by JAMES TARANTO
Thursday, July 17, 2003 3:39 P.M. EDT

Voices of Sanity
Amid the current tomfoolery about claims that President Bush "lied" about Iraq, a few lonely commentators on the left are realizing that those on their side are doing themselves terrible damage by their unjustified attacks on the president. Here's Brett Sokol in Miami's "alternative" New Times newspaper:

One can be troubled by the apparent exaggeration of Iraqi intelligence reports without dismissing Hussein as a threat altogether. As Christopher Hitchens wrote recently in Slate: "To believe that the Saddam regime had nothing to hide is to believe that he threw out the U.N. inspectors in 1998 and then said to himself: 'Great. Now I can get on with my dream of unilaterally disarming Iraq!' Who can be such a fool as to believe any such thing?"

Who? Unfortunately a lot of Democrats. In fact it's getting harder to tell the party's principled liberals from the more delusional figures on the Left. Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel breathlessly equates antiwar "dissidents" marching in New York with Iranian students risking their lives as they take to the streets of Tehran protesting the ayatollahs. In Fort Lauderdale, New Times's own sister paper earnestly refers to Bush's overseas "jihad" on its cover, seemingly unable to distinguish any difference between al Qaeda's terrorist strikes on the World Trade Center and the U.S. ousting of Saddam Hussein's government.

Given a choice between burying their heads in the sand or erring on the side of caution, most Americans in 2004 will opt for the candidate who recognizes the all-too-real threats facing us. John Ashcroft = Osama bin Laden? As Bush himself might say: "Don't be so melodramaculous."

WashingtonPost.com's Terry Neal notices that the four Democratic presidential candidates who voted for the war are tying themselves in knots trying to reconcile their votes with the imperative to oppose the Bush administration. An example is John Kerry, the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam:

Asked if he was still comfortable with his vote authorizing the president to use force, Kerry did not hesitate.

"I have no question about the decision I made," he said. "Even Hans Blix said they weren't in compliance."

Then there was Kerry again on CNN Wednesday morning, criticizing not only the administration's post-war planning, but also raising questions about the administration's handling of intelligence, particularly the claim that Hussein was seeking the material for nuclear weapons in Africa.

When asked by Soledad O'Brien if he were "backtracking to some degree" now, Kerry responded: "It's not just the 16 words, it's all of our intelligence. I mean, we were told they had weapons that could be deployed within 45 minutes. We were told they had unmanned vehicles that had the ability to deliver. I mean, there are a series of things here. Colin Powell came to the Foreign Relations Committee and told us, in answer to one of my questions, the only reason to go to war were weapons of mass destruction. So I voted to give the president the power to go to the U.N. in order--and to have the threat of force--in order to hold Saddam Hussein accountable."

So now Kerry is saying his vote was based on faulty intelligence from the administration while still maintaining that he has absolutely no question about the validity of his vote. But if the intelligence was faulty, doesn't that call into question a vote based on it? Not in Kerry's view.

Ralph Peters disagrees with the president on domestic issues and thinks the Dems would do well to focus on those:

This column does not mean to idolize the president. Indeed, many of his domestic policies give cause for serious concern, from his slight [sic] of hand on environmental issues, through his questionable respect for women's rights, to his ideologically driven, ill-timed tax cuts. But his foreign policy is courageous, effective and vital.

The current flock of interchangeable Democratic presidential aspirants attack the president's strengths, while failing to appreciate his weaknesses. The military equivalent would be a frontal attack across an open field against dug-in machine guns and artillery.

Instead of reciting their litany of imaginary failures overseas, can't a single Democratic presidential hopeful admit that the potential danger to the U.S. from hate-intoxicated terrorists could one day cause an even greater loss of American lives than did our Civil War?

. . . Unless a Democratic champion emerges who is willing to abandon petty sniping in favor of genuine leadership, at home and abroad, the American people doubtless will favor President Bush in 2004.

The problem is that "petty sniping" is exactly what the party's base voters crave. As we mentioned Tuesday, we get e-mails from a fair number of members of the Angry Left, folks who read our column apparently because it fuels their anger. (There's something for everyone at Best of the Web Today; we aim to please.) They keep asking the same question, which we paraphrase: If a president lying about oral sex is grounds for impeachment, why isn't lying about war much worse? Only they don't say "oral sex"; they always--always--use the same vulgar term for it.

That's funny, we thought we heard it was "time to move on" back in 1998. Now, when there's a war on, these people want to talk about Bill Clinton's sex life? The problem for the Democrats is that a significant number of their voters are far more passionate about their party's enemies than their country's. As Mark Steyn puts it:

One reason why the President . . . is all but certain to win re-election is the descent into madness of his opponents. They've let post-impeachment, post-chad-dangling bitterness unhinge them to the point where, given a choice between investigating the intelligence lapses that led to 9/11 and the intelligence lapses that led to a victorious war in Iraq, they stampede for the latter. Iraq was a brilliant campaign fought with minimal casualties, 11 September was a humiliating failure by government to fulfill its primary role of national defence. But Democrats who complained that Bush was too slow to act on doubtful intelligence re 9/11 now profess to be horrified that he was too quick to act on doubtful intelligence re Iraq. This is not a serious party.

Also from Steyn, here's the pithiest single sentence describing the current political situation: "The Democrats smell blood and don't want to be told that it's their own."

The Liberal Media's Comforting Lies
This morning one of our friends on the Angry Left e-mailed us a link to a New York Times story, accompanied by a sarcastic comment that suggested the story vindicated our friend's anti-Bush views. "In Ohio, Iraq Questions Shake Even Some of Bush's Faithful" reads the headline of the article by James Dao. This is one of those "vox populi" stories, in which a reporter goes somewhere--in this case, Cincinnati--and interviews seemingly random people in hopes of developing a sense of public opinion.

This is a silly form of journalism, since there's no reason to think the people a given reporter chooses to quote will actually reflect the population as a whole. There's ample opportunity for bias, either conscious or unconscious, to creep in. Yet what's astonishing about the Dao piece is the bias in the headline, and the first few paragraphs, which echo the theme. If you read on to the eighth paragraph, however, you finally get to Dao's summary of his findings:

In conversations here with nearly three dozen voters, the vast majority said they generally like President Bush and believe he is doing a good job. Many people said they remained convinced that Iraq posed a threat, even though no chemical or biological weapons have been found. And there was a broad consensus that the result of the war--the ousting of a brutal dictator--was good for Iraq as well as the United States.

It certainly seems as though an editor with an agenda repackaged Dao's reporting as an anti-Bush story. If so, this may be part of a broader pattern of dishonesty and delusion at the New York Times. But does it really help the Democrats to have the New York Times newsroom on their side? After all, aides to John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman and the rest of those guys are probably not going to read this story as critically as we have--and the message they're likely to take away from it is that what they're doing is working. They desperately need honest feedback; what the Times is giving them instead is an echo chamber.

Where Does an 800-Pound Guerrilla Sleep?
Gen. John Abizaid, new head of the U.S. Central Command, said yesterday "that American troops in Iraq were now facing a 'classical guerrilla-type campaign'--the sort of phrase Bush administration officials have so far avoided," reports the New York Times' Paris edition. Well, good. The administration's skittishness about the word "guerrilla"--which reminds some people of Vietnam--is silly. And indeed the Times jumps at the opportunity to use the V-word:

His reference to guerrilla-style tactics, with its resonance of the messy, protracted and unpopular American involvement in Vietnam, was the sort of language the Bush administration has not used thus far.

Even sillier, the Toronto Globe and Mail begins by declaring: "U.S. military commanders were forced to acknowledge yesterday that their soldiers are fighting an all-out guerrilla war in Iraq." A few sentences later we get Gen. Abizaid saying: "It's low-intensity conflict in our doctrinal terms, but it's war however you describe it." So the war is both "all-out" and "low-intensity"?

The Times also avers that "the casualty toll in Iraq reached a politically sensitive milepost . . . with the 147th combat death among United States forces since the war began on March 20. That is the same number as died in the Persian Gulf War of 1991." That's what they're calling a "quagmire" and "another Vietnam"?

We mourn every American who makes the ultimate sacrifice for his country, but let's put things in perspective. CNN reported late last night on the 148th combat death, "surpassing the 147 killed in the 1991 Persian Gulf War":

Thirty-three of those deaths have come in attacks since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1.

That's 33 combat deaths in 77 days, or a rate of 156 a year. According to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall Page, at least 47,386 American servicemen died as a result of hostile action in Vietnam. At the current rate, the death toll from Iraq's guerrilla war will reach Vietnam's level sometime in the year 2306.

Wind Gap
"Democrat John Kerry blasted President Bush yesterday for not doing enough to protect Americans from terrorism, but that argument didn't seem to apply to the Mount Vernon firefighter and police captain who were pulled from their normal duties to stand on stage with the candidate," reports the Journal News of Westchester County, N.Y.:

The two on-duty officers traveled to the Bronx event--approximately 10 miles outside their jurisdiction--and provided a backdrop for the senator from Massachusetts as he railed against the Bush administration's homeland security efforts. They were part of a contingent of Mount Vernon officials who attended the political event, including the commissioners of police, fire and civil defense.

Here are some highlights of Kerry's speech:

It is clear that a dangerous gap in credibility has developed between President Bush's tough rhetoric and timid policies which don't do nearly enough to protect Americans from danger. . . . The gap between America's national security needs and this Administration's deeds is widening day by day. In Iraq, we face a gap in burden-sharing. . . . And with each passing day, Americans are learning that we also face an intelligence gap. . . . Of all the shortcomings of this Administration when it comes to playing it straight on national security, none effects New Yorkers--and all Americans--more than the Preparedness Gap.

The word "gap" actually appears five more times, but we wouldn't want to be repetitious. If Kerry doesn't end up winning the presidency, he might want to apply for a job here:

It's not cotton, denim or cashmere--people are the fabric of our company. Gap Inc. employees are smart, fun, talented individuals working in areas from design to distribution, marketing to merchandising. Working here requires commitment, energy, flexibility--and a healthy dose of creativity. Whether you're a college graduate ready to start your career, or a professional looking for your next challenge, we offer exciting opportunities to learn, stretch and grow. Try us on for size.

Metaphor Alert
From a column by former congressman Joe Scarborough, July 16 (italics ours):

The Democrats smell blood. The gauntlet has been thrown down. . . . With the presidential campaign heating up, the Senator [Bob Graham] is blasting the President for not having found those weapons in three months, and now has poured gas on the fire by waving the bloody flag of impeachment. What a mistake!

Is She Playing With a Full Deck?
"A high school teacher, fed up with the Bush administration's playing cards featuring Saddam Hussein, 'Chemical Ali' and other most-wanted Iraqis, is now selling her own deck, 'Operation: Hidden Agenda,' " the Associated Press reports from screwy San Francisco. The teacher, 42-year-old Kathy Eder, "said she decided to create her own plastic-coated propaganda in March as a comeback to the 'messages of hate' contained in the cards the Department of Defense issued to help U.S. troops identify suspected war criminals."

This page has images of all the cards in the Pentagon deck, and if you scroll down to the ace of spades (near the bottom, just above the jokers), you find this "message of hate":

SADDAM HUSSAYN AL-TIKRITI
President

The Operation: Hidden Agenda Web page says a portion of profits from sales of the cards will go to "Iraqi men, women, and children who have endured years of suffering." Why is it a "message of hate" even to mention the name of the tyrant who caused all that suffering?

Elsewhere in the Axis
The mad mullahs who run Iran have acknowledged that thugs working on their behalf beat to death a photojournalist who held dual Iranian and Canadian citizenship, the BBC reports. Fifty-four-year-old Zahra Kazemi "was detained on 23 June for taking pictures of Tehran's Evin prison. She was later pronounced dead after falling into a coma."

"Relations between Tehran and Ottawa have become strained over the case," notes the BBC, reporting the Canadians have issued a stern threat:

Canadian deputy prime minister John Manley said on Monday that bilateral relations would be damaged if Ms Kazemi's body was not returned.

But Iran's Interior Minister Abdolvahed Moussavi-Lari said Ms Kazemi's death had nothing to do with Canada "since she is an Iranian citizen."

Great Moments in Public Education
Daniel Lipsman, a retired schoolteacher in New York City, is in trouble with the law--for sending his daughter to school. The Daily News reports 15-year-old Angela "has earned her associate's degree and is on her way to a bachelor's--but she can't have the sheepskins because she never got a high school diploma."

It gets worse: "The gifted girl's proud dad is being investigated by child protective services for alleged educational neglect--for letting his daughter go to college." A judge in Albany ruled that "Angela was not legally free to skip high school" and upheld a state Education Department diktat that imprisons children in high school until they turn 16 and doesn't allow them to get an equivalency diploma until age 17. Angela's father says he'll "go to prison before my daughter goes to a city high school."

Not Too Brite--XCIX
"An elderly Serb ended a heated argument with his neighbor by lobbing a hand grenade and severing the man's arm," Reuters reports from Belgrade.

Oddly Enough!

Unlocking the Mysteries of Life
"Home-field advantage is an advantage because you play more games in your park."--Garret Anderson, Anaheim Angels, quoted by the Associated Press, July 16

Is There Any Tooth to the Allegation?
Coalby, a black Labrador retriever belonging to Gov. John Rowland of Connecticut, jumped through an open window in Rowland's car yesterday morning, WVIT-TV reports. Cops chased the dog three miles before a man caught it. "Police said the man, Ed Humel, was taken to a local hospital after his arm ended up in the dog's mouth. Police would not characterize the incident as a bite."

Another Damn Lawsuit
"A New Mexico family is suing its local Catholic church over a funeral Mass at which the priest allegedly said their relative was going straight to hell," the BBC reports:

The family of Ben Martinez, 80, allege that Reverend Scott Mansfield said he was "living in sin," "lukewarm in his faith" and that "the Lord vomited people like Ben out of his mouth to hell." . . .

Nine members of the Martinez family are seeking punitive and compensatory damages for severe emotional and physical suffering.

They say Mr Martinez had been a practising Catholic all his life, but was too ill to attend church in his last year.

Unfortunately, the plaintiffs are in one of those Catch-22s. If Martinez is in heaven, no doubt he'd make a sympathetic witness--but where would he find a lawyer to take his deposition?

(Elizabeth Crowley helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Frank Calderon, Raghu Desikan, Mara Gold, Bob Dudolevitch, Steven Platzer, Natalie Cohen, Michael Fumento, Heather Higgins, Mark Hammell, Robert Fredericks, Charlie Gaylord, Michael Morley, Frank Ferriola, S.E. Brenner, Barak Moore, William Specht, Jeffrey Weinstein, Steven Mason, Edward Morrissey, Sol Ezekiel, Phil Newman, Chris Chorney, Reuven Weiser and David Wheeler. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Review & Outlook: What the National Intelligence Estimate said about Saddam's uranium hunt.
• John Fund: A state tax hike may sink the Senate's No. 2 Democrat.
• Roger Atwood: How Iraq's National Museum got looted--and how most of its treasures were saved.