Over on Pajamas, we have another article I am proud of [oh, shut up-ed. give me a second], Drima of Sudanese Thinker’s Wild Parties in Sudan. We are working very hard to expand our global spread via the blogosphere to give people something they wouldn’t get elsewhere. We hope you appreciate it. Finding and publishing such things take up a lot of my time nowadays.

Meanwhile, what used to take a lot of my time has a way of encroaching on my present reality. Apparently, someone I used to know…Brian DePalma… may have resurrected his career, seemingly scoring a hit at the Venice Film Festival with his new film “Redacted.” The subject is a particularly gruesome real-life rape case, concerning a 14-year old Iraqi girl raped by US servicemen who also murdered her family.

Now I don’t know the details of this case. (Some of the servicemen involved have been given long sentences and it sounds truly hideous.) Yet, according to Reuters, the film is halfway between documentary and fiction. This to me is a highly suspect form, especially when based on recent events (2006), which are more verifiable than most. You would think the truth would be enough.

But what interests me more is Brian’s selection of material and his intention, as he states it, to stop the war. “The pictures are what will stop the war. One only hopes that these images will get the public incensed enough to motivate their Congressmen to vote against this war,” he said.

Really? Does DePalma really think that the American public doesn’t realize that such things occur in war on all sides and always have? No doubt a few American troops raped German and French women, murdered innocent people, etc. during World War II. War is Hell. Who disputes that?

So why would DePalma choose to tell this story now?

Propaganda, of course. But there’s a bit more. We are all creatures of our times and of our great successes. This is perfectly human. DePalma, quintessentially a man of my generation, equates Iraq with Vietnam not just because he may think they are the same (ridiculous as that is) but because Vietnam made him the man he is today. In other words, he was able to live a fantastic Hollywood life (even with the normal vicissitudes),including the fancy houses, cars, women, etc., by being a “groovy” man of his generation – militantly opposed to Vietnam War and for all traditional PC things. Why change? Indeed, why not drill down further into the old well when things aren’t as they once were. Why think about the specifics of the current situation or about history? They would only disrupt personal progress.

(For the record, I have not seen the movie, am only going on reports. )

The WSJ’s investigative reporters have been going after Hillary Clinton’s campaign sources in a fairly perspicacious manner. The latest revelations are about the Paw family in Daly City, CA and a guy/boy named Hsu. If you haven’t seen, the links are here and here.

What jumps out at me in all this – besides the covert country music connections in the “Boy Named Hsu” (Hey, it’s Johnny CASH) – is why would Hillary want all this possibly tainted money. It’s not as if her campaign is running behind. She’s leaving Obama in the dust at this moment. Of course, these connections were set up earlier… but still… why? The numbers are not that great – and considering the risk of being eventually connected to the Chinese government – you would think the campaign would just say no.

Perhaps it’s arrogance, perhaps stupidity… or maybe something else. We shall see.

I don’t have much sympathy of Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, the latest in the growing list of closeted politicians caught with their pants down, and here’s why:

The activist, Mike Rogers, who runs the Web site BlogActive.com, has complained about Craig’s opposition to gay rights. The conservative senator has supported an amendment to the Constitution banning same-sex marriage and voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in the 1990s. Craig, who served in the National Guard, has also spoken out against homosexuals serving in the military.

The self-hatred implicit in that is mind-boggling. Human sexuality could be called the world’s epicenter of hypocrisy. And the intolerance of this gay man in the Senate toward other gay people is mean and almost sadistic. He should resign, not for his behavior in the bathroom, but for his creepy political phoniness.

MORE: Craig also opposed civil unions. That would make him a bigot against himself. We should have a word for that. “His record includes a series of votes against gay rights and his support of a 2006 amendment to the Idaho Constitution that bars gay marriage and civil unions.”

It’s fascinating to read the New York Times report on Sarkozy’s foreign policy address, in which the French president seemed to countenance violent action against Iran unless the mullahs abandon their nuclear weapons program. Elaine Sciolino writes:

Although Mr. Sarkozy’s aides said French policy had not changed, some foreign policy experts were stunned by his blunt, if brief, remarks.

“This came out of the blue,” said Francois Heisbourg, special adviser to the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris and author of a coming book on Iran’s nuclear program. “To actually say that if diplomacy fails the choice will be to accept a nuclear Iran or bomb Iran, this is a diplomatic blockbuster.”

Indeed it is, but it should be no surprise to those who have followed Sarko and I doubt it will be any surprise to the French people who no doubt have had enough of Islamism. No doubt too there will be a plethora jeers from their fuddy-duddy media, but I will await Nidra Poller’s report on that from PJM. (Saves me struggling with Larousse. They like big vocabulary words at Le Monde.)

I am looking between the lines at the venerable NYT. On 44th Street, they too are struggling, but not with Larousse. They are struggling with events. They don’t know how to deal with the Surge. Some of their own reporters seem to think it may be succeeding, although that knowledge has not infected the editorial page (and must give Frank Rich fevers). And now there’s Sarko. Despite pay the usual obeisance to global warming and American unilateralism in Iraq (how could he not?), he is proceeding as if he were an adjunct of the American Enterprise Insitute.

Mr. Sarkozy, who is often faulted for being too pro-American, proudly restated France’s friendship with the United States, where he spent a two-week vacation this summer.

In a move that is certain to be welcomed in Washington, he announced that France would send more troops to Afghanistan to train the Afghan Army, despite his statement during the campaign that France would not remain in Afghanistan forever. The Defense Ministry confirmed that France would send 150 additional troops.

He sounds like Rudy Giuliani’s new-best-friend. Or maybe Fred Thompson’s.

Max Sawicky – who doesn’t always agree with me – does on the China repression/Microsoft/Yahoo situation. People can talk through the haze of ideology.

That’s the subject of my piece on Pajamas this morning. What I’d like to say here though is that we got some really cool art from Oleg Atbashian. I like working with him and with my friend Roman Genn who also does illustrations for Pajamas and is having a show opening in Santa Monica (James Gray Gallery/Bergamot Station) on September 8. Both Oleg and Roman – two very talented guys – are refugees from the former Soviet Union. I’m told if you join me down at Roman’s opening, you might get some real vodka instead of the usual cheap chardonnay.

Today the venerable pundit is promoting a Bloomberg/Hagel independent candidacy in ‘08. In what world would that garner votes outside the immediate families involved? [Maybe it's filler.-ed. Ya think?]

That’s what we call in Hollywood a hyphenate (as in writer – director). Jonathan Foreman is one… film critic – embed (in Iraq)… and he does a fine job here of detailing the dreary story of Tinseltown’s coming anti-war releases. I think I’ll wait to see them on my Academy DVds, if then.

Beats me… I have no idea if and when the Comandante “estira la pata” as José Guardia, PJM’s Europe editor, just told me in IM (I like to learn new idioms). Sooner or later he will, as will the rest of us.

The interesting question then is whither Cuba? I visited Havana back in 1979 when I was invited to such places for my then political correctness. The proximate cause was the first festival of the New Latin American Cinema, to which I was a delegate. I have a lot of stories, which at some point I will write down, but my memories of “The Lost City” are strong – all the faded mansions and the DeSotos running on fumes. It was once a beautiful place. Maybe it will be again.

And, by the way, another memory: when I was 13, 14 years old…something like that… I saw Castro speak in Central Park. He was a great hero then. I can still recall the Dominicans screaming for him to foment a revolution in their country. Good thing he didn’t.

APROPOS CUBA: Did this really happen? I have heard US presidential candidates make gaffes before, but this….? [Evidently Edwards doesn't go to a lot of Michael Moore movies.-ed. Evidently.]

Here’s something interesting from Charles Krauthammer on last night’s Brit Hume Show:

KRAUTHAMMER: But what is really interesting, I think, is the Giuliani effect. This is a guy who defies gravity. Everybody expected six months ago that, yes, he was high in the numbers because people associate him with 9/11. But when Republicans discover how socially liberal he is, his numbers will plummet. And they have not.

And what is important is the war on terror. Democrats are not reliable. Giuliani is a guy who in a Democratic year, which is going to be in 2008, could win. After all, he is a guy who won reelection twice in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Yes and yes. But there’s more. As the nomination of Hillary becomes increasingly likely (and it has), the strength of Giuliani as her opponent increases. Maybe we will all look back in 2009 and see this seemingly interminable election was actually all over before it started.