The Real News of the Month

February 2003
Volume 10, No. 2

Editor: Joe Sobran
Publisher: Fran Griffin (Griffin Communications)
Managing Editor: Ronald N. Neff
Subscription Rates.
   Print version: $44.95 per year; $85 for 2 years;
   trial subscription available for $19.95 (5 issues).
   E-mail subscriptions: $39.95 for 1 year ($25 with a
   12-month subscription to the print edition); $65 for
   2 years ($45 with a 2-year subscription to the print

Address: SOBRAN'S, P.O. Box 1383, Vienna, VA 22183-1383
Fax: 703-281-6617      Website:
Publisher's Office: 703-281-1609 or
Foreign Subscriptions (print version only): Add $1.25 per
   issue for Canada and Mexico; all other foreign
   countries, add $1.75 per issue.
Credit Card Orders: Call 1-800-513-5053. Allow
   4-6 weeks for delivery of your first issue.

  -> Legacy of Lies
  -> The Moving Picture (plus Exclusives to this edition)
  -> Neos and Other Cons
  -> Among the Bushmen
Nuggets (plus Exclusives to this edition)
List of Columns Reprinted


Legacy of Lies
(page 1)

{{ Material dropped from features or changed solely for 
reasons of space appears in double curly brackets. }}

     For 30 years now, abortion has been legal -- 
allegedly by constitutional requirement -- in the United 
States. Tens of millions of human lives have been 
violently destroyed.

     Though it has been a huge success, the pro-abortion 
movement rests on lies. In 1964 Planned Parenthood still 
insisted that abortion was absolutely different from 
birth control, which, it pointed out, "doesn't kill a 
baby." Today it abhors calling abortion "baby-killing" 
and accuses those who want to ban abortion of wanting to 
ban contraception too.

     Early advocates of legal abortion agreed that 
abortion was a bad thing, but argued that legalization 
would make it easier to regulate. Then they adopted the 
agnostic line: "nobody can say" whether abortion is wrong 
-- it should be a matter of "individual conscience." 
Finally they switched to the position that abortion is a 
positive good, "a fundamental human [!] and 
constitutional right," which taxpayers, no matter what 
their consciences told them, should be forced to 
subsidize. The more abortions, the better. From 
pretending to want to minimize the frequency of abortion 
-- since "it happens anyway" -- they quickly moved to 
maximize it.

     And so it goes, lie after lie. Refute one lie, and 
two others spring up in its place. It's as tiresome as it 
is futile to debate people who argue in such consistent 
bad faith.

     Some lies, of course, are more outrageous than 
others. One of the worst is the calumny that pro-lifers 
want to "impose their views" on others, as if banning a 
form of murder were a form of narrow sectarian zeal. You 
might think that killing a child is a pretty decisive way 
of imposing one's will, if not one's "views," on the 
victim. Millions of pro-lifers have made unselfish, even 
heroic, sacrifices to protect the unborn, pleading only 
that the old laws, struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, 
be restored. If this is a route to power over others, it 
has proved a singularly fruitless one. But mindless 
smears of pro-lifers have become a regular tactic of the 
pro-abortion movement.

     Support for abortion has actually become the central 
tenet of one of America's two major political parties; 
while opposition to abortion is weak in the other party. 
That fact speaks volumes about the level of civilization 
in America today. Not so long ago, pro-lifers used to 
joke bitterly about the sort of Catholic politician who 
would say, "I am personally opposed to abortion, 
but ... " That feeble disclaimer is no longer necessary; 
in fact, it's doubtful that any good Democrat would now 
dare to express even his "personal" opposition. The 
standard line today is "I support a woman's right to 
choose." And this usually means her right to choose to 
have her child horribly dismembered even in the birth 

     Some of the old lies and hypocrisies may now be 
obsolete, but even today the abortion advocates must 
still pretend that they favor only an abstract "choice," 
without specifying the content of what is chosen -- 
namely, the death of an innocent human being. {{ A case 
can be made that abortion is none of the state's 
business, if you hold that the state has no right to 
exist in the first place; but this position in no way 
means that the innocent may be rightfully killed at whim. 
Be that as it may, the abortion advocates are generally 
great believers in the state, even to the extent of 
insisting that the state may authoritatively repeal what 
many of us still believe is divine law. It would remain 
true even if none of us believed it.

     State or no state, THOU SHALT NOT KILL. }} Immortal 
souls are at stake. The modern "liberal" state rests on 
the denial of this fearful truth.

(page 2)

     Suddenly, there is hope of peace -- in the unlikely 
figure of Kim Jong Il, the world's ugliest, nastiest 
tyrant. His nuclear threat has taken the Bush 
administration by surprise: he doesn't mind saying he's 
everything Bush accuses Saddam Hussein of being. And how 
have our dauntless tough guys reacted? With notable 
restraint, that's how. They insist this isn't a "crisis" 
and they want to resolve our little differences through 
negotiation. What happened to their refrain that "the 
risks of inaction are greater than the risks of action"? 
If Kim can save us from war with Iraq, he may deserve a 
Nobel Peace Prize.

*          *          *

     Partial to lobster, fine French wines, and 
Scandinavian blondes, Kim has shunned the austere 
Communist lifestyle that has starved an estimated two 
million North Koreans over the last decade. If there is a 
hell, he will spend eternity boiling naked in oil and 
listening to Alan Dershowitz talk about the Holocaust.

*          *          *

     Reflecting on how to handle North Korea, my old boss 
Bill Buckley writes in his syndicated column, "In 
straight-out wars, we happily engage in blockades. If it 
had been established in the fall of 1944 that more and 
more Germans were starving, we'd have put this down as a 
great achievement. Starving people to death is slower 
than bombing them to death, but still, it would have 
meant fewer Nazis to deal with." So committing war crimes 
is a legitimate part of waging war? Bill's latest novel 
is a celebration of the Nuremberg war crimes trials. Go 

*          *          *

     Christopher Hitchens began his career as an ex-pat 
Brit leftist two decades ago, loving to outrage everyone 
with his naughty heresies. In one column in THE NATION he 
even outraged his fellow leftists by questioning the 
dogma of abortion rights. More recently he has been all 
over the place, calling Mother Teresa a fraud, Henry 
Kissinger a war criminal, Queen Elizabeth II a parasite, 
the Clintons crooks. Of late he has surprised everyone by 
breaking with the Left and supporting the War on Terror. 
He has resigned from THE NATION, and the Right has warily 
embraced him. His newest book, WHY ORWELL MATTERS, 
invites the reader to compare him with his anti-Stalinist 
socialist hero. Such a comparison does Hitchens no favor. 
To see why, you need only read his essay on abortion in 
the February issue of VANITY FAIR. He still admits that a 
human fetus is human, but directs all his snotty Brit 
sarcasm at "fundamentalist pro-lifers" and "Holy Mother 
Church." In the end he ducks the real question with a 
tony reference to Hegel's definition of tragedy: "the 
irresoluble conflict of right with right." So it comes 
down to a tie between the mother's right to convenience 
and the child's right to live? Not exactly a performance 
worthy of Orwell, if you ask me.

*          *          *

     Another Brit writer of widely remarked conversion is 
Jan Morris, author of well-received travel books. I say 
"his," though he was formerly James Morris until he had 
one of those operations. Without wishing to be unkind, I 
refuse to recognize such a thing as a "sex-change" 
operation. To equate a mutilated male with a woman is an 
insult to women. It defines womanhood negatively -- as 
the mere lack of male parts. And the whole idea is just 
plain creepy. Nice though he seems to be (he is no 
crusader for "transsexualism"), I wouldn't hold a door 
open for Mr. Morris. I will however retract these 
animadversions if he should become pregnant.

Exclusive to the electronic version:

     Quick, how many Federal laws are on the books? I 
have no idea either, but we're supposed to obey all of 
them. The other day I was struck by these words of 
"Publius" (in this case, Alexander Hamilton) in 
Federalist No. 62: "It will be of little avail to the 
people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, 
if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or 
so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be 
repealed or revised before they are promulged [sic], or 
undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what 
the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law 
is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a 
rule, which is little known and less fixed?"

Neos and Other Cons
(pages 3-5)

     "What the heck is a 'neocon'?" asks Max Boot of the 
neoconservative WEEKLY STANDARD, writing on the editorial 
page of the neoconservative WALL STREET JOURNAL. He 
professes himself puzzled by the label and unable to 
define it, and he claims that the neoconservatives are 
"no less conservative than anyone else on the right," 
adding, "There's no 'neo' in my conservatism." True, 
"support for Israel" is "a key tenet of neoconservatism," 
but he stresses that "many of the leading neocons aren't 
Jewish" (though he lists only four Christian neocons). 
Any suggestion that neoconservatism is essentially a 
Jewish phenomenon is "a malicious slur."

     Oh, come now. "Support for Israel" is what 
neoconservatism is all about. This "key tenet" is, in 
fact, its entire raison d'etre. And in practice, this 
means urging the United States to make war on Israel's 

     It also means smearing conservatives who oppose such 
wars. Boot spends much of his long column sneering at 
Patrick Buchanan, whose "paleoconservatism" he calls "a 
poisonous brew." (He even lumps Father Charles Coughlin 
with paleoconservatism, though Coughlin was a social 

     Am I suggesting that the neocons have "dual 
loyalties"? Not at all. They have only one loyalty.

     If their loyalties were divided, they might 
sometimes -- even once in a great while -- put the 
interests of the United States ahead of those of Israel. 
Or they might occasionally admit that "support for 
Israel" has cost the United States heavily and made it 
countless enemies (as in 9/11). But their Niagara of 
journalistic propaganda never does either. After the 9/11 
attacks, neocons instantly took the party line that those 
attacks were wholly unrelated to U.S. support for Israel 
-- though they also, in the twinkling of an eye, called 
the attacks a further reason for America to support the 
Jewish state.

     In practice, American politicians angling for Jewish 
votes and money assume that most Jews give their first 
loyalty to Israel. Democrats like Al Gore and Republicans 
like John McCain tell Jewish audiences that the United 
States should be ready to go to war for Israel. Are they 
booed or scolded for casting aspersions on the patriotism 
of American Jews? Not at all. They are cheered and 
rewarded -- for presupposing what it would be strictly 
taboo to say explicitly. In effect, they are affirming 
what I've been accused of accusing Jews of!

     But the real question is whether the neocons are 
conservative at all. And the answer is that they are not 
-- not in any important sense. Boot's entire essay makes 
not a single mention of the U.S. Constitution or the need 
to limit the powers of government. It celebrates "liberal 
democracies" (including Israel under this heading) with 
no hint that Madison, Burke, Dr. Johnson, Oakeshott, and 
most other noted conservative thinkers (as well as 
classical liberals revered by conservatives) have had 
deep doubts about democracy. It says nothing about the 
conservative virtue of prudence or the dangers of 
"unintended consequences."

     Boot follows the current neocon line in its least 
conservative contention: that the United States must not 
only defeat Iraq, but install democratic regimes in the 
entire region: "We need to liberalize the Middle East." 
Neocon Charles Krauthammer similarly says that the war 
will not be about Iraq alone, but "about reforming the 
Arab world." Neocon patriarch Norman Podhoretz has called 
for "World War IV" for the same purpose: replacing 
existing Arab regimes (and Iran's) with democracies.

     All this assumes that "democracies" can be created 
ex nihilo by American military force in an alien and 
hostile region, and that free elections in these 
countries would produce rulers congenial to the United 
States and, more important, to Israel. The idea is so 
absurd one can hardly believe its proponents are serious. 
Truly popular governments in the Middle East would elect 
radical Islamic rulers. An Osama bin Laden would vastly 
outpoll any pro-American candidate.

     Even the neocons admit that spawning democracies in 
greater Arabia would be quite a chore -- for openers, 
"occupying Iraq," as Boot puts it, "for an extended 
period." Evidently this task would mean more than 
toppling Arab despots, setting up voting booths, and 
coming home as democracy worked its magical 
transformation of Arab-Muslim culture. It would mean a 
long U.S. occupation, at who knows what cost in American 
lives and money. But price is no object when it comes to 
"reforming the Arab world" to Israel's liking.

     There is nothing conservative about such an agenda 
of conquest and "nation-building." Conservatives used to 
know that nations aren't "built." They grow gradually 
from viable traditions, which we break at our own risk.

     How did the neocons come to be confused -- and how 
have they confused themselves -- with conservatives? In 
the 1970s and 1980s they formed an alliance with 
prominent conservatives, notably Bill Buckley, on one 
chief issue: anti-Communism. Gradually the Jewish 
"COMMENTARY crowd" began to merge with the more or less 
Catholic "Buckley crowd," even socially. The latter 
obligingly accommodated itself to Zionism, forgetting its 
old suspicions of Israeli treachery and even its 
principled opposition to foreign aid. Israel was now a 
trusted ally of the United States.

     Now that the two movements were as one, the neocons 
moved boldly to take charge. They did their utmost to 
excommunicate conservative critics of Israel, including 
the venerable Russell Kirk, Pat Buchanan, and me. 
Buckley, afraid to oppose them, actually lent them a hand 
in this purge. They praised him for his "courage." My 
shock and disgust were inexpressible.

     With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of 
the Cold War, conservative intellectuals lost their 
bearings. They seemed to forget the principles that had 
originally united them; they interpreted Republican 
political victories, however compromising, as evidence of 
their own triumph; and their agenda became little more 
than supporting any war favored by Republicans. They 
forgot their old hopes of repealing the welfare state, 
the New Deal, the Great Society; and the further the 
country moved leftward, the more they pretended it was 
moving rightward, claiming a popular mandate for their 
shrinking body of principles.

     NATIONAL REVIEW degenerated accordingly. As Buckley 
retired, the magazine fell under the management of young 
men who were conservative only, so to speak, by apostolic 
succession. They were pro-war and anti-Clinton, with 
occasional lip-service to old conservative causes. They 
were also unquestioningly pro-Israel, virtually endorsing 
the Likud party in all its bloody excesses. They had seen 
what happened to conservatives who expressed even 
skepticism about our "ally." And they welcomed neocons 
into their pages and even onto their editorial board.

     These young conservatives were also ignorant of the 
magazine's founding generation -- men like James Burnham, 
Frank Meyer, Willmoore Kendall, Brent Bozell, and the 
others who often slugged it out over philosophical 
questions in the magazine's pages. For the junior 
conservatives, there are no philosophical questions. 
There are only sides to be taken and poses to be struck.

     The reason neocons like Boot can pass themselves off 
as conservatives is not just that they have the 
effrontery to do so; it's also that the young 
conservatives don't know the difference. NATIONAL REVIEW 
no longer espouses any principle or policy position that 
significantly divides it from THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

     To me this is the most amazing part of all. Today's 
alleged conservatives believe the very things their 
forebears rejected. Orwell once wrote that there are some 
things so preposterous "that only an intellectual could 
believe them"; and that now appears to be doubly true for 
the conservative intellectual.

     Far from believing in a limited, constitutional 
Federal Government, today's "movement" conservative 
believes in a centralized, militaristic state. He sees 
war not as an occasional necessity, regrettable and full 
of tragedy and peril even for the victors, but as a 
positively beneficent thing, even for the losers. Annoyed 
by constitutional restraints, he is a Caesarist, claiming 
for the president (provided he is a Republican, of 
course) a discretionary power to make war; and his 
periodicals are full of personal adulation of President 
Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Defense Secretary 
Rumsfeld, embarrassing in their celebration of these 
men's heroism and wisdom.

     In the starkest contrast to earlier conservative 
thinkers, who heaped scorn on visionary central planning, 
the new conservatives actually believe in war as a form 
of social engineering! Never before has enthusiasm for 
concentrated power and violent change been regarded as a 
conservative trait. Nor has the belief that war can work 

     In short, it's hard to find any continuity between 
the older conservatism and the new. The older 
conservatives were at least militaristic for a specific 
reason: they saw Communism as a threat to America and 
Western civilization. For them military power was never 
an end in itself. The hubris of the new rationales for 
war in the Middle East would have appalled them. The new 
conservatives have done their best to make conservatism 
synonymous with militarism -- a crass reduction.

     When I worked at NATIONAL REVIEW, I used to stay 
late at the office, reading bound volumes of the early 
issues. I marveled at the variety and quality of its 
infant years -- essays by Burnham, Kendall, Kirk, Richard 
Weaver, Thomas Molnar, John Lukacs, Erik von Kuehnelt-
Leddihn, the young Garry Wills, and many others. They 
were all different, but all originals. They taught me new 
ways of seeing the world.

     Burnham -- one of the most original -- still worked 
at the magazine, and I was proud to be his intellectual 
apprentice. Jim (as he insisted I call him, despite my 
veneration) was a quiet, calm, kindly man, tall and 
distinguished-looking, who loved shocking ideas. Speaking 
just above a whisper, he even enjoyed shocking his fellow 
conservatives, including Bill Buckley. A trained 
philosopher and logician, he had been a leading American 
communist of the Trotskyite persuasion (he'd always hated 
Stalin) until he fell out with Trotsky. Trotsky had 
insisted that good Reds must support the Soviet Union, 
even under Stalin, and Jim wouldn't buy it. The debate 
was interrupted when Stalin had Trotsky murdered.

     Jim made many mistakes, but he always learned from 
them. His errors became the steppingstones to new 
insights. He had a rare ability to judge his own pet 
ideas, as well as others', with merciless objectivity. 
The very whiff of a conservative party line brought out 
the maverick in him. I couldn't always follow his 
thinking, but I loved his ruthless realism. He distrusted 
the neocons because they were dishonest; they, in turn, 
distrusted him because he was honest.

     He particularly distrusted Henry Kissinger. When, as 
Gerald Ford's secretary of state, Kissinger pompously 
disowned South Africa, Jim remarked to me, "Sometimes, in 
this world, you have to throw your friends to the wolves. 
But you don't have to talk this s--- about 'democracy' 
when you do it." I was more shocked by his mild vulgarity 
than by his contempt for Kissinger. It seemed so out of 
keeping with his exquisite refinement.

     On the other hand, he was no admirer of South 
Africa. It wasn't racism as such that repelled him; it 
was the petty apartheid of such things as racially 
separate drinking fountains: "You don't have to humiliate 
people that way." Hard-headed as he was, he was also 
humane. A true gentleman, was Jim Burnham. A complicated, 
civilized man. I was blessed to know him.

     Jim wasn't lavish with praise. One day, when he was 
in charge of the editorial section during Bill's absence, 
I was especially prolific in discharging my assignments. 
Jim, in his laconic way, told me, "You've written some 
good things today, Joe." I couldn't have been more 
flattered if I'd won the Nobel Prize. On another occasion 
a family emergency forced me to fly home to Michigan. As 
I left, Jim shook my hand and wished me well. It was an 
unexpected gesture from this unsentimental man, and I was 
quite moved. He wasn't cold; he merely saved his warmth 
for when it was really needed.

     A stroke forced Jim to retire in 1978.

     I missed him; the magazine missed him; Bill Buckley 
no doubt missed him more acutely than the rest of us. Jim 
was Bill's intellectual conscience, and when Jim was gone 
Bill himself was never quite the same; his tendency to 
excess unfortunately had nothing to restrain it. Bill, 
with his impulsive hyperbole, was Bertie Wooster; Jim, 
with his carefully measured words, was his Jeeves.

     Though Jim was never an orthodox or "movement" 
conservative, he supplied the movement with a note of 
skepticism that was a valuable corrective to its 
enthusiasms. I took his gentle rebukes -- and even his 
noncommittal silences -- to heart.

     Every movement needs its mavericks as well as its 
leaders. Today the conservative movement has disowned its 
mavericks. A recent article in NATIONAL REVIEW gloated 
that three prominent mavericks on the 1991 Gulf war -- 
Buchanan, Sam Francis, and I -- have been "marginalized." 
An odd thing to celebrate, given that conservatives still 
complain that liberals try to marginalize them. The 
author didn't realize that he was actually exulting in 
the neocons' success in redefining conservatism; he 
himself has survived the neocons' purge because he has 
carefully avoided offending them.

     Conservatism, I think, usually begins with an 
inchoate feeling that the liberal order of unqualified 
statism is wrong. Conservatism is less a specific 
doctrine than a sense that we must retrace our steps 
before it's too late. The neocons have made their peace 
with modernity and the modern state; the conservative -- 
the genuine article -- is ready to insist that we can, 
and must, "turn back the clock," if necessary. His mind 
is so open that he will even entertain the unthinkable 
idea that the reactionary may be right.

Among the Bushmen
(page 6)

{{ Material dropped from features or changed solely for 
reasons of space appears in double curly brackets. }}

     Bob Woodward's latest book, BUSH AT WAR, (Simon & 
Schuster), is the sort of thing we've come to expect of 
Woodward: a narrative culled from interviews with top 
Washington insiders, without footnotes and often without 
attribution. Woodward's methods have often been 
criticized for violating scholarly proprieties, but in 
this case it's pretty clear whom he has been talking to. 
{{ He's an honest and workmanlike reporter with a gift 
for getting powerful people to speak frankly. His methods 
are justified by his results. }}

     BUSH AT WAR concentrates on the first phase of the 
"war on terrorism." We see the Bush team -- the president 
(amply quoted throughout), Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, 
Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and many others -- 
planning, or plotting, war on Afghanistan in the wake of 
the 9/11 attacks.

     To my surprise, the book has increased my respect 
for George W. Bush. His public utterances -- with their 
garbled syntax, malapropisms, and gauche grandiloquence 
-- often make him sound foolish. But in private, both in 
his inner councils and in his explanations to Woodward, 
he seems far more intelligent, reasonable, aware of 
complexities, even morally sensitive (or at least 
sensitive to moral appearances). He wants to avoid 
seeming to be at war with Islam or Muslims as such; he 
takes pains not to bomb civilians or mosques. He wants to 
arouse the American public without causing panic or, on 
the other hand, raising false hopes of a quick victory. 
He repeatedly says he trusts his "instincts," which, 
pragmatically speaking, are pretty good: "We don't want 
to define [the terrorist threat] too broadly for the 
average man to understand."

     We see the tussling between those who, like Cheney 
and Rumsfeld, are eager to get on with combat and Colin 
Powell, who, though hardly a dove, wants to lay careful 
diplomatic groundwork before the shooting starts. Bush 
takes all their views into account without becoming 
indecisive. He is definitely in charge. It's a relief to 
know that at least we aren't being ruled by a fool or 

     Still, Bush is not a man to examine his own 
premises. He views "terrorism" as a discrete and concrete 
enemy, isolated from any historical background. He never 
questions America's role in the world, never asks whether 
terrorism is part of a much broader, and understandable, 
reaction against U.S. global hegemony. He thinks sending 
"humanitarian" aid to Afghanistan, along with bombs, will 
demonstrate America's good intentions sufficiently.

     Here Bush shows the sad inadequacy of his 
"instinct." {{ One is reminded of Lord Keynes's remark 
that men who fancy themselves pragmatic are usually 
guided by outworn theories of which they are unaware. }} 
He assumes all the conventional wisdom of yesteryear; he 
sees Lincoln, Churchill, and Franklin Roosevelt as model 
wartime leaders, though all he seems to know of them is 
their reputations, the shallow "lessons of history" they 
represent. Pointing to Lincoln's portrait in the Oval 
Office, he remarks, "He's on the wall because the job of 
the president is to unite the nation." Well, that's that!

     Less than a year and a half after 9/11, these White 
House inner councils already seem to belong to another 
era. They occurred at a time when the shadowy al-Qaeda 
was felt to be more menacing than it has since proved. 
Nearly everyone, including me, expected and dreaded an 
equally spectacular encore of 9/11. The anthrax scare 
added to the general panic. Yet there has been no such 
follow-up, only a few scattered terrorist acts of what I 
suppose we must now call the routine sort, and we don't 
really know whether any of them are the work of al-Qaeda.

     So all the inner-circle discussions Woodward 
recounts -- focusing on the details of the Afghan phase 
of the war -- now sound rather like a group of elephants 
planning to do combat with hornets. The little critters 
can be nasty, but they aren't really formidable. Bush is 
at his silliest when he speaks of al-Qaeda as seeking 
tyrannical power, like the Hitlers and Stalins of 
yesteryear; he forgets his own insistence that this is "a 
new kind of war."

     Woodward's favorable (and largely plausible) 
portrait of Bush fails to explain Bush's obsession with 
Iraq. The book deals with the period before this 
obsession came to the fore, when Afghanistan was still 
the immediate target. But the reader is left to wonder 
how the book's reasonable Bush could become so 
irrationally preoccupied with Saddam Hussein, despite the 
absence of evidence that the Iraqi strongman had anything 
to do with al-Qaeda and 9/11 (and despite many 
indications to the contrary). Woodward also deals only 
glancingly with Israel and its American supporters, 
saying next to nothing about their pressure on the United 
States to knock off Israel's chief enemy.

     BUSH AT WAR went to press before North Korea caught 
Bush flat-footed by defiantly announcing its possession 
of nuclear weapons and its determination to build more. 
Its mad ruler, Kim Jong Il, is everything Bush has 
accused Saddam Hussein of being, and he doesn't bother 
concealing it. Bush's only response has been to belittle 
the North Korean threat as bizarrely as he has 
exaggerated the Iraqi one.


THE ONE AND ONLY: My favorite contemporary artist, Al 
Hirschfeld, has died at 99. For seven decades his 
brilliantly simple, yet utterly elegant, caricatures were 
a regular feature of the theater section of the Sunday 
NEW YORK TIMES. Nobody could capture a face, or a total 
physical presence, with fewer lines. He made it look so 
easy; but, as his many imitators proved, he was 
inimitable. (page 5)

COUNT ME OUT: I skipped the anti-war march in Washington 
on January 18. It was Communist-sponsored and the whole 
event had the aspect of a New Left class reunion. I felt 
that by attending I'd be letting myself be dragooned into 
the ranks of the terminally "progressive." These are the 
people who are forever prating about "diversity" and 
"inclusiveness." But they don't seem diverse enough to 
include the likes of me. (page 8)

MASS PRODUCTION: One reason I can no longer keep up with 
popular culture is that half the hot young chicks in show 
business today are named Britney, or Britany, or some 
similar variant. What's more, they are physically 
indistinguishable. Who can keep track of them all? 
Obviously some inexplicable craze swept over the nation's 
maternity wards two decades ago, and we are now reaping 
the awful harvest. (page 10)

MURDERERS ROW: All six of the announced candidates for 
the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination marked the 
30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade by reaffirming their 
support for feticide. These include the Democrats' 
senatorial "conscience," Holy Joe Lieberman. (page 11)

Exclusive to the electronic version:

ROOTS: David Tell, writing in THE WEEKLY STANDARD, offers 
some interesting facts about Margaret Sanger, founder of 
Planned Parenthood: "She turned women seeking abortions 
away from her clinics: 'I do not approve of abortion.' 
She called it 'sordid,' 'abhorrent,' 'terrible,' 
'barbaric,' a 'horror.' She called abortionists 'blood-
sucking men with MD after their names who perform 
operations for the price of so-and-so.' She called the 
results of abortion 'an outrageous slaughter,' 
'infanticide,' 'foeticide,' and 'the killing of babies.' 
... [She added that] birth control 'has nothing to do 
with abortion, it has nothing to do with interfering with 
or disturbing life after conception has taken place.'" So 
the mother of Planned Parenthood was "anti-choice"! 


* The Regime of the Sneaky (December 24, 2002)

* The End of Bush the Bold (December 31, 2002)

* "The Economy" and the Taxpayer (January 7, 2003)

* History and Miss Couric (January 9, 2003)

* Loose Lips (January 14, 2003)

* White Supremacism, Liberal Style (January 16, 2003)


All articles are written by Joe Sobran

You may forward this newsletter if you include the 
following subscription and copyright information:

Subscribe to the Sobran E-Package. 
or for details and samples
or call 800-513-5053.

Copyright (c) 2003 by The Vere Company -- 
All rights reserved.
Distributed by the Griffin Internet Syndicate with permission.