by JAMES TARANTO
Thursday, December 7, 2006 1:47 P.M. EST

Today's Video on WSJ.com: Rob Pollock on the Iraq Study Group.

Underwhelmed in Baghdad
The Washington Post reports that Iraqis are not impressed by the work of the Iraq Study Group:

Iraqi politicians and analysts . . . said the report is a recipe, backed by threats and disincentives, that neither addresses nor understands the complex forces that fuel Iraq's woes. They described it as a strategy largely to help U.S. troops return home and resurrect America's frayed influence in the Middle East.

Iraqis also expressed fear that the report's recommendations, if implemented, could weaken an already besieged government in a country teetering on the edge of civil war.

"It is a report to solve American problems, and not to solve Iraq's problems," said Ayad al-Sammarai, an influential Sunni Muslim politician. . . .

"If the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government," the report's executive summary says.

For some Iraqis, the statement suggested that the report's authors did not grasp, or refused to acknowledge, the diverse ambitions, rivalries and weaknesses that plague the government. The Kurds have dreams of creating an independent state. The Sunnis appear leaderless, yet seek a political voice. The Shiites are riven by feuds. There are disagreements over partitioning Iraq, over whether to restore members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party to their old jobs, over whether amnesty should be given to opponents of the government and the U.S. occupation.

Editor & Publisher, the newspaper trade magazine, is impressed, though:

For years now, the debate has raged: Does the press overstate the level of violence in Iraq and ignore the overall positive aspect of the U.S. involvment [sic]? The Iraq Study Group report today, in its main claim that the situation in Iraq is now "grave" and "deteriorating" would seem to offer a clue to the answer, but more specific details--providing a "slam dunk" (if we may use that phrase) on the side of the press--are found in the Intelligence section of the report near its end, starting on page 93.

This pokes a hole in the myth of the "adversarial press"--of reporters as hard-nosed skeptics who question authority and have no agenda of their own. Here we see them, in the form of E&P, genuflecting toward a group of Washington eminences who have taken "the side of the press" in accentuating the negative in Iraq.

Where's the Feeding Frenzy?
"The Yugoslav war crimes tribunal ordered Dutch authorities Wednesday to feed a hunger-striking Serb ultranationalist leader intravenously if it becomes necessary to save his life," the Associated Press reports from The Hague:

However, a three-judge panel also said that moves to force-feed war crimes suspect Vojislav Seselj should only be undertaken "to the extent that such services are not contrary to compelling internationally accepted standards of medical ethics or binding rules of international law."

In a written "urgent order to the Dutch authorities," the judges said international law on force-feeding is not uniform, but European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence states "'force-feeding' does not constitute torture, inhuman or degrading treatment if there is a medical necessity to do so."

Remember the howls of outrage from Europe because the American military fed the hungry at Guantanamo Bay? If not, click here, here and here. Will we hear similar cries over the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal? We aren't holding our breath.

Carter Dissenter
"A longtime aide to Jimmy Carter has resigned from the Carter Center think tank, calling the former president's new book on Israel and the Arabs one-sided and filled with errors," the Associated Press reports. "Kenneth Stein, the Carter Center's first executive director and founder of its Middle East program, sent a letter that bluntly criticized the book to Carter and others." Power Line has the text:

President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook.

Stein says he'll elaborate on these points "in due course." The Jewish Virtual Library has some quotes from Carter's presidency that show he has changed his tune on the Mideast. This is from a Feb. 25, 1980, speech to United Jewish Appeal National Young Leadership Conference:

I am opposed to an independent Palestinian state, because in my own judgment and in the judgment of many leaders in the Middle East, including Arab leaders, this would be a destabilizing factor in the Middle East and would certainly not serve the United States' interests.

And this is from a "White House joint conference" the following month, on the occasion of the first anniversary of the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt:

We oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state. The United States, as all of you know, has a warm and unique relationship of friendship with Israel that is morally right. It is compatible with our deepest religious convictions, and it is right in terms of America's own strategic interests. . . .

We are committed to Israel's right to live in peace with all its neighbors, within secure and recognized borders, free from terrorism. We are committed to a Jerusalem that will forever remain undivided with free access to all faiths to the holy places. Nothing will deflect us from these fundamental principles and commitments.

(Hat tip: Jeff Ballabon.) This would seem to bolster Stein's credibility in disputing Carter's accounts of what he was saying privately back then.

Boys Don't Cry?
We keep vowing to ignore Andrew Sullivan, and he keeps saying bizarre things like this, in response to George H.W. Bush's crying at a farewell ceremony for Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida:

The former president broke down speaking of his son Jeb's maintenance of "honor" in his political life. I don't think that was an accidental trigger. A reader comments perceptively:

First a few words about Jose Padilla. Without a doubt, the methods used on him are torture. They are not physically harming him, instead they seem bent on psychically damaging him. A mind can be broken using just sleep deprivation, alternating bright lights and total darkness, control of diet, and plain old boredom--especially over a three year period, with no assurance that this couldn't continue for ever.

I saw pictures of Padilla's treatment right after I watched the video of Bush 41 breaking down while speaking about Jeb Bush in Florida. I then imagined for a moment that it was my own son, instead of Bush 43, who had tortured Padilla. I think I know now why Bush 41 broke down.

It's barely worth commenting on the absurdity of thinking that George H.W. Bush shares the Angry Left's view of the current president. A more interesting point is that Sulllivan and the readers whose perception he credits seem to lack even the most basic understanding of human emotion. It's as if they're little boys or Martians who have been informed that people cry when they're sad.

The truth, of course, is that all sorts of strong feelings can provoke tears, and the elder Bush is said to be especially prone to crying. Which seems more likely to you, that these were tears of pride for Jeb, or that they were tears of despair for an enemy combatant?

Cop Killer's Caucus
The House yesterday passed a resolution "condemning the decision of St. Denis, France, to name a street in honor of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murder [sic] of Philadelphia Police Office Danny Faulkner." The vote was 368-31, with 8 members voting "present." Here's a list of what one might call the Cop-Killer's Caucus, the congressmen who voted against the resolution, all Democrats:

The "present" votes came from Sam Farr (Calif.), Al Green (Texas), Luis Gutierrez (Ill.), Sheila Jackson-Lee (Texas), John Lewis (Ga.), George Miller (Calif.), Janice Schakowsky (Ill.) and Melvin Watt (N.C.). Tellingly, every member of the Pennsylvania delegation who was present voted "yes."

The most disturbing name on the "no" list is that of John Conyers. Granted, this is only a symbolic vote, but is it really a good idea to entrust the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee to a man who casts a symbolic vote for a cop-killer and against his victim?

Inebriated Infant
"The mother of the drunk Colorado Springs baby said she accidentally mixed her infant's formula with vodka, raising the baby's blood alcohol level to four times the legal limit," All Headline News reports:

Sarah Smith said she and her boyfriend Ryan Delaroche were getting a hotel room on Saturday. When Ryan stepped away, Smith said she used his bottle of water bottle [sic] to mix with her baby's formula, not knowing the bottle was full of vodka.

She mixed in 3 ounces of liquor and two-month-old Kristina's finished the bottle.

Smith said, "It was an honest mistake. . . . I had no idea there was alcohol in the water bottle."

Why does Colorado have a "legal limit" for a baby's blood alcohol?

Homer Nods
We generally agree with the Boston Globe's editorial position in favor of comprehensive immigration reform; we do not disagree as we said in an item yesterday (since corrected).

What Would Corn Producers Do Without Professors?
"Professor: Corn Producers Should Focus on Details"--headline, Plainsman (Huron, S.D.), no date shown

Do They Set in the East?
"Diesels Rise in the West"--headline, Detroit News, Dec. 6

'They Worked So Hard, and They Never Complained . . .'
"Ford Recalls Oakville Workers"--headline, Toronto Star, Dec. 6

The Neologists Are Coming!
"Microsoft Warns of New Word Attack"--headline, Sci-Tech Today, Dec. 6

News You Can Use
"Take Precautions When Driving in Winter"--headline, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Dec. 7

Bottom Stories of the Day

• "France Launches 24-Hour News Channel"--headline, Associated Press, Dec. 6
  
  
• " 'Rachel Corrie' to Close"--headline, New York Times, Dec. 6
  
  
• "For Now, Indy Won't Pull the Plug on Trans Fats"--headline, Indianapolis Star, Dec. 6
  
  
• "Teacher Purchase [sic] Home in New Town"--headline, Virginia Gazette (Williamsburg), Dec. 6

The Long Road to Capitol Hill
When Democrats take over the House next month, members of both parties will face a new and terrible burden, reports the Washington Post:

They will have to work five days a week starting in January. . . . Next year, members of the House will be expected in the Capitol for votes each week by 6:30 p.m. Monday and will finish their business about 2 p.m. Friday, Hoyer said.

This may not sound so bad, but consider what it means for one congressman who lives on the other side of the country:

"It's long overdue," said Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), who lives in Napa Valley and will have to leave his home at 3 a.m. on Sundays to catch a flight to Washington in time for work Mondays. "I didn't come here to turn around and go back home."

It's to Thompson's credit that he's keeping a stiff upper lip about it, but think about it: The poor guy has to leave at 3 a.m. PST to get to work by 6:30 p.m. EST the next day. After adjusting for the time difference, that's 36 1/2 hours' travel time!

If it takes him the same amount of time to get from the Capitol to his home in Napa, that means if he leaves at 2 p.m. Friday, he won't be back until 11:30 p.m. Saturday, leaving him only 3 1/2 hours at home before he has to fly to Washington. And people wonder why Congress doesn't attract the best and brightest.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Michael Segal, David Sherdell, Steve Klein, Edward Schulze, Rochi Ebner, Ethel Fenig, Jerome Marcus, Jared Silverman, Edward Tannen, Steve Prestegard, Robert Shull, Paul Dyck, Monty Krieger, Jonathan Spetner, David Shapero, Terry Hinshaw, Henry Fetter, Darin Bartram, Martin Shoemaker, Jerry Skurnik, Mickey Kaus, Casey McEnelly, Gregg Geil, Marc Young, Jacob Lybbert, Jim Reingruber, Alex Miller, Frank Abbott and Jan Nicholas. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Review & Outlook: Bush and Hakim count for more than Baker-Hamilton.
• Steve Moore: Should you pay for someone else's opinions?
• Joseph Epstein: An online journal fights for clear, expressive English.