Iran: The Burden of the Man in the Chair

The Islamic Republic of Iran was born in revolution. Like most revolutions, its supporters saw something sublime and most beautiful in it. Hope was reborn, a new way of life, a new system was within grasp. The old--the hated old--was wiped out in one deeply satisfying spasm of violence, leaving the people with a new canvas on which to paint an entirely new society. And not just any society, but God's own: a state constructed according to, and wholly dedicated to, the will of Allah.

For reasons both practical (our support for the government of the Shah) and religious (our status as the lead state of the infidel and hated West), the United States of America became The Enemy for the new Islamic Republic. In almost every sphere--political, cultural, educational, social--the new state defined itself negatively, by contrasting its virtues with the sins of the United States.

And then came the Hostage Crisis. We are often unpleasantly shocked to discover that many young people do not know about the crisis (except vaguely) and, worse, do not understand its profound significance. It was by and through the Hostage Crisis that the United States came to know that it has a ruthless enemy in Islamic Fascism. The deep wound that the Crisis unleashed on the hapless presidency of Jimmy Carter set the stage for America's sharp turn to the Right in 1980. And, most ominously, it provided the first in a long string of political victories for the new Islamic Republic.

Feeling its strength, the Islamic Republic began to wage war against what it officially calls the "Great Satan" (the "Little Satan" being, of course, Israel) in a number of frustratingly cunning ways. From funding Hezbollah in Lebanon to suicide bombers in Saudi Arabia, the leaders of the Islamic Republic have had their eye on their main enemy from the start.

Prior to 9/11, the United States viewed these activities as (to coin a phrase) nuisances. However, once Islamic Fascism had shown itself ready, willing and able to carry out attacks of mass destruction in the United States itself, the prism through with the Islamic Republic was seen changed sharply.

What We Know About the Islamic Republic and Terrorism

Unlike in the debate leading up to the invasion of Iraq, there is no question that the Islamic Republic is a state sponsor of terrorism. From the State Department's most recent report on its terrorism-sponsoring activities we learn that:

Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2003. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security were involved in the planning of and support for terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals.

Iran’s record against al-Qaida remains mixed. After the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, some al-Qaida members fled to Iran where they have found virtual safehaven. Iranian officials have acknowledged that Tehran detained al-Qaida operatives during 2003, including senior members. Iran’s publicized presentation of a list to the United Nations of deportees, however, was accompanied by a refusal to publicly identify senior members in Iranian custody on the grounds of “security.” Iran has resisted calls to transfer custody of its al-Qaida detainees to their countries of origin or third countries for further interrogation and trial.

During 2003, Iran maintained a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Israeli activity, both rhetorically and operationally. Supreme Leader Khamenei praised Palestinian resistance operations, and President Khatami reiterated Iran’s support for the “wronged people of Palestine” and their struggles. Matching this rhetoric with action, Iran provided Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian rejectionist groups -- notably HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine–General Command -- with funding, safehaven, training, and weapons. Iran hosted a conference in August 2003 on the Palestinian intifadah, at which an Iranian official suggested that the continued success of the Palestinian resistance depended on suicide operations.

Iran pursued a variety of policies in Iraq aimed at securing Tehran’s perceived interests there, some of which ran counter to those of the Coalition. Iran has indicated support for the Iraqi Governing Council and promised to help Iraqi reconstruction.

Shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein, individuals with ties to the Revolutionary Guard may have attempted to infiltrate southern Iraq, and elements of the Iranian Government have helped members of Ansar al-Islam transit and find safehaven in Iran. In a Friday Prayers sermon in Tehran in May, Guardian Council member Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati publicly encouraged Iraqis to follow the Palestinian model and participate in suicide operations against Coalition forces. (Emphasis added).

All of this is common knowledge. The Islamic Republic's leaders can hardly be bothered to deny it. All experience forces the conclusion: since its inception the Islamic Republic has been a terrorist state and, worse, one that views the United States as its main adversary and target.

The Islamic Republic's Nuclear Programme

The Islamic Republic's flagrant violations of its treaty obligations and its secret program to acquire nuclear weapons became so blatant that by 2003 even the United Nations was taking notice. According to a March 2003 report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:

The heat is on for Iran to clarify its nuclear ambitions. On June 19, the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) called on Tehran to stop plans to begin enriching uranium and to allow "all access deemed necessary" to clarify questions over Iran's nuclear program. But the Board stopped short of declaring Iran in violation of its treaty obligations, nor did it refer the matter to the UN Security Council, as some U.S. officials had urged.

The IAEA's statement was a compromise that fell short of U.S. Ambassador Kenneth Brill's assertion that findings on Iran's nuclear program "will point to only one conclusion: that Iran is aggressively pursuing a nuclear weapons program."

The IAEA stated that Iran had not lived up to its reporting obligations under the terms of its Safeguard Agreement. Iran's IAEA Safeguard Agreement requires the country to provide the agency with information "concerning nuclear material subject to safeguards under the Agreement and the features of facilities relevant to safeguarding such material." Technically, Iran is still in compliance with its Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, but as the IAEA stated, "it is the number of failures of Iran to report the material facilities and activities in question" that is "a matter of concern." Going back over a 10-year period Iran has followed a pattern of obfuscation that raises well-founded international suspicions about Iran's nuclear program.

This game of cat-and-mouse, so familiar to those who followed the bobs and weaves of Saddam Hussein in his final years--has continued to the present day. The US would demand action, the EU would wring its hands, Iran would point out that it is "technically" still in compliance with its NPT obligations, and the IAEA would attempt to please everyone by splitting the difference.

Matters came to a head in November of last year when a diplomatic mission led by Germany, France and the U.K. (obviously playing good cop to the U.S. bad cop, yet another benefit of the President's strategy that is hardly credited) were able to negotiate a new agreement with the Islamic Republic under which:

Iran reaffirms that, in accordance with Article II of the NPT, it does not and will not seek to acquire nuclear weapons. It commits itself to full cooperation and transparency with the IAEA. Iran will continue to implement the Additional Protocol voluntarily pending ratification.

To build further confidence, Iran has decided, on a voluntary basis, to continue and extend its suspension to include all enrichment related and reprocessing activities, and specifically: the manufacture and import of gas centrifuges and their components; the assembly, installation, testing or operation of gas centrifuges; work to undertake any plutonium separation, or to construct or operate any plutonium separation installation; and all tests or production at any uranium conversion installation. The IAEA will be notified of this suspension and invited to verify and monitor it. The suspension will be implemented in time for the IAEA to confirm before the November Board that it has been put into effect. The suspension will be sustained while negotiations proceed on a mutually acceptable agreement on long-term arrangements

Thus, in the end, the United States is left basically where it was with Saddam Hussein: it can either take steps unilaterally to secure its national security, or it can trust the same multi-lateral agency that was unable to do anything about Iran's nuclear programme until 2003--and then only very reluctantly--to keep it safe.

And with the United States seemingly heavily over-committed to the Iraq War, with the rising domestic opposition to Bush's policies, the rising international condemnation of US foreign policy, and the staggering costs of the War, it seems unlikely that the US is able, let alone likely, to strike out largely on it own initiative once again.

The Man in the Chair

The President of the United States is, we think, a lonely man in a way perhaps only the kings and emperors of old could understand. The position is often called that of the "most powerful man in the world," but that is only because of the number of responsibilities on his shoulders. Due to the world-wide responsibilities of the position--everything from seeing that the seas remain open to commerce, that the world's most productive economy continues to make the world richer, to providing regional leadership in places where America's national interest is scant--people often forget he is America's President, first and foremost.

We don't have much sympathy for Senator John Kerry. Kerry is, by almost all accounts, a vain and dangerously wooly-headed man, a true 68'er whose first and most basic impulse regarding all the world's ills is to find the American responsible for them.

We also, truth be told, have some serious concerns about President Bush. Despite his many virtues, we feel the President is a bit too romantic about the universality of American values and, due to his deep respect for religion, more than a bit blind about the danger Islamic Fascism poses to our way of life. We detected, like many others, annoying strains of America-as-Messiah in his Second Inaugural Address.

In short, to use the brilliant political labels of Walter Russell Mead's extraordinary National Interest essay, "The Jacksonian Tradition and American Foreign Policy" (we are unaware of any other essay that can so succinctly sum up the different strains of thought that make up the American political landscape) we found one candidate too Jeffersonian and the other with too many Wilsonian impurities ruining what is otherwise a Jacksonian masterpiece.

In the end, however, all this is so much noise. Yes, the US is busy in Iraq, and, yes, we have engendered an alarmingly high level of anti-Americanism as a result. Yes, the Armed Forces are over-extended now. Yes, the President doesn't have the political capital to lead the US into another war, and, yes, yes, yes, we can't afford more trouble.

And, yet, at the end of the day, the final decision is going to come to the man in the chair, be he Republican or Democrat. We really believe that given the facts above the two parties, despite differing rhetoric, really wouldn't deviate too much from each other in the final analysis.

Even slow Joe Biden, arguably the emptiest head in a Senate Democratic caucus that has more than its fair share, knows the facts. Today, in that liberal fantasy land that is the World Economic Forum, Senator Biden told--directly, to his face, in front of a large crowd--the Islamic Republic's Foreign minister that both liberal and conservative Americans agreed "that it is not in our interest ... for you to acquire nuclear capability for nuclear weapons and intermediate or long range missile technology."

No President of the United States--no Democrat, no Republican--will stand quietly while a radical, terrorist-sponsoring nation that, as a matter of policy, holds rallies where it exhorts its citizens to suicide bombings while chanting "Death to America!" acquires nuclear capability.

The duty of the man in the chair, whoever he is, is clear. And may God and the American people help him carry it out.

Being Conservative at State: Join Us in Pushing That Rock

We have noticed in our comments recently a growth of questions asking what it is like to be a conservative at State and wondering if being an FSO is a career worth pursuing for conservatives in general. We have two things on this subject we would like you to know--especially those who posted who indicated that they are currently in the testing process.

First, with our usual warning that we do not yet have much experience, we must say that we have been pleasantly surprised by the number of fellow conservatives, of all stripes, we have encountered in the State Dept since we signed on. In fact, just the other day we found out that a few fellow JO's at post share our secret dementia. We were thrilled.

Second, you should be under no illusions: liberal Democrats far outnumber conservatives at all levels, but especially at higher levels. We don't think we'd be offending anyone should we remark that the Department is, for now, institutionally liberal and one that, almost by its nature, is attracted to the liberal end of the spectrum.

This manifests itself in all sorts of ways, from serious (the fact that we rely almost exclusively on left to far-left NGOs to give us input on human rights issues, for example) to the not-so-serious-but-damn-annoying (such as lunch at post today, when our colleagues began talking about the recent Presidential election and how depressing it was, assuming, of course, that everyone at the table was a Democrat).

However, we firmly believe that David Frum was correct when he recently pointed out that personnel decisions are vital to policy, and policy depends heavily on personnel. So long as conservatives eschew the Department because it's a hard slog, nothing will change.

So join us pushing that rock up the hill. Details are here.

Welcome, Boss

As you've undoubtedly already heard, the U.S. Senate has confirmed Condoleezza Rice as our new Secretary of State. We wish our new boss all the best, and we are confident that she is up to the job. Welcome, boss, and good luck.

Also, we'd just like to take this opportunity to address our liberal friends out there who think that the "liberal media" is a conservative bugbear. If you're right, then answer this, and, please, be honest with yourself:

Do you honestly think the press' reaction to Sen. Byrd's intemperate remarks would be more or less the same had the situation involved a Southern former-KKK Republican Senator accusing a black woman whose childhood friend was killed in a racist church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama, of incompetence?

Honestly?

The New Mein Kampf: Zarqawi Speaks

One of the most common observations about World War II was that if only Western leaders had heeded what the National Socialist Worker's Party and its leader Adolf Hitler were saying, they would have known of the grave danger facing the world. After all, it's not as if the Nazi Party or its frenzied Fuhrer tried to hide what they were about.

On the contrary, in speech after speech, newspaper after newspaper and book after book, Hitler and other senior Nazis laid out in some detail their plans for European domination, the destruction of parliamentary democracy and the elimination of the Jewish people.

Visit any museum of tolerance or Holocaust memorial and you'll find amble prose lamenting the fact that Western leaders failed to heed the clear warnings, failed to understand that these apparently crazy people meant exactly what they said and said exactly what they meant. Exactly because they were reasonable, honorable men, people like Prime Minister Chamberlain were unable to comprehend that buffoons with dangerous ideas could actually be serious about what they intended.

The result was a wholly preventable war that took the lives of tens of millions of people. Today, a similar bunch of madmen are stating clearly what they intend. And, sadly, except for the President of the United States, most Western leaders are again pretending that barbarism does not exist.

Now, as then, their lack of imagination, empathy and understanding will end up costing us a price in blood we could well avoid.

The Source of Islamic Terrorism

Experts on Islamic Terrorism--from former high USG officials like Richard "Bush is Personally Responsible for 9/11" Clarke to pundits like Thomas Friedman of the NY Times--are roughly divided in half between two schools of thought on Islamic Terrorism. The first group, the "Muslim Rage School," believes that the source of Islamic Terrorism is the wide-spread anger in the Muslim world directed at the West and at Israel. For partisans of this school, US policy towards Israel and the Palestinians, US support for despotic Middle Eastern regimes, Western economic outperformance of the Muslim world and anger towards US responses to the 9/11 Attacks, all add up to one thing: a seething mass of justifiable rage that presents itself, though a minority of those affected, as radical Islamic Terrorism.

The Muslim Rage School has attracted theorists as ideologically opposed as Edward Said and Bernard Lewis, and is by far and away the dominant school of thought among experts on the topic. (This school is well on display in this month's issue of The Atlantic, a fact which we will delve into in much greater depth this weekend, circumstances and consular emergencies permitting). As a rule, this school's policy preference for defeating Islamic Terrorism is to reduce the generators of the anger. Thus, the US must bring and end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, atone for past actions against the Muslim world, and generally radically change its long-standing foreign policy towards the Middle East. Only then will there be peace.

The second school of thought, the Clash of Civilizations School, argues that the source of Islamic Terrorism is the Muslim world's seething hatred of the fundamental values of the West, and, since the U.S. is the standard-bearer for the West at the moment, especially those of the United States. Adherents of this school, like Victor Hanson and most neo-conservative thinkers, argue that the value system of modern Islam produces a culture that is violently at odds with Western values and, because of this, it wages asymmetric war against the West when and where it can.

We don't have to tell you which side of this debate we are on. Since the first, early, little-noticed reports of Islamic radicals slitting the throats of Algiers girls who dared to wear blue jeans appeared in our local paper in the mid-1980's, and certainly since the Islamic Republic of Iran's call for the death of British author Salman Rushdie, it has been crystal clear to us that we are facing an onslaught from a culture violently opposed to our most cherished values.

This, however, remains a decidely minority view. Most people either cannot or will not believe that they have enemies. (To quote Rich Lowry's famous quip about President Clinton, we don't have enemies, just people we haven't properly apologized to). It's much, much easier to point to the failure of the Oslo/Madrid/Quartet III Subsequent Agreement as a cause of terrorism than to believe that there is a culture of billions out there that wants your blood and the blood of your children.

Because, damn, what reasonable person wants to believe that?

The Zarqawi Audiotape

On January 23, Jordanian terrorist leader Al-Zarqawi released an audiotape regarding the upcoming elections in Iraq. Zarqawi is, of course, a very important terrorist leader and the undeniable head of the jihadi insurgency against the Allawi Government and its American allies. Which is why the audiotape is of vital significance.

Here is a major Islamic terrorist leader, telling us in his own words, directly, what he believes, what motivates his fight, and why he wishes us dead. And what does he say?

"The speaker said democracy was based on un-Islamic beliefs and behaviors such as freedom of religion, rule of the people, freedom of expression, separation of religion and state, forming political parties and majority rule.

He said that freedom of expression is allowed "even cursing God. This means that there is nothing sacred in democracy." He said Islam requires the rule of God and not the rule of "the majority or the people."

Let's break that down:

1) Freedom of Religion: The most basic, most cherished of our freedoms is a gigantic affront to the jihadis since there is only one God and only one religion: that which they say exists. Because we are free to worship as we choose, they wish us dead.

2) Rule of the People/Majority Rule: The basic tenent of Democracy, that the will of the majority carries sovereignty, is inherently offensive to the jihadis. Only the "Rule of God" (meaning the rule of people like Khomeni, Zarqawi and Bin Ladin) will be allowed. All other states must perish.

3) Freedom of Expression: The very freedom of our minds arouses murderous hatred in the mind of the jihadi. Our ability to express ourselves, to debate, to argue, to agree, to disagree, is an affront to God in their eyes. Under their rule, no one will be allowed to express anything but Islamic thought.

4) Separation of Religion and State: There can be no secular state, since we are ordered by God to live under his laws. Thus, all secular states are inherently God-less and must be destroyed.

5) Formation of Political Parties: Our right to associate with like-minded individuals is nothing more than a sign of our decadence, our distance from God. Anyone who takes place in the democratic political process, even good liberals, are evil and deserve to be decapitated.

This is the word directly from an Al-Queda leader. Notice the complete lack of the usual grievances about Israel, about Western colonialism, about the inequity of our bargaining position in the oil market. No, instead we are told directly that we are to be killed because of who and what we are, because of who and what we believe.

What Is To Be Done?

Dear readers, the Zarqawi tape should (but won't) end the debate between the Muslim Rage School and the Clash of Civilization School. Like the Nazis before them, the Islamists are telling us without mincing words exactly what they think of us and what they have planned.

We hope we will not strike you as illiberal when we admit that we felt it was a grave, near-fatal error for the West not to declare war against Iran when it, as a state, threatened to kill a Western author. Because until they know that our most cherished values, like freedom of speech, are as important and meaningful to us as their Koran is to them, and that we are just as willing to kill and to die to protect them, we will be on the defensive.

In the long run, we have hope. Because, like the Nazis before them, the Islamic leaders keep ruining the efforts of Western appeasers and cowards by continuing to bluntly state the bloody obvious: that they want to kill us and destroy our way of life.

We can fight them now, or we can fight them later, but, eventually, fight them we will. And I wouldn't bet against us.

Washington State II: The Empire Strikes Back

Republican Dino Rossi is now challenging the legality of the Washington State gubernatorial race in the state court. We are most pleased that the Washington Republican Party is refusing to heed "Gov" Gregoire's cynical calls for unity after doing all she can to silence the voices of just over half the voters. The outcome of this fight is critical, in that failure here would reinforce the current tendency of the Democratic Party to litigate its way to office, having failed to win any elections recently.

As we argued below, we would prefer that Rossi's counsel tackle the issue in Federal court, given the directly apposite holdings of Bush v. Gore (Bush II). However, there are a whole range of reasons (mostly political) why attempting to settle the matter in state courts first is probably a good idea.

According to a story in yesterday's Seattle P-I:

The heart of the Republicans' challenge so far is their contention that election workers in several counties fed 437 provisional ballots directly into vote-tabulating machines on election day without determining whether the voters were registered.

Provisional ballots are given to voters whose names don't show up on the registration rolls -- often because they recently moved from another precinct and sometimes because they're not registered voters. Election workers are supposed to set those ballots aside and verify them before adding them to the count. Provisional ballots look exactly like regular ballots, so once they're counted there's no way to go back and separate them out again.
Republicans say this allegation alone should be enough to nullify the election.

"That's more than three times the difference between the two candidates," GOP attorney Robert Maguire told Bridges at last Thursday's preliminary court hearing.

Given the closeness of the race, focusing on these provisional ballots appears to make sense. We wish Rossi the best of luck with his challenge, which we have a lot of faith in given the competence of his general counsel on the issue, former Sen. Slade Gordon, now of counsel to Preston, Gates & Ellis LLP, one of the Pacific Northwest's best law firms. We should also add, however, that we do not hold out much hope for a positive outcome, although recent signs that the people of Washington would like to see a re-vote are cheering.

How the Democrats Stole the Election

Since there has been some confusion and questions raised in the comments on our thread on this topic below, we would like to take this opportunity to re-state the general thesis. A good example of this confusion comes from reader Dingo who posted the following:

"I am guessing that you have not had legal training because you completely misread the "DAVID T. MCDONALD ET AL V. SECRETARY OF STATE" decision because you didn't even get the request for relief correct. The petitioners were asking for the court to order the Sec of State to promulgate uniform standards... that's not the same as asking the court to require the Sec of State to count anything. There is a BIG difference in what you are arguing and what the court decided."

I assure you, Dingo, we have had legal training and we did not get the request for relief incorrect. This is important, because it strikes at the very heart of what the Democrats tried to do, failed to achieve, then ultimately succeeded in achieving.

Dingo is right in one sense: the Democratic party did ask that the court to instruct the Secretary of State to promulgate uniform standards. It is what those standards were to be that reveals the Democratic strategy:

[T]he Washington State Democratic Central Committee seek[s] an order directing Secretary of State Sam Reed to promulgate "uniform standards" for the manual recount now taking place in the Washington State election for Governor. Their Motion and Brief in Support of Emergency Partial Relief specifies that three such sets of standards are being sought:

(1) standards that ensure that all ballots rejected in previous counts are fully canvassed so that the hand recount produces as complete and accurate a tabulation as possible; (2) standards for evaluating previously-rejected signatures according to the more liberal standards applied in most counties; and (3) standards that allow party representatives to meaningfully witness the hand recount, by observing all actual ballots being counted. (Emphasis added).

In other words, the Democrats didn't just want any old uniform standard imposed; they wanted the court to order the Secretary of State to order the counties to re-visit illegal, rejected votes. So, yes, they were asking the court to order the Secretary of State to count new votes. In case this is not clear enough, the court went on to characterize Petitioner's (i.e., the Democratic Party's) request in plain language thusly:

Petitioners thus argue that, contrary to current practice, in a manual recount election workers and canvassing boards must consider anew all ballots previously left uncounted, in keeping with their statutory duty to count all votes cast or each ballot cast, though their argument mainly focuses on rejections made on the basis that absentee and provisional ballot signatures do not match with signatures on file. (Emphasis added).

It was this contention--that a "recount" means revisiting every ballot cast and not a mere recount of votes cast--that formed the central thrust of the Democrats' request for "uniform standards." It was this contention that the court roundly rejected when it held that "under Washington's statutory scheme, ballots are to be "retabulated" only if they have been previously counted or tallied, subject to the provisions of RCW 29A.60.210."

Yet, amazingly, just a few days later, the same court held that the King County canvassing board had the authority to revisit illegal votes (i.e. "consider anew all ballots previously left uncounted") in direct opposition to their holding here that "ballots are to be 'retabulated' only if they have been previously counted..."

With the two unreconcilable holdings, the Court discouraged Republican-leaning counties from revisiting their untallied ballots while, in the end, allowing only one county--King County, the most heavily Democratic county in the state--to revisit a portion of its untallied ballots.

The plain unfairness of this scheme speaks for itself. Under Bush v. Gore, this is an equal protection violation. More than half the voting citizens of the State of Washington have had their Constitutional rights violated. Here's hoping Rossi and the Washington State Republican Party can strike back and correct this obvious and painful wrong.

Vans, Voters Struggled Against by Democratic Party Activists

Speaking of Fox News, today came the heart-warming story about Democratic "activists" (they are all "activists" in the Democratic Party; only the Republicans have "extremists") committing crimes to prevent people from exercising the franchise. We know the Democratic Party has a long, distinguished history of stopping people from voting (see "Slavery, Party of" or "Jim Crow, Party of" in any old encyclopedia), but this must have been a dissuaded voter too far.

It's about time the authorities did something about the lawlessness in the liberal camp. What began as rumors and worries on the Internet of Republican supporters having their cars vandalized, being attacked or even shot at gradually grew into a loud chorus as many people began telling their stories. Surprisingly, despite all the claims from the Democratic side of Republican "intimidation" and "scare tactics," no similar group of Republicans have been arrested like those detained today in Wisconsin.

Fox News picks up the story:

MILWAUKEE The sons of a first-term congresswoman and Milwaukee's former acting mayor were among five Democratic activists charged Monday with slashing the tires of vans rented by Republicans to drive voters and monitors to the polls on Election Day.

Sowande Omokunde, son of Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., and Michael Pratt, the son of former Milwaukee acting mayor Marvin Pratt, were among those charged with criminal damage to property, a felony that carries a maximum punishment of 3 1/2 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

"Sowande Omokunde" is, of course, an African name which loosely translated means "He Who Employs Thuggery to Keep the Family in Power." Rep. Gwen Moore, a proud new member of the Congressional Black Caucus (motto: If You're Not Liberal, You're Not Black!) (alternative motto: We Hate, Hate, Hate You, Clarence Thomas!) is the first Black ever to represent Wisconsin in Congress. It's heartwarming to see that her family has acted with such honor and grace in fulfilling that solemn charge. We cannot wait to hear Rep. Moore on the floor of the House accusing Republicans of stopping people from voting. Don't think this little incident will stop her!

The activists are accused of flattening the tires on 25 vehicles rented by the state Republican Party to get out the vote and deliver poll watchers Nov. 2.

Wow. 25 vehicles, huh? This was no little prank; it was an organized criminal conspiracy to prevent people from voting. And why? Because Republicans are bad people, silly! They don't deserve to vote. This incident brings to mind the old adage about why the Democrats think they are morally entitled to engage in dishonesty and crime to win: because Republicans think Democrats are wrong, while the Democrats think Republicans are evil. (Except for our girl Ann Coulter. We're pretty sure she thinks Democrats are evil, and not a necessary one at that).

The GOP rented more than 100 vehicles that were parked in a lot adjacent to a Bush campaign office. The party planned to drive poll watchers to polling places by 7 a.m. and deliver any voters who didn't have a ride.

A criminal complaint said the defendants originally planned to put up Democratic yard signs, placards and bumper stickers at the Republican office in a scheme they called "Operation Elephant Takeover." But the plan was dropped when they learned a security guard was posted at the GOP office, the complaint said.

More Republican intimidation tactics! Whatever you try to do or wherever you try to do it, the R's have some guy in a badge putting a scare into you. Fascists.

One witness told investigators the five defendants, dressed in "Mission Impossible" type gear, black outfits and knit caps, left the Democratic Party headquarters at about 3 a.m. on Nov. 2, and returned about 20 minutes later, extremely excited and talking about how they had slashed the tires.

Hey, dudes, let's break out that Ninja gear we've been itching to wear and use it to deny people's most cherished and fundamental right!

Democratic Party of Wisconsin spokesman Seth Boffeli said the five were paid employees of Kerry's campaign, but were not acting on behalf of the campaign or party.

Get that? They are all paid employees of Sen. Kerry, were acting to gain their employer an advantage, but they had nothing whatsoever to do with the Senator's Campaign or Party. This sounds like a job for respondeat superior.

And, just for the record, we're sure the MSM would accept a Republican Party's spokesperson's similar assurances had the criminals been slashing the tires of black voters and working for Karl Rove.

"This is not something we engage in, or encourage. We had to make it clear that this is something these individuals were doing on their own," Boffeli said.

Rick Wiley, state GOP executive director, discovered the vandalism on the morning of Election Day.

"It was unbelievable that people could stoop this low in a political campaign," he said. "I figured it had to be someone from the opposition. But I didn't think someone on the paid Kerry campaign would do this."

Think again, Wiley. The same impulse that led sophisticated legal experts in Washington State to steal the gubernatorial election motivated these young men here: a blind sense of self-righteousness. In fact, if we had to pick one character trait that features most prominently among Democratic "activists," that would be it.

Fortunately for the rest of us, it is also the one trait that loses them election after election.

Fox News: Fair and Balanced?

Unless you've been living in a cave since around the time former CNN lead anchor Bernard Shaw asked a hapless Michael Dukakis what he would do if someone raped and killed his wife, you are probably aware of the rise of Fox News. From somewhat humble beginnings, Fox was able to establish itself as a major network, a major sports broadcaster and, of course, the leading cable news channel in the United States.

Fox is a part of News Corporation, a world-wide media concern that owns, among other holdings: newspapers The Australian, The Times, The Sun and The New York Post; broadcast networks/cable channels Fox Broadcast Company, Fox Sports World, Fox Sports Net, Fx, and National Geographic; satellite broadcasters BSkyB and DirecTV; and magazines like TV Guide and (our personal favorite) The Weekly Standard.

News Corp is headed by a man you may have heard of named Rupert Murdoch. He is rumored to be a secretive man, but, judging by his appearance on The Simpsons, Murdoch is apparently a mega-rich evil corporate baron with some degree of magical powers, sort of like a real-world Emperor Palpatine, ruining the good name of journalism by tempting both reporters and the gullible viewing public to the Dark Side.

The rise of Fox News has riled the MSM and all good-thinking liberals everywhere. Especially risible to opponents of Fox is its motto of bringing "Fair and Balanced" reporting to American television. As everyone knows, Fox is most un-fair and definitely un-balanced in that it makes an attempt to understand the views, values and concerns of the roughly 50% of the American public that tends to be conservative and vote Republican. These people, being morons, have no place in public discourse, let alone in real journalism, as any New York Times or BBC reporter would be happy to explain to you.

But is Fox News really "Fair and Balanced?"

Debate on this topic has gone round and round with (surprise, surprise!) conservative groups concluding that Fox News is mostly fair and balanced while liberal groups have come to the conclusion that the network's aggressively conservative outlook skews its reporting.

Fortunately for us, there is an objective way to measure the claims of the various networks to journalistic integrity and fairness. All it takes it to accept two general propositions, neither of which will excite (we trust) much controversy:

General Proposition One: The most important story and political topic of 2004 was the War in Iraq.

General Proposition Two: The most important news programme in a news network's lineup is its Sunday morning show.

Working from those general propositions, let us take a look at the make-up of the Sunday news shows and their hosts' and panels' stances on the War in Iraq. Each participants profession, politics (when not known, the widely-assumed designation is given) and stance towards the Iraq War are listed:

ABC News: This Week

Host:
-- George Stephanopoulos, Journalist, ABC News, Democrat (former Senior Advisor to President Clinton), Opposed Iraq War.

Panel (Regulars):
-- Sam Donaldson, Journalist, ABC News, Probable Democrat, Opposed War in Iraq.
-- Cokie Roberts, Journalist, NPR, Probable Democrat, Opposed War in Iraq.
-- George Will, Columnist, Republican, Opposed War in Iraq.
-- Fareed Zakaria, Journalist, Newsweek International, Opposed War in Iraq.

NBC News: Meet the Press

Host:
-- Tim Russert, Journalist, NBC News, Democrat (special counsel on Democratic side of the aisle in the US Senate), Opposed the War in Iraq.

CBS News: Sunday Morning

Host:
-- Charles Osgood, Journalist, CBS News, Probable Democrat, Stance on War in Iraq unknown.

CNN: Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer

Host:
-- Wolf Blitzer, Journalist, CNN, Political Affiliation Unknown, Stance on War in Iraq unknown.

Fox News: Fox News Sunday

Host:
-- Chris Wallace, Journalist, Fox News, Probable Republican, Supports War in Iraq.

Panel:
-- William Kristol, Journalist, Weekly Standard, Republican, Supports War in Iraq
-- Juan Williams, Journalist, NPR, Democrat, Opposes War in Iraq
-- Brit Hume, Journalist, Republican, Supports War in Iraq
-- Mara Liasson, Journalist, NPR, Probable Democrat, Opposes War in Iraq

Okay, those are the players and those are the facts. What can we deduce from this list?

First, it is clear that ABC News isn't in the ballpark when it comes to ideological parity. Stephanopoulos is a very partisan Democrat, and was so at the height of modern inter-party tension during the Gingrich years. The rest of the This Week panel is very liberal, with the exception of George Will. Will is an authentic conservative voice and a strong advocate for his views. However, Will is one of a mere handful of conservatives (other than the so-called Paleo-Conservatives, who are out of the political mainstream) who vehemently opposed the War in Iraq. On the most crucial issue of the day, there is no dissent at ABC News.

Second, at Meet the Press, the host is all. Russert is the show and the show is Russert. Russert is by far and away the most hard to pin down of the Sunday anchors in that he is equally comfortable talking with Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken. However, he is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat and his questions certainly reveal that mindset. Meet the Press is fairer than ABC, but that isn't saying much.

CBS' Sunday Morning is a special case in that it aims to be a general interest programme and not a hard news show. Still, given the recent events around Rathergate, it is hard to argue that CBS has a conservative bent.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer similarly strives to maintain neutrality, at least by CNN standards. However, we do not think we'd be exciting too much controversy to suggest that CNN is basically and fundamentally liberal. One can always count on CNN to give us the liberal boilerplate.

Which leaves us with Fox News. All the other shows are liberal-dominated and, if they present a conservative viewpoint, they present one which is not in touch with mainstream conservative opinion and is very much against the War in Iraq. However, Fox News Sunday presents a true cross-section of opinion: on the panel there are two bona fide conservatives, with pro-Bush positions, and there are two bona fide liberals, with anti-Bush positions. Each is a credible and respectable representative of their particular beliefs. And while the host may tilt Fox News Sunday towards the conservative end of the spectrum, it is also true that Fox News, alone among the majors, has at least made an effort for real spokesmen for the various positions to participate in the debate.

So, we see clearly that the only Sunday news show that even makes an attempt at presenting a cross section of real American political opinion is, in fact, Fox News. None of the others comes close. The drab conformity of the rest stands in stark contrast to the bold and diverse opinions offered on Fox News Sunday.

"Fair and Balanced"?

You bet.