From the WSJ Opinion Archives

by JAMES TARANTO
Monday, July 3, 2006 3:10 P.M. EDT

Off We Go
Hey, remember last week when we said we could use a vacation? We weren't kidding! This column will reappear July 17.

In the meantime, happy 60th birthday to President Bush (July 6) and happy 93rd to President Ford (July 14).

Hyping Hamdan
Have you noticed a theme in the press's coverage of last week's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision? If not, consider these examples:

  • "The Supreme Court on Thursday repudiated the Bush administration's plan to put Guantánamo detainees on trial before military commissions, ruling broadly that the commissions were unauthorized by federal statute and violated international law. . . . The decision was . . . a sweeping and categorical defeat for the administration."--New York Times

  • "The Supreme Court yesterday struck down the military commissions President Bush established to try suspected members of al-Qaeda, emphatically rejecting a signature Bush anti-terrorism measure and the broad assertion of executive power upon which the president had based it."--Washington Post

  • "In a sharp rebuke of President George W. Bush's tactics in the war on terrorism, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down as unlawful the military tribunal system set up to try Guantanamo prisoners."--Reuters

  • "The Supreme Court rebuked President Bush and his anti-terror policies Thursday, ruling that his plan to try Guantanamo Bay detainees in military tribunals violates U.S. and international law."--Associated Press

  • "The Supreme Court on Thursday sharply rejected the Bush administration's use of military commissions to try suspected terrorists, eliminating a central pillar of the president's anti-terrorism strategy. In a blunt dismissal of President Bush's claim that he had unfettered authority to try enemy combatants captured in the war on terror, the court ruled 5-3 that military trials of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba violated domestic and international laws."--Chicago Tribune

All of these stories go well beyond the facts to engage in editorializing, portraying the ruling as not just a legal defeat for the administration but a "repudiation," "rebuke," "sharp rejection," etc.

But several serious analyses of the Hamdan decision--including our own on Thursday and David Rivkin and Lee Casey's, which appeared Friday in The Wall Street Journal, suggest that there is less to it. Justice Anthony Kennedy declined to join his four liberal colleagues in the most sweeping aspects of their opinion, and even that opinion left many issues unaddressed, so that the court's actual decision was narrower than much of the press coverage suggests.

Why were reporters so eager to portray this as a great defeat for the Bush administration? Partly because of anti-Bush bias: In at least some of the news stories--especialy Linda Greenhouse's Times piece, which we quoted extensively on Friday--it is clear that the reporter is happy with the result. And partly because of a bias in favor of a dramatic narrative.

It's true that some conservatives agree that the opinion was a "rebuke." They believe that it is an unwarranted infringement on executive power, just as liberal commentators see it as a victory over the evil George W. Bush.

That's fine. Commentators are entitled to their opinions. But reporters are not, and they would better serve their readers if they simply explained what the ruling said and refrained from tendentious characterizations of its significance.

'BIN LADEN' LIED!!!!
"Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden urged Iraqi militants in an Internet message Saturday to continue fighting the U.S.-led coalition in Baghdad, or else 'all the capitals in the region will fall to the crusaders,' " the Associated Press reports. CNN adds some details about the tape:

The al Qaeda leader says that Sunnis in Iraq are experiencing annihilation. Bin Laden also says that the only way for them to win freedom [sic] is by "holding on to their jihad" and ousting the occupying power from Iraq.

The message came on a 19-minute audiotape posted late Friday. It was the second message from bin Laden released this week.

CNN cannot confirm the authenticity of the tape.

Isn't it obvious that it's a fake? After all, Iraq has nothing to do with al Qaeda, and al Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq. If this guy were really bin Laden, he wouldn't even have heard of Iraq.

What's Wrong With This Comparison?
"For every Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi we can show a Bill O'Reilly, an Ann Coulter, a Rush Limbaugh, a Glenn Beck and a Sean Hannity. Idiocy parades unashamed in the streets on both sides of the war on terror."--Michael Browning, Palm Beach (Fla.) Post, July 2

Three Cheers for Arab Disunity
From Reuters, of all places, comes some highly encouraging news from the Middle East:

This time there are no angry protests in Arab streets or recalls of diplomats--only a low-key bid to mediate between Israelis and Palestinians.

A widening Israeli military campaign in the Gaza Strip to secure the release of a captured soldier has exposed a sense of helplessness among Arab governments and ordinary people alike.

Most Arab governments have done little more than issue standard condemnations of the Israeli airstrikes on targets in Gaza and the tightening blockade of its 1.3 million residents. . . .

The only sign of Arab engagement has been Egypt's mediation efforts, which seemed to be a factor in holding Israel back from a ground offensive into northern Gaza. . . .

Mohammed al-Ameer, an editor at Saudi Arabia's al-Riyadh newspaper, said part of the problem was that Hamas did not share the vision of most Arab countries on peacemaking with Israel.

"Everybody is busy with his own problems," he said. "The Arab governments were embarrassed in the first place when Hamas came to power." . . .

The only large protest was at Jordan's Baqaa Palestinian refugee camp where hundreds of protesters slammed Arab governments for their lack of action.

"Where are the Arab governments' armies . . .? They are there to terrorise their peoples," the crowd chanted.

Another interesting sounding comes in the form of a lament from Bouthaina Shaaban, an official of Syria's Baathist regime, writing in Asharq Alawsat, a London-based Arab newspaper:

I was getting ready to give a talk at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee's conference (ADC), when a young Arab came up to me and said: "I hope you are not here to talk about Palestine!" My surprised answer was that in fact, I was there to talk about Palestine, the Golan Heights, the martyrs, the prisoners and all the tragedies that have beset Arab countries. Instead of talking about general Arab issues, like all other Arab officials, she wanted me to talk in details about my own country's "issues."

Like many others in the audience, the young Arab woman wanted to hear about the failures and faults of Arab countries. That would help justify the crimes committed against Arabs in Iraq and Palestine, by blaming the chaos on them. . . .

We have been plagued with two kinds of infiltration. The conventional one is the likes of Mahmoud Rafe'e and the Southern Lebanon Army [a pro-Israel militia]. The other is intellectual. It is adopting the antagonistic logic of the Israeli government. . . .

As for the young Arab who did not want me to talk about Palestine and her peers, it is important to realize that drowning in the details of individual Arab political ailments is only the means to stop us from talking and thinking about Palestine.

Of course, the truth is just the opposite: Scapegoating Israel is a way of diverting attention from the evils of Arab dictatorships. If "Palestine" is losing its salience in the Arab world, we may hope that this portends a weakening of those dictatorships (perhaps spurred in part by the forcible overthrow of the one in Baghdad).

Some, however, still care about the Palestinians, including New York Times, reporting from Gaza yesterday:

Israeli sonic booms--which cause houses to shudder and sound like huge bombs exploding overhead--have been especially terrifying.

Mahmoud Bahador, 30, a car mechanic, said that one night this week, his 3-year-old son, Moamin, bolted out of bed after one of the booms in search of his toy gun to defend himself.

"I told him, 'Don't be afraid. They aren't here,' " he said. "But he didn't understand."

On Friday afternoon, as if on cue, an Israeli F-16 shattered the sound barrier over a double wedding here, already noisy with drums, a tambourine, a traditional flute and, as is custom in many Arab countries, rounds of celebratory gunfire in the air.

"What should we do?" asked one of the grooms, Ayman Arichy, 25. "This is my wedding, and Israeli bombers are scaring us. Life goes on."

Supporters of Israel may understandably find the Times's sympathy misplaced--after all, the booms of Palestinian rockets and suicide bombs are not just terrifying but deadly.

But the Israelis themselves show more compassion for the Palestinians than other Arab governments do. As the Jerusalem Post notes: "Sunday, fearing a humanitarian crisis, the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] opened the Karni Crossing into the Gaza Strip for six hours to facilitate the transfer of medical supplies and food to the Palestinians."

This suggests a more positive way to look at things. The Palestinian people have endured much abuse, the result of their own horrendous leadership and the abuse of their cause by Arab dictatorships elsewhere. Once they get their political house in order and learn to behave decently toward their Israeli neighbors, Americans and Israelis will be happy to help them prosper.

Israel Imitates TR

"Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead!"--Theodore Roosevelt, 1904

"Israel Warns: Free Soldier or PM Dies"--headline, Australian, July 1, 2006

Separated at Birth?
Time magazine blogger Andrew Sullivan and Hamas deputy Moussa Abu Marzouk.

Hedging His Bets
One of the most interesting Senate races this fall is shaping up in Connecticut, where Sen. Joe Lieberman is seeking a fourth term. No one gives the GOP much chance of picking up the seat, but the action is on the Democratic side, where left-wing businessman Ned Lamont is challenging the hawkish Lieberman in a primary. (See our May interview with Lamont.) It's as if George McGovern and Henry "Scoop" Jackson had returned from the dead for a political face-off--or it would be if McGovern weren't still alive.

When we interviewed Lamont in May, Lieberman had a comfortable 46-point lead in the polls. Now he has an uncomfortable 15-point one, the Hartford Courant reports, and the incumbent is clearly worried:

Lieberman announced today he will petition for a place on the November ballot as an "independent Democrat," giving him a chance to stay alive politically should he lose an Aug. 8 primary for the Democratic nomination. . . .

"I've been a proud, loyal and progressive Democrat since John F. Kennedy inspired my generation of Americans into public service and I will stay a Democrat, whether I am the Democraitic [sic] party's nominee or a petitioning Democratic candidate on the November ballot," Lieberman said. He added that he would, even if re-elected as a petitioning candidate, remain a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus.

Lieberman had to make a difficult calculation. Signatures for an independent run are due Aug. 9, the day after the primary, so he couldn't wait to see if he lost before deciding whether to make an independent run. Deciding in advance, though, makes it more likely that he'll lose the primary, in which only Democrats can vote, since Lamont is sure to portray Lieberman as disloyal to the party.

Then again, Lieberman's position in favor of victory in Iraq makes him more popular among Republicans and independents than among Democrats, so he may well fare better in November than in August. But if Lamont wins the primary, New York's other senator will be in an awkward position, as the Courant noted last week:

"At the moment we are supporting Joe Lieberman," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer[†], D-N.Y., chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

The committee wants Lieberman to win; its website touts his achievements and record--and says nothing about Lamont. But Schumer's views are important, because his committee can direct donors and expertise into a Democratic campaign, and it's unlikely the committee would turn its back on a Democrat who won a party primary fair and square.

Connecticut has some history with independent statewide candidates. In 1970 Sen. Thomas Dodd decided not to seek re-election, then changed his mind after the Democratic Party had nominated someone else; ultraliberal Republican Lowell Weicker beat both Dems. Weicker lost his seat to Lieberman in 1988, but two years after that he ran for governor as an independent and won.

† A dagger of the mind, a false creation, proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain.

'Bordered on Blasphemy'
From a DailyKos.com posting by "Radical Faith":

Today I walked out of church about a third of the way through the service. A soloist was performing "God Bless the USA." I have always found that song to be especially cloying, but when I noticed it listed in the bulletin I decided to attempt to tolerate it. And I might have managed to do just that had not one or two individuals prompted the entire congregation to stand.

At that moment I felt as though I'd been punched in the gut. . . . As far as I'm concerned asking me to stand in a sanctuary bordered on blasphemy. How could I in good conscience stand to embrace the lyrics "I'm proud to be an American" in the very same week we learned U.S. soldiers raped an Iraqi woman then murdered her and her family to cover up the crime? . . .

I remember reading about Dietrich Bonhoeffer and how he removed the swastika-adorned banners the National Socialist Party had placed in the sanctuary. He felt displays of nationalism were an affront to God. I'll take my cue from Bonhoeffer. I simply will not accept any flagrant displays of nationalism in church. It's just too disgraceful.

Is it OK to question this guy's patriotism?

The Poor Dears Don't Even Have a Government

"New Jersey Government Shut Down"--headline, Associated Press, July 2

"U.S. Census Bureau Daily Feature for July 3: Be Nice to New Jersey"--press release, Census Bureau, July 2

A Plea Bargain at Twice the Price
"Kerik Pleads Guilty for Gifts and a Loan"--headline, New York Times, June 30

'And I'm Gonna Be High as a Kite by Then'
"Crack Found in Shuttle Foam"--headline, Associated Press, July 3

Good News for Massachusetts' First Lady
"Lost Mitt Safe at Home"--headline, Los Angeles Times, June 30

Now They Need Some Doors
"Leader: Katrina Recovery Hinges on Homes"--headline, Dallas Morning News, July 3

Her Children's Condition Is Unchanged
"Jail Psychiatrist Says Yates Improved"--headline, Associated Press, June 30

What Would We Do Without Panelists?
"Violence Must End, Panelists Say"--headline, Houston Chronicle, July 1

Everyone's a Critic
"Teen Critical After Shot by Cops"--headline, Post-Tribune (Gary, Ind.), July 3

Slickers Rule Down Under
"PM Howard Scorns Hicks"--headline, Herald Sun (Victoria, Australia), July 1

HealthDay Gets Scooped Again
"Don't Fall or Slip, Trip, Tumble, Tear, Collapse, Crash, Keel Over, Spill, Skid, Plunge, or Get Stung, Burned, Injured--in Swimming Pools, on Family Trips and Even at Picnics"--headline, Detroit Free Press, July 1

Bottom Stories of the Day

  • "Cheney's Pacemaker Working Properly"--headline, Associated Press, July 1

  • "Water Main Break in Phila. Does Not Interrupt Service"--headline, KYW-AM Web site (Philadelphia), July 2

  • "Large Asteroid Will Miss Earth Tomorrow"--headline, United Press International, July 2

The Great Pro-America Steak-Out
On Thursday we noted that Diane Wilson planned to start a hunger strike tomorrow: "I'm just a shrimper whose gonna stop eatin' to stop the war," she said in an interview with Code Pink. Wilson urged others to join her, and said you don't even have to stop eating altogether: "You can drink fruit juices, or anything that's liquid--just no solid food. People can make their choice about how to fast--whether water only or a liquid fast."

This got us to thinking, what could we do to show our support for American victory? It seems obvious: Do the opposite of what Wilson is doing. Tomorrow, July 4, we plan to throw a big juicy steak on the grill and devour it in a show of patriotism. We urge you to do the same.

If red meat isn't your taste, no problem! You can eat chicken, or fish, or even a salad or fruit or edamame--anything, as long as it's solid. And if you really want to show your commitment to the war effort, don't stop after Independence Day. Eat solid food every day. Eat it two or three times a day if you can.

Remember, V is for vittles--and victory!

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Ethel Fenig, Scott Miller, Lewis Sckolnick, Joseph Hogue, Edward Schulze, William Grimmer, Rochi Ebner, C.E. Dobkin, Monty Kriger, Peter Huntsman, Ron Ackert, John Williamson, Dave Nemzek, Jim Sharp, Christopher Zinsli, Anne Schlesinger, John Whetstone, Joseph Dispenza, John Neal, Nathan Mower, Chris Kwak, Tom Neven, Rod Pennington, Kibi Hofmann, Andrew Coors, Joseph McDonald, Bob Donnelly, Dan Calabrese, Stuart Sibley, Mark Finkelstein, Marshall Sella, Mark Van Der Molen, Leon Robinette, Gary Fleming, Kevin Hisel, C.M. Cornell, Nathan James, Shane Hitzeman, Roger Congdon, Craig Nakashian, Gary Bokelmann, William Katz, Charlie Gaylord, Jim Patterson, Michael Ellard, David Weiss, Joe York, Bill Briggs, Kevin Schmidt and Roy Carlson. 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