PEJMAN YOUSEFZADEH SURVEYS THE BLOGS of presidential candidates, and finds them wanting.

Does this mean that Pejman is agreeing with Maureen Dowd? Yeah, more or less.

HOW TO BE AN ALPHA MALE: A series of essays at Halley’s Comment. The series ends rather differently than it begins.

JUDGING BY THE COMMENTS that this post has attracted, the “Sorority Eye for the Straight Guy” show has a shot at making it. Developing. . . .

UPDATE: More related commentary here, here and here.

WINDS OF CHANGE HAS A ROUNDUP OF NEWS from the ‘Stans. Lots of interesting and underreported stuff there.

INTERESTING STRATEGY PAGE REPORT ON DOINGS IN SAUDI ARABIA:

August 22, 2003: Saudi Arabia’s government has been engaged in a bloody, bitter war with Al Qaeda since 9-11, with efforts intensifying over the last few months. The conflict has taken against a back drop of confusing kaleidoscope of circumstances, divided loyalties, innuendoes, suspicions and misunderstandings.

Ever since Al Qaeda terrorists, a majority of them Saudis, hijacked four aircraft and flew them into buildings in New York and Washington, Saudi security forces, acting under the broad ranging instructions of the increasingly resolute Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, have arrested hundreds, if not thousands of suspected militants, sympathizers and persons believed to have ties to Al Qaeda.

Saudi investigators reportedly uncovered plots by the Al Qaeda network to initiate a series of major terrorist attacks, primarily in Riyadh, to coincide with the war in Iraq. Saudi intelligence had a source in the group and the plans were frustrated, but the Saudi government was shocked by the discovery that the group had stockpiled poisons, C4 explosives, hand grenades and small arms in preparation for their planned attacks. . . .

The vast majority of Saudis are a mixed bag. For the most part they prefer their Islam to be Wahabbi. They respect the House of Saud, but feel it is corrupt at times and needs to be cleaned up. Less than one percent actively support Al Qaeda, but many were secretly sympathetic to it because of its demonstrated ability to bloody the nose of the “arrogant” West. The Riyadh attacks and Abdullah’s condemnation of sympathizers will likely lead to a population that is increasingly hostile to Al Qaeda operatives, and Al Qaeda sympathizers and militants who are increasingly hardened and willing to commit mayhem.

There’s much more in this long report, which suggests that last spring’s attacks may have actually spurred the Saudi government to constructive action. I hope that’s true.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON observes:

Indeed, the abhorrent assault on a U.N. complex in Baghdad — taken together with the near-simultaneous murdering of innocents in Jerusalem, the recent attack on the Jordanian embassy, and the bombing of Iraqi oil and water pipelines — may suggest to critics of the Americans that the enemy is recouping and gaining the upper hand.

Far from it. We are indeed entering a third phase. But it is not quite what most people think, since it has brought a brutal clarity to the conflict that the terrorists may not have intended. For those who were still unsure of the affinities between the West Bank killers once subsidized by Saddam, Baathist fedeyeen, the Taliban, and al Qaedist terrorists, the similarity in method, the identical blood-curling rhetoric, and the eerie timing of slaughtering during peace negotiations and efforts at civil reconstruction should establish the existence of a common enemy. It has been fighting us all along — a general fascism, now theocratic, now autocratic, that seeks to divert the Middle East from the forces of modernization and liberalization.

Contrary to the latest round of punditry, the liberation of Iraq did not stir up a hornet’s nest nor create ex nihilo these terrible alliances. No, they are natural expressions of the hatred manifested on 9/11 that will continue until either we or they are defeated.

This seems right to me. Treating them as reasonable people with possibly legitimate grievances has mostly been a matter of Western self-deception. Read the whole thing, but don’t miss this bit:

Our astonishing defeats of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban cannot blind us to the reality — unchanging since 9/11 — that we are in a war to the end with those who wish to destroy Western society and all that it holds dear. Both tactically and strategically this is a conflict that our enemies cannot win — given their military inferiority and accompanying failure to offer an attractive alternative to the freedom and prosperity of the West.

This doom the nihilists grudgingly accept. Thus the past week in Afghanistan, in Baghdad, and in Jerusalem they have once more embraced the tactics of the bomb-laden truck and suicide belt to demoralize civil society and to win the only way they can — as was true in Beirut and Mogadishu — by eroding public support for the continuance of war. Otherwise, they will lose and the virus of reform and legality will only spread.

Either the Middle East will be a breeding ground for terrorists and rogue regimes that threaten sober nations and peoples the world over, from Manhattan to Jerusalem, or it will desist and join the rest of the world. It really is as simple as that.

Yes.

UPDATE: Read this Phil Carter post on MPs. And just keep scrolling — Phil’s been on a hot streak.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Read this response to Josh Marshall, too.

THIS IS INTERESTING — and troubling:

American investigators looking into the suicide bombing of the United Nations compound on Tuesday are focusing on the possibility that the attackers were assisted by Iraqi security guards who worked there, a senior American official here said today.

The official said all of the guards at the compound were agents of the Iraqi secret services, to whom they reported on United Nations activities before the war. The United Nations continued to employ them after the war was over, the official said.

The official said that when investigators began questioning the guards, two of them asserted that they were entitled to “diplomatic immunity” and refused to cooperate. Diplomats working in foreign countries are often entitled to immunity from prosecution by local authorities, but the official said the two guards could make no such claim.

Well, that’s chutzpah. But why on Earth did the U.N. hire guys who had been spying on them as guards? I’m not the only one wondering:

Throughout the day, United Nations staffers came to gape at the wreckage of what had been their offices and to try to salvage the hard drives of their computers. Looking at the remnants of the office of Mr. Vieira de Mello, one woman gasped: “How could they have left this place so unprotected?”

The possibility that Iraqi security guards had cooperated in the bombing increased suspicions that Mr. Vieira de Mello was a target of the attack, the American official said. The truck pulled up to the wall just below his office while he was inside meeting with other American officials.

“We are very concerned about the possibility” that Mr. De Mello was chosen as a target, the official said.

The official said that the revelation that former agents of Mr. Hussein were still working at the compound had also added to their suspicions that it was loyalists to the deposed president who carried out the attack.

Maybe De Mello was looking too closely into where the “oil-for-food” money had gone? That’s a trail that probably goes beyond Iraq. Pure speculation, of course, but hard to resist on these facts.

UPDATE: Ted Barlow emails: “If you are _not_ suggesting that the U.N. bombed itself, you should probably make that loud and clear on your page.”

Huh? I really don’t see how Ted got that from this post, but in light of the great Ashcroft misunderstanding, I guess I should say that, no, I’m not blaming Kofi for conspiring to blow up the U.N. mission. Rather, I was suggesting (in agreement with Roger Simon) that there were a lot of unsavory go-betweens involved in the oil-for-food program, and that quite a few people might have had an incentive to foreclose further inquiries. Oh, and I don’t actually think that Frank J. is a communist, either. Though I don’t really mind if people get the wrong idea, there. And if you read my GlennReynolds.com post today, you’ll see that I’m entertaining multiple theories, none of which implicate the U.N. institutionally.

MORE: Tim Blair rounds up questions, and finds someone who admires the attackers.

RANDAL ROBINSON spots Jane’s Law in action.

THE “BATTLE OF PRATTLE?” That seems about right.

SOMEBODY TELL THE BELGIANS: Looted artifacts are being bought by The Louvre? Surely not. That would be uncivilized.

BUT HE DOESN’T SEEM INTERESTED IN GOING AFTER “CHEMICAL ALI:”

The Belgian lawyer who angered Washington by launching a war crimes case against the former US military commander in Iraq, Tommy Franks, said he was appealing against the government’s decision not to pursue his suit in Belgium.

I think he must be a mole for the Bush Administration, working to discredit the idea of an International Criminal Court. Double his pay — he’s doing great work! (What, you’ve got a better explanation?) [He could just be a pretentious twit with delusions of grandeur! — Ed. Hmm. A Belgian human rights lawyer? That’s so crazy it just might be true! Kind of like “Lapdance Island?” — Ed. I’m pretty sure that’s not in Belgium.]

THE VOLUNTEER TAILGATE PARTY is up, with many links to blog posts from Tennessee bloggers — including Thomas Nephew! [Thomas Nephew is from Tennessee? Who knew? — Ed. Not me. But SKBubba’s never wrong!]

UPDATE: SKBubba emails:

Well, you don’t have to technically be in Tennessee to be in the RTB. We have a big tent. Thomas had some sort of connection, like he went to U.T. or something, I don’t recall now. At least that’s what he said when he applied.

As you can see, it’s an exclusive club. But be sure to check out the whole Brigade and read the many fine bloggers you’ll find there.

RANDOM CALIFORNIA-RELATED THOUGHT: Everyone running in the California recall might profitably take a look at Tennessee’s Democratic Governor, Phil Bredesen. Bredesen is balancing the budget without raising taxes (in fact, Tennessee, which has no income tax, is in surplus), and is popular not only with Democrats, but with a lot of pretty hard-core Republicans too. His secret: He’s honest, and does what he says he’ll do.

I know it’s crazy, but it just might work!

UPDATE: Bill Hobbs notes that the surplus hasn’t gotten much attention.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Hey, here’s an article in The Economist on Bredesen. It’s subscriber only, but an excerpt follows:

With the unpopular Mr Sundquist term-limited, the governor’s chair was open to anyone brave enough to take on Tennessee’s fiscal mess. And Mr Bredesen was well-positioned. He had built a reputation of fiscal conservatism and economic development during eight years as mayor of Nashville, where he cut deals to bring a Dell computer factory and professional football and hockey teams to the city. And he promised no income tax.

He took a decidedly managerial approach to cutting state spending, calling for 9% cuts in every department and asking each commissioner to present a list of proposed cuts in a public forum. His first budget, which has just gone into effect, is only 4.1% larger than the 2002-03 budget, which was, by contrast, nearly 7% larger than the year before’s. But Tennessee is starting the new fiscal year with a tiny surplus.

Democrats elsewhere, take note.

CATS AND DOGS, LIVING TOGETHER.

PICKING UP WHERE MATT WELCH LEFT OFF, now Susan Estrich is all over Arianna Huffington:

Huffington has no chance of winning. Never did. The only reason to run was her ego, self-aggrandizement, attention — at the expense of her kids.

She is running on a platform she didn’t even believe in a few years ago. Nor is it one she lives by.

How could she do that to her children? my own children ask.

In Huffington’s case, of course, it may be a bit more complicated than that, financially speaking, since it’s slightly more difficult to live off your children’s child support when your children aren’t living with you. But don’t bet against her. This is, after all, the woman who runs against oil interests and lives in a mansion financed by oil money, rails against pigs at the trough and pays no taxes, runs as an independent and supports a guru.

I think that this candidacy may have been a gimmick too far. (Via Mitch Berg).

UPDATE: Yes, definitely a gimmick too far:

Arienron – I’m sorry, I mean Arianna – says the business is “cyclical” because she’s been doing research. $2.7 mil seems to me an awful lot of photocopying at the library. But that just goes to show why I’m poor bumbling Dr Watson next to Arianna’s Sherlock Holmes. “Why, Holmes, what an amazing deduction!”

“Elementary, my dear Watson. By the way, did you get a receipt from that hansom cab driver?” . . .

It’s comical how tone deaf Arianna Huffington’s campaign has been. Arnold Schwarzenegger is trying to tap the anger that’s brought this recall campaign so far – the people who are fed up with runaway spending, high taxes, bureaucratic featherbedding. Arianna seems to think there’s another kind of anger out there – people who are angry because they want more government programs, more regulation, more bureaucracies, and they’d be prepared to pay higher taxes for these blessings. Hey, I would too in her shoes. After all if you tripled Arianna’s state income tax bill, you’d get …let’s see now, three times zero equals …zero.

Ouch. Running for office, even as a gimmick, produces a different level of criticism altogether.

CRIME WRITER ROGER SIMON on the U.N. bombing:

[W]e never did find out where all that money went. You know, those gazillions in oil-for-food cash Kofi & Co. was supposedly administering but ended up lining a lot of pockets in various quarters in Iraq and elsewhere. There was even a Congressional Hearing with the usual results (not much). Those records just have not surfaced. Slippery fingers, I guess.

Now maybe I’m just being one of those paranoid conspiracy theorists… or a crime writer with too many plots… but cui bono, as they say, when UN headquarters in Iraq gets blown to smithereens?… (Unless, of course, its computers and accounts books were locked in a secure vault under the building– as if)… And, yes, I know there were obviously other motives. But at the various least, I guess we could call this “collateral damage.”

By the way, where has the major media been on this story? Nobody’s been following this up as far as a know, but it’s one of the great heists of our time.

Where, indeed. Just remember, Simon was right about the museum looting being an inside job.

UPDATE: Niraj notes an interesting passage from the bombing story.

THREATS OF VIOLENCE IN SEATTLE, during Bush’s visit, tomorrow. Troubling.

FRANK J.’s communist connection, exposed. Ann Coulter was right — they’re everywhere!

UPDATE: And he’s well-armed, too! Sigs, by the way, are great, Frank.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Heck, I’m behind the curve. Frank’s communism is old news.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR ANTI-IDIOTARIANISM:

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — The eight associate justices overruled Chief Justice Roy Moore on Thursday and directed that his Ten Commandments monument be removed from its public site in the Alabama Judicial Building.

The senior associate justice, Gorman Houston, said the eight instructed the building’s manager to “take all steps necessary to comply … as soon as practicable.” . . .

The associate justices wrote that they are “bound by solemn oath to follow the law, whether they agree or disagree with it.”

I expect to see Justice Moore wearing one of those “dissent is patriotic!” buttons, though.

UPDATE: Well, he is dissenting — and that, we’re told, is by definition patriotic, right? Alabama reader Bill Reece isn’t impressed, and it’s not just Moore that he’s upset with:

Idiotarianism. I like that. Justice Moore has managed to join a long line of elected officials who have publicly humiliated my home state of Alabama by populist poliltical pandering. Moore could care less about the Ten Commandments. He was considered to be, at best, an obscure and second rate trial judge until he first used the Ten Commandments in his courtroom to gain notoriety for himself. After pursuing the exact same “crusade” he has just completed, he leveraged the publicity he had received into support from the religious right in Alabama, allowing him to get elected Chief Justice over a far more qualified candidate who is presently a member of the Ala. Supreme Court.

Anyone familiar with the law on this issue, regardless of whether they agree with it, knows that this was a losing proposition. Moore knew it, but his crusade was “cheap” for him because the taxpayers of this impoverished State would bear the costs while he reaped the public notoriety. It was all about furthering his political ambitions.

The group that I am most disappointed in is the other members of the Alabama Supreme Court. Moore went behind their backs in erecting the monument in the middle of the night without prior notice or consent. None of them publicly, and to my knowledge privately, stood up to Moore at that time or at any other time during this farce and demanded that it end. It was only after the Federal Courts ordered removal and there was no room for Moore to manuever that the other Justices ordered its removal, when they had political cover to do so (i.e., blame it on the Feds). In doing so, they also allowed Moore to climb down off of the limb on to which he had stuck himself.

Now Moore gets a free pass for his wasteful and feckless behavior and the Alabama taxpayers have to pay the enormous legal fees and have to once again incur a hit to our reputations.

But with a patriotic dissenter as Chief Justice!

ANOTHER UPDATE: Another Alabama reader emails:

Let me add to Bill Reece’s comments about Roy Moore and say that he is an embarrassment to both Alabamians and Christians. (I’m a member of both those groups.) Instead of heeding Jesus’ call to go into your prayer closet, he’s built a 2.5-ton prayer closet on public property and wrapped himself in the pages of the Bible. How many people could have been fed, clothed, shown Christian love if time and money weren’t being wasted over this monument? Trust me when I say that many, many Alabama Christians are sickened by Moore’s conduct.

Well, show it at the polls. But admire him for his patriotic willingness to dissent!

STILL MORE: Peter Ingemi emails:

Although I agree with Judge Moore on the merits of the monument being a basis of law in Western Civ etc. I think that he and the protesters are making a big mistake.

In these post 9/11 days we have much to fear from groups of Americans willing to violate the law and court orders on the grounds that “God wants us to do it,” and I suspect that the next group that does this will have a response much less peaceful.

After all didn’t an Imam on a bus a few days ago decide to defy the Palestinian prime minister because God wanted him to?

Indeed. And what about the people who think God wants them to disobey the Alabama Supreme Court?

STILL MORE: Sam Heldman emails:

Your correspondent Bill Reece (an old friend of mine, unless there are two Bill Reece’s) criticizes all of the Associate Justices of the Alabama Supreme Court for not having publicly opposed Chief Justice Moore before now. But in fact one did: Justice Johnstone, the only Democrat on the Court. Soon after Chief Justice Moore installed the monument, about two years ago, Justice Johnstone publicly criticized it in quite strong terms, warning of the dangers of theocracy. See, e.g., this article quoting Justice Johnstone’s public statement.

So noted. Here’s a quote from the linked item:

“Courts should confine themselves to deciding their cases according to established law,” Johnstone said. “I shun symbolic controversies because I think time and effort are better spent in tangible service rather than symbolic gesture. However, while I believe in God, I oppose the movement to govern in the name of God. People who govern in the name of God attribute their own personal preferences to God and therefore recognize no limits in imposing those preferences on other people.”

Symbolic issues are usually employed as a way of distracting voters from noticing what a bad job politicians are doing at their actual work. What’s Moore doing these days?

“SORORITY EYE” FOR THE STRAIGHT GUY? Actually, I think that show would sell.

OXBLOG HAS A QUOTE from the just-captured “Chemical Ali” (via Human Rights Watch) that’s worth repeating:

I will kill them all with chemical weapons! Who is going to say anything? The international community? F_ck them! the international community, and those who listen to them!… I will not attack them with chemicals just one day, but I will continue to attack them with chemicals for fifteen days.

With this quote, and with the nickname “Chemical Ali,” I’d hate to be his defense lawyer. Er, if he ever gets one; I’m not quite sure what his status is. Will he be turned over to the Iraqis eventually?

There’s lots of good stuff at Oxblog today — just scroll up and down from this post.

UPDATE: Oops! I’m not up to date: “Ali Hassan al-Majid is now officially known as ‘Conventional Ali,’ since it is common knowledge that Iraq had no chemical weapons program.”

Heh.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here’s more on chemical weapons:

As a former Romanian spy chief who used to take orders from the Soviet KGB, it is perfectly obvious to me that Russia is behind the evanescence of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. After all, Russia helped Saddam get his hands on them in the first place. The Soviet Union and all its bloc states always had a standard operating procedure for deep sixing weapons of mass destruction — in Romanian it was codenamed “Sarindar, meaning “emergency exit.”Iimplemented it in Libya. It was for ridding Third World despots of all trace of their chemical weapons if the Western imperialists ever got near them. We wanted to make sure they would never be traced back to us, and we also wanted to frustrate the West by not giving them anything they could make propaganda with.

All chemical weapons were to be immediately burned or buried deep at sea. Technological documentation, however, would be preserved in microfiche buried in waterproof containers for future reconstruction.

“Buried deep at sea.” That might explain those missing “mystery ships” from before the war. (Via Junkyard Blog).

HERE’S A RARE SCREENSHOT of Frank J.’s recent TV appearance.

IT JUST GETS WORSE FOR THE BBC:

David Kelly told a Sunday Times journalist that Andrew Gilligan’s report on the Today programme was “bullshit” and said he had been “put through the wringer” by the Ministry of Defence over the affair. . . .

Rufford told the inquiry it was not unusual for him to visit Dr Kelly at his home, but admitted part of his reason for visiting the government scientist on that day had been to ask him about the row between the government and the BBC over the September dossier on Iraq’s weapons.

He said that in their conversation Dr Kelly described the dossier as “factual and credible”.

Hmm. That’s not the impression the BBC gave.

UPDATE: A reader from Britain emails that the Beeb’s broadcasts don’t seem to have gotten around to mentioning this item. Imagine!

KOFI ANNAN SAYS that the the United Nations is too feckless and irresponsible to be trusted with its own security. Well, yes, that’s basically what he says in response to people pointing out that the U.N. mission in Baghdad rejected U.S. offers of more security, and refused to take recommended precautions:

Annan rejected, however, Washington’s reasoning that UN officials in Baghdad had refused offers by U.S. forces in Iraq to protect the compound.

“Nobody (asks) you if you want the police to patrol your neighbourhood,” he said as he returned to UN headquarters after cutting short his holiday in Europe. “They make the assessment that patrol and protection is needed, and then they start, and that’s what should be done in Iraq.”

Read down a bit further and you see this:

“Security around our location was not as secure as you might find at the U.S. compound, and that was a decision we made so the offices were available to the people,” said chief UN spokesman Fred Eckhard, in comments that appeared to confirm the UN had refused U.S. help. “We did not think at the time we were taking an unnecessary risk.”

So the problem is that we let the U.N. make up its own mind. Fiendish? No. Ill-advised? — Well, here Annan might actually have a point. I agree with Kofi — the United States shouldn’t listen to the U.N. on matters of security, but should do what’s necessary even if the U.N. objects. So what, exactly is Kofi Annan being paid to do? Make lame criticisms of the United States, apparently. At that, he seems diligent and indefatigable. (Emphasis added above).

UPDATE: A couple of readers suggest that Annan’s comments here are a variation on the line from Animal House: “You f*cked up — you trusted us!”

Kofi as Otter? Well it’s better than Kaus as Coulter. . . .

MICKEY KAUS:

Makes the BBC look like the O’Reilly Factor! I try to resist charging that skeptical reports about the war reflect impatient, biased “quagmirism.” (I was a quagmirist on Vietnam and haven’t changed my mind about that.) But today’s CBS News “Reality Check” by Mark Phillips (available as the “Post-War Reality Check” on this page) was so jaw-droppingly one-sided and opportunistically defeatist it’s turning me into Ann Coulter!

Turning Kaus into Ann Coulter? Sorry but it’s too early in the morning for the mental image of Kaus in a miniskirt. In fact, it’s always too early in the morning for that image.

As for the report (moved off the main page, it’s now here), I watched it and it’s as bad as Kaus says — almost a Kent Brockman parody of biased TV news, with statements by obvious Al Qaeda sympathizers (one of whom called the 9/11 hijackers the “magnificent 19”) that the U.S. approach is failing taken uncritically at face value because they go where Phillips wants to go. (What were they going to say: “Yes, the U.S. is succeeding, and we’re failing”?).

CBS News is clearly in a quagmire. I think they need more — and better — troops!

QUAGMIRE UPDATE: “Chemical Ali” has been captured.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Kurt Dykstra emails:

I saw this at about 3 a.m. this morning while groggily hauling myself to bed. I thought I was having a bad dream when I saw and heard the “Reality Check.” Of course, that segment was preceded by another segment from a younger, alpha male-type reporter whose name I can’t recall, casually dressed for the desert heat, who breathlessly said, essentially, “Of course the US needs the UN now more than ever.” Of course! No quotes or video clips to buttress the comment or attribute it to someone else. Um, fella, how about you try reporting something instead of attempting the role of the stealth pundit.

In general, the entirety of the CBS segments on Iraq should have been framed on screen with the catchy title: “It’s 1968 All Over Again.” Not that I expect the news media to rah-rah the war, but I apparently expect too much from CBS to hope for dispassionate, even-handed, in-depth coverage of a lengthy and complex affair.

Glad to see the CBS farce has been noticed by others as well.

Yep. And though the piece suggests that U.S. strategy is simplistic, I have to wonder how anything could be more simplistic than viewing every conflict through the prism of an almost 40-year-old war.

[Aren’t you going to make the Baby Boomers feel kind of, well, old if you point out that the Vietnam war is nearly as old as you are? — Ed. Gee, do you think that’s why they don’t want to admit it?]

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader chides me for the above snarky faux-editorial colloquy. But, really, the Vietnam War was several wars ago. Heck, there are even Vietnam War reenactors, which should tell you all you need to know about how up-to-date a model it is. (Link via Miss Kickadee).