by JAMES TARANTO
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 3:15 P.M. EDT

The Saddam Torture Videos
The American Enterprise Institute held an unusual video screening yesterday, and hardly anyone showed up. One who did was the New York Post's Deborah Orin:

The video only lasts four minutes or so--gruesome scenes of torture from the days when Saddam Hussein's thugs ruled Abu Ghraib prison. I couldn't bear to watch, so I walked out until it was over.

Some who stayed wished they hadn't. They told of savage scenes of decapitation, fingers chopped off one by one, tongues hacked out with a razor blade--all while victims shriek in pain and the thugs chant Saddam's praises.

Saddam's henchmen took the videos as newsreels to document their deeds in honor of their leader.

But these awful images didn't show up on American TV news.

In fact, just four or five reporters showed up for the screening at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, which says it got the video via the Pentagon. Fewer wrote about it.

We saw part of this video a few weeks back, and indeed it is every bit as horrific as Orin's fellow reporters describe. Our computer crashed about a third of the way through and we didn't have the stomach to start watching again after rebooting. So we can certainly understand why television news outlets would see it as unfit to air.

As Orin notes, this "raises a very complex problem in the War on Terror. It's worse than creating moral equivalence between Saddam's tortures and prisoner abuse by U.S. troops. It's that we do far more to highlight our own wrongdoings precisely because they are less appalling."

Part of the problem may be that the press hasn't quite figured out how to deal with such "asymmetric propaganda," as Orin calls it. Yet it doesn't seem that it would be that hard to provide context--to make sure that every story about American abuses at Abu Ghraib also included graphic descriptions of what went on there before Iraq's liberation.

Why does the press harp on American abuses and ignore Saddam's? Orin quotes AEI's Michael Ledeen as saying it's because most journalists "want Bush to lose." Reporters, of course, are at pains to maintain an air of fairness, but surveys have demonstrated that most lean to the left.

If you listen to prominent Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and Al Gore, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that they'd rather see America lose the war than the president win re-election. It's bad enough that one party is willing to engage in what as a practical matter amounts to anti-American propaganda. Surely we have a right to demand better from the news media.

Stop the Presses
"No question: John Ashcroft is the worst attorney general in history." So began yesterday's Paul Krugman column in the New York Times. Boy, talk about a dog-bites-man story: Krugman, the frothing tribune of the Angry Left, denounces John Ashcroft, the man the Angry Left most loves to hate. For this they killed how many trees?

Krugman's column focuses on Ashcroft's alleged failures in dealing with terrorism, and it includes the whopper that the Ashcroft Justice Department has had an "absence of any major successful prosecutions." Columnist turned blogress Michelle Malkin notes that this is nonsense:

What about shoebomber Richard Reid? What about Taliban solider [sic] John Walker Lindh? What about Yahya Goba, Shafal Mosed, Yasein Taher, Taysal Galab, Mukhtar al-Bakri and Sahim Alwan of Lackawanna, New York? What about Jeffrey Battle, Patrice Ford, Ahmed Bilal, Muhammad Bilal, and October Lewis of Portland, Oregon? And Mike Hawash? How about Masoud Ahmad Khan, Seifullah Chapman, Yong Ki Kwon, Donald Surratt, and Hammad Abdur-Raheem from the Washington DC area? What about James Ujaama? And Iyman Faris?

The Associated Press notes that a federal court sentenced Khan, Chapman and Abdur-Raheem to life in prison, 85 years and eight years respectively--and it did so yesterday, the very day Krugman's column appeared in the Times.

No question: Paul Krugman is the worst former Enron adviser in history.

'Self-Declared'
From an article in today's Washington Post:

Many of the questions raised by the Abu Ghraib scandal, and by the United States's self-declared war on terrorism, are the kinds that Israel has been wrestling with for decades.

That self-declared locution is sloppy at best. Does the Post mean that the war declared war? That doesn't make sense. Perhaps it means America declared war first. But that's not accurate. In 1998 Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa declaring a "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders": "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."

The bin Laden fatwa claims that the "crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims." So if the Post is suggesting that America declared war first, it is endorsing bin Laden's view of the world.

What Would We Do Without Commissions?
"Commission: Al Qaeda to Keep Trying to Attack U.S."--headline, Reuters, June 16

XY Females Become Ex-Females
"Three Saudi sisters have undergone surgery at a hospital here to become men and two others will follow suit," the Arab News reports from Jeddah. Huh? Saudi sex changes? Well, not quite, according to surgeon Yasser Jamal:

Dr. Jamal insists on the term "gender correction" rather than "reassignment." "We are taking the person back to his or her original sex according to the intensive tests that are done, but we will not operate on people that are actually men or women to change them to the opposite sex just because they want to," he said.

It seems that some babies are born female even though they're genetically male (i.e., they have one X and one Y chromosome). MedHelp.org explains:

Biologically speaking, the pathway towards a female form seems to be the default for humans, while the path for development of a male foetus is more tortuous, and dependent on many different genes, each of which can be faulty. This means that there is a set of a fairly varied conditions in which a foetus with XY chromosomes develops as a baby girl.

Jamal calls his surgery "gender correction" and insists it's different from the kind of "sex change" we usually hear about: "We will not operate on people that are actually men or women to change them to the opposite sex just because they want to."

The article doesn't answer the most interesting question, though: Does the Saudi regime allow these patients to drive or show their faces in public before they get the operations?

What Would Kingdoms Do Without Experts?
"Kingdom Bad at Selling Itself, Says US Expert"--headline, Arab News, June 15

The Secret Boom
"Here's a little secret," CNN's senior political analyst William Schneider said on "Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics" Monday: "The nation's economy is actually doing very well." Schneider and Woodruff proceeded to have this exchange:

Schneider: Here's another reason why the good economic news may not be having much impact. It's not being reported. A study by Media Tenor, an independent media analysis institute, reveals that news coverage of President Bush's economic policy has practically vanished from the major broadcast networks since the beginning of the year. It's all been Iraq. The improving economy is a secret.

Woodruff: But we're talking about it here?

Schneider: Yes, we are.

Woodruff: OK. Bill Schneider, thank you very much.

If only anyone watched "Inside Politics," it might not be a secret anymore.

Can Bush Win Black Voters?
Writing in the New York Times, Juan Williams makes the case that George W. Bush "has the chance to make tremendous gains" among black voters--albeit "if only because he now has practically no support." Williams lists several reasons why the president ought to be attractive to black Americans: John Kerry's desultory outreach efforts, the black churches' support for his faith-based initiative, and his appointment of numerous blacks to high-level positions (including three cabinet secretaries and the national security adviser). Williams's most interesting observation, though, is this:

It's increasingly clear that blacks are no longer willing to vote as a bloc, automatically lining up with the Democrats. This is particularly true of younger black voters. A 2002 poll by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a research group based in Washington, found a shift in the political identification of black voters. For example, 34 percent of 18- to 25-year-old black voters identified themselves as independents. Overall, 24 percent of black Americans of all ages see themselves as independents--a four percentage point increase since the 2000 election. And now 10 percent of blacks call themselves Republican, a six percentage point rise since 2000.

Young black Americans seem ready for a forthright conversation about race and politics. While many older blacks responded with anger to Bill Cosby's recent call for poor black people to take more responsibility for their problems, the young people I encountered were uniformly supportive of Mr. Cosby's words.

Williams, who is black, thinks it's realistic for Bush to aim for as much as 20% black support, which would more than double his 2000 showing. We'd have to bet against that, but the generational factors Williams enumerates lead us to think there is an opportunity in the long run for the GOP--and a great peril for the Democrats, who are abjectly dependent on the black vote. If Republicans make a serious effort at winning over black voters, watch for the Democratic counterattack to become ever more ugly and demagogic.

'He's Our Rich French Guy'
Reporting from a John Kerry rally in Atlantic City, N.J., the Washington Times talks to William Mullen, a local union boss and "fervent Bush detractor," about Kerry's appeal:

Mr. Mullen . . . said the country needs someone "to represent the working class, who can relate to people with families trying to make a living."

Asked whether Mr. Kerry's patrician--some say French--face and wife worth an estimated $550 million hurts his ability to relate to the working class, Mr. Mullen replied, "Yeah, but he's our rich French guy and we got to stick with him.

Providing ammunition to those who say it has a conservative bias, the Times doesn't even mention that Kerry served in Vietnam.

Homelessness Rediscovery Watch

"If George W. Bush becomes president, the armies of the homeless, hundreds of thousands strong, will once again be used to illustrate the opposition's arguments about welfare, the economy, and taxation."--Mark Helprin, Oct. 31, 2000

"Homeless Challenge Public Drinking Law"--headline, Associated Press, June 15

Is Anyone's Job Safe?
"Vatican Downsizes the Inquisition"--headline, New York Times (Paris edition), June 16

And the Meek Shall Inherit the Earth
"Congo Restaurant Serves the Adventurous"--headline, Associated Press, June 15

Even at Night, It's Morning in America
WorldNetDaily reports that the Heritage Foundation's TownHall.com has started a new fad by urging readers to "Shine your headlights to commemorate [Ronald] Reagan's 'shining city.' "

WND elaborates: " 'Ronald Reagan always talked about his beloved "shining city on a hill," ' said Bob Just, a veteran talk-show host, WorldNetDaily columnist and self-proclaimed 'Reagan Democrat.' 'So, let's shine our headlights from now until Independence Day. Let's give Ronald Reagan one more July 4th with the people who love him.' "

It's definitely catching on. " 'There was an instant response in Las Vegas when WorldNetDaily posted the original article,' said WND's Executive News Editor Joe Kovacs, who observed up to 40 percent of drivers illuminating their headlights in daylight hours."

That's nothing. We were out last night in New York City--hardly a Republican stronghold--and nearly 100% of the vehicles we saw had their headlights on. Even taxis and municipal buses! Not only do people love Ronald Reagan, they also support the war in Iraq. It's enough to make any patriotic American's heart swell with pride.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Jack Raia, Ethel Fenig, Joel Goldberg, Naftali Friedman, Barak Moore, Greg Stanford, Michael Segal, Paul Dyck, Erik Andresen, Jeff Percifield, Henry Hanks, Steve Prestegard, Edward Schulze, John Williamson, Larry DesJardin, Skip King and Bob Just. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Samuel Huntington: Michael Newdow is right. Atheists are outsiders in America.
• Claudia Rosett: The U.N. investigates itself--again.
• Mark Yost: In Louisville, Ky., more than just another gun museum.

Plus: Daniel Henninger wins the Eric Breindel Award.