TORY LEADER: SPANIARDS 'COWARDLY' FOR EXERCISING DEMOCRACY
Apparently, the British Conservatives have joined the American right's anti-Spanish smear campaign. Tory leader Michael Howard slammed the decision of Spaniards to punish what they viewed as the deceitful actions of their government. Howard insisted, "We cannot buy ourselves immunity by changing our foreign policy. Apart from the moral cowardice of that position, it can never work in practice."

Someone seriously needs to tell these guys to go [jump off a bridge].

YASSIN ASSASSINATION TO RADICALIZE HAMAS?
I see the Israeli military assassinated Cheikh Yassin, "spiritual leader" and co-founder of Hamas. The decision was roundly condemned by the international community, save the United States' government which said it was 'deeply troubled'.

Critics argued that the assassination would make homicide bombings more likely. Residents of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv are braced for an interruption of the decades of peaceful solitude their cities have enjoyed.

Critics also argued that the murder of Yassin would radicalize the organization. A Hamas statement in response to the murder pledged to destroy the state of Israel. It noted that the Yassin assassination represented a death sentence for hundreds of Israelis on every street and every inch of land occupied by the Zionists. The statement is far more menancing than Hamas' previous objectives... to kill Israelis and destroy the state of Israel.

Incidentally, I noticed that the new leader of Hamas is a pediatrician. I wonder how calling for the murder of innocent Israelis squares with that whole Hippocratic Oath thing.

[To repeat: my solution to the problem is: a) give the Palestinians their own state while simultaneously b) making Israel a member of NATO. Getting Ariel Sharon out of power would certainly be helpful. But, as I've stated before, neighboring Arab countries don't actually want a solution to the problem; they want the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an issue, as a scapegoat to deflect their populations' anger over their own corruption, mismanagement and autocracy. This is why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has persisted so long.]

GOP OFFERS PREVIEW OF ITS FALL STRATEGY: ACCOUNTABILITY = APPEASEMENT
House Speaker Dennis Hastert has offered a preview of what will likely be an integral part of the Republicans' campaign strategy this fall. Hastert condemned the result of the recent Spanish general election. "Here's a country who stood against terrorism and had a huge terrorist act within their country and they chose to change their government and to, in a sense, appease terrorists," said the man third in line to the presidency.

This certainly corresponds with the message the GOP wants to resonate with voters: change = weakness.

Spanish voters rose up against a government with huge credibility problem for their questionable decisions. No wonder Republicans are afraid of the precedent and are trying to equate accountability with appeasement.

THE SPAIN LEADER'S APPEASEMENT THAT WASN'T
First, they attacked Scott Ritter. Then they did a nice character assassination on the now-vindicated Hans Blix. Then entire country of France was freedom fried out of linguistic existence. Now, the latest target of the punditocracy's smear campaign is Spain's prime minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

American press reaction over Zapatero's comments has been nothing short of hysterical. American and some European public reaction was outraged by the statement by Zapatero that Spanish troops would definitely withdraw from Iraq. Editorials frantically condemned Zapatero's decision as appeasement to terrorists in the wake of the Madrid massacre. Facile comparisons were casually tossed about equating Zapatero's words and Neville Chamberlain's infamous "peace in our time" speech after the ill-fated pact with Hitler. [You could almost be forgiven for thinking Iraq invaded the West given the frequency of such analogies]

There is a problem with the statement by Zapatero that Spanish troops would definitely withdraw from Iraq: he didn't actually say this.

What Zapatero really said, the part that continues to be so wildly misrepresented, was:

The occupation of Iraq was ill-conducted and that's why I have said clearly in recent months that, unless there is a change in that the United Nations take control and the occupiers give up political control, Spanish troops will come back, and the limit for their presence there is June 30.

Thus what Zapatero actually said was that Spanish troops would withdraw from Iraq UNLESS the US coalition gave up control of Iraq by 30 June. If the US fulfillls its promise to hand over sovereignty to a domestic Iraqi interim government by 30 June, this would seem to fulfill Zapatero's requirement. So why much ado about nothing?

It makes you wonder why there was such a hysterical reaction to a demand about something that has been promised to happen anyway. Were people simply too careless to read his actual words in their entireity? This is possible since several columns condemning Zapatero referred to him as the Spanish president (Spain is a monarchy, not a republic, and its head of state is a king).

More likely, I suspect, is that his statement was willfully misrepresented by those with an interest in whipping everyone up into a frenzy.

I DOUBT ANY GAYS WOULD WANT TO LIVE IN NEANDERTHAL COUNTY ANYWAY
I read an Associated Press article that a county in Tennessee wants to pass an ordinance banning gays from living there. But it's not just any county, it's the one that was at the center of the notorious 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial.

"We need to keep them out of here," said a county commissioner of gays, apparently under the impression that it's still 1925.

When I first read this story, it seemed so ludicrous I could only laugh. I rolled my eyes and figured it was merely a few Christian extremists just adopting the same tactics as their Islamist theocratic breathren.

When northern Nigerian states use the pretext of Sharia law to send women back to the 13th century, most Americans are rightly outraged. And though Christianity is the predominant religion in the United States, most Americans would probably be disgusted to learn that an American jurisdiction was trying to ban law-abiding citizens from living there. A majority of Americans may call themselves Christian, but the intolerant kind are certainly in the minority. At least nationwide.

It's one thing for people to be bigoted. You can hope individuals change but you can't really force them. It's another thing to legally mandate bigotry, like segregation did. Except as bad as the Jim Crow laws were, they didn't actually ban blacks from living in southern states. (That some African-American organizations are angered that gays are trying to "usurp" civil rights language, as though such principles are the exclusive property of blacks, may be a future entry)

Monkey County's efforts are really the sexual orientation equivalent of ethnic cleansing.

Imagine if the ayatollahs tried to ban Christians from living in Iran. Imagine the furor that would provoke in the national media. But if Monkey County's proposed gay ban were more widely covered, I'm sure it would be apologized away as a "backlash to the gay marriage controversy."

But I'm sure the courts won't do anything if the ban is passed. Because after all, the courts should never interfere with the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives, no matter how unconstitutional the action.

SOCIALISTS TAKE POWER IN SPAIN: VICTORY FOR AL-QAEDA?
Spain’s general election gave victory to the opposition Socialists, a result which would’ve been considered a long shot a week ago. The center-right prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar, piqued the ire of Spaniards by supporting the Iraq invasion even though 90% of the country was opposed (and even though his decision totally bypassed parliament). However, this did not seem to be the decisive factor since this was the case well before the election and the ruling Popular Party (PP) long had a comfortable lead in the opinion polls.

Instead, analysts generally attribute the surprise to the ruling government’s perceived mishandling of the aftermath of the Madrid massacre. The government instantly blamed the Basque separatist group ETA and seriously downplayed the possibility that it might be related to al-Qaeda. The logic behind this was simple. If it were ETA, it would anger Spaniards and strengthen the PP’s hard-line policy against Basque nationalism. If it were al-Qaeda, then Spaniards would feel that they were targeted because of the prime minister’s unpopular decision to support the American invasion of Iraq. It’s obvious which position the PP had an interest in advancing.

But when al-Qaeda claimed credit for the massacre and arrested several Moroccans in connection with the attacks, people got pissed off. It was likely this anger that proved the decisive factor. The PP had about a 4% lead in the polls before the bombings, but ended up losing the election by approximately the same amount.

The government is perceived to have tried to manipulate the tragedy to their political advantage, or at least to avoid it being to their detriment. And they were caught and punished for it.

Now, Spain’s prime minister-elect has said that Spanish troops will withdraw from Iraq unless the US leaves by 30 June.

This whole situation has brought predictable howls of outrage from the new Terrorist Warriors (heirs apparent to the old Cold Warriors). They claim all this sends a horrible message, that al-Qaeda can do a bombing and cause a change of government. They claim that al-Qaeda will think the bombing caused Spanish troops to withdraw from Iraq.

This conveniently ignores the fact that the Socialists were calling for such a withdrawal long before the Madrid massacre. Before, critics called this “misguided” (a fair expression of a differing opinion). Now, it’s “terrorist appeasement,” which is a somewhat nastier pandering to macho emotion over cool-headed analysis.

The other, equally serious, implication is that any change of government by the Spaniards would be seen as a victory for al-Qaeda. This suggests that democracies aren’t allowed to change governments during a war without “sending the wrong message” to the enemy. What garbage! American voters changed the party of the president five times during the Cold War.

The main issue that cost the Popular Party was not the bombing, contrary to the Terrorist Warriors would self-servingly have you believe. The main issue was the PP’s REACTION to the bombing. Richard Nixon learned that the cover-up is often viewed worse than the crime. Jose Maria Aznar was sent the same message.

The perceived cover-up and manipulation was perpetrated by the PP. Why should Spaniards be condemned for holding their government accountable?

Oh the horror!

RANDOM OBSERVATIONS ON RANDOM NEWS ITEMS
Interesting doings in the the (former Soviet) Republic of Georgia. The newly elected Georgian president was denied entry into the semi-autonomous region of Ajaria. It’s basically a power struggle between the Ajarian leader and the Georgian president, who aren’t particularly on friendly terms.

What I found interesting was that, as the BBC noted, The Russian government, meanwhile, has involved itself and warned Georgia not to use force against Ajaria. First off, why is the Russian government meddling in Georgian domestic affairs? (American leftists think only Washington does this sort of thing).

This is ironic for two reasons. First, the Putin government in Moscow recently brushed off international criticism of the conduct of Sunday’s presidential election and the preceding campaign. They don’t like foreigners interfering in their internal affairs.

The other irony, quite obviously, is that Russia is using a great deal of force in some semi-autonomous place called Chechnya. Again, Moscow resists international calls for restraint in Chechnya telling the world (especially the European Union) to mind its own damn business. But Putin has no problem sticking his nose in Georgian politics.

---

France and Rwanda have been trading accusations. First, French authorities have accused then rebel leader (now Rwandan president) Paul Kagame of ordering the shooting down of the plane carrying the then Rwandan and Burundian leaders in 1994. This event was the pretext the Rwandan regime’s extremists were looking for as an excuse to implement their pre-planned genocide that eventually killed at least 800,000 people. Kagame denied the accusation and accused France of ‘direct involvement’ in the genocide.

Kagame told Radio France Internationale, “They [the French] trained the genociders. They were in positions of authority over the armed forces who committed the genocide. They also participated directly in the operations: by infiltrating roadblocks to identify people by their ethnicity, in punishing Tutsis in favor of Hutus. All this was done in plain site, at the roadblocks. We have everything on video, numerous proofs of French participation. Not the Frenchpeople, but certain elements who were acting on the order of the government and who managed roadblocks during the genocide.”

Strong stuff. Unfortunately, plausible too, considering the close relations between Paris and its client regime in Rwanda and considering the military operation the French launched to help the genociders escape to then-Zaire.

---

I was listening to a piece on NPR on the 50th anniversary of Edward R. Murrow’s famous See It Now show taking on Sen. Joseph McCarthy. What was most interesting, and powerful, about the show is that it consisted not of Murrow attacking the senator from Wisconsin, but almost entirely of footage of McCarthy’s own words. Rather than editoralizing, Murrow gave McCarthy enough noose to hang himself. He let McCarthy speak for himself and the viewers could draw the obvious conclusion. One extract was McCarthy saying in 1950 that the fight against communism was a bipartisan fight and that America needed two strong parties. That was followed by him saying in 1954 that one party, the Democrats, was being treasonous in the anti-communist struggle. When I heard McCarthy making these last comments, I understood why Ann Coulter (author of Treason : Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism) considers him such a wonderful role model.

THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW AND CONSTITUTIONALISM
Since the passage of the campaign finance law, there’s been concern expressed in some quarters about the law’s potential effects. Many fear that the law will stifle common “free” speech activities like donating millions of dollars to a political party with the expectation of nothing in return. These expressions of “free” speech are purely ideological and not business transactions, as we all know.

Given the unprecedentedly early barrage of attack ads, if the law has stifled “free” speech, it’s barely perceptible.

The common argument against the law is less with the law’s specifics than with the mere principle of regulating “free” speech. After all, why does the government have the right to tell me I can’t donate my money however I want?

The answer is very simple: the government has a compelling interest in ensuring the representatives of the people actually represent the people they are elected to represent. I know this will elicit waves of hysterical laughter. But this is the principle. And since we’ll give everyone the benefit of the doubt and assume they’re operating on good faith, let’s go with this theory.

Why should the government have the right to regulate the “speech” of political donations but not other kinds of speech? (Of course, they do regulate other kinds of speech but that’s another essay.)

The answer is very simple, and may mollify strict constitutionalists. They are only two crimes for which a federal official can be impeached that are explicitly mentioned in the federal Constitution. One is treason. The other is bribery.

To follow the anti-campaign finance regulation crowd’s reasoning, I should be able to walk up to my Congressman and say, “If you pass a law making my birthday into a federal holiday, I will donate $100,000 to your re-election fund.” After all, why should the government regulate how I spend my money?

The answer is Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution. The Constitution states unambiguously that the government has an compelling interest in deterring treason and bribery as well as the ill-defined “high crimes and misdemeanors.” If Congress can have laws trying to deter treason without popular objection, then why is there such an uproar with them doing the same to try to deter bribery?

Admittedly, such bribery will still occur. But few of the law’s critics oppose it because it’s too weak. Those who want to use money to buy influence, I mean “express their ‘free’ speech rights,” will always find a way to do so. But there’s no reason we can’t make it more difficult. Although such bribery will still occur, hopefully the law will deter the most brazen acts. I’m not holding my breath, but it’s worth a try.