WHERE TO GET YOUR NEWS
I've become totally convinced that the Washington Post is a far superior newspaper to the New York Times, and the gap is widening. Even Tom Friedman, the lively eulogist to globalization and supporter of Saddam's overthrow, is writing junk like this, with the punchline: "Do we have any chance of succeeding at regime change in Iraq without regime change here at home?" Gag. A few more quotes will highlight just how clueless Friedman is:

And, of course, why did the president praise Mr. Rumsfeld rather than fire him? Because Karl Rove says to hold the conservative base, you must always appear to be strong, decisive and loyal. It is more important that the president appear to be true to his team than that America appear to be true to its principles.

C'mon, Friedman, isn't it obvious that Bush would be better off, politically speaking, firing Rumsfeld as a hostage to public opinion? Bush's conservative base will vote for him anyway, duh. He needs swing voters. He was loyal against his political interests.

Or this:

Why didn't the administration ever use 9/11 as a spur to launch a Manhattan project for energy independence and conservation, so we could break out of our addiction to crude oil, slowly disengage from this region and speak truth to fundamentalist regimes, such as Saudi Arabia?

Obviously, because such a plan would never work, and is completely against the will of the American people, which is why Congress voted down the nutcase Kyoto Treaty 95-0. Maybe on Planet New York this plan would get some support, but the New York Times is suppose to be a national newspaper; this nonsense has no place.

The news is slanted, the editorial page is ponderous, pompous, partisan and out-of-touch. Ugh.

One alternative to the NYT is to go straight to the primary sources and read Bush's speeches. Bush's speeches are a "primary source," and thus have inherent advantages over a "secondary source" like the New York Times. Traditionally, secondary sources have the advantage of being more balanced, investigative, and so on, but nowadays I honestly think that President Bush's speeches are superior to the New York Times as a source of "fair and balanced news," aside from their primary source advantage. For example, here, where, after a pat on the back to beleaguered Rumsfeld, he describes troop movements:

We have made clear commitments before the world, and America will keep those commitments. First, we will take every necessary measure to assure the safety of American and coalition personnel, and the security of Iraqi citizens. We're on the offensive against the killers and terrorists in that country, and we will stay on the offensive. In and around Fallujah, U.S. Marines are maintaining pressure on Saddam loyalists and foreign fighters and other militants. We're keeping that pressure on to ensure that Fallujah ceases to be an enemy sanctuary. In northern sectors of the city, elements of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force are prepared to strike at terrorist fighters and prevent a resurgence of violence and chaos. South of the city, the Marines are disrupting enemy attacks on our supply routes and routing out anti-coalition fighters.

In the towns of Ramadi and Husabayah and Karmah, Marines are on the offensive, conducting hundreds of patrols and raids every day. The enemy in Fallujah is hiding behind an innocent civilian population, and calculating that our coalition's use of force will alienate ordinary Iraqis. Yet, every day our troops are responding with precision and discipline and restraint. We're taking every precaution to avoid hurting the innocent, as we deliver justice to the guilty.

Then he goes on to discuss political reconstruction:

Our second great commitment in Iraq is to transfer sovereignty to an Iraqi government as quickly as possible. Decades of oppression destroyed every free institution in Iraq, but not the desire to live in freedom. Like any proud country, the Iraqi people want their independence. The Iraqi people need to know that our coalition is fully committed to their independence, and we're fully committed to their national dignity. This is a reason the June 30th transfer of sovereignty is vital. The Iraqi people, and men and women across the Middle East, are watching closely, and they will see America keep its word.

The United Nations special envoy, Mr. Brahimi, is now back in Iraq, consulting with diverse groups of Iraqis. In the next few weeks, important decisions will be made on the make up of the interim government. As of June 30th, Iraq's interim government will assume duties now performed by the coalition, such as providing water and electricity and health care and education. A key strategic goal of our coalition is to help build a new Iraqi army and civil defense corps and police force and facilities protection service, and a border guard capable of defending and securing the country.

Who needs journalists when the president is doing such fine reporting himself, infused with allusions to American ideals which make the heart beat with patriotic pride, which inspire you to be a part of the cause, which educate the conscience? However, secondary sources have their advantages, so let's turn now to a good newspaper, the Washington Post.

This piece on double standards with respect to the Geneva Convention confirms my preference for Rumsfeld to resign, though my respect for him is undiminished. Here's the key:

"If you were shown a video of a United States Marine or an American citizen in control of a foreign power, in a cell block, naked with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes, would you describe that as a good interrogation technique or a violation of the Geneva Convention?" The answer is obvious, and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, honestly provided it. "I would describe it as a violation," Mr. Pace said. "What you've described to me sounds to me like a violation of the Geneva Convention," Mr. Wolfowitz said.

Case closed -- except that the practices described by Mr. Reed have been designated by the commanding general of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, as available for use on Iraqi detainees, and certified by the Pentagon as legal under the Geneva Conventions. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, they have been systematically applied to prisoners across that country. And earlier this week, the bosses of both Mr. Pace and Mr. Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, defended the techniques as appropriate.

Rumsfeld's resignation, done properly, could highlight the idealistic nature of the enterprise in Iraq-- not that reasonable people can doubt the idealistic nature of the enterprise, but the last two years, sadly, have revealed that reasonable people are a small minority in this world. As much as possible, it shouldn't look like a humiliation; rather, he should explain that expediency, and a failure to think through the issue properly, led to the adoption of practices which, while not flagrantly inhumane or cruel (individual actions of some soldiers may have been inhumane or cruel, but those were aberrations, not policy) led to legal inconsistencies and demand an overhaul of detention policies.

Next column: Iraq is a mess, argues David Ignatius, but he mentions that there are pockets of stability, particularly where the British (there's a reason those fine old chaps were so good at empire) are in charge. He also worries that the country is in the process of partition. The conclusion resembles my new position slightly:

The truth is, Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn rule" doesn't apply: We did break it, but we don't own it. We have a moral obligation to help Iraqis repair the damage, but we can do so only with their consent -- "slowly, slowly," as the Arabs like to say.

The way I would put it is that Iraq's (invasion-triggered) revolution against Baathist tyranny is their business; we certainly can and should help in the spirit of democratic solidarity, but we have to give the madcap give-and-take of revolution its space, and our position ought to be that of a well-wishing bystander, not the protagonist.

Will Bush be re-elected? Well, I haven't lost the faith, but the polling data seem a bit ominous. Bush's approval rating is lower than those of former winners, but higher than those of former losers:

Matthew Dowd, senior adviser for the Bush-Cheney campaign, said Bush occupies a unique position compared with former presidents. In past campaigns, Bush's predecessors have either been above 53 percent in approval by the time of the election and been reelected, or have been below 46 percent and been defeated.

"We're in that place where no presidential reelection campaign has ever been," he said. "People say this is a referendum on the president. It's both a referendum on the president but also a referendum on the alternative."

What is ominous is that this is shaping up to be a year of wacky, unforeseen electoral swings to the left. Thus India goes the way of Spain. I still welcome the result but this implication for US foreign policy is one I hadn't thought of:

The sharpest discontinuity is likely to come in relations with the United States and possibly with U.S. allies such as Israel. India has become a leading customer for Israeli weapons technology. With Mr. Vajpayee in office, the Bush administration hoped that India might be persuaded to send peacekeepers to Iraq -- a remarkable shift from the Cold War, when India proudly led the Non-Aligned Movement and seized every opportunity to tweak American leadership. The Congress Party-led coalition is expected to swing back to traditional anti-Americanism, sounding off against the United States at the United Nations and perhaps challenging U.S. influence in the Middle East by launching its own peace initiative. All of which would test the Bush administration's reserves of forbearance and tact. But then again, who knows? India's democracy excels at defying expert predictions.

Hmm. I've been reading a book of European history, and it's striking the way the socialists gained power all over Europe in the aftermath of World War II. Somehow the message of wartime solidarity against the Nazis translated into an embrace of socialism, despite the enormous popularity of Churchill and De Gaulle, both men of the right, as war leaders. Maybe the wave of left-wing victories-- in Spain, in France's regional elections, now in India, displays the same phenomenon.

Spain and India, in fact, show this parallel: in each case, the economy was booming, the incumbent's performance was impressive, and the incumbent was leading in the polls until the last minute... and yet was defeated. Now, maybe there's a lesson for the Democrats: they should have nominated a naive but appealing left-winger like Howard Dean, and people would have been skeptical, then at the last minute cast their votes with him. Hmm... instead, we have John Kerry, a convictionless but ambitious, grim, lousy person, who can't get a bounce even during a prisoner abuse scandal, which should be his best moment since he began his career by condemning war crimes in Vietnam. Anyone for President None of the Above? Well, not me, of course...

To conclude my advice about where to get your news, a simple analogy will help. Bush's speeches are like fresh fruit, straight off the trees. Washington Post articles are like fruit well-cooked in tasty dishes by good cooks, turned to pies and cobblers. The New York Times is like fruit rotting, spoiled, covered with flies.