Hundreds of protesters demonstrated Friday in two eastern Saudi Arabian cities, a day after police broke up a march in that region.

But despite calls for protest in Riyadh, no demonstrators could be seen amid a stepped-up police presence here.

While mostly avoiding a direct confrontation with protesters in those Eastern Province cities, the Sunni Saudi monarchy appeared to be taking no chances in its effort to keep the antigovernment wave from spreading to the world's largest exporter of crude oil.

About 500 protesters, mainly Shiite Muslims who make up a large part of the population in the region, demonstrated in Al-Hofuf, in the Eastern Province alongside the country's major oil field Ghawar.

They called for the release of prisoners held without charges, said Ibrahim al-Mugaiteeb, president of Human Rights First Society. There was no gunfire or clashes with police who stood by, Mr. al-Mugaiteeb said. At least 10 people were arrested, witnesses said.

Meanwhile, its neighbor Bahrain erupted in protests once again:

Clashes between demonstrators and progovernment loyalists left hundreds injured in Bahrain on Friday, in the worst outbreak of violence here since the military was ordered off the streets nearly three weeks ago.

Conflicting reports centered on whether police had used rubber bullets to disperse protesters, something the government vehemently denied.

The violence came hours before U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates paid a surprise visit Friday to Bahrain in a show of support for the island kingdom's royal family. Bahrain, which holds a strategic position in the Persian Gulf, hosts the headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet -- a home to 3,000 military personnel who oversee 30 naval ships and some 30,000 sailors.

It seems that demands for freedom can't be easily quashed. Nevertheless, it's important to distinguish between the Saudi and Bahrain situations. As for Saudi Arabia, we should not exaggerate the threat to the monarchy. Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies tells me, "Large-scale protests may yet erupt in Saudi. If and when they do, they will likely include both Shia and Sunni, if the ongoing Facebook campaign is any indication. However, the lead up to the "day of rage" slated for 3/11 in Saudi Arabia was overblown by many analysts."

A vet­eran Middle East hand concurs: "I don't see any revolution in Saudi Arabia. There, the problem lies in the Eastern Province, and this is linked to the troubles in Bahrain, for both are majority Shia." Even if not on the brink of collapse the Saudi regime has a choice: merely repress demonstrations or begin a process of gradual reform.

The U.S. dilemma was perfectly illustrated last week. Gates's visit turned into a sticky situation in which Gates tried to walk the line between advocating reform and sticking with an essential ally that is home to the Fifth Fleet.

Mr. Gates's visit -- intended as a show of support for Bahrain's king -- was instantly complicated by Friday's violence. The defense secretary had been expected to take on an unusual diplomatic role, delivering a message of support to the ruling family, while encouraging leaders to engage in dialogue with the opposition.

"Bahrain is a front-line state in a regional competition with Iran," said a senior defense official. "It's a very, very important strategic partner."

While U.S. officials are skeptical about claims that Iran is behind the demonstrations, they do see potential for Iran to reap strategic dividends from regional unrest.

"We are concerned that the longer this crisis prolongs, the more an opportunity there might be for Iran to create mischief," the senior defense official said. "I don't think we see them as the hidden hand behind this."

The king of Bahrain, Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, has a window, however brief, to demonstrate that the protestors can obtain greater political freedom and reform without tearing the kingdom apart. If he does not make the most of his opportunity, he may well follow Hosni Mubarak and Ben Ali into an early retirement. The Obama administration, which had not pushed for democratization for two years in the Middle East, should use whatever sway it has to prevent a conflagration -- and an opening for Iran.

Morocco's King Mohammed VI promised sweeping constitutional reforms, including real powers for a popularly elected prime minister instead of a royal appointee, as well as a free judiciary.

In his first speech after uprisings across the Arab world and less than a month after protests erupted in Morocco for more social justice and limits on royal powers, the king Wednesday pledged to draw up a new draft constitution.

"We have decided to undertake a comprehensive constitutional reform," King Mohammed said, underlining his "firm commitment to giving a strong impetus to the dynamic and deep reforms... taking place."

He outlined seven major steps, including the way the prime minister is chosen.

The Moroccan monarch announced the formation of a commission to work on the constitutional revisions, with proposals to be made to him by June. A referendum will then be held, he said, without giving a date.

The live broadcast was the first time the king has delivered an address to the nation since thousands of people demonstrated in several cities on Feb. 20 demanding political reform and limits on his powers.

They were the first protests in the country since the start of the uprisings across the Arab world that toppled the presidents of Tunisia and Egypt this year.

There have been other peaceful rallies since then, including in the capital, Rabat, and the country's biggest city, Casablanca, with young activists campaigning for greater democracy using the Facebook social network to call for new demonstrations on March 20.

To put it simply, this is a big deal in Morocco. In the first protest Feb. 20, Moroccans took to the streets to demand more accountability and constitutional reform. Much of their anger was directed at the parliament and the political parties. The king, instead of cracking down, decided to speed up a process of decentralization and deconcentration of power. The idea is to move power and authority out of Rabat and devolve it to local elected bodies.

That will entail monumental challenges for a country where local figures have not had responsibility for governance. The opportunity for graft is real and significant. To say there will be a steep learning curve would be a vast understatement.

The speech was praised by France and Spain. The United Nations. and then, belatedly, the Obama administration added their commendations. The message was delivered by a State Department spokesman, rather than the secretary of state. Obama was characteristically silent. Last year, however, Hillary Clinton did praise Morocco as a "model to follow." Unfortunately, it is not a model she personally cared to tout last week.

Lawmakers,by contrast, were boisterous in their praise. Sen. John McCain issued a statement:

"I commend His Majesty King Mohammed VI of Morocco for the plan of constitutional and democratic reform that he laid out in his impressive speech yesterday. This new reform agenda builds on the King's long-standing commitment to lead Morocco to a future of reform and modernization, and it could ensure that the Kingdom of Morocco will continue to stand as a positive example to governments across the Middle East and North Africa. I support the aspirations of the Moroccan people for greater democracy, economic opportunity, and rule of law. In the weeks and months ahead, the United States must be vigilant and tireless in our support for the government and people of Morocco in transforming the King's vision of reform into a reality that improves the lives of all Moroccans. The United States deeply values our strategic partnership with Morocco, and that partnership will only grow deeper and better as it increasingly comes to rest on shared values as well as common goals."

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and House Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) were also effusive.

So why is Morocco's political ethos so different from its neighbors? Talking with talking with diplomats, Moroccan officials and Middle East experts yields a general consensus: the Moroccan monarchy. For centuries the monarchy has been a symbol of unity in a country with a variety of languages and substantial regional differences. Moreover, as the highest religious authority in the country as well as its ruler, the Moroccan monarchy enjoys a legitimacy and respect that Moammar Gaddafi, Hosni Mubarak and Ben Ali could only dream of.

But it is also true that this particular king has been on a reform path for 20 years. He championed a new family code that granted rights to woman unprecedented in Muslim countries in the region. He has also promoted efforts at economic diversification and a "human development initiative" that has been building infrastructure at a furious pace. (A group of journalists who returned from a recent trip describe a country that looks like one giant construction site.) That program focuses on the 600 of the most disadvantaged communities and seeks to make regional capitals (e.g., Marrakesh, Tangiers) more attractive and livable, with modernized roads, medical facilities, and schools as well as new roads, and water and sanitation systems. All of that, the Moroccan government hopes, will prevent Casablanca from becoming a megalopolis like Mexico City or Buenos Aires. The most visible sign of success is the disappearance of squalid shanty towns in many areas, especially in the south.

What can the United States and, more important, Morocco's neighbors, learn from the king's approach? For the United States, this should be a reminder that Morocco is an ally that America can and should work with. To the extent Obama has adopted the "Freedom Agenda" as his own, he'd be wise to provide financial, political and technical assistance as Morocco embarks on a challenging process of reform. Aside from money, the conversion to a more democratic system of local rule will require training in everything from urban planning to accounting for hundreds of local officials. As for Congress, this probably isn't the time to decrease aid to the one uber-stable Muslim country in the region.

But most critically, Morocco can serve as an example to others in the region that the best defense against both Islamic radicals and secular revolutions is a modernizing country that provides young people with the opportunity for economic success and political freedom. Those not yet enveloped in the flames of revolution should think hard about the Moroccan example.

The Obama administration should be doing something (but likely won't) about the wave of violence against Christians in the Middle East. Hudson Institute fellow Lela Gilbert reports: "In recent weeks, a series of abuses against Christians has swept across the Muslim world. There has been a murder in Pakistan, attacks on churches in Ethiopia, an attempted assassination of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Turkey and repeated pogroms against the Copts in Egypt. Now, rights groups are reporting new developments in Iran's anti-Christian crackdown, which has swept up nearly 300 Christian believers since June 2010." Read the whole thing.

President Obama should show the same commitment to Libya. "President Barack Obama mobilized US military might on Friday to provide emergency aid to Japan after an earthquake and tsunami which he described as 'simply heartbreaking.' The United States, which has nearly 40,000 military personnel in Japan, has ordered a flotilla including two aircraft carriers and support ships to the region to provide aid."

Google should be concerned about a former Sam Alito clerk and U.S. attorney gunning for the Web goliath. "Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) wants a congressional hearing to examine whether Google has run afoul of antitrust laws. . . . 'The powerful position Google occupies in the general search arena creates myriad opportunities for anticompetitive behavior. . . . Enforcement of the antitrust laws is especially important for sectors in which the United States has been a leader, such as the e-commerce and online advertising industries.' "

Obama should worry less about how to "message" the economic recovery and more time working to aid , rather than impede, it. "The White House is caught between wanting to tout the administration's economic accomplishments -- and possibly helping to shape the nation's fiscal mood -- and the fear of offending voters by hailing a recovery that many of them have yet to experience."

This should pretty much take nuclear power out of the mix of non-carbon-based energy for a good long time. "Authorities released slightly radioactive vapor from two of Japan's nuclear-power plants Saturday to avoid a bigger calamity after Friday's earthquake caused a power outage that disabled its cooling system, as 11 reactors were closed across the country."

Pathetic as it sounds, Obama should emulate France and Britain's Libya policy.

As Paul Wolfowitz puts it, if Obama won't lead, he should at least follow. "Portugal has now joined France in recognizing the national council in Benghazi as the government of Libya. The Guardian reports that France will now send a French ambassador to Benghazi and receive a Libyan envoy in Paris. Two Libyan National Council representatives, Mahmoud Jibril and Ali Essaoui, have been to Paris and met with President Nicolas Sarkozy. The six Arab countries that make up the Gulf Cooperation Council, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have called publicly for a 'no-fly zone' to support the Libyan opposition."

Then he should go there: "Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, 'No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao's words in Tahrir Square.' " Ah, to suppress the opposition and muffle criticism! Scary, actually he would think this way.

Who do you think won the debate? Why? Remember all answers must be in by 6 p.m. ET Sunday.

Daniels's remarks are troubling for two reasons. First, he has made our fiscal crisis out to be so monumental that nothing else registers as a top priority. Much as Obama insists that international consensus trumps all other foreign policy concerns (e.g. human rights, warm relations with Israel) Daniels insists that our fiscal issues are such a "mortal threat" that, as Obama would do with Israel, everything else gets thrown overboard. It is a strategy that will inevitably give liberals the trump card on a range of important issues, ranging from Supreme Court nominees to abortion funding to missile defense spending.

Second, it is a goofy conception of alliance-building. Daniels says he can't afford to lose one vote on fiscal issues. But why can't he, as all presidents do, forge varied alliances on different issues? Lawmakers understand this and often ally themselves with the White House on one issue but not on others. Many House Blue Dogs, for example, balked on cap-and-trade but gave the president support on Obamacare. This suggests Daniels simply doesn't understand how Congress and the White House operate.

Because he makes no effort whatsoever to mollify his critics -- and indeed shows a propensity to pour salt on the wounds -- you have to wonder whether Daniels is simply not interested in running for president or whether he's clueless about what it will take to win the Republican presidential nomination. In any case, he's doing a bang-up job of diminishing his presidential prospects.

On the disaster front, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is a walking advertisement for abolishing the DNI position. He's called the Muslim Brotherhood a "largely secular" group. He was unaware of the London bombing when queried by ABC's Diane Sawyer. And he was back at it yesterday.

When asked during his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee which countries posed the greatest "mortal threat" to the United States, he gave a peculiar answer: "Certainly, the Russians still have a very formidable nuclear arsenal, which does pose potentially a mortal threat to us." He added, "I don't think they have the intent to do that." He also listed China: "So they too do pose, potentially from a capabilities standpoint, a threat to us as a mortal threat." It was a disturbing view, causing Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to roundly criticize him. Graham considered this gaffe a "third strike," and grounds for his resignation.

Muddled as his syntax was, it was Clapper's analysis that was most alarming. He conflated the possession of military hardware with "threat" and specifically denied that Iran and North Korea (which might carry out threats to the U.S. homeland) were mortal threats. Obama administration officials on damage control later in the day confirmed he was only talking about military capabilities. But does Clapper understand the difference between military capacity and threats? (France and India have nuclear weapons, too, so are they "threats"?)

But that wasn't the worst of it. On Libya, he proclaimed that Gaddafi would "prevail." One wonders if this is what the Obama team is saying behind closed doors. If so, it is a sickening replay of its dismissal of the Green Revolution in 2009.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ignored the question when asked about Clapper's comments. Press secretary Jay Carney accused Graham of misrepresenting Clapper's views. Regardless of what Clapper meant, it is obvious that he has a serial communications problem. Given his role, that would seem to be a fatal flaw, but the president is standing behind him.

"I'm not overly concerned about our popularity ratings in Europe or the Middle East," Pawlenty said at a presidential house party in his honor. "What I am concerned about is, is this nation secure." . . .

Taking the mic at this enthusiastic, wall-to-wall people forum, Pawlenty received plenty of applause for his "pro-American, pro-security, pro-defense" stance on foreign policy. And a sea of heads nodded in agreement, as Pawlenty took the opportunity to brag about his five trips to Iraq, three visits to Afghanistan, and Asian and Latin American trade missions. . . .

Calling Libyan Mumammar Gadhafi "a confirmed terrorist, a psychopath," Pawlenty said Obama should be more aggressive in pushing for a no-fly zone over Libyan skies.

"I would be more forward leaning than that," he said.

The former Minnesota governor had harsher words for Obama's handling of the crisis in Egypt, charging the administration should have foreseen aging ruler Hosni Mubarak's eventual fall from power.

"What was the plan between an 82-year-old dictator and chaos?" he asked.

He wasn't asked about Clapper's remarks, but given Pawlenty's comments, I am certain he wouldn't name Russia and China as our most serious threats or declare Libya's revolution to be a lost cause.

It says volumes that a governor (albeit one who has traveled more than most) is more impressive on national security than the Obama official in charge of national security. And it reminds us that domestic issues won't be the only topic in the 2012 presidential race.

He first takes multiple graphs to make sure we all know he's No. 50 on the Forbes list of the most powerful people in the world. (As the joke goes, "But enough about me -- what about you? Do you know I'm the 50th most powerful person in the world?")

It really isn't his fault that he's such a celebrity:

We have flocks of media oxpeckers who ride the backs of pachyderms, feeding on ticks. We have a coterie of learned analysts -- Clay Shirky, Alan Mutter, Jay Rosen, Jeff Jarvis and the rest -- who meditate on the meta of media. By turning news executives into celebrities, we devalue the institutions that support them, the basics of craft and the authority of editorial judgment.

Woe is him, a self-effacing sort of man, especially considering he is the 50th most powerful person in the world. (Did you know?)

He then tears into the Huffington Post:

"Aggregation" can mean smart people sharing their reading lists, plugging one another into the bounty of the information universe. It kind of describes what I do as an editor. But too often it amounts to taking words written by other people, packaging them on your own Web site and harvesting revenue that might otherwise be directed to the originators of the material. In Somalia this would be called piracy. In the mediasphere, it is a respected business model.

The queen of aggregation is, of course, Arianna Huffington, who has discovered that if you take celebrity gossip, adorable kitten videos, posts from unpaid bloggers and news reports from other publications, array them on your Web site and add a left-wing soundtrack, millions of people will come. How great is Huffington's instinctive genius for aggregation? I once sat beside her on a panel in Los Angeles (on -- what else? -- The Future of Journalism). I had come prepared with a couple of memorized riffs on media topics, which I duly presented. Afterward we sat down for a joint interview with a local reporter. A moment later I heard one of my riffs issuing verbatim from the mouth of Ms. Huffington. I felt so . . . aggregated.

And sure enough Arianna Huffington returned fire, using her outlet just as Keller used his to pummel the competition. She catches Keller giving "pomposity" a bad name:

Perhaps unsettled by the fact that, when combined, The Huffington Post and AOL News have over 70 percent more unique visitors than the New York Times, and that HuffPost/AOL News' combined page views in January 2011 were double the page views of the Times (1.5 billion vs. 750 million), New York Times executive editor Bill Keller decided to unleash an exceptionally misinformed attack on HuffPost in a column released today and slated for this weekend's NYT Magazine.

After opening his piece by patting himself on the back so hard I'd be surprised if he didn't crack a rib (it seems everyone -- even Woody Allen and those folks on Twitter -- thinks he's super "powerful" and "influential"!), Keller turned to the putative subject of his column: "the 'American Idol'-ization of news" and the evils of "aggregation."

Heh. Then she cries foul over his accusations that she is slumming in the world of journalism:

I wonder what site he's been looking at. Not ours, as even a casual look at HuffPost will show. Even before we merged with AOL, HuffPost had 148 full-time editors, writers, and reporters engaged in the serious, old-fashioned work of traditional journalism. . . .

And did he not notice that he lost one of his top business reporters, Peter Goodman, to The Huffington Post -- despite his best efforts to keep him? Indeed, on the very day that Keller's column began circulating, we published a piece Goodman edited, a 4,000-word investigation of a for-profit college by Goodman's first hire, Chris Kirkham, a former Washington Post intern. Did he think he came over to aggregate adorable kitten videos? And was he too busy scanning all those lists of "most powerful people" he's on to notice that he also lost one of his top editors, Tim O'Brien, to us? . . . . But then Keller went much further, accusing me of "aggregating" his very thoughts!

She then does an apt job of debunking his claim that she ripped off his comments by using the word "convergence."

Remarkable how the 50th most powerful man in the world can be shown up by a mere "aggregator." In the future, Keller might do well to avoid taking on people sharper than he. Goodness, if he keeps at it, we'll be reading next year how he's the 95th most powerful person in the world.

For quite some time I predicted Romney would not run a serious campaign in Iowa. Remember that he didn't win over critical Christian conservatives in 2008, and there is no reason why he'd do better in 2012. Working so hard in Iowa may have hurt his chances in New Hampshire in 2008. And when he lost there too, he was done for in 2008. That logic did not appear to carry the day inside the Romney camp in this campaign, and he recently announced he would compete in Iowa. Even without Huckabee and Palin in the race, Romney will face stiff competition from Tim Pawlenty and possibly from Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. In fact, the departure of Huckabee and Palin may help the anyone-but-Romney voters coalesce around a single candidate. In short, I think Romney is locked into mounting a real race in Iowa, a race he could easily lose.

There is one final point. Let's say a telegenic governor of a blue state or a superstar congressman from the Midwest decides this fall to take the plunge. Such candidates would have the perfect excuse not to run in Iowa (it's too late!), to rail against ethanol subsidies and to make their stand in New Hampshire, where fiscal issues, not to mention opposition to RomneyCare ObamaCare, will be front and center. In that case, does Romney pull out with the excuse that the latecomer isn't going to Iowa? Maybe. But if he sticks it out in Iowa, he'll be handing the latecomer a big advantage, namely the ability to focus on one small state that is very receptive to a message centered on fiscal restraint. Heck, if the latecomer were a successful governor who tamed a blue state or a Republican superstar who set President Obama back on his heels on ObamaCare, entitlement reform and the debt, that person could decide in December to make the run. Just saying.

Yesterday, I was talking to the son of the energy magnate Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has imprisoned. Pavel Khodorkovsky, who now lives in New York, told me he hasn't seen or talked to his father, Mikhail, in seven and a half years. He did, however, receive a letter from him last week. Mikhail was the CEO of the giant oil company Yukos, which was seized by the Russian government. He was tried on a wide array of trumped-up charges in 2005, and if that were not enough, he was tried again in 2009 and received a 14-year sentence.

I asked Pavel Khodorkovsky what he thinks of the Obama administration's efforts to get Russia into the WTO. In somewhat accented but impeccable English, he said: "There is a debate." One school of thought is that we should use the WTO admission as a "lever" to impact Russia's domestic and international behavior. The other is that if Russia "is dragged into WTO, we will have more levers." Khodorkovsky said bluntly: "I don't share that point of view. For the Russian government it is a matter of status. It will further embolden them."

Khodorkovsky also encouraged the European Union and the United States to deny visas to officials associated with human rights abuses, including his father's show trials. He said that it is an important message to Russian officials. "All they care about is to travel and spend their money abroad." If the EU and the United States won't let them in, that will be a powerful disincentive for others to engage in human rights abuses. It will also, he said, "undermine" top officials who, like the Mafia, promise protection to their underlings in exchange for doing their bidding. If that guarantee is found to be worthless, then the power of those Russian elites is diminished.

What about Putin's expected run for the presidency? Khodorkovsky replied, "My father's trial has shown that it doesn't really matter what seat he [Putin] holds." Whether Putin "swaps" posts with President Dmitry Medvedev or remains as prime minister, "the power is concentrated in Putin's hands." As for Medvedev, Khodorkovsky "can't say with a high degree of certainty" whether he has an actual interest in reform. What he can say is that "all of his deeds or lack thereof indicates he's a figure controlled by Putin." Medvedev remains a more effective and tolerable figure for those in the West who would like to do business (in both senses of the word) with Russia, but Medvedev is just a prettier face on a very nasty regime.

The other reason is financial and reveals "how these people think," Khodorkovsky explained. Rosneft, the Russian government-owned company that took over Yukos, is being sued in Europe by former Yukos executives demanding compensation for their stakes in the company that Rosneft plundered. In the minds of Russian leaders like Putin (who don't understand what an independent judiciary is all about), releasing Mikhail would somehow "galvanize" the court to rule against Rosneft, while his imprisonment will do the reverse.

All of this, Khodorkovsky told me, demonstrates that "Putin is as much a prisoner of his position as my father is a prisoner in jail." By that he means that should Putin lose control, corruption investigations and criminal tribunals would be real possibilities. So Putin continues to rule with an iron fist that he believes is needed because Khodorkovsky said there are "no other options" for him in Russia that he does not control.

Now Khodorkovsky has some hope that Putin is not "blind to the consequences" of his authoritarian rule and might seek to ease up in hopes of preventing an explosion (the non-communist version of Glasnost). However, he certainly doesn't see that happening before the Russian election in 2012.

Can the United States affect Putin's behavior? Khodorkovsky contends that Russia desperately needs foreign investment and innovation to keep the country from slipping into economic ruin. Ironically, Putin's desire to cut off economic diversification and restrict freedom has now made him and his regime more dependent on foreign businessmen and leaders.

Has the "Arab spring" made Putin nervous? Khodorkovsky is convinced that Putin and his cronies are "absolutely scared" that revolutions and demands for political freedom will reverberate in Russia. He recalled a Russian blogger who met a Tunisian when they were both studying at Yale. At the time, the blogger thought Tunisia had "so many enemies of freedom" that a revolution would never happen there. The message there, Khodorkovsky told me, is that if it can happen in Tunisia it can happen in Russia.

But Russia is not Tunisia or Egypt. After all, the Russians for centuries have put up with corruption and a rotten economy. Has the country simply become inured to a dysfunctional society? Khodorkovsky was blunt, telling me that "the older generation -- they have contaminated the younger generation" with a mindset of passivity. He explained that it boils down to this: "'We don't care unless there is no food on the table or [authorities] are banging on the door.'" Khodorkovsky said it's not so much that the Russian people are "content with any government," but, rather, that they hold an "I don't give a damn" mentality.

That may be. But many assumptions about the inability of societies to mature and step out of historical patterns should ward off fatalism. Mikhail Khodorkovsky remains a symbol of what Russia could be. The question is whether this or any other U.S. administration can help shove Russia's government in the right direction.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker came out of the phony David Koch episode unscathed. (The same is probably not true of the staffer who put the call through.) He restated the position he took in public and, most important, he did not agree with the caller's outlandish comments for the sake of ingratiating himself with a man he thought was the billionaire philanthropist. Walker's staff soon realized the sting was a potential positive event because it revealed that Walker says "the same thing in private as he does in public," as his press secretary put it. (Walker's staff gets an "F" for call screening but an "A" for rapid response by sound bite.)

By contrast, Ron Schiller of NPR revealed in a sting video an enormous capacity for duplicity. He plays the public role of fair journalist; in private he is a cartoon version of the bile-spitting, biased liberal that conservatives have long suspected run public radio. Is he really a closet anti-Semite who believes that Jews dominate the media? Or was he trying to show some "street cred" with the fake Muslim Brotherhood member?

We can bemoan the existence of 24/7 news coverage and journalism-by-deception, but you can say this: Those who are not the same in public as they are in private had better beware. It's no longer just the tell-all book or the disgruntled employee who can rat out a public figure; now they do it themselves.

Let me make it clear today that I remain convinced that these hearings must go forward. And they will. To back down would be a craven surrender to political correctness and an abdication of what I believe to be the main responsibility of this committee -- to protect America from a terrorist attack.

Despite what passes for conventional wisdom in certain circles, there is nothing radical or un-American in holding these hearings. Indeed, congressional investigation of Muslim American radicalization is the logical response to the repeated and urgent warnings which the Obama administration has been making in recent months.

He was respectful and forceful in replying to vicious ad hominem attacks accusing him of everything from racism to McCarthyism:

This committee cannot live in denial, which is what some would have us do when they suggest that this hearing dilute its focus by investigating threats unrelated to al-Qaeda. The Department of Homeland Security and this committee were formed in response to the al-Qaeda attacks of 9/11. There is no equivalency of threat between al-Qaeda and neo-Nazis, environmental extremists or other isolated madmen. Only al-Qaeda and its Islamist affiliates in this country are part of an international threat to our nation. Indeed, by the Justice Department's own record, not one terror-related case in the last two years involved neo-Nazis, environmental extremists, militias or anti-war groups.

I have repeatedly said the overwhelming majority of Muslim-Americans are outstanding Americans and make enormous contributions to our country. But there are realities we cannot ignore. For instance, a Pew Poll said that 15% of Muslim-American men between the age of 18 and 29 could support suicide bombings. This is the segment of the community al-Qaeda is attempting to recruit.

But he also called out the most vocal group in opposing his hearings:

To combat this threat, moderate leadership must emerge from the Muslim community. As the majority and minority staff of the Senate Homeland Security Committee concluded in its report on "Violent Islamist Extremism and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat," "Muslim community leaders (and) religious leaders must play a more visible role in discrediting and providing alternatives to violent Islamist ideology."

This means that responsible Muslim-American leaders must reject discredited groups such as CAIR, the Committee on Islamic-American Relations, which was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorist financing case involving the Holyland Foundation. In the lead-up to this hearing I found it shocking and sad that the mainstream media accepted CAIR's accusations as if it were a legitimate organization. Thankfully, FBI Director Mueller has ordered the FBI to cease all dealings and contact with CAIR. I would hope that all law enforcement officials would follow the lead of the FBI director.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) was among the worst:

"I'm reminded of someone, a proverb, now quoted by Sheila Jackson Lee, cleaning a dirty kitchen, you can't clean it with dirty water," Jackson Lee, who has a reputation for being one of the most difficult bosses on the Hill, said at the beginning of her five-minute rant. "There are [sic] no redeeming factual information that we will receive today that can add to the abhorrence that all of us have on terrorism in the United States of America. We don't disrespect the witnesses, at least I do not, but you see, it has already been tainted, this hearing. There are no loud signs of reasonings [sic] that are coming through this hearing. The reason is because it has already been classified as an effort to demonize and to castigate a whole broad base of human beings. I cannot stand for that."

Jackson Lee then reached for a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

"I brought with me the Constitution, the living, breathing document. The First Amendment allows us the freedom of religion. The freedom of association and expression," she said. "But I will tell you today, that this breathing document is in pain."

You can readily believe that working for her must be a "living hell."

Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Calif.) was no better, carrying on about the hearing's resemblance to the McCarthy hearings. (No, the Democrats were not very creative in their rants.) Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.) asked why they weren't talking about the KKK. (Because the KKK didn't kill 3,000 Americans on 9/11?)

And Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), drawing sympathy from the same liberals and pundits who had taunted the speaker of the House for his tears, broke down talking about a Muslim first responder killed on 9-11 by the jihadists whose ideological views Ellison ignored. In fact, he would only refer to them as "violent extemists," in essence refusing to acknowledge their motivation or the existence of Muslim radicalization. He too misrepresented the hearings' objective:

Ascribing the evil acts of a few individuals to an entire community is wrong; it is ineffective; and it risks making our country less secure. . . . Targeting the Muslim American community for the actions of a few is unjust. Actually all of us--all communities--are responsible for combating violent extremism. Singling out one community focuses our analysis in the wrong direction.

Yes, but the hearings aren't targeting the entire community (as King repeatedly stressed) and, while all groups are "responsible" for fighting against radicals whose ideology Ellison can not name, the radicalization recruiters target Muslims. Other than that, he made perfect sense.

Ellison, of course, has a curious record of his own, as fellow Minnesotan Scott Johnson (who has kept an eye on Ellison for some time) of the Powerline blog reminded us:

Ellison's background includes his work as a local leader of the Nation of Islam in Minneapolis, an ally of convicted gangster Sharif Willis, an agitator on behalf of cop killers, a supporter of SLA terrorist Sara Jane Olson (the former Kathleen Soliah), and a mouthpiece for the Muslim Brotherhood front group and unindicted Holy Land Foundation co-conspirator CAIR.

It was left to Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), a great friend of the Muslim community (and one of the most virulent anti-Israel members as well) to, in essence, tell his colleagues to put a cork in it. Sure, he made a self-referential comment that he always kept Joe McCarthy's picture on the wall as a reminder when he was chairman, but he then gave up the critical point: "There is a reason for us to go into this."

The witnesses, while predictably not all that enlightening, did put a human face on radicalization. Abdirizak Bihi, a Somali immigrant, described how his son was recruited and, as horrifying, how fellow Muslims went after him for co-operating with law enforcement. Perhaps most poignant was the father of the murderer who killed one and injured another at a Little Rock, Ark., military recruiting station. Melvin Bledsoe described how his son Carlos converted to Islam and then was radicalized by Islamic extremists. He told the committee that Yemeni extremists snared Carlos through their "counterparts" in Nashville. Soon, Carlos was off to a terror training school in Yemen and then put in Yemeni political prison, which was "the final stage of his radicalization." He said simply: "Something is wrong with the Muslim leadership in Nashville. What happened to Carlos at those Nashville mosques isn't normal."

But he, too, vouched for peaceful and law-abiding Muslims who are his friends and neighbors. He, like King, distinguished radicals from the whole Muslim community. Still, he was blunt that "political correctness" has prevented us from uncovering how Muslims are recruited. With the pain only a father can know, he implored the committee that "we are losing American babies. Our children are in danger."

Frankly, the Democrats embarrassed themselves. Ordinary Americans watching their temper tantrums would, I think, readily conclude that the hearings are appropriate and the Democrats' antics are not. King would now do well to assemble some panels of experts who can discuss the methodology of Islamic recruiters. Thursday, we learned a lot about the Democrats; now it is time to learn about the jihadists.

I asked him about Wisconsin. Why did Gov. Scott Walker take so long to pull out the "fiscal" elements and pass the legislation without a quorum? Johnson first made clear that he and the governor believe this "is not about individual workers . . . but about rebalancing the equation" so that the taxpayers' interests are being protected. As for the long-in-coming resolution, Johnson explained that the governor wanted the collective bargaining provision and the rest of the cost-cutting measures "tied" because they were all part of the effort to close the state's budget deficit. But it became evident the Democrats weren't budging. He said that one Democratic senator even requested an absentee ballot for the spring election. At that point Walker moved forward on the bill.

But Johnson was clearly disturbed by what he characterized as "mob rule and thuggery." He said that Republicans were being accused of being undemocratic, but "what doesn't look democratic is the mob rule." He argued that the "amount of thuggery, the threats of execution" have not been sufficiently covered by the media. He recalled that a radio show host read an anonymous e-mail sent to all the Wisconsin Republican state senators "threatening to put a bullet" through their heads and asserting that the e-mailer knew where the senators and their families were. Johnson said, "That is so out of bounds."

As for Walker himself, Johnson related that the governor has been "resolved throughout the process." He also acknowledged that while talking tough in public, Walker was "trying to be reasonable behind the scenes."

As for the federal budget, Johnson argued that we will have a fiscal crisis if we don't get our spending under control. He was dismayed that "the president isn't leading." The president "sitting on the sidelines isn't helping" address our fiscal problems, he said. Both the White House and Senate Democrats, he asserted, "need to get serious." He observed that the Senate's proposed cuts amount to less than a day of borrowing on our current debt.

Johnson, like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), was a Tea Party favorite and a political novice. He is now showing himself to be a serious legislator, indeed more focused and articulate than many veteran senators. We will see if he can bring the private-sector perspective to a Senate where it is often missing.

There is no limit to NPR's chicanery. "The new video includes recordings of phone conversations between NPR executive Betsy Liley and an activist posing as a member of a phony group with ties to the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood. The two discuss the logistics of a potential $5 million donation from the group to NPR and the ways in which it could be kept anonymous and shielded from government scrutiny. NPR says it never came close to accepting the money because the phony group did not meet its standards for potential donors. Liley has been placed on administrative leave. Liley says in the video that [CEO Vivian] Schiller and [Joyce] Slocum, then NPR's general counsel, were aware of the potential $5 million donation from the group, which called itself the Muslim Education Action Center and said on its website that its goal was 'to spread acceptance of Sharia across the world.'" Whoa. Is this a screenplay by Rush Limbaugh? Maybe Congress should be funding an investigation into NPR.

There is no better summary of our approach to Syria than that by Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.): "Is our policy 'passive consistency,' or 'consistent passivity?' Or don't we have any Syria policy at all? I'm glad Ambassador [Robert] Ford is in Damascus. I just wish he was doing more than conveying the usual feckless messages to the Syrians and reporting their contempt back to Washington."

There is no better example of President Obama's foreign policy failure than Libya. Paul Wolfowitz writes: "So, while the Libyan opposition is losing vital ground to heavily armed Qaddafi forces, the United States is debating what it can do to help under the constraints of a U.N. resolution that was supposed to have sent a tough message to Qaddafi. Instead, it is sending a demoralizing message to Qaddafi's opponents."

There is no bending of the cost curve under ObamaCare. "CBO projects that spending for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care programs will grow from 9.9 percent of GDP in 2010 to 12.0 percent by 2021, driven largely by rapid growth in health care costs."

There is no sense that the White House is remotely interested in spending reduction."Vice President Joe Biden, delegated as a top budget negotiator by Obama, pursued a semi-comical second track: reaching out long distance to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's dacha. Boehner and McConnell were not charmed. Quipped one GOP aide: 'The idea of the vice president managing budget negotiations on Capitol Hill from the Russian prime minister's dacha might seem unrealistic even in a James Bond movie.'"

President Obama is content to let other nations publicly lead the search for solutions to the Libyan conflict, his advisers say, a stance that reflects the more humble tone he has sought to bring to U.S. foreign policy but one that also opens him to criticism that he is a weak leader . . . .

Although Obama sees advantages in keeping Washington in the background, especially in a region where the United States is held in such low regard, he has exposed himself to Republican charges that he is absent at a time of crisis. Conservatives say his one-of-the-team approach could also signal a decline in American fortitude after nearly a decade of war.

Well, if we are in such low regard, hasn't Obama failed in his "Muslim outreach"? Maybe the problem wasn't simply George W. Bush.

However, Scott's underlying analysis is a reminder that Obama, contrary to many conservatives' criticism, may not be paralyzed. Rather, he is intentionally downsizing America's superpower status. The Obama team has rationalized it this way:

But international bodies are slow and often unwilling to act. We don't share a worldview with Russia and China. By deferring to other nations and refusing to lead, Obama is in effect giving recalcitrant allies and aggressive competitors a veto. Russia doesn't want a no fly-zone? Oh, well, guess that's off the table.

Very bad things happen when America stands on the sidelines, as Scott reminds us:

Bill Clinton was criticized for standing by during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and waiting for years to use force in the Balkans. He finally did so in Kosovo without a U.N. Security Council resolution, a case that is being examined by European countries and the Obama administration as they decide how to proceed in Libya.

We have gotten to the point where conservatives and liberals are united in their wariness of Obama's lack of initiative. Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch, is no neocon. But he sounds much like Elliott Abrams on this point:

"Having called on Gaddafi to leave, I think it would be hard for the administration to back away from the crisis if that goal remains unmet," said Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch, who said doing so would risk sending a message to other autocrats that they can use violence to maintain power. . . .

Abrams said: "I think they are being too timid here. And they are running the risk that there will be a bloodbath tomorrow and, by then, it will be too late for them to help the opposition."

When we get to the point where Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is to the right of the administration (advocating a no-fly zone) you know how extreme the administration's preference for American invisibility has become.

The administration's response to its bipartisan critics? "It's not as if we're not on the side of change," Scott quoted an administration official as saying. Not exactly a stirring message, is it?

What makes this all the more appalling is that we have had the 9/11 experience. Doing nothing when provoked and playing defense gave us 3,000 dead Americans. Unless we are on offense, our allies will be inclined to do very little and our enemies will run rampant. Come to think of it, that's pretty much what is going on now.