by JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 4:41 P.M. EDT

The Filibuster Is Back
OK, we guessed wrong again. Last month we cited as one reason to support the judicial filibuster compromise that, according to a Reuters report, Senate Democrats had agreed "to clear the way for the Senate to vote on the controversial nomination of John Bolton as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations." We suppose we could just blame this on Reuters, but it made sense to us at the time that the Dems, having been spared the humiliation of the nuclear option, would become more tractable and willing to get on with the business of the Senate.

Yesterday for the second time the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the Bolton nomination, delaying, perhaps for good, a vote on his confirmation. The vote was 54-38 in favor of cloture (with 60 votes required); apart from a few absences the lineup was exactly the same as in the May 26 cloture vote, except that this time Majority Leader Bill Frist voted "yes" (he'd voted "no" for procedural reasons) and Ohio crybaby George Voinovich voted "no."

Blogger Danny Troy quotes Voinovich as explaining his earlier vote for cloture: "I am not so arrogant to think that I should impose my judgment and perspective of the U.S. position in the world community on the rest of my colleagues. We owe it to the president to give Mr. Bolton an up-or-down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate." "What's changed?" asks Troy, and the answer is probably as simple as the mood of a volatile senator.

Why did the Democrats prove willing to filibuster Bolton's nomination despite the good feelings that prevailed after the judicial compromise? It may be that they realized--as we did immediately, and as numerous other commentators have in the intervening weeks--that the Republicans actually got the better of that deal. The Democrats, out of sorts and needing to prove that they can still obstruct something, seem to have alighted on Bolton.

What's next? Probably a recess appointment once Congress leaves for its Independence Day break. This has its drawbacks compared with confirmation by the Senate: Bolton would remain in office only until Jan. 3, 2007, and it's possible he would be in a weaker position to confront opposition from within the bureaucracy to the Bush foreign policy. On the bright side, it would make for a dolorous 18 months for George Voinovich.

What Would We Do Without W. Houses?
"Democrats Playing Politics With Bolton--W. House"--headline, Reuters, June 21

Daley Breaks Ranks
For the first time since Sen. Dick Durbin likened American servicemen to Nazis last week, a prominent Democrat is demanding an apology, the Associated Press reports:

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley says Senator Dick Durbin should apologize for comments comparing American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay to Nazis.

Daley says Durbin--a fellow Democrat--is a good friend. But he says it's wrong to evoke comparisons to the horrors of the Holocaust or the millions of people killed in Russia under Stalin or in Cambodia under Pol Pot.

And Daley says it's a disgrace to accuse military men and women of such conduct.

The Washington Times reports that Majority Leader Bill Frist, in a letter to Minority Leader Harry Reid, demanded a "formal apology" from Durbin yesterday, and Senate Democrats responded by attacking Republicans:

Reid spokesman Jim Manley called the Frist letter "pathetic."

"Republicans don't have an agenda, so they are trying however they can to pull attention away from the real problems facing the country," Mr. Manley said. "It is interesting to note that reporters got the letter before we did, as far as I can tell." . . .

Asked about the reaction to Mr. Durbin's comments and his apology, Mr. Reid said he was through talking about the controversy.

"The American people have really had it up to here with what the president is doing and not doing and what the Republican-led Congress is doing," Mr. Reid said, pointing to a copy of the New York Times in his hands that had a front-page story about the falling poll numbers of President Bush.

"The statements made by Senator Durbin speak for themselves. I stand by the statement he made," he said. "We are not going to discuss this any more."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, refused to address the ADL criticism of Mr. Durbin, saying only that Republicans "will do anything for a diversion."

Pressed to give his opinion of the matter, Mr. Schumer turned his back on reporters and ignored the questions.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, a Jewish World War II veteran, did reject the Nazi analogy.

In any case, it strikes us that an apology is insufficient at this point. As in the case of Trent Lott, Durbin has shown that he doesn't regret what he said, and indeed appears oblivious to what's wrong with it. Just as Republicans forced Lott out of his leadership role to show that they rejected the things he said, the Dems should do the same to Durbin.

Incidentally, a reader came upon this Durbin press release from Dec. 17, 1998:

I fully support President Clinton and our national security team's decision to take swift action against Saddam Hussein. . . .

I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisors to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad.

The men and women who are risking their lives in defense of our national and global security deserve nothing less.

There's no questioning Durbin's patriotism--at least when a Democrat is in the White House.

Mr. Excitable

"MOORE AWARD NOMINEE: 'The torture that was so bad under Saddam, is equally bad under U.S. command.'--Markos Moulitsas, on DailyKos yesterday. Look, few have been as outraged as I have been by what this administration has perpetrated and permitted with regard to detainees in U.S. care. But this kind of morally cretinous hyperbole only discredits the serious case against the administration."--Andrew Sullivan, June 17, 2005

"DURBIN SAID NOTHING WRONG: I've now read and re-read Senator Dick Durbin's comments on interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay. They are completely, perfectly respectable. The rank hysteria being perpetrated by some on the right is what is shameful."--Andrew Sullivan, June 20, 2005

"Look, I'm a pretty solid civil liberties guy. But this has nothing to do with civil liberties. The murderers of September 11 are not criminals. . . . It would be a radical move to treat these people as civilians subject to the usual protections. Our tortured attempt to do exactly that in the past--remember the Lockerbie fiasco?--is one reason why al Qaeda thought they could get away with mass murder this time. . . . We should show them the same mercy they showed to the men and women who showed up for work on September 11."--Andrew Sullivan, Nov. 19, 2001

"I don't know about Hugh Hewitt, Bill Kristol or NR, but I supported this war in large part because I wanted to end torture, abuse and cruelty in Iraq [sic]. I did not support it in order, two and a half years later, to be finding specious rhetorical justifications for torture, abuse and cruelty by Americans. I'm sick of hearing justifications that the enemy is worse. This is news? This is what now passes for analysis? They are far, far worse, among the most despicable and evil enemies we have ever faced. Our treatment of their prisoners is indeed Club Med compared to their fathomless barbarism. But since when is our moral compass set by them?"--Andrew Sullivan, June 21, 2005

They've Already Gotten Reason and Judgment Out of It
"Democrats Unveil Initiative to Keep Science Out of Politics"--headline, press release, Sen. Harry Reid, June 20

'Red on Red'
Here's an interesting bit of very good news from Iraq, from the New York Times of all places (albeit buried on page 6 of the paper paper). It turns out the U.S. Marines "have for months been seeing a strange new trend in the already complex Iraqi insurgency." The military calls it "red on red," or enemy-on-enemy, fire:

Insurgents, they say, have been fighting each other in towns along the Euphrates from Husayba, on the border, to Qaim, farther west. The observations offer a new clue in the hidden world of the insurgency and suggest that there may have been, as American commanders suggest, a split between Islamic militants and local rebels.

A United Nations official who served in Iraq last year and who consulted widely with militant groups said in a telephone interview that there has been a split for some time.

"There is a rift," said the official, who requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the talks he had held. "I'm certain that the nationalist Iraqi part of the insurgency is very much fed up with the Jihadists grabbing the headlines and carrying out the sort of violence that they don't want against innocent civilians."

The nationalist insurgent groups, "are giving a lot of signals implying that there should be a settlement with the Americans," while the Jihadists have a purely ideological agenda, he added.

If this is right, it would seem to vindicate both Vice President Cheney's much-maligned view that the indigenous insurgency is in its "final throes" and the "flypaper" theory that liberating Iraq is drawing in terrorists and forcing them to face the U.S. military.

Today's Panhandler is Tomorrow's Terrorist
"An ordinance that would ban panhandling in and around much of downtown Atlanta met with sharp criticism from advocates for the poor at Monday's City Council meeting, leading the council to sideline the proposal for more discussion," the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports:

Last week, city lawyer Stacey Abrams described the ordinance, which the Law Department has been drafting since June 2003, as a "kinder, gentler" version of the city's existing panhandling law.

But Joe Beasley, one of the critics at Monday's meeting, saw nothing kind or gentle about it.

"This is a mean, cold, calculated move," said Beasley, the Southern regional director for Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH coalition. He raised the specter of terrorism, saying that if the city mistreats its poor, "at some point, they'll strap a belt around their waist and blow you up. We've got to become a more loving city."

Just one question: If these guys are so poor that they need to panhandle, where are they going to get the money to buy explosive belts?

Limited Release
One hundred forty-two days ago, John Kerry* promised to release his military records. Two weeks ago the Boston Globe reported he had done so. But it turns out, as the New York Sun reports today, that he did not release them to the public:

The privacy waivers signed by Mr. Kerry authorized the release of "a single, one time copy of the complete military service record and medical record of John F. Kerry" to Glen Johnson of the Associated Press, Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe, and Stephen Braun of the Los Angeles Times.

Power Line has copies of the forms Kerry signed, but not the documents released to the three reporters. We'd have to say Kerry has fallen short of his promise to Tim Russert, which was: "I'd be happy to put the records out." That suggests making them public, not limiting access to a select group of reporters.

Meanwhile, CNN reports that "President Bush said Tuesday that he will visit Vietnam in 2006 to attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit." Kerry spent much of last year's campaign criticizing Bush for not going to Vietnam, but now it appears the president may do so before Kerry makes his military records public.

* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam.

Maybe Kerry Can Sue the Voters
"Three former waiters at New York's posh 21 Club, where a hamburger costs $30, have filed a $5 million discrimination lawsuit saying they were fired for being French," Reuters reports. "In a civil suit made public on Monday at Manhattan Supreme Court, the three men, Rene Bordet, 68, Jean Claude Lesbre, 63 and Yves Thepault, 68, said the restaurant's management falsely accused them of drinking wine on the job and 'created and fostered an environment rife with anti-French sentiment.' "

The Zimbleman Effect
From a paid obituary in the Tucson (Ariz.) Citizen, for Corwyn "Cory" William Zimbleman, who died June 10 at 53:

An avid atheist, he studied the bible [sic] and religion with more fervor than most Christians. He had strong political opinions and followed Amy Goodman's radio broadcast "Democracy Now." Alas the stolen election of 2000 and living with right-winged Americans finally brought him to his early demise. Stress from living in this unjust country brought about several heart attacks rendering him disabled.

This is purely anecdotal, of course, but what if it turns out there is an epidemiological connection between "living with right-winged Americans" and "early demise"? Could there be a Zimbleman effect to complement the Roe effect?

Aretha Franklin to Pyongyang?
"North Korean Leader Demands 'Respect' Before Committing to New Round of Nuclear Talks"--headline, Global Security Newswire, June 20

What if They Gave an Election and No One Came?
From "Five Questions With Lynn Bailey," executive director of the Richmond County, Ga., Board of Elections, in Sunday's Augusta Chronicle:

2. Why do you think voter turnout will be so low for this election?

"I think the fact that there aren't any candidates on the ballot plays a big part in that."

Ah, for the Good Old Days of the Plague . . .
"The Killer Disease Doctors Miss"--headline, Reader's Digest, June issue

Did He Hit It?
"Man Shot at Federal Courthouse in Seattle"--headline, Reuters, June 20

What'd They Do, Club Him to Death?
"Police Kill Man With Dud Grenade at Court"--headline, Associated Press, June 21

Dispatch From the Porn Belt
A newspaper in California's Los Angeles County (Kerry by 27.52%) "introduced an online feature it called a wikitorial" on Friday, "asking Web site readers to improve a 1,000-word editorial, 'War and Consequences,' on the Iraq war," the New York Times reports:

"It sounds nutty," said an introduction to the wikitorial in Friday's paper. "Plenty of skeptics are predicting embarrassment; like an arthritic old lady who takes to the dance floor, they say, The Los Angeles Times is more likely to break a hip than be hip. Nevertheless, we proceed. We're calling this a 'public beta,' which is a fancy way of saying we're making something available even though we haven't completely figured it out."

What they had not planned for was hard-core pornography, which the paper's software could not ward off.

What's black and white and blue all over?

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Allen O'Donnell, Michael Segal, Drew Anderson, Mark Van Der Molen, John Williamson, Mordecai Bobrowsky, Ethel Fenig, Shane Nichols, John Kraushaar, Howard Walker, Jim Orheim, Ron Butler, Boze Herrington, Leonora LaMantia, James Attwood, Ruth Papazian, Amy Ponomarev, Ron Durling, Matt Mashburn, Paul Moore, Mike Main, Andrew Robinson, Dennis Powell, John Sanders, Matthew Cardin, Nate Wagner, Dave Huber, Kevin Patrick, Matthew McInteer and Greg Askins. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge: Cheer up, conservatives, you're still winning!
• Brendan Miniter: The goal in Iraq is victory, not withdrawal.
• John Miller: H.G. Wells was a sci-fi pioneer, but his political ideas were abominable.