George Will wrote a great column for the Washington Post:

Conservatism’s recovery of its intellectual equilibrium requires a confident explanation of why America has two parties and why the conservative one is preferable. Today’s political argument involves perennial themes that give it more seriousness than many participants understand. The argument, like Western political philosophy generally, is about the meaning of, and the proper adjustment of the tension between, two important political goals — freedom and equality.

Today conservatives tend to favor freedom, and consequently are inclined to be somewhat sanguine about inequalities of outcomes. Liberals are more concerned with equality, understood, they insist, primarily as equality of opportunity, not of outcome.

Liberals tend, however, to infer unequal opportunities from the fact of unequal outcomes. Hence liberalism’s goal of achieving greater equality of condition leads to a larger scope for interventionist government to circumscribe the market’s role in allocating wealth and opportunity. Liberalism increasingly seeks to deliver equality in the form of equal dependence of more and more people for more and more things on government.

Hence liberals’ hostility to school choice programs that challenge public education’s semimonopoly. Hence hostility to private accounts funded by a portion of each individual’s Social Security taxes…

Steadily enlarging dependence on government accords with liberalism’s ethic of common provision, and with the liberal party’s interest in pleasing its most powerful faction — public employees and their unions. Conservatism’s rejoinder should be that the argument about whether there ought to be a welfare state is over. Today’s proper debate is about the modalities by which entitlements are delivered. Modalities matter, because some encourage and others discourage attributes and attitudes — a future orientation, self-reliance, individual responsibility for healthy living — that are essential for dignified living in an economically vibrant society that a welfare state, ravenous for revenue in an aging society, requires.

Go over to the WaPo to read the rest.

I agree for the most part with Will’s column.

I believe that conservatives should try to make the government smaller. Conservatives should not just be in the defense, they should also be in the offense. Being in the defense all the time, means that one will lose, at least every now and then. Being in the offense means that one might actually win sometimes.

Anyway, Will’s column is, as I said, a great one. American conservatives need to refocus on what defines them. What is ‘true’ conservatism?

The Arkansas Times (blog) reports:

The U.S. Justice Department has notified Arkansas’s congressional delegation that Interim Eastern District U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin is resigning effective Friday, June 1. Jane Duke will become acting U.S. attorney. (This is the assistant in the office who the Justice Department once had said had to be passed over as an interim appointee because of her pregnancy. Since it’s illegal to discriminate on account of pregnancy, Justice had to back off this statement.)

Still no word from the White House on selection of a nominee to put through the Senate confirmation process from a slate sent up by Rep. John Boozman.

This is long overdue and a positive development,” said Michael Teague, a spokesman for U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor. “Credibility is being restored to the leadership postion at the U.S. attorney’s office. We have confidence Jane Duke will do a good job.”

Griffin was placed in the job as part of an effort to install picks of Karl Rove in U.S. attorney jobs throughout the U.S. Griffin once worked for Rove. The politics of the move has become more apparent in a succession of congressional hearings. Pryor’s criticism of the ouster of Bud Cummins to give Griffin the job and the use of a permanent interim appointment under the Patriot Act helped trigger what has grown into a national scandal. A law to end the president’s ability to make permanent interim picks without Senate confirmation now awaits the president’s signature.

Long overdue indeed. As far as I can tell, Griffin did not deserve this job: what made him “qualified” were politics. Karl Rove’s politics. He is a “loyal Bushie.”

It seems to me that the law has to be changed: to make sure that something like this does not happen again.

The AP reports:

An American member of al-Qaida warned President Bush on Tuesday to end U.S. involvement in all Muslim lands or face an attack worse than the Sept. 11 suicide assault, according to a new videotape.

Wearing a white robe and a turban, Adam Yehiye Gadahn, who also goes by the name Azzam al-Amriki, said al-Qaida would not negotiate on its demands.

“Your failure to heed our demands … means that you and your people will … experience things which will make you forget all about the horrors of September 11th, Afghanistan and Iraq and Virginia Tech,” he said in the seven-minute video.

Gadahn, who has been charged in a U.S. treason indictment with aiding al-Qaida, spoke in English and the video carried Arabic subtitles. The video appeared on a Web site often used by Islamic militants and carried the logo of al-Qaida’s media wing, as-Sahab.

He also said that “a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq alone would not satisify al-Qaida.” He also demanded “that Bush remove all U.S. military and spies from Islamic countries, free all Muslims from U.S. prisons and end support for Israel.”

You can watch the video at Yahoo News.

I watched it, and I cannot say that I am impressed. I am afraid that Gadahn was bullied a lot in high school or something: he certainly seems to suffer from a tremendous inferiority complex.

You’d almost feel bad for the guy.

Have fun.

Today’s Zaman has a good article up about Turkey, Iraq and the Kurdish problem:

Two months ago in Arbil, a member of the Iraqi Kurdistan Democratic Party asked: “What does Turkey want from us? We just want to make a living here.

Why is Turkey trying to prevent that?” I heard the same words from several dozen angry and scared people. I was actually in Arbil when Massoud Barzani announced that he would interfere with Diyarbakır if Turkey interfered with Kirkuk. At first, Iraqi Kurds were pleased with Barzani’s statements. But concern replaced pleasure after Ankara made harsh statements and began contemplating a cross-border operation.

Two months later and tension about Kirkuk has waned, but the terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) remains a serious problem. The Turkish public and politicians alike were outraged after the bomb explosion in Ankara. Unlike previous terrorist activities, that explosion was perceived as a signal for immediate military action in northern Iraq. It is very likely that a cross-border operation will occur in the near future. There are rumors of unusual movement at the Iraqi border. The northern Iraqi Kurd administration is said to be preparing a defense unit on the other side of the border. Kurdish media organs claim the Kurdish administration is placing barricades and dispatching peshmergas to the border area.

What is going to happen? Well, it appears PKK-based camps near the border will be bombed and a security unit will be formed to guard the border. The format and length of the attack is unclear, at least for the public. Military officers insist that an operation is necessary. However, civil experts who are familiar with the area are a little reluctant. Many experts are concerned that an incursion will result in combat with the peshmergas, which could lead to being dragged into the Iraq quagmire. The situation in the Kurdish region of Iraq is more complicated. Younger politicians, such as Nechirvan Barzani, hold the view that a clash will pose great danger for the Kurdish region. Other politicians believe a Turkish military intervention would unite differing Kurdish groups.

Arbil, an official of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) of northern Iraq told TZ’s Bajan Matur: “Yes, Turkey will easily be able to reach Kirkuk if it wants. It seems impossible to prevent that. But the real question is how will it leave?” The secretary of before mentioned KDP added: “This process can not be reversed at this point. Turkey’s interference in Iraq because of Kirkuk, the PKK or any other reason may gain Turkey positional success, but it will only reinforce separation in the long term.”

Here is a thought: stop giving the PKK the opportunity to launch attacks against Turkish forces. destroy the PKK camps in northern Iraq. Stop donating money to the PKK.

More suggestions necessary?

Read more at Today’s Zaman.

David Boaz warns Libertarians:

Behind Rudy Giuliani’s impressive lead in the polls is one fact that puzzles the pundits: Many cultural conservatives are backing a pro-choice, pro-gun control candidate. But what should be equally surprising is the strong support Giuliani is finding among libertarian-leaning Republicans, who also make up a big slice of the GOP base.

Here’s why: Throughout his career, Giuliani has displayed an authoritarian streak that would be all the more problematic in a man who would assume executive powers vastly expanded by President Bush.

Read Boaz’s entire article at New York Daily News.

The executive VP of the Cato Institute concludes:

iuliani’s view of power would be dangerous at any time, but especially after two terms of relentless Bush efforts to weaken the constitutional checks and balances that safeguard our liberty.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater declared it “the cause of Republicanism to resist concentrations of power.” George W. Bush has forgotten that; Rudy Giuliani rejects it.

I agree with Boaz that this side of Giuliani is not talked about enough. By all accounts, Giuliani seems to be very authoritarian.

Libertarians are rightfully on their guard.

Reuters reports:

President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday.

Tony Snow:

“The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you’ve had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability…”

He said U.S. bases in Iraq would not necessarily be permanent because they would be there at the invitation of the host government and “the person who has done the invitation has the right to withdraw the invitation.”

“I think the point he’s trying to make is that the situation in Iraq, and indeed, the larger war on terror, are things that are going to take a long time. But it is not always going to require an up-front combat presence,” Snow said.

He added: “The president has always said that ultimately you want to be handing primary responsibility off to the Iraqis. You provide the so-called over-the-horizon support that is necessary from time to time to come to the assistance of Iraqis but you do not want the United States forever in the front.”

Well, this won’t make Democrats happy: they want all US forces to be withdrawn within a couple of years time. Not a second Korea.

On the other hand, of course, America has the responsibility to do whatever necessary to bring stability to Iraq. If this means that America has to stay in Iraq for, say, a couple of decades, well, then America should do so.

However, one might wonder in how far Iraq and South Korea are comparable. For that, see links to posts by others below. I also think that Iraqis will, to put it bluntly, kick the US forces out after a couple of years.

Some reactions:
- Joshua Marshall: “It is hard not to take this as another example that the White House is seriously out of touch with both history and reality when it comes to Iraq. Let’s run through a few differences. First, Korea is an ethnically and culturally homogenous state. Iraq, not a culturally or ethnically homogenous state.”

Secondly: “Without going into all the details, South Korea was a military dictatorship for most of the Cold War.”

- The Booman Tribune repeats, essentially, what Joshua Marshall wrote: South Korea was not a democracy for a long time and South Korea is “almost 100% ethnically Korean. They don’t fight over theological differences.”

- The Carpetbagger Report: “The politics of this matters, as well. Congressional Dems have been saying for quite some time that Bush not only wants a blank check, but that he also wants an open-ended presence in Iraq, with no end in sight.

As of this morning, the official White House response to this, apparently, is, ‘Yep’.”

Lina Joy is a Malaysian woman who converted to Christianity and wanted to marry a Christian man. Before she was a Christian she was a Muslim. As we all know, it is not allowed, according to the Sharia, to leave Islam. Michelle:

Joy bravely went to court to stop being identified as a Muslim–and earned death threats and family disavowal for her apostasy. Now, the verdict is in. Sharia wins, Lina Joy loses:

“You can’t at whim and fancy convert from one religion to another,” Federal Court Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim said in delivering judgment in the case, which has stirred religious tensions in the mainly Muslim nation.

Muslims cheered:

The ruling was greeted by shouts of “God is great” from many in the assembled crowd outside the Palace of Justice in Kuala Lumpur…The Joy verdict, which will likely become a precedent for several other pending conversion cases, is seen by many in Malaysia as evidence of how religious politics are cleaving the nation, with a creeping Islamization undermining the rights of both non-Muslims and more moderate adherents to Islam. Last November, at a party conference for the Muslim-dominated United Malays National Organization ruling party, one delegate vowed he would be willing to “bathe in blood” to defend his ethnicity — and, by extension, his religion. In several Malaysian states, forsaking Islam is a crime punishable by prison time.

Like Michelle I wonder: “Where are the feminists? Oh, and how about CAIR? Or our State Department?”

This is a major setback for religious freedom in Malaysia. It deserves to get a lot of attention. Lina Joy dared convert to Christianity, judges told her she cannot. If there is anything in breach with human rights, it is this. As usual, progressives would be wise to respond to this news: if they do not, it will make it very easy for conservatives to blast them for being hypocrites.

More importantly though: I wonder what there is anyone can do to help Lina.

Senator Joe Lieberman is positive about the surge:

What a coincidence. Two years after Cheney said the insurgency was in its last throes, Joe Lieberman made essentially the same prediction.

CNN reports that Lieberman is on an unannounced “surprise” visit to Baghdad. Paula Hancocks followed Lieberman around. She talked to Lieberman and reported, “He said he was happy with the progress. He was devastated by the fact that May was turning in to the deadliest month since November 2004. But he said he did believe that this surge eventually would pay off and it would start to break the insurgency.”

AMERICAblog has a nice video up of Lieberman strawling through Baghdad (”in full battle gear”).

I really wished that politicians would stop going to Baghdad, for a strawl, to ‘prove’ how well the surge is working. They always end up making fools of themselves. You see them walking through the desert, surrounded by dozens of US forces, wearing body armor, a minute later they say how the security situation has improved…

I do believe that the surge is working now, however. My problem with the surge is not that I believe it will not accomplish anything in the short run. The problem is the long run. The situation might temporarily improve, but that is not enough.

A great post by Jason at The Moderate Voice about Romney’s problem: yes, that he is a mormon.

Evangelical Christians at the heart of the Republican base are heirs to a long tradition of anti-Mormonism, harking back to pulpits in the midwest in the 1830s where Mormonism was disdained and feared, even to the point of openly promoting violence and leading ultimately to a historically unprecedented “order of extermination” — an official government authorization of genocide against the Mormons. Intolerance towards Mormons based on both sincere and dishonest disagreements with their religious doctrines has persisted through the years, resulting in the refusal of the Congress to seat a Mormon representative and a 3-year battle before seating a Mormon Senator. Numerous books and movies by self-styled anti-Mormon “scholars” seeking to “expose” the religion have been promoted and displayed through the network of evangelical congregations. In spite of the Church’s century-old rejection of the doctrine of “plural marriage”, the popular image of Mormons within the evangelical community remains one centered on polygamy.

On the other hand, often extreme theological differences have often been overridden by a strong political alliance. Utah is one of the most reliably Republican states in presidential politics, usually exceeded only by Idaho, which is also heavily Mormon. And while early Mormon life was actually a socialist commune, Mormons in the 1950s and later developed a “Boy Scout culture” combining large-family-based conservativism at home with a firm, often strident anti-communism abroad. Mormon politicians like Orrin Hatch hold powerful positions in the Republican Party and provide reliable support for conservative policy programs.

Along with Rudy Giuliani’s support for abortion rights, Romney’s candidacy forces Republican voters to confront directly the question of what kind of party they want to be. Will it be a party based on traditional conservative principles or a party based on evangelical religious principles?

It’s a fascinating issue: I personally know Republican voters who are dedicated to change the direction their party is going. Many more moderate, and traditionally conservative Republicans aren’t happy with the influence of the so-called Religious Right. I hope for the Republican Party that traditional conservatives win this battle: less emphasis on the so-called social issues, and more on fiscal conservatism.

That is what the Republican Party needs.

That’s the question. In the Netherlands we have a new television show: De Grote Donor Show (The Big Donor Show). What’s the show about you ask? Well, quite simple: this Friday 37 year old Lisa will donate one of her kidneys… on television. Three people who need a new kidney will be there. They have to answer questions. After that, Lisa will decide who gets her kidney. The viewers have an active role as well: they can SMS (to advise Lisa probably).

There is a lot of debate going on about this show in the Netherlands. Some consider it a good thing: we do not have enough people who are willing to donate their organs (after they die). This ’stunt’ or show, might make it easier for people to make the decision to donate their organs. However, there are also people who object, who find it tasteless. Members of Parliament have asked questions about the show, some want the government to ban it (it’s being broadcasted on a government-owned channel).

It is very sad that such a show is deemed necessary by so many people. It is very sad that not enough people have signed the paper, giving doctors permission to use one’s organs at the moment one dies. On the other hand, I do not for one second believe that this show will help solve this problem. It will give a boost to the network’s (BNN) ratings, but that is it. They will, I am afraid, not achieve much more than that. Besides that, I also find it to be incrediby tasteless and brutal. How about the ‘losers’?

Well, this certainly puts the Netherlands on the map once again. I am very pleased to see that whenever the world talks about us, it is usual about something ridiculous, like now. Wouldn’t want the world to take us seriously, now would we? No, lets happily enforce the idea that we are more liberal than liberal, more tolerant and open-minded than tolerant and open-minded: no rules. No moral values. No nothing! Hedonism rules!

This is what has become of us: life and death situations have become ‘entertainment.’

For those who wonder what kind of network BNN is: another show was “Neuken Doe Je Zo” (f*ck*ng is done like this).

Yes.

I am dead-serious.

More stress in Turkey:

Arınç, an influential figure in the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), said Parliament would elect a religious president during the rounds of voting held to elect the president. The military released a memo and warned the government not to start a discussion on secularism.

Yesterday, the Hürriyet published an interview with AKP presidential hopeful Abdullah Gül. Gül said: “There can’t be such criteria for the presidency.”

Arınç (thank God for copy and paste with those letters), of course, forgot to wear his secular mask there. The AK Party is a party based on Islamism. Its leaders, like Arınç, Gül and Erdogan, often act as if they support Turkey’s secular system, but make no mistake: all would get rid of the secular system immediately if they could (especially Arınç and Erdogan).

One can only hope that Turkey’s voters will not let themselves be deceived by Erdogan et al. These people oppose a lot Atatürk, the founder of Turkey, stood for.

An interesting article at The Hill about Barack Obama:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) isn’t playing it by the book.

As other White House hopefuls for the Democratic nomination scramble to attend every major event in key primary states, Obama picks and chooses.

And while Democratic candidates court their liberal base, Obama has not been afraid to offend influential constituents in the Democratic Party.

Some have labeled Obama’s campaign as error-prone; others simply call it unconventional.

Obama will be the only Democratic presidential candidate who doesn’t attend at least one of two major state Democratic functions in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire this Saturday.

The reason for this is, of course, that Obama presents himself as ‘the outsider.’ If he would do what Hillay does, the way Hillary does it, he could not possibly expect of people to consider him to be ‘the outsider.’ He has to campaign differently, he has to present himself differently, he has to propose different plans, etc.

It is interesting: I hope for Obama that he does not turn off too many important Democrats / Democratic fundraisers. At the moment they are fed up with him, they will turn against him and embrace his opponents (most likely Hillary).

Hillary Clinton, ‘liberal’:

Presidential hopeful
Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.

“There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed,” she said. “Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies.”

She also said: “We have sent a message to our young people that if you don’t go to college … that you’re thought less of in America. We have to stop this.”

What? Please tell me I interprete this statement completely wrongly. It is wrong to demand of the youth that they go to college? Or at least expect them to do so? Since when? Western economies are increasingly knowledge economies. This means that education is of the utmost importance. This, in turn, means that society must believe in education. This, in turn, means that society must praise those who go to college, and consider it a shame when people do not (go to college). Not because it is ‘wrong’ not to go to college, but because society as a whole benefits from being highly educated.

More:

Clinton also said she would help people save more money by expanding and simplifying the earned income tax credit; create new jobs by pursuing energy independence; and ensure that every American has affordable health insurance.

Beyond education, Clinton said she would reduce special breaks for corporations, eliminate tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas and open up CEO pay to greater public scrutiny.

Ed Morrissey comments:

A lot of nations have tried “all in it together” economic policies over the last century. Some used “government policies” to force all economic activity under government management, and places like the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites all collapsed. Others, such as France, have belatedly discovered that collectivism results in economic stagnation and an entitlement mentality that deflates the will to innovate and invest.

I agree with Ed on this: it always worries me to no end when politicians start using this kind of rhetoric. The middle class could do with a little less protection as far as I am concerned. If you want to lower taxes, great, I applaud you for it, do it by spending less. Sadly, Hillary’s plans will cost the taxpayer more. This means that she will have to get the money from somewhere, somewhere being those who arn more than the average person does.

Punishing people for earning a lot: always a great way to destroy the economy.

It never fails.

The Politico reports:

Fred Dalton Thompson is planning to enter the presidential race over the Fourth of July holiday, announcing that week that he has already raised several million dollars and is being backed by insiders from the past three Republican administrations, Thompson advisers told The Politico.

Thompson, the “Law and Order” star and former U.S. senator from Tennessee, has been publicly coy, even as people close to him have been furiously preparing for a late entry into the wide-open contest. But the advisers said Thompson dropped all pretenses on Tuesday afternoon during a conference call with more than 100 potential donors, each of whom was urged to raise about $50,000.

That is $5 million. Not bad. Not Romney-worthy, but not bad.

If Thompson joins the race, the Republican race / primaries will get even more exciting. It is fairly close as it is, with Mitt Romney rising in the polls, McCain losing a bit of support, same goes for Giuliani.

At the moment Thompson enters the race, everything changes. Suddenly, social conservatives will feel like they do not have to support Giuliani: as far as I can tell, Thompson is most certainly electable.

Will a Thompson run hurt Giuliani the most? Or McCain? Or Romney? My guess, again, is mostly Giuliani (and to a lesser extent Romney). At this moment, the majority of social conservatives supports Giuliani. When they can choose, however, between Thompson and Giuliani, my guess is that they will run over to Thompson like a pack of wolf to a wounded deer.

Sorry, I could not resist.

The Times (London) reports that “a British hostage-crisis team of up to 20 specialists, including SAS and police experts, is on standby in London ready to leave for Baghdad and help find the five Britons kidnapped by insurgents in a brazen daylight abduction yesterday”

Hundreds of US and Iraqi troops conducted raids in the Shia Muslim suburb of Sadr City this morning, searching for four security guards and a computer analyst taken from the Finance Ministry by as many as 40 men in police uniforms.

The team, put together by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will fly out to Baghdad to join the British diplomats and military already working round-the-clock to determine which insurgent group abducted the Britons and to what end…

British Special Forces will play the key role in tracking down the British hostages. The SAS and the Special Boat Service (SBS), the Royal Marine equivalent of the Army’s elite regiment, already have squadrons based in Baghdad, although their main task is to work alongside the American Special Forces, hunting down al-Qaeda.

The team of up 20 specialists put on standby on Tuesday night will leave for Baghdad as soon as the British Embassy in the city has some leads and requires their expertise to provide back-up in trying to track down the kidnappers.

The Brits still do not know which insurgent group was behind the abductions. That being said, they do have suspect that the Mahdi army might have been involved. The Brits killed “Abu Qadir, the leader of al-Mahdi Army in Basra,” last Friday. So, it might have been revenge. The Mahdi army, however, denies “any involvement in the kidnapping, despite one claim of responsibility yesterday.”

Abu Hussein, a commander of al-Mahdi Army in Basra, told The Times: “It is not only a reaction but it is the end of the British here. We will take revenge on the British. It is not just this operation but there will be more and bigger operations against them.”

Later, an Mahdi army spokesman blamed Sunni militias: “We called the Iraqi police in the area and they told us it was uniformed men speaking with Sunni accents.”

How convenient. Were they also wearing signs that said “we are Sunnis, do not blame the Mahdi army”?

If not, they should have. It gets so darn complicated and confusing in Iraq right now: so many militias, it is hard to keep track. I wonder how they identify themselves, do they have special security passes?

Heh. Cheaper than a divorce I guess:

A young mother encouraged her husband to die as a terrorist martyr, the Old Bailey has been told.

Bouchra El Hor, 24, urged on Yassin Nassari, 28, in a letter which was discovered among their luggage at Luton airport, said Aftab Jafferjee, prosecuting.

He alleged that the true significance of the letter became more apparent when police found instructions on how to make missiles on Nassari’s hard drive.

Mr Jafferjee said: “It is the prosecution case that they are not merely radicalised Muslims, but that Nassari was going to engage in what he and others like him would call a jihad - but what the law describes as terrorism…

“His wife was not only aware of his intention, but positively encouraged it - despite the fact that his actions would almost certainly result in his death in some form of combat and would also result in their son being without a father.”

Always nice to know that these people also lived in the Netherlands:

El Hor had returned to Holland to have her baby and was joined by her husband, who had been teaching in Syria, at the end of April, last year.

They arrived in the UK on an Easyjet flight from Amsterdam on May 13 last year with a “mass of luggage”, including computer equipment.

I do not know about you, but it would worry me a tiny bit if my wife encouraged me to commit suicide. Where is the love baby, where is the love?

H/t Holly.

The New York Times reports that “a group of experts advising the intelligence agencies are arguing that the harsh techniques used since the 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable.”

The psychologists and other specialists, commissioned by the Intelligence Science Board, make the case that more than five years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has yet to create an elite corps of interrogators trained to glean secrets from terrorism suspects.

While billions are spent each year to upgrade satellites and other high-tech spy machinery, the experts say, interrogation methods — possibly the most important source of information on groups like Al Qaeda — are a hodgepodge that date from the 1950s, or are modeled on old Soviet practices.

Molded on old Soviet practices? Well, I am sure it will make many people proud to know that the US used the same interrogation ‘techniques’ as the Soviets did.

And guess what, torture does not work:

In a blistering lecture delivered last month, a former adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called “immoral” some interrogation tactics used by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon.

But in meetings with intelligence officials and in a 325-page initial report completed in December, the researchers have pressed a more practical critique: there is little evidence, they say, that harsh methods produce the best intelligence.

“There’s an assumption that often passes for common sense that the more pain imposed on someone, the more likely they are to comply,” said Randy Borum, a psychologist at the University of South Florida who, like several of the study’s contributors, is a consultant for the Defense Department.

Good Lord, have we learned nothing from history? There were thousands of women who admitted to be witches back in the dark ages, after being tortured for hours, even days. The average person would admit to just about everything after being tortured, just to make the pain go away. At a certain moment a person would rather be killed, than endure torture for one minute longer.

It is simple: torture is immoral and “there is little evidence that harsh methods produce the best intelligence.” 1+1=2: no modern government should use torture (or use ‘enhanced interrogation techniques,’ which means exactly the same thing) against anyone. Whether the one being interrogated is suspected of being a murderer, a thief, or a terrorist: torture is never acceptable.

I find it amazing that this is actually subject of debate: even worse, Republican candidates proudly proclaim that the CIA should use “enhanced interrogation techniques” (read: torture) on terrorism suspects. When they do not (McCain), they are depicted as being weak (on terrorism/ national security).

Do Americans understand how badly this hurts their image abroad? I often wonder about that. This makes America look like the bad guy, even those who tend to support the US, will turn against the US on this subject.

More at Balloon Juice and Obsidian Wings.

US President George W. Bush has had it with the conservative base (for now):

President Bush took on parts of his conservative base on Tuesday by accusing opponents of his proposed immigration measure of fear-mongering to defeat its passage in Congress.

He said: “If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s an amnesty bill. That’s empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our citizens.”

Also: “If you want to kill the bill, f you don’t want to do what’s right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it. You can use it to frighten people.”

As ParaPundit points out, “converting illegals into legals is amnesty.”

Talking about empty political rhetoric…

Bush uses his usual strategy: attack your opponents. Do not back down, insult them, question their patriotism or at least their motives, after that back down just a bit to give people the impression that you are willing to compromise, they will change their attitude a bit and then, become aggressive again. It has worked every time he used this strategy against the Democrats.

One problem: the conservative base aren’t politicians, they do not care about how many votes they get, they are the voters. Now, Bush might use this strategy against conservative Republicans in Congress who oppose the bill, but I do not think that this will result in success for Bush either: these Republicans need the support of the conservative base. Bush has only 18 months in office left. These Republicans are more dependent on their base now, than on Bush. The curse of term limits for Presidents one could say.

More at The Populist.