LEE SMITH writes on the myth of Islamist democracy and argues that we should be pushing harder for Western-style freedom in the Arab world. He also makes this important, if obvious, point about French interference in these efforts:

And as even Chirac surely knows, proof that they are incapable of self-reform is provided by the steady stream of Arabs who have fled those failed states for Europe and the United States.

Chirac is not defending Arabs, only his position as a dear friend and frontman of those Arab rulers who have no wish to reform their governments. Maybe democracy can’t be imposed, but democratic and liberal reforms certainly can.

Indeed.

OUT OF THE CLOSET: Human Rights activists are standing up for their legal rights, despite the stares of the curious and the censure of the censorious. (Via Jeff Soyer — more background here.).

IT’S A MEDIA ENRON — but somehow it’s not getting nearly as much ink:

The news at Newsday went from bad to worse yesterday, as the parent Tribune Co. revealed that the paper’s circulation totals were inflated over a longer period and at higher levels than it admitted last month. . . .

James Marsh, a media analyst with SG Cowen Securities, said the circulation trouble is frustrating “because it seems to be an issue that won’t go away.”

He added: “It’s like a zombie. You hit it with a shovel and think it’s dead. But the next thing you know, it’s on the porch and looking in the window.”

Last month, Newsday disclosed it overstated daily circ in September by 40,000 copies and Sunday circ by 60,000. The circ of Hoy, its Spanish-language sister, was inflated by 15,000 daily and 4,000 Sunday. . . .

But yesterday Tribune said it found “additional misstatements” for last year and March, plus new errors affecting totals reported in 2001 and 2002. . . . The added embarrassment for Newsday and Hoy came as the U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn probes the circ irregularities.

In addition, several advertisers have accused the papers in a lawsuit of fraudulently inflating circulation, including the dumping of copies.

(Via Stephen Green, who observes: “Meanwhile, thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions?) of blogs continue to allow their SiteMeter hit counters to be seen by anyone.”)

UPDATE: A reader says this isn’t of Enron caliber. Well, not by dollar amount — but it’s worth noting that this reporting problem goes way beyond Newsday and may turn out to afflict the media industry generally. And it goes straight to what the industry claims to deliver — and calls its truthfulness, which is its overall stock in trade, into question.

Then there’s the hypocrisy angle, given the way they cover corporate shenanigans in, you know, other industries.

CATHY SEIPP:

A few months ago I found myself at lunch with a couple of women my age who kept insisting that (a) rape is purely a crime of violence, not sex, and (b) since I write for Penthouse sometimes, I’m part of the problem, because pornography contributes to a rape culture by sexually objectifying women. (Uh, I feel I should point out here that I’ve never written porn for Penthouse, just pristine articles about Hollywood topics that could run in any PG-rated publication.) The logical retort — that if rape is only a crime of violence, not sex, then what does sexually objectifying women have to do with rape? — only occurred to me once I was driving home.

This is part of an interesting discussion over at The Volokh Conspiracy, where Cathy is guest-blogging.

MICHAEL PHILIPS WRITES:

And you thought John Edwards’s smile was bright. Milton Glaser, designer of the highly successful “I (Heart) NY” campaign, is hoping to make a political statement when the GOP hits the Big Apple in late August. At lightupthesky.org he is urging the Anyone-but-Bush crowd on August 30 to “gather informally all over the city with candles, flashlights and plastic wands to silently express our sorrow over the innocent deaths the war has caused.”

Ah, a sunny little demonstration indeed. But to what end exactly? As near as anyone can tell, Mr. Kerry’s position on Iraq is the about same as Mr. Bush’s with the implicit promise that he can somehow persuade the French to participate. For that to happen, the plastic wands will have to have magical qualities.

The Nation devoted a page in a recent issue to Mr. Glaser’s light-up-the-sky plan. The irony of course is that it was The Nation’s bright idea to try to chase out of the presidential race the only high-profile antiwar candidate. Its editors wrote an open letter to independent candidate Ralph Nader back in February urging him not to run. They must be pleased that the consumer-rights advocate may get on the ballot in only a handful of states due to maneuvering by Democrats in key states. Seen in this light, the left’s behavior makes the August 30 gathering sound a bit too precious. Here’s hoping the cloud of hypocrisy doesn’t darken their spirits.

Indeed.

1968 REDUX? Billy Beck has some questions.

IRAQ, WMD, AND WAR: It’s interesting to see Steven den Beste on the same page, in many ways, as Bill Clinton. At least, reading the two items together provides a more nuanced picture than we’re getting elsewhere.

VODKA PUNDIT AND THE WEBLOG OF TOMORROW: Check out this cool site redesign by Stacy Tabb. Yes, she rocks.

TERROR IN THE SKIES UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has checked out the story I linked earlier, and it’s apparently true, at least in major outline.

UPDATE: Hey, maybe the whole story is really good news.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has still more information, and reports that the Washington Post has been working on the story, but hasn’t published yet. On the other hand, Donald Sensing remains skeptical.

Daniel Drezner would like to see this get more media attention and investigation. So would I.

MORE: Additional thoughts from Spoons and Steven Den Beste on what people should do. More here, and here, too.

STILL MORE: Eric Scheie shares an experience from September of 2001. And reader Bruno Behrend emails:

I’ve been scanning the stories on the airline incident. As of yet, no one
is raising the possibility that these people on the plane are decoys to
distract attention from something more important.

Good point.

MORE STILL: Pilot reader James White emails:

1. I share Rev Sensing’s skepticsm on most aspects of the report. There are a lot of details in the article such as those involving crew actions that are either flat out wrong or that she couldn’t possibly have known enough about to assess things as she did. Based on subsequent news (like Malkin’s confirmation of some aspects of the incident), I’ll accept that the gist of her story is valid but embellished with uninformed speculation and conventional wisdom.

2. I find the idea that this was a suicide hijacking/bombing team (even on a dry run…) extremely unlikely – I don’t know what the “chicken out” rate on suicide attacks is but I know there is one, and that alone dictates the smallest team possible for any suicide operation. It stands to reason that the greater the number of suicide attackers, the greater the possibility that one or more of them WILL chicken out and compromise the operation. I wouldn’t be the slightest bit surprised to discover that that was how we found out about the 1995 plot to blow up multiple airliners over the Pacific. And it’s probably why you can build a reasonably strong circumstantial case that the “suicide mission” nature of the 9/11 hijackings was news to most of the hijackers.

3. I’ll bet it’s within the power of any number of entities (the Syrian government comes to mind given the passports in this case) to assemble a group of people with “clean” records who can be briefed on how to go right to the edge of behavior that will get you arrested in an effort to sow fear and uncertainty among our population. Is it possible this was a psychological operation of some sort? The one way tickets, the abnormally large group, the bizarre behavior on the airplane (assuming these details are accurate) all point to people who wanted to be noticed.

Hmm. Perhaps we should return the favor by leaving a horse head in Assad’s bed.

DARFUR UPDATE: Interesting news analysis from the Botswanan paper Mmegi.

UNSCAM UPDATE:

A Congressional committee investigating corruption in a United Nations relief program in Iraq has issued a subpoena for financial records from the French bank BNP Paribas.

The bank, which managed billions of dollars in oil revenue that were intended for relief aid through the so-called oil for food program, said it intended to release documents to investigators.

Stay tuned.

GREG DJEREJIAN looks at the likely outlines of a Kerry anti-terror policy.

SALON is carrying water for Joe Wilson. Ed Morrissey isn’t impressed. The notion that editorials on Wilson, in response to the release of major reports blowing Wilson’s credibility out of the water, are somehow “choreographed” seems to me to undermine the Salon case. Indeed, this sentence from the Salon piece seems to undermine the whole “vast right-wing conspiracy” argument all by itself: “The opinion pieces came on the heels of a July 10 report in the Washington Post that said Wilson lied when he claimed in public statements that his wife, a covert Central Intelligence Agency officer, had not recommended him for a fact-finding mission to Niger in 2002.”

That’s not choreography. That’s consequences.

UPDATE: One of Morrissey’s commenters observes a conflict of interest: “I guess Salon.com is worried about selling tickets for their cruise.”

ANOTHER UPDATE: Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: Jonah Goldberg notes that the Salon piece is authored by Wes Clark’s former press secretary, and observes: “I mean, come on, there is some actual merit to the case that Wilson deliberately lied for partisan reasons about some of the most serious issues imagineable. That’s pretty much been proven. The case that Bush lied, meanwhile, continues to fall apart.”

MORE: Ed Morrissey observes this failure to disclose: “I went back and double-checked the Salon article — and they never mention Jacoby’s connection to the Democratic party. Double-plus-good interesting ….”

OH, THAT LIBERAL MEDIA: An extensive survey of reporters’ political donations produces some interesting data, and this overall observation: “President George Bush didn’t receive a single donation from any outlet or reporter in my search.” (Via Mickey Kaus, who adds: “Yoo hoo, Poynter people. Over here.”) I guess this is more support for Evan Thomas’s admission.

ANOTHER CHENEY THEORY:

The rumblings about VP Cheney are still out there and I’m willing to concede that they may all just be talk and rumor to liven up a slow patch in the election cycle. I don’t think so, though. Right now, the scoop is that Cheney is “playing a key role” in making the list of candidates to be the new CIA chief. The last time I remember the Vice President playing that sort of key role was in 2000 where he headed the vice presidential selection committee and, well, look where he is now.

Heh.

UPDATE: On the other hand, Howard Kurtz is twitting Big Media’s obsession with Cheney rumors: “It would be one thing if there was an active GOP campaign to replace Cheney, as there was a dump-Quayle movement in ’92 (which got about as far with Bush’s dad). But all this for a rumor? Aren’t rumors the sort of thing that major newspapers tut-tut when tabloids or Web sites tout them and thus force the rest of us to pay attention?”

Since I think I’m the one who started the whole thing, back in 2002 (scroll down), I think I’ll just keep quiet.

LET AMERICA BE AMERICA AGAIN: A Kerry/Edwards campaign poster you probably won’t see anywhere else.

JAY CARUSO: “The Federal Marriage Amendment has failed and that is a good thing. I say this as a Christian, and a person that does not condone homosexual marriage.”

BRYAN PRESTON ASKS: What was Joe Wilson thinking?

It is time to ask these questions, I think. Wilson constructed out of thin air the scandal of the 16 words, a non-scandal that has done a great deal of damage to the war effort in Iraq and to potential conflicts yet to be fought. We know know beyond doubt that he built that scandal on an edifice of lies, and it’s apparent that he did so on purpose. Why would he do this? Self-promotion and the glory of a book deal, for a book that will be heading to the cut-out bins in short order now that he has been discredited, isn’t a satisfying answer, at least not to me.

There very likely is much more to his story, and to his wife’s story too.

Indeed.

UPDATE: Roger Simon has some thoughts and observations. “I think the Wilson/Plame escapade has little or nothing to do with whether Saddam tried to buy uranium of any sort in Niger or anywhere and everything to do with the power struggle between the CIA, the Pentagon and the State Department. Wilson’s trip to Niger was a charade. The CIA, or the part of the CIA that sent him, knew full well in advance that he would find nothing or say that he found nothing, nothing of significance anyway. In fact, if you were actually serious about finding out information about yellowcake sales, it seems the least likely way to go about it. . . . The Washington blood sport that may be behind all this is not reassuring to contemplate.”

More speculation (frankly labeled as such) here. I’d like to see more reporting on this.

INTERESTING CLINTON INTERVIEW — blaming the French and the Germans for the invasion of Iraq?

But at the time nearly everybody thought there was probably a stock of chemical and biological weapons there and it was vulnerable to falling into the wrong hands, either by design or by corruption within Saddam’s regime. And essentially the French and the Germans said we still don’t care. . . .

When both sides in effect fell away from him, the US on one side and France and Germany on the other, he [Tony Blair] was left with the prospect of walking away from what he believed was weapons of mass destruction site, or walking forward without the UN and Europe, it was a terrible dilemma for him. Let me remind you, I don’t know what the Butler report is going to say obviously, but at least according to the reports at the time and ever since, British intelligence was even more far leaning than American intelligence. The CIA for example never believed that Saddam had any ties to Al-Qaeda and the CIA we all know from President Bush’s hotly disputed State of the Union speech. It was the British intelligence, not American intelligence that believed Saddam attempted to get, or did get nuclear materials from Niger in Africa. So your intelligence was apparently more aggressive than ours and Blair had to act on it I think.

Interesting catch. (Full transcript here.)

THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY IS IN DISARRAY: No, more than usual.

THE CARNIVAL OF THE LIBERATED, a roundup of Iraqi blog posts, is up. As always, it’s must-reading.

SEVERAL READERS WROTE that when you try to use the “contact us” email link at the Joe Wilson “RestoreHonesty.com” website mentioned below you get this response:

Date: 7/15/2004 21:23:22 -0400
From:

Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

I guess it’s not valid anymore. . . .

ANTISEMITISM IN EUROPE: Some thoughts from Simon Montefiore:

Yet something has changed about the European attitude to Jewishness. One feels it everywhere: we have moved, as it were, from the world of Howard Jacobson back to Franz Kafka. This is connected to Israel, America, 9/11 and Iraq. For more than a decade now, Israel has been the fashionable bete noire of the chattering classes. The response to Israel in the European media, particularly the BBC and the Guardian, has long been prejudiced, disproportionate, vicious often fictitious.

A typical case of the media’s mendacity on Israel was the invented coverage of the Jenin “massacre” (not) by British news organisations, which were so anti-Israel that they popularised an event that they could not have witnessed, because it had not happened. They never apologised – because any Israeli “atrocity” is seen to illustrate a greater truth. Another example was the Israeli assassination of the man whom the BBC called Hamas’s “spiritual leader”: Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was actually a terrorist boss, about as “spiritual” as Osama Bin Laden.

Yet, in the British media, every Israeli sin is amplified, while those of the Arab world are ignored. The million dead of the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein’s 300,000 victims, thousands more massacred in Chechnya, the Arab militias killing black Sudanese, the torturing Middle Eastern tyrannies are ignored – but in Britain, every Palestinian death is reported like a sacred rite. Our media conceal the venom directed at Israel by Arab clerics, television and the internet, presenting Israeli complaints as propaganda. The Middle East commentator Tom Gross revealed in the National Review that when the “moderate” Saudi cleric Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais visited Britain this month, the BBC hailed him as a brave worker for “community cohesion”. Yet his Friday sermons call for Jews – “scum of the human race, rats of the world” – to be “annihilated”. . . .

It is as if, in the mythical scale of 9/11, al-Qaeda had unlocked a forgotten cultural capsule of anti-Semitic myths, sealed and forgotten since the Nazis, the Black Hundreds and the medieval blood libels. Just words? But words matter in a violent world.

Read the whole thing. (Via Eugene Volokh).

UPDATE: This column by Mark Steyn on European double standards in hate speech law enforcement is worth reading, too, in this connection.

I’LL BE ON HUGH HEWITT’S SHOW in just a couple of minutes, along with Roger Simon. We’ll be talking about Joe Wilson, and media coverage thereof. Go here to listen online.

IT’S A RUSH-THEMED CARNIVAL OF THE VANITIES THIS WEEK: That’s “Rush” as in Geddy Lee, not Limbaugh.