ConservaPundit

Clinton administration said there was an Al Qaeda-Saddam link,media did too--they're right (proof)

05.30.04 (8:05 am)   [edit]
[b]The Connection[/b]
From the June 7, 2004 issue: Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right.
by Stephen F. Hayes
06/07/2004, Volume 009, Issue 37

"THE PRESIDENT CONVINCED THE COUNTRY with a mixture of documents that turned out to be forged and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league with al Qaeda," claimed former Vice President Al Gore last Wednesday.

"There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever," declared Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism official under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, in an interview on March 21, 2004.

The editor of the Los Angeles Times labeled as "myth" the claim that links between Iraq and al Qaeda had been proved. A recent dispatch from Reuters simply asserted, "There is no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda." 60 Minutes anchor Lesley Stahl was equally certain: "There was no connection."

And on it goes. This conventional wisdom--that our two most determined enemies were not in league, now or ever--is comforting. It is also wrong.

In late February 2004, Christopher Carney made an astonishing discovery. Carney, a political science professor from Pennsylvania on leave to work at the Pentagon, was poring over a list of officers in Saddam Hussein's much-feared security force, the Fedayeen Saddam. One name stood out: Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. The name was not spelled exactly as Carney had seen it before, but such discrepancies are common. Having studied the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda for 18 months, he immediately recognized the potential significance of his find. According to a report last week in the Wall Street Journal, Shakir appears on three different lists of Fedayeen officers.

An Iraqi of that name, Carney knew, had been present at an al Qaeda summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on January 5-8, 2000. U.S. intelligence officials believe this was a chief planning meeting for the September 11 attacks. Shakir had been nominally employed as a "greeter" by Malaysian Airlines, a job he told associates he had gotten through a contact at the Iraqi embassy. More curious, Shakir's Iraqi embassy contact controlled his schedule, telling him when to show up for work and when to take a day off.

A greeter typically meets VIPs upon arrival and accompanies them through the sometimes onerous procedures of foreign travel. Shakir was instructed to work on January 5, 2000, and on that day, he escorted one Khalid al Mihdhar from his plane to a waiting car. Rather than bid his guest farewell at that point, as a greeter typically would have, Shakir climbed into the car with al Mihdhar and accompanied him to the Kuala Lumpur condominium of Yazid Sufaat, the American-born al Qaeda terrorist who hosted the planning meeting.

The meeting lasted for three days. Khalid al Mihdhar departed Kuala Lumpur for Bangkok and eventually Los Angeles. Twenty months later, he was aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when it plunged into the Pentagon at 9:38 A.M. on September 11. So were Nawaf al Hazmi and his younger brother, Salem, both of whom were also present at the Kuala Lumpur meeting.

Six days after September 11, Shakir was captured in Doha, Qatar. He had in his possession contact information for several senior al Qaeda terrorists: Zahid Sheikh Mohammed, brother of September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; Musab Yasin, brother of Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi who helped mix the chemicals for the first World Trade Center attack and was given safe haven upon his return to Baghdad; and Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, otherwise known as Abu Hajer al Iraqi, described by one top al Qaeda detainee as Osama bin Laden's "best friend."

Despite all of this, Shakir was released. On October 21, 2001, he boarded a plane for Baghdad, via Amman, Jordan. He never made the connection. Shakir was detained by Jordanian intelligence. Immediately following his capture, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence on Shakir, the Iraqi government began exerting pressure on the Jordanians to release him. Some U.S. intelligence officials--primarily at the CIA--believed that Iraq's demand for Shakir's release was pro forma, no different from the requests governments regularly make on behalf of citizens detained by foreign governments. But others, pointing to the flurry of phone calls and personal appeals from the Iraqi government to the Jordanians, disagreed. This panicked reaction, they said, reflected an interest in Shakir at the highest levels of Saddam Hussein's regime.

CIA officials who interviewed Shakir in Jordan reported that he was generally uncooperative. But even in refusing to talk, he provided some important information: The interrogators concluded that his evasive answers reflected counterinterrogation techniques so sophisticated that he had probably learned them from a government intelligence service. Shakir's Iraqi nationality, his contacts with the Iraqi embassy in Malaysia, the keen interest of Baghdad in his case, and now the appearance of his name on the rolls of Fedayeen officers--all this makes the Iraqi intelligence service the most likely source of his training.

The Jordanians, convinced that Shakir worked for Iraqi intelligence, went to the CIA with a bold proposal: Let's flip him. That is, the Jordanians would allow Shakir to return to Iraq on condition that he agree to report back on the activities of Iraqi intelligence. And, in one of the most egregious mistakes by U.S. intelligence after September 11, the CIA agreed to Shakir's release. He posted a modest bail and returned to Iraq.

He hasn't been heard from since.

The Shakir story is perhaps the government's strongest indication that Saddam and al Qaeda may have worked together on September 11. It is far from conclusive; conceivably there were two Ahmed Hikmat Shakirs. And in itself, the evidence does not show that Saddam Hussein personally had foreknowledge of the attacks. Still--like the long, on-again-off-again relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda--it cannot be dismissed.

THERE WAS A TIME not long ago when the conventional wisdom skewed heavily toward a Saddam-al Qaeda links. In 1998 and early 1999, the Iraq-al Qaeda connection was widely reported in the American and international media. Former intelligence officers and government officials speculated about the relationship and its dangerous implications for the world. The information in the news reports came from foreign and domestic intelligence services. It was featured in mainstream media outlets including international wire services, prominent newsweeklies, and network radio and television broadcasts.

Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read:

[i]Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.[/i]

Four days later, on January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden:

[i]Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.[/i]

NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report:

[i]Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.[/i]

By mid-February 1999, journalists did not even feel the need to qualify these claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. An Associated Press dispatch that ran in the Washington Post ended this way: "The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers."

Where did journalists get the idea that Saddam and bin Laden might be coordinating efforts? Among other places, from high-ranking Clinton administration officials.

In the spring of 1998--well before the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa--the Clinton administration indicted Osama bin Laden. The indictment, unsealed a few months later, prominently cited al Qaeda's agreement to collaborate with Iraq on weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton Justice Department had been concerned about negative public reaction to its potentially capturing bin Laden without "a vehicle for extradition," official paperwork charging him with a crime. It was "not an afterthought" to include the al Qaeda-Iraq connection in the indictment, says an official familiar with the deliberations. "It couldn't have gotten into the indictment unless someone was willing to testify to it under oath." The Clinton administration's indictment read unequivocally:

[i]Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.[/i]

On August 7, 1998, al Qaeda terrorists struck almost simultaneously at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The blasts killed 257 people--including 12 Americans--and wounded nearly 5,000. The Clinton administration determined within five days that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks and moved swiftly to retaliate. One of the targets would be in Afghanistan. But the Clinton national security team wanted to strike hard simultaneously, much as the terrorists had. "The decision to go to [Sudan] was an add-on," says a senior intelligence officer involved in the targeting. "They wanted a dual strike."

A small group of Clinton administration officials, led by CIA director George Tenet and national security adviser Sandy Berger, reviewed a number of al Qaeda-linked targets in Sudan. Although bin Laden had left the African nation two years earlier, U.S. officials believed that he was still deeply involved in the Sudanese government-run Military Industrial Corporation (MIC).

The United States retaliated on August 20, 1998, striking al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant outside Khartoum. "Let me be very clear about this," said President Bill Clinton, addressing the nation after the strikes. "There is no question in my mind that the Sudanese factory was producing chemicals that are used--and can be used--in VX gas. This was a plant that was producing chemical warfare-related weapons, and we have physical evidence of that."

The physical evidence was a soil sample containing EMPTA, a precursor for VX nerve gas. Almost immediately, the decision to strike at al Shifa aroused controversy. U.S. officials expressed skepticism that the plant produced pharmaceuticals at all, but reporters on the ground in Sudan found aspirin bottles and a variety of other indications that the plant had, in fact, manufactured drugs. For journalists and many at the CIA, the case was hardly clear-cut. For one thing, the soil sample was collected from outside the plant's front gate, not within the grounds, and an internal CIA memo issued a month before the attacks had recommended gathering additional soil samples from the site before reaching any conclusions. "It caused a lot of heartburn at the agency," recalls a former top intelligence official.

The Clinton administration sought to dispel doubts about the targeting and, on August 24, 1998, made available a "senior intelligence official" to brief reporters on background. The briefer cited "strong ties between the plant and Iraq" as one of the justifications for attacking it. The next day, undersecretary of state for political affairs Thomas Pickering briefed reporters at the National Press Club. Pickering explained that the intelligence community had been monitoring the plant for "at least two years," and that the evidence was "quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq." In all, at least six top Clinton administration officials have defended on the record the strikes in Sudan by citing a link to Iraq.

The Iraqis, of course, denied any involvement. "The Clinton government has fabricated yet another lie to the effect that Iraq had helped Sudan produce this chemical weapon," declared the political editor of Radio Iraq. Still, even as Iraq denied helping Sudan and al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction, the regime lauded Osama bin Laden. On August 27, 1998, 20 days after al Qaeda attacked the U.S. embassies in Africa, Babel, the government newspaper run by Saddam's son Uday Hussein, published an editorial proclaiming bin Laden "an Arab and Islamic hero."

Five months later, the same Richard Clarke who would one day claim that there was "absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever," told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" that Iraq was behind the production of the chemical weapons precursor at the al Shifa plant. "Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it," wrote Post reporter Vernon Loeb, in an article published January 23, 1999. "But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."

Later in 1999, the Congressional Research Service published a report on the psychology of terrorism. The report created a stir in May 2002 when critics of President Bush cited it to suggest that his administration should have given more thought to suicide hijackings. On page 7 of the 178-page document was a passage about a possible al Qaeda attack on Washington, D.C., that "could take several forms." In one scenario, "suicide bombers belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency, or the White House."

A network anchor wondered if it was possible that the White House had somehow missed the report. A senator cited it in calling for an investigation into the 9/11 attacks. A journalist read excerpts to the secretary of defense and raised a familiar question: "What did you know and when did you know it?"

But another passage of the same report has gone largely unnoticed. Two paragraphs before, also on page 7, is this: "If Iraq's Saddam Hussein decide[s] to use terrorists to attack the continental United States [he] would likely turn to bin Laden's al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is among the Islamic groups recruiting increasingly skilled professionals," including "Iraqi chemical weapons experts and others capable of helping to develop WMD. Al Qaeda poses the most serious terrorist threat to U.S. security interests, for al Qaeda's well-trained terrorists are engaged in a terrorist jihad against U.S. interests worldwide."

CIA director George Tenet echoed these sentiments in a letter to Congress on October 7, 2002:

[i]--Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

--We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

--Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

--Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

--We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

--Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.[/i]

Tenet has never backed away from these assessments. Senator Mark Dayton, a Democrat from Minnesota, challenged him on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection in an exchange before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 9, 2004. Tenet reiterated his judgment that there had been numerous "contacts" between Iraq and al Qaeda, and that in the days before the war the Iraqi regime had provided "training and safe haven" to al Qaeda associates, including Abu Musab al Zarqawi. What the U.S. intelligence community could not claim was that the Iraqi regime had "command and control" over al Qaeda terrorists. Still, said Tenet, "it was inconceivable to me that Zarqawi and two dozen [Egyptian Islamic Jihad] operatives could be operating in Baghdad without Iraq knowing."

SO WHAT should Washington do now? The first thing the Bush administration should do is create a team of intelligence experts--or preferably competing teams, each composed of terrorism experts and forensic investigators--to explore the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. For more than a year, the 1,400-member Iraq Survey Group has investigated the nature and scope of Iraq's program to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. At various times in its brief history, a small subgroup of ISG investigators (never more than 15 people) has looked into Iraqi connections with al Qaeda. This is not enough.

Despite the lack of resources devoted to Iraq-al Qaeda connections, the Iraq Survey Group has obtained some interesting new information. In the spring of 1992, according to Iraqi Intelligence documents obtained by the ISG after the war, Osama bin Laden met with Iraqi Intelligence officials in Syria. A second document, this one captured by the Iraqi National Congress and authenticated by the Defense Intelligence Agency, then listed bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence "asset" who "is in good relationship with our section in Syria." A third Iraqi Intelligence document, this one an undated internal memo, discusses strategy for an upcoming meeting between Iraqi Intelligence, bin Laden, and a representative of the Taliban. On the agenda: "attacking American targets." This seems significant.

A second critical step would be to declassify as much of the Iraq-al Qaeda intelligence as possible. Those skeptical of any connection claim that any evidence of a relationship must have been "cherry picked" from much larger piles of existing intelligence that makes these Iraq-al Qaeda links less compelling. Let's see it all, or as much of it as can be disclosed without compromising sources and methods.

Among the most important items to be declassified: the Iraq Survey Group documents discussed above; any and all reporting and documentation--including photographs--pertaining to Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi and alleged Saddam Fedayeen officer present at the September 11 planning meeting; interview transcripts with top Iraqi intelligence officers, al Qaeda terrorists, and leaders of al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al Islam; documents recovered in postwar Iraq indicating that Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi who has admitted mixing the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was given safe haven and financial support by the Iraqi regime upon returning to Baghdad two weeks after the attack; any and all reporting and documentation--including photographs--related to Mohammed Atta's visits to Prague; portions of the debriefings of Faruq Hijazi, former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence, who met personally with bin Laden at least twice, and an evaluation of his credibility.

It is of course important for the Bush administration and CIA director George Tenet to back up their assertions of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. Similarly, declassifying intelligence from the 1990s might shed light on why top Clinton officials were adamant about an Iraq-al Qaeda connection in Sudan and why the Clinton Justice Department included the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship in its 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden. More specifically, what intelligence did Richard Clarke see that allowed him to tell the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had provided a chemical weapons precursor to the al Qaeda-linked al Shifa facility in Sudan? What would compel former secretary of defense William Cohen to tell the September 11 Commission, under oath, that an executive from the al Qaeda-linked plant "traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX [nerve gas] program"? And why did Thomas Pickering, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, tell reporters, "We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program"? Other Clinton administration figures, including a "senior intelligence official" who briefed reporters on background, cited telephone intercepts between a plant manager and Emad al Ani, the father of Iraq's chemical weapons program.

We have seen important elements of the pre-September 11 intelligence available to the Bush administration; it's time for the American public to see more of the intelligence on Iraq and al Qaeda from the 1990s, especially the reporting about the August 1998 attacks in Kenya and Tanzania and the U.S. counterstrikes two weeks later.

Until this material is declassified, there will be gaps in our knowledge. Indeed, even after the full record is made public, some uncertainties will no doubt remain.

The connection between Saddam and al Qaeda isn't one of them.


[i]Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard. Parts of this article are drawn from his new book, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America (HarperCollins).[/i]

Torture is never acceptable, but the fact remains:terrorists have no Geneva rights

05.30.04 (4:56 am)   [edit]
From the Wall Street Journal--

[b]Terrorists Have No Geneva Rights [/b]
Don't blur the lines between Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
BY JOHN YOO
Saturday, May 29, 2004

In light of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, critics are arguing that abuses of Iraqi prisoners are being produced by a climate of disregard for the laws of war. Human-rights advocates, for example, claim that the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners is of a piece with President Bush's 2002 decision to deny al Qaeda and Taliban fighters the legal status of prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. Critics, no doubt, will soon demand that reforms include an extension of Geneva standards to interrogations at Guantanamo Bay.

The effort to blur the lines between Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib reflects a deep misunderstanding about the different legal regimes that apply to Iraq and the war against al Qaeda. It ignores the unique demands of the war on terrorism and the advantages that a facility such as Guantanamo can provide. It urges policy makers and the Supreme Court to make the mistake of curing what could prove to be an isolated problem by disarming the government of its principal weapon to stop future terrorist attacks. Punishing abuse in Iraq should not return the U.S. to Sept. 10, 2001, in the way it fights al Qaeda, while Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants remain at large and continue to plan attacks.

It is important to recognize the differences between the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. The treatment of those detained at Abu Ghraib is governed by the Geneva Conventions, which have been signed by both the U.S. and Iraq. President Bush and his commanders announced early in the conflict that the Conventions applied. Article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention, which applies to prisoners of war, clearly states: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever." This provision would prohibit some interrogation methods that could be used in American police stations.
One thing should remain clear. Physical abuse violates the conventions. The armed forces have long operated a system designed to investigate violations of the laws of war, and ultimately to try and punish the offenders. And it is important to let the military justice system run its course. Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs the treatment of civilians in occupied territories, states that if a civilian "is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the States, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in favor of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State." To be sure, Article 31 of the Fourth Convention prohibits any "physical or moral coercion" of civilians "to obtain information from them," and there is a clear prohibition of torture, physical abuse, and denial of medical care, food, and shelter. Nonetheless, Article 5 makes clear that if an Iraqi civilian who is not a member of the armed forces, has engaged in attacks on Coalition forces, the Geneva Convention permits the use of more coercive interrogation approaches to prevent future attacks.

A response to criminal action by individual soldiers should begin with the military justice system, rather than efforts to impose a one-size-fits-all policy to cover both Iraqi saboteurs and al Qaeda operatives. That is because the conflict with al Qaeda is not governed by the Geneva Conventions, which applies only to international conflicts between states that have signed them. Al Qaeda is not a nation-state, and its members--as they demonstrated so horrifically on Sept. 11, 2001--violate the very core principle of the laws of war by targeting innocent civilians for destruction. While Taliban fighters had an initial claim to protection under the conventions (since Afghanistan signed the treaties), they lost POW status by failing to obey the standards of conduct for legal combatants: wearing uniforms, a responsible command structure, and obeying the laws of war.

As a result, interrogations of detainees captured in the war on terrorism are not regulated under Geneva. This is not to condone torture, which is still prohibited by the Torture Convention and federal criminal law. Nonetheless, Congress's definition of torture in those laws--the infliction of severe mental or physical pain--leaves room for interrogation methods that go beyond polite conversation. Under the Geneva Convention, for example, a POW is required only to provide name, rank, and serial number and cannot receive any benefits for cooperating.

The reasons to deny Geneva status to terrorists extend beyond pure legal obligation. The primary enforcer of the laws of war has been reciprocal treatment: We obey the Geneva Conventions because our opponent does the same with American POWs. That is impossible with al Qaeda. It has never demonstrated any desire to provide humane treatment to captured Americans. If anything, the murders of Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl declare al Qaeda's intentions to kill even innocent civilian prisoners. Without territory, it does not even have the resources to provide detention facilities for prisoners, even if it were interested in holding captured POWs.
It is also worth asking whether the strict limitations of Geneva make sense in a war against terrorists. Al Qaeda operates by launching surprise attacks on civilian targets with the goal of massive casualties. Our only means for preventing future attacks, which could use WMDs, is by acquiring information that allows for pre-emptive action. Once the attacks occur, as we learned on Sept. 11, it is too late. It makes little sense to deprive ourselves of an important, and legal, means to detect and prevent terrorist attacks while we are still in the middle of a fight to the death with al Qaeda. Applying different standards to al Qaeda does not abandon Geneva, but only recognizes that the U.S. faces a stateless enemy never contemplated by the Conventions.

This means that the U.S. can pursue different interrogation policies in each location. In fact, Abu Ghraib highlights the benefits of Guantanamo. We can guess that the unacceptable conduct of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib resulted in part from the dangerous state of affairs on the ground in a theater of war. American soldiers had to guard prisoners on the inside while receiving mortar and weapons fire from the outside. By contrast, Guantanamo is distant from any battlefield, making it far more secure. The naval station's location means the military can base more personnel there and devote more resources to training and supervision.

A decision by the Supreme Court to subject Guantanamo to judicial review would eliminate these advantages. The Justices are currently considering a case, argued last month, which seeks to extend the writ of habeas corpus to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at Guantanamo. If the Court were to extend its reach to the base, judges could begin managing conditions of confinement, interrogation methods, and the use of information. Not only would this call on the courts to make judgments and develop policies for which they have no expertise, but the government will be encouraged to keep its detention facilities in the theater of conflict. Judicial over-confidence in intruding into war decisions could produce more Abu Ghraibs in dangerous combat zones, and remove our most effective means of preventing future terrorist attacks.

Mr. Yoo, a law professor at Berkeley, is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former Bush Justice Department official.

So the world's mad at us? Maybe we should just say goodbye.

05.30.04 (4:51 am)   [edit]
[b]America, Recuse Thyself! [/b]
So the world's mad at us? Maybe we should just say goodbye.
BY P.J. O'ROURKE
Sunday, May 30, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

John Kerry says America shouldn't cut and run. George Bush says America mustn't. But we don't have to retreat ignominiously from the war on terrorism and from our other international responsibilities and commitments; we can recuse ourselves. We can explain to the court of global public opinion that, because America possesses the largest economy, the widest network of business relationships, and the only effective military force on earth, we have too great a vested interest in world events to render fair and impartial judgment. On every issue of geopolitical adjudication, from 9/11 to the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, America is a jury of cops and crime victims. A change in venire has already been called for by noisy street protestors, France and suchlike. Let's accede to the pre-emptory challenge and go home.

The benefits will be immediate. We can cut $300 billion from our defense budget. This will be almost enough to pay for the aging baby boomers' prescription drug benefits, which can now include Levitra, Botox and medicinal cannabis.

America will enjoy cleaner air and less traffic congestion as oil goes to $200 a barrel due to chaos in the Middle East. A U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East will cause chaos, of course. Then again, a U.S. intervention in the Middle East has caused chaos already. And, during those periods of history when the U.S. was neither intervening in nor withdrawing from the Middle East, there was . . . chaos. The situation is akin to the famous complaint women have against men: failure to acknowledge that not every problem can be fixed. Sometimes the best thing is just a little sympathy. America had everyone's sympathy after the World Trade towers were attacked. We can get that sympathy back if we limit our foreign policy objectives to whining.

One thing to whine about will be the fate of Israel. Without American safeguards that nation is certain to be militarily attacked. To judge by previous Israeli wars, in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982, the result will be serious headaches for Israelis as the Knesset furiously debates the status of Jewish settlements outside Damascus and on the west bank of the Euphrates.
Elsewhere, however, Islamic fundamentalists will likely triumph. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Our own country was founded by people who, today, would be considered religious extremists. Perhaps a bond of fellow-feeling will grow between puritanical Muslims and heirs to American Puritanism. Maybe cultural exchanges of the old U.S.-Soviet type can build people-to-people-based peaceful coexistence such as we had during the Kissinger era of detente. Visiting America on fellowship programs, even the most fanatical members of al Qaeda will be moved by the story of the Salem witch trials and their pious outcome. And while Hester Prynne was not stoned to death, her crime may be said to have been treated with the letter, if not the spirit, of sharia law.

Meanwhile various unpopular rulers who have held onto power with American support will be forced to submit to the will of their people. Tony Blair comes to mind.

Other positive effects are to be expected. The United Nations, freed from superpower interference, will assume its rightful role exercising peacemaking functions--and getting plenty of exercise at it. Scores of belligerents, freed from superpower interference, will create opportunities for U.N. peacemaking functions such as sending numerous bureaucrats, functionaries, commissions and inspection teams to keep combatants too busy with meetings and paperwork to have time to fight.

A NATO alliance that does not include the U.S. will acquire a new sense of mission and purpose, especially in Gdansk, Istanbul and maybe Hamburg, when Russia resumes its historic quest for warm-water ports.

The threat of nuclear proliferation will abate as dangerous stockpiles of atomic weapons are quickly used up. The loss of life will be regrettable. But this will be counterbalanced by the welcome disappearance of long-standing international flashpoints when the India-Pakistan border is vaporized, Tehran disappears in a mushroom cloud, and whatever is left of the Korean Peninsula becomes reunited.

China will assume its proper role in the world. A booming China can be expected to concentrate on economic issues. Look for Beijing to create a "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere," so to speak. And China won't have to bomb Pearl Harbor. There will be nothing there but cruise ships--all in mothballs as a result of $200-a-barrel oil.

America's protestors against globalization will be able to relax. An inward-looking America is bound to link military and diplomatic disengagement with higher trade barriers. There will be domestic political pressure to create jobs for the hundreds of thousands of returning military personnel, State Department employees, Peace Corps volunteers, network foreign-correspondents, etc. Unfortunately, the jobs will be mostly mowing lawns and taking care of the children of husband/wife lawyer couples, since a decreasing involvement with foreign affairs will lead to an increasing resentment of foreign immigrants. (At a theoretical level there may be no reason why Isolationism, Protectionism and Nativism should be conjoined. But we can hardly have Larry and Curly without Moe.) Yet in a sensitive, diverse 21st-century America, we probably will be spared past excesses. Perhaps we'll see the rise of an In-Klusive Klux Klan. Plus, an increase in the minimum wage will solve the problem of employment inequities.

And the best thing about Americans recusing ourselves from global entanglements is that we will be loved again. Imagine a world where American manners and mores set the standard almost everywhere, where American fashions, American ideas and American lifestyles are universally sought out and copied. A world where people avidly listen to American music, eagerly watch American TV and movies, and try to imitate Americans in every way. Imagine a world where the U.S.A. is so admired that people by the millions want nothing more than to come to America and recuse themselves from global entanglements.

My blog postings will be much more infrequent

05.30.04 (4:49 am)   [edit]
To the scant few that read this blog--

I've got a new job that has a wacky schedule and as such I cannot guarantee a daily post, but I will post as much as I can (it will probably be once every two days until I can get a better schedule).

Iraqi police act like the French and run out of Najaf, throwing peace deal in doubt

05.30.04 (4:44 am)   [edit]
From CNN.com-- http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD...

[b]Concerns over Najaf deal as police leave[/b]
Sunday, May 30, 2004

NAJAF, Iraq (CNN) -- About 100 Iraqi police, who had arrived in Najaf this week to begin joint patrols with U.S.-led coalition forces, have left the Shiite holy city, according to U.S. military officials.

It was not clear why they apparently deserted their posts on Sunday, but it has added to the skepticism at the U.S. military base in Najaf that a unilateral peace agreement announced three days ago by Shiite representatives will quell the ongoing violence.

Coalition officials had hoped to eventually turn over the security situation in Najaf to Iraqi police, a measure that was called for by the agreement that was written by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Al-Sadr pledged to withdraw most of his militia from the Najaf region if U.S. forces did the same.

The U.S.-led coalition responded by agreeing to halt its offensive operations in an effort to give the tentative peace deal a chance.

Meanwhile, fighting between coalition forces and al-Sadr's Mehdi Army continued Sunday for a third day, despite the announcement of al-Sadr's agreement. There were no initial reports of casualties.

After insurgents attacked American forces Friday in Najaf and Kufa, coalition military spokesman Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said the attacks were "small incidents" and "don't seem to be endemic."

"We can't really say if these are characteristic of a larger group splitting away from Sadr or if it is just some of the groups that haven't gotten the word," Kimmitt said.

"It could take a few days before the true cease-fire that he offered holds. We will have to wait and see and respond as and when necessary."

Al-Sadr sent a letter Thursday to the Shiite leaders of the Iraqi Governing Council, offering to pull the majority of his militia from Najaf if U.S. forces did the same.

The coalition military agreed to stop offensive operations, but not to withdraw.

Coalition officials feared that U.S. troops withdrawing from Najaf before Iraqi security forces are ready to move in -- and they are not -- would create an unwanted power vacuum. Officials said before the police desertions on Sunday they hoped there would be about 1,000 police in the holy city in coming weeks.

U.S. officials accuse al-Sadr, a maverick, anti-American Shiite cleric, of fomenting unrest in a number of southern Iraqi cities, including the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala.

Al-Sadr is wanted in connection with the killing of a rival cleric last year.

Four U.S. troops killed in fighting
Three U.S. Marines were killed Saturday in Iraq's vast Al Anbar province while conducting "security and stability operations," according to a coalition news release issued Sunday.

The coalition also reported the death of a U.S. soldier killed Tuesday in a mortar attack at a military base south of Baghdad.

Also, a U.S. soldier with the Stryker Brigade died Friday in Mosul, but the death was "not due to enemy fire," the U.S.-led coalition said Saturday.

With the deaths, 811 U.S. forces have been killed in the Iraq war, 594 from hostile fire. Of those, 672 have died since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1, 2003 -- 484 from hostile fire.

INC official: Chalabi's group ordered to evacuate office
Iraqi police have ordered Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress to permanently abandon their office in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, INC official Haider al-Musawi said Sunday.

Police and INC officials are still negotiating a solution, he said, and there is no order to confiscate anything from the building.

The evacuation order could be something specific to the building rather than to the INC, al-Musawi said. Iraqi police had asked the INC evacuate at some point Sunday, but the deadline was not clear.

Two weeks ago, Chalabi's Baghdad compound was raided by U.S. and Iraqi forces.

The Iraqi National Congress is a group of dissidents who pushed for a U.S.-led war to topple Saddam Hussein and contributed to U.S. intelligence-gathering efforts.

Chalabi was once a close ally with the U.S. government and seen as a possible U.S.-backed leader of a new, post-Saddam Iraqi government.

Other developments

The fire chief in Iraq's northern city of Kirkuk was shot dead along with three family members Saturday morning, according to police. Col. Mohammed Sabir Hameed, his wife, and her brother and sister, were all killed as the fire chief headed to his office, according to Kirkuk deputy police chief Gen. Torhan Yousif. They were all Kurds, and their assailants are unknown.

Two mortars were fired at Iraq's Ministry of Construction and Housing in Baghdad Saturday morning, wounding four people, according to an Iraqi official.

The U.S. military changed the status of a soldier thought to have died in combat after a military probe found that he was captured and killed. Sgt. Donald Walters, part of the 507th Maintenance Company, which included former Pfc. Jessica Lynch, was found to have been taken captive March 23, 2003, when the company's convoy became lost in Nasiriya. He later was killed by unknown captors, the military probe found. (Full story)

CNN Baghdad Bureau Chief Jane Arraf and journalist Mohammed Sharif contributed to this report from Najaf

Al Gore's speech was a farce, discrediting the left and helping Republicans

05.28.04 (11:01 am)   [edit]
May 27, 2004, 8:29 a.m.
[b]Republicans Love It When Gore Gets Mad
The more screaming, the better.[/b]
-Byron York, National Review

For the record, Republican officials are denouncing the speech that former vice president Al Gore gave yesterday condemning the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq and the larger war on terror. But privately, GOP strategists say they are "delighted" that Gore, whose speeches include rhetorical extremes and are delivered with vein-popping fury, has apparently taken a high-profile role as a surrogate for the Kerry campaign. Such performances, GOP insiders believe, will eventually alienate all but the most dedicated Democratic base voters.

Gore's speech was delivered under the sponsorship of MoveOn.org PAC, the political action committee formed by the anti-Bush Internet-activist group. In his remarks, Gore blasted the American treatment of "helpless, naked Iraqi prisoners" at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The abuse scandal, Gore said, was not just the fault of the low-ranking soldiers who committed the acts, but of the highest levels of the Bush administration, "who approved a policy of establishing an American Gulag."

"How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the world and in the conscience of our own people," Gore said, his voice rising to a shout and his face taking on a strained, angry expression. "How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison."

Besides calling for the defeat of President Bush and Vice President Cheney this November, Gore called for the immediate resignation of six top administration officials: National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, CIA Director George Tenet, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, along with top Rumsfeld deputies Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and Stephen Cambone. Altogether, Gore accused the administration of implementing " twisted values and atrocious policies at the highest levels of our government."

In response, the Republican National Committee released a statement saying Gore had been vice president for eight years in which "Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States five times and terrorists killed U.S. citizens on at least four different occasions." The statement continued: "Al Gore's attacks on the president today demonstrate that he either does not understand the threat of global terror, or he has amnesia."

However, speaking privately, some in the GOP were not at all unhappy with Gore's speech. "We're delighted by it," said one GOP strategist, "because what you see now is a coalescing of the 'blame America first' wing of the Democratic party that has been largely absent from the stage since 1984."

The strategist explained that Gore's emotional performance, like earlier speeches the former vice president has given assailing the Bush administration, will not appeal to the great majority of voters. "It was an anger-filled speech before an angry audience belonging to an angry group," the Republican insider continued. "All these things are a turnoff to people."

Finally, Gore singled out one non-government official for attack: conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh. The former vice president called on President Bush to "condemn" Limbaugh, whom Gore called "perhaps [the president's] strongest political supporter."

Limbaugh, speaking on his radio program, said he found it odd to be included among the administration officials named by Gore. "I have never seen a media figure targeted much the same way the president of the United States is being targeted," Limbaugh said, "and now the president of the United States, who's got really important things to do, has been told or challenged by Gore to condemn me."

Al Gore knows jack about the Geneva Conventions

05.28.04 (10:23 am)   [edit]
May 28, 2004, 8:09 a.m.

[b]Contemptuous Al
Gore and the Geneva Convention.[/b]
--Rich Lowry

In his latest rip-roaring attack on the Bush administration, Al Gore basically called on everyone in the Pentagon's civilian leadership short of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs William Winkenwerder Jr. to resign. Their list of offenses is myriad, according to Gore, including a charge rarely heard in political debate — "the impending loss of intimacy with one's soul." Gore is judge, hangman, and therapist, all in one.

The administration's gravest alleged misconduct is treating the Geneva Convention with contempt. The abuses at Abu Ghraib were "the natural consequence" of Bush policy, says Gore. He all but accuses President Bush of personally dressing Iraqi detainees in women's underwear. No respectable Bush critic would dare use Gore's inflammatory language — he says Bush is running a "gulag," thus associating him with Josef Stalin — but his essential charge on the Geneva Convention has been repeated even in more serious quarters. If Gore et al. want to scold the Bush administration for ignoring the Geneva Convention, the least they can do is properly understand its purpose and its provisions.

White House counsel Alberto Gonzales has been criticized for a 2002 legal memorandum in which he described parts of the Geneva Convention as "quaint." He was right. As law-of-war expert David Rivkin points out, the convention regarding treatment of prisoners was originally signed in 1949 with World War II in mind. Prisoners of war were assumed to be conscripts caught up in a war by no fault of their own, and therefore entitled not just to humane treatment, but to "Hogan's Heroes" treatment.

Under the Third Geneva Convention, POWs must be housed in "dormitories," and provided a "canteen," where they can buy "foodstuffs, soap and tobacco and ordinary articles in daily use." The canteen's profits must be available for the prisoners' use, and POW representatives must participate in the canteen's operation. "The practice of intellectual, educational, and recreational pursuits, sports and games amongst prisoners" must be encouraged.

The Bush administration, rightly, says these provisions don't apply to al Qaeda prisoners and other "unlawful combatants" with nothing in common with regular soldiers. Gore apparently disagrees. So captured al Qaeda big Abu Zubaida, for instance, should be held in a comfortable dorm setting and perhaps even avail himself of the occasional friendly chess game with a certain former vice president. He shouldn't be bothered with tough interrogation, from which the Geneva Convention protects POWs — not when he has the operation of the local canteen to worry about. Will the market bear falafels priced at $3 or $5?

Treating Zubaida and other thugs thusly would do more to undermine the Geneva Convention than anything Gore is accusing Bush of. The convention was designed to disadvantage combatants who don't obey the laws of war by fighting out of uniform, lacking a discernable chain of command or targeting civilians. The distinction is meant to encourage combatants to honor relatively civilized standards of conduct in combat and foreswear such dangerous tactics as hiding among civilians.

Gore's absurd reinterpretation of the Geneva Convention to protect terrorists makes a huge intellectual concession to al Qaeda, former Baathist fighters, and other criminal groups — that their men are indistinguishable under international law from American GIs. Gore is also willing to kiss off the intelligence gained from the kind of interrogation forbidden of regular soldiers under the Geneva Convention. Intelligence under interrogation has been crucial to the capture of Saddam Hussein and many high-level al Qaeda officials.

"Pvt. Lynndie England," Gore thundered in his speech, "did not make the decision that the United States would not observe the Geneva Convention." Put aside the fact that no one in the Bush administration decided to deny Geneva protections to those entitled to them. The suggestion that England's perverse conduct at Abu Ghraib was influenced one way or the other by Bush's interpretation of international law is ridiculous. She knows as little about the Geneva Convention as, well, Al Gore.

— Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.

Leftist Soros bought campaign finance 'reform',buying Bush defeat with illegal 527 ads

05.28.04 (10:18 am)   [edit]
A good article on the hypocritical left-wing's George Soros, trying to buy a defeat for Bush through his unethical and illegal 527 ads.

How does it feel, lefties, to be the party of special interest, of big, illegal money, of anti-Americanism, of anti-free speech ,of power by any means nececssary?

The whole idea that you guys are for America is a load of bunk. Soros has outed the left and its ambitions for what they are.

[b]Soros' "Reform"[/b]
By James O. E. Norell
First Freedoms | May 28, 2004

If there were an illustration accompanying the word "hypocrisy" in the dictionary, it would be an engraving of globalist billionaire George Soros.

[b]Soros, one of the richest men in the world, backed campaign finance reform with huge cash donations to a wide variety of Washington "reform" special interest groups to accomplish what his funding conduit called an effort "to reduce the corrupting influence of very large donors" and to ban pre-election "issue advocacy" ads by groups like the NRA.

[u]Now, arch-reformer Soros is pouring perhaps as much as $30-million of his own money into left-wing "progressive" organizations he believes are uniquely inoculated against the restrictions of the very law Soros bought and paid for – restrictions like the ban on
Broadcast political advertising.[/b][/u]

When the U.S. Senate debated the so-called campaign finance reform bill, March 19, 2001, U.S. Sen. Susan M. Collins (R-Maine) said of The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 (BCRA), "First and foremost, the bill closes the most glaring loophole in our campaign finance laws by banning the unlimited, unregulated contributions known as ‘soft money.’ Second, the bill regulates and limits the campaign advertisements masquerading as issue ads that corporations and labor organizations often run in the weeks leading up to an election. And third, the bill prohibits foreign nationals from contributing soft money in connection with federal, state, or local elections."

[b]That oppressive law, which NRA opposed in Congress, and fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, bans any broadcast "issue advocacy" advertising paid for by independent organizations like NRA or by unions if the ads "refer to" a candidate for Federal office and can be seen or heard by people who are eligible to vote for that candidate. [/b]The ban takes effect 30 day before a primary and 60 days before the general election. And the ban has criminal penalties attached. Under rules adopted by the FEC, an ad that even refers to a candidate by generic title, such as "the President," is prohibited. An ad where the viewer can guess the subject of the ad is also prohibited.

U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) voiced the "reformers" definition of the evil term "soft money" during the floor debate, saying, "Money that threatens to drown out the voice of the average voter of average means; money that creates the appearance that a wealthy few have a disproportionate say over public policy…"

Bingo.

But in terms of the public policy of so-called campaign finance reform, Dodd’s words couldn’t have been truer. [b]Without Soros spending at least $18 million to fund an army of the slickest "public interest" D.C. lobbyists and PR spin meisters, it is doubtful that McCain-Feingold would have become law. Soros was the hand in the sock-puppet.[/b]]

[b]Once he bought that "disproportionate say" over that public policy, Soros moved on to fund opposition to the NRA’s U.S. Supreme Court challenge to the broadcast ban, and the umbrella suit bearing the name of U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnel, which challenged most sections of BCRA on First Amendment grounds.[/b]

Having done that, Soros moved on to what may have been his real purpose. The Washington Post – [b]in a fawning November 11, 2003 profile interview with Soros – served up his political manifesto, erasing illusions about the "soft money reform," or at least the notion of the average little guy versus the average billionaire.

"George Soros, one of the world's richest men, has given away nearly $5 billion to promote democracy in the former Soviet bloc, Africa and Asia. [i]Now he has a new project: defeating President Bush.[/i]

[u]"‘It is the central focus of my life,’ Soros said."[/u][/b]

In fact, Soros said he would spend all the billions of dollars in his personal fortune if he could be guaranteed that President Bush would be cast out of the White House.

[b]Does that statement meet Chris Dodd’s cry of concern? "Money that threatens to drown out the voice of the average voter of average means" is a phrase that surely describes most NRA members, who pooling individual worth could not match the fortune at Soros’ disposal.[/b]

Soros believes he is the apostle of something he calls "the open society" under which national sovereignty is subjugated to global "democracy;" a vision that includes the borderless spread of international gun control. Soros has promoted this cause with an outpouring of funds from his Open Society Institute (OSI), which he also used to fund campaign finance lobbying for the last half of the 1990’s.

The Washington Post puff piece on Soros was sparked by news that the one-world billionaire had given $5-million – the largest "soft money" contribution in American history -- to an organization called MoveOn.org. [b]It was the first of many such massive Soros contributions to this and other similar "stealth" groups set up after enactment of McCain-Feingold.[/b]

But Soros, as an unspeakably wealthy donor, is not alone. He is an enabler, a networker, a fund-raiser sparking huge contributions from other leftist billionaires – personal friends and business associates -- like Peter B. Lewis, chairman of Progressive Corp. (insurance), and Hollywood mogul Stephen Bing. [b]These friends have ponied up millions to fund MoveOn.org, along with other shadowy, under-the-radar political organizations.[/b]

Soros -- a self-styled citizen of the world who has spent billions meddling in the internal affairs of many nations -- has been credited with wrecking national currencies and toppling governments.

[b]Soros has compared Bush to Hitler and told a European audience he was seeking "regime change" in the U.S. "America, under Bush, is a danger to the world, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is," Soros told the Washington Post.[/b]

He told Bill Moyer’s PBS NOW broadcast that his multi-million-dollar gift is "the same kind of grass roots organizing that we did when we helped in Slovakia when Mechar was defeated, in Croatia when Tudjman was defeated and in Yugoslavia when Milisovioc…" He is widely credited last year with funding the revolution that ousted the elected leader in the former Soviet Republic, Georgia.

How does the infusion of billionaire dollars to MoveOn.org bring about a "regime change" in America?

[b]What Soros’ and his "progressive" billionaire partners are getting from MoveOn.org in return for their breathtaking "soft money" largess is a massive attack-ad campaign – which they believe is immune from BCRA – designed to move radical voters to "take back America." That means "take" the power of the national government – the White House and Congress.[/b]

In targeting President Bush, The MoveOn.org Voter Fund website brags, "We will produce convincing anti-Bush TV spots and get them on the air in targeted states. We will buy enough airtime to effectively deliver our message to swing voters in those states.

We will sustain our advertising presence continually throughout the pre-primary and primary periods."

[u][b][i]So how is it that MoveOn.org is doing what law-abiding non-profit grass roots organizations cannot do? And how is it that even the "appearance of corruption" that soft money represented doesn’t apply to Soros.[/b][/i][/u]

Soros and his fellow billionaire travelers are poster boys for what they once claimed were the evils of soft money. [b]But in Soros’ grand vision of himself, "the corrupting influence of very large donors" (his OSI’s words) doesn’t apply to him or his pure motives. In his thick Hungarian accent, he told National Public Radio that his massive contributions to affect the November 2004 elections were morally above question.[/b]

"I am not motivated by self-interest [i]but by what I believe to be the public interest.[/i] So when the Republican National Committee attacks me and distorts my motives… You see, I'm different from their contributors," he said.

In other words, [b]Soros believes he is above the law, above even the question of appearance of corruption, because, in his heart he knows he’s right. Soros indeed believes he is special -- not just in moral purity, but under the law as well.[/b]

While the long debate over campaign finance was rife with the use of the pejorative, "loophole," Soros and the handful of "progressive" political activists he funds believe they have found total immunity from the laws Soros paid so heavily to have applied to everyone else. The loophole they have sought comes not in the BCRA, but in the Federal Tax Code, which covers certain entities known as "527’s."

Since it is now against the law for national parties to receive "soft money" -- which they used in pre-McCain-Feingold days used for get-out-the-vote drives and issue advertising -- the theory is that those functions, along with the unlimited funds from big donors like Soros can be shifted to "527’s".

In essence, "527’s" claim to have immunity from sunshine reporting and all other strictures demanded by the FEC under BCRA, because they were created under the U.S. Tax code. [b]It’s like a drunk driver saying the traffic laws don’t apply to him because anti-pollution laws in a vehicle cover him.[/b][i] Hiding under the "527" category are some very inbred Democratic Party operatives – all on the radical left. Their organizations have become stealth political parties – in the case of Soros’ benefaction, stealth ultra-left, anti-gun-rights political parties.[/i]

And unlike the Democratic or Republican parties, nobody elects those who control "527" functions, and many of these organizations aided by Soros operate in near total secrecy.

Some – like former Clinton White House operative Harold Ickes’ Media Fund – which scant press reports say will be launching attack ads against President Bush -- can’t be found in a Google Search. Some are merely addresses in nowhere.

[b]The Washington Post, perhaps the only media outlet waking up to the depth of this scam, editorialized on an entity created in Texas called the Sustainable World Corp., incorporated on December 10, 2003. A few days later it split $3.1 million between a "527" called Joint Victory Campaign 2004 and the Ickes Media Fund. The Post noted that the only public information available on the Sustainable World Corp. is a Houston post office box, and that its registered agent refused to identify the principals of his client.[/b]

Another "527" listed on the IRS website called "Campaign for a Progressive Future" (CPF) has expenditures tied to the Million Mom March. It has an address in the tiny town of Washington, Virginia. Among its donors are George Soros and Soros Fund Management and the Irene Diamond Fund, which helped bankroll the NAACP anti-gun lawsuit. Each Fund gave the CPF $500,000. A Google Search on the CPF produces nothing but an information page under the heading "Silent Partners" from the Center for Public Integrity, which lists the group as an "organization that supports candidates opposed by the National Rifle Association." (The NRA-ILA Website provides a good but necessarily sketchy a fact sheet as well.)

In his NPR NOW interview, Soros claimed, "I am contributing to independent organizations that are by law forbidden to coordinate their activities with political parties or candidates." That is what he sees as the only restriction on his obscene soft money largess.

But a search on the Democratic National Committee Website for the words "MoveOn.org" produces a few paragraphs that raise instant questions for Soros.

One item says, "The DNC is also conducting a major petition drive in partnership with MoveOn.org. More than 310,000 Americans have signed the petition to protect our courts - with more than 172,000 of those signatures coming in the past 36 hours. The petition calls on Bush and the Republicans to stop nominating judges that are out of step with mainstream Americans and praising the Democrats for standing up for their rights." The DNC website links the petition.

The other announcement involved what the DNC called "a massive public mobilization" in which "The Democratic Party is partnering with MoveOn.org…" to fight President Bush’s tax cuts.

[b]But this is just the beginning of obvious coordination of this "527" and the DNC. A December 9, 2003 In These Times magazine cover-story described the work of a small network of radical "527’s" including MoveOn.org Voter Fund which were "created after McCain-Feingold to circumvent the ban on soft money. Named for the section of the tax code that regulates them, these progressive 527s -- nearly all funded and organized by traditional Democratic allies such as labor, environmental and reproductive rights groups -- can raise huge sums of unregulated money for voter education and registration so long as they do not advocate for a specific candidate."[/b]

As for their source of "huge sums of unregulated money," the article says, "So far the 527’s haven't had much of a problem finding cash, thanks in no small part to billionaire financier George Soros, who has donated $12 million so far to 527’s and has pledged millions more."

[b]George has in reality shut down the traditional functions of political parties. Campaign finance reforms have allowed a small handful of left wing radicals to hijack the key machinery of a whole segment American politics.[/b]

The key stealth "527" organization funded by Soros is something called American’s Coming Together (ACT), to which Soros reportedly provided $10-million in seed money.

An August 8, 2003 press release from the group said, "A new political action committee, America Coming Together (ACT), will undertake a substantial effort in 17 key states to defeat President George W. Bush and elect progressive officials at every level in 2004, and to engage and mobilize millions of voters on key public issues." The press release characterization was a slip of the tongue. In fact, ACT is not a political action committee at all but a 527.

Sugar-daddy Soros’ America Coming Together is headed by Steve Rosenthal, formerly the Political Director of the AFL-CIO, whose title is now Chief Executive Officer of ACT, and by and Ellen R. Malcom, founder of EMILY’s list, the nation’s most notable pro-abortion "special interest" political action committee. Ms. Malcolm’s title is President, though the ACT website says she will keep her post at EMILY’s List.

In addition the ACT website www.americacomingtogether.com lists:

Minyon Moore, "formerly Chief Operations Officer for the [b]Democratic National Committee[/b];" Gina Glantz, the former national campaign manager for the Bill Bradley for President Campaign; Cecile Richards, "President of America Votes, a coalition of 17 national organizations working together to educate and mobilize voters in the 2004 elections…;" Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU); and Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club. Pope is listed as ACT’s Treasurer.

There’s more. An Internet search produces a press release on the Democratic National Committee website announcing Minyon Moore’s August 2002 departure as the DNC’s Chief Operating Officer to work for Dewey Square Group, a Democratic political consultancy.

According to the DNC, "Moore served as White House political director under President Clinton, as Political Director of the DNC… Moore will continue to serve as a senior advisor to the DNC and to Chairman (Terry) McAuliff." In addition, the chairman said, "I couldn’t be more thrilled than to nominate her to serve as an At-Large DNC member as well as a member of the DNC’s executive committee." The release quotes Ms. Moore: "I look forward to maintaining a close relationship with the DNC in my new position at Dewy Square…"

Cecile Richards is the activist daughter of Anne Richards, the former Governor of Texas who lost her job to George W. Bush. She is a former organizer for the Service Employees Union and is President of America Votes, which just so happen to be another 527 organization getting soft money. Before coming to America Votes, Ms. Richards was Deputy Chief of Staff to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

At Ms. Richard’s America Votes website (www.Americavotes.org) the group claims to be a "non-partisan political organization" which includes among its "coalition," – you guessed it – America Coming Together. Also among the 17 America Votes affiliates are the Service Employees Union, the Sierra Club and EMILY’s list.

[b]The address for America Votes is:

888 16th St., N.W. Suite 440
Washington, D.C. 20006

Incidentally, that is the same address as America Coming Together, which is located one door down at suite 450.

And it is the address of another 527 "stealth PAC" – The Partnership for America’s Families, which according to The Center for Public Integrity, received funding from the Dewey Square Group, Ms. Moore’s employer, and DNC consultant.[/b]

There is a phrase for this. Political incest.

In case there is any doubt about the possibility of coordination with a party, 888 16th Street is the same address as the Democratic National Committee’s temporary headquarters.

How on earth can anybody pretend there is no coordination?

Author Christopher Hayes’ description in the In These Times, article, "Door by Door -- Progressives hit the streets in massive voter outreach, bears repeating:

[b]"These field operations will be supervised, coordinated and executed by these same dozen so-called 527s, such as Americans Coming Together and America Votes, created after McCain-Feingold to circumvent the ban on soft money."

"Issue advocacy and voter contact in an election year is nothing new, but never before have progressive groups come together to coordinate their efforts, pool their resources and collectively execute the program. Although the organizational structure binding the half-dozen largest 527s is to a certain extent ad hoc, most of the groups are staffed by the same pool of veteran political organizers and headquartered in the same office building at 888 16th St.-across the street from the AFL-CIO in Washington, D.C.

"Alongside groups that will manage and execute the field operations are a few 527s, like America Votes, dedicated solely to coordinating these efforts.

"The energy surrounding field efforts is palpable, and many veteran party activists and organizers who were critical of the ways in which the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act would end up handcuffing the Democrats now say that birth of the 527s has reinvigorated the party by moving money and manpower outside the Democratic National Committee and closer to activists."[/b]

So there it is. In the pre-McCain-Feingold political world, national parties, with officials elected by members, with platforms debated in open forums, with all sorts of sunshine through existing campaign laws, were the center of power. Now, under the "reform," power is in the hands of people who know no party discipline, hold no responsibility to voters, and are indeed beholden for their very existence to a few "very large donors."

And where are the big reformers in all of this?

[b]Remarkably, McCain – whose face was everywhere on television pontificating about the corruption of soft money and sham ads during the years leading to enactment of BCRA -- has been deadly silent about Soros’ huge soft money donations. And he is silent about the unfettered television attack ad campaign by MoveOn.org.[/b]

An October 28, 2003 Bloomberg News Wire story did quote someone closely associated with McCain: ‘"The McCain Feingold bill was not intended to drive money from politics’ said Trevor Potter, a former FEC chairman who worked for McCain…’George Soros has a constitutional right to spend $10-million.’" Potter was among the heavyweight Washington attorneys defending the law in court.

As for Russell Feingold, the Wisconsin Senator was quoted in that same Bloomberg piece as saying, "The soft money ban was designed to break the connection between big money and elected officials, not to dry up or clamp down on political activism."

So MoveOn.org’s massive anti-Bush ad campaign morphs from "electioneering communication," to "political activism." And Soros’ obscene infusion of money to change the ideological direction of the nation is not "soft money" and has no connection with elected officials.

In the looking-glass-world of campaign finance reformers, "A rose by any other name…" is not a rose at all. In the floor debate John McCain looked to the future and to circumvention of the law he was forcing by sleight of hand on the American people.

"Do I believe that any law will prove effective over time? No, I do not. Were we to pass this legislation today, I am sure that at some time in the future, hopefully many years from now, we will need to address some new circumvention. So what? So we have to debate this matter again. Is that such a burden on us or our successors that we should simply be indifferent to the abundant evidence of at least the appearance of corruption," he said.

That last notion – "the appearance of corruption" was the essence of the case for banning "soft money" and for banning non-profit corporations like the NRA and unions from spending money on pre-election issue advocacy ads. There was never any evidence of corruption. No Senator or Congressman got up and pointed the finger or confessed that a vote was bought and paid for.

Senator Russ Feingold summed it up, saying, "We are going to talk about corruption, but, more importantly, what is much more obvious and much more relevant is the appearance of corruption. It is what it does to our Government and our system when people think there may be corruption even if it may not exist."

But the corruption does exist and its name is "527."

Why Hollywood hates Christians

05.28.04 (9:52 am)   [edit]
[b]Why Hollywood Hates Christianity[/b]
By Don Feder
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 28, 2004

What do you get when you cross the village atheist with the village idiot? [i]Saved[/i] -- the alleged comedy polluting theaters nationwide this weekend.

Recall the wailing and hand-wringing that accompanied the release of Mel Gibson’s [i]The Passion of the Christ[/i], in February. Given the hysterical reaction to Gibson’s opus, you’d think Hollywood had suddenly become an adjunct of "The 700 Club." But The Passion was an aberration that never would have been made without the influence of its famous producer/director.

[i]Saved[/i] is far more typical of the way the movie industry does religion these days. The teen sex comedy is politically correct, tedious, nasty and loaded with anti-Christian stereotypes.

The heroine, Mary, attends a Christian academy – American Eagle Christian High School – a combination of the Valley Girls’ school in "Clueless" and a parody of a revival meeting.

Mary learns her boyfriend has homosexual tendencies. Jesus comes to her in a vision – Jesus and Mary, get it? – and commands the good girl to do everything in her power to save the lad. She ends up pregnant and ostracized by the school’s Bible-belt Barbie in-crowd.

Mary joins the academy’s misfits, including a Jewish girl who claims she’s an ex-stripper – in modern movies, Jews are okay, as long as they’re safely secular – a skateboarder, and a wheelchair-bound cynic, played by a grownup Macauley Culkin, who would have been better off at home, alone.

Naturally, the outcasts are all swell kids, while the Christian students are portrayed as Nazi airheads.

What’s more interesting than this latest cinematic assault on Christianity, is the mind-set behind it: Not how, but why Hollywood hates the followers of Jesus.

Since at least the 1970s, Hollywood’s treatment of Christians has been only slightly more benevolent than al-Qaeda’s attitude toward Jews.

Gone are the kindly Barry Fitzgerald priest, the wise rabbi and the steadfast minister. In their place is a rogue’s gallery of lusting priests, sadistic nuns, perverted pastors and con-men TV evangelists – not to mention ordinary Christians (Catholic or evangelical) who are depicted as superstitious nitwits, malevolent hypocrites, or both.

[i]Saved[/i] joins the Hollywood hit parade of blasphemy and slander, includeing:

· [i]The Last Temptation of Christ[/i] (1988) – wherein Jesus is given a fantasy sex life.

· [i]Priest[/i] (1994) – a good, homosexual priest battles "repression" in his Church and heterosexual incest.

· [i]Dogma[/i] (1999) – another reputed comedy, wherein an abortion clinic worker (the perfect heroine, from Hollywood’s perspective) and the great-grand-niece of Jesus (?) saves the world from destruction by fallen angels trying to enter a church to reenter Heaven. Don’t ask. When it comes to an opportunity to bash Christians, no plot is too ridiculous.

· [i]The Magdalene Sisters[/i] (2003) – set in a convent school run by nuns who could pass as concentration-camp guards.

· [i]The Order[/i] (2003) – teen heartthrob Heath Ledger battles yet another secret order within the Roman Catholic Church bent on no-good.

· [i]Stigmata[/i] (1999) – the entire Roman Catholic Church is shown to be hiding the "real" Gospel, and a priest tries to murder its last true disciple.

· [i]The Saint[/i] (1997) – frequently, anti-Christian characterizations bear little or no relation to a movie’s plot. They are gratuitous, but damaging nonetheless. This movie opens in a Far Eastern orphanage run by a brutal priest who beats and starves the children and is responsible for the death of one of his charges.

Along the same lines, but somewhat more restrained, there’s the paddle-wielding priest in [i]The Basketball Diaries[/i] (1995) and the brother who thinks he’s Mike Tyson in [i]Heaven Help Us[/i] (1985).

The above only skims the surface of Hollywood’s anti-Christian crusade. As they do in so many areas, movies shape popular attitudes and perceptions here as well. According to the Barna Group, the percentage of Americans who only attend religious services for holidays or on special occasions, increased from 21 percent in 1991 to 34 percent today.

When it comes to different denominations, Hollywood isn’t an equal-opportunity offender. Here’s a short lists of religious groups it wouldn’t dream of baiting: Unitarians, Presbyterians, members of any liberal, Protestant denomination, Cafeteria Catholics, Reform Jews, Buddhists, Wiccans and Moslems. (Producers and directors may be anti-religion, but they aren’t suicidal.)

Why are traditional Catholics, evangelicals and – to a lesser extent – Orthodox Jews, considered fair game?

Because the Hollywood Left (in other words, 98 percent of the self-styled artistic community) views them as the enemy – more even than the military (which occasionally come off well in action films) and corporate executives, and about on par with the CIA, Southern sheriffs, Republicans and companies bulldozing the Brazilian rainforest.

Hollywood hates authentic Christians, because Christianity is diametrically opposed to its worldview – a dogma reflected in the very deep thoughts of Michael Moore, Tim Robbins and Barbra (color me stupid) Streisand. It's based on the following tenets:

1) Sexual Liberation – the glorification of pre-marital sex (including adolescent experimentation), adultery, homosexuality, abortion and the sexualization of children. This may be contrasted with the Judeo-Christian ethic of sexual restraint/responsibility, and the sanctification of sex within marriage (raising the carnal to a spiritual plane).

2) A Live-for-the-Moment Ethos – the here-and-now is all there is, or as the beer commercial used to put it, "You only go around once; so grab all the gusto you can." This is opposed to the Christian emphasis on life eternal. Christians and religious Jews live not for the moment but for eternity. Hollywood’s seize-the-moment ethic must ultimately lead to a total rejection of the Ten Commandments and all biblical morality.

3) The Cult of Self – or to put it in the lingo of pop psychology: "self-actualization," really self-gratification. From this perspective, putting anything ahead of your own happiness is dumb, if not psychotic. Christianity and Judaism both teach that your life isn’t your own. It belongs to the One who gave you life.

4) Gender Sameness – the bizarre and amply refuted doctrine that men and women are psychologically identical, that gender roles are socially imposed, instead of reality-based. This dogma lies at the heart of liberalism’s push to radically remake the family. The worse invective the Left can hurl at the family (from its perspective) is "patriarchal" and "male-dominated."

5) Militant Secularism – the belief that religious expression should be confined to a white clapboard building, and that traditional faith should play no role in shaping our laws and institutions. Thus, someone who speaks of rights being "endowed by their Creator" (like the Founding Fathers) or saying that America is a nation "under God" (like Abraham Lincoln) becomes an enemy of democracy.

What really enrages the Hollywood Left is the realization that, more than any other group in our society, evangelical Christians – who now constitute the nation's largest identifiable voting bloc – stand in the way of its political agenda: abortion on demand, a contraceptive culture, erotic indoctrination masquerading as sex education, universal day care (the literal Nanny State), the complete societal blessing of gay marriage and hate-crimes legislation that criminalizes religious speech. By attacking Christians, Hollywood is advancing its agenda.

Actually, it is to the credit of Christians that Hollywood considers them the enemy. Similarly, Jews can take pride in the fact that, in the 20th century, both communists and Nazis hated them, as do Islamacists today.

Over the past 40 years, Hollywood has been primarily responsible for the rapid degeneration of our culture. Modern cinema is filled with violence, sadism, sex at its most animalistic, crudeness, nihilism and despair. If Hollywood wants to treat Christianity as the antithesis of all it holds dear, Christians should feel complimented.
Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant.

What the Left knows: if we lose the will to win in Iraq, we lose the will to fight terror

05.27.04 (8:52 pm)   [edit]
[b]Victory, Stalemate or Defeat? That's the Real Debate[/b]
Clifford D. May
May 27, 2004

In World War II, Americans sought victory. President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill would accept nothing less than the unconditional surrender of the totalitarian regimes against which they fought.

A few years later in Korea, the U.S. did accept less – an armistice. President Eisenhower preserved the independence of the southern half of the Korean Peninsula, but the north was left in the hands of totalitarian extremists who, more than 50 years later, continue to oppress the people of that land and to threaten Americans.

The War in Vietnam ended without victory and without even a real truce. It ended with the defeat of the United States. Still, in retrospect, Vietnam can be seen as one battle in the long, global conflict against Communist totalitarianism. And in the final years of the 20th century, the Cold War ended when American pressure, and Communism's own internal contradictions, brought down the Soviet empire.

Today, amid all the rhetoric and posturing, we are really debating whether to fight for victory, accept a stalemate, or resign ourselves to defeat in Iraq and in the wider war against Jihadi terrorism and totalitarianism.

To be sure, some people separate Iraq from the broader conflict. They argue that there is no proof Saddam Hussein was involved with the many acts of terrorism carried out against Americans between the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the second in 2001 (though evidence suggests he may have been). They argue that Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda (more precisely, the extent and nature of Saddam's ties to al Qaeda remain sketchy).

Whatever the truth, this fact is now certain: Saddam loyalists in Iraq have made common cause with international Jihadi leaders.

Would this alliance have come about had President Bush not toppled Saddam? Or did the President make a country that was not a terrorist threat into one that now is? The answer can be determined by examining the background of the leader of the foreign Jihadis in Iraq: Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, the terrorist who beheaded American Nicholas Berg.

Once a commander of the anti-American forces in Afghanistan, Zarkawi lost a leg in battle with U.S. forces in March 2002. He fled to Iraq where Saddam provided him with medical treatment, including an artificial limb -- not a favor Saddam did for just anybody.

A few months later, Zarkawi was back at work. In October 2002, he organized the assassination of American diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman.

Zarkawi remained in Iraq, assisting terrorists at a remote camp run by Ansar al-Islam, a group closely associated with al-Qaeda. Terrorists trained at the camp have been arrested in Britain, France, Georgia and Chechnya.

Zarkawi is among the most dangerous terrorists in the world today – he is a specialist in chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. He was reputedly the mastermind of a series of suicide bombings in Casablanca in May 2003, the bombing of Turkish synagogues in November 2003, the attacks against Sh'ia worshippers in Baghdad and Karbala in March of this year (he hates Shi'a at least as much as he hates Kurds, Jews and Christians), and the Madrid train bombings that same month.

He claimed responsibility for an abortive chemical weapons attack against Jordan's secret service headquarters last month (the tons of chemicals may have come from Syria or Iraq) and he's been implicated in a plot to bomb the upcoming NATO summit in Istanbul in June.

Earlier this year, Kurdish intelligence intercepted a letter sent by Zarkawi to bin Laden. In it, Zarkawi outlined his plan to foil the American-led Coalition's mission by filling Iraq with “the perfume of fragrant blood spilled on behalf of God.”

Knowing all this, it is no longer possible to seriously argue that Iraq, under Saddam, was not a base for international terrorism; nor is it possible to seriously argue that fighting Zarkawi in Iraq is not part of the global War on Terrorism.

The most you could say is that perhaps, as with Vietnam, an American defeat in Iraq would merely mean a battle lost in a war still to be won. But that's doubtful. Even at his worst, Ho Chi Minh never intended to follow Americans home and murder their children. Zarkawi means to do exactly that -- as do all Islamist totalitarian terrorists.

No, if Americans lose the will to fight in Iraq it is probable that we will not have the determination to prevail in the wider war.

That, too, would follow a pattern. In recent decades, Jihadi terrorists have repeatedly forced the U.S. to retreat – for example, from Beirut in 1983 and from Somalia in 1993. Those retreats convinced people like Saddam, bin Laden and Zarkawi that America is like the World Trade Towers – it may look tall and strong but hit it hard and it will collapse.

Americans, Zarkawi wrote to bin Ladin, “are the most cowardly of God's creatures. They are an easy quarry, praise be to God. We ask God to enable us to kill and capture them to sow panic among those behind them.”

Whether you were for or against the decision to topple Saddam a year ago, imagine the consequences were the U.S. to withdraw before defeating Zarkawi, were the U.S. to retreat once again, to abandon the Iraqis – or leave it to the “international community” to defend them from the international terrorists in their midst.

You can bet Zarkawi and bin Laden are imagining precisely that.

Clifford D. May is the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism and a Townhall.com member group.

©2004 Scripps Howard News Service

"The Day After Tomorrow" represents scientific/ideological dumpster-diving

05.27.04 (8:42 pm)   [edit]
2 articles about that insane Michael Moore-ish film "The Day After Tomorrow", which just about every serious person recognizes as a load of horse poop.

Article 1, from the National Center for Public Policy Research-- http://www.nationalcenter.org...

[b]Don't Trust Hollywood Science: Global Warming Won't Cause a New Ice Age[/b]
by Amy Ridenour

Promoters of the global warming disaster movie "The Day After Tomorrow" must believe most of us were born yesterday.

As most movie fans know, the much-hyped film focuses on a global apocalypse of cataclysmic floods, tornadoes, storms and blizzards that threaten to destroy civilization.

Two hundred and ninety-foot tidal waves surge across New York Harbor and dash against Manhattan's skyscrapers, followed by a quick freeze that leaves Manhattan enshrouded in ice.

Dozens of other cities get hammered. A tornado levels Los Angeles, five-pound hailstones bombard Tokyo and San Francisco Bay freezes. It's a New Ice Age.

It's the latest brainstorm of German schockmeister Roland Emmerich, best known for "Independence Day" and "Godzilla."

Those movies, of course, were enjoyable as good examples of the "sky is falling" flight-of-fantasy genre.

"The Day After Tomorrow," however, is the subject of a multi-million dollar PR campaign touting it as if it were not fiction, but cinema verite - a realistic warning of what could happen if we don't dismantle our modern economy to stave off global warming. Yet the extreme scenarios promoted by global warming theory advocates are supported more by political ideology than by science.

It's probably no coincidence that this thinly-disguised political warhead is being launched in the midst of key election year. Nor would it be surprising to see it used in an effort to stampede the Senate to approve the McCain-Lieberman "Climate Stewardship Act," a costly piece of legislation that attempts to impose key Kyoto provisions on American consumers and taxpayers.1

Kyoto was formally rejected by President Bush because of the draconian burdens it would place on our economy - 8mandates so stringent that independent economists believe it would trigger a prolonged recession, and because the treaty wouldn't prevent global warming. Even treaty advocates admit it is "only a start."

In one respect, Bush was merely heeding the advice of the then-Democrat-controlled Senate, which voted 95-0 in 1997 to urge President Clinton not to send a Kyoto-like treaty to Capitol Hill for ratification because of its rib-shattering economic impact on American workers.

Left-leaning Hollywood, of course, would like to portray Bush as an extreme environmental anti-Christ, despite the fact that Clinton also heeded the Senate's advice, and didn't even try to get Kyoto ratified.

There is little scientific evidence that documents the need for a Kyoto-style crusade against climate change, anyway.

Excepting the El Nino year of 1998, since about 1979, the Earth's temperature apparently has not been increasing. What minor warming the Earth experienced over the past century primarily occurred before 1940, when there were far fewer motor vehicles and power plants.

The U.S., in any case, is not ignoring climate issues. Since 1990, the United States has spent $18 billion on climate research, three times as much as any other country. The U.S. government spent over $3.5 billion on climate change in 2003 alone.2

Many of the horrendous events predicted by global warming scaremasters have no basis in reality.

Paul Driessen, the author of a revealing new book entitled Eco-Imperialism, observes that the resurgence of malaria, yellow fever and dengue in Africa and Asia is related directly to the banning of the effective and cost-efficient pesticide DDT, not to global warming.

Virtually all of the major malaria and yellow fever outbreaks in the U.S. occurred long before the invention of the automobile. Wisconsin suffered surges of malaria in the 1880s, while yellow fever killed 19,000 in Memphis alone in 1878, Driessen says.

Even if global warming were to occur at the fast pace predicted by the alarmists, it wouldn't unleash the New Ice Age predicted in "The Day After Tomorrow." (The frequency of weather-related natural disasters has changed little over the past century.)

Says Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria in British Columbia in the journal Science, "it is safe to say that global warming will not lead to the onset of a new ice age."

So, other than the legitimate business of huckstering a new movie, why all the hype over "The Day After Tomorrow?" The obvious answer is contempt that Hollywood's liberal elite holds for the intelligence of American voters.

They're likely to have a rude awakening The Day After the Election.

# # #

Amy Ridenour is the president of The National Center for Public Policy Research. Comments may be sent to aridenour@nationalcenter.org

Footnotes:

1 "Film on Global Warming May Turn Up Heat for Bush," The Guardian (as republished on The Hindu news update service website), available at http://www.hinduonnet.com/the... as of April 27, 2004.

2 "Federal Climate Change Expenditures: Report to Congress," Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C., August 2003, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb... fy04_climate_chg_rpt.pdf as of April 28, 2004.

Article 2, from Frontiers of Freedom-- http://ff.org/centers/csspp/m...

[b][u]Key Quotes from “The Day After Tomorrow”[/b][/u]
By Robert Ferguson

[b]Spiegel Online (posted April 26, 2004) [trans4lated from German][/b]

"Film-makers have to choose a horror scenario and not an educationally valuable piece of enlightenment…
…How different would the world be today if the democratic eco-politician Al Gore had won the presidency?

For me as a German, all of this is very difficult to tolerate. I never want to become an American."

Roland Emmerich
Director of The Day after Tomorrow

[b]CNSNews.com , May 12, 2004[/b]

Gregg Easterbrook, a senior editor at New Republic Online and one who believes that human-caused climate change is real, said Gore is doing a disservice to the environmental cause by affiliating himself with a Hollywood disaster film.

“Once Gore was a serious thinker on environmental issues and diligently sought out top-notch advice ... Now Gore appears ready to affiliate his reputation with a cheapo, third-rate disaster movie that makes Fantastic Voyage seem like a peer-reviewed technical paper,” Easterbrook wrote.

Easterbrook assailed the movie’s “imbecile-caliber” science: “By presenting global warming in a laughably unrealistic way, the movie will only succeed in making audiences think that climate change is a big joke, when in fact the real science case for greenhouse-gas reform gets stronger all the time.”

Easterbrook fears the greenhouse effect will be trivialized through its connection to a disaster movie, which he believes is “scientifically illiterate.” And ultimately, The Day After Tomorrow may convince audiences that the global warming threat is just another Hollywood gimmick, Easterbrook stated. "Unfortunately it may not be," he added.

Gore called a 'sock puppet' for MoveOn.org

Easterbrook also criticized Gore for his close affiliation with MoveOn.org, the liberal group propped up by huge donations from billionaire financier George Soros for the express purpose of defeating President Bush.

“It’s easy to see why MoveOn.org wants the reflection of the new movie's limelight; wild exaggeration is a good fundraising tool. But if Gore associates himself with this mindless film, he will have completed his descent from serious thinker and national leader to MoveOn.org’s sock puppet,” Easterbrook wrote.

“Why would Al Gore do this to himself?” he asked.

[b]
Correspondence Nature 428, 601 (April 8, 2004)[/b]

[u]Gulf Stream safe if wind blows and Earth turns[/u]

Sir - Your News story “Gulf Stream probed for early warnings of system failure” (Nature 427, 769 (2004)) discusses what the climate in the south of England would be like “without the Gulf Stream.” Sadly, this phrase has been seen far too often, usually in newspapers concerned with the unlikely possibility of a new ice age in Britain triggered by the loss of the Gulf Stream.

European readers should be reassured that the Gulf Stream’s existence is a consequence of the large-scale wind system over the North Atlantic Ocean, and of the nature of fluid motion on a rotating planet. The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth's rotation, or both.

Real questions exist about conceivable changes in the ocean circulation and its climate consequences. However, such discussions are not helped by hyperbole and alarmism. The occurrence of a climate state without the Gulf Stream any time soon - within tens of millions of years - has a probability of little more than zero.

Carl Wunsch
Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

[b]Alex Kirby, BBC News Online environment correspondent[/b]

The blockbuster climate disaster movie The Day After Tomorrow contains badly flawed science and ignores the laws of physics, leading UK scientists believe…
Dr David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, told BBC News Online: "The film got a lot of the detail wrong, and the direction of change as well - cooling of this sort is very unlikely with global warming.

[b]The Sunday Telegraph, May 9, 2004[/b]

… No, this extremely enjoyable film has been let down by the simple fact that it has got its science all wrong. None of it could happen…

The film's website provides links to news stories published in February about "a secret report prepared by the Pentagon" which warned that climate change would "lead to global catastrophe costing millions of lives". What this publicity does not reveal is that the Pentagon report was merely a hypothetical worst-case scenario - and one that has already been thoroughly debunked. In fact, the respected magazine Science has reviewed this Pentagon report and the alleged scientific support for The Day After Tomorrow and concludes that "it is highly unlikely that global warming will lead to a widespread collapse" of the Gulf Stream, and "it is safe to say that global warming will not lead to the onset of a new Ice Age"…

Implementing the Kyoto agreement on climate change would
cost at least $150 billion each year, yet would do no more than postpone
global warming for six years by 2100… Even if the film's creators are right - and the scientists are wrong - and the Gulf Stream current does collapse within a decade, then Kyoto would have made no difference.

There is another reason why it is wrong - I would even say amoral - to
overplay the case for combatting climate change… We must ask ourselves if spending $150 billion every year for the rest of the century to postpone warming for six years is
really the best use of that money…

…Because we cannot do everything, we need sound reasoning and high quality information to defeat the hysteria of Hollywood. I believe there is more hope in truth than in hype.

Bjorn Lomborg, director of Copenhagen Consensus and Denmark's
Environmental Assessment Institute

[b]Letters, Science 304, 388 (April 16, 2004)[/b]

[u]Future Global Warming Scenarios[/u]

“In a study commissioned by the Pentagon, Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall present a very alarming scenario regarding the short-term consequences of global warming. This scenario, which predicts a shutdown of the Atlantic Ocean’s conveyor circulation in the next 10 to 15 years, is based upon analogies to two large and abrupt climate changes, which occurred 12,700 and 8200 years ago. Both are thought to have been triggered by catastrophic releases of meltwater stored in lakes that formed along the southern margin of the retreating Canadian ice sheet. These floods appear to have squelched deep water formation in the North Atlantic and, by as yet unknown mechanisms, caused Earth’s climate to plunge back toward its glacial condition. Clearly, if global warming were to cause a repeat of such an abrupt change, the consequences would be akin to those alluded to in the warning to the Pentagon, namely a large cooling of northern Europe. But, there is no reason to believe that the impacts could occur in a mere decade, nor would they be so awesome.

As the one who first pointed out the link between the Atlantic’s conveyor circulation and abrupt climate changes, I take serious issue with both the timing and severity of the changes proposed in the Pentagon scenario…”

Wallace S. Broecker
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University

[b]News of the Week, Science, 304, 372 (April 16, 2004)[[/b]

[u]A Slowing Cog in the North Atlantic Ocean’s Climate Machine[/u]

Oceanographers, who have begun to watch the slow churnings of the ocean much the way meteorologists observe the daily weather in the atmosphere, believe they have seen a new shift in ocean “climate.” The giant vortex of an ocean current, or gyre, tucked into the northwestern North Atlantic appears to have slowed.

The weakening of this subpolar gyre in the 1990s may have been just a random fluctuation in one part of the complex ocean currents that carries warm waters into the high North Atlantic. If so, this single cog in the Atlantic “conveyor belt” of north-south currents could soon recover…

Even if the subpolar gyre were to continue to slow [as a consequence of global warming], there’s no agreement that it would make much difference to the [thermohaline circulation] or the climate around the Atlantic…Ocean modelers Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria, British Columbia, and Claude Hillaire-Marcel of the University of Quebec in Montreal argue from published modeling and paleoclimate records that global warming might in fact shut down the sinking of the surface waters in the gyre’s Labrador Sea, as happened in 1995. But that needn’t slow the [thermohaline circulation] as a whole, they say, and would have a minor climate effect downwind in Europe. That scenario is less dramatic than an inundated New York City freezing up one summer’s night, as Hollywood has it in The Day After Tomorrow, but likely closer to the truth.

Richard A. Kerr
Staff writer, Science

[b]Science, 304, 400-402 (April 16, 2004)[/b]

[u]Global Warming and the Next Ice Age[/u]

“A popular idea in the media, exemplified by the soon-to-be-released movie The Day After Tomorrow, is that human-induced global warming will cause another ice age. But where did this idea come from?”

“In light of the paleoclimate record and our understanding of the contemporary climate system, it is safe to say that global warming will not lead to the onset of a new ice age. These same records suggest that it is highly unlikely that global warming will lead to a widespread collapse of the [Atlantic themrohaline circulation]—despite the appealing possibility raised by to recent studies.—although it is possible that deep convection in the Labrador Sea will cease. Such an event would have much more minor consequences on the climate downstream over Europe.”

Andrew J. Weaver, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria
Claude Hillaire-Marcel, University of Quebec

[b]George Taylor, State Climatologist of Oregon[/b]

“They took a bunch of pieces of bad climate science and made a movie [The Day After Tomorrow] out of them. A lot of people will see this movie and mistake science fiction for science fact. Hollywood should not be the source for information on climate science.”

[b]Associated Press Story, May 4, 2004[/b]

No one is pretending the forthcoming film The Day After Tomorrow (www.thedayaftertomorrow.com) is anything but implausible: In the $125 million movie, global warming triggers a cascade of events that practically flash freeze the planet.

It’s an abruptness no one believes possible, least of all the filmmakers behind the 20th Century Fox release. “It’s very cinematic to choose the worst-case scenario, which we did," said co-screenwriter Jeffrey Nachmanoff.”

"My first reaction was, ‘Oh my God, this is a disaster because it is such a distortion of the science. It will certainly create a backlash,’” said Dan Schrag, a Harvard University paleoclimatologist. “I have sobered up somewhat, because the public is probably smart enough to distinguish between Hollywood and the real world.”

[b]Greenwire, May 4, 2004[/b]

[u]Disaster movie's focus on rapid change expected to set off renewed debate[/u]

Kevin Trenberth, a researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said “a lot of the stuff on abrupt climate change is totally off the wall.”

He said the film's plotline “is disappointing that it procreates a rather wrong scientific impression.”

[b]Washington Post, May 16, 2004[/b]

[u]Apocalypse Soon?[/u]

“…these observations prove either that “The Day After Tomorrow” is full of high-tech distortion, or that the movie's makers live in a reality-free environment.”

--Patrick J. Michaels
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and Virginia State Climatologist

[u]Article Links[/u]

Bjorn Lomborg, Sunday Telegraph--
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=" title="http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=" target="_blank"http://www.opinion.telegraph....%2Fopinion%2F2004%2F05%2F 09%2Fdo0903.xml

Patrick Michaels, Washington Post--
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2833 8-2004May14.html" title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2833 8-2004May14.html" target="_blank"http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Robert C. Balling--
http://www.techcentralstation.com/051904G.html" title="http://www.techcentralstation.com/051904G.html" target="_blank"http://www.techcentralstation...
http://www.techcentralstation.com/030104E.html" title="http://www.techcentralstation.com/030104E.html" target="_blank"http://www.techcentralstation...

James Pinkerton--
http://www.techcentralstation.com/042104B.html" title="http://www.techcentralstation.com/042104B.html" target="_blank"http://www.techcentralstation...

Willie Soon--
http://www.techcentralstation.com/022404D.html" title="http://www.techcentralstation.com/022404D.html" target="_blank"http://www.techcentralstation...

So if the US 'violates' intl law that's bad, but if the UN does it through the ICC, that's fine?

05.27.04 (5:55 pm)   [edit]
Below is an article about how China, of all nations, is opposing US exemption in the International Criminal Court for its UN peacekeepers. Some think that the US will still get the exemption because the US is vital to the UN and its peacekeeping. The article references Abu Ghraib, but that has nothing to do with the ICC or our exemption (the same reason that the court is promoted-- that the US would never need it because it has a good judicial system-- is the same reason why signing it would be unnecessary, at the very least, and, given the treaty's language, be a disaster).

Henry Kissinger, among other critics of the US war in Iraq, explained that it violates the so-called "international order" established at the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Of course, the International Criminal Court is the one that violates the treaty and every iota of international 'law' since then-- namely that treaties bind states, and if a state doesn't sign and ratify a treaty, that state isn't bound by that treaty (the ICC claims 'universal jurisdiction' regardless of who signs the treaty or not).

Before the news article on current US troubles in the UN regarding the ICC, I highly recommend this article by International Law expert Richard Wilking, who was there for the negotiations that created the ICC. After reading it, see if you think the ICC is such a great idea.

"Doing the right thing the wrong way"-- http://kennedy.byu.edu/partne...

I'd also recommend that you contact your reps in Congress and the president and ask them to make sure the US never accedes to the ICC.

[b]Opposition Growing to U.S. Exemption on Global Court
[/b]
Thu May 27, 1:05 PM ET
By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States may not have enough U.N. votes to exempt American soldiers from prosecution by a new global criminal court, with China now questioning the action in view of the prison scandal in Iraq (news - web sites), diplomats said on Thursday.

A Security Council draft resolution designed to put U.S. peacekeepers out of the reach of the International Criminal Court expires on July 1. A renewal was delayed last week by China and it is expected to go before the council again after a resolution on Iraq's transition is adopted.

Two years ago the council voted unanimously in favor of the measure when the Bush administration began to veto U.N. peacekeeping missions after members hesitated.

Last year three nations abstained but this year there are enough abstentions that could bring the resolution perilously close to defeat. A minimum of nine votes in favor is needed for adoption in the 15-member council.

Brazil, Spain, France and Germany have signaled they would abstain and Chile, Romania and Benin as well as China are considering it.

But some diplomats said the resolution would squeak through because no one wanted to see Washington kill U.N. peacekeeping missions. "The British say they are holding their noses and voting for it and others may do the same," said one envoy.

But China's position is an unusual one as Beijing has neither ratified nor signed the treaty establishing the court.

'A VERY BAD SIGNAL'

Several diplomats said that China was bargaining with the United States over Taiwan's status in the World Trade Organization (news - web sites), one of the few international bodies that admit both Beijing and Taipei.

However, China's U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, denied this was the case and said the resolution was sending "a very bad signal at this time," especially to Iraq.

He told Reuters the U.S. abuse of Iraqi prisoners raised the need for "strict observance of international law." The resolution, he said, was a signal that "whatever you are doing, you are being protected by the Security Council."

2"So we find it difficult to say 'yes' to this resolution," Wang said. "The United States has difficulties with ICC. We also have difficulties, but from different points of view."

The Bush administration argues that the tribunal, based in The Hague (news - web sites), Netherlands, could be used for politically motivated law suits against far-flung American soldiers. Supporters say the court's statutes exclude countries with a proper judicial system, like the United States, from prosecution.

"The language agreed upon two years ago embodies a fair but hard-fought compromise that allows us to participate in U.N. peacekeeping operations, while protecting our personnel serving in these operations," said Richard Grenell, spokesman for U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte.

The court, the first permanent global war crimes tribunal, was set up to prosecute the world's worst atrocities, such as genocide, mass war crimes and systematic human rights abuses.

Specifically, the U.S. draft resolution would place any soldier or official out of the court's reach from any nation if they served on missions established or authorized by the United Nations (news - web sites). This would apply to those from countries that did not ratify the 1998 treaty creating the court.

Of the 15 Security Council members, Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Brazil, Romania and Benin are among 94 nations that have ratified the 1998 treaty creating the court.

Russia, Chile, Angola, Algeria and the Philippines, are among 135 nations that signed the treaty. China and Pakistan have neither signed nor ratified and the Bush administration rescinded the U.S. signatu

Al Gore or Al Jazeera?

05.27.04 (12:59 pm)   [edit]
[b]Al Gore or Al Jazeera?[/b]
By David Horowitz and Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 27, 2004

The latest front in the War on Terrorism was opened yesterday � by former Vice President Al Gore. At a critical juncture in the War on Terror, with the handover of sovereignty to the Iraqi Governing Council just weeks away, Gore appeared before the MoveOn.org, a radical group which had already compared Bush to Hitler. In a voice trembling with affected passion, Gore indicted the President for seeking world domination, referred to Abu Ghraib as Bush�s �gulag,� accused the President of �war crimes,� and intimated that he was a murderer. Gore also accused the war criminal of denying civil rights to terrorists and subverting American democracy, asserted there was no connection between the Saddam regime and terror, and declared for the third time this year the commander-in-chief had �betrayed� the American people.

According to Gore, this betrayal was co-terminous with the Administration itself. �To begin with, from its earliest days in power, this administration sought to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided America since the end of World War II.� In fact, it was Gore himself and Jimmy Carter who broke the consensus when they attacked Bush days after he went to the U.N. to seek what became a unanimous Security resolution on Iraq, thus launching the partisan battle over the war that has consumed the domestic political debate for the last year and a half, and sabotaged the war on terror in the process.

This was not the only history that Gore attempted to rewrite, as he claimed that, �the long successful strategy of containment was abandoned in favor of the new strategy of �preemption.�� Successful? There were five attacks on America by the terrorist enemy on Gore�s watch, beginning with the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 -- all of which went unanswered, which might well explain why al-Qaeda felt emboldened enough to undertake the attacks of 9/11. Containment? Saddam Hussein had tossed the UN inspectors out of Iraq with impunity when the Clinton Administration was too preoccupied with Monica Lewinsky to care. Only Bush's "pre-emptive" extrusion of 100,000 American troops onto the borders of Iraq caused Saddam to change his tune.

�More disturbing still,� Gore continued, �was (the Bush administration�s) frequent use of the word �dominance� to describe their strategic goal, because an American policy of dominance is as repugnant to the rest of the world as the ugly dominance of the helpless, naked Iraqi prisoners has been to the American people.� This Marxoid prose was old hat to Gore, who was bellowing nearly two years ago that Bush�s foreign policy was �based on an openly proclaimed intention to dominate the world.� Shades of the Great Satan.

Echoing al-Jazeera, Gore fantasized massive prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, then called the president a mass murderer. �George Bush promised to change the tone in Washington,� Gore said. �And indeed he did. As many as 37 prisoners may have been murdered while in captivity, though the numbers are difficult to rely upon because in many cases involving violent death, there were no autopsies.� To date, the Army has not affirmed that a single prisoner death has been caused by American troops. Yet Gore can rant � reviving a trope devised by Teddy Kennedy --: �How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace! How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison!�

In his attack on the Administration for flouting international law in regard to the terrorists it is holding, Gore overlooks one vital fact: the Geneva Convention does not protect terrorists; it applies only to captured military personnel. Terrorists represent no state and, therefore are not signatories to these accords nor, as the beheading of Nicholas Berg gruesomely reminds us do they observe them. Thus, the military need not accord them these protections. As Berkeley law professor John Yoo noted in the Wall Street Journal, �Applying different standards to al-Qaeda does not abandon Geneva, but only recognizes that the U.S. faces a stateless enemy never contemplated in the Conventions.� But a man who required three recounts and a Supreme Court ruling before conceding defeat is probably not impressed by such arguments.

Gore expressed passionate concern for the �victims� of American dominance, particularly the terrorist enemy incarcerated at Abu Ghraib, and pointed the finger directly at the President. �What happened at the prison,� Gore thundered, �was not the result of random acts by �a few bad apples�; it was the natural consequence of the Bush administration policy that has dismantled those wise constraints and has made war on America's checks and balances.� (Speaking of checks and balances, during the Clinton administration an elderly couple named Glenn and Patricia Mendoza told President Clinton, �You suck, and those boys died!� referring to the soldiers killed in the Khobar Towers attack, about which Clinton and Gore did nothing. Clinton had them arrested for �threatening� him. Gore�s protest of this abuse of executive power has not been recorded.)

Of course, the Army had launched multiple investigations immediately on learning of the incidents at Abu Ghraib (and well before Gore was aware of them); the jail�s presiding officer, General Janis Karpinski, currently has a lawyer as her constant travel companion and President Bush has made an unprecedented presidential apology to Arabs for infractions that are minor compared to what normally goes on in Arab jails. But Al Gore is outraged. The cognitive dissonance is impressive.

And it does not end:

It is now clear that [the Bush Administration�s] obscene abuses of the truth and their unforgivable abuse of the trust placed in them after 9/11 by the American people led directly to the abuses of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison and, we are now learning, in many other similar facilities constructed as part of Bush's Gulag, in which, according to the Red Cross, 70 to 90 percent of the victims are totally innocent of any wrongdoing. (Emphasis added.)

The Red Cross in fact made no such statement. It launched no investigation into the matter whatsoever. Secondly, the statement that it did make, we should remind ourselves is a statement by a component of the Red Cross -- the Red Crescent, which is the Middle Eastern version of the Red Cross -- that has allowed its ambulances to be used by Palestinian terrorists. But then it is appropriate that this Al Gore, the Alpha Gore who has come out of the closet as a raving leftist, should rely on such sources for his indictment of Americans.

Of course, behind all this foaming is the staple view of the anti-war Democrats that the liberation of Iraq is a damnable fraud and should not have been undertaken in the first place. �[The President] has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us.� Too bad that Gore made the same claim himself, and if any betraying has been done it has been Gore�s own 180 degree turn on this matter of war and peace:

"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people. (Al Gore, 1998)"

Four years later and two weeks after Bush�s State of the Union Address, in which the President identified Iraq as part of an �Axis of Evil,� and made it clear that a confrontation with Saddam was brewing, Gore told the Council on Foreign Relations that he supported the President�s position:

"Since the State of the Union there has been much discussion of whether Iraq, Iran and North Korea truly constitute an �Axis of Evil.� As far as I�m concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one�s cards on the table. There is value in calling evil by its name. (Al Gore, February 2002)"

Not only was the Iraq regime evil, according to Gore, America must take Saddam down:

"In 1991, I crossed party lines and supported the use of force against Saddam Hussein, but he was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade. And we still do. So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must prepared to go the limit. (Emphasis added)"

But that was then, and this is the reinvented now.

For the new Al Gore, the President cannot tell the truth, and terrorists like Saddam cannot connect with terror organizations like al-Qaeda. �The President convinced the country with a mixture of forged documents and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league with al-Qaeda.�

Tell that to Nicholas Berg, beheaded by al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who after being wounded in America�s war against the Taliban, took refuge and received medical treatment in Saddam�s Iraq and trained al-Qaeda warriors at Iraq�s Ansar al-Islam terrorist training base. A 16-page government memo provides convincing proof of the connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda. The Weekly Standard�s Stephen F. Hayes has written volumes on the matter. The al-Qaeda affiliate terrorist group Ansar al-Islam trained its terrorists in northern Iraq for years, even before Zarqawi arrived. A Saddam insider has testified that Saddam�s secret police, the Mukhabarat, provided weapons and funds to Ansar. Only diehard opponents of the war on terror, like the radicals at MoveOn.org could ignore this evidence to make the claims they do.

Not content to paint the president as a menace to foreigners (make that foreign terrorists), Gore charges Bush with undermining American democracy, as well. �They have launched an unprecedented assault on civil liberties.� Presumably, he is referring to the Patriot Act, which he wants to see repealed. Of course, as vice president, Gore asked for virtually identical investigative powers in the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act (H.R. 666). In a fit of projection, Gore added, �Their appetite for power is astonishing. It has led them to introduce a new level of viciousness in partisan politics.�

Not to be outdone in non-sequiturs, even by himself, Gore ups the ante: �[Bush] has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.� Big words from a man who called an impeached perjurer �one of our greatest presidents.�

On the other hand, the kind of mendacity that Gore is now engaged in makes Clinton�s peccadillos seem exactly that. We are dealing here not with the sensibilities of a twenty-two year old intern or the amour propre of an overgrown adolescent. We are dealing with the security of 300 million Americans, and a force of thousands � potentially millions --planning atrocities against us we can barely imagine. In this moment of national peril, Al Gore is not serving his country or his fellow Americans well

GORE GONE CRAZY-WEEP, AMERICA--THIS ANTI-AMERICAN NUT WAS ONCE VP

05.26.04 (10:50 pm)   [edit]
I'm doubly glad this nut wasn't elected president....

This is a good critique of Al Gore's speech from PowerLine blog-- http://www.powerlineblog.com/...

The full text of traitor Gore's comments are here-- http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi...

--OR--

Listen to sore loser's remarks here-- http://abcrad.wmod.llnwd.net/...

[b]Gore Gone Crazy[/b]

Al Gore's speech today before a Move On audience in New York was so over the top, so around the bend, so surreal in its hateful portrayal of America and the Bush administration, that it stakes out ground never before occupied by a prominent (or formerly prominent) American politician. To fisk the entire speech, pointing out and documenting all of its hundreds of inaccuracies, would take days if not weeks. So I'll confine myself, for now, to a few points.

The main theme of Gore's speech was that all of the current bad news from Iraq is a natural outgrowth of President Bush's policies. For example:

" The abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from the abuse of the truth that characterized the Administration's march to war and the abuse of the trust that had been placed in President Bush by the American people in the aftermath of September 11th....David Kay concluded his search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq with the famous verdict: "we were all wrong." And for many Americans, Kay's statement seemed to symbolize the awful collision between Reality and all of the false and fading impressions President Bush had fostered in building support for his policy of going to war."

To which I can only say: Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-- http://www.davidstuff.com/pol... :

" We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Gore continues:

" It is now clear that their obscene abuses of the truth and their unforgivable abuse of the trust placed in them after 9/11 by the American people led directly to the abuses of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison and, we are now learning, in many other similar facilities constructed as part of Bush's Gulag, in which, according to the Red Cross, 70 to 90 percent of the victims are totally innocent of any wrongdoing."

Huh? Why exactly is that "clear"? But it's always fun when a liberal tries to quote a statistic; let's pursue that for a moment. Gore's reference to the Red Cross was very artfully phrased, no doubt because he knew the impression he was trying to foster was false. Anyone hearing his speech would reasonably understand that the Red Cross had done some kind of a survey or study and had found, by some empirical means, that 70 to 90 percent of the Iraqis in Abu Ghraib and other prisons were completely innocent.

That is not, of course, what the Red Cross reported. Their February report, which is freely accessible on the internet, said only this: "Certain CF military intelligence officials told the ICRC that in their estimate between 70% and 90% of the persons deprived of liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake." Note three basic points: One, the Red Cross did no investigation whatsoever to arrive at this "statistic," which now shows up routinely in left-wing denunciations of the war. Two, the allegation is unsourced; the "military intelligence officials" are anonymous. Such anonymous, second-hand sourcing is, for obvious reasons, notoriously unreliable. God only knows what some unknown "intelligence official" said to some unknown Red Cross staffer. Third, the Red Cross' second-hand slur didn't refer to Abu Ghraib or any other prison. It referred to persons who were "deprived of liberty." A great many people in Iraq are detained briefly by military personnel; it seems reasonable to assume that most of those who are "arrested by mistake" are freed, not imprisoned at Abu Ghraib or other prisons in "Bush's gulag." It is therefore ridiculous to transfer the Red Cross' anonymous estimate to the inmates of Abu Ghraib. But this is what Al Gore and other leftist politicians and newspapers do, constantly.

Gore alleges that the war in Iraq has somehow impeded the war on terror and benefited al Qaeda:

" Just yesterday, the International Institute of Strategic Studies reported that the Iraq conflict "has arguably focused the energies and resources of Al Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition." The ISS said that in the wake of the war in Iraq Al Qaeda now has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks."

Gore relies on news reports like this one from the Associated Press-- http://apnews.excite.com/arti... . [b]But the short attention span of the American liberal apparently prevented Gore from reading to the end of the article, where the 18,000 number is explained:

" The IISS said its estimate of 18,000 al-Qaida fighters was based on intelligence estimates that the group trained at least 20,000 fighters in its camps in Afghanistan before the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban regime. In the ensuing war on terror, some 2,000 al-Qaida fighters have been killed or captured, the survey said."[/b]

So Gore's claim that "in the wake of the war in Iraq" al Qaeda has 18,000 members is a ridiculous mischaracterization of the Institute of Strategic Studies' report. The 18,000 number is merely the difference between the estimated number of people who passed through al Qaeda training camps before the war in Afghanistan, and the 2,000 al Qaeda members who are estimated to have been killed since then. The figure, whether accurate or not, has nothing at all to do with the war in Iraq, contrary to Gore's assertion.

I don't know whether the IISS has any particular credibility, but, for what it's worth, here-- http://www.iiss.org/ is what that organization had to say about the potential benefits of the Iraq war in the fight against terrorism:

" Progress in marginalising transnational Islamist terrorists will come incrementally. It is likely to accelerate only with currently elusive political developments that would broadly depress recruitment and motivation, such as the stable democratisation of Iraq or resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

[b]Liberals hate America. They never admit it, but it's true. Here is a small but revealing moment in Gore's hysterical tirade that shows, I think, what he really believes[/b] :

" [Speaking of torture] We all know these things, and we need not reassure ourselves and should not congratulate ourselves that our society is less cruel than some others, although it is worth noting that there are many that are less cruel than ours."

Got that? America is "less cruel than some," but "more cruel than many." We just need to apologize for our errors, bow our heads in submission, and take instruction from the majority of nations in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America who are so well qualified to give us lessons in the avoidance of cruelty. If you believe this, you may as well stop reading; you are a hard-core Kerry voter.

I could go on, but I'll stop for now. There is simply too much falsehood and confusion in Gore's speech for any one person to deconstruct. We should perhaps divide his tirade by paragraphs and parcel out to websites in the blogosphere--the Northern Alliance, for example, with help from others, since the job is so vast--the task of refuting Gore's misrepresentations and libels, one by one.

[b]In the meantime, you should read his speech. Read it, and weep for our country, because this deranged partisan hack was once Vice-President of the United States.[/b]

Posted by Hindrocket at 09:38 PM

For the left, Abu Ghraib is the new Tet

05.26.04 (10:29 pm)   [edit]
[b]Tit For Tet[/b]
Ann Coulter
May 26, 2004

Abu Ghraib is the new Tet offensive. By lying about the Tet offensive during the Vietnam War, the media managed to persuade Americans we were losing the war, which demoralized the nation and caused us to lose the war. And people say reporters are lazy.

The immediate consequence of the media's lies was a 25 percent drop in support for the war. The long-term consequence for America was 12 years in the desert until Ronald Reagan came in and saved the country.

Now liberals are using their control of the media to persuade the public that we are losing the war in Iraq. Communist dictators may have been ruthless murderers bent on world domination, but they displayed a certain degree of rationality. America may not be able to wait out 12 years of Democrat pusillanimity now that we're dealing with Islamic lunatics who slaughter civilians in suicide missions while chanting "Allah Akbar!"

And yet the constant drumbeat of failure, quagmire, Abu Ghraib, Bush-lied-kids-died has been so successful that merely to say the war in Iraq is going well provokes laughter. The distortions have become so pervasive that Michael Moore teeters on the brink of being considered a reliable source.

If President Bush mentions our many successes in Iraq, it is evidence that he is being "unrealistically sunny and optimistic," as Michael O'Hanlon of the liberal Brookings Institution put it.

O'Hanlon's searing indictment of the operation in Iraq is that we need to "make sure they have some budget resources that they themselves decide how to spend that are not already pre-allocated." So that's the crux of our challenge in Iraq: Make sure their "accounts receivable" columns all add up. Whenever great matters are at stake, you can always count on liberals to have some pointless, womanly complaint.

We have liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator who gassed his own people, had weapons of mass destruction, invaded his neighbors, harbored terrorists, funded terrorists and had reached out to Osama bin Laden. Liberals may see Saddam's mass graves in Iraq as half-full, but I prefer to see them as half-empty.

So far, we have found chemical and biological weapons � brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, ricin, sarin, aflatoxin � and long-range missiles in Iraq.

The terrorist "stronghold" of Karbala was abandoned last week by Islamic crazies loyal to cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who slunk away when it became clear that no one supported them. Iraqis living in Karbala had recently distributed fliers asking the rebels to please leave, further underscoring one of the principal remaining problems in Iraq � the desperate need for more Kinko's outlets. Last weekend, our troops patrolled this rebel "stronghold" without a shot being fired.

The entire Kurdish region � one-third of the country � is patrolled by about 300 American troops, which is fewer than it takes to patrol the Kennedy compound in Palm Beach on Easter weekends.

But the media tell us this means we're losing. The goalpost of success keeps shifting as we stack up a string of victories. Before the war, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof warned that war with Iraq would be a nightmare: "[W]e won't kill Saddam, trigger a coup or wipe out his Republican Guard forces." (Unless, he weaseled his way out, "we're incredibly lucky.")

We've done all that! How incredibly lucky.

Kristof continued: "We'll have to hunt out Saddam on the ground � which may be just as hard as finding Osama in Afghanistan, and much bloodier."

We've captured Saddam! And it wasn't bloody! Indeed, the most harrowing aspect of Saddam's capture was that he hadn't bathed or been de-liced for two months.

Kristof also said: "Our last experience with street-to-street fighting was confronting untrained thugs in Mogadishu, Somalia. This time we're taking on an army with possible bio- and chemical weapons, 400,000 regular army troops and supposedly 7 million more in Al Quds militia."

And yet, somehow, our boys defeated them in just six weeks! Incredibly lucky again! And just think: all of this accomplished without even having a "Plan."

Now we're fighting directly with Islamic loonies crawling out of their rat holes from around the entire region � which liberals also said wouldn't happen. Remember how liberals said the Islamic loonies hated Saddam Hussein � hated him! � because he was a "secularist"? As geopolitical strategist Paul Begala put it, Saddam would never share his weapons with terrorists because "those Islamic terrorists would use them against Saddam Hussein because he's secular."

Well, apparently, the crazies have put aside their scruples about Saddam's secularism to come out in the open where they can be shot by American troops rather than fighting on the streets of Manhattan (where the natives would immediately surrender).

The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning. Every day liberals can create a new narrative that destroys the past as it occurred. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

To be sure, Iraq is not a bed of roses. As the Brookings Institution scholar said, we have yet to give the Iraqis "budget resources" that "are not already pre-allocated." I take it back: It is a quagmire.

Hussein documents show new link between Iraq and Al Qaeda pre-911

05.26.04 (8:21 pm)   [edit]
From OpinionJournal.com--

[b]Saddam's Files
New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.[/b]
Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

One thing we've learned about Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein is that the former dictator was a diligent record keeper. Coalition forces have found--literally--million s of documents. These papers are still being sorted, translated and absorbed, but they are already turning up new facts about Saddam's links to terrorism.

We realize that even raising this subject now is politically incorrect. It is an article of faith among war opponents that there were no links whatsoever--that "secular" Saddam and fundamentalist Islamic terrorists didn't mix. But John Ashcroft's press conference yesterday reminds us that the terror threat remains, and it seems especially irresponsible for journalists not to be open to new evidence. If the CIA was wrong about WMD, couldn't it have also missed Saddam's terror links?

One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.

This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. The U.S. has never been sure whether he was there on behalf of the Iraqi regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamicist who hooked up with al Qaeda on his own.

It is possible that the Ahmed Hikmat Shakir listed on the Fedayeen rosters is a different man from the Iraqi of the same name with the proven al Qaeda connections. His identity awaits confirmation by al Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody or perhaps by other captured documents. But our sources tell us there is no questioning the authenticity of the three Fedayeen rosters. The chain of control is impeccable. The documents were captured by the U.S. military and have been in U.S. hands ever since.

As others have reported, at the time of the summit Shakir was working at the Kuala Lumpur airport, having obtained the job through an Iraqi intelligence agent at the Iraqi embassy. The four-day al Qaeda meeting was attended by Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, who were at the controls of American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon. Also on hand were Ramzi bin al Shibh, the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks, and Tawfiz al Atash, a high-ranking Osama bin Laden lieutenant and mastermind of the USS Cole bombing. Shakir left Malaysia on January 13, four days after the summit concluded.

That's not the only connection between Shakir and al Qaeda. The Iraqi next turned up in Qatar, where he was arrested on September 17, 2001, four days after the attacks in the U.S. A search of his pockets and apartment uncovered such information as the phone numbers of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers' safe houses and contacts. Also found was information pertaining to a 1995 al Qaeda plot to blow up a dozen commercial airliners over the Pacific.

After a brief detention, our friends the Qataris inexplicably released Shakir, and on October 21 he flew to Amman, Jordan. The Jordanians promptly arrested him, but under pressure from the Iraqis (and Amnesty International, which questioned his detention) and with the acquiescence of the CIA, they let him go after three months. He was last seen heading home to Baghdad.

One of the mysteries of postwar Iraq is why the Bush Administration and our $40-billion-a-year intelligence services haven't devoted more resources to probing the links between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. In his new book, "The Connection," Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard puts together all of the many strands of intriguing evidence that the two did do business together. There's no single "smoking gun," but there sure is a lot of smoke.

The reason to care goes beyond the prewar justification for toppling Saddam and relates directly to our current security. U.S. officials believe that American civilian Nicholas Berg was beheaded in Iraq recently by Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, who is closely linked to al Qaeda and was given high-level medical treatment and sanctuary by Saddam's government. The Baathists killing U.S. soldiers are clearly working with al Qaeda now; Saddam's files might show us how they linked up in the first place.

The lowdown on anti-American zealot and former Clintonite General Zinni

05.26.04 (4:44 pm)   [edit]
These are the kinds of Generals that Clinton loved-- the anti-American kind (see: Wesley Clark as well)....

Guess who has a job if Kerry becomes president? This is some pretty sobering stuff about the anti-Americanism of Zinni.

From American Thinker--

[b]The low-down on Zinni[/b]
--Douglas Hanson
May 26th, 2004

The latest retired general to voice his concerns over the strategy to topple Saddam Hussein?s regime in Iraq has been Anthony Zinni. Naturally, the good general has co-authored a book with (surprise!) Tom Clancy, criticizing the war with Iraq. The anti-Semitic undercurrent of the general?s interview on 60 minutes is discussed at length in Richard Baehr?s excellent piece in The American Thinker. Most Americans know that Gen. Zinni was the former Commanding General of CENTCOM, but few know his previous military background in that theater of operations, nor do they completely understand his current political leanings on the subject of conflict and war.

Gen. Zinni had been Deputy Commanding General for Operation Provide Comfort, immediately after Gulf War I. But his first command in the region was as the I Marine Expeditionary Force Commander assigned to execute Operation UNITED SHIELD, which was USCENTCOM?s operation to withdraw all UN forces from Somalia in January 1995. By this time, all US forces had already withdrawn under orders from President Clinton and overseen by the CENTCOM commander, Marine Gen. Hoar (retired Gen. Hoar has also come out against Operation Iraqi Freedom).

In August 1997, Gen. Zinni assumed command of CENTCOM. During his command, the following major actions occurred in theater:

- Provided disaster relief to victims of flooding in Kenya.

- The U.S. Embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists; USCENTCOM responded to the bombings by conducting cruise missile strikes against aspirin factories and nearly deserted terrorist camps of Osama Bin Laden.

- The U.S.S. Cole was bombed in Aden by al Qaeda. The rules of engagement in force under General Zinni's command enabled the terrorists to approach the Cole close enough to kill our sailors and critically damage the ship.

- In December 1998, USCENTCOM launched Operation DESERT FOX which was a four-day operation theoretically to delay development of weapons of mass destruction, and to disrupt or destroy Iraq?s national command and control nodes.

- Gen. Zinni oversaw the large-scale, yet routine Bright Star Exercise, which can trace its origin to the early 80s Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF).

- Conducted ?engagement? operations (whatever that means) with the recently independent Central Asian states of the Former Soviet Union.

[b]So, it appears that Gen. Zinni and CENTCOM had become very proficient at troop withdrawals, disaster relief, and shooting cruise missiles at empty tents.[/b] To be fair, Gen. Zinni was but the last in line of three CENTCOM commanders (the others being Hoar and Peay), who were essentially outmaneuvered by Iran. Even worse, they allowed a build-up of Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf and the Horn of Africa. These moves were countered by nothing stronger than the strategies of withdrawal (Somalia), shows of force, and the ever-popular but widely misunderstood concept of ?engagement.?

But Gen. Zinni?s current affiliations are even more interesting, given his severe criticism of the President?s actions in the War on Terror and the liberation of Iraq. It seems the General is a Distinguished Military Fellow on the Washington, D.C. staff of the Center for Defense Information www.cdi.org. The mission statement for this organization is:

[i]dedicated to strengthening security through: international cooperation; [b]reduced reliance on unilateral military power [/b][emphasis mine] to resolve conflict; reduced reliance on nuclear weapons; a transformed and reformed military establishment; and, prudent oversight of, and spending on, defense programs.[/i]

A quick glance of the list of people on CDI?s Board of Advisors includes such great military thinkers and left wing activists and donors as:

- Ben Cohen - Founder, Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc., South Burlington, Vt.

- Paul Newman - Motion Pictures, Los Angeles, Calif.

- Joanne Woodward - Actress-Director, Westport, Conn.

An assessment of CDI during the height of the Cold War highlighted its founding and core philosophy:

[i]Formed in 1973 as a project of the tax-exempt Fund for Peace(FFP). CDI and its sister FFP projects - the Center for National Security Studies(CNSS) and the Center for International Policy(CIP) - are spin-offs from projects initiated by the Institute for Policy Studies(IPS), the Washington-based , internationally active revolutionary think-tank.

CDI?s military members include former military officers, intelligence officers and academics [b]who share attitudes of harsh antagonism toward the U.S. national defense, the U.S. military, the NATO alliance and American foreign policy.[/b]

CDI?s former military officers were frequently quoted by the Soviet propaganda organs to legitimize their attacks on NATO and U.S. defense forces as trigger-happy dangers to peace.[/i]

Although [b]CDI[/b] states it "supports a strong defense but opposes excessive expenditures or forces," it [b]has opposed every major new U.S. weapons system developed during the past two decades - from the B-1 bomber and Trident submarine to cruise missiles, neutron warheads, and stealth bomber - as upsetting the U.S.-Soviet strategic balance while at the same time minimizing the Soviet military buildup.[/b]

[b][u]To this day, CDI maintains an office in Moscow, Russia staffed by a Mr. Ivan Safranchuk, who is described as a ?well-known nuclear analyst in Russia.? The purpose of the Moscow CDI office is to provide ?the Russian media and public with independent, unfiltered information about U.S.-Russian security relations, from nuclear policy to NATO environmental issues.?[/b][/u]

The CDI also sends military experts to Cuba, to work with the Cuban military! [b]In another era, this sort of activity would be uncharitably regarded as something akin to the t-word.[/b]

This begs the question: What would motivate a retired four-star Marine general to join such an organization as this?

That retired Gen. Zinni would fall in with this bunch makes perfect sense after a stint at CENTCOM that included half-measures against Saddam?s regime and disaster relief operations as his claim to fame. It?s a shame that he can?t see the failure of the false policy of containment and sanctions that were right in his own backyard, [b]but it?s a scandal that his critique of the current war can?t get beyond the subtle anti-Semitic complaints against people who actually wanted to take action to solve the problem.[/b]

[b]His actions demonstrate that he is in perfect company with Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson.[/b]
Ed Lasky contributed research assistance for this article

Truth and a timeline: the facts about Bush's stem-cell policy

05.26.04 (4:33 pm)   [edit]
[b]Inflated Promise, Distorted Facts
As senators make moves, a walk through the stem-cell fray.[/b]
By Eric Cohen
National Review Online

A few weeks ago, 206 congressmen sent a letter to President Bush demanding increased federal funding for more embryonic-stem-cell lines, and all but accusing the president of single-handedly standing in the way of curing many terrible human diseases. A group of senators is apparently planning to send a similar missive making similar demands in the near future. These senators would be wise to check the facts before they sign, instead of getting dragged into a political campaign that seems to show little regard for the data.

Of course, the question of embryonic-stem-cell research is a puzzling and contentious one. There are many who honestly believe that the possibility of medical progress in the future outweighs any respect owed to nascent human life in the present, and that the federal government should override the moral objections of many citizens and publicly fund research that involves embryo destruction. This is a misguided view; it risks making us users of life in the very effort to be savers of life, and it undermines the ethical pluralism that presently exists, by making the nation support this practice. But it is an often heartfelt position ? one that Congress and the country can debate.

The trouble is that many stem-cell advocates press for this view by distorting the facts about the policy as it now exists, the facts about the promise of embryonic-stem-cell research, and the facts about where the embryos for such research will come from. For senators on the fence ? especially Republicans and pro-lifers ? a sober review seems in order to clear away some of the confusion.

[u]Origins of the Current Policy[/u]

In accordance with the "Dickey Amendment," passed each year since 1995, research involving the destruction of human embryos cannot be funded with taxpayer dollars. This is not Bush's policy; it is the law of the land, passed annually by Congress and signed by both Presidents Clinton and Bush. This law does not ban embryo research, and it does not f2und embryo research. It is a policy of public silence.

In 2000, the Clinton administration discovered a loophole that would allow the NIH to provide some federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research without asking Congress to overturn the Dickey amendment. By law, the government could not fund research "in which" embryos were destroyed. But if the destruction itself were funded privately, the government could offer funds for subsequent research on embryonic-stem-cell lines derived from the destroyed embryos. In other words: A researcher could destroy endless numbers of embryos in his private lab, and then use the fruits of such destruction to get public funding. This would not violate the letter of the law, but surely the spirit.

When he took office in 2001, President Bush put implementation of the Clinton guidelines on hold. He wanted a way to support potentially promising research, but he also did not believe the federal government should create an ongoing incentive for the destruction of human embryos. On August 9, 2001, President Bush announced his new guidelines: federal funding for research using stem-cell lines that existed before the announcement, but not for those created after. In this way, federal money would not act as an incentive for destroying human embryos in the future, but stem cells derived from embryos already destroyed in the past could be used with federal money to explore the basic science.

This was the fundamental bargain of the policy: no limits on embryonic-stem-cell research in the private sector (unlike much of the world, which regulates this practice), but no public subsidies to encourage a limitless industry of embryo destruction.

The latest campaign by proponents of more federal funding rejects this basic bargain, and thus rejects the very pluralism that liberalism so often claims is its highest value. Although hundreds of millions of dollars in private funds support embryonic-stem-cell research, and tens of millions in public dollars are spent on it each year under the Bush policy, the scientists and their advocates in Congress want more public money with fewer ethical limits, even if it means forcing those who believe embryo research is wrong to pay for embryo destruction.

[u]Confusion and Distortion[/u]

To get those subsidies, stem-cell advocates have pulled out all the stops: distorting the facts, exaggerating the promise of the research, and confusing the public debate. The letter sent by 206 House members to President Bush last month is just the latest example. It is worth dissecting in some detail, lest senators make a similar error.

First, the letter exaggerates the state of embryonic-stem-cell science. "As you know," begins the House letter to President Bush, "embryonic stem cells have the potential to be used to treat and better understand deadly and disabling diseases that affect more than 100 million Americans, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and many others." But these claims are irresponsible given the preliminary nature of the research, offering false hope to whole classes of patients now suffering under the burden of these diseases. The promise of embryonic-stem-cell research is very real but wholly speculative. No human therapies of any kind have yet been developed or tested, and none are on the horizon. And the notion that embryonic stem cells will cure "cancer" and "heart disease," broad categories of disease that encompass a complex array of particular ailments, is unsupported by even informed conjectures. The use of a hard number ? 100 million ? is pandering of a sort that no good scientist should tolerate.

At a May 11 hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee on Aging, for example, Johns Hopkins Alzheimer's Disease expert Peter Rabins and Washington University Alzheimer's researcher John Morris both told the senators that they do not expect embryonic stem cells to play a role in Alzheimer's treatment. Experts on other diseases speak with similar restraint. In the end, the research may bear therapeutic fruit and it may not ? we cannot know in advance. It may cure some diseases and not others. But by seeming to promise medical salvation without limits, stem-cell advocates risk blurring the difficult ethical questions that surround this new science.

Second, the letter distorts the facts surrounding the availability of human embryos for research. "The IVF process results in more embryos than are needed by the couple," the House members wrote to the president. "There are estimated to be more than 400,000 IVF embryos, which are currently frozen and will likely be destroyed if not donated, with informed consent of the couple, for research." This implies that while the Bush policy funds research on only a few dozen lines, hundreds of thousands of embryos are out there for scientific use. But this is simply false. The same 2003 study that arrived at the 400,000 number made it clear that only about three percent of these frozen embryos are actually available for research ? the others remain in the custody of the parents who created them, and are specifically designated for future use in initiating a pregnancy. Whether the parents really plan to implant them or not ? some parents simply cannot bear to let them go ? these embryos are not public property. The study further did the math, and concluded that if all available frozen embryos were used only for embryonic-stem-cell research, they would yield about 275 lines of stem cells. Not thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands, but 275 is all scientists can expect to get from frozen IVF embryos.

This points to a serious question about the intentions of embryonic-stem-cell advocates. In the May issue of Scientific American, prominent embryonic-stem-cell researchers Robert Lanza and Nadia Rosenthal wrote that the actual therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells would be hampered by immune-rejection problems that could only be overcome by cell treatments compatible with the immune system of patients. "Hundreds of thousands of ES-cell lines might be needed to establish a bank of cells with immune matches for most potential patients," they wrote, and "creating that many lines could require millions of discarded embryos from IVF clinics."

We will likely never have "millions of discarded embryos," and nothing the president can do could change that. Moreover, the article suggests how far we might be from any workable treatments using embryonic stem cells. Does the House letter mean to call for a national project whose end is millions of embryos created for research? How many of the 206 signers understood that this might be necessary? And while it is true that many scientists believe we can find cures with fewer embryos, what will they do if Lanza and Rosenthal are right? Will they declare that "left-over" embryos are likewise "not enough"? Will they demand, for example, that the federal government also support the creation of cloned embryos solely for research? What limits, if any, will they accept as absolute, even if it means forgoing promising areas of research?

When the letter turns to the Bush policy itself, the House members do no better. "While it originally appeared that 78 embryonic stem cell lines would be available for research under the federal policy," they wrote to the president, "now, more than two years after August 9, 2001, only 19 are available to researchers." In fact, the number of available stem-cell lines has been increasing as more of the 78 eligible lines are developed to the point that they can be distributed to scientists. Just days before the congressional letter went out, the number of lines had been 18, three weeks earlier it had been 17, in January there were 15, and a year ago there were less than 10. The number of lines has been growing so quickly that an earlier version of the letter, stating that only 15 lines were available, is still posted on the websites of some of the signers. It is true that not all 78 existing stem-cell lines will develop successfully and become available. But the claim that only 19 can ever be expected to exist is disingenuous. At least for now, the number continues steadily to increase.

Next, the congressmen's letter says that, "All available stem cell lines are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain." But the fact is that almost all currently available human-embryonic-stem-cell lines (including those that are not eligible for federal funding) were created with mouse feeder layers, and there is no clear evidence that this means they are "contaminated" in any way that would affect their usefulness. Perhaps more important, and unmentioned in the congressional letter, is the fact that a number of the Bush-approved stem-cell lines have not been developed with mouse feeder cells. These lines have so far not been developed at all ? they are frozen in an undeveloped form, for use when techniques that do not rely on mouse cells are perfected. As NIH director Elias Zerhouni said last fall, "there are at least those, which is about 16 lines, I believe, that have not been exposed to either mouse or human cell ? human feeder cells." These lines are not included among the 19 currently available.

Finally, the letter offers no evidence that the number of available lines has already proven to be a barrier to any particular researcher's specific work at this point. No other advocate or scientist has offered such evidence either. It is certainly true that more money for more lines could mean more work would get done. But that is not the same as saying that ongoing work has hit a wall because of the limited number of lines now available for federal funding, or that it will soon hit such a wall.

Stepping back, a pattern of facts emerges. Embryonic-stem-cell research is promising but so far purely speculative; the federal government in no way limits such research in the private sector; supporters of the research believe they can obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in private funding in the next few years, as the creation of new stem-cell institutes at Harvard, Stanford, and the University of Wisconsin demonstrates; and yet, despite the ethical objections of a very substantial portion of the public, stem-cell advocates insist that Congress should compel every American to support the research with tax dollars, and to make that happen they inflate the promise and distort the facts surrounding the research.

For those who believe advancing stem-cell research is the only human good at issue in this debate, the Bush policy obviously makes no sense. But for those who see the ethical and political complexity of the stem-cell question ? involving the possibility of curing terrible diseases, the ethical perils of turning nascent human life into a resource, and the need to balance and respect the deeply held moral views of a diverse country ? the Bush policy continues to make great sense. And whatever the nation decides to do about embryo research over the long term, we should do it with our eyes wide open ? knowing the unavoidable ethical costs of proceeding, the potential human costs of not proceeding, and the great uncertainty that surrounds any new area of science. It is these hard questions that senators ? and all Americans ? should keep in mind before entering the stem-cell fray.

? [i]Eric Cohen is editor of The New Atlantis, resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and a consultant to the President's Council on Bioethics. The views expressed here are his own.[/i]

Winston makes absolutely no sense-- the left needs a terror attack to win in November, not Bush

05.26.04 (3:01 pm)   [edit]
WinstonSmith always breaks new ground with his ridiculous behavior, most recently with his post wondering whether or not Dubya will stage a terror attack to get Americans to vote for him.

That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? I mean, what Bush has going for him is that his administration has prevented a terror attack.

In Madrid, Spain, the terrorists got a succesful attack and that REPLACED the government, not entrenched it.

Do you know how stupid that sounds: "I am going to show how tough I am on national security by allowing an attack to happen! Yes, that will prove that this administration's security is air-tight!"

That is as dumb as Winston's moral equivalence over N Korea, his assertion that the CIA shelled Liberia, or Ted Kennedy's claim that Bush went to Iraq for political gain (yes, a war of choice is always gold!)...

It is actually a hope of the left, in concert with jihadists, that there is a massive terror attack on US soil so they can point to how Bush has not made us any safer.

A major terror attack is the only hope the left has-- now that the economy is getting better.

It is John Kerry, after all, who is complaining that Bush isn't doing enough to make us safe at home. He hasn't been talking too much about jobs lately.

Winston's paranoia doesn't agree with reality.

Bush admin. warns US of Al Qaeda, but Kerry's camp sees it as political ploy

05.26.04 (2:52 pm)   [edit]
**This is what I love about the Dems. If the president doesn't appear to be doing his job, John Kerry the war criminal urges the president to do his job. But if the president does his job,then John Kerry the war criminal-- or his supporters-- wonder about the timing.

And this from a group of people who ask conservatives not to question the timing of an Iraq strike the night before President CLinton's impeachment trial is to begin!

If Bush cared about doing things that looked like political gold he wouldn't have invaded Iraq or fought the war on terror. The Democrats just reveal the way they think when they accuse Bush of politicizing the country's security.**

[b]al-Qaida Said Almost Ready to Attack U.S. [/b]
By CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Al-Qaida is determined to launch a U.S. attack in the next few months that could be linked to a major event such as the upcoming international economic summit or the summer political conventions, Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) said Wednesday, citing "credible intelligence from multiple sources."

Ashcroft noted that following the March 11 train bombings in Madrid an al-Qaida spokesman said the terrorist organization's plans for an attack on America were 90 percent complete. That, coupled with a steady stream of intelligence about al-Qaida gathered before and after the Spain bombings, "suggest that it's almost ready to attack the United States," he said at a Justice Department (news - web sites) news conference with FBI (news - web sites) Director Robert Mueller.

The intelligence does not contain specifics such as timing, method or place of an attack. But officials say it is backed with greater corroboration than usual, including information that operatives may already be in the United States.

However, there are no immediate plans to increase in the U.S. terror alert.

Ashcroft and Mueller asked state and local law enforcement and the public for help tracking down seven people thought to be connected to al-Qaida. "All present a clear and present danger to America. All should be considered armed and dangerous," Ashcroft said.

The ominous warning returns the nation's attention to terrorism, the issue that President Bush (news - web sites) has highlighted as a central theme of his re-election campaign, after intense focus on other subjects like prisoner abuses in Iraq (news - web sites). Bush has lost ground in the polls, falling in approval ratings to the lowest point of his presidency.

Ashcroft said the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq due to the political repercussions of the train bombings could lead al-Qaida to attempt to influence U.S. politics.

"Al-Qaida may perceive that a large-scale attack in the United States this summer or fall could lead to similar consequences," he said.

"We are not aware of details of a plan," Ashcroft said when pressed for specifics.

The attorney general said recent intelligence indicates that al-Qaida operatives now may be traveling with their families to attract less suspicion and that the terror network has been seeking recruits "who can portray themselves as European."

He portrayed the "ideal al-Qaida operative" as an individual in the late 20s or early 30s.

To focus on the threat, the FBI has established a 2004 Threat Task Force, and FBI analysts are reviewing previously collected intelligence to see if it contains any clues to the latest threat. There will also be a series of interviews conducted by the FBI with individuals who could have information about potential plots.

At the news conference, large photos of the seven suspected al-Qaida operatives were displayed. The suspects, all of whom have been sought for months, include Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, a Saudi native who once lived in Florida, and Aafia Siddiqui, a woman from Pakistan who studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (news - web sites).

Earlier Wednesday, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said there are no current plans to lift the national alert status from yellow, where it has stood since January. That's the midlevel alert level on a five-step warning program.

"First of all, every day we take a look at the overall threat reporting that we receive," Ridge said on NBC's "Today Show."

"There's not a consensus within the administration that we need to raise the threat level. ... We do not need to raise the threat level to increase security. Right now, there's no need to put the entire country on a (elevated) national alert," he said.

Asked whether Ridge's comment suggested a difference of opinion between his office and Ridge's, Ashcroft told reporters: "I believe we're all on the same page."

Mueller said that "extraordinary precautions" already were being taken to protect the sites of the two political conventions � the Democratic convention in Boston in late July and the Republican convention in New York in late August � as well as next month's Group of Eight economic summit on Sea Island in Georgia.

Some law enforcement and firefighter union representatives, supporters of Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) for president, suggested that the timing of the threat report was suspicious because of polls showing a sagging approval rating for President Bush. International Association of Firefighters President Harold Schaitberger told reporters in a conference call that the intelligence has been in the government's hands for weeks.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan, however, denied that there is a political aspect to the threat report.

"The president believes it's very important to share information appropriately," McClellan said. "We do that in a number of ways when it comes to looking at the threats we face here in the homeland."

Sadr agrees to leave Najaf-- but what kind of deal did US reach to do it?

05.26.04 (2:45 pm)   [edit]
Sadr has decided to leave Najaf and leave it up to the clerics to decide the future of his militia, while insisting on 'broad discussions' over legal proceedings in his trial.

*Does this mean that justice won't be served?
*Will this be spun as a victory for Islam by the radicals?
*Did the US play with the devil again (as it did with the insurgents in Fallujah) for a temporary peace?

Before you read the news article, please read this article I posted last night detailing what this deal may be all about-- http://www.tblog.com/template... .. if this article is true, it's not pretty. We would be legitimizing Sadr's brand of radicalism.

[b]Cleric Offers to Pull Forces From Najaf [/b]
By MARIAM FAM, Associated Press Writer

NAJAF, Iraq - Iraq (news - web sites)'s national security adviser on Wednesday said radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr had offered to remove his fighters from Najaf � except for those who live there. Al-Sadr demanded that U.S. and other coalition troops "return to base," allowing Iraqi police to regain control of the city.

Mouwafak al-Rubaie, a Shiite and the government's national security adviser, said the offer was made in a letter from al-Sadr to the city's Shiite religious leadership. The young radical also demanded "broad discussions" within the Shiite community over the future of his al-Mahdi Army militia and that legal proceedings against him in a murder case be deferred until then.

Earlier Wednesday, U.S. troops scored a major success against Shiite militiamen, arresting a key lieutenant of al-Sadr in clashes that Iraqi hospital and militia officials said killed 24 people and wounded nearly 50.

Al-Sadr said he is making this offer because of "the tragic condition" in Najaf after weeks of fighting between his militiamen and the Americans and the slight damage suffered by the city's holiest shrine, the Imam Ali mosque.

There was no confirmation from al-Sadr or the city's Shiite hierachy, which has been trying to mediate an end to the crisis for weeks.

Anti-Bush enviro-nuts push truth aside in their crusade

05.26.04 (5:43 am)   [edit]
From National Review--

[b]Environmental Enemy No. 1?
With anti-Bush environmentalists, the truth belongs on an endangered list.[/b]

Environmental activists have never made a secret of their preference for Democrats in the Oval Office. During the Reagan and first Bush administrations, they regularly sounded alarm bells over Republican policies on environmental issues. Those attacks pale when compared to the hysteria among green pressure groups over the current Bush administration. According to these groups, preventing the president's reelection is the only thing that can save us from environmental disaster. That partisan politics affects environmental policy is nothing new; most major U.S. environmental laws came out of the Nixon administration's efforts to one-up Democratic Senator Edmund Muskie. Now, however, some green groups are so intent on defeating President Bush that they've become de facto partisan attack dogs, challenging every aspect of the president's record, even when such attacks are misleading or unsupported by the facts. Such increasing partisanship is polluting the debate over environmental protection and preventing reforms needed to improve environmental quality.

One effort to tar the president as Environmental Enemy No. 1 is "BushGreenwatch." According to its website, "BushGreenwatch provides accurate and timely information on the Bush Administration's assault on our environment and public health."

BushGreenwatch is "a project of Environmental Media Services," an environmental media outfit launched by a former Gore campaign staffer with the help of infamous leftist PR shop Fenton Communications, and operates "with support from MoveOn.org." As one might expect, the "accurate and timely information" distributed by BushGreenwatch always has the same bottom line: President Bush is a disaster for the environment.

BushGreenwatch distributes daily e-mail alerts to journalists and environmental activists. So intent is BushGreenwatch on "track[ing] the Bush Administration's environmental misdeeds," it plays fast and loose with the facts. On April 30, for example, BushGreenwatch hyped a study purporting to show that record childhood asthma rates will climb even higher due to air pollution and other sources, and pinned the blame on the Bush administration. The press release upon which BushGreenwatch based its alert claimed that urban air pollution, in particular photochemical smog, "causes" asthma. Not so: Childhood asthma is at record levels, but air pollution almost certainly has nothing to do with it. As childhood asthma rates have climbed, outdoor air pollution levels have plummeted. Urban air pollution may cause added discomfort in children who have asthma, but it does not cause the disease. Yet BushGreenwatch did not let these facts get in the way of a good slam on the administration.

Though managed by Environmental Media Services, BushGreenwatch is anything but a balanced or objective source of environmental information for journalists. BushGreenwatch has repeatedly attacked the administration for its alleged abandonment of the National Parks, with scarcely any mention that the Bush administration inherited a multi-billion-dollar park-maintenance backlog and that park funding has consistently increased since President Bush took office. BushGreenwatch charges that the administration is anti-environment for failing to list more animals and plants under the Endangered Species Act, yet never reports on the ESA's dismal record at protecting species. Indeed, since its enactment over 30 years ago, more listed species have gone extinct under the Act's protection than have been recovered due to ESA regulations. Even though several species have been removed from the endangered list because they were originally listed in error, BushGreenwatch echoes environmentalist complaints that efforts to weed out "junk science" in species-listing determinations are tantamount to exterminating plants and animals.

Not surprisingly, BushGreenwatch also pays little attention to economics in its quest to root out the sins of the administration. On April 15, "Tax Day" � under the headline "Taxpayers paying for polluters' clean-up" � BushGreenwatch charged that "the Bush administration is now charging the public � rather than polluters � for the clean-up of Superfund sites." As an alternative, BushGreenwatch endorsed the call by several environmental groups to re-impose taxes on corporations and chemical feedstocks. These taxes expired several years ago and the Bush administration opposes their re-imposition. Although BushGreenwatch euphemistically called the proposed tax increase "restoring industry fees," it remains a tax increase, and taxpayers would still pay for cleanup, as the taxes would be passed on to consumers.

BushGreenwatch's releases on Superfund repeat the myth that these taxes represent the "polluter pays" principle, under which polluters pay for the costs of their detrimental activities. This may be a good idea, but it is hardly an accurate description of Superfund taxes. The taxes on corporations and chemical feedstocks imposed costs on companies without any regard for their relative culpability for polluting abandoned waste sites. In the end, these costs are borne by shareholders and consumers � the very same people BushGreenwatch pretends to protect.

Not only does BushGreenwatch get its facts wrong, it also frequently misrepresents how federal laws operate, and misrepresents Democrats' records on the same issues. One alert, for example, assails the administration over a favorite green whipping boy, the General Mining Law of 1872. Attacking "sweetheart giveaways" of land, BushGreenwatch complained about the recent transfer of 155 acres "of federally owned, prime mountaintop real estate" in Colorado to a "multinational mining company" at a price of $5 per acre. The president was blamed for the sale even though it was mandated by statute. In fact, for over 120 years � through both Democratic and Republican administrations � the federal Mining Law has provided that those who discover valuable mineral deposits on federal land are entitled to receive ownership of those resources as a reward for the discovery. Indeed, some of the Mining Law's most effective defenders have been Democrats like Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada and Minority Leader Thomas Daschle of South Dakota. The Bush administration may not stage the theatrical deed-signings protesting land transfers as the Clinton administration did, but the end result is the same: As the law mandates, those who comply with the Mining Law's requirements are issued title to land where they have discovered valuable minerals.

Contrary to BushGreenwatch's claim, there is also no "giveaway" of federal land. Environmentalists delight in comparing the value of mineral resources with the nominal price set by the statute, claiming that mining companies get minerals worth billions for a pittance. This neglects the substantial cost of mining. Miners today rarely pick up nuggets of gold from stream beds, as in the California Gold Rush. Mining today is a costly, complex business of extracting tiny amounts of valuable minerals from enormous quantities of low-grade ore. Finding, evaluating, and developing a mine eats up most of the value of the minerals recovered, leaving the mine owner without the bonanza claimed by the environmental literature.

At times BushGreenwatch gets downright sloppy in its anti-Bush zeal. For example, an e-mail alert distributed this spring lambasted Bush's nominee for EPA deputy administrator for her allegedly anti-environmental record. There was only one problem. The person in question, Ann Klee, was nominated for a quite different position: EPA general counsel. The administration's nominee for deputy administrator was Stephen Johnson � something one would expect environmental activists to know, seeing as, at the time, Johnson had already been on the job as acting deputy for nine months. The error was eventually corrected on the website, but no correction was ever sent to recipients of BushGreenwatch's e-mail alerts.

There is plenty of room to criticize the Bush administration's environmental record on its merits. Free-market groups have expressed vocal disappointment over the administration's reluctance to champion property-rights solutions to environmental problems. Indeed, with a few exceptions, the Bush administration has made little effort to bring the last generation of environmental laws up to date. Yet most nonpartisan environmental analysts agree that reform of existing environmental laws and regulations is long overdue. This country needs an open and in-depth debate on the future direction of environmental policy, but this debate should be based on a sober assessment of facts and existing environmental programs � not fear-mongering or partisan attacks. Obscuring and misrepresenting the current administration's environmental record may help defeat President Bush's bid for reelection, but it will do little to promote the reforms or regulations needed to improve environmental quality.

� NRO contributing editor Jonathan H. Adler and Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) senior associate Andrew P. Morriss are professors at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

Massachusetts residents cry foul when Catholic church they attacked closes its doors

05.26.04 (5:26 am)   [edit]
The Catholic church in Massachusets is closing some of its doors, for one obvious reason: money. Oh, the priest shortage is used as an excuse as well, but there has been a shortage of priests for some time. Even without priests, churches can stay open for travelling priests or deacons-- the people could still receive Christ locally.

No, the real reason why the church in Massachusetts is closing its doors is because of the huge monetary payouts that it has had to pay to victims of its sex scandal. Interestingly, while victims explained that nothing short of justice for the accused priest would suffice, they had no problem taking a lot, and I mean a [i]lot[/i] of the church's money. And they did it with the popular myth that the church is endlessly rich.

I am not saying that justice shouldn't be served in this scandal. And actually, the Boston diocese, among others, deserves to be blamed for the covering up of such behavior that led to the current crisis. But the people of Massachusetts can't have it both ways, as they seem to want-- they can't expect the church to dole out large, staggering amounts of money in some sort of mass penance and run itself at the same time.

They should have seen this coming. The church in Massachusetts has been mortgaging and selling its property left and right.

This is a tragedy on all sides that has predictably trickled down to affect every single person in Massachusetts. It will ripple throughout the country.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zinni

05.26.04 (5:17 am)   [edit]
[b]The Protocols of the Elders of Zinni[/b]
By Richard Baehr
The American Thinker | May 26, 2004

A few months back, leftist Jewish critics, such as Frank Rich, Abraham Foxman and Leon Wieseltier, trashed Mel Gibson�s movie, The Passion of the Christ, for what they called its blatant anti-Semitism, warning of the danger the movie could create for Jews wherever the movie was shown. So far, 50 million people have seen the movie in America, and nobody has been seen running out of a cineplex calling for Jewish blood.

They are yelling for Jewish blood however, in many countries around the world, especially Muslims leaving their mosques after furious incitement by their Wahhabi-trained imams. On this subject, we hear less from some of these same critics, particularly Frank Rich, who this week found the time to laud the latest Michael Moore screed, presumably for its dedication to truthfulness.

The Passion has not generated any pogroms in America, but a new insidious strand of Jew-hatred is creeping out of the closet and making its appearance in widely broadcast mainstream media. In an utterly shameful program on CBS's 60 Minutes last night, Steve Kroft conducted a fawning interview with retired General Anthony Zinni, the latest in the collection of recent authors brought onto the show to trash the Bush administration over Iraq, the war or terror, tax cuts, you name it. First was former Treasury Secretary Paul O�Neill, then Richard Clarke, and then Bob Woodward.

Credit some of this to sleaziness -- other Viacom companies publish some of these authors� books (not always mentioned during 60 Minutes). So these plugs which are broadcast before millions of viewers are a boost to sales, as well as a blow to Bush, creating real political and commercial synergy for CBS.

In years past, ABC news, and its anchorman Peter Jennings, were the kings of disdain for the Bush Administration, and of course for Israel. A few weeks back, Ted Koppel devoted a longer-than-usual segment of Nightline to showing the faces and reading the names of all the soldiers killed in Iraq. To accompany the many caustic programs about Israel�s security measures, Koppel broadcast a puff piece on Palestinian suicide bombers last year. But CBS has lapped the field this year. The Woodward interview was of interest, since Woodward�s book is not, on balance, a body slam on the Administration. In fact the Bush campaign links to it on its website. But interviewer Mike Wallace made a point of pushing Woodward on only the sections of the book where the Administration came off unfavorably.

Despite having 15 minutes for a story, instead of the 30 seconds to a minute on the nightly news, 60 Minutes has always been a program lacking in nuance, or (hold the laughter) balance. Within about 15 seconds, each segment�s slant is obvious. Last night featured three puff pieces: one with Zinni, one with a convicted murderer of four people who has become a �good guy� on death row, and one with a philanthropist who sponsors inner city kids for college.

But the Zinni piece was the lead, and the most important. Zinni has been a critic of the war with Iraq for some time. He believes Iraq was successfully contained before we went to war. This, in itself, is a reasonable position to take. This was a war of choice. Zinni also argues that if we chose to go to war, we needed more force strength. So he agrees with the Powell doctrine that you need lots of manpower, to insure a successful military campaign and post war outcome.

Zinni says we had too few men at the start, and for the post war period. He also says that Ambassador Bremer has made some mistakes (I guess Zinni never has), including dismissing the Iraqi army, which he says eliminated any ability to get Iraqis to help secure the country, and was responsible for our forces being viewed as an occupation army. In itself, these criticisms are nothing new, and in fact, if this is the sum of what Zinni had to say, one wonders what contribution to the debate CBS thought he was making. Some supporters of the war effort agree with part of the Zinni critique -- particularly on the size of our force commitment.

But Zinni is not comfortable just with criticism of how the war or post war effort was run. He needs to blame people, and he wants heads to fall. And he names names -- in particular the group he calls the �neocons�, naming five men: Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, and Ellot Abrams, as the key ideologues who caused this war to occur. And their real justification for pushing the US to war, we learn from Zinni, were not the three stated by the Administration -- weapons of mass destruction, terror links, or gross human rights violations.

Rather, it was to secure Israel, and to remake the Middle East in our image, a noble but unrealistic vision, according to the General. The fact that the named neocons are all Jewish, Zinni says, is accidental. He says this is irrelevant to him. But if it is irrelevant, why does he only provide the names of Jewish neocons? Are there no others? How Jewish is Jeanne Kirkpatrick or Bill Bennett? And what evidence does he have for his charge that the war was fought for Israel? Zinni never even touches on the three justifications the Administration offered for the war in the 60 Minutes segment. But Steve Kroft repeats the neocon slander, and the link to Israel, and names the Jewish names. This after all is the important part of the story.

In late 2002, the earth collapsed below Senator Trent Lott, for making a joke about Strom Thurmond at a dinner gala that appeared to excuse his segregationist past. When Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd did the same thing, whitewashing former Klansman and now Senator Robert Bryd of West Virginia a few weeks back, the major media ignored the story. Then two weeks ago, the doddering and thankfully retiring Senator Fritz Hollings penned an op-ed for a South Carolina newspaper charging that the war in Iraq was fought for Israel, and to win Jewish votes for the Bush administration, and blaming three Jews for pushing us to war: Perle, Wolfowitz, and columnist Charles Krauthammer (if you are scoring, Perle and Wolfowitz now lead the villainy derby with two mentions each). With few exceptions, the mainstream media failed to report on Hollings�s original charge, or his incoherent speech in Congress defending the article last week.

None of this Jew-baiting is accidental. The road is being prepared for an ugly smear campaign against Jews and Israel. If the war is lost, then the American dead, and all the money spent, will be laid at the feet of a few Jewish political writers and government officials, most of whom are completely unknown to the vast majority of Americans, who can rarely name their Senators or Congressman.

Part of this is simply politics, albeit an unusually ugly and dangerous politics. Think of the ads in the 2000 campaign run by the NAACP, about James Byrd being dragged from a truck in Jasper, Texas with the money line read by the murdered man�s daughter: �when George Bush did not support new hates crimes legislation in Texas, it was like my father was lynched a second time�.

It is telling, and unfortunate, that the Jewish voices who feared the passions aroused by The Passion, are silent about the Jew-baiting over the war. We have not yet heard from Leon Wieseltier or Frank Rich about this (and with Rich, you know you won�t). Abe Foxman, to his credit, was quick to denounce Hollings for his rant. For many Jews on the left, policy differences with the Administration and the need to defeat George Bush trump any need for consistency in their responses to threats to America�s Jews.

The absurdity of the charge that the Jewish neocons led us to war requires one to believe that Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza Rice are push-overs, without real views of their own, and they were therefore easily manipulated by the nefarious neocons. So Lewis Libby is the power behind Cheney, and Elliot Abrams the man behind Condoleeza Rice (how un-feminist to make this charge). Feith and Wolfowitz need only whisper in Rummy�s ear, and he marches soldiers off to war. And masterminding all of it from afar, is the Prince of Darkness, Richard Perle. Now we have all learned these last few years that Dick Cheney tells George Bush what to do, so there is no need for Zinni to link any of the neocons directly to Bush.

It is remarkable that people could buy such nonsense. We are not dealing here with an unusually cautious Presidency. That was the last one, except when it came to undergarments. But this Administration, if anything, has thrown caution to the wind. George Bush has risked his Presidency on Iraq. Bill Clinton feared losing a single man in battle, and had Dick Morris conduct a poll to determine how the public would react to his potential vacation locations one year.

The leaders of this Administration appear to have great confidence in the actions they have taken and to believe in the justifications they have provided for their actions. There is a lot less self-doubt with this team than the last one. One may think this is a good thing or a bad thing. That is beside the point. But to argue that the leaders -- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice -- are a bunch of wimps, manipulated by underlings, would be pretty far-fetched, even without the Jewish conspiracy charge.

But the Jewish conspiracy charge is not accidental. Zinni, and his ilk do not have any serious hope that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rice will resign. Rumsfeld seems to have weathered the attacks against him for now. But the underlings are more vulnerable, and so are the Jews.

For decades, Jews were not welcome in the State Department or intelligence agencies because of the professed fear by others in these agencies or departments that they would be a fifth column for Israel. The real problem of course, is that a fifth column already exists: generations of diplomats and politicians, in thrall to Arabia, who follow their government service by joining the Saudi sponsored think tanks, and Middle East institutes on campus, or as journalists penning the Arab party line.

This was considered a natural and positive (lucrative) phenomenon. Of course, keep these oily wallets open for the next generation. But these pesky Jews have upset the natural order. They are threatening the money train, and have hijacked foreign policy, all for Ariel Sharon, of course. So in the end, these attacks have a more insidious purpose: not just to tar the Jews in America, but to undermine support for Israel, by the malicious suggestion that Israel is really creating American foreign policy through its neocon strike force, and that Sharon is responsible for sending American boys off to die for Israel.

The left was happy to call Pat Buchanan on the rug for similar anti-Semitic slanders during the first Gulf War (given the elder Bush�s frosty relationship with Israel, the Buchanan charge was laughable). Now the charges are being made by mainstream voices and aired on national television to wide audiences. The purveyors of this trash (the Steve Krofts of the world) are either knaves, or accomplices. Somewhere, Pat Buchanan is smiling.

Kerry's war record-- where's the media?

05.26.04 (5:01 am)   [edit]
**The fact that almost all of Kerry's former command in Vietnam calls him 'unfit' for president is 100 times more newsworthy than the detailing of President Bush's National Guard service (which was cleared), not to mention Kerry's flip-flops on ribbons/medals, and the controversy over whether Kerry got 'band aid' purple hearts or not. But the media, this time, is MIA.**

[b]Kerry's war record: Where are the media?[/b]
David Limbaugh
May 25, 2004

There is no greater evidence of the mainstream media's liberal bias than their refusal to investigate and report credible claims challenging Sen. Kerry's reputed Vietnam heroism and his outlandish allegations against his own soldiers in 1971.

Since Kerry emerged as the likely Democratic presidential nominee, stories have circulated on the Web suggesting that some or all of his three Purple Hearts were dubiously earned and that he had to lobby for at least one of the medals after first being denied the distinction.

When I first came across these items I couldn't help but wonder whether the black helicopter crowd was working overtime again. But a surprising number of those who served with Kerry in Vietnam have organized a group, "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," to speak out against the man and his military record. They are not, contrary to Democratic propaganda, being funded by Republican operatives or the Bush campaign.

The group is committed to correcting the record about Kerry's Vietnam experience and his defamatory statements against his fellow soldiers. Seventeen of the 23 officers on the swift boats with Kerry are either part of or supportive of the group's mission.

The group held a press conference at the National Press Club on May 4 to announce its goal of exposing the real John Kerry. The mainstream media were all but silent on the matter, but C-Span cameras were there.

When the Associated Press (AP) was called on its refusal to cover the story, it released a statement saying it didn't believe it was newsworthy because it contributed nothing to the dialogue between veterans and John Kerry. (Note to AP: This isn't about some New Age touchy-feely dialogue; it's about John Kerry's record.)

Perhaps the most prominent member of the group is John O'Neill, who succeeded Kerry as skipper of one of the boats. That name caught my eye because I had watched on C-Span a replay of a 1971 debate between this same Mr. O'Neill and Kerry on "The Dick Cavett Show."

O'Neill was very articulate, impressive and exceedingly credible. He would have none of Kerry casually accusing American troops of repeatedly committing war crimes and took the arrogant young Kerry to school.

Watching this debate, I knew O'Neill was the real deal. So when he and his fellow officers say that Kerry lacks the integrity to be president, we better take notice.

In an interview with Investor's Business Daily O'Neill said, "When Kerry came forward with the war crimes charge in 1971, it just tore the soul of all of us." Not only did the overwhelming majority of American troops not commit war crimes, according to O'Neill, they "went to such elaborate lengths to avoid injuring civilians. In our little unit we lost a number of people because we would go into canals and rivers with loudspeakers instead of shooting �"

Adding insult to injury, many of "O'Neill's group believe that Kerry actually sought out these Purple Hearts for minor injuries and was able to procure one for a mere scratch on his hand. One of Kerry's commanding officers turned down Kerry's request for a Purple Heart.

That's not all. Kerry's treating physician remembered the incident. Because some of the crewmen told him -- in 1969 -- that Kerry planned on running for president.

O'Neill said that each of Kerry's Purple Hearts is "for scratches less than a rose prick. � Each one involves virtually no serious wound of any kind. He then used the three Purple Hearts to escape from Vietnam."

The paperwork on how the medal was awarded, according to the group, is missing. And Kerry will not sign the necessary papers to release the records.

Can you imagine the level of scrutiny the media would employ if similar charges were made against President Bush? Remember the endless AWOL stories?

But concerning Kerry, does it require any leap of faith at all to believe that a man who has confessed to war crimes would exaggerate injuries and campaign for medals in order to build a presidential resume?

Admittedly, eight of the nine survivors who served under Kerry have said favorable things. But O'Neill said that just a few years ago, more than half of them wanted nothing to do with him.

So what happened to make them change their minds? What really happened in Vietnam? And why did Kerry feel it necessary to verbally annihilate the character of the soldiers with whom he served -- when common sense alone tells us that his claims are both absurd and outrageous on their face.

Where are the media outcries about the public's sacred right to know? Just remember: to the partisan media, character only matters if the "character" is a conservative.

�2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Is Sistani Iraq's Khomeini? No-- he's probably worse.

05.26.04 (4:54 am)   [edit]
[b]Is Sistani Iraq's Khomeini?[/b]
Terence Jeffrey
May 26, 2004

President Bush's speech Monday at the Army War College was steeped in the realistic perspective that America will need to stay the course in Iraq over the next 18 months as we work to implant a stable government in Baghdad. "There are difficult days ahead, and the way forward may sometimes appear chaotic," Bush warned. "Yet our coalition is strong, our efforts are focused and unrelenting, and no power of the enemy will stop Iraq's progress."

But as we struggle to transform this conflict from an international military confrontation into a peaceful Iraqi political contest, we need to be as realistic in assessing the political obstacles confronting our efforts to leave Iraq with a benign regime as we are in assessing the military obstacles.

One of those political obstacles is the Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, Iraq's leading Shiite cleric.

Policymakers ought to carefully examine the similarities and differences between Sistani and Ayatollah Khomeini, the late Shiite cleric who sparked the Islamic revolution in Iran.

One difference between Khomeini and Sistani is that Khomeini would actually meet with Westerners, including female Western reporters. Sistani won't even meet with Ambassador Paul Bremer, head of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority.

This may be explained by an entry on Sistani's English language Web site. Discussing things that are "najis," which he defines in a glossary as "impure," and things that are "pak," which he defines as "clean," Sistani says: "As regards people of the Book (i.e. the Jews and the Christians) . . . they are commonly considered najis, but it is not improbable that they are Pak. However it is better to avoid them."

Another difference between Khomeini and Sistani is that when Khomeini communicated with the West in the days before the Iranian revolution, he made soothing noises about free elections, political pluralism and women's rights. When Sistani communicates with the West today, he speaks about free elections (which would empower his own Iraqi Shiite base, which makes up 65 percent of Iraq's population), but he doesn't tout pluralism or women's rights. Indeed, Sistani won't endorse Iraq's draft constitution because it gives Iraqi Kurds a chance to veto Shiite political domination and because it doesn't guarantee that Islamic law will be the basis of Iraqi government.

Last November, Sistani ally Abdul Aziz al Hakim explained the ayatollah's objection to a U.S. plan to hold caucuses to pick an interim government. "There should have been a stipulation which prevents legislating anything that contradicts Islam in the new Iraq," he said.

In April, The New York Times reported: "Ayatollah Sistani's supporters want Islam to govern such matters as family law, divorce and women's rights."

Where does Sistani stand on these issues? Postings on his Web site include prescriptions for temporary marriage ("In a fixed time marriage, the period of matrimony is fixed, for example, matrimonial relation is contracted with a woman for an hour, or a day, or a month, or a year, or more."); keeping wives indoors ("It is forbidden for the wife of a permanent marriage to go out without her husband's permission."); and multiple marriages and divorces ("A man is not permitted to marry more than four women by way of permanent marriage. He also has the right to divorce his wives.")

Khomeini may have shared Sistani's values here, but his pre-revolutionary propaganda was better packaged for the West.

In November 1978, for example, Dorothy Gilliam of The Washington Post "Style" section interviewed Khomeini, who was then living in exile in France. While noting that Khomeini's aides "order Western women journalists to cover their heads and shoulders" before meeting him, she dutifully recorded that the ayatollah himself said, "In Islamic society women will be free to choose their own destiny and activity. God created us equally."

That same month, Washington Post correspondent Ronald Koven also interviewed Khomeini and some of Khomeini's aides. "The aides say he rejects the authoritarian models of Islamic republicanism in much of the Arab world. Iran is not an Arab country," wrote Koven. "The aide quoted Khomeini as saying, 'In the history of Islam, those who denied God were free to express themselves.' This, said the aide, is Khomeini's way of saying all political parties would be legal in his vision of an Islamic republic to be established in a national referendum."

Why did the man who installed a theocracy in Iran in 1979 say these things in France in 1978? Perhaps he was practicing "taqiyya," the Shiite doctrine that Grand Ayatollah Sistani blandly defines on his Web site as: "Dissimulation about one's beliefs in order to protect oneself, family, or property from harm." Sistani has written an unpublished treatise on this doctrine. Is it wise to assume he is not practicing it today in his dealings with a U.S. occupational force?

Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute, a strong advocate of installing democracy in Iraq, wrote in The Weekly Standard last month that Sistani "virtually has a de facto veto over American actions" there. If so, it's the wrong veto in the wrong hands.

If we want to leave an Iraq that is at peace with itself and the world, we will need to find a way to give Iraqis who oppose the ayatollah's theocratic vision a veto over him.


�2004 Creators Syndicate

The skanks on Capitol Hill

05.26.04 (4:50 am)   [edit]
This is a pretty decent column, about Jessica Cutler's trists in Washington with various important men. And it says a lot about our culture. However....what about the old coots that are involved? What about those mostly married men going around engaging in these trists? There is no supply if there is no demand, you know.

[b]The skanks on Capitol Hill[/b]
Michelle Malkin
May 26, 2004

Meet the new Monica Lewinsky. Jessica Cutler, a 24-year-old mailroom clerk and phone receptionist, worked for Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, until last Friday -- when he fired her for using Senate computers to post to an Internet Web log that chronicled her trysts with six different men in Washington. Cutler's partners reportedly included government officials who gave her money for her sexual services.

Diary excerpt: "I just took a long lunch with F and made a quick $400. When I returned to the office, I heard that my boss was asking about my whereabouts. Loser." In another entry, Cutler explains: "F(equals)Married man who pays me for sex. Chief of Staff at one of the gov agencies, appointed by Bush."

Cutler, who aspired to be a journalist, spouted: "I'm sure I am not the only one who makes money on the side this way: How can anybody live on $25K/year??" When I was 24 and making less than that, I did it by eating Spaghetti-O's, Ramen noodles and Swanson pot pies for dinner; driving a Toyota Tercel with no air conditioning; and sleeping on a $30 futon. I did it the way most parents teach their daughters to succeed: through hard work, thrift, faith and perseverance.

I don't usually write about such inside-the-Beltway gossip, but Cutler's indecent conduct, glib rationalizations and in-your-face shamelessness, and the accompanying feeding frenzy over her, deserve a firm outside-the-Beltway lashing. This vulgar little episode reflects a larger, disturbing media trend toward normalizing and glamorizing sexual promiscuity among young working women. It harms those trying to succeed on their merits in the professional arena.

And it also harms our own daughters, who will be forced to fight harder to protect their dignity and credibility in a "Girls Gone Wild" culture.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post featured Cutler, who dubbed herself and her online diary "Washingtonienne," in a prominent story last Sunday headlined "The Hill's Sex Diarist Reveals All (Well, Some)." Cutler posed for a fetching photo and supplied juicy soundbites. "It's so cliched. It's like, 'There's a slutty girl on the Hill?' There's millions of 'em," Cutler told the Washington Post's Richard Leiby. Millions? Follow-up dispatches appeared in Roll Call, the New York Post, the London Independent, United Press International and the Associated Press, whose wire reports on Cutler were reprinted everywhere from the Akron Beacon Journal to the Houston Chronicle to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The news media originally caught whiff of Cutler from an online D.C.-based gossip site, Wonkette.com, authored by "edgy" (read: profanity-laced and sex-obsessed) writer Ana Marie Cox, who herself has been recently touted extensively by adoring media fans. CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen hosted a tony party for Cox last month; Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz invited her on his CNN show, where she boasted, "I'm the expert at talking dirty."

Cutler and Cox, 31, appeared together on Fox News Channel this week, where they giggled and guffawed and rolled their eyes as they reveled in their sleazy celebrity. When Fox anchor Brigitte Quinn (who deserves a medal for her restraint) asked Cutler whether her parents knew about her raunchy sex life, she snorted: "They do now!" Cox cackled and went on to coo about Cutler's writing talent and future book publishing prospects. Cox generously mentioned she didn't want too much "credit" for Cutler's newfound notoriety. ("Credit?" Quinn mused subtly. "That's an interesting word.")

This female Beavis and Butthead duo illustrate what normal Americans hate about the Capitol scene: narcissism, moral bankruptcy and self-congratulatory media-political incest. The Washington Post's legitimization of this shallow "story" illustrates something else: the mainstream media's perverted moral values. The paper's recent profiles and features of social conservatives drip with condescension and ridicule. Religious activists are portrayed as intolerant homophobes; Republicans as gun-toting rubes; abstinence promoters as freaks.

But give The Washington Post two vain, young, trash-mouthed skanks who couldn't care less about what their parents think of their sex-drenched infamy, and the newspaper can't wait to help make them full-fledged members of the media elite.

Cutler and Cox apparently have no trouble looking at themselves in the mirror every morning. I pity the mainstream journalists-turned-pimps who can do the same.

�2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Clintonite Bush critic Gen. Zinni failed to get Osama or Hussein, failed to stop Al Qaeda

05.26.04 (4:44 am)   [edit]
Zinni says that the US should focus on Iran. Has he always believed this? Because he didn't touch Iran when he-- and Richard Clarke, and everyone else who was supposedly vigilantly securing the US in the 1990s-- was in charge of things. IN fact, his efforts regarding OBL and Hussein were half-hearted at best, leading most to believe that they were "wag the dog" situations ordered by the president to cover up his complete disregard for ethics and the rule of law.

***

[b]General Zinni's Failed Policies [/b]
By Cliff Kincaid | May 24, 2004
[i]Zinni's record is notable for leaving both Saddam Hussein in power and Osama bin Laden alive. [/i]

Searching for another Bush critic to put on national television, 60 Minutes on May 23 featured retired General Anthony Zinni, who has written a new book with the help of fiction writer Tom Clancy. Correspondent Steve Kroft, who interviewed Zinni, called him "one of the most respected" military leaders of the past two decades. In fact, Zinni allowed himself to be used by President Clinton in brazen "Wag the Dog" efforts to divert attention from Clinton's sex scandal and alter the course of his impeachment. Despite his impressive military career, Zinni shall go down in history as the general who ran "The Monica Lewinsky War."

On the night before President Bush's speech to the nation on Iraq, Kroft featured Zinni's sensational charge that the Pentagon officials who planned and executed the war in Iraq were guilty of dereliction of duty, incompetence, negligence, lying and corruption.

But Zinni's record is notable for leaving both Saddam Hussein in power and Osama bin Laden alive.

He was the commanding general in "Operation Desert Fox," a 1998 bombing campaign against Iraq that took place less than 24 hours before the scheduled start of House of Representatives impeachment proceedings of Clinton over his perjury and witness tampering related to the Lewinsky scandal. Zinni also defended Clinton's ineffective 1998 attack on Osama bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan, widely seen as another attempt to deflect attention from the Lewinsky scandal. Zinni himself admitted the strikes didn't cause any significant damage, and he was quoted as saying that getting bin Laden was never one of his objectives.

Zinni was appointed by Secretary of State Colin Powell as a special envoy to bring peace to the Middle East. His efforts produced no peace, and he left this post about one year later. He was apparently more successful in the private sector on the board of Raytheon. Now he wants to sell a book attacking U.S. officials while America is at war.

Zinni is an advocate of the view that we only needed to "contain" Saddam. But he certainly had strange ideas about doing that. Senator John McCain, who favored the liberation of Iraq, was not impressed with "Operation Desert Fox," which Zinni planned and commanded,

"The 1998 Desert Fox air campaign against Iraq was limited to four days of bombing, and the force used was insufficient to destroy Saddam's weapons program," he said. "While it degraded a little of Saddam's WMD capability, no follow-on military action was taken to prevent its restoration."

In an August 23, 2002, speech to the Florida Economic Club, Zinni said the Iranian regime was more of a threat than Iraq. Referring to the problem of international terrorism, he said, "The country that started this, Iran, is about to turn around, 180 degrees. We ought to be focused on that. The father of extremism, the home of the ayatollah�the young people are ready to throw out the mullahs and turn around, become a secular society and throw off these ideas of extremism."

The notion that young people in Iran are "ready to throw out the mullahs" is wishful thinking at best. So-called "experts" have been predicting major changes in Iran since Mohammed Khatami became the president in 1997. But no substantial reforms have taken place.

Nir Boms, a fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and Erick Stakelbeck of the Investigative Project, recently noted that, "�the most likely place to find an Iranian reformer these days is in a Tehran prison."

Rather than put faith in the unarmed students, it makes more sense to believe, as Bush does, that the success of democracy in Iraq could have an impact in neighboring Iran and other countries.

In a February 4 speech, Bush said, "America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. We're challenging the enemies of reform, confronting the allies of terror, and expecting a higher standard from our friends. For too long, American policy looked away while men and women were oppressed, their rights ignored and their hopes stifled."

By contrast, Zinni thought that the interests of the U.S. and the international community could best be served by leaving Saddam Hussein in power. Rather than going to war, he told 60 Minutes that the U.S. should have asked for more help from U.N. Security Council members who were on the payroll of Saddam under the scam known as the U.N. oil-for-food program. He's got the gall to second-guess the Bush administration when his strategy for the Middle East gave failure a bad name. But the media love him because he feeds their anti-Bush agenda.

Brazil to sell uranium to China, China warns US over selling arms to Taiwan, threatens Taiwan

05.25.04 (7:15 pm)   [edit]
First the story on Brazil/China, then links to the others:

Remember that phrase "for peaceful ends"...

From Brazil Agencia Estado--

[b]Brazil, China discuss nuclear production agreement [/b]

Shanghai, 25 - Brazil and China are discussing a nuclear cooperation agreement, according to information coming out on Tuesday during a Brazilian mission to China headed by President Luiz In�cio Lula da Silva.

The agreement could result in autonomous Brazilian production of enriched uranium, for peaceful ends.

Brazil�s Science and Technology Minister Eduardo Campos, who meets this week in Beijing with Chinese authorities, says that these latter have expressed an interest in Brazilian crude uranium since November. They are also interested in Brazil�s development of an advanced uranium enrichment centrifuge.

Brazil, for its part, wants to participate in the construction of 11 nuclear plants in China, four of which in the short term.

Campos says that most important is the possibility that Brazil will obtain the resources to complete its nuclear program and have autonomy in the enrichment of uranium.

"We uphold our historic position to not sell uranium to countries interested in buying it," said Campos.

"But we can discuss the hypothesis of selling our uranium to the degree that makes the industrial-scale production of enriched uranium viable," he added.

Campos added that President Lula has decided on the establishment of a working group to draw up a report within 90 days proposing changes to Brazil�s nuclear program.

"We�re resuming talks with the Chinese in August after evaluating our nuclear program strategy," said Campos.

Brazil�s Foreign Affairs Minister Celso Amorim, who is also in China, avoided going into more details about the mater. He did confirm, however, that the Chinese are interested in Brazil�s uranium seams and that Brazil wants to take part in the construction of Chinese nuclear plants.

Brazil has the world�s sixth largest uranium reserves.

The Hindu-- "China warns US against selling arms to Taiwan"-- http://www.hinduonnet.com/the...

Bloomberg-- "China Urges President Bush to Veto Taiwan Proposals in Senate"-- http://quote.bloomberg.com/ap...

Radio Free Asia-- "China says Taiwan's Chen walks a dangerous road"-- http://origin.rfaweb.org/fron...

Losing the war: US now moves to make Sadr's army into a political group

05.25.04 (6:32 pm)   [edit]
**We're making the wrong decisions here....at one we were to find Sadr or kill him, but he has outlasted us because we don't have the will that he does to win.**

[b]US closes in on deal with Iraqi cleric
Despite battles in two cities Monday, officials say talks are under way to turn Moqtada al-Sadr's army into a political group.[/b]
By Orly Halpern | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor

BAGHDAD � As fighting between Shiite militiamen and US-led coalition forces continued Monday, the outline of a Fallujah-like solution began to emerge.

The death toll rose in Baghdad and Kufa as the Mahdi Army of militant Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr battled US troops. But behind the scenes, direct negotiations were under way to transform Sadr's militia into a political entity and end a violent rebellion.

The coalition has declared repeatedly that it will not negotiate with "militias and criminals." Nonetheless, a deal may be forthcoming with Sadr, said an official close to the talks. The coalition has previously said it wanted the cleric killed or captured.

If the deal pans out, it could bring to an end the seven-week conflict. The hope is that by engaging Sadr politically, the coalition can neutralize him militarily. His militia might also eventually be integrated into the Iraqi national security forces.

Such an accord would reverse previously held coalition strategies - much as happened in Fallujah. In that Iraqi city, the scene of intense fighting in April, militia including many of the same insurgents who were fighting the Marines are now in charge of keeping the peace.

For the coalition, ending the Sadr rebellion before the June 30 handover is critical to a proper transfer of power. As long as the fighting continues, Iraqi security forces will not have hold over the cities underscoring the fact that the coalition and not Iraqis are essentially in control of security.

As early as Tuesday, two representatives from Sadr's office will meet with two representatives of Paul Bremer, the US administrator in Iraq, says Adnan Ali, the head of the political bureau of the Dawa Party.

"If everything goes smoothly there will be an announcement between the two rivals within 24 hours," says Mr. Ali, who is also an aide of Governing Council member, Ibrahim al-Jaffari. Dr. Jaffari is one of the Governing Council members involved in the negotiations who also aspires to be part of the interim government after June 30.

The four-point agreement, which has already been agreed to by Sadr, according to Ali, calls for the Mahdi Army to become an unarmed political movement and requires the Mahdi Army to return all government property - such as police cars, buildings, and guns - to the state. Coalition forces agree to pull out of the holy cities immediately. The possible accord also obligates Sadr to be tried by an Iraqi court if he is asked to do so after the transfer of authority June 30th.

Iraqis say the negotiations offered the only possible hope of ending the fighting. "The military solution is not acceptable to the Iraqis. Not here and not in Fallujah," says Mohammed Fitnan, a Karbala resident close to the negotiations.

Sadr turned to violence in April, when his newspaper was closed by US troops and one of his closest aides was arrested. The coalition responded with force.

Local pressure

Karbala has already seen the results of local negotiations, partly due to local pressure. Last Tuesday, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has preferred not to take sides in the conflict, called on residents of the two holy cities of Karbala and Najaf to protest against the presence of any armed force in the towns.

By Thursday, local leaders of Karbala were meeting with coalition officers at their base nearby, according to Mr. Fitnan. The Karbalans told the coalition the Mahdi Army would leave if the coalition pulled out.

By Friday morning, US soldiers were nowhere to be seen. After Friday prayers, residents took to the streets with banners saying, "Karbala is a city of peace." They were protected by the Badr Brigade, the militia of Abdul Aziz Hakim's Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

The Karbalans were spurred not only by concern for the holy shrine of Imam Hussein, but also for their own safety. Their city saw the worst fighting since the Marines operation in Fallujah. People had stopped going to work, children missed their end-of-year exams, and business from trade had halted.

Karbalans essentially told Mahdi Army fighters that if they fought the Americans, they could not do so in the city.

The Mahdi Army got the message. By Saturday, the militants had taken off their headbands and were looking for rides back to their hometowns. Most of them were not from Karbala.

A strong beginning

Sadr's rebellion was initially popular with many Iraqis because it was anticoalition. Sadr called his followers to arms in April and for the first time since it was formed last July, the Mahdi Army was no longer a symbolic force, made up of names on a roster.

Instead, it took over police stations in a show of force that was supported by many.

But, with time the lawlessness that abounded and the intense fighting turned local citizens against the volunteer fighters. Seven weeks on, the local populations are eager to get rid of the "foreigners" in their midst.

Karbala is now peaceful. People have returned to their homes in the center of town and are cleaning out the debris from damaged shops. Monday, children began taking their annual final exams. US forces patrolled the streets of Karbala. Soldiers also talked with residents about reconstruction projects.

Now the Mahdi Army appears willing to leave cities where it is fighting coalition soldiers and allow Iraqi police to have control - as long as the coalition leaves.

Despite negotiations over a potential deal, violence continued. In Baghdad's Sadr City, 39 Iraqis were killed between Sunday night and Monday night, and in Kufa, 32 were killed Saturday night during clashes with US forces. In Baghdad Monday, a car bomb just outside coalition headquarters killed two British civilians.

Until the deal is done, Sadr and his aides are still technically wanted men. Last Friday, Sadr's closest aide, Mohammed Tabtabai, was arrested and his driver was killed by US forces near Kufa. Some say the soldiers thought it might be Sadr.

What remains unclear is if Sadr himself will be able to implement an agreement. His top aides have been arrested - leaving only young angry men behind them to make the decisions on the ground.

The consequences of our restraint in Fallujah-- Fallujah emerges as Islamic mini-state

05.25.04 (6:28 pm)   [edit]
...And this is a direct result of our refusal to crush the insurgents in Fallujah and bring in ex-Saddam generals, which was a result of the left-wing media's "collective punishment" lies about Fallujah and the Democrats' criticism of what it takes to win.

Mark my words-- Bush will be blamed for this, too, event though this is what the left wanted.

[b]Fallujah Emerging As Islamic Mini-State[/b]
By HAMZA HENDAWI
Associated Press Writer

FALLUJAH, Iraq (AP) -- With U.S. Marines gone and central government authority virtually nonexistent, Fallujah resembles an Islamic mini-state - anyone caught selling alcohol is flogged and paraded in the city. Men are encouraged to grow beards and barbers are warned against giving "Western" hair cuts.

"After all the blood that was shed, and the lives that were lost, we shall only accept God's law in Fallujah," said cleric Abdul-Qader al-Aloussi, offering a glimpse of what a future Iraq may look like as the U.S.-led occupation draws to a close. "We must capitalize on our victory over the Americans and implement Islamic sharia laws."

The departure of the Marines under an agreement that ended the three-week siege last month has enabled hard-line Islamic leaders to assert their power in this once-restive city 30 miles west of Baghdad.

Some were active in defending the city against the Marines and have profited by a perception - both here and elsewhere in Iraq - that the mujahedeen, or Islamic holy warriors, defeated a superpower.

Under the agreement, the Marines handed security in the city to a new Fallujah Brigade made up largely of local residents and commanded by officers of Saddam Hussein's former army.

With the departure of the Marines, the position of the U.S.-appointed civil administration has been weakened in favor of the clerics and the mujahedeen who resisted the U.S. occupation. That is a pattern that could be repeated elsewhere in Iraq after the occupation ends June 30, unless other legitimate leaders come forward to replace those tainted by association with the occupation.

Fallujah, which calls itself the "City of Mosques," provides the religious fundamentalists with fertile ground for wielding power. The city's estimated 300,000 residents are known for their religious piety.

Women rarely appear in public and when they do, they are covered from head to toe in accordance with Islam's strict dress code for women. The lives of men revolve around Islam's tradition of praying five times a day.

Unlike other Iraqi cities, Fallujah has never allowed liquor stores. Its famous kebab restaurants have prayer rooms, an unusual feature in most Muslim nations. Many of its adult male population wear beards, a hallmark of religious piety.

However, steps taken by the mujahedeen over the past month have gone beyond simply encouraging piety.

On Sunday, for example, scores of masked mujahedeen, shouting "Allahu Akbar," or "God is Great," paraded four men stripped down to their underpants atop the back of a pickup truck that drove through the city. Their bare backs were bleeding from 80 lashes they had received as punishment for selling alcohol. They were taken to a hospital where they were treated and released.

Residents said a man found intoxicated last week was flogged, held overnight and released the next day.

Fallujah's women hair stylists shut down their shops several months ago after repeated attacks blamed on Muslim militants.

On Tuesday, the mujahedeen expanded their "clean up" campaign. About 80 masked, armed men, accompanied by local police, forced hundreds of street hawkers at gun point to clear out from the streets and confine their businesses to designated areas.

The masked men later moved to the city's used car market and "persuaded" dealers to move away from the city center because they were blocking traffic. In both cases, the police stood by without intervening.

According to residents, barbers have been instructed not to give "Western" haircuts - short on the back and sides and full on top - or to remove facial hair. Four youths with long hair were stopped at a market by mujahedeen on Sunday and marched to a public market where they were shorn.

"Are we Muslims, or not?" asked Abdul-Rahman Mahmoud, a 40-year-old father of three. "We are. So, we must apply God's laws. The mujahedeen's word is heard and respected, and the same goes for our clerics."

There is little sign of opposition to the mujahedeen, though it could be that some people are simply afraid of confronting armed men.

Sheik Omar Said of the Fallujah branch of the Association of Muslim Scholars, a Baghdad-based organization created last year to defend the rights of the Sunni Arab minority, insists that nearly everyone in Fallujah really wants Islamic law.

However, he hinted that perhaps in some cases, the mujahedeen have gone too far.

"This will only come after educating society in religious matters first and then moving on to applying Islamic punishments," he said.

However, the mujahedeen are clearly profiting from the hero status they acquired during the April battles against the Marines.

There is even talk of building a museum dedicated to the "struggle" against the American occupation. Money has been collected in recent weeks to help the families of those who died in the fighting, said by the locals to number 1,000 "martyrs."

� 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. .

AP: Terrorists Planning Summer Attack in the US

05.25.04 (6:14 pm)   [edit]
[b]AP: Terrorists Planning Summer Attack[/b]
By CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - U.S. officials have obtained new intelligence deemed highly credible indicating al-Qaida or other terrorists are in the United States and preparing to launch a major attack this summer, The Associated Press has learned.

Intelligence does not include a time, place or method of attack but is among the most disturbing received by the government since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to a senior federal counterterrorism official who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity Tuesday.

Of most concern, the official said, is that terrorists may possess and use a chemical, biological or radiological weapon that could cause much more damage and casualties than a conventional bomb.

"There is clearly a steady drumbeat of information that they are going to attack and hit us hard," said the official, who described the intelligence as highly credible.

The official declined to provide any specifics about the sources of the information but said there was an unusually high level of corroboration.

Despite that, the official said there was no immediate plan to raise the nation's terrorism threat level from yellow, or elevated, to orange, or high. The threat level has been at yellow � midpoint on the five-color scale � since January.

Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) and FBI (news - web sites) Director Robert Mueller plan a news conference Wednesday to outline an intensive effort by law enforcement, intelligence and homeland security officials to detect and disrupt any potential plots. And the FBI plans to dispatch a bulletin to some 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies warning of the threat.

The FBI also has already created a special task force that is focused solely on dealing with this summer's threat. The task force, whose existence until recently was classified, is intended to ensure that no valuable bits of information or intelligence fall through the cracks � as happened repeatedly before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Other actions to be taken include new FBI interviews with people who may have provided valuable information in the past and a fresh examination of older investigative leads to determine if they might point to elements of the summer plot.

Beginning with Saturday's dedication of the new World War II Memorial in Washington, the summer presents a number of high-profile targets in the United States. They include the G-8 summit in Georgia next month that will attract top officials from some of America's closest allies, the Democratic National Convention in Boston in July and the Republican National Convention in August in New York.

The FBI and Homeland Security Department also are concerned about so-called soft targets such as shopping malls anywhere in the United States that offer a far less protected environment than a political convention hall.

U.S. authorities repeatedly have said al-Qaida is determined to mount an attack on U.S. soil, in part to announce to the world that it remains capable of doing so despite the money and effort that has gone into homeland security in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.

There also is concern terrorists might try to mount an attack to coincide with the November election. The political fallout from the March 11 train bombings in Spain taught al-Qaida that an attack timed to an election can have a major impact. Spain's former ruling party was ousted in the voting that followed the bombing, which killed 191 and injured more than 2,000.

The official did not say how many suspected al-Qaida or other terrorist operatives are believed in the country, whether they made their way into the United States recently or have been here for some time. The FBI has warned in the past that Islamic extremist groups may attempt to recruit non-Middle Easterners or women for attacks because they would be less likely to arouse suspicion.

Special security attention already is being focused to the nation's rail, subway and bus lines. The FBI last week sent out an intelligence bulletin to law enforcement agencies urging vigilance against suicide bombers, who have been used by terror groups worldwide to devastating effect but not so far in the United States.

Separately, Immigration and Customs Enforcement chief Michael Garcia told reporters Tuesday that some 2,300 of its agents are being deployed to assist in security for the high-profile events scheduled this summer in the United States. These include as many as 20 agents each day working with the Secret Service to protect the campaigns of President Bush (news - web sites) and Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), the Democratic presidential candidate.

Garcia said his agency also is working to "tighten the investigative system" to ensure that terrorists do not enter the United States by way of human smuggling operations or through the vast, largely unprotected border with Canada.

Isn't Moore winning 'best film' at Cannes like The NY Times endorsing a Democrat for prez

05.25.04 (11:58 am)   [edit]
There's no objectivity, in short.

I mean, c'mon-- Moore is famous for lying all over his last 'documentary', which is now called a 'film' because it doesn't document a thing (even though it won best documentary). At the time, the folks at Cannes gave his jerk a 15 minute standing ovation. They gave him a 20 minute standing ovation for "Farenheit 9/11".

Moore lied about his film's release, he lied about events in the film, every step of the way he has lied. He is a fat, ignorant, ,obnoxious American with a Jesus complex trying to call Americans fat, ,ignorant, obnoxius and fanatical Christians.

He has made boatloads of money off of human misery-- on corporate downsizing in Roger and Me, on the deaths of high school students in Bowling, and in the deaths of coalition soldiers, Iraqis, and 3,000 Americans on 9/11 in Farenheit 9/11. He has lied about the truth in all instances-- and that is because he only cares about looking like Christ.

(The martyr being opposed for the redemption of mankind)

You know you're knee deep in shit when your traditional left-wing allies are distancing themselves from you.

Moore says Bush profits off of death. If that is true, so does Moore.

Question for Matt Martin/Jimmytherighteous: should I get some like you-know-who?

05.25.04 (11:36 am)   [edit]
Matthew Martin is back, the guy who claims I'm the one that has no life, yet he's the one writing about ME 24/7. He accuses me of having no testicles! My gosh, I'm crushed now.

Martin wants me to 'grow a pair' and let him comment on my blog, as he did with me. BUt you see, he only "allowed" me to comment on his blog because he knows I'm not obsessed with him and I won't flood his little-girl tantrums with little-girl rants.

Apparently I'm a fat, spineless, bitch, too who hasn't kicked Martin's ass as I promised.

Of course, when I didn't know who dumbass was, Martin hid behind his anonymity. Now that I know who he is, I could kick his ass-- as promised-- whenever I wanted. Who says I won't?

Besides, I don't think I should be taking any lessons on manhood from Martin, a fruit who I don't think has fallen very far from the tree.

That's a local issue, y'all, but Martin knows what I'm talking about.

The great myth Martin likes to tell himself if that he isn't a hideously spoiled, ugly, nutjob girl who thinks he's relevant by hanging around the college bars in uptown Athens or Columbus and drinking himself silly (at age 26) who , when not resenting the world and thinking he's smarter than everyone else, writes obsessive blogs about me on Tblog.

I don't know about you, Matt, but I grew up and ditched college a long time ago. I have higher priorities than getting drunk and getting laid. The fruit indeed doesn't fall far from the tree.

So why don't you grow a pair Matthew and be an adult? Maybe it's in your genes-- maybe you simply can't.

Bush gives a good speech, with a decent five-step plan...and we wait for the left to offer their own

05.24.04 (10:04 pm)   [edit]
There are things I disagree with regarding Bush's handling of Iraq. But his plan is the only one we've got and, given the level of help Bush is receiving from the left-wing in America, from the left-wing press, and from our "allies" in Europe, I think things are going as well as they possibly can. But I do have major worries.

But Bush showed in his speech that he's in control, something the left says he's not but can't prove. Worse, the left can't even open up their own offensive, coming up with a plan that is superior. This lack of out-thinking Bush has always been the left's biggest problem. They can't do it, so they just whine and bitch.

The irony is that there are legitimate tracks the left could take, but their pride and arrogance, their inability to take Bush seriously, always make them lose. People think they are clever when the left calls Bush "Hitler" or some other nonsense. Bush lets the children stew in their hate while the adults get to the task of protecting this country.

The left digs their own grave with their ideology of hate and power. If they cared about America and less about hating Bush they might have more legitimacy.

A good review of Bush's speech-- http://198.30.217.73/nolefttu...

Full tex of Bush's speech-- http://www.omaha.com/index.ph...

Hofstra students used boos responsibly against left-wing graduation speaker

05.24.04 (9:53 pm)   [edit]
**Blogger's note: my college graduation speaker was an anchorman from CNN (yawn)....my brother's was Matt Lauer (it was actually a good speech..at his speech, Lauer got his bachelor's degree-- he quit at the same school years before to find work)...my cousin's was Hillary Clinton (who forgot what town she was in....)**

[b]Doctorow's Malpractice
Hofstra students use boos responsibly.[/b]
Peggy Noonan
Tuesday, May 25, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Did you hear about the college commencement speaker who was almost booed off the stage Sunday because his commencement address was an anti-Bush rant? The speaker was E.L. Doctorow. The college, God bless it forever, was Hofstra University on New York's Long Island.

Newsday reported that Mr. Doctorow--or, as Newsday put it in the first paragraph, "E.L. Doctorow, one of the most celebrated writers in America"--gave a 20-minute address "lambasting President George W. Bush and effectively calling him a liar." It didn't go over too well. Mr. Doctorow announced to the crowd that he himself is a storyteller. But the president too, he said in a flight of dazzling cleverness, is a storyteller. The president's stories are not so good thought "because they are not true."

This is where the booing began.

"One story he told was that the country of Iraq had nuclear and biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction and was intending shortly to use them on us," Mr. Doctorow continued. "That was an exciting story all right, it was designed to send shivers up our spines. But it was not true." Mr. Bush told stories about Saddam Hussein, that he "was in league with the terrorists of al Qaeda. And that turned out to be not true. But anyway we went off to war on the basis of these stories."

This is where the crowd began to boo most lustily. Mr. Doctorow stopped his speech. There is the suggestion he was surprised. (By the way if he were a conservative, Newsday would have described him as "conservative writer Ed Doctorow, who had a bestseller in 'Ragtime' in 1974," not "one of the most celebrated writers in America.")

The president of the university called for calm. "We value open discussion and debate," he said. "For the sake of your graduates, please let him finish." The response to this was telling. Most of the faculty--the faculty, not the students--responded with a standing ovation. Mr. Doctorow finished his speech, attacking Mr. Bush on taxes and terrorism, and accusing him of wanting to subpoena libraries "to see what books you've been taking out."

Newsday said many parents and relatives of the more than 1,300 undergraduates were "livid" over the address. Frank Mallafre, who had traveled from Miami for his granddaughter's graduation, said, "If this would have happened in Florida, we would have taken him out" of the stadium. Bill Schmidt, 51, of North Bellmore, N.Y., shared the outrage. "To ruin my daughter's graduation with politics is pathetic," the retired New York police captain told the paper.

On Sunday night a Hofstra official said that while Mr. Doctorow had the right to his views, he violated the unwritten code that college commencement speeches should inspire and unite a student body. But a Hofstra faculty member came to the fore, defending Mr. Doctorow. "I thought this was a totally appropriate place to talk about politics because that's the world our students are entering," sociology professor Cynthia Bogard told Newsday. "I only wish their parents had provided them a better role model."

Wow. Think of what a role model Prof. Bogard is. What a fool. What a snob.

[b]I want to explain to Ed Doctorow why he was booed. It was not, as he no doubt creamily recounted in a storytelling session over drinks that night in Sag Harbor, that those barbarians in Long Island's lesser ZIP codes don't want to hear the truth. It is not that they oppose free speech. It is not that the poor boobs of Long Island have an unaccountable affection for George W. Bush.

It is that they have class.[/b]

The poor stupid people of Long Island are courteous, and have respect for the views and feelings of others, and would not dream of imposing their particular views on a captive audience that has gathered to celebrate--to be happy about, to officially mark with their presence--the rather remarkable fact that one of their family studied and worked for four years, completed his courses, met all demands, and became a graduate of an American university.

This indeed is something to be proud of.

Did Eddy Doctorow know that? Did he care? I don't think so. Did he understand that what the students needed from him--after all, he has lasted a long time, has been a member of a profession, has won the favor of the elite media for lo these many years, and manages to produce many books nobody reads in the computer age while still using a quill--was perhaps a sense of . . .

All right, I give up. I don't know what they needed from him. America hasn't been the same since the dream of socialism so rudely ended? What will we do for a sense of communitarian ideals now that Marx is gone? "God may not exist but we need to tell stories about him nonetheless?

[b]Fast Eddy Doctorow told a story at the commencement all right, and it is a story about the boorishness of the aging liberal. An old '60s radical who feels he is entitled to impose his views on this audience on this day because he's so gifted, so smart, so insightful, so very above the normal rules, agreements and traditions. And for this he will get to call himself besieged and heroic--a hero about whom stories are told!--when in fact all he did was guarantee positive personal press in the elite media, at the cost of the long suffering patience of normal people who wanted to move the tassel and throw the hat in the air.[/b]

I am a conservative. I have spoken at three college commencements. Each time I spoke I talked about the students, and the life ahead of them, and the nature of their achievement. I spoke to them about them. I didn't tell them Jimmy Carter is a retard or Bill Clinton is a pig. It would have been wrong to do that. It would have been boorish. It would have deserved boos.

I'm glad that's what Eddy Doctorow got this Sunday from what appear to be his intellectual and moral superiors on Long Island. Go Hofstra.

[i]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.[/i]

Bush's amnesty proposal has resulted in worsening of the border quagmire

05.24.04 (9:41 pm)   [edit]
Compassion on the border?
Rich Lowry
May 24, 2004

One of President Bush's most recent "compassionate" initiatives has indirectly led to more horrific deaths along the Arizona-Mexico border. Bush's proposal for a quasi-amnesty for illegal aliens has been interpreted by poor Mexicans as a welcome mat, increasing the rate of attempted border crossings and the tragic deaths that go with them. Sixty-one people have died along the Arizona border since last October, a threefold increase from the rate of the previous year.

The bodies are a testament to America's broken immigration system. If we really want to encourage more Mexicans to come here, we should have the decency to help ensure their safe passage. If we don't -- as most politicians, including Bush, would maintain -- then all talk of any sort of amnesty should be dropped, and our seriousness about enforcing immigration laws should be broadcast so clearly that it is understood even in the far reaches of Mexico.

Poor Mexicans don't follow every intricacy of America's political debate, but they get the message when the president is proposing to reward illegal entry into the United States. "Political officials need to realize that their words have consequences," says Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies. "Just hypothesizing out loud about an amnesty has real effects." Some illegals are shocked that they are arrested coming across the border: "Hey, where's my amnesty?"

During the first six months of this fiscal year, apprehensions have increased roughly 25 percent across the Southwest, and 50 percent near Tucson. The Bush administration argues that the increased apprehensions are a sign of the success of increased enforcement. But just a few weeks ago, an administration official told Congress that decreased apprehensions prior to this recent spike were a sign of the success of increased enforcement. According to the Bush administration apparently, anything that happens on the border is a success.

The lure for the latest wave of illegals was a Bush proposal in January, effectively to legalize illegal immigrants here with jobs, and give work visas to Mexicans who have work lined up. Eventually the reverberations from Bush's proposal in Mexico will settle down, but there will inevitably be some other signal that the United States doesn't care about its immigration laws. Ted Kennedy recently saw Bush's quasi-amnesty and raised it with a proposal, in effect, for a blanket amnesty.

The good news behind the spike in border crossings is that what we say and do matters. Advocates of loose borders always say that illegal crossings are "inevitable." What they mean by inevitable is that they don't want to try anything serious to stop them. But if crossings go up when we signal that we don't care about our immigration laws, it stands to reason that they will go down if we send the opposite signal. Indeed, large numbers of illegal Pakistani immigrants voluntarily left New York City when a few deportations after 9/11 sent the signal that being here illegally carries major risks.

How to send a different signal? Obviously, we should avoid giving the advantages of citizenship to people here illegally. Kansas, for instance, will soon give in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants to attend state colleges. The perverse result is that illegals will pay less for tuition than foreign students here on visas to study.

We also need at the very least to use the resources we have to crack down. Last year, the Social Security Administration sent a million "no match" letters to employers, alerting them that their employees might be illegals using bogus Social Security numbers. Immigrant and business groups pressured the SSA to ease up. Similarly, the Internal Revenue Service can flag tax returns that likely come from illegals, but it is prevented as a matter of policy from sharing this information with immigration authorities. We shouldn't be tying our own hands when it comes to immigration enforcement.

Fortunately, Bush's January proposal is stalled. That's just the first step toward saying in a way everyone understands: "U.S. borders mean something."

Rich Lowry is editor of National Review, a Townhall.com member group, and author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.

�2004 King Features Syndicate

Ah, EU craftsmanship: EU fighter too dangerous for solo flight

05.24.04 (4:39 pm)   [edit]
[b]Eurofighter too dangerous for solo flight: British report[/b]
LONDON (AFP) May 25, 2004

The brand-new Eurofighter Typhoon has so many problems with its on-board systems that it should only be flown aggressively, or in foul weather, by two pilots, the Evening Standard newspaper in London said Monday, quoting a leaked defence ministry report.

Test pilots at QinetiQ, the ministry's independent technological research and evaluation arm, spent eight months sizing up the highly sophisticated warplane, 232 of which are to go into service with the Royal Air Force.

But in an April 30 report, the Evening Standard said, they found three problems in what is supposed to be a single-seat, all-weather, multi-purpose fighter:

-- A computer system to alert the pilot when the aircraft is going too slow is inadequate. Until a better system is finalised, the report said, two pilots should be on board whenever "dynamic manoeuvres" are performed.

-- The cockpit flight information displays "frequently fail in flight", and therefore, whenever a Eurofighter is taken into cloud or bad weather, it should again be with two pilots.

-- "Corruption" of the flight control computer system means that it could suddenly switch from "in-flight" mode to "ground" mode in mid-air, leading to "immediately catastrophic" results.

"I would not be happy if the aircraft entered service without the failures having been investigated and understood," the Evening Standard quoted a Ministry of Defence spokesman as saying.

Nevertheless, the London newspaper said, assistant chief of air staff Air Vice Marshall David Walker has approved the Eurofighter's release to service on May 13.

The Eurofighter Typhoon is a multi-role combat jet with a range of 2,500 kilometres (1,560 miles) and can be equipped with a mix of missiles depending on its mission.

It is built by a four-nation consortium involving the French-Spanish-German group EADS, Britain's BAE Systems and Italy's Alenia, but is four years behind schedule and hundreds of millions of euros (dollars) over budget.

Besides Britain, Italy has ordered 121 Eurofighters and Spain 87. Last year Austria became the first nation outside the consortium to place an order, asking for 18. Greece has committed to 60 with an option for 30 more.

Last month Germany officially put its first five Eurofighters into service in the northern city of Rostock. They will mainly be used for training.

Each Eurofighter costs about 80 million euros (96 million dollars).

All rights reserved. Copyright 2003 Agence France-Presse.

Arab TV shows 'proof' that attack site was wedding party, US shows proof that it wasn't

05.24.04 (4:36 pm)   [edit]
**Here's an idea: maybe it was both! Terrorists get married too, I'm sure....**

God bless the USA...

[b]Arab TV shows death and destruction at Iraq wedding party[/b]
BAGHDAD (AFP) May 24, 2004

The US-led coalition said there were inconsistencies over a US airstrike in Iraq it said targeted foreign fighters, after Arab TV channels aired fresh images of death and destruction from a video Monday.

The footage supplied by the US Associated Press Television News shows a decorated wedding vehicle and Arab guests arriving for the celebrations, following Iraqi claims that a marriage party was hit in the strike.

Musicians play drums and a keyboard synthesiser as men and children dance.

But the picture cuts to the dead body of a man shown earlier playing the keyboard.

He lies in the back of a pickup truck as men load what appears to be another corpse wrapped in sheets into a vehicle.

Al-Arabiya and Al-Jazeera channels showed people picking through the rubble of a razed house surrounded by desert sands. A series of tents have been flattened and household goods lie strewn around.

The stations commented that Associated Press could not guarantee the authenticity of the video it had acquired.

Confronted with the new tape, the ruling coalition in Iraq stressed that inconsistencies between the two versions of events remain, despite sticking to its conviction that the airstrike did not hit a wedding party.

"There are some inconsistencies. We don't deny anything. We're open to new evidence. We still don't believe there was a wedding party going on," one official told reporters.

The source also said that most of the footage in the video was filmed during the day, whereas the raid took place at 3:00 am (2300 GMT) Wednesday.

Later, US Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt displayed more photographs at a Baghdad news conference of weapons, a Sudanese passport, pre-packed ammunition and battery packs, which he said were discovered at the scene of the raid.

Evidence and analysis "suggests that what we had was a significant... way station in the middle of the desert that was bringing people into this country for the sole purpose of attacking to kill people of Iraq," he said.

On Saturday, he acknowledged that six women were among 41 people killed in the attack, but said forces had not seen bodies of children.

Kimmitt said US forces who scoured the area of the combined ground and air attack in the western Iraqi desert had found "no evidence of a wedding," but did not rule out some other kind of social gathering.

"Bad people have parties too and it may have ... just been a meeting in the middle of the desert by some people that were conducting either criminal or terrorist activities," he said.

Troops on the ground had discovered items such as "terrorist training manuals", military binoculars, foreign passports, medical equipment and possible narcotics, and dormitory-style accommodation for 300 people, he said.

Al-Arabiya has already aired footage of bodies wrapped in blankets and loaded on trucks, and quoted witnesses as saying that aircraft also destroyed other houses apart from the venue of the wedding party.

Kimmitt added that the terrain shown in the footage on television did not match that around the scene of the attack, saying he believed the bodies were filmed in Ramadi, closer to the capital.

All rights reserved. Copyright 2003 Agence France Press.

New UN Iraq draft leaves exit date for US forces up to the US

05.24.04 (11:15 am)   [edit]
I think the UN getting involved is a disatrous idea, but I am glad that this new resolution leaves it up to the US when its forces will leave, and doesn't let Iraqi forces "opt out" with US forces. I mean, after all, the US is building the Iraqi forces-- coordinating with the US, going on patrols, etc., builds experience inside the Iraqi forcees.

I think the US is going to regret getting the UN involved, and like I said, the UN will merely blame the US when it fails in Iraq, but I am convinced that because the US is still there Iraq may turn out right after all.

[b]U.N. Iraq Draft Gives No Exit Date for Foreign Force[/b]
Mon May 24,11:49 AM ET
By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - A new U.S.-British drafted U.N. Security Council resolution endorsing sovereignty for an Iraqi caretaker government approves the presence of the U.S.-led force there but sets no date for the troops to leave.

The resolution, distributed to council members on Monday, would endorse the formation of a "sovereign interim government" that would take office by June 30 and says that government would "assume the responsibility and authority for governing a sovereign Iraq (news - web sites)."

The draft emerged as President Bush (news - web sites) prepared a televised speech later on Monday mapping out his plans for Iraq, where violent attacks on occupying forces have dimmed U.S. hopes for a peaceful transfer to democratic rule.

The definition of sovereignty is a contentious issue, with the Bush administration attempting to assure U.N. Security Council members they would not be asked to approve an occupation under another name.

British ambassador Emyr Jones Parry told reporters the resolution "underlines clearly that all sovereignty will be returned to the Iraqis, that the interim Iraqi government will assume total responsibility for its own sovereignty."

But the text is bound to run into criticism by France, Germany, Russia and others. It does not give a definite timetable for deployment of the U.S.-led force and instead calls for a review after a year, which a new Iraqi government can request earlier.

A review, however, would be similar to an open-ended mandate and would not mean the force would leave unless the Security Council, where the United States has veto power, decides it should do so.

The resolution, contrary to expectations, does not give an "opt out" clause that would allow Iraqi troops to refuse a command from the American military. Instead it calls for arrangements "to ensure coordination between the two."

As part of the transition process, U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, now in Baghdad, is due to name a president, a prime minister, two vice presidents and 26 ministers before the end of May. They would stay in office until elections for a national assembly, expected to be held by January 2005.

The resolution also says a separate force would be created within the multinational force for the sole purposes of providing security for U.N. staff and operations within Iraq.

On oil, the draft resolution says Iraq would have control over its oil revenues. But it would keep in place an international advisory board, which audits accounts, to assure investors and donors that their money was being spent free of corruption, U.N. envoys said.

Under a May 2003 Security Council resolution adopted after the fall of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), all proceeds of Iraq's oil and gas sales were deposited into a special account called the Development Fund for Iraq, controlled by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority.

The new measure calls on all U.N. member-states to take steps to ensure that no law suits are filed against Iraq or any of its state-owned enterprises for a period of 12 months.

Curtailing an existing U.N. arms embargo, the draft would allow the importation of arms by either the multinational force or the Iraqi government. ((Editing by David Storey; Reuters messaging: Evelyn.Leopold.reuters.com@reuters.net; 1-212-355-7424)

John Kerry's campaign slogan taken from pamphlet for communist organization

05.24.04 (10:40 am)   [edit]
John Kerry's official campaign slogan "Let America Be America again" is part of a poem that notorious communist poet Langston Hughes wrote for the International Workers Order, an official affiliate of the Communist Party.

I think this is a bit intentional-- Kerry has immersed himself in communist rhetoric his entire life. He ironically thinks that is as American as apple pie. He has no other cultural references in his life.

Article-- http://www.frontpagemag.com/A...

Jordan gave US damning info on Chalabi's espionage activities with Iran

05.24.04 (10:31 am)   [edit]
[b]Chalabi: Iran Spy?[/b]
By Niles Lathem
New York Post | May 24, 2004

Jordan's King Abdullah fueled the U.S. move against Iraqi leader Ahmed Chalabi by providing bombshell intelligence that his group was spying for Iran, The Post has learned.

An explosive dossier that the Jordanian monarch recently brought with him to White House sessions with President Bush detailed Mafia-style extortion rackets and secret information on U.S. military operations being passed to Iran, diplomats said.

That new information led to the Bush administration's decision to stop its $340,000-a-month payments to Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress and back an aggressive Iraqi criminal probe into his activities.

The file was compiled by Jordan's intelligence service, which has had an interest in Chalabi since the 1990s, when the Iraqi exile leader was convicted in absentia for embezzling millions of dollars.

The scandal stemmed from the collapse of the Bank of Petra, which Chalabi controlled, the diplomatic officials said.

Just months ago, Chalabi had been favored by Bush administration hard-liners as the next leader of Iraq and sat behind First Lady Laura Bush at the State of the Union Address in January.

The Pentagon airlifted Chalabi and members of the INC into Iraq the day after Saddam Hussein fell and gave them prominent roles in the new governing council, in charge of the Finance Ministry and ridding Iraqi government agencies of Saddam's Ba'ath Party.

But the U.S. already felt burned by the INC's involvement in passing on questionable pre-war intelligence on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

On Thursday, the relationship came to a bitter end as Iraqi police, backed by U.S. troops and FBI agents, raided Chalabi's palatial Baghdad home and issued arrest warrants for 15 members of the INC.

Officially, the raid was described as part of an Iraqi probe, launched by the Central Criminal Court of Iraq.

Among the charges being pursued is that INC members on the government's "de-Ba'athification committee" instead ran a scheme in which they demanded payoffs from ex-Ba'ath Party members. In return, those Ba'athists were allowed to avoid arrest or to stay off lists the INC was preparing of people banned from jobs in the new Iraqi government, sources said.

Chalabi aides running the new government's Finance Ministry are also accused of ripping off $22 million from the Iraqi Treasury when Iraq issued new currency late last year, U.S. officials said.

King Abdullah's dossier provided critical confirmation of U.S intelligence gathered elsewhere that the INC was playing a double game with Ba'athists and that Chalabi and his security chief were passing sensitive information to Iran.

That was when the Bush administration decided to break all ties with Chalabi, sources said.

Chalabi accused the United States of trying to intimidate him at a time when he is speaking out against the U.S. occupation and threatening to go public with bombshell files on the U.N. oil-for-food scandal.

Yesterday, he called an emergency meeting of the Governing Council seeking to get official condemnation of the raid.

Once again, the Democrats create the rules, then try to break them

05.24.04 (10:25 am)   [edit]
If you remember, folks, it was the Democrats who wanted Campaign Finance Reform for the past 2 decades. This is because they always failed to raise as much money as Republicans (even though the average contribution to the Republicans is far less than that to the Democrats). So in 2001 we got McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.

The Bush administration, along with other civil rights groups, took CFR to court because it does, indeed, curtail free speech rights. The Democrats guffawed and said that the Republicans would have to deal with it.

Well, CFR is a bad, bad idea. Number one, it does stifle a person's ability to exercize his free speech rights by limiting or abolishing his right to give money to this candidate during certain times. CFR also, interestingly enough, doesn't apply to the left-wing media, which still controls political discourse in this country. CFR also has let 527 organizatgions be created, the majority of them left-wing, that, because they don't mention John Kerry but still lie about Bush, are allowed to influence the election. CFR doesn't work.

CFR also restricts a candidate's ability to spend after he/she becomes the nominee, which is the reason why John Kerry will not accept the nomination during the Democratic National Convention in July. Most likely he won't accept the nomination until Bush accepts his at the Republican National Convention in September.

Now the Democrats set the dates of their conventions, and they have rules to abide by. The Democrats set up CFR rules and refuse to abide by them, wringing out every loophole they can.

They believe that everyone else should abide by the rules and they, the elitists, can do what they want.

The west's anti- Israeli propaganda over Rafah

05.24.04 (10:14 am)   [edit]
[b]Eyeless in Gaza[/b]
By David Meir-Levi
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 24, 2004

From the folks who gave us "Jenin, Jenin":

Most of our western media refuse to publicize, and sometimes refuse even to publish, anything that would put the Palestinian Authority, and sometimes even Hamas, in a bad light. So it should not be too surprising to see that our media accept uncritically, and sometimes even gleefully, the input their journalists get from PASSIA (the Palestinian Authority propaganda manufacturing office), without ever noting that this input is often wrong, and sometimes even deceitful.

This is certainly the case with the coverage of the IDF operations in Rafah.

Media coverage depicts the civilians as an orderly "demonstration" upon which the IDF fired without provocation, certainly a violation of international law, if not a crime against humanity.

While providing some limited quotes from IDF spokespersons about the need to enter Rafah to put a stop to arms smuggling via the tunnels, nowhere in the media do we learn that the urgency of this operation was due to the fact that terrorists in Rafah were trying to smuggle in Strela anti-aircraft missiles capable of shooting down civilian airliners. Strela missiles from the Gaza strip could shoot down planes landing at Ben-Gurion airport.

Understanding the urgent need to prevent such a situation puts a new and very elucidating light upon the speed and size of the Israeli raid.

Our media also neglected to mention that a UN special envoy to the PA noted that "Palestinian gunmen (were) using a mob of civilians as cover". At least a dozen armed terrorists were scattered within this demonstration (*).

There were c. 3000 people about a mile from the IDF tanks. A group of c.100 unexplainably separated from the main body and advanced toward the tanks. The armed terrorists were in this group of 100. Some were armed with anti-tank RPGs. One hardly need wonder what their intent was.

Media coverage depicts the Israeli fire as either intentional or accidental, but in either case, striking innocents in the "demonstration".

But aerial video surveillance shows that an Israeli Apache gunship fired a warning missile into an EMPTY FIELD in order to deter the procession. When the mob continued to move on Israeli soldiers, field commanders, fearing a major assault on their troops by the RPG-bearing terrorists who were using the civilians as human shields, fired flares into the air. When the mob still advanced on the tanks, the IDF directed machine gun fire and four tank shells at an ABANDONED BUILDING near the marchers.

A total of 10 people were killed and many more wounded, but the IDF spokesman said, after reviewing the surveillance tapes, that it seemed highly unlikely the casualties were caused by Israeli fire.

The army did note that the path taken by the mob was an area ".rigged with explosive charges planted by the Palestinians."

So it is quite possible that the carnage among the Palestinian civilians was caused by land mines planted by Palestinian terrorists to stop IDF advances.

But our media, and the UN, EU and much of the USA ignore this possibility. Instead of withholding judgment until an examination of video surveillance can be made, they instead swallow the knee-jerk assertion that Israel is massacring Palestinians.

Moreover, some, including the same aforementioned UN, claim that Israel is in violation of international law.

This is false. The Fourth Geneva Convention does not protect groups of civilians among which are dispersed armed combatants. "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations," reads Article 28. Rather it is the Palestinians who are guilty of a war crime by involving children and adult civilians in a violent confrontation.

Furthermore, Article 27 gives the "parties to the conflict" the flexibility to "take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war." In other words, IDF soldiers can defend themselves against Palestinian civilians if they deem doing so "necessary as a result of the war."

If taking such action is the direct result of armed terrorists using crowds of people as human shields so they can get closer to the tanks for more effective use of their RPGs, then those gunmen are directly responsible for any ensuing civilian casualties because they have committed the war crime, by violating Article 28.

In a separate but related incident, two young Palestinians were killed on their rooftop in Tel Sultan (near Rafah, and a site for many tunnel outlets)(**). One witness claimed that the children lay dying in their pool of blood for five hours because Israel had refused to allow ambulances to enter the area. Another witness claimed that he went up to the roof as soon as he heard shots and found the children dead. It could not have happened both ways. Since western media did acknowledge that Israeli army medical units immediately entered the area to offer aid to the Palestinians wounded by the explosions, it seems unlikely that the IDF would have refused access to ambulances.

But, unfortunately, we have many examples of Palestinian accounts that do not match facts, but are uncritically accepted and widely disseminated by our media. In one of the most egregious examples, National Public Radio allowed dubious charges about Israeli brutality to go on the air unchallenged. On Oct. 9, 2000, Palestinian guest Osama Nizar charged: "the settlers killed one of the Palestinian young men. and amputated his hand and leg. Then they burned him and threw him away in the street." NPR reporter Jennifer Ludden embellished: "The man had broken bones and a smashed skull.

Israeli police suggested he'd been killed by Israeli soldiers, but eyewitnesses said it was Jewish settlers. The torture and murder outraged Palestinian leaders." An exhaustive investigative report by Physicians for Human Rights revealed the victim in question DIED IN A CAR ACCIDENT and not due to Israeli brutality. The PHR report never received media prominence.

With ghoulish Machiavellian glee, PASSIA and other Palestinian propaganda sources seize upon any possible incident to demonize Israel and create mendacious claims of Israeli wrong-doing.

They told us that Israeli forces killed little Mohammed ed-Dura, and wounded his father. A German review of the scene proved that it was Palestinian shooters that killed him, for the photo-op.

They told us that Israeli forces perpetrated massacre in Jenin. The Red Cross and the UN proved that accusation to be a lie.

And now they are lying about Rafah.

When will the media learn?

Notes:

(*) In support of the UN envoy's statement are the photos of the dead "civilians" wrapped in the black or green shrouds used by Hamas or Islamic Jihad for the honor burial of their terrorists. Military burial is not confered upon civilians, so at least 6 of the "demonstrators" were Hamas or Islamic Jihad terrorists.

(**) Ironic footnote. Tel Sultan is a housing development build by Israel so that the Palestinians in the Rafah refugee camps could leave the crowded and unsanitary conditions of the camps and move into more spacious housing, free of charge.

We have access to plenty of oil, but we need to refine it-- which means scrapping EPA regs

05.23.04 (10:45 pm)   [edit]
From OpinionJournal.com--

[b]Pump Power
Gas is good. Here's how to keep it flowing.[/b]
BY PETE DU PONT
Monday, May 24, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Gasoline is a good thing. It gets us to work, to the doctor or hospital, to the charity we volunteer for or to the store to buy food. It makes it possible to visit kids and grandmas at Christmas, and to go on vacations in the summer.

And in spite of what you read in the paper--outrageous gasoline prices entered into Google gets you 15,000 links--its current inflation-adjusted price of $2 a gallon is about its median price over its 85-year existence, and with the exception of the 1980s spike, it has been steadily declining over the decades.

Better still, improving technology has increased the number of miles one can drive on a gallon of gasoline, to 22 in 2000 from about 13.5 in the early 1970s . So the cost of gasoline per mile driven has fallen nearly in half, from more than 13 cents to a bit more than seven cents. Meanwhile median income for a family of four (in inflation-adjusted dollars) has increased to more than $63,000 today from less than $46,000 in the 1970s.

Family income is up, and the cost per mile driven is down, so as a percentage of income, gasoline costs are substantially less and are an economical bargain for all of our families.

Burning gasoline is very much cleaner than it was 20 years ago too. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, lead emissions have nearly disappeared; carbon monoxide is down 62%, sulfur dioxide 52%, nitrogen dioxide 24% and ground-level ozone (smog) 18%.

Cleaner fuel, cheaper fuel and better mileage mean greater access to the things that matter in life. Gasoline-powered cars are a very good thing indeed

So one of our goals should be to continue to make available to all families the opportunities provided by low-cost gasoline burned in safe and energy-efficient (maybe hybrid) automobiles. Perhaps half a century from now we will be driving hydrogen- or solar-powered vehicles that are cheaper, cleaner and more fun. But for people who now have drivers licenses, gasoline-powered cars will be the reality for the rest of their lives.

And with a growing population, that means we will need more gasoline. Good prices and increasingly efficient automobiles have exploded gasoline consumption. We drove our vehicles (including cars, trucks and buses) 1.5 trillion miles in 1980 and nearly three trillion in 2002, which expanded gasoline consumption from 8.7 million barrels a day from 6.4 million. The Department of Energy estimates gasoline demand will continue to increase by nearly 3% a year.

The bad news is that the number of refineries producing petroleum products has dramatically declined. In 1982 there were 301 refineries in the United States producing 6.4 million barrels of gasoline (and seven million barrels of other petroleum products) each day. Twenty years later there were half that number, just 153, but they are more efficient, producing 8.2 million barrels a day of gasoline. But current gasoline consumption is about nine million barrels, so consumption substantially exceeds our domestic refineries' output.

Worse, America built its last oil refinery in 1976, and there are no current plans to build more. Without new refineries the increased volume of gasoline we need each year will have to come from increased imports --by pipeline, truck or marine tanker from Venezuela, Canada, the Caribbean and Europe (no, there are no exporting oil refineries in Arab nations)-- not always an easy thing, particularly in a time of terrorism.

The reason no new refineries have been built is the burden of regulation, first on the permitted emissions of any new refinery, and second on gasoline formulation. Existing refineries are now working to comply with 14 new environmental regulations that come into effect this decade.

There are currently 18 different gasoline formulations needed to satisfy regulations across the U.S. Some parts of the country require oxygen to be added in the winter to reduce carbon monoxide emissions; others require reformulated gasoline to combat summer smog. Cleaner-burning gasoline is required in various states and cities. Such regional regulations--and seasonal consumption swings--make it much more difficult to produce the quantity and quality of gasoline that must be delivered to an area, and much less practical to build a refinery to produce it.

And then politics injects itself into our gas tanks. Congress and the farm lobby want to require ethanol--a product made from corn and already federally subsidized to the tune of $10 billion--in gasoline. That presents enormous supply problems, for ethanol cannot come by pipeline, only by barge and truck. New ethanol requirements--currently stalled in the Senate--would increase the cost of gasoline by about three cents a gallon.

The good news is that the world is not running out of oil. In spite of such predictions that it would--in the 1880s, after both world wars, by the wildly inaccurate but politically correct Club of Rome in 1972 and by today's pessimists--oil reserve estimates are increasing. Offshore drilling is producing oil that wasn't there a few decades ago. Alaska has untapped oil reserves; more oil is being found in Russia, the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. Technology is making products available from oil sands and liquids derived from natural gas.

In short, we have access to oil; what we need is the ability to refine it, and that is a major political problem. We need refinery construction incentives to keep our gasoline production process up with market demands. Price controls, more additive requirements, ethanol politics, increasing refinery construction regulations and the 50-cent-a-gallon gasoline tax increase John Kerry once endorsed would make things worse.

But failing to increase our refining capacity will make things much worse-- fewer trips to visit Mom at the hospital, shop at Staples or Wal-Mart, or see the kids at Christmas. The good news is that an inexpensive supply of gasoline has given us the opportunities we have enjoyed for half a century. We need to keep enjoying them.

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is policy chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.

Kerry's nomination gambit makes a mockery of campaign finance "reform."

05.23.04 (10:40 pm)   [edit]
From OpinionJournal.com--

[b]Potemkin Convention
Kerry's nomination gambit makes a mockery of campaign finance "reform."[/b]
Monday, May 24, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
Wall Street Journal Editorial

Thank you, John Kerry. The news that the Massachusetts Senator may delay accepting the Presidential nomination until several weeks beyond the Democratic Party's late-July Boston convention exposes two truths that the political class hates to admit.

The first is that the party conventions are now little more than free advertising vehicles. They long ago lost all political drama, but this year one of them may not even nominate a candidate. The next step would be for the media finally to agree not to cover them, though we probably won't because these week-long affairs have also become the equivalent of cardiologist conventions for the political press. We get to see old friends and eat well on expense accounts.

Even better, this Kerry trial balloon exposes campaign-finance limits as a monumental farce. The Kerry camp is considering this maneuver so it can keep raising and spending money as long as possible without having to abide by spending limits that kick in once a party formally nominates its candidate.

Of course, the late July date was the Democratic Party's own choice--and it was selected precisely so it would let the nominee accept matching federal campaign funds a month earlier than President Bush, who will be nominated in late August. The assumption had been that the Democratic candidate would have run out of cash by this summer, but Mr. Kerry has been raising more money than he expected. In other words, Mr. Kerry embraced the rules when they helped him but now wants to ignore them when they don't.

This is always the way with campaign-finance limits. Politicians endorse them to sound holier-than-thou but then immediately turn around and exploit or invent loopholes and exceptions. No sooner had the McCain-Feingold reform that was supposed to ban big-dollar contributions become law last year than such billionaire reform supporters as George Soros were pouring cash into the loophole spending vehicle known as "527s."

This spectacle has become gross enough that some of the reform cheerleaders in the press corps may finally be catching on. In a column last week, even David Broder of the Washington Post sounded disillusioned. "Once again, unanticipated consequences of new rules are largely subverting their intended purposes," he wrote. "It is virtually impossible to control the flow of money from the private sector into the political world." Now he tells us.

More left-wing lies by Michael Moore

05.23.04 (6:45 pm)   [edit]
I'm not surprised that Moore lies...all leftists lie when the facts don't fit. And the ends always justify the means.

From the Weekly Standard--

[b]Michael Moore and Me
From the May 31, 2004 issue: An encounter with the Cannes man. [/b]
by Fred Barnes
05/31/2004, Volume 009, Issue 36

A FEW YEARS AGO Michael Moore, who's now promoting an anti-President Bush movie entitled Fahrenheit 9/11, announced he'd gotten the goods on me, indeed hung me out to dry on my own words. It was in his first bestselling book, Stupid White Men. Moore wrote he'd once been "forced" to listen to my comments on a TV chat show, The McLaughlin Group. I had whined "on and on about the sorry state of American education," Moore said, and wound up by bellowing: "These kids don't even know what The Iliad and The Odyssey are!"

Moore's interest was piqued, so the next day he said he called me. "Fred," he quoted himself as saying, "tell me what The Iliad and The Odyssey are." I started "hemming and hawing," Moore wrote. And then I said, according to Moore: "Well, they're . . . uh . . . you know . . . uh . . . okay, fine, you got me--I don't know what they're about. Happy now?" He'd smoked me out as a fraud, or maybe worse.

The only problem is none of this is true. It never happened. Moore is a liar. He made it up. It's a fabrication on two levels. One, I've never met Moore or even talked to him on the phone. And, two, I read both The Iliad and The Odyssey in my first year at the University of Virginia. Just for the record, I'd learned what they were about even before college. Like everyone else my age, I got my classical education from the big screen. I saw the Iliad movie called Helen of Troy and while I forget the name of the Odyssey film, I think it starred Kirk Douglas as Odysseus.

So why didn't I scream bloody murder when the book came out in 2001? I didn't learn about the phony anecdote until it was brought to my attention by Alan Wolfe, who was reviewing Moore's book for the New Republic. He asked, by email, if the story were true. I said no, not a word of it, and Wolfe quoted me as saying that. That was enough, I thought. After all, who would take a shrill, lying lefty like Moore seriously?

More people than I thought. Moore's new movie attacking Bush was given a 20-minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival. Moore has described the movie as breaking new ground and revealing new facts, but the accounts by reviewers suggest it merely provides the standard left-wing, conspiratorial critique of the president. Reviewer Lou Lumenick of the New York Post, who gave Moore's previous movie Bowling for Columbine four stars, said the anti-Bush film would be news only "if you spent the last three years hiding in a cave in Afghanistan." Still, I suppose it's not surprising they loved it in France.

In publicizing the movie, Moore has been up to his old dishonest tricks. Just before the screening at Cannes, he charged that Disney had told him "officially" the day before that it would not distribute Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore said this was an attempt to kill the film. He indicated a newspaper article had the correct explanation of Disney's decision: "According to today's New York Times, it might 'endanger' millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will 'anger' the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush."

Later, in a CNN interview, Moore admitted he'd learned nearly a year ago that Disney would not distribute the movie. By pretending he'd just gotten word of this, Moore was involved in a cheap publicity stunt. And it wasn't the New York Times that said, on its own, that Disney feared losing tax breaks. It was Moore's agent who was quoted as saying that in the Times. Disney denied its president Michael Eisner had told the agent of any such fear. "We informed both the agency that represented the film and all of our companies that we just didn't want to be in the middle of a politically oriented film during an election year," Eisner told ABC News.

Where does this leave us? I think it's time for Moore to be held accountable. In Stupid White Men, he has 18 pages of "Notes and Sources," but he offers no evidence for the sham interview with me--no date, no transcript. How could he, since the interview never happened?

I have just the person to look into Moore's lies and distortions. Al Franken has taken special interest in public liars, writing a bestseller called Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Al, the Moore case is now in your court.

[i]Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.[/i]

� Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

Repubs had chance to lead on judges, lost in 'deal' to Dems, now claim it a victory

05.23.04 (6:28 pm)   [edit]
Editorial from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review-- http://www.pittsburghlive.com...

[b]The judiciary 'deal': Spineless Republicans[/b]
Sunday, May 23, 2004

Republicans were handed the perfect opportunity to lead last week. They ran instead. Then they claimed victory. Is this a grand old party or what?

[b]Senate Democrats have spent the last four years thumbing their noses at the Constitution.[/b] Instead of offering its "advice and consent" on judicial nominees, the minority party has employed parliamentary tactics to deny floor votes and the certain will of the majority.

But Senate [b]Republicans are not without culpability. They repeatedly have shown deference to this band of political picaroons.[/b] Despite weak threats, the GOP has refused to use the simple majority it holds to modernize the rules of engagement that would prevent such obstructionism.

Adding insult to inaction, the White House cut a "deal" on Wednesday. [b]President Bush promised not to use his recess appointment power for the rest of this term; Democrats agreed to allow [i]some[/i] federal bench nominees an up or down floor vote. [/b]

[b]Democrats[/b], however, [b]reserved the right to filibuster nominees it deems especially unacceptable. Republicans even gave up their right to cloture -- a move that limits debate and breaks filibusters. [/b]

"(T)he Democrat obstructionists have successfully negotiated in exchange for their hostages," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. [b]"(W)hat will stop them from blocking all future nominees?" [/b]

Certainly not the spineless Republicans.

More anti-American editorializing in NEWS reports

05.23.04 (6:12 pm)   [edit]
Linked below is an AP article that glowingly reports how UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi is assembling an Iraqi transitional government-- and a month ahead of the handover, too!

Interestingly, when the handover of power is mentioned in the context of the US, and not the UN, the reports are glum and pessimistic, with journalists wondering if the US can achieve the goal.

But that is because for lefties, the UN is the only organization that has the legitimacy to nation-build and declare war. That is why we have, in so-called objective news stories, editorializing like this:

"The Bush administration is counting on Brahimi to deliver a formula for the next Iraqi administration that everyone will accept, allowing the White House to claim an Iraq policy success after a series of miscalculations that now threaten President Bush's re-election."

AND...

"Now an administration that largely shunned the United Nations as it geared up last year to launch the war on Iraq is hoping that an aging, Arab representative of the world organization will bail them out."

Can anyone except for an anti-Bush cynic really claim that Bush is trying to get an Iraqi government that allows the US to save face after its "series of miscalculations"?

Or that the US largely "shunned" the UN? If I recall, it was the UN (and France, Russia, and CHina specifically) that shunned the US. The UN also shunned the world by refusing to be the organization it was meant to be-- as the President pointed out, if the UN did not do what it was supposed to do it would become irrelevant. And we see that it has.

Could it be that the only reason why we're even talking about a new government is because of what the US did there? And what about all of the incredibly positive things the US has done there? Why do we have to assume that it's Bush's pride and not his desire to have Iraq succeed that has led to his seeking Brahimi?

Why is Bush's move to include the UN-- remember they left last August, folks AFTER REFUSING US SECURITY THAT LED LIKE NIGHT AND DAY INTO A TERROR ATTACK-- seen as an attempt to 'bail out', but Kofi Annan's refusal to appoint an independent oil-for-food investigator WITH SUBPOENA POWER isn't seen as the same thing?

Don't get me wrong-- the Iraqis hate the UN, and this UN-appointed Iraqi government won't succeed. Bush made a huge miscalculation here. But it could just be he's trying to include the UN for just reasons. You know, he's not exactly the strictest conservative. At any rate-- why the hell is all this in a news article?

It does not belong-- it assumes things that may or not may be true. And newsreporting does not assume.

Just another piece of evidence in the media's anti-Bush, anti-American crusade.

The article-- http://personal.news.yahoo.co...

Bonus: when the UN-crafted Iraqi government fails, expect it to scapegoat the US as well.

How to read a blog, part 620, by therealspartacus

05.23.04 (1:43 pm)   [edit]
I'm a patient man, but this kind of nonsense pisses me off. Witness Spartacus' comments regarding my responsive blog to Dragon-- my responses are in italics:

"For some reason you seem to be unable to distinguish relevant information from irrelevant information. Throughout this long essay, very little of it makes an argument about the legality of abortion or the morality of sex.

"Instead of writing about what DragonBait thinks and arguing with that, you find it easier to write about what other pro-choice groups think and argue with them instead. That seems to be your primary method of debate on any issue. Instead of arguing with John Kerry, you argue with Michael Moore, and hope your readers will assume that because they share many of the same positions, they are one and the same.

[i]By showing what pro-choice groups think I am arguing against Dragon's claims that "most people" don't think abortion is like birth control. My point, in case you missed it, was that it doesn't matter what the people think as long as groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood, groups that are controlling the discourse about abortion, groups that lobby the left-wing to keep abortion a "constitutional right", portray it as a simple birth control method.

Later, when Dragon talks about how she's being responsible by using birth control, I try to tell her that she is being irresponsible because such behavior leads to Dragon's claim that the mandate of "choice", given to us by the judiciary, is "freedom" for women. I thought it was pretty clear. Try a reread.[/i]

"I'll let her argue with the specific references you make to her post, and I'll just try and clarify some things you seem to be confused about.

"I cannot speak for NARAL, as I am not familiar with that group, or the UN's publications on the matter, but I have read a lot of literature from Planned Parenthood, and they do not "strive to make abortion seem as harmless as birth control." In fact, they strive to offer alternative forms of birth control at their centers and potray it as a "last resort." They give out free condoms at their nationwide centers, and they offer information on practicing safe and responsible sex.

[i]I am arguing, friend, that Planned Parenthood support of "birth control" eventually leads to the same place-- the death of children through abortion. Planned Parenthood advocates contraceptives much more than it advocates abstinence. And it fights to keep the murder of children a "constitutional right". I think the death of children should be illegal.[/i]

"Whether or not NARAL or European health care takes abortion lightly or not doesn't say anything at all about the point Dragon was making.

[i]Yeah, it does, because the examples were trying to disprove Dragon's point that most people don't see abortion as birth control. Since the EU is mandating to the public what is or isn't birth control, and since the groups like NARAL have invented an entire benign vocabulary to replace what abortion actually is, the likelihood the most people will see or see abortion as birth control is great. That is why abortion is an epidemic in Europe-- it has become accepted as a means of birth control. That may happen here, too.[/i]

"Whether or not the right to abortion is a real right or a court-mandated one is a debate a quarter of a century old. We both already know our positions, but I point to the Right of Liberty and Property, and the rights of a property owner to use lethal force to evict no-longer wanted persons from their homes and, presumably, bodies.

Your logic of fetuses, and all of us, as second-class citizens is rather ridiculous. First of all, we cannot all be second-class citizens. Secondly, we were all not only fetuses, but we were also sperm. We were also (we agree at least physically) dirt. But we don't give rights to sperm or dirt! If you want to find some justification that a human gets rights at point A then do so, but at least make it a real argument.

[i]Spartacus, a human being is the union of sperm and an egg. And it lives. If you are going to refer me the rights of property owners you just refuted your own argument about
my 'ridiculous' argument. If we start out as property, we are slaves, we are second-class citizens. You have struggled mightily to prove when that changes. Certainly not when a child is born, because a child depends on the mother. You have to come up with some mythical age when a child is no longer a piece of property, and you have to do that to refute your own ridiculous argument.

If we are human beings when we are conceived, however, than having a child imparts a great responsibility to the woman. And that child is not her property, but God's property, or if you don't believe in God, science's property. But it is not your property.

Do you understand how fascist it sounds to talk about evicting a human being from the womb merely because he or she is no longer wanted? If you really believe this, you're a monster, Spartacus.[/i]

"Also, you say that "A baby outside the womb is just as dependent on his/hermother as he/she is inside the womb." This is patently untrue. If, for example, the baby's mother were to no longer eat, the baby would die inside the womb but not necessarily outside. The infant is dependent on some way of getting food because it lacks the skills to get it itself, but it is no longer dependent on the mother in the same way as it was as a fetus.

[i]Yup, you are a monster. Why not get the babies to the slave-labor camp and put them to work? The baby is only independent to crawl a few yards, find some scraps and live until it dies. It cannot scream for help, can't dial a phone number, it doesn't know anything except for its instincts. Why do you think babies are roasting in cars when their mom or dad locks them in? Do you think they have the means to unclasp the belts, open the doors, and find mommy at the Victoria's Secret? WHen I say that a baby is still dependent on its mother outside the womb, it still is-- you are taking the intellectually infantile track of equating a baby with a mother. The baby is an immature human being, it [i]has to be dependent on the mother[/i]. Oh, maybe not totally, as if that is some great counter-argument there, but a baby cannot live on its own without parents. And you know that

And if a baby is still that helpless outside the womb, think of how helpless it is inside the womb. It has a beating heart, but that beating heart is a piece of property, right? It is scheduled for death if mommy just gets tired of it.[/i]

"The argument over privacy does not state that anything is OK just because it happens in one's own home. You know better than that.

[i]See Lawrence vs. Texas sodomy case, and the recent German cannibalism case. I am merely giving you contemporary arguments for privacy, don't lecture me on knowing better, spartacus. I do. I am well informed.[/i]
Then you go on about how abortion is nearly always immoral, something we agree on.

"You talk about how sex's chief role is procreation, but you don't talk about why non-procreative sex is bad or evil. And not all sex outside marriage is meaningless.

[i]Yeah, all sex outside marriage degrades what humans we're meant for. This is a theological argument, and is secondary to my points about abortion, so disagree with it all you want, I don't care. Also, I don't think non-procreative sex is bad or evil-- I thought I said so in my post. God says it is good. But it doesn't deny the reality that sex within a marriage is for procreation, for starting a family. With the knowledge of that consequence, which is not achieved by the false security of birth control, but only through a loving marriage consecrated by God, people are better prepared to have and love children.[/i]

***

Dragon and Spartacus keep making the same arguments about abortion, they just try it in many different ways. You cannot escape the truths about abortion and what it is.

I thought I adequately replied to Dragon's post, and I thought I did the same with Spartacus'.

Until next time.

US: no evidence of wedding party at attack site, plenty of terrorist evidence

05.23.04 (1:07 pm)   [edit]
[b]U.S. Says No Evidence of Wedding at Site[/b]
Sat May 22,10:52 PM ET
By ANTHONY DEUTSCH, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. military said Saturday it has found "no evidence of a wedding" at the site of an airstrike last week near the Syrian border, and said evidence so far suggested the target was a desert base for foreign terrorists sneaking into Iraq (news - web sites).

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, coalition deputy chief of staff for operations, showed slides of military binoculars, guns and battery packs that could be used to trigger roadside bombs found by U.S. troops at the site.

He said "terrorist manuals," telephone numbers for Afghanistan (news - web sites) and foreign passports, including one Sudanese, were also recovered there.

Survivors of the attack in Mogr el-Deeb, a desert village inhabited by members of the Bou Fahad clan, said they had just finished a wedding celebration when bombs fell before dawn Wednesday. More than 40 people were killed, including women and children.

Associated Press Television News footage taken at the site Thursday showed broken musical instruments, pieces of bloodied women's hair and the bodies of children. Kimmitt said no musical instruments were found, however.

Many of the bodies were taken about 250 miles to the east to Ramadi, the base of the clan and the capital of Anbar province which includes Mogr el-Deeb. According to Lt. Col. Ziyad al-Jbouri, the deputy police chief there, between 42 and 45 people died, including 15 children and 10 women. A local hospital doctor put the death toll at 45.

During a briefing for reporters, Kimmitt said the military was investigating the raid and had reached no final conclusions. However, he displayed pictures of some of the items found at the site.

He said suspicious materials included about 300 sets of bedding, 100 sets of prepackaged clothing as well as a "medical treatment room." He said the clothing could have been for infiltrators seeking to disguise themselves as Iraqis.

He said white powder also was found that could have been cocaine. The border area is a popular route for smugglers.

"None of the bodies had identification of any kind on them, no ID cards, no wallets, no pictures," Kimmitt said. "They had watches, and that was about the only way you could identify one person from another."

He said the absence of identification, as well as the remoteness of the area, suggested "that this was a high-risk meeting of high-level, anti-coalition forces."

The military's finding contrasts sharply with statements by survivors as well as local officials in Ramadi. On Thursday, a well-known wedding singer, Hussein al-Ali, was buried in Baghdad, and his family said he was killed in the airstrike.

Bou Fahad clansmen, who raise livestock, denied the presence of foreign fighters in their group. Members of the clan said the attack began a few hours after the wedding festivities had broken up for the night.

Kimmitt said farm vehicles were found, but that they showed no signs of being used for ranching. Nor, he added, was there evidence of any wedding celebration.

"There was no evidence of a wedding: no decorations, no musical instruments found, no large quantities of food or leftover servings one would expect from a wedding celebration," he said. "No gifts. The men were almost all of military age."

"There may have been some kind of celebration," Kimmitt said. "Bad people have celebrations, too. Bad people have parties, too, and it may have been what was seen as some kind of celebration ... may have been just a meeting in the middle of the desert by some people conducting criminal or terrorist activities."

Members of the clan said, however, that the Americans did not question them after the attack and that when some of the survivors tried to approach U.S. ground troops, they were fired on.

Gaza: Israel is damned if it stays, damned if it leaves

05.23.04 (12:49 pm)   [edit]
From the Wall Street Journal-- http://www.opinionjournal.com...

[b]The Gaza Paradox
Israel is damned if it stays, damned if it goes.[/b]
BY MICHAEL B. OREN
Sunday, May 23, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

JERUSALEM--The father of an Israeli soldier recently killed in Gaza blamed his son's death on Ariel Sharon and his refusal to evacuate the strip. The same day, paradoxically, another grieving father whose son died in the same battle denounced Sharon for his very willingness to withdraw.

These pained accusations followed a turbulent two weeks that began with the murder of a pregnant Jewish woman and her four daughters by Gaza gunmen on the same day Sharon's own party rejected his Gaza detachment plan, and concluded with Palestinians brandishing the body parts of Israelis soldiers killed in Gaza. The trauma of these events has riven Israeli society between the two irreconcilable positions expressed by the bereaved parents. The right believes that the best way to fight terror is to maintain Israel's occupation of Gaza and the beleaguered Jewish settlements there, while the left claims that terror will only end with Israel's complete evacuation and the renewal of talks with the Palestinians. Both sides, however, are tragically and disastrously wrong.

Threatened with destruction since its birth, Israel exists thanks to an unwritten agreement between the state and its citizens. Israelis allow the state to send them off to battle, and perhaps to die, but only when a solid majority of them believe that their vital security is at stake. If most Israelis consider a confrontation unnecessary or avoidable, they will simply refuse to fight. Such is the situation in Gaza today where a commanding majority of the population is no longer willing to risk their--or their children's--lives defending 7,500 settlers from the million Palestinians surrounding them. They do not regard Gaza as part of their spiritual and historical homeland, nor see how Israel can remain within the densely populated strip and retain its Jewish and democratic character. By insisting on perpetuating the status quo in Gaza, then, the right threatens to undermine the implicit pact that binds Israeli society--which enables the state to survive.

The left, on the other hand, holds that the recent deaths of 13 Israeli soldiers in Gaza were a direct result of the government's settlement policy and its refusal to seek Palestinian partners for peace. The 13, however, died not defending settlements but destroying tunnels used to smuggle explosives into Gaza, and the factories that produce Qassam rockets. Those explosives killed 10 Israelis in a suicide-bomber attack on the coastal city of Ashdod, and the rockets have struck Jewish towns and villages outside of the strip. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza will do nothing to lessen these threats--on the contrary, it will almost certainly enhance them, enabling the Palestinians to acquire even deadlier missiles capable of hitting Tel Aviv.

Further escalation would result from resuming talks with Arafat and his Palestinian Authority. Arafat, who publicly congratulated the Hamas "martyrs" of Gaza and called for a million more like them to liberate Jerusalem, has also stressed the need to drive Israel forcibly from Gaza and deprive it of a peaceful pullout. Any attempt to grant the PA responsibility for security in Gaza will likely repeat the experience of Bethlehem, on the West Bank, where a similar experiment led to the last two suicide bombings in Jerusalem and 18 Israeli dead. Both of the bombers came from Bethlehem.

Clearly Israel cannot remain in Gaza, but neither can it negotiate a phased withdrawal. The evacuation that the bulk of Israelis demand, therefore, can only be accomplished unilaterally while acting to maintain Israel's deterrence power. Israel will also have to reserve its freedom to frustrate weapons smuggling into Gaza by land and by sea, and to strike at terrorist targets inside the strip. Though proposals have been raised for deploying international peacekeepers in Gaza, such a force will surely lack the mandate and the means for effectively rooting out terror, and will probably serve to shield the Palestinians as they continue firing at Israel. Someday a Palestinian leadership may emerge that is capable of ensuring a quiet border, but until it does, there can be no substitute for preserving Israel's ability to defend itself, by itself, from Gaza.

One can only sympathize with the anguish of fathers who have lost their sons in Gaza--I, too, have a son serving in the territories--but that compassion must not obscure Israel's course. At all costs, Israel must avoid repeating its hasty retreat from Lebanon in May 2000, which emboldened the Palestinians to launch their terror war four months later. Rather, Israel must withdraw from Gaza but in a way that cannot be interpreted as a victory by the Palestinians and that allows the IDF to continue operating freely. The challenge Israel now faces in Gaza is thus similar to America's in Iraq: how to pull out gradually, prudently, all the while maintaining the message that terror will never go unpunished.

[i]Mr. Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, is author of "Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East" (Oxford, 2002). [/i]

Agency: Chalabi group was front for Iran

05.21.04 (11:37 pm)   [edit]
2 interesting articles:

[b]Agency: Chalabi group was front for Iran[/b]
BY KNUT ROYCE
WASHINGTON BUREAU
May 21, 2004, 7:29 PM EDT
NewsDay

WASHINGTON -- The Defense Intelligence Agency has concluded that a U.S.-funded arm of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress has been used for years by Iranian intelligence to pass disinformation to the United States and to collect highly sensitive American secrets, according to intelligence sources.

"Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the United States through Chalabi by furnishing through his Information Collection Program information to provoke the United States into getting rid of Saddam Hussein," said an intelligence source Friday who was briefed on the Defense Intelligence Agency's conclusions, which were based on a review of thousands of internal documents.

The Information Collection Program also "kept the Iranians informed about what we were doing" by passing classified U.S. documents and other sensitive information, he said. The program has received millions of dollars from the U.S. government over several years.

An administration official confirmed that "highly classified information had been provided [to the Iranians] through that channel."

The Defense Department this week halted payment of $340,000 a month to Chalabi's program. Chalabi had long been the favorite of the Pentagon's civilian leadership. Intelligence sources say Chalabi himself has passed on sensitive U.S. intelligence to the Iranians.

Patrick Lang, former director of the intelligence agency's Middle East branch, said he had been told by colleagues in the intelligence community that Chalabi's U.S.-funded program to provide information about weapons of mass destruction and insurgents was effectively an Iranian intelligence operation. "They [the Iranians] knew exactly what we were up to," he said.

He described it as "one of the most sophisticated and successful intelligence operations in history."

"I'm a spook. I appreciate good work. This was good work," he said.

An intelligence agency spokesman would not discuss questions about his agency's internal conclusions about the alleged Iranian operation. But he said some of its information had been helpful to the U.S. "Some of the information was great, especially as it pertained to arresting high value targets and on force protection issues," he said. "And some of the information wasn't so great."

At the center of the alleged Iranian intelligence operation, according to administration officials and intelligence sources, is Aras Karim Habib, a 47-year-old Shia Kurd who was named in an arrest warrant issued during a raid on Chalabi's home and offices in Baghdad Thursday. He eluded arrest.

Karim, who sometimes goes by the last name of Habib, is in charge of the information collection program.

The intelligence source briefed on the Defense Intelligence Agency's conclusions said that Karim's "fingerprints are all over it."

"There was an ongoing intelligence relationship between Karim and the Iranian Intelligence Ministry, all funded by the U.S. government, inadvertently," he said.

The Iraqi National Congress has received about $40 million in U.S. funds over the past four years, including $33 million from the State Department and $6 million from the Defense Intelligence Agency.

In Baghdad after the war, Karim's operation was run out of the fourth floor of a secure intelligence headquarters building, while the intelligence agency was on the floor above, according to an Iraqi source who knows Karim well.

The links between the INC and U.S. intelligence go back to at least 1992, when Karim was picked by Chalabi to run his security and military operations.

Indications that Iran, which fought a bloody war against Iraq during the 1980s, was trying to lure the U.S. into action against Saddam Hussein appeared many years before the Bush administration decided in 2001 that ousting Hussein was a national priority.

In 1995, for instance, Khidhir Hamza, who had once worked in Iraq's nuclear program and whose claims that Iraq had continued a massive bomb program in the 1990s are now largely discredited, gave UN nuclear inspectors what appeared to be explosive documents about Iraq's program. Hamza, who fled Iraq in 1994, teamed up with Chalabi after his escape.

The documents, which referred to results of experiments on enriched uranium in the bomb's core, were almost flawless, according to Andrew Cockburn's recent account of the event in the political newsletter CounterPunch.

But the inspectors were troubled by one minor matter: Some of the techinical descriptions used terms that would only be used by an Iranian. They determined that the original copy had been written in Farsi by an Iranian scientist and then translated into Arabic.

And the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded the documents were fraudulent.

Copyright � 2004, Newsday, Inc.

From Knight-Ridder

[b]Iraq intelligence leaks probed[/b]
By WARREN P. STROBEL and JOHN WALCOTT
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The U.S. government has launched an investigation to determine how Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi obtained highly classified American intelligence that was then passed to Iran, Bush administration officials said Friday.

A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity, said the compromised intelligence was "highly classified and damaging."

He declined to specify what it was.

The officials spoke a day after Iraqi police, backed by U.S. soldiers, raided the home and offices of Chalabi, a one-time favorite of civilian Pentagon officials who played a key role in building support for invading Iraq.

Two U.S. officials said that evidence suggests that Arras Habib, Chalabi's security chief, is a longtime agent of Iran's intelligence service, the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, or MOIS.

The investigation is likely to be extremely sensitive because Chalabi's most ardent supporters have included not only top civilians in the office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, but also officials in the office of Vice President Dick Cheney and members of the Defense Policy Board, a Pentagon advisory group.

Chalabi's primary critics in the government include top officials of the Central Intelligence Agency and State Department, who distrust him.

Asked about reports that Chalabi "was helping out Iran," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, "I have some information." He added, "We'd have to go to a closed hearing to talk about it." Myers also told Congress that since the March 2003 invasion, the INC has "provided very good intelligence to our forces in Iraq that have prevented our soldiers from dying."

The two U.S. officials said Habib is suspected of giving classified U.S. intelligence to officials in Iran, with whom Chalabi has long had close ties. Habib is now a fugitive.

A U.S. intelligence official said the evidence of Habib's ties to Iran includes both intercepts and some documentation. The official said Habib provided sensitive information, some of it classified above top secret, to the Iranians.

The information may have included U.S. reporting on leading figures within Iraq's majority Shiite Muslim community. Chalabi is a Shiite, as are 60 percent of Iraqis and 90 percent of Iranians.

The intelligence official said Habib also was the INC official who handled most of the Iraqi defectors, including one code-named "Curveball," who provided much of the fabricated, exaggerated and unconfirmed information about Iraqi weapons programs and links to terrorism that Bush used in making his case for invading Iraq.

"The bottom line here is that much of the information the administration had about Iraq may have come from an Iranian agent," said the intelligence official. "If that's true, this is a huge scandal."

A senior Chalabi aide denied the allegations and accused the CIA of leading a smear campaign against Chalabi. "No U.S. official has mentioned this to us in any capacity. It's absolutely false," said the official, who asked that his name not be used.

A third senior administration official said the contacts between an INC official or officials and Iranian security services were revealed via electronic intercepts.

Chalabi bitterly denounced the raid Thursday, which Iraqi and coalition officials said was aimed at arresting 15 individuals wanted on charges of fraud, kidnapping and other abuses.

Other members of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council joined in the condemnation Friday and blamed the raid on the Coalition Provisional Authority.

U.S. officials have said the raid was conducted by Iraqis with U.S. troops in a back-up role, but much about who was behind the raid and its precise purpose remains unanswered.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy declined to comment Friday on whether Chalabi or members of his entourage are suspected of having ties to Iran.

Asked about President Bush's view of the Iraqi, who sat near first lady Laura Bush during Bush's January State of the Union address, Duffy offered no endorsement.

"Mr. Chalabi was a man who worked with the coalition and the Iraqi Governing Council on the objective in Iraq, and it's up to the Iraqi people, from here on out, as we transition to a democratic Iraq, on who they decide their leaders will be," the spokesman said.

The INC official said Habib made no secret of his links with the Iranians or travel to Iran, Iraq's largest neighbor and longtime adversary. But he denied Habib was an Iranian agent.

"He's no one's agent," the official said.

MOIS, also known by its Farsi acronym Vevak, is one of the most powerful ministries in the Iranian government, according to information compiled by the Federation of American Scientists, an independent security research group.

Its personnel pose as Iranian diplomats, as well as officials of Iran's airline, students, merchants and employees of Iran's state-controlled banks, the federation's Web site states.

(Joseph L. Galloway contributed to this report.)

The New York Times accuses US troops of targeting journalists

05.21.04 (9:23 pm)   [edit]
First the link-- http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...

Then the money quote:

Iraq has become one of the most dangerous places in the world from which to report, [b]with enormous potential for journalists to be deliberately targeted by either side or caught in the crossfire.[/b]

Nah, the press isn't anti-military [i]at all[/i]!

A belated response to Dragon's May 2 abortion/sex blog directed at me

05.21.04 (7:14 pm)   [edit]
I am heading off for a long weekend, but before I go I feel I need to comment to a rather old post of DragonBait22's from May 2. I came across it while reading one of her blogs on President Bush (who apparently is doing a nasty thing by commenting on his opponent's record). Once again in her post Dragon tries to justify her views on abortion. Naturally, I disagree with her.

Dragon says that abortion is �replete with immoral implications�, which means that there must also be something good about it or something necessary. Regarding the practice of using abortion as birth control, she also �seriously doubts� that many take abortion so lightly. Many don't. But she would be ignoring, what NARAL and Planned Parenthood, along with the UN and various NGOs that control the discourse on abortion think.

These organizations strive to make abortion seem as harmless as birth control, and that is why they are trying to codify such language into law-- in Europe abortion IS a means of birth control, being part of the health care systems of many nations, including the UK. The irony is that Dragon feels that evil Catholics and Republicans want federal laws preventing abortion. She thinks that only these boogeymen want federal laws pertaining to abortion, when the entire �constitutional right� to abortion IS, in effect, a federal law (and of the worse kind-- one arrived at by judicial fiat).

I mean, if abortion is such a tremendous thing �replete� with immoral implications, and is not seen as a method of birth control, according to Dragon, why are they in health-care plans along with contraception options, and why do we have the emergence of an abortion PILL, RU-486, that relegates abortion to the casual day-to-day activity of using the bathroom (that is what the abortionists, not me, portray it as)?

Moving on, Dragon tries to portray herself as pro-life by saying that it is moral to secure the rights of a woman to her own life. If we are talking about a woman dying from a pregnancy, or a woman pregnant because of a rape, Dragon may have a point. But a woman does not have a right to kill another human being she brings into the world by her own choices. If she does, then there is a permanent second-class citizenship of the fetus, which logically transfers to all of us, since we were all fetuses. If Dragon argues, as she has in the past, that the baby doesn't have any rights until it is born, or until it reaches a certain age, she is, in short, justifying murder of a human being. A baby outside the womb is just as dependent on his/her mother as he/she is inside the womb. This baby is a human being. It has fundamental rights. THAT is pro-life.

Dragon states:

[i]It is reminiscient of totalitarianism, however, to neglect the rights of the woman in favor of securing rights for a fetus that cannot be granted without the interference of the government into the private lives of its citizens. All individuals have certain inherent rights, and to argue that the baby must also receive those rights requires that the potentiality of life is valued over choice, over personal affairs, and over freedom from intrusive governmental standards. If abortion was banned, it would not be protecting life, it would be denying the rights of all women. If abortion is allowed to remain legal, the decision is not forced upon all, true freedom is expressed.[/i]


There are some wrong assumptions being made here. One, that a fetus is not a human being, which leads to the preposterous notion that the government grants rights to anyone (it does not-- she should know that). This kind of logic works nowhere. Consider this: what we do in the home is �private�. By Dragon's logic, however, killing a child in the privacy of a home requires no government intervention (PRESERVING THE CHILD'S RIGHTS) because it is private. Her blather about choice and personal affairs and �freedom from intrusive governmental standards� applies here too. No one in their right mind would make the argument that government should not prevent parents from killing children in the home-- We're talking about the intentional taking of a life without regard for the victim. But since Dragon does not see a fetus as a child, but rather �the potentiality of life�, that is somehow acceptable.

When's the last time you ever heard a pregnant woman say �Come here and feel the potentiality of life kicking!�

To call a fetus something non-human is jaw-dropping in its savage cruelty. But that is what it takes to turn the murder of a child that a woman has a responsibility to protect inside and outside the womb, into something so benign, like a choice.

Dragon continues:

[i]Circumstances vary, and a legal standard dictating that abortion is wrong in all cases would not only be obtrusive, it would also hinder life by placing unnecessary risks on such a natural thing as birth. Abortion cannot be considered playing God, as it is not, in most instances, an attempt to maintain power over life or to control another's life. And if God is truly all-powerful, then we cannot circumvent that power.[/i]

First off, I'd like to know how dictating that life inside the womb isn't life, as Roe v. Wade says, isn't obtrusive to the human race or a hinderance to life (seems like a big hinderance to me). 40 million babies have been �terminated� because of abortion, and 99.99 percent of them were done not because a woman was at risk of severe health problems or dying, but because she just wanted one (her �choice�, you see).

The Catholic Church's official position is that:

�2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, [b]abortion willed as an end or as a means[/b], is a �criminal� practice (GS 27 S 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.�(Catechism of the Catholic Church)

In the case of rape or incest, which occur in very small numbers, abortion is still wrong in the Church's view because to allow for those exceptions indicates that �people�s value depends upon their physical condition, the circumstances of their conception or others� perception of them.� In the case of a baby born with disability the same applies-- a baby's right to life means more to it than a disability in that life. There should be support systems for the mother during and after her pregnancy of a disabled child.

The hardships that occur with a raped woman who has a child or with a mother and a disabled child are hardships that are thrust upon mother and child from society. A woman that is raped is made to feel guilty for it, and a disabled child is made to feel different from his peers. The answer to these circumstances is not death, but love. Ask any person born disabled out there if he would rather be dead than disabled and see the response you get. The right to life, the urge to live, is written on the human heart.

If it's wrong to call the wholesale banning of abortion wrong, how is it right to mandate the �right� to abortion?

This is not about choice or freedom. As Helen Avare writes in �Abortion: What the Church Teaches�

�...this ignores the basic moral argument that it is wrong to use bad means to reach a good end. And it ignores the commonsense truth that "ends" get tainted when the means used to achieve them are evil. Choosing an abortion to bring about short-term "relief" regularly leads to unhappiness, depression, marital failure, even suicidal behavior in post-abortion women for years, sometimes decades, after the abortion. Really bad choices hurt the one choosing them nearly as much as they hurt the intended victim.�

Dragon writes

[i]Similarly, any reasonable Catholic should recognize that sex is not always a means of procreation. That is not the sole purpose of sex. Thus, we must all admit that there is a certain amount of responsibility that we must take, and that is why we use birth control devices. [/i]

The Church agrees that procreation is not the sole purpose of sex-- it is the [i]chief[/i] purpose of sex. Romance, pleasure-- the Church recognizes it as good (after all, it is from God). But the Church believes it must occur in a marriage-- not treated with disrespect, casually.

It is, in fact, irresponsible, and playing God, by the way, to use birth control because then you are treating sex's sole purpose as pleasure-- for your own selfish needs. This attitude against responsibility leads to the next one about pregnancies-- that they are regrettable mistakes that should be terminated.

(Which leads to the kind of light-hearted behavior that Dragon says doesn't exist...)

I find it repugnant that Dragon is talking about a woman being responsible and yet advocates the same kind of irresponsible behavior (birth control for casual, meaningless, sex outside of marriage) that leads to the kind of abortion she says is �replete� with immorality but nevertheless endorses

Essentially, Dragon is disregardng consequence and the rights of every human being to life in favor of the rights of a woman to do anything she wants with her body, for any reason, even if it means killing her choices-- the lives she creates from her own �responsible� actions.

What an amazing world we live in.

From torture, to our defeat in Fallujah, to the Chalabi raid-- WE'RE ON THE PRECIPICE OF DEFEAT

05.21.04 (5:03 pm)   [edit]
May 21, 2004, 4:43 p.m.
[b]Lying into the Mirror
Misunderstanding the war on terror.[/b]
Michael Ledeen, NATIONAL REVIEW

We have adopted our enemies' view of the world

Shortly after moving to Washington from Rome � we're talking late Seventies � I did a long interview with Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan about the Carter administration's foreign policy. At a certain point, Moynihan elegantly summarized what had happened to us: "being unable to distinguish between our friends and our enemies," he said, "Carter has adopted our enemies' view of the world." So, it seems have many of our policymakers in their panicky and incoherent decisions regarding Iraq.

First, the matter of the "abuses" of the prisoners. Maybe the temperature of the rhetoric has cooled enough for us to address the most important aspect of the debacle: Torture and abuse are not only wrong and disgusting. They are stupid and counterproductive. A person under torture will provide whatever statements he believes will end the pain. Therefore, the "information" he provides is fundamentally unreliable. He is not responding to questions; 99 percent of the time, he's just trying to figure out what he has to say in order to end his suffering. All those who approved these methods should be fired, above all because they are incompetent to collect intelligence.

Torture, and the belief in its efficacy, are the way our enemies think. And remember that our enemies, the tyrants of the 20th century, and the jihadis we are fighting now, are the representatives of failed cultures. Our greatness derives from the superiority of our culture, and we should, as the sports metaphor goes, stick with what got us here.

Second, our defeat in Fallujah. I had hoped that the tactic of enlisting Sunni leaders to assist in the defeat of the jihadis would accelerate the terrorists' defeat and enable us to round them up and clean out the city. But it turns out that it wasn't a tactic at all; it was a strategic retreat. Today, throughout the region, everybody knows that the bad guys outlasted us. We were forced out. The Sunni generals (the first of which, unforgivably, was one of Saddam's henchmen) just told everyone to cool it for a while, and the bad guys are now reorganizing for the next assault. Instead of smashing the terrorists, we set ourselves up for more casualties.

Worse yet, some of the crackpot realists in our military and their exhausted civilian commanders in State and Defense, have convinced themselves that this is the way to go, and they are now whispering to one another that we should adopt "the Fallujah model" in future engagements.

If that holds, then we have lost. Because it means that we have surrendered the initiative to the terrorists and will not destroy them in future engagements. That adds up to actively encouraging the enemy to attack us.

Third, is the decision to launch a preemptive strike against Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. Our enemies � religious fanatics and other advocates of tyranny � have long dreaded the emergence of an Iraqi leader with unquestioned democratic convictions, someone at once deeply religious and yet committed to the separation of mosque and state. Yet the State Department's and the CIA's Middle East gangs have hated him and fought him for more than a decade, because he is independent and while he is happy to work with them, he will not work for them. Moreover, he has often proved more knowledgeable, as when, in the mid-Nineties, he informed CIA that one of their fatuous little coup plots had been infiltrated by Saddam's agents. They laughed at him, but not for long. Soon thereafter an Iraqi intelligence officer called the CIA man in charge of the operation on his "secret" cell-phone number to say "listen carefully and you'll hear the final screams of your coup leader."

I am not sure if CPA � including State and CIA officials � has spent more man hours fighting Chalabi than fighting Moqtada al Sadr, but it's probably pretty close, and in any event somebody should ask Viceroy Bremer why he massed so much firepower to break into Chalabi's house and Kanan Makiya's house, and the offices of the INC, instead of doing the same to Moqtada, who at last account was still free to mobilize the masses of his faithful to kill us. Is this not proof positive of the total inversion of sound judgment of which Moynihan spoke so elegantly a quarter-century ago?

Now the usual unnamed intelligence sources are whispering to their favorite journalists that they have a "rock-solid case" showing that Chalabi was in cahoots with the Iranians. This, coming the same crowd that told President Bush they had a "slam-dunk case" on Iraqi WMDs, should arouse skepticism from any experienced journalist, but it doesn't (another grim sign that confusion reigns supreme in Washington these days). It's a truly paradoxically accusation, since the refusal of the American government to provide Chalabi with support and protection for the past decade is what drove him to find a modus vivendi with Tehran in the first place. And Chalabi is not alone in dealing with the Iranians and their representatives in Iraq; it is hard to find any serious organization or any serious leader of any stripe � Kurdish, Shiite or Sunni, imam, mullah, or Ayatollah � who doesn't work with the Iranians. How could it be otherwise? We have shown no capacity to defend them against Iranian-supported terrorists. And terror works. Finally, it's hilarious to see this crowd of diplomats and intelligence officers attacking an Iraqi for talking too much to Iranians, when Powell's State Department and Tenet's CIA has been meeting with Iranians for years.

As I once wrote, the war against Saddam is nothing compared to the war against Ahmed Chalabi.

All of this is the inevitable result of the fundamental misunderstanding of the war against the terror masters. It is a regional war, not a war limited to a single country. Since we refuse to admit this, we are unable to design an effective strategy to win. Deceiving ourselves, we lie to the mirror, saying that defeats are really victories, that Baathists are our friends and independent minded Shiites are our enemies, and that appeasement of the mullahs will end their long war against the United States.

Has anyone told the president?

The 'multicultural' lie-- America is not morally equal with other countries

05.21.04 (3:29 pm)   [edit]
In short-- America is a multi-ethnic, not multi-cultural society.

From the Baltimore Sun--

[b]The 'multicultural' lie[/b]
By H. George Hahn II
Originally published May 18, 2004

THE COMMENTS about the divisiveness of diversity by Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. and state Comptroller William Donald Schaefer are on the mark.

Rushing to dilute the curriculum further with "multicultural" course requirements, colleges across the country, like many of those outraged by Mr. Ehrlich's and Mr. Schaefer's remarks, fail to understand that [b]American culture is English.[/b] Seeing America as a diverse nation, they conclude that diversity is its most important truth. And then, seeing diversity as multiethnic, they conclude that America is multicultural.

It is not, of course, for a culture means far more than eating ethnic foods, celebrating ethnic holidays, singing in ethnic bands and donning ethnic costumes to dance at ethnic festivals. [b]Are not the most important cultural truths about America crystallized in its Western heritage as transmitted by the English experience?[/b]

That experience is sixfold, as Russell Kirk says in his book, America's British Culture: first and crucially, the English language; a history evolving from Britain; a legal system based on English common law; political ideas and structures patterned on the British model; a literary heritage that's British to the core; and social ideals rooted in Britain.

[b]Merging the legacies of Athens, Rome and Jerusalem, England is the port of entry for America's Western culture. Yet the multiculturalist unwittingly attacks this culture with Western values - mainly of free speech - forged by dead, white European men.[/b]

And it is the multiculturalist's further strange logic that demeans Western civilization because it has not perfectly fulfilled its high ideals. [b]Regardless if slavery and repression of women were facts of life in Europe (slave derives from the medieval Latin sclavus, a Slav in forced Roman labor) as well as among Asians, Africans, Arabs and Mesoamericans, it is the West that has provided the antidotes - from emancipation to civil rights to suffrage, in America by "European" presidents, congressmen, soldiers and judges in the English tradition.[/b]

[b]With not one of 55 elite colleges polled in a recent survey requiring a course in American history[/b], most students aren't even aware of, let alone knowledgeable about, the origins, complexities and implications of the West's great tradition.

As T. S. Eliot said, tradition "cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must attain it by great labor. It involves ... the historical sense ... and the historical sense involves a perception not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence."

Nevertheless,[b] in hundreds of colleges, students are being steered from a rich tradition to take an affirmative action curriculum with required courses in non-Western cultures, race, "gender" (once a grammatical term), class, ethnicity and sexual orientation. The key curricular virtues are toleration (often moral neutrality), sensitivity (read: "thin-skin"), self-esteem (now a given, seldom an earned power) and "nonjudgmentalism" (that all-purpose liberal judgment), among other shallow, politically correct pieties in the name of diversity.[/b]

[u][b]Diversity is not the most important truth about America. Where it is important - in the Balkans, Lebanon, Armenia, Angola, Sri Lanka, Cyprus, Iraq, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, South Africa - diversity becomes violent divisiveness.[/b][/u]

[b]In America, the greater truth - or miracle - is how one culture unifies our diversity.[/b] Yet in college, after years of high schools' marinating minds in the pieties of multiculturalism, [b]diversity is a curricular diversion from the intellectual engagement with the great books, people and events that make [u]America still the world's best hope,[/u] even for the refuse-to-be-assimilated immigrant who wants our culture as a cure while rejecting it with a curse.[/b]

Though some multiculturalists would actually exchange courses in Shakespeare for ones in healing chants, few would replace automobiles with rickshaws or computers with signaling drums. And none would visit a witch doctor for coronary care, countenance female infanticide or clitorectomies, cast themselves on their husband's funeral pyre, applaud bloody coups and despots, be tolerant of cruel and unusual punishment, laudatory about theocracies and open-minded about slavery.

[b]Yet many multiculturalists teach, in the cause of liberal open-mindedness, as if they would grant cultures still practicing such customs a moral equity with - if not superiority to - Western ways. And having themselves studied Western civilization not so long ago in college, they would deny that privilege to their own students. Their ethical compass spins wildly.[/b]

The American compass points steadily to the classical West, via England. Our national culture believes in equality before the law, due process, civil rights, freedom to speak, to worship, to keep arms and defend ourselves, to own property, to vote, to move about freely.

[b]While Americans feverishly disagree about policies, we fervently agree about these English principles to debate and resolve them. But how can debate and citizenship even begin if not in a common language? [u]America may be gloriously multiethnic, but it is not multicultural. For the better of all hyphenated Americans, starting with the language, it is an English culture.[/u]

And that culture is our common and precious tradition. [b]The academic and political danger now is not so much in having a closed mind about other cultures, but an empty mind about our own. For academics and demagogues to close their mouths to that danger is worse than ignorance. It's a lie.[/b]

[i]H. George Hahn II is an English professor and director of the master's in humanities program at Towson University.[/i]

Why did Russia agree on Kyoto? It's all about the US

05.21.04 (3:13 pm)   [edit]
They Kyoto treaty is unrealistic for the world's economies, and it will not accomplish the goals it seeks by any measure. Thus, countries that ratify it-- and actually implement it-- are at a huge disadvantage.

So why did Russia agree to ratify Kyoto? Well, Russia wants to join the WTO, and the US, which actually does support Russia joining the world body, supports it less than the EU does. The EU worked out a deal with Russia where Russia would ratify the treaty and in turn the EU would help Russia in its WTO bid.

Most people believe that Russia's 'ratification' is symbolic. For a country that is struggling to get its economy going, implementing Kyoto would kill that effort. No, instead it is a political move to put pressure on the US, to constratin its economy in two ways.

Number one, the mere fact that Russia will ratify the treaty means it goes into effect. This means US companies around the globe, working in countries that ratified Kyoto have to comply. It also means more pressure on the US from more countries getting the US to sign on to this useless treaty.

More importantly, I think, anyway, is that it will smooth Russia's entrance into the WTO, which is the primary body responsible for economically ruining the US. Most of its decisions are against the US, and most of the complaints are directed at the US. It is dominated by the EU, which has done a remarkable job of stirring up anti-American sentiment among developing countries.

By constraning America's economy with the help of Russia in the WTO, the Kyoto-ratifying countries are trying to level the playing field with the US economy. This ensures freedom from the disastrous consequenes of Kyoto.

China is a member of the WTO, and is the world's second leading producer of greenhouse gasses. Nowhere is there a push to get it to ratify Kyoto. Nowhere is there also a push to get China to even abide by WTO requirements for membership. The US is held to a higher standard.

We should beware of what is going on here-- the actions of Russia, the EU, and China, indeed the entire world regarding Kyoto and the WTO, are designed to undermine the US and ruin its economy.

Some further reading (I don't agree with all of it ,but it is interesting)--

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/us nw/20040521/pl_usnw/russi a_signals_change_of_cours e_on_kyoto__ncpa_experts_ say_decision_based_on_eco nomic_horse_trading__not_ science156_xml" title="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/us nw/20040521/pl_usnw/russi a_signals_change_of_cours e_on_kyoto__ncpa_experts_ say_decision_based_on_eco nomic_horse_trading__not_ science156_xml" target="_blank"http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm /20040521/wl_nm/environme nt_kyoto_reaction_dc_2" title="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm /20040521/wl_nm/environme nt_kyoto_reaction_dc_2" target="_blank"http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm...

Those that scream of a 'holocaust' of Palestinians are full of it-- the truth.

05.20.04 (10:53 pm)   [edit]
I've been sitting on the sidelines of the recent Israeli incursion in Gaza. I thought that Israeli tactics were, at first, a little heavy-handed, but at no time did I think that Israel was intentionally killing innocent civilians. It is well-known that Palestinian terrorists hide among civilians. It is well-known that all Muslim terrorists do this.

Israel was destroying undergound tunnels and making sure that they destroy as much as the terrorist infrastructure as they can before they leave. This is not "collective punishment". On the other hand, what the terrorists are doing is collective punishment, for it puts entire populations at risk.

I'm more than a little aghast at how the Copperfield clones on Tblog rush to parrot the party line on Israel (I'm also convinved that for some they only act that way because of RedTigress- they want to hurt her or piss her off, or bait her into getting pissed and then make fun of her...geeze, that sounds familiar). Naturally, these guys aren't interested in truth-- they're interested in being against anything America is for (like, oh, peace, freedom, the right for Jews to exist).

Below is the official IDF account of the recent Rafah protest incident, along with two decent news articles that are a little more balanced than what we're used to.

[b]IDF SPOKESPERSON'S ANNOUNCEMENT[/b]

Today's incident in Rafah is a very grave incident and the IDF expresses deep sorrow over the loss of civilian lives.

[b]At no point in this incident was intentional fire opened in the direction of civilians.[/b]

A large procession of several hundreds demonstrators, among them gunmen, organized by the Palestinian Authority, left central Rafah along the main road towards IDF forces in Tel-Sultan.

[b]As the crowd, with the gunmen among them, drew near IDF forces, a warning fire of a single missile was fired from a helicopter into an open area, not towards the demonstrators. In addition, flares were fired in the air to deter the crowd and to prevent endangering the demonstrators.[/b]

As this did not deter the crowd and they continued to converge on the troops, [b]machine gun fire was opened towards a wall of an abandoned structure along the side of the road and then four tank shells were fired at this abandoned structure. It is possible that the causalities were a result of the tank fire on the abandoned structure.[/b]

The details of the incident [b]continue to be investigated[/b]. It should be mentioned that [b]the scene of the incident is an area of combat and an area of frequent exchanges of fire. The road has been rigged with explosive charges planted by the Palestinians. The IDF has not yet cleared the road of these explosives. At this stage it is difficult to determine the cause of the civilian casualties.[/b]

The incident is being investigated thoroughly at this time. The IDF has approached the Palestinians and offered medical assistance, including the evacuation of the casualties to Israeli hospitals.

***

So when's the last time Yasser Arafat investigated those that send suicide bombers to blow up Passover celebrations, discos, schools, busses, and pizzerias? Take your time (it could be because he is the one ordering them, along with Hamas).

Secondly, as the IDF statement tries to point out, the Palestinians may have died by the very bombs their "martyrs" planted for the sake of the "cause" (which they have been brainwashed to believe is the destruction of Israel, not a life free of poverty and misery).

Arafat seems to time perfectly events that will get his own people killed. Then he goes and blames the Jews for it.
This is how he has stayed in power-- scapegoating his own horrific, evil mistreatment of his own people.

2 news articles on Israel and Rafah-- http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...

http://www.ynet.co.il/NonReg/Ext/App/Billing /BillingRegistration/CdaR egBill_RegScreen1_SubsDet ails/1" title="http://www.ynet.co.il/NonReg/Ext/App/Billing /BillingRegistration/CdaR egBill_RegScreen1_SubsDet ails/1" target="_blank"http://www.ynet.co.il/NonReg/...,,,00.html?CG=US&HU=/articles/0 ,7340,L-2918614,00.html

What is the insane logic behind Bush's shrinking of our military? We're at war, right?

05.20.04 (10:13 pm)   [edit]
[b]The Incredible Shrinking Army
From the May 24, 2004 issue: It's even worse than you think.[/b]
by Frederick W. Kagan
05/24/2004, Volume 009, Issue 35
WEEKLY STANDARD

FOR MONTHS, it has been obvious that the United States needs more forces in Iraq, and that the Army is not large enough to sustain even the current level of deployment in Iraq. The Pentagon, however, has consistently refused to face reality. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, abetted by the senior military leadership, has instead been playing a shell game with American troops. The decision some weeks ago to keep 135,000 soldiers in Iraq was described as an "increase," because the administration had been planning to send 20,000 of them home. The same Orwellian logic is being applied once again, this time to the Army as a whole.

Bills before Congress now propose "increasing" the Army by "30,000" troops over the next three or four years, but this "increase" is just as ephemeral as the "increase" in American troops in Iraq. The Army's current authorized end-strength equals 482,000 active soldiers. The crisis in Iraq and the war on terror in general have already led Congress to allow the Army to maintain a somewhat higher strength and finish this fiscal year with 501,300 soldiers. The congressional proposals would grant a temporary three-year increase in authorized end-strength to 512,000. It is true that the overall difference in authorized end-strengths is 30,000 soldiers. It is also true that the Army desperately needs congressional approval to fill its ranks even at the current level, since more than 6,000 soldiers are being kept in the Army only because of the "stop-loss" now in place. As soon as that stop-loss is lifted, many of those soldiers will leave. What is not true, however, is that the congressional proposals will increase the number of soldiers now in the army by 30,000. The actual increase will be fewer than 10,700 bodies, gained gradually over the course of several years. This measure is a trivial palliative compared with the Army's actual needs.

Worse yet, rumors are now swirling that one of two maneuver squadrons (battalions) of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment will soon deploy from Fort Irwin, California, to Afghanistan, and two of the three companies of the 1st Battalion of the 509th Infantry Regiment will travel from Fort Polk, Louisiana, to Iraq. These units are the permanent "opposing forces," or OPFOR, at the National Training Center and the Joint Readiness Training Center respectively. Their sole mission is to prepare other Army units for deployment to Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever the nation needs them. Throughout the year, units from all over the Army go to the NTC and the JRTC and run field exercises trying to defeat the OPFOR in "laser-tag" simulations using real weapons and equipment. The training those units receive is only as good as the OPFOR makes it, since soldiers would learn little fighting an incompetent opponent.

Over the years, these units have performed their job superbly, and they are one of the major reasons for the high quality of Army forces in the field today. Both units have served as OPFORs for more than a decade, and they have become the premier training units in the world. Units replacing them will not be able to match their level of skill and experience for a long time. As a result, the level of training in the Army will be degraded, and Army forces deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan will be less well prepared. This decision is incredibly shortsighted. It mortgages the future to pay for past and present failings. It is symptomatic, however, of the sort of damage the Army is suffering on a day-to-day basis because of the inadequacy of its end-strength.

The question is often asked, Can we really build up the Army now through a volunteer system? Would we not have to restore the draft to increase the force? The answer is that we can certainly recruit more soldiers. Amazingly, recruitment has not suffered significantly from the war or the impositions on soldiers today. But additional troops will not be picked up instantly. It takes time to recruit and train new soldiers. This is why we should make haste. The longer we delay, the longer it will take before any relief comes into sight for our weary and overworked soldiers.

Instead of providing for such relief, congressmen, often claiming to be bold, are proposing budgetary band-aids, while the secretary of defense justifies their claims by steadfastly objecting even to those band-aids. This behavior is difficult to comprehend in an administration that took office promising that help was on the way to a military starved by the Clinton administration. Yet even today, with the Army at the breaking point and Iraq on the edge of catastrophe, there is no help coming from the Bush administration.

Frederick W. Kagan is a military historian and the coauthor of While America Sleeps.

� Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

Mr. Bush, what "training wheels"? Iraq is not ready for self-rule yet

05.20.04 (10:01 pm)   [edit]
During his Capitol Hill visit, the president said that the US was ready to "take the training wheels" off and hand power back to the Iraqis. With all due respect to the President and those on the ground, what the hell have we "trained" Iraq to do?

From the beginning we've appointed a government that we've been slow to "train" in anything remotely "democratic". Iraqis have very small, very ill-trained police and other security forces. The country is simply NOT ready for a transfer of power.

And that latter sentiment was Bush's first. Bush's first instincts have usually been the best ones. Initially, Iraq was a clean slate and would take as much time as required to do it right. Through left-wing politicization of the war in Europe and at home, and no doubt because this is an election year, the president has whittled away at that impulse. Despite the rhetoric about "staying the course", I fear Bush may be [i]straying[/i] from the course.

Case in point? Yesterday's raid on Achmed Chalabi's offices. When not refusing to comment on the raid of our one-time staunchest ally, the CPA says its an "Iraqi" operation and involves fraud. Iraqis are not yet in the position to start their own operations-- and my God, if they are performing their own arrests, how are they doing that and ensuring civil liberties?

They're not. This is the most critical time in Iraq since the war began.

I certainly hope Bush is making the right decisions, but so far I'm not seeing that kind of evidence.

The gas price silver lining: the Bush/Saudi price fix is coming!

05.20.04 (7:26 pm)   [edit]
Remember about four or five years ago when Bubba Clinton depleted the Strategic Reserve? Remember how it didn't do squat to lower gas prices? Democrats are now asking that Bush do the same, using his well-justified refusal as evidence that Bush doesn't care about the "crippling" gas prices.

But gas prices are neither crippling nor the highest prices we've ever had. People are still buying gas like crazy (which is the real reason why prices will remain high), and, adjusted for inflation, gas prices are nowhere near their historical highs. But to hear the media and John Kerry, tell it, the American economy is grinding to a halt because Bush has done nothing to stop the rise of prices.

(Note: when they say that low gas prices are slowing the economy, they implicitly admit the economy is growing...)

Eventually, people will start to think there is a real problem out there-- that's the way the left and its puppet major media works. It creates a false reality, presents it to the public repeatedly, and hopes it sticks. That's essentially how Bill Clinton ran his entire administration-- people began to get their beliefs of Clinton from manufactured polls showing that a 'majority' of Americans didn't think the president's sex life was an impeachable offense, deftly obstructing Bubba's real offense. And Joe Blow would say, "Hey! That's not fair!" That, coupled with a booming economy Clinton had nothign to do with, Joe Blow punches in Clinton on his ballot.

[i]That[/i], my left-wing friends, is truly Orwellian.

But we can all be satisfied by the knowledge that there is an impending price reduction in oil coming. Remember? Bob Woodward said in his "60 Minutes" interview promoting his book that Prince Bandar and Bush conspired to keep prices low in 2004. Later, of course, Woodward clarified his comments-- he essentially lied about Bandar's intentions in the interview-- but the damage was done. Another chapter was written in the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" book.

Also: watch out for desperate lefties (as here on Tblog) bitching about rising interest rates and inflation. Of course, higher interest rates and inflation are natural results of a booming economy-- Bush has nothing to do with them. I guess now the left thinks people should be unemployed so interest rates will stay low.

(Well, except for Winston Smith- -he once argued that interest rates encourage spending...and that is bad! So he should be most happy that interest rates and inflation are going to go up).

The left-wing's bullying of Ralph Nader

05.20.04 (7:05 pm)   [edit]
Ralph Nader is a nut, and every four years this nut runs for president. That's what is great about America-- nuts can run for president.

But what I find truly amazing is the tolerant left's all-out assault on Nader. This is a group of people that goes falsely accuses conservatives of attacking dissidence and freedom of expression, yet struggles mightily to bully Nader into backing down from his right to seek the office of the President.

When not blaming "King Bush" for "stealing" the election, lefties blame Nader for giving it to him (if only he hadn't run Gore would have gotten his votes). It's never that a leftist is rejected, no-- there is always some freakin' excuse. And all of this in the face of the fact that most of the Democrats' presidential candidates over the last 25 years never came close to winning the majority.

Maybe no one buys their anti-American, communist message?

Anyway, so the party of "power by any means necessary" has tried to strongarm Nader into not running. And the press marvels that "still, Nader won't back out". What kind of nation is this when the common sense decision seems to be stifling an American citizen's right to run for office?

Oh well, at least the excuses are all lined up now when Kerry still loses, despite billionaire George Soros' left-wing media's slanderous, criminal abuse of Bush. It will be Nader, or Diebold, or black convicts somehow not being able to vote, or the non-existant "Republican Attack Machine", or any major progress in the war on terror (craftily planned to happen in 2004-- [i]which just happens to be an election year![/i]).

It won't be that the left has absolutely no plan on anything, no principles, and no credibility.

And much has been made on the recent Kerry-Nader meeting. We all know what happened at the meeting-- Kerry tried to force Nader into quitting. Why else would they have met? They are opponents. There is no goodwill there.

Ps. What is almost as bizarre as the left's attempt to silence Nader is the fact that Nader is going to be the Reform candidate. In just four years the Reform party has gone from Pat Buchanan to Ralph Nader. That's quite the political spectrum there.

How to read a blog, part 619, by WhyNot

05.20.04 (4:28 pm)   [edit]
WhyNot cannot read....if I post an article that has another person's byline, he still thinks I wrote it.

WhyNot focuses his little-girl anger at this blog of mine-- http://www.tblog.com/template...
that posts an article by Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu. Repeat, that's LT. COL. GORDON CUCULLU. The article basically makes the case that the Abu Ghraib scandal and our outrage over it shows how humane the war has actually been. WhyNot has tunnel vision and doesn't understand the history of other wars and of other peoples. And since lefties hate to read, and that article was long, I have to forgive him. Left-wing stupidity is a disease.

WhyNot sounds an awful lot like one Matthew Martin, AKA Jimmytherighteous. Maybe he's not Matty, as Mr. Martin has been MIA recently, but he sure seems to have taken a lesson from him in pointless feminine rage.

The ancient Arab/Iraqi tradition of having wedding parties at 3am

05.20.04 (4:12 pm)   [edit]
Noguru has already commented on the so-called "wedding party" that the US destroyed in Iraq-- http://www.tblog.com/template... . The press seems a little too eager to blame this as the US' typical inability to distinguish celebratory gunfire from the other kind. They are brushing off the likelihood that, you know, the US is right.

I just wondered why there would be a wedding party at 3 in the morning. That must have been one hell of a party.

Even the Iraqi prisoner scandal shows how incredibly humane Operation Iraqi Freedom has been

05.20.04 (2:51 am)   [edit]
[b]The Facts on Abu Ghraib[/b]
By Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 20, 2004

�How could they have been so stupid?� If that question didn�t top the most-asked list it must have been a contender. Photos of American GIs abusing Iraqi prisoners have now been plastered just about everywhere in the world. Talk about stupid! These idiots took snapshots of themselves! It�s as if someone asked, �What can we do to make this war even more difficult than it is now?�

It is said that one bad cop makes all cops bad. (At least, it seems to in the media or in public perception.) It certainly serves the purpose of someone predisposed to criticize or disapprove. High profile cases of abuse in New York City or Los Angeles police forces have besmirched the reputations of all honest policemen. Similarly, the soldiers involved with this abuse incident have not only sullied their profession, their service, their comrades and their country, but the entire Western world and all it stands for. Under the circumstances it pains me to refer to them as soldiers, but until they are found guilty by court-martial they are entitled to the name.

[b]But it is critical to acknowledge that as ugly as this incident may turn out to be it is strictly that: an aberration, an anomaly in the way American soldiers conduct themselves.[/b] Regrettably it does happen. History is rife with examples. [b]Within a month after parachuting into Normandy the 101st Airborne Division, perhaps the best unit in the war at the time, tried and convicted several soldiers of rape, robbery and assault. Cases of German POWs being summarily executed were so common as to be largely unreported. Incidents of civilian deaths associated with combat were treated as incidental and the cost war. Systematic looting was ubiquitous.[/b]

[b]What is truly remarkable is that nothing like this has occurred in Iraq. [u]Historically this may be the cleanest military campaign ever waged by an army unparalleled in its restrain and honesty.[/u] Consequently the disclosure of the prisoner abuse becomes even more of a case for indignation.[/b]

So where ought we focus on this? Predictably the usual suspects are rushing forward with the Vietnam comparisons. It�s My Lai this time though there is absolutely no similarity. It gives the Hate America First group something to focus on. Amnesty International, displaying its usual selective condemnation, is leveling hysteric accusations of �widespread and systemic� abuses by U.S. forces. Indignant Congressmen demand instant answers. And the normally inflammatory Arab news agencies such as al-Jazeera, are having a field day pillorying the Americans.

So what to do? First we must make certain that those responsible - the perpetrators of the acts and their supervisors - are property identified, investigated and brought to account. If found guilty, their punishment must be swift and harsh. Fortunately a military court-martial is usually both. Most importantly, the chain of command needs to be held accountable. The protest of Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who was in charge of the Military Police unit at the Abu Ghraib prison, that �I didn�t know anything like this was going on� sounds disingenuous.

It is axiomatic in the military that the immediate commander is responsible for everything the unit does or fails to do � no exceptions, no excuses. Tough questions need to be asked: if officers in command did not know what was happening, why not? Did they shirk their duty and responsibility? If they knew and did not act, then they must be brought to account. If, as the General implied, her soldiers were ordered to �soften up� the prisoners by some dark intelligence presence - Army or CIA - then those people must also be brought to answer for their actions. And even if such an order were to exist, it would not absolve Karpinski of neglect.

If we are to draw a practical lesson from Vietnam - a far more useful exercise than trying to morph Iraq prisoner abuse into the mass murder of My Lai - it ought to be accountability. [b]In contrast to Vietnam, the military in Iraq � and not civilian media � uncovered the abuse and launched investigations. The chain of command was informed. Once the incident splashed into the public eye, those in charge acknowledged the event, expressed their disgust and pledged to get to the bottom of it. All good things and far different than the knee-jerk coverup the institution tried to perpetrate 35 years ago.[/b]

At the time of My Lai the army wanted to push responsibility down to the lowest possible level. As a consequence platoon leader, Second Lieutenant William Calley was the fall guy. Obviously he was responsible, but what about his company commander, Captain Ernest Medina, who had to be aware of what happened? Medina was allowed to resign his commission and leave the service. The battalion commander, a Lieutenant Colonel Henderson, had been killed in a helicopter crash after the events at My Lai occurred. The army used this as a �responsibility cutout� and stopped at that level.

Such willingness to dump on subordinates is repugnant to those of us who served and who accepted the awesome responsibility that comes with leading soldiers in combat. It is critical for the credibility of the institution itself - as well as the Bush administration - that those who bear responsibility as far up the chain as is appropriate answer the tough questions. Fortunately this appears to be exactly what is happening as you read this.

How far up the food chain ought the responsibility go? Certainly Karpinski, as installation commander, bears responsibility. It is doubtful that one ought to expect anyone above her level (e.g., the theater or major commander) to be responsible for details at a unit level. Having said that, these supervisors would now be expected, in view of this incident, to extend feelers deeper than usual until they are satisfied that order has been restored.

One also has to wonder just where the senior enlisted personnel were in all of this, the sergeants major and unit first sergeants? Someone ought to be speaking with those individuals. Nothing like this incident could have happened without their knowledge and approval. For those with military experience that is troubling. Was the entire supervisory element asleep? Or complicit?

Naturally al-Jazeera and other �Arab Street� propaganda organs have expressed terrible indignation over this incident. The hyperbolic comparisons to the Nazis and, oddly, �Zionists� are popping up everywhere. Arabs, we hear are �outraged and inflamed.� �See,� leftist academics and Arabist ex-diplomats say, �they are going to hate us even more now.�

From a practical standpoint, it is difficult to see how. [b]For decades, if not centuries, Arab peoples have been pawns of the mullahs in their mosques. They have been puppets of tyrants and dictators who control all media and mold their thoughts and behavior. They danced in the streets in joy when the Twin Towers collapsed. They bounce on the hoods of destroyed Humvees and drag American bodies through the streets.[/b]

Until they begin to wise-up to the fact that they are thwarting those who are fighting to liberate them, I worry less about the Arab Street losing its �good will� than I would fret about a recurring Ice Age. For the short term, their hatred is a given. Slowly, methodically, we may be able to change that perception. But it took centuries to mold and may take as long to heal.

Meanwhile, we have our own house cleaning to do. While we go about it, it may be necessary to remind everyone, we are still fighting a war against worldwide terrorism. We need to fix what is broken but keep focused on the ultimate mission of defeating the terrorists.

[i]Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu has been an Army Green Beret lieutenant colonel, as well as a writer, popular speaker, business executive and farmer. His most recent book is Separated at Birth, about North and South Korea.[/i]

Before you bash the US over Abu Ghraib, check out the UN

05.20.04 (2:44 am)   [edit]
[b]UN Fetish[/b]
By Mark Steyn
Jerusalem Post | May 20, 2004

One thing I noticed in Iraq was the missing body parts. Not immediately. I spend most of my time in the Great North Woods of New Hampshire and Quebec and, when you're in old mill towns, it's not unusual to find yourself sitting at a lunch counter with three codgers who can barely muster 10 fingers between them.

So at first I didn't pay much attention to the missing digits and missing limbs. It was the third missing ear I saw - in Ramadi - that made me realize what was really going on. An ear's a hard thing to lose. So's a tongue.

That's why I cannot share the "outrage" over Abu Ghraib of some of the more excitable correspondents

("The Shaming of America: George Bush's boast of shutting down Saddam Hussein's torture chambers in Iraq rings hollow now," according to my chums at The Irish Times).

More to the point, nor do most Iraqis. Representatives of the Shi'ites and Kurds, who between them account for four-fifths of the population, have said nary a word. Ayatollah Sistani, the most prominent figure in the land and a man who can cause the coalition serious trouble any time he wishes, has let the matter lie.

And, as I endeavored to explain last week, most Americans don't share the "outrage." A week later, they share it even less. As Senator Zell Miller, a Democrat, put it:

"Why is it that there's more indignation over a photo of a prisoner with underwear on his head than over the video of a young American with no head at all?"

That wouldn't, in normal circumstances, be a valid comparison. If you go to the hospital in Dublin or Rotterdam and they botch the operation, it's no consolation to be told that it's better treatment than you'd have got in the Sudan. You want your health care to be measured against London, Geneva, Vancouver - not Chad and Rwanda. But for Iraqis, this is the only comparison that matters - pre-April 2003 vs post-April 2003.

The best rule of politics is this: Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Is the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq perfect? No.
Is it good? Yes.

Was Saddam Hussein's rule perfect? No.
Was it good? No.

This shouldn't be a tough call. But, shortly after the liberation, the bespoke apologists for the Middle East's thug regimes and the more depraved "peace activists" in Europe set themselves a tall order - to prove that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam. At first, they confined this proposition to matters such as drinking water.

When some of us pointed out that the potable water supply in Iraq is now double what it was pre-war, or that health care funding is 25 times larger than it was a year ago, Europe's Saddamite cheerleaders gave up this line of attack. It was always rather boring and technocratic, anyway. So now they've got right down to basics - not potable water but "torture." Why, Bush is torturing just as many Iraqis as Saddam did!

The Shia and Kurds know better than to go along with this. No doubt the average American network anchor or New York Times columnist wouldn't want to be led around naked with Victoria's Secret knickers on their heads by some freaky West Virginia slut [you might be surprised].

But I'll bet they'd take it any day over being thrown off a four-story building or having their fingers cut off one by one or being castrated without anaesthetic or being beheaded while the men around you sing "Happy birthday, Saddam." Video and photographic material exists of all the above being performed on Arabs and Kurds.

Readers may recall that last year I wrote about a Canadian female journalist questioned to death by the Iranians. Some British businessmen were brutally tortured by the Saudis. Bad luck, old man. But nobody's fired because nobody cares. By comparison, post-Saddam Iraq is a novelty - an Arab country where state torture is investigated and its perpetrators punished.

But let's go to the next stage. What do the "Bush's boast rings hollow" crowd want for Iraq?

Usually, they want the UN to take over.

Is the UN perfect? No.
Is the UN good? Well, I'm not sure I'd even say that.

But if you object to what's going on in those Abu Ghraib pictures - the sexual humiliation of prisoners and their conscription as a vast army of extras in their guards' porno fantasies - then you might want to think twice about handing over Iraq to the UN.

In Eritrea, the government recently accused the UN mission of, among other offences, pedophilia.

In Cambodia, UN troops fueled an explosion of child prostitutes and AIDS.

Amnesty International reports that the UN mission in Kosovo has presided over a massive expansion of the sex trade, with girls as young as 11 being lured from Moldova and Bulgaria to service international peacekeepers.

In Bosnia, where the sex-slave trade barely existed before the UN showed up in 1995, there are now hundreds of brothels with underage girls living as captives.

The 2002 Save the Children report on the UN's cover-up of the sex-for-food scandal in West Africa provides grim details of peacekeepers' demanding sexual favors from children as young as four in exchange for biscuits and cake powder.

"What is particularly shocking and appalling is that those people who ought to be there protecting the local population have actually become perpetrators," said Steve Crawshaw, the director of Human Rights Watch.

By now you're maybe thinking,

"Hmm. I must have been on holiday the week the papers ran all those stories about 'The Shaming of the UN.'"

In the last few days, The Daily Mirror has had to concede that their pictures of members of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment committing atrocities are all fakes.

The Boston Globe has admitted that their pictures of US troops sexually abusing Iraqi women are also phony.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has apologized for claiming that Israel was implicated in the events at Abu Ghraib.

Why would these big-media fact-checked-to-death news operations get suckered so easily?

Because, to the great herd of independent minds, these stories conform to their general view that all the ills of the world can be laid at the door of Bush, Blair, and Sharon.

Are the media perfect? No.
Are the media good? After these last two weeks, I think I'll pass on that one.

[i]Mark Steyn is senior contributing editor for Hollinger Inc.[/i]

This is war, everybody-- STOP THE MORAL EQUIVALENCE

05.19.04 (8:29 pm)   [edit]
[b]Stop the Moral Equivalence
Suicide-bombing and hostage-taking vs. democracy[/b]
BY GARRY KASPAROV
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

It is said that to win a battle you must be the one to choose the battleground. Since the Abu Ghraib abuses were revealed, the battleground has been chosen by those who would blur the lines between terrorists and those fighting against them. The Bush administration has contributed to the confusion with its ambiguous "war on terror." You cannot fight a word. You need targets, you need to know what you are fighting for and against. Most importantly you must have beliefs that enable you to distinguish friend from foe.

While al Qaeda may not have a headquarters to bomb, there is no shortage of visible adversaries. What is required is to name them and to take action against them. [b]We must also drag into the light those leaders and media who fail to condemn acts of terror. It is not only Al Jazeera talking about "insurgents" in Iraq, it is CNN. Many in Europe and even some in the U.S. are trying to differentiate "legitimate" terrorism from "bad" terrorism. [/b]Those who intentionally kill innocent civilians are terrorists, as are their sponsors. [b]No political agenda should be allowed to advance through terrorist activity. We need to identify our enemy, not play with words.[/b]

The situation is worse in the Muslim world. Calling the terrorists "militants" or "radical Islamists" presupposes the existence of moderates willing to confront the radicals. Outside of Turkey, it is very hard to find moderate clerics who will stand up to Islamist terrorists, even though the majority of their victims are Muslim. In Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr has been murdering his religious opposition and using armed gangs to establish political rule. He appears immune to anything resembling condemnation. We know that his militia receives outside support--and where would it come from other than Syria and Iran?

We have seen 25 years of anti-Western propaganda and hatred emanating from Iran, not only against Israel and the U.S. but against the liberal values that make up the core of our civilization. The effect has been to so polarize the Muslim world that we are left with two unappealing groups. On one side you have those who rally support by exhortation against a common foe: America and Israel. We may call this the Arafat model. By appearing to be the only viable leader in Palestine he has received billions of dollars from the European Union to prop up his corrupt organization and to fund terrorism. Hijacking, suicide bombings, hostage-taking--this "Palestinian know-how" has been exported throughout the region.

Leaders of this type focus the energy of an impoverished people into fighting a sworn enemy. They realize that the free circulation of liberal ideas would threaten their hold on power. With modern methods of communication it is impossible to build a new Iron Curtain, so they convince their people that they are engaged in a war against the very source of these democratic ideals. Arafat has done this successfully for decades.

On the other side of this dual model we have dictators who present themselves as the last bastion against religious extremists. Gen. Musharraf in Pakistan and the Saudi royal family are supported by the U.S. and given free reign to limit human rights because they are considered the lesser evil. Yet the more favor they have with the U.S., the more they are hated at home, empowering the extremist opposition. Everyone gets what they want in the short run but it is a recipe for inevitable meltdown.

[b]U.S. success in Iraq is essential in order to provide an alternative model. Unlike Vietnam, there will be repercussions for global security if America does not finish the job. This is the big picture that must stay in focus. We are dealing with an enemy who considers the concessions and privileges of democracy to be weaknesses. To prove them wrong we must follow through.[/b]

The Islamic public-relations offensive is focused on proving that the West is corrupt and offers no improvement on the despots in charge throughout the Islamic world. At the same time, Al Jazeera isn't examining Vladimir Putin's war against Muslims in Chechnya. [b]All of Chechnya is one big Abu Ghraib, but the Islamic world pays scant attention to the horrible crimes there because Mr. Putin shares their distaste for liberal democracy. The war is not about defending Muslims; it is about Western civilization and America as its representative.[/b]

Meanwhile, [b]Iran continues to pursue a nuclear arsenal and the U.N. Secretariat, France and Russia are busily covering up their involvement in the Oil-for-Food scandal. If we are to impress the superiority of the democratic model upon the Muslim world we must thoroughly investigate any and all allegations of abuse and clean up our act. This goes for plush U.N. offices as well as Iraqi prison cells.[/b]

It is a mistake to see the debate on how to deal with terrorism along antiquated political lines. Partisan politics have played a role, but for the most part the battle to do what is necessary to win this war has freely crossed traditional party boundaries. One's beliefs about tax policy and social benefits have little to do with how to deal with the terrorist threat being generated in the Islamic world.

Every era dictates its own political divisions. In 19th century Great Britain, the political fight centered on the Corn Laws, reform bills and home rule for Ireland. Many of the old splits have vanished in Europe but this new divide is both wider and more vital. Jacques Chirac on the right is against intervention while Labour's Tony Blair is for it. The consequences of Jos� Lu�s Rodr�guez Zapatero caving in after the Madrid attack have yet to be felt, but I have no doubt that we will be facing more attacks in Europe based on the terrorists' reading of the weakness of European leaders.

In this fight the enemy does not play by our rules, or by any rules at all. [b]WMD will be in terrorist hands eventually; conventional wisdom recognizes this reality. Concessions and negotiations at best only delay catastrophe. Europe and its people are in this war whether they acknowledge it or not. Those who would appease terrorists must realize that by pretending that this battle does not exist, they will soon have blood on their hands--both real and metaphorical.[/b]

Mr. Kasparov, the world's leading chess player, is chairman of the Free Choice 2008 Committee in Russia.

So we find Sarin gas in Iraq, but they don't care/blame Bush

05.18.04 (8:09 pm)   [edit]
The test of the mortar shell found in Iraq recently came back positive for Sarin gas, which is yet even more proof that Iraq had not dismantled its WMD and verified it to the UN, which is the entire reason the US went to war (we were afraid Hussein would give WMD components to terrorists), but in the clearest proof yet that the left simply doesn't care about our success in Iraq but only cares about Bush's head on a platter, the left either says that it is irrelevant or that it merely proves that Bush's war is the Vietnam-style quagmire they were praying for.

Quite a few media outlets let it be known that this shell was probably a holdover from the late 1980s and early 1990s. Of course, if you care to go back in time, the weapons Hussein was supposed to destroy (in 1991) were all from that time frame. Anyway, what does it matter how old the weapons are? Hussein was supposed to destroy them all.

But we're not done yet, because the left really shows their mettle by counter-arguing that, yes, this is the banned WMD that Hussein was supposed to dismantle, BUT THE FACT THAT THEY STILL EXIST SHOWS THE INCOMPETENCE OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

This last argument really floors me, because it was the UN, over a 12 freakin' year period (most of it under President Clinton) that couldn't find these shells and components, and now we expect soldiers to find them all, in just over a year, while taking fire from insurgents and terrorists?

But, the left would say, this is our point-- Iraq is more dangerous now than it was under Hussein. The US has done a horrible job of managing the country. But, see, this too flies in the face of left-wing criticism, that the US SHOULDN'T be occupiers, and that we SHOULD give the country back to Iraq ASAP. And never mind that the ultimate success of Iraq won't be up to the US, it will be up to the liberated Iraqis. As it is with all peoples that find their freedom.

So the left is trying to spin this sarin find as a fault of Bush, completely disregarding its favorite argument of No WMD FOUND! (BUSH LIED!!!!!). They are trying desperately to create such distrust and hate for Bush that John Kerry will look good. That is indeed a tall order.

Meanwhile, most Iraqis are worried that the US isn't going to finish the job. They are grateful to the US and Iraq for taking care of Hussein, but they fear that Bush will lose the political will to stay the course. Naturally, if the left succeeds and Bush pulls out, they'll then be blaming Bush for not "doing it right", for "cutting and running".

Let's be honest. The left doesn't care about America, doesn't care about Iraqis, doesn't care about the war on terror, has forgotten 9-11, and couldn't care less about the rule of law. For if they cared about the US, they'd do more than just bash Bush (and they'd support our troops). If they cared about the war on terror, they'd be helping Bush try to win it in a bipartisan manner. If they remembered 9-11, they wouldn't be politicizing it with slurs against the Bush and apologies for Clinton. And if they cared about the rule of law they wouldn't be packing courts with judges of their own ideology who refuse to interpret the laws of the people and in turn will their own.

Thanks to the left, Bush is showing signs that he has lost focus in Iraq and war on terror

05.18.04 (2:26 am)   [edit]
[b]Now's Not the Time for Bush to Go Soft [/b]
By Mark Steyn
Chicago Sun-Times | May 18, 2004

In his column last week, Robert Novak talked to a big bunch of Beltway insiders about Donald Rumsfeld's future, or his lack thereof. Among my colleague's sources was ''one senior official of a coalition partner,'' who, apropos the Defense secretary, put it this way: ''There must be a neck cut, and there is only one neck of choice.''

Lovely line.

Unknown to the big shot diplomat, 'round about that exact moment halfway across the world, Nick Berg's captors were cutting his head off -- or, to be more precise, feverishly hacking it off while raving ''God is great!''

So Bob Novak's ''senior official'' -- some languid upper-class Brit? a cynical Continental? -- usefully reminds us of the difference between the participants in this war. On one side, references to decapitation are purely metaphorical; on the other, they mean it.

One way to measure the softness of a society is to look at how hitherto robust language becomes drained of all literal meaning. Take Novak's own CNN show ''Crossfire,'' and a testy exchange on the subject from Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign. Contemplating Pat Buchanan's experience as a TV host, Dole muttered, ''I was in the real crossfire. It wasn't on television. It was over in Italy somewhere, a long time ago.''

Just so. Back before 9/11, real crossfire was long ago and far away. Not anymore. And that's the problem: We still have a ''Crossfire'' culture in an age of real crossfire. We have the ersatz warriors, the ham actors of Washington -- Senators Kennedy, Levin, Leahy, Harkin and others too fond of seeing their names in print to mention -- ''calling for Rumsfeld's head'' at a time when America's enemies have already got Nick Berg's, and they're swinging it around on camera for the snuff video they'll be distributing as a recruiting tool.

The American people, no thanks to their media, still understand what's real and what's just cheesy Beltway dinner-theater. That's why the Abu Ghraib scandal is dead, even if the networks don't yet know it. It was dead before Nick Berg. It died because the Democrats and their media groupies overplayed their hand, as usual, and so turned a real scandal into just another fake scandal for senatorial windbags to huff and puff over. In the last few days, the Mirror, a raucous Fleet Street tabloid, has published pictures of British troops urinating on Iraqi prisoners, and the Boston Globe, a somnolent New England broadsheet, has published pictures of American troops sexually abusing Iraqi women. In both cases, the pictures turned out to be fake. From a cursory glance at the details in the London snaps and the provenance of the Boston ones, it should have been obvious to editors at both papers that they were almost certainly false.

Yet they published them. Because they wanted them to be true. Because it would bring them a little closer to the head they really want to roll -- George W. Bush's. If you want to see what the Islamists did to Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl or to those guys in Fallujah or even to the victims of Sept. 11, you'll have to ferret it out on the Internet. The media aren't interested in showing you images that might rouse the American people to righteous anger, only images that will shame and demoralize them.

Goh Chok Tong, the prime minister of Singapore, was in Washington the other day and summed it up very well: ''The key issue is no longer WMD or even the role of the U.N. The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail.'' In Britain, they used to say that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton -- i.e., it was thanks to the fierce resolve inculcated by an English education. The war on terror will be lost in the talking shops of Washington -- i.e., it will be thanks to the lack of resolve inculcated by excessive exposure to blow-dried pundits and Senate hearings. The war now has two fronts. In Iraq, the glass is half-full. In Washington, it's half-empty, and draining fast.

The administration, in trying to see its way through both the phony crossfire and the real one, has been rattled by the fake war. Someone in the White House needs seriously to stiffen the Bush rhetoric. When the president talks about ''staying the course'' and ''bringing to justice'' the killers, he sounds like Bill Clinton, who pledged to stay the course in Somalia and bring to justice the terrorists, and did neither. Bush has to go back to speaking Rumsfeldian, not Powellite: He has to talk about winning total victory, hunting down the enemy and killing them.

He also needs to promise himself that he'll never again apologize to some Arab despot -- even relatively benign ones, like the king of Jordan -- for events in Iraq. If he feels the need to apologize, he should apologize to the American people for apologizing to the Arab world. This isn't just because what went on in Abu Ghraib is a picnic -- well, a Paris Hilton video picnic -- compared to what goes on every day in the prisons of our Arab ''allies.'' More important than that, the Bush apology buys into one of the most fetid props of the region's so-called stability -- ''pan-Arabism.'' If U.S. troops ''humiliated'' some Portuguese prisoners, the president wouldn't apologize to the king of Norway or the prime minister of Slovenia. So why, when U.S. troops humiliate Iraqi prisoners, would he apologize to Jordan's King Abdullah or Egypt's thug-for-life? ''Pan-Arabism'' is one reason why the region's a sewer. If Iraq succeeds, it will be by breaking with regional solidarity.

By the way, you might be wondering by now where the great procession of Arab leaders lining up to apologize to America for Nick Berg's murder has gotten to. Only a few Middle Eastern men want to saw the heads of Jews and infidels. But an awful lot more -- the majority in some states -- are either noisily approving or silently accepting of such an act. Winston Churchill wrote of two ''curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries'' -- not only the ''fanatical frenzy,'' which you can see in the orgiastic pleasure Berg's killers take in their clumsy work, but also the ''fearful fatalistic apathy,'' to which many more Arabs are prone. It's the latter that makes them such easy waters for the sharks to swim among.

We always come back to that strong horse/weak horse thing. But the point to remember is that Osama bin Laden talked about who was seen as the strong horse: It's a perception issue. America may be, technically, the strong horse but, thanks to its press and its political class, the administration is showing dangerous signs of climbing into the rear end of the weak-horse burlesque suit. If America retreats into its own fatalistic apathy, there will be many more Nick Bergs in the years ahead.

Mark Steyn is senior contributing editor for Hollinger Inc.

India may have solved the outsourcing problem for us

05.18.04 (2:23 am)   [edit]
[b]India may have solved the oursourcing issue for us[/b]
Bruce Bartlett
May 18, 2004

The great outsourcing controversy is now over. All you information technology workers who like to suggest that my job should be outsourced whenever I write on this topic can now put away your poison pens. In elections last week, the voters of India fixed the problem by turning their country away from liberalism and back toward statism. Should India's new leaders follow through on their campaign promises, there will be a lot fewer businesses there doing outsourcing or anything else.

For 100 years, India was the crown jewel of the British Empire. The nation's best and brightest were often sent to British universities like Oxford, returning to India as public servants. By 1947, when India was granted independence, it probably had the best-trained bureaucracy in the Third World.

Two problems arose from this. First, many of India's bureaucrats had picked up ideas about socialism while studying in Britain. In the 1930s and 1940s, it was just about impossible to hear anything good said about the free market at a British university. This eventually led Britain itself to adopt socialism after World War II and India's leaders were quick to follow its lead, nationalizing industry, adopting 5-year plans and all the rest of the socialist dogma of the day.

Second, India's superb bureaucracy seemed to make socialism work. The widespread failures of socialism in other newly independent colonies was often blamed on undertrained and unskilled bureaucrats that lacked the expertise to implement national economic planning. To the extent that this was true, India had a leg up. As a consequence, socialism seemed to work there for a while.

Of course, the problems inherent in socialist planning go far beyond what even the best, most well intentioned bureaucrats can overcome. As a consequence, Indian industry became increasingly uncompetitive, requiring higher levels of trade protection to keep it afloat. Although the economy grew, this was mainly due to the rising population. On a per capita basis, growth was much slower--too slow to make a dent in India's massive poverty. Only technological advances imported from elsewhere allowed agricultural production to increase enough to avoid starvation. The nation's entrepreneurs and professionals frequently emigrated to places where their skills earned a better reward.

In the 1980s, India's leaders began to open up the economy just a bit. But major reforms were not instituted until 1991, in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse. Industrial controls were dismantled, trade protection was reduced and foreign investment welcomed for the first time. Previously, India had discouraged foreign capital, believing that foreign aid was preferable. But all foreign aid did was paper over the inherent failure of planning, which allowed the country to put off liberalization for decades.

Opening the Indian economy led to a very rapid increase in trade, from 15 percent of the gross domestic product to 30 percent by 2002. Although the reduction in tariffs from 128 percent to 30 percent also led to a sharp increase in imports, exports increased even more. This proves an important point always lost on protectionists. Import barriers lead to a reduction in exports as well as imports. Thus they often make the trade balance worse, rather than better.

Basic trade theory says that nations will tend to export whatever they have a lot of. In India's case, it obviously has a lot of labor. Moreover, its legacy as a former British colony means that many of its workers are well educated and speak English fluently. This naturally led to the establishment of many businesses providing labor-intensive high tech services, such as keying in vast amounts of data. Also, India benefited from having many successful nationals living in Europe and America, who knew how to exploit its advantages once given the opportunity.

Growth of the outsourcing industry led to growth of a true middle class in India. Although wages are still much lower there than here, the gap is closing fast. IT workers in India have seen their wages rise 15 percent per year, which is quickly eroding their cost advantage. As a result, outsourcing companies are working harder to compete on quality and are even establishing subsidiaries in foreign countries as Indian wages become less competitive.

The Hindu nationalist party, which had been in power since 1998, strongly supported India's high-tech industry. But last week, it was thrown out of office by the left-wing Congress Party, which ruled India during the heyday of socialism in the 1950s and 1960s. It capitalized on resentment by the poor against the growing middle class. The Congress Party promised to slow reform and redistribute income. Fearing the worst, the Indian stock market has fallen sharply since the election.

Thus India's voters may unwittingly have solved the outsourcing problem here in a way that America's protectionists never could.

Bruce Bartlett is a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a Townhall.com member group.

©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

FEMINIST DREAM OF MILITARY EQUALITY BECOMES NIGHTMARE IN IRAQ

05.17.04 (6:42 pm)   [edit]
[b]Feminist dream of military equality becomes nightmare in Iraq [/b]
Townhall.com| 5/17/04 | Phyllis Schlafly

The picture of female U.S. Army Pfc. Lynndie R. England holding a leash and collar around the neck of a prone and naked Iraqi male prisoner, like a dog, is a worldwide public relations disaster.

Just as humiliating for Americans is allowing the world see the depths reached by a gender-integrated U.S. military.

A second picture shows another female GI enjoying the sexual humiliation of naked, hooded Iraqi prisoners piled in a pyramid. [b]Of course, our soldiers should not have committed such abuse, [i]but where was the adult supervision, and why were female GIs assigned to guard male prisoners anyway? [/i][/b]

[b]The pictures are stark illustrations of the gender experimentation that has been going on in the U.S. military.[/b] The images have lifted the curtain on a subject about which the public has largely been kept in the dark.

When he was still in office, Former President William Jefferson Clinton made clear his contempt for our military, but the Clintonista feminazis were more focused in their disdain. They were determined to give us a gender-neutral military or, as one of their representatives said, an "un-gendered" military.

That goal means masculinizing women and feminizing men. Our soldiers are even put through prisoner-of-war desensitization training exercises to help them emotionally accept the mistreatment of women by the enemy.

The pictures show that some women have become mighty mean, but feminists can't erase eternal differences. Feminists distanced themselves from their erstwhile heroine Army Spc. Jessica Lynch after her ghost writer revealed she had been sexually assaulted and told Diane Sawyer, "People need to know ... how they treat the female soldiers that are over there."

[b]Clinton-era feminists eliminated the Defense Department's "risk rule" that had previously kept women out of areas where they had "a substantial risk of capture," a regulation change that was directly responsible for the capture by the Iraqis of Lynch and Army Spc. Shoshana Johnson near the southern Iraq city of Nasiriyah.[/b] Another woman, Army Spc. Lori Piestewa, who served in the 507th Maintenance Company along with Lynch and Johnson, was one of nine soldiers killed in the same attack.

The Clinton feminists persistently pushed women into more and more near-combat and combat-related jobs. As a result, 18 U.S. servicewomen have been killed in Iraq and three more have died in Afghanistan.

[b]Adopting coed basic training for all the services except the Marines lowered the standards to the physical capabilities of women. This was often disguised by gender-norming, the deceitful practice of scoring women higher than men for the same performance and then pretending that women are performing equally. [/b]

Something much more insidious and destructive to our military and our culture has also been going on. [b]Clinton's famous "don't ask don't tell" regulations do not merely mean tolerance of gays in the military; they also mean that commanders' eyes are averted from all kinds of sexual misconduct and even fraternization, or sex between soldiers of different ranks. [/b]

[b]The result is a breakdown of military discipline and a dramatic coarsening of women and of men's treatment of women.[/b] This has caused a critical diversion of time and energy away from the essential task of teaching men to be soldiers and into dealing with the problems caused by the powerful factor of sex when [b]lonely, scared young men and women are crowded together in an environment where [u]moral standards have been abandoned. [/b][/u]

The current high percentage of women in the military has been achieved by gender quotas in recruitment and retention, and by affirmative action to promote women to higher ranks so they can command men. Nobody admits the existence of gender quotas, but everybody knows they explain why we have a 15 percent female military.

[b]Social experimentation in the military includes generous subsidies to induce single mothers to enter and remain in the military. That's why we have had the shameful incidents of single mothers of infants being killed or taken prisoner, a byproduct of the Iraqi war that the feminists describe as equal opportunity for women. [/b]

Affirmative action for women in the military is a longtime feminist goal. It was even urged during in the 1970s by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her book "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," in which she also called for the sex integration of prisons.

In a fitting turn of fate, the officer in charge of the military police at the Abu Ghraib prison was a woman, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski. Now back from Iraq, Karpinski has been riding the talk show circuit to disclaim knowledge and responsibility for the abuse of prisoners.

[b]I suspect that the picture of the woman soldier with a noose around the Iraqi man's neck will soon show up on the bulletin boards of women's studies centers and feminist college professors. That picture is the radical feminists' ultimate fantasy of how they dream of treating men. Less radical feminists will quietly cheer the picture as showing career-opportunity proof that women can be just as tough as men in dealing with the enemy.[/b]

"Reproductive rights"

05.17.04 (6:14 pm)   [edit]
"REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS"
Mark Steyn
National Review
05-10-04

A decade ago, Elizabeth Taylor was going from one celebrity Aids rally to another urging us to make sure we “use a condom each and every time you make love”. Every time, Liz? Apparently so, until one day mankind is extinct and giant condoms roam the earth, bouncing across the ruins of our civilization like playful prophylactics in animated Scandinavian health-ministry announcements.

The spirit of Liz lurked just below the surface at Washington’s Million Abortionist March or whatever it was called. For people who talked endlessly about “reproductive rights”, they seemed remarkably indifferent, if not downright hostile, to exercising them.

I concede that I’m anti-abortion. If I were pro-abortion, I’d probably sound like Teresa Heinz Kerry, who told Newsweek that the act involves “stopping the process of life” but that “I ask myself if I had a 13-year-old daughter who got drunk one night and got pregnant, what would I do?” If I had to go a bit further, I might even sign on to her husband’s line (“safe, legal, rare”, blah, blah, nuanced boilerplate, zzzzzzz).

But, if I can just about conceive (if you’ll forgive the expression) the leap from my position to Teresa’s and from Teresa’s to Senator Flippy’s , I can’t imagine how you’d get from Senator Flippy’s to the bulk of the sentiments on display at the big march itself. Whoopi Goldberg brandishing coat hangars. Surly women stomping about with “Keep Your Bush Off My Bush” placards. The decay of a fluffy soft-focus euphemism into just another crude insult: “If Only Barbara Bush Had Choice.” The freaky, barely grasped meaning of all those speakers’ regrets that their own mothers never enjoyed the freedoms they have: as Maxine Waters put it, “I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion.” The casual dismissal of half the human race: “The Opinions Of Those With Nothing At Stake Are Worth Little.” “If Men Got Pregnant, They’d Make Abortion A Sacrament.”

Actually, it’s the sisterhood who’ve made abortion the sacrament for a brave new religion of the self. Had Teresa Heinz Kerry stood up and read out her Newsweek quotes, she’d have been booed: no-one on the Mall wanted to hear about the agonized parents of distraught adolescents helping them to the soi-disant “difficult personal decision”. Abortion isn’t difficult or agonizing, but something to be celebrated, the central freedom of a modern woman’s identity.

Before the century is out, the left will come to regret the conflation of feminism and abortion.

When a young lady demands that our Bush be kept off her bush, she’s referring to political interference in a “woman’s right to choose”. In fact, it’s the abortion absolutists who insist on political intervention. Abortion has to be legislated uniformly, coast to coast – and beyond: half the complaints about Bush’s “war on women” revolve around his disinclination to spend taxpayers’ dollars promoting abortion overseas. Which begs the question: leaving aside the moral questions, what is the state’s interest in abortion?

The answer to that is obvious: The most urgent problem facing the western world right now is the big lack of babies. On the Continent, abortion is part of the settled political consensus and its persistence as an issue over here is seen as further evidence – along with guns, capital punishment and functioning militaries – of American backwardness. The result is collapsed birthrates in Mediterranean countries of around 1.1, 1.2 children per couple – that’s to say, about half of what’s called “replacement rate”. Why be surprised that Spanish voters don’t have the stomach for war? To fight for king and country is to fight for the future, for your nation, for its children. But Spain has no children, and thus no future. What’s to fight for?

Even if you subscribe to the premise of Roe vs Wade - that abortion is a privacy issue – society as a whole has no interest in elevating a “woman’s right to choose” to state policy. The government’s interest lies in increasing birthrates, to avoid the death spiral of post-Catholic Italy. If any Democrat understands that, she or he is in no hurry to speak up.

Which leads to the next question: Who will be the first victims of the west’s collapsed birthrates? In Europe, the only country still exercising its “reproductive rights” at replacement rate is Muslim Albania. The rest of the continent is dependent on immigration mainly from North Africa and the Middle East. In other words, by exercising a “woman’s right to choose” to the present unprecedented degree, western women are delivering their societies into the hands of fellows far more patriarchal than a 1950s sitcom dad. If any of those women at that Washington march still have babies, they might like to ponder demographic realities: a little girl born today will be unlikely, at the age of 40, to be free to prance around demonstrations in Eurabian Paris or Rome chanting “Hands off my bush!”

By then, Gloria Steinem will be 110, and no doubt still looking incredibly hot, but even she will be sadder and wiser. The hyper-rationalism of radical individualism isn’t, in the end, rational at all. You’ll recall that during the Iraq war, we heard a lot of talk about ancient Mesopotamia – the land of the Sumerians, Akkadians and Hittites - being “the cradle of civilization”. That’s the point. Without a cradle, it’s hard to sustain a civilization.

National Review, May 10th 2004

A victory for judicial tyranny and the shredding of our constitution-- gay marriage arrives in Mass.

05.17.04 (3:34 pm)   [edit]
Here's the news story-- http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailyn...*http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...

But I must note: the article states that the [i]state[/i] granted gays the right to marry, when it was the Supreme Court of Massachusetts that created its own law allowing gay marriage. They rewrote the old Massachusetts law, and basically told the legislature that the separation of powers did not exist- -that his unelected, unaccountable body has the right to overrule the will of the people.

This is the way it [i]should[/i] work in the United States:

The state has certain powers the federal government doesn't (see: Bill of Rights).

The state can make laws through its duly elected representatives. A law can be interpreted as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of that state, and be struck down, but it cannot be rewritten by the judicial branch. Since it does not represent the people, the judicial branches of states and the federal government are not supposed to re-write laws, write laws, or invent "rights".

What in God's name do you think this country was founded on?

Since the left-wing knows that the people (i.e. the legislature) think that gay marriage (along with almost everything else the left wing believes in) is wrong, they have gotten their agendas passed by packing liberal judicial activists on state and federal courts who proceed to violate all state and federal laws to rule by fiat.

In short the ruling class has moved from the legislature to the judiciary.

Thank you, left-wing. Your destruction of America continues to proceed as planned.

If gays want the same legal recognitions as traditional marriage, they have to go through the same machinations to get to it-- they have to follow the rules. This is the point behind Bush's drive to have a federal amendment protecting marriage but allowing for "Civil Unions"-- the people's power has been usurped by the left-wing judiciary.

Remember what I always say-- the left does whatever it takes to gain power and supremacy. They care nothing about the law, they care less about the people. The only morals the recognize are those that advance their sick, immoral, agendas.

2 good articles--

Jeff Jacoby. "The End of the Gay Marriage Debate?" -- http://www.boston.com/news/gl...

William C. Duncan, "Today Massachusetts, Tomorrow? Branch Breakdown in the Bay State"-- http://www.nationalreview.com...

The New Yorker report on Abu Ghraib, DoD denials, and reporter Hersh's credibility

05.17.04 (3:08 pm)   [edit]
A report in The New Yorker by Seymour Hersh sheds new light on Abu Ghraib-- Hersh makes serious accusations. Let's look at them a little.

In his New Yorker article, Hersh alleges that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, along with Condi Rice, approved of a clandestine DoD-CIA program called “Copper Green” to crack down on terrorists held at Abu Ghraib, where abuses occured.

(Note that these are terrorists that were the subject of harsher treatment)

A former “unnamed” intelligence official claims that the unit's mission was to "Grab whom you must. Do what you want." Hersh says that the operation got so “out of control” at Abu Ghraib, that the CIA backed out of it.

Hersh banks on his own credibility for his report. "I understand this is going to be the kind of response. ... I leaned over backwards to make sure in my own reporting. I met multiple sources. There was a lot of basis for this....It will come out eventually."

“When things began to go very bad in Iraq," Hersh says, the United States "brought in elements of this special unit into Baghdad.” Their instructions? "Get people -- go and grab some of the Sunni males, use coercion and also use sexual intimidation if you have to."

Hersh has also said that the ball is in Congress' court.

What does the DoD say? Well, if these explosive charges are true, equally explosive is the DoD's flat-out denial of the allegations.

Calling Hersh "one of history's great conspiracy theorists”, Lawrence de Rita, Pentagon Spokesman for Rumsfeld, said that such clandestine units did not exist, that one of the few named DoD sources used by Hersh wouldn't have any knowledge of such a program anyway, and that there never was any joint CIA-DoD program called “Copper Green”.

Seymour Hersh has won a lot of awards, including a Pulitizer, but he has also been accused of fudging facts and, well , muckracking. This is a guy who said of himself, "If the standard for being fired was being wrong on a story, I would have been fired long ago."

According to a National Review analysis, the story with a Hersh story is routine. Hersh writes something explosive, and then the complaints “pour in”. Sources say they weren't quoted correctly, he takes material out of context, and ignores facts that don't agree with the points he wants to make. Quoting Vanity Fair, NR reports: 'A. M. Rosenthal, the former executive editor of the New York Times (where Hersh worked in the 1970s), once heard him "practically blackmailing" a person he was supposed to be interviewing.”'

It is also nearly impossible to tell if Hersh is telling the truth because of his liberal helpings of anonymous sources (Jayson Blair, anyone?).

As an example of Hersh's sloppy journalism, NR relates the incident where Hersh wrote a smear book on JFK based on “official” JFK documents which later turned out to be fake (among other inconsistencies, the documents had zip codes on them, even though zip codes didn't exist during JFK's time). Even after proven wrong, Hersh defended the documents as legit.

Hersh's source for the forgeries, Lawrence X. Cusack, is now in prison, but at his trial, according to NR, Hersh gave some interesting testimony:

"Here is where I absolutely misstated things," testified Hersh during Cusack's trial. Assistant U.S. attorney Paul A. Engelmayer accused Hersh of playing "a little fast and loose with the facts."

In a column today, Joel Mowbray wonders why Hersh needs to use so many anonymous sources, especially from former administration officials:

“Current officials deserve the cloak of anonymity, particularly when revealing information the public has a right to know and the act itself could cost the person’s job. But what is the rationale for keeping nameless all the “former” officials? There are no jobs on the line, and “former” officials are routinely quoted on the record in most outlets. Does Hersh think this adds a layer of intrigue if names aren’t there to clutter up a good story?
Most important, how can others judge the credibility of nameless individuals who could be doing nothing more than settling old scores?”

Recently, Hersh has shown himself to be an incompentent and biased journalist regarding the War on Terror.
According to Mowbray:

“In November 2001, Hersh penned a New Yorker piece that portrayed a Pentagon mission to strike Mullah Omar in Afghanistan as a “near-disaster,” completely contrary to the official line. An excellent Slate article http://slate.msn.com/?id=2058... by former Naval intelligence officer Scott Shuger found multiple flaws in Hersh’s reporting.”

“The mission was initiated by sixteen AC-130 gunships, which poured thousands of rounds into the surrounding area but deliberately left the Mullah’s house unscathed.”
There almost certainly could not have been 16 AC-130 gunships in one battle; the military has a worldwide total fleet of 21.”

Hersh wrote an article in November 2001 opining that the US operation in Afghanistan was a blunder. One month later, the Taliban toppled. He wrote a similar article in April 2003 lambasting US ground forces in Iraq. A week and a half later, the Hussein regime toppled.

Perhaps it's a little too early to call Hersh correct in his “Copper Green” Abu Ghraib New Yorker article.

Noteworthy: Hersh was also wrong on his initial reports about Abu Ghraib. He said 60% of the detainness at Abu Ghraib were innocent. Not true. He misstates the facts. Check it out here-- http://www.powerlineblog.com/...

Lefties hand terrorists victories in their unjustified attacks on Prez

05.17.04 (3:05 pm)   [edit]
[b]Liberals Hand Terrorists A Victory[/b]

By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 17, 2004

Our Islamic terrorist enemies have won several big victories in recent weeks in Iraq, thanks in no small part to the "liberal" wolf-pack and its leader John Kerry who have done their best to turn every American failure into an atrocity that discredits our cause. General Ricardo Sanchez signalled the American retreat on Friday by issuing new guidelines for interrogation in American prisons in Iraq. In the words of the New York Times, "the top American commander in Iraq has barred virtually all coercive interrogation practices, like forcing prisoners to crouch for long periods or depriving them of sleep." The purpose of these practices is to get information out of terrorists and jihadists that will save American and Iraqi lives. But no matter, these are less important objectives it seems than appeasing the outcries of those who don't want us to fight this war in the first place.

Of course insufferably self-righteous liberals will take no responsibility for the fact that they have worked relentlessly since the liberation of Baghdad to cripple our efforts in the war. Attacking the cost of the war, the fact that there is a war, the credibility of the commander-in-chief, and so forth. Invoking Vietnam, they have in fact divided America's home front on a scale approaching that of the Vietnam War, a division that forced our defeat. Of course they pretend to do this now (as they did then) out of patriotic zeal. They claim that because we are Americans we have to live by a higher standard, which to them means that we have to denounce ourselves in terms appropriate to regimes like Saddam Hussein's. Senator Kennedy has even described us as having "re-opened Saddam's prisons."

Well of course we have to live by a higher standard than the barbarians we are fighting (not to mention those Middle Eastern tyrannies who are criticizing us). And we obviously do. And that's why we don't need 35 investigations, a howling media, and a hysterical political opposition to take care of this mess. In fact, we were taking care of it quietly and effectively months before the media savages at "60 Minutes" blew the whistle on us to make a buck. (Or have I missed some higher purpose here?)

If we lived in a country like Saddam's Iraq, or Arafat's West Bank, or Assad's Syria, then this noise would be justified. Because these were and are monstrous regimes that have no respect for human life. As it happens we don't. We live in a country that sets the standard for the rest of the world. The purpose of the outcry then is not to get the Bush Administration to take care of an incident that involved one prison -- actually one section of one prison and a few idiots. Its purpose is to tar and feather the Bush Administration and the American cause in Iraq. And it has succeed.

Every frontal attack on the Bush Administration and the war on terror encourages our enemies and makes defeating them that much harder. Do liberals realize this? Of course they do? But they have self-exculpating logic that absolves them of responsibility for America's defeats. Do you wonder why no liberal has mentioned that this is Clinton's army lately? When our Special Forces, marines and elite army divisions were conducting the swiftest and most successful military operation in history, all the anti-military Democrats, with Nancy Pelosi at their head were boasting how this was "Clinton's Army." Conservatives had complained that Clinton had gutted and demoralized the military. Obviously they were wrong. In fact, as in Afghanistan, it was only a small part of Clinton's Army, largely that part that had been insulated from the intrusions of Clinton's politically correct busybodies in the civilian command. The Marines never signed on to the gender norming (and troop demoralizing) standards that the other services did -- standards whereby women didn't have to meet the same requirements as men to achieve the same status and rank. A small elite force -- apparently too small for the task in Iraq -- achieved those victories.

Clinton's Army -- the one that allowed the disaster at Abu Ghraib -- was in fact a product of liberal hatred of the military: severely downsized, politically corrected and disrespected. Is anyone asking why under-trained reserves have been put in charge of highly sensitive and dangerous prisons? Does anyone wonder at the fact that in the center of this sexual mess is a boyfriend-girlfriend team of under-trained reservists -- hamburger flippers one week, gods of a prison block the next?

Rumsfeld's small fighting force, which obviously contributed to this policy is itself the product of thirty years of liberal attacks on the American military and on America's overseas role as a defender of freedom. Kennedy and Kerry along with their political allies have conducted a relentless campaign against America and its world role since 1971, when both led the attack on America's last ditch effort to save the people of Cambodia and Vietnam from the slaughter that awaited them with a Communist victory. Neither man is even aware of the catastrophe his advocacy produced, let alone remorseful about it.

But it is a feature of the leftist outlook to never look back and never take responsibility for anything. Jimmy Carter (backed by Kerry and Kennedy) pulled the plug on the modernizing and feminist Shah of Iran. This betrayal gave Islamic terrorists their first big victory -- control of a large and wealthy Middle Eastern state. The Iranian revolution, which was praised by the world left at the time, directly inspired Osama bin Laden and all the other Islamic radicals from Palestine to Afghanistan to begin their jihad against the West. In this case, as in others, the left is oblivious to its misdeeds. Instead it blames America for the creation of Osama bin Laden because he was one of the mujahideen we trained to repel the Soviet invasion. But what else could America have done since a Democratic Congress made sure that we could not send American troops to do the job?

On Saturday I watched General Myers try to rally our forces in Iraq in the face of a divided home front and a world full of critics of America and appeasers of Islamic terror. He told them we will win in Iraq because of their unflagging spirit and because of "the basic goodness of America" which inspires them. It occurred to me that this is really what our political battles at home are all about. They are about those among us who believe in the basic goodness of America (and therefore don't need to have a national flagellation over an incident like Abu Ghraib). And those among us who don't have this fundamental belief, and who therefore in their heart of hearts really want us to lose.

If Dems could run a Republican for president, they would

05.17.04 (3:03 pm)   [edit]
You know you're in sorry shape as a party when you tab a member of the opposition party as your "dream candidate" for Vice President. But that's not how everyone is spinning it. Nope. John Kerry, the most worthless Democratic presidential candidate we've had since McGovern, apparently thinks John McCain, a Republican would add some sort of legitimacy as his vice presidential candidate.

Kerry needs all the legitimacy he can get.

Of course, the Democrats' angle is that McCain is a "maverick" who hates Bush because of 2000 and is not afraid of criticizing the president. Plus, he served in Vietnam and was a POW. Bonus!

Now, I don't know what McCain actually thinks about all of this. I think he's a nut, personally. But he does care about this country. Which is why I highly doubt he'll become the vice presidental candidate for the Democratic party. He knows that Kerry is anti-US and anti-military, and that his election would be a disaster for the country. He may not like Bush, but he knows that Bush is still a better bet than John F'ing Kerry.

Also, I personally think Kerry is so arrogant and narrow-minded that he'll choose someone that is as absurdly left-wing as he is.

The FACTS about the rules of war and US interrogation in Iraq

05.16.04 (10:03 pm)   [edit]
[b]Geneva for Demagogues
The facts about the rules of war and U.S. interrogation in Iraq. [/b]
Monday, May 17, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
Wall Street Journal Editorial-- http://www.opinionjournal.com...

If there's a silver lining to the 24/7 coverage over Abu Ghraib, it is that [b]we are slowly learning that these abuses were in fact the fault of a few undisciplined, poorly led soldiers.[/b] The accusation that the practices were part of the "system," or resulted from Army or Pentagon rules, is also being exposed as a political slur.

On the first point, we now know the soldiers in those awful photos were derelict in many ways. Testimony is emerging that they indulged in sexual escapades and other behavior that any normal person would consider depraved. [b]According to Specialist Jeremy C. Sivits, the first of the alleged offenders to face court martial, Specialist Charles A. Garner Jr. put a sandbag over one detainee's head and "punched the detainee with a closed fist so hard in the temple" that he was knocked unconscious.[/b]

This is inhumane, and deserves to be punished if proven in court. The unit's commanders should also be held responsible for its poor morale and lack of discipline. [u][b]But as Specialist Sivits says in his sworn statement, no one ordered what is revealed in those photos: "Our command would have slammed us. They believe in doing the right thing. If they saw what was going on, there would be hell to pay."[/b][/u]

[b]This directly counters the continuing effort in Washington to portray the abuses as the inevitable result of the "climate" created by Donald Rumsfeld's Guantanamo rules.[/b] The latest such spin emerged last week with reports about the special interrogation techniques sanctioned by Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez, the Iraq theater commander. Consider this demagogic exchange between the Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman, General Peter Pace, and Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed during Thursday's hearing at the Senate Armed Services Committee:

Senator Reed: "So I pose the following question: General Pace, if you were shown a video of a United States Marine or an American citizen in the control of a foreign power, in a cell block, naked with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes, would you describe that as a good interrogation technique or a violation of the Geneva Convention?"

General Pace: "I would describe it as a violation, sir."

This--along with a similar answer from Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz--was widely broadcast as a "gotcha" moment. Mr. Reed alleged that since the scenario he described included techniques contemplated in the Sanchez guidelines, this meant the Pentagon had authorized violations of the Geneva Conventions.

But of course the two Pentagon officials had admitted no such thing--even if, amidst Mr. Reed's harangue, their answers were incomplete. [b]Let's start with the fact that nowhere did the Sanchez rules suggest that someone can be held naked.[/b] Lieutenant-General Keith Alexander had explained this to Mr. Reed as a violation of "commander's guidance" at another hearing only two days earlier, but that didn't stop the Senator from distorting his question by using the word "naked" again.

Then there's the fact that [b]while the Sanchez standards did allow short-term sensory deprivation and stress positions with the specific approval of a commanding general in every instance, there is no indication that anyone intended them to be used together. As it happens, requests to use stress positions were made only three times--and all three were denied. Only about 25 exceptional interrogation requests were made in total--all for segregation.[/b]

Mr. Reed should have his staff get him the Geneva Conventions to read. What he'd learn is that [b]the treatment in his hypothetical question would be barred because U.S. soldiers wearing the uniform would be classified as "prisoners of war." Even tempting detainees who are POWs with a candy bar to answer questions beyond name, rank and serial number violates the Third Geneva Convention. [u]As for his hypothetical "American citizen," he or she might benefit from the civilian protections of the Fourth Geneva Convention depending on circumstances.[/b][/u]

These distinctions matter, [b]because the Geneva Conventions are about more than subjective opinions of what constitutes "humane" treatment[/b]. The Conventions themselves [b]make very clear distinctions between POWs and others; [i]and it's clear that the terrorists held at Guantanamo don't meet the criteria spelled out in the Third Geneva Convention for designation as POWs.[/b][/i] Perhaps Mr. Reed's constituents would like to know that [u]under the standard he wants imposed, even al Qaeda detainees would be off-limits to all but pro forma interrogation. [/u]

A reading would also inform the Senator that--apart from Iraqi soldiers detained in uniform and certain members of Saddam Hussein's chain of command--[b][i]most Iraqi detainees are arrested as civilians and fall under the protection not of the Third Geneva Convention but of the Fourth. [/b][/i]

[b]The Fourth allows--indeed obliges--an occupying power to use its discretion within wide parameters to maintain law and order (Article 64), and contains no specific restriction on interrogation, other than saying that "protected persons" not be subjected to "physical or moral coercion" (Article 31). [u]But--note well--protected persons are defined as "persons taking no active part in the hostilities" (Article 3).[/b][/u]

In other words, [b]the Geneva Conventions do not speak specifically to the interrogation treatment of non-uniformed Baathist or jihadi guerrillas detained in connection with attacks on U.S. forces or Iraqi civilians. Except that the Fourth does permit us to execute them (Article 68)--a practice often seen in the less politically correct wars of years past.[/b]

With that in mind, we'll risk liberal censure and suggest that [b]45 minutes of uncomfortable posture (the guidelines' limit) and the other techniques that were on General Sanchez's list are certainly appropriate. The U.S. holds some very dangerous people in Iraq, and it's easy to forget that the point of interrogating them is to better protect both U.S. soldiers and the Iraqi civilians that the Geneva Conventions oblige us to safeguard.[/b]

Amid the political demagoguery being applied by the likes of Senator Reed, [b]General Sanchez has now banned most interrogation techniques. So the U.S. command in Iraq will no longer even entertain requests for anything more rigorous for detainees than segregation from other prisoners.[/b]

[b][i]The very real danger of course is that all of this will result in the collection of less actionable intelligence to stop the roadside bombs and mortar attacks that are killing American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. If it does, we hope Senator Reed and his media cheerleaders will acknowledge their responsibility. [/b][/i]

Your tax dollars at work: porn star gets $3,000 to give university lecture on "sexual health"

05.16.04 (9:47 pm)   [edit]
Prime evidence that our society's morals and culture tanked a long time ago.

[b]My truce with Bruce[/b]
Mike S. Adams
May 17, 2004

[i]Author�s Note: Because it discusses everyday campus life at UNC-Greensboro, this editorial contains extremely offensive language. If you read it anyway, and still write to complain, you might be a Democrat.[/i]

The other day, I got a call from a freelance reporter wanting me to comment on a recent controversy I helped to start at UNC-Greensboro (UNCG). I declined the interview because I have been busy promoting my new book and trying to start some more controversies to help me get started on a second book.

Interestingly, the reporter kept calling and sending emails after I declined an interview, insisting that it would not be fair to print his article without getting �(my) side of the story.� For those who don�t know, that meant he was threatening to give me negative press unless I gave him an interview.

In the midst of his unsuccessful attempt to get me to grant an interview, the reporter tipped me off to the fact that some people at UNCG are unwilling to let a controversy die that began when the school paid $3000 in student fees to have a porn star give a lecture on �sexual health.� After I wrote an article criticizing that decision, I came under fire from many people, including Bruce Michaels, the Director of UNCG�s Office of Student Life.

Relying on numerous reports from people who spoke to Michaels and from comments he made in news interviews, I learned that Bruce was accusing me of lying in my coverage of the recent UNCG controversy. Here�s one news excerpt dealing with the negative PR that UNCG experienced after my column about the porn star, oops, I mean, sexual health expert:

�The letters, calls and complaints were mostly from people who were misinformed, because of Mike Adams� column� said Michaels. �The only fact in Mike Adams� column was that Tristan Taormino spoke here. Almost everything else was completely inaccurate.�

One of the �lies� Bruce accused me of proffering was a reference I made to Taormino as a porn star. Now that I have had time to think about it, I realize that Bruce was right. Ms. Taormino isn�t a porn star! Let me explain.

After I wrote my columns on Taormino, she returned to UNCG in April to give a lecture funded by private donors. The title of her lecture was, �My Life as a Feminist Pornographer.� Well, there you have it, folks. Taormino is actually a pornographer, not a porn star! You say Tor-mino; I say Tor-mono, let�s call the whole thing off.

After the �feminist pornographer�s� first visit, the Chancellor of UNCG began to distance herself from the decision to hire her to speak on sexual health issues. But my good friend Bruce Michaels still insisted that her first visit (funded by student fees) was perfectly appropriate.

Well, believe it or not, after reading the reviews of the return of the self-described �poster girl for anal sex,� I am convinced that Bruce Michaels is right again! I have been forced to change my mind due to the intelligent questions she fielded from the audience on her return visit to UNCG. For example, one person asked the size of the largest male sex organ that had ever been used to sodomize the health expert. Her answer was thirteen inches. Isn�t that a healthy practice that only a �sexual health expert� could discuss with a bunch of college students?

I have to take my hat off to Bruce Michaels. His superior moral judgment is paving the way for a brighter future in higher education. The Board of Trustees should give him a pay-raise effective immediately. Although all of this talk about anal sex has caused some to refer to UNCG as �UNC-Gomorrah,� at least their �sexual health experts� encourage people to wear condoms. Because of that, I guess there�s no chance that UNCG will be referred to as UNC-Gonorrhea.

Since I have obviously been unfair to Bruce Michaels, I am hereby calling for a truce with the Director of UNCG�s Office of Student Life. In fact, I am going to do more than call for a truce. I am going to send this column to Governor Mike Easley asking that Bruce Michaels be given special recognition for raising the quality of student life at UNCG. In addition to �outing� me as a pathological liar, Bruce Almighty has clearly helped to lead the students of UNCG to a higher level of moral understanding.

If you don�t believe what I say about the quality of student life at UNCG, just take a look at their student newspaper. The best summary of the quality of the UNCG newspaper was constructed by my friend Jon Sanders at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, NC. That summary can be read on the following link:

http://www.popecenter.org/course_month/article.html?id=1403" title="http://www.popecenter.org/course_month/article.html?id=1403" target="_blank"http://www.popecenter.org/cou...

One of my favorite articles in the UNCG student newspaper offers great tips to students on the essential topic of sex toys. The author of that column offers the following advice:

[i]�My personal favorite (sex toy) products at Babeland are anal sex guru Tristan Taormino's signature butt plug and the authentic Hello Kitty vibrator (and you thought it was just an urban legend).�[/i]

If you didn�t understand the need to hire Tristan Taormino for $3000, just check out the following from the column called �Have sex like a queer� from the UNCG student newspaper:

[i]�I think straight people in general are getting more queer and that's due in large part to the people they are getting sex advice from. The most popular sex writers and sex advice columnists in the country are queer. Every week, queers like Dan Savage and Tristan Taormino counsel straight people on their sexual woes. Books like �Lesbian Sex Secrets for Men� and �Sex Tips for Straight Women from a Gay Man� have straight people queering their sex lives as well. And in private, straight girls get bl**job tips from their gay boyfriends.

So come on straight America. Join the party.�[/i]

And, hey, check out this one; a columnist for the UNCG student newspaper actually went on a date with Tristan Taormino a year before her controversial �sexual health lecture.� So what was their destination? Dinner? No. A movie? No. It was an S&M party! Read all about it, here:

[i]�Each dungeon was set up for a different kink. There was a room for electricity play, one for hot wax, and several where people were tied up. Two of the rooms had elaborate �crucifixes� to tie people up and then whip, smack, slap, and spank them. There was also a �sucker bed,� which consisted of two huge sheets of latex and a vacuum cleaner. The idea is you get between the sheets and all the air was sucked out so that you're completely trapped. There is a hose for you to breathe through while people beat, tickle, or fondle you. It's kind of like being in a full body condom.

Each room had its own soundtrack. One dude rocked out to Ramstein while flogging his girlfriend, and just next door the soothing sounds of Enya were accompanied by the �oohs� and �ahhs� of a girl having hot wax poured onto her breasts�

As we wandered in and out of the dungeons, Tristan answered my questions with the knowledge and patience of a seasoned sexologist.

�What are they doing to that woman?�

�Zapping her with low voltage electricity. It feels like running into a bug-zapper.��[/i]

Way to go, UNCG! That�s the kind of leadership that makes donors proud of their public university system!

But don�t worry; if your child isn�t into that kind of thing, their privacy will be respected at UNCG. Well, maybe not. One columnist for the school paper writes about his observations in the men�s restroom:

[i]�(I) noticed that the guy to my right had finished peeing� and was �stretching and jiggling his willy [which] really got me going.�[/i]

[b]After all this reading about sex, I decided to do a search for the word �abstinence� on the school newspaper�s website. No luck there. But plenty of articles popped up when I did a search for �anal sex.�[/b] Here�s a great excerpt:

[i]�Not only was it my first threesome, but also my first sexual experience with a woman. There were all these different body parts to explore, different smells, tastes, sensations.�[/i]

Well, that�s it, my decision is final. I�m sending my kids to UNCG where they can read a lot about anal sex, sex toys, and S&M parties, rather than hearing about topics like abstinence. Most of all, they can be right there in close contact with UNCG�s Office of Student Life, led by Bruce Michaels.

All of this talk reminds me that after reading my initial coverage of the Tristan Taormino controversy, a student from UNCG wrote an anonymous email referring to me as a �heterosexist pig.�

While we�re on the topic of pigs, some administrators at UNCG need to learn that you should never try to wrestle with a pig. If you do, you are bound to get dirty. Not only that, but the pig might just like it.

[i]Mike Adams (www.DrAdams.org) is the author of �Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel.� Sixteen days after its release, the book (Adams� first) reached #153 on amazon.com. Surprisingly, the UNCG bookstore is not carrying the book. After all, its content may be offensive to some readers.[/i]

�2004 Mike S. Adams

Let's call the Berg beheading what it was: the true face of fundamental Islam

05.16.04 (9:34 pm)   [edit]
[b]Holier than thou[/b]
Diana West
May 17, 2004

When the White House promised to punish the murderers who sawed off Nicholas Berg's head, a spokesman said the crime "showed the true nature of the enemies of freedom."

Wrong. Or, rather, not wrong, but vague, and perilously so. It's not every enemy of freedom who shouts, "Allahu akbar (God is great)!" while committing murder in front of a video camera. What Mr. Berg's heinous killing showed was the true nature of fundamentalist and unreformed Islam, according to the Koran. "Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks," says verse 47-4 in the Marmaduke Mohammad Pickthall translation. This and other venerable translations stand until modern Muslims renounce the principle of jihad, or holy war against the "infidel."

Until that happens, pulling the political veil over the face of the enemy is not just a fashionable nod to political correctness. Failing to unmask the brutal face of modern jihad is a possibly suicidal lapse of logic and nerve that has dangerously obscured the wider war on "terror" -- which, of course, is the euphemism of choice for Islamic jihad.

Mincing words also contributes to something else, something that has emerged from the flames of the utterly surreal conflagration over Abu Ghraib that still threatens to snuff our entire military mission. Only a politically correct ruling class (including Big Media) that converses in the opaque terms of "war on terror" and "enemies of freedom" could regard Abu Ghraib with the tunnel vision necessary to shut out all the world, past, present and future. Only the permanently and willfully blinkered can see in the finite abuses at the Baghdad prison -- abuses long halted and in the process of being rectified -- the epic horror of the age, while a war rages on.

But it is not just prison guards run amok that draw fire. Big guns now train their sights on the interrogation techniques used on all prisoners of the war on Islamic jihad, including top leaders and operatives of Al Qaeda.

Such a venture reveals a heedless ignorance of the fanatical barbarism of the jihadist enemy we face. That is, our jihad-obsessed enemy -- to whom "martyrdom" means paradise and 72 virgins, to whom killing as many "infidels" as possible on the battlefield means martyrdom, and to whom marketplaces and hotels and office buildings mean battlefields -- has evolved outside the Western tradition and far from the principles of the Geneva Convention.

Not that politically correct lawmakers have noticed. In calling for the administration to abide "unequivocally" by the Geneva Convention regarding all detainees, including terrorists, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., speculated whether such a declaration would "also serve to help American prisoners." In other words, we'll serve tea and crumpets, and they'll serve tea and crumpets -- and not hack off the head of an American Jew who dared to enter Iraq to build radio towers.

And if we can't make nice across the board, we're Nazis -- this, according to Sen. John McCain. Telling radio host Don Imus not to downplay the scandal of Abu Ghraib, the Arizona Republican said, "If you go down that slippery slope, OK -- you decide, OK, well, this torture is OK -- then what's the difference between us and the Gestapo?" One enormous difference -- and how dispiriting to need to remind the senator of this -- is the motive involved. When the CIA, say, dunks Sept. 11-planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed into a pool on something called a water-board, as The New York Times breathlessly reported, the CIA is trying to find which shopping mall may contain Osama bin Laden's dirty bomb. When the Gestapo used such techniques (and far worse), the Gestapo was trying to find hidden Jews to kill.

How bizarre: We seem to have become more enamored of our self-image of heavenly stainlessness than we are inspired by our fight to survive. Victory -- which is surely just, in that it means liberty and justice for more -- takes a back seat on this "high road." From a small spot on the national escutcheon, something for military justice to wipe clean, has erupted a wild epidemic of collective guilt, with stricken pols assuming holier-than-thou poses that would topple in a heap were reality allowed to impinge.

Such as Nicholas Berg's grisly murder. Someone should ask whether it's really necessary to flagellate ourselves into a state of moral chastity before trying to ensure that his short life -- like the short lives of hundreds of brave souls killed trying to mend a broken country and save their own -- was not lost in vain.

�2004 Newspaper Enterprise Assn.

By apologizing, Bush proves that he's got the Arab world wrong

05.15.04 (10:44 pm)   [edit]
[b]The Curse of Pan-Arabia
By apologizing to the Arab world for Abu Ghraib, Bush shows he's got Iraq wrong.[/b]
BY FOUAD AJAMI
Sunday, May 16, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Consider a tale of three cities: In Fallujah, there are the beginnings of wisdom, a recognition, after the bravado, that the insurgents cannot win in the face of a great military power. In Najaf, the clerical establishment and the shopkeepers have called on the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr to quit their city, and to "pursue another way." It is in Washington where the lines are breaking, and where the faith in the gains that coalition soldiers have secured in Iraq at such a terrible price appears to have cracked. We have been doing Iraq by improvisation, we are now "dumping stock," just as our fortunes in that hard land may be taking a turn for the better. We pledged to give Iraqis a chance at a new political life. We now appear to be consigning them yet again to the same Arab malignancies that drove us to Iraq in the first place.

We have stumbled in Abu Ghraib. But the logic of Abu Ghraib isn't the logic of the Iraq war. We should be able to know the Arab world as it is. We should see through the motives of those in Cairo and Amman and Ramallah and Jeddah, now outraged by Abu Ghraib, who looked away from the terrors of Iraq under the Baathists. Our account is with the Iraqi people: It is their country we liberated, and it is their trust that a few depraved men and women, on the margins of a noble military expedition, have violated. We ought to give the Iraqis the best thing we can now, reeling as we are under the impact of Abu Ghraib--give them the example of our courts and the transparency of our public life. What we should not be doing is to seek absolution in other Arab lands.

Take this scene from earlier this month, which smacks of the confusion--and panic--of our policies in the aftermath of a cruel April: President Bush apologizing to King Abdullah II of Jordan for the scandal at Abu Ghraib. Peculiar, that apology--owed to Iraq's people, yet forwarded to Jordan. We are still held captive by pan-Arab politics. We struck into Iraq to free that country from the curse of the Arabism that played havoc with its politics from its very inception as a nation-state. We had thought, or implied, or let Iraqis think, that a new political order would emerge, that the pan-Arab vocation that had been Iraq's poison would be no more.

The Arabs had let down Iraq, averted their gaze from the mass graves and the terrors inflicted on Kurdistan and the south, and on the Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala and their seminarians and scholars. Jordan in particular had shown no great sensitivity toward Iraq's suffering. This was a dark spot in the record of a Hashemite dynasty otherwise known for its prudence and mercy. It was a concession that the Hashemite court gave to Jordan's "street," to the Palestinians in refugee camps and to the swanky districts of Amman alike. Jordan in the 1980s was the one country where Saddam Hussein was a mythic hero: the crowd identified itself with his pan-Arab dreams, and thrilled to his cruelty and historical revisionism. This is why the late king, Hussein, broke with his American ties--as well as with his fellow Arab monarchs--after the invasion of Kuwait. His son did better in this war; he noted the price that Jordan paid in the intervening decade. He took America's side, and let the crowd know that a price would be paid for riding with Saddam. But no apology was owed to him for Abu Ghraib. He was no more due an apology for what took place than were the rulers in Kathmandu.

But this was of a piece with our broader retreat of late. We have dispatched the way of Iraqis an envoy of the U.N., Lakhdar Brahimi, an Algerian of pan-Arab orientation, with past service in the League of Arab States. It stood to reason (American reason, uninformed as to the terrible complications of Arab life) that Mr. Brahimi, "an Arab," would better understand Iraq's ways than Paul Bremer. But nothing in Mr. Brahimi's curriculum vitae gives him the tools, or the sympathy, to understand the life of Iraq's Shiite seminaries; nothing he did in his years of service in the Arab League exhibited concern for the cruelties visited on the Kurds in the 1980s. Mr. Brahimi hails from the very same political class that has wrecked the Arab world. He has partaken of the ways of that class: populism, anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, and a preference for the centralized state. He came from the apex of the Algerian system of power that turned that country into a charnel house, inflicted on it a long-running war between the secular powers-that-be and the Islamists, and a tradition of hostility by the Arab power-holders toward the country's Berbers. No messenger more inappropriate could have been found if the aim was to introduce Iraqis to the ways of pluralism.

Mr. Brahimi owes us no loyalty. His prescription of a "technocratic government" for Iraq--which the Bush administration embraced only to retreat from, by latest accounts--is a cunning assault on the independent political life of Iraq. The Algerian seeks to return Iraq to the pan-Arab councils of power. His entire policy seeks nothing less than a rout of the gains which the Kurds and the Shiites have secured after the fall of the Tikriti-Baathist edifice. The Shiites have seen through his scheme. A history of disinheritance has given them the knowledge they need to recognize those who bear them ill will. American power may not be obligated--and should not be--to deliver the Shiites a new dominion in Iraq. But we can't once more consign them to the mercy of their enemies in the Arab world. At any rate, it is too late in the hour for such a policy, for the genie is out of the bottle and the Shiites will fight back. Gone are their old timidity and quietism. Their rejection of Mr. Brahimi's diplomacy is now laid out for everyone to see.

For his part, Mr. Brahimi knew that the Americans were eager to dump, and he rightly bet on the innocence (other, less charitable terms could be used) of those in the Bush administration now calling the shots on Iraq. They were unburdened by any deep knowledge of the country, and Mr. Brahimi offered the false promise of pacifying Iraq in the run-up to our presidential elections. His technocracy is, in truth, but a cover for the restoration of the old edifice of power. Fallujah gave him running room; its fight for a lost, unjust dominion was his diplomatic tool. His prescription, he let it be known, would calm the tempest in that sullen place. The Marines were fighting to bring that town to order. The Marines were not Mr. Brahimi's people: Their fight, and their sacrifices, he dismissed as a "collective punishment" of a civilian population. Mr. Brahimi should know a thing or two about collective punishment. His native Algeria has provided enough lessons in what really constitutes the indiscriminate punishment of populations that come in the way of military power.

In the scales of military power, the Arabs have not been brilliant in modern times. But there is cunning aplenty in their world, and an unerring eye for the follies of great foreign powers. The Arabs can read through President Bush's stepping back from his support for Ariel Sharon's plan for withdrawal from Gaza. There are amends to be made for Abu Ghraib, and those are owed the people of Iraq. Yet here we are paying the Palestinians with Iraqi coin. The Palestinians will not be grateful for our concessions; and they are to be forgiven the only conclusion they will draw. Those concessions have already been taken as the compromises of an America now in the throes of self-flagellation.

We can't have this peculiar mix of imperial reach, coupled with such obtuseness. It is odd, and defective in the extreme, that President Bush chose the official daily of the Egyptian regime, Al-Ahram, for yet another interview, another expression of contrition over Abu Ghraib. In the anti-Americanism of Egypt (of Al-Ahram itself), the protestations of our virtue are of no value. In our uncertainty, we now walk into the selective rage of the Egyptians, a popular hostility tethered to the policies of a regime eager to see us fail in Iraq--a regime afraid that the Iraqis may yet steal a march on Egypt into modernity. Cairo has no standing in Iraq. Why not take representatives of a budding Iraqi publication into the sanctuary of the Oval Office and offer a statement of contrition by our leader?

Our goals in Iraq are being diluted by the day. There has been naivet� on our part, to be sure, and no small measure of hubris. We haven't always read Iraq right, but if we abdicate the burden and the responsibility--and the possibilities--that came with this war, our entire effort will come to grief. In Najaf on May 7, in a Friday sermon made from the shrine of Imam Ali--Shiism's most revered pulpit--Sheikh Sadr-al-din Qabanji, a respected cleric with ties to Ayatollah Ali Sistani, called on the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr to quit the city. "Listen to the advice of the ulema," he said, using the term for the recognized men of religion. "Come, let us together find another way, go back to your homes and provinces." The defense of Najaf, he said, belonged to its people, and the bands of young "Sadrists" were told to return to the slums of Baghdad. We haven't stilled Iraq's furies, and our gains there have been made with heartbreaking losses. But in the midst of our anguish over Abu Ghraib, and in our eagerness to placate an Arab world that has managed to convince us of its rage over the scandal, we should stay true to what took us into Iraq, and to the gains that may yet be salvaged.

Mr. Ajami, of Johns Hopkins, is the author of "The Dream Palace of the Arabs" (Vintage, 1999).

On the ground: what Iraq is really like

05.15.04 (10:25 pm)   [edit]
After reading this, I can just say that the US soldier, and Bush, will never get the credit they deserve for helping Iraq in this way in the west. But Iraqis will understand.

God bless America,the Coalition, and all of those who work for the betterment of others.

From the blog "Iraq the Model", the journal of an Iraqi in Iraq.-- http://iraqthemodel.blogspot....

[b]Not in my city.[/b]

My last trip to Samawa was short but full of events. It�s not easy for someone who used to live in Baghdad to accommodate to life in a village far away in the south. Baghdad is the most civilized place in Iraq and there�s no way one can compare it with the rest of the governorates not to mention the ignored villages in the south.

I set off with a number of passengers heading for Samwa. The road was quiet despite the troubles in Kerbala and Najaf, which are both on the road. We had to use the old road as the new one (the high way) is closed because of the current fights in those two cities.

My arrival day was the day when [b]a rally of support and gratitude to the coalition passed the streets of Samawa.[/b] The scene was very delightful for me, [b]I, who believe in the necessity of establishing a strategic partnership with the free world represented by the coalition, because this the only way for Iraq to rise again, prosper and join the modern, free world. Such partnership, the way I see it, is vital for the free world in its war with terrorism, the corner stone of which is to establish peace and stability in the ME. [/b]

Yes, we should put our hands in each other�s because we have a common destiny. It was a very encouraging thing to see that the [b]simple people there understood the case and this is probably the first time where people go out to the streets to thank and support our allies in the coalition, but strangely it came from ordinary, simple people not from those who claim to be civilized intellectuals.[/b]

On the road to the residents� house we passed near the coalition base in Samawa; the striking and ugly feature of this base, like any other one is, the concrete wall that surrounds it. These walls initiate a sensation of fear in the hearts and a feeling that there�s a huge block between the people and the coalition. I understand the security necessity of these walls but they still form an unpleasant sight for everyone, except this particular one. [b]The coalition forces here invited all the kids-and their parents-in the neighborhood for a special festival, the kids were given paints and brushes and a definite area of the wall was assigned for each kid to paint on whatever he likes and to sign his painting with his/her name. I leave it for you to imagine how this hateful wall looked like after this festival. It became a fascinating huge painting that gives a feeling of brotherhood and friendship. These paintings eliminated all the psychological walls between the folks and the coalition here.[/b]

At the end of the festival, [b]gifts were given to each kid; toys, clothes, candies�[/b]

You can�t imagine how happy the kids were when they stood proudly pointing at their paintings; flowers, birds, hands shaking and the flags of Iraq and the coalition countries, and then pointing to their names; Zahra, Mohammed, Sajjad, Fatima� together with phrases like; yes for peace, Saddam has fallen and many others. No one can watch this without having tears filling his eyes and I feel sorry that I couldn�t take pictures for this carnival, as I wasn�t there when it happened, but the people there told me the whole story.

I reached my destination, which is a small town about 35 km away from the center of the governorate. [b]It�s a very simple town that suffered from Saddam�s neglect like many other southern cities but what pleases me in every trip is the appearance of a new foundation in the town. Last time I was surprised to see a new water treatment plant (or the so called RO in the south) near the river distributing clean water for the whole town for free, with four brand-new automobile tanks to deliver water to the remote villages twice a day.[/b] Everyone is grateful there as our major health problems are caused by polluted water. Now, this new processing plant will help rid the city of many health problems.

In my very last trip, the special new thing was a campaign to renew the doctors� residency that we-12 doctors-live in and a decent temporary place is provided for us until the old miserable residency is fully rehabilitated.

[b]The other new foundation that is being constructed now is an Internet Center. Who would dream to see Internet service available in a southern village? This is more than a dream coming true, it makes me feel proud and it makes people believe more and more that the change is in their interest.[/b]

I always talk to the people there and the accelerated rate their consciousness and understanding are growing at, often surprises me. [b]In one of the meetings I asked them about their opinion about the government and the president they would like to have in the future, here, a man said � I�d prefer a Christian president� as a matter of fact I was shocked as I wasn�t expecting to hear such a perspective in an almost exclusively Shei�at village. Here the others agreed and clarified their friends point �we mean that we don�t want an Islamic or Shei�at government� �see, the SCIRI party established a library and a school to give religion classes that no one attends despite it cost the party thousands of dollars and occupied one of the towns� buildings. Take a look at the water treatment plant that the coalition established, people gather around it every morning�. �We want those who know what we need, not those who tell us to do what they want� another man added�.[/b]

I totally agreed with their perspective because at the end, the one who provides more services for the people is the one who wins their trust.

The saddest incident for the citizens during my last visit was the death of a coalition soldier from Netherlands in a grenade attack. The small town was shocked and I could hear everyone say, �who did this crime is a stranger and he�s not of us for sure�.

Many of the town�s known figures, officials and tribal leaders headed to the coalition base to declare their support to the coalition and to condemn the crime, one of those men said-with apparent affection-during the funeral ceremonies �our loss is big and we feel ashamed; you�re our guests but we couldn�t protect your men�s live; we�re terribly sorry�.

The pictures I see are so many and they bring hope, I remember the last day I spent there before I returned to Baghdad, and I was watching Al-Samawa local TV (now they have their own local station) and it was broadcasting one of the sessions of the district�s council when a woman stood up wearing the traditional costume and behind her was a group of women, she started to yell in the face of the chairman of the council saying [b]�Listen to me! You can�t ignore our voice anymore. These women elected me and put their trust in me and I demand authorities like those of men. My voice will not stay low from now on and I have to give those who elected me what they need�. I don�t think you can realize the meaning of this picture. [/b]It simply means that we have moved tens of years forward in a matter of months and we have broken the chains of a long dark past. The cry of this woman was enough to awaken me to the great progress that happened.

I know that the story is long and you probably feel bored but I feel committed to uncover these pictures and the last one was on our way back to Baghdad where we were delayed for a few hours after the coalition forces blocked the road, we didn�t know why but one of the passengers started to complain saying �those Americans always put obstacles in our way and make our lives difficult� the driver couldn�t hold himself from answering this comment in a sharp tone as he said [b]�NO, it�s not the Americans. It�s because of those bastards who plant bombs on the roads. [u]You must thank the Americans for delaying you for a couple of hours to save your live�.[/b][/u]

The point behind all these pictures and stories I mentioned is that the people started to speak out and express their feelings and here we�re in great need for support from the free world to back the progress. [b]Moving back is absolutely unacceptable; we�ve put our feet on the right way and we need help from the others. Never let the bad pictures lay their heavy shadow on the good, bright ones. The negative media want our eyes to pause on the bad events to win time in this worldwide battle and to make us forget the good pictures that encourage us to keep the momentum. This includes most of the major western media.[/b]

They are �unconsciously� supporting the terrorists and the totalitarian regimes in the region to stop this great progress. The media have managed to create some distrust and hate between some Iraqis and some of the coalition and the west in general. Well, not in my city, it seems to be immune to their poison.

The road is long and hard but together, we can do it.

John Kerry quotes, version 3.0

05.15.04 (10:07 pm)   [edit]
It is abundantly clear why the left is politicizing the war and coming out with false accusation after false accusation against Bush. They are trying to get the public to hate Bush enough that they'll vote for a chump like Kerry, a spineless liberal who has absolutely no principles except for consistently being anti-American (see: anti-military, anti-intel votes in Senate). No one likes him, so the trick for the left is to get Americans to hate Bush even more.

Quotes from Right Wing News-- http://www.rightwingnews.com/...

[b]John Kerry In Quotes -- Version 3.0[/b]

John Kerry -- or as I think of him, Senator Flip-Flop -- is still largely getting a free pass from the media on most of the ridiculous things he has said. But, I don't give Massachusetts liberals who are running for President free passes. That's why I've put out the third version of John Kerry in quotes. If you think there are any key quotes missing, add 'em in the comments section and if they're good enough, I'll make sure they're added in to the list or Version 4.0 of these quotes which should be out in another couple of months.

Let's get to the quotes...

[b]Flip-Flopping[/b]

"Mr. Kerry voted for the USA Patriot Act, Mr. Bush's No Child Left Behind education bill and the Congressional resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq, only to sharply criticize all three once he became a presidential candidate. Mr. Kerry counters that his quarrel is with Mr. Bush's execution of the policies, but he struggled for months to explain his shifting stance on the Iraq war." -- Todd S. Purdum, Jan 25, 2004 in the New York Times

"For those of us who are fortunate to share an Irish ancestry, we take great pride in the contributions that Irish-Americans" � Senate floor statement by John Kerry, 3/18/86

"(John Kerry) has never indicated to anyone that he was Irish and corrected people over the years who assumed he was" -- Kerry spokeswoman Kelly Benander said in Feb, 2003

"[b]I don't believe in litmus tests[/b], but I believe very strongly that the right to choose and the right to privacy are fundamental constitutional rights and [b]I can't imagine supporting a Supreme Court nominee who doesn't share my view of the Constitution.[/b]" -- John Kerry explains his Roe Vs. Wade litmus test after explaining that he doesn't believe in litmus tests

"When it was popular to be a Massachusetts liberal, his voting record was that. When it was popular to be for the Iraq war, he was for it. Now it's popular to be against it, and he's against it." -- Jay Carson, a Dean campaign spokesman

[b]"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." -- John Kerry[/b]

[b]Massachusetts Liberal[/b]

"John Kerry. In his 20 years in the Senate, he's been a standard-issue Massachusetts liberal, with a lifetime rating from Americans for Democratic Action of 93 on their 0-100 scale. By contrast, the other Senator from the Bay State, Teddy Kennedy, has a lifetime rating of 88. [b]"That makes Kennedy the conservative of the two," chortled Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie as he visited New Hampshire last week on an anti-Democratic strafing run." -- James Pinkerton, 1/26/04[/b]

[b][u][i]"I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." -- John Kerry, 1970[/b][/u][/i]

"On Key Votes, Kerry Voted 100% Of The Time With Senator Kennedy In 2001, 1999, 1998, 1993, 1992, 1989, 1988, 1987, 1986, and 1985. [b]Over the course of his Senate career, Kerry has sided with Senator Kennedy 94% of the time for key votes." -- The Republican National Committee[/b]

"Kerry And Kennedy Had Exactly The Same Low Rating From The American Conservative Union In Both 2001 (4%) And 2000 (12%). Kerry�s lifetime rating from the ACU is 5." -- The Republican National Committee

"While Kerry Earns A 0% Rating From The National Right To Life Committee, His National Abortion And Reproductive Rights League Rating Is Consistently 100%." -- The Republican National Committee

"I�m opposed to the death penalty in the criminal justice system because I think it�s applied unfairly...� John Kerry on "Meet The Press," December 1, 2002

[b]Misc[/b]

"I can't believe I married a second politician. I can't believe I married the first politician. He wasn't one when we met. [b]I can't believe my family left Africa and came to this country. I can't believe I live in America, I can't believe I ever even married an American. And I can't believe we're embarked on this journey."[/b] -- Teresa Heinz-Kerry to gossip columnist Cindy Adams

(Blogger's note: I'll chip-in for a one-way ticket home, sweets)

"I'm Fascinated By Rap And By Hip-Hop. I Think There's A Lot Of Poetry In It. There's A Lot Of Anger, A Lot Of Social Energy In It. And I Think You'd Better Listen To It Pretty Carefully, 'Cause It's Important" -- John Kerry, 3/29/04

[b]"President Clinton was often known as the first black president. I wouldn't be upset if I could earn the right to be the second." -- John Kerry, 2004[/b]

(Blogger's note: That shows you how racist the left-wing actually is, folks)

[b]"Sen. John F. Kerry has said he was �very proud� of his vote to increase the (gas) tax by 4.3 cents per gallon..." -- Michael Kranish, The Boston Globe, 5/4/96[/b]

"Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said during last night's Democratic presidential debate that the threat of terrorism has been exaggerated. [/b]"I think there has been an exaggeration," Mr. Kerry said when asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism. "They are misleading all Americans in a profound way."[/b] -- Washington Times on Jan 30, 2004

[b]"John Kerry said yesterday that he will treat the war on terror "primarily" as law-enforcement action..."[/b] -- Washington Times, April 19

"Everybody always makes the mistake of looking South. Al Gore proved he could have been president of the United States without winning one Southern state, including his own." -- John Kerry

"I'm a Christian. I've read the Bible and I know you can find the clauses that go both ways (on gay marriage). I'm not here to argue that with you." -- John Kerry in March, 2004

[b]"I don't own an SUV," said Kerry, who supports increasing existing fuel economy standards to 36 miles per gallon by 2015 in order to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil supplies....Kerry thought for a second when asked whether his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, had a Suburban at their Ketchum, Idaho, home. [u]Kerry said he owns and drives a Dodge 600 and recently bought a Chrysler 300M. He said his wife owns the Chevrolet SUV. "The family has it. I don't have it," he said." -- The Guardian, April 23, 2004[/b][/u]

[b]No Class[/b]

"I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, 'I'm against everything'? Sure. Did I expect George Bush to f*ck it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did." -- John Kerry in Rolling Stone

[b]"When Teresa Heinz-Kerry arrived, she handed me a pin that read in the center: �Asses of Evil� with �Bush�, �Cheney�, �Rumsfeld� and �Ashcroft� surrounding it. She met, greeted and talked to a jam-packed room of Kerry supporters and others who came for the MoveOn documentary." -- From John Kerry's Blog on December 11, 2003[/b]

"I don't fall down," the "son of a b*tch knocked me over." -- John Kerry after falling when a Secret Service Agent accidentally got in his way on March 19, 2004

"Noting my physical discomfort beside him in the backseat, Wade asks Kerry, "Sir, have you ever considered getting a bigger car?" Kerry shoots back, "No, but I have thought about cutting all your f***ing legs off at the knees." -- From the John Kerry For President website

[b]"No one's talking about how to keep the other side home on Election Day. It's a lot easier than you think and it doesn't cost that much. This election can be won by 200,000 votes. You target (Bush's) natural constituencies. For example, you can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say you're an outraged right-wing voter and that you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for her to get an abortion. Then you go to an anti-immigration Web site chat room and ask, 'What's all this about George Bush proposing amnesty for illegal aliens?"[/b] -- From one Kerry's Celebrity Supporters, Moby, who Kerry has even performed with on stage

"We're going to keep pounding, let me tell you. We're just beginning to fight here. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary." -- John Kerry, March 2004

"Somebody told me the other day that the Secret Service has orders that if George Bush is shot, they're to shoot Quayle. There isn't any press here, is there?" -- Nov. 16, 1988

"Speaking on a live local broadcast at a campaign stop in Toledo, Ohio in front of 300 people, [b]Kerry blasted Bush for being an illegitimately elected president in 2000 when he was "selected" by the U.S. Supreme Court. When an elderly Democratic voter in the audience accused Vice President Dick Cheney of murdering women and children in Iraq for the sake of oil profits, Kerry responded by saying, "I know exactly where you're coming from." Kerry added, "I know where that anger comes from, I know where the frustration comes from."[/b] -- Talon News, April 30, 2004

[b]Truthful?[/b]

[b]"The senator with the most special interest money over the last 15 years is John Kerry who�s just been running around telling all Americans how he�s going to get the special interests and don�t let the door hit you on the way out. That is exactly what�s wrong with American politics and that�s why 50 percent of the people in this country don�t vote." -- Howard Dean on Feb 1, 2004[/b]

"I've met with more (foreign) leaders who can't go out and say this publicly. But, boy, they look at you and say: 'You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy. We need a new policy.' Things like that." -- John Kerry

[b]"I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with (Castro)" -- John Kerry lies to a group of Cuban voters (he voted against it) who strongly support Helms-Burton on March 14, 2004[/b]

[b]The War In Iraq & WMD[/b]

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites)[b] to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on [u]October 9, 1998[/b][/u]

"The Iraqi regime's record over the decade [b]leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest. The weapons are an [u]unacceptable threat[/u][/b]." -- [u]John Kerry, 10/9/02[/u]

"[b](W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, 1/23/03[/b]

[b]"If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." -- USA Today on 2/13/03[/b]

"[b]Iraq[/b] may not be the war on terror itself, but it [b]is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that..." -- [/b]John Kerry 12/15/03

"If you think I would have gone to war the way George Bush did, don't vote for me." -- John Kerry, Jan 2004

"With respect to getting our troops out, the measure is the stability of Iraq. [Democracy] shouldn't be the measure of when you leave. I have always said from day one that the goal here . . . is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy." -- John Kerry waffles on Democracy in Iraq, April 2004

"What has happened (at Abu Ghraib)is not just something that a few a privates or corporals or sergeants engaged in. This is something that comes out of an attitude about the rights of prisoners of war, it's an attitude that comes out of [b]America's overall arrogance in its policy that is alienating countries all around the world." -- John Kerry, May 2004[/b]

[b]Vietnam[/b]

[b]"I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way... What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be re-fighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary." -- John Kerry back in 1992[/b]

"The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them." -- John Kerry on Feb 27, 1992

"We do not need more division. [b]We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric." -- John Kerry on Feb 27, 1992[/b]

We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands who died for the "greater glory of the United States." We will not accept the rhetoric. We will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars -- in fact, we will find it hard to join anything at all and when we do, we will demand relevancy such as other organizations have recently been unable to provide. We will not take solace from the creation of monuments or the naming of parks after a select few of the thousands of dead Americans and Vietnamese. We will not uphold traditions which decorously memorialize that which was base and grim. -- John Kerry, in "The New Soldier"

[b]"War crimes in Vietnam are the rule, not the exception." -- John Kerry, May 1971[/b]

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, [b]I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down."[/b] -- John Kerry, April 18, 1971

"To attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom...is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy." -- John Kerry, 1971

�I've never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, ab