It was annoying enough before the war to hear criticism of any plans to invade. But now it’s just plain silly to hear the critics trying to lecture America about its behavior.

First, Kofi Annan stands up at a session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva and lectures the American military about preserving human rights. Where was this guy when Saddam was killing Kurds and Shi’ites by the thousands?

Second, Howard Dean, make that presidential candidate Howard Dean, isn’t sure that Iraq is better off without Saddam. Huh? He went on CNN and talked to Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: But governor, nobody — nobody disagrees there are going to be problems. But aren’t the people of Iraq so much better off now without Saddam Hussein on their back?

DEAN: We don’t know that yet. We don’t know that yet, Wolf. We still have a country whose city is mostly without electricity. We have tumultuous occasions in the south where there is no clear governance. We have a major city without clear governance. We don’t know yet, and until we do …

BLITZER: You think it’s possible — excuse me for interrupting that whatever emerges in Iraq could be worse than what they have for decades under Saddam Hussein?

DEAN: I do, I do. We have to think of this from an American perspective not an Iraqi perspective. The reason the president gave for going into Iraq which I disagree with is Iraq was a security threat to the United States. I don’t believe Saddam was. But I believe a fundamentalist Islamic regime would be. That we have to guard against, that may be very, very difficult. I think the jury is out in terms of what we’ve created. The other thing is, you have to remember that this president has now created a new American foreign policy a preemptive doctrine. And I think that’s going to cause America some serious trouble down the line, too. I don’t regret my opposition to the war, I think in the long term interest of the United States, we have yet to see whether the war is going to be successful or not.

Give me a break. This guy has no clue.

This is such a great article. I have to say that there are a couple technological things that I am a huge advocate of. Among them are Wi-Fi, HDTV, and, yes, TiVo. I’ve been personally responsible for several of my friends and family going out and purchasing a TiVo. I’ve even stood in Best Buy and given a sales pitch for TiVo to a complete stranger. Call me strange, but I love it.

I guess this is the new thing to do in American politics. When someone with political ideology on the opposite end of the spectrum for your own makes statements you disagree with, you call for his or her resignation. In the case of Trent Lott, his demotion was done for internal GOP reasons. That’s fine. But the uproar over Rick Santorum’s remarks about homosexuality is absurd.

Here’s the text of the AP interview. Read it yourself. Basically, here are the highlights:

I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who’s homosexual. If that’s their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it’s not the person, it’s the person’s actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions. ….

We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.

I don’t understand what the problem is. I think the comparison between homosexual acts and bigamy, polygamy, and adultery are all perfect comparisons. The comparison to incest, while a bit of a stretch, still merits some debate, as does bestiality. He’s making legal, social, and moral arguments about homosexuality. He’s not gay-bashing. A lot of what he said reflects the sentiments of millions of religious Americans, Catholics and Protestants.

It should also be noted that the reporter who first filed a story on this interview is a woman named Lara Jakes Jordan. Fox News pointed out that she is married to Jim Jordan, who just happens to be the presidential campaign manager for Sen. John Kerrey. Kerrey, along with candidate Howard Dean, blasted Santorum for the remarks.

Everyone’s favorite Democratic presidential candidate, Al Sharpton, is getting 2004 campaign geared up. He’s starting by looking at South Carolina. Forty percent of the voters in that state are black, so Al is playing to win, not just to show.

Victory is all but unthinkable for Sharpton, who has more baggage than a vacationing Cindy Crawford. “They aren’t even going to let him use the bathroom in the White House,” says Clarence Lusane, a political science professor at American University. Still, Sharpton has a realistic shot at making a difference, by changing the tenor both of this election and of elections to come.

His handlers have already zeroed in on the primary in South Carolina, where 40 percent of all Democratic voters are black. The February contest is one of the first, offering Sharpton the chance to look good early. One of two African Americans in the race, he could easily finish second there, or—and this is what gives Dems the dry heaves—actually win.

The thing about Sharpton is that he will certainly force the Democrats to confront some of his progressive ideas, which will draw the party further to the left during both the primary season and during the general election. There’s no way that Democrats can think it’s a good idea to give Sharpton podium time at their convention.

Found this great editorial in Arab News. It makes the point that so many of the problems the Middle East has endured over the last fifty years are now solveable, if the people of the region want to solve them:

We should have seen such problems as a challenge — a challenge to develop and modernize our society within the parameters of Islam. Instead, we did the opposite. We started chanting slogans and singing songs of yesteryear, in praise of past glories.

If there is to be progress in the Arab world, the intelligentsia must stop gazing at the past in the futile hope that it can solve the problems of the present. Yes, we should study history because if we don’t we are condemned to repeat it.

But our tragedy has been that we have been looking history straight in the face out of the very corner of our eyes. We have yet to confront the harsh facts of our history. Only when we do can we confront the challenges of the 21st century.

Throughout the past 40 years the focus was on political intimidation. The media played a crucial role in acting as a screen that blinded the people from the harsh realities of life.

The people too grew indifferent, becoming lethargic instead of fighting for their rights. As a result tyrants like Saddam Hussein — goaded by superpowers into regional adventurism — attacked other countries and oppressed their own people.

The absence of the rule of law, lack of accountability and absolute rule over an intimidated public disrupted any social or economic progress. Thus while other countries progressed, the Arab world with its brimming coffers became mired in Third World status.

One of the most intelligent things I’ve read from that region in a long time. Let’s hope this is the kind of stuff we start to hear more often.

Senate minority leader Tom Daschle has been banned from calling himself a Catholic, and presumably, from practicing the Catholic faith.

Tom Daschle may no longer call himself a Catholic. The Senate minority leader and the highest ranking Democrat in Washington has been sent a letter by his home diocese of Sioux Falls, sources in South Dakota have told The Weekly Standard, directing him to remove from his congressional biography and campaign documents all references to his standing as a member of the Catholic Church.

This isn’t exactly excommunication–which is unnecessary, in any case, since Daschle made himself ineligible for communion almost 20 years ago with his divorce and remarriage to a Washington lobbyist. The directive from Sioux Falls’ Bishop Robert Carlson is rather something less than excommunication–and, at the same time, something more: a declaration that Tom Daschle’s religious identification constitutes, in technical Catholic vocabulary, a grave public scandal.

The article goes on to point out that there are quite a few pro-life Catholics in the Senate these days. If I were the Catholic Church, the guy I’d be most upset with his Sen. Kennedy, who has traded on his Catholicism in his largely Catholic home state to remain in office all these years.

And while we’re at it, why don’t the Southen Baptists do some housekeeping as well?

I meant to write about this last week, but just didn’t have time. Rupert Murdoch is about to fulfill his dream of building the world’s first global satellite network. The $7 billion deal to acquire DirecTV will give him satellite operations in Europe, Latin America, Asia, Australia, and the U.S. He tried to close this deal two years ago, but at the time, Echostar looked poise to roll its DishNetwork into DirecTV, creating one large DBS player. The FCC didn’t like that idea and blocked the deal, giving Murdoch the chance to once again acquire the property and a huge discount.

Assuming this deal goes through, look for a major battle between NewsCorp’s DirecTV and cable providers. It’s likely that Murdoch will jack up the cost of FOX channels to cable providers in an attempt to force them to raise their rates, which would drive subscribers away from cable and into the waiting arms of Unlcle Rupert. Also, it would not be surprising to see some of Murdoch’s news operations merge with each other. SkyNews and FOX News have already begun to share resources in Iraq, so it makes sense for them to do so across this new global satellite empire.

I guess it’s not too early to be thinking about the 2004 election already, seeing as how we’re really less than six months away from the unofficial start of the campaign season.

It can’t be good for Democrats that Bush, despite all their best efforts and the efforts of spineless European governments and clueless anti-war protestors, is enjoying a 73 percent approval rating, up from 59 percent the week before the war.

Of course, everyone will point to his dad who enjoyed similar approval ratings after the Gulf War in 1991 and was promptly evicted from the White House a year later. A couple of things need to be remembered. First, the Congress in 1991 was controlled by Democrats, which meant that Bush (41) had to either compromise with them (which he did on taxes) or do as little as possible (which he did on the economy). That opened the door for both Clinton and Perot to step in. People forget that Perot attracted a LOT of conservative voters away from Bush (41). The elder Bush also copped an attitude that he didn’t need to campaign for a job he already felt he deserved, what with helping Reagan to end the Cold War and pushing Saddam back into Iraq.

Bush (43) has learned those lessons well. There is no charming, charismatic Democrat like Clinton waiting to step up nor is there a viable third party candidate (see Nader, Buchanan 2000). Further, Bush managed to pull off the electoral tightrope act in 2000 with ZERO Washington experience. In the two and a half years, he has grown up in the eyes of the country.

Meanwhile, the nine Democratic challengers — Braun (IL), Dean (VT), Edwards (NC), Gephardt (MO), Graham (FL), Kerry (MA), Kucinich (OH), Lieberman (CT), and Sharpton (NY) — are set to debate each other on May 3 in Columbia, South Carolina. This should be good. Now, if only Gary Hart would officially throw his hat into the ring, we’d have an even ten.

I wonder if Braun wishes she could come back to Illinois and run for her old Senate seat that Sen. Peter Fitzgerald is going to forfeit at the end of his current term?

There’s something particularly ironic about the fact that after the so-called Christian invaders have occupied Iraq, it’s the Muslims that are looking out for the Jews. What a strange world this is:

Iraqi Muslims came to the aid of Baghdad’s tiny Jewish community yesterday, chasing out looters trying to sack its cultural centre in the heart of the capital.

“At 3am, I saw two men, one with a beard, on the roof of the Jewish community house and I cried out to my friend, ‘Hossam, bring the Kalashnikovs!’” said Hassam Kassam, 21.

Heither Hassan nor Hossam, who is the guard at the centre, was armed at the time but the threat worked in scaring off the intruders.

Two hours later, the looters returned again and Hassan Kassem used the trick once more.

The centre is located in a freshly-painted white house on a lane off Rashid Street in Baghdad’s old town.

If someone had told me two years ago that in April of 2003 Michael Jordan and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would be exchanging pleasantries at mid-court, I would never have believed them. I guess if Bush gets to throw out first pitches, Rummy can show up at basketball games.

This guy was pathetic. I mean, if you’re a dictator of a country or the son of a dictator, you should at least buy yourself some taste. This place sounds like a cross between Graceland, Michael Jackson’s Neverland, and Sigfried and Roy’s pad:

His personal zoo has lions, cheetahs and a bear. His storehouse has $1 million in fine wines, liquor and heroin. His house has Cuban cigars, cases of champagne and downloaded pictures of prostitutes.

While most Iraqis suffered under U.N. sanctions, Saddam Hussein’s eldest son, Odai, lived a life of fast cars, expensive liquor and easy women, a tour through his bombed house showed Monday.

And this was the regime that so many protestors and spinless Europeans was trying to protect?

Now that the liberation of Iraq has reached the point that nearly everyone is admitting that what the U.S. and our allies intended to do is being achieved, the media has begun to reflect on their own inadequacies. From Eason Jordan, chief news executive at CNN in today’s NY Times:

Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN’s Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard — awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.

For example, in the mid-1990’s one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted. For weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government’s ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency’s Iraq station chief. CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk.

Perhaps next time the President takes a stand on an issue that seems unpopular in the media, rather than immediately ridiculing Bush, we should begin by examining the shortcomings of the media.