by JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, February 4, 2003 3:46 P.M. EST

San Francisco vs. America?
Yesterday we noted that the San Francisco Chronicle had published a letter by one Cheryl Merrill arguing that the Columbia tragedy was an act of God designed to "send a strong message . . . to the lying, two-faced hypocrites in the White House." We were kind of surprised that a semirespectable newspaper would publish such garbage, but we assumed it wasn't really representative of San Francisco, nutty though that town may be. It seems we were wrong.

Today's Chronicle carries a column by editorial page editor John Diaz explaining why the paper printed numerous "cynical, even hateful" letters:

The outtakes were considerably harsher and more jaded than the selection we printed. One letter writer flat-out accused the government of a secret plot to "sabotage the mission to direct future finances away from NASA to further the military industrial complex." A recurring theme was resentment that [President] Bush would somehow exploit the tragedy for political gain. . . .

For all the readers who asked, we do want to print more letters that pay "tribute to the memory" of the Columbia crew, as we have today. But we can only choose from among the letters we receive.

Is the city of San Francisco in the grips of mass psychosis? It's hard to tell from where we sit, a continent away. But Diaz's report certainly gives one pause.

Of course, there are pockets of such nuttiness all over the country. The Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church has put out a pair of press releases echoing Cheryl Merrill's sentiments (links in PDF form): "God Blew Up Columbia!" and "The 7 Are in Hell!" The first release features a caricature of President Bush; the second notes that the Columbia fell on his home state.

Westboro Baptist Church is best known for the virulently antigay views of its pastor, Fred Phelps; its Web site is called--we kid you not--GodHatesFags.com. Yet in these strange times in which we live, it sounds as if he'd be right at home in San Francisco.

Is the U.N. Worth Saving?
The New York Times has an odd op-ed piece from Robert Wright, who hopes President Bush will prevail upon the United Nations Security Council to depose Saddam Hussein, thereby saving the U.N. as "the powerful instrument of peace it was originally meant to be." This seems fanciful; even if the liberation of Iraq comes with full U.N. support, the U.N. will not thereby become a "powerful instrument of peace"; it will remain what it is now: a useful political instrument in support of U.S. policy. The only real question is whether France will back America in the Security Council. If it doesn't, America will act anyway, and the U.N. will be irrelevant--which means so will France. The bargain is a fairly low-stakes one: France gets to feel important in exchange for providing political cover to the U.S. The "powerful instrument of peace" is not the U.N. but America's armed forces.

What's most curious about Wright's piece is that he never mentions the U.N.'s biggest flaw: that it is essentially a dictators' playground. In London's Daily Telegraph, Barbara Amiel argues this makes it a threat to world peace:

By now the United Nations, with its Human Rights Commission chaired by Libya, is not only irrelevant; it is coming perilously close to endangering world peace and security. The majority of its members are in breach of most tenets of the UN Charter and yet these same members are rewarded with plum UN assignments.

In March, Iraq will assume the chairmanship of the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. The UN is rapidly becoming more of a force for harm than good.

Countries that actually practise and value the UN constitution should probably withdraw from it. But at the very least, America, as its chief source of funding, should give the organisation notice after Iraq that reform is necessary.

In the New York Post, Ralph Peters proposes an imaginative reform, "an international system of tiered sovereignties that would strip tyrants and their apologists of their current, horribly unjust diplomatic defenses":

Level One: Every government, from Mexico to India, that respects the will of its people through democratic institutions, works for the betterment of its citizens, demonstrates progress toward respect for human rights and strives toward the rule of law deserves continued recognition of its full, legal sovereignty.

Level Two: States that cannot control their own territory, that lack the ability to protect their own citizens or to prevent international terrorists and other criminals from using their territory as a refuge, would be able to claim only partial sovereignty. More capable, rule-of-law states would have the right to intervene for limited purposes to bring killers and other criminals to justice. In every other respect, these weak, but well-intentioned states would enjoy the traditional privileges and protections of sovereignty.

Level Three: Regimes that refuse to enforce the rule of law inside their borders, that knowingly harbor terrorists and criminals, that behave aggressively toward their neighbors or that abuse their own citizens would forfeit their territorial sovereignty and their right to govern. Period.

Whether such a system would be practical is a question for another day; Peters doesn't discuss the process by which these "levels" would be assigned. But in substance, his proposal is intriguing to say the least.

Iraq, al Qaeda, and Those Darn Weasels
The New Yorker's Jeffrey Goldberg, following up on his blockbuster report from Northern Iraq last year, has a good summation of the intelligence community's current state of knowledge about ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. CIA chief George Tenet tells Goldberg that "Iraq has 'provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.' Tenet added, 'Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression,' and he suggested that, even without an American attack on Iraq, 'Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase.' "

Pretty good reason to topple Iraq's dictatorship, right? Not according to the French. According to the New York Times, "if anything, French officials say, Iraq and Al Qaeda are being driven into each other's arms by American policies."

What will France do? CNN reports President Jacques Chirac is "sticking to his guns" (or, more accurately, to his refusal to use them). But the Paris edition of the New York Times reports that the "German-French resistance on Iraq" has "dramatically lost legitimacy." The paper notes that "the French, who hoped to be playing the pacifist card with Germany to challenge the Americans, still have the option of going along with the United States at the United Nations UN Security Council and in an eventual strike against Iraq." Tomorrow Colin Powell makes his case to the U.N.; we wouldn't be surprised if the French find it highly convincing.

Another good sign: Reuters reports "a new anti-impotence pill went on sale in Europe Monday."

Foreign Relations

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."--Bill Clinton, Jan. 26, 1998

"We have no relationship with al Qaeda."--Saddam Hussein, quoted by Reuters, Feb. 4, 2003

You Don't Say--I
"Saddam Denies Having Weapons of Mass Destruction"--headline, Reuters, Feb. 4

On the Run
"Al Qaeda is planning a mass-casualty attack to rival September 11, but preparations have been disrupted by arrests of terrorists during the past several months," reports the Washington Times' Bill Gertz, citing unnamed "U.S. intelligence officials." While officials didn't provide specifics, "the intelligence reports stated that any major attack is likely to be preceded by smaller-scale strikes, including assassinations of prominent people in the United States."

The Adversity of Diversity
"Diversity is strength." Whatever one might say in favor of diversity (and whatever diversity may mean), we never liked the sound of that slogan; it's too "1984" for our taste. Now the Washington Post reports it isn't even true; diversity, it turns out, is actually weakness:

One reason for the failure of the antiwar crowd to make a more formidable political impact, say analysts, is its diversity. Critics range from the far right to the far left, encompassing politicians as different as former Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean. Some administration foes are opposed to war at any time; others belong to what former national security adviser Anthony Lake calls "the not-yet camp."

Here's a fascinating take on the subject: In a Times of London essay titled "A Dove's Guide: How to Be an Honest Critic of the War," Matthew Parris demolishes a series of "antiwar" arguments (example: "Don't assume that moderate Arab opinion will be outraged. Moderate Arab opinion likes winners. America may be the winner"). But after he gets done shooting down the arguments against liberating Iraq, he explains why he's still opposed:

I am not afraid that this war will fail. I am afraid that it will succeed.

I am afraid that it will prove to be the first in an indefinite series of American interventions. I am afraid that it is the beginning of a new empire: an empire that I am afraid Britain may have little choice but to join.

The honest case against war, in other words, comes down to anti-Americanism for its own sake.

Those Peace-Loving Palestinians
"Force 17, Yasser Arafat's Presidential Guard, has forced 55 Palestinian families out of their homes in the Gaza Strip under the pretext that they are sitting on land whose ownership is at the center of a legal dispute between two wealthy businessmen," the Jerusalem Post reports. When Israel destroyed the homes of terrorists, "human rights" advocates everywhere shrieked in horror. Here's what they've said so far about the Force 17 action: .

Meanwhile, Ha'aretz reports that Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz says he has evidence directly linking Yasser Arafat to terror organizations. "Mofaz charged that Arafat had instructed the heads of the organizations to kill more Israelis."

Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.

Dear Editor, What's Wrong With Those Jews?
Suppose you wrote a letter to the editor of a major newspaper expressing your dismay at Africa's political and social backwardness--the lack of democracy, poor economic development, prevalence of disease, and so forth. These are all legitimate issues. But if you concluded your letter by asking a racist question like "Why can't black people govern themselves?," the editor would throw out your letter, and rightly so.

So how come the Los Angeles Times published this letter, by one Boots Mertens of Thousand Oaks, Calif.?

Re "Sharon Wins Easily in Israel," Jan. 29: I cannot believe that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was reelected. Didn't they learn anything from World War II? Sharon is trying to exterminate Palestinians just like Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews. You would think the Jewish people would see the similarities.

Homer Nods
An item yesterday misquoted a Reuters headline. The headline actually read "U.N. Launches Drive Against Tetanus in Afghanistan," not "U.S."

You Don't Say--II
"Unfortunately, the core problem that lay at the heart of the Challenger tragedy applies to the Columbia tragedy as well. That core problem is the space shuttle itself."--Gregg Easterbrook, Time.com, Feb. 2

Subway to Nowhere
"The U.S. Census Bureau reports that more than 230 people in the Indianapolis area take a subway to work," the Indianapolis Star reports. "Another 133 hop on a trolley, and 25 take a ferry." Just one problem: "There are no trolleys, subways or ferries around here."

The census's explanation? "That kind of information isn't wrong," says Carol Rogers, who studies census data. "It just looks stupid." Census Bureau demographer Phil Salopek explains: "The question on the census questionnaire asks, what kind of transportation did you use to get to work last week? So what you're likely seeing in this case is a reflection of people who were out of town that week before on business."

Say What?--I
" 'Do Not Resuscitate' Orders Don't Affect Care"--headline, Reuters, Feb. 3

Say What?--II
"As a result of a heavy snowstorm, the Mt. Hermon Ski Resort was closed to visitors earlier today."--Arutz Sheva (Israel), Feb. 4

You Don't Say--III
"Democrats Need Clear Message in '04, Hoyer Says"--headline, Washington Times, Feb. 4

You Don't Say--IV
"Cows Care More for Food Than Hugs, Say Scientists"--headline, New Zealand Herald, Jan. 31

You Don't Say--V
"Microsoft: Faked Web Site Report Was a Hoax"--headline, Reuters, Feb. 3

You Don't Say--VI
"The head of Georgetown University's Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth yesterday charged that alcoholic beverage ads on TV primarily depict people 'having a good time by consuming this product.' "--AdAge.com, Feb. 4

Don't Even Think of Leasing Here
Trial lawyers usually target as prospective defendants the wealthiest corporations or organizations they can find. Now the city of Detroit is applying the "deep pockets" principle to parking fines. BlueOvalNews, an online magazine for the "Ford community," reports that the city went to court seeking $861,000 for 22,000 parking tickets Detroit's finest had issued to Fords parked illegally. Rather than going after the guilty parties, though, the city demanded a lump sum payment from Ford Credit--technically the owner of the leased cars.

"Ford argued it could not be held liable for the parking violations of its lessees," BON reports. Sounds reasonable enough, but Detroit prevailed in the Michigan Appeals Court with the argument that "the person to whom the vehicle is registered at the time of the violation is prima facie responsible for that violation."

Wahhabi Meals
You've heard about American lawsuits and European protests against fast-food concerns. Now the Saudis are joining the fun. In an article translated into English by the Arab News, Abdul Aziz Al-Suwayegh, a commentator for the Arabic-language newspaper Okaz complains about a "tricky tactic" one fast-food chain has adopted:

With each meal, the restaurant gives a present which is a children's story. The story leads to the conclusion that children who eat the restaurant's meals will develop supernatural powers. Its message is simple: Eat our meal and we guarantee that you will become a superman.

Why is this so outrageous? Because the story also features monsters, which try to prevent the protagonist from consuming the meal. "The aim is to make children hate those who boycott American products," Al-Suwayegh complains. "How can we allow such venomous advertisements to be directed at our children?"

(Elizabeth Crowley helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Brian Dawson, Daniel Goldstein, Jeremy Winer, Bill Siroty, Cecil Ross, Rosanne Klass, Mara Gold, Stanley Ring, Jim Orheim, Barak Moore, Drew Parkhill, Henry Hanks, C.E. Dobkin, John Hartness, John Archer, Joshua Brooks, Bill Frazier, Natalie Cohen, Marie Bourgeois, Jerome Marcus, Paul Cooper, Asla Aydintasbas, Michael Bennett, Joseph Lazauskas, Robert LeChevalier, Raghu Desikan, Edward Himmelfarb, Hampton Stevens, Richard Miniter, Gad Meir, David Gerstman, Miriam Himmelfarb, Carl Sherer, Monty Krieger, Charles Steinberg, Mike Michelson, Daniel Mackenzie, William Kline, Aaron Gunn, Ruth Thompson, Joe Burneka, David Pitts, Paul Music, Dan Friedman, Alco Dogge, Ari Egri, Andrew Blasko, Joseph Pecoraro and Daren Heidgerken. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• James Baker: The case for military action in Iraq is now conclusive.
• Brendan Miniter: A federal bureaucracy gets serious about terrorism.
• Naomi Schaefer: The spiritual side of space exploration.