by JAMES TARANTO
Friday, April 2, 2004 5:08 P.M. EST

'Screw Them'
Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, who runs the Angry Left Daily Kos blog, had this to say in a post yesterday about the murders of four American contractors who were helping to deliver food in Fallujah, Iraq:

Every death should be on the front page

Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly.

That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries [sic]. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

Zuniga has taken down the original post, but in a new post he acknowledges it and offers a partial retraction, which essentially amounts to saying he didn't actually "feel nothing"; in fact, he was angry at the victims. Blogger Michael Friedman has a screen shot of the original post.

It's worth noting that the Daily Kos is popular among Democratic leaders. Zuniga is a principal in the Armstrong Zuniga political consulting firm, which touts the Daily Kos as "the most popular political weblog with over 3 million monthly visits." Friedman has a list of congressional candidates who advertise on the site, and in a February posting Zuniga reported that Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, "asked if I would post" a "Message to Blog Community."

About Zuniga's comments, we have nothing to say. They speak for themselves.

Al Qaeda Encore?
"A bomb has been found on a Spanish high-speed rail track and state radio said it contained the same type of dynamite used in suspected al Qaeda bombs that killed 191 people on Madrid trains last month," Reuters reports. "Friday's bomb was found as members of parliament elected in Spain's March 14 election took their seats in Madrid." That election, of course, produced a Socialist government that vows to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq.

Also today, a Spanish judge "freed three men who had been arrested in connection with the Madrid train bombings," reports the Associated Press. All in all, this doesn't offer much support for the proposition that terrorists are amenable to appeasement.

We'll Give You Jobs
Hey, talk about timing! The AFL-CIO Web site carried this announcement Wednesday:

The Show Us the Jobs? tour arrives in Washington, D.C., today for a hero's welcome from the union movement and a day of telling lawmakers that America needs new policies that will create and retain good jobs.

You want jobs? We'll give you jobs. "U.S. payrolls grew at the fastest pace in nearly four years in March, the government said Friday, in a report that soared past Wall Street forecasts," CNN/Money reports:

Payrolls outside the farm sector grew by 308,000 jobs in March, the Labor Department reported, compared with a revised gain of 46,000 in February.

John Kerry has been betting that the sluggish job market will persuade Americans to turn President Bush out of office. There's no guarantee that the March jobs explosion will continue, but if it does, it'll be a long seven months for Kerry and the Dems.

Stupid Columnist Tricks
A few years back, the New York Times hired former Enron adviser Paul Krugman as a twice-a-week op-ed columnist. The idea was that Krugman, who works on the side as a university economist, would offer a learned perspective on economic issues. Krugman has recast himself as a political pundit, the ticked-off tribune of the Angry Left.

Today's employment data are a nexus between economics and politics, between Krugman's original field of expertise and his newfound enthusiasm for Democratic politics. But if you turned to Krugman's column expecting to read a preview of what the forthcoming job stats might mean for the Kerry campaign, you were disappointed. Instead, Krugman wrote about a matter so trivial that it makes the Valerie Plame kerfuffle look like a matter of national security.

Here's how the Associated Press describes this week's hubbub. On Monday night, TV funnyman David Letterman showed a collection of video clips titled "George W. Bush Invigorates America's Youth":

One showed Bush at a March rally in Orlando, Fla., standing at a lectern with several listeners behind him--among them, a boy in his early teens who could barely stay awake. While Bush spoke, the young man yawned, twisted his head, checked his watch and generally seemed dead on his feet.

Tuesday morning, CNN attempted to lighten its news mood by running the segment, credited to CBS' "Late Show with David Letterman," on its "CNN Live Today."

But then CNN host Daryn Kagan added: "We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video, which would explain why the people around him weren't really reacting."

Later, during CNN's "Live From . . .," anchor Kyra Phillips reran the tape but cautioned viewers: "We're told that the kid was there at that event, but not necessarily standing behind the president."

The truth was: The White House never complained, and the footage was real.

Letterman, having heard the CNN story, "ranted" (the AP's word) on his Tuesday show: "An out-and-out, 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was there and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the videotape. . . . So when you cast your vote in November," he urged, "just remember that the White House was trying to make me look like a dope." Word of CNN's mistake got to Letterman during Tuesday's taping, and he acknowledged it, then made a joke about the White House "looking into my taxes."

Paul Krugman is not amused. To him, the Letterman kerfufflette "fits into a disturbing pattern":

CNN passed along a smear that it attributed to the White House. When the smear backfired, it declared its previous statements inoperative and said the White House wasn't responsible. Sound familiar? . . .

Administration officials shouldn't be able to spread stories without making themselves accountable. . . . And there's no excuse for disseminating unchecked rumors because they come from "the White House," then denying the White House connection when the rumors prove false. That's simply giving the administration a license to smear with impunity.

Characterizing CNN's goof as a sinister White House plot is ridiculous enough, but consider the nature of the "smear" that Krugman falsely attributes to the administration: an accusation of airing made-up stuff on a comedy show.

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
Blogger James Lileks has a nice riff on John Kerry's MTV interview (which we noted yesterday), in which Kerry faulted President Bush for making the world "angry":

Is the world angry at Russia, which spends nothing on AIDS and rebuffed Kyoto? Is the world angry at China, which got a pass on Kyoto and spends nothing on AIDS for other countries?

Is the world angry at North Korea for killings [sic] its people? Angry at Iran for smothering that vibrant nation with corrupt and thuggish mullocracy? Angry at Syria for occupying Lebanon? Angry at Saudi Arabia for its denial of women's rights? Angry at Russia for corrupt elections? Is the world angry at China for threatening Taiwan, or angry at France for joining the Chinese in joint military exercises that threatened the island on the eve of an election? Is the world angry at Zimbabwe for stealing land and starving people? Is the world angry at Pakistan for selling nuclear secrets? Is the world angry at Libya for having an NBC [nuclear, biological and chemical weapons] program?

Is the world angry at the thugs of Fallujah?

Is the world angry at anyone besides America and Israel?

This gives us an idea for a campaign slogan: "Don't get mad, get even. Re-elect President Bush."

NoKo Banking on Kerry Win
"North Korea seems to have lost interest in nuclear talks until after the U.S. presidential election in November, despite strenuous Chinese efforts to keep Pyongyang engaged, South Korean experts said," Reuters reports from Seoul:

"I don't think North Korea is very serious about six-party talks," said Choi Jin-wook, a senior analyst at the Korea Institute for National Unification.

"Until the next American president is decided, the possibility of negotiations is very slim," added Cheon Seong-whun, an arms control expert at South Korea's top North Korea think tank. . . .

"After the Iraq war, North Korea was very serious about negotiating with the United States," Choi said.

"They accepted six-party talks even though they strongly demanded bilateral talks," sharply reversing course out of fear of being the next U.S. target, he said.

"Now they think George W. Bush is in trouble and his chances [of re-election] are declining and he can't do anything on the peninsula because he is preoccupied with Iraq," Choi said.

If Choi is right, Democratic sniping over foreign policy is actually weakening America's position in the world, at least for the moment. It's hard to see what Kim Jong Il has to lose by these stalling tactics. And there's probably little that can be done about this. Even if Kerry were to start talking tough and making it clear he'd be as hard on Pyongyang as Bush has been, would anyone believe him?

Good News Watch
"Army divisions that fought the past 12 months in Iraq have met virtually every re-enlistment goal, a sign that the all-volunteer force remains strong under the stress of frequent deployments and hazardous duty," the Washington Times reports:

The Pentagon has been closely monitoring the re-up rate for five Army divisions that fought in Iraq for about a year. Some officials feared the time away from home and the gritty duty would prompt a large soldier exodus. After all, the war on terrorism is unchartered [sic] territory. The 30-year-old volunteer Army has never been this busy in combat.

But numbers compiled this week for the first half of fiscal 2004 show that those five combat units met, or nearly met, all retention targets for enlisted soldiers--the privates, corporals and sergeants who total 416,000 of the Army's 490,000 active force.

"This tends to rebut armchair critics who said the sky is falling and the vultures are circling and the Army is gong to lose all its troops," said Lt. Col. Franklin Childress, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon. "This is not true. The soldiers get it."

That's certainly our impression, based on comments we've received from servicemen in the field.

The 'Passion' of the Palestinian Arabs
"Mel Gibson's controversial film 'The Passion of the Christ' is all the rage among Palestinians, curious about complaints by Jews that it is anti-Semitic," Reuters reports from Gaza:

The portrayal of a prophet in a film is forbidden under Islam. But many Palestinians, locked in conflict against Israel, say they hope "The Passion" will rouse angry emotions against Jews by Christian audiences around the world.

"People are calling me from everywhere in the West Bank--from Bethlehem, Hebron, Ramallah and Nablus--to ask for copies of the movie," said the owner of a Gaza city video shop, which sells pirated copies of new release movies.

Yasser Arafat reportedly liked the movie, even though, contrary to Palestinian mythology, it portrays Jews as having lived in the Holy Land two millennia ago. We haven't seen the movie, but people we respect have told us they're troubled by its portrayals of Jews. Still, even if the complaints are valid, we can't help but wonder if Jewish groups were imprudent to air them so vigorously. Absent the controversy that ensued, the Arabs might never have had any interest in "The Passion."

Congressmen Against Congressional Power
On Wednesday, we noted that the House had passed the ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act, which toughens an existing law, known as the Solomon Amendment, that deprives colleges of federal funds unless they allow military recruiters on campus and do not evict existing ROTC programs. Advocates for ROTC has posted a transcript of the floor debate, which contains this revealing quote from an opponent of the bill, Rep. Martin Meehan, a Massachusetts Democrat:

This bill is designed to force universities to violate their own policies against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and will undermine pending lawsuits that challenge the so-called Solomon amendment.

Meehan's objection to the substance of the bill is fair enough, though we don't agree. But his complaint that it will "undermine pending lawsuits" represents an astonishing abdication of responsibility. If the new act would "undermine pending lawsuits," that means one of two things: it remedies constitutional problems with the Solomon Act, or it clarifies the intention of Congress. Meehan seems to think it's preferable for Congress to pass unconstitutional or vague laws than ones that are clear and constitutional--in which case, what in the world is he doing serving in Congress to begin with?

Romney Mulls SOMA
Our idea of abolishing marriage in Massachusetts--we call it the Suspense of Marriage Act--may be catching on. "Rebuffed by Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, Governor Mitt Romney acknowledged yesterday that he won't be able to get a judicial stay to block weddings of same-sex couples beginning May 17," the Boston Globe reports. "But the governor emphasized that he is exploring other avenues to block the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples":

Lawmakers and activists on both sides of the issue suggest that Romney may be weighing several options, including an executive order to block the issuance of licenses to gay couples; proposing a law to prevent issuance of those licenses; or backing another bill, being pushed this week, that would abolish marriage entirely and create civil unions for heterosexual couples, as well as gay couples.

Rep. Paul Loscocco's version of the SOMA is still a long shot, but it has drawn interest from surprising quarters: "Representative Jay Kaufman, a Lexington Democrat who supports same-sex marriage, said he might like Loscocco's bill because it gets rid of the 'separate but equal' problems inherent in the proposed constitutional amendment" that would affirm the traditional definition of marriage while establishing civil unions for same-sex couples.

Partial-Truth Journalism
A look at the news coverage of two stories this week--the trials over the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003, and President Bush's signing of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act--have provided us with numerous examples of the way in which proponents of legal abortion twist language in an effort to conceal reality. And the news media are, by and large, happy to go along. This is from an Associated Press dispatch on the partial-birth trials:

Doctors say the procedures decrease the frequency of surgical instrument insertions into a woman, eliminate the dangers that parts of a broken fetus might be left behind and give couples an intact fetus to grieve over.

Do people really grieve over a "fetus"?

In a dispatch on yesterday's signing of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the Associated Press can't bring itself to use the name of the new law. Reuters can, but it puts the name in scare quotes. And the New York Times does give the name of the legislation, but it concludes as follows:

Mr. Bush invoked a notorious killing, that of Laci Paterson, who disappeared late in 2002 while eight months pregnant. Her husband, Scott, is charged with murder. The victim's parents were present today.

Scott Peterson is actually charged with two counts of murder, under a California law similar to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. So why does the Times refer to the mother and father of Laci Peterson as "the victim's parents" without noting that they are also the other victim's grandparents?

A Little Reality
From a New York Times report on social problems in Birmingham, England:

The reasons for the rise in antisocial behavior are complex, but include the breakdown of traditional families, a decline in old habits of deference and respect and, in the view of many in government, the emergence of a social security-dependent culture that promotes a feeling of entitlement but not a feeling of responsibility.

Wow, nothing about poverty, discrimination and the usual liberal litany of "root causes." Coming from the New York Times, this seems like progress.

Manage This!
At Woodlawn High School, just outside Baltimore, "ninth-graders who gathered yesterday for an assembly on anger management instead got an up-close lesson in violence, when a shoving match grew into a melee that led to two arrests--including one student's mother--and 11 suspensions," the Baltimore Sun reports:

As students on stage acted out peaceful ways to resolve conflict, one student's mother confronted a group of girls who had been bothering her child, authorities said.

Screaming quickly escalated into pushing and hitting, and school officials dialed 911 as the crowd of 750 students erupted into "chaos," said Woodlawn Principal C. Anthony Thompson.

Students stood on their auditorium seats and rushed toward the fighting girls to get a better look, one student said, and soon other fights were breaking out in the auditorium.

The assembly was organized by the Sheppard Pratt Health System, a Baltimore organization that runs a mental hospital, among other things. It reminded us of a headline in yesterday's Washington Post: "Kerry Criticizes President, Then Undergoes Surgery." Now that's what we call anger management.

(Elizabeth Crowley helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Jake Ewing, Barak Moore, Paul Green, Terry Hinshaw, S.E. Brenner, Steve Eggleston, John Gaylord, Joel Goldberg, Ed Lasky, Eli Meisels, C.E. Dobkin, Michael Zukerman, Mordecai Bobrowsky, Geoffrey Berg, Scot Silverstein, Russell DePalma, Mary Pinkowish, Ron Finch, Glenn Taubman, Michael Segal, Mike Paranzino, Glenn Opell, Darren Gold, Yehuda Hilewitz, Raghu Desikan, Kurt Weber, Tom Seaver, Ethel Fenig, Rich Zito, Tom von Gremp, Steve Roberts, Karen Bashore, George Lenz, Terry Harris, Burt Rublin, Nancy Zimmerman, David Worley, Kirk Watson, William Schanefelt, Fred Furia, Scott McClintock, Leslie Petersen, Robert Vargo, Doug Welty, Katrina Costello, Steve Jackson, M.B. Johnson, Thomas Dillon, Tom Lahr, Todd Anderson and Adam Cohen. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Christopher Hitchens: Fallujah is a reminder of what the future might look like if we fail.
• Daniel Henninger: Clarke, Condi and the wars of September 11.

And on the Taste page:

• Review & Outlook: Isn't affirmative action an argument for lower academic standards?
• Tony & Tacky: Crime does pay. Plus "sex week" at Yale.
• Eric Gibson: Tom Hanks remakes a 1955 movie, but never bothers to see the original.
• Geoffrey Norman: For real action, the Final Four can't compete with golf.
• Robert Wilken: With "Jesus and Paul," Peter Jennings gets it right.