IT’S OFFICIAL NOW: “Glenn Reynolds is no socialist.”

I hope that will put those scurrilous rumors to rest, once and for all.

CREEPING DOWDIFICATION? The Democrats have a commercial — ironically named “truth” — that features a clip of President Bush saying:

Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Of course, what Bush actually said was:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

(Emphasis added.) In Dowdian fashion, the commercial omits that crucial phrase. It also fails to note that the British stand by this statement, and pooh-pooh the U.S. investigator who, without access to their information, said it wasn’t true:

They dismissed a report from a former US diplomat who was sent to Niger to investigate the claims and rejected them. “He seems to have asked a few people if it was true and when they said ‘no’ he accepted it all,” one official said. “We see no reason at all to change our assessment.”

This commercial proves that someone is shading the truth, all right. It also proves that the Democrats are idiots. There are lots of real issues (hey, I’m giving ’em away for free here, every day) that they could use, but they’re running with this one because they hate Bush more than they care about the truth. Or, seemingly, about winning. Apparently, they haven’t read the memo.

Bryan Preston, meanwhile, thinks that Slate has gone off the rails on this issue, too.

UPDATE: Read this dissection of the many “lie” claims.

THE BUREAUCRAT’S NOSE IN THE TENT: Why Homeland Security is an embarrassment, and getting worse, in my TechCentralStation column.

Here’s yet another issue for the Democrats, if they’re smart enough to run with it.

THE WMD BACKLASH HAS BEGUN:

According to Krugman, the Bush administration is to be held accountable both for not being sufficiently alarmist with respect to intelligence estimates prior to 9/11 and then for being unduly alarmist with those same intelligence estimates after 9/11.

Think about the absurdity and hypocrisy of this for a moment: Krugman wants to vilify the Bush administration for not piecing together scraps of intelligence, speculation and theory to “predict and prevent” a one-in-a-million terrorist attack scenario and then turn around and vilify the administration when they take seriously intelligence reports – reports that the British government continues to stand by even to this very moment – that Hussein attempted to purchase material to make a nuclear bomb.

The ridiculousness of this part of Krugman’s argument does, I think, put a nice highlight on why this issue may not damage President Bush the way the Democrats hope and may even backfire on them in a big way.

Rather than offer up a clear cut case that “BUSH LIED!”, what the Niger/uranium story does indicate explicitly to voters in this country is that if there is even the slightest indication that terrorists or rogue regimes around the world are trying to get their hands on WMD’s, President Bush is willing to act swiftly and forcefully to take them down and defend America. This stands in stark – and I mean STARK- contrast to Howard “Let’s Send Troops to Liberia but Not Iraq” Dean and most of the rest of the Dem presidential hopefuls.

Stay tuned.

CATS AND DOGS, LIVING TOGETHER: THEY’RE DEFENDING ERIC ALTERMAN over at The Corner.

INTELLIGENCE, OR DECEPTION? William Sjostrom says that Nick Kristof is being disingenuously coy with his unnamed sources. Maybe if he admitted that they’re associated with CounterPunch and similar loony groups people would find his argument less persuasive, eh?

Kristof is trying to pass off a fairly left-wing group as a group of non-partisan “professionals”. Remember Katie Couric’s description of MoveOn, a very left anti-war group as simply an outfit “started by two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs frustrated by the political process”? This is the same kind of scam.

I wonder if Bill Keller will exercise some adult supervision.

UPDATE: I’m tempted to simply say that Dan Kennedy is naive. But I think that if Bill Keller thinks the sloppiness and dishonesty that have come to mark the Times op-ed pages are hurting the brand, something will be done, especially given that the Times’ sliding reputation has gotten the attention of the owners.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Kennedy emails that Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. is Maureen Dowd’s biggest fan. In which case the Times’ troubles are only beginning. . . .

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: In Kennedy’s column today (same URL as above) he thinks he’s “caught” me making a mistake. But that’s based on his rather gotcha-oriented reading of what I said, and what he said. I’m hardly the only one to think that Bill Keller’s accession might bring about changes. In fact, newspaper professional Matthew Hoy suggests that Keller’s accession should lead to changes with columnists, just as I did. Is Hoy making a “rookie mistake” too? Or is Kennedy trying a bit too hard to score points here? I link. You decide.

WUNDERKINDER WONDERS WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE DEMOCRATS:

I might not be a super-lefty on this subject, but the fact remains that I’m far more liberal than President Bush (perhaps to be expected) but I’m also far more liberal than the entire leadership of the Democratic Party. What gives? Why are Democrats getting a pass on this issue. In fact, the Dems are more to blame for how slowly the gay rights debate is emerging than any other group. In contentious issues like abortion rights, for example, the dichotomy between the two parties naturally leads to compromise and the overall protection of abortion rights. But how can you expect even a compromise to occur when not even the leaders of your party support your position?

Many key Democratic constituencies — the remaining Democratic blue-collar workers, and blacks, for example — are not particularly pro-gay. In fact, they’re probably less supportive of gay rights than average. I suspect that the leadership fears getting too far out in front of them on this issue.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE LEFT:

But, as McClure found out, “everywhere” does not include Congo. In fact, it doesn’t include Africa at all. ANSWER has organized no protests and issued no statements on Africa’s four most ravaged countries–Congo, Liberia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe–although they contain exponentially more oppression and suffering than the four targeted by the group’s “International Days of Protest.”

ANSWER is symptomatic of the left in general. A LexisNexis search going back to 2000 finds not a single reference to the crises in Congo, Liberia, Sudan, or Zimbabwe from Noam Chomsky, Arundhati Roy, Michael Moore, Michael Lerner, Gore Vidal, Cornel West, or Howard Zinn. In Congo alone, according to the International Rescue Committee, five years of civil war have taken the lives of a mind-boggling 3.3 million people. How can the leaders of the global left–men and women ostensibly dedicated to solidarity with the world’s oppressed, impoverished masses–not care?

The answer, I think, is that the left isn’t galvanized by victims; it’s galvanized by victimizers. The theme of answer’s upcoming protest, after all, is “Occupation and Empire.” In a recent essay, Roy explained that “the real and pressing danger, the greatest threat of all, is the locomotive force that drives the political and economic engine of the U.S. government.” In other words, imperialism, what she elsewhere calls “a super-power’s self-destructive impulse toward supremacy, stranglehold, global hegemony.”

But, if the greatest injustice in the world is U.S. imperialism, the world’s greatest injustices must be found where U.S. imperialism is strongest. And, here, Africa poses a problem. Africa, after all, has less contact with the United States than any other part of the world.

“Ostensibly” is the operative term. Are there people whose suffering won’t advance the Cause? Ignore ’em. End the occupation of Iraq! Free Mumia!

UPDATE: Reader Dennis Hollingsworth emails that Peter Beinart, in the passage above, conflates the “left” with the “hard left.” Fair enough point, I guess — though when Nick Kristof presents the “hard left” as mainstream when it suits his purposes, well, it’s hard to get too exercised about Beinart’s presentation.

THE EU IS FACING ECONOMIC STRAIN:

Moves to formally consign the EU’s stability and growth pact to the dustbin gathered pace yesterday as French president Jacques Chirac called for it to be suspended, brushing aside the rigid spending code established by treaty law to ensure the long-term survival of monetary union.

Now don’t go all unilateral on us, Jacques. . . . Oops, too late:

France is already facing censure for its defiant breach of the spending rules. The French deficit was 3.1pc in 2002 and is almost certain to be over 3.5pc this year, and yet M Chirac has vowed to press ahead with tax cuts and costly plans to build a new aircraft carrier battle group and nuclear submarines.

My goodness. Where’s his respect for international organizations?

UPDATE: Dodd Harris emails:

My question would be: Why isn’t the Left complaining the Chirac is “busting the budget” on tax cuts and a military buildup?

Oh, I think we know the answer to that one.

ED CONE IS DEFENDING THE FRENCH: “The French aren’t perfect, they just think they are. And it’s not like they were going to be much help on the battlefield anyway.”

THE FAKE NIGER DOCUMENTS WEREN’T BEHIND THE BRITISH REPORT that Saddam was trying to buy uranium there, according to The Telegraph:

British officials admitted that the country was Niger but insisted that the intelligence behind it was genuine and had nothing to do with the fake documents. It was convincing and they were sticking with it, the officials said.

They dismissed a report from a former US diplomat who was sent to Niger to investigate the claims and rejected them. “He seems to have asked a few people if it was true and when they said ‘no’ he accepted it all,” one official said. “We see no reason at all to change our assessment.”

The fake documents were not behind that assessment and were not seen by MI6 until after they were denounced by the IAEA. If MI6 had seen them earlier, it would have immediately advised the Americans that they were fakes.

As mentioned here quite some time ago, the French appear to have been involved in the bogus documents. Now why would they have a hand in that?

WHAT? A SAUDI LINK TO TERRORISM? Say it ain’t so!

THE “AL QAEDA” TAPE is bogus, according to stories linked by Bill Adams. However, I did allow for that possibility when I linked it.

HOWARD DEAN is guest-blogging for Larry Lessig.

Dean-fan Aziz Poonawalla is less impressed than I would have expected.

ROGER SIMON thinks that Bill Keller will be a good Editor for The New York Times, and thinks that TimesWatch‘s criticisms are off base.

I DIDN’T KNOW that Jerusalem was in Iraq. I guess those professional journalist guys know things the rest of us don’t.

(BLOG)ROLLIN’, ROLLIN’, ROLLIN’, KEEP THOSE WEBLOGS ROLLIN’: Kathleen Parker says I’m the Rowdy Yates of the Blogosphere.

Thankee, Ma’am. Though I tend to think of myself as more the Gil Favor type, complete with diary to introduce each episode. . . .

NOW HERE’S AN ISSUE FOR THE DEMOCRATS, but I’ll bet they won’t pick up on it:

Because she is fluent in Turkish and other Middle Eastern languages, Edmonds, a Turkish-American, was hired by the FBI soon after Sept. 11 and given top-secret security clearance to translate some of the reams of documents seized by FBI agents who, for the past year, have been rounding up suspected terrorists across the United States and abroad.

Edmonds says that to her amazement, from the day she started the job, she was told repeatedly by one of her supervisors that there was no urgency – that she should take longer to translate documents so that the department would appear overworked and understaffed. That way, it would receive a larger budget for the next year.

“We were told by our supervisors that this was the great opportunity for asking for increased budget and asking for more translators,” says Edmonds. “And in order to do that, don’t do the work and let the documents pile up so we can show it and say that we need more translators and expand the department.”

Edmonds says that the supervisor, in an effort to slow her down, went so far as to erase completed translations from her FBI computer after she’d left work for the day.

(Via World Wide Rant). Homeland security has been a joke since day one. Is it better now that Tom Ridge and the Department of Homeland Security have taken over? Nope. He’s off engaging in bureaucratic mission creep by chasing “child predators.” What does that have to do with terrorism?

My TechCentralStation column will have a lot more about this.

UPDATE: Michael Demmons notes that the Democrats didn’t speak up when six competent translators were fired because they were gay, making it unlikely they’ll complain about mere budget-padding. Good point.

ANOTHER UPDATE: WyethWire says that some Democrats objected. Is that responsive to Demmons point above? I link, you decide. But it’s not as if they were making attack ads on the subject. That’s saved for other topics.

THE JENIN MASSACRE, DEBUNKED AGAIN: “Palestinian sources confirm that at least 34 Palestinian armed terrorists were killed fighting in the battle for the Jenin Refugee Camp. The total number of Palestinian causalities in the battle was 52, a sharp contrast from the claims of Palestinian propaganda professionals who have openly stated that thousands had died.”

The truth comes out, though I rather doubt the BBC will give this major play. And this story from The Independent, dated yesterday, still refers to Israeli “atrocities” at Jenin, though the massacre claims have been debunked repeatedly over the past many months.

This blood libel seems a bigger deal than the Niger uranium story to me. But don’t expect it to get the same kind of attention. Lies about Jews are okay, you see.

WHY AUSTIN BAY IS REALLY SMART: His prescience on the “flypaper” strategy is explored over at GlennReynolds.com.

JAMES MORROW HAS FOUND A WINNING ISSUE FOR THE DEMOCRATS, but I don’t think they’ll have to fortitude to run with it. Too bad.

“END THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ! FREE MUMIA!” You can’t make this stuff up. Well, you could, I guess. But you don’t have to.

SAMIZDATA IS OBSERVING BASTILLE DAY in irrepressible fashion:

The storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789 was an event more important in the mythology of the French Revolution than in the actually history of it (far from freeing imprisioned patriots, the inmates were four forgers, two lunatics, and the Marquis de Sade), but it was indeed a portent.

Heh.

I THINK THAT BILL KELLER will be a big improvement over Howell Raines. TimesWatch isn’t crazy about him, though.

JIM BENNETT WRITES that it’s time to disestablish the Church of the BBC:

The two principal models are the American one of privately owned networks supported by advertising revenues, and the British one of a tax-supported organization, the British Broadcasting Corp., governed by a politically appointed board, that is supposed to provide a “national” voice representative of the whole nation and its various viewpoints.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and other Anglosphere nations tend to fall somewhere in between these two models, although the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. resembles the BBC substantially.

What is interesting about the two competing models is the way they echo, in certain ways, the differing approaches to the organization of religion that have historically held sway in each country. Interestingly enough, this parallel continues to be instructive today, as both the Church of England and the BBC are increasingly subject to debate over whether they should be disestablished. . . .

Today, both the Church of England and the BBC have lost their way. Not having to fight for the attention and donations of their congregants has permitted their worldviews to grow further and further apart from those who are required to support them. For a long time this disparity has been tolerated, partly because each institution had inherited a large store of moral credibility, which has gradually been squandered. Not surprisingly, the Church has seen growing discussion of the need to disestablish itself. Ironically, American churches, supported by voluntary donations, enjoy a far larger and more enthusiastic membership.

The discussion of BBC disestablishment, in contrast, has just begun. It is not quite yet a mainstream opinion or topic in Britain. However, it is a topic heard far more today than just, say, five years ago.

Read the whole thing.