When Your Enemies Behave Like Jackasses...

...you know you've done something right.

Some of my fellow conservatives expressed some early doubts about Bernard Kerik, President Bush's choice to replace Tom Ridge at Homeland Security. But none of their concerns touched on any of the rumors and (admitted!) unfounded allegations that the liberal MSM has come out with now, in four separate stories. (This is not the first time that I have thought that the Democratic Party has a very apt mascot.)

Let's take some of those allegations one at a time:

1. Richard Cohen (will somebody check the grave of Eleazar, Aaron's son? That progenitor of the High Rabbis of ancient Israel is probably spinning like a top!) suggests that Kerik wrongfully investigated certain women with whom his boss was romantically entangled. Let me tell you something: any illicit affair constitutes a security risk. I'd say that Kerik acted properly. And if this is the kind of bull-dog attitude that he will bring to Homeland Security, then I can hardly wait. It will be a refreshing change from namby-pamby Ridge.
2. Sid "Vicious" Blumenthal is the last person to whom I would turn for advice on any subject. He points out that Kerik has some experience working for Saudis. Good! Then maybe he knows how they think! Besides, I thought all those liberals were busy apologizing for Muslims.
3. By the way, the reference to the equine Senator Incitatus of Rome doesn't exactly square with trying to make Kerik out to be a bully. Incitatus was a chariot racing horse, not a game cock. And if any President in recent memory has qualified to be a modern Caligula, it's Clinton, not Bush, and Sid Vicious knows it.
4. The MSM's real complaint is that Kerik laid it on the line about the election. He said that if Kerry were to win, you could count on another terrorist attack. Well, I've got news for The New York Times, whether they find it fit to print or not. Recent items from the Middle East Media Research Institute bear Kerik out. I quote:

   We claimed President Bush will never be able to defeat Iraq and said the resistance will kick the U.S. forces out of that country. We described terrorism, which is killing innocent people in Iraq, as ' jihad ' and expected it to win in the end because it is supported by God. To support our calculations, we recalled how the U.S. troops were sent packing from Lebanon in the Eighties because of the resistance in that country. We fondly remembered how the Americans had to retreat from Somalia because of the resistance put up by Somalia warlords. By this way of thinking we forgot the United States has changed and the world has changed with it. The present circumstances in the world are not the same as they were during the days of the Cold War, when the U.S.S.R. was a superpower in its own right.

   All of our thoughts have been answered by the second term of President Bush. The mission in Iraq will continue as in Afghanistan. The American administration has stressed it won't pull out of Iraq, unlike in Somalia and Lebanon, until it achieves its objectives and completes its mission in that country. Changing the world, strengthening relations with other countries and bringing democracy and freedom to as many countries as possible is the strategic objective of the current American administration because from the perspective of its internal security, especially the 9/11 attacks in Washington and New York, this is more important for the United States.

   Now that's from the editor-in-chief of the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassah. If anybody ought to know how Bush's re-election looks to the Arab world, it's a man like that, holding that kind of job.

Add it all together, and suddenly Bernard Kerik looks like an even better choice than I thought.