THE UNIVERSAL GENIUS I've always had the sneaking suspicion that the public view of Albert Einstein had devolved into a caricature that overshadowed his very real contributions and his very profound intellectual powers. This article echoes my concerns, and sets out--rather effectively, in my view--to remind the reader the reasons for Einstein's tremendous historical importance. And of course, it contains a charming vignette that I can't help but point out: Many tall tales of supernatural intelligence have attached themselves to Einstein. (The best one: His first words were an eloquent complaint that his milk was too hot. His stunned parents asked why he hadn't spoken earlier. "Because," the little genius supposedly replied, "previously everything was in order.") . . . If you are anything like me, you met this passage with gales of laughter and delight.

ANATOMY OF A SMEAR Is this all it takes to besmirch a public official's good name?

MY TECH CENTRAL STATION COLUMN IS UP Of course, you probably didn't need me telling you that, since Glenn Reynolds was kind enough to tell you himself, and . . . well . . . he gets a lot more hits than me.

ITS FAME GROWS BY LEAPS AND BOUNDS Congratulations to Josh Chafetz and the OxBlog for having become the beneficiaries of well-deserved favorable press.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH I've had it. I'm no longer going to blog here. This is not a joke. I'm frankly sick and tired of blogging at PejmanPundit. It's annoying me beyond measure. I'm retiring from this site. Instead, I'll be here. Hope you will be there too.

UH OH . . . Maybe I ought to reconsider my position--Mark Steyn thinks that a quagmire exists after all.

ANOTHER EXCELLENT MOYNIHAN OBITUARY And this one comes from a fellow blogger. Of course, you do realize that the fact that Jane Galt is now writing for Tech Central Station means that the average collective IQ of TCS writers has gone up approximately 100 points or so. Don't you?

WHILE A WAR RAGES . . . obstruction continues. At the risk of repeating myself, where are the cries of "count every vote, and let every vote count" when it comes to judicial nominations?

CONTRARY TO CONVENTIONAL WISDOM, THE SKY IS NOT FALLING To all the sudden Chicken Littles out there, please read this:

All these people need to calm down, take a deep breath, and read their history — computing the logistics of fighting 7,000 miles away and considering the hurdles of vast space, unpredictable weather, and enemies without uniforms. And? In just a week, the United States military has surrounded one of history’s most sadistic and nasty regimes. It has overrun 80 percent of the countryside and has daily pulverized the Republican Guard, achieving more in five days than the Iranians did in eight years. Twenty-four hours a day, thousands of tankers and supply trucks barrel down long, vulnerable supply lines, quickly and efficiently. There is no bridge too far for these long columns. One-hundred percent air superiority is ours. There is not a single Iraqi airplane in the sky. Enemy tanks either stay put or are bombed. Kurds and Shiites really will soon start to be heard. Seven oil wells are on fire (with firefighters on the scene) — no oil slicks, no attacks on Israel. Kuwait City is not aflame. “Millions” of refugees fleeing into Syria and Jordan have not materialized. Even Peter Arnett is no longer parroting the Iraqi government claims of ten million starving and has moved on to explain why the Iraqis were equipped with chemical suits — to protect Saddam’s killers from our WMDs! Few, if any, major bridges in Iraq have been blown; there are no mass uprisings in Saddam’s favor. The Tikrit mafia fights as the SS did in the craters of Berlin, facing as it does — and within weeks — either a mob’s noose, a firing squad, or a dungeon. Through 20,000 air sorties, no jets have been shot down; there is nothing to stop them from flying another 100,000. They fly in sand, in lightning, high, low, day, night, anywhere, anytime. Supplies are pouring in. Saddam’s regime is cut off and its weapons will not be replenished. This is not North Vietnam, with Chinese and Russian ships with daily re-supply in the harbor of Haiphong. British and Americans, with courageous Australians as well, are fighting as a team without even the petty rivalry of a Montgomery and Bradley. Our media talks of Saddam’s thugs and terrorists as if they were some sort of Iraqi SAS. Meanwhile, the real thing — scary American, British, and Australian Special Forces — is causing havoc to Saddam’s rear guard. In short, for all the tragedy of a fragging, Iraqi atrocities, misdirected cruise missiles, and the usual cowardly antics inherent to our enemy’s way of war, the real story is not being reported: A phenomenal march against overwhelming logistical, material, and geographical odds in under seven days has reached and surrounded Saddam Hussein’s capital.

And while you are at it, read the whole thing. Once you get a sense of the history of warfare, you will realize that what has been accomplished thus far by American and coalition forces is nothing short of extraordinary.

THE VATICAN AND THE WAR By now, everyone knows of Pope John Paul II's opposition to the war against Saddam's regime. With regard to the Vatican's general stance on war, William McGurn points out something quite disturbing:

Of far more concern, at least to papal admirers such as yours truly, is that the war statements appear to reflect not simply a disagreement over Iraq but a strain in John Paul's thinking that sits uncomfortably with 1,500 years of Catholic teaching on the legitimate use to force--a teaching, moreover, that asks not when authorities have the "right" to use force but when they have the obligation. John Paul's unease over the state's use of force was perhaps first evident in his earlier treatment of the death penalty: that while it may be acceptable in principle, the state now has alternatives that make it all but impossible to justify in practice. The linkage is not only mine. In recent interviews, Archbishop Renato Martino, head of the Pontifical Council for Peace and Justice, explicitly says that classic just-war teaching may now be headed the way of the death penalty. When the National Catholic Register asked the archbishop if he meant by this that "there is no such thing as a just war anymore," his answer was unequivocal: "Absolutely." The pope has not gone this far. But neither has he repudiated the more fantastic claims by Vatican officials. And in fairness to Archbishop Martino, the catechism's argument against the death penalty does anticipate some arguments against modern war--e.g., that other avenues are available, or that the costs have become inherently disproportionate to whatever good end we hope to achieve.

As someone who believes that tradition-laden texts should generally be granted a great deal of respect (after all, how would those texts have been so relevant over the centuries if it were not for the fact that they have something very important to say?), I have to say that I find this apparent willingness to dispense with Augustine's and Aquinas's teachings on what constitutes a just war, quite disturbing. Do any other readers feel the same way? I would be especially interested in hearing from Catholic readers on this issue, and what they think of this apparent trend in the Church. UPDATE: The Jewish concept of a just war appears to be alive and well.

TELL ME AGAIN . . . how there is no connection between Iraq and terrorism.

HE SHOOTS . . . HE SCORES! The Great One lends his support to the war effort:

FROM THE PRO-BUSH sentiments of hockey great Wayne Gretzky to actor Adrien Brody's rousing acceptance at the Oscars, the last few days have finally brought good publicity for the war effort. The patriots are coming out of the woodwork, their confidence in America as visible as the liquid contempt spraying from Michael Moore's lips. Gretzky told a press conference in Calgary on Tuesday: "All I can say is the president of the United States is a great leader, I happen to think he's a wonderful man and if he believes what he's doing is right, I back him 100 percent." Like the president himself sometimes does, Gretzky appeared to stake his faith on the man even more than the principle. "If the president decides to go to war he must know more than we know or we hear about. He must have good reason to go and we have to back that." Gretzky said he had a personal connection to the troops. "I have a cousin who is in Iraq right now and is in the U.S. Marines," said the Great One. "He was there in '91 and he's there now and it's a tough time for his family and it's a tough time for all of us." Ever the gentleman, the Canadian Gretzky passed on the opportunity to criticize his own prime minister, Jean Chrétien, who has parted ways with the United States on the issue of Iraq.

Hey, if people can cite Martin Sheen and Janeane Garofalo approvingly, I can cite Gretzky. At least he has a personal stake in the conflict.

I WISH . . . that more people would remember the following observation about Iraqi "resistance" to the American military:

Do not believe any commentator who says that a rising surge of "nationalism" is preventing Iraqis from greeting U.S. and British troops in the streets with open arms. What is preventing them from rising up and taking over the streets of their cities is confusion about American intentions and fear of the murderous brown-shirt thugs known as the Fedayeen Saddam, who are leading the small-arms-fire attacks on American and British soldiers. The coalition forces have an urgent need to send clear and unmistakable signals to the people of Iraq that unlike in 1991, there is no turning back from the destruction of Saddam Hussein. And in order to do this effectively they must turn to the Iraqi opposition, which has so far been marginalized.

Precisely. This account is written by an Iraqi observer of the war effort, who believes that we should make a greater effort to remove Iraqi TV from the air. The more we hit at symbolic targets of Saddam's regime, the more people will come to the conclusion that Saddam himself is finished.

WHO'S NEXT? Apparently, Syria is volunteering to replace Iraq in the Axis of Evil.

MORE INFORMATION FOR HANS BLIX We continue to do UNMOVIC's job for it:

Statements from Iraqi prisoners of war and electronic eavesdropping on Iraqi government communications indicate that Saddam Hussein has moved chemical weapons to the Medina Division, one of three Republican Guard divisions guarding the approaches to Baghdad, Army officials said. The Army officials said they strongly believed that Mr. Hussein would use the weapons as allied troops moved toward Baghdad to oust him and his government. Officials with V Corps said intelligence information pointed to Mr. Hussein deploying 155-millimeter artillery weapons with shells carrying mustard gas as well as sarin, or nerve agents, an especially deadly weapon. Mr. Hussein used these chemical agents against the Iranians and the country's Kurdish population in the 1980's.

Amazing how none of this stuff was found, and how Saddam claimed he had no chemical weapons, eh? Who woulda thunk it?

INSANITY What is the justification behind this?

Diane Johnson found out the hard way that yellow ribbons make Mayor Edward "Buddy" Tyler see red. The borough mayor supports the council’s unanimous vote to outlaw any ribbons or other memorials for the American troops fighting in Iraq, if those ribbons are placed on public property because the government doesn’t want them there. "I’m shocked and outraged," Johnson said. "I can’t believe the mayor would force me to take down ribbons put there in honor of American troops, fighting for our freedom in Iraq." [. . .] The mayor said he initially didn’t think the yellow ribbon controversy was "a big deal," but after some thought, he said he agreed with compelling Johnson to remove the ribbon memorial. "Where would you draw a line if you started allowing the use of public property to exhibit whatever cause anyone wanted?" Tyler said. "Suppose someone wants to tie pink ribbons, or black flags, or a Confederate flag or a Nazi flag on public property?"

Supporting American soldiers in combat is equivalent to flying Confederate or Nazi flags? Since when? This, by the way, seems like a blatant First Amendment violation to me. Assuming that the banning is content based (the ban has come about because of objection to the content of the demonstration), the borough would have to show that the ban is necessary to further a compelling state interest. I see no compelling interest whatsoever in banning yellow ribbons and American flags. It does appear that the ban is content based, as the ban is "to outlaw any ribbons or other memorials for the American troops fighting in Iraq, if those ribbons are placed on public property." A lawsuit should be brought posthaste. It would likely win. UPDATE: Here is Eugene Volokh's analysis, which differs from mine.

THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY What great cause has ever been fought and won under the banner "I stand for consensus"? --Margaret Thatcher The place that had been the embodiment of liberal expectation after World War II had moved towards totalitarianism: the inversion of truth, the Big, Big Lie--this was now the language of the General Assembly. --Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former Senator from New York and former Ambassador to the United Nations, on the passage of the United Nations General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism, 1975.

WAR TALK AND THE REAL WORLD I went today to a Mailboxes Etc.-resembling shop earlier this afternoon. The storeowner behind the counter was clearly an Arab, and the person in front of me was a young man--probably in his early 20's and likely to be an Iranian, although I can't be sure. The apparently Iranian customer asked the storeowner how things were going, and the storeowner responded "well, I'm not in the war, so things are good!" He chuckled a bit, and then launched into a discussion that he was clearly waiting to have. "You know," the storeowner said to the customer, "I consider myself an intellectual." (You know you are going to hear a fair amount of vapid nonsense when someone begins with such a self-aggrandizing comment.) "I think that this entire thing is screwed. Iraqis are coming to America to live, and we are going there to conquer!" "This thing is going to take a really long time," the storeowner continued. "The only reason that we were able to win the war in 1991 so quickly was that the Iraqis weren't going to fight for Kuwait. But they will fight for their own country! We haven't even taken on the Republican Guard yet. We are obsessed with the Fedayeen. Imagine what will happen when we go up against the Republican Guard!" "Yeah, I know," the young customer responded. "This is going to be bad." Mind you, at this point, I was grinding my teeth, trying not to respond or cause a scene. The storeowner continued. "We are going to be there for a year. And you know how we will get out? The French and the Russians will intervene and save face for us. Tell me, how can you possibly say that there are no civilians dead? I see them on TV! I check out al Jazeera's website--it's all there!" "Yeah, I check out al Jazeera too," the customer replied. Apparently, he was in a pliant mood. "The Americans say that a helicopter has not gone down," the storeowner continued. "But al Jazeera shows the helicopter on TV! What do you mean a helicopter has not gone down?" After this last line was uttered, the storeowner exchanged a few final remarks with the customer, and I was finally allowed to come up to the counter with my order. "Can you believe all of this," the storeowner started on me. I really didn't want to have this discussion, because, as I said, I didn't want to create any kind of a scene. But I finally had enough. I didn't lose my temper, but there are such things as verbal and vocalized Fiskings. It was time to deliver one. "The Russians are selling the GPS jammers to the Iraqis. What are we going to do about that," the storeowner said. "All of the GPS jammers have been destroyed. All six of them," I replied. "They have," the storeowner asked. He was quizzical now. "Yes. By GPS guided bombs, no less." "Then how are the Iraqis still downing helicopters?" "GPS jamming is not used to bring down helicopters," I replied tersely. "It is used to jam the GPS guidance of bombs. It is used to make bombs go off target. It has nothing to do with downing aircraft." "Really," the storeowner exclaimed. A look of enlightenment came over his face. "Yes," I replied. "And the only aircraft that we lost today was an unmanned Predator drone." "But, the news says that the Iraqis have downed a helicopter." "The helicopter that the Iraqis downed was the same one that was downed a few days ago," I responded. "They just filmed it from another angle. The only craft that the Allies lost today was an unmanned Predator drone." "Really?!?!" The exclamation was emphatic now. "Really," I replied. And I couldn't resist. "Al Jazeera lies. They lie all the time." The storeowner took a moment, and then recovered. "Well, you can't be happy about the civilian deaths. These smart bombs missed last time, and they are missing this time." "First of all," I replied, "the smart bombs made up only 10% of the munitions in the first Gulf War. They make up 80% of the munitions in this one. Additionally, the last time, they were TV-guided and/or laser-guided.* Now, they are GPS guided. Last time, bad visibility could make a bomb go off track. That doesn't work with the current smart bombs. GPS guided bombs don't lose their targets simply because of bad visibility. They are incredibly accurate." "Really?!?!" "Really. And that's a good thing too--especially considering the fact that Saddam likes to light oil fires and obstruct visibility. If it weren't for the kind of advanced smart bombs that we are using, Saddam's lighting of oil fires could cause the deaths of thousands of civilians." Again, I couldn't resist. "But they didn't work with the bombing in the marketplace yesterday!" "The Americans didn't bomb the marketplace. The marketplace area wasn't even on the list of bombing targets. And if there are civilian deaths, who is more to blame? The Americans, or Saddam for placing military installations in a civilian neighborhood? Do you see the American military do that in our cities much?" "Hmm." The storeowner was pensive. I had to go at this point. But a Parthian shot was required. "Al Jazeera lies. They lie all the time. You really should get your news from other news sources. At the very least, they shouldn't be your only source of information." The storeowner shrugged his shoulders, and smiled a bit. He wished me a good day. I wished him one as well. And I meant it. I don't think the man was meanspirited. I don't think he wished for American failure. And I didn't bear any animus towards him. But it is amazing how many people hold a worldview that is as fragile as a house of cards. And it is amazing to see the house of cards tumble. When they do tumble, it can be rather dramatic. And for the record, the man had a lot of Green Party paraphernalia on his counter. I guess that figures, and it certainly explains a lot. *For the record, the first generation of smart bombs were TV/IR guided bombs, and laser guided. I left the "IR" part out of my discussion, because I didn't want to get excessively technical. If you, however, want to get excessively technical, then at the risk of tooting my own horn, I would urge you to go here.

THIS HAS GOT TO BE SOME KIND OF JOKE Behold Michael Moore's explanation for his incoherent Oscar rant this past Sunday: He went to church, and it got him riled up to vocalize his rant. And that really is it as far as explanations go. We finally have evidence for the argument that religion really is the opiate of the masses. I'd Fisk the article, but it is essentially a recapitulation of the speech, which others have already made fun of. I think that it is funny that Moore thinks (1) the country is "liberal" (what is he, a mindreader?); that (2) the people who were booing him were actually just booing the people who were booing him (he really says that--see if you can understand the logic); and (3) that no one would speak for the liberal side if Moore didn't (apparently the thinking is that the fatter and more obnoxious you are, the more indispensable you are as well). When you embarrass yourself, that is bad enough. When you dig the hole deeper, it gets even worse. Moore is probably digging as I write this. I just hope that his girth will fit in the hole that he is digging for himself. Somehow, I think it will--Moore seems determined to descend deeper and deeper into self-parody. (Thanks to the lovely Emily Jones--who had better not take a break--for sending me this link.)

FOR ALL THE ANTIWAR FOLK OUT THERE: One of your favorite quotes (at least, one of the quotes I have seen used most often in argument) has been debunked.

THE INTELLECTUAL INFLUENCE BEHIND FRENCH FOREIGN POLICY Andrew Sullivan reveals the disturbing details.

YOU JUST KNEW . . . that Mark Steyn would have something to say about the current "we are losing the war" hysteria:

I’m writing this a few hours before deadline. So by the time you read this Saddam may have won. That would seem to be the upshot of the BBC coverage we get over here, not to mention dear old Reuters. As Douglas Hamilton reported, ‘US military prowess suffered another setback in Iraq on Monday and another omen that bullets rather than liberators’ garlands may await the invasion force when it finally reaches Baghdad.’ ‘Omen’? Well, speaking as someone not privy to the entrails of the Reuters chicken, let me go out on a limb here: the Anglo-Aussie-American forces will win. And the way they win will have tremendous implications for the years ahead.

And that is just the beginning. Read the rest.

I DON'T KNOW HOW CREDIBLE THIS CLAIM REALLY IS . . . but if it is true, then Holland has a major domestic problem on its hands. (Thanks to Mike Daley for the link.)

THE FOLLY OF GUN LAWSUITS Walter Olson--the scourge of vexatious litigation--has the scoop.

IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT MY INTELLECTUAL INTERESTS . . . it won't surprise you to see me link to this article.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ANTIWAR PROTESTORS Arnold Kling's letter is worth a careful read.

A VALUABLE SERVICE Mac Owens urges everyone to keep their cool about the conduct of the war:

Yes, the 350-mile supply line from Kuwait to Baghdad is vulnerable. But the allies are discovering ways to minimize this vulnerability by adapting and adopting new tactics to deal with guerillas. But it is important to remember that the Iraqis lack the capability to threaten coalition lines of communication with any sort of a major force. Guerillas alone cannot do the job. In the past, guerillas have been most effective when cooperating with conventional forces that are able to maneuver — something the Iraqi forces are not able to do. I am reminded of the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. During the early phases, critics were beginning to claim that Afghanistan had become a quagmire, that U.S. troops would suffer the same fate as the British and Russians before them. A week later the Taliban collapsed.

The coverage of an American conducted war seems to have three stages: Stage 1 is the sudden interest in American military action, and the expectation that there will be a victory soon. Stage 2 is the emergence of conventional wisdom that defeat is certain, or that at the very least, the battle will be "much tougher than we thought." And Stage 3 is a realization that maybe we shouldn't have worried so much. As Owens points out, it happened in Afghanistan. I expect that it will happen with Iraq. UPDATE: I swear I didn't read this before adding my own commentary. After all, my hypothesis only calls for three stages, not four.

THIS WON'T BE COMMENTED ON MUCH . . . but it is important to point out that Saddam Hussein is even willing to have valuable art destroyed in order to preserve his regime:

Voices questioning the wisdom of the U.S.-led operation against Saddam Hussein's dictatorship charge it will cause the reckless destruction of Iraq's cultural heritage. Is the U.S. taking sufficient care to spare Iraq's treasures? Does the Gulf War provide any guidance? And why are the people now accusing the U.S. making no mention of Saddam's uses of archaeological sites as military shields then? Millennia ago, Iraq was the cradle of civilization, hence the concern about its cultural and archaeological sites. Yet the laws of warfare make clear that while combatants may not target such sites, if they are used for military purposes they lose their protection. Legally, therefore, the burden to protect these sites falls most heavily on Saddam's regime. If Saddam used them to shelter his forces or hide his armaments they would legally become military targets. Unfortunately, at the CENTCOM briefing yesterday, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks disclosed that the Iraqis had placed military equipment and communications equipment next to the 2,000-year-old brick arch of Ctesiphon on the banks of the Tigris River, the world's largest surviving arch from ancient times and the widest single-span arch in the world.

And of course, it bears pointing out that many of those sites mark the artistic and civic achievements of the Persian Empire, which used to rule over the region. Needless to say, even critics of past American military action in Iraq have acknowledged that the United States is more solicitous of the archaeological significance of the area than is Saddam Hussein's regime:

Prof. Paul Zimansky, a Boston University archaeologist critical of U.S. bombing in the Gulf War due to its endangerment of antiquities, visited Iraq after the war and said that the damage turned out to be minor. Another initial critic of the bombing campaign, Prof. McGuire Gibson of the University of Chicago, allowed in 1993, "The U.S. Air Force went out of its way not to hit certain places." In contrast, at the height of the bombing campaign the Pentagon produced aerial photographs of the Al-Basrah mosque. They showed clearly that the Iraqis had destroyed the mosque for propaganda purposes. While coalition forces had bombed a target some 100 yards away, leaving the mosque unscathed, Iraqi engineers sliced off the dome in the hope of duping journalists that the U.S. had been responsible for the destruction.

To close, a question: Does any of this sound familiar?

DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, R.I.P. This is a worthy eulogy. And the following is a worthy epitaph:

[Moynihan] was born in Tulsa but spent his formative years on Manhattan's Lower East Side, from which he rose to Harvard's faculty and the administrations of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford, serving as, among other things, ambassador to India and the U.S. representative at the United Nations. Then four Senate terms. Along the way he wrote more books than some of his colleagues read and became something that, like Atlantis, is rumored to have once existed but has not recently been seen -- the Democratic Party's mind.

Who will take Moynihan's place as "the Democratic Party's mind"? The list of worthy candidates seems rather small.

IT'S BETTER TO BE FEARED THAN LOVED After all, if you are feared, you can make enemy countries do this:

Coalition naval forces were on high alert against suicide attacks after Iranian gunboats intercepted an Iraqi speedboat packed with half a tonne of high explosive. Three other Iraqi speedboats, which it is feared may contain similar amounts of explosive, got away when Iranian forces engaged Iraqis at the mouth of the Shatt-al-Arab River, the waterway that marks the border between the two countries. The explosives were discovered after one of the Iraqi boats was run aground during the confrontation.

Three guesses as to why the Iranian regime is suddenly being very cooperative. And it isn't just because they hate Saddam.

IT'S FINE AND GOOD FOR KIDS TO PLAY WITH TOY GUNS But this is appalling:

Intelligence reports indicated 2,000 Iraqi troops were advancing on the camp, and a two-hour fight with missiles and artillery ensued, ultimately augmented by aerial bombing, he said. Garvin said some of the Iraqi fighters were using women as shields and had given guns to children. "Unfortunately some of the children have been firing at our Marines and our Marines have been forced to defend themselves," he said.

I get tired of asking this: Will it be only those who support the war who point out such atrocities? Won't A.N.S.W.E.R., or other such organizations protest this?

THE NATURE OF THE IRAQI REGIME This is telling:

The aftermath of the firefight was a tableau of twisted Iraqi bodies, tins of unopened food and the dirty mattresses where they had spent their final hours. But the Iraqi private with a bullet wound in the back of his head suggested something unusually grim. Up and down the 200-mile stretch of desert where the American and British forces have advanced, one Iraqi prisoner after another has told captors a similar tale: that many Iraqi soldiers were fighting at gunpoint, threatened with death by tough loyalists of President Saddam Hussein. Here, according to American doctors and Iraqi prisoners, appeared to be one confirmation. The wounded Iraqi, whose life was ebbing away outside an American field hospital, had been shot during the firefight Tuesday night with American troops. It was a small-caliber bullet, most likely from a pistol, fired at close range. Iraqi prisoners taken after the battle said their officers had been firing at them, pushing them into battle. "The officers threatened to shoot us unless we fought," said a wounded Iraqi from his bed in the American field hospital here. "They took out their guns and pointed them and told us to fight."

And if you think this is bad, read the following passage:

On the roadside, the Iraqi prisoners huddled together. Only a few had uniforms; most wore tattered clothing and battered shoes. They did not seem like men who lusted for battle. American marines guarding the prisoners said they had complained that their own officers had shot at them during the battle. "I have four children at home, and they threatened to hurt them if I did not fight," another one of the wounded Iraqis said. "I had no choice."

I genuinely feel sorry for these people. And if I were in their shoes, I might feel that I had no choice but to fight to save my loved ones from being slaughtered. But the point is that my own government would be threatening to commit the slaughter. And how committed would I--would anyone--be to fight for that regime in the end if I felt that there was a chance that I could help defeat and overthrow that regime--and save my loved ones in the process?

"MY TIMING WASN'T THE BEST" And the content wasn't all that great either.

HEH Usually, this kind of thing doesn't happen until after a President leaves office.

THIS IS JUST A GUESS . . . but it appears that there is at least one war where France is taking sides. And the side it appears to have chosen isn't a good one:

Violent racist attacks quadrupled in France in 2002 to the highest level in a decade, and more than half of the assaults were aimed at Jews, a national report said Thursday. Assailants carried out 313 acts of racist violence last year, compared to 71 in 2001, according to a report by the independent National Consulting Committee on Human Rights. [. . .] In the report, the committee said 193 of 313 attacks were against Jews and noted a "real explosion" in anti-Semitic violence. Last year, the group reported 32 acts of anti-Jewish violence.

There are too many such stories coming out for us not to pay attention to anymore. With each passing day, the French are making themselves more and more into a pariah nation. Who will want to associate with them once the conflict finally comes to an end, and their political position is revealed as the empty rhetoric that it is?

MORE INFORMATION FOR HANS BLIX By all rights, coalition soldiers deserve to be paid the salary that would ordinarily go to UNMOVIC employees:

Also yesterday, US military officials reported that two Iraqi rockets, seized by American troops Tuesday southeast of Najaf, were suspected of containing chemical munitions. It was unlear whether they had been fired or where they were found. The rockets were undergoing testing in a military lab, said Lieutenant Christopher Pike, an intelligence officer with the Third Infantry Division.

So what is Hans Blix's salary after taxes?

UNBELIEVABLE But typical. France continues to sit on the sidelines:

France has once again refused to support the Coalition over the war with Iraq. French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin gave a talk at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies in his first visit to Britain since the outbreak of war. During a question and answer session at the end of his speech he refused to answer the question: "Who do you want to win the war?" France has been fiercely opposed to the US and British-led military action against Saddam Hussein's regime.

Yet another chapter in the story of How to Lose Friends and Enrage People. And contrary to opinion in some circles, America isn't writing that book.

GOOD LORD This isn't good:

Top officials in Toronto's medical staff believe up to 3,000 people may have been exposed -- directly or indirectly -- to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, according to Toronto Sun sources. "It's out of control," the source said. An "unprecedented" quarantine of thousands of Torontonians has been ordered to stop the deadly spread of SARS, which has also been declared a provincial emergency. 10-DAY ISOLATION Anyone who has even visited the Scarborough Grace hospital since March 16 has been asked to voluntarily isolate themselves in their homes for 10 days since their last visit.

The scary thing is that this is but a taste of what we could expect to have to deal with if there was a full-scale biological attack on Canada or the United States.

I'M CONFUSED I thought that Osama and Saddam were supposed to hate one another:

Near Basra, Iraq: British military interrogators claim captured Iraqi soldiers have told them that al-Qaeda terrorists are fighting on the side of Saddam Hussein's forces against allied troops near Basra. At least a dozen members of Osama bin Laden's network are in the town of Az Zubayr where they are coordinating grenade and gun attacks on coalition positions, according to the Iraqi prisoners of war. It was believed that last night (Thursday) British forces were preparing a military strike on the base where the al-Qaeda unit was understood to be holed up. A senior British military source inside Iraq said: "The information we have received from PoWs today is that an al-Qaeda cell may be operating in Az Zubayr. There are possibly around a dozen of them and that is obviously a matter of concern to us." If terrorists are found, it would be the first proof of a direct link between Saddam's regime and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington.

Well, if this is true, I guess it would mean that Colin Powell's presentation before the UN Security Council was right after all. And additionally, yet another contention of the antiwar protesters can be dispensed with.

THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY Hear me more plainly. I have in equal balance justly weigh'd What wrongs our arms may do, what wrongs we suffer, And find our griefs heavier than our offences. --William Shakespeare If we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war. --George Washington Tell Astyages that I shall appear in his presence sooner than he will like. --Cyrus the Great (in response to the command of Astyages, the King of the Medes, to appear before him)

I WAS GOING TO BLOG ABOUT ERIC ALTERMAN'S LATEST INCOHERENT SCREED . . . but I see that Stephen Green has beaten me to it. And Jane Galt reveals Alterman as an economic ignoramus. Hey Eric, maybe next time you will write a slightly more defensible post. Or at the very least, take the trouble to defend it instead of leaving it out there begging for a whipping from people who are smarter than you.

MORE ON THE OSCARS FALLOUT James Bowman takes on the celebrities:

"Anytime you''ve got the pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up!" said Mr Moore as, his own time being up, he was being gently led offstage. Maybe so, but it seemed at least equally obvious that anytime you find such bumptious celebrity politicoes as Barbra Streisand and Susan Sarandon practising some measure of self-restraint on a public occasion — a mention of protest songs and a peace sign between them — a loud-mouthed buffoon like Mr Boor will appear an embarrassment even among the seemingly unembarrassable of Tinseltown. All the same, it’s a little late in the day, one might have thought, for Hollywood to be getting all tasteful on us. I myself am always in favor of movie stars and other celebrities going public with their political opinions on the basis of the converse of the principle stated by Mark Twain when he said that "it is better to keep your mouth closed and appear a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." To me it is always better for fools to look like fools than to skulk around, like journalists, under a pretense of "objectivity." For the same reason, I am always in favor of teachers’ and academics’ being up-front about their political views. It is better for impressionable young people to be indoctrinated when they know they are being indoctrinated than when they don’t know it, or only suspect it. In the case of the celebrities, however, there is also the entertainment value of listening to, say, Janeane Garofalo complain that her political views are not being treated with sufficient seriousness or Martin Sheen solemnly opining that President Bush is "out of his depth." What I don’t understand is why more people aren’t taking the opportunity to laugh at them. Too many of those who are not fools themselves seem incapable of recognizing folly when it issues from the expensively capped teeth of celebrities. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, for example, took the bizarre view that the celebrity war protestors were ahead of the curve, leading the press into what he described as a much needed "full-throated debate" on the war. Debate? What has Howie been smoking? These guys wouldn’t know a debate if Cecil B. DeMille caught it in close-up. Maybe Moore had a point, after all, about the fictitious times. Though the president and the election results and the reasons for the war were all real enough — trust a fool like Moore not to see that — the illusion that the views of someone like him matter a hoot is a fiction too many of us seem determined to uphold.

There's really not much more to add: Moore and many of his fellow celebrities regularly embarrass themselves with their uninformed pronouncements on national and international issues. I don't know whether they are listened to more because they are curiosities, or because people actually think that they are serious commentators. In either event, it is embarrassing to think that these people are miniature Clausewitzes on war, Machiavellis on foreign policy, and Kants on how the world can get along.

POLLS, WAR AND THE SHAPING OF A FUTURE INTERNATIONAL ORDER Michael Barone's newest column is predictably terrific. Howell Raines should take note of Barone's critique of New York Times polling.

"JIHAD TV" Walid Phares exposes al-Jazeera as the extremist propaganda organization that it truly is. The following is the key passage, and it relates to the showing of film of captured American POWs:

Following the sharp criticism of the Iraqis for breaching international law, al-Jazeera asked one of its advisers to provide additional defense arguments. Former Colonel Osama Damj at first acknowledged that prisoners should not be displayed for public curiosity. But, he added, there is an exception: that is, if the display is in the interest of the prisoners. Damj explained that the Iraqi leadership had two objectives in airing this broadcast. One was to prove they did indeed have U.S. soldiers in their custody. The other was to demonstrate that Baghdad respects human rights and that the prisoners are in good health. And then, Damj disclosed the real reason behind his arguments. To back up the so-called humane aspect of the Iraqis' behavior, he cited the example of the mother of one of the soldiers — who, as soon as she had learned her son was in captivity, begged President Bush to do something for her son. Damj eventually admitted that, at the end of the day, the broadcast was really about using the prisoners to score a political victory.

(Emphasis mine.) Pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

REMEMBER THAT SECOND FRONT WE WANTED? We're getting it. And for those who are worried that 1000 soldiers are too few, let me state the obvious response: Much more are on the way. The first wave will probably secure airfields in the north, and allow for the transport of fresh troops and equipment. The Iraqi military leadership now has something new to worry about.

SANITY DESCENDING ON THE DEMOCRATS? Perhaps:

Democratic strategist Donna Brazile says she backs President Bush's war to overthrow Saddam Hussein and wants her party's leaders to project a stronger message that they support what U.S. troops are doing in Iraq. Top Stories Miss Brazile, who managed Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, said she is not happy with the way Democratic congressional leaders have handled the party's message on the war. She says top Democrats have tilted too much of their message to curry favor with anti-war activists, ignoring swing voters and independents, and have failed to give their rank and file a well-thought-out position on how to deal with the national security threats posed by Saddam's regime. "We cannot afford to be talking just to the anti-war people. That's easy. We have to talk to everybody, especially independents," about the war, she said. "After I heard [the Arab television network] Al Jazeera broadcasting that videotape showing what the Iraqis did to the American POWs, I was livid," she said Monday in an interview with The Washington Times. "We have to send out the strongest possible message of support.

Well, brava. And I mean that sincerely. Given the fact that Brazile has been one of the more strident Democratic operatives in the past (right up there with Paul Begala and James Carville), this may come as a surprise to some. But Brazile has gone out of her way to try to moderate the tone of the Democratic Party, and has even created friendships with Republicans like Karl Rove. Maybe people like her will work hard to create some form of bipartisan consensus regarding important national security issues. Hope spring eternal.

I NEVER THOUGHT . . . that I would read a story like this one.

JACQUES CHIRAC SAID THAT SADDAM "LOVE HIS PEOPLE" But maybe someone should let him know about this:

The distribution of humanitarian aid to civilians in the southern Iraqi town of Al Zubayr has been halted after Iraqi forces fired mortar rounds into crowds. Reporter Ian Bruce, who is travelling with Scots unit Black Watch, said troops had established a strong but not yet secure foothold in the town - a known Iraqi militia base - and were to begin distributing aid to its people. The troops were greeted by cheering crowds of several hundred people as they arrived western edge of the town, he said. But before any food or water could be handed out, snipers opened fire and two mortars shells fell into the crowd.

Are you feeling the love yet?

HERE'S MY GUESS The Marines just got angrier.

UM . . . isn't this racist?

AN OPTIMISTIC REPORT . . . from the incnreasingly indispensable Ralph Peters:

PERHAPS the craziest notion bouncing around the media is that Saddam Hussein is a brilliant military strategist. He may be a champion dictator, good at slaughtering, torturing, raping and starving his own people. But his military schemes are masterpieces of incompetence. Right now, the hand-wringers are warning that Saddam, in a stroke of genius, has deployed his Republican Guards in towns and villages, threatening us with deadly urban combat and inevitable destruction. What Saddam actually has done is to break his last, best armored divisions into little pieces. He'll never be able to put them back together. And we'll destroy them, piece by piece.

It's a standard military tactic to try to break up enemy forces into smaller units so that those units could be individually taken on and destroyed. It is . . . um . . . highly unusual to have the enemy do that for you. When they do--as Saddam has--you know that you are going up against tactical novices.

MEMO TO HANS BLIX: We found more stuff for you.

AND IF THE IRAQIS AREN'T FIRING ON THEIR OWN PEOPLE . . . they are using them as human shields instead:

Iraqi paramilitaries are using civilians as human shields, Sky News has learnt. Militiamen facing besieging British troops outside Basra are forcing locals to march in front of them as they fire on soldiers, UK forces claim. Up to 1,000 Iraqi irregulars are thought to be in Basra standing firm against the British troops now responsible for fighting in southern Iraq. Emma Hurd, who is at the UK forces' base in northern Iraq, was told British troops were struggling to break the stand-off because of the tactic. "Irregular forces are using civilians as human shields," she said. "Men with guns advance out of the city with civilians in front of them towards the British forces. "These civilians are being forced into this."

I wonder if al-Jazeera will evince any outrage over this.

UNABLE TO ATTACK AMERICAN AND BRIITISH FORCES . . . the Iraqis are firing on their own people. I don't understand why--didn't Saddam get re-elected by 100% of the population?

SHORT BUT SWEET Philip Kahn Fisks a "die-in." What's next? A "cerebral aneurysm-in"?

FRATRICIDE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTAL RACE? Things are getting heated already:

Howard Dean sent a handwritten letter to Democratic presidential primary rival John Edwards, apologizing for saying that Edwards avoided talking about his support of the Iraqi conflict before a largely anti-war audience. During a speech to California Democrats earlier this month, Dean criticized Edwards and Sen. John Kerry for backing the war. He said the two senators, who voted last fall for a congressional resolution authorizing force, did not stand by their positions when they addressed the same group. But Edwards, who spoke before Dean addressed the California audience, had pledged support for disarming Iraq by force and was booed and jeered by many in the crowd. Dean said he had not heard Edwards' speech and was unaware of what the North Carolina senator had said when he criticized him. "I thought it did take a lot of guts for him to get up in front of the convention and say what he said, and I commend him for that," the former Vermont governor said Wednesday. He said he mailed a personal letter of apology to Edwards Sunday during a campaign stop in Iowa. But Dean continued his criticism on Edwards on Monday. "It seems to me he has changed his position," he said, according to a report in the Des Moines Register. Then in an interview Tuesday with The Arlene Violet Show on WHJJ radio in Providence, R.I., Dean said all the candidates except Kerry have made their position clear on Iraq, including Edwards.

This isn't exactly the biggest deal in terms of vitriol--there will be a lot worse to come as the campaign really shifts into high gear. What's amazing is how quickly the presidential race has started--it is 20 months until the general election. I'm a huge politics junkie, but I really wish people would get something of a grip.

SAD, BUT PREDICATBLE Anti-Semitic acts are on the rise on campuses:

A new report from the Anti-Defamation League says anger over the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians caused a jump in anti-Semitic incidents last year in the United States, particularly on college campuses. An annual audit by the New York-based ADL found 106 acts of anti-Semitism on campuses in 2002, a 24 percent increase from the 85 a year before. The total number of anti-Jewish incidents increased by 8 percent, from 1,432 in 2001 to 1,559 last year. The ADL said the anti-Semitism acts on campuses included name-calling and damage to buildings housing Jewish fraternal organizations. Anti-Israel rallies that didn't lead to overt episodes of anti-Semitism were not included in the audit. "The unfortunate irony is that you would hope and believe that on a college campus the exchange of ideas would be tolerant and people would listen to other people," said Abraham Foxman, the national director of the ADL, which works to combat anti-Semitism.

You never hear any outrage over this kind of blatant racism from groups like International A.N.S.W.E.R., or from many bloggers on the antiwar side. Wonder why.

POW UPDATE At the present time, we hold 4000 Iraqi POWs. And it is quite definite that we are treating them better than our POWs are being treated. That simple fact is worth pointing out several hundred times.

COME AND GET IT, GUYS The Iraqi Republican Guard marches towards its own destruction:

A huge column of elite Republican Guard units streamed out of Baghdad Wednesday evening heading toward U.S. forces massed near the southern Iraqi city of Najaf, CNN television reported. "A major column including about 1,000 Iraqi mobile units that might include tanks, might include armored personnel carriers, trucks and other things are on their way down from Baghdad toward Najaf," CNN said, quoting one of its reporters who is traveling with the U.S. 7th Cavalry. CNN said the Republican Guard were moving under cover of a sandstorm which has buffeted Iraq for the past day. It said U.S. troops were preparing for a possible confrontation within hours.

Unless I miss my guess, these forces will--to the extent possible--first be hit by airpower. Then they will be hit by long range artillery. Byt the time they come into position to be hit by short range weapons fire, they will be fairly well decimated. This represents yet another example of the Iraqi regime signing its own death warrant.

WOULD THAT WE HAD MORE LEADERS LIKE HIM Former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan is dead at age 76. He was always one of my favorite public figures--especially because of his stirring defenses of the United States before the UN Security Council back during the Ford Administration. As an advocate of Social Security reform, and as a voice of sanity in the Democratic Party, Moynihan further distinguished himself. His speeches were a pleasure to listen to, and he always acquitted himself well in debate. Even when he was wrong (as he was with the issue of welfare reform), he was still immensely compelling. Rest in peace, Senator. You will be dearly missed.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY We would do well to remember the following in peacetime, as well as now: I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer, The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here." The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die, I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I: O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away"; But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play, The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play, O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play. I went into a theatre as sober as could be, They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me; They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls, But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls! For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside"; But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide, The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide, O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide. Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap; An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit. Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?" But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll, The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll, O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll. We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too, But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you; An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints, Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints; While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind", But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind, There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind, O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind. You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all: We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational. Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace. For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!" But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot; An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please; An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees! --Rudyard Kipling, Tommy

FUNNNIEST. THING. OF. THE. DAY.

THE BENEFITS OF BLOGGINNG I get the coolest invites.

AND SPEAKING OF MICHAEL MOORE . . . Mindles* H. Dreck has composed a rather catchy song about everyone's favorite Oscar-winning prevaricator. Go over and sing along.

WE LIVE IN FICTITIOUS TIMES . . . when someone like Michael Moore can be celebrated. Debbie Schlussel explains why.

A CLASSIC Gabriel Ledeen delivers a superb reply to an antiwar activist who claims to care for the soldiers currently fighting in Iraq:

"I find it disingenuous of you to claim that you support our troops now, when it is politically convenient to do so. Groups with which you identify have been railing against the military for years and years, idolizing those who burned down ROTC facilities. They spat on returning veterans in the '60s and early '70s. They have been protesting against the 'homophobic' and 'sexist' practices of the military, banning recruiters from career fairs all over the country, closing down ROTC units at Ivy League and other universities, campaigning against tax breaks for military families and against an increase in the shamefully low military salaries. It is convenient now to present your arguments within the framework of a pro-military view, since nobody would listen to you otherwise. However, to say that we share a common concern for the men and women serving our country is a false statement, and one that is quite unwelcome. While your concern for the troops is born of political strategy and desperation, I worry for my friends and comrades who are put in harm's way to accomplish a mission. These men and women are heroes, and they deserve to be treated as such — not as pawns in a political chess game."

There are plenty of antiwar activists who suddenly claim to love the American soldier, sailor, and airman/airwoman, and that as proof of their love, they just want to "bring 'em home." They forget that the American military wants to be allowed to do its job, wants to remove a tyrannical blight that is a threat to American national security. And as Ledeen points out, such people are fair-weather friends of the military. Their disingenuousness is clear for all to see. They shouldn't think that they are fooling anyone but themselves.

INCONGRUITIES Read "Jack Dunphy". That's all I will say.

SOURCES OF BRITISH MILITARY MOTIVATION Reader Mike Daley sends me this . . . um . . . delightful link. It makes me admire the British all the more.

ANOTHER BLOGGER SCOOP John Hawkins snagged an interview with Michael Fumento. Be sure to check it out.

THE FATE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN This is encouraging. And if Saddam really is being treated, here's hoping that his doctors are incompetent.

PROBLEM SOLVED As most people know, a dispute has been raised between the United States and Russia over the Russian sale of night-vision goggles and GPS jamming devices to Iraq. I don't know about the resolution of the issue of the night-vision goggles, but apparently, the issue of the GPS jammers has been resolved.

SO MUCH FOR THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS I wonder if the antiwar protestors will protest this:

After securing the route through the town of Nasiriya - about 370 km (230 miles) south-east of Baghdad - US forces seize a hospital that appears to have been used by Iraqi forces to store weapons.

I don't think you have to be a lawyer to recognize the illegality. Will we hear anything about this from those who oppose this war, and who think that the treachery of Saddam Hussein's regime is not worth bringing to an end? I won't hold my breath.

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER At long last, the Canadians are coming closer to the American position on the war.