HMM. SOUNDING MORE LIKE A WARBLOGGER ALL THE TIME and in an unlikely setting.

I GOT A NEW MONITOR for my main computer, and now I can read Pejman’s page again.

HANS BLIX is going to be asked some pointed questions about the drones that he omitted from his report to the Security Council:

The British and US ambassadors plan to demand that Hans Blix reveals more details of a huge undeclared Iraqi unmanned aircraft, the discovery of which he failed to mention in his oral report to Security Council foreign ministers on Friday. Its existence was only disclosed in a declassified 173-page document circulated by the inspectors at the end of the meeting — an apparent attempt by Dr Blix to hide the revelation to avoid triggering a war.

I think that Blix’s credibility took a bit of a hit with that discovery. He’s now in a tough spot. If he lies, the United States and Britain can — rightly — call the inspection process a sham, and Blix partisan. If he tells the truth, it will become apparent that Saddam hasn’t been complying at all, and that the inspection process has been, well, a sham.

If someone were trying to demonstrate the bogus nature of the inspection process they could hardly have done better than Blix himself has done.

UPDATE: Reader Michael Crane observes:

“If someone were trying to demonstrate the bogus nature of the inspection process they could hardly have done better than Blix himself has done.”

Surely Blix knew this would not be overlooked. He must have known hiding it would make an even stronger case…..hmmmm.

Perhaps Blix is not the ally of the Franco-German coalition we think he is. I can’t think of a more eloquent way for him to say everything by saying nothing. Disinterested to the end.

Hmm. I’ve certainly known bureaucrats that subtle. Is Blix one? We’ll probably never know.

RADLEY BALKO AND OLIVER WILLIS seem surprisingly unconcerned about the prospect that Al Qaeda terrorists might be tortured.

All I can say is, that (1) the French did it a lot in Algeria; and (2) they still lost; and (3) it’s wrong. Even if you can explain away (1) & (2) by noting that, well, we’re talking about The French here, that doesn’t work for (3).

Yeah, the torture of Al Qaeda guys concerns me less than the torture of, I don’t know, innocent people — but it’s still wrong, and if the practice goes into general use a lot of innocent people, perhaps named by torture victims who just want to name someone to make it stop, will suffer. And so will the people who do the torturing, and so, indirectly, will the rest of us.

UPDATE: Boy, I was behind the curve on this. I should’ve checked Radley’s main page. He’s got posts here and here responding to critics, though not changing his position. I didn’t find another post by Oliver, though I notice that he’s calling Bush soft on homeland security. Well, certainly by these standards.

UPDATE: Now Oliver has responded.

DALE AMON thinks he’s identified Bush’s long-term foreign relations strategy. And it doesn’t have much to do with establishing a new empire. Rather the reverse, actually.

BILL HERBERT IS DEBUNKING BOGUS CLAIMS that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed isn’t really a big fish after all. He’s got evidence.

SOME OBSERVATIONS on European vs. American views of nationalism, and the resultant mutual incomprehension, from Bitter Sanity.

UPDATE: Meanwhile Steven Den Beste suggests that the U.N. doesn’t have much of a future.

ANOTHER UPDATE: This doesn’t inspire confidence in the U.N., either.

MICHAEL BARONE WRITES on the next stage of war:

It is important to act fast. There have been benefits from going through the United Nations on Iraq, but there have also been costs. One of those is time–time enough for North Korea to make trouble while we are preparing for major military action thousands of miles away. Now North Korea is threatening to manufacture and spread nuclear weapons. Quick success in Iraq, followed by success as soon as possible in Syria and Iran, will help us deal with that threat too, as soon we must.

Indeed.

HERE’S MORE on Milwaukee’s pro-liberation rally.

FIFTH COLUMN ALERT: Andrew Sullivan writes:

What, after all, is the difference between this and the 1990s? Nothing. But somehow we all knew it would come to this, didn’t we? The Times has been campaigning for appeasement of Saddam for over a year. The hawkish pirouettes in between were diversions. What this editorial is really about is the first shot in the coming domestic war – to undermine this military campaign once it begins, to bring down this administration, and to advocate the long-term delegation of American power to an internationalist contraption whose record has been to facilitate inaction and tyranny. The Times, in campaigning against war, has actually fired the opening shot in the coming domestic war. Hostilities have begun.

I guess this would matter more, if the editorial positions of the Times mattered more.

UPDATE: I guess it wasn’t clear, but the post above was supposed to be archly indicating that I think Andrew is a bit over the top with this point. “Domestic war?” And against the Times? I guess it was a little too arch, though, since neither Josh Chafetz nor Arthur Silber read it that way.

I think we’re quite a ways from “domestic war.” I do think that there are people in positions of influence who would rather see us lose this war. Some are honest about it, like Chrissie Hynde, and some aren’t. And some are just positioning themselves to take advantage if things go badly, but don’t otherwise care. Is that a “fifth column?” It’s enough of one that I think Andrew has won that point over the people who said he was over the top when he originally used the term.

But it’s not “domestic war.” And I don’t know whether the editors of The New York Times fall into this category. While they clearly have an irrational dislike for President Bush, my sense is that they want what’s best for America — however misguided their views on that subject might be — and aren’t calling, after the fashion of Chrissie Hynde, for America to be given “what it deserves.”

With regard to the latter group, though, I tend to agree with Susanna Cornett.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Andrew responds, noting that:

By domestic war, I simply mean a deep domestic fight over the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. That’s a wrenching experience I hope won’t happen. But in many ways, it already has. To take one simple example: has there ever been a case when a former president has actually publicly undermined a sitting president at a critical time in U.N. diplomacy, essentially advising critical foreign governments to balk at America’s requests on the eve of a war? If someone knows of a precedent for Jimmy Carter’s op-ed, please let me know.

Good point. Imagine if Gerald Ford had been writing op-eds criticizing Carter’s handling of the hostage crisis, even as the negotiations were going on.

Then again, it could hardly have turned out worse. In fact, much of our problem with radical Islamism today is because of Carter’s weakness and ineptitude nearly twenty-five years ago.

HERE’S ANOTHER ARTICLE ON WEBLOGS. It’s worth reading just for this phrase: “the eBayization of media.” Heh.

DAMIAN PENNY is running a caption contest.

UPDATE: Reader Bill Adams points out that Damian’s new site design lacks an email address. D’oh! Put one up, Damian! Meanhile, Adams’ suggested caption is “Also sprach Bud Bundy.”

HERE’S A STORY ABOUT A BIG DEMONSTRATION IN PARIS — and it’s not about the war. Well, not exactly:

PARIS, March 8 — Ten thousand people took to the streets in Paris on Saturday to denounce violence suffered by women in high-rise housing estates around France’s major towns. . . .

Home to many immigrants from the Maghreb, such suburbs have seen a rise in radical Islam that has turned attitudes towards women even harsher. Pressure is mounting for Muslim women to wear veils and forced marriages that snatch girls from college and a career are now commonplace. . . .

Young women who live on some estates have adopted a dress code of baggy pants and puffy jackets, saying that girls who wear short skirts are branded sluts and considered ”fair game.”

Reports of gang rapes have made headlines but statistics do not indicate whether such attacks are on the rise.

Meanwhile, similar protests are going on in Iran:

Hundreds of Iranian women marked International Women’s Day on Saturday with a demonstration demanding equal social and political rights to men, a first in this conservative male-dominated country since the 1979 Islamic revolution. . . .

“How can we celebrate this day when our women are not entitled to choose their husbands, are not allowed to demand divorce and get just half the blood money a man gets?” protest organizer Noushin Ahmadi asked, referring to the practice of giving the family of a female murder victim about half the average compensation paid to a male victim’s relatives.

Interesting.

A DAMNING ASSESSMENT of the United Nations — and from the New York Times!

Even ardent internationalists worry that the institution finds itself in a lose-lose situation — ridiculed as a puppet if American pressure forces a reluctant Security Council majority to support a war against Saddam Hussein, or reduced once more to a self-absorbed cipher if France, Russia and Germany lead the Security Council to thumb its nose at the world’s superpower. . . .

For James S. Sutterlin, a former United Nations executive and the author of “The United Nations and the Maintenance of International Security,” the question is not the institution’s relevance, but its competence.”The centrality of the Security Council was evident in its very failure,” in Rwanda and Bosnia, he said. “There was the very serious problem that the central organization responsible for security couldn’t do it.”

For American conservatives, the past three months have been galvanizing. “The notion that the U.N. is really a problem,” William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, said this week, “was a fringe notion until about three months ago. Now serious people, who are not unilateralists, are much more open to alternatives to the U.N.”

Yes. The U.N. has made a lot of new enemies, and appalled a lot of its old friends. If its chief role is to serve as a forum for French efforts to feel important, then the U.N. will be no more important than France itself.

PUNDITWATCH is up! My favorite bit:

On Capital Gang, speaking of Bill Clinton’s deal to debate Bob Dole on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Bob Novak uttered one of the most telling self-assessments ever: “Never before has a former president of the United States descended to my level.”

Ouch.

THE BENEFITS of a free press.

HERE ARE SOME PICTURES from a pro-liberation rally in Tulsa. And here’s a link to a highlights video. Once again, talk radio was involved.

ANOTHER GERMAN OFFICIAL HAS called Bush a dictator.

Those cowboy Europeans, always popping off at the mouth with some ill-considered, undiplomatic statement. When will they acquire some subtlety?