I've never been particularly enamored of so-called human rights watchdogs like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. They're havens for limousine liberals whose main concern is cop-killers like Mumia Abu Jamal, and not for truly oppressed, like Christians in Sudan, Indonesia and China.

An excellent article in today's Wall Street Journal echoes this complaint and further marginalizes what should be important work.

Afghans may have danced in the street and ripped off their burkhas when the war on terror liberated them from the Taliban. But judging from the latest survey by Human Rights Watch, the world might have been better off had the Taliban liberated Washington, D.C., instead.

We exaggerate only slightly. In its annual survey of rights around the world, released last week, Human Rights Watch devotes at least three times as much critical space to America as to any other country. And it treats the war on terror as a far greater threat to humanity than terrorism itself. Many of our liberal friends have been bragging that the blame-America-first left has vanished since September 11. Well, it's back, and running Human Rights Watch.

Start with the war in Afghanistan, where it says U.S. "conduct so far has not been auspicious." Apparently those dancing Afghans on TV were hallucinating. According to Human Rights Watch, all the war has accomplished is a return to "political fragmentation" and perhaps new oppression. Its report barely acknowledges America's role in removing the hated Taliban, except to criticize U.S. use of cluster bombs and to suggest that the small number of civilian casualties constitute "possible violations of international humanitarian law."

This is a moral slander against the U.S. military, which went to lengths unknown in history to avoid such casualties, including the insertion of special forces, at great personal risk, to direct laser-guided bombs.

And the hate-America screed just gets worse.