by JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, November 22, 2005 3:59 P.M. EST

When 'Now' Means 'Real Soon Now'
We suppose a little elaboration is in order about the John Murtha kerfuffle, our item about which yesterday left some readers confused and a few ticked off. Here is the full story, with details drawn from bloggers PoliPundit and NZ Bear, along with our own Brendan Miniter.

Last Thursday Murtha held a press conference, at which he advocated the following course of action:

I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice: The United States will immediately redeploy--immediately redeploy.

No schedule which can be changed, nothing that's controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target. . . .

My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

Here's how the Associated Press reported the story:

An influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, another sign of growing unease in Congress about the conflict.

This made more news than it should have, since, as we noted Friday, Murtha, although he did vote to liberate Iraq, has been a frequent critic of the idea, even before casting that vote. In any case, Rep. Duncan Hunter responded to the Murtha proposal and the attendant hype by putting up for a vote in the House a resolution "expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately." This the House rejected, 403-3, with Murtha among the 99.3% voting against what he had proposed the previous day.

Some of our readers say it was unfair of us to label the Hunter resolution "the Murtha proposal" because Murtha actually offered a resolution of his own, which did not use the word immediate but instead called for withdrawal "at the earliest practicable date." That resolution appears at the bottom of this page on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee blog, which one of our critical readers e-mailed us triumphantly.

The same page, however, features Murtha's comments from his press conference, including repeated references to immediate withdrawal. It's fascinating how those who claim to be Murtha's defenders are now hiding behind the text of his resolution to claim he never called for immediate withdrawal, when in fact that is exactly what he did. Here's an AP dispatch from yesterday that confirms the point:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be "a big mistake."

The New York Democrat said she respects Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., the Vietnam veteran and hawkish ex-Marine who last week called for an immediate troop pullout. But she added: "I think that would cause more problems for us in America."

Hillary Clinton opposes immediate withdrawal. So did 187 Democratic members of the House last Friday. The defense of Murtha consists of falsely denying he ever called for any such thing.

Give Murtha credit for helping to clarify the debate. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq is something no serious person favors. Even those who think they do, like Murtha, change their minds upon reflection.

Heat on the Street
Here's an encouraging Reuters report from Dubai. It seems Arab television stations are airing "daring dramas that deal with Islamic militancy"--that is, terrorism--"in al Qaeda's main breeding ground":

The producers of the shows say they are another battleground in the war on homegrown religious zealotry, which many Middle East governments are confronting by crackdowns and media campaigns. . . .

Ali al-Ahmed, head of Abu Dhabi TV, which produced "The Rugged Path," said extremists had the loudest voice today, so it was vital to give moderates a channel to air their views.

"This is everybody's problem, and as Arabs we have to talk about it. We can't consider it as just a passing phenomenon that will quietly end after some time," he said.

Millions of Arabs and Muslims were shocked and puzzled that the September 11 attacks in the United States were carried out by Arab nationals, born and bred in the Middle East.

After al Qaeda turned its attention away from the West to attack Arab and Muslim cities, the need to understand the roots of radicalism assumed extra urgency in the region.

One grieves, of course, for all victims of terrorism. But it was a lot easier for Arabs to adopt a blasé attitude when the victims were mostly American and Israeli. The "extra urgency" is a welcome byproduct of America's decision to fight terrorists rather than try to appease the "Arab street."

Not Evil?
The Canadian Press reports on a Toronto speech by TV host Chris Matthews:

Four years after 9/11 and the "crazy zeitgeist" that permeated the United States, most Americans have still not learned to know their enemies instead of just hating them, U.S. political journalist Chris Matthews says. . . .

"The period between 9/11 and Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing," Matthews said.

"If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil--they just have a different perspective."

Possibly this very brief account is unfair to Matthews. But if this is really what he said, it's rather stunningly clueless. Of course it's true that one should know one's enemy, and merely saying al Qaeda is "evil" is far from sufficient to understand the terror group. But surely it's necessary. If Matthews thinks people who wantonly murder the innocent are "not evil," he knows nothing.

Feminist Priorities
"A village council in Pakistan has decreed that five young women should be abducted, raped or killed for refusing to honour childhood 'marriages,' " reports London's Daily Telegraph:

The women, who are cousins, were married in absentia by a mullah in their Punjabi village to illiterate sons of their family's enemies in 1996, when they were aged from six to 13.

The marriages were part of a compensation agreement ordered by the village council and reached at gunpoint after the father of one of the girls shot dead a family rival.

We were wondering what the National Organization of Women, which describes itself as "the largest organization of feminist activists in the United States," had to say about this. Here's what we found atop NOW's Web site:

• A press release denouncing the House for cutting $50 billion in spending ("brave moderate Republicans stood firm . . . their hard working, struggling, and vulnerable constituents . . . devastating budget cuts").
  
  
• Another press release denouncing Italian-American Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito ("virtual assurance that he will vote to scale back women's rights . . . the very private decision to have an abortion . . . a threat to our basic human and civil rights . . . the days of women's civil rights are numbered").

In fairness, NOW does occasionally weigh in on the treatment of women in Pakistan, but it seems clear the group's priorities lie elsewhere.

One Man, One What?
The excitable Sen. Joe Biden is making noises about filibustering Sam Alito, the Associated Press reports:

In 1985, Alito was applying to become deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration. In the document, Alito wrote, "In college, I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause and reapportionment." . . .

"The fact that he questioned abortion and the idea of quotas is one thing. The fact that he questioned the idea of the legitimacy of the reapportionment decisions of the Warren Court is even something well beyond that," [Biden] said.

Alito's memo didn't elaborate on the point, but his critics think he was referring to the 1962 case of Baker v. Carr, in which the court established the principle of "one man, one vote."

This principle does not, however, apply universally. Joe Biden, for example, represents puny Delaware, which as of the 2000 census had 783,600 people. His Judiciary Committee colleague Dianne Feinstein represents elephantine California, which had 33,871,648 people. Both states have the same representation in the Senate, which means a Delawarean's vote is worth more than 43 times as much as a Californian's. One man, one vote indeed!

Granted, Biden can't help that the institution in which he chooses to serve is set up by the Constitution to be (in this sense) undemocratic. But he could abjure the filibuster, which also violates the one-man-one-vote rule. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to invoke "cloture" and end a filibuster, even though 50 would suffice for a simple majority (since the vice president casts tie-breakers in ordinary votes). That means that in an Alito filibuster, assuming the entire Senate is present and voting, a pro-Alito senator counts as only five-sixths of a person (or 0.83 vote). An anti-Alito senator, by contrast, gets the equivalent of almost an extra quarter-vote.

If Biden believes in one man, one vote, then, he should announce his opposition to all filibusters. If he's really fervent about it, he should quit the Senate.

Scrabble Rouser
The New York Times reports from London on a Scrabble tournament:

Mark Kenas, a 52-year-old antiques dealer from Wisconsin who was one of 15 listed American contestants, said he had been so angered by the outcome of the last two elections in the United States that "I had to do something about that anger and I could immerse myself in Scrabble rather than start a revolution."

Some would call Kenas part of the Angry Left, but we'd say he's just cross.

Latest Scapegoat for Kerry Loss: Jim Morrison
"Door Thwarts Quick Exit for Bush"--headline, BBC Web site, Nov. 20

Racial Insensitivity Watch
"Black Faces Day in Chicago Court"--headline, Globe and Mail (Toronto), Nov. 22

What Would We Do Without Livnats?
"Livnat: Whoever Is Elected Will Be Elected"--headline, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 22

Sorry, Archaeopteryx, You're Contraband
"U.S. Places Interim Ban on B.C. Poultry Imports"--headline, CTV Web site (Canada), Nov. 22

In America We Use Light Bulbs
"Mirrors to Banish Town's Winter Darkness"--headline, Associated Press (dateline Rattenberg, Austria), Nov. 20

Bottom Story of the Day
"Nike Corporate Jet Makes Safe Landing"--headline, Associated Press, Nov. 21

More Reasons to Become a Carno-Vegetarian
"Contaminated fruits and vegetables are causing more food-borne illness among Americans than raw chicken or eggs, consumer advocates said a in [sic] report released on Monday," Reuters reports. These stats come from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Naderite group not known for throwing red meat to carnivores:

Vegetables and fruits triggered 31 outbreaks from 2002 to 2003, compared with 29 for chicken and other poultry, according to the report.

Overall, contaminated tomatoes, sprouts and other produce made 28,315 people sick during 554 outbreaks from 1990 to 2003--20 percent of all cases CSPI analyzed.

Chicken made 14,729 people sick in 476 outbreaks, and eggs were responsible for 10,847 illnesses from 329 outbreaks, according to the group.

Meat saves lives, too, as the Chicago Tribune reports:

Mark Copsy saw the smoke inside the car, and watched as the vehicle careered into a curb in Northlake on Sunday afternoon. It took him only a moment to realize the horror--the car was on fire, and there were people inside. Copsy and his 12-year-old son ran the half-block to help.

When they got to the car, Copsy, 42, said he couldn't open the door. Inside, he could see an elderly man in the driver's seat. A female passenger sat next to him, her face white. He tried to smash the glass with his foot, but couldn't do it. In his hands, he held a 20-pound frozen Norbest turkey he and his son had just bought for Thanksgiving.

"I said, 'Hell, I'll just use the damn turkey.' And that's what I did," Copsy said. He yelled for the driver to cover his face, and used the turkey to smash out three windows.

Just try doing that with tofu!

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Kevin McKeegan, Ken Ralff, Steven Platzer, David Carucci, Michael Brenner, Robert Youngman, Dave Griffiths, Aaron Dahnke, Charles Solin, Allen O'Donnell, Douglas Miller, Napoleon Colem, Ruth Papazian, Evan Slatis, Michael Novack, Bill King, Rosanne Klass, Avi Sheyin-Stevens, Adam Pruzan, David Max, Jonathan Hutchinson, Peter Jennings, Jonathan Ross, Barak Moore, Andrew Robinson, Gary Petersen, Nevet Basker, Kevin Hisel, Matthew Linden, Curt Schmidt and John Hartness. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Edward Jay Epstein: Atta in Prague? An Iraqi prisoner holds the answer to this 9/11 mystery.
• Brendan Miniter: John Murtha unites the Republicans.
• Melanie Kirkpatrick: The surprising origins of "We Gather Together," a Thanksgiving standard.