by JAMES TARANTO
Wednesday, September 4, 2002 3:41 P.M. EDT

Misrepresenting Kissinger--II
Back in August, as we noted, the New York Times ran a front-page story in which it characterized Henry Kissinger as one of a group of Republicans who "have begun to break ranks with President Bush over his administration's high-profile planning for war with Iraq." Now the Times has published an "Editor's Note" in which it goes part of the way toward admitting it was wrong. The article "should have made a clearer distinction between his views and those of [Brent] Scowcroft and other Republicans with more categorical objections to a military attack," the paper concedes. A second article, which appeared the next day, "listed Mr. Kissinger incorrectly among Republicans who were warning outright against a war."

After making this concession, however, the Times goes on to muddle the issue further:

The Times's Aug. 16 article was based in part on a syndicated opinion article published by Mr. Kissinger on Aug. 12 in The Washington Post and other newspapers. In it, he said that a war was justifiable. But he said that Mr. Bush must first do more diplomatic consultation and political preparation for military action, and that before ordering an attack the administration should try to force an inspection routine on Iraq.

Most centrally, Mr. Kissinger said that removing [Saddam] Hussein from power--Mr. Bush's justification for war--was not an appropriate goal. He said an attack on Iraq should be directed toward a more limited aim, eradicating weapons of mass destruction.

But Kissinger didn't say that overthrowing Saddam "was not an appropriate goal." Here's what he wrote:

Regime change as a goal for military intervention challenges the international system established by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which after the carnage of the religious wars, established the principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other states. And the notion of justified preemption runs counter to modern international law, which sanctions the use of force in self-defense only against actual, not potential, threats.

Kissinger goes on to argue that "the administration needs to establish a comprehensive strategy for itself and a clear declaratory policy for the rest of the world" and that "the objective of regime change should be subordinated in American declaratory policy to the need to eliminate weapons of mass destruction from Iraq as required by the UN resolutions" (emphasis ours). He is arguing not that the U.S. should refrain from overthrowing Saddam, but that if it does so, it should be for the clear purpose of eliminating weapons of mass destruction.

What exactly is the difference between Kissinger's recommendations and the administration's statements and actions? Just this morning, after meeting with congressional leaders, President Bush told reporters: "The issue is disarmament. This [Saddam] is a man who said he would not arm up. This is a man who told the world that he would not harbor weapons of mass destruction. That's the primary issue." And in his State of the Union address, Bush explained why he included Iraq in the "axis of evil":

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

Doing away with weapons of mass destruction, in short, has always been the president's stated goal in Iraq, just as Kissinger recommends. The administration's tactics are still becoming clear, but on this central issue of principle, there is no basis on which to portray the former secretary of state as having broken ranks with the White House.

Gen. Raines Fights the Last War
"As the Iraq debate plays out of a war, I'm hearing a lot of echoes of the early '60s, when people were saying it was unpatriotic to report the debate over Vietnam."--New York Times executive editor Howell Raines, "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," Sept. 3

America vs. the World?
"In a new poll, 6 out of 10 Europeans said they would favor an American-led invasion of Iraq if the United States first receives the support of allies and the United Nations," the New York Times reports. The survey, conducted by the German Marshall Fund, polled 1,000 people each in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland. In a companion poll by Harris Interactive, 65% of Americans also said the U.S. should "act in concert with other nations." Only one in four Europeans said America "should not invade Iraq at all."

Bush vs. Bush?
It's curious that two of the most prominent critics urging President Bush to stay out of Iraq--Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger--were senior members of his father's administration. James Baker has also weighed in with an op-ed urging caution. This has prompted a wave of speculation about a split between the two President Bushes. "This is high political drama worthy of a Shakespeare," writes William Safire. "As the great debate heats up; as Democratic doves use the Old Bush Guard to undermine the present Bush administration; as the moment arrives when Congress must decide whether to back up the current president--the elder Bush will have to face the younger in private and then take a public stand."

Here's Maureen Dowd: "It seems that Mr. Cheney now regards the end of the gulf war as a great historic gaffe and wants to earn his immortality correcting it. But the more [Bush] Junior goes along with his vice president and surrogate Daddy and stakes his entire presidency on trying to finish the job, the more he underscores the contention that his real Daddy went wobbly."

This is jejune, but Dowd may be on to something. Hindsight being 20/20, almost everyone--even those who lacked the foresight to favor the liberation of Kuwait--now agrees it was a mistake not to overthrow Saddam in 1991. Thus Bush fils would seem to benefit from comparison to Bush père.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Edward Luttwak of the Center for Strategic and International Studies offers a more substantive (though still speculative) analysis. "The real fork in the road for the two Bushes is that, when it comes to the subject of Iraq, their disagreement is really about Saudi Arabia":

Bush senior's camp views the Saudi ruling family as the key to stability, but his son's followers increasingly disagree. They are not eager to see the Saudis overthrown, but they now believe that the Saudis' blind greed and overt profligacy are undermining their rule and that, in any case, U.S. policies should not be inhibited by Saudi needs.

Above all, there is a difference in strategic concepts. Bush senior and his followers compare the certain costs, high risks and uncertain benefits of a war against Hussein to conclude that it should not be fought, especially because it risks a Saudi collapse. In business terms, they see war as a losing proposition.

By contrast, Bush junior and cohorts are not planning a war against Hussein in the hope of achieving any positive gains but rather to avoid the catastrophic losses of another Sept. 11. . . . Having presided impotently over the Sept. 11 catastrophe, he is determined to avoid a repetition--at all costs, including the survival of the Saudi regime that his father views so highly.

This raises the interesting question of Iraq's postwar government. If America had toppled Saddam a decade ago, it would have been with Saudi help, and Riyadh likely would have had a big say in the formation of a new regime in Baghdad. Presumably the Saudis would prefer to see Saddam replaced with a less malevolent but still authoritarian Sunni-dominated regime, though the majority of Iraqis are Shiites. If an American-led coalition overthrows Saddam without Saudi help, Riyadh will have no claim to participate in the postwar settlement. If the Saudis are smart, they will join the coalition even if at the last minute. If the Bush administration is smart, it will insist on a democratic postwar Iraq anyway.

The Saudi Spin Zone
What a shameful display Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly put on last night. Last month, O'Reilly confronted Saudi foreign-affairs spokesman Adel al-Jubeir about the plight of U.S. citizens Alia and Aisha Gheshayan, the adult daughters of Pat Roush. As our colleague William McGurn has detailed, Alia and Aisha's Saudi father kidnapped them when they were girls and took them to Saudi Arabia. Even though they are adults, they are stuck in Saudi Arabia, because under Saudi "law" an adult woman needs the permission of a "guardian"--her father or husband--in order to leave.

The Saudis claim that Alia and Aisha don't want to leave Saudi Arabia, and O'Reilly confronted al-Jubeir and said he wanted to put them on television and let them speak for themselves. Instead, as O'Reilly explained last night, "Mr. al-Jubeir did arrange for the girls [sic] . . . [to] fly to London, England, and meet with 'Factor' producer Stacey Hocheiser. No cameras were permitted, and an American PR woman hired by the Saudis monitored the conversation."

O'Reilly interviewed Hocheiser, who told him that "at the very end of the meeting, I said to the sisters, would they be willing to tell their story on camera? And I noticed that the media adviser--I noticed her motioning to the sisters, shaking her head as if to say no. And they did refuse the interview on camera." Hocheiser also told O'Reilly that younger sister Alia, who is 19, told her "she thought Osama bin Laden was a peaceful person." And Hocheiser added that "the husbands said if the sisters want to go to the U.S., they'll take them," to which O'Reilly replied: "Well, I don't believe that for a minute."

Yet although the Saudis refused O'Reilly's challenge, and although O'Reilly acknowledged much of what they said was nonsense, he still sided with Riyadh and against Roush, who was also a guest on the show. "Now, Miss Roush, look, it is entirely conceivable that your daughters are brainwashed or threatened or whatever," he told her. "But there comes a point in everybody's life, if they want freedom, they have to fight for it. And it looks to me like your two daughters do not want freedom." Later, when Roush tried to dispute something O'Reilly said about her, he said: "Cut off Miss Roush's mike, she's too emotional."

"I have totally lost all respect for you," Roush told O'Reilly when he let her speak again. Who can blame her?

How the Saudis Treat Women
The Asia Times reports on an entourage of Saudi princes vacationing in Spain:

When they were received by the chair of the Saudi parliament, Salih bin Abdullah bin Humaid, the women [European Parliament] deputies were "denied the honor of a handshake or eye-to-eye contact", said [Italian member Emma] Bonino, while explanations that Islam considers women to be different from men were addressed to the male deputy guests.

Several Spanish media outlets reported that a British agency has provided a large group of women to accompany the Saudi men during their vacations in Spain, on two conditions: the women must be young and blonde, and must be replaced every 15 days.

Although prostitution is legal in Spain, procuring is punishable by law. Nevertheless, no authority or organization has moved against the British agency, even though the contract was made public.

Hell's Kenyan
"One of Washington's most wanted al-Qaida fugitives was captured in Karachi in July and secretly transferred to US custody, striking a significant blow to Osama bin Laden's network," Britain's Guardian reports, citing "Pakistani intelligence sources":

Sheikh Ahmed Salim, detained in a joint Pakistan-US raid, was among a group of suspects flown out of the country in recent weeks.

The 33-year-old Kenyan, who also goes by the name Swedan, had a $25m (£16m) price on his head for his role in the 1998 bombings of US embassies in east Africa. Since then he is believed to have emerged as an important al-Qaida figure, directing and funding Islamist militants in Pakistan.

U.S. and Pakistani sources both officially deny knowing of the arrest, and Salim is still on the FBI's most wanted list. Then again, so is Mohammed Atef, who so far as we know is still dead.

Reuters Outdoes Itself
Get a load of the caption on this Reuters photo (which Yahoo bizarrely labels "Photos - India"):

Recovery and debris removal work continues at the site of the World Trade Center known as "ground zero" in New York, March 25, 2002. Human rights around the world have been a casualty of the U.S. "war on terror" since September 11.

What Brilliant Detective Work!
"The FBI has decided to investigate the July 4 shooting at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport as an act of terrorism," the Jerusalem Post reports.

Cracking the Whip
If you still think Islam is a violent religion, Sam Hamod would like to set you straight. In a letter to the Washington Post, he argues that a sharia court in Nigeria that sentenced a woman to death by stoning for adultery was not following the true faith (second letter): "As the former director of the National Islamic Center of Washington, the focal point of Islam in North America, allow me to make clear that there is no dictum in the Koran to allow the stoning death of an adulteress; the penalty the Koran prescribes is lashing."

You Don't Say
"Fight Terrorism by Safeguarding Likely Targets, Expert Suggests"--headline, Kansas City Star, Aug. 23

Everywhere You Want to Be?
You'd think a company with a name like Visa would have a better sense of geography. Click on "Middle East" on the credit-card concern's homepage, and a list comes up consisting exclusively of Arab countries. Is Visa boycotting Israel? No, it comes up when you click "Europe."

Stoll Gets Results
Having wiped Israel off the map, PBS has now wiped the map off its Web site. As we noted yesterday, the New York Sun's Ira Stoll reported that a PBS Web site contained numerous inaccurate statements about Mideast history, including a map that labeled Israel and the disputed territories "Palestine." Apparently it's too much to ask for accurate information, so the network has simply replaced the page with this announcement:

The purpose of this Web site is to be a companion piece to CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE: Arab Americans in Wartime, a documentary which looks at the lives of three Arab Americans living in New York City following the events of September 11.

The "Homelands" section of the site drew attention away from the message of the film. Our goal was to provide background information that contextualized the cultural histories of the people whose lives are chronicled in the film. In an effort to keep the focus on the current experience of Arab Americans, we have removed that section of the site.

Homer Nods
We erred yesterday in saying U.S. Navy vessels would be flying the Gadsden Flag, which depicts a coiled rattlesnake on a yellow background with the motto DONT [sic] TREAD ON ME. In fact, the ships will fly the First Navy Jack, on which the rattlesnake is slithering across a field of 13 red and white stripes. FoundingFathers.info has a copy of the Navy declaration: "The temporary substitution of this Jack represents an historic reminder of the nation's and Navy's origin and will to persevere and triumph."

The killing of an infant by a bear, which we mentioned in an item yesterday, happened in New York state, not New Jersey.

To the Max
Yesterday we published a letter from a reader who said Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau abides by a comic-strip tradition against the depiction of the president of the United States in a noneditorial cartoon. Several readers pointed out that Trudeau has not always honored this convention; in the 1980s, he drew a caricature of President Reagan based on the animated character Max Headroom.

The Onion Imitates Life

"McDonald's plans to use a new cooking oil for french fries and other fried foods that it says will do less damage to your diet."--Associated Press, Sept. 3

"Fearful of the prospect of class-action lawsuits, seven of the nation's largest fast-food chains voluntarily agreed Monday to place cheese limits on their own sandwich items."--the Onion, Sept. 4

This Should Be in the Onion
From "Giscard Suspected of Taking Interest in USA System," EUobserver.com, Sept. 3:

Members of the European Parliament suspect Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, president of the Convention on EU future, of taking too much interest in the American institutional system, with a view to introducing it in the European Union. Mr Giscard, who is leading an unprecedented reflection on the future of the European Union in the Convention, which may end up writing a European constitution, was reported to have read up over the summer the history of the United States of America and its institutional system.

The former French president allegedly spent the summer reading books about the making of the constitution of the United States of America.

Times Change
Remember when Europeans could criticize America for its high crime rate? Not anymore. "In a surprising vote of no-confidence in his own city, Mayor Ken Livingstone said Tuesday that he feels safer in New York than in London," the Associated Press reports.

Some Stereotypes Are More Equal Than Others
"What Is It About British Men? Cheap, Drunk and Stiff Lipped"--headline, New York Times, Sept. 1

Even worse is a letter to the editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, in which one Harold Green of Los Angeles declares (20th letter): "I have just finished reading Cynthia Tucker's column on Zimbabwe, and I am amazed that someone so beautiful and black on the outside can be so ugly and white on the inside." Imagine any paper running such a letter if black and white were reversed.

Great Moments in Criminal Law
"The Greek government has banned all electronic games across the country, including those that run on home computers, on Game Boy-style portable consoles, and on mobile phones," CNET News reports. "Thousands of tourists in Greece are unknowingly facing heavy fines or long terms in prison for owning mobile phones or portable video games."

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that the mayor of Le Lavandou, a French Mediterranean town, "faced with a cemetery 'full to bursting,' has banned local residents from dying until he can find somewhere else to bury them."

(Elizabeth Crowley helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to C.E. Dobkin, Jerome Marcus, Aaron Gross, Rosanne Klass, S.E. Brenner, Michael Kingsley, Michael Segal, Joshua Sharf, David Simon, Russell Depalma, Amy Powell, Steve Hilton, Andrew Shulman, Jason Knust, Yishai Ben Mordechai, Allan Grant, Christopher Serena, Lisa Dickens, Ronald Sherman, Miriam Bertram, Jenifer Sawicki, Jim Triller, Chuck Berry, Chris Roth, David Nelson, Tobin Brevitz, Chris Gregor, Chris Whitten, Robert Feiger, Tony Braegger, David Ermine, Julia Abramson, Steven Getman, William Crews, Dan Bongard, John Biggins, Avi Bell, Stephen St. Onge, Jim Orheim, Drennan Lindsay, Marie Bourgeois, Ken Crosson, Richard Haisley and John Reilly. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Michael Ledeen: The war won't end in Baghdad.
• Pete du Pont: Only freedom can produce truly sustainable development.
• Claudia Rosett: A visit with an Iraqi ally against terror.