Monthly Archives: May 2007

A Real Massacre in Lebanon

How is “the world” reacting to the siege of a refugee camp in Lebanon?

Jonathan Kay writes:

Last week, the Lebanese army attacked a squalid Palestinian refugee camp that’s become infested with Islamist suicide terrorists and guerilla fighters. On May 20, government troops surrounded the camp, with tanks and artillery pieces shelling it at close range. Army snipers gunned down anything that moved. At least 18 civilians were killed, and dozens more injured. Water and electricity were cut off. By week’s end, much of the camp had been turned into deserted rubble. Thousands of terrified residents fleeing the camp reported harrowing stories of famished, parched families trapped in their basements.

How did the rest of the world react? The Arab League quickly condemned “the criminal and terrorist acts carried out by the terrorist group known as Fatah al-Islam,” and vowed to “give its full support to the efforts of the army and the Lebanese government.” EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana also condemned Fatah al-Islam, and declared Europe’s “support” for Lebanon. And the UN Security Council called the actions of Fatah al-Islam “an unacceptable attack” on Lebanon’s sovereignty. As for the Western media, most outlets ignored the story following the first flurry of news reports.

At this point, please indulge me by re-reading the first paragraph of this post — except this time, substitute the world “Israeli” for “Lebanese” in the first sentence. Let’s imagine what the world’s reaction would be if the ongoing siege were taking place in Gaza or the West Bank instead of the Nahr al Bared refugee camp on the outskirts of Tripoli, Lebanon.

First of all, a flood of foreign journalists would descend on the camp to document Israel’s cruelty and barbarism, and the story would remain front-page news to this day. Al-Jazeera would be a 24/7 montage of grieving mothers swearing revenge on the Zionist butchers, and rumours would swirl of mass graves and poison gas. The Arab League, EU and United Nations would condemn Israeli aggression — as would the editorial board of The New York Times. The Independent would dispatch Robert Fisk to embed with Fatah al-Islam. And the newspaper’s cartoonist, Dave Brown, would produce another award-winning rendition of his signature theme: Jews eating Palestinian babies.

Actually, we don’t need to speculate: What I have just written is exactly what happened when the Israeli army invaded the Jenin refugee camp to root out terrorists in April, 2002, a battle that was similar in scale to this month’s siege at Nahr al Bared. (At Jenin, 52 refugee camp residents were killed — most of them gunmen, according to Human Rights Watch. At Nahr al Bared, the figure is 45 and climbing.) The main difference between the two sieges is that Israel’s army put its troops at far greater risk by invading Jenin with infantry — whereas the less humane Lebanese army has simply pummelled Nahr al Bared with explosives from a distance. Jews apparently care a lot more about saving Palestinian civilians than do Lebanese soldiers.

The New Slavery

Outrageous Ann does have a point here:

I’m astounded that debate [on illegal immigrants] has sunk so low that I need to type the following words, but: No law is ever enforced 100 percent.

We can’t catch all rapists, so why not grant amnesty to rapists? Surely no one wants thousands of rapists living in the shadows! How about discrimination laws? Insider trading laws? Do you expect Bush to round up everyone who goes over the speed limit? Of course we can’t do that. We can’t even catch all murderers. What we need is “comprehensive murder reform.” It’s not “amnesty” — we’ll ask them to pay a small fine.

…The great bounty of cheap labor by unskilled immigrants isn’t going to hardworking Americans who hang drywall or clean hotel rooms — and who are having trouble getting jobs, now that they’re forced to compete with the vast influx of unskilled workers who don’t pay taxes.

The people who make arguments about “jobs Americans won’t do” are never in a line of work where unskilled immigrants can compete with them. Liberals love to strike generous, humanitarian poses with other people’s lives.

Something tells me the immigration debate would be different if we were importing millions of politicians or Hollywood agents. You lose your job, while I keep my job at the Endeavor agency, my Senate seat, my professorship, my editorial position or my presidency. (And I get a maid!)

The only beneficiaries of these famed hardworking immigrants — unlike you lazy Americans — are the wealthy, who want the cheap labor while making the rest of us chip in for the immigrants’ schooling, food and health care.

These great lovers of the downtrodden — the downtrodden trimming their hedges — pretend to believe that their gardeners’ children will be graduating from Harvard and curing cancer someday, but (1) they don’t believe that; and (2) if it happened, they’d lose their gardeners.

Not to worry, Marie Antoinettes! According to “Alien Nation” author Peter Brimelow, “There is recent evidence that, even after four generations, fewer than 10 percent of Mexicans have post-high school degrees, as opposed to nearly half of non-Mexican-Americans.” So you’ll always have the maid. As New York mayor Michael Bloomberg said, our golf fairways would suffer without illegal immigrants: “You and I both play golf; who takes care of the greens and the fairways on your golf course?”

We fought a civil war to force Democrats to give up on slavery 150 years ago. They’ve become so desperate for servants that now they’re importing an underclass to wash their clothes and pick their vegetables. This vast class of unskilled immigrants is the left’s new form of slavery.

Amazingly, the ultra-liberal Paul Krugman, in his New York Times column today, seems to agree with Outrageous Ann:

There’s a highly technical controversy going on among economists about the effects of recent immigration on wages. However that dispute turns out, it’s clear that the earlier wave of immigration increased inequality and depressed the wages of the less skilled. For example, a recent study by Jeffrey Williamson, a Harvard economic historian, suggests that in 1913 the real wages of unskilled U.S. workers were around 10 percent lower than they would have been without mass immigration. But the straight economics was the least of it. Much more important was the way immigration diluted democracy.

In 1910, almost 14 percent of voting-age males in the United States were non-naturalized immigrants. (Women didn’t get the vote until 1920.) Add in the disenfranchised blacks of the Jim Crow South, and what you had in America was a sort of minor-key apartheid system, with about a quarter of the population — in general, the poorest and most in need of help — denied any political voice.

That dilution of democracy helped prevent any effective response to the excesses and injustices of the Gilded Age, because those who might have demanded that politicians support labor rights, progressive taxation and a basic social safety net didn’t have the right to vote. Conversely, the restrictions on immigration imposed in the 1920s had the unintended effect of paving the way for the New Deal and sustaining its achievements, by creating a fully enfranchised working class.

But now we’re living in the second Gilded Age. And as before, one of the things making antiworker, unequalizing policies politically possible is the fact that millions of the worst-paid workers in this country can’t vote. What progressives should care about, above all, is that immigration reform stop our drift into a new system of de facto apartheid.

Distinguished Professor of Racial Demagoguery

An editorial in this month’s New Criterion provides a thorough portrait of the rogues’ gallery responsible for the Duke rape scandal.

Here’s an excerpt on one of my favorite “distinguished” academic demagogues:

One of the central players in the scandal was Houston A. Baker, Jr., a former president of the Modern Language Association [and University of Pennsylvania professor] who has built his career through a carefully orchestrated fabrication of race scandals and juvenile cultural relativism. (Choosing between Shakespeare and Jacqueline Susann, he once wrote, is “no different from choosing between a hoagy and a pizza,” adding that “I am one whose career is dedicated to the day when we have a disappearance of those standards.”) Soon after the lacrosse scandal broke, Professor Baker called for “immediate dismissals of those principally responsible for the horrors of this spring moment at Duke. Coaches of the lacrosse team, the team itself and its players, and any other agents who silenced or lied about the real nature of events.” He joined the other members of the Group of 88 in signing a “thank you” letter to campus radicals who had distributed a “wanted” poster of the lacrosse players and publicly branded them “rapists.” After the more serious charges against the three students were dropped in December, the mother of another member of the team emailed to ask if he would reconsider his comments. Professor Baker’s response is illuminating:

“LIES You are just a provacateur [sic] on a happy New Years [sic] Eve trying to get credit for a scummy bunch of white males! …

I really hope whoever sent this stupid farce of an email rots in… . umhappy [sic] new year to you … and forgive me if your [sic] really are, quite sadly, mother of a “farm animal.”

Houston Baker was the George D. and Susan Fox Beischer Professor of English at Duke (how proud the Beischers must be); he has recently decamped to a distinguished professorship at Vanderbilt University. What does that tell us about the state of American academia?

Thanks to Robert Cherry.

We Were The Bad Guys

America’s liberal elite are in awe of the New York Times. Most of the rest of the media (as well as the professoriat) are unable to leave home in the morning without perusing the Times‘s front and editorial pages.

For awhile now, PBS’s Jim Lehrer News Hour has used Times reporters stationed in Iraq. It’s always shocking to see the faces of those responsible for the reports and analysis that appear on the august front page of the august New York Times. To me they look like twenty-somethings who recently graduated from Yale. In other words, they look like bright, privileged, callow know-it-alls. But, hey, they work for the Times, so they must know what they’re talking about.

Today, the guys from Power Line directed me to a review by Hilton Kramer which appeared in the New Criterion of David Halberstam’s book The Fifties .

Kramer describes the Times reporters who covered Vietnam (Halberstam was the most prominent):

The paper had to send in all those reporters in relays to cover the war. Many of them were young men who had little or no experience of the world. They knew nothing about politics and even less about war. There were exceptions, of course, but very few. Some had never before had a serious foreign assignment or seen any military combat. At one point the Times had even sent in a fashion reporter from its Paris bureau. Communism was an abstraction to them. They thought the real enemy in Vietnam was the USA. They weren’t Communists themselves, but they proved to be complete suckers for the anti-anti-Communist line that was now ascendant in the Western press. History for a lot of these guys began with the election of John F. Kennedy, and most of them thought Bobby Kennedy was a saint. In Vietnam, they had three ambitions: to get out alive, to win a Pulitzer, and to see America defeated. Their whole view of the world was shaped by Vietnam. They saw the world divided into good guys and bad guys, and we were the bad guys. Then, when they had finished their stint in Vietnam, they had to be rewarded with assignments to more glamorous foreign capitals, where they were likely to understand even less than they had in Saigon, and where they seldom knew the language, the history, or the culture of the countries they were writing about. This was the kind of comic-strip coverage of foreign affairs the Times was now getting. All in all, it was probably a good thing that newspaper readers were now less interested in foreign affairs than they used to be. It was keeping the circulation of misinformation at a lower level than it would otherwise be.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. But today, these “youths” who cover the war and much else have their misinformation trumpeted far and wide by their acolytes in the classrooms and in the less prestigious media .

It's Losing That's Immoral

Another column that shows why I wish retired Army officer Ralph Peters were in charge.

An excerpt:

…The problem in this kind of conflict is that the initiative inherently lies with the terrorists and insurgents. We’re looking for a limited number of targets: our enemies themselves. Their targets can be anything – a clinic, a school, a marketplace, a roadblock, a gas station or even a mosque. Anything they hit counts as a win.

Our best shot is to keep them on the run, to keep them off balance. But crippling their freedom of action requires that our troops seem to be everywhere at unexpected times. That takes raw numbers.

…we have to maintain a strength of will equal to that of our opponents. War demands consistency, and we’re the most fickle great power in history. We must focus on defeating our enemies, brushing aside all other considerations.

At present, we let those other considerations rule our behavior: We overreact to media sensationalism (which our enemies exploit brilliantly); we torment ourselves over the least mistakes our troops make; we delude ourselves that mass murderers have rights; we take prisoners knowing they’ll be freed to kill more Americans – and the politicians and Green Zone generals alike pretend that “it’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game.”

That’s the biggest lie ever told by a human being who wasn’t a member of Congress.

Winning is everything. Fighting ruthlessly may not please the safe-at-home moralists, but it’s losing that’s immoral.

Consider just one of the many issues about which we’re insistently naive and hypocritical: torture.

Earlier this month, our Army released the results of an internally initiated survey of soldiers and Marines in Iraq. The results showed that almost half of our troops would condone torture in a specific instance if it saved their buddies’ lives.

The media were, of course, appalled. I was shocked, too – surprised that so few of our troops would condone any action that kept their comrades alive.

Torturing prisoners should never be our policy, both because it’s immoral and because it’s usually ineffective. But it’s madness to declare that there can never be exceptions.

Forget the argument about the “ticking bomb” and the terrorist who might have information that could save numerous lives. Let’s make it personal.

Whether you’re left, right or in between, ask yourself this yes-or-no question: If torturing a known terrorist would save the life of the person you love most in the world, would you approve it?

If your answer is “no,” you’re not a moral paragon. You’re an abomination. And please make your position clear to your husband or wife, mother or father, son or daughter. Just tell ’em, “Sorry, honey, but I’d rather see you dead than mistreat a terrorist. It’s a moral issue with me.”

There are countless other ways in which we elevate the little immoralities required in war above the supreme immorality of losing. Leftists loved My Lai – they just adored it – but they were never called to account for the communist atrocities after Saigon fell. Pol Pot’s butchery was never laid at the feet of the self-righteous bastards who shrieked, “Give peace a chance.”

And no one on the left will discuss what might happen if we fail in Iraq. The truth is that they don’t care.

We face merciless, implacable enemies who joyously slaughter the innocent with the zeal of religious fanaticism. Yet we want to make sure we don’t hurt anyone’s feelings.

We’ve tried many things in Iraq. They’ve all failed. It’s a shame we never really tried to fight.

As the great Civil War general William Tecumseh Sherman observed, “War is cruelty. There’s no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”

We Feel Their Pain

The New York Times tells us that the Afghanis are upset over the “scores” of “civilian casualties” caused by our offensive against the Taliban.

Perhaps the Afghanis (and the New York Times) ought to be reminded that the 9/11 attack that killed 3000 (as opposed to scores of) innocent civilians was launched by a jihadist organization which enjoyed many years of safe haven in Afghanistan, where most experts believe Osama bin Laden and his partner Al-Zawahiri still reside.

Jihad: "A Job Americans Won't Do"

Mark Steyn on how vulnerable we are:

Most terrorists seem like bumbling losers if they’re caught before the act: That’s certainly true of the Fort Dix jihadists who took their terrorist training DVD to the local audio store to be copied. It was also true of the Islamists arrested in Toronto last year for plotting to behead the prime minister, one of whose cell members had a bride who wanted him to sign a prenup committing him to jihad. The Heathrow plotters arrested while planning to blow up U.S.-bound airliners included a Muslim convert who’d started out as the son of a British Conservative Party official with a P. G. Wodehouse double-barreled name and a sister who was a Victoria’s Secret model and ex-wife of tennis champ Yanick Noah.

But then Mohammed Atta and the 9/11 gang would have seemed pretty funny if you’d run into them in that lap-dance club they went to before the big day where the girls remembered them only as very small tippers. Most terrorists are jokes until the bomb goes off.

So, when we’re fortunate enough to catch them in advance, it’s worth pausing to consider what they tell us about the broader threat we face. According to genius New York Times headline writers, “Religion Guided Three Held In Fort Dix Plot.” You don’t say. Any religion in particular?

… The three Duka brothers [Fort Dix jihadists]were (if you’ll forgive the expression) illegal immigrants. They’re not meant to be here. Yet they graduated from a New Jersey high school and they operated two roofing companies and a pizzeria. Think of how often you have to produce your driver’s license or Social Security number. But, five years after 9/11, this is still one of the easiest countries in the world in which to establish a functioning but fraudulent identity.

Consider, for example, the post-9/11 ritual of airline security. You have to produce government-issued picture ID to the TSA official. Does that make you feel safer? On that Tuesday morning in September, four of the killers got on board by using picture ID they’d acquired through the “undocumented worker” network in Falls Church, Va. Half the jurisdictions in the United States issue picture ID to people who shouldn’t even be in the country, and they issue it as a matter of policy. The Fort Dix boys were pulled over for 19 traffic violations, but because they were in “sanctuary cities,” any cop who suspected they were illegals was unable to report them to immigration authorities. Again, as a matter of policy.

On one hand, America creates a vast federal security bureaucracy to prevent another 9/11. On the other hand, American politicians and bureaucrats create a parallel system of education and welfare and health care entitlements, main- taining and expanding a vast network of fraudulent identity that cor- rupts the integrity of almost all state databases. And though it played a part in the killing of 3,000 Americans, leaders of both parties insist nothing can be done to stop it. All we can do is give the Duka brothers “a fast track to citizenship.”

The Iranians already are operating in South America’s Tri-Border area. Is it the nothing-can-be-done crowd’s assumption that the fellows who run armies of the “undocumented” from Mexico into America are just kindhearted human smugglers who’d have nothing to do with jihad even if the price was right? If you don’t have borders, you won’t have a nation — and you may find “the jobs Americans won’t do” covers a multitude of sins.

The Campus Commandos

If we could put Ralph Peters in charge…

An excerpt from today’s column:

…The Army hasn’t fielded a four-star with the breadth of vision to wage war at the strategic level and the killer instinct to win on the battlefield since Gen. Barry McCaffrey retired a dozen years ago.

As the generals who led infantry platoons and companies in Vietnam fade from the ranks, we face an incongruous situation in which our lieutenants, captains and majors are combat veterans, while the generals above them never fought in a direct-fire engagement or led daily patrols through Indian country.

Junior officers now have a better grasp of what war means than Army generals do. Platoon leaders want to win. The generals want to make people happy.

For two generations, we’ve trained military leaders to be statesmen in uniform, downplaying pugnacity and guts. We sent promising officers for Ivy League doctorates (thereby cutting off at least one of their . . . um . . . eggs), stressed political assignments, and inducted them into the Washington-insider cult of Salvation Through Negotiations.

Now we have bobble-head generals who nod along with the diplomats who want to hold their Versailles Conference before winning the war.

It’s past time for our senior leaders to jettison the political correctness and fight to win. But they honestly don’t know how anymore. They’ve been so thoroughly drugged with failed academic theories about counterinsurgency-with-lollipops that they’re more concerned with avoiding embarrassments than with killing the enemy.

The bitter truth is that, in the type of conflicts we now face, we must be willing to fight as ruthlessly and savagely as our opponents. We have to play by their moral rules. Stay-at-homes who never served will howl in indignation, but the alternative is defeat.

And is it ever more virtuous to lose to fanatics with apocalyptic visions than to win?

The standard response from the campus commandos is that, if we descend to the level of our enemy’s behavior, we’ll become as bad as them. That’s crap. In World War II, we didn’t exactly coddle the residents of Hamburg and Dresden, Tokyo and Hiroshima.

American soldiers can do what must be done without losing their virtues as citizens (most critics don’t even know any soldiers personally).

The greater dangers may be that we’ve already sacrificed what hope there was for Iraq by waging war to please CNN and the pundits, and that we just don’t have the numbers to make the surge work now.

We should all pray that this last-ditch effort succeeds. But we’re paying for a decade-and-a-half of gutting our armed forces and sacrificing troop strength to pour money into the pockets of unscrupulous – and well-connected – defense contractors. Now soldiers die in sewage-flooded alleys while the billion-dollar bombers sit and rot.

And we’re paying for ending the draft – not because the military wants it (it doesn’t), but because we now have two generations of political leaders who don’t have a clue what it takes to win a war. Not only haven’t they served in uniform, they disdain those who enlist. (Think many soldiers get $400 haircuts like John Edwards?)

A related column by Diana West.

l'age de Sarkozy

The invaluable Ralph Peters gives us Sarkozy in his own words:

What’s striking about this victory is Sarkozy’s bluntness. Instead of mumbo jumbo about la gloire, he speaks frankly about the mess in which France finds itself. (In one of her countless miscalculations, Sarko’s opponent, Ségolène Royal, condemned his forthright manner – but the French were puking sick of empty rhetoric.)

So what can we expect in l’age de Sarkozy? His ability to change a bloated, bureaucratic state will depend largely upon the upcoming parliamentary elections, but, whatever the results, count on nasty rear-guard battles waged by France’s garlic-breathed Jimmy Hoffas and pampered university students (at a time when not one French university makes the world’s top 200 rankings).

And the more Sarkozy succeeds, the more he’ll be hated by the French establishment.

But what does this son of a Hungarian immigrant really believe after all the campaign rhetoric’s hosed away?

Handsomely translated by Philip H. Gordon, Sarkozy’s recent book, “Testimony,” is startling in its integrity. No U.S. politician could be elected on the national stage if he spoke to voters with such read-’em-the-riot-act honesty. Sarko doesn’t pander.

Consider just a few of his eat-your-vegetables messages:

* “The best social model is one that creates jobs for everyone, and this is obviously not ours since our unemployment level is twice as high as that of our main partners.”

* “I admire the social mobility of American society. You can start with nothing and become a spectacular success. You can fail and get a second chance. Merit is rewarded.”

* “France is no longer the country that comes up with new ideas.”

And Sarkozy offers some hard truths to those Americans who mindlessly praise the imaginary social justice and “better” quality of life in a France they know only from privileged vacations that tend to avoid the Muslim slums and collapsed industrial areas:

* “The French have never spoken so much about justice while allowing so much injustice to prevail . . . The reality of our system is that it protects those who have something, and it is very tough on those who don’t.”

* “France has been discouraging initiative and punishing success for the past 25 years. And the main consequence of preventing the most dynamic members of society from getting rich is to make everyone else poor.”

* “It is hard to exaggerate the damage done to France by the 35-hour workweek. How can anyone think that you’re going to create wealth and jobs by working less?”

* “Thirteen percent of retired women live below the poverty line, and a further 25 percent are barely above it . . . The unemployment rate for unskilled workers is 15 percent . . . It is 22 percent for those under 25 and nearly 40 percent for low-skilled youth who live in [immigrant ghettos].”

The French Rudy

Whom do you think the New York Times news editors and reporters wanted to win the French election?

Here’s the headline and opening paragraphs of their news (as opposed to editorial) report:

Sarkozy Wins the Chance to Prove His Critics Wrong

PARIS, May 6 — Arrogant, brutal, an authoritarian demagogue, a “perfect Iago”: the president-elect of France has been called a lot of unpleasant things in recent months and now has five years to prove his critics wrong.

But what is certain is that Nicolas Sarkozy, who won Sunday’s runoff election, is one of the most polarizing figures to move into Élysée Palace in the postwar era. He is a whirling dervish of ideas who inspires hope and fear. Even many members of his own party, the Union for a Popular Movement, are holding their breath in anticipation of what his presidency may bring. “Other politicians don’t want to take risks, but he will take any risk,” said Brice Hortefeux, one of Mr. Sarkozy’s closest friends and political allies.

Mr. Sarkozy is also a bit of an outsider, the first son of an immigrant to rise to the French presidency in a country struggling to integrate second-generation immigrants, the grandson of a Sephardic Jew who converted to Roman Catholicism in a country still riddled with anti-Semitism and a graduate of France’s creaky state university system in a country long governed by technocrats trained at a handful of small, elite “great schools.”

He has always been nakedly ambitious, pragmatic, calculating and not beyond betrayal to reach his goals.

He is full of nervous energy, often rocking on his toes when not at the center of attention — a habit that sometimes makes him look taller than he is in photographs but otherwise draws attention to his small stature.

The New York Sun describes what Sarkozy’s election means:

Well, what do you know. The French hold an election. It comes at a generational turning point in the history of the Fifth Republic. A war is raging in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Sudan and lapping the tonier shores of the Seine. A doddering old Gaullist is on his way out. A young and beautiful socialist is offered to les peuple. The French greet this situation with the highest turnout of voters in memory. Practically everyone goes to the polls. And whom do the French elect? Why, none other than George W. Bush himself.

That is an exaggeration, sans doute. But Nicholas Sarkozy’s election is part of a pattern that puts an end to the “Old Europe” on which Secretary Rumsfeld once remarked, the Europe in which President Chirac sought an entente with Chancellor Schroeder to counterbalance Prime Minister Blair’s Atlanticist ties. Mr. Sarkozy will join the new German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and Gordon Brown, who is poised to succeed Mr. Blair, as European leaders committed to a strong relationship with America. How are all those Democratic Party pinky-in-the-air U.N. admirers who wailed about Mr. Bush’s alienating of Europe going to explain this turn of events? No doubt a victory by Ségolène Royal would have elicited an outpouring of talk about how Europe had just given a rebuke to the policies of the Bush administration. Mr. Sarkozy represents a “rupture,” to use his own term, with Gaullism as it had come to be practiced by Mr. Chirac. The president-elect’s default position on international affairs is not only not anti-American, but one could even call it pro-American. His views on Israel and the Arab world hearken back to the socialists of the Fourth Republic in the 1950s, who understood threats to France as emanating chiefly from the Arab world and viewed Israel as an ally.

All this, moreover, was put to the French voters in no uncertain terms by an increasingly frantic Ms. Royal. In an interview with the daily Le Parisien published Friday, Ms. Royal accused Mr. Sarkozy of holding to “the same neo-conservative ideology” as Mr. Bush and even of “mimic[ing] the American president’s technique of compassionate conservatism.” She had already sought to distinguish herself from Mr. Sarkozy by asserting, “My diplomatic position will not consist of going and kneeling down in front of George Bush,” a reference to Mr. Sarkozy’s high profile visit, in September, to Washington and New York.

During that visit, Mr. Sarkozy not only met with Mr. Bush, but asked for a private meeting with American Jewish leaders that was widely reported in the French press. This flew in the face of the tradition of widespread demonization of the “American Jewish lobby” among French political elites. So did Mr. Sarkozy’s active and successful courtship of French Jewish support, leading to one of the big, unwritten stories of this election. It is the first time a French president would have to say that, in part, he owes his victory to an organized effort on his behalf within the Jewish community.

As the Sun editorial asserts, “How are all those Democratic Party pinky-in-the-air U.N. admirers who wailed about Mr. Bush’s alienating of Europe going to explain this turn of events?” As usual, the New York Times will provide the left with their “talking points” in tomorrow’s editorial.