ConservaPundit

If Scalia is wrong for duck-hunting with Cheney, why isn't Ginsberg for lecturing for NOW?

03.31.04 (8:59 am)   [edit]
March 30, 2004, 9:00 a.m.
[b]Election-Year Hunting
Should Scalia recuse himself from Cheney-related cases?[/b]
By Ronald D. Rotunda

A short time ago, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia went duck hunting with Vice President Dick Cheney. Many editorial writers are now insisting that Justice Scalia should recuse himself from a pending case in which two public-interest groups are suing Cheney: They want him to turn over the records of the energy task force of which he is a member.

Does the law require Justice Scalia to recuse himself?

There is a statute on the subject, which lists various grounds for disqualification (e.g., the judge has a financial interest in the case, or the judge served as a lawyer in the case before he became judge). None of these provisions apply, so the argument is based on a catchall: The judge shall disqualify himself in a case "in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

This vague language comes from the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct. It is a phrase that most states have adopted. The ABA, by the way, issued an ethics opinion many years ago that advised, prophetically, that one must be concerned about imposing disqualification based on vague standards such as "appearances of impropriety," for the judgment could easily be based on "an instinctive, or even ad hominem basis."

That may be what is happening here. There is a fair amount of case law that interprets the language that Scalia's attackers hurl against him, and the precedent says that Scalia is right. For example, in a case interpreting this exact same language, the Pennsylvania supreme court held that the judge in a murder trial did not have to disqualify himself simply because he knew the victim and was a mourner at his funeral. The convicted murderer did not like that result.

In another case, the complaining witness in an attempted rape prosecution was a high-school classmate and "a close personal friend" of the judge's daughter, who attended the trial; the victim would also be maid of honor in the daughter's forthcoming wedding. The Oklahoma court held that the judge acted properly in refusing to recuse himself.

The Arkansas supreme court held that a lower-court judge need not disqualify himself merely because he had asked one of the attorneys appearing before him to be a pallbearer at his father's funeral. A federal court (following a long line of cases) held that the judge need not recuse himself simply because his son was a lawyer in a party's law firm, but was not personally acting as a lawyer in the proceeding. Another federal court refused to disqualify a trial judge who attended an expense-paid environmental-law seminar funded by an organization that received some funding from an oil company. Those facts did not furnish grounds to reasonably question the judge's impartiality, even assuming that the seminar presented an "unbalanced" viewpoint on environmental issues.

The main case that the movant relies on in seeking Scalia's disqualification is a case involving a criminal prosecution that the Office of Independent Counsel brought during the Clinton years. The trial judge, before he was assigned to the trial, had told reporters that if "anything came up regarding President Clinton, I would recuse," because of his close friendship with Mrs. Clinton. The Court of Appeals agreed that "this case will, as a matter of law, involve matters related to the investigation of the President and Hillary Rodham Clinton."

Yet, when the time came, the trial judge refused to recuse himself; instead he dismissed an indictment against the Arkansas governor and several others. Both the independent counsel and the Department of Justice urged the Court of Appeals to reverse; it did so and reassigned the case to a different judge on remand. If Scalia had said that he could not decide the case fairly because of his close friendship with the vice president, then this precedent would be applicable.

There is a good reason why courts, both state and federal, interpret the "appearance of impartiality" language objectively and narrowly. Judges do not divorce themselves from the world when they don their robes. They still are allowed to have friends, go on hunting trips, and live a life. Years ago, when I was clerking for a federal judge, he asked me, after the oral argument, what I thought of the two lawyers' performances. Before I answered he said, "Those are two of the finest lawyers you'll ever meet. One was the best man at my wedding and the other is one of my very best friends." The judge did not think of disqualifying himself.

Nor did Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone disqualify himself from cases involving President Herbert Hoover, although he was a buddy and a member of Hoover's informal "medicine ball" cabinet. (They would throw medicine balls at each other before breakfast.) [b]Nor did Justice Jackson, who was a personal friend of FDR, and took vacations with him. Nor did Justice Douglas, who was a poker buddy of FDR. Nor did Chief Justice Vinson, who was a poker buddy of Truman. Come to think of it, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has given her name and presence to a lecture series cosponsored by the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, an organization that often argues women's-rights issues before Justice Ginsburg. Should she disqualify herself from issues involving women's rights?[/b]

I am a member of a legal ethics list server. One of the other members recently argued: "Censure by Congress, even articles of impeachment, should at least be considered" against Justice Scalia. Funny that one does not hear similar calls to impeach Justice Ginsburg because of her actions. [b]Maybe that's because the calls for Scalia's recusal — and impeachment — have very little to do with justice and everything to do with politics. [/b]

— Ronald D. Rotunda, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.

The answer: a Frenchman The question: who will be Saddam Hussein's defense lawyer?

03.31.04 (8:52 am)   [edit]
From the BBC-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/eu...

[b]Jacques Verges: 'The Devil's advocate'[/b]
[i]Verges made his name by taking on notorious clients
The French lawyer set to defend Saddam Hussein at his trial has forged his reputation at the side of some of the world's most notorious figures. [/i]

In his long career, Jacques Verges has acted for Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie and Carlos the Jackal, and says he has represented former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic.

Mr Verges, 79, is said to have been a friend of Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge leader behind Cambodia's genocide.

His controversial career has earned him the nickname 'the Devil's advocate'.

Mr Verges says he will also defend former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.

[b]Genocide [/b]

He agreed to act on Saddam Hussein's behalf even before the details of the trial - such as the date, the charges, and even where it will be held - have been set.

The charges could include genocide and crimes against humanity.

The BBC's Hugh Schofield says it comes as no surprise to those who have followed Mr Verges' 50-year career that he should take on so controversial and difficult a client, as he has made a lifetime profession of fighting unpopular battles.

Mr Verges was born in Thailand to a French father and a Vietnamese mother, and grew up on the French Indian Ocean island of La Reunion, where he is said to have acquired his fiercely anti-colonialist views, our correspondent says.

[b]VERGES' FAMOUS CHARGES [/b]

In World War II, he earned a reputation as a war hero with General Charles de Gaulle's Free French resistance, but later he became a Communist.

During the Algerian war of independence, he defended Algerians accused of terrorism against France.

One of his clients was Djamila Bouhired, who was sentenced to death in 1957 for planting bombs in cafes in Algiers.

He managed to have her sentenced commuted, and married her when she was released in 1962.

Later, in the 1970s, he became the champion of extremists from both left and right, defending Palestinian violence against Israel and neo-Nazi bombers.

When offered the 1987 case of Klaus Barbie, the former Gestapo chief known as the Butcher of Lyons, he leapt at the chance to expose what he saw as establishment hypocrisy.

But he could not prevent Barbie's life imprisonment on 341 charges, which included deporting Jewish children to concentration camps.

[b]Carlos the Jackal [/b]

Illich Ramirez Sanchez, the Venezuelan who became known as Carlos the Jackal after making a career out of bombings, kidnappings and hijackings, was another client.

He was sentenced to life in jail in 1997 for killing two French secret agents and a Lebanese revolutionary in 1975.

Mr Verges says he was involved in a law suit brought by Slobodan Milosevic at the European Court of Human Rights in 2002 challenging his detention by the Netherlands to face war crimes charges at The Hague.

Some have questioned whether having such a reputation helps or undermines Mr Verges' clients' cause.

Some Iraqis said the fact that Saddam Hussein will be defended by Jacques Verges proved his guilt.

He "has always defended gang leaders and Saddam is one of them," said Nureddin Dara, a Kurdish judge who is also a member of Iraq's US-appointed interim Governing Council.

Martin unhinged

03.31.04 (8:30 am)   [edit]
For some good laughs check out Matt Martin's blog against me.

He seriously thinks that me calling our boys "our boys" indicates that they are, actually boys. "Our boys" is slang, of course. And, actually, regardless of whether we call "our boy" children or adults, they are recognized as having the competence of an adult. That's why they vote as adults. That's a voluntary decision. I think signing up for the army is one, too.

If Matt Martin, molecular gun nut, wants to berate me for blaming Clinton for everything, he should steer his venom towards those on this site who accuse Bush of being the Evil One, responsible for everything bad in this world-- from obesity in America, to cancer, to whatever.

He doesn't care about my criticism of Clinton, he merely cares that I'm making a criticism. Talk about nuts.

At least I have plausible arguments when I blame Clinton for setting the stage for 911. If Martin was paying just scant attention to the 911 testimony he's know that there is some credibility there.

But forget an argument, Martin reverts back to what he does best: calling me names, making fun of my intellect. Like I've always said, I wouldn't care if he called me names-- if he actually had something else to say.

He doesn't.

Keep up the good work, Matt. I guess we can't change who we are.

The left will regret Rice's testimony

03.31.04 (7:42 am)   [edit]
March 31, 2004, 8:19 a.m.
[b]Condi’s Moment
Liberals prove to be short-term thinkers.[/b]
By Mark Goldblatt
National Review

The archetypal liberal is the guy who, every morning, drops a dollar in the lap of the homeless man camped out in front of his apartment building and who, every evening, blames conservatives for the fact that there's a homeless man camped out in front of his apartment building. In other words, liberals don't think things through; they opt for gestures, knee-jerk reactions that feel good, without the slightest consideration of long-term consequences.

Such was the case in their demand that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice testify, under oath and in public, before the 9/11 Commission. Now their demand has been met. Testify she will, even though there's no compelling reason for her to do so; indeed, she's already testified — albeit not under oath — for four hours in private session before the commission. There's not a shred of evidence she lied.

Even in the wake of former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke's damaging charges that the Bush administration was asleep at the wheel before September 11, 2001, the White House was reluctant to let Rice testify publicly under oath because of the dual principles of executive privilege and separation of powers; if Rice's testimony creates a precedent for presidential advisers being summoned to appear before legislative committees, then future advisers might become less likely to provide presidents with frank and forthright counsel.

The liberals insisting Rice testify thought nothing of such principles. They knew only that Bush was against it, so they were for it. Whatever it takes, as long as they were sticking it to the president.

Now the liberals will get their wish: Dr. Rice will tell her side of the story, under oath, in public. And with the suspense that's already gathering around her appearance, it will be a hit. The rest of the nation will soon discover what careful observers of the Bush's inner circle already know: Rice is the most poised, articulate, and convincing speaker in the entire administration. She will mop up the floor with Clarke.

Want a "for example"? In his tell-all book, Clarke asserts that the first time he mentioned al Qaeda to Rice, in January 2001, "her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before." Except in October 2000, Rice gave a radio interview in which she discussed al Qaeda. So much for facial expressions.

Not only will Rice make short work of Clarke, she will emerge from the hearing with conservatives flinging themselves at her feet, begging her to run for president in 2008. (There's already a website devoted to her potential candidacy even though she's said, on multiple occasions, she has no interest in the office.) And it would serve liberals right if she did decide to run, for Rice would be their worst nightmare. She would win the women's vote outright, peel away half the black vote, and set back the Democratic party for a generation.

But that's not the kind of thing liberals concern themselves with. Right now, they got her to testify. They stuck it to Bush.

It sure must feel good.

— [i]Mark Goldblatt is the author of Africa Speaks. His website is MarkGoldblatt.com.[/i]

China: the threat we're ignoring now

03.31.04 (7:37 am)   [edit]
[b]The Threat We're Ignoring Now[/b]
By Frank J Gaffney Jr.
The Washington Times | March 31, 2004

The televised hearings convened last week by the September 11 Commission proved to be one of the most interesting and valuable civics lessons of all time. In particular, they made a point Americans cannot hear too often: The world is generally a dangerous place for the United States, its people and its interests — whether we think so or not, and most especially when we don't. After all, at such times, we frequently squander opportunities to bring to bear the leadership and popular attention, military might and other national resources that could nip in the bud problems that will prove very costly to address later.

In particular, the hearings illuminated that the international situation bequeathed by Bill Clinton to George Bush was considerably more threatening than was widely perceived at the time. Understandably, given the mandate of the commission, its members and their witnesses focused on one of those threats — the Islamist al Qaeda organization — and how it flourished largely unchecked during the eight years of the Clinton presidency and the eight months Mr. Bush was in office prior to September 11, despite this network's repeated, murderous acts of terror.

Unfortunately, there is another danger that grew inexorably over the pre-September 11 years: a Communist China bent on becoming not just the dominant nation in Asia, but a superpower and "peer competitor" to the United States.

If the Bush 43 team was, as Richard Clarke contends, giving too little attention to Osama bin Laden and his followers, one reason might have been it was reckoning — both before and after Beijing's April 1, 2001, take-down of an unarmed American EP-3 reconnaissance aircraft — with the near- and longer-term strategic implications of an increasingly formidable and aggressive China. All that changed after September 11, when China was supposedly transformed into an ally on terror and North Korea.

Yet, such critical thinking is, if anything, even more warranted today in light of the following:

• China is crushing freedom in Hong Kong. Ever since Britain surrendered the Crown Colony to the PRC in 1997, Beijing has, like a boa constrictor, inexorably tightened its grip on the people of Hong Kong. After briefly backing away from antidemocratic legislation in the face of massive public protests, the communists are now shredding what remains of the assurances it gave the United Kingdom about respecting liberty. Party organs are brazenly trying to intimidate courageous, freely elected legislators like Martin Lee and their followers by branding them "traitors."

On Monday, the Wall Street Journal quoted Liu Kin-ming, who runs the editorial page of Hong Kong's pro-democracy Apple Daily: "[At the time of the Chinese takeover], some said the city would be a 'freedom virus' that would infect the rest of China. Nearly seven years later, that thesis is tough to support, Mr. Liu says. Also increasingly tough to support is speculation that Chinese President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, who took power more than a year ago, would promote substantive political change in China. 'If Hong Kong isn't going to have democracy, then forget about the rest of China,' Mr. Liu says."

• Communist China is no less actively threatening and otherwise trying to stifle the other Chinese experiment in democracy: Taiwan. In the wake of still-contested Taiwanese presidential polling that Beijing sought to influence — through intimidation (some 500 PRC ballistic missiles are now aimed at the Taiwanese people), pressure on the island's businessmen who are investing in or trading with the mainland and perhaps other, more covert means — the communists have declared: "We will not sit back and look on unconcerned should the postelection situation in Taiwan get out of control, leading to social turmoil, endangering the lives and property of Taiwan compatriots and affecting stability across the Taiwan Strait."

• The missiles pointed at Taiwan are not the only manifestation of China's interest in being able to project power decisively in its region and emerge as the arbiter of Asian affairs. Center for Security Policy Asia Fellow Richard Fisher has noted that, with considerable help from the former Soviet military-industrial complex and cash supplied by Western consumers, the People's Liberation Army could have by the end of this decade as many as three new nuclear submarines, 27 new Kilo-class conventional subs plus about 18 older, but still potentially lethal, diesel submarines. Such an underwater force could, particularly when taken together with comparable improvements in its missile-equipped surface fleet and aviation arms, present a serious challenge to American efforts to defend Taiwan or other U.S. interests in the Western Pacific.

• Communist China is taking other steps with worrisome strategic implications. Testimony Dr. Peter Leitner and I presented before Sen. James Inhofe's Environment and Public Works Committee last week noted Beijing's use of the controversial Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST):

( a) To install fortified bastions on reefs, allowing it to lay claim to ever greater swathes of the South China Sea.

(b) And to try to thwart President Bush's new Proliferation Security Initiative. The latter is essential to U.S. efforts to prevent the transfer of weapons of mass destruction-related materials on the high seas. Were the United States unwisely to become party to this misbegotten treaty, it is a safe bet the Chinese will also try to employ LOST as a precedent for no-less-cynical efforts in the future to advance its determination to make military use of space, while constraining this country's ability to do so.

The good news is that the Communist Chinese threat is being subjected to intense, if less publicized, scrutiny by another congressionally mandated, bipartisan panel: the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, ably chaired by my colleague, Roger Robinson.

Given the stakes — and the current, virtually complete lack of official and public attention to the menace posed by the PRC today and in the future — the critical policy review provided by the China Commission may prove, if anything, even more needed than the findings of its more celebrated September 11 counterpart.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.

Terrorism a priority for the Clinton administration?

03.31.04 (7:07 am)   [edit]
[b]Terrorism, a Clinton priority?[/b]
Brent Bozell
March 31, 2004

Tom Brokaw was playing government watchdog the other night, interviewing Condoleezza Rice right in the middle of the "NBC Nightly News." Now the evening anchors almost never do interviews during their newscasts, so you have to assume that Brokaw had something very important to ask. But how could you take Brokaw's questioning seriously after watching him swallow whole Richard Clarke's rotten-egg notion that fighting terrorism was Job One in the Clinton years?

The Brokaw transcript read like this: "Mr. Clarke said today that terrorism was the highest priority of the Clinton administration. It was important to you, but it was not the highest priority. Any student, I think, of the early days of your administration might have thought that China, Russia, Iraq, missile defense systems, were probably higher on the president's agenda."

Rice could have responded by falling out of her chair with laughter. Terrorism, the highest priority of the Clinton administration?

Or she could have responded with a list of the real Clinton foreign policy priorities:

1. Maintaining Clinton's approval ratings. This would include ineffective military strikes on terrorist targets and pharmaceutical factories, transparently timed to shift the news media's attention away from inconvenient topics like impeachment and lying under oath about sexual sloppiness.

2. Building Clinton's legacy and his chances for a Nobel Peace Prize. This would include ruling out any U.S. response to the killing of Americans on the U.S.S. Cole, since it might have jeopardized Clinton's end-of-term Middle East "peace" partnership with Yasser Arafat.

3. Globe-trotting apologies for everything America has done in its history, real or imagined. This correlates to No. 2, see: Nobel Prize, pandering for.

4. Broadening "national security" to include panicked theorizing about global warming from cattle flatulence and other imminent threats. Al Gore told Clinton Earth was hanging in the balance.

5. Fighting the bad guys with that intimidating tool, the treaty designed to ban weapons and weapons testing. Let's not forget how this exercise in Realpolitik affected North Korea. They signed a treaty with Clinton to end weapons development in exchange for aid, which it began violating with impunity about two minutes later.

6. Shaping military-technology export policy to fit the demands of campaign contributors, both domestic and the illegal foreign kind.

At the very least, the National Security Advisor could have reminded Mr. Brokaw that President Clinton was so anti-anti-terrorism that he let members of the Puerto Rican terror group FALN out of prison in 1999. (This group was best known for their bombing of New York's historic Fraunces Tavern in 1975, killing four and wounding 60.) The move was so politically tin-eared that the Senate voted 95-2 to call Clinton's clemency "deplorable." Interestingly enough, Tom Brokaw didn't cover that vote.

In November of 1999, a White House memo surfaced showing Clinton counsel Charles Ruff was urged to add his support for FALN clemency to help Al Gore's political aspirations: "The VP's Puerto Rican position would be helped" by the clemency. Brokaw didn't cover that story, either.

The utterly partisan and selective scrutiny of Brokaw and others on the supposed inattention and failures of Bush's anti-terror policy in comparison to Clinton's is thoroughly unfair and logically contradictory. How do you hold Team Bush more accountable for eight months in 2001 (a large chunk of which unfolded without top officials in place during the confirmation process) than the Clinton gang was for eight years of pussyfooting?

How, after punishing the Bush White House for years for supposedly squashing civil liberties and generally acting too aggressively in the War on Terror, can you turn around and completely bash their failure to pass the Patriot Act or attack Afghanistan sooner?

This increasingly partisan 9-11 Commission issue is being played up by the TV news elite as a way to make the American people forget the Bush Administration's record in dismantling al Qaeda. They can bash Bush for what he did before 9-11, and then bash what he did after 9-11, and then bash how he portrays 9-11 in his campaign ads. But they cannot simply suggest to the American people in this very political season that the war on terror hasn't resulted in any victories worth noting.

But worse than this shooting bullets at Bushies from every direction is the annual compounding of historical ignorance on the real Clinton record. Not only did the networks avoid the dithering failures and craven political calculations as they unfolded, but now they're repainting the Clintonistas as vigilant comic-book heroes who make Bush look weak and apathetic by comparison. That's not just prevarication. That's hallucination.

Brent Bozell is President of Media Research Center, a Townhall.com member group.

©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

OPEC cartel to raise price of oil by 4% production cut

03.31.04 (7:01 am)   [edit]
Remember when the evil Dubya proposed using alternative forms of energy and drilling for our own oil? The Saudis were scrambling around yelping about lost jobs.

This is the only industry that makes the Arab world relevant. I think we should have another look at making America energy independent, and damn the enviro-freaks. If we do this, maybe they'll stop with the oil fluctuations.

They feel that a cut is a good move because US oil demand is not declining. And since we need oil in the US, and since we can't drill our own, we have to go to the Middle Eastern and South American dealers. I think enough is enough.

And no, I don't think the US putting less than a percent of imported oil into its strategic reserve ( a reserve depleted by Clinton for political purposes, it did not help) has any impact whatsoever on prices.

Read on:

[b]OPEC to Cut Oil Production by 4 Percent[/b]
17 minutes ago Add Business - AP to My Yahoo!
By SUSANNA LOOF, Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria - OPEC (news - web sites) will cut its production target by 4 percent, several oil ministers said Wednesday — a move that analysts say could drive prices past the psychologically important threshold of $40 per barrel at a time when U.S. customers are already enduring high gasoline prices.

If you've waited this long, why not file online? Get a move on with E-filing tips and tax site comparisons.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which pumps about a third of the world's oil, will reduce its output ceiling by 1 million barrels per day starting in April.

A recent surge in oil prices had led some of the group's 11 members to suggest postponing the cut, but OPEC's most influential oil minister, Saudi Arabia's Ali Naimi, prevailed in his effort to press ahead.

Kuwaiti Oil Minister Ahmad Fahad Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah had earlier suggested delaying the cut but was among those who confirmed the group's decision to trim its target to 23.5 million barrels per day starting Thursday. Ministers from Algeria, Nigeria, Libya and Qatar also confirmed the agreement, which the representatives reached in private talks ahead of a formal meeting at OPEC's headquarters in Vienna.

OPEC had agreed last month in Algiers, Algeria, to make the cut on April 1, but recent discomfort with rising prices in the United States and other importing countries had led some OPEC members to reconsider.

"We made decision to apply the Algiers decision. We're going to meet again in June ... and at that time we're going to review the market," Algerian Oil Minister Chakib Khelil told reporters.

OPEC was forced to balance consumers' desire for lower oil prices with its own fears that swelling inventories and a seasonal lull in springtime demand could cause prices to plunge.

Most OPEC members are taking advantage of the current high prices by pumping as much oil as they can. Excluding Iraq (news - web sites), which doesn't participate in the group's quota agreements, OPEC is already exceeding its target by an estimated 1.5 million barrels.

If individual members have the discipline to reduce their actual output in line with their lower target, crude prices now could reach $40 per barrel, said Leo Drollas, chief economist of the London-based Center for Global Energy Studies.

That could damage the global economy and the long-term demand for oil, other analysts have warned.

U.S. light, sweet crude reached a 13-year peak of $38.35 per barrel on March 17. Traders had anticipated that OPEC would stick with its planned cut, and U.S. crude futures for May delivery fell 22 cents to $36.03 per barrel in New York. In London, May contracts of North Sea Brent were 9 cents higher at $32.54 per barrel.

In the United States, the high oil and gasoline prices have become an issue in the presidential campaign.

Democratic contender Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) said that as president he would stop pumping oil into the nation's emergency stockpile until prices fell and would pressure OPEC to provide more oil. A spokesman for President Bush (news - web sites) blamed high prices on the failure of Congress to approve Bush's energy proposals in 2001, and the Bush campaign started an ad accusing Kerry of favoring higher gasoline taxes.

How to read a "news" article: Lessons in dishonesty, by Spymaster

03.31.04 (6:51 am)   [edit]
First, take a Juan Cole "news/opinion" fusion story and treat it as objective reporting.

Then, ignore the fact that the IGC doesn't want the US or the UN involved in the election process, nor its neighbors (as clearly stated in this article).

Then, ignore the fact that the entire non-IGC affiliated Shiite community, of which Chalabi is a member, doesn't want the US or the UN involved (proven by Sistani's waffling on the UN).

Then spend the second half of your article criticizing Chalabi's US connections as some sort of sinister, under the table thing, to make the IGC's refusal an act US puppet mastering, instead of Chalabi, et al. being asses. Conveniently ignore the fact that Chalabi has frequently take sides against the US now, than any sort of "friend" he was of the US is long past.

Then keep in mind that Juan Cole intentionally leaves the difference between INC and IGC up to the reader. The Iraqi National Congress is the party that Chalabi is part of. THE IRAGI GOVERNING COUNCIL represents all Iraqis, and makes its decisions like the UN does-- by freaking vote.

Lefties do this so you'll think the Chalabi and the IGC are one and the same.

Essentially, this is an article not about the IGC, but about CHalabi. All Chalabi did was echo the sentiment of the entire Iraqi Governing Council.

Once more, dishonesty among the lefties rears its ugly head.

"World" Court rules that US violated Mexican inmates' rights

03.31.04 (6:33 am)   [edit]
At heart is not only sovereignty, but our Constitution. Now, not only do states have their rights under the 10th amendment squashed by the federal courts, now the ICJ has decided to do the same.

This was never about no representation. What it was about is that these convicts didn't meet with a foreign consular official, as a federal conviction would require. They met with state-appointed lawyers.

In the future, as Mexican immigrants flood the US, expect more lobbying for the Mexican Way to dominate. Laws don't matter anymore-- except the ones dicated by judicial fiat.

[b]World Court: U.S. Violated Mexicans' Rights[/b]
28 minutes ago
By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Writer

THE HAGUE, Netherlands - The International Court of Justice on Wednesday ruled that the United States violated the rights of 51 Mexicans on death row and ordered their cases be reviewed.

The United Nations (news - web sites)' highest judiciary, also known as the world court, was considering a suit filed by Mexico claiming 52 convicted murderers weren't given their right to assistance from their government.

"The U.S. should provide by means of its own choosing meaningful review of the conviction and sentence" of the Mexicans, presiding judge Shi Jiuyong said.

Shi said the review, in all but three cases, could be carried out under the normal appeals process in the United States.

But for three men whose have already exhausted all other appeals, the court said the United States should make an exception and review their cases one last time.

The court found that in the remaining case, the convict had received his rights and his case didn't need to be reviewed.

At the heart of the Mexico-U.S. case is the 1963 Vienna Convention, which guarantees people accused of a serious crime while in a foreign country the right to contact their own government for help and that they be informed of that right by arresting authorities.

The world court is charged with resolving disputes between nations and has jurisdiction over the treaty. It found that U.S. authorities hadn't properly informed the 51 men of their rights when they realized they were foreigners.

Both the United States and Mexico were preparing reactions to the ruling.

The United States had argued the case was a sovereignty issue, and the 15-judge tribunal should be wary of allowing itself to be used as a criminal appeals court, which is not its mandate.

In hearings in December, lawyers for Mexico argued that any U.S. citizen accused of a serious crime abroad would want the same right, and the only fair solution for the men allegedly denied diplomatic help was to start their legal processes all over again.

Juan Manuel Gomez said that Mexico "doesn't contest the United States' right as a sovereign country to impose the death penalty for the most grave crimes," but wants to make sure its citizens aren't abused by a foreign legal system they don't always understand.

U.S. lawyer William Taft argued that the prisoners had received fair trials. He said even if the prisoners didn't get consular help, the way to remedy the wrong "must be left to the United States."

In its written arguments, the United States said that Mexico's request would be a "radical intrusion" into the U.S. justice system, contradicting laws and customs in every city and state in the nation.

"The court has never ordered any form of restitution nearly as far reaching as that sought by Mexico," the arguments said.

In 2001, a similar case came before the court filed by Germany to stop the execution of two German brothers who also had not been informed of their right to consular assistance. One brother was executed before the court could act. The judges ordered a stay of execution for the second brother, Walter LaGrand, until it could deliberate, but he was executed anyway by the state authorities of Arizona.

Under the court's statute, its judgments are "binding, final and without appeal." Its rulings have rarely been ignored, and if one side claims the other has failed to carry out the court's decision, it may take the issue to the U.N. Security Council.

When the court finally handed down the belated ruling in 2001, it chastised the U.S. government for not halting the LaGrand execution, and rejected arguments that Washington was powerless to intervene in criminal cases under the authority of the individual states.

Mexican President Vicente Fox (news - web sites) canceled a visit to President Bush (news - web sites)'s ranch in 2002 to protest the execution of a Mexican citizen not mentioned in the world court suit. The visit finally took place earlier this month.

The left cares far more about Bush failing, than Iraq succeeding

03.31.04 (6:25 am)   [edit]
All you have to do is look at the blog topics by the leftists that perch themselves on this site. Nine times ouf of ten they concern lies about Bush, venom that has no concern for the war on terror or success in Iraq.

The occupation is not going well. Today five soldiers dies, and some civilians were brutally killed. One would think lefties would deplore the violence and support a peaceful Iraq. What is unique about the day and age we live in is the left-wing savage indifference to what goes on in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the war on terror. Witness the left-wing UN, designed to do what the US is doing in Iraq, refusing to do a damn thing. They are focused like a laser on Bush, hoping and praying for his failure. Of course, if he fails, Iraq fails. Afghanistan fails. And, eventually, more Americans die in a 911 type attack.

They feed on the corpses of young soldiers so they can bash Bush, not so they can get our boys home. It gives them some sort of meaning in their lives. Nothing would actually make them happier than to have Bush rule Iraq like a dictator, causing US deaths by legion, since that is what they already see as the reality.

In the past left-wing assaults have had some sort of modicum of humanity and compassion wrapped up in them. The new animus towards Bush, there since 2000 when Bush fairly won an election his opponent couldn't take, is otherwordly. It turns smart people into raving lunatics. It makes them all write and say the same things. It turns them into hypocrites.

Whether they want to believe it or not, all the evil they assign to Bush is not him-- even if he has ulterior motives. A real leftist would care about Iraq's progress as a free, liberated country, even if he/she hated Bush. Instead, as with John Kerry's "policies", they get up every morning and see Bush hatred as their convincing argument. It does not work.

The left is cracking up. All you have to do to watch unreality is read some of the blogs around here, or listen to the new "Air America" radio network (ever notice that it is the lefties who use patriotism as a ploy to get noticed, not the right?). These guys are not with the sane world.

[b]Iraqis Drag Four Corpses Through Streets [/b]
6 minutes ago

By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press Writer

FALLUJAH, Iraq - Jubilant residents yanked the bodies of four foreigners — one a woman, at least one an American — out of their burning cars Wednesday, dragged the charred corpses through the streets, and hung them from the bridge spanning the Euphrates River. Five American troops died in a roadside bombing nearby.

The brutal treatment of the four corpses came after they were killed in a rebel attack on their SUVs in the Sunni Triangle city about 35 miles west of Baghdad, scene of some of the worst violence on both sides of the conflict since the beginning of the American occupation a year ago.


It was reminiscent of the 1993 scene in Somalia, when a mob dragged the corpse of a U.S. soldier through the streets of Mogadishu, eventually leading to the American withdrawal from the African nation.

In one of the bloodiest days for the U.S. military this year, five American troops died when their military vehicle ran over a bomb in a separate incident 12 miles to the northwest, among the reed-lined roads through some of Iraq (news - web sites)'s richest farmland.

Residents said the bomb attack occurred in Malahma, 12 miles northwest of Fallujah, where anti-U.S. insurgents are active. U.S. Marines operate in the area, but it was unclear whether the slain troops were Marines.

Chanting "Fallujah is the graveyard of Americans," residents cheered after the grisly assault on two four-wheel-drive civilian vehicles, which left both in flames. Others chanted, "We sacrifice our blood and souls for Islam."

Associated Press Television News pictures showed one man beating a charred corpse with a metal pole. Others tied a yellow rope to a body, hooked it to a car and dragged it down the main street of town. Two blackened and mangled corpses were hung from a green iron bridge across the Euphrates.

"The people of Fallujah hanged some of the bodies on the old bridge like slaughtered sheep," resident Abdul Aziz Mohammed said. Some of the corpses were dismembered, he said.

Beneath the bodies, a man held a printed sign with a skull and crossbones and the phrase "Fallujah is the cemetery for Americans."

APTN showed the charred remains of three slain men. Some were wearing flak jackets, said resident Safa Mohammedi.

One resident displayed what appeared to be dog tags taken from one body. Residents also said there were weapons in the targeted cars. APTN showed one American passport near a body and a U.S. Department of Defense (news - web sites) identification card belonging to another man.

U.S. military officials in Washington said the situation was still confused but they did not think the victims were American soldiers and believed the SUVs were not American military vehicles.

Witnesses said the two vehicles were attacked with small arms fire and rocket propelled grenades.

Hours after the attack, the city was quiet. No U.S. troops or Iraqi police were seen in the area.

Fallujah is in the so-called Sunni Triangle, where support for Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was strong and rebels often carry out attacks against American forces.

In nearby Ramadi, insurgents threw a grenade at a government building and Iraqi security forces returned fire Wednesday, witnesses said. It was not clear if there were casualties.

Also in Ramadi, a roadside bomb exploded near a U.S. convoy, witnesses said. U.S. officials in Baghdad could not confirm the attack.

On Tuesday in Ramadi, one U.S. soldier was killed and another wounded in a roadside bombing, said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt.

Northeast of Baghdad, in the city of Baqouba on Wednesday, a suicide bomber blew up explosives in his car when he was near a convoy of government vehicles, wounding 14 Iraqis and killing himself, officials said.

The attacked convoy is normally used to transport the Diala provincial governor, Abdullah al-Joubori, but he was elsewhere at the time, said police Col. Ali Hossein.

On Tuesday, a suicide bombing outside the house of a police chief in Hillah, about 60 miles south of Baghdad, killed the attacker and wounded seven others.

A bomb exploded late Tuesday in a movie theater that had closed for the night. Two bystanders were wounded by flying glass, said its owner, Ghani Mohammed.

The latest violence came two days after Carina Perelli, the head of a U.N. electoral team, said better security is vital if Iraq wants to hold elections by a Jan. 31 deadline. The polls are scheduled to follow a June 30 transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi government.

Top U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer said Tuesday he had appointed 21 anti-corruption inspectors general to government departments to try to prevent fraud. More will be named in coming days, he said.

The inspectors will work with two other newly formed, independent agencies. Together, they will "form an integrated approach intended to combat corruption at every level of government across the country," Bremer said.

US takes first steps toward weapons in space

03.30.04 (4:25 pm)   [edit]
I don't know what to really make of this. Anything we do, soon everyone else will do. But if we don't plan for this, another country will do it. One would have thought that having nukes would just sort of stop everything. But it hasn't.

I believe in the defense of this country. I believe in the defense of freedom. But I am saddened to see the weaponization of space, even though other countries (like China) have long had plans to do so.

I pray for peace.

[b]Shooting Stars
U.S. Military Takes First Step Towards Weapons in Space[/b]
By Marc Lallanilla
ABCNEWS.com

Mar. 30? For all of human history, people have looked at the stars with a sense of wonder. More recently, some U.S. military planners have looked skyward and seen something very different ? the next battlefield.

While the military's presence in space stretches back decades, now there appears to be a new emphasis. Officials in the Bush administration and the Department of Defense are actively pursuing an agenda calling for the unprecedented weaponization of space.

The first real step in that direction appears to be coming in the form of a little-noticed weapons program at the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. The agency has now earmarked $68 million in 2005 for something called the Near Field Infrared Experiment.

The NFIRE satellite is primarily designed to gather data on exhaust plumes from rockets launched from earth, and defense officials claim it is therefore designed as a defensive, rather than offensive weapons.

But the satellite will also contain a smaller "kill vehicle," a projectile that takes advantage of the kinetic energy of objects traveling through low-Earth orbit (which move at several times the speed of a bullet) to disable or destroy an oncoming missile or another orbiting satellite.

As one senior government official and defense expert described the program, which has seen cost-related delays and increased congressional scrutiny: "We're crossing the Rubicon into space weaponization."

Blueprint for Lasers Weapons, Rod Bundles

"A lot of folks in the Air Force are leery of lobbing weapons into space, so they want to creep up on this issue," added the official, who asked to remain unnamed. "It's very hard to kill anything in the Missile Defense Agency budget ? it's politically protected."

The missile agency was reborn from the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, with a mission to develop integrated missile defense systems, including the use of space-based platforms.

But the agency's program is far from the only effort to bring weapons to space.

A wide-ranging outline of possible weaponization came from the U.S. Air Force last November. That Transformation Flight Plan outlines planned weapons programs including air-launched anti-satellite missiles, laser strike weapons and metal projectiles called "hypervelocity rod bundles" to hit ground targets from space.

The USAF weapons programs are, however, still in the conceptual phase and not yet budgeted for development.

"There are two paths and we're at a crossroads now," warns one critic of such efforts. Says Laura Grego, space weapons expert at the Washington, D.C.-based Union of Concerned Scientists, "Space is a beautiful research laboratory above the atmosphere. Putting that in danger to fulfill a Star Wars fantasy doesn't make sense."

'A Space Pearl Harbor'

The militarization of space is nothing new. After the former Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957, the U.S. military began to develop and deploy satellites for communications and reconnaissance.

By 1978, the military deployed the first global positioning system satellite, a technology now widely used for both military and commercial purposes. GPS ? which has provided for the military what Lt. Col. Peter Hays, USAF, and executive editor of Joint Force Quarterly, describes as a "radical improvement and a kind of quantum leap in the use of space" ? is but one example of how satellites are part of the daily lives of Americans, going far beyond satellite TV and weather forecasts.

With that ubiquity in mind, the current administration has been building its emphasis on space-based weapons since even before President Bush took office.

Shortly before his appointment as secretary of defense, for instance, Donald Rumsfeld chaired a blue-ribbon commission investigating the role of space in national security. It concluded in January 2001 the likelihood of an attack on U.S. space systems needed to be taken seriously to prevent another "space Pearl Harbor."

Land, sea and air have seen conflict, the report noted, asserting space will be no different. "Given this virtual certainty, the U.S. must develop the means to both deter and to defend against hostile acts in and from space."

The report remains consistent with the Defense Department's current position on weapons in space, a Defense spokesperson confirmed.

Space as 'Public Good'?

But the idea of weapons in space is greeted coldly by some.

"Weapons in space are not inevitable. If it were, it would have happened already," argued the senior defense expert, adding, "We should instead be taking the lead to make [weapons] agreements with other countries."

Indeed, other nations have moved for the non-militarization of space. As early as 1967, for example, the United Nations brokered the Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits the use of weapons of mass destruction in space. The United States is a signatory to the treaty.

Summarizing the differences between the United States and European views on space was Jean-Jacques Dordain, head of the European Space Agency, who said in a recent interview: "For the U.S., space is an instrument of domination ? information domination and leadership. Europe should be proposing a different model ? space as a public good."

Criticism of the U.S. plans to weaponize space is not limited to Europeans. The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Defense Information, a non-governmental organization founded by retired senior U.S. military offices, said in a 2002 report, "Space is already 'militarized' by both military and commercial satellites. The only practical place to draw the line today is space weaponization."

Concluded the report: "The United States has and will continue to have more interests in space assets both civil and military than most countries, and it will retain a net benefit if no one [including the United States itself] has weapons in space."

If Bush "aborted" all these lives in Iraq, shouldn't the pro-abortion Left be his biggest supporters

03.30.04 (2:43 pm)   [edit]
Winston Smith claims that Bush "aborted" 600 US soliders and the highly dubious "15,000" Iraqi civilians. This is supposed to be clever.

By this logic, Clinton aborted 3,000 lives on 9-11.

More than that, since we all know lefties love murdering the innocent, if what Bush did was truly abortion, Winston, Sammy, CheckItOut, Spymaster, et al., as well as every leftist in the media and in politics, should be waving American flags and singing patriotic songs. They can't get enough of abortion, so logic serves that they'd be campaigning for Bush, not writing exact blogs about the prez.

Of course, no one dares to think that by prosecuting the war on terror Bush is saving more lives than those lost (praise be upon them). No lefty dares to think that if Bubba had actually fought terror (as Jesus Christ, er, Richard Clarke insists, contrary to all proof), and if he had actually done something about Iraq, all of these lives wouldn't have been "aborted", either on 9-11 or in Iraq.

So go ahead, lefties, call it "abortion" if you'd like. But if you do, can we look forward to your praise of the president?

Since when is a 20 year old soldier a child?

03.30.04 (2:32 pm)   [edit]
Taking a break from calling Condi Rice a slut, or a whore, or a fat ass, or now bitching that her appearence isn't enough, one lefty, Sam Adams, has decided to print a self-serving, idiotic letter from concerned parents to the Nation magazine, which was a staunch defender of communism in the 20th century.

Of course, Sammy's blog title is misleading. As with everything that comes out of his brain. "The Children Soldiers" is about these parents of a 20 year old adult who [i]volunteered[/i] to be a military policeman in the US reserves. He is in Iraq right now.

How amazing it is that soldiers might some day be used to be-- soldiers!

Further amazing is , for as we learn, instead of being a real jerk and getting a dishonorable discharge, WHICH WOULD TAKE HIM FROM THE LIVING HELL HE IS EXPERIENCING, we're told that he doesn't want one, because, apparently, he doesn't want to lose his promotion.

Oh, now I get it. He wants something for nothing! He doesn't want to serve the country, he just wants paid for appearing to do so.

Boo-hoo. I feel their pain.

We also get the typical left-wing palaver about the "stolen" election in this propaganda letter, even though EVERY DAMN RECOUNT PROVES BUSH WON...EVEN THE BIASED RECOUNTS BY THE NEW YORK TIMES.

Of course, that is what Bush hatred is all about. The kool-aid drinkers like Sammy, these parents of an adult responsible for his own decisions, and readers of The Nation rely on faith that Bush is the devil. They are upset that Bush won in 2000, they cannot fathom that they have failed policies and failed beliefs. And they have absolutely no truthful leg to stand on, so they just make it up.

They're all liars. And more than that, they are anti-American. Sammy should probably change his handle to "Benedict Arnold" or "Julius Rosenberg". They're probably more admirable to him anyway.

What a joke.

Abortionist's big defense: "I have no idea what you mean"

03.30.04 (2:17 pm)   [edit]
New story-- http://www.freep.com/news/sta...

Analysis from James Taranto of OpinionJournal.com--

[b]'I Have No Idea What You Mean'[/b]

Suppose the following dialogue took place in a legal trial involving allegations of cruelty to animals:

Lawyer: Do the cows exhibit pain when you kill them?

Slaughterhouse operator: I have no idea what you mean.

Most people would view the answer as ludicrous and unresponsive. Well, here's a passage from an Associated Press dispatch about a group of trials in lawsuits challenging the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2004:

'In San Francisco, a chief medical officer for Planned Parenthood testified that she chooses methods of abortion that violate the new law because they are among the safest options.

'Asked by a government lawyer whether the fetus exhibits pain during the procedures, Maureen Paul replied, "I have no idea what you mean."'

[b]One can acknowledge that animals are capable of feeling pain, and even favor legislation designed to discourage treating them cruelly, without endorsing the idea that they have "rights" as people do. Similarly, the right to abortion need not depend on the complete dehumanization of unborn life.[/b] As Slate's William Saletan argues-- http://slate.msn.com/id/20979... , [b]by resting their case on such dehumanization[/b]--which , as Maureen Paul's testimony illustrates, flies in the face of common sense--[b]abortion proponents are making the pro-life case look much stronger.[/b]

Blogger's note: I would also state that abortionists rest their justifications on "dehumanizing" fetuses because they really, truly, see them as non-human.

Pretty sick, isn't it? Welcome to the Left-wing view of humanity.

Hostile mood awaits Gibson's "Passion" in France

03.30.04 (9:35 am)   [edit]
While reading, remember the following:

1)France is not a country of devout religious types. Except for radical Muslims, who already hate Jews, and nominal Catholic clergy who embrace human secularism and liberalism (their true faith). Only 5% of French Catholics actually consider themselves Catholic.

2)If there is anti-Semitic backlash in France it won't be because the film is anti-Semitic but because there are those who use it as a pretext to justify their raging radical Islamic anti-Semitism.

(If you remember the huge backlash against Jews in France anytime Israel defends itself, you know that these guys look for any excuse)

3)"The Passion" is not a movie chiefly about Christ's teachings, although they ARE there and serve an important part of the film, because "passion" means "suffering". WHy this is important ought to be apparent: it is through Christ's suffering at the hands of humanity's sin that his teachings-- which the lefties trumpet but never follow-- gain authority. There's not a thing anti-Semitic about that.

With this background, you can fairly well interpret the meaning of this article:

[b]Hostile Mood Awaits Gibson's Passion in France[/b]
Tue Mar 30, 2004 06:17 AM ET

By Tom Heneghan
PARIS (Reuters) - Panned by the critics and local church leaders, the controversial film "The Passion of The Christ" opens in France on Wednesday after winning a court challenge and getting the backing of a Muslim businessman.

Mel Gibson's graphic film will hit the screens at about 500 cinemas across the country amid loud criticism of its bloody scourging and crucifixion scenes and charges it could rekindle violence against Jews.

The press in movie-mad France panned the film when it premiered in the United States last month, mixing Gallic disdain for Hollywood blockbusters with secular France's suspicions about any attempt to bring religion into the public sphere.

It took a Tunisian-born Muslim, producer Tarak ben Ammar, to promote the film after other distributors refused to touch it.

The last hurdle fell on Monday when a court ruled against three Jewish brothers who wanted it banned on grounds it was likely to fuel anti-Semitism. But the mood is still hostile.

"If God is love, none of that comes through even for a second in this grieving and violent film. Terminator is a mild allegory by comparison," the Journal du Dimanche newspaper wrote on Sunday.

"Fascist...anti-Semite...incredibly violent," fumed Marin Karmitz, head of the National Federation of Film Distributors.

CARDINAL AND CRITICS AGREE

"The Passion" is being shown at an awkward time for France, which has been struggling with a rise in anti-Semitic violence in the past few years. A popular comedian of African origin was recently shunned after a sketch was judged offensive to Jews.

The film's traditionalist Catholic spirituality jars in modern France, where fundamentalist Christians are regarded as political pariahs because of real or supposed links to far-right and monarchist movements.

Another factor expected to dampen enthusiasm is the near total absence in France of evangelical Protestants, some of the film's strongest supporters in the United States.

It is hard to say who has been tougher on Gibson and his film, the secular film critics or the Roman Catholic Church.

"His 'Passion' seems to be based on an apocryphal Gospel according to the Saint Marquis de Sade," the left-wing newspaper Liberation wrote. "His faith is the Shi'ite version of Christianity, his religion soaked in blood and pain."

Paris Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, who was born Jewish and converted as a teenager, denounced the film's violence as the opposite of Jesus's message of love and compassion.

"The Gospel is not The Gallic Wars or Napoleon's Memoires," he said last week. Love of God, he said, "is not measured in liters of hemoglobin and spilled blood."

The Paris court ruling against the request for a ban struck a much calmer tone.

"The film in question, which is a very realistic adaptation of the final hours of Christ's life, cannot be considered an incitement to hatred and violence against Jews or an affront to their dignity and security," it said.

"Making Jesus's death the main motive for anti-Semitism and age-old persecutions of Jews would amount to a narrow and simplistic view of Mel Gibson's film."

The Shia way: agree to a new interim Iraqi constitution, then agitate for its failure

03.30.04 (9:03 am)   [edit]
Al-Sistani is an evil man who now, thanks to US blood and a passive Iraqi populace, will probably end up being the Grand Ayatollah for a new, radical Islamic Iraq.

The US freed Iraq. We did it for national security purposes, but the country is free, and that is noble. Certainly most Iraqis are grateful. But the only way Iraqis are going to keep their freedom is if they fight for it. Because Al-Sistani and the Shiites don't want "freedom", they don't want equal rights for men and women. They want an Iranian-style repressive republic.

When power is transferred on July 1, look for the Shiites to try and start a civil war. Even though they will have the power, they won't want to be in a government of law based on equality; they will want to be in a government based on Islamic Shia law, which is something entirely different (as the Taliban has shown).

And the Kurds have every right to veto a constitution that threatens their freedom-- as the Shiites should know (Kurds and Shiites being severely repressed under Hussein).

[b]Shia protests aim to scupper Iraq constitution[/b]
By Nicolas Pelham in Baghdad
Financial Times

Protests erupted in many of Iraq's Shia Muslim areas on Monday as Shia leaders sought to increase pressure on the US-led coalition and scupper Iraq's temporary constitution.

Shia stone-throwers clashed with troops in the British-administered port city of Basra seeking to evict a radical Shia group, Tha'r Allah - God's Revenge - from a former government building. British troops in riot gear were reported to have opened fire. News agencies said two soldiers and four Iraqis were wounded.

The Shia unrest followed protests in central Baghdad. A thousand black-shirted followers of young Shia firebrand Muqtada Sadr marched through central Baghdad burning American flags after US forces padlocked the door of their newspaper, al Hawza, saying it had been banned for two months for inciting violence.

"If the coalition forces are going to keep on presenting us with such messages . . . they can just dream about any sort of end to terrorism," a statement from the newspaper said.

[b]The unrest followed a poster campaign and petition drive by supporters of Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the Shia's reclusive but paramount religious authority, who is seeking to overturn Iraq's temporary constitution, agreed this month. The elderly cleric's face now adorns posters plastered across the country denouncing the document. Signed by Mr Bremer and his appointees in the Governing Council, the temporary constitution includes a bill of rights and was hailed as the most progressive in the region.[/b]

But Mr Sistani fears the Governing Council has enacted a permanent constitution by the back-door.

In addition to the poster campaign, last Friday imams at thousands of Shia mosques across central and southern Iraq began distributing a petition addressed to the United Nations and Mr Bremer, demanding the law be revoked.

"It is illegal because the administrators who have drafted the law lack legitimacy among ordinary Iraqis," says the petition.

Shia officials at Baghdad's Baratha mosque, who represents Mr Sistani in Baghdad, said tens of thousands had signed the petition.

Underlying the protest is Shia trepidation that Iraq's occupying authorities may be seeking to dilute the majority rule that Shias feel is their democratic birthright. Among Baghdad political classes, there is growing talk that Mr Bremer could hand over power to a Shia prime minister and a Sunni president.

Mr Sistani's representatives have said that if the law is not reversed their ayatollah will boycott talks with the United Nations, who arrived in Iraq this week to help oversee the handover from direct rule by the occupation authorities. Previous objections by Mr Sistani have already twice scuppered Mr Bremer's plans for political transition.

The Shia clerics have concentrated their vitriol on Article 61 of the temporary constitution which provides for two-thirds of voters in any three of Iraq's eighteen provinces to veto a future constitution. The clause was inserted by Iraq's Kurdish minority, fearful that the Arab majority would annul their current autonomy.

Just another day at the office: Kerry lies about gas prices and his plan, lies about gays

03.30.04 (8:08 am)   [edit]
[b]Kerry Announces Plan to Control Gas Costs [/b]
26 minutes ago
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) is calling on President Bush (news - web sites) to stop pumping oil into the nation's emergency stockpile, which some Democrats contend drives up the cost of fuel for U.S. consumers in an already tight market with record prices.

The Bush administration does not plan to change its plan to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserves in Texas and Louisiana because of high prices, officials said, disputing assertions that the policy contributes to the problem. Gasoline prices reached a national average of $1.80 a gallon in the past two weeks, according the private Lundberg Survey.

"If it keeps going up like that, folks, Dick Cheney (news - web sites) and President Bush are going to have to car pool to work together," Kerry said at a fund-raiser Monday night in San Francisco. "Their approach to the solution to these high gas prices is just to make sure that nobody has a job to drive to."

The Bush campaign responded to the criticism Tuesday with a television ad contending that Kerry has backed higher gasoline taxes 11 times and has supported a 50-cent-per-gallon tax increase that would cost the average family $657 a year. The ad, titled "Wacky," casts Kerry's policies as a silent-movie comedy recalling the antics of the Keystone Kops.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said last week that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve must have enough resources to respond to an emergency disruption of oil supplies. He renewed the White House request that Congress pass an energy bill designed to provide new tax breaks and other incentives to spur exploration and production.

Kerry's campaign aides said the Democratic candidate wants the United States to pressure the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to increase production and apply diplomatic pressure to the member nations to reduce prices. If elected, Kerry also would seek to enact a national fuel strategy aimed at reducing price disparities across the country, the aides said.

Kerry was unveiling his gas price reduction plan Tuesday at the University of California, San Diego. San Diego has the highest gasoline prices in the country, averaging $2.12 for a gallon of regular unleaded.

Bush's campaign charges that if Kerry had his way, gasoline prices would be even higher. Vice President Cheney said in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (news - web sites) in Washington on Monday that Kerry once supported a 50-cent-per-gallon increase in gasoline taxes. Kerry now says he opposes such a tax increase.

Current gasoline prices are at record levels in constant dollars, but not when inflation is taken into account. Using today's dollar, motorists paid the equivalent of $2.90 a gallon in March 1981, the government has said.

Typically high demand during summer could drive prices even higher, although they could drop as demand eases going into the fall when Americans are most paying attention to the election.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham (news - web sites), at a Senate hearing in Washington last week, [b]disputed claims by several Democratic senators that the diversion of 150,000 barrels of oil a day into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has added to economic pressures that are causing crude and gasoline costs to increase. [/b]

While some economists have cited such a link, others conclude that the amount of oil being taken off the market "is fairly negligible" in a global oil market of 86 million barrels a day, Abraham said.

Abraham said that filling the oil reserve to its maximum 700 million barrels was "a critical national security objective" that Bush has determined should not be interrupted. The reserve currently contains about 645 million barrels.

The finance co-chairman for Kerry's California campaign, John Roos, said the San Francisco fund-raiser brought in about $3 million, but campaign spokesman David Wade said they were still counting checks Tuesday and were not sure the total would be that high. Kerry spoke for about 25 minutes at the event, criticizing Bush's record on the economy, foreign policy and civil rights.

"I think it is a disgrace that this president and his party traffic in prejudice against gays and lesbians and others in this country," Kerry said, winning big applause in a city that conducted thousands of same-sex weddings this year before being ordered by a court to stop.

Kerry says gay couples should have all the legal rights of married couples, but would stop short of allowing them to marry. He was confronted by a San Francisco voter who is upset by his stance.

"If you say gays can't marry, that's discrimination," said Scott Rick, who approached Kerry during a campaign stop at Fort Point National Historic Site under the Golden Gate Bridge.

After discussing gasoline prices and the economy Tuesday, Kerry was to lunch with donors in San Diego before attending a gala at the Los Angeles home of billionaire supermarket mogul Ron Burkle.

Actors Ben Affleck, Leonardo DiCaprio and Barbra Streisand were expected to attend, with singer James Taylor performing.

"The Passion" in Europe-- Neo-Nazi confesses after seeing film

03.30.04 (8:03 am)   [edit]
[b]'Passion' Prompts Confession From Neo-Nazi[/b]
10 minutes ago

OSLO, Norway - A Norwegian man trying to put his neo-Nazi past behind him confessed to bombing a youth group's headquarters in the 1990s, saying he admitted his guilt after seeing "The Passion of the Christ."

The Oslo district court on Monday ordered Johnny Olsen, 41, held for two weeks for investigation after he turned himself in to police during the weekend. He said he conducted two bombings in 1994 and 1995 of a left-wing youth group's headquarters. No one was injured in the separate attacks on the Blitz House in downtown Oslo.

Olsen, who was convicted of murder when he was a teenager and served 12 years in prison, said he was moved to his confession by Mel Gibson's film that graphically portrays Christ's crucifixion.

As he entered the courtroom for his detention hearing Monday, Olsen, in a choked voice, told reporters that "Jesus lives" and "I distance myself from my past and neo-Nazism."

His attorney, Fridtjof Feydt, told newspapers that he was stunned by his client's confession, describing it as a "bolt of lightning" after Olsen saw the film.

Olsen is being investigated for arson in the bombings. If convicted, it is likely he would get a mild sentence because he confessed and because he led police to an illegal weapons stash.

The film has inspired at least one other person to confess to a crime.

In Texas, Dan R. Leach, 21, saw the film and admitted killing his girlfriend, whose death in January had been ruled a suicide.

Excellent: How the UN feeds Hamas, and all Palestinian terrorism

03.30.04 (7:51 am)   [edit]
March 30, 2004, 9:06 a.m.
[b]Fatal Approach
How the U.N. feeds Hamas.[/b]
By Arlene Kushner

Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin is taken out by Israel. Thousands of Palestinian Arabs march the streets of Gaza pledging allegiance to Hamas. Hamas's remaining leaders swear revenge.

The world focuses on these events, registering alarm and clucking at what Israel has wrought. Astonishingly, however, a central reason as to why Hamas has the strength it does is simply overlooked. In all that has been published on the subject in recent days, there has been nary a comment regarding UNRWA — the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which is responsible for the Palestinian Arabs refugees.

Yet to ignore UNRWA's role in the current quagmire is to close the door to a great deal of understanding. When one steps back and surveys the scenario with regard to the Palestinian Arab refugees as it has played out over the course of more than 50 years, it is almost surreal. It persists because people have not been paying attention.

A political construct has been established that makes UNRWA an agency unique in all the world, and provides it with enormous latitude (not to mention funding). All other refugees worldwide are tended to by the U.N. High Commission for Refugees, which works under the guidelines of the Convention on Refugees of 1951. Only UNRWA and its Palestinian Arab protégés stand apart from this: UNRWA is the only agency that is dedicated to a single group of refugees and establishes its own rules for them.

The High Commission is mandated to help refugees get on with their lives as quickly as possible, and works to settle them rapidly, most frequently in countries other than those they fled. UNRWA policy, however, states that the Palestinian Arabs who fled from Israel in the course of the 1948 war — and their descendants! — are to be considered refugees until they return to the homes and villages they left more than half a century ago (which actually no longer exist). The principle they apply is called the "right of return."

In truth, [b]there is no such legal principle[/b]. According to the UNRWA mandate, U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 provides the basis for this right. There are, however, several problems with this — the primary one being that GA resolutions have no standing in international law. This resolution, which in fact also suggested other alternatives in addition to return, was no more than a non-binding recommendation.

Yet, for all of these years, UNRWA has not only been telling the refugees that they have such a right, they have been promoting it actively via a variety of programs. The goal is to ensure that the refugees focus on achieving that return. To that end, [b]UNRWA policy has also been to make certain that the refugees are not too comfortable, as this would diminish their motivation to "return." Thus, for example, when the physician who was head of medical services in Gaza for Israel's civil administration from 1967-1985 wanted to improve medical facilities for the refugees, UNRWA blocked his efforts. And [u]when Israel wanted to move refugees out of camps and into permanent housing in the 1980s, she was prevented from doing so by U.N. resolutions. [/b][/u]

What we have then are millions of Palestinian Arabs who live their lives in less-than-desirable conditions and in a never-ending state of impermanence. It has been made clear to them that they have an "inalienable" right to return to Israel, and that Israel thwarts this right.

[b]This is a situation that generates rage: Fertile ground for radicalism and terrorism. The message of Hamas, which seeks Israel's total destruction, is one that speaks to them.[/b]

It is no accident that the UNRWA camps have been the source of an enormous number of terror attacks. Weapons are stored and explosives manufactured within the environs of the camps. Not only do the terrorists emanate from the camps, but UNRWA employees, who are themselves refugees, are often in the service of Hamas. Hamas even controls the UNRWA teachers' union.

Expectations that the current situation regarding Hamas can be remedied remain unrealistic until UNRWA policies and practices are radically altered.

— [i]Arlene Kushner, a journalist in Israel, is author of the forthcoming Disclosed: Inside the Palestinian Authority and the PLO.[/i]

Look past Clarke's tenor and tone, and see what he actually says

03.30.04 (7:46 am)   [edit]
March 30, 2004, 8:50 a.m.
[b]“Tenor and Tone”
The disingenuousness of Richard Clarke.[/b]

In explaining the discrepancy between previous comments he made about President Bush's antiterrorism policy and the harsh ones that he is making now, Richard Clarke has said the difference is a matter of "tenor and tone." Indeed. And since Clarke is beating Bush up with "tenor and tone," it is impossible to catch him in actual deliberate lies, no matter what Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist fervently hope.

But Clarke's tenor is unfair, and his tone is an outrage. For evidence, look no further than the preliminary report of the 9/11 Commission itself, from which all the quotes below are drawn.

Clarke's tenor suggests that it was bizarre that it took Bush officials, many of whom weren't in place until the spring of 2001, eight months to bring to the verge of presidential approval a plan to eliminate al Qaeda. But policymaking takes time. The Clinton administration's Presidential Decision Directive 39 identified terrorism as a national-security concern, and was "signed in June 1995 after at least a year of interagency consultation and coordination." At least a year.

Clarke's tone makes it sound as if Clinton officials were extremely solicitous of his antiterror plans. Well, that's nice for him to believe. He circulated among Clinton officials an anti-al-Qaeda plan in September 1998. "This strategy was not formally adopted, and Cabinet-level participants...have little or no recollection of it, at least as a formal policy document."

Clarke's tenor says it is an outrage that the Bush team approved more CIA counterterrorism spending in principle, but hadn't yet made it happen. Really? In the 1990s, more resources were supposed to go to the CIA, but "baseline spending requests, and thus core staffing, remained flat. The CIA told us that Clarke kept promising more budget support, but could never deliver."

Clarke's tone says it was scandalous that the Bush team considered aiding the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance for eight months before deciding to do it. This is how the Clinton team handled the question of aiding the Northern Alliance: "The debate continued inconclusively throughout the last year and a half of the Clinton administration."

Clarke wanted to fly Predator reconnaissance missions over Afghanistan in 2001 while an armed version of the plane was being developed. Clarke, in his tenor, suggests resistance to his view was irrational. But other officials wanted to wait until they had armed Predators ready to go, so as not to lose the element of surprise. The armed Predator got up and running relatively quickly: "A program that would ordinarily have taken years was, [Air Force officials] said, finished in months; they were 'throwing out the books on the normal acquisition process just to press on and get it done.'"

Clarke's tone strongly implies that no one in the Bush administration took any serious action in the summer of 2001 when terrorist "chatter" increased, in marked contrast to the Clinton team's on-the-ball response to similar chatter around the time of the millennium. Not quite. In the summer of 2001, "the CIA again went into what the DCI [George Tenet] described as 'Millennium threat mode,' engaging with foreign liaison and disrupting operations around the world. At least one planned terrorist attack in Europe may have been successfully disrupted during the summer of 2001."

"Security was stepped up for the G8 Summit in Genoa, including air-defense measures. U.S. embassies were temporarily closed. Units of the Fifth Fleet were redeployed from usual locations in the Persian Gulf. Administration officials, including Vice President Cheney, Secretary Powell and DCI Tenet, contacted foreign officials to urge them to take needed defensive steps."

The FBI issued a threat advisory. There was an FAA warning. Then, things calmed down. "On July 27 Clarke reported to [Condi] Rice ... that the spike in intelligence indicating a near-term attack appeared to have ceased, but he urged them to keep readiness high."

Clarke can't pooh-pooh his Bush criticisms as just tenor and tone — they are at the root of his dishonesty.

— [i]Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.[/i]

When should we no longer support Israel?

03.30.04 (7:41 am)   [edit]
[b]When Should We No Longer Support Israel?[/b]
By Victor Davis Hanson
VictorHanson.com | March 30, 2004

The recent assassination of Sheik Saruman raises among some Americans the question—at what point should we reconsider our rather blanket support for the Israelis and show a more even-handed attitude toward the Palestinians? The answer, it seems to me, should be assessed in cultural, economic, political, and social terms.

Well, we should no longer support Israel, when…

Mr. Sharon suspends all elections and plans a decade of unquestioned rule.

Mr. Sharon suspends all investigation about fiscal impropriety as his family members spend millions of Israeli aid money in Paris.

All Israeli television and newspapers are censored by the Likud party.

Israeli hit teams enter the West Bank with the precise intention of targeting and blowing up Arab women and children.

Preteen Israeli children are apprehended with bombs under their shirts on their way to the West Bank to murder Palestinian families.

Israeli crowds rush into the street to dip their hands into the blood of their dead and march en masse chanting mass murder to the Palestinians.

Rabbis give public sermons in which they characterize Palestinians as the children of pigs and monkeys.

Israeli school textbooks state that Arabs engage in blood sacrifice and ritual murders.

Mainstream Israeli politicians, without public rebuke, call for the destruction of Palestinians on the West Bank and the end to Arab society there.

Likud party members routinely lynch and execute their opponents without trial.

Jewish fundamentalists execute with impunity women found guilty of adultery on grounds that they are impugning the “honor” of the family.

Israeli mobs with impunity tear apart Palestinian policemen held in detention.

Israeli television broadcasts—to the tune of patriotic music—the last taped messages of Jewish suicide bombers who have slaughtered dozens of Arabs.

Jewish marchers parade in the streets with their children dressed up as suicide bombers, replete with plastic suicide-bombing vests.

New Yorkers post $25,000 bounties for every Palestinian blown up by Israeli murderers.

Israeli militants murder a Jew by accident and then apologize on grounds that they though he was an Arab—to the silence of Israeli society.

Jews enter Arab villages in Israel to machine gun women and children.

Israeli public figures routinely threaten the United States with terror attacks.

Bin Laden is a folk hero in Tel Aviv.

Jewish assassins murder American diplomats and are given de facto sanctuary by Israeli society.

Israeli citizens celebrate on news that 3,000 Americans have been murdered.

Israeli citizens express support for Saddam Hussein’s supporters in Iraq in their efforts to kill Americans.

So until then, I think most Americans can see the moral differences in the present struggle.

If the Palestinians wish to hold periodic and open elections, establish an independent judiciary, create a free press, arrest murderers, subject their treasury to public scrutiny, eschew suicide murdering, censure religious leaders who call for mass murder, embrace non-violent dissidents, extend equal rights to women, end honor killings, raise funds in the Arab world earmarked only to build water, sewer, transportation, and education infrastructure, and pledge that any Jews who choose to live in the West Bank will enjoy the same rights as Arabs in Israel, then they might find Americans equally divided over questions of land and peace.

But all that is a lot of ifs. And so for the present, Palestinian leaders shouldn’t be too surprised that Americans increasingly find very little in their society that has much appeal to either our values or sympathy. If they continually assure us publicly that they are furious at Americans, then they should at least pause, reflect, and ask themselves why an overwhelming number of Americans—not Jewish, not residents of New York, not influenced by the media—are growing far more furious with them.

[i]Victor Davis Hanson is a respected author and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. His most recent book, Between War and Peace: Lessons in Afgahnistan and Iraq, is available from the FrontPage Magazine Bookstore for $13.95.[/i]

What's up with oil? A guide to why prices are so high.

03.30.04 (7:36 am)   [edit]
[b]What's Up With Oil
A guide to why prices are so high.[/b]
Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:01 a.m.
Editors, OpinionJournal.com

No doubt about it: High oil and gasoline prices make a great Presidential campaign issue for Democrats. And, right on cue, Senators are popping up to blame the White House and ask the Bush Administration to "do something."

New York's Charles Schumer and Barbara Boxer of California are attacking the decision to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and demanding that the White House release some oil. Just how releasing only 0.15% to 0.2% of the world's oil market will push down gasoline prices by 25 cents a gallon, the Senators don't reveal.

But current prices do raise an interesting question: What has happened over the past 10 months to ruin forecasts of oil at $22 per barrel? The short answer is plenty.

Most important, demand has skyrocketed. Not only in the U.S., where economic growth has been gangbusters, but also in China, which has leapt ahead of Japan to become the second largest oil market in the world. While there is some debate about whether China is consuming oil or using it to build a strategic stockpile, the result is the same strong demand. China's growth has also sparked an economic recovery and higher oil demand in the rest of Asia. Count India, too, as an increasingly oil-thirsty economy.

This roaring demand has not been met with increasing production. Blame that mostly on OPEC. The oil cartel has been smarting over the fall of the dollar against the euro. That, of course, reduces dollar-denominated oil revenues and increases the incentive to keep supplies tight. With prices at or above $28 per barrel--the upper-bound of OPEC's target range--the Saudis, for example, ran a budget surplus for the first time in decades.

Inventories are also low. The U.S. has not yet recovered from the disruption in crude and refined products from Venezuela last year. And tight inventories exaggerate any changes in supply at the margin.

As the market got tighter, several events have injected uncertainty. Russian President Putin created some political risk by clamping down on the oil industry and arresting the former head of Russia's largest oil company, Yukos, and accusing a second company of tax fraud. There has been continued instability in Venezuela, Nigeria and Indonesia. It also hasn't helped that Royal Dutch Shell announced it was lowering, by 20%, its estimate of reserves. And there have been questions raised about the size of Saudi reserves and the possibility that Saudi production might be peaking.
Now throw in a big bunch of uncertainty ahead of tomorrow's OPEC meeting. Although OPEC only has a 33% market share, history shows it is able to generate more than its share of speculation. Several weeks ago, OPEC announced it would cut production, then two members balked, and now OPEC is hemming and hawing. Speculators have been going nuts.

And that brings us back to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which was created after the Arab oil embargo in the early 1970s. The idea was to stockpile oil to cope with any future emergency shortfall in supply--not to mitigate short-term price spikes. As part of the run-up to the Iraq war, the Bush Administration decided to add to the reserves--now about 650 million barrels.

But hundreds of millions of barrels of oil is a seductive target for political manipulation, as Bill Clinton proved when he released reserves to tame gasoline prices before the 1996 election. We hope President Bush resists that temptation, because in the long term such a response would be dangerous.

If every President turned to the oil reserve when prices shoot up, companies would reduce the amount of inventory they are willing to carry and exacerbate the supply problem. In the short term, there is also no economic need to draw on the reserve. The economy is humming along and panicking would only create other dislocations. The oil reserve was not designed, nor should it be used, to relieve consumers at the pump for a few weeks.

Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

White House to let Rice testify in public-- and now, NOW, the press wonders about the wisdom of this

03.30.04 (7:26 am)   [edit]
OK, for two weeks almost Dr. Rice has been burned alive by lefties and the press for not publicly testifying. It was wrong, they said, even if there was a legitimate legal case here not to testify, to do this. Now that Bush relented, CNN has wondered if this is a wise decision and has attacked Bush as letting go of his principles.


Bush simply can't win. The left's win at all costs strategy is to have Bush die of thousands of cuts. No matter what he does it will be criticized.

[b]White House to Let Rice Testify in Public [/b]
8 minutes ago Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) will be allowed to testify in public under oath before the commission investigating the failure to prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, an administration official said Tuesday.

The official said the decision is conditioned on the Bush administration receiving assurances in writing from the commission that such a step does not set a precedent, said the official speaking on condition of anonymity. It appeared the administration already had such assurances verbally in private and is confident it will get them in writing.

White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzales has sent a letter to the commission stating that Rice is prepared to testify publicly as long as the administration receives from the panel that this is not precedent setting, the official said.

Congressional leaders, the official added, have already stated that this would not be a new precedent.

Breaking: Bush relents, precedent set, Dr. Rice will publicly testify

03.30.04 (7:14 am)   [edit]
I don't have the news story yet, but the breaking news is that Dr. Rice, a member of President Bush's staff, not confirmed by the Congress and therefore not compelled to testify before a Congressional body (which the 9-11 commission is), will, indeed testify before the 9-11 commission in public, setting a worrisome new precedent whenever someone thinks that a sitting NSA's testimony is an "emergency".

The Bush administration wants a letter signed or an agreement from the commission promising that this won't set a new precedent, but that's useless. We all know it will.

Also, President Bush and Dick Cheney will wind up meeting with the whole commission in private. The reason, again, why they don't publicly testify? That still existing SEPARATION OF POWERS issue.

Now, what will Dr. Rice's testimony mean? Absolutely nothing. She's already given relevant testimony to the commission in private, as well as handed over millions of documents. That already broke precedent.

What it will do is give the partisans on the panel, and the mythmakers in the press, another witch (or fat slut, to use the words of nutjobs on this site) to burn.

More to come.

If Clarke could claim 'executive privelige' in 1999, why NOT Rice?

03.29.04 (5:12 pm)   [edit]
From PowerLine Blog--

[b]Clarke Claimed Executive Privilege, Refused To Testify[/b]

This is really too funny. Drudge reports-- http://www.drudgereport.com/r... that in 1999, Richard Clarke cancelled a scheduled appearance before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare and refused to testify, on the ground of executive privilege. This is, of course, the same rationale that the Bush administration is applying to Condoleezza Rice, with considerably more justification [b]since she (unlike Clarke in 1999) reports directly to the President.[/b]

I don't know, maybe the Clarke-is-a-Republican-mo le theory has some merit after all.

Mystery over new Russian weapon touted to make US missile defense "useless"

03.29.04 (5:02 pm)   [edit]
Is Russia bluffing? They've come up with whoppers before. What this appears to be is a directional ICBM. Of course, the US missile shield probably couldn't stop 20 ICBMS fired at us because it is not made to deter attacks from the likes of CHina and Russia-- it is meant to deter attacks by rogue states like Iran and North Korea.

Which makes you wonder why Russia would make something to 'defeat' it, which makes you wonder if it will eventually end up in the hands of rogue states.

We were all supposed to be on the same page after the USSR fell.....right?

[b]Mystery over new Russian weapon[/b]
Monday, March 29, 2004 Posted: 10:40 AM EST (1540 GMT)

MOSCOW, Russia (AP) -- Russia has designed a "revolutionary" weapon that would make the prospective U.S. missile defense useless, Russian news agencies reported, quoting a senior Defense Ministry official.

The official, who was not identified by name, said tests conducted during last month's military maneuvers would dramatically change the philosophy behind development of Russia's nuclear forces, the Interfax and ITAR-Tass news agencies reported on Monday.

If deployed, the new weapon would take the value of any U.S. missile shield to "zero," the news agencies quoted the official as saying.

The official said the new weapon would be inexpensive, providing an "asymmetric answer" to U.S. missile defenses, which are proving extremely costly to develop.

Russia, meanwhile, also has continued research in prospective missile defenses and has an edge in some areas compared to other nations, the official said.

The statement reported Monday was in line with claims by President Vladimir Putin's that experiments performed during last month's maneuvers proved that Russia could soon build strategic weapons that could puncture any missile-defense system.

At the time, Col-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the first deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, explained that the military tested a "hypersonic flying vehicle" that was able to maneuver between space and the earth's atmosphere.

Military analysts said that the mysterious new weapons could be a maneuverable ballistic missile warhead or a hypersonic cruise missile.

While Putin said the development of such new weapons wasn't aimed against the United States, most observers viewed the move as Moscow's retaliation to the U.S. missile defense plans.

After years of vociferous protests, Russia reacted calmly when Washington withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 in order to develop of a nationwide missile shield. But U.S.-Russian relations have soured again lately, and Moscow has complained about Washington's plans to build new low-yield nuclear weapons.

Who sez the Cold War is over? NATO expands, Russia warns it may take "corresponding measures"

03.29.04 (2:33 pm)   [edit]
[b]Seven New Allies Shift NATO to Russia's Borders[/b]
Mon Mar 29, 2004 01:24 PM ET
By Saul Hudson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seven eastern European allies joined NATO in a triumphant ceremony Monday but the expansion could slow deployments and has angered Russia by shifting the 55-year-old transatlantic alliance to its borders.

The entry of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia increased the members in the U.S.-dominated alliance to 26.

In an immediate reflection of the shift eastward of an alliance forged to fight the Cold War, NATO fighter jets headed to the Baltics, Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said.

"Welcome to the greatest and most successful alliance in history," Secretary of State Colin Powell told the nations' prime ministers, who formally handed over their accession documents.

Despite fears the enlargement could hamper timely deployments because NATO needs consensus on military action, the top U.S. diplomat also said he supported the ambitions of Albania, Croatia and Macedonia to one day join the alliance.

The new members exulted in joining an organization which ensures military protection to the 26 nations.

"Today, it is really fantastic day for Slovakia. ... I consider this a very big success," Foreign Minister Eduard Kukan told Reuters.

Forty percent of NATO will now be former communist states.

Russia has bitterly criticized the enlargement, especially into nations that formed part of the Soviet Union until 1991.

On accession day, a Russian parliamentary deputy dismissed the Washington ceremony to formally receive the seven allies' acceptance documents as a "show."

"UNFRIENDLY" EXPANSION

President Bush, criticized for paying scant attention to alliance-building, will also host the countries' prime ministers for a White House ceremony.

"It's understandable that the Americans are putting on a show today," Konstantin Kosachev, representative of a Russian parliamentary committee on international affairs, told journalists.

He said a NATO plan to patrol the airspace of the three Baltic states was an "unfriendly" move. Estonia and Latvia border Russia, while Lithuania has a frontier with Moscow's Kaliningrad enclave.

"It can not be ruled out that Russia ought to look at the possibility of taking corresponding measures."

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said in a statement: "Accepting the Baltic countries and arranging a guarantee for their security, many within NATO apparently proceeded from a previous idea that there could be a war in Europe."

"The main thing that could improve the state of European security is a fundamental change in the very nature of NATO, a consistent implementation of the agreement of the new quality of the relationship between Russia and NATO, including a joint fight against new and real threats and challenges."

Monday's expansion has brought NATO nearer to the Balkans, the south Caucasus, the Middle East and Central Asia, all potential breeding grounds for the West's post-Sept. 11 enemies: terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

But the expansion could hinder NATO's ability to respond quickly to such threats because of its consensus decision-making.

Last year, a month-long tussle over whether to bolster Turkey's defenses ahead of the unpopular Iraq war is an example of how action can be blocked by a few nations willing to defy the United States.

Since then tempers have cooled. NATO has taken command of the multinational peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan -- its first operation outside Europe or North America.

But the rifts over the U.S.-led Iraq invasion, which did not win U.N. approval, have not been fully healed.

NATO's chief told reporters Monday the alliance could only deploy to Iraq if Washington sought a new resolution at the United Nations -- something the Pentagon may resist.

Rice interview in 2000 proves that Clinton's administration set stage for 9-11

03.29.04 (10:10 am)   [edit]
Some of you may have read this, but I'll post it here. In an interview in 2000 with a radio station in Detroit, Condi Rice warned about lack of information sharing in the US government. Keep in mind, she made this criticism during the Clinton/Gore administration:

RICE: Osama bin Laden, do two things, the first is [b]you really have to get the intelligence agencies better organized to deal with the terrorist threat to the United States itself.[/b] One of the problems that we have is a kind of split responsibility, of course, between the CIA in foreign intelligence and the FBI in domestic intelligence. There needs to be better cooperation because [b]we don't want to wake up one day and find out that Osama bin Laden has been successful on our own territory. [/b]

Now, this quote has been used to totally nuke Richard Christ Clarke's assertion that Condi Rice had "never heard" of Al Qaeda. But it also shows that it was widely known that THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION PRESIDED OVER A FAULTY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE.

As we know, one of the highest priorities of the Bush administration was to come up with a national terror strategy that would remedy these problems, which was finished one week before 9-11. The strategy is what we're using now in the War on Terror.

It is wrong to suggest that Bush didn't move fast enough to come up with this plan. 8 months on a major policy is not slow at all. And, there was no specific intel on a US-based terror attack, Clinton HAD 8 YEARS AND NUMEROUS ATTACKS, INCLUDING AN AL QAEDA DECLARATION OF WAR, AS WELL AS THREE CHANCES TO CATCH BIN LADEN. He never asked for a plan, and Sandy "I'm an international trade lawyer with no National Security Experience" Berger, the President's chummy NSA, didn't think Al Qaeda was an imminent threat, contrary to the Savior's, er, I mean Clarke's statements.


Oh well. Truth has no place in left-wing politics. It's my old maxim coming to fruition-- the ends justify the means for the left.

And have we yet heard a solid reason why voting for Kerry would be better? No. They're trying to discredit Bush so much because they know their guy is an anti-AMerican left-wing nut.

Uh-oh, Bush admits he asked Clarke to see if Iraq was behind 9-11!!!!!

03.29.04 (7:57 am)   [edit]
1)Iraq was behind WTC 1. Why not think Iraq may have had something to do with it? The least we could do if find out, right?

2)Who did we attack after 9-11, Iraq or Al Qaeda? Who have we been actually fighting, on the ground, since 9-11? Isn't the mere fact that the Bush administration is made fun of by the Left for not "having found bin Laden" yet proof that he we are fighting Al Qaeda? Of course, it's even funnier and sadder to be offered bin Laden three times and refuse to take him.

3)Bob Woodward says in his book that Bush admits that bin Laden wasn't a central focus of his [i]during the first 8 months of his presidency[/i]. Well, doesn't that say it all? I guess 8 months is more important than 8 years?

Of course, the administration thought enough of Al Qaeda BEFORE 9-11 to actually pursue a NATIONAL terror strategy, something that Clinton didn't do in 8 years. And though it took eight months, every policy official in both administrations has said that that is actually a fairly quick amount of time for such a massive policy change. Well, except for Christ, er, I mean Clarke.

Of course, since we all know that Clinton didn't see Al Qaeda and bin Laden as a focus, either, it means nothing. There WAS no CLinton terror plan, there WERE no Clinton boots on the gound to capture or kill bin Laden. There WAS no Clinton attempt to have countries join the US in a war against terror. We ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING with cruise missile attacks and, as Paul Wolfowtize pointed out, more cruise missile attacks would have done nothing except give an even better excuse to 9-11 which, so far, NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVE WAS 'ALLOWED' TO HAPPEN.

Read the spin:

"White House admits Bush sought Iraq-9/11 link"-- International Herald Tribune, a New York Times company-- http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/ge...

More left-wing news 'reporting' -- Dr. Rice "rejects" calls to testify

03.29.04 (7:38 am)   [edit]
Read the news story below. And then, when you're done, remember these two points, which are not mentioned in the news article:

1)Condi Rice has no say as to whether she can testify or not. NSA is a staff position of the President. Only the President can tell her to testify. She said as much in her 60 minutes interview. It was not mentioned in this article.

2)Condi Rice mentioned the separation of powers issue regarding a sitting NSA's testimony. Commissioner John Lehman's FULL CNN quote, in which he did not merely say that the President's rejection of Rice's testimony was a "political blunder of the first order" backs this up. He also said right after this quote that the Bush administration's position on the matter had "firm ground" legally. Of course, we can't print that!

Lehman is right-- even though Bush's refusal to have Dr. Rice testify has a firm legal basis, politically it is doing a lot of damage to the administration. This, of course, is because the partisan media omits necessary information to objectively inform the public. That, and Richard Clarke has an anti-Bush, anti-truth agenda that the attack dogs lap up.

Ps. I also refer you to Chris Shay's letter to the commission showing that even before Bush became president, Clarke did not think a national terror policy was feasible, and the fact that Condi Rice has already appeared before the commissioners ("under oath" means little-- it is a crime to lie to a federal official whether you're sworn in or not-- she met with them privately and has offered to do so again-- but we see what happens to objectivity when people go "public". This is a Dr. Rice witch hunt). Incidentally, John Lehman made this point in the same interview that the AP took the smallest part from (and out of context) to make Bush look bad.

Read on, folks:

[b]Rice Rejects Calls for Public Testimony[/b]
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

CRAWFORD, Texas - National security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) is waging a vigorous defense of her actions in every public forum except one: the Sept. 11 commission where she would be questioned about the government's failure to prevent the terrorist attacks.

Rice declared Sunday night that "nothing would be better, from my point of view, than to be able to testify" to the commission. But, she added, "there is an important principle involved here: It is a long-standing principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress." She has appeared before panel members in closed session.

Interviewed on CBS' "60 Minutes," Rice also said she'd like to meet with the families of the Sept. 11 victims.

"I'd love to meet with (Rice) as long as it's under oath and it's live in front of television cameras," responded Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband Ronald died in New York's World Trade Center.

Rice should "come out and explain what the national security adviser knew, didn't know, what kind of information was passed to the president and didn't" get passed, said Lorie Van Auken, widow of another World Trade Center victim.

Commission member John Lehman, a Republican, called the refusal to testify "a political blunder of the first order."

The controversy stemming from the publication of former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke's book is in its second week, complicating President Bush (news - web sites)'s re-election campaign. Bush spent a long weekend on his Texas ranch, giving no ground, and several aides said he will not change his mind on letting Rice testify.

Rice acknowledged Sunday that Bush had asked Clarke at a meeting on the day after Sept. 11 to find out if Iraq (news - web sites) had been involved in the terror attacks.

The president, she said, was not trying to bully Clarke or force him to give a particular answer.

"This was a country with which we'd been to war a couple of times, it was firing at our airplanes in the no-fly zone. It made perfectly good sense to ask about Iraq," Rice said on CBS.

Rice offered a rebuttal to criticism by Clarke on NBC's "Meet the Press" that President Clinton (news - web sites) "did something, and President Bush did nothing" before Sept. 11 and that both "deserve a failing grade."

Rice responded: "I don't know what a sense of urgency — any greater than the one that we had — would have caused us to do differently."

Appearing on ABC, Democratic commissioner Jamie Gorelick said better coordination inside the government might have averted "disconnects."

"The CIA (news - web sites) had not told the FBI (news - web sites) that two bad actors it knew about were coming to this country," she said.

"If you brought people together and say, 'What do you have today? Have you talked to so-and-so?' — perhaps those connections would have been made," Gorelick added.

Rice said "the war on terrorism is well served by the victory in Iraq."

Told there have been more terrorist attacks since Sept. 11 than before it, she replied: "I think that's the wrong way to look at it."

While the terrorists will sometimes succeed, she said, in the end, "they are going to be defeated."

Clarke said his Jan. 25, 2001, memo urging steps against the al-Qaida terrorist network and the Bush administration's national security directive eight months later are "basically the same thing."

"They wasted months when we could have had some action," said Clarke, urging that his Jan. 25 memo and the Sept. 4 national security directive be declassified for comparison purposes.

Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said, "My bias will be to provide this information in an unclassified manner not only to the commission, but to the American people. ... We're not trying to hide anything."

Powell criticized Clarke, saying, "I think Dr. Rice is getting a bit of a bum rap. It's been set up as, I told her everything we needed to do and she ignored it all. That's not accurate. Condi was on this from the very beginning. She took action."

Questioned about his motives for attacking the administration, Clarke said he will make substantial donations from the profits of this book to the families of Sept. 11 victims. Making clear he won't donate everything, he said he has to take into account the fact that his enemies are saying "Dick Clarke will never make another dime in this city."

Clarke said he voted for Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore (news - web sites) in 2000, but "I'm not going to endorse John Kerry (news - web sites)," Bush's presumptive opponent in November. "That's what the White House wants me to do. They want to say I'm part of the Kerry campaign."

Associated Press reporter Hope Yen in Washington contributed to this story.

9-11 Families: No Thanks, Mr. Clarke

03.29.04 (7:17 am)   [edit]
[b]No Thanks, Mr. Clarke[/b]
By September 11th Families
New York Post | March 29, 2004

We are all in agreement that a review of what happened leading up to 9/11 is important for many reasons. As families and friends of loved ones killed by the terrorists that day, we want to know if 9/11 realistically could have been prevented, whether justice is being brought to those behind this attack, and, most important, that our government is taking the right action to stop future attacks.

A meaningful review as to what happened on 9/11 and the aftermath can only happen if it is truly nonpartisan. Unfortunately, this week much of the non-partisanship was taken from us when Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism advisor, decided to use his testimony before the 9/11 Commission to showcase the release of his tell-all book.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was an overwhelming outpouring of support from all corners of America. New Yorkers, non-New Yorkers, Democrats, Republicans - none of that mattered. We were all joined together as a country to share our grief over what the terrorists did to America that day.

Of course, even then, a small number of individuals tried to take advantage of the situation and emotions exposed by 9/11, from looters of shops destroyed in the attack to those who filed bogus insurance claims. We realized then that the likelihood of exploitation would only increase as the distance of time began to separate us from that horrible day.

It was very disturbing, then, to learn that Mr. Clarke would be releasing his book immediately before his scheduled public testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

We are well aware that the friends and family members of those killed in 9/11 do not speak with a single voice on all issues. Nonetheless, the notion of profiteering from anything associated with 9/11 is particularly offensive to all of us.

We find Mr. Clarke's actions all the more offensive especially considering the fact that there was always a high possibility that the 9/11 Commission could be used for political gain, especially now, with the presidential election less than eight months away.

Surely, Mr. Clarke knew this. Yet he decided to risk the actual and perceived impartiality of this important process to maximize book sales.

As family and friends of those killed on 9/11, we believe it inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to profit from and politicize 9/11, and further divide America, by his testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

Indeed, we are now seeing some partisans more interested in somehow laying blame for 9/11 at the feet of President Bush - even though what we heard from both Bush and Clinton administration officials confirms what we already believed: that while al Qaeda was a known threat, no one could have known that 19 terrorists already in the United States would hijack domestic aircraft and fly them in to the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Had there been real evidence, "actionable" or otherwise, that this was being planned, we believe that President Bush, President Clinton - indeed, any president of the United States - would have done everything possible to prevent it.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it was President Bush who helped unite America and guide us through that devastating time. Since 9/11, he has taken the fight to the terrorists abroad. He recognizes that America is at war and has made the difficult choices necessary to destroy the terrorists and confront those who harbor them.

Despite Mr. Clarke, we are hopeful that the 9/11 Commission will be able to continue its investigation in a nonpartisan way. More important, we must never lose sight of the fact that the attacks of 9/11 were perpetrated on this country by foreign terrorists committed to destroying our way of life.

In the end, we will be judged on whether we successfully continue pursuing the ongoing war on terror so that we never again face another 9/11.

Sincerely,

Jim Boyle (father of Michael Boyle, FDNY)

Madeline Bergen (wife of John Bergen, FDNY)

Rosemary Cain (mother of George Cain, FDNY)

Carol & Vincent Coakley (parents of Steve Coakley, FDNY)

Marie Corrigan (wife of Jim Corrrigan, FDNY)

Susan Cronin (sister of Thomas Strada, Cantor Fitzgerald)

Chris & Lisa Della Pietra (brother and sister of Joseph Della Pietra, Cantor Fitzgerald)

Sandra Della Pietra (mother of Joseph Della Pietra)

Sam & Rose Esposito (parents of Michael Esposito, FDNY)

Joe & Sal Esposito (brothers of Michael Esposito, FDNY, and cousins of Frank Esposito, FDNY)

Tom & Patricia Farragher (brother-in-law and sister of FDNY Capt. Walter Hynes)

Barbara Haskell (wife of Tom Haskell, FDNY)

Dawn Haskell Carbone (sister of Tom and Tim Haskell, FDNY)

Maureen Haskell (mother of Tom and Tim Haskell)

Ken Haskell (brother of Tom and Tim Haskell)

Frank Haskell (cousin of Tom and Tim Haskell)

Paulette & Joseph J. Hasson, Jr. (parents of Joe Hasson, Cantor Fitzgerald)

Virginia Hayes (wife of Phil Hayes, FDNY ret.)

Bernie Heeran (father of Charles Heeran, Cantor Fitzgerald)

Mike Heffernan (brother of John Heffernan, FDNY)

Arlene Howard (mother of George Howard, Port Authority PD)

Jennifer Iannotti (sister of Thomas Strada)

John Leavy (father of Neil Leavy, FDNY)

The McAleese family (family of Brian McAleese, FDNY)

Bart Mitchell (father-in-law of Ronnie Bucca, FDNY)

Richard & Terry Otten (parents of Michael Otten, FDNY)

Frank Siller (brother of Stephen Siller, FDNY)

Ernest & Mary Ann Strada (parents of Thomas Strada)

Terry Strada (wife of Thomas Strada)

Joseph & Michael Strada (brothers of Thomas Strada)

Ed Sweeney (father of Brian Sweeney, FDNY)

John & Janet Vigiano (parents of Joseph Vigiano, NYPD, and John Vigiano, FDNY)

Israel versus the world

03.29.04 (7:08 am)   [edit]
March 29, 2004, 8:54 a.m.
[b]Israel vs. the World
Fence double standards.[/b]
By Erick Stakelbeck

With Hamas vowing revenge against all Israelis in the wake of last week's assassination of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Israel may want to reconsider its recent decision to scale back its security fence in the West Bank.

Especially when a number of other countries — fed up with cross-border terrorism, smuggling, and illegal immigration — are doing the exact opposite.

Although their actions have received scant headlines, from South Asia to Western Europe, several countries have built or are in the process of building protective barriers similar to the ones erected by Israel in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The border-security problems faced by these countries, while daunting in their own right, are a far cry from those of Israel, which is engaged in a perpetual struggle for its very existence, one that promises only to grow more precarious with Yassin's death.

But while the Israelis are currently awaiting an "advisory opinion" by the United Nation's International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legality of their fence, the U.N. has all but ignored security fences built or being planned by Spain, India, Thailand, Botswana, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia.

Could the U.N.'s singling out of Israel have something to do with its historic hostility towards the Jewish state, exemplified by the more than 400 resolutions the U.N. General Assembly has passed against Israel since 1964?

Last month's ICJ hearings at the Hague, which were dubbed an "international circus" by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, amounted to little more than a three-day exercise in Israel-bashing, as the Palestinian Authority — with support from the Organization of the Islamic Conference — dominated the proceedings.

The 15 presiding judges did not hear arguments from Israel, the U.S., Russia, China, or the European Union, all of which boycotted the event. But the ICJ can't hide from the facts.

The refusal by Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian leadership to put a halt to Palestinian terrorism has made the security barrier — which consists of nearly 95-percent chain-link fence, a far cry from the "Holocaust Wall" that some of its critics have suggested — a necessity.

The fence has provided a measure of security for Israel, which has lost 955 citizens (mostly civilian noncombatants) to terrorism since the latest Palestinian intifada began in 2000.

The March 14 suicide bombing in the Israeli port of Ashdod marked just the first time in the past three and a half years that terrorists were able to cross into Israel from Gaza and carry out a successful attack.

This impressive statistic can be attributed largely to the presence of the security fence; so too can the dramatic reduction in suicide bombers coming from the West Bank.

The bottom line is that while the fence may not be pretty, innocent Israeli families are able to rest easier at night because of it. And after 56 years of perpetual war with its Arab neighbors, is any nation more deserving of the right to choose how to protect its citizens than Israel?

In the eyes of the U.N., it appears so.

For instance, nary a word has been uttered by the General Assembly about the security barrier being built by Saudi Arabia along its southern border with Yemen.

The Saudis, who have been among the most vociferous critics of the Israeli fence, began building their own barrier in 2003, purportedly to prevent terrorists and drug smugglers from crossing into Saudi Arabia from Yemen. While the Saudis did pledge last month to halt construction of the project due to complaints from the Yemeni government, whether they honor their word remains to be seen.

The U.N. has also been mum about a razor-wire border fence — funded in part by the European Union — built between the Spanish enclave of Ceuta and neighboring Morocco in 2000.

According to John Snow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, "[Spain's] fence, designed to curb the flow of illegal immigrants into Europe, has undoubtedly played a role in the death of more than 4,000 people who have died trying in vain to cross the strait to enter Spain."

For the EU, which has been critical of the Israeli fence, funding the Spanish/Moroccan barrier seems a gross violation of its ultra-liberal ideals.

As for the U.N., it still hasn't publicly rebuked India, which has begun construction on two security fences — one along its border with the disputed territory of Kashmir and the other along its boundary with Bangladesh — in order to stem the flow of Islamic militants into Indian territory.

In addition, the U.N. has yet to issue a response to Thailand, which recently announced that it is building a security fence along its border with Malaysia to block raids by Islamic militants.

Even Botswana and Uzbekistan have erected fences along their borders with, respectively, Zimbabwe and Kyrgyzstan.

Of course, neither of these countries is likely to be dragged before the Hague anytime soon.

The U.N. has already made clear that when it comes to fighting terrorism, it enforces two different sets of standards: one for Israel and another for everyone else.

— [i]Erick Stakelbeck is senior writer for the Investigative Project, a Washington, D.C.-based counterterrorism research institute.[/i]

The Left's Big Lie about Condi Rice-- Proving They Are the Party of Hate

03.29.04 (6:57 am)   [edit]
[b]The Left's Big Lie About Condi[/b]
By PowerLineBlog.com
PowerLineBlog.com | March 29, 2004

To an extent that, in my judgment, has no precedent in American history, the contemporary Democratic party has defined itself as a party of hate. The current frenzy over the self-contradictory and in some instances patently false claims of Richard Clarke has shown the Democrats at their most vituperative.

A case in point is Paul Begala's recent hysterical attack on Condoleezza Rice on CNN's Crossfire. Begala said:

[i][Dr. Rice] began this week with an op-ed in "The New York Times" [Ed.--actually, the Washington Post] in which she says among other things that there was no intelligence on a plot to use airplanes.
Now we have a former FBI translator who says that's false. She also said that the plan for al Qaeda before 9/11 included military attacks. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage also under oath said, no, that was false. So she told two lies in 500 words. Can you name me two lies in Dick Clarke's 50,000 word book? I haven't found any.

BLACK: Most people -- most people in this town, Republican and Democrat alike, believe her and trust her.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: No, they don't. She's a liar. She lied twice in "The Washington Post" op-ed.[/i]

Those are, of course, very strong words--or at least, they used to be, before the Democratic Party went around the bend. Here is what Rice said in her Post article:

[i]Through the spring and summer of 2001, the national security team developed a strategy to eliminate al Qaeda -- which was expected to take years. Our strategy marshaled all elements of national power to take down the network, not just respond to individual attacks with law enforcement measures. Our plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived. It focused on the crucial link between al Qaeda and the Taliban. We would attempt to compel the Taliban to stop giving al Qaeda sanctuary -- and if it refused, we would have sufficient military options to remove the Taliban regime.[/i]

Begala calls Rice a liar because Richard Armitage, in his testimony before the terrorism commission, "under oath said, no, that was false." [b]Armitage, of course, said no such thing. He never referred to Rice's op-ed in his testimony, and was never asked whether he agreed with her account or not. [/b]Here is what he did say:

[i]POWELL: So we discussed it with all of the experts who were in the previous administration and stayed over. We then brought in our new people. Mr. Armitage came in after 2 months. General Taylor came over after a while. A lot of people came in, and we put together a more comprehensive policy and we reached the conclusion in early September that it might come to that and we have to understand that we might have to go in and take this kind of large-scale military action if that was the only way to eliminate this threat.

ARMITAGE: The record I have of our discussions in the deputies, in the July time frame where we began to discuss actually using military measures if all the rest was not successful, that's a long way from having a plan, a military plan, but these were things that as the secretaries indicated, we talked about, we debated, and we realized eventually we were going to have to have in our quiver.[/i]

Now, how does Armitage's testimony (or Powell's) prove that Rice is a liar? She said: "We would attempt to compel the Taliban to stop giving al Qaeda sanctuary -- and if it refused, we would have sufficient military options to remove the Taliban regime." Powell said: "we reached the conclusion in early September that it might come to that and we have to understand that we might have to go in and take this kind of large-scale military action if that was the only way to eliminate this threat." Armitage said: "[W]e began to discuss actually using military measures if all the rest was not successful, that's a long way from having a plan, a military plan, but these were things that as the secretaries indicated, we talked about, we debated, and we realized eventually we were going to have to have in our quiver."

Armitage and Powell said, in different words, the same thing as Rice: [b]the Bush administration decided to develop a plan to use military force if al Qaeda could not otherwise be dislodged from Afghanistan. No sane person could conclude that "Armitage under oath said, no, that was false."[/b]

Some will defend Begala on the ground that he is mentally unbalanced, and argue that his type of fanaticism does not typify the Democratic Party. But I cannot agree. Begala seems to me to be typical of the modern Democratic Party--[b]a party that makes Joe McCarthy look calm, reasonable and scrupulous.[/b]

UPDATE: Rice's second lie, as characterized by Begala, was "that there was no intelligence on a plot to use airplanes." Here is what Rice actually wrote:

[i]Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack airplanes to try to free U.S.-held terrorists. The FAA even issued a warning to airlines and aviation security personnel that "the potential for a terrorist operation, such as an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the United States, remains a concern."[/i]

Begala says that, "Now we have a former FBI translator who says that's false." Begala is referring to Sibel Edmonds. Edmonds is not new to celebrity; in October 2002, she appeared on 60 Minutes and launched sensational criticisms of the FBI's translation department. She claimed that her supervisor had told her to translate slowly, if at all, so that the agency's budget would be increased. She said that many of her co-workers were incompetent, and that one of them had deliberately failed to translate important documents and tried to recruit Edmonds into a terrorist front organization; this same co-worker, according to Edmonds, threatened to kill Edmonds and her family.

Two months ago, Edmonds gave an interview to a fawning Gail Sheehy in which she repeated her allegations against the FBI, and talked about putting her story about the translators' inefficiency and incompetence into the hands of the terrorism commission. In that interview, she also suggested that when she reported the alleged threat against her and her family to Dale Watson, then the FBI's executive assistant director, Watson induced Turkey's intelligence service to interrogate Edmonds' sister in Istanbul.

The FBI fired Edmonds in 2002, and she sued the agency. Her case is now pending. She told Sheehy that when she was fired, agents told her she would be sent to prison if she hired a lawyer not approved by the agency, and that she is frequently followed by FBI agents.

[b]Begala did not refer, however, to what Edmonds told 60 Minutes or Sheehy. Rather, he relied on an article that appeared in Salon earlier today, in which Sibel Edmonds says[/b]:

[i]We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001. There was that much information available. Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice [Washington Post Op-Ed on March 22] where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That's an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it's a lie...President Bush said they had no specific information about Sept. 11, and that's accurate. But there was specific information about use of airplanes, that an attack was on the way two or three months beforehand....[/i]

Several basic points should be made here. First, Edmonds is far from a reliable witness. There is considerable reason to believe, in fact, that she is a nut, and at a bare minimum, she has an enormous axe to grind. To simply assume on the basis of her statements that Condoleezza Rice is a "liar" is ridiculous.

Second, [b][u]it seems extremely odd that Edmonds has never made this claim before.[/u][/b] She became a celebrity by bashing the FBI on 60 Minutes and elsewhere, and Ed Bradley certainly would have tried to draw out any negative information she could provide about the FBI and the Bush administration. [b]It is very hard to believe that she just forgot to mention that she had seen documents indicating that the Bureau had a warning that airplanes were to be used as weapons by Arab terrorists.[/b]

[u][b]Third, [i]Edmonds went to work for the FBI after September 11[/i][/b][/u]. They put her to work translating documents, and as far as the public record shows, that is all she ever did. [b]Documents indicating a plot to use airplanes as weapons would be relevant only if they were translated before September 11; there was, we know, a large backlog of documents, wiretap intercepts and so on that were translated after that time even though they may have been collected prior to the attacks. While it is possible that Edmonds could have seen previously-translated materials, reviewing such materials was not part of her job, and she has given no explanation of how and why she allegedly came across them.[/b]

Fourth, it is not even clear to what extent Edmonds contradicts Rice. Rice said that "we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles." It is not clear whether she meant that "we," the White House, had received no such intelligence, or that no such report had ever been obtained by anyone in any law enforcement agency.

More fundamentally, the whole point is immaterial. [b]Rice says that while "we" didn't get a report on using airplanes as missiles, there was concern about possible hijackings, and the FAA issued a warning to the airlines.[/b] It is not clear what, in addition, would or could have been done if the tactic of flying planes into buildings had been foreseen. It is worth remembering that in September 2001, airports were just about the only places in the United States that had any security at all. And that security appeared to be effective; the era of airplane hijackings had ended years before, after passenger screening was introduced. The principal terror threat was considered to be truck bombings, as in Beirut, Oklahoma City, and the first World Trade Center attack in 1993. (Indeed, that continues to be true, as there is still no effective defense against such attacks.) Planners could reasonably have thought that air travel was the one area where the threat of terrorism had been effectively addressed.

In short, Begala's characterization of Rice as a "liar" can only be seen as a manifestation of crazed partisanship, and another sign of the decline of the Democratic Party.

EU calls for new Iraq resolution, refuses peacekeepers

03.29.04 (6:47 am)   [edit]
[b]Europe Calls for New Iraq Resolution - But Offers No Troops[/b]

Paris (CNSNews.com) - European leaders meeting in Brussels said they were in favor of a new United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraq, but they stopped short of offering to contribute to a peacekeeping force there.

In a statement at the end of the two-day summit, European Union heads of state said Friday they looked "forward to the U.N. playing a vital and growing role [in Iraq] endorsed by the U.N. Security Council in the run-up to transition and beyond."

Speaking at a press conference afterwards, French President Jacques Chirac said France's position had not changed -- that only a representative Iraqi government, backed by the U.N., could give the Iraqi people the feeling of a return to stability and peace.

A French government source said that sending French troops to participate in a peacekeeping force was not on the agenda at the moment.

"The only way France could participate in a peacekeeping operation would be at the request of a sovereign Iraqi government that would be legal and representative of the Iraqis," said the source.

Philippe Moreau Defarges, a senior fellow at the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI), doubts that any of the anti-war European countries would send any peacekeeping troops to Iraq.

Moreau Defarges said that European governments which had criticized the war so strongly could not afford to sustain casualties there, because of the strength of public opinion in their countries.

"They don't want to take that risk. Europe is pacifist above all, the population and the governments too. You have to have [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair's courage, but today, no European government will have the courage to send troops to Iraq."

He said European governments were ambivalent about Iraq.

"They don't really know what to do about Iraq. The thing is the American occupation of Iraq is not going well but on the other hand the U.N. is absolutely not an alternative - it wouldn't resolve anything; it wouldn't be better than the Americans.

"So the problem is, for now, there is no alternative to the U.S.," he said.

"Europeans know that, they say they want the U.N. to be more present [while] knowing very well that the U.N. wouldn't change much ... Europe [says it] wants a new resolution on Iraq but they don't really want it."

Spain's incoming Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who campaigned against Spanish involvement in Iraq, has said he will pull his country's troops out by June 30 unless the U.N. takes on a greater role there.

Moreau Defarges said the U.S. was putting pressure on Madrid to reverse course.

"I think the new Spanish government is a little embarrassed," he said. "It is saying on the one hand that it wants to fight terrorism and on the other that it wants to withdraw its troops from Iraq. It's a little contradictory, and the Spanish know it. I'm not sure if they've decided what to do today."

Fraser Cameron, director of studies at the European Policy Center in Brussels, also believes pressure is being applied on the Spanish.

"The Americans and the British are obviously pressing Zapatero hard to reconsider his decision," he said. "But this was an election campaign promise so he's not going back out unless there is direct U.N. involvement. And at the moment it's very unlikely to happen."

Political analysts agree that the U.S. is unlikely to want a new U.N. resolution.

"The difficulty is that America wants to keep security control in Iraq and not hand it over to a U.N. body, which is understandable from their perspective," said Cameron.

Meanwhile, the EU summit for the first time appointed a European anti-terror chief.

The position went to Gijs de Vries, a U.S.-born Dutch politician whose job will be to streamline European security efforts following the Madrid train bombings.

He will work under the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana.

German press: Mullah Omar hurt in US bombing raid

03.29.04 (6:45 am)   [edit]
[b]Taliban Leader Omar Wounded in U.S. Bombing Raid[/b] DPA Reports

March 29 (Bloomberg) -- Mullah Mohammad Omar, the fugitive leader of the Taliban, was wounded in a U.S. bombing raid earlier this month that killed four of his bodyguards, Deutsche Presse- Agentur said, citing a newspaper report in Pakistan.

Omar was injured in the legs and left side of his body and won't be able to move about for two months, DPA said, citing an interview in the Urdu language daily newspaper, Ausaf, with Jabbar Aziz, a doctor. The report said the raid took place in the southern Afghan province of Zabul.

The newspaper, which is known for having contacts with the Taliban, didn't say where or when the interview with Aziz took place, DPA reported.

Omar, who is said to be about 41, has been on the run since the Taliban regime was ousted in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan in December 2001. The U.S. is sending 2,000 Marines to Afghanistan to help step up the hunt for Omar and other Taliban leaders, as well as members of the al-Qaeda terrorist network still hiding in Afghanistan.

(DPA 3-29)

Clarke admits voting for Gore-- he only sounded Republican at 9-11 hearing

03.28.04 (7:47 pm)   [edit]
Didn't Richard Clarke say he voted Republican in the 2000 presidential election? Actually, no. He said he voted in the Republican primary. Here's what he said today on Meet the Press:

Russert: Did you vote for George Bush in 2000?
Clarke: No I did not.
Russert: Did you vote for Al Gore?
Clarke: Yes I did.

Before the commission on Wednesday, this is what Clark said to make himself look credible:

"Let me talk about partisanship here, since you raise it. I've been accused of being a member of John Kerry's campaign team several times this week, including by the White House. So let's just lay that one to bed. I'm not working for the Kerry campaign. Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000. And I asked for a Republican ballot."

(There was no Democratic primay in 2000, so Clarke crossed over)

And we must also remember, Clarke wasn't being asked about partisanship. He was asked to clarify the contradiction between his public witchunt and his private testimony before the commission, a contradiction that spoke of partisanship. In Clintonesque style he changed the subject.

That's what spending 8 years with Bubba will do to you.

Bin Laden plotted to attack England before Iraq war-- thwarted by Bush administration

03.28.04 (7:37 pm)   [edit]
From Powerline Blog-- http://www.powerlineblog.com/...

[b]March 28, 2004
Bin Laden Plotted Against England[/b]

London's Sunday Times has an interesting report based on transcripts of al Qaeda interrogations; the Times is available only through pay subscription, but here is how the Sydney Morning Herald summarized the Times' account:

[i]Osama bin Laden ordered the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks to organise a massive strike on Heathrow Airport to punish Tony Blair for his support of the US, it has been revealed.

He told his operations boss, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to target the world's busiest airport at a meeting in Kabul soon after the attacks on the US, according to interrogation transcripts seen by Britain's Sunday Times.

Bin Laden described the British Prime Minister as his "principal enemy".

The claims by Mohammed, captured in Pakistan about a year ago, have reportedly been cross-checked with confessions by other al-Qaeda operatives.

Mohammed's account is the first confirmation of al-Qaeda's desire to strike Heathrow Airport. Planning for the attack, which involved operatives from Pakistan, was disrupted by the US bombing of al-Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan.

He also reveals that al-Qaeda had originally planned to hijack 10 planes in the September 11 attacks, sending five against targets on the US west coast and five against the east. Potential targets included the Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago, as well as nuclear plants, Hollywood studios and bridges.

The west coast plans were foiled when Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested at a US flying school a month before September 11, the Sunday Times reported.[/i]

So, to recap: al Qaeda was determined to strike England long before the Iraq war, and a catastrophic attack on Heathrow airport was likely prevented by the Bush administration's devastation of al Qaeda's base in Afghanistan. I'm sure that President Bush will receive a lot of gratitude in England for his effective leadership.

And Moussaoui was allegedly involved in what could have been an even grander, more destructive Sept. 11 attack. We probably could have figured this out sooner if the French government hadn't prohibited its intelligence agencies from sharing their voluminous files on Moussaoui with the American agencies.

Posted by Hindrocket at 01:01 PM

Media bias on Richard Clarke, Shay's letter proving Clarke's disregard for terror plan

03.28.04 (10:50 am)   [edit]
Some have said that Richard Clarke was a Republican, but as facts have come out about Clarke, a man who drew attention to himself by contradicting himself and attacking the Bush administration with his lies, it turns out that Clarke has only given money to one party over the last 10 years. Guess which party that is?

Secondly, Clarke himself and his apologists claim that he had to tow the party line when he testified in 2002, and that is why his current accounts of the Bush White House are contradictory. Well, not only does that make him a liar, guilty of perjury, but --and this is a big but-- what makes him credible now?

If it was in Clarke's self-interest to hold onto his job and "lie" for Bush in 2002, why isn't it in his self-interest now to lie about Bush in front of the committee? Isn't he trying to sell a Bush-bashing book? Wasn't that book bumped up to coincide with the 9-11 hearings?

That some would present him as credible now, when he has millions of dollars at stake, and is lobbying for a Kerry administration position, is laughable. The facts are that he has testified time and again, under oath, that Bush did not ignore terrorism. He was a major source for the book "Losing Bin Laden" which came out last year and showed that the Clinton administration was clueless in its "fight". And plus, there is just the history of Al Qaeda. Clinton simply did not fight Al Qaeda, and his defense secretary and NSA admitted as much.

This guy has no credit. He is a mean-spirited partisan hack interested in selling books and furthering his-- history shows-- sorry record fighting terrorism.

[b]Numbers Indicate Media Bias on Richard Clarke Story[/b]

(CNSNews.com) - While hundreds of news reports mentioned Richard Clarke's criticism of Bush administration, relatively few of those reports also mentioned documents contradicting key elements of what Clarke said.

A search of the NEXIS news database shows that from March 24 through March 26, there were 872 news reports mentioning the name Richard Clarke.

Clarke is the former counterterrorism official who expressed support for the Bush administration when he worked at the Bush White House -- then blasted the Bush administration when he left.

Clarke's new book, saying that terrorism was not a priority for the Bush administration, came out this week, apparently timed to coincide with Clarke's appearance on Wednesday before the commission investigating the events leading up to 9/11.

Hundreds of news reports from March 24-46 discussed Clarke's contention that the Bush administration did not do all it could have done to protect the American people from the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

A NEXIS search of "Richard Clarke/Fox" and "Richard Clarke/Fox News" turned up only 130 stories, however.

A search of Richard Clarke/Chris Shays and Richard Clarke/Christopher Shays turned up 10 stories.

And a search for Richard Clarke/Fox/Chris Shays turned up only 2 stories.

The two-day search of the NEXIS news database was conducted at 7:10 a.m. EST Friday.

[b]Fox News transcript [/b]

Fox News on Wednesday -- with White House permission -- released a transcript of an August 2002 White House background briefing, at which Richard Clarke described the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

[b]"There was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," Clarke told reporters in August 2002.[/b]

Clarke also said the [b]Bush[/b] administration, in its first eight months in office, [b]adopted a "new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda." He said the Bush administration ordered a five-fold increase in money for covert action before Sept. 11, 2001.[/b]

And Clarke told reporters that in March 2001 -- months before the 9/11 attacks -- President Bush had directed his staff to "stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem" -- that problem being how to deal with al Qaeda.

On Wednesday, in his testimony before the 9/11 commission, Clarke seemed to contradict what he said at the August 2002 background briefing: "[M]y impression was that fighting terrorism in general and fighting Al Qaeda, in particular, was an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration. Certainly, there was no higher priority," Clarke said on Wednesday.

Clarke also testified on Wednesday that terrorism was "an important issue but not an urgent issue" for the Bush administration.

[b]Shays letter[/b]

In a letter to the 9/11 commission on Wednesday, Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) told panel members that [b]"Clarke was part of the problem before Sept. 11 because he took too narrow a view of the terrorism threat."[/b]

Shays said that before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, a House panel held twenty hearings and two formal briefings on terrorism -- and [b]Richard Clarke "was of little help in our oversight."[/b]

[b]"When he briefed the subcommittee, his answers were both evasive and derisive," Shays said in his March 24, 2004 letter.[/b]

Shays noted that [b]"no truly national strategy to combat terrorism was ever produced during Mr. Clarke's tenure."[/b]

Shay's letter to the commission -- http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/20...

Shays also released a copy of a letter [b]he wrote to Clarke on July 5, 2000, telling Clarke that Shays' subcommittee found the information Clarke had given them "less than useful," and asking him to answer additional questions.[/b]

And [b]Shays released a January 22, 2001 letter he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, complaining that Clarke had not answered the subcommittee's questions. [u]"During a briefing to this Subcommittee, Mr. Clarke stated that there is no need for a national strategy," Shays wrote to Rice.[/b][/u]

"This Subcommittee, and others, disagree with Mr. Clarke's assessment that U.S. government agencies do not require a planning and preparation document to respond to terrorist attacks," Shays wrote.

Al Qaeda's Eurocentrism-- a new terror haven is found in Europe

03.28.04 (10:21 am)   [edit]
2 very good complimentary articles, one is linked, the other is printed here. Sobering stuff.

Europeans are appeasers from way back-- "better to let this happen than to confront it and risk more problems" is their logic. Isn't that what Spain's experience tells us?

And I'd also like to point out that the refusal to assimilate here in America is doctrine in our politically correct culture. There is no American "identity" to the practicioners of "diversity". We are not taught one language (English) we are not taught one American culture-- we are told that all of our differing cultures are the same, and are equally important. Therefore, there is no reason to speak one language, or be taught one history.

On the darker side, this creates a tension that grows to resentment of the country. This is why we have radical ethnic elements in this country where, say, Mexican-Americans can be Mexican while living in America, and Chinese-Americans can lobby for the mainland because they are "Chinese".

When radical Islam gets involved, our open society ignores them under the guise of diversity and disdain for assimilation. What is happening in Europe is already happening in the US. It isn't on the same scale here because there aren't that many radical Islamicists here (and because we have the Patriot Act clamping down on terrorist behavior). But the seeds for the destruction of this country through radical Islam are there-- just like in Europe.

[b]The Moor's Last Laugh [/b]
Radical Islam finds a haven in Europe.
BY FOUAD AJAMI
Sunday, March 28, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
OPINIONJOURNAL.COM

In the legend of Moorish Spain, the last Muslim king of Granada, Boabdil, surrendered the keys to his city on Jan. 2, 1492, and on one of its hills, paused for a final glance at his lost dominion. The place would henceforth be known as El Ultimo Suspiro del Moro--"the Moor's Last Sigh." Boabdil's mother is said to have taunted him, and to have told him to "weep like a woman for the land he could not defend as a man." An Arab poet of our own era gave voice to a historical lament when he wrote that as he walked the streets of Granada, he searched his pockets for the keys to its houses. Al Andalus--Andalusia--would become a deep wound, a reminder of dominions gained by Islam and then squandered. No wonder Muslim chroniclers added "May Allah return it to Islam" as they told and retold Granada's fate.

The Balkans aside, modern Islam would develop as a religion of Afro-Asia. True, the Ottomans would contest the Eastern Mediterranean. But their challenge was turned back. Turkey succumbed to a European pretension but would never be European. Europe's victory over Islam appeared definitive. Even those Muslims in the Balkans touched by Ottoman culture became a marked community, left behind by the Ottoman retreat from Europe like "seaweed on dry land."

Yet Boabdil's revenge came. It stole upon Europe. Demography--the aging of Europe on the one hand and, on the other, a vast bloat of people in the Middle East and North Africa--did Boabdil's job for him. Spurred by economic growth in the '60s, which created the need for foreign laborers, a Muslim migration to Europe began. Today, 15 million Muslims make their home in the European Union.

The earliest migrants were eager to hunker down in this new and (at first) alien world. They took Europe on its own terms, and lived with the initial myth of migration that their sojourn would be temporary. But for the overwhelming majority, Algiers and Casablanca and Beirut and Anatolia became irretrievable places. In time, there would be slaughter and upheaval in Lebanon and Iran, sectarian warfare in Syria, and a long era of sorrow and bloodshed in Algeria, just across the sea from Marseilles. Economic destitution would cut a swath of misery through the lands whence they came. Birth rates worked their way like a wrecking ball: It became impossible to transmit culture and civility and the old familiar world to the young. Migration became the only safety valve.

In the 1980s, terrible civil wars were fought in Arab and Islamic countries--with privilege on one side, militant wrath on the other. The despots and the military caste in Algeria and Tunisia and Syria and Egypt won that struggle. Their defeated opponents took to the road: From Hamburg and London and Copenhagen, the battle was now joined. If accounts were to be settled with rulers back home, the work of subversion would be done from Europe. Muslim Brotherhoods sprouted all over the Continent. There were welfare subsidies in the new surroundings, money, constitutional protections and rules of asylum to fight the old struggle.

"The whole Arab world was dangerous for me. I went to London." The words are those of an Egyptian Islamist, Yasser Sirri. In London, Sirri runs an Islamic "observation center" and agitates against the despotism of Hosni Mubarak. But Sirri, a man of 40, is wanted back home. Three sentences have been rendered against him in absentia: One condemns him to 25 years of hard labor for smuggling armed terrorists into Egypt; the second to 15 years for aiding Islamic dissidents; and the third to death for plotting to assassinate a prime minister. Sirri had fled Egypt to Yemen. But trouble trailed him there, so he moved to the Sudan, but it was no better. He turned up in London--there, he would have liberties, and the protections of a liberal culture. There would be no extradition for him, no return to the summary justice of Cairo.

Sirri was not working in a vacuum. The geography of Islam--and of the Islamic imagination--has shifted in recent years. The faith has become portable. Muslims who fled their countries brought Islam with them. Men came into bilad al kufr (the lands of unbelief), but a new breed of Islamists radicalized the faith there, in the midst of the kafir (unbeliever).

The new lands were owed scant loyalty, if any, and political-religious radicals savored the space afforded them by Western civil society. But they resented the logic of assimilation. They denied their sisters and daughters the right to mix with "strangers." You would have thought that the pluralism and tumult of this open European world would spawn a version of the faith to match it. But precisely the opposite happened. In bilad al kufr, the faith became sharpened for battle. We know that life in Hamburg--and the kind of Islam that Hamburg made possible--was decisive in the evolution of Mohammed Atta, who led the "death pilots" of Sept. 11. It was in Hamburg where he conceived a hatred of modernity and of women and of the "McEgypt" that the Mubarak regime had brought into being. And it was in Hamburg, too, that a young "party boy" from a secular family in Lebanon underwent the transformation that would take him from an elite Catholic prep school in Beirut to the controls of a plane on Sept. 11, and its tragic end near the fields of Shanksville, Penn. In its economic deterioration, the Arab world is without cities where young Muslims of different lands can meet. A function that Beirut once provided for an older elite had been undone. European cities now provide that kind of opportunity.

Satellite TV has been crucial in the making of this new radicalism. Preachers take to the air, and reach Muslims wherever they are. From the safety of Western cities, they counsel belligerence and inveigh against assimilation. They forbid shaking hands with women examiners at universities. They warn against offering greetings to "infidels" on their religious holidays, or serving in the armies and police of the new lands. "A Muslim has no nationality except his belief," wrote an intellectual godfather of radical Islamism, the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb, who was executed by Nasser in 1966. While on a visit to Saudi Arabia in 2002, I listened to a caller from Stockholm as he bared his concerns to an immensely popular preacher. He made Qutb's point: We may carry their nationalities, he said, but we belong to our own religion.

Radical Islamism's adherents are unapologetic. What is laicite (secularism) to the Muslims in France and their militant leaders? It is but the code of a debauched society that wishes to impose on Islam's children--its young women in particular--the ways of an infidel culture. What loyalty, at any rate, is owed France? The wrath of France's Muslim youth in the banlieues (suburbs) is seen as revenge on France for its colonial wars. France colonized Algeria in the 1830s; Algerians, along with Tunisians and Moroccans, return the favor in our own time.

France grants its troubled Muslim suburbs everything and nothing. It leaves them to their own devices, and grants them an unstated power over its foreign policy decisions on Islamic and Middle Eastern matters; but it makes no room for them in the mainstream of its life. Trouble has come even to placid Belgium. In Antwerp, Dyab Abu Jahjah, a young Lebanese, only 32, has stepped forth to "empower" the Muslims of that country. Assimilation, he says, is but "cultural rape." He came to Belgium in 1991, and he owns up to inventing a story about persecution back home; it was a "low political trick," he says, and in the nature of things. The constitution of Belgium recognizes Dutch, French, and German as official languages. Abu Jahjah insists that Arabic be added, too.

Europe's leaders know Europe's dilemmas. In ways both intended and subliminal, the escape into anti-Americanism is an attempt at false bonding with the peoples of Islam. Give the Arabs--and the Muslim communities implanted in Europe--anti-Americanism, give them an identification with the Palestinians, and you shall be spared their wrath. Beat the drums of opposition to America's war in Iraq, and the furies of this radical Islamism will pass you by. This is seen as a way around the troubles. But there is no exit that way. It is true that Spain supported the American campaign in Iraq, but that aside, Spain's identification with Arab aims has a long history. Of all the larger countries of the EU, Spain has been most sympathetic to Palestinian claims. It was only in 1986 that Spain recognized Israel and established diplomatic ties. With the sole exception of Greece, Spain has shown the deepest reserve toward Israel. Yet this history offered no shelter from the bombers of March 11.

Whatever political architecture Europe seeks, it will have to be built in proximity to the Other World, just across the Straits of Gibraltar and in the grip of terminal crisis. There is no prospect that the rulers of Arab lands will offer their people a decent social contract, or the opportunities for freedom. It is a sad fact that the Arab peoples no longer make claims on their rulers. Instead the "drifters," such as the embittered terrorists who blew into Madrid, now seek satisfaction almost solely in foreign lands.

You can't agitate against Mubarak in Cairo, but you can do it from the safety of Finsbury Park in London. The ferocity of the debate in the Arab world about France's decision to limit Islamic headgear in public schools is a measure of this displaced rage. Spain may attribute the cruelty visited on it to its association with America's expedition into Iraq. But the truth is darker. Jacques Chirac may believe that he has spared France Spain's terror by sitting out the Iraq war. But he is deluded. The Islamists do not make fine distinctions in the bilad al kufr.

Europe is host to a war between order and its enemies, fuelled by demography: 40% of the Arab world is under 14. Demographers tell us that the fertility replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. Europe is frightfully below this level; in Germany it is 1.3, Italy 1.2, Spain 1.1, France 1.7 (this higher rate is a factor of its Muslim population). Fertility rates in the Islamic world are altogether different: they are 3.2 in Algeria, 3.4 in Egypt and Morocco, 5.2 in Iraq and 6.1 in Saudi Arabia. This is Europe's neighborhood, and its contemporary fate. You can tell the neighbors across the Straits, (and within the gates of Europe) that you share their dread of Pax Americana. But nemesis is near.

Five centuries ago, the Castilians took Granada from Boabdil. They were a hardy breed of sheep-herders driven by a Malthusian logic, outgrowing their grazing lands, pushing southward--and into the New World from Seville--to answer Castile's needs. Today there is great turmoil in Islamic lands, and a Malthusian crisis. Were it only true that those in harm's way in Europe are solely the friends of the Americans. The New World is a demon of this Islamism, it is true. But that old border between Europe and Islam has furies all its own.

[i]Mr. Ajami, a professor at Johns Hopkins, is author of "The Dream Palace of the Arabs" (Vintage, 1999). [/i]

Article: "Holy War in Europe: Is Al Qaeda a Eurocentric Organization?"-- Weekly Standard-- http://www.weeklystandard.com...

Rice versus Berger-- who is more qualified?

03.27.04 (3:21 pm)   [edit]
OK, so Sammy Adams posts a Salon article talking about how unqualified for National Security Advisor Dr. Condi Rice is (how she has no experience regarding terrorism and radical Islam). Since Clinton, we know, was the best president since FDR, and since liar Richard Clarke now says the Clinton administration did all its could to stop the imminent threat of Al Qaeda (which did not, apparently mean capturing or killing bin Laden, killing terrorists, or putting boots on the ground), one would think that Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor, was steeped in foreign policy experience.

In fact, we should believe, Berger must have ample Islamic-terror foreign policy experience, right?

The tale of the tape:

a)Non- political occupation:

Condi Rice: Political Scientist (PhD), faculty at Stanford since 1981, was also provost.
Sandy Berger: A lawyer (J.D.) at a DC firm specializing in international trade.

b)Political experience before NSA appointment:

Rice:

1997: Special assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

1989-1991, Bush administration, Senior Director of Soviet and East European Affairs at NSC, and Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs

1986: Council of Foreign Relations

Berger:

Special assistant to former NYC mayor Lindsay

Legislative assistant to US Senator Harold Hughes
and Congressman Resnick

1977-1980, Deputy Director of Policy Planning Staff, State Department

c)Books written

Rice:

"Germany Unified and Europe Transformed"

"The Gorbachev Era"

"Uncertain Intellligence: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army"

Berger:

"Dollar Harvest" (1971), a book about rural politics.

***
So we can see that not only is Condi Rice amply qualified to be NSA, Berger has far less credentials to be NSA. While Rice's specialty isn't in Islamic terrorism, neither is Berger's. Rice, at the very lease, has background in national security.

Berger's experience is in policy planning at the state department. He never worked at NSC before getting appointed to NSA.

Seems odd, doesn't it?

Interestingly, one of the experts in international terrorism out there is Paul Bremer, whose name was never summoned to Clinton's side during the 1990s. As we know, he's prominent member of the Bush administration.

Oh, and Donald Rumsfeld? He chaired the Rumsfeld Commission which came out with a report in 1998 indicating the threat that rogue states and terror states through nuclear proliferation posed to the world. That was ignored by Clinton, too.

Kerry's small tax cut shifts attention from his overriding agenda

03.27.04 (2:54 pm)   [edit]
[b]Kerry's clever tax cut[/b]
Larry Kudlow
March 27, 2004

Sen. John Kerry moved to the right of Walter Mondale by proposing a small cut in the corporate tax rate, which he would lower to 33.25 percent from 35 percent. In political terms, it's a clever ploy. In economic terms, it merely provides a small offset to the significant tax hikes Kerry proposes on capital formation, where he would slap small businesses, top-bracket taxpayers, dividends and capital gains.

The Kerry proposal to roll back the Bush tax cuts would raise the after-tax cost and reduce the post-tax investment return on capital by more than 54.5 percent. Taking out the upper-bracket labor-income component -- which is still investment capital -- the Kerry tax hike would reduce investment incentives by nearly 47 percent and work-effort returns by more that 7.5 percent. A big hit.

Offsetting that, Kerry's corporate tax cut would raise after-tax returns on corporate income by almost 2.75 percent. But that's only a tiny amount compared to the overall tax-hike proposal.

Kerry would also terminate the extra-territorial tax credit for multinational companies with offshore operations. In doing so, he's both giving and taking away. More, he's pandering to the current political hysteria over so-called jobs outsourcing, a misinformation campaign that Kerry compounds with his threats to terminate a number of free-trade agreements.

As the profits of U.S. firms are taxed overseas as well as at home (when the income is transferred back to the United States), companies are unfairly double-taxed on their earnings. This is the big issue regarding the current corporate tax debate in Congress. Why should American companies be double-taxed on a worldwide basis when nearly all other foreign companies, including those in Europe, are only single taxed? (Europeans provide a rebate to their companies in the amount of the extra-territorial tax burden.)

U.S. multinational companies operate abroad, largely through foreign sales corporations, because that's where the market customers are. A little-known factoid shows that roughly 90 percent of all worldwide markets (in population terms) are located outside the United States. When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton responded, "That's where the money is." If you asked GE, Gillette, Intel or Microsoft why they go offshore, they'd each say, "That's where the customers are."

Narrow-minded members of Congress who are obsessed with the phony outsourcing argument are trying to punish international companies, arguing that the "loophole" that lets corporations defer foreign-earned profits with a special tax credit is merely a reward for creating offshore jobs. This is Kerry's argument.

But the truth is, the territorial tax break is only a small part of the corporate rationale to locate part of an operation overseas. The greater justification is to be closer to foreign customers. And yes: Why should companies be double-taxed at home and abroad?

As for the outsourcing argument, that's old-fashioned fearmongering. Recent trade data show that there's far more insourcing of service jobs from foreigners who invest directly in the United States than outsourcing of jobs from U.S. foreign investment. In manufacturing, there is a net outsourcing, but that number hasn't changed in 20 years, a period during which the United States created 38 million new domestic jobs. "Outsourcing" today is a phony war against American business and open international trade.

Surprisingly, the Bush administration has not weighed in on the corporate tax-cut issue necessary to accommodate a WTO ruling that the extra-territorial tax credit is illegal. The most sensible solution would be a reduction in the marginal tax rate on corporate income from 35 percent to somewhere around 30 percent.

House Ways and Means chair William Thomas is trying to get a 3 percent cut in the corporate rate. So Sen. John Kerry has weighed in with a smaller 1.75 percent drop. Again, he's clever. Democrats don't usually propose cutting tax rates.

But Kerry's rollback of dividends, cap-gains and the top-bracket tax cuts instituted by President Bush would do great harm to the economic recovery and the stock market boom. Higher after-tax returns that reduce the risk of owning stock have attracted investors back to equities. After a three-year bear market, these higher post-tax returns were exactly what the doctor ordered.

The choice come November is clear. Bush is the pro-investor candidate, which should provide him with a comfortable re-election majority. (Two of every three voters were stock market investors in the 2002 and 2000 election cycles.) But a recent poll by Scott Rasmussen shows that only 36 percent of likely voters (down from 44 percent in January) believe that Bush is doing a good or excellent job with the economy.

Bush has work to do. Both the economy and the markets are recovering strong, but the president can't be bashful in making his case with clarity and vision.

©2004

EU puts off decision on China arms embago-- compromise suggested

03.27.04 (9:59 am)   [edit]
WASHINGTON, March 26 (UPI) -- A summit of European Union leaders has failed to resolve the issue of lifting the EU arms embargo against China, deferring further discussion of the subject until next month to a meeting of EU foreign ministers. The ban was put in place in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989. Some EU member states are opposed to lifting the embargo, arguing that Beijing has done little to approve its human rights record since then. Frantic behind the scenes diplomacy is attempting to forge a compromise crafted by Brian Cowen, Irish foreign minister and current head of the EU's Council. Brussels insiders speculate that a possible compromise might include lifting the embargo while tightening the EU's Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. The code currently requires EU members to report when they reject export license applications for military equipment, but it may be amended to require member states to report when they grant a license. In the meantime, Russia is cashing in, having sold more than $5.5 billion in armaments to China in 2003.

If Clark was committed to fighting terror, why did he authorize the post 9-11 Saudi exodus?

03.26.04 (10:04 am)   [edit]
[b]Skeleton in Clarke's closet[/b]
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Thursday, March 25, 2004

Former counterterrorism official and now tell-all author Richard Clarke was at it again yesterday, scorching Bush administration officials in testimony before the national Sept. 11 commission.

We'd like to know how Clarke squares his contention that he was the only one in the Bush administration truly committed to thwarting terrorism before the Sept. 11 attacks with this: It was Clarke who personally authorized the evacuation by private plane of dozens of Saudi citizens, including many members of Osama bin Laden's own family, in the days immediately following Sept. 11.

Clarke's role was revealed in an October 2003 Vanity Fair article. ``Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, leave the country,'' Clarke told Vanity Fair. ``My role was to say that it can't happen unless the FBI approves it. . . And they came back and said yes, it was fine with them. So we said `Fine, let it happen.' ''

Vanity Fair uncovered that the FBI never fully investigated the passengers on those privately chartered flights (one of which flew out of Logan International Airport after scooping up a dozen or so bin Laden relatives.) But Clarke protested to Vanity Fair that policing the FBI was not in his job description.

Isn't that convenient?

The same sanctimonious Clarke who now claims National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice didn't even know what al-Qaeda was, could have stopped the bin Laden airlift singlehandedly.

Why didn't he appeal to Rice, or even President Bush himself in one of those one-on-ones in the Situation Room, to block the flights? Surely it would have been helpful to determine - without a shred of doubt - that those passengers knew nothing about the Sept. 11 plot or the modus operandi of their notorious relative.

By all accounts, Clarke made hundreds of decisions in the days after Sept. 11, many clear-headed and right.

Approving those special flights seems like a wrong one, but it was a judgment call made in the aftermath of the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history.

Perhaps it was the best decision he could make under the circumstances. It's too bad Clarke cuts no one in the Bush administration the same slack he so easily cuts himself.

GOP moves to declassify Clarke 2002 testimony, to ascertain lying

03.26.04 (9:59 am)   [edit]
[b]GOP Moves to Declassify Clarke Testimony[/b]
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON - In a highly unusual move, key Republicans in Congress are seeking to declassify testimony that former White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002 about the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Friday.

Frist said the intent was to determine whether Clarke lied under oath — either in 2002 or this week — when he appeared before a bipartisan Sept. 11 commission and sharply criticized President Bush (news - web sites)'s handling of the war on terror.

"Until you have him under oath both times you don't know," Frist said.

One Republican aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the request had come from House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairman of the House intelligence committee.

The request was the latest evidence of a counterattack against Clarke, who has criticized Bush both in a new book and in his appearance before the bipartisan commission on Wednesday.

In his testimony, Clarke said that while the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than combatting terrorists, Bush made it "an important issue but not an urgent issue" in the eight months between the time he took office and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Clarke also testified that the invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) had undermined the war on terror.

The request for declassification applies to Clarke's appearance in July 2002 before a meeting of the intelligence committees of both the House and Senate.

No immediate information was available on how the declassification process works, but one GOP aide said the CIA (news - web sites) and perhaps the White House would play a role in determining whether to make the testimony public.

Frist disclosed the effort to declassify Clarke's testimony in remarks on the Senate floor, then talked with reporter. He said he personally didn't know whether there were any discrepancies between Clarke's two appearances.

Defense: China, Israel march in step again

03.26.04 (9:51 am)   [edit]
**I understand Israel needs cash, but I also understand that it would be better simply to ask the US for more money, or sell our allies defense products, than arm america's biggest state threat. It will hurt the US, and by proxy, Israel. For Israel shouldn't forget that US weaponry and aid and protection (the threat) has helped ensure its survival. Where's the love?**

[b]China, Israel march in step again[/b]
By Stephen Blank
Asia Times

China and Israel are resuming a military relationship. From the 1970s until both sides established diplomatic relations with each other in 1992, Israel sold China an estimated US$4 billion worth of arms. And once their political relations were normalized, their arms sales relationship become overt.

Indeed, that relationship continued until 2000, when Israel attempted to sell China an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), only to run afoul of the United States, which blocked the deal, saying it would give Beijing a strategic edge in any Taiwan conflict. As a result, Israel ultimately had to pay China $350 million in compensation, and there were no known arms sales through 2003.

However, now a top-level delegation led by the director general of the Israeli Defense Ministry, General Amos Yaron, Major General (Ret) Yossi Ben-Hanan, head of Sibat, the Foreign Defense and Assistance Export Organization, and Yehiel Horev, the ministry's chief security officer, visited Beijing this week. It was the first time the two nations held high-level military talks in three years.

Although this meeting is described as a confidence-building measure to reopen the way to a lucrative defense relationship with Beijing, it has not happened out of the blue. The meet follows hard on the heels of Israel's sale of the Phalcon AWACs system to India, with US approval, and the visible expansion of Indo-Israeli defense ties to the point where some observers believe Israel is now India's largest supplier.

Given the high reputation enjoyed by Israeli defense products and services, as well as Israeli defense firms' needs for markets outside of Israel, it is not surprising that the Chinese government is eager to resume what had been a lucrative relationship, and that Israel is equally interested in finding a way to restore those military ties.

But it should be noted that the Israelis have made it clear they will not cross Washington again and take the risk of offering a system to China that Washington regards as a threat to its strategic interests. Thus there is reason to believe that there will be limits and restraints to whatever Israel is prepared to offer China.

In this connection, Israel's earlier arms sales to China, especially the Lavi jet fighter, have aroused considerable unhappiness among American conservatives, who suspect Chinese military aims - with regard to Taiwan, considered its breakaway province. Some of these Israeli weapons are now turning up as Chinese systems, such as the new semi-stealth fighter, the Jian-10, which causes many difficulties to opposing air forces and air defenses.

Nor is this the only such troubling - to Washington - sale. Any future sale that arouses US suspicions about how they could augment China's existing capabilities - again, especially with regard to Taiwan - will certainly affect Israel's ties to the US.

There also is as yet no sign of what India's response to this meeting will be. Perhaps Delhi is waiting to see what happens. But it must strike at least some prominent Indian elites as strange that on the heels of Israel's greatest success in its bilateral defense ties with India, that it is turning to China, which many Indian elites consider New Delhi's main rival, to sell it weapons. Certainly it will be interesting to see how the Israeli government and defense industry handle the complex situation involving Beijing, Washington, and New Delhi.

But there is more to this story - arms sales to China - than the Israeli angle. Even as China's indigenous capabilities for producing relatively high-level defense systems grow, and its shipbuilding capabilities become much more impressive, it is conducting a vigorous campaign to broaden the base of its defense imports.

Even though it now imports some $2 billion annually from Russia in defense sales, Russian reports confirm that most of what China buys is technology for its own indigenous arms industries - not finished weapons. This apparently coincides with renewed efforts to use foreign technology to develop an impressive and stable indigenous defense technological base.

But this turn to technology in its defense relationship with Russia also coincides with a determined effort to break the blockades imposed on it by the West. France clearly wants to sell weapons to China, but the European Union imposed a blockade with American support in 1989 to protest the Tiananmen massacre of pro-democracy protesters. France's desires to gain a market, once again thumbing its nose at the US, and to strengthen the global presence of the EU notwithstanding, the EU is obviously reluctant to terminate the sanctions on arms sales. Doing so would obviously cast doubt on the seriousness of the EU's commitment to democracy and human rights abroad and to the stability of the cross-Taiwan Strait balance. Moreover, it would introduce another and unneeded source of tension into its relationship with the US over what is for it a peripheral issue - but a vital one for Washington.

China's quest for superior Western technologies and weapons - from Israel - also suggests a growing disillusionment with Russian systems and unhappiness with Beijing's exclusion from the global arms market. There is little doubt that Western systems are generally of higher quality than are Russian weapons, that Western producers provide better services and after-sale repairs and possibly more value for the dollar than do Russian systems and services.

Thus it is possible - if China is successful in eventually breaking the EU arms embargo and resuming military ties to Israel, that it can find alternatives to Russian producers. If current trends continue, Israel can end up inheriting or displacing much of the Russian market for the export of defense systems to India and China, Russia's main customers. That outcome would represent a disaster for the Russian defense industry and the Russian armed forces, which have few if any sources for developing new weapons, except for those sales.

Thus China's and Israel's efforts to resume their formerly profitable relationship lie at the intersection of some important trends in world affairs, and can have significant repercussions for international affairs that go far beyond the bilateral relationship. Only time will tell how far this rapprochement goes and what its consequences will be, not only for Israel and China, but for all those with an important interest in that relationship. But whatever happens, and however this relationship develops or does not mature, its consequences will most assuredly be profound, with repercussions that go far beyond Jerusalem and Beijing.

Stephen Blank is an analyst of international security affairs residing in Harrisburg, PA.

Even Richard Clarke sees the Saddam-9/11 link

03.26.04 (8:59 am)   [edit]
March 26, 2004, 8:58 a.m.
[b]Clarke’s Not Blind
Even the Dems’ favorite grandstander sees the Saddam-9/11 link.[/b]

Bush bashers have deployed former White House counterterrorist Richard A. Clarke as a weapon of mass denunciation. They are using an all-too-willing Clarke and his new book, Against All Enemies, to condemn the Bush administration for allegedly obsessing over Iraq rather than al Qaeda. Clarke made war critics swoon by chanting one of their cherished mantras.

"There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda ever," Clarke declared March 21 on CBS' 60 Minutes. Because Baathist Iraq and al Qaeda colluded less than, say, Iceland and the Cosa Nostra, the theory goes, President Bush squandered American time, treasure, and blood by hunting Saddam Hussein rather than Osama bin Laden.

This view totally overlooks extensive connections between Baghdad and bin Laden. Just ask Richard Clarke.

*On Wednesday, he told the September 11 Commission about Abdul Rahman Yasin, the al Qaeda operative indicted who federal prosecutors indicted for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that rocked the World Trade Center, killed six, and injured 1,042 people on February 26, 1993.

"He was an Iraqi," Clarke observed. "Therefore, when the explosion took place, and he fled the United States, he went back to Iraq." While Clarke believes Baghdad did not orchestrate that attack, he concedes that Hussein embraced this assassin.

"The Iraqi government," Clarke continued, "didn't cooperate in turning him over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists."

"Last week, Day One confirmed he [Yasin] is in Baghdad," ABC correspondent Sheila MacVicar reported June 27, 1994. "Just a few days ago, he was seen at [his father's] house by ABC News. Neighbors told us Yasin comes and goes freely."

*Vice President Dick Cheney told National Public Radio last January 22: "We've discovered since [Iraq's liberation] documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary."

*WorldNetDaily.com excavated on Tuesday a January 23, 1999, Washington Post article in which Clarke defended the Clinton administration's August 20, 1998, cruise-missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. That mission avenged al Qaeda's demolition of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that August 7, which killed 224 individuals and injured more than 5,000. The Post quoted Clarke as "sure" that Iraqi experts there produced a powdered VX nerve gas component. According to the Post, Clarke "said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."

*Meanwhile, Palestinian terrorist Abu Abbas made news March 9 by dying of natural causes in U.S. military custody in Iraq. Green Berets captured him last April 14 in Baghdad, where he had lived under Hussein's protection since 2000. After masterminding the 1985 Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking, in which U.S. retiree Leon Klinghoffer was murdered, Abbas slipped Italian custody. How? ''Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport,'' Italy's then-premiere Bettino Craxi announced then. So, Rome let him split for Yugoslavia, and beyond.

*Speaking of diplomacy, the Philippine government booted the second secretary at Iraq's Manila embassy, Hisham al Hussein, on February 13, 2003, after discovering that the same mobile phone that reached his number on October 3, 2002, six days later rang another cell phone strapped to a bomb at the San Roque Elementary School in Zamboanga. While that device failed, another exploded one day earlier in Zamboanga, wounding 23 and killing three, including U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson. That mobile phone also registered calls to Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Ali, leaders of Abu Sayyaf, al Qaeda's Philippine branch. It was launched in the late 1980s by the late Abdurajak Janjalani, with the help of Jamal Mohammad Khalifa, Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law.

As the Washington Times's Marc Lerner reported on March 3, 2003, Hamsiraji Ali, an Abu Sayyaf commander on the southern island of Basilan, bragged that his group received almost $20,000 annually from Iraqis close to Saddam Hussein.

"It's so we would have something to spend on chemicals for bomb-making and for the movement of our people," Sali explained.

Iraqi diplomat Muwafak al-Ani also was expelled from the Philippines, the Christian Science Monitor's Dan Murphy reported February 26, 2003. In 1991, an Iraqi embassy car took two terrorists near America's Thomas Jefferson Cultural Center in Manila. As they hid a bomb there, it exploded, killing one fanatic. Al-Ani's business card was found in the survivor's pocket, triggering al-Ani's ouster.

*Washington Times Pentagon correspondents Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough reported March 19 on a 20-page, Arabic-language document from the Iraqi Intelligence Service. Stamped "top secret," it lists IIS "collaborators," among them, "the Saudi Osama bin Laden." It says he is a "Saudi businessman and is in charge of the Saudi opposition in Afghanistan...And he is in good relationship with our section in Syria." Signed "Jabar," the 1993 record seemed authentic to an American official who reviewed it.

*"Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad," CIA Director George Tenet concluded in an October 7, 2002 letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee. "Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al-Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links with terrorists will increase, even absent US military action."

Perhaps all of this made Richard Clarke state: "There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda ever."

Critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom ignore these and many more ties among Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda, Palestinian zealots, and other Islamofascist mass murderers. Why? Acknowledging these contacts would concede a major casus belli behind Coalition efforts. The fact that Mohamed Atta did not charge his plane ticket to Hussein's Platinum Visa card does not render the Butcher of Baghdad a virgin among militant Muslims. In fact, Saddam Hussein loyally supported global terrorists, including al Qaeda. If Richard Clarke and others who oppose Bush's Iraq policy still do not see this, they are either blind to Nexis and similar news databases or paralyzed in a state of deep, pathological denial.

At National Review-- http://www.nationalreview.com...

China says it won't sit by if Taiwan turmoil worsens

03.26.04 (8:48 am)   [edit]
[b]China Says Won't Sit by if Taiwan Turmoil Worsens[/b]
By John Ruwitch

BEIJING (Reuters) - China, in its strongest statement yet on the political crisis convulsing Taiwan since its controversial election, warned on Friday it would not stand idly by if the situation on the island spirals out of control.

"We will not sit by watching should the post-election situation in Taiwan get out of control, leading to social turmoil, endangering the lives and property of our flesh-and-blood brothers and affecting stability across the Taiwan strait," Beijing's policy-making Taiwan Affairs Office said in a statement.

It reiterated that China was paying close attention to events on the island, which has been racked by protests and political paralysis since President Chen Shui-bian, who favors Taiwan independence, won re-election by the thinnest of margins on Saturday. The opposition immediately contested the result and demanded a recount.

The statement gave no further details. Beijing regards Taiwan as a renegade province and has threatened to use military force to bring it back to the fold.

China's response came after angry supporters of defeated Taiwan presidential challenger Lien Chan stormed the Central Election Commission on Friday, but failed to stop it from formally declaring Chen the winner.

The president edged Saturday's poll by just 30,000 votes out of 13 million cast, one day after surviving an apparent assassination attempt.

The protesters at election headquarters in central Taipei threw rocks and eggs and scuffled with helmeted riot police carrying shields before storming into the building where commission members were meeting.

Two burning petrol bombs were found outside the headquarters of the opposition People First Party, said a spokesman for the party, which is allied with Lien's Nationalists. No damage or injuries were reported.

China has not commented directly on the result of the election to avoid playing into Chen's hands, but it has played up the opposition protests in reports carried in domestic media.

Analysts said China, which regards Chen with deep suspicion, clearly would have preferred the more moderate Lien.

Beijing and Taipei have been rivals since their split at the end of a civil war in 1949, but trade, investment and tourism have blossomed since the late 1980s.

Shortly after the vote, Beijing condemned Chen for holding the island's first referendum in tandem with the presidential vote, but said only that it was closely monitoring post-election developments. On Tuesday, the Foreign Ministry stressed that no matter who won, Taiwan belonged to China.

Palestinians' use of kiddy bombers appalling

03.26.04 (5:50 am)   [edit]
[b]Palestinians' use of kiddy bombers appalling[/b]
Jonah Goldberg
March 26, 2004

You know, in my lifetime of excessive TV watching and fairly liberal schooling I must have endured thousands of hours of public service commercials, after-school specials, gitchy-goo lectures, editorials and even songs on how wrong it is to pressure kids into taking drugs, having sex too soon, worrying about their looks and so on. I know I'm not alone.

The manufactured new morality that reveres self-esteem and condemns peer pressure above all else is omnipresent in our culture. And since the old morality of absolute notions of right and wrong seems to be on the way out, maybe we should look at the case of poor Hussam Abdu not through prism of, say, the Bible but through the lens of Oprah.

Hussam Abdu is what the kids today - and yesterday - call a loser. Reports say he's 14 or 16 years old, but that he looks like he could be 10. Everyone in the Abdu family says he's gullible and easily misled. The kids at school pick on him, calling him a "dwarf." To say he has trouble with girls would be a compliment.

Like most boys, but especially miserable ones, Hussam had day dreams of being a hero. He wanted to meet girls. He wanted to prove the bullies were wrong about him. So, when the offer came to strap 18 pounds of explosives to his body to blow up some Israeli soldiers, Hussam leapt at it. If he succeeded, they told him, he could have sex - right away - with 72 virgins in paradise and he'd be a hero.

According to news reports, the boy's parents thought he acted strangely on Tuesday, giving candy to friends and family. When his mom asked why he was behaving so oddly, he replied, "I just want you to be happy with me."

On Wednesday he left for school, but never arrived.

At the Israeli checkpoint where the heroes and patriots of the Palestinian cause wanted the boy to vaporize himself, he got scared. In the eyes of his handlers, he no doubt "panicked" and "lost his nerve." Less evil people might say he merely came to his senses. Whatever. The good news is that he didn't detonate himself, which would have killed Israeli soldiers and wounded many Palestinian civilians.

Now, here's the thing. If this were an after-school special in which grown-ups pressured a 16-year-old kid to do drugs or have "unprotected" sex, a lot of people in America - and certainly in Europe - would be livid. Certainly, if a bunch of men pressured some girl out of having an abortion the clever cheese-and-cracker set would be speechless with moral outrage.

Well, this is the new peer pressure in the Middle East. And, it seems to me, bullying a kid into self-vaporization and murder is worse than teasing a girl into an eating disorder. Call me crazy.

But because of the romanticization of terrorism - at least terrorism aimed at Israel - there's a widespread reluctance to see this stuff for what it is. Indeed, young Hussam is far from the first or the youngest of the kids to be "recruited" - i.e. brainwashed - into vaporizing themselves. And yet, the outrage has always been tempered by declarations about how this is what happens when Israel does X, Y or Z.

But even if you go by the weak-tea morality of modern culture - even if you firmly believe that Israel is the most fraudulent nation in the universe - there's no way you can make this kid into a "freedom fighter," and there's no way you can make into noble warriors the sick bastards who told him his highest use as a human was to be a grenade.

These kids aren't doing this because of the "occupation." They're doing it to be cool or to get (otherwordly) chicks. By all accounts, the terror masters in these various groups send their own kids to boarding schools. It's only other peoples' kids who they think are worth sending to "paradise," often by having them kill other kids.

This is all worth pondering in the wake of the assassination of Ahmed Yassin. The founder of Hamas, Yassin was also a founding father of suicide bombing. A significant segment of elite world opinion holds it was somehow wrong to kill Yassin because he was old, popular and in a wheelchair.

If you want to make the case that the killing wasn't a smart move, fine, that's debatable. But the morality was crystal clear. Yassin chose to be a pied-piper of kiddy-murder with his eyes wide open. That's more than you can say about Hussam Abdu, those like him, or their intended victims.

Jonah Goldberg is editor of National Review Online, a Townhall.com member group.

©2004 Tribune Media Services

Critics saying that Bush didn't employ his terror doctrine fast enough legitimize the doctrine

03.26.04 (5:42 am)   [edit]
[b]A President's Job
The 9/11 hearings: We're all Bush Doctrine believers now. [/b]
OpinionJournal.com
Friday, March 26, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

Give President Bush's critics credit for versatility. Having spent months assailing him for doing too much after 9/11--Iraq, the Patriot Act, the "pre-emption" doctrine--they have now turned on a dime to allege that he did too little before it. This contradiction is Mr. Bush's opportunity to rise above the ankle biting and explain to the American public what a President is elected to do.

Any President's most difficult decision is how and when to defend the American people. As the 9/11 hearings reveal, there are always a thousand reasons for a President not to act. The intelligence might be uncertain, civilians might be killed, U.S. soldiers could die, and the "international community" might object. There are risks in any decision. But when Presidents fail to act at all, or act with too little conviction, we get a September 11.

This is the real lesson emerging from the 9/11 Commission hearings if you listen above the partisan din. In their eagerness to insist that Mr. Bush should have acted more pre-emptively before 9/11, the critics are rebutting their own case against the President's aggressive antiterror policy ever since. The implication of their critique is that Mr. Bush didn't repudiate the failed strategy of the Clinton years fast enough.

The bias in these columns has long been to support forceful Presidential leadership on national security. Even when skeptical about a military intervention, as we were about Haiti in 1994, we saluted once Bill Clinton sent in the troops. We supported Mr. Clinton in Bosnia and Kosovo, and we were among the few who didn't pile on Jimmy Carter after the hostage-rescue fiasco in Iran.
We likewise support Mr. Bush's antiterror leadership, despite the inevitable missteps of planning or WMD intelligence. Whatever lapses may have occurred in the eight months of his Presidency before 9/11, since that day Mr. Bush has had the courage to act, and forcefully. He has turned 20 years of antiterror policy on its head, going on offense by taking the war to the terrorists, toppling state sponsors in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now attempting to "transform" the Middle East through a democratic beachhead in Iraq. This is leadership.

Democrats now claim that any President would have responded this way, save for invading the "distraction" of Iraq. But would they really? Their strategy in power was to play defense and prosecute terrorists after they'd struck. Even Richard Clarke admits this. Madeleine Albright attributes that failure to a general "mindset" that prevailed everywhere before September 11, and she has a point.

But in her 9/11 testimony this week, Ms. Albright blamed the Bush Administration detentions at Guantanamo for creating more terrorists. "It is possible and perhaps probable that anger over these detentions has helped bin Laden succeed in recruiting more new operatives," she said. So the detention of Taliban fighters caught while fighting Americans and harboring terrorists will only help the terrorists? This is the same "mindset" that blocked strong U.S. action against al Qaeda for half a decade.

Or consider this episode from the 9/11 Commission's staff report on the U.S. response to news that terrorists linked to Iran had killed 19 Americans at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996:

"Albright emphasized to us, for example, that even if some individual Iranian officials were involved, this was not the same as proving that the Iranian government as a whole should be held responsible for the bombing. National Security Adviser Berger held a similar view. He stressed the need for a definitive intelligence judgment. The evidence might be challenged by foreign governments. The evidence might form a basis for going to war."

Yes, it might. But the failure to act without "definitive" evidence and "foreign" agreement might also encourage the terrorists to think that they can get away with it and so hit us again.

The idea that every President would have toppled the Taliban after 9/11 is also wishful thinking. The press at the time was full of hand-wringing about the dangers. The establishment consensus, even so soon after 9/11, was that the U.S. could end up bogged down in Kabul like the British and Soviets. President Bush is the one who took the risk of using force to rout the Taliban and the al Qaeda camps they were protecting.

All of this is what we ought to be debating this election year, not how selective Dick Clarke's memory is. Even if everything Mr. Clarke says is true--and he's already contradicted himself numerous times--it is beside the point. What matters is which strategy against terrorism the U.S. should pursue now and for the next four years.

This is also the case that Mr. Bush needs to make, rising above the Lilliputians who want to fight over intelligence and yellowcake uranium in Niger. Mr. Bush should tell Americans that he too is disappointed that U.S. intelligence in Iraq wasn't as good as it might have been, though even Bill Clinton was convinced Saddam Hussein had WMD.

But this election is about leadership. And a President who takes the oath to protect America has to make difficult, often life-or-death, decisions based on imperfect information. In a world of terrorism and (still unsolved) anthrax attacks on the U.S. Capitol, a President doesn't have the luxury of waiting for French approval or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In Iraq, the burden was on Saddam--a proven supporter of terrorists, user of WMD and enemy of America--to show he had destroyed the weapons we know he once had. He didn't, and so Mr. Bush acted to protect America and prevent another September 11.

Palestinians say US veto, not their refusal to stop terror, gives Israel license to kill

03.26.04 (5:26 am)   [edit]
**Only in the Arab world would killing baby killers after Palestinian refusal to stop them be seen as "evil".**

[b]Palestinians: U.S. Veto Gives Israel License to Kill[/b]
Fri Mar 26, 2004 06:48 AM ET

By Nidal al-Mughrabi
GAZA (Reuters) - Palestinians accused the United States Friday of granting Israel a license to kill by vetoing U.N. condemnation of its assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

Israeli forces killed two Hamas frogmen who came ashore overnight near a Jewish settlement in the Gaza Strip, after the Islamic militant group said it would launch "earthquake-like" attacks to avenge Yassin.

A car exploded near the West Bank city of Nablus, killing a militant who was apparently rigging it as a bomb. The 22-year-old Palestinian, from an armed faction of President Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, was cut in half by the blast.

At the United Nations, the United States late Thursday vetoed a Security Council resolution by Arab nations to censure Israel for assassinating Hamas's wheelchair-bound founder in a missile strike outside a Gaza mosque Monday.

Washington, alone among major powers in not condemning Monday's assassination as an extrajudicial killing, rejected the resolution because it did not also denounce Hamas for suicide bombings in Israel. The vote was 11 in favor, three abstentions, and the United States veto that killed the measure.

"Israel's action has escalated tensions in Gaza and the region, and could set back our effort to resume progress toward peace," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said in a statement.

But he added: "This Security Council does nothing to contribute to a peaceful settlement when it condemns one party's actions and turns a blind eye to everything else occurring in the region."

Palestinians denounced the U.S. action.

"I'm afraid this U.S. veto will be taken by Israel as encouragement to continue on the path of violence and escalation, assassinations and reoccupation" of Palestinian territory, cabinet minister Saeb Erekat told Reuters.

Calling the United States the "chairman of the axis of evil in the world," Hamas political leader Mohammad Ghazal said the veto was "Israel's green light to carry out assaults and crimes."

An Israeli government official in Jerusalem welcomed the U.S. veto but expressed disappointment that Washington had been left no other option. "We are troubled by this cynical attempt to condemn those who are fighting terrorism without denouncing the terrorists themselves," he said.

BLOW TO U.S. IMAGE IN ARAB WORLD?

Abdel-Raouf el-Reedy, Egypt's former ambassador to Washington, said the United States was hurting its image in the Arab and Muslim world by "continually using its veto to protect Israel from any kind of condemnation."

Britain, Germany and Romania abstained after Algeria, negotiating for Arab nations, rejected an amendment they wanted that would have condemned "atrocities" against Israelis.

The Algerian draft condemned "the most recent extrajudicial execution committed by Israel" and "all attacks against any civilians as well as all acts of violence and destruction."

The measure was backed by China, Russia, Algeria, Pakistan, Angola, Benin, Brazil, Chile, France, Spain and the Philippines.

Israel is vowing to kill more militants it sees as the masterminds behind suicide bombings that have killed hundreds of Israelis during a nearly 3-1/2 year Palestinian uprising.

Hamas, bent on Israel's destruction, has threatened to target Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and other top officials.

Hamas said two of its fighters were the frogmen who mounted a "unique naval operation" near the Tel Katifa settlement and "ascended to heaven as martyrs" after battling Israeli troops.

A Hamas videotape showed the two 18-year-olds, diving masks pushed back and scuba tanks strapped on, vowing "revenge against the Jews" before setting out on their mission. The tape also showed a training simulation filled with gunfire and explosions.

Hours later, a member of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which has also pledged to avenge Yassin's death, died when a car bomb he was preparing blew up prematurely near an Israeli army checkpoint outside Nablus, witnesses and local police said. (Additional reporting by Matt Spetalnick and Allyn Fisher-Ilan in Jerusalem, Atef al-Saad in Nablus, Wafa Amr in Ramallah, Evelyn Leopold and Grant McCool at United Nations)

The significance of Bush's joke about the mystery WMDs

03.25.04 (8:03 pm)   [edit]
Bush can't win. He visits the troops with genuine tears in his eyes during Thanksgiving, and has given speech after speech praising our soldiers as real men, as the heroes of this country fighting a war against the terrorism thrust upon us by 8 years of neglect, and he gets lambasted.

Then he jokes about the fact that there is, so far, no WMD. He was making fun of himself.

Nutjob hysterians of the Left believe that Bush should "apologize" because soldiers and civilians are dying in Iraq, a situation put in place because of Bush's insistence that Hussein had lethal WMD and wasn't coming clean about them.

These folk believe that Bush is being callous.

Actually, what the joke indicates is the clear conscience Bush has about his decision to go to war. Bush is smart enough to understand, as are serious critics of the administration, that the policy to replace Hussein based on his stockpiles and UN cease-fire breaking, had been in place since 1998. He knows that no one doubted Iraq had them-- including his fiercest critics. I'm sure he believes they are there, and that they haven't been found.

I'm sure Bush also knows that defeating Iraq meant more than stopping the WMD violations. It meant an end to harboring Al Qaeda terrorists, and an end to Hamas payments. And it is beginning to force other countries to become more honest about their own WMD programs-- like the recent dismantlement of Libya's WMD program and Iran's current problems with the UN. Both of these are possible because of evil Bush's war with Iraq.

For Democrats to complain that Bush is being indifferent to soldiers is beyond hypocritical. The Left has traditionally been anti-soldier and anti-American. It is only hypersensitive about the troops because a Republican is in power. Indeed, all we have to do is look at their presidential candidate-- an aggressively anti-military, anti-intelligence Senator who made up accusations against his fellow "band of brothers" in Vietnam to understand who doesn't care about soldiers (and who actually hates them).

Bush's joke was aimed at himself, and also the assholes that have no patience. It's amazing that these lefties were quite willing to accept 8 years of useless UN inspections, but expect Bush to find all of Hussein's WMD in one year (and after Hussein had 5 years to get rid of them).

The whole issue here was Saddam's verifying his disarmament. He didn't do it, and so we knew he had them.

The hypocritical, hyper-sensitive left had better catch on to reality if they want to have a chance at beating Bush in 2004. They have yet to offer any plan as to why we should vote for Kerry-- all they've done is attack.

They want to make 2004 a referendum on Bush. They have to make Bush look so undeniably evil that you'd think voting for a guy like Kerry would be a wise decision. I have enough faith in the American people that it won't happen.

Child abuse-- the reality of Palestinian "resistance"

03.25.04 (3:41 pm)   [edit]
Also from James Taranto's column:

[b]The Dead End Kids[/b]-- http://www.jpost.com/servlet/...

Yesterday Israel caught a teenage boy, Husam Abu, trying to cross a checkpoint clad in an explosive suit, the Jerusalem Post reports:

"He was fully aware of what he was to do and told us he received NIS 100 and was instructed to blow himself up near soldiers," battalion commander Lt.-Col. Guy told The Jerusalem Post. "The soldiers' quick action not only saved their lives but those of 200 Palestinian men, women, and children who were at the roadblock." . . .

Abdu, who lives in Nablus, told interrogators he was jeered at by his friends who made fun of him, and decided to take advantage of the offer.

"Blowing myself up is the only chance I've got to have sex with 72 virgins in the Garden of Eden," Abdu said his handlers had told him.

The boy's age is in some question. Early reports said he was as young as 8, but the Post says he's 14, and Maariv reports-- http://www.maarivintl.com/ind..." his identity card indicates that he has already celebrated his 16th birthday." He may also be mildly retarded; Britain's Press Association-- http://news.scotsman.com/late... quotes brother Hosni: "He doesn't know anything, and he has the intelligence of a 12 year old."

A CBS News report-- http://www.cbsnews.com/storie... makes this bizarre statement: "Many, if not most, Palestinians are also shocked by the use of children by terrorists--but try to put it in context"--as if CBS thinks there is some sort of "context" that could ever justify the murder of children. The New York Times report-- http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... on the incident, meanwhile, omits crucial elements of context, namely the 100-sheckel payment and the fact that he was promised a heavenly orgy. It seems as though the Times is hesitant to underscore the utter depravity of the Palestinian terrorist culture.

Ariel Sharon's strategy

03.25.04 (3:36 pm)   [edit]
From James Taranto's "Best of the Web" column:

The Road to Peace-- http://www.nypost.com/postopi...

When Israel rid the world of terrorist Ahmed Yassin earlier this week, the question that occurred to a lot of us was: What took so long? Writing in the New York Post, the Iranian commentator Amir Taheri offers an astute analysis of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's strategy:

"Possibly the most important reason why Sharon believes he can hit Hamas at the highest level of its leadership is the Israeli belief that the Palestinian radical movement is losing momentum. In 2003, the number of Israelis killed by Hamas and other radical groups such as Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine was down by almost 50 percent compared to 2002. Although this was partly due to more effective prevention work, there has also been a sharp decline in the total number of planned attacks.

Hamas and virtually all other Palestinian radical groups have been experiencing growing difficulties in attracting new recruits, especially for suicide operations. Hamas is also facing financial difficulties.

[b]The fall of Saddam Hussein closed what had become the single biggest source of funds for Hamas in the past five years. Several other Arab countries have been forced to close channels through which funds were collected for and directed to Hamas."[/b]

Bolstering Taheri's analysis, Ha'aretz-- http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/... reports that "Israel Defense Forces sources said they were surprised by the low number of demonstrations in the territories in the wake of Yassin's death."

Wow, Condi Rice is not only a slut, but is fat too?

03.25.04 (3:14 pm)   [edit]
Patriot Acts and CheckItOut seem to be the new version of Sam Adams and Winston Smith only, get this, nuttier.

Condi Rice, according to these two, is a slut and a fat-ass because she didn't take a public beating over information she already provided to the 9-11 commission. She didn't let ex-Clinton administration officials somehow on this panel blame her for 9-11 and hence re-write Bubba's legacy.

Of course, once again, as the chair of the commission has already said-- Condi Rice has been more than cooperative. She's already testified in private, for four hours, and provided millons of pages of documents. More than any information she would give to "the families" by allowing herself to be attacked.

Actually, as fat-ass slut said on Fox, it isn't her decision to not appear in public before the commission, but the President's. Apparently there is a separation of powers issue here which, believe it or not, is irrelevant to what Dr. Rice has already provided to the commission.

The Prez doesn't want his director of national security to be slandered and convicted in a Soviet-style show trial. There are probably better ways for Dr. Rice to spend her time-- like doing what Clinton's administration refused to do for 8 years.

In short, I doubt Dr. Rice is too worried about what a couple of paranoid leftists and their terror masters in the government think of her. The only thing they know how to do, apparently, and with great skill, is slander and call names.

One Month After "The Passion": Body Count-- Zero

03.25.04 (3:02 pm)   [edit]
March 24, 2004

[b]ONE MONTH AFTER "THE PASSION":
BODY COUNT?ZERO[/b]

Catholic League president William Donohue commented today on the absence of violence that marks the one month anniversary of the opening of "The Passion of the Christ?":

"Last summer, Boston University professor Paula Fredriksen predicted, with no uncertainty, that "when violence breaks out" (following the opening of ?The Passion of the Christ?) Mel Gibson will have some explaining to do. She was not alone in predicting violence, though no one was as cocksure as she was.

"Now that the movie has been out for a month, there have been no reports of violence, no pogroms of any sort. There have been a few spectacular stories about people who have died on the way to the theater, or in the theater itself, but no one believes for a moment that they would have lived had they chosen to dine at the Red Lobster instead. It seems only fair, then, that those demagogues who waved a bloody flag at the movie should now repent for acting so irresponsibly. They can begin by apologizing to Mel Gibson.

"And by the way, had some Germans been mugged after the opening of "Schindler's List," would anyone in his right mind have blamed Steven Spielberg??

[i]The Catholic League is the nation's largest Catholic civil rights organization. It defends individual Catholics and the institutional Church from defamation and discrimination.[/i]

The Chinese threat to America-- their spying and their US war plans over Taiwan

03.25.04 (1:10 pm)   [edit]
The following are two excerpts from Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz's 1998 book "The China Threat". Though it is an older book, it is the best one I've read that captures the urgency of what China is accomplishing right under our noses. Read on.

(If you want to read more excellent work by Bill Gertz, check out his website "Gertzfile"-- http://www.gertzfile.com or buy "The China Threat" at Amazon.com or BarnesandNoble.com )

[b]Beijing's spies gain access to secrets[/b]
'Panda huggers' tilt U.S. policy
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Missteps and appeasement by the U.S. government helped China develop into a dangerous global power, according to "The China Threat: How the People's Republic Targets America" (Regnery), a new book by Bill Gertz, national security reporter for The Washington Times. In the first of three excerpts, he details the hunt for Chinese spies burrowed deep inside the U.S. government.

[i]Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.[/i]
-- Sun Tzu, Ancient Chinese strategist

In the early 1990s, the FBI came across evidence that amounted to a counterspy's worst nightmare: Classified reports showed communist China was running several ``assets'' - spies, in the vernacular - who operated clandestinely inside the U.S. government.

One spy, however, was different from the others. He didn't work for just any agency. He had burrowed deep inside the U.S. intelligence community, meaning that the People's Republic of China had access to vital secrets.

The information was revealed to FBI counterintelligence agents in highly sensitive communications intercepts between the Chinese Embassy in Washington and Chinese intelligence officers in Beijing. The intercepts suggested the agent was supplying the Chinese with classified defense information.

The spy's code name was ``Ma'' - Chinese for ``horse.''

A Chinese government official who defected to the United States after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989 also told U.S. intelligence that China had successfully developed five to 10 clandestine sources of information here.

The defector said these agents were known as ``Dear Friends'' of China. And one had access to the most sensitive U.S. intelligence data, known as Top Secret-Sensitive Compartmented Information, or SCI.

FBI counterintelligence agents' search for this Chinese ``mole'' led to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Pentagon's intelligence arm. A key suspect emerged: Ronald Montaperto.

At the time, Mr. Montaperto was a senior DIA analyst specializing in ``estimates,'' or analyses, of matters related to China and East Asia. His job required making official contacts with Chinese government and military officials. In Washington, that meant defense attaches posted to the Chinese Embassy.

Chinese defense attaches are officers who work for the military intelligence department of the People's Liberation Army's General Staff. One was PLA Maj. Gen. Yu Zhenghe, the air attache, who had developed a close relationship with Mr. Montaperto - close enough to be invited to his wedding in 1990.

WARNINGS BY DEFECTORS
This hunt for a Chinese mole was rare for the FBI. Most of the other moles uncovered inside the U.S. government during the 1980s, in what became known as the ``Decade of the Spy,'' were spies for the Soviet Union. There was one exception: A Chinese intelligence officer who defected to the United States in 1985 identified a Chinese language specialist for the U.S. government as a spy.

The defector was Yu Qiangsheng, a senior intelligence officer in the Ministry of State Security. Mr. Yu had extensive access to information about Chinese intelligence operations and agents. It was Mr. Yu who first put a CIA counterspy on to Larry Wu-Tai Chin, the Chinese language specialist, who worked for the CIA's Foreign Broadcast Information Service. The service publishes translations of foreign news publications and broadcasts.

Mr. Yu, who was resettled in the United States, remains under federal protection. He fears for his life because of Beijing agents.

Mr. Chin eventually was unmasked. He had burrowed within the CIA for about 30 years, passing valuable political intelligence to Beijing. He was a rare catch, but before he could be interrogated thoroughly for ``damage assessment,'' he committed suicide in his jail cell.

After the bloody military crackdown on protesters in Beijing's Tiananmen Square, several other Chinese intelligence officers defected, determined to help the United States defeat the Communist government. Two had worked inside the Chinese Embassy in Washington.

The defectors' information helped to confirm and update what Mr. Yu had provided years earlier. They explained the care with which Chinese intelligence contacted and serviced its clandestine agents. For instance, intelligence officers never met their agents inside the United States because the FBI was considered too good at catching spies. It was safer to meet abroad, preferably in China.

These defectors had access to intelligence reports - sent from the embassy to Ministry of State Security headquarters in China - that revealed that Chinese intelligence had recruited several agents who were referred to as ``Dear Friends.'' The Dear Friends were rewarded for valuable intelligence with paid trips to China, business opportunities there and prestige-building access to senior Chinese officials.

From their knowledge of the Chinese Embassy's intelligence cables, the defectors were able to tell U.S. intelligence debriefers about details China obtained from the Dear Friends. The U.S. counterspies were troubled that large amounts of extremely sensitive military intelligence was being provided to China.

INTERROGATING A SUSPECT
Based on the defectors' testimony, the FBI began a major espionage probe.

The bureau came up with a list of 12 suspects that fit the profile of the Dear Friend with access to U.S. military secrets.

During systematic ``interviews'' of each suspect, FBI agents met with Mr. Montaperto in late 1991 or early 1992. At the time, he was chief of DIA's estimates branch for China, a job he held from September 1989 until his departure in February 1992. He had joined DIA as an analyst in October 1981 and worked his way up.

Intelligence intercepts of Chinese government communications gathered by the National Security Agency and supplied to the FBI later revealed that one of the most important agents being run by Chinese intelligence was code-named Ma.

FBI agents eventually confronted Mr. Montaperto during what the bureau called ``hostile interrogations'' over the course of three meetings. They asked bluntly whether he had passed classified intelligence information to China's intelligence service.

No, Mr. Montaperto replied. He said any contacts with Chinese intelligence were authorized. He did conceded to the DIA that he knew Gen. Yu, the Chinese intelligence officer.

The FBI cleared Mr. Montaperto, though some counterintelligence officials still suspected he was Ma but couldn't prove it. The matter was put to rest conclusively, Mr. Montaperto said.

``I can honestly say they looked me in the eye and said, `We don't think you're a spy,' '' he said of the meetings with FBI agents.

But soon after the investigation, Mr. Montaperto left the DIA. In an interview with this reporter, he said the FBI probe had nothing to do with his departure. As for his friendship with Gen. Yu, he said: ``One does not have friends with Chinese officials'' - meaning his contacts were strictly professional.

``Did General Yu attend your wedding?'' this reporter asked. ``Yes,'' Mr. Montaperto said.

It was a relatively small wedding, he said, because it was his second marriage. He said he invited Gen. Yu and other Chinese officials because he thought it would be a good experience for them.

Hanging on the wall inside Mr. Montaperto's office was a large scroll of Chinese calligraphy. It contained the characters ``horse dragon virtue,'' which when spoken in Mandarin sound like ``Montaperto.'' A second set of characters on the scroll are Chinese for ``war horse.''

The scroll is signed by a Chinese intelligence officer, who, like Yu Zhenghe, was an attache at the Chinese Embassy in Washington when Mr. Montaperto received the scroll as a gift. Mr. Montaperto says a student in Shanghai gave it to him.

A PANDA HUGGER?

The FBI never found the clandestine spy known as Ma. The bureau did uncover several Dear Friends, but did not seek prosecution. The FBI was hamstrung by the limited details provided by the former Chinese intelligence officers, who had seen the cables but did not have hard copies.

One Chinese agent was a Chinese-American employee at a U.S. defense contractor in Northern Virginia. Although he was not prosecuted, his access to classified information was cut off.

Mr. Montaperto next went to work at the Pentagon's National Defense University at Fort McNair, a scenic base overlooking the Potomac River in Southwest Washington. He became a ``social science analyst'' with the university's Institute for National Strategic Studies, a think tank for security issues.

Mr. Montaperto's biography as posted on the university's Internet site contains only four sentences and makes no mention of his DIA experience. It states only that he is a China affairs specialist: ``Currently he is defining strategies and policies for managing future U.S. interests in the Asia- Pacific region.''

Because the FBI could not prove its suspicions, Mr. Montaperto was allowed to retain his top-secret security clearance. But he does not have the same access to intelligence information as he had at DIA.

Gen. Yu, meanwhile, remains one of China's most important intelligence officers. He works for Gen. Xiong Guangkai, the PLA's deputy chief of staff for intelligence.

According to one U.S. national security official, Gen. Xiong returned to the United States in 1996 during the Taiwan Strait crisis and tried to meet Mr. Montaperto. The crisis was prompted by test firings of Chinese missiles near Taiwan; the United States dispatched two aircraft carrier battle groups to the region.

Mr. Montaperto's primary job at the government's National Defense University is to oversee the China portion of an annual ``Strategic Assessment,'' to speak on China policy around the world and to organize an occasional conference on China. His pronounced pro-China view plays down that nation's military capabilities, specifically its development of strategic and conventional forces.

But Mr. Montaperto says he is no ``panda hugger,'' using the derogatory term China specialists at the Pentagon employ for soft-liners.

``For some people, I will always be considered a panda hugger,'' he added.

`HIDE BRIGHTNESS'
When Congress ordered creation of a National Defense University clearinghouse for intelligence on the People's Liberation Army, Mr. Montaperto presented the plan to the Pentagon. It called for hiring 33 specialists, opening a large office in Southwest and spending $4.5 million a year.

At first the Pentagon rejected the plan because it appeared to promote military-to-military contacts with the PLA rather than provide useful information about the strategy and direction of the Chinese military.

The Clinton administration already had dramatically increased meetings and exchanges with Chinese military leaders, which the Chinese exploited to develop intelligence. Many in the Pentagon had had enough of that, and senior officials objected to Mr. Montaperto's appointment as director of the new center. But the university named him director anyway.

The importance of the center was highlighted when Mr. Clinton opposed the requirement to set it up.

By mandating the center and reports on China's military buildup, Congress assumes ``an outcome that is far from foreordained - that China is bent on becoming a military threat to the United States,'' the president said in signing a $289 billion defense bill in October 1999. ``I believe we should not make it more likely that China will choose this path by acting as if the decision has already been made.''

Yet the president's policies and those of the soft-liners who refused to recognize the nature of the People's Republic of China had done more to increase the danger from China than any of the skeptics in Congress who believed more should be done to learn about the Communist regime's military intentions.

Mr. Montaperto's minimizing of the threat is at one with Chinese military policy, which involves deception - preventing the U.S. ``hegemon'' from recognizing China's emerging power until it is greater, at least regionally, than that of the United States.

The late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping said China must avoid provoking a conflict with the United States until China has the military, economic and political power to win.

In the words of Mr. Deng: ``Hide brightness; nourish obscurity.'' Or as the official translation in Beijing put it, ``Bide our time and build up our capabilities.''

FRIENDLY `SPECIALISTS'
Chinese military writings predict a ``dangerous decade'' - when that nation faces a strategic checkmate - between 2020 and 2030. By 2020, the United States will not be able to ignore China's growing might. But China's military and strategic planners fear their country will not be powerful enough to take on the United States until 2030.

What China wanted was three more decades of Clinton-style ``engagement,'' a policy that downplays Chinese military capabilities, encourages decreasing U.S. defense spending and gives China major technical and financial boosts. Chinese officials view certain specialists in the United States as important outlets for Beijing's views. Many of these China specialists are current or former government officials.

Unlike the thousands of political scientists who specialize in European and Russian affairs, the China experts who specialize in international security and foreign affairs could fit in a large conference room. And most of them communicate via Internet discussion groups, a major target of influence exerted by the Chinese government.

Take ``Chinasec.'' Every morning, a group of about 100 high-level U.S. policy-makers and intelligence officials receives e-mail postings as part of this Internet discussion group, whose innocuous-sounding name stands for ``China security.''

The informal electronic gathering includes some of the most important China policy-makers in the U.S. government, including the Pentagon's desk officer for China matters, Col. John Corbett. The group is decidedly pro- China and often criticizes news articles - in particular this reporter's work for The Washington Times - that explore Chinese weapons sales to rogue states or espionage against the United States.

For instance, when The Times reported on the critical views of China held by Condoleeza Rice, a key foreign policy adviser to Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush, Chinasec swung into action. The e-mail network adopted the standard posture of the Clinton administration: spin. It dismissed the article as exaggerated and the work of a ``nonexpert.''

Chinasec's on-line discussion group is secret, but not in the sense of that term denoted by the U.S. government classification. Most of Chinasec's participants hold high-level security clearances. At least 10 CIA officials are members.

Chinasec is part of an informal but powerful network of current and former officials, academics and other China experts who exert a major influence on U.S. policies toward China.

THE LITMUS TEST
The ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu wrote that ``supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.''

The view of China presented by these pro-Beijing specialists is not manufactured by the Chinese Communist Politburo, but it serves the Politburo's strategy. The key theme of the propaganda directed abroad is simple: China is not a threat.

The theme is central to the Chinese Communist Party's overt and covert influence efforts. It is the litmus test for those experts that Beijing labels ``Friends of China.'' And it was a constant refrain of the Clinton administration.

Despite the soft-line approach, a public opinion poll last year showed that Mr. Clinton's policy of engagement had not convinced the majority of the American people that China is a benign power.

The results of the Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, published in September 1999, indicate that 60 percent to 80 percent consider China to be an ``adversary,'' not a strategic partner.

(c) 2000 News World Communications, Inc.

November 15, 2000
[b]China prepares for war with U.S. over Taiwan
Missiles targeted at American cities [/b]
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Missteps and appeasement by the U.S. government helped China develop into a dangerous global power, according to "The China Threat: How the People's Republic Targets America" (Regnery), a new book by Bill Gertz, national security reporter for The Washington Times. In the third of three excerpts, he examines the growing danger of nuclear war between China and The United States over Taiwan.

[i]Use reality, make a noise in the east, but strike to the west. Cut time and strike in multiple waves.[/i]
-- PLA Col. Wang Benzhi, on missile strikes against Taiwan

``DSP reports five events from known ICBM bases in western China.'' The airman's voice was tense but carried an air of nonchalance, a sign of rigorous training.

The airman was stationed inside a dimly lit command bunker nearly a mile beneath Colorado's Cheyenne Mountain, along with 20 other airmen, soldiers and sailors from the U.S. and Canadian militaries. This is headquarters for the North American Aerospace Defense Command, known as NORAD.

At NORAD, they think about the unthinkable 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Closed to the outside world by huge steel doors designed to withstand a nuclear attack, the bunker is where military personnel scan the globe from computer terminals, looking for signs of missile launches. They depend on infrared sensors around the world, primarily the constellation of satellites with the nondescript name of Defense Support Program - or DSP, as the airman said.

The five ``hot pops'' he reported as picked up by satellite over China were the first sign of trouble. Less than a minute later came more bad news: ``Sir . . . we have multiple missile launches. Stand by for target report.'' A few seconds later, the intelligence officer on duty broadcast further details: ``Intel indicates probable launch of five ICBMs from China. Intel assesses this to be combat against North America.''

It was Sept. 3, 1999, and the Chinese missile attack was only an exercise. But it was a sobering reminder of how the strategic nuclear threat against the United States has not gone away with the demise of the Soviet Union.

A nuclear war with China over its dispute with Taiwan is a real danger.

And even though the Clinton administration went to great lengths to ignore it, that danger is growing.

Shortly after the beginning of the simulated Chinese nuclear combat, five red lines emanating from western China streaked across the computer map in the command center. Each line represented the flight path of a Chinese CSS-4 intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, headed directly for the United States.

China's 24 silo-based missiles are old by American standards. But they can hit targets more than 8,000 miles away and are the backbone of China's strategic nuclear force. The missiles are based on the design of America's first generation of missiles, which China obtained from a defecting U.S. missile engineer.

Each of the CSS-4s carries a huge, 5-megaton warhead with the equivalent of 5 million tons of TNT - enough to blow up an entire city. NORAD's computerized attack-warning network plotted the targets of the incoming ICBMs and they appeared as dots on the giant map: Seattle, Colorado Springs (site of the Cheyenne Mountain complex), Chicago, New York and Washington.

Air Force Col. Allen Baker, NORAD's director of operations, explained that confirmation of Chinese missile launches would be followed by a call to the White House.

``At this point, I'd be telling the president how many minutes until Washington, D.C., is gone,'' Col. Baker said.

Flight time from China to the capital: about 35 minutes. Asked whether the U.S. military had the means to shoot down the incoming missiles, Col. Baker said, ``Absolutely nothing.''

THE `DETARGETING' LIE

A national missile defense system to counter a limited attack such as this simulated Chinese strike - or an attack by a single North Korean missile - is being developed but may not be deployed for several years, Col. Baker said.

So why track the missiles?

``We're tracking them so we can tell our commanders exactly what is happening so they can figure out what their response is going to be,'' he said. ``If they take out Washington, D.C., do we want to take out Beijing? I don't know. That's their decision.''

NORAD's 1999 missile exercise also showed that the U.S. military could not afford to give up its strategic nuclear deterrent, despite efforts by the Clinton administration to pretend it no longer is needed.

Only months earlier, the president had announced that U.S. strategic nuclear missiles no longer would be targeted on China after the Communist regime promised to ``detarget'' its missiles and not aim them at American cities.

On June 27, 1998, Chinese President Jiang Zemin appeared at a news conference after meetings with Mr. Clinton in Beijing. He announced: ``President Clinton and I have decided that China and the United States will not target the strategic nuclear weapons under their respective control at each other. This demonstrates to the entire world that China and the United States are partners, not adversaries.''

As with so many other statements by the Chinese Communist leader, President Jiang lied. The proof arrived in a form common during the highly politicized Clinton administration. It was kept hidden from public view as part of a classified intelligence assessment. On Dec. 2, 1998, the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reported that that the Chinese People's Liberation Army conducted exercises that included simulated nuclear missile attacks on Taiwan and U.S. military forces in the region.

The exercises, which ran from late November to early December, involved road-mobile CSS-5 medium-range missiles spotted by U.S. spy satellites as they moved up and down roads along China's coast. The DIA report, based on sensitive intelligence gathered by U.S. spying systems, also cited activities by silo-based CSS-2s.

``They were doing mock missile attacks on our troops,'' said one official who saw the report.

A DIRECT THREAT

Analysts determined that the mock nuclear attacks not only were targeted against Taiwan, but against about 37,000 U.S. Army troops based in South Korea and 47,000 Marines in Japan, including 25,000 on the island of Okinawa.

A White House official, confirming the intelligence report, said both weapons systems had ``never been pointed our way before.'' But the official sought to downplay the threat by noting the age of the weapons (the CSS-2 first was deployed in 1971, the CSS-5 in the 1980s).

The important point missed by the White House - intentionally - was that the missile exercises directly threatened our troops. They also provided evidence that Mr. Jiang's promise about detargeting was hollow.

Or was it? The Chinese president had referred to ``strategic'' nuclear weapons. Apologists for Beijing argued that the CSS-2s and CSS-5s technically may not be in the same category as longer-range ICBMs.

The Air Force's National Air Intelligence Center dispels that notion. In its annual report on ``Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threats,'' the center stated that medium-range missiles ``are strategic systems'' armed with nonconventional warheads.

One element of the exercises that surprised DIA analysts was the PLA's use of ``obscurants'' -smoke and particle-filled clouds dispersed around the mobile missiles to shield them from U.S. precision-strike weapons.

The Chinese missiles were seen ready for launch on mobile truck launchers, although none was fired. Pentagon officials concluded that the simulated attacks were a sign that China is prepared to go to war with the United States over Taiwan.

In August, the Air Force moved several dozen air-launched cruise missiles to the island of Guam, perhaps in anticipation of a conflict over Taiwan.

The PLA's 40 liquid-fueled CSS-2s, with ranges of about 1,922 miles, are being replaced in most regions of China with the more advanced, solid- propellant CSS-5s, with a maximum range of 1,333 miles.

Richard Fisher, a specialist on the Chinese military, believes the Chinese may interpret the June 1998 detargeting pledge to exclude shorter-range nuclear missiles and include only long-range ICBMs.

``Chinese doctrine puts special emphasis on missile forces, concealing mobile forces for obtaining surprise and using a wide variety of current and future nuclear and non-nuclear warheads,'' Mr. Fisher said.

TARGETING TAIWAN
Taiwan is a mountainous island about the size of West Virginia. Located off the southern coast of China, it has a population of about 22 million. Unlike its archenemy, Taiwan is a thriving, multiparty democracy. It also is a major international trading power.

Taiwan's military includes about 430,000 soldiers equipped with weapons obtained primarily from the United States. But U.S. arms sales to Taiwan were cut back sharply by the Clinton administration.

Meanwhile, China has dramatically increased its military forces over the past decade. In October 1998, a DIA report labeled ``Secret'' outlined a major buildup of short-range ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan.

Until 1998, missile deployment had been modest and limited to a garrison of CSS-6 missiles at Leping. What the DIA uncovered was a Chinese plan to accumulate 650 missiles by 2005.

According to the DIA, China had 150 missiles near Taiwan in 1998 and intended to add about 50 new missiles a year. The report said the new missiles include two versions of the short-range, ballistic CSS-7 - Mod 1, with a range of 350 kilometers, and Mod 2, with a range of 530 kilometers.

Last Dec. 5, the DIA issued another secret report updating the missile buildup. The conclusion was not good news.

``The DIA believes there are at least 40 CSS-7 missiles in Chinese military bases near Taiwan,'' said one intelligence official familiar with the report.

``This gives China the ability to target Taiwan with little or no warning.'' The report stated that China's goal was to have 500 short-range missiles within range of Taiwan by 2005, allowing the PLA to target all of the island's major military bases.

``They will be able to take Taiwan with little or no warning,'' the official said. The report identified a third missile base under construction along China's coast near the town of Xianyou. Photographs by U.S. spy satellites showed the layout of buildings and storage sheds was similar to that of the missile brigade headquarters at Leping, base for CSS-6 missiles.

The report also identified a second CSS-7 base at Yongang, including storage areas in tunnels. This was a sign that the Chinese were protecting the systems against U.S. bombers equipped with precision-guided bombs and missiles.

UNCHALLENGED THREATS
Pentagon analysts viewed the buildup as ominous, since it showed that Beijing's intention was not to conduct aircraft or seaborne assaults but to launch barrages of missiles. A Pentagon report to Congress made public in June stated that Beijing views ballistic missiles - as well as ground- or sea- hugging cruise missiles - as ``potent military and political'' weapons against Taiwan.

And another, internal Pentagon report obtained by this reporter warned that the danger from the short-range missiles was growing.

``A large arsenal of highly accurate and lethal theater missiles serves as a `trump card,' a revolutionary departure from the PLA of the past,'' the internal report said. ``The PLA's theater missiles and a supporting space- based surveillance network are emerging not only as a tool of psychological warfare but as a potentially devastating weapon of military utility.''

Even after this reporter wrote an article for The Washington Times about the intelligence on the missile buildup, President Clinton did not demand that China stop the destabilizing deployments. Mr. Clinton, asked about them at a news conference Dec. 8, said he had ``grave concerns'' about the growing threat.

``China is modernizing its military in a lot of ways, but our policy on China is crystal clear. We believe there is one China,'' Mr. Clinton said.

The phrase ``one China'' meant that whatever happens, the administration would stand with Beijing.

The dispute between the mainland and Taiwan should be resolved through dialogue and ``we oppose and would view with grave concern any kind of violent action,'' the president said.

But Taiwan never has threatened the United States. Communist China has, and its threats went almost unchallenged by the Clinton administration.

`NOT A WISE MOVE'

One of the most alarming statements appeared Feb. 28 in Liberation Army Daily, the official organ of the PLA that reflects the views of Central Military Commission Chairman Jiang Zemin and other senior leaders.

American intervention in a conflict between Taiwan and China would lead to ``serious damage'' to U.S. national security, the newspaper said. It warned in only slightly veiled language that China would resort to long-range missile attacks against the United States.

``China is . . . a country that has certain abilities of launching strategic counterattack and the capacity of launching a long-distance strike,'' the newspaper said. ``It is not a wise move to be at war with a country such as China, a point which the U.S. policy-makers know fairly well also.''

The threatening article was written by PLA Col. Zhu Chenghu, an influential hard-liner who is deputy director of the Institute of National Security Studies at the National Defense University in Beijing.

A war with China would force the United States to ``make a complete withdrawal'' from East Asia similar to the loss in Vietnam, his article said.

The Pentagon was surprised by the harsh, anti-American tone of what amounted to an official threat. But instead of criticizing China, Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon told reporters in a briefing that ``Chinese doctrine'' does not include ``first-strike'' nuclear attacks.

``And there is nothing new in that article that changes that,'' he said.

The answer was misleading. The PLA commentary made no reference to a ``first-strike'' attack, but to the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent or retaliation for intervention by U.S. conventional forces in a war between Taiwan and China.

DOCUMENT 65
The Chinese missile threat to the United States reflected official policy, as revealed in an internal military document obtained by dissidents in China.

This reporter received a copy of the report, known as ``Document 65.'' Dated Aug. 1, 1999, it is signed ``General Political Department of the People's Liberation Army.''

The DIA and CIA both have copies of Document 65, though the latter is not certain whether it is a genuine leak or a deliberate disclosure. Defense officials say the format is similar to that of secret materials delivered by defecting Chinese officials. Document 65 declares that ``a most important task'' of the Communist Party of China is reunification with Taiwan. All military units must ``be well-prepared for the war based on the rapidly changing relationships with Taiwan,'' it states.

That was the year Taipei declared it no longer was the government of all of China and thus no longer sought to take back forcibly what was lost during the civil war of the 1940s.

Document 65 discloses for the first time that the issue of Taiwan would not be allowed to ``drag on indefinitely.'' The document says the Chinese military was given ``solid grounds for achieving reunification using military power'' because of Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui's remarks of July 9, 1999.

On that day, Mr. Lee declared that Taiwan ``has been a sovereign state since it was founded in 1912'' and called for relations with China on a ``special state-to-state'' basis. This was a challenge of Beijing's ``One China'' policy.

The document also states that the timing of reunification - peaceful or forceful - had been hampered by the United States. It adds that Europe would not join the United States in fighting a war with China.

`BETTER TO FIGHT NOW'

Document 65 reveals what Pentagon specialist Michael Pillsbury has called ``dangerous misperceptions'' by China about the United States. It is just these kinds of misperceptions that could lead to a war.

For instance, Document 65 contains the following alarming passage: ``Taking into account [the] possible intervention by the U.S., and based on the development strategy of our country, it is better to fight now than in the future - the earlier, the better. The reason being that, if worst [sic] comes to worst, we will gain control of Taiwan before full deployment of the U.S. troops.

''In this case, the only thing the U.S. can do is fight a war with the purpose of retaliation, which will be similar to the Gulf war against Iraq or the recent bombing of Yugoslavia as far as its operational objective is considered, namely, to first attack from the sky and the sea our coastal military targets, and then attack our vital civil facilities so as to force us to accept its terms like Iraq and Yugoslavia.

``This is of course wishful thinking,'' the document goes on. ``However, before completely destroying the attacking enemy forces from the sea and their auxiliary bases which together constitute a threat to us, even if we successfully carry out interception and control the sky, our military and civil facilities will still incur some damages.''

Document 65 asserts that the U.S. military has not been tested in a major conflict with a large nation such as China and will become ``exhausted'' by long-distance warfare.

``It can be safely expected that once the U.S. launches an attack, the front line of the U.S. forces and their supporting bases will be exposed within the range of our effective strikes. After the first strategic strike, the U.S. forces will be faced with weaponry and logistic problems, providing us with opportunities for major offensives and [to] win large battles.''

As for nuclear war, Document 65 states, the Chinese military ``does not foresee'' a strategic nuclear exchange because the United States has shown no willingness to fight a massive conflict and suffer ``major losses'' over Taiwan.

(c) 2000 News World Communications, Inc.

Bush had resolve to fight terror, Clinton did not.

03.25.04 (11:50 am)   [edit]
[b]The Clinton Mind-Set [/b]
By Peter D. Feaver
Wednesday, March 24, 2004; Page A21
Washington Post

The commissioners on the Sept. 11 panel asked the same question over and over: Why didn't the Clinton administration take stronger military action against al Qaeda's Taliban refuge in the 1990s, when the Sept. 11 plot was being hatched?

Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright's consistent response was simple: "You have to go back to the pre-9/11 mindset." By this she meant that before Sept. 11, stronger military action was politically impossible; thus the blame for the Clinton administration's failures to act preemptively against al Qaeda rests on everyone, not specifically on the commander in chief.

Defenders of the Clinton administration have twinned this claim -- "We can't be blamed, because no one wanted us to take stronger military action" -- with its post-9/11 obverse assertion: President Bush doesn't deserve any credit for toppling the Taliban and ending al Qaeda's sanctuary, because after Sept. 11 anyone would have done this. In the words of Bush's most recent and surprising critic, former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke: "Any leader whom one can imagine as president on September 11 would have declared a 'war on terrorism' and would have ended the Afghan sanctuary by invading."

But the first claim is only partly true, and because it is, the second claim is almost certainly false.

Albright is partly correct; there was a pre-9/11 mindset that shaped Clinton-era responses. The mind-set was "counterterrorism as law-enforcement." The role of the military was at best a supporting one. Moreover, because the uniformed military themselves opposed a military role, the law enforcement mind-set was reinforced by Clinton's pathological civil-military relations. Even if President Clinton wanted to conduct military operations against al Qaeda, he was simply too weak a commander in chief to prevail over a military that wanted nothing to do with a war in Afghanistan.

The Clinton record on military operations was clear: frequent resort to low-risk cruise-missile strikes and high-level bombings, but shunning any form of decisive operations involving ground troops in areas of high risk. The Clinton White House was the most casualty phobic administration in modern times, and this fear of body bags was not lost on Osama bin Laden. Indeed, al Qaeda rhetoric regularly "proved" that the Americans were vulnerable to terrorism by invoking the hasty cut-and-run after 18 Army soldiers died in the 1993 "Black Hawk Down" events in Somalia -- a strategy developed and implemented, ironically enough, by the same Richard Clarke who torments the Bush team today.

So Albright is correct that Operation Enduring Freedom, the campaign to topple the Taliban, was not possible with a commander in chief who was afraid to lead the public to accept the human costs of war.

This suggests, however, that the critical event was not simply Sept. 11, 2001, which changed the public's perceptions, but also the 2000 election, which changed the commander in chief. President Bush came into office convinced that the casualty phobia of his predecessor had made America a tempting target, a paper tiger. When terrorists struck the twin towers and the Pentagon, Bush interpreted it as proof that America looked weak.

While most of the recent media attention has focused on early internal debates about Iraqi involvement, in fact the early public debate about 9/11 was over whether Bush was rash in declaring "war" on the terrorists. Most experts and pundits -- especially among our allies -- still clung to the "counterterrorism as law enforcement" mind-set. And viewed from that frame, it was foolhardy to declare war.

For starters, declaring war seemed to elevate the terrorists to co-combatants, rather than leaving them as criminals to be dealt with by police dragnet. The decision to invade Afghanistan was even more controversial. Suddenly armchair experts were quoting Kipling and ruminating on how the Afghans had twice defeated reigning military powers, first the British Empire and then the Soviet Empire.

The risky approach ordered by Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, which relied heavily on Special Forces and air power, was especially subject to criticism. As late as Nov. 4, 2001, the dean of academic security studies experts, John Mearsheimer, was warning in an opinion piece that "neither the current bombing campaign nor the deployment of American ground forces to Afghanistan offers good military options for dealing with the Taliban and al Qaeda. A better approach would emphasize ground-level diplomacy, with open wallets, among Pashtun leaders in central and southern Afghanistan." Viewed in hindsight, the Bush-Rumsfeld military plan looked brilliant, but at the time it was highly controversial and decidedly risky.

Would a less stubborn commander in chief have pursued the risky war plan that ultimately toppled the Taliban and put al Qaeda on the run? The record of the '90s suggests otherwise. A White House that cut and ran after the death of 18 soldiers probably would not have had the stomach for the possible casualties. A White House that could not prevail over military objections to using ground troops in Kosovo would have had a hard time overcoming institutional military objections. A White House that ordered retaliation in the form of a night-time strike on an empty intelligence building would not have backed Operation Enduring Freedom.

Before Sept. 11, Clinton defenders say, we did not have irrefutable proof of the casus belli of al Qaeda-Taliban complicity, there was no international consensus on the need to invade Afghanistan, and it would have been politically risky for the United States to act in the face of military objections. The same could be said about the invasion of Iraq after Sept. 11. In other words, determined commanders in chief have the mind-set and the resolve to act in spite of the political climate and military resistance.

[i]The writer is professor of political science and public policy at Duke University, and is the author of "Armed Servants," a book detailing civil-military relations in the Clinton administration.[/i]

Why isn't the fawning press interested in Clarke's 15-hour private testimony?

03.25.04 (11:25 am)   [edit]
Proving my point that the media wants the show-trial atmosphere of Bush-bashing to succeed, absolutely no one in the press is interested into what Clarke actually said in the only testimony that matters-- the 15 hours of testimony he gave to the 9-11 commission away from the cameras and dumb lefties agape with awe.

Indeed, as only the conservative commissioners dared to point out (and we can't expect the Clinton-era liberals on the panel to care about truth), Clarke's public testimony is 180 degrees from his "open session" testimony and what he said in his book (which was bumped up over a month in publication to coincide with the show-trial).

Clarke says that the answer is "simple", because in his book he talks about Iraq. Not entirely true. In his book he talks about Bush's disregard for this imminent threat of terrorism which, apparently, as 8 years under Clinton testifies, wasn't imminent.

Maybe it is because the partisan media, in camp with John Kerry, doesn't care about the truth. When you're in private and away from the public eye, you are less likely to lie. And we can't be concerned with truth.

Of course, in the simple math of the liberals, since Clarke is a "Republican", no one should be upset. Indeed, since Clarke is a "Republican", that somehow gives him credibility. Hogwash.

It would be one thing if this nominal Republican hadn't of offered three different stories to the American public or, in past books of foreign policy, testified to CLinton's sorry role in not fighting terror. But he did.

One blogger wonders, somehow, what is wrong with showing that both sides are to blame. If CLarke was doing that, I would agree with him.

By the way, Condi "Slut" Rice has already spoken to the commission, in private, for four hours, and has handed over 2.3 million pages of documents.

Anyone want to tell me why she should show herself in front of a partisan witch hunt on television? The ex-Clinton officials have everything to gain by showing up and re-writing their legacy. They have no problem with that. But the incumbents always get more scrutiny, even when it is undeserved.

No one can seriously tell me that the 9-11 commission is fair and objective. The "truth" that will come out will be that somehow President Bush deserves the lion's share of the blame for 9-11, despite that he had no terror plan, his transition was held up by Gore's election mess, and despite the fact that Clinton hadn't done a damn thing to take care of this "imminent" Al Qaeda threat (which declared war on us when? And whose leader was offered to us in the 1990s how many times?).

Ridiculous.

By the way, Clarke's apology was self-serving. This guy thinks he is Jesus Christ, but can anyone remember his name being mentioned by anyone in the press before this book? Or during the Clinton administration? Think about it.

The EU gets ready to arm Red China, and why we should care

03.25.04 (9:54 am)   [edit]
**Through its anti-American trade restrictions and its dominance of the WTO, and now with a possible alliance with China, the goal here is to destroy America by any means possible. So much for Bill Clinton's theory that the world was coming together and that the Cold War was over. It very much is not.**

March 25, 2004, 9:00 a.m.
[b]L?Année de la Chine
Will Europe arm Red China?[/b]
By John J. Tkacik Jr.

TAIPEI, TAIWAN ? A bitter dispute over election results is bad enough. But Taiwan's troubles ? and ours ? may be just beginning.

The reason: Our European allies might well approve plans to sell China advanced weaponry at the March 25-26 European Union summit that begins today.

The repercussions would be disastrous. Not only could China use new weapons from Europe against Taiwan, but Chinese generals have said they're prepared to confront U.S. forces in the Pacific if America tries to help Taiwan.

Why would NATO allies put the United States in this position? Money is one reason. But European commentators suspect that France and China want to build a multipolar alliance to counter American "hegemony."

This rings true, if only because the justifications Europeans proffer for renewed arms sales are patently fraudulent. Like the United States, the EU embargoed all arms sales to China after the bloody suppression of pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Since then, Beijing has steadily introduced market reforms for China's economy, but its political, religious, and labor suppression has, if anything, worsened.

Senior Chinese diplomats recently held talks with EU officials to persuade them to lift the ban. They hint that if the EU lifts the sanctions, China will steer its big-ticket civilian purchases, including aircraft, power stations, and mass transit, away from American vendors to EU firms.

Last December, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder announced in Beijing that Germany was amenable to ending the embargo. European Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy added his support to Schroeder's proposal.

Not to be outdone, French President Jacques Chirac invited Chinese President Hu Jintao to Paris. Ignoring the complaints of French human-rights groups, Chirac designated 2004 the "Year of China" and threw one of the most extravagant receptions France has ever given a foreign leader. One highlight: the Eiffel Tower bathed in red floodlights, a first ever for the Parisian landmark.

Perhaps the red lights blinded Chirac to China's massive missile threat to Taiwan ? more than 500 short-range ballistic missiles now aimed at the island, with 75 new missiles deployed each year. He vehemently condemned Taiwan's plans to hold a referendum to protest the missiles. As for the embargo, it "no longer makes any sense," Chirac announced.

France now calls China "a special partner...playing a key and responsible role in the international system" and declares that the EU "should encourage it in this direction to contribute to international stability and security, especially in Asia." This despite China's growing missile threat to Taiwan, its support of North Korea's right to have nuclear weapons as a "legitimate security concern" against a U.S. threat, and Beijing's increasingly vitriolic criticisms of Hong Kong's hugely popular democratic party.

France's sudden announcement of joint naval exercises with China the week before Taiwan's election caught U.S. officials by surprise. As the Asian Wall Street Journal pointed out last week, "politically, France has for years now coveted an alliance with China to further Paris's goal of a 'multipolar world,' which is really a euphemism for constraining U.S. power."

Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department seems unsure how to approach EU allies. According to Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, the United States has "talked with Europeans about the wisdom of lifting the embargo because of our concerns about human rights." A review of the State Department's annual human-rights reports from 1990 to 2003 shows that China either has made no progress from year to year or has grown worse.

But the defense ramifications loom even larger. A senior Pentagon official recently warned Congress that "China's ability to acquire, integrate and thereby multiply its force posture has really increased dramatically." Most worrisome, he said, is the fact that "there are scenarios where we could actually be involved in [the defense of Taiwan], so any contribution to the other side of the equation complicates our position and that is why we're opposed."

China's $65 billion defense budget is the second largest in the world after the United States, and China is aggressively modernizing its military. It seeks the most modern military technology available. China still threatens Taiwan with war, and the United States has strategic, moral, and legal obligations to help democratic Taiwan defend itself.

An EU decision to proceed with arms sales to the world's most powerful dictatorship could strain the Atlantic alliance to the breaking point. If commercial advantage in China's market is all the Europeans want, perhaps they can be talked out of this. But if they're determined to enlist China in an alignment to hem in American "hegemony," then the Atlantic alliance may be on its deathbed.

? [i]John J. Tkacik Jr. is a research fellow in the Asian Studies Center of the Heritage Foundation.[/i]

If the 9-11 commission is objective, why are former Clinton officials on the panel?

03.25.04 (9:48 am)   [edit]
Just a quick thought here. We have Commissioners Gorelick and Ben-Veniste, two former Clinton-era officials, on the 9-11 commission. And though I don't know for sure, I believe Commissioner Roehmer had ties to Clinton.

If we're investigating the current and past administration, ,doesn't it make sense to not have Clinton guys investigating themselves? Isn't there a conflict of interest there?

The Republicans on the committee have nothing to do with Dubya. I believe one was on the Bush transition team, but he had nothing to do with policy and behavior, which is what this commission is about.

(Heck, Ben-Veniste, one of the smarmiest critics of Bush on the panel, was Clinton's Whitewater lawyer...)

Just more evidence of the biased, partisan makeup of the commission.

The Israeli Yassin assassination was perfectly legal

03.25.04 (9:43 am)   [edit]
March 25, 2004, 8:48 a.m.
[b]What Israeli Illegality?
The Yassin assassination was perfectly lawful.[/b]
By Lee A. Casey & David B. Rivkin Jr.

The international community in general and the European Union in particular have leapt to condemn Israel for its successful attack on Sheik Ahmed Yassin. Yassin was the target of an Israeli missile attack on Monday and is frequently described as the "spiritual" leader of Hamas. This was, claims the EU, an extra-judicial killing, one in violation of international law. It was not.

Yassin may well have been a spiritual man, but he was no Francis of Assisi, tending his sparrows as Israeli missiles screamed into his garden. He was the founder of Hamas, an organization described by the United States as a militant terrorist group pursing "a combined program of violence and terror" against the government and people of Israel. Its charter suggests a war of extermination, and Hamas's stated goal is the destruction of the Israeli state and its replacement with an Islamic theocracy from the Jordan River to the Sea. It purposefully targets civilians and has taken scores of innocent lives, including those of at least three Americans. Hamas's specialty is the suicide-bomb attack.

Moreover, Sheik Yassin was not merely the founder of this group and its continuing inspiration; according to Condoleezza Rice, the United States believes that Yassin was personally involved in terrorist planning. He was, in short, a Hamas operative, fully within the chain of command. Under international law, specifically the laws and customs of war, that makes him a combatant and a legitimate target for attack by the Israeli armed forces.

Ironically, for years, European leaders ? along with various non-governmental organizations ? have demanded that Israel apply the Geneva Conventions to its fight against the Palestinians and its so-called occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. This suggests that Europe and the NGOs fully accept that the Israeli-Palestinian struggle is an armed conflict to which the laws and customs of war apply. Of course, if Israel is engaged in an armed conflict with Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups, as it surely is, then the Israeli military is legally entitled to target and attack any Hamas combatant, high or low, at any time ? so long as the attack does not result in disproportionate damage to civilians or civilian objects.

In condemning Yassin's killing, then, Europe contradicts itself. It has made clear that Israel must apply the laws of armed conflict vis-à-vis the Palestinians. Now, however, it says that individual militants cannot lawfully be targeted. Indeed Europe's outrage over the Yassin assassination is far more troubling than a little Israel- (and by implication America-) bashing. It reveals, once again, the ever-widening canyon that separates the United States, and Israel, from its NATO allies on the question of fighting terror and on the laws of war themselves.

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES?

Hamas, of course, is not merely a group of ordinary combatants. Because of its irregular organization and illegal tactics, its members are in fact unprivileged or unlawful combatants. Under the traditional laws of war, based on centuries of state practice, such individuals are fully subject to attack, just like lawful combatants. But, if captured, they do not merit the rights and privileges of prisoners of war (hence the non-POW status of the U.S.'s Guantanamo Bay detainees) and can be subject to prosecution in military courts. Hamas is, as a matter of law, in precisely the same position as al Qaeda.

By now it is no secret that Europe views the situation differently. Leaving aside the Old World's growing consensus that the war on terror should be treated as a criminal law-enforcement matter ? a recipe for disaster and defeat ? most European states have accepted the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions. Like the 1949 Geneva Conventions (to which both the United States and Israel are parties), this instrument preserved the classification of unlawful combatant. But it also can be interpreted to provide new and extraordinarily beneficial advantages to such groups. In particular, under one of Protocol I's provisions, irregular or guerilla fighters can arguably be attacked only when they are themselves attacking. At all other times, they must be treated as part of the civilian population.

Of course, this absurd rule disadvantages the lawful armed forces of sovereign states (as it was designed to do), by giving the practitioners of asymmetric warfare incalculable advantages, since lawful combatants can still be attacked at any time. It also allows them to benefit from their own violations of otherwise applicable legal norms, such as the requirement that combatants clearly distinguish themselves from the civilian population and carry their arms openly. Protocol I was relentlessly promoted by third-world governments ? not a few of which had started out as guerilla movements ? and was embraced (whether from guilt, fatigue, or absentmindedness) by the former imperialists of Western Europe.

Fortunately for the American people, Ronald Reagan was paying attention, and rejected Protocol I outright, making clear that the advantages it provided to irregular and unlawful combatants were entirely unacceptable to the United States. Fortunately for the citizens of Israel (although not for Hamas), Jerusalem also refused to ratify Protocol I. Thus while European states may not be permitted to target a known terrorist in the context of an armed conflict, it remains entirely lawful for both Israel and the United States to do so. The next time Europe's leaders jump to condemn Israel for such actions, they would do well to keep this in mind.

They may also wish to rethink their own position on unlawful combatants. There is now little doubt that, in the years to come, transnational guerillas will be one of the most difficult challenges faced by civilized societies in the West ? and in the East, North, and South. Adopting legal rules designed to profit mid-20th-century national-liberation movements, and attempting to impose those rules on states that wisely eschewed them, is in no one's interest ? except the terrorists'. Whatever political chits European leaders may collect today by attacking Israel will very likely be paid for later in innocent blood. Sheik Yassin's death certainly revealed a humanitarian crisis ? but in the cabinet rooms of Europe, not the streets of Gaza.

? [i]David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey are partners in the Washington, D.C., office of Baker & Hostetler LLP. They served in the Justice Department during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations.[/i]

Richard Clarke: audtioning for Dishonesty Czar

03.25.04 (9:37 am)   [edit]
March 25, 2004, 9:05 a.m.
[b]Clarke?s Self-Immolation
Auditioning for Dishonesty Czar.[/b]
Rich Lowry

Dean Acheson famously titled his memoir of his years as secretary of state after World War II Present at the Creation. Anyone close to Richard Clarke these last few days could write a memoir called Present at the Self-Immolation. Rarely has a former public servant with such a sterling reputation shot it all away so quickly.

If Clarke is ever hired in another administration, it should be as Dishonesty Czar. Even by the standard of the host of recent anti-Bush books, Clarke's Against All Enemies distinguishes itself for its pathetically misleading and incomplete account of the facts.

For evidence of this, look no further than Clarke's August 2002 briefing for reporters while he was still at the National Security Council.

In that briefing, first reported by Fox News, Clarke portrayed Bush as an antiterror stalwart.

Was he merely parroting talking points given to him by the Bush team? That's the explanation he offered at yesterday's hearing. But he can't get off the hook so easily.

At the very least, what he said in August 2002 must have been factual. Otherwise, Clarke has revealed himself to be an opportunist who will lie at the direction of his superiors.

So, if what Clarke said was true (and no one has contradicted it), why didn't he include it in his book?

A crucial (false) claim of Clinton defenders is that the Clinton team forged an anti-al-Qaeda war plan that was then handed over to the Bush administration and ignored. In his August 2002 briefing, Clarke said, "I think the overall point is, there was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration." His book seems to confirm that, but nowhere puts it so starkly.

In his 2002 briefing, Clarke said that the Bush administration decided in "mid-January" 2001 to continue with existing Clinton policy while deciding whether or not to pursue more aggressive ideas that had been rejected throughout the Clinton administration. Nowhere does this appear in his book.

He said in 2002 that the Bush administration had decided in principle in the spring of 2001 "to increase CIA resources . . . for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaeda." Nowhere is this mentioned in his book.

In 2002, Clarke emphasized that the Bush team "changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda." This is mentioned in his book, but ? amazingly ? as an afterthought.

Clarke in 2002 knocked down the idea that there was irrational animus toward the Clinton team on the part of the Bushies that blinded them to the necessity of strong counterterrorism. He offered himself, kept on as a holdover from the Clinton administration, as a refutation: "That doesn't sound like animus against the previous team to me." In his book, he suggests there was such an irrational animus.

Finally, in his 2002 briefing, Clarke made it clear that there was no "appreciable" change in U.S. terror policy from October 1998 until the Bush team began to reevaluate policy in the spring of 2001 and get more aggressive. His book implausibly argues the opposite, that Clinton was on the ball and Bush dropped it.

This is just the beginning of the contradictions and mistakes.

In his testimony yesterday, Clarke said that the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than fighting terror. No. In his own book, he says trying to force a Middle East peace agreement was more important to Clinton than retaliating for the attack against USS Cole.

Clarke says in his book that Bush asked him to look into a possible Iraq connection to 9/11 in an "intimidating" way. No. Two other witnesses say there was nothing intimidating about Bush's manner.

Clarke says Condi Rice appeared as if she hadn't heard of al Qaeda before he mentioned it to her in early 2001. No. Rice made public statements in late 2000 noting the threat from bin Laden.

Given all of this, it's hard to believe that anyone takes Richard Clarke seriously ? including himself.

At National Review-- http://www.nationalreview.com...

Sins of omission and the 9-11 commission

03.25.04 (9:32 am)   [edit]
PEGGY NOONAN
[b]Hearings Won't Make Us Safe
Sins of omission and the 9/11 commission.[/b]
Thursday, March 25, 2004 12:01 a.m.

At this week's 9/11 hearings, the much-anticipated finger pointing between Democrats and Republicans did not really occur. There was partisan jockeying and sniping, but in general a certain politesse prevailed--Madeleine Albright understands the position Colin Powell was in, Mr. Powell understands the forces at work as Ms. Albright's State Department wrestled with a proportional response to actionable intelligence.

At first I was surprised, then relieved--a partisan dogfight would only inspire America's foes. But two days in I wondered if the central dynamic of the hearings didn't come down, simply, to this: Government takes care of government. People in government who've achieved a certain position in foreign affairs tend to treat gingerly people in government who've achieved a certain position in foreign affairs. They are on the same social circuit, have experienced similar pressures and stresses, have read similar data, talk to the same journalists. They belong to a brotherhood, and at the hearings you could tell. (An uneasy brotherhood, though: It was hard not to find yourself wondering, as you watched the testimony, if a lot of these people didn't have something on each other.)

Everyone seemed distressingly reasonable. The testifiers all offered long and understandable stories as to why they took the decisions they took, or didn't take decisions, or couldn't possibly have taken them. About halfway through Sandy Berger's testimony I remembered the words of the film director Jean Renoir: "The terrible thing about life is that everyone has his reasons."

The hearings did no damage to common-sense assumptions about 9/11. Common sense suggests that those who led the nation for eight years before 9/11 bear greater responsibility than those who led the nation for less than eight months. Nothing in the hearings disturbed that notion. In fact, I thought Ms. Albright's testimony tended to underscore it. She spoke of the "megashock" of 9/11 and repeatedly suggested there was no political will on the part of the American people before that date to attack the Taliban or invade Afghanistan.

She's right. There was no movement among voters to take out Al Qaeda. Most people didn't know what al Qaeda was. But that of course is where leadership comes in.

One summer day in the late 1990s I had a long talk with an elected official who was a friend and longtime political supporter of President Clinton. I asked him why, if Bill Clinton cared so much about his legacy, he didn't take steps to make America safer from terrorism. Why didn't he make it one of his big issues? We were at lunch in a New York restaurant, and I gestured toward the tables of happy people drinking golden-colored wine in gleaming glasses. They're all going to get sick when we get nuked, I said; they'd honor your guy for having warned and prepared.

Yes, the official said, but you have to understand that Clinton is purely a poll driven politician, and if the numbers aren't there he won't move.

Too bad, I thought, because the numbers will someday be there.

The lunch was off the record, and I appreciated the official's candor; he didn't try to spin me. I wasn't shocked by what he said--Mr. Clinton was a poll driven animal. But you didn't have to be psychic to know bad things were coming; you only had to be watching the world. I found myself marveling at Mr. Clinton's thinking, which in the short term was savvy and in the long term spoke of a kind of moral retardation.

It is not the job of a president to say, "I'd like to do what's necessary to protect our country, but the people won't understand it or appreciate it." It is the job of a president to say, "I have to do what is necessary to protect our country, and so I'll try to persuade the people as to the rightness of my thinking. But if it comes to that I'll do what's needed and pay the price."

Mr. Clinton did not do that. He did not attempt to rouse the American people.

Abraham Lincoln once said that public opinion is everything. Lincoln, however, did not sit around musing that he'd like to abolish slavery but the people don't want it, or that he'd like to hold the country together but voters don't like body bags, and anyway what's the exit strategy? (In fact Lincoln, in his war, had an exit strategy: Kill them until they give up, then leave.) Lincoln tried to form public opinion. He spoke to people. He persuaded.

Ronald Reagan had his head kicked in every day for taking steps he actually believed were right, such as helping the Nicaraguan democrats against the communist Sandinistas. He paid the price, enduring cries of "warmonger" and "cowboy." But in the end the Sandinistas were vanquished and democracy came, and something like peace.

Mr. Clinton never wanted to pay the price. He wanted to be popular. And so he campaigned hard on child safety seats and midnight basketball. Baby issues.

Why did the government fail to see 9/11 coming? Some individuals did--writers, thinkers, military experts. But those we elected, and those they appointed, by and large did not. Why?

This is the great question. The hearings did not answer it.

It was a failure of imagination, a failure to envision that a terrible thing could happen, that a particular terrorist group meant to do what it said it would do. There was a sunny and empty-headed assumption that America would stay lucky; after all, we'd been lucky since terrorists hit the World Trade Center in 1993, and that wasn't so bad--just a handful killed. It was a failure to take our enemies seriously. All of us each day have so much we want to do, but the terrorists each day wanted to do one thing: get America. That was an advantage. There was a pass-the-buck mentality that prevails in government, with everyone quick to go on record warning of a threat and then letting the warning itself act as a replacement for action.

And to make it all worse we had, from 1993 to 2001, an essentially unserious president who had no clue what to do with the power he had accrued, or even the popularity, and who squandered both in a need for personal drama and trauma. He had eight solid years to move, but he did not do the hard things he had to do. He left it for the next guy.

The hearings should not have been held, for one reason: Our country at this moment in history should not be focusing time and attention on who made mistakes and why and when. Not that these things don't matter; they do, desperately, and history will be full of the story. But we have a war to fight, a country to protect, and that is what should have precedence. As government officials last week rehearsed their testimony the enemy was planning new horrors for Americans to endure. Right now we should be preparing--taking protective action in our ports and around our nuclear facilities, at our borders, etc. American officials should not be busy testifying; they should be busy making sure every citizen has a CBN suit, a regulation gas mask and data on how to recognize and respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear incident.

The most pressing thing at the moment is making America safer. Instead, our officials are otherwise engaged. As they were before 9/11.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag" (Wall Street Journal Books/Simon & Schuster), a collection of post-Sept. 11 columns, which you can buy from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.

Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The born-again critic of the Bush administration

03.25.04 (9:25 am)   [edit]
[b]Born-again critic of the Bush administration[/b]
Larry Elder
March 25, 2004

Richard Clarke, President George W. Bush's former "counterterrorism czar," accuses the Bush administration of seeking a tie between Iraq and 9/11, and pushing America into an ill-advised war in Iraq. Clarke claims that Bush attempted to "intimidate him" into finding evidence -- which Clarke maintains doesn't exist -- to establish a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Clarke accuses Bush of doing little to combat terrorism pre-9/11.

Really?

Fox News' Jim Angle disclosed a tape of an August 2002 briefing by then-Special Adviser to the President for Cyberspace Security Richard Clarke. There, Clarke gave a decidedly different version of the Bush administration's terrorism policy:

Clarke: . . . (T)he Clinton administration had . . . a number of issues on the table since 1998. . . . (T)he Bush administration decided . . . mid-January (2001), to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings. . . . The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided. . . . (The Bush administration) decided in principle . . . in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaeda. (The Bush administration) changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaeda over the course (of) five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline. . . . (T)he Bush administration changed -- began to change Pakistani policy, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started . . .

Question: What you're saying is that . . . there was no delay, and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

Clarke: You got it. That's right. . . . President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD (National Security Presidential Directive) from one of rollback to one of elimination.

Yet Richard Clarke now attacks the president for falsely claiming that he promptly and forthrightly began conducting a war on terror. But in "Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror," author Richard Miniter writes that Clarke accused the Clinton administration of lack of focus on terrorism. He criticized Bush's predecessor for making only half-hearted attempts at capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda due to bureaucratic infighting, foot-dragging, and military and diplomatic roadblocks. After the bombing of the USS Cole on Oct. 12, 2000, Miniter writes, "(Secretary of State Madeleine) Albright urged continued diplomatic effort to persuade the Taliban to turn over bin Laden. Those efforts had been going on for more than two years and had gone nowhere. It was unlikely that the Taliban would ever voluntarily turn over its strongest internal ally. Clarke summed up the diplomatic efforts in a conversation with the author as amounting to 'lots of cups of tea.'"

Gleeful over Clarke's current slam against the Bush administration, the president's critics overlook key Clarke admissions. First, despite feeling "intimidated" by the perceived presidential wish to find a connection between Iraq and 9/11, Clarke said the president never asked him to "make it up." And Clarke admits that, he, too, thought Saddam possessed WMD. "Everybody did," said Clarke.

So where does this leave us?

The 9/11 commission intends to issue their final report this July. Expect a finding of enough blame to go around. This we know: The Clinton administration had eight years to go after terrorists, and the Bush administration had eight months. We also know that the planning for 9/11 began under Clinton's watch.

After the successful toppling of the Afghanistan and Iraq governments, a fearful Moammar Kadafi of Libya admitted and then renounced his WMD. This led to the unraveling of the nuclear network between Libya, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran. North Korea, after balking, now appears willing to engage in non-proliferation talks with China, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States. The movement toward democracy in Iraq emboldens dissidents in Syria and Iran. An ABC News poll found that while 39 percent of Iraqis oppose the invasion, 48 percent approve! And 71 percent of Iraqis expect their lives to improve within a year's time.

If only Americans felt that optimistic.

The 9/11 commission appropriately seeks to find out why 9/11 occurred and what might have prevented it. The question becomes, now what? Clarke's harsh criticisms of the current Bush administration offers red meat to the president's enemies, but does little to assist in this colossal struggle for the very survival of human civilization.

©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Responding to Clarke-- a what-if scenario

03.25.04 (9:23 am)   [edit]
[b]Responding to Clarke. A What-If Scenario[/b]
Jay Bryant
March 24, 2004 | Print | Send

If Richard Clarke had written a book about the lack of an effective anti-terrorism policy in the Clinton administration, things sure would be different.

Let me count the ways.

1. He would not have gotten his mug on 60 Minutes.

2. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks would be under fire for what one Senate Democrat would have called "unconscionable partisanship." Network news coverage of the hearings would feature mini-sound bites from within the hearing room, followed by maxi-sound bites from without, all charging the Republicans with trying to sabotage American foreign policy, giving aid and comfort to the nation's enemies and making a political football out of a tragedy.

3. The relationship between Clarke and a Republican campaign official would be front-page news throughout the country; investigative reporters from five or six major metropolitan dailies would be digging into every aspect of that relationship, complete with tantalizing hints of either a) homosexuality, b) wife-swapping, or c) both.

4. It would be reported that Clarke was once disciplined by his condominium association for painting his door purple.

5. The publisher of Against All Enemies would be discovered to have made a contribution to the 1992 campaign of Bush the Elder.

6. A former Clarke girl friend would have surfaced with the claim that he had beaten her up in 1985, which, reporters would note, was during the Reagan Administration. Clarke's having begun his government service during the Reagan years would be seen to instantly disqualify him from any legitimacy whatsoever. Instead of having "served Presidents of both parties," he would have "ferreted his way undetected into the very Kabba of vital government secrets."

7, 8, 9?

People love whistleblowers. We've got laws to protect whistleblowers. Everyone wants to encourage potential whistlers to blow -- as long as they don't tweet-tweet the Democrats. Remember Linda Tripp? Richard Clarke would be getting the Linda Tripp treatment if had tried to out Clinton's failings vis a vis terrorism.

But instead of ladling out the Linda Tripp treatment, Bush Administration leaders soberly, point by point refute Clarke's charges. Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice lead the response, giving undeserved dignity to Clarke by their very appearance. The worst charge they leveled against Clarke yesterday was that he might be a disgruntled employee. Clinton would have let James Carville handle the response, and disgruntled employee would have been the best thing about Clarke.

So what do you think, Republicans? Would you like it better if your party fought fire with fire and loosed the hounds of hell onto Clarke's heels? Or, is one of the reasons you are a Republican because they behave like grownups and maintain a dignified demeanor regardless of the provocation?

Of course, Republicans don't have the same options Democrats do. There's the talk radio circuit, to be sure, and a handful of fire-breathing columnists (Although the best of the latter group tend to lace their commentaries with a gentle humor, just to take the edge off. Carville uses humor, too, but the edge is never, ever dulled.), but those are all identified, on-the-record opinion. Sixty Minutes alleges to be objective, for cryin' out loud.

The Democrats like to claim Fox News has evened the scales, but let's get real. Fox News reaches a little over a million viewers very night. Brokaw, Jennings and Rather total about thirty million, night after night. Don't worry; if things ever do even up, I'll tell you.

Democrats dominate the news media. Sanctimoniously proclaiming their objectivity, they deliver a constant stream of biased information to the American people (and its mostly worse in other countries). This year, having convinced themselves that Rush and Fox and Ann Coulter represent a real threat to their privileged position, and that Bush's flush campaign war chest gives him an unfair advantage, they are more determined than ever to sing a partisan tune.

The Bush campaign cannot change that. It is not a problem, it is an aggravation. A problem can be solved; an aggravation must be endured. But endurance does not imply passivity, and ? rude farm boy that I am ? just once I'd like to see Condoleezza tell Clark exactly where he can shove his book. I think even NBC would have to cover that.

Veteran GOP media consultant Jay Bryant's regular columns are available at www.theoptimate.com, and his commentaries may be heard on NPR's 'All Things Considered.'

©2004 Jay Bryant

Clarke's golden ticket

03.25.04 (9:21 am)   [edit]
[b]Clarke?s Golden Ticket[/b]
Gary Aldrich
March 25, 2004

In a CBS 60 Minutes exclusive interview, Richard Clarke, a 30-year professional and White House insider on terrorism policy, lambasted the Bush Administration for inadequately preventing and properly handling the 9/11 crisis.

A few short years ago, another White House insider, also a 30-year professional and expert on national security matters, quit his job and wrote a book about the failures he witnessed while on the job.

That?s where the similarities between Richard Clarke and me end.

In 1996, Unlimited Access ? An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House, hit every major bookstore, causing a firestorm of protest from the Clinton Administration.

This was expected. My book was highly critical of Clinton?s track record on national security, and very unsympathetic to Clinton?s staff, who I found to be a crude, classless bunch of hippy leftovers from the Sixties.

President Clinton and Hillary made on-the-record comments attacking my claims, and George Stephanopoulos, then Clinton?s top advisor, labeled me a ?pathological liar.? The Clinton White House meant to play hardball, and my publisher and I could only brace ourselves for their blows. They had a track record of destroying their critics? credibility, and they set out to destroy mine.

As soon as the Clinton White House protested to major media outlets that my book should not be believed, television networks dropped me like a hot potato.

Stephanopoulos then went back to the White House and bragged, ?We killed it,? meaning that if I could not promote my book on TV, the game was over.

Although the book became #1 on every bestseller?s list, the real audience I was trying to reach ? the millions of Americans who receive most of their opinion-forming information from television news ? was closed to me. I was never able to re-establish my credibility with these millions, because the networks prevented me any airtime to do so.

To this day, I have never appeared on any CBS programming, even after my book was largely vindicated by sworn congressional testimony, legions of witnesses, and Bill Clinton?s 1998 impeachment. As far as CBS is concerned, I am dead.

Contrast my experience with how the television networks treat Richard Clarke. In spite of glaring contradictions about his various positions on terrorism matters, and in spite of the fact that Vice President Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, among others, refute the more spectacular claims in Clarke?s book as simply untrue, he continues to obtain remarkable television access. Thus he can hawk his book and promote his obviously biased message that President Bush?s handling of the war on terror was seriously flawed.

When my book came out, I was falsely aligned with the Dole campaign and ?Big Tobacco?, the convenient boogie man of that time. Both claims were ridiculous fabrications. But Richard Clarke and Rand Beers are openly described as ?best buddies?, while Beers, who worked with Clarke at the White House, now has a lead position in Senator John Kerry?s presidential campaign. Yet, no television talking head asks the obvious questions about Clarke?s political associations or motivations ? besides selling a book.

A clue to Clarke?s attitude and credibility can be found in a sentence from his major revelations about President Bush?s ?obsession? with making war with Iraq. Clarke states that two days after September 11, 2001, Bush ?dragged? him into the White House Situation Room to grill him about connections between Iraq and the attack. My first reaction to this claim is to doubt that two days after 9/11, any red-blooded American patriot would have to be ?dragged in? to see the president about how to respond to the attacks.

Instead, I imagine every person working in the White House was eager to make a contribution to protect this nation. Clarke?s suggestion that the president of the United States dragged him anywhere is a good indication of the size of the ego of this man. It?s also a classic tail-wagging-the-dog mentality often found in career bureaucrats.

But Clarke?s biggest fudge is obvious. He worked in the Clinton White House for eight years, closely monitoring each attack made on U.S. interests by Osama bin Laden. He was also privy to intelligence connecting Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, long before 9/11. President Bush?s question about a connection between the two was logical, and based on prior intelligence Clarke would have reviewed.

Clarke?s convenient blindness to these facts is clear evidence of his political motivations. The television networks? blindness to Clarke?s purposeful memory loss is nothing more than classic media bias.

Gary Aldrich is president and founder of The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, a Townhall.com member group.

©2004 Gary W. Aldrich

Microsoft versus EU extortion

03.25.04 (9:19 am)   [edit]
[b]Microsoft vs. European extortion[/b]
Alan Reynolds
March 25, 2004

As I feared last August, the European Union just shoved its grasping hand deep into the pockets of a leading American firm -- Microsoft -- while also attempting to dictate the features of Windows and expropriate intellectual property rights of its creators.

Microsoft is to be fined about $600 million, which is essentially a foreign tax on the primarily American owners of Microsoft stock. The EU also ordered Microsoft to share more information about Windows with competitors, which amounts to compulsory licensing at best.

The commission claims the rising popularity of Windows software in small business servers (as opposed to larger servers, dominated by Linux) must be caused by an unfair advantage rather than a better product or price.

PC World reviewed three leading rivals of Windows Small Business Server software on Feb. 3: Novell's small business suite, and two Linux-based suites from SuSE (now owned by Novell) and NITIX. Windows won that contest, largely because it "presents the most intuitive interface by far." Perhaps more surprisingly, Windows also beat the two Linux alternatives on price in many cases and was also cheaper than Novell's until recently. Even Sun Microsystems, which took this gripe to the EU in 1998, sounds far less victimized on its website: "Sun demonstrated significant gains in the sub-$25K server market (all OS), where it grew unit and revenue market share faster than the top 3 vendors in the category quarter-over-quarter."

The EU requirement that Microsoft create a discount-priced Euro-Windows without Media Player has drawn the most ire. If the EU could get away with that, it could also exercise veto power over improvements expected in the next version of Windows, such as built-in virus protection and Internet search capability. This also amounts to European price controls on a U.S. firm, which is appalling.

Reporters were quick to draw false analogies between the Media Player in this case and Netscape's role in the U.S. antitrust case. "In both cases," wrote New York Times reporter Steve Lohr, "Microsoft was accused of being a nasty monopolist that bundled new software into Windows, gave it away and engaged in bullying tactics ..." The key phrase is "gave it away." Netscape and Real Networks initially had such a commanding lead in browser and media player software that they took advantage by charging hefty fees. When free software from Microsoft made gouging impossible, Netscape ran to Washington for help. And Real Networks ran to Brussels.

Although the U.S. antitrust suit was mostly about the "browser wars" a decade ago, that war occurred because Microsoft had a rosy view about opportunities in Internet content (such as sidewalk.com and Slate) and Netscape's near-monopoly of browsers directed users to its then-dominant portal. The rise of AOL, Yahoo and Google means neither Microsoft nor Netscape (AOL) has a financial stake in which browser you use today. That's why AOL never bothered to improve or promote Netscape's browser.

The U.S. antitrust fuss over browsers involved nonsensical speculation about browsers somehow evolving into rival operating systems. That would be even more nonsensical if applied to media players, as I explained in a 2002 study of the U.S. case.

So what is to be gained by mandating a stripped-down Windows for Europe? The commission reasons that computer manufacturers will install some media player with new PCs anyway, and claims such corporate choices "will reflect what consumers want." But anyone who has ever bought a computer knows the free software pre-installed or included on a CD is rarely terrific. Such freebies usually do include Real Player, in my experience, but not Apple's QuickTime.

Microsoft had offered to get three media players installed on most new computers, but the EU apparently prefers to inconvenience European consumers by uninstalling the Windows Media Player rather than installing two more.

In any case, the underlying idea that docile consumers just stick with whatever software the computer company gives them is almost insulting in an era where even novices are constantly downloading software. Real's website notes that "hundreds of millions of RealPlayers have been downloaded throughout the world to take advantage of RealNetworks, Inc. world-class media creation, delivery and playback technology." Hundreds of millions is a number considerably larger than the entire U.S. population. That makes it downright silly to pretend the company is suffering any lack of name recognition or access. Real Player's loss of market share in usage (as opposed to installation) has not been because the software is hard to get, but that it has become famously annoying to use.

Rob Pegoraro's Washington Post tech column was recently titled "RealPlayer 10 Adds New Mistakes to Old." As Pegoraro noted, RealPlayer "is both widely used and widely despised," largely because "the company's relentless use of it to sell unrelated services and features has made this program little better than spyware in many users' eyes." What Real sells is no bargain: "The $19.95 extra for full MP3 support is $10 more than the cost to add this option to Windows Media Player and $19.95 more than Apple's free, fully MP3-compatible iTunes." Real's new music store, Pegoraro added, "is an appalling mess." Meanwhile, RealNetworks is spending at least $12 million a year suing Microsoft. Scapegoats can be handy.

Nielsen/Net Ratings says 34 percent of U.S. Internet users used Windows Media Player for music or video in February -- far from a monopoly -- compared with 20 percent for Real and 9 percent for QuickTime. Other software, such as MusicMatch Jukebox, makes up the balance. But no company is going to get rich by giving away the largest amount of free software. Microsoft, Apple and Real all hope to get people to use their proprietary software to make films or music, but generic formats such as jpeg and mpeg are more popular. Real Networks gets 75 percent of its revenue from subscription services, for such services as news and music. Apple's music service is flourishing, too, as is the iPod player.

American outrage over this heavy-handed European meddling in American business affairs is emerging as I anticipated last August. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., called the EU ruling "preposterous," adding that, "I now fear that the U.S. and the EU are heading toward a new trade war -- and that the commission's ruling against Microsoft is the first shot."

Trade wars are always mutually destructive, but allowing foreign antitrust czars to pander to whining companies at the expense of consumers is destructive, too.

©2004 Creators Syndicate

Media blames President Bush for not invading Afghanistan in 1998.....I wonder he didn't do it

03.24.04 (8:44 pm)   [edit]
From Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit-- http://www.instapundit.com/ar... :

March 24, 2004

BUSH CAN'T GET A BREAK: Now he's being blamed for not invading Afghanistan in 1998! Here's the relevant passage from MSNBC-- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4... :

"The report revealed that in a previously undisclosed secret diplomatic mission, Saudi Arabia won a commitment from the Taliban to expel bin Laden in 1998. But a clash between the Taliban’s leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, and Saudi officials scuttled the arrangement, and Bush did not follow up."

Damn him -- governing Texas while Rome burned! Why didn't he send the Texas Rangers to finish off Bin Laden? ("One mullah, one Ranger!") Sheesh. Can you say "Freudian slip?"

It's not as if anybody has the storyline on this figured out from the get-go or anything. . . .

UPDATE: Then there's this-- http://www.nydailynews.com/fr... from another story:

"One event that panel members found galling was why there was no retaliation by either administration for the bombing of the destroyer Cole in early 2001."

Maybe because the Cole was bombed on October 12, 2000-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ? [b]It seems like people are trying awfully hard to make it sound as if all this stuff happened on Bush's watch.[/b]

Coming soon: Complaints about why the Bush Administration didn't do anything to prevent the assassination attempt on Harry Truman at Blair House. And what about the Maine, huh? Why didn't Bush do something about that?

Posted by Glenn Reynolds at March 24, 2004 09:21 AM

Paul Wolfowitz on Richard Clarke's "creative memory"

03.24.04 (1:48 pm)   [edit]
[b]Wolfowitz vs. Clarke[/b]
The deputy defense secretary on Richard Clarke’s “creative memory.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: During testimony before the 9/11 Commission on Tuesday, March 23, deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz addressed some of the contentions made by former U.S. terrorism official Richard Clarke in his new book Against All Odds. [The beginning of Wolfowitz's response to former Indiana congressman Tim Roemer addresses a prior exchange among Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Commission members Bob Kerrey (former Democratic senator from Nebraska) and Slade Gorton (former Republican senator from Washington) regarding whether or not the Bush administration took their time in regards to addressing terrorism, between the inauguration and Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.] The transcript appears below.

ROEMER: . . . One final question: Again, Secretary Wolfowitz, this is again to be fair, and I want to shoot straight with you on this. We have Mr. Clarke coming up tomorrow. And he has a reference in his book to an April 30th deputies meeting, where he claims — and we want to know if this is accurate or not, so that we can ask him the direct questions tomorrow — he claims that in this meeting, when they were talking about a plan to go forward to go after bin Laden and Al Qaida, that you brought up the subject of Iraq and that you put too much attention on Iraq as a sponsor, as a state sponsor of terrorism and not enough emphasis on Al Qaida as a transnational sponsor of terrorism.

I have just two comments or two questions on that. One would be: Is that fairly accurate? Is his portrayal of that deputies meeting accurate at all or accurate to some degree?

And secondly, in an interagency meeting, where dialogue and discussion of these things should take place, that's what the interagency process is about, isn't that where these discussions should take place, that opinions should be bounced back and forth and debate should be heated at times about the different threats to the world?

WOLFOWITZ: Thanks for giving me a chance to comment.

Before I do that, let me just make a comment on the last exchange you had with Secretary Rumsfeld.

ROEMER: Please.

WOLFOWITZ: And it applies to quite a few comments, including Senator Gorton's question about the luxury of seven months. I think there's a basic difficulty of understanding what a plan really is. A plan is not a military option. Military option is to a plan what a single play in football is to a whole game plan. And this notion that there's a single thing that if we'd only done it, it would work, is like a Hail Mary pass in football, which is what a desperate losing team does in the hope that maybe they can pull things off at the end.

A plan has got to anticipate what the enemy will do next. It has to anticipate what the government of Pakistan will do. It has to anticipate what world reaction will be. It has to go down many pathways. And it's not a timetable. No one can tell you what's going to happen next. You have to be able to call plays and call audibles. And that's why to put a plan together in seven months wasn't a long period of time, even if we had everybody on board. It was actually rather fast.

And I give you as an illustration, in 2002, in January, when the president said, OK, I want to see military options for Iraq, it wasn't until nine months later, I believe, that he finally said, OK. I see that we have a military option against Iraq. And that still wasn't a plan, because that only allowed him to go to the United Nations and be prepared to use all necessary means. It wasn't a decision to use all necessary means. And General Franks' planning continued for another five or six months.

So I think there's, A, a failure to understand just how complex planning is. And we could get into this.

But to Senator Gorton, I fail to understand how anything done in 2001 in Afghanistan would have prevented 9/11.

And certainly, Congressman Roemer, the option you present of killing a few relatively low-level Al Qaida in some camp in Afghanistan might have been a worthy thing to do as part of a general plan, but it certainly wasn't going to affect 9/11 except, as the secretary said, to make 9/11 look a retaliation. So let's keep some clarity.

But let me...

ROEMER: Perspective. The point is we're not saying that you could have prevented or should have prevented with that particular one action, 9/11.

WOLFOWITZ: Let's be clear, the retaliation...

ROEMER: We're saying that there's no silver bullet. There are a host of options that could have been out there.

WOLFOWITZ: The retaliation for the embassy bombings did nothing to prevent the attack on the Cole, right?

ROEMER: There are a host of things. We're not just saying, you know, a cruise missile going into Afghanistan. We're talking about the breadth of policy here, Northern Alliance, covert operations...

WOLFOWITZ: And Congressman, that's exactly what took seven months.

ROEMER: ... cruise missiles.

WOLFOWITZ: We started in April with the notion of attriting (ph) the Taliban by assisting the Northern Alliance.

ROEMER: OK, good enough.

WOLFOWITZ: By September, we said the goal is to eliminate Afghanistan as a sanctuary for Al Qaida, much more ambitious thing.

With respect to Mr. Clark and let me say, I haven't read the book yet. I was called by a reporter on the weekend with a quote from the book attributed to me. I tried to get the book. It wasn't available in book stores. It was only available to selected reporters. And I got it yesterday, but I did not have time to read it in the last 24 hours. I'll get to it at some point.

But with respect to the quote that the reporter presented as having been put in my mouth, which was an objection to Mr. Clark suggesting that ignoring the rhetoric of Al Qaida would be like ignoring Hitler's rhetoric in "Mein Kampf," I can't recall ever saying anything remotely like that. I don't believe I could have.

In fact, I frequently have said something more nearly the opposite of what Clark attributes to me. I've often used that precise analogy of Hitler and "Mein Kampf" as a reason why we should take threatening rhetoric seriously, particularly in the case of terrorism and Saddam Hussein.

So I am generally critical of the tendency to dismiss threats as simply rhetoric. And I know that the quote Clark attributed to me does not represent my views then or now. And that meeting was a long meeting about seven different subjects, all of them basically related to Al Qaida and Afghanistan.

By the way, I know of at least one other instance of Mr. Clark's creative memory. Shortly after September 11th, as part of his assertion that he had vigorously pursued the possibility of Iraqi involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, he wrote in a memo that, and I am quoting here, "When the bombing happened, he focused on Iraq as the possible culprit because of Iraqi involvement in the attempted assassination of President Bush in Kuwait the same month," unquote.

WOLFOWITZ: In fact, the attempted assassination of President Bush happened two months later.

It just seems to be another instance where Mr. Clarke's memory is playing tricks...

ROEMER: You're doing pretty well for not having read the book, Paul.

(LAUGHTER)

WOLFOWITZ: I read the quote.

ROEMER: Let me just say...

KEAN: To the Congressman, we have to move on to the next commissioner.

ROEMER: OK. Let me just say in conclusion, thank you for those remarks. And we do have Secretary Armitage in the private interviews with us saying that he thought that the committee process had not moved speedily before or after 9/11, the deputy meeting process and the process on a seven-month or nine-month plan.

WOLFOWITZ: The government doesn't move fast enough in general. I agree with that.

RUMSFELD: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment also? I want to make certain there's no misunderstanding. I would have supported missile attacks on training camps anywhere, had I believed that we could have achieved the goal that you suggest of killing jihadists.

And the issue is that what happens is frequently, we know that people are posted and they know when things are going to happen. And people empty those camps from time to time. In fact, we've seen reactions when ships or planes or missiles begin to go someplace, that they go to school on that and move out.

So the fact that a weapon costs a lot more than a training camp is no reason not to do it. The only reason for not doing it is if you, as I indicated, are working on a plan that you think is more comprehensive and you believe you can do a better job a different way.

ROEMER: Thank you.

WOLFOWITZ: In case I wasn't clear, I was not dismissive of Al Qaida as a threat. The whole meeting was about Al Qaida. I also believed that state support for terrorism was a problem. But I have never been dismissive of Al Qaida, and I think precisely because I think terrorism is such a serious problem, as I testified as early as my confirmation hearing.

ROEMER: Thank you

Bush, criticized for acting preemptively, is criticized for not attacking al Qaeda preemptively

03.24.04 (1:45 pm)   [edit]
March 24, 2004, 8:32 a.m.
[b]Selective Second Guessing
What is Richard Clarke thinking?[/b]
--Clifford May

The Bush administration is now being harshly criticized for (1) its policies of preemption and unilateralism and for (2) not unilaterally preempting the Taliban and al Qaeda immediately after coming into office in January 2001.

Needless to say, it will be a challenge for the White House to refute both criticisms simultaneously.

Richard Clarke, a long-time terrorism adviser, is leading the attack against the president, claiming that the Bush administration "squandered the opportunity to eliminate al Qaeda."

What's curious is that Clarke does not make the same charge regarding the Clinton administration. [b]It was during that administration, you'll recall, that al Qaeda was founded, that it declared war on America, bombed two of our embassies in Africa, and attacked the USS Cole.

Surely, there were more opportunities to "eliminate al Qaeda" during the eight years that Clarke served President Clinton than there were during the eight months he served President Bush?[/b]

No, Clarke does not see it that way.

It is not hard to imagine what President Clinton might have done about al Qaeda in the 1990s. Terrorist training camps in Afghanistan could have been attacked by special forces. The Taliban might have been overthrown in a coup. It would not have been impossible to penetrate al Qaeda.

Our embassies abroad, the CIA, the FBI, and the INS might have worked together to target those whose backgrounds and movements raised suspicions, and either prevented them from entering the U.S. or sent them home. A Department of Homeland Security could have been set up. Something like the Patriot Act — legislation to overturn the wall that long separated intelligence and law-enforcement agencies — might have been enacted.

[b]By contrast, what could President Bush have done between January and September of 2001? By that point, the terrorists had made their plans and were living in the U.S. Even if President Bush had launched a unilateral, preemptive attack against the Taliban and al Qaeda, the 9/11 suicide terrorists might have proceeded to fulfill their missions. Indeed, some would have said that 9/11 was in reprisal for the assaults on al Qaeda and the Taliban.[/b]

And [b]who would have supported a preemptive attack in Afghanistan prior to 9/11? Not those who oppose preemption now. Not those who say President Bush was wrong to strike Saddam Hussein before being certain not just of his intentions, but also of his capabilities. Not Jacques Chirac or Vladimir Putin.[/b]

Clearly, Clarke did not manage to persuade many State Department officials that terrorism was a grave threat that required a robust response. Michael Ledeen, in his fine book, The War Against the Terror Masters, points to an op-ed that ran in the New York Times on July 10, 2001 — almost exactly two months before the 9/11 attack. Written by Larry C. Johnson, a former State Department counterterrorism specialist, it reflected the conventional wisdom within America's foreign-policy elites.

"...If you are drilling for oil in Colombia — or in nations like Ecuador, Nigeria or Indonesia," Johnson wrote, "you should take appropriate precautions; otherwise Americans have little to fear."

Johnson actually predicted that terrorism would decline in the decade beginning in 2000 as, he argued, it had in the '90s because of "the current reluctance of countries like Iraq, Syria, and Libya, which once eagerly backed terrorist groups, to provide safe havens, funding and training."

Johnson blamed excessive fear of terrorism on "24-hour broadcast news operations too eager to find a dramatic story" and on "pundits who repeat myths while ignoring clear empirical data," along with politicians who "warn constituents of dire threats and then appropriate money for redundant military installations and new government investigators and agents."

Johnson also criticized the military and intelligence bureaucracies, saying they were "desperate to find an enemy to justify budget growth."

[b]This is an astonishing analysis when you consider that Johnson was writing after the first bombing of the World Trade Towers, after the bloody battle depicted in the book, Blackhawk Down — involving Osama bin Laden-trained Somali guerillas — after the attempt by Saddam Hussein to assassinate former President Bush in Kuwait, after the bombing of our troops in Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, after the terrorist attacks on America's embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and after the attack on the USS Cole, and after Secretary of State Albright included Iraq among the seven countries designated as state sponsors of international terrorism in 2000.[/b]

Despite this, Clarke also goes easy on the State Department in his new book, Against All Enemies. This is puzzling and makes one wonder what theories might be offered by Clarke's friend, Rand Beers, who left the Bush administration to join the Kerry campaign.

[b]Clarke also mentions in his book "my friend Joe Wilson," the former diplomat who for reasons that remain mysterious was sent to Niger to check out the possibility that Saddam had attempted to purchase uranium — then launched a media blitz accusing President Bush of misleading Americans regarding Iraq, then also signed on with the Kerry campaign. Clarke charges that the administration took "revenge" on Wilson, a charge as yet unproven. [/b]

Today, Wednesday, Clarke testifies before the 9/11 commission. Will his testimony be helpful to those seriously attempting to craft an effective policy to defeat terrorism? Or will he be selling books and giving a job interview? You watch and you make the call.

— Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

The farce that is the "open session" of the 9-11 commission, and the hypocrisy of Richard Clarke

03.24.04 (1:29 pm)   [edit]
Commissioner Ben Veniste of the 9-11 commission lamented that Dr. Rice wouldn't speak in front of the commission during the open session, despite the fact that she has been abundantly involved with the commission in private. She has handed over important documents and has testified. The only thing that really pisses this guy off is that it creates "impressions".

That says a couple of things. One, it says that the purpose of an open session is masturbatory. It means nothing. It is self-gratifying, but accomplishes nothing. The other thing it says is that impressions mean more than facts, which Dr. Rice has already supplied the commission with.

Impressions aren't self-creating, folks. People with agendas or bias make them. And that is what those who criticize Rice are doing.

Secondly, check this out from PowerLine Blog -- http://www.powerlineblog.com/... :

[b]Clarke Takes A Beating[/b]

Richard Clarke is now testifying before the terrorism commission. In the meantime, he is taking a fearful pounding in the blogosphere. Glenn Reynolds has a good roundup.

One of Clarke's most ridiculous claims was his assertion that when he met with Condoleezza Rice in January 2001, "her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard" of al Qaeda. My guess is that [b]Ms. Rice's facial expression may have been a clue to what she thought of Clarke; here is what she had to say about al Qaeda[u]in 2000[/u][/b]:

"You really have to get the intelligence agencies better organized to deal with the terrorist threat to the United States itself. One of the problems that we have is a kind of split responsibility, of course, between the CIA and foreign intelligence and the FBI and domestic intelligence. There needs to be better cooperation because we don't want to wake up one day and find out that Osama bin Laden has been successful on our own territory."

If Clarke had said that, he'd take credit for being a prophet.

[b]Turns out, too, that Clarke contradicted all of the principal points he makes in his new book, Against All Enemies, in an interview he gave to Jim Angle of Fox News in August 2002.[/b] Here are some highlights:

CLARKE: [T]he first point, I think the overall point is, [b]there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. [/b]
In January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years...And the...Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

Over the course of the summer...they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer [b]had increased money for covert action five-fold.[/b] Is that correct?

CLARKE: [b]All of that's correct.[/b]

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — [b]one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office? [/b]

CLARKE: [b][u]You got it. That's right.[/b][/u]

Which completely rebuts the principal points in Clarke's book.

Meanwhile, Belgravia Dispatch live-blogged Clarke's testimony, which is now complete. Clarke put on a contemptible show. Here is an example.

Clarke, per Belgravia, testifying today: [b]He complained that he had a "strategy ready before [Bush's] inauguration," but that delays prevented it from getting to the President's desk.[/b]

[b]Compare that to Clarke in August 2002:[/b]

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: [b]So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort? [/b]

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: [b]Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.[/b]

John Lehman chewed Clarke out today, [b] and Clarke apparently couldn't deny that what he says in his book is completely different from what he had previously testified to. Clarke attributed his changing story to his outrage over the Iraq war. [/b]

The Richard Clarke saga will be an interesting test of the power of the blogosphere and talk radio. [b]Sophisticated news consumers know that Clarke is a fraud and a shill for the Kerry campaign.[/b] The mainstream press will try to keep this fact a secret from the vast majority of the population that relies on newspapers and television for their information. It will be interesting to see whether the blackout can succeed.

Posted by Hindrocket at 03:06 PM

The price of success-- EU hits Microsoft with 613m fine, forces company to reveal office server code

03.24.04 (6:16 am)   [edit]
Ah, the arrogant EU:

"We could legally have imposed explicitly a worldwide geographic scope, given the global nature of these markets," he said. "We have not done so."

Who are they?

Yes, and I'm sure that the EU software companies are singing gloria's to the fact that in the interest of "fairness" the EU has forced Microsoft to reveal its code for office servers.

[b]EU Hits Microsoft With Record $613M Fine[/b]
By PAUL GEITNER, AP Business Writer

BRUSSELS, Belgium - The European Union (news - web sites) declared Microsoft Corp. guilty of abusing its "near monopoly" with Windows to foil competitors in other markets and hit the software giant with a record fine of $613 million Wednesday.

The EU's antitrust authority said that "because the illegal behavior is still ongoing," it was also demanding changes in the way Microsoft operates in Europe, with the aim of improving competition globally. Those sanctions go well beyond the 2001 U.S. antitrust settlement.

The regulators gave Microsoft 90 days to offer European computer manufacturers a version of Windows without the company's digital media player, which lets computer users watch video and listen to music and is expected to be an important market as multimedia content becomes more pervasive in coming years.

The European Commission (news - web sites) also chastised Microsoft for trying to "shut competitors out of the market" in software for office servers, by hoarding code that would help competing programs work smoothly with Windows computers. Microsoft now has 120 days to provide rivals in the server market with such code.

EU Competition Commissioner Mario Monti said the ruling was "proportionate" and "balanced," noting that "dominant companies have a special responsibility to ensure that the way they do business doesn't prevent competition."

"We are simply ensuring that anyone who develops new software has a fair opportunity to compete in the marketplace," he told a news conference.

Monti said he limited the order to Europe "in deference to the competition authorities of the United States and other countries."

"We could legally have imposed explicitly a worldwide geographic scope, given the global nature of these markets," he said. "We have not done so."

He said limiting it to Europe "will not unduly undermine the effectiveness of the remedies," given the size of the European market. Microsoft, which had $32 billion in revenue last year, does about 30 percent of its business in Europe.

Microsoft's general counsel, Brad Smith, told reporters the company would appeal the decision to Europe's Court of First Instance and most likely would ask that much of the ruling be suspended during the appeal. Smith said he expected the case to take four or five years to be resolved.

Settlement talks with Microsoft broke down last week over the EU's insistence that a deal also restrict which features could be added to future versions of Windows, such as an embedded search engine. The Commission is already investigating a complaint filed by competitors against the latest version, Windows XP (news - web sites).

Smith argued that the company's settlement proposal would have been more useful to consumers than the penalties announced Wednesday. He said Microsoft offered to immediately release worldwide a version of Windows that included three media players. He said the company also would have offered "unprecedented access to Microsoft's technology."

The company argued that extracting the media player from Windows will be difficult and will make other features work less effectively. What the EU is asking Microsoft to create "is not Windows," Smith said.

Noting that the U.S. case was settled after an appeals court ruling, Smith said a similar scenario could happen in Europe, although no discussions are underway.

Microsoft was found guilty of similar monopolistic behavior in the U.S. case, but the EU order strikes deeper by aiming at the heart of Microsoft's business strategy — regularly adding new features to Windows to help sell upgrades.

The Redmond, Wash.-based company argues such "bundling" benefits consumers. But rivals call it unfair competition, given that Windows runs more than 90 percent of personal computers worldwide.

The EU regulators were concerned that bundling "deters innovation and reduces consumer choice in any technologies which Microsoft could conceivably take an interest in and tie with Windows in the future."

The EU said it was concerned that a stranglehold on media players could let Microsoft dictate future standards for how digital music and video files are encoded, distributed and played.

Under the EU order, Microsoft can continue selling a version of Windows with its media player software installed, but it must refrain from making the stripped-down version less attractive or a poorer performer.

Fearing that attempts to set prices would be overturned in court, the Commission did not order Microsoft to make the stripped-down version available at a discount. But it said Microsoft could not offer PC makers a better deal for buying the version of Windows with Microsoft's media player included.

The ruling could boost rival makers of media software, led by RealNetworks Inc. and Apple Computer Inc.

Bob Kimball, RealNetworks' general counsel, said the EU decision "confirms the merit" of his company's private antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft.

The other half of the EU case involved low-end servers, which tie desktop computers together in offices.

Silicon Valley-based Sun Microsystems Inc. complained to the EU in 1998 that Microsoft refused to provide details needed for Sun programs to "talk" to Windows computers as efficiently as Microsoft's own server software could.

The Commission said Microsoft's refusals to disclose server software code "were part of a broader strategy designed to shut competitors out of the market." The risk, the Commission said, was that Microsoft's dominant position would end up "eliminating competition altogether."

The ruling said Microsoft could get "reasonable remuneration" for disclosing its proprietary code, and added that the Windows source code itself would remain untouched.

The EU also said it would appoint a trustee to monitor Microsoft's compliance with the ruling.

The fine, 497 million euros, surpassed the EU's 2001 penalty of 462 million euros against Hoffman-La Roche AG for acting in a cartel. Money from the fine would be redistributed to the EU member states.

Of sluts, President Bush, and the Carlyle group

03.24.04 (5:39 am)   [edit]
CheckItOut uses his left-wing paranoid sources to dredge up an oldy but a goody-- that since President Bush's father is a member of the Carlyle Group, which includes members of Osama bin Laden's family, that his son must have allowed 9-11 to happen (for profits, silly-- capitalism!). Also that Bush and Condi Rice (who is a slut) are afraid of the 9-11 commission and are refusing to testify.

Well, first of all, Osama bin Laden had family members that did business for years in the North East. We can firmly accuse the entire family of being in conspiracy with bin Laden, can't we? I guess in America you're guilty by association, right?

This complete, unsubstantiated lie-- that President Bush allowed 9-11 to happen because of daddy Bush's association with the group, a group that has right-wingers AND left-wingers in it-- was most famoulsy trumped up by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who later said, when her lie was getting a lot of media scrutiny that there was absolutely no evidence to the charges.

(Even zealous "rights" group Judicial Watch, which was no friend of Clinton during the Blewinsky mess, has not found any merit to the lie. They say it looks bad, but they, again, are engaging in guilt-by-association, something that no one bothers to do regarding Clinton's association with communist China all throughout the 1990s [including the country's campaign cash to Clinton's campaign])

And wouldn't you think with the unprecedented attempt to find dirty on Bush something so obvious would be out in the open by now, 2 and a half years after 9-11?

Not to a brainwashed anti-American neo-marxist!

Yes, what a way to honor your investors in the Carlyle Group...start a war with the supposed mastermind behind the group.

Moving on, CheckItOut says Bush and Rice have refused to testify. Absolutely not true. What is true is that they didn't want to testify in public. This is a wise decision, when you consider what a charade yesterday's public testimony was, and what today's will be. Also, the public testimony is merely for the consumption of the public-- all of the important testimony, document sharing and so forth has already happened.

As the head of the 9-11 commission said yesterday before the hearing began, Condi Rice has been extremely cooperative in private testimony to the commission and with information sharing. Also, evil Dubya is scheduled to be interviewed by a couple of members of the commission as well. They won't be dragged out in public to make it look like a Soviet-style show trial (which is what really disappoints CheckItOut), but the mission of the commission will be completed.

Oh, and I guess we musn't forget that President Bush is responsible for the 9-11 Commission's existence. He was never afraid of the report's findings (which are already pretty much over), he was afraid of sensitive national security issues being compromised. I think, given the frat-like insecurity of the last administration, that is quite justified.

Bush also agreed to extend the commission's "deadline" into late July.

If Bush truly is afraid of the commission and truly had something to do with allowing 9-11 to happen, then I finally agree with the crack-smoking leftwing nuts-- he must be a moron.

The facts speak otherwise.

Required reading-- Clinton and the left's indifference to terrorism, Part II

03.24.04 (5:25 am)   [edit]
(continued from here-- http://www.tblog.com/template... )

A Berkeley radical with vigorously expressed anti-American sympathies, Dellums was an ardent admirer of Fidel Castro’s Marxist dictatorship and a relentless opponent of American military power. On his election to Congress in 1970, Dellums went out of his way to announce his radical commitments and pledged to remain faithful to his anti-American roots. "I am not going to back away from being a radical," he said. My politics are to bring the walls down [in Washington]."

During his long career Dellums worked hand-in-glove with Soviet front groups, proposed scrapping all U.S. "offensive weapons," used his government position to oppose every U.S. effort to block the spread of Communist rule and, in the Eighties, even turned over his congressional office to a Cuban intelligence agent organizing a network of "solidarity committees" on U.S. campuses to support Communist guerrilla movements in Central America. When a Democratic White House under Jimmy Carter attempted, in 1979, to re-institute the draft and increase America’s military preparedness after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Dellums joined a "Stop the Draft" rally of Berkeley leftists, denounced American "militarism" and condemned Carter’s White House as "evil."

Dellums’ attitude towards America’s intelligence services reflected his consistent support for America’s international enemies. Just before the 1980 presidential election, with Soviet invasion forces flooding into Afghanistan, with the American embassy held hostage by the new radical Islamic regime in Iran, and with crowds chanting "Death to America" in the streets of Tehran, Dellums told the same Berkeley rally: "We should totally dismantle every intelligence agency in this country piece by piece, nail by nail, brick by brick."

Yet, despite these views, Dellums was no marginalized backbencher in the Democratic House. With the full approval of the Democratic Party leadership and its House caucus, Dellums was made a member of the Armed Services Committee on which he served throughout the 1980s and 1990s. In the midst of a hot war with Central American Communists seeking to establish a Soviet military base in the Western hemisphere, Democrats made Dellums Chairman of the House Subcommittee on U.S. Military Installations worldwide, where he enjoyed top security clearance. This was done with the specific imprimatur of the Democratic chair of the Armed Services Committee, Les Aspin.

Nor was Dellums alone. He had like-minded allies in both the legislative and executive branches of the Clinton government. Most notoriously, Clinton appointed an anti-military, environmental leftist Hazel O’Leary to be Secretary of Energy, a department responsible for the nation’s nuclear weapons labs. O’Leary promptly surrounded herself with other political leftists (including one self-described "Marxist-Feminist") and anti-nuclear activists, appointing them as her assistant secretaries with responsibility for the security of the nuclear labs. In one of her first acts, O’Leary declassified eleven million pages of nuclear documents, including reports on 204 U.S. nuclear tests, describing the move as an act to safeguard the environment and a protest against a "bomb-building culture."

Having made America’s nuclear weapons’ secrets available to the whole world including the al-Qaeda network, O’Leary then took steps to relax security precautions at the nuclear laboratories under her control. She appointed Rose Gottemoeller, a former Clinton National Security Council staffer with extreme anti-nuclear views to be her director in charge of national security issues. Gottemoeller had been previously nominated to fill the post—long vacant in the Clinton Administration—of Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. The appointment was successfully blocked, however, by congressional Republicans alarmed by her radical disarmament agendas. The Clinton response to this rejection was to put her in charge of security for the nation’s nuclear weapons labs.

In the 1980s, a time when the United States was fighting a fierce battle of the Cold War in Central America, Democrats also appointed George Crockett to head the House Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs. Crockett had strong ties directly to the Communist Party and to pro-Communist organizations. He had begun his career as a lawyer for the Communist Party in Detroit, and was so loyal to its agendas that he was the only House member to refuse to sign a resolution condemning the Soviet Union for its unprovoked shooting down of a commercial Korean airliner (KAL 007) and the only member to vote against a House resolution condemning the Soviet Union for denying medical aid to US Major Arthur Nicholson after he had been shot in East Germany and the Communists had denied him medical aid for 45 minutes while he bled to death.

Crockett’s appointment came at a time when the Sandinista dictatorship in Nicaragua was engaged in supplying military aid to Communist guerrillas in Guatemala and El Salvador and was building a major Soviet military base on its territory. Dellums and Crockett were the most prominent and probably the most extreme supporters of the Communists in the Democratic caucus, but they had powerful allies in their efforts to protect the Sandinista regime and the Communist guerrillas from House leaders like David Bonior and Senators Patrick Leahy and Chris Dodd among others. Appointed to head the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2001, Leahy became the leader of Democrats’ opposition to Bush Administration attempts to insert stronger measures into domestic anti-terrorism legislation after the September 11 attacks.

In 1991, Democratic Speaker of the House Tom Foley appointed Ron Dellums and five other leftwing party members to the sensitive House Intelligence Committee, with oversight over the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies. Two years later, Bill Clinton appointed Les Aspin, the left-wing Democrat behind Dellums’ rise, to be his first Secretary of Defense. As Aspin’s protégé, Dellums became the Chair of the Armed Services Committee, and thus the most important member of the House in overseeing all U.S. military defenses, controlling their purse strings, and acting as the chief House advisor on military matters to the President himself.

The vote among members of the Democratic caucus to confirm this determined enemy of American power as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee was 198-10. In other words 198 congressional Democrats including its entire leadership saw nothing wrong in placing America’s defenses in the hands of one of its most implacable foes. They saw nothing problematic in Dellums’ statement that as head of the Armed Services Committee he would (in the words of the Los Angeles Times) "favor a faster reduction of the armed forces and billions more for economic conversion," calling for a "tripling" of the billions that he would actively seek to be moved out of the defense sector.

The vote to confirm Dellums’ new position and authority took place on January 17, 1993. Exactly one month later, on February 26, al-Qaeda terrorists bombed the World Trade Center. On his retirement four years afterwards in a ceremony in the Capitol, Dellums was presented by Bill Clinton’s third secretary of Defense, William Cohen, with the highest honor for "service to his country" that the Pentagon can bestow on a civilian.


The Party of Blame America First

How could the Democratic Party have become host to—and promote—legislators whose commitment to America’s security was so defective, and whose loyalties were so questionable? How could a party that led the fight against Hitler, that organized a Cold War alliance to save Europe from Stalin’s aggression, that under John F. Kennedy led the greatest expansion of America’s military power in peacetime, reach a point where so many of its leaders seemed to regard America itself as the world’s problem, rather than "the brightest beacon"—as President Bush put it—"for freedom and opportunity in the world."

The transformation of the congressional Democrats into a party of the left can be traced to the turbulent decade of the Vietnam War and the 1972 presidential candidacy of Senator George McGovern, whose campaign slogan, "America Come Home," is self-explanatory. George McGovern had been a World War II hero who completed more than thirty bomber missions. But he emerged from combat traumatized by the killing he had witnessed and transformed into a kind of premature "peacenik."

In 1948, he entered politics as an activist in the Progressive Party presidential campaign of Henry Wallace, who was running as an "anti-war" candidate for the pro-Soviet left. Wallace had once been FDR’s vice-president, but in 1948 he left the Democratic Party to protest Harry Truman’s "Cold War" policy of opposing Stalin’s conquest of Eastern Europe. Although Wallace himself was not a Communist, the Progressive Party was a creation of the American Communist Party and under its political control. The Communist Party was controlled by the Kremlin, which had instructed its American supporters to create the campaign in order to weaken America’s opposition to Soviet expansion.

Like Wallace, George McGovern was not a Communist or even a radical. But like many otherwise patriotic Americans, then and since, he was seduced by the appeasement politics of the left and became permanently convinced that the United States was co-responsible with Stalin for the Cold War, because Washington had failed to understand the "root causes" of the conflict in Soviet fears of invasion. In McGovern’s view the Cold War could have been averted if Truman had been more accommodating to the Soviet dictator and his designs on Eastern Europe. This anti-anti-communist naivete was a permanent aspect of McGovern’s foreign policy agendas throughout his political career.

At the end of the 1960s, the radicals who had bolted the Democratic Party in 1948 to oppose the Cold War, began to return under circumstances that made the party particularly vulnerable to their agendas. In 1968, the Democrats’ presidential candidate was Hubert Humphrey, a liberal but also a staunch anti-Communist who wanted to stay the course and prevent a Communist victory in Vietnam. At the Democratic convention to nominate Humphrey, the anti-war radicals staged an event that destroyed Humphrey’s chances of becoming president.

The anti-Humphrey plan was the brainchild of radical leader Tom Hayden, who had met with the Vietnamese Communists in Czechoslovakia the previous year, and gone on to Hanoi to collaborate with the Communist enemy. In the late spring of 1968, Hayden proceeded to plan and then to organize a riot at the Democratic Party convention in the full glare of the assembled media. The negative fallout from the chaos in the streets of Chicago and the Democrats’ heavy-handed reaction to the "anti-war" rioters effectively elected the Republican candidate Richard Nixon the following November.

After Nixon’s election, "the anti-war" radicals turned their attention to the Democratic Party with the intention of seizing control of its political machinery. Humphrey’s defeat fatally weakened the political power of the anti-Communist forces that had supported him. A series of internal rule changes pressed by the radicals paved the way for the ascension of the anti-Humphrey left. Their agenda was to remake the party into a leftwing organization like the Progressive Party of 1948, which would not stand in the way of Communist expansion. The party figure around whom they rallied their forces was Senator George McGovern who had been put in charge of the committee to reform the party’s rules. The left’s immediate agenda was to end the Democratic Party’s support for the anti-Communist war.

During the Sixties, radicals were intent on making a "revolution in the streets." They were led back into electoral politics by figures like Hayden himself, and his wife-to-be Jane Fonda. Through Hayden’s auspices, Fonda had traveled to Hanoi to make anti-American war propaganda for Hanoi, inciting American troops to defect and also aiding the Communists in their denials that they were torturing John McCain and other American POWs. On their return, Hayden and Fonda, gave "anti-war" lectures to the House Democratic Caucus. Although radicals like Hayden had previously condemned the Democrats and deliberately destroyed the party’s presidential candidate, their energies were now directed towards infiltrating the party and shaping its agendas. This compromise of political principle was made painless by McGovern’s campaign slogan—"America Come Home"—which implied that America’s military power was the source of the Cold War conflict with Communism instead of its solution.

Radicals became Democratic Party regulars and—in the case of Hillary Clinton and others—eventually party leaders. Among the more famous activists elected to Congress as Democrats in this period were Ron Dellums, Bella Abzug, Elizabeth Holtzman, Richard Drinan, David Bonior, Pat Schroeder, and Bobby Rush, a former Black Panther. Hayden himself failed to win a congressional seat but became a Democratic State Assemblyman and then a Democratic State Senator in California. As noted, following the Watergate scandal and the resignation of Nixon the newly radicalized Democrats voted to cut off all economic aid to the anti-Communist governments of Cambodia and South Vietnam. (The United States had already withdrawn its armies from Indo-China after signing the truce of 1973). Both regimes fell within months of the vote leading to the mass slaughter in both countries of approximately two and half million peasants at the hands of their new Communist rulers.

McGovern’s presidential campaign was an electoral disaster. The candidate won only one state (Massachusetts) in losing the biggest electoral landslide in American history. But the internal party reforms the McGovernites were able to put in place established the left as a power in the Democratic Party. From its new-found position of strength the left was able to profoundly influence the Carter presidency (1977-1981), which followed Nixon’s Watergate debacle. Notwithstanding that Jimmy Carter was a southerner, a Navy man, and a self-described conservative—all factors that made him electable—his foreign policy reflected the leftward tilt of the party he inherited. Of his Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, it was said "he was the closest thing to a pacifist that the U.S. has ever had as a secretary of state, with the possible exception of William Jennings Bryan."

Carter himself warned of Americans’ "inordinate fear of Communism" as though this and not Soviet expansion were responsible for the Cold War. At the end of Carter’s term in 1980, his foreign policy performance was summed up by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in these words: "The Carter Administration has managed the extraordinary feat of having, at one and the same time, the worst relations with our allies, the worst relations with our adversaries, and the most serious upheavals in the developing world since the end of the Second World War."

Among these "serious upheavals" were the Soviet aggression in Afghanistan (the first crossing of an international border by the Red Army since 1945) and the Sandinista coup in Nicaragua (in which the Carter Administration stood by while a group of pro-Castro Marxists subverted a democratic revolution, joined the Soviet bloc and began arming Communist insurgencies in Guatemala and El Salvador). A third debacle was the loss of Iran to Islamic fundamentalists in a 1979 revolution led by the Ayatollah Khomeni.

This event transformed Iran into the first radical Islamicist state and thus launched the forces that eventually came together in the World Trade Center attack. Because of its bias to the left, the Carter White House had bungled the defense of the existing regime, led by the dictatorial but modernizing Shah. Among the Shah’s achievements that incited the hatred of the Ayatollah’s rebels was the lifting of the veil and the education of women. Despite the misogynist and reactionary agendas of the Khomeni revolution, the American left naturally cheered the seizure of power by these anti-American radicals, as a "Third World" liberation.

The utopian illusion was short-lived, however. "Khomeini lost no time in installing a fundamentalist Islamic Republic, executing homosexuals and revoking, among other security laws, the statute granting women the right to divorce and restricting polygamy." American leftists and liberals had pressured Carter to abandon the Shah because of his repressive police apparatus the SAVAK. But "Khomeini’s regime executed more people in its first year in power than the Shah’s SAVAK had allegedly executed in the previous 25 years." The advent of the Khomeni regime was the real beginning of the current war between the West and Islamic radicals.

Clinton

On November 7, 2001—one month to the day after America began its response to the al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center, the man most singularly responsible for the security failure gave a speech to college students at Georgetown that may rank as the most disgraceful utterance ever to pass the lips of a former American president. Without any acknowledgment of his own responsibilities as commander-in-chief, Bill Clinton joined America’s enemies in attempting to transfer the blame for the atrocities to his country. "Those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless,"he explained, reflecting sentiments made familiar by American appeasers since the Wallace campaign of 1948.

Although Europeans in America were the creators of a political democracy that had declared all men equal and had separated church from state (so that it did not identify a category of people as "infidels," let alone wage wars against them), Clinton linked the terror of the Islamo-fascists to their victims by recalling a crime committed by Christian crusaders against Jews and Muslims a thousand years before. "In the first Crusade when the Christian Soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it," he said—and then mentioned that some Muslims were killed by the crusaders as well. "I can assure you that that story is still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it."

Even this version of the past neglected to mention the Muslim invasions that provoked the crusades. Did Clinton seriously intend to suggest, moreover, that the al-Qaeda fundamentalists would be outraged by the story of the martyred Jews rather than wishing the crusaders had perhaps killed 3 million instead of 300? This genocidal passion is the reality in today’s Middle East. But what was the point of the Clinton story? The Crusades took place a thousand years ago. It is the Muslim world that still hasn’t learned to separate the religious from the secular, and God from the state. Or to live with those who do not share their religious beliefs. It is the Muslim world that is still conducting "holy wars." What Christian church in modern America or in any modern European country has sanctioned the religious murder of "infidels"?

As though the attempt to establish a moral equivalence between the terrorist aggressors and their American victims was not obscene enough, Clinton then threw in the equally absurd but increasingly popular example of black slavery. "Here in the United States," he continued his ethnic insult, we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery…" What version of American history is this but the standard ideological libel of the anti-American left?

In point of historical fact the United States was founded as a nation dedicated to slavery and did so at an enormous cost of half a million American lives. Some of these American lives were also sacrificed to end the Atlantic slave trade and the slave systems that persisted in Africa itself, which were conducted by Muslims and black Africans. The President’s idea that Osama bin Laden and the fanatical Islamicists at war with America should care in the slightest about the plight of black slaves today—let alone more than a century ago—is itself a lunatic anti-Americanism, in view of the fact that one of bin Laden’s former allies, the Muslim government of the Sudan still practices slavery against blacks, while the descendants of slaves in America have the highest standard of living and the most generous and secure civil rights of any blacks anywhere in the world today.

One point Clinton failed to make is that the current leaders of America’s war against Islamic racism are two African-Americans, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice. This fact is of world significance, since there is no example comparable among other states great or small of minorities entrusted with a nation’s security. It would be hard to sum up in a more succinct image the historic impact America has had on the liberation of ethnic minorities, of the world’s "huddled masses," of those still forgotten in the princely kingdoms of the Muslim world—its role as "a beacon of freedom and opportunity," to use the words of the Republican president who appointed them. Because of the skill with which they have managed America’s war against al-Qaeda, the leadership roles of Powell and Rice have made all of our citizens the beneficiaries of America’s remarkable progressive influence in world affairs. They symbolize the extent to which our ex-President– like our enemies—has turned matters upside down.

Clinton’s attempt to smear his own country in order to exculpate himself from his national security failures is itself a symbol of how this nation is under threat not only from the external forces of a theocratic radicalism but from radical nihilists and self-doubters within, whose political locus is the Democratic Party and the liberal culture.

No Excuses

In August 1998, the chair of the National Commission on Terrorism, Paul Bremer, wrote in the Washington Post, "The ideology of [terrorist] groups makes them impervious to political or diplomatic pressures ... We cannot seek a political solution with them." He then proposed that we, "defend ourselves. Beef up security around potential targets here and abroad….Attack the enemy. Keep up the pressure on terrorist groups. Show that we can be as systematic and relentless as they are. Crush bin Laden’s operations by pressure and disruption. The U.S. government further should announce a large reward for bin Laden’s capture—dead or alive."

Bremer was not alone. Given these warnings, as Andrew Sullivan observes, "Whatever excuses the Clintonites can make, they cannot argue that the threat wasn’t clear, that the solution wasn’t proposed, that a strategy for success hadn’t been outlined. Everything necessary to prevent September 11 had been proposed in private and in public, in government reports and on op-ed pages, for eight long years. The Clinton Administration simply refused to do anything serious about the threat."

On January 20, 2001, George W. Bush was sworn in as the 43rd president of the United States. Within months of taking office, he ordered a new strategy for combating terrorism that would be more than just "swatting at flies," as he described Clinton’s policy. The new plan reached the President’s desk on September 10, 2001. It was "too late," as columnist Andrew Sullivan wrote, "But it remains a fact that the new administration had devised in eight months a strategy that Bill Clinton had delayed for eight years.

Putin's Cold War Threats-- the President Espouses the Return of the Superpower

03.24.04 (5:09 am)   [edit]
[i]The Russian government is deploying the modern Topol-M even as the United States provides Moscow with resources to dismantle its obsolete and deteriorating nuclear missiles - aid that allows the Kremlin to deploy the next-generation nukes and keep its arsenal within the limits set in arms-control agreements with Washington.[/i]

[i]According to Berman, "Putin is really balancing between strategic partnership with the United States" and the priorities of selling weapons and technology to China, nuclear technology to Iran, and other issues. "There is a limit to the strategic partnership with the United States," he says. "The Russian-Iranian relationship, the Russian-Chinese relationship - these are geopolitical and inimical to American interests."[/i]

[b]Putin's Cold War Threats[/b]
By Michael Waller
Insightmag.com | March 24, 2004

It was the ultimate campaign stunt: The president, clad in a navy uniform and white gloves, at sea on a sunny morning, standing on the deck of a giant titanium-hulled ballistic-missile submarine. He looked on smartly as the military began a weeklong exercise to unleash its triad of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles and strategic bombers in the biggest nuclear doomsday drill since the coldest days of the Cold War.

The president's administration officially billed it as an "antiterrorism" exercise. But as land-based missiles arched their way a third of the way around the planet to the warhead target range in the Pacific, and as the bombers followed their dreaded Arctic route to fire cruise missiles over the top of the earth, the reality of the massive exercise was clear: The threat of Cold War nuclear extermination is as real as ever.

An American president well could have been run out of office for personally commanding and celebrating such political theater. The commander in chief in this case, however, was Russian President Vladimir Putin. The date was Feb. 17, less than a month before the March 14 elections that everyone expected him to win. Bezopastnost-2004, as the strategic command and staff exercise was called, was a mock nuclear attack on the United States, the largest since Communist Party boss Leonid Brezhnev ruled from the Kremlin in 1982.

Weeks later, Putin further consolidated his already strong control of the country. According to Jacques Amalric of the leftist French daily Liberation, Putin has placed former KGB officers in nearly 60 percent of all presidential administration posts. In early March he fired his prime minister and named to replace him a relatively anonymous technocrat with no political base but with a murky KGB background. Mikhail Fradkov has an incomplete official résumé that Russian critics say indicates an early KGB career. At the time of his appointment, he was head of the tax police, Russia's equivalent of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The Russian tax police, however, has a notorious past. Under Soviet rule, it was the dissident-hunting KGB Fifth Chief Directorate.

The White House expressed no concern with either development. Few American media commentators seemed to notice. The Kremlin had wanted the world to see Putin atop the conning tower of the Arkhangelsk nuclear submarine. Pravda loved the carefully orchestrated action, almost lovingly reporting on how Putin personally inspected the nuclear-reactor control room and exhorted sailors in the mess to eat pancakes in observance of Shrove Tuesday.

The Typhoon-class vessel, with the hatches of its 20 vertical missile tubes running the deck in pairs, was cruising on the surface of the Barents Sea off Russia's northwestern coast, waiting for an SS-N-23 strategic nuclear missile to burst through the ocean surface from another sub, the Novomoskovsk, which was lurking in the deep nearby. The missile's dummy warhead, according to the Russian military newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star), was set to strike the Kura target range on the Kamchatka Peninsula, across the Eurasian landmass, 120 degrees around the world.

There was Putin, in front of the TV cameras, waiting for the geyser of the missile from below. But there was nothing. Word came up that the missile had stuck in the tube. The Novomoskovsk, an older Delta-IV hull, fired a second missile. Again, nothing. The test was a flop - a big embarrassment for the Northern Fleet, coincidentally not far from the August 2000 Kursk disaster when a submarine was lost along with its crew of 118 men. The Russian navy was humiliated by its failure to fire the missiles, but if Putin was, nobody could see. Russia's state-controlled TV networks made sure that the dapper tough guy Putin was seen in command - and that nobody knew the launches had failed.

For good measure, another Delta-IV sub, the Karelia, launched a missile the next day. The SS-N-23, which the Russians call Sineva, shattered out through the surface, veering wildly off course in a 98-second flight that ended when the missile blew up in midair. Putin wasn't there. He was back on land at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome with Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, another KGB man, this time out of his navy gear and sporting green army fatigues for the campaign cameras. The Russian president witnessed the flawless launch of a Kosmos-2405 spy satellite aboard a Molnia-M rocket as part of the nuclear-war exercise. Talking to reporters at Plesetsk, Putin announced a bold initiative to modernize the Strategic Rocket Forces with next-generation weapons and, according to United Press International and Russian press accounts, said he might authorize an upgrade of the nation's Soviet-era missile-defense system.

The former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan, in Central Asia, provided a platform for Moscow to launch two more ICBMs: an SS-19 and the brand-new SS-27 Topol-M, the latter aboard a mobile launcher. Their dummy warheads sailed across the continent to Kamchatka. The Russian government is deploying the modern Topol-M even as the United States provides Moscow with resources to dismantle its obsolete and deteriorating nuclear missiles - aid that allows the Kremlin to deploy the next-generation nukes and keep its arsenal within the limits set in arms-control agreements with Washington.

At least 14 strategic bombers fanned out to the west, north and south with supersonic Tu-160 Blackjack bombers heading toward the North Atlantic and old but dependable Tu-95 Bear bombers, the old Soviet Union's answer to the American B-52, firing cruise missiles at an Arctic target on Novaya Zemlya island, according to Nikolai Sokov of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

Putin's nuclear political theater and choice of a KGB man as chief of government are only parts of his aggressive re-election campaign. The recentralized Russian state has squeezed the once-free news media into exercising self-censorship and prevented the rise of political parties or politicians who could challenge him. Members of the state Duma, or lower house of parliament, complain of harassment. Some allege that Putin or forces loyal to him were responsible for the 1998 assassination of Duma member Galina Starovoitova and the more recent mysterious death of journalist turned lawmaker Yuri Shchekochikhin.

Since becoming president in 2000, Putin has sacked parliament, forced governors out of office, driven opposition businessmen into exile and pressured the courts to rule on issues only in his favor. "The character of Russia under Putin has been a steady gravitation toward a security state," according to Ilan Berman, a senior scholar at the American Foreign Policy Council. "Everybody talks a lot about Russia's oligarchs. What they don't understand is that Putin himself is an oligarch. His currency is not natural resources like oil or business, it's intelligence."

Anticipating the campaign, Putin cracked down on the main financier of the reformist, pro-Western opposition last year. Oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, age 40, who openly funded the Yabloko and Union of Right Forces parties and who bought Moscow's prestigious and, in the last 15 years, openly pro-Western Moscow News, suddenly became a target of criminal investigations. He decided to finance his own campaign to replace Putin, only to disappear for several days and wind up, disheveled and disoriented, in Ukraine. He says he was kidnapped, drugged and forced to commit embarrassing acts that his captors videotaped.

It's not an accident that the teetotaling, athletic, notoriously foul-mouthed Putin is so popular. "The Russian people are very comfortable with the type of 'managed democracy' he brings to the table. After years of economic and political decline, they're very enamored with the type of assertive foreign policy that he's been pursuing," Berman says.

"Putin is espousing ideas larger than himself. He is espousing a Great Russia. Whether it's regional or ideological, it re-establishes Russia as a central player in the Middle East, in the Asian theater, even in places like Latin America," Berman says. "The idea is that Russia is reassuming its natural place as a great power. That is very appealing to Russians who have suffered from a decade of decline."

According to Berman, "Putin is really balancing between strategic partnership with the United States" and the priorities of selling weapons and technology to China, nuclear technology to Iran, and other issues. "There is a limit to the strategic partnership with the United States," he says. "The Russian-Iranian relationship, the Russian-Chinese relationship - these are geopolitical and inimical to American interests."

And what of the White House's policy toward Russia? Berman says, "This administration is enamored with the idea of partnership. And Putin is exploiting it."

[i]J. Michael Waller is a senior writer for Insight. [/i]

Required reading-- Clinton and the left's indifference to terrorism created 9-11, Part I

03.24.04 (4:47 am)   [edit]
[i]By Clinton’s own account, Monica Lewinsky was able to visit him privately more than a dozen times in the Oval Office. But according to a USA Today investigative report, the head of the CIA could not get a single private meeting with the President, despite the Trade Center bombing of February 26, 1993 or the killing of 18 American soldiers in Mogadishu on October 3 of the same year. "James Woolsey, Clinton’s first CIA director, says he never met privately with Clinton after their initial interview. When a small plane crashed on the White House grounds in 1994, the joke inside the White House was, ‘that must be Woolsey, still trying to get an appointment.’""[/i]

[i]It remains a fact that the new administration had devised in eight months a strategy that Bill Clinton had delayed for eight years.[/i]

[b]How the Left Undermined America's Security Before 9/11[/b]
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 24, 2004

While the nation was having a good laugh at the expense of Florida’s hanging chads and butterfly ballots, Mohammed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi were there, in Florida, learning to drive commercial jetliners [and ram them into the World Trade Center towers]. It will take a novelist to paint that broad canvas properly. It will take some deep political thinking to understand how the lackadaisical attitude toward government and the world helped leave the country so unready for the horror that Atta and Shehhi were preparing.
—Michael Oreskes, New York Times, October 21, 2001.

THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center marked the end of one American era and the beginning of another. As did Pearl Harbor, the September tragedy awakened Americans from insular slumbers and made them aware of a world they could not afford to ignore. Like Franklin Roosevelt, George W. Bush condemned the attacks as acts of war, and mobilized a nation to action. It was a sharp departure from the policy of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, who in characteristic self-absorption had downgraded a series of similar assaults—including one on the World Trade Center itself—officially regarding them as criminal matters that involved individuals alone.

But the differences between the September 11 attacks and Pearl Harbor were also striking. The latter was a military base situated on an island 3,000 miles distant from the American mainland. New York is America’s greatest population center, the portal through which immigrant generations of all colors and ethnicities have come in search of a better life. The World Trade Center is the Wall Street hub of the economy they enter; its victims were targeted for participating in the most productive, tolerant and generous society human beings have created. In responding to the attacks, the President himself took note of this: "America was targeted for attack," he told Congress on September 20, "because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining."

In contrast to Pearl Harbor, the assault on the World Trade Center was hardly a "sneak attack" that American intelligence agencies had little idea was coming. Its Twin Towers had already been bombed eight years earlier, and by the same enemy. The terrorists themselves were already familiar to government operatives, their aggressions frequent enough that several commissions had been appointed to investigate. Each had reached the same conclusion. It was not a matter of whether the United States was going to be the target of a major terrorist assault; it was a matter of when.

In fact, the al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks had first engaged U.S. troops as early as 1993 when the Clinton Administration deployed U.S. military forces to Somalia. Their purpose was humanitarian: to feed the starving citizens of this Muslim land. But, America’s goodwill ambassadors were ambushed by al-Qaeda forces. In a 15-hour battle in Mogadishu, 18 Americans were killed and 80 wounded. One dead U.S. soldier was dragged through the streets in an act calculated to humiliate his comrades and his country. The Americans’ offense was not that they had brought food to the hungry. Their crime was who they were—"unbelievers," emissaries of "the Great Satan," in the political religion of the enemy they now faced.

The defeat in Mogadishu was a blow not only to American charity, but to American power and American prestige. Nonetheless, under the leadership of America’s then commander-in-chief, Bill Clinton, there was no military response to the humiliation. The greatest superpower the world had ever seen did nothing. It accepted defeat.

The War

On February 26, 1993, eight months prior to the Mogadishu attack, al-Qaeda terrorists had struck the World Trade Center for the first time. Their truck bomb made a crater six stories deep, killed six people and injured more than a thousand. The planners’ intention had been to cause one tower to topple the other and kill tens of thousands of innocent people. It was not only the first major terrorist act ever to take place on U.S. soil, but—in the judgment of a definitive account of the event—"the most ambitious terrorist attack ever attempted, anywhere, ever."

Six Palestinian and Egyptian conspirators responsible for the attack were tried in civil courts and got life sentences like common criminals, but its mastermind escaped. He was identified as Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, an Iraqi Intelligence agent. This was a clear indication to authorities that the atrocity was no mere criminal event, and that it involved more than individual terrorists; it involved hostile terrorist states.

Yet, once again, the Clinton Administration’s response was to absorb the injury and accept defeat. The president did not even visit the bomb crater or tend to the victims. Instead, America’s commander-in-chief warned against "over-reaction." In doing so, he telegraphed a clear message to his nation’s enemies: We are unsure of purpose and unsteady of hand; we are self-indulgent and soft; we will not take risks to defend ourselves; we are vulnerable.

The al-Qaeda terrorists were listening. In a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden told ABC News reporter John Miller: "We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage Cold Wars and unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia. We are ready for all occasions. We rely on Allah."

Among the terrorist entities that supported the al-Qaeda terrorists were Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization. The PLO had created the first terrorist training camps, invented suicide bombings and been the chief propaganda machine behind the idea that terrorist armies were really missionaries for "social justice." Yet, among foreign leaders Arafat was Clinton’s most frequent White House guest. Far from treating Arafat as an enemy of civilized order and an international pariah, the Clinton Administration was busily cultivating him as a "partner for peace." For many Washington liberals, terrorism was not the instrument of political fanatics and evil men, but was the product of social conditions—poverty, racism and oppression—for which the Western democracies, including Israel were always ultimately to blame.

The idea that terrorism has "root causes" in social conditions whose primary author is the United States is, in fact, an organizing theme of the contemporary political left. "Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a ‘cowardly’ attack on ‘civilization’ or ‘liberty’ or ‘humanity’ or ‘the free world’"—declared the writer Susan Sontag, speaking for this faction—"but an attack on the world’s self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq?" (Was Susan Sontag unaware that Iraq was behind the first World Trade Center attack? That Iraq had attempted to swallow Kuwait and was a regional aggressor and sponsor of terror? That Iraq had expelled UN arms inspectors—in violation of the terms of its peace—who were there to prevent it from developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons? Was she unaware that Iraq was a sponsor of international terror and posed an ongoing threat to others, including the country in which she lived?)

During the Clinton years the idea that America was somehow responsible for global distress had become an all too familiar refrain among leftwing elites. It had particular resonance in the institutions that shaped American culture and policy—universities, the mainstream media and the Oval Office. In March 1998, two months after Monica Lewinsky became a White House thorn and a household name, Clinton embarked on a presidential hand-wringing expedition to Africa. With a large delegation of African-American leaders in tow, the President made a pilgrimage to Uganda to apologize for the crime of American slavery. The apology was offered despite the fact that no slaves had ever been imported to America from Uganda or any East African state; that slavery in Africa preceded any American involvement by a thousand years; that America and Britain were the two powers responsible for ending the slave trade; and that America had abolished slavery a hundred years before—at great human cost—while slavery persisted in Africa without African protest to the present day.

Four months after Clinton left Uganda, al-Qaeda terrorists blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

"Root Causes"

Clinton’s continuing ambivalence about America’s role in the world was highlighted in the wake of September 11, when he suggested that America actually bore some responsibility for the attacks on itself. In November 2001, even as the new Bush administration was launching America’s military response, the former president made a speech at Georgetown University in which he admonished citizens who were descended "from various European lineages" that they were "not blameless," and that America’s past involvement in slavery should humble them as they confronted their attackers. Characteristically the President took no responsibility for his own failure to protect Americans from the attacks.

The idea that there are "root causes" behind campaigns to murder innocent men, women and children, and terrorize civilian populations was examined shortly after the Trade Center events by a writer in the New York Times. Columnist Edward Rothstein observed that while there was much hand-wringing and many mea culpas on the left after September 11, no one had invoked "root causes" to defend Timothy McVeigh after he blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building in 1995, killing 187 people. "No one suggested that this act had its ‘root causes’ in an injustice that needed to be rectified to prevent further terrorism." The silence was maintained even though McVeigh and his collaborators "asserted that their ideas of rights and liberty were being violated and that the only recourse was terror."

The reason no one invoked "root causes" to explain the Oklahoma City bombing was simply because Timothy McVeigh was not a leftist. Nor did he claim to be acting in behalf of "social justice"—the historical code for totalitarian causes. In an address to Congress that defined America’s response to September 11, President Bush sagaciously observed, "We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism."

Like Islamic radicalism, the totalitarian doctrines of communism and fascism are fundamentalist creeds. "The fundamentalist does not believe [his] ideas have any limits or boundaries,… [therefore] the goals of fundamentalist terror are not to eliminate injustice but to eliminate opposition." That is why the humanitarian nature of America’s mission to Mogadishu made no difference to America’s al-Qaeda foe. The terrorists’ goal was not to alleviate hunger. It was to eliminate America. It was to defeat "The Great Satan."

Totalitarians and fundamentalists share a conviction that is religious and political at the same time. Their mission is social redemption through the power of the state. Using political and military power they intend to create a "new world" in their own image. This revolutionary transformation encompasses all individuals and requires the control of all aspects of human life:

Like fundamentalist terror, totalitarian terror leaves no aspect of life exempt from the battle being waged. The state is felt to be the apotheosis of political and natural law, and it strives to extend that law over all humanity…. No injustices, separately or together, necessarily lead to totalitarianism and no mitigation of injustice, however defined, will eliminate its unwavering beliefs, absolutist control and unbounded ambitions.

In 1998 Osama bin Laden explained his war aims to ABC News: "Allah ordered us in this religion to purify Muslim land of all non-believers." As The New Republic’s Peter Beinart commented, bin Laden is not a crusader for social justice but "an ethnic cleanser on a scale far greater than the Hutus and the Serbs, a scale that has only one true Twentieth Century parallel."

In the 1990s America mobilized its military power to go to the rescue of Muslims in the Balkans who were being ethnically cleansed by Serbian communists. This counted for nothing in al-Qaeda’s calculations, any more than did America’s support for Muslim peasants in Afghanistan fighting for their freedom against the Red Army invaders in the 1980s. The war against radical Islam is not about what America has done, but about what America is. As bin Laden told the world on October 7, the day America began its military response, the war is between those of the faith and those outside the faith, between those who submit to the believers’ law and those who are infidels and do not.

While The Clinton Administration Slept

After the first World Trade Center attack, President Clinton vowed there would be vengeance. But like so many of his presidential pronouncements, the strong words were not accompanied by deeds. Nor were they followed by measures necessary to defend the country against the next series of attacks.

After their Mogadishu victory and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, unsuccessful attempts were made by al-Qaeda groups to blow up the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels and other populated targets, including a massive terrorist incident timed to coincide with the millennium celebrations of January 2000. Another scheme to hijack commercial airliners and use them as "bombs" according to plans close to those eventually used on September 11, was thwarted in the Philippines in 1995. The architect of this effort was the Iraqi intelligence agent Ramzi Yousef.

The following year, a terrorist attack on the Khobar Towers, a U.S. military barracks in Saudia Arabia, killed 19 American soldiers. The White House response was limp, and the case (in the words of FBI director Louis B. Freeh) "remains unresolved." Two years later al-Qaeda agents blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killing 245 people and injuring 5,000. (One CIA official told a reporter, "Two at once is not twice as hard. It is a hundred times as hard.") On October 12, 2000 the warship USS Cole was bombed while re-fueling in Yemen, yet another Islamic country aligned with the terrorist enemy. Seventeen U.S. sailors were killed and 39 injured.

These were all acts of war, yet of the President and his cabinet refused to recognize them as such.

Why the Clinton Administration Slept

Clinton’s second term national security advisor, Sandy Berger, described the official White House position towards these attacks as "a little bit like a Whack-A-Mole game at the circus. They bop up and you whack ‘em down, and if they bop up again, you bop ‘em back, down again." Like the Administration he represented, the national security advisor lacked a requisite appreciation of the problem. Iraq’s dictator was unimpressed by sporadic U.S. strikes against his regime. He remained defiant, expelling UN weapons inspectors, firing at U.S. warplanes and continuing to build his arsenal of mass destruction. But "the Administration held no clear and consistent view of the Iraqi threat and how it intended to address it," observed Washington Post correspondent Jim Hoagland. The disarray that characterized the Clinton security policy flowed from the "Administration’s growing inability to tell the world—and itself—the truth." It was the signature problem of the Clinton years.

Underlying the Clinton security failure was the fact that the Administration was made up of people who for twenty-five years had discounted or minimized the totalitarian threat, opposed America’s armed presence abroad, and consistently resisted the deployment of America’s military forces to halt Communist expansion. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was himself a veteran of the Sixties "anti-war" movement, which abetted the Communist victories in Vietnam and Cambodia, and created the "Vietnam War syndrome" that made it so difficult afterwards for American presidents to deploy the nation’s military forces.

Berger had also been a member of "Peace Now," the leftist movement seeking to pressure the Israeli government to make concessions to Yasser Arafat’s PLO terrorists. Clinton’s first National Security Advisor, Anthony Lake was a protégé of Berger, who had introduced him to Clinton. All three had met as activists in the 1972 McGovern presidential campaign whose primary issue was opposition to the Vietnam War based on the view that the "arrogance of American power" was responsible for the conflict rather than Communist aggression.

Anthony Lake’s own attitude towards the totalitarian threat in Southeast Asia was displayed in a March 1975 Washington Post article he wrote called, "At Stake in Cambodia: Extending Aid Will Only Prolong the Killing." The prediction contained in Lake’s title proved to be exactly wrong. It was not a small mistake for someone who in 1992 would be placed in charge of America’s national security apparatus. Lake’s article was designed to rally Democrat opposition to a presidential request for emergency aid to the Cambodian regime. The aid was required to contain the threat posed by Communist leader Pol Pot and his insurgent Khmer Rouge forces.

At the time, Republicans warned that if the aid was cut the regime would fall and a "bloodbath" would ensue. This fear was solidly based on reports that had begun accumulating three years earlier concerning "the extraordinary brutality with which the Khmer Rouge were governing the civilian population in areas they controlled." But Anthony Lake and the Democrat-controlled Congress dismissed these warnings as so much "anti-Communist hysteria," and voted to deny the aid.

In his Post article, Lake advised fellow Democrats to view the Khmer Rouge not as a totalitarian force—which it was—but as a coalition embracing "many Khmer nationalists, Communist and non-Communist," who only desired independence. It would be a mistake, he wrote, to alienate Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge lest we "push them further into the arms of their Communist supporters." Lake’s myopic left-wing views prevailed among the Democrats, and the following year the new president, Jimmy Carter, rewarded Lake with an appointment as Policy Planning Director of the State Department.

In Cambodia, the termination of U.S. aid led immediately to the collapse of the government allowing the Khmer Rouge to seize power within months of the congressional vote. The victorious revolutionaries proceeded to implement their plans for a new Communist utopia by systematically eliminating their opposition. In the next three years they killed nearly 2 million Cambodians, a campaign universally recognized as one of the worst genocides ever recorded.

The Warnings Ignored

For nearly a decade before the World Trade Center disaster, the Clinton Administration was aware that Americans were increasingly vulnerable to attacks which might involve biological or chemical weapons, or even nuclear devices bought or stolen from broken pieces of the former Soviet Union. This was the insistent message of Republican speeches on the floors of Congress and was reflected in the warnings of several government commissions, and Clinton’s own Secretary of Defense, William Cohen.

In July 1999, for example, Cohen wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, predicting a terrorist attack on the American mainland. "In the past year, dozens of threats to use chemical or biological weapons in the United States have turned out to be hoaxes. Someday, one will be real." But the warnings did not produce the requisite action by the commander-in-chief. Meanwhile, the nation’s media looked the other way. For example, as the president of the Council on Foreign Relations told the New Yorker’s Joe Klein, he "watched carefully to see if anyone followed up on [Cohen’s speech]. But none of the television networks and none of the elite press even mentioned it. I was astonished."

The following year, "the National Commission on Terrorism—chaired by former Reagan counter-terrorism head Paul Bremer—issued a report with the eerily foreboding image of the Twin Towers on its cover. A bi-partisan effort led by Jon Kyl and Dianne Feinstein—was made to attach the recommendations of the panel to an intelligence authorization bill." But Senator Patrick Leahy, who had distinguished himself in the 1980s by opposing the government’s efforts to halt the Communist offensive in Central America "said he feared a threat to ‘civil liberties’ in a campaign against terrorism and torpedoed the effort. After the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, Kyl and Feinstein tried yet again. This time, Leahy was content with emaciating the proposals instead of defeating them outright. The weakened proposals died as the House realized ‘it wasn’t worth taking up.’"

After the abortive plot to blow up commercial airliners in the Philippines, Vice President Gore was tasked with improving airline security. A commission was formed, but under his leadership it also "focused on civil liberties" and "profiling," liberal obsessions that diluted any effort to strengthen security measures in the face of a threat in which all of the proven terrorists were Muslims from the Middle East and Asia. The commission concluded that, "no profile [of passengers] should contain or be based on … race, religion, or national origin." According to journalist Kevin Cherry, the FAA also decided in 1999 to seal its passenger screening system from law-enforcement databases thus preventing the FBI from notifying airlines that suspected terrorists were on board."

In 1993, the FBI identified three charities connected to the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas that were being used to finance terrorist activities, sending as much as $20 million a year to America’s enemies. According to presidential adviser Dick Morris, "At a White House strategy meeting on April 27, 1995—two weeks after the Oklahoma City bombing—the President was urged to create a ‘President’s List’ of extremist/terrorist groups, their members and donors ‘to warn the public against well-intentioned donations which might foster terrorism.’ On April 1, 1996, he was again advised to ‘prohibit fund-raising by terrorists and identify terrorist organizations.’" Hamas was specifically mentioned.

Inexplicably Clinton ignored these recommendations. Why? FBI agents have stated that they were prevented from opening either criminal or national-security cases because of a fear that it would be seen as ‘profiling’ Islamic charities. While Clinton was ‘politically correct,’ Hamas flourished.


In failing to heed the signs that America was at war with a deadly adversary, overcome the ideological obstacles created by the liberal biases of his administration and arouse an uninformed public to concern, it was the Commander-in-Chief who bore primary responsibility. As one former administration official told reporter Joe Klein, "Clinton spent less concentrated attention on national defense than any another President in recent memory." Clinton’s political advisor Dick Morris flatly charged, "Clinton’s failure to mobilize America to confront foreign terror after the 1993 attack [on the World Trade Center] led directly to the 9/11 disaster." According to Morris, "Clinton was removed, uninvolved, and distant where the war on terror was concerned."

Opportunities Missed

By Clinton’s own account, Monica Lewinsky was able to visit him privately more than a dozen times in the Oval Office. But according to a USA Today investigative report, the head of the CIA could not get a single private meeting with the President, despite the Trade Center bombing of February 26, 1993 or the killing of 18 American soldiers in Mogadishu on October 3 of the same year. "James Woolsey, Clinton’s first CIA director, says he never met privately with Clinton after their initial interview. When a small plane crashed on the White House grounds in 1994, the joke inside the White House was, ‘that must be Woolsey, still trying to get an appointment.’"

In 1996, an American Muslim businessman and Clinton supporter named Mansoor Ijaz opened up an unofficial channel between the government of the Sudan and the Clinton Administration. At the same time, "the State Department was describing bin Laden as ‘the greatest single financier of terrorist projects in the world’ and was accusing the Sudan of harboring terrorists." According to Mansoor, who met with Clinton and Sandy Berger, "President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt’s Islamic Jihad, Iran’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas. Among the members of these networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center. The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."

President Bashir sent key intelligence officials to Washington in February 1966. Again, according to Mansoor, "the Sudanese offered to arrest bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to ‘baby-sit’ him—monitoring all his activities and associates." But the Saudis didn’t want him. Instead, in May 1996 "the Sudanese capitulated to US pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere. Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Awahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the September 11 attacks…."

One month later, the US military housing complex in Saudi Arabia was blown apart by a 5,000 lb truck bomb. Clinton’s failure to grasp the opportunity, concludes Mansoor, "represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history."

According to a London Sunday Times account, based on a Clinton Administration source, responsibility for this decision "went to the very top of the White House. Shortly after the September 11 disaster, "Clinton told a dinner companion that the decision to let bin Laden go was probably ‘the biggest mistake of my presidency.’" But according to the Times report, which was based on interviews with intelligence officials, this was only one of three occasions on which the Clinton Administration had the opportunity to seize Bin Laden and failed to do so.

When the president’s affair with Monica Lewinsky became public in January 1998, and his adamant denials made it a consuming public preoccupation, Clinton’s normal inattention to national security matters became subsumed in a general executive paralysis. In Dick Morris’s judgment, the United States was effectively "without a president between January 1998 until April 1999," when the impeachment proceedings concluded with the failure of the Senate to convict. It was in August 1998 that the al-Qaeda truck bombs blew up the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

The Failure to Take Security Seriously

Yet this was only half the story. During its eight years, the Clinton Administration was able to focus enough attention on defense matters to hamstring the intelligence services in the name of civil liberties, shrink the U.S. military in the name of economy, and prevent the Pentagon from adopting (and funding) a "two-war" strategy, because "the Cold War was over" and in the White House’s judgment there was no requisite military threat in the post-Communist world that might make it necessary for the United States to be able to fight wars on two fronts. Inattention to defense also did not prevent the Clinton Administration from pursuing massive social experiments in the military in the name of gender and diversity reform, which included requiring "consciousness raising" classes for military personnel, rigging physical standards women were unable to meet, and in general undermining the meritocratic benchmarks that are a crucial component of military morale.

While budget cuts forced some military families to go on food stamps, the Pentagon spent enormous sums to re-equip ships and barracks to accommodate co-ed living. All these efforts further reduced the Pentagon’s ability to put a fighting force in the field—a glaring national vulnerability dramatized by the war in Kosovo. This diminished the crucial elements of fear and respect for American power in the eyes of adversaries waiting in the wings.

During the Clinton years, the Democrats insistence that American power was somehow the disturber—rather than the enforcer—of international tranquility, prompted the White House to turn to multilateral agencies for leadership, particularly the discredited United Nations. While useful in limited peacekeeping operations, the UN was in large part a collection of theocratic tyrannies and brutal dictatorships which regularly indicted and condemned the world’s most tolerant democracies, specifically the United States, England and Israel, while supporting the very states providing safe harbors for America’s al-Qaeda enemy. Just prior to the World Trade Center attacks, the UN’s "Conference on Racism" engaged in a ritual of America bashing over "reparations" for slavery and support for Israel. The agendas had been set by an Islamic coalition led by Iran.

During the 1990s, Bill Clinton’s most frequent foreign guest was Yasser Arafat, whose allegiance to Iraq and betrayal of America during the Gulf War could not have been more brazen. Following the defeat of Iraq, a "peace process" was launched in the Arab-Israeli conflict that predictably failed through Arafat’s failure to renounce the terrorist option. But why renounce terror if there is no price exacted for practicing it?

Clinton and the Military

It is true that the Clinton White House was able, during its eight-year tenure, to shed some of the Democrats’ normal aversion to the use of American military might. (As recently as 1990 only 6 Democratic Senators had voted to authorize the Gulf War against Iraq). But the Clinton deployments of American forces were often non-military in nature: a "democracy building" effort in Haiti that failed; flood relief and "peace keeping" operations that were more appropriately the province of international institutions. Even the conflict Clinton belatedly engaged in the Balkans was officially characterized as a new kind of "humanitarian war," as though the old kinds of war for national interest and self-defense were somehow tainted. While the Serbian dictator Milosevic was toppled, "ethnic cleansing," the casus belli of the Western intervention, continues, except that the Christian Serbs in Kosovo have now become victims of the previously persecuted Albanian Muslims.

Among Clinton’s deployments were also half-hearted strikes using cruise missiles against essentially defenseless countries like the Sudan, or the sporadic bombing of Iraq when Saddam violated the terms of the Gulf peace. Clinton’s strikes failed in their primary objective—to maintain the UN inspections. On the other hand, a negative result of this "Whack-A-Mole" strategy was the continual antagonizing of Muslim populations throughout the world.

The most notorious of these episodes was undoubtedly Clinton’s ill-conceived and ineffectual response to the attacks on the African embassies. At the time, Clinton was preoccupied with preparing his defense before a grand jury convened because of his public lies about the Lewinsky affair. Three days after Lewinsky’s grand jury appearance, without consulting the Joint Chiefs of Staff or his national security advisors, Clinton launched cruise missiles into two Islamic countries, which he identified as being allied to the terrorists and their leader Osama bin Laden. One of these missiles hit and destroyed a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan, killing one individual. Since the factory was the sole plant producing medicines for an impoverished African nation, there were almost certainly a number of collateral deaths.

The incident, which inflamed anti-American passions all over the Islamic world, was—in conception and execution—a perfect reflection of the distorted priorities and reckless attitudes of the Clinton White House. It also reflected the irresponsibility of congressional Democrats who subordinated the safety concerns of their constituents to provide unified support for the presidential misbehavior at home and abroad.

The Partisan Nature of the Security Problem

More than 100 Arabic operatives participated in the attack on the World Trade Center Towers. They did so over a period of several years. They were able to enter the United States with and without passports seemingly at will. They received training in flying commercial airliners at American facilities despite clear indications that some of them might be part of a terrorist campaign. At the same time, Democrats pressed for greater relaxation of immigration policies and resisted scrutiny of foreign nationals on the grounds that to do so constituted "racial profiling." To coordinate their terrorist efforts, the al-Qaeda operatives had to communicate with each other electronically on channels that America’s high-tech intelligence agencies normally intercept. One reason they were not detected was that the first line of defense against such attacks was effectively crippled by powerful figures in the Democratic Party who considered the CIA the problem and not America’s enemies.

Security controls that would have prevented adversarial agents from even acquiring encryption devices that thwarted American intelligence efforts were casually lifted on orders from the highest levels of government. Alleged abuses by American intelligence operatives became a higher priority than the abuses of the hostile forces they were attempting to contain. Reporter Joe Klein’s inquiries led him to conclude, "there seems to be near unanimous agreement among experts: in the ten years since the collapse of the Soviet Union [and the eight years of the Clinton presidency, and the seven since the first Al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center] almost every aspect of American national-security—from military operations to intelligence gathering, from border control to political leadership—has been marked by … institutional lassitude and bureaucratic arrogance…"

The Democrats’ Anti-Intelligence Bill

The Democrats’ cavalier attitude towards American security in the years preceding September 11 was dramatized in a bill to cut the intelligence budget sight unseen, which was introduced every year of the Clinton Administration by Independent Bernie Sanders. The fact that Sanders was an extreme leftist proved no problem for the Democrats—still enjoying their long-standing congressional majority—when they appointed him to a seat on the House intelligence committee. Indeed why should it be a problem? Shortly before the World Trade Center attack, Senate Democrats made another leftist, California Senator Barbara Boxer, an opponent of the war against Saddam Hussein and a long-time critic of the American military, the chair of the Senate Sub-committee on Terrorism.

The Sanders initiative was launched in 1993, after the first al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center. In that year, the Democrat-controlled House Intelligence Committee had voted to reduce President Clinton’s own authorization request for the intelligence agencies by 6.75%. But this was insufficient for Sanders. So he introduced an amendment that required a minimum reduction in financial authorization for each individual intelligence agency of at least 10%.

Sanders refused to even examine the intelligence budget he proposed to cut: "My job is not to go through the intelligence budget. I have not even looked at it." According to Sanders the reasons for reducing the intelligence budget were that "the Soviet Union no longer exists," and that "massive unemployment, that low wages, that homelessness, that hungry children, that the collapse of our educational system is perhaps an equally strong danger to this Nation, or may be a stronger danger for our national security."

Irresponsible? Incomprehensible? Not to nearly half the Democrats in the House who voted in favor of the Sanders amendment. Ninety-seven Democrats in all voted for the Sanders cuts, including House Armed Services Committee chair Ron Dellums and the House Democratic leadership. As the terrorist attacks on America intensified year by year during the 1990s, Sanders steadfastly reintroduced his amendment. Every year thereafter, right until the World Trade Center attack, nearly 100 Democrats voted with him to cut the intelligence budget.

According to a study made by political consultant Terry Cooper, "Dick Gephardt (D-MO), the House Democratic leader, voted to cut on five of the seven amendments on which he was recorded. He appears to have ‘taken a walk’ on two other votes. David Bonior (D-MI), the number-two Democratic leader who as Whip enforces the party position, voted for every single one of the ten cutting amendments. Chief Deputy Whips John Lewis (D-GA) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) voted to cut intelligence funding every time they voted. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), just elected to replace Bonior as Whip when Bonior leaves early in 2002, voted to cut intelligence funding three times, even though she was a member of the Intelligence Committee and should have known better. Two funding cut amendments got the votes of every single member of the elected House Democratic leadership. In all, members of the House Democratic leadership supported the Saunders funding cut amendments 56.9 percent of the time."

Many of the Democrats whose committee positions give them immense say over our national security likewise voted for most or all of the funding cut amendments. Ron Dellums (D-CA), the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee from 1993 through 1997, cast all eight of his votes on funding cut amendments in favor of less intelligence funding. Three persons who chaired or were ranking Democrats on Armed Services subcommittees for part of the 1993-99 period—Pat Schroeder (D-CO), Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) and Marty Meehan (D-MA)—also voted for every fund-cutting amendment that was offered during their tenures. Dave Obey (D-WI), the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee that holds the House’s keys to the federal checkbook, voted seven out of eight times to reduce intelligence funding.

In 1994, Republican Porter Goss, a former CIA official and member of the House Intelligence Committee, warned that because of inflation, the cuts now proposed by Sanders-Owens amounted to 16% of the 1992 budget and were 20% below the 1990 budget. Yet this did not dissuade Dellums, Bonior and roughly 100 Democrats from continuing to lay the budgetary ax to America’s first line of anti-terrorist defense. Ranking Committee Republican Larry Combest warned that the cuts endangered "critically important and fragile capabilities, such as in the area of human intelligence." In 1998, Osama bin Laden and four radical Islamic groups connected to al-Qaeda issued a fatwa condemning every American man, woman and child, civilian and military included. Sanders responded by enlisting Oregon Democrat Peter DeFazio to author an amendment cutting the intelligence authorization again.

The Republicans and National Security Issues

When Republicans took control of the House in 1994, Republican Floyd Spence, now head of the National Security Committee, expressed his outrage at the Democrats’ handiwork in words that were eerily prescient: "We have done to our military and to our intelligence agencies what no foreign power has been able to do. We have been decimating our own defenses….In this day and time you do not have to be a superpower to raise the horrors of mass destruction warfare on people. It could be a Third World country, a rogue nation, or a terrorist group….These weapons of mass destruction are chemical, biological, bacteriological….Anthrax could be released in the air over Washington, DC…. That could happen at any time and people are talking about cutting back on our ability to defend against these things or to prevent them from happening. It is unconscionable to even think about it. It borders on leaving our country defenseless."

Yet the warning signs continued right up to the disaster. Before and after the 1999 Washington Post article by Defense Secretary Cohen, "there was a series of more elaborate reports about grand terrorism, by assorted blue-ribbon task forces, which warned of chemical, biological, and nuclear attacks…" A report by former Senators Hart and Rudman called for a huge "homeland security" campaign that would include—in Joe Klein’s summation for the New Yorker—"intensive municipal civil defense and crisis response teams, new anti-terrorist detection technology," and a new cabinet level position of Secretary of Homeland Security, which was instituted by the Bush Administration shortly after the attack.

Klein—a liberal Democrat and former "anti-war" activist—refused to draw the obvious conclusion from these events, and place the responsibility where it belonged—squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats. Instead he wrote: "There can’t be much controversy here. Nearly everyone—elected officials, the media, ideologues of every stripe—ignored these reports."

This is a falsehood so self-serving as to be almost understandable. Fortunately there is an extensive public record attesting to the intense and ongoing concern of Republican officials and the conservative media over the nation’s security crisis, and their determined if unsuccessful efforts to expose and remedy it. There is an equally extensive public record documenting the Democrats’ resistance to strengthening the nation’s defenses and the liberal media’s efforts to minimize, dismiss and even ridicule attempts by Republicans to do so. The national press’s negative treatment of Representative Dan Burton’s and Senator Fred Thompson’s committee investigations into the efforts by Communist China to influence the 1996 presidential election is a dramatic instance of this pattern, particularly since the liberal media have made campaign finance reform one of their highest priorities.

In fact, the Chinese poured hundreds of thousands of—legal and illegal—dollars into the Clinton-Gore campaigns in 1992 and 1996. The top funder of the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign was an Arkansas resident and Chinese banker named James Riady, whose relationship with Clinton went back twenty years. Riady is the scion of a multi-billion dollar financial empire whose throne room in Jakarta is adorned with two adjacent portraits of Clinton and Chinese leader, Li Peng, the infamous "butcher of Tiananmen Square." Though based in Indonesia, the Riady empire has billions of dollars invested in China, and is a working economic and political partnership with China’s military and intelligence establishments. The Riadys gave $450,000 to Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign and another $600,000 to the Democratic National Committee and Democratic state parties—and that was just the tip of the iceberg in their working partnership with Clinton.

The question that Democratic obstructions prevented the Thompson and Burton committees from answering was whether these payments resulted in the transfer of U.S. weapons technologies to Communist China. China is known to have transferred such sensitive military technologies to Iran, Libya, North Korea and Iraq. Beginning in 1993, the Clinton Administration systematically lifted security controls at the Department of Commerce that had previously prevented the transfer of sensitive missile, satellite and computer technologies to China and other nuclear proliferators. In the beginning of that year, Clinton appointed John Huang, who was an agent of the Riady interests as well as Communist China, to a senior position at Commerce with top security clearance. Clinton later sent Huang to the Democratic National Committee to take charge of fund-raising for his 1996 campaign.

In May 1999, a bi-partisan House committee, headed by Representative Christopher Cox, released a report which was tersely summarized by the Wall Street Journal in these harrowing words: "The espionage inquiry found Beijing has stolen U.S. design data for nearly all elements needed for a major nuclear attack on the U.S., such as advanced warheads, missiles and guidance systems." Among the factors contributing to these unprecedented losses—most of which took place during the Clinton years—the report identified lax security by the Administration.

Two committees of Congress headed by Dan Burton and Fred Thompson attempted to get to the bottom of the matter to see if there was any connection between these problems and the Riady-Huang fund-raising efforts, particularly the illegal contributions by foreign agents of the Chinese military and intelligence establishments. The investigations failed because the Committee Republicans were stonewalled by the Clinton Administration, their Democratic colleagues and the witnesses called. In all, 105 of these witnesses either took the Fifth Amendment or fled the country to avoid cooperating with investigators. They did this not only with the tacit acquiescence of the Clinton Administration, but the active help of Clinton officials.

There are scores of Republican congressmen—leaders of military, intelligence and government oversight committees—who attempted to sound the alarm on this front, and who expressed publicly (and to me, personally) their distress at being unable to reach the broad American electorate with their concerns about these national security issues because of the indifference of the liberal media and the partisan rancor of the Democrats.

In the year prior to the World Trade Center attack, I met in the Capitol with more than a dozen Republican members of the House—including members of the Armed Services Committee—to discuss how the security issue could be brought before the American public. Given the President’s talent for political double-talk and the lock-step submission of congressional Democrats to his most reckless agendas, and without the possibility of media support for such an effort, not a single member present thought that raising these issues would go anywhere. Even attempting to raise them, they felt, exposed them to damaging political risks. These risks included attacks by Democrats and liberal journalists who would label them "mean-spirited partisans," "right–wing alarmists," "xenophobes" and, of course, "Clinton bashers."

While the liberal media put up a wall of opposition, journalists in the conservative media worked against the grain to make the issues public. Bill Gertz, Ken Timperlake and William C. Triplett III wrote books (Betrayal and Year of the Rat) based on military and intelligence sources, and data collected by the Thompson and Burton committees that would have shaken any other administration to its roots, but received little attention outside conservative circles. Other conservative journalists including the Washington Times’ Rowan Scarborough and various writers for the Wall Street Journal’s editorial pages, the National Review, and the Weekly Standard pursued the story but were also unable to reach a broad enough public to make any impact. The conservative side of the ideological spectrum has no apologies to make for disarming the nation in the face of its security threats. The Democratic Party and its fraternal institutions, the liberal press and the left-wing academy, do.

The Lobby Against America’s Intelligence Services

One of the obvious causes of the many security lapses preceding the World Trade Center attack was the post-Vietnam crusade against U.S. intelligence and defense agencies dating from the Church Committee reforms in the mid-Seventies and led by "anti-war" Democrats and other partisans of the American left. A summary episode reflecting this mood involved CIA operative Robert Baer, described by national security reporter Thomas Powers as "a 20-year veteran of numerous assignments in Central Asia and the Middle East whose last major job for the agency was an attempt to organize Iraqi opposition to Saddam Hussein in the early 1990s—shuttling between a desk in Langley and contacts on the ground in Jordan, Turkey, and even northern Iraq."

According to Powers, "That assignment came to an abrupt end in March 1995 when Baer, once seen as a rising star of the Directorate of Operations, suddenly found himself ‘the subject of an accusatory process.’ An agent of the FBI told him he was under investigation for the crime of plotting the assassination of Saddam Hussein. The investigation was ordered by President Clinton’s national security adviser, Anthony Lake, who would be nominated to run the [CIA] two years later. [Lake’s appointment was successfully resisted by the intelligence community.]…. Eventually, the case against Baer was dismissed …but for Baer the episode was decisive. ‘When your own outfit is trying to put you in jail,’ he told me, ‘it’s time to go. Baer’s is one of many resignations [in the Directorate of Operations] in recent years…."

Hostility to the CIA during the Clinton years ran so high that intelligence professionals refer to it as the "‘Shia’ era in the agency," Powers reported. The term referred to the Islamic sect that stresses the sinfulness of its adherents. "We all had to demonstrate our penance," a former CIA chief of station in Jordan told Powers. "Focus groups were organized, we ‘re-engineered’ the relationship of the Directorate of Operations and the Directorate of Intelligence," which meant introducing "uniform career standards" that would apply indiscriminately to analysts and covert operators in the field. This meant high-risk assignments in target countries resulted in no greater advancement up the bureaucratic ladder than sitting at a computer terminal in Langley. "In the re-engineered CIA," comments Powers, "it was possible for Deborah Morris to be appointed the DO’s deputy chief for the Near East. [The DO is the department of covert operations.] "She worked her way up in Langley," an operative told Powers. "I don’t think she’s ever been in the Near East. She’s never run an agent, she doesn’t know what the Khyber Pass looks like, but she’s supposed to be directing operations [in the field]."

The end of the Cold War in 1991 inspired the reformers to close down all the Counterespionage Groups in the CIA because their expertise was no longer "needed." Spies were passé. "The new order of the day was to ‘manage intelligence relationships.’" After interviewing many operatives who had left the CIA in disgust during this period, Powers concluded that in the Clinton years the Agency had become more and more risk averse as the result of "years of public criticism, attempts to clean house, the writing and rewriting of rules, …efforts to rein in the Directorate of Operations, … catch-up hiring of women and minorities [and] public hostility that makes it hard to recruit at leading colleges."

A post 9/11 article by Peter Beinart, editor of the liberal New Republic amplified Powers’ observations. Beinart speculated that the CIA’s lapses may have occurred because of a fundamental mediocrity that had overtaken the institution. This mediocrity was the direct result of the attacks on the Agency (and on America’s global purposes) by the political left and the culture of hostility towards the American government that had been successfully implanted in America’s elite universities—once the prime recruiting grounds for the intelligence services.

Beinart began with a description of the recent assassination of Abdul Haq in Afghanistan. Haq was potentially the most important leader of the internal opposition to the ruling Taliban. Yet the CIA had failed to provide him with protection. A key element in this disaster was the fact that the CIA did not have a single operative who could communicate with Haq in his native tongue, Dari. Nor did the CIA have a single operative who spoke Pashto, the language of the Taliban, even though al-Qaeda’s base had been Afghanistan for years. The problem of reading intercepted intelligence transcripts in Pashto was "solved" by sending the transcripts to Pakistan to be translated by Pakistani intelligence officials—who were also sponsors of the Taliban. Some CIA officials believe it was Pakistani intelligence officials who warned Osama bin Laden to get out of Khost before U.S. missiles were launched into Afghanistan after the embassy bombings in 1998.

The Abdul Haq assassination exposed the enormous human intelligence gap that had developed within the agency during the post-Vietnam years. As much as 90% of America’s intelligence budget was being spent on technology, electronic decryption and eavesdropping systems for the National Security Agency, rather than human intelligence based on agents in the field. Without human language skills much of this information itself remained useless. In September 2001, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence concluded: "At the NSA and CIA, thousands of pieces of data are never analyzed or are analyzed ‘after the fact’…. Written materials can sit for months and sometimes years before a linguist with proper security clearance and skills can begin a translation."

According to a 1998 article in The Atlantic Monthly written by a former CIA official, "Not a single Iran-desk chief during the eight years I worked on Iran could speak or read Persian. Not a single Near East Division chief knew Arabic, Persian or Turkish, and only one could get along even in French." These deficiencies become intelligible only when one understands what happened to Middle Eastern studies in American universities in the post-Vietnam decades.

The University Left Against The Nation’s Security

The story of the university left’s subversion of the field of Middle Eastern studies is recounted in a recent book by Martin Kramer, editor of the Middle East Quarterly. As a reviewer summarized Kramer’s argument, "In the late seventies, the radical students of the 1960s began to enter the professoriate. The way was cleared for them to wrest power from the Middle East studies establishment when Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978) crystallized a new understanding of the field." Said was a member of the ruling council of Yasser Arafat’s PLO and quickly became one of the most powerful academics in America, eventually heading the Modern Language Association, whose 40,000 members make it the largest professional association of academics. On November 21, 1993, eight months after the World Trade Center bombing, Said wrote an article for the New York Times Sunday Magazine with the revealing title "The Phony Islamic Threat." Said’s title summarized the intellectual shift in Middle East studies during the previous decade. The new perspective that came to dominate the field was that perceptions of a terrorist threat from Islamic radicals were expressions of "Euro-centric" or racist attitudes by their Western oppressors.

In his book, Orientalism, Said argued that all previous scholarship on the Middle East was hopelessly biased because it was written by white Europeans and thus "racist." According to Said, "All Western knowledge of the East was intrinsically tainted with imperialism." In one stroke Said thus discredited all previous scholarship in the field, paving the way for its replacement by Marxist radicals like himself. With the help of his left-wing academic allies, Said’s extremist viewpoint created the climate and context for a revolution in Middle Eastern studies. This was accelerated by the "multi-culturalist" attitudes of the university and racial preference policies in faculty hiring, which involved the widespread recruitment of political leftists from the Islamic theocracies of the Middle East. Before Said, "3.2% of America’s Middle East area specialists had been born in the region. By 1992, the figure was nearly half. This demographic transformation consolidated the conversion of Middle Eastern studies into leftist anti-Americanism."(Emphasis added.)

In a statement issued ten days after the World Trade Center attack, the Middle East Studies Association—the professional organization representing the field—refused to describe the perpetrators of the attack as "terrorists," and preemptively opposed any U.S. military response. Georgetown professor John Esposito, a former president of the Middle East Studies Association and an academic star in the field, made his name after the first World Trade Center attack by following Said’s example and disparaging concerns about Islamic terrorism as thinly-veiled anti-Muslim prejudice. He was rewarded by being made a foreign affairs analyst for the Clinton State Department and assigned to its intelligence department.

The language deficiency at the CIA—to which the political takeover of the academic profession greatly contributed—proved crucial at the operational level. But it was only a reflection of the more profound problem that afflicted the intelligence community because of the universities’ leftward turn. In Beinart’s words, "Today’s CIA is a deeply mediocre institution. Its problems aren’t legal or financial; they’re intellectual. The agency needs a massive infusion of brainpower." How massive an infusion was indicated in an article Beinart cited: "According to a 1992 New York Times story, applicants for the CIA’s ‘Undergraduate Student Trainee Program’ needed only a combined SAT score of 900 and a grade point average of 2.75." This compares to the average requirements for entrance into top ranked schools like Harvard or Princeton, which require SAT scores above 1300 and grade point averages of 4.0. Princeton is one of many elite universities that because of political pressure from the left officially refuse to allow the CIA to recruit students on their campuses and have refused to do so for more than a decade.

The only places the CIA can recruit its missing brainpower—"the only institutions able to supply the world-class linguists, biologists, and computer scientists it currently lacks—are America’s universities." But the universities have long since become the political base of a left that has not given up its fantasies of social revolution and is deeply antagonistic to America and its purposes. The root cause of the nation’s security problem is that beginning in the 1960s the political left aimed a dagger at the heart of America’s security system and, from a vantage of great power in the universities, the media and the Democratic Party, were able to press the blade home for three decades prior to the World Trade Center disaster.

The main reason the CIA no longer recruits agents from top-ranked schools is because it can’t. "The men and women who teach today’s college students view the CIA with suspicion, if not disdain," as Beinart put it. The formulation is, in fact, too mild. The left hates the CIA and regards it as an enemy of all that is humane and decent. To make their case, academic leftists drill the nation’s elite youth in a litany of "crimes" alleged to have been carried out by the CIA since the late 1940s—the rigging of the Italian and French elections of 1948 against popular Communist parties (whose aim, unmentioned in this academic literature was to incorporate Western Europe into Stalin’s satellite system), the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 1951 (whom they fail to identify as a Soviet asset who would have delivered Iranian oil reserves to Stalin), the overthrow of the Arbenz regime in Guatemala (whom the left portrays as a Democrat but who was in fact a Communist fellow-traveler who chose to spend his exile years as a privileged guest in Castro’s police state), the "Bay of Pigs" (which was the CIA’s failed effort to overthrow the most oppressive Communist regime in the hemisphere), and the "Phoenix Program" in Vietnam (which was an attempt to prevent a Communist front set up by the Hanoi dictatorship from overthrowing the Saigon government and establishing a Communist police state in the South.)

In the perverse view of the academic left, the CIA is an agency of torture, death and oppression for innocent masses all over the world that otherwise would be "liberated" by progressive totalitarian forces. Utilizing the powerful resources of the academy, the left has created a vast propaganda apparatus to establish what is essentially the view of the CIA held by America’s fiercest enemies. The anti-American propaganda is itself disseminated under the imprint of America’s most prestigious university presses including Harvard, California, Duke, and Princeton.

University administrations have caved in to these leftists so consistently as to leave little room for maneuver. "When the president of the Rochester Institute of Technology took a brief leave to work for the CIA in 1991," recalls Beinart, "many students and faculty demanded that he resign. Last year, when the government tried to establish a program under which college students would receive free language instruction in return for pursuing a career in intelligence, the University of Michigan refused. As assistant professor Carol Bardenstein told Time, "We didn’t want our students to be known as spies in training." (Apparently she would prefer them to be helpless targets-in-waiting.) For caving in to these pressures, the president of Michigan, Claude Bollinger, was rewarded by being appointed president of Columbia University shortly after the September 11 bombing.

As Beinart points out, there can be reasonable concerns about the proper functions of a university and the appropriate relationship of government agencies to private institutions of learning (although the University of Michigan is a state-financed school). "But most of the squeamishness about training, and encouraging students to work for the CIA doesn’t have anything to do with the mission of the academy; it has to do with ideological hostility to the instruments of American power." This ideology is enforced by political correctness in the university hiring process, a bias that virtually excludes conservative academics from obtaining positions at most schools. At Ivy League schools, for example, a study by the Luntz Companies showed that only 3% of the professors identify themselves as Republicans and the overwhelming majority have views well to the left of the American center.

Congressman Dellums and The Democrats’ Fifth Column Caucus

Given the role of universities in shaping the "liberal" culture, the same powerful anti-American, anti-military, anti-CIA sentiments have prevailed in the left-wing of the Democratic Party for the last thirty years. The size of this group can be partially gauged by the 58 congressional Democrats who describe themselves as members of its "Progressive [socialist] Caucus." But its actual influence is far greater.

No political career symbolizes the Democrats’ acceptance of radical ideas better than the 27-year tenure of congressman Ron Dellums who came to the House in the 1970s as the first Sixties’ radical to penetrate the political mainstream, and was able—with the encouragement and cooperation of his colleagues—to establish himself as a power player on both the Armed Se

The Palestinian Leadership is to Blame for Palestinian Suffering

03.24.04 (4:23 am)   [edit]
[b]Who's to blame for Palestinian suffering?[/b]
Armstrong Williams
March 23, 2004

Many people see the Arab-Israeli conflict as a hopeless morass, a maelstrom of hatred with no beginning or end. Both sides are victims and victimizers, so goes the refrain.

It is true that both sides are suffering, but on closer examination this neat symmetry of blame breaks down.

Recently, we recorded my syndicated television show from Jerusalem. During that time, we talked to Israeli Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu about his attempts to revamp the Israeli economy along free-market lines. We also talked to Diaspora Affairs Minister Natan Sharansky, a former Soviet dissident, about being imprisoned for 13 years, much of it in the Siberian gulag, and continuing the fight for human rights as an Israeli elected official.

Sharansky sees no contradiction between his struggle for human rights then or now.

"On one hand, so many people feel Israel is a big violator of human rights, but I know Israel demonstrates more sensitivity to human rights than any other democracy in the world," said Sharansky. He added, "the depth of all concessions should only be (comparable) to the depth of democracy on the other side."

In Ramallah I met with Palestinian Authority Minister Saeb Erekat who condemned the recent outbreak of suicide bombings. He also cackled at Sharansky's assessment of himself as a human rights activist and wondered aloud how the Jewish people, who have historically suffered so much oppression, could be so brutal in their treatment of Palestinian Arabs.

The Palestinians, however, are no strangers to brutality. This week, Israeli soldiers caught an 11-year-old boy who had been given a bag to carry through a checkpoint on his way to school. The bag was full of explosives, and when the child was detained the terrorists tried to set the bomb off by dialing the attached cell phone. The bomb failed to explode, but if it had, it would have led to the scenes I saw at Israel's Hadassah Hospital - victims of suicide bombings stretched out on their cots, their faces dotted with shrapnel marks, green and blue tubes strung up across and through their bodies.

Along the West Bank and Gaza, cars are smashed and burning. Mourners drag themselves across the sands in grim funeral processions. Kids chant, "I want to be a martyr."

Which brings us to the next point. People assume that the Palestinian suicide bombers are dying for a cause. Oftentimes, they are not. Military and police sources shared countless stories that suggest the suicide attacks are a response not to Israel, but to the oppressive forces within Palestinian society.

Our military sources recalled the story of a woman who recently detonated herself and four others at the border checkpoint. What went unreported was that the woman had been having an adulterous affair. She was given a choice: Be stoned to death, or go on a suicide-bombing mission. She chose the latter because it was the only way to restore "honor" to her family.

Our intelligence sources also talked about how more children are being used to deliver explosives. Often it is younger siblings, traditionally treated as second-class citizens, who try to affix honor to their names by carrying out bombings. This sort of pathology is maintained through social and religious myths that indoctrinate the youth to extremism. Schoolrooms are decorated with pictures of suicide bombers, who are praised and glorified by teachers. One of the most popular pastimes for school kids is a card game called "how to be a suicide bomber."

From a young age these children are taught to blame the ruin of their lives on a nexus of crippling political decisions handed down by Israel. In a land where large portions of the population are starving and lack a sense of future possibilities, this kind of social conditioning holds a special appeal, suggesting a more glorious alternative to poverty.

Of course, the Palestinian leadership knows that it cannot dislodge Israel by force. And yet it continues to condition its citizens to engage in brutal and arbitrary suicide attacks.

The obvious implication is that many Palestinian suicide bombers aren't dying for change so much as they are dying because their own oppressive government is using them as pawns to keep themselves in power.

Meanwhile, Palestinians suffer. They are poor. They lack a court system, and even many basic rights. Their leaders have created a society dedicated not to building their own state but to destroying another - and sacrificing their own children in the process.

It is in the world's interest to have a peaceful Palestinian state. This will not occur until the Palestinians are no longer oppressed - not by Israel, but by the Palestinian dictators who send hopeless citizens across the border to martyrdom.

©2004 Tribune Media Services

"Hard-liner" Rantisi chosen as new Hamas head

03.24.04 (4:17 am)   [edit]
The media would have us believe that Israel's actions fused together the benign side of Hamas and the child-killer side of Hamas into one big ball of hate, and that's why "hard-liner" Rantisi was chosen as the new head of Hamas.

Forgive me, but when your organization enshrines itself into the doctrine of genocide, it's all hard-line, it's all terrorist, and it should all be marked for elimination by the Israeli government.

The first and only reason why Hamas even has a "political" side that helps the people of Palestine is to gain allegiance to the radical cause of killing men, women, and children and say that that is a contrast to what Israel is "doing" (even though it has been revealed that Israel gives millions and millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinians-- even to their government).

Said "Palestinian" "Prime Minister" Qurei of the killing of Yassin:

"It is such an ugly crime committed by this government of murderers, it is the Israeli government that assassinated this symbol of resistance."

So this is what Qurei would have us believe: a murderer keeps murdering members of a family after the family repeatedly asked the police in his jurisdiction to stop him, to disarm him and arrest him. The police and the authorities said that these murders of your brother is 'symbolic' of some sort of 'resistance' to the family's occupation of territory that was never theirs to begin with, and even though the 'resistance' isn't targeting the family's organization, but those in the family that have nothing to do with it, and even though the authorities ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT with families all around the world to stop and disarm these murderers. The authorities, then, insist that the family, which has always tried just to be left in peace for 60 years, are the real murderers.

I mean, you can't escape The Charter of the Hamas, you cannot escape their own justification for why they exist. Rantisi declared an "open war" with Israel, but he's always declared that, indeed HAMAS has always declared that. And the fact is, they have codified their own resistance to ANY PEACE PLAN. The cease-fires that the Palestinians trump up are not only dodgeful of their requirements under the Road Map they keep repeating that Israel is breaking, but only exist as planning stages for Hamas.

The bottom line is that the Palestinians don't want to uphold their Road Map committments, and as such HAMAS will never be stopped. So Israel must do it for them.

THere is no such thing as a 'hard-liner' in Hamas. They are all hard-liners, they are all murderers, they are all anti-human and anti-life. For Israel's sake, for the sake of world peace, and for the sake of the Palestinian people themselves, I hope Israel destroys the entire organization.

New article:

[b]Hard-liner is to head Hamas in Gaza strip [/b]
Greg Myre/NYT The New York Times
Wednesday, March 24, 2004

JERUSALEM The Palestinian group Hamas on Tuesday named one of its most outspoken and hard-line figures, Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi, as the new leader of the Islamic movement in the Gaza Strip, following the killing of the group's founder, Sheik Ahmed Yassin.

And senior Israeli security officials said top Hamas leaders would continue to be targets for attack as part of an ongoing campaign against Palestinians linked to violence against Israel.

"Everyone is in our sights," said Tzachi Hanegbi, Israel's minister of internal security. "There is no immunity for anyone."

Rantisi, a trained pediatrician in his mid-50s, was chosen following Israel's helicopter missile strike that killed Yassin on Monday in Gaza City.

Rantisi does not have the stature of Yassin, who established the group in 1987. He is the most visible and fiery Hamas spokesman, however, well known from frequent interviews.

With Rantisi leading Hamas in its Gaza stronghold, the group is expected to push hard to carry out bombings and other attacks.

But Khaled Mashaal, based in Syria, remains the head of the group's political bureau, the main decision-making body, news agencies reported.

Rantisi has been a senior figure in Hamas for years and was wounded in an Israeli helicopter attack last June.

In a group defined by its extreme positions, Rantisi is known as the Hamas leader who issues the most vitriolic statements, and he opposes any form of compromise with Israel.

After Yassin's death, Rantisi declared an "open war" with Israel.

"Inside Palestine, there will be no security for the Zionists and Jews," he said Monday.

Rantisti spent years imprisoned in Israel, and the Palestinian Authority which he frequently criticizes, jailed him for about two years in the late 1990s. He is one of several senior members in the group's political bureau. Israel, however, says it does not distinguish between the political and military wings of Hamas.

Israeli officials say that Yassin, Rantisi and other senior figures have guided the group's suicide bombing campaign even if they have not planned the details of specific attacks.

Israel's killing Monday brought a deluge of international criticism and calls by Palestinian groups to unleash a new wave of attacks.

The Palestinian prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, traveled from the West Bank to Gaza to take part in a memorial service Tuesday.

Hamas is a political rival of the Fatah movement, headed by the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Qurei, but the parties have set aside their differences, at least temporarily.

"It is such an ugly crime committed by this government of murderers, it is the Israeli government that assassinated this symbol of resistance," Qurei said. "We are witnessing today, here in his memorial, the unity of the Palestinian people." Israel, meanwhile, said it would press on with its current offensive in Gaza, which began a week ago in response to a double suicide bombing by the Palestinians that killed 10 Israelis.

"If we will continue, in a determined way, with our strikes against Hamas and other terror groups, with the means I outlined, including action against those leaders, we will bring more security to Israeli citizens," said Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz.

Israeli security officials acknowledge that Yassin's killing will energize the Palestinian factions. But they say that Hamas and other groups are already attempting to carry out as many attacks as possible.

Despite fears of stepped-up violence, the region was relatively quiet Tuesday.

The most serious incident was in the central Gaza Strip, where Palestinian militants fired a rocket at an Israeli armored vehicle near the Jewish settlement of Netzarim, the military said.

The militants also lobbed a mortar at the settlement, but there were no injuries in either incident.

In Israel, police tightened security and there was a marked decline in the number of people taking buses and visiting crowded public places. In Jerusalem, police vehicles and officers were present at bus stops on busy routes, and the police set up additional checkpoints at the city's main entrances.

Pakistan on Tuesday got 34 of the commission's 53 members to vote in favor of the meeting.

Countries will be asked to vote on a resolution that says it "strongly condemns the continuing grave violations of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, in particular the tragic assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin."

Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune

China may use current Taiwan 'instability" as pretext to invade

03.23.04 (10:59 am)   [edit]
[b]Chinese army on alert over Taiwan [/b]
The Australian| 3/23/04

TAIPEI: China put its army on combat alert, ready to strike if the dispute over Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian's narrow election victory intensified, a Hong Kong newspaper reported yesterday.

China could use its newly revised state constitution to declare a state of emergency over Taiwan, paving the way for a military attack, the South China Morning Post quoted unidentified sources on the mainland as saying.

China's Defence Ministry denied there had been a military shift. "I have not heard of the military receiving any orders to change its level of alert," a ministry spokesman said.

Taiwan's Defence Ministry also said there were no signs of Chinese troops readying to make good its promise to invade the island should it descend into civil unrest or declare independence.

Protests erupted across the island after Mr Chen was officially named the victor over sole challenger Lien Chan in Saturday's poll, which took place just hours after Mr Chen was shot and slightly injured.

Thousands of angry supporters of Taiwan's opposition Kuomintang party continued to protest outside the presidential office yesterday, demanding a recount of the poll. About 15 opposition legislators also staged a sit-in outside the office of the prosecutor-general, carrying signs saying "We need justice".

Taiwan's High Court is considering demands for a vote recount. It ordered the sealing of more than 13,700 ballot boxes on Sunday after Mr Chen's challenger blamed a high number of spoiled ballot papers and an election eve assassination attempt on the President for scuppering his chances.

A panel of three judges was to consider the opposition demand for a recount in a legal battle that could run for weeks.

Election officials said a formal declaration of Mr Chen's victory on March 26 would go ahead. His inauguration for a second term is due on May 20.

High Court director Chang Chin-hsiung said it would deal with the case "as soon as possible" but that any move to declare the election void could take up to six months. An appeal could take a further six months.

Mr Chen polled 50.11 per cent of the vote against 49.89per cent for Mr Lien. More than 13 million votes were cast in a turnout of 80 per cent. More than 337,000 votes were declared invalid by the Central Election Commission, compared with between 120,000 and 130,000 in the island's previous two elections.

Election officials declared the vote to be free of irregularities and illegal behaviour despite the high number of spoiled ballots.

Matthew Martin can't leave me alone, etc.

03.23.04 (10:37 am)   [edit]
I think it's no secret that I'm James Yerian. The reason why I go by reducto is two-fold. One, Rocky disabled my account and two, I had decided to move on and leave behind those that have a hard on over everything I do.

That Rocky allowed this is a sign of trust from him that I appreciate.

So Matthew Martin writes a blog ostensibly about Richard Clarke, but of course as with all of his entries, it was about me.

Oh, who is Matthew Martin? Jimmytherighteous. Moving on...

I have a right to write what I want to write about politics, and Matthew Martin has a right to criticize me. So be it. But his criticisms in the past haven't really focused on what I say, they are focused on me. They were basically attacks on everything he could find about me. That is what I've always had a problem with, and frankly, I think my extreme anger was more than justified.

So as long as Jimmy wants to refer to me as James Yerian, that's fine. I'll keep referring to him as Matthew Martin. And I hope that he'll at least be more civil than he used to be, so we can avoid the ugliness he brought into the politics blog discourse.

Patriot Acts's searing logic

03.23.04 (10:22 am)   [edit]
Patriot Acts asks this wonderful question:

[i]If assassination and taking the law into our own hands is okay, then why shouldn't U.S. Military Families assassinate Dubya for killing their loved-ones in Iraq based upon lies and false pretences?

Instead, these people stage protests in accordance with the law ... Hmmm ... Why should they seek a "permission slip"?[/i]

Actually, if parents are really upset about the deaths of their sons and daughters in war, they might want to direct their anger at their daughters and sons, who volunteered for service.

(if you're going to claim 'going to college' let it be known that the department of ed practically gives money away...college is not an excuse...there are other, less risky, ways)

Or, the parents could assasinate Congress, which saw the same intel Bush the 'misleader' saw, and voted for war.

Or, the parents could assasinate Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger, who helped get regime change of Iraq codified into law in 1998, using the same intel Bush the 'misleader' used (and don't forget to kill the Congressmembers in 1998 too...they voted for it), YET SAT ON THEIR HANDS AND DID NOTHING TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT.

Or, the parents could kill most states at the general assembly and the unanimous Security Council at the UN, who agreed for 13 years that Iraq was violating the terms of the cease-fire (and what happens when a cease-fire is broken).

Or, the parents could kill the Kurds and the Shiites, who took the offensive step of dying for no reason at the hands of Hussein for political dissent.

Or, the parents could assasinate Hussein, whose weapons violations has shaped US foreign policy in the ME for 12 years.

What kind of planet is Patriot Acts from? He says that Israel is taking the law into its own hands by assasinating a terror leader. Hmmm. I guess terrorists who kill innocents don't have to take the law into their own hands, because they DISREGARD ALTOGETHER any law.

Indeed, and I guess the Palestinian Authority is excused for taking the law out of their own hands by refusing to take care of types like Yassin, as mandated by the Road Map.

I guess if we don't have a right to war against indiscriminate killers and terrorists, if we are to just sit back and allow international "law" or the lack of it run its course into nothingness, then Patriot Act should have had no problem with 9-11.

In fact, Patriot Acts should go ahead and lecture the 3000 families of the 9-11 victims on why they were wrong to want to war against Al Qaeda and assasinate Osama bin Laden, another "spiritual leader" of a terrorist group.

Of course, if the US and Israel aren't allowed to defend themselves, the freedom for guys like Patriot Acts to engage in asinine infantile behavior will be reduced. So maybe Patriot Acts should reconsider.

Iraqis say war was the ANSWER, but protesters were yelling too loudly to hear them

03.23.04 (10:07 am)   [edit]
March 23, 2004, 8:40 a.m.
[b]Iraqis Say ?War Was the ANSWER?
But protesters were yelling too loudly to hear them.[/b]
By Andrew Cline

Being divorced from reality is what being an antiwar protester is all about. For a few hours each year you get to run around disrupting other people's lives, pretending you're doing something socially relevant, and saying things like "War doesn't solve anything" (said last weekend by New York City protester Matthew Stanton) and "If there aren't any soldiers there can't be war" (said by Alabama protester David Waters).

Aside from being great philosophers, antiwar protesters also are adept at seeing the world the way it really is. Page Getz, press coordinator for the antiwar group ANSWER, said during a protest last week in Los Angeles, "We must stop the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, and elsewhere. The situation in Iraq is getting worse."

Good to know that groups like ANSWER are there to correct the world's major media outlets, who last year showed Iraqis cheering Coalition troops, and who last week reported that Iraqis generally say the war had positive results. On Thursday, as Spain's Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Zapatero called the occupation of Iraq "a fiasco," a poll conducted for ABC News and the BBC found that 48 percent of Iraqis called the war "right" while only 39 percent called it "wrong," and 56 percent said their lives were better after the war. Seventy percent of Iraqis said their lives were either "very good" (13 percent) or "quite good" (57 percent). Someone should ask Howard Dean, who in January said that Iraqi living standards are "a whole lot worse now," about these results.

Seventy-one percent of Iraqis said the job market was better now than before the war. Thirty-nine percent said the availability of electricity was better after the war, compared to 25 percent who said it was worse. Fifty-four percent said security was better after the war, compared to only 26 percent who said it was worse.

On every subject, from security to medical care to schools, more Iraqis said their lives were better after the war.

So, what about antiwar protesters who insist, as one in Iowa did last week, that "What they're saying is that they are happy Saddam was taken out, but conditions are now far worse than they were under his regime"?

Jose Perez, a 39-year-old Gulf War veteran, dealt with protesters on Saturday about as effectively as anyone can. He was in Fayetteville, N.C., home of Fort Bragg, to counter-demonstrate against antiwar protesters.

"Here's the thing. We're right and they're wrong," Perez said.

Then, the Associated Press reported, "As one war protester walked by, Perez told him to get a haircut and join them."

? [i]Andrew Cline is editorial-page editor of the Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News in Manchester, N.H.[/i]

At National Review Online -- http://www.nationalreview.com...

Richard Clarke's tall tale-- a self-regarding buffoon intent on rewriting history

03.23.04 (6:42 am)   [edit]
[b]DICK'S TALL TALE [/b]
John Podhoretz
NY Post

March 23, 2004 -- RICHARD Clarke is the greatest man who has ever strode this planet's surface. I know this because I have just read his book, "Against All Enemies."

Some might suggest that the book is a distorted, false, sour-grapes account from a demoted government official who wants to settle scores and destroy the Bush administration in which he served as a holdover staffer from the Clinton years.

But that's because they simply don't comprehend the power and the glory that is Dick Clarke.

He is the man who took charge of America on 9/11 by "putting together a secure teleconference to manage the crisis," he writes on page 2.

A secure teleconference! Wow!

If you knew anything about Washington, you would surely think that a staffer on the National Security Council - traditionally a role without a great deal of authority - wouldn't be a major decision-maker during the day of and the days following the attack on this country.

That's because You Don't Know Dick Clarke.

Clarke says he all but ordered the president of the United States not to return to Washington on that day. ("Figure out where to move the president. He can't come back here until we know what the s--t is happening.")

By his own account, it was Clarke who gave the order to "authorize the Air Force to shoot down any aircraft . . . that looks like it is threatening to attack."

You thought it was Dick Cheney who gave that order? You were wrong - at least if you believe Dick Clarke.

Oh, and Clarke took command of the Air Force, too. ("Roger, find out where the fighter planes are. I want Combat Air Patrol over every major city in this country. Now.")

Remember when Alexander Haig created a firestorm right after the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan by claiming he was "in charge"? Well, when it comes to being "in charge," Haig had nothing on Dick Clarke, who was - so he tells us with excruciating generosity - a just and righteous ruler of America on that day.

[b]Some might suggest that since Clarke was the National Security Council staffer responsible for dealing with terrorism during the Clinton years, he might be a little shy about claiming that the Bush administration didn't do enough to take out Osama bin Laden. After all, it was the Clinton administration that failed to react effectively to the four major terrorist acts planned or supported by al Qaeda during the 1990s. [/b]

Neither Clarke nor the administration discerned al Qaeda's hand in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, though the evidence of financial support is plain now. Clarke believed Iran was behind the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, though we now know it to have been the work of al Qaeda. And he told Bill Clinton that the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan blown up after the embassy bombings in 1998 was an al Qaeda workshop, which it wasn't.

And the Clinton administration didn't respond at all to the bombing of USS Cole in October 2000. This would seem to be the most glaring failure of all, since 17 American sailors died and more than 100 were wounded.

Clarke explains this colossal failure by reporting that "time was running out on the Clinton administration. There was going to be one last major national-security initative and it was going to be a final try to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian agreement. I would like to have tried both, Camp David and blowing up the al Qaeda camps. Nonetheless, I understood."

[b]And if he understood, why shouldn't we all? [/b]

What Clarke reveals in "Against All Enemies" is that - not to put too fine a point on it - he is a self-regarding buffoon. But his solipsistic silliness won't give pause to the Democrat-media desperation to rewrite recent history in an effort to delude voters that the 9/11 attacks were the fault of George W. Bush's inattention.

They were not Bush's fault, and they were not caused by his inattention. Nor were they Clinton's fault. They were the fault of Osama bin Laden, who attacked and killed 3,000 Americans and would happily have seen that number read 30,000 or 50,000.

We need to remember this, and we are in danger of forgetting it in the raging partisan kerfuffle.

[b]In the months after 9/11, the Bush administration refused - absolutely refused - to try to blame the attacks on the Clinton administration's failure of vision. The nation needed to be united in its determination and could not afford to surrender to finger-pointing. [/b]

Well, guess what? [b]The Clinton administration's senior foreign-policy officials will be appearing this week before the 9/11 commission - to do to the Bush administration exactly what the Bush administration refused to do to them. [/b]

"It is essential that we prevent further attacks, and that we protect the Constitution," Clarke writes, "against all enemies." It is clear from the context of this sentence that he includes George W. Bush among the enemies along with Osama bin Laden.

Is this really a sentiment that mainstream Democrats want to support and echo?

[i]John Podhoretz's new book is "Bush Country: How Dubya Became a Great President While Driving Liberals Insane." [/i]

John Kerry tries to look American by refusing another leftist dictator's endorsement

03.23.04 (6:34 am)   [edit]
I guess it is worrisome when you have Kim Jung Il, Hugo Chavez and al Qaeda rooting for your victory. It's also not surprising that Chavez praised Kerry's health care plan. After all, it takes an anti-American left-wing nut to know an anti-American left-wing nut.

There's a reason why Kerry was scored as the most liberal Senator in Washington.

[b]Kerry Attacks Venezuela's Chavez[/b]
Mon Mar 22, 2004 06:33 PM ET
By Pascal Fletcher

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has attacked Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as a dubious democrat hostile to U.S. interests, delivering a slap in the face to the [b]leftist leader who had portrayed Kerry as a potential friend.[/b]

The Kerry statement on his Web site made front-page news in Venezuela on Monday, nearly two weeks after Chavez had publicly praised the Democrat contender, [b]hailing his health care plans [/b]and likening him to assassinated U.S. President John Kennedy.

In his declaration dated March 19, the Massachusetts senator accused Chavez of undermining Venezuela's democracy, supporting Colombian rebels and "narco-terrorists" and trying to torpedo a constitutional bid by foes to hold a referendum on his rule.

Condemning Chavez's policies as "detrimental to our interests," Kerry said the United States should lead international pressure to persuade him to allow a recall vote.

Venezuelan officials did not immediately respond.

Political analysts said the harsh condemnation of the populist Venezuelan leader aimed to tell him he should not consider Kerry an ideological soul mate united through their opposition to President Bush.

"This gives no reassurance to Chavez. I don't think he's going to find a lot of sympathy from Kerry and the statement makes that clear," said Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington think tank.

Relations between Venezuela, the world's No. 5 oil exporter, and its main petroleum client have been strained by Bush administration criticism of Chavez's self-styled "revolution," his friendship with Cuba's Communist President Fidel Castro and his resistance to the referendum challenge.

Chavez, a former paratrooper elected in 1998, has repeatedly condemned Bush's trade and foreign policies as "imperialist" and accused the U.S. government of trying to topple him, a charge denied by Washington.

'MIXED SIGNALS'

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jesus Perez said in an interview published on Monday his country's relations with the United States could not be worse and would improve if Bush lost the November election.

Perez told El Universal newspaper Bush was to blame for the tense ties "because of his hostile statements."

But Kerry's declaration firmly quashed Chavez's apparent hopes of a more friendly U.S. policy if Kerry won in November.

"It separates his image from that of Chavez, and it's not just a distancing, it's a clear break," said Venezuelan political analyst and author Alberto Garrido.

Analysts said Kerry's criticism went well beyond a U.S. campaign tactic to win votes in key states like Florida, where anti-Castro and anti-Chavez sentiment is strong among exiled Cubans and Venezuelans.

Kerry said Chavez's "close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government."

But his statement also chided the Bush administration for sending "mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere," saying it had "acquiesced" to a brief 2002 coup against Chavez. Washington denies it was involved in the coup.

"Kerry is saying there is a lot at stake in Venezuela and that we need to be engaged and firm. He's trying to show he's not a wimpy democrat, that he's a tough-minded, hard-headed guy," Shifter said.

World Socialist Web Site, Al Jazeerah...CheckItOut has some fine sources

03.23.04 (6:22 am)   [edit]
You know, at least I'm honest about my MAINSTREAM conservative sources when I post an OPINION.

Yet, interestingly, CheckItOut post trash from extreme radical "news" organizations like the anti-US World Socialist Web Site, and the anti-US,Israel, Al Jazeerah.

I would think that if CheckItOut wants to take America back, he could do so by not using anti-US sources.

CheckItOut-- it helps to read a blog before you go ballistic

03.23.04 (6:02 am)   [edit]
CheckItOut went ballz out freaky on me because he thinks I posted a blog saying that Palestinians were weeds.

Actually, should this hysterical anti-conservative bother to read the post, the editorial writer was saying that the world considers them like weeds because they always warn that fighting terror will grow "new terrorists" in their place.

In fact, that is the image the Palestinian terror leadership want us to see-- that they will never be defeated. They will grow back...like, duh, weeds.

The writer was making the judgment that Palestinians, indeed, are not weeds, and that is why we must engage them in the war on terror.

And I know this because I read the damn article, in which the author tellingly says:

"But of course Palestinians aren't weeds. They're human. They think in terms of costs and benefits, they calculate the odds, they respond more or less rationally to incentives and disincentives. And what makes us afraid can also make them afraid. "

My guess is that CheckItOut was aching to use any chance he could to compare conservatives to Hitler (hey, Hitler drank coffee...and conservatives drink coffee! See? Don't you see???). Once again, it helps to know how to read something instead of act with emotions.

China suspends useless human rights 'dialogue' with the US

03.23.04 (4:21 am)   [edit]
Imagine that. A communist dictatorship with a sorry human rights record.

[b]China suspends human rights dialogue with U.S. [/b]
AP
Tuesday, March 23, 2004

BEIJING China angrily suspended dialogue on human rights with the United States on Tuesday, one day after Washington said it would seek to criticize the mainland's rights record at a U.N. conference.

The rights dispute "has already seriously damaged the foundation of the dialogue and exchange on human rights between the two countries," Assistant Foreign Minister Shen Guofang was quoted as saying on the Foreign Ministry's Web site. "China has to immediately suspend the dialogue and exchanges."

China rejects criticism of its human rights record, but has carried on dialogues on the issue with the United States, the European Union and other governments since the mid-1990s.

In past sessions of the high-level discussions, China has agreed to release some political detainees and to allow unconditional visits by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture and the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

In a separate statement, Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan expressed "strong dissatisfaction and opposition" to Washington's plans, announced Monday, to seek a resolution criticizing China's human rights record at the U.N. Human Rights Conference under way in Geneva.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the United States is disappointed by [b]Beijing's failure to keep promises made during a U.S.-China human rights dialogue in 2002. He said China also failed to follow through on its stated intention to expand cooperation on human rights in 2003.[/b]

"We are concerned about backsliding on key human rights issues that has occurred in a variety of areas since that time," Boucher said.

At its annual legislative session this month, China's lawmakers added the first-ever mention of human rights to the constitution, though it was ambiguous and [b]made no reference to political freedom.[/b]

Even so, Shen said it was a sign of "apparent progress."

"Human rights in China are definitely not deteriorating and backsliding like the United States says," Shen said.

In recent weeks, China has released two dissidents from prison and shortened the sentence of a Muslim businesswoman accused of violating national security. Some observers believe the actions were timed to prevent a U.N. resolution condemning China.

Such a resolution has been introduced almost every year at the convention since Beijing's 1989 violent crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations at Tiananmen Square, when hundreds, if not thousands, died.

The United States decided not to seek a resolution against China at last year's conference because it said Beijing had made limited but significant progress on human rights.

But in its annual report on human rights released in February, the State Department criticized the mainland for "backsliding" on the issue since then.

Arrests of democracy activists and others who defied authorities have dashed hopes for a continuation of the "unprecedented' progress achieved the year before, the report said.

Harsh repression of the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement and a crackdown on Internet dissent continued, the report said. The government also used the war on terror to justify a continuing crackdown on Muslim Uighurs in the country's far west, it said.

AP-NY-03-23-04 0306EST

Europe reveals true character on war on terror

03.23.04 (4:04 am)   [edit]
[b]Europe Gives Up the Ghost[/b]
By Val MacQueen
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 23, 2004

Last week, four British-born Muslims were released from Guantanamo Bay and arrived in Britain to a hero?s welcome. The BBC?s glowing kept Trotskyists, pinkos, Islamists and multiculturalists all a-flutter. Every detail of their homecoming ? from their reunions with their families to their first meal on British soil ? was reported for the hungry Left in loving detail, as was their ordeal in the allegedly barbaric Guantanamo Bay facility.

The Sunday Mirror newspaper ran a piece based on an interview with one of the detainees, for which it paid around $100,000. The detainee angrily described the camp?s striptease hell, claiming that innocent young Muslim lads who had never been out of the Middle East before were tortured by watching slinky strippers! These Mata Haris were charged by the diabolical U.S. military with extracting information from the Muslims innocents. This turned out to be a fantasy. One described being chained to the floor, being beaten senseless and injected with a drug against his will, claiming that this episode had involved ?possible amputation.?

More fantasies du jour involved stories of how these four separate individuals came to be captured in the first place. One claimed he had gone to Afghanistan from his home in Britain to take a computer course, a somewhat quixotic choice of venue for someone living in a first world country that has a reliable power supply. He protested that he had no idea there was a war on. Well, of course not! Time for a reality check: this individual could not possibly have missed the 24-hour news coverage in Britain of the build-up to the war. He understood very well that war was imminent and he went precisely because war was imminent.

Another said he?d gone to Afghanistan to look for a wife. He?d have done better to try mail order, given that all the Afghani women were banged up in burquas. And lobbing pick-up lines at women you didn?t know under the Taliban regime was a capital offense ? or at a minimum, grounds for a ?possible amputation.?

A third detainee, a father of three, claimed to have gone to Pakistan to learn Arabic. Pakistan would make an intriguing choice of venue, given that in Pakistan, they speak Urdu. He was in Quetta when he suddenly realized there was a war on. Thinking with lightning speed, he hired a local car and driver to take him back to Europe pronto! (One wonders why he didn?t just have the driver take him to the nearest airport.) He claimed it slipped his mind that to get from Pakistan to Turkey and thence on to Europe, he would have to cross Afghanistan.

A fourth had apparently taken a fancy to go on a solitary walking holiday in Afghanistan and, wandering around in isolation, somehow found himself on the battlefield.

Clearly, these are four very balanced and responsible people, victims of an American cowboy?s prejudice, imperialism and arrogance.

And yet ? according to The Telegraph, quoting London?s The Sun:

?(T)he Americans gave the first detailed account of the circumstances in which four of the British Muslims were captured in Afghanistan. In a statement, the American embassy said one of the captives had received weapons training at an al-Qa?eda safe house in Kabul. He was alleged to have been ?a weapons-carrying fighter?? based in Osama bin Laden's cave stronghold in the Tora Bora mountains and to have been wounded in fighting with coalition forces.

?Two others were alleged to have trained at a military camp in Afghanistan, learning to shoot a Kalashnikov and ?observing hand grenade, landmine and rocket-propelled grenade demonstrations.?

?These two and a third returned to Afghanistan shortly after September 11, 2001, to fight jihad with the Taliban. They lived in caves for several weeks and were issued with Kalashnikovs and ammunition. They stayed with their unit, commanded by a known Taliban leader, for three weeks and were captured near Konduz.

?According to the embassy, one of the released captives ?states he considers the UK and U.S. governments to be his enemies and traveled to Afghanistan after 9/11 for an organisation known to be associated with al-Qa?eda. He also associated with al-Qa?eda extremists in the UK.??

According to The Telegraph?s Diplomatic Editor, Anton La Guardia, ?The Government last night declined to comment on the American allegations against the former Guantanamo Bay detainees but in an implied rebuff to the United States embassy said they did not pose a threat to security.?

Read that again: [i] ?The government?in an implied rebuff to the United States embassy said they did not pose a threat to security.?[/i] Other than a couple of days of police questioning when they landed back in Britain, they are at liberty to walk the streets and consort with whomever they choose.

The majority of British people say they approved of the war and have continued to approve of it despite having found no WMDs. But there is a substantial minority who willfully fail to understand why we fought the war and what we have accomplished. They take a spiteful, triumphalist glee in lauding the returning Guantanamo Bay internees as heroes ? despite the fact that the likelihood is, not only did they commit treason, but were responsible for British and American deaths on the battlefield. One only had to go to the BBC?s ?Have Your Say? website to read the appalling comments. Multiculturalists relished the fact that British-born Muslims, brought up in the sullen ghettoes established by their fathers when Britain and other European countries inexplicably agreed to mass immigration of people with no intention of assimilating, had triumphed over the might of the United States.



But hatred of the most benign great power in history trumps treason any day.



Within a couple of months, London?s Trafalgar Square, which celebrates the victory of the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, led by Britain?s greatest naval hero, Admiral Lord Nelson, will have a new sculpture. It was Nelson?s triumph over the French at sea which foiled Napoleon?s plans to invade Britain. In the center of the square is a 200-foot high column topped by a statue of Lord Nelson. Three other plinths in each corner of the square, celebrate three other British military heroes. There has been controversy for 160 years over who should occupy the fourth plinth.



London?s Marxist mayor, Red Ken Livingstone, held a contest for a statue for the fourth plinth, without any military or heroic reference. I will leave the reader to imagine what dross got onto the short list. Red Ken has now made his choice: The fourth plinth in this square for heroes is to be occupied by a 15-foot high sculpture of a naked, armless, truncated legged, pregnant dwarf. In other words, the Square will soon celebrate everything Britain historically is not: weak, vulnerable, exultantly victimized and surpassingly ugly.



Of course, it is a deliberate assault. It is intended to be an affront to British history and to deface a square dedicated to men who made the British Empire great. Even five years ago, Livingstone and his gang may have had the will, but not the nerve, to place this hideous statue in Trafalgar Square. But they have become emboldened by a country which the Left has succeeded in turning against itself. After all, we celebrate treason, now. George Galloway is an official guest of the mayor of London. And this weekend, thousands in the NION, ANSWER appeasenik militia gathered in that same Trafalgar Square to ?protest? the war in Iraq ? 10 months after we won it. That we won makes their hatred even more bitter.



How did this dark virus ? this HIV of the soul ? find its way into the body of Britain? Yes, more than 50 percent of the adult population supports the war and harbors warm feelings for the United States; but a virus doesn?t only occupy 50 percent of a body. Once it?s in, it works relentlessly to colonize that body. And without intervention, an immune-mediated virus has the power to destroy the host on which its own survival depends.



Just over a week ago, the Spanish voted out the party headed by Aznar, an ally of the ?Coalition of the willing.? On the Wednesday, an opinion poll had put Aznar?s party ahead by five points. On Thursday, a terrorist outrage was perpetrated upon the Spanish citizenry in Madrid. All the signs pointed to al-Qaeda.



On the Sunday, Aznar?s party was defeated by five points. In other words, a 10-point-change between Wednesday and Sunday.



Reasonable people have tried to excuse the Spanish, saying that three million who hadn?t intended to vote were angered by the government?s initial claim that the outrage was perpetrated by the Basque separatists, ETA, saying the government lied to them and so they decided to vote after all. Three million people who were going to stay home (out of an electorate of around 20 million) suddenly decided to vote within two days?



Other reasonable people have said de