“Iraq’s weapons of mass terror, and the terror networks to which the Iraqi regime are linked, are not two separate threats; they are part of the same threat. Disarming Iraq and the war on terror are not merely related. Disarming Iraq of its chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction and dismantling its program to develop nuclear weapons is a crucial part of winning the war on terror.” – Paul Wolfowitz yesterday. I’m impressed by the intellectual caliber and unified message coming from Washington in the last couple of days. (Although a brief perusal of the television coverage makes me wonder if some in the media are even interested in listening.) It was important to disabuse anyone that the passive games being played by Saddam right now amount to anything other than his usual and customary obstructionism. Wolfowitz’s argument that Iraqi scientists are being threatened with death if they cooperate is particularly stunning. If that’s not a material breach, what is?
ARE “BUG-CHASERS” “MONKEY-FISHERS”? Now that’s a headline I never thought I’d write. The Rolling Stone story about 25 percent of new gay male HIV infections being due to a deliberate attempt to get the virus – dubious to begin with – has now fallen apart. The only basis for that bizarre and inflammatory statistic was one doctor, with no evidence. And he now denies ever having made the comment. Check out my new piece in Salon for details. Or Seth Mnookin’s excellent work in Newsweek. Or this new piece in the Washington Times. It seems to me that whoever is responsible for this piece has a lot of explaining to do.
LILEKS ON ED HARRIS: If you missed it yesterday, don’t miss it today. I always save up Lileks for the evening, before a little, er, relaxation.
TOUJOURS LA FRANCE: Is there a murderous thug the French do not want to do business with? The day after an E.U. ban on travel by Zimbabwe dictator Robert Mugabe, Chirac invites him to a summit. You can’t make this stuff up. Meanwhile blogger Collin May gets what the French have essentially achieved:
By taking a hard line against war, the French have more or less increased its likelihood. The previous French position was far more flexible and diplomatically intelligent. It allowed them to take a more conciliatory role while still holding open the possibility of military action. Between outright war and complete appeasement there are various levels of pressure that can be applied. These levels can only be effective, however, when the threat of military force remains in place. France was playing a useful role to this point, but with their latest action, they’ve undermined any degree of flexibility and opted for an either/or solution. There will either be complete appeasement on the Franco-German model or there will be war waged by a divided west.
War, then. And soon.
THE DEMS’ PANDERTHON: Great reporting from the Democrats’ love-in with NARAL. Maybe Howard Dean could become a partial-birth abortionist before New Hampshire. It could vault him to the front of the field.
HOW THE GERMANS EDIT: Great catch by new blogger Amiland on how Der Spiegel grotesquely distorted the meaning of a recent Tom Friedman column. Tom, if you’re out there, give ’em hell.
NUMBER 27: That’s the traffic ranking of the Daily Dish among political websites according to Alexa (a highly imperfect but not completely useless ratings tool). Whatever the real rankings, it’s good to see a few one-man shows easily rivaling and beating big news organizations and magazines in terms of readership.
MICKEY’S SCOOP: I’ve been laying off the New York Times for a while but Mickey Kaus has a pretty good catch regarding our old friend and Enron adviser, Paul Krugman. Last summer, Krugman was dismissing any idea that Howell Raines had any input whatsoever into editorial columns. “I gather that I’m a low-maintenance columnist: normally I come in on time, on length, and without any necessary rewriting,” Krugman averred on his own pseudo-blog last May. “Did the higher-ups at the Times suggest the topic, or intervene in the process? No. In fact, I haven’t communicated with anyone in management for weeks if not months.” But then in this week’s Howie Kurtz profile, Krugman says that “Raines barred him from using the word ‘lying’ for the duration of the campaign.” So Raines actually dictates his columnists’ vocabulary. Or does he do so only during election campaigns? Or when it involves golf?
The Dish 