by JAMES TARANTO
Monday, December 5, 2005 2:19 P.M. EST

Best of the Tube Tonight
We're scheduled to appear tonight on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" to discuss the Bush presidency. The program airs at 6 p.m. EST, and we're told we'll appear in the second half hour. For our insomniac and Hawaiian readers, there's a rebroadcast at 4 a.m. EST.

Kerry Supports the Troops
The old proverb is right: A haughty, French-looking Massachusetts leopard who by the way served in Vietnam doesn't change its spots. John Kerry* appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation" with Bob Schieffer yesterday, and his comments on U.S. troops in Iraq were vintage 1971 (link in PDF, quotes on pages 3-4):

Schieffer: Let me shift to another point of view, and it comes from another Democrat, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. He takes a very different view. He says basically we should stay because, he says, real progress is being made. He said this is a war between 27 million Iraqis' freedom and 10,000 terrorists. He says we're in a watershed transformation. What about that?

Kerry: Let me--I--first of all, there is so much more that unites Democrats than divides us. And Democrats have much more in common with each other than they do with George Bush's policy right now. Now Joe Lieberman, I believe, also voted for the resolution which said the president needs to make more clear what he's doing and set out benchmarks, and that the policy hasn't been working. We all believe him when you say, 'Stay the course.' That's the president's policy, which hasn't been changing, which is a policy of failure. I don't agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis.

And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not--

Schieffer: Yeah.

Kerry: --Iraqis should be doing that.

Terrorizing kids and children and breaking sort of the customs! Didn't "Jenjis Khan" used to do stuff like that in Vietnam? Note, too, that Kerry isn't against this per se; he just thinks Iraqis should be doing it. It's highly reminiscent of Vietnam, only back then Kerry's words carried some weight because he sold himself as a veteran against the war, whereas now he's just the junior senator from Massachusetts.

* Do we really need a footnote when we describe him in the text?

We Always Hurt the Ones We Love
"An Iraqi group holding four western peace [sic] activists hostage . . . released a video [Friday] night in which they threatened to kill the men unless their demands were met," London's Guardian reports:

The kidnappers, who call themselves the Swords of Truth, said the four would die on Thursday unless Iraqi prisoners were released. The video was aired on Arab television station al-Jazeera.

Of course, as the Guardian notes, the hostages, who represent an outfit called Christian Peacemaker Teams, were already on the same side as the terrorists: "The group had been campaigning on behalf of a number of detainees held by the US in Iraqi jails." James Robbins notes on National Review Online that kidnapping their allies seems an awfully foolish approach:

A sensible terrorist political warfare strategy tries to drive wedges into the enemy society by isolating the groups you will never be able to win over and appealing to as wide a base as possible. The Swords of Truth Brigades should not be threatening the CPT team; they should be holding a joint press conference to denounce the Coalition. The way they are behaving is comparable to the North Vietnamese shooting Jane Fonda with a firing squad instead of a camera in 1972.

The terrorists do seem, almost literally, to be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk!
"Saddam Blasts US 'Stooges' "--headline, Scotsman, Dec. 5

Terrorist Fun House
Our item Friday on the purported proliferation of terrorist groups in Iraq brought this comment from reader Rosanne Klass:

See Yossef Bodansky's books on terrorism. The main groups like Hezbollah have, in effect, a drawerful of organization names. Whenever they want, they pull out another one and use it to claim an action or atrocity--and the New York Times, Washington Post, news services, etc., note that the action was claimed by a "hitherto unknown" organization about which nothing is known. Usually, it's never heard of again, either. Because it doesn't actually exist--it's merely a name--the actual participants are the same old same old.

What is the advantage of this approach? We suppose it acts as a sort of hall of mirrors, making the terrorists appear far more numerous, and thus more fearsome, than they actually are. And it reinforces two of the false arguments employed by domestic opponents of the war effort: that by fighting terrorism, America is "creating more terrorists"; and that the enemy in Iraq is distinct from the "real enemy"--i.e., al Qaeda.

No. 3, You're History
While terrorists were distracted in Iraq, Hamza Rabia, believed to be the third-ranking member of al Qaeda, was killed in Pakistan, officials in Islamabad say. The Associated Press quotes Pakistan's dictator, Pervez Musharraf, as saying it is "200 percent confirmed" that Rabia is killed. An unnamed "senior Pakistani intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to talk to the media," tells the AP that, in the wire service's words, "Rabia died in a huge explosion set off by a missile attack."

Debris found at the scene bears the markings of a U.S. Hellfire missile, delivered by unmanned Predator aircraft, but owing to political sensitivities in Pakistan, U.S. and Pakistani officials alike are coy about whether it was a U.S. strike that killed Rabia.

Atheist Jerk Watch
Some readers took offense at our item Friday in which we accused atheists of acting "like jerks all the time." We were engaging in a little hyperbole, but we think we're entitled. As we have written, we are not a religious believer. What's more, we used to be a militant atheist, from roughly age 5 through 17, when we realized that militant atheism is silly and that being a militant atheist is tantamount to, well, being a jerk.

From WOAI in San Antonio, here's the latest example of atheist jerkiness:

A group of atheists at UTSA [the University of Texas at San Antonio] was asking students to exchange bibles for porn magazines Wednesday, and that has made some religious leaders angry. . . .

"We consider The Bible to be a very negative force in the history of the world," student Ryan Walker said. He is part of a student group calling itself the "Atheist Agenda."

Club members were on campus asking students to exchange religious materials for pornographic magazines like Black Label and Playboy.

Blogger Cory Doctorow has a photo of the "smut for smut" table.

Now, it's true that religious people can be jerks too. As David Gelernter writes, "when a deadly earnest young Christian approaches, displays an infuriating though subliminal holier-than-thouness, and tries to convert me--it happens rarely, but occasionally--I metamorphose for an instant into a raging leftist." But one can at least understand the overeager Christian: He thinks he's trying to save your soul. The militant atheist wants to make sure you know you don't have a soul.

Besides, organized religion does a lot more than try to convert people; it also engages in various humanitarian good works. To the extent that there is such a thing as organized atheism, it seems to be about nothing other than getting in people's faces.

Balloon Accident
Massachusetts' Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, the lady who gave us court-imposed same-sex marriage, "on Friday apologized for a remark she made about 'red states' during a commencement speech at Brandeis University last spring," the Associated Press reports:

Marshall's apology resolves a citizen complaint filed against her with the Commission on Judicial Conduct.

In greeting the audience at the Brandeis commencement on May 22, Marshall commented on the hundreds of blue and white balloons held in nets tied to the rafters. "No red states here," Marshall said.

In her apology Friday, Marshall said she regretted making the comment about "red states," a term used to describe Republican-leaning states.

Marshall called the comment "an unconsidered, spontaneous attempt to connect with the exuberant celebratory feeling in the audience, reflecting the balloons I had seen."

"I did not intend to say anything of a political nature. The comment did not reflect what I had intended."

It's rather difficult to credit the sincerity of an "apology" that comes more than six months after the fact, prompted by a "citizen complaint." Furthermore, Marshall's assertion that she "did not intend to say anything of a political nature" is belied by the content of her actual speech, which the Boston Globe reported and we noted contemporaneously:

The chief justice of the state Supreme Judicial Court said yesterday that rhetoric about judges destroying the country and the suggestion that court decisions should conform to public opinion are threatening public trust in the judicial system, a cornerstone of democracy. . . .

"I worry when people of influence use vague, loaded terms like 'judicial activism' to skew public debate or to intimidate judges," Marshall said. "I worry when judicial independence is seen as a problem to be solved and not a value to be cherished."

That sounds pretty political to us.

Does This Mean She's Running for President?
"Rice Turns Down Further Hollywood Roles"--headline, ContractMusic.com, Dec. 2

Doesn't the 22nd Amendment Require That Anyway?
"Americans Want Next President to Be Different in Poll"--headline, Bloomberg News, Dec. 3

Term Limit Rage
"Arkansas Man Scales White House Fence"--headline, Associated Press, Dec. 4

What Would We Do Without Tests?
"Tests Confirm Gun Used in Shooting"--headline, News & Observer (Raleigh, N.C.), Dec. 2

Catholics Need Not Apply
"Wasps Could Replace Bomb, Drug Dogs"--headline, Associated Press, Dec. 3

Dour Deliberations to Remain Secret
"Court to Release Tape of Gay Policy Debate"--headline, Associated Press, Dec. 3

Bottom Story of the Day
"Region Only Slightly Affected by Weather"--headline, King County (Wash.) Journal, Dec. 2

No Longer on the Rocks
Good news for hockey fans: Contrary to our item Friday, global warming poses no serious threat to the sport. The Associated Press reports on a variant of the game that can be played at above-freezing temperatures:

There are no complaints about soft ice in underwater hockey, a version of the sport that includes goals and sticks but puts a premium on holding your breath. . . .

Teams consist of six players in the pool at one time - three forwards, three defensive backs. There is no goalie to protect the 10-foot-wide goal. A coated lead puck is passed and shot with 12-inch wooden sticks held in gloved hands. Unlike [ice] hockey, physical contact is frowned upon. There are two 15-minute halves.

If this catches on, even cities that are already warm will be able to host hockey teams. Who knows, maybe one day a team from Florida will win the Stanley Cup.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to David Zweip, Peter Grant, Mark Van Der Molen, Ethel Fenig, Gil Yoder, John Williamson, C.E. Dobkin, David Austin, James Attwood, Cliff Thier, Lewis Sckolnick, Mordecai Bobrowsky, Gad Mier, Nicholas Zeisler, Brian O'Rourke, Heather Robinson, Nicholas Edmunds, Jonathan Grubbs, Dan Herchenroether, Tom Linehan, Phil Hord, Francis Dietz, Lew Prince, Michael Newton, Jonathan Ross, Jeff Steiner, Dan O'Shea, Aldert Root, Vincent Flynn, Brian Smith, Rob Leitman and Matthew McInteer. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Review & Outlook: A story of Senate pork--and payback.
• John Fund: Has Arnold Schwarzenegger jumped the shark?
• Gerald Walpin: Law schools adopt an Orwellian theory in an effort to keep the military out.