We haven't been blogging all the "We're about to get Osama!" stories. It seems to us that a healthy amount of skepticism is in order. That said, this story caught our eye:

I have a feeling that Osama bin Laden is about to be captured. The reason behind this prediction is that Fox News Channel's Bret Baier is reporting from the Afghanistan-Pakistan border on military operations in the area. It's my feeling that Baier, the national security correspondent for the network, was sent to the area on a tip from the Bush administration. Why would he be there otherwise?

Maybe, but it could just as easily be in anticipation of the promised Spring Offensive. Stay tuned.

The US economy grew at an annualized rate of 4.1% in the 4th quarter of 2003.

The 4.1 percent pace was better than economists were predicting. They were forecasting growth rate of around 3.8 percent.

For perspective, Germany's GDP rose 0.2% during the same period (and 0.1% for all of 2003).

This was posted on the DrudgeReport:

NATIONAL JOURNAL on Friday claimed Democrat frontrunner John Kerry has the "most liberal" voting record in the Senate.

The results of Senate vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5 -- far ahead of such Democrat stalwarts as Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.

You may be surprised to learn that this blog has relatives in Haiti. Here's an excerpt from an email we received on the trouble there:

As for Haiti, [deleted]'s folks are all sequestered in their homes and do not dare go out. While I agreed with Clinton to reinstall Aristide who was duly elected by the illiterate masses, he certainly became more of a dictator as time passed, not being able to overcome his anger and hostility toward those who opposed him. What finally turned the tide was the massive defections from his own ranks and his attacks on the university (including violence against students, deans,), destruction of computers, books, etc. Finally, the Haitian army (which he said he was happy to have destroyed) have returned (just as had been predicted) and are now the ones with the only real weapons in the country. Hopefully, the unarmed opposition will prevail after this mess is all over! France is anti-Aristide only because he had been demanding that France pay Haiti for sexploiting Haiti and maintaining slavery there! What jerks.

The only contradiction I see in the US' current stance is that the US was not forceful enough with Aristide once he started abusing his power. We should have forced him to negotiate with the opposition much earlier. By the way, the Caribbean Organization of Nations (CARICOM) and the Organization of American States (arms of the UN) have worked with Aristide, but he did not keep his promises to have elections and share power. I think that it why the UN and US kept their distance.

Here's some additional background from StrategyPage:

February 26, 2004: In Haiti, the rebellion against president Aristide was started by some of his own followers, but was soon joined by men who had served as gunmen in earlier military dictatorships. Aristide's problem was that, while he was democratically elected, he was as inept at running the economy as the dictators that preceded him. Aristide is a socialist who believes in state ownership of major industries. He also preached hatred of the United States, blaming America for all of Haiti's problems. Aristide, and Haitians, also blame France and other European (and "capitalist") nations for the troubles in Haiti. Haiti is suing France for reparations (for slavery and other transgressions after Haiti rebelled and freed itself from French rule in 1804). Aristide is now calling on France and the United States to send in troops to save him from his angry followers.

A StrategyPage update has more on the disintegration of the Iraqi resistance:

February 27, 2004: It is believed that the pro-Saddam forces are falling apart, after taking major hits with the capture of Saddam and most of his key henchmen, plus the disruption of the cash flow to Saddam's loyalists. A lot of Iraqis, nearly all Sunni Arabs, still openly praise Saddam and demand that he be restored to power. Given these attitudes, it's no surprise that there are still Iraqis willing to attack coalition forces, especially if there's a fee of a few hundred to a few thousand dollars involved. But most of the attacks are remote control roadside bombs (over 90 percent of them fail), or hit and run ambushes. Iraqis do not want to take on American soldiers, because the U.S. troops tend to be well prepared and full of surprises (like a helicopter gunship popping up out of nowhere, or American snipers suddenly opening fire on Iraqi ambushers.)

No one is saying that the fighting is over, but it does look like we have the upper hand at the moment.

We get really excited every time we see a new article from Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest ranking intelligence officer ever to defect from the Eastern Bloc. Today's piece on Moscow's role in the anti-war movement--and, indirectly, Kerry's 1971 testimony before Congress--does not disappoint.

Another writer, Larry Elder, is suggesting that the government get out of the marriage business. We've blogged this idea before, and think it bears looking into.

Hamid Karzai says the Taliban have been defeated in Afghanistan. Read the whole thing. He's not saying that no one is Afghanistan will shoot at you, just that when they do, it's far more likely to be a criminal or drug gang than a card carrying Taliban.

Mini Editorial:

Quite often the left is accused of being inconsistent. Today, for example, there is a feature in Best of the Web about the Democrats and States’ Rights. Regarding the issue of gay marriage the Democrats clamor for States’ Rights. Of course, when the issue was sodomy laws, abortion, interracial marriage and so on and so forth, the last thing in the world the Democrats wanted to hear about was States’ Rights.

For their part, Democrats don’t think they are inconsistent. So what’s going on? There are different kinds of consistency: advocating a principal, and choosing sides. If, for example, you support the death penalty you are advocating a principal. If, on the other hand, you say that OJ Simpson should have been found guilty you are choosing sides.

Put another way, picture Democrats at a baseball game rooting for the batter one minute, and next minute for the pitcher. Republicans throw up their hands in frustration and ask: “Which is it? Are you in favor of batters or pitchers”? The question is one of principal and thus belies the mistake. The Democrats are not advocating a principal. They are choosing sides. They want their team to win.

The Democrats do understand that most people think in terms of principals—right or wrong, good or bad, and not just endless shades of gray. So when they make their case to the public they frame it in terms of principal. What we all need to understand is that they themselves don’t believe it. They just want their team to win.

A New Jersey court issued a ruling today which calls to mind something George Orwell said: Some things are so stupid that only an exceptionally well educated person could believe them.

The court ruled that lethal injection is impermissible because, gasp, it's fatal. Specifically, once a lethal injection is administered it cannot be reversed. We had a good chuckle over the court's attempt to intellectualize its personal opposition to the death penalty. But then we started thinking, what if the death penalty were reversible? Yes, it's silly. But what if it were?

The idea that the death penalty is per se cruel and unusual, and thus unconstitutional, has been put to bed by the Supreme Court. Those who oppose capital punishment now argue that many innocent people are sentenced to death. The consequences of a mistake are so great that it's just not worth it. Better to keep them in jail for life.

Our tongue-in-cheek suggestion is to freeze death row convicts rather than execute them. That should make everyone happy. Those who support the death penalty should be satisfied that a frozen convict won't escape or be paroled. Those who are concerned about the potential for executing an innocent person should also be satisfied. After all, if you can prove their innocence then no one will object to thawing them out.

We realize that the techniques for thawing a person have not yet been perfected, but are confident they will be someday. In the meantime we can clean out death row and save all the expenses and endless legal wrangling associated with each and every capital case. There will certainly be a cost associated with keeping convicts on ice (literally), but that should be far less than the cost of incarceration and litigation.

Random Thoughts from Thomas Sowell. Here's a sample:

People who enjoy meetings should not be in charge of anything.

And another:

Benedict Arnold was a war hero, wounded in battle -- before he turned against his country. Hitler was likewise a decorated and wounded veteran of the First World War. Being a war hero is not a lifetime "get out of jail free" card, exempting you from responsibility for what you do thereafter.

There's going to be a rhetorical artillery barrage in the coming months over gay marriage and efforts to amend the Constitution, but most of what you hear will be pure bunk. The actual text of the proposed amendment is:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

That's it. That's the entire thing. As you read it you'll notice that it doesn't prevent state legislatures from granting benefits to same sex couples. What it does prevent is state and federal courts from declaring a right to gay marriage without all that bothersome voting.

For the gay lobby, that's exactly the problem. When polls show 2/3 of the people opposed and only 1/3 in favor, you don't ask for a vote. You go to court. Once a friendly state supreme court discovers the right you then go to federal court to force the other 49 states to recognize it too.

Over the coming weeks and months keep in mind the actual language of the proposed amendment. You'll know immediately which side is trying to pull a fast one.

The United States has announced that it will be building an additional 810 miles of roads in Afghanistan. This is in addition to work on the 620 mile central highway connecting Kabul, Kandahar and Herat which was begun in 2002. In December 2003, the portion connecting Kabul and Kandahar opened.

President Bush today announced that he supports amending the Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. You can avoid all the Sturm und Drang and get the bottom line on what this means here (hat tip InstaPundit).

The Village Voice has an interesting article. Here's an excerpt:

Senator John Kerry, a decorated battle veteran, was courageous as a navy lieutenant in the Vietnam War. But he was not so courageous more than two decades later, when he covered up voluminous evidence that a significant number of live American prisoners--perhaps hundreds--were never acknowledged or returned after the war-ending treaty was signed in January 1973.

This is the kind of thing that could dampen Kerry's support among Vietnam Vets, if it's true.

Here's an article in the Guardian which seems to confirm our theory, posted here, that the insurgency in Iraq is being fought primarily with non-Iraqi terrorists. Here's the key quote:

US officials believe that since Saddam Hussein was captured in December the insurgency is being increasingly fought by Islamic guerrillas rather than former regime loyalists.

Everything you need to know about the animal rights movement (hat tip Ayn Rand Institute via Cox & Forkum):

"If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn't make any difference to me."

Last Friday Iranians voted in a rigged parliamentary election. Iran's parliamentary government and President are elected officials and they do run the country. What makes Iran a backwoods, theocratic Thugocracy is the Guardian's Council. The Guardian's Council is a handful of self-appointed Mullahs with absolute power to review all acts of the President and Parliament for compliance with "Islamic Law," of which they are of course the sole arbiters. To ensure compliance with their orders, the Guardian's Council employs an army of thugs whose job it is to terrorize, beat and even kill those who would dare question them.

Prior to last week's vote the Guardian's Council banned over 2,000 of their political opponents from running for office and closed down several newspapers. Although many Iranians stayed home in protest the elections were held and, surprise surprise, the theocrats won.

Iran is the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorists, including the Hezbollah who, until 9/11/2001, held the record for the most American deaths to terrorism. Iran is currently offering sanctuary to a number of al-Qaeda leaders and subsidizing ongoing fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Worse, Iran is building a huge missile arsenal and is in a mad dash to build its own nuclear weapon--something they will likely succeed at in the next year or two.

Despite all this, Iran has been treated with kids gloves. Germany, France and Great Britain have pronounced it a "democracy" and our own State Department has called it "a kind of democracy." If your standard is the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that kind of makes sense. But the fact is that Iran is one of the most dangerous regimes on earth today.

Last Friday's "election" has put paid to any claims that Iran can reform itself. It can't and it won't, because it is firmly in the grips of the Mullahs. Iran needs regime change, and America needs a President who's willing to say so.

John Kerry borrowed the phrase "Bring it on!" from Bush, but clearly has no grasp of the meaning of those words. Over the weekend Kerry retreated from his attacks on Bush for such atrocities as the NASCAR photo op and wrapped himself in the habiliments of victimhood. Kerry, the man who is "ready to stand up to Bush," complained:

Over the last week, you and your campaign have initiated a widespread attack on my service in Vietnam, my decision to speak out to end that war, and my commitment to the defense of this nation.

There is more to Kerry's whining than the sad sight of a callow man who can dish it out but not take it. The weekend's performance is a harbinger, we think, for the year's campaign as a result of McCain/Feingold and the Democrats' so called "527" groups. Most people have not yet heard of 527 groups, but by the end of the year everyone will have. In a nutshell, 527 groups are third party advocacy groups who are the new recipients of the multi-million dollar soft-money donations that, prior to McCain/Feingold, used to go to the Democratic Party. Holman W. Jenkins Jr., writing in the subscription-based Political Diary, sums up the role the 527's are playing:

Last week, the Federal Election Commission gave employment to more lawyers but in the end did nothing to thwart the fast-multiplying Democrat "527" groups that are entitled to raise and spend unlimited soft dollars, helped by big checks from George Soros and other liberal millionaires. Democrats won't be short of money. In fact, the new situation holds certain benefits. Every ad bought with George Bush's "hard money" will have to come with a declaration from the president himself saying he "approved" the ad, which will inhibit serious efforts to strip the bark off an eventual Democratic nominee. Not so ads bought by "independent" groups now raising millions to savage Mr. Bush. These groups will be nicely positioned to sling mud without it rebounding Iowa-style on their own candidate. In fact, Mr. Kerry (if that's who the nominee is) can even make a show of deploring attack ads funded by his allies.

This puts Kerry's victimhood in perspective. He can release his "independent" hounds to say anything they like about Bush, and blush in disbelief when the Bush campaign fires back.

Here's an excellent suggestion for dealing with the gay marriage controversy (hat tip John Fund):

Daniel Weintraub, a libertarian-leaning columnist at the Sacramento Bee, points to a possible compromise. He would prefer the government get out of the marriage business entirely, making all unions a private matter among couples and their faiths. "Our legal system already has the tools to handle the contract implicit in the ceremony, and the state needn't do much other than allow the courts to enforce those contracts like any other."

It seems that, behind the rhetoric, there is an ignored emotional angle to gay marriage. Gays desperately want everyone else to acknowledge how much they love each other. The problem is that the rest of us don't care and do not wish to be bothered. We were sold gay rights on the basis that we don't care what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. We still don't care, but the gay movement has now discovered that it wants us to.

Mr. Weintraub's suggestion is a grand end run around both the legal and emotional problems associated with either allowing gays to marry or amending the Constitution to forbid it. It is a policy of giving unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

FoxNews is reporting that a lieutenant of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed last week in Fallujah, Iraq. Zarqawi is most well-known as the author of a letter intercepted by Coalition Forces in which he took credit for 25 suicide bombings in Iraq and advocated to his al-Qaeda masters a strategy of sectarian war in Iraq--pitting Shi'ites and Sunnis against each other as the only way to derail Coalition efforts.

At the time Zarqawi's letter hit the press his links with al-Qaeda were glossed over, as evidenced in the link above. In fact, Zarqawi was named in Colin Powell's pre-war address to the UN as a key liaison between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime. He is also thought to be al-Qaeda's chemical and biological weapons expert. There's a good background piece on him here.

Zarqawi is a very bad man--the price on his head was raised to $10 million last December. We look forward to seeing him added to the collection at Guantanamo in the not too distant future or, failing that, sent to join his friend.

Here's a story claiming that Osama bin Laden is surrounded and will captured soon. There has been a steady stream of stories on the topic pretty much since Saddam was captured in December. That kind of makes sense. The same special forces units operate in Afghanistan and Iraq. Once freed from the Saddam hunt they could turn their attention back to everyone's favorite Saudi.

Of course, if we are about to capture bin Laden that must mean he's alive. No surprise there. No one but Mark Steyn and the Hallelujah Choir at LittleGreenFootballs has been willing to put down good money on the "Osama is dead" line for some time.

We at The Daily Frog would love to see bin Laden captured...on film as his body is pulled from smoldering rubble. Still, we are skeptical. Osama slipped through our fingers before. He's had over 2 years to prepare another disappearing act.

It's starting to look like Ralph Nadar will enter the 2004 presidential race. I, for one, would welcome another Nadar run. Whatever your opinion of the effects of his 2000 campaign, it seems unlikely that he'll change the outcome in any states this year. First, the race won't be as close. Second, he won't pull down anything like the 3% of the vote he received in 2000--and if he does, the Democratic party has much bigger problems than Nadar or Bush.

I'd be glad to see Nadar run just to liven up what is otherwise going to be 8 more months of nasty, dirty, bitter cat fighting. Bring on the fun, Ralph!

Here's a good piece on what's going on with National Missile Defense. The US will deploy this fall -- before the presidential election -- the first portions of what will eventually be a comprehensive, nationwide anti-ballistic missile defense system.

In an interesting coincidence, here's another article claiming that the Russians have developed a reentry vehicle specifically intended to frustrate defenses. Details are a little sketchy, but it appears to be a mid-course vehicle that can dodge missiles aimed at it. This part is comforting:

[The Soviets] insisted the device was not meant to counter U.S. efforts to develop an anti-missile shield.

Sure. It's meant to counter Angola's anti-missile system. Got it.

Russian claims that their new toy "would make any missile defense useless" seem a little, well, optimistic. It's unclear how a maneuverable reentry vehicle would deal with a boost phase interceptor or directed energy weapons, for example.

We've talked here about the "electability" standard being touted now in the Democratic primaries. Kerry, we are meant to understand, is "electable." The implication seems to be that perhaps some of his competitors for the Democratic nod are not. Electable, that is.

It's nice to think that, under the right circumstances, your candidate at least has a chance of winning. Still, one might wish to set the bar a little higher. The Democratic Party's focus on whether or not their nominee will be DOA at the starting bell could be interpreted by their opponents as an acknowledgement that the Dems have fielded weak candidates. National Review, for example, has likened the "electability" standard to: "choosing a bright star from a dim constellation."

John Fund, writing in the subscription only Political Diary, points out that not all Democrats are buying into the "electability" dogma:


Liberal columnist Molly Ivins is making some waves with her new book "Bushwhacked," an ungenerous take on her fellow Texan, whom she has known since high school. But she also doesn't think much of Democratic frontrunner John Kerry. She told the Financial Times over lunch last week that she's proud of the fact that she "makes money betting on politics." So what's her informed take?

She thinks several of this year's Democratic candidates could beat Bush. But "the least likely of them is John Kerry. He's a tall Dukakis. Minus zero on the Elvis scale -- which, of course, I made up." As a comparison, Ms. Ivins gives Bill Clinton 8.5 to nine on the Elvis scale. As always, points to Ms. Ivins for honesty and consistency.


Actually, Dukakis was a much stronger candidate than Kerry. Historically governors do much better in presidential elections than senators--the last two Democratic presidents were both former governors. Dukakis also ran on a strong economy in Massachusetts. Finally, Dukakis looked, under the right lighting, bright and upbeat. Kerry looks like he needs Dr. Frankenstein's help to get out of bed in the morning.

Yes, Willie Horton hurt Dukakis. John Kerry was, by the way, lieutenant governor at the time of Horton's parole. There were also questions about whether the "Massachusetts Miracle" had anything to do with Dukakis--many credited the Reagan military build up. Dukakis wound up losing to the senior Bush, and left-leaning Massachusetts has not had a Democratic governor since. But Dukakis was still a stronger candidate than Kerry.

Here's a story at the Economist on Japan's economy--and the news is good! Remember back in the 80's when Japan was going to take over the world? Well, they have been in "malaise" (hat tip Jimmy Carter) land for over a decade now.

This is really good news. Even after 13 years of doldrums Japan still has the world's second largest economy and remains one of our most important trading partners.

Two comments on the Wisconsin primary.

1) Kerry has been consistently winning, but he's also consistently getting less than 50% of the vote. He may well wind up being the Democratic candidate for president, but he has by no means unified his own party. Yet.

2) Several pundits (see e.g. this article in Slate) have suggested that Edwards' strong showing among Republicans and Independents in Wisconsin (which has an open primary) means he would be a stronger candidate against Bush. That seems to be...well, optimistic. Crossover votes in an open primary are often spoiler votes--opponents trying to damage the front runner and/or promote a candidate perceived as being weaker. Republican votes in a Kerry vs. Edwards contest are probably not predictive in a Bush vs. Edwards contest.

Here at The Daily Frog we consider James Taranto's daily feature Best of the Web to be mandatory reading. But in case you missed it today, here are a couple of snippets:

--[On the topic of Edwards vs. Kerry] ScrappleFace.com has a funny riff on this theme: "The North Carolina Senator . . . captured 95 percent of the votes of people who had seen Mr. Kerry speaking on TV," according to the satirical Web site. "Mr. Kerry won big among former Al Gore supporters who believe that 'talking slowly without moving one's face' is the key to defeating Mr. Bush."

--Kerry has the dubious and perhaps unique distinction of being a presidential candidate whose speeches have actually been used as an instrument of torture against Americans. The Los Angeles Times reports on Kerry's April 22, 1971, appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which we noted last week:

Dressed in his combat fatigues and ribbons, [Kerry] told Congress that U.S. soldiers had "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads . . . randomly shot at civilians . . . in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan." He later acknowledged that he did not witness the crimes himself but had heard about them from others. . . .

Paul Galanti learned of Kerry's speech while held captive inside North Vietnam's infamous "Hanoi Hilton" prison. The Navy pilot had been shot down in June 1966 and spent nearly seven years as a prisoner of war.

During torture sessions, he said, his captors cited the antiwar speeches as "an example of why we should cross over to [their] side."

More on 527 groups.

By now everyone should have figured out that campaign finance reform won't work. There will always be plenty of private cash available to influence how public money is spent.

You can't get the money out of politics, but you can make it more honest. One excellent proposal that has been trumpeted elsewhere bears repeating here. Remove all limits on donations and disclose them instantly on the internet. Personally, I would take it one step further and permit only donations by "natural persons" -- that is, only real people could donate to a party or a candidate. All "entities" such as corporations, unions, PACs and the lot would be prohibited from donating. Entities would, however, be permitted to continue lobbying. Hey. They have First Amendment rights too.

On the topic of selling out the Chinese...

There has been a great deal of attention over the weekend to revelations about China's nuclear proliferation activities during the 90's. That's all well and good, but the news is quite old. In his 1999 book Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined US Security Bill Gertz writes:

The emerging nuclear arms race on the Indian subcontinent is a direct result of ominous weapons deals that the Clinton Administration ignored in the interest of protecting China from economic sanctions. Beginning in December 1994, China sold some five thousand ring magnets to Pakistan's A. Q. Khan nuclear facility. The magnets are key components in making the fuel needed for nuclear bombs. The ring-shaped high-technology magnetic bearings are made of a special alloy known as samarium-cobalt and must be precision manufactured to withstand the high speeds of the gas centrifuges that are part of the process for making nuclear bomb fuel. China is the world leader in producing the components.

A report today predicts GDP growth of 4.6% in 2004. On the other hand, OPEC recently lowered production quotas for the second time in 6 months. Higher oil prices, of course, could have a negative impact on economic growth. There's a good treatment of the issue here.

By way of comparison, oil was $24.00 a barrel on February 24, 2000 when Al Gore was running for president. Today it's at nearly $35.00 a barrel.

Here's an article in the NY Post about "Arab Afghans" (foreign fighters, terrorists, jihadis, al Qaeda types, etc) fighting in Iraq. Here's an excerpt:

But it is the second type of post-August terror that represents the main threat to security and stability now, and possibly for some time to come. It can be described as "unconventional" because it makes frequent use of suicide operations. And it is clear that the "Arab Afghans" are emerging as the most active elements in the terrorist war now faced by Iraq.

Andrew Olmstead has posted today's Winds of War update on Winds of Change. The following snippet is the lead item:

Insurgents launched a series of attacks on police stations, a civil defense station, and the mayor's office in Fallujah, freeing about 20 prisoners and killing at least 17. The enemy's ability to stage near-simultaneous attacks of such magnitude is a bad sign, but Wretchard notes the real news of the day: "when dying and bleeding, beset by the flower of terrorism, with pistol to set against automatic rifle and grenade, the Iraqi police did not ask for help from 82nd Airborne. They asked for ammunition."

Some thoughts on this attack:

1) It was a military style attack which took a great deal of planning, training, intelligence and professionalism to pull off.

2) In addition to the normal guerilla objectives of sewing panic, insecurity and discord, this mission also had the objective to release fellow insurgents held prisoner.

3) A significant percentage of the attackers were foreigners.

Conclusions? I suspect we may be seeing the final days of the Baath insurgency.

The Baath fighters, the guys Rumsfeld has described as "bitter enders," are supposedly the guys with too much invested in the former regime, too much blood on their hands to give up. So rather than be tried for crimes against humanity they just kept fighting. Some of them had military experience, but for the most part they were thugs, crooks and political flunkies. Their primary form of attack was offering $500 to anyone willing to take a pot shot at the Americans. We've been rounding these guys up for months.

But the intransigent Baath aren't the only folks causing problems in Iraq. There is a significant and growing number of foreign jihadis. These guys are veterans of Afghanistan and Chechnya and/or al-Qaeda training camps. They are experienced professionals. It would be a stretch for the Baath to pull off the Fallujah attack, but not for these guys.

The kinds of attacks we have seen over the last couple of months since Saddam's capture are the same kind of attacks we have seen in Afghanistan, Chechnya and the West Bank: roadside bombs, suicide bombs and RPG attacks on helicopters. That's not a coincidence. That's because we're fighting the same people, the jihadis.

My guess is that we've pretty much ended the Baath insurgency in Iraq. From here on out we'll be primarily fighting a guerilla war with the "foreign" terrorists.

Update: StrategyPage posted the following:

February 15, 2004: Yesterday's attacks in Falluja (against a police station and a civil defense force camp) left nearly 30 dead. Several of the attackers were killed and some were captured and most of these turned out to be foreigners. It's known that Iraqis have been demanding increasingly large cash payments to make attacks on American troops or Iraqi security forces. At the same time, more foreigners (mostly Arabs) have been caught crossing the borders or operating in cities. Pro Saddam Sunni Arab towns like Falluja are among the few places where the foreign fighters can hide without being turned in by more peaceful Iraqis. The use of large groups of these fighters to attack Iraqi police bases is taking the fighting up a level.

Remember the aircraft carrier for sale on eBay? Well, now it's time to accessorize.

Over the weekend Iraqi police captured Mohammed Zimam Abdul Razaq, number 41 on the US Most Wanted list and the Four of Spades in the Deck of Cards. Here's an earlier article on the status of all 55 of the Most Wanted. With number 41 now in custody there are only 10 left unaccounted for.

Of those still on the lam, the following are noteworthy:

No. 6: Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, Revolutionary Command Council vice chairman, longtime Saddam confidant.

No. 7: Hani Abd al-Latif Tilfah al-Tikriti, director, Special Security Organization.

No. 14: Sayf al-Din Fulayyih Hasan Taha al-Rawi, Republican Guard chief of staff.

No. 15: Rafi Abd al-Latif Tilfah al-Tikriti, director of general security.

No. 16: Tahir Jalil Haboush, chief of Iraqi intelligence service.

The highest ranking official still at large, al-Douri, is thought to be leading the ongoing resistance. That makes sense. Prior to the war he was something of a mystery man. He was in photos with Saddam and his innermost circle, but no one was sure exactly what his job was. If he was Saddam's consigliere that would make him a likely candidate to keep fighting till the bitter end.

The other guys I listed above are key figures in "security," "intelligence" and the Republican Guard, which means their jobs would likely involve knowledge of WMDs. In a police state like Iraq information is strictly controlled and compartmentalized, but someone has to know what's going on. In the case of Iraq, the Republican Guard would have been the ones armed with WMD--the regular army would not have had access to WMD, and the Special Republican Guard's job was to protect Saddam, not gas Kurds. Obviously Saddam's intelligence services would have known what, if any, projects were underway. They would be the ones to obtain samples and technical information required to develop and manufacture WMD. They would also act as the liaison with other countries developing WMD. Note that I'm assuming "security" means in Iraq what it meant in the East Bloc countries--part of or related to intelligence.

Does this mean that we will find WMD? No, but it's possible. We still have quite a few people to talk to and quite a few places to look. Keep in mind that a "stockpile" of anthrax would be pretty easy to hide--it would take up less space than Saddam did in his spider hole.

Kerry's former intern has now denied that she had an affair with him. Her parents have also issued a denial. For good measure, they say they'll be voting for Kerry this November. These are the same people who last week called him a "sleazeball" which is, I guess, not completely inconsistent with voting for him.

If there is a TV interview out there, it could be Kerry's "stained dress." But I'm starting to doubt we'll ever see it.

More on the Kerry intern here. Of particular interest, The Sun (UK Tabloid) claims that a US TV network did an interview with her around Christmas, but is waiting for corroborating evidence before it breaks the story. As you may recall, this is standard journalistic practice. During last year's California gubernatorial recall election, the LA Times sat on a potentially damaging story about candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger until it had...wait. Never mind.

Hubble and Keck discover most distant known object in space.

Here's an article in the New York Daily News predicting a 2004 presidential campaign "meaner and longer" than ever. That seems right. Two things not mentioned which will contribute are:

1) McCain/Feingold. This "campaign finance reform" legislation, which everyone assumed was unconstitutional, was nevertheless enacted by Congress, signed by Bush and upheld by the Supreme Court. One of the effects was to limit "soft money" contributions to political parties. The Democratic Party relies on million dollar checks from its special friends in Hollywood, Unions and the Trial Lawyer Lobby. Yes, the vast majority of 6 figure campaign contributions go to the Dems--not the "Fat Cat" Republicans. Anyway, that money is now going to third party "527" groups. The result will be that just as much or more money will go into the campaign, but there will be little or no accountability. A 527 group can say anything it likes about Bush and Kerry can shrug and say something non-committal like "I don't have the facts, but it merits looking in to..." This is pretty much how the National Guard story got started. Expect, lots, lots more of this.

2) The Democrats are deeply, genuinely, profoundly mad. Dey was wobbed! And they really do hate President Bush. Look for them to say and do anything to beat him.

There have been some ugly campaigns in the past. I'm predicting this one will compete for the title of worst ever. If there is such as a thing as going too far negative, we'll find out this year.

OpinionJournal has an article on Afghanistan's drug trade problems. In a nutshell, the illegal economy is booming and the government can't keep up. The answer is obvious, but will never be acknowledged or implemented. Afghanistan should legalize the drug trade and tax it.

OpinionJournal has posted Part 4 in its Marine's Journal series on the invasion of Iraq. This entry, like the previous 3, is loaded with wonderful tidbits. Here's an excert:

We moved on. While stopped in front of someone's house, I noticed a family looking at me and commenting on something. They had a scared but curious four-year-old boy. I moved across to them and gestured to his parents for permission to give the boy a Tootsie Roll. The father said "OK" and smiled. I took my ID case out and showed them the pictures of Jane and Keith with their shining blond hair. The father beamed and seized my hand. He kissed the pictures and gestured to heaven. Mother came out and took the pictures inside to show the other women and children who all gathered inside the house. I had just given, or had taken from me, my wallet with my military ID, $80 in U.S. currency and the pictures of my family to strangers, who took it inside. When I looked apprehensive the man laughed at me. The wallet came back complete. Smiles all around.

Now go read the whole thing.

Anyone care to guess how long until Kerry and wife appear on 60 minutes?

Don't recall seeing this anywhere in the news, but StrategyPage is reporting that Russia has reintroduced political officers in its army. That can't be a good thing.

Newsday has an article on the electricity situation in Iraq. There's also an update on the USAID site, which posted Weekly Update #18 today.

One of the leading stories last year immediately following the fall of Baghdad was the lack of electricity in the country. The coalition had not targeted electrical production facilities in general as it had during the first Gulf War. Still, hostilities had taken off line much of Iraq's measly pre-war daily production of 4,400 MW. Then came the looting. Offices and buildings were gutted. More significantly, electrical transmission cables were being systematically looted. The insulation would be burned off and the copper sold to black market traders. It's hard to get a feel for the scale of what happened. The amount of looted copper coming out of Iraq was enough to lower world prices.

Then there was the ongoing guerilla war and sabotage.

Getting power online became a huge priority--it's still the first item listed in each USAID weekly update. Baghdad residents in particular were complaining. During Saddam's rule he routinely routed power from other cities in order to keep the lights on in Baghdad. The CPA ended that practice, which made the folks in the north and south (who already liked us) happy, but gave the folks in Baghdad one more thing to gripe about.

Making the Iraqis happy isn't the only reason for giving electrical production a high priority. Once more power is available it will be possible, for example, to light up the city streets at night, which will go a long way toward improving security and reducing crime. Power is also a prerequisite for virtually every economic activity, including refining, which the nation desperately needs.

As of October the CPA had more power online in Iraq than Saddam had before the war, and the issue virtually disappeared from the press. At that point generators began to be taken offline to perform long term maintenance which had been neglected for decades. Less power is needed during the winter months. During the summer people would want to run their air conditioners (when it's 140 degrees out that's not so unreasonable). The CPA goal was to get 6,000 MW on line by the summer of 2004, and 9,000 MW online by 2005.

What I haven't found anywhere is the kind of report that gives context to the project. The USAID reports list out how much electricity was generated each day, how many boilers are being refurbished, how many hours of training employees were given etc. OK. but what's the context? How many hours of training do they need? How much electricity does the country need? How much more will there be as a result of refurbishment? Do we need more installed capacity? Can we buy some from neighboring countries? The Newsday article answers some of these questions, but many others remain. If anyone knows of a public source for this kind of information I would appreciate hearing from you.

The Guardian has a number of reader reactions to the Hutton Inquiry on the death of David Kelly. Some of them are pretty funny:

Hutton on the crucifixion of Jesus Christ:
"I am satisfied that the decision to crucify Jesus Christ was one that was made after an independent and rigorous trial by Pontius Pilate. I am further satisfied that Pilate's questioning of him was appropriate and that the Jewish and Roman authorities fully exercised their duty of care towards him.

I'm personally not convinced that Tony Blair had anything to do with Kelly's suicide, but then, there are people who still think Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster killed...

How well did the Patriot anti-air/anti-missile batteries do in the second Gulf War? The Village Voice has an article here. Recall that in the first Gulf War the Patriots had trouble shooting down Iraqi SCUD missiles. There were several reasons, but the leading problems were:

1) The Iraqi SCUDs had been modified to extend their range. The modifications were clumsy and resulted in the missile breaking up on reentry. The Patriot radar saw all the clutter and couldn't distinguish what to shoot at.

2) The PAC-1 and PAC-2 Patriots in the first Gulf War used a warhead intended to blow up in front of the target and break it apart. This works well against aircraft, not so well defending cities against SCUDs. Breaking up a SCUD in the air would often leave the warhead intact. The still live warhead would fall and blow up, even though the missile had been 'hit.'

So, ten years later, how did we do? The good news is the Patriots are hitting their targets. The bad news is they are shooting at friendly targets too.

While we're on the topic of John Kerry...

What's with the "electable" standard? Who thought that up? It's like claiming that your guy will win the marathon because he can actually run 26 miles! That's great, but can he run them faster than the other entrants? Seems to me that it's not a good sign when you have to set your standards so low right out of the gate.

No one was even talking about "electability" until Howard Dean took the lead. Kerry, after all, has been running for president for over a year already. It took 6 months of Howard Dean to make Kerry look "electable."

The DrudgeReport has an early report claiming Kerry has an intern problem. Not a lot of details right now, but it's worth watching. After all, Drudge burst onto the national scene by breaking the Monica Lewinski story. If this is true, it's actually good news for the Democrats that it's breaking now during the primaries and not during the campaign itself. Recall that Clinton had to deal with infidelity stories during the '92 primary season. It is not an insurmountable problem. There is still time for the Dems to either get used to it or chose someone else.

The Dow closed today at 10,737.70, which is a two year high. Paul Krugman will predict doom and gloom.

Think the job market is tough? Be glad you don't work here.

Los Alamos is working on a nuclear propulsion system for its upcoming mission to explore three of Jupiter's moons. This is part of NASA's larger Project Prometheus which aims to develop next generation space propulsion systems using nuclear energy. While not everyone here on Terra is fond of the Peaceful Atom, nuclear energy is currently the only viable way to power the next generation of space exploration.

John Kerry is after the all important Iranian Mullah endorsement. This is probably an area where he can count on a significant advantage over Bush.

FoxNews has a story here about a painting currently on display in the political science department at Lehigh University. In the painting Bush is depicted groping a woman's breasts. The artist says that "groping is a symbol for what the administration seems to be doing..."

During Clinton's eight years there were never any lewd paintings of him displayed in the LU polysci dept. Guess that's because such a painting would not have been "symbolic," but biographical. More appropriate in the history department.

Welcome to my brand new Blog. Can it really be this easy? Let's find out.

We'll start off by slamming Instapundit, one of my all time favorite blogs. In a rare display of cognitive dissonance Glenn writes today:

Those pushing the FMA are, in fact, afraid of democracy -- trying to lock in their eroding position on gay marriage against future democratic change. I think they're right, in a tactical sense, to do that. My students, not especially left-leaning as law students go, are largely untroubled by the idea of gay marriage. I think that's a generational shift, and I think it's what the FMA advocates are really worried about.

This is a weird definition of democracy. We shouldn't vote on something now, because attitudes might change in the future? Glenn seems to be suggesting that the correct "democratic" approach to this issue is to avoid any voting by the people or their legislatures and leave it entirely to the courts.

Whatever your views on gay marriage, this is a dumb argument.