Then and Now
"Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism." We might have just run this headline, from today's Washington Post, under "You Don't Say" and been done with it, but we thought the story was worth a brief comment.

The Post is engaging in a bit of "gotcha" journalism, having discovered that Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, had planned to give a speech on Sept. 11, 2001, "to outline a Bush administration policy that would address 'the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday'--but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals." The speech, which was canceled on account of terrorist attack, "contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text."

We just want to point out that with a few prescient exceptions, hardly anyone made terrorism his top focus before 9/11. We're as guilty as anyone; the Sept. 10, 2001, Best of the Web Today led with an item about the Florida election controversy of 2000. Does anyone even remember what that was all about?

John Kerry, too, has been known to play down the threat of terrorism. Once, asked by NBC's Tom Brokaw to size up the threat, he replied, "I think that there has been an exaggeration." So hardly anyone isn't guilty of having underestimated the terror threat.

The difference is that Rice's speech was written in the few days before the attacks, whereas Kerry made his comment on Jan. 29, 2004--870 days after Sept. 11.

More or Less
Here's another headline from today's Washington Post: "Most Say They Are Less Safe Since 9/11." The paper is reporting on a poll conducted by the Council for Excellence in Government (link in PDF).

The Post's headline is false. The council's poll, conducted by the Hart-Teeter firm, asked, "Do you think that as a country we are more safe, about as safe, or less safe than we were before Sept. 11, 2001?" Results: 47% said "more safe," 34% said "about as safe," and only 18%--32% short of "most"--said "less safe."

Come to think of it, maybe the Post, in the tradition of college newspapers everywhere, decided to publish an April Fool's edition.

Speaking of College Newspapers . . .
We don't think this is an April Fool's joke, but the Yale Daily News reports that some students staged a "die-in" on campus yesterday to protest a speech by Douglas Daft, Coca-Cola's CEO:

As Daft began his speech, protesters proceeded to the front of the room and removed their coats to reveal shirts stained with fake blood. The protesters lay on the floor as if they were dead and remained so throughout the talk.

Joke or not, this was in extremely poor taste, coming on the day that terrorists brutally murdered four American civilians and desecrated their bodies in Fallujah, Iraq. "Die-in," indeed.

Another great Ivy League moment: Yesterday's Cornell Daily Sun published an op-ed by one Alex Bomstein, that begins as follows:

I was just musing about shooting President Bush the other day. I wouldn't actually do it, of course (hello, FBI!) but it got me thinking about the case for and against assassination as a tool of political change. . . .

Few would seriously propose assassination as a tool of whim. The gravity of the target's crimes must merit it. Let's take the president as an example. His actions, such as the war on Iraq, the creation of hundreds of billions of dollars in deficits, and the deprivation of funds for women's health clinics abroad, have and will result in tens of thousands of deaths, and the impoverishment of millions. The enormity of these crimes reaches toward the incomprehensible. So a valid motive exists.

In fairness, Bomstein does ultimately decide that President Bush shouldn't be assassinated, and maybe this is just a lame attempt at being Swiftian, but it does make you wonder about the seriousness of an Ivy League education.

A more encouraging sign comes from the Columbia Spectator, which today endorses President Bush's re-election:

We believe that it is necessary for our nation to stay the successful course, and thus we are proud to endorse President Bush for re-election this November.

We understand that this endorsement may come as somewhat of a surprise; this is an extremely liberal campus--the majority of this editorial board even identifies itself as aligned with the Democratic party. However, the world is a more dangerous place today than it was four years ago.

On the Spectator's Web site, some of the students responding to the editorial think it's an April Fool's joke. But in fact it makes a cogent argument, so perhaps it's just that proximity to ground zero breeds a seriousness about politics, while New Haven and Ithaca remain relatively insular worlds.

Why Kerry Lost
The election is still seven months away, and already Democrats are coming up with rationalizations for John Kerry's defeat, reports the New York Times:

At the very moment that President Bush has begun his general election campaign, Senator John Kerry has largely slipped from sight. And Mr. Bush has made the most of Mr. Kerry's absence.

Mr. Kerry's low profile occurs at what would seem to be a particularly opportune time for the senator. Mr. Bush has been struggling with questions about his record on terrorism, and Mr. Kerry had been riding on a wave of excitement after his capture of the Democratic nomination. . . .

Some Democrats said that should Mr. Kerry lose in November, he might well remember this month as the time when he seriously undermined his hopes of defeating Mr. Bush. A few invoked one of Mr. Kerry's least-liked comparisons, noting how another Massachusetts Democrat who ran for president, Michael S. Dukakis, stuck close to home in August 1988, in what turned out to be a foolish strategic move in his campaign against Mr. Bush's father.

Hey, remember when Kerry was riding that "wave of excitement"? It was almost as exciting as the wave of excitement about Michael Dukakis that swept us up in July 1988. Oh, to be young again!

It seems that whenever the Democrats lose an election, they have an excuse. Hubert Humphrey fell victim to Richard Nixon's racist "Southern strategy." George McGovern would have won if not for the Watergate coverup. Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale? Victims of Ronald Reagan's winning personality. Al Gore had the election stolen from him by the Supreme Court. And John Kerry, like Michael Dukakis before him, made a tactical error months before the election, and, oh yes, George Bush "questioned his patriotism."

What will it take for a Democratic to acknowledge losing an election because of bad ideas?

Running on MT
In an interview with MTV's Gideon Yago, John Kerry offers yet another tortured explanation of his flip-flop on the liberation of Iraq:

Yago: As a senator, you had to go on record with your opinions about the war. Do you feel you got duped?

Kerry: No, I think that I said very clearly, if you read my speech, and I invite [everyone] to go to JohnKerry.com, pull down my speech and read what I said on the floor of the Senate. In the debate I said very clearly I disagree with the preemptive doctrine. I disagree with the notion that you go to war just because Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. I said that the weapons of mass destruction are the only legitimate issue, and that basically war is the last resort, ultimate enforcement [tool for inspections]. Now that's what I said. George Bush assured us that was his approach.

And you know, you are not duped when somebody misleads you and in effect lies to you or doesn't tell you the truth. The president, I think, misled the whole country in effect. And the evidence that we saw--we were given photographs, direct evidence--was not real. I mean, it just turned out not to be, not to pan out, so I think the vote was a correct one based on the evidence that everybody was given. The president's actions thereafter were not correct, because he clearly evidenced just a rush to try to want to go to war, and that is not the arrangement that he made with the country, in my judgment.

Well, we're glad he cleared that up. Kerry concludes the interview with a burst of fog over terrorism:

Yago: Since September 11 there has been this specter of another terror attack looming over all of our daily lives. Is there going to be a time when it's OK for all of us not to be afraid?

Kerry: That is a great question. That's our goal, that is what would restore life as we knew it in America, is to find a time when we won't be fearful. And I will do everything in my power to get us to that place. I have a different vision of how you get there from George Bush, and I think it is going to take quite a while to get there, because there are people in other countries who have been raised to hate. And they don't have a future, they don't have jobs, they don't have any kind of enfranchisement, voting rights, or the capacity to change things, so the [Wahhabi] fundamentalists, the madras schools, and the other institutions set up to sort of harness that energy and channel it into a very evil place is real. And it is going to be around until we have a foreign policy and other countries have a foreign policy that begins to really deal with the problems on this planet. One of those problems is abject poverty and lack of education and repression in countries. And I think our policy needs to help open the doors, if you will, over a period of time, so that people can channel that energy into their own lives, into their own country, and into achieving things within a framework that is civilized.

It's a long struggle, and terror has been around for a long time. It is going to be a great challenge for us. I have a very different view of how we do it from George Bush. George Bush just thinks you flex your military muscle; I don't. I think you have to build relationships. I think you have to invest, I think you have to work with other countries, I think you need a lot of public diplomacy. And we need as much energy committed to the war of ideas as we do to the war on the battlefield, and that is a real difference between us in this effort. But our goal is clearly to be free from that fear. Franklin Roosevelt talked about it. It's almost a natural right, if you will, of being American, and it's something we need to achieve again.

He's going to "build relationships"! He'll "invest"! He'll engage in "public diplomacy"! Osama bin Laden will be so terrified (or maybe bored), he'll never dare stage another terrorist attack!

But at least Kerry is clear on one thing: Some rap lyrics are just beyond the pale. "I think when you start talking about killing cops or something like that, it bothers me." Wow, that's tough! Though actually, he immediately flip-flops again: "I understand, I'm still listening because I know that it's a reflection of the street and it's a reflection of life, and I understand all that." And then: "I'm not for the government censoring or stepping in. But I don't think it's inappropriate occasionally to talk about what you think is a standard or what you think is a value that is worth trying to live up to."

He doesn't think it's inappropriate occasionally. Got that?

Like a Prayer
From a story on the presidential race in yesterday's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

"The Bush people have defined [Kerry] as liberal, as a flip-flopper and inconsistent," Madonna said. "He's been rocked by the Bush television ads."

Madonna is complaining about this? We thought she was in favor of rocking the vote.

Oh wait, it turns out it isn't that Madonna. It's G. Terry Madonna, the pollster whose survey of Pennsylvanians showed Bush leading Kerry by 46% to 40%. Never mind.

Our Friends the Saudis
Yesterday we speculated that the Saudis, by seeking to cut oil production and thereby raise prices, may be trying to help John Kerry's bid for the White House. Those wishing elaboration of this idea should check out a March 10 essay by Ed Lasky, a frequent contributor to this column. Lasky argues that "Saudi Arabia has launched an undeclared war on George W. Bush," which it is waging not just by manipulating the oil market but also by encouraging instability in Iraq and funding think tanks that employ the likes of Joe Wilson, husband of a kerfuffle-inspiring CIA employee.

In his MTV interview, Kerry at least paid lip service to the need to combat Wahhabi fundamentalism. But if Lasky is right, the Saudis have judged that Bush is the far greater threat to the status quo. It's hard to argue that they're wrong.

Talk About Appeasement!
"Madrid Names Suspected Terrorist Leader"--headline, Associated Press, April 1

A Month for a Murder
"A former Bosnian Serb police commander was sentenced by the U.N. war crimes tribunal Wednesday to 17 years in prison for the 1992 murders of more than 200 Muslim men during the Bosnian war," the Associated Press reports.

Seventeen years for 200 murders? That works out to slightly over one month per murder. Boy, those U.N. guys are really tough on crime!

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that "the United States will temporarily suspend at least $26 million in aid to Serbia and Montenegro because of its inadequate cooperation with a U.N. war crimes tribunal":

[State Department spokesman Adam] Ereli told reporters that about $43 million of the $100 million U.S. aid allocated to Belgrade this year had already been spent, leaving about $57 billion that could be subject to the suspension.

One hundred million minus $43 million equals $57 billion? We guess Reuters doesn't have a bureau in Mathedonia.

What Would We Do Without Experts?--I
"It is not necessary to complete a punishing workout at a gym to stay healthy, experts have said."--BBC Web site, March 31

What Would We Do Without Experts?--II
"Up-and-Down Stock Market to Continue, Experts Say"--headline, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, March 31

But Millions of Almonds Are Still Uninsured
"FDA to Allow Claim of Health Benefits for Walnuts"--headline, Washington Post, April 1

If There Were No Charge, It Wouldn't Be a Brothel
"Brothel Customers May Face Charges"--headline, Hartford Courant, March 31

Never Name Your Company 'Clue'
"IBM to Acquire Candle"--headline, InformationWeek, April 1

The Plaintiff Has Already Been Deposed
Jean-Bertrand Aristide is trying to sue his way back into power. The BBC reports Haiti's erstwhile president-turned-dictator "has filed a lawsuit against unnamed French and US officials, accusing them of kidnapping him":

The suit for "threats, death threats, abduction and illegal detention" was lodged in Paris on Tuesday, Mr Aristide's lawyer, Gilbert Collard said.

It designated the defendant as X--a French legal term for persons unknown.

Mr Collard said Mr Aristide's US lawyers would file an identical suit.

Meanwhile, the Bonita (Fla.) Daily News reports that "a West Virginia man is suing an airline company, alleging it didn't notify him that drinking alcohol at night might adversely affect passengers before he fell down an escalator at Southwest Florida International Airport":

Floyd W. Shuler, 61, filed the lawsuit against Virginia-based US Airways Inc. in circuit court in Fort Myers. Shuler, who has lived part-time on Marco Island, said in the suit that US Airways was negligent by failing to warn him the effects of alcohol are greater at night on airline passengers, and that the company did not properly maintain the escalator at the airport when he fell down while using it on Aug. 28, 1999.

Hat tip: Overlawyered.com. If the negligence argument doesn't fly, maybe Shuler can claim he was kidnapped.

(Elizabeth Crowley helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Barak Moore, David Sherzer, Michael Segal, Samuel Wald, Tom von Gremp, Mark Mogle, Nancy Zimmerman, Aaron Gross, Jeffrey Shapiro, Carl Sherer, Chris Stetsko, Ethel Fenig, Joe Fenter, Thomas Downing, Rob Bass, John Forsberg, Jennifer Ray, Mary Daly, Taylor Hills, John Williamson and Richard Haisley. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Heather Mac Donald: "Total Information Awareness" falls to total Luddite hysteria.
• Peggy Noonan: Those behind yesterday's atrocity in Fallujah must pay--or we all will.
• Richard Miniter: Richard Clarke should apologize for his book.