From the WSJ Opinion Archives

by JAMES TARANTO
Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:39 P.M. EDT

Boston Globe Publishes Anti-American Porn
A Boston city councilman held a press conference the other day to disseminate enemy propaganda. Dan Kennedy of the Boston Phoenix quotes the press release announcing the event:

Release of US Military rape photographs in Iraq!!!

Assignment Desk/City Desk:

The Black Community Information Center Inc. will hold a press conference on Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 9:30 a.m. The purpose of the press conference is to release copies of dramatic photos of members of the US Military, gang raping innocent Iraqi women in Iraq.

The press conference will be held in the Curley Room at Boston City Hall (5th Floor) in downtown Boston, Massachusetts.

For more information, call [phone numbers deleted].

Sadiki Kambon
Director, BCIC Inc.

The Boston Globe reported on the event, where Councilman Chuck Turner declared: "The American people have a right and responsibility to see the pictures." The Globe made it clear that Kambon and Turner's claims were thin:

The images, depicting men in camouflage uniforms having sex with unidentified women, bear no characteristics that would prove the men are US soldiers or that the women are Iraqis. And there is nothing apparent in the images showing they were taken in Iraq. Unlike the photographs widely publicized last week, the images appear to have been taken outdoors in a sandy area with hills in the background.

As both Kennedy and WorldNetDaily report, the photos were fake. "They were taken from pornographic websites and disseminated by anti-American propagandists, as first reported by WND a week ago":

A WND investigation has revealed that most of the photos are taken from the American pornographic website "Iraq Babes," and the Hungarian site, "Sex in War," which is linked to by the American site. Both websites are linked to by violent pornography sites and both describe Iraqi women--played by "actresses"--in vulgar terms.

The Globe found itself in a kerfuffle over a photo it ran with yesterday's story, which showed Kambon and Turner displaying the photos at the press conference. (That photo--which as you might expect is somewhat graphic--is reproduced at the Drudge Report.) Today the Globe ran the following "editor's note":

A photograph on Page B2 yesterday did not meet Globe standards for publication. The photo portrayed Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner and activist Sadiki Kambon displaying graphic photographs that they claimed showed US soldiers raping Iraqi women. Although the photograph was reduced in size between editions to obscure visibility of the images on display, at no time did the photograph meet Globe standards. Images contained in the photograph were overly graphic, and the purported abuse portrayed had not been authenticated. The Globe apologizes for publishing the photo.

Kennedy argues that the story the photos accompanied "is completely legitimate, making it clear that there was no way of authenticating the photos . . . and even raising the possibility that it was all an Internet fraud--as it indeed turned out to be."

We're not so sure we'd agree with the defense of the story. Turner and Kambon are racist crackpots, as Kennedy notes, citing an April Boston Herald report:

Turner was quoted as saying that [Condoleezza] Rice isn't concerned "about the plight of the majority" of African-Americans. Okay, she's a foreign-policy wonk, not a domestic-policy analyst. But then Turner added that Rice is a "tool to white leaders. . . . It's similar in my mind to a Jewish person working for Hitler in the 1930s." Say what?

Kambon, naturally, was even more outrageous, calling her "Condoleezza White Rice" and "The Negro Security Adviser."

The Globe's original story on the porn photos also reports that Kambon "said at the news conference that he received the photographs by e-mail from Akbar Muhammad, a representative for the Nation of Islam."

This is roughly the equivalent of a newspaper skeptically but respectfully reporting on a showing of anti-American propaganda by David Duke, which Duke says he got from the Ku Klux Klan. Such an action by Duke might be newsworthy, but the story would be about an extremist hate-monger peddling lies, not a respected officeholder making a statement that may or may not be true.

Riding the Cycle
Meanwhile, the Globe's editorial page is wallowing in moral equivalence, explaining away the decapitation murder of Nick Berg in Iraq, purportedly in response to the abuses at Abu Ghraib:

Those quick to assert that the treatment of Berg was far worse than the US treatment of its prisoners miss an essential point.

The United States is now part of a cycle of violence in Iraq that is leading in the wrong direction. The murder and mutilation of four American contract workers in Fallujah were infuriating. Logic might say an attack on Fallujah to root out the wrongdoers was justified. But when that attack kills scores of innocents along with some insurgents, it may generate more hostility and deepen the cycle of violence.

This is maddeningly idiotic. What the Globe calls a "cycle of violence" is actually a war--a war that America joined only after the enemy murdered 3,000 people on our soil. "On the ground in Iraq," the Globe opines, "the primary goal must now be the most difficult: to reverse, somehow, the deadly cycle of violence." It doesn't seem to dawn on the Globies that the way to do that is to win the war.

Profiles Encouraged?
From London's Daily Telegraph:

Nicolas Berg, the American who was filmed being beheaded, had been previously arrested by Iraqi police and held on suspicion of being a spy because he had a Jewish name and an Israeli stamp in his passport, it emerged yesterday.

Now that Berg is revealed as a victim of "racial profiling," will American liberals finally begin to show some outrage?

Muchas Gracias
London's Daily Telegraph reports that Spanish soldiers aren't happy about being called home from Iraq as part of the new Socialist government's policy of appeasing terrorists:

Cpl José Francisco García Casteñeda, who previously completed three tours in Bosnia, said: "We left our coalition colleagues behind and abandoned the local people, who are living in wretched conditions."

Sitting at the same cafe table, Sgt Manuel García, 31, went further in his criticism of the withdrawal. "We felt used and let down by the politicians. Zapatero made the move purely for his own popularity," he said.

Garcia also complains about Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's visit to a military base: "It was just a photocall. He did not address us and the king did not come. No thanks were given. There was no encouragement for the job we did. It was a celebration for Mr Zapatero."

Young Patriots
A Purdue University press release brings some good news: "Heightened patriotism after terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001 is among several reasons cited for a steady growth in participation in ROTC programs across the nation." Purdue says it has one of the nation's biggest ROTC programs:

Purdue's combined ROTC enrollment for the 2003/2004 academic year is 454 in its Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps programs. National ROTC enrollment and commissioning statistics are consistent with those at Purdue, with steady increases since 2001 at nearly 300 colleges and universities, according to national ROTC sources.

Lt. Cmdr. Scott Allen, public affairs officer for the Naval Service Training Command in Great Lakes, Ill., said applications to the Navy and Marine Corps ROTC programs around the country have increased by more than 12 percent each year since Sept. 11, 2001.

"Our numbers had been holding steady and then jumped 13.7 percent in the 2001-2002 academic year," he said. "In 2002-2003 we saw an additional 12.2 percent, and in 2003-2004 we increased another 16.8 percent."

The numbers would no doubt be rising even faster if our elite universities would stop playing politics with national defense and let ROTC back on campus.

Onion Rings
We cracked up last night when we read this e-mail from an anonymous reader (quoted verbatim):

Obviously,it is in your assignment,to malign Kerry any way you can.Since you have a staff who looks for articles that are controversial,why not track down the following to determine if it is true.Today,I read that our "benefactor" Haliburton will dock Hamill 3 weeks pay(while he was in captivity).Further it was stated that he will also have to pay for the structural damage to the truck(not within his control). I am sure your staff must be aware of this.They log onto many websites that are against BUsh and his "junta" who are adverse to telling the TRUTH.Even today,the finger pointing goes on.Even Harry Truman(who was no great brain) knew where "the buck stopped".

As it happens, earlier in the day we had indeed read the Hamill story--in the Onion. (Scroll down to "News in Brief," in the center column.) We thought everyone knew by now, but the Onion is a satirical newspaper.

Kerry Imitates the Onion
"Political Winds Are Favoring Kerry" reads the headline on an MSNBC.com commentary by Newsweek's Howard Fineman, who argues that current troubles in Iraq will prove a political bonanza for the presumed Democratic nominee:

Kerry's theory of this campaign is pretty straightforward: to be the guy people have no choice but to vote for on Nov. 2. Not because he has a stirring new vision (he doesn't); not because he's such a darned likable guy (he isn't); but because circumstances are such that fair-minded "swing" voters have no choice but to pick him. He's not running against the war, per se, but as the nobleman at the end of the Shakespeare play, a beacon of sanity on the battlefield.

An odd mixture of arrogance and self-abnegation, Kerry is under no illusions that voters will embrace him in a personal way. At a meeting with fund-raisers in New York the other month, he declared that his goal was to weather a wave of attacks and "preserve my acceptability." There you have his strategy in its clinical glory: They don't have to love me, they don't even have to like me. If I am in the right place at the right time (and am "acceptable") they will choose me.

Meanwhile, the Onion (warning: some off-color content) has a list of proposed Kerry slogans that fit right into this "theory":

  • "Kerry: You'd Probably Like Him if You Got to Know Him."

  • "Vote Kerry in 2004, because life is a miasma of confusion, pain, and loneliness."

  • "Kerry: A voice of reason who's killed, like, 20 dudes."

  • "The election is still a long way off, so go about the business of living your lives until a week or so before voting day, at which point you should really give some thought to John Kerry."

  • "John Kerry: Certainly not worse."

Believe it or not, there's scant evidence, so far at least, that the voting public finds this approach inspiring. The Christian Science Monitor reports that, Iraq woes not withstanding, its latest poll has Bush ahead 47% to 44%, or 46% to 41% in a three-man race, with Ralph Nader picking up 5%:

Bush's gains were notably big in the 17 so-called battleground states, those that were decided by a close margin in 2000 and promise to be close again this fall. From mid-April to early May, the president widened his lead in those states from three points to nine, and now leads Kerry there, 49 percent to 40 percent. Those states include Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan, all of which Bush visited last week on two bus tours. . . .

The poll showed greater intensity among Bush supporters than Kerry supporters. Two-thirds (68 percent) of Bush supporters say they support him strongly, while 38 percent of Kerry supporters do so.

Fineman uses windsurfing as a metaphor for Kerry's strategy: "Kerry aims to catch the wind--and the drift of history. The war in Iraq is a hurricane, and Kerry hopes to ride it into office." It doesn't exactly fill one with confidence in the man's ability to lead the country for four years.

Great Orators of the Democratic Party

  • "One man with courage makes a majority."--Andrew Jackson

  • "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."--Franklin Roosevelt

  • "The buck stops here."--Harry Truman

  • "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."--John Kennedy

  • "When he was a young man, he could have had an easy life, he could have worn cowboy boots, he could have put his feet up on the desk. John Kerry, he didn't manage a professional sports team using some of his daddy's name."--Wesley Clark

Reform's Latest Form
Back in 1996, we covered the Reform Party convention in California for The Wall Street Journal. At the time, of course, the newly formed party was a vehicle for Ross Perot, whose independent candidacy four years earlier had managed an impressive 18.9% of the popular vote. What struck us most about the party was the utter absence of any political philosophy:

The secret of the Reform Party . . . is that it stands for virtually nothing. It favors things that no one could be against (a fairer tax system, good jobs) and opposes things no one could be for (political corruption, excessive government debt). While the Democrats and Republicans at least sometimes engage in real debate about the purpose of government, the Reform Party treats the question as irrelevant. Mr. Perot merely sneers at the Establishment and promises to run government "like a business"--an approach that, at best, would produce a better-managed version of the status quo.

A party without ideology is open to all ideologies. . . . And since the Reform Party bases its appeal entirely on disaffection, it's little wonder that it draws so many of the politically homeless, those whose views are so extreme--or plain crazy--that they don't fit in anywhere else. Such a motley crew cannot make a coherent political movement, let alone a governing coalition.

Our observations have held up pretty well. Four years later, the Reform Party nominated Pat Buchanan, candidate of the nativist-protectionist-isolationist right. Buchanan got a scant 0.43% of the vote, a far cry even from Perot's 1996 total of 8.4%.

The Reform Party still exists, albeit barely, and yesterday, the Associated Press reports, it announced its endorsement for 2004: Ralph Nader. That's right, the party without ideology went from far right to far left in the space of four years. Although the party is on the ballot in only seven states so far, the Nader endorsement could end up making a difference in the election, since it has ballot spots in two swing states, Florida and Michigan. (It's also on the ballot in Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana and South Carolina--all solid Bush states with the possible exception of Colorado.) The Reformers claim they've also secured ballot access in Wisconsin, another close state in 2000, "but Kevin Kennedy, executive director for the state's elections board, said the party has not yet qualified."

Why Isn't Bush Losing?--III
Reader Greg Askins offers some additional perspective on our item yesterday about incumbent presidents seeking re-election. Between 1900 and 1996, he notes, 13 elections were won by incumbents seeking re-election: McKinley (1900), Teddy Roosevelt (1904), Wilson (1916), Coolidge (1924), Franklin Roosevelt (1936, 1940 and 1944), Truman (1948), Eisenhower (1956), Lyndon Johnson (1964), Nixon (1972), Reagan (1984) and Clinton (1996).

During the same period, only five incumbents lost their bid for an additional term, all under unusual circumstances:

  • Taft (1912): Three-man race with third-party candidate (Teddy Roosevelt) winning 27.4% of the vote.

  • Hoover (1932): Great Depression.

  • Ford (1976): Never elected; aftermath of Watergate; intraparty challenge from Ronald Reagan.

  • Carter (1980): Stagflation; Iran hostages; three-man race with third-party candidate (John Anderson) garnering 6.6% of the vote; intraparty challenge from Ted Kennedy.

  • George H.W. Bush (1992): Three-man race with third-party candidate carrying 18.9% of the vote; intraparty challenge from Pat Buchanan.

The current President Bush has an improving economy, no Republican opposition, and a prospective third-party opponent who's more likely to hurt his opponent. Iraq is the only possible problem, but wartime presidents usually are re-elected. (True, LBJ decided not to seek re-election in 1968, but that was largely because his own party was split on Vietnam.)

On the other hand, here's a cautionary analogy for the Bush camp: By the evidence of the past three elections, the country is closely divided between the parties. In 1992, 1996 and 2000 the winning candidate fell short of a popular-vote majority. The last such streak was 1876-92 (though in 1876 the losing candidate, Samuel Tilden, had 51%). During that period, re-election was not the norm: The only presidents who sought re-election, Grover Cleveland in 1888 and Benjamin Harrison in 1892, both lost.

Full Disclosure?
The New York Times has appended this "editor's note" to an article from yesterday on old folks complaining about the new Medicare discount card:

An article yesterday about confusion surrounding new prescription drug discount cards that are being offered to Medicare recipients included comments in the first four paragraphs from Mildred Fruhling and later in the article from Dr. Sydney Bild.

Unknown to the writer, both had been interviewed for a video on a Web site operated by Families USA, a consumer advocacy group that has criticized current Medicare policy as inadequate. When approached by The Times during the preparation of the article, Families USA suggested Mrs. Fruhling and Dr. Bild as interviewees without disclosing that they had appeared in the video. Had that been known, The Times would have chosen others to comment for the article or would have made clear the two interviewees' connection to the advocacy group.

Certainly the Times should have disclosed the business about the video, but if Families USA referred the paper to these people, why isn't that a "connection to the advocacy group" sufficient to require disclosure?

Great Moments in Private Education
DeSales High School, a Catholic school in Geneva, N.Y., has fired Kathy Peters, its director of recruitment, over a letter to the editor published in the Finger Lake Times:

Peters' letter said public schools spend too much money on new buildings instead of education and that a quality education stems from values and family support, especially when modeled after Jesus Christ. It touched off a firestorm of responses, including some from DeSales graduates and Geneva City School District employees. Another appears today, as does one from Dr. Karen Juliano, DeSales' principal. . . .

In her letter, [Juliano] explained that Peters' letter "did not represent DeSales High School, was not authorized by DeSales High School, and does not represent the opinions of the board of trustees, administration, faculty, staff and students of DeSales High School. We certainly do not wish to use the 'Letters to the Editor' section of the local newspaper as a recruiting tool."

If the folks who run Catholic schools don't think they do a better job of education than the government, why do they stay in business at all?

You Don't Say
"Sperm Could Play Role in Growth of Embryo"--headline, Washington Post (second item), May 13

What Would We Do Without Nesheim?
"Nesheim acknowledges, however, that Playboy's girls next door aren't exactly representative of most people's neighbors."--Associated Press, May 12

Not Too Brite--CXLIII
"A Portuguese woman confessed to murdering her husband and hiding his body in a kitchen freezer for three years," Reuters reports from Lisbon. "The man's brother found the rotting body Sunday in Jolda Sao Paio, a village about 235 miles north of Lisbon. It was doubled up in the freezer under dirt, blankets and children's clothing."

Oddly Enough!

(For an explanation of the "Not Too Brite" series, click here.)

Unidentified as Unidentified
"Mexican air force pilots filmed 11 bright, rapidly moving objects in the skies that an expert said proved the existence of UFOs, but defense officials said Wednesday no conclusions had been reached about the objects' origins," the Associated Press reports from Mexico City:

[Defense Secretary Gen. Ricardo] Vega denied Wednesday that the military had made any conclusions about where the lights came from or whether they were UFOs.

If they haven't identified the lights, doesn't that make them UFOs by definition?

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Thomas Mayer, Kevin Crummie, Barry Kaplovitz, Terry Young, Eric Ivers, Barak Moore, Joshua Weiner, Andrew Bono, Neal Sanders, Erik Moy, Erik Andresen, Mara Gold, C.E. Dobkin, David Shapero, Rosanne Klass, Michael Segal, Thomas Dillon, Charlie Gaylord, Sam Wakim, Mark Schulze, Steven Getman, Royal Dellinger, Steve Jackson and Elliot Ganz. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

Click to email this article EMAIL THIS Click to format this article for printing FORMAT FOR PRINTING
ARCHIVE