifest his personal difficulties, but Dayton has nothing on Ohio Senator George Voinovich. Yesterday Voinovich blubbered like a baby on the Senate floor over the prospect of John Bolton becoming the United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

We adjust the lyrics of the Lesley Gore song only slightly: "He felt like making a scene/Then his tears just fell like raindrops/'Cause Bolton's smile was so mean." One difference: Gore was a little tougher than Voinovich is, but we do hope "Johnny comes back to [him]." Should Johnny return, Voinovich may need a straitjacket to regain his composure.

The Miss Universe competition is heating up; they held the swimsuit event today. You can see it here.

Miss Canada is the current betting favorite.

It seems like the oddsmakers mostly put the contestants in order of height, so those who don't fit that mold deserve special credit: Miss Mexico and Miss Norway:

Our Miss Universe coverage has always been popular; this year the Freepers have been quite appreciative. The finale will be televised by NBC beginning at 9 p.m. Eastern time on May 30, 2005. If you want to know more about the pageant and the contestants, see more photos, etc., check out this site and the links.

Austin Bay has the latest--well, the latest speculation, anyway--on the fate of Zarqawi. He notes that Strategy Page "thinks Al Qaeda is preparing the faithful for Zarqawi’s death." Strategy Page also says: "Al Qaeda lives and dies by its public image. In the last few months, that image has been taking a major beating throughout the Arab world."

Note the comments, too; one commenter likens Zarqawi to a certain Norwegian Blue parrot.

UPDATE: Check this out too; the AP says that there are signs that al Qaeda leaders are jockeying to replace Zarqawi.

The Pentagon reports that the Guantanamo detainee who claimed in August 2002 that a guard flushed a Koran down a toilet (do they have really big toilets there, or what?) was recently re-interviewed, and recanted the allegation:

"We've gone back to the detainee who allegedly made the allegation and he has said it didn't happen. So the underlying allegation, the detainee himself, within the last two weeks, said that didn't happen," chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita told a briefing.

Do you think that will quiet the "Newsweek was right!" chorus from the left? No, I don't either.

Kathy Kersten is an intellectual dynamo and long-time friend. Unable to engineer an injection of reason into its editorial board, the Minneapolis Star Tribune has added Kathy to its lineup of columnists. The Star Tribune introduces Kathy here as "an added voice.") Kathy's column debuts in the paper today: "Taxes aren't the answer, archbishop."

In his Daily Standard column Hugh Hewitt looks over the carnage wrought by the gang of 14 with a gimlet eye: "Non-nuclear fallout." Joining Hugh in a great burst of derision is Peggy Noonan over at OpinionJournal: "Mr. Narcissus goes to Washington."

Thomas Lipscomb is a dogged journalist and former newspaper insider with a great nose for news and, even rarer, a willingness to use it. He now plies his trade as a senior fellow at the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future at the University of Southern California. Lipscomb writes:

In February, Eason Jordan walked the plank for allegedly...(because no one has yet released the tape) stating the U.S. Military targeted journalists in Iraq -- he had NO evidence to back it up. A firestorm of broadcast and print media ensued.

Only 10 days ago the president of the Newspaper Guild, the most powerful news and media workers union in North America, said exactly the same thing, with no evidence. There were TWO differences:

There is a tape available on the Internet of her exact words and

The only MSM newspaper in the country that decided that it was worth questioning the statement (and risking the wrath of the 35,000 strong union that makes everyone’s life miserable enough as it is), was the Chicago Sun-Times.

In case you wondered why newspaper circulation just had the worst drop in 5 years...and media credibility is in the toilet, even if the Koran isn’t...

Keep the aspidistra flying...

Lipscomb's Chicago Sun-Times column of this past Tuesday is "Newspaper union leader: U.S. military targets journalists." Today's Investors Business Daily carries a related editorial that also addresses the Japanese edition of Newsweek with the American flag in the garbage: "News weak."

President Bush has said that he will veto legislation Congress is likely to pass calling for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research on stem cell lines other than those previously approved by the administration. It would be the first time Bush has used his veto power.

This issue divides conservatives and it's easy for me to see why, since I'm of two minds about it myself. On balance, while I admire Bush for taking a principled stand on the issue, I tend to think he's taken the wrong stand.

On the one hand, I agree that the human embryo in any form or context has intrinsic moral significance. On the other hand, to the extent that embryos at fertility clinics that are going to be discarded anyway can be used for potentially life-saving research, a pro-life argument arises for supporting the research.

President Bush tried to balance these competing pro-life concerns early in his administration when he approved federal funding for embryonic stem cell research involving a limited number of stem cell lines taken from embryos that had already been destroyed. I admired the moral seriousness of this attempt. But whether he struck the right balance turns, in my mind, on an empirical question -- how far can researchers get using those stem cell lines and stem cells from non-embryonic sources.

Unfortunately, the question is not easily answered. More precisely, perhaps, it is too easily answered. Scientists are all over the lot on the question, and the issue is so hot politically that it's difficult to trust the science.

But on balance, as I read the evidence, the scientists who argue that existing stem cell lines are insufficient have the better case. In addition, their views are consistent with the intuitive notion that the likelihood of advances is increased significantly through diversity. Thus, I'm inclined to believe that the president is on the wrong side of this issue.

Liverpool are the champions of Europe, having defeated AC Milan in a remarkable match. Milan were up 3-0 at the half. If there is any team in Europe one would bet on to hold that lead, it's Milan. Yet in 15 minutes the lead had vanished. Then, after an hour of deadlock, Liverpool won the penalty kick shoot-out. Their hot and cold goalkeeper Jerzey Dudek saved two penalties, just as he had saved the match minutes before with two brilliant saves.

I can't say that I was cheering Liverpool on, but let's give them their due. At least I can say that Everton finished ahead of the European champions.

As a result of finishing behind Everton, Liverpool did not qualify for next year's European championship competition. Let's hope that the powers-that-be will allow them to defend their crown, but not by taking Everton's spot.

A number of readers have pointed us to this story about Premier Allawi's cataloging of Saddam's support for al Qaeda:

The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period.

Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri – then deputy head of the council of the leadership of the revolution - to take part in the congress, along with some 150 other Islamic figures from 50 Muslim countries," Allawi said.

According to Allawi, important information has been gathered regarding the presence of another key terrorist figure operating in Iraq - the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"The Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered Iraq secretly in the same period," Allawi affirmed, "and began to form a terrorist cell, even though the Iraqi services do not have precise information on his entry into the country," he said.

Allawi's remarks come after statements to al-Hayat by King Abdallah II of Jordan over Saddam's refusal to hand over al-Zarqawi to the authorities in Amman.

On this question Allawi said: ''The words of the Jordanian King are correct and important. We have proof of al-Zawahiri's visit to Iraq, but we do not have the precise date or information on al-Zarqawi's entry, though it is likely that he arrived around the same time."

In Allawi's view, Saddam's government "sponsored" the birth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, coordinating with other terrorist groups, both Arab and Muslim. "The Iraqi secret services had links to these groups through a person called Faruq Hajizi, later named Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and arrested after the fall of Saddam's regime as he tried to re-enter Iraq. Iraqi secret agents helped terrorists enter the country and directed them to the Ansar al-Islam camps in the Halbija area," he said.

Allawi also says that Saddam's mysterious murder of Abu Nidal was the result of the veteran terrorist's refusal to cooperate with Islamist groups like al Qaeda.

It will be interesting to see how much of this will be verified in the coming months. I assume that every day, more documents from the Iraqi secret service, which is said to have kept meticulous records, are being reviewed and translated. There is no doubt about Saddam's support for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, as we have noted many times; the question is one of degree. It seems likely that th