PORTLAND -- On one of the biggest shopping day of the year, a small group of mostly younger activists stood outside a local mall Friday urging shoppers to take part in a 24-hour moratorium on consumer spending. While thousands of Portlanders celebrated the spirit of the season by watching a parade and browsing downtown stores in Oregon's business capital, a dozen and a half self-proclaimed "culture jammers" were celebrating "Buy Nothing Day," hoping to throw a wrench into what they say is society's blind habit of consumerism.
... "It's a consumer fast. You basically make a pledge with yourself to not buy anything for 24 hours," said 62-year-old Kalle Lasn, editor-in-chief of Vancouver, British Columbia-based Adbusters Magazine, who founded Buy Nothing Day in 1992.
... "We realize that everyone is a consumer but we are giving them some alternatives," said 15-year-old McKenzie Debuk, of Portland.
Right, like unemployment and poverty.
Well I can excuse a bunch of kids for this ignorance because at that age even the smart ones are morons. But a 62-year-old?! If there’s one thing that ticks me off in this world it’s a mature adult that doesn’t understand the laws of basic economics. I’m not even talking Laffer Curve here. I’m talking basic stuff. You buy things you keep people employed.
And such hypocrisy – buy nothing... except the Magazine that employs you? But then socialism and hypocrisy are synonyms.
Why, blogs would go out of business.
Paragraph one and two of the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON - The U.S. military death toll in Iraq rose by at least three Monday and the November total is approaching the highest for any month since the American-led invasion was launched in March 2003. At least 133 U.S. troops have died in Iraq so far this month — only the second time it has topped 100 in any month. The deadliest month was last April when 135 U.S. troops died as the insurgency flared in Sunni-dominated Fallujah, where dozens of U.S. troops died this month.
Sounds bad, right? We must be losing! Press the panic button! Cue Michael MooreSorosSarandanDean! Release the Kraken!
Paragraph seven, right behind paragraph six’s notation of the latest irrelevant screed from Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s deputy:
One factor that drove up combat casualties was fierce fighting in Fallujah. Combat injuries also have increased this month due to the Fallujah battle.
One factor..? Oh, do ya think so! You guys are so smart you must be journalists.
So was the Fallujah incursion a success?
Paragraph ten:
In recent action in Fallujah, troops found at least 650 homemade bombs, Bryan Whitman, a spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, said Monday. That compares with 722 found throughout the country between July 1 and October 31.
[Paragraphs 12 and 13] …Since U.S. forces invaded Fallujah on Nov. 8 to regain control from insurgents, they have found about a dozen IED "factories," a number of vehicles being modified to serve as car bombs, and at least 10 surface-to-air missiles capable of downing aircraft, [DoD Spokesman Bryan] Whitman said. More than half of the approximately 100 mosques in Fallujah were used as fighting positions or weapon storage sites, Whitman said, citing a U.S. military report that has not been released publicly.
[Paragraph 16]... Whitman said other discoveries in Fallujah include: _Plastic explosives and TNT. _A hand-held Global Positioning System receiver for use in navigation. _Makeshift shoulder-fired rocket launchers, rocket-propelled grenades, 122mm rockets and thousands of mortar rounds. _An anti-aircraft artillery gun. _More than 200 major weapons storage areas.
Here’s the punch line - The headline of this story? Certainly it must be something like Military Says Fallujah Operation Successful, or 200 Insurgent Weapons Caches Discovered, or Thousands of Insurgents Killed and Captured, right?
Nope: U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Nears Record
Cue the Michael MooreSorosSarandanDean hydra! Bush lied people died! Oh the agony! You stupid red-state sheep! Don’t you understand what you’ve done... sob... whine... sob
Rich Lowery is right on in his commentary today - if the new intelligence reform bill were really worth its weight in gold it wouldn't be so heavily agreed upon in the Senate. He's likewise accurate in levying criticism upon the two-headed media monster of 9-11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton. Guys, your 15 minutes is up - time to fade back into obscurity.
The fact is that measures to make us safer usually aren't uncontroversial — for instance, taking the fight to the enemy overseas as aggressively as possible, or offending the civil-liberties lobby by implementing the Patriot Act. Since many Democrats don't endorse these steps (in fact, routinely howl about them), they are always looking to get on board window-dressing tough-on-terror measures, which is what makes the intelligence-reform bill a perfect cause for them.
...There has been one bright spot in the debate about the bill. House Republicans, lead by Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, have pushed for provisions to tighten up the U.S. immigration system that was so readily exploited by the 9/11 terrorists. This, together with a dispute about the military-intelligence changes, is what has derailed the bill: No one else wants to close the immigration loopholes. Even though the immigration proposals — from tightening the standards around driver's licenses and other identification documents to expediting deportation procedures — were all endorsed in the 9/11 Commission's work.
Amazingly, the 9/11 commissioners themselves now oppose making their own immigration proposals into law, since they are "too controversial." Well, they would be less controversial if the commissioners actually stood by them. And if these commissioners are so brave and independent, shouldn't they be willing to fight for the "controversial"? Alas, no. Who knew the commissioners would become even more absurd in their post-commission iteration than they were when they were an active commission providing a bandbox for Richard Clarke's diatribes?
No bother. The co-chairs hit the Sunday talk show circuit once more, echoing the usual chorus of Democratic critics of the Bush administration.
Thing is, none of these critics ever counter the points made by the House Republicans blocking the bill's passage. Maybe it's because they don't have a valid retort to the House's legitimate concerns.
[Republican Reps. Duncan Hunter of California] chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has expressed concerns that the intelligence realignment could interfere with the military chain of command.
Specifically, Hunter said the link between troops and combat support agencies that run intelligence-gathering satellites of battlefield movements would be broken. That would mean "life and death to our people in the field," he said on "Fox News Sunday."
Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wants the bill to deal with illegal immigration. "We have to do something about plugging up our immigration laws," he said on ABC's "This Week."
The chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, said separate legislation, debated at a later time, could address those concerns.
Why later? As Lowery pointed out, the fact that a bunch of al Qaeda terrorists on watch lists and breaking their immigration visas managed to legally acquire driver's licenses while in the US was pointed out as a weakness in the 9-11 report. What's so controversial about wanting to correct this now?
Nawaf Alhazmi, one of the 9-11 terrorists, was stopped for speeding. Oklahoma State Trooper C.L. Parkins ran the license but found nothing irregular even though Alhazmi was also on a government watch list for terrorism, and even though Alhazmi was a Saudi national who had been living in the country illegally since January 2001.
Consider an alternative scenario where common sense immigration laws tied overstaying your immigration visa to police records. Alhazmi could have been exposed as a terrorist, identified by the FBI and CIA, and tied directly to 9-11 hijack pilot Hani Hanjour (who also had a speeding ticket stop) and several other hijackers including the leader, Mohammed Atta.
This may not have automatically broken open the plot, but it was a chance we never had. As long as influential voices like Commissioners Dean and Lee continue to shelve immigration issues we never will have that chance.
Iran signed onto "a voluntary, non-legally binding, confidence-building measure" to suspend nuclear development. That description is just oozing confidence, eh? Another way to term this agreement is "colossal waste of time." And another way to term it would be "typical European appeasement." And still another way would be "emboldening our enemies."
At the same time that Iran is said to sign onto yet another worthless piece of paper, without even repercussions for breaking the deal, the conservative religious factions of Iranian government are becoming stronger. This should not be a surprise as appeasement always strengthens an aggressor.
Iranian women and liberal feminists abroad must be relieved in knowing that, in the words of one leading Iranian hardliner, "it is not important that women wear the chador or wear light colors or dark colors, but they should wear decent hijab," or traditional veils, he added. "When we talk about Islamic values, that's what we mean. . . .Voting and higher education for women have not been forbidden." Not been forbidden... But they're hardly encouraged, eh? I.E., Just shup and cover your faces, women.
Any regime that purposely limits 50 percent of its workforce and generally oppresses any form of expression or more liberal thought can hardly be expected to refrain from more ambitious methods of retaining power, such as nuclear weaponry. But never fear, European appeasers are here:
The resolution, drafted by Britain, France and Germany, is the mildest of the seven previous resolutions against Iran and does not include the explicit threat the White House had sought for reporting Tehran to the U.N. Security Council if it breaks the latest suspension.
Instead, the resolution, which The Washington Post obtained yesterday, calls on the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency to inform countries if Iran does not adhere to its pledges. But the weaker language makes clear the IAEA's verification is "essential" for knowing whether the commitment is being kept, and U.S. officials said that wording at least made clear it was up to the agency, not Iran, to determine whether the agreement was being honored.
In other words, the US has to trust that the United Nations, specifically Mohammed ElBaradei of the IAEA, will actually inform the international community should (when) Iran break (breaks) the deal. We are, after all, being asked to trust the UN to keep an ambitiously illiberal regime in check after it failed miserably in doing so with Iraq, and even billions of dollars in bribes.
Further, the agreement gives Iran "a lot of maneuvering room should the United States try to take it to task for failing the suspension."
Oh, well Heaven forbid a country from punishing Iran should it fail to meet its obligations! One almost gets the idea that Europe and the UN don't mind if Iran actually goes nuclear, so long as the bureaucratic process remains intact. The illusion of peace is once again achieved with the blanket of multilateralism. That Iran signed this deal with so little complaining is indicative that it costs them nothing.
And so, here we stand alone once more.
Monday's Washington Post ran a page one, three-page article regarding Israeli behavior at Palestinian checkpoints. From reading the article it is clear that some Israeli soldiers cross the line and commit abuses. But it's also clear that the Israeli military punishes those who are truly committing abuses.
And there are some true abuses - such as an account where a Palestinian woman was forced to drink her bottle of cleaning fluid because the soldier feared she was smuggling something - that need Israeli attention. But what's frustrating is how never does the media print long, page one articles on the dangers these Israeli soldiers face on a daily basis, how their actions have reduced suicide bombings in Israel, how nobody on the Palestinian side is ever culpable.
The Israeli military says the checkpoints are necessary to protect Israel and Jewish settlements in the territories from Palestinian attackers. Government and military officials have repeatedly cited the system of checkpoints in the West Bank as one of several factors contributing to a steady reduction in the number of suicide bombings against Israeli targets in the past two years.
...At least 83 Palestinians seeking medical care have died during delays at checkpoints, according to the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group. At the same time, 39 Israeli soldiers and police officers have been killed at checkpoints and roadblocks, according to the Israeli military. A year ago, two Israeli soldiers at a checkpoint south of Jerusalem were shot dead by a Palestinian who carried an automatic rifle rolled in a prayer rug.
That's it. In 38 paragraphs there are just two which let the reader know that when an Israeli soldier slips up and lets in someone they shouldn't a suicide bomber is able to detonate his bomb at a cafe or bus stop.
Instead the report highlights one extreme case of abuse where a handcuffed Palestinian was beaten by an Israeli soldier. That the Israeli military is trying that soldier is, for this report, happenstance rather than proof that the Israeli system is not corrupted.
But this begs the question: where are the demands for reform in Palestine? When an Israel soldier beats a Palestinian civilian it is condemned and punished, and becomes a three-page examination of Israeli society. When a Palestinian terrorist sneaks through and kills Israelis it is celebrated. The Palestinians certainly celebrate it. So at what point will the international community - basically everyone besides the Bush and Tony Blair administrations - demand that Palestinian officials find, try, and punish the Palestinian citizens responsible for assisting the terrorism?
Everyone demands Israel fix what is broken with the checkpoints without ever mentioning why the checkpoints are necessary in the first place. End the terror and Israel won't need checkpoints.
A final question: will the media ever bother to ask why it is that 5,000 Palestinians try to cross just one Israeli checkpoint for work every day? Might it be because despite all the negativity and bad press Israel, a prospering democracy, offers more opportunity to the Palestinian people than does their own corrupt and oppressive society and government?
What's this? Yassir Arafat dies and now we've got a human rights activist running for Palestinian president and the terrorist group Hamas expressing willingness to declare a 10-year ceasefire (hudna)? Sounds too good to be true, which generally means it is. Still, the dual-pronged strategy of isolating Arafat and going after Hamas leadership could be reaping good fruit.
In an interview with Israel Radio, the senior Hamas leader [Sheikh Hassan Yusef] said that the Islamic movement would consider committing to a ceasefire in order to ultimately join a national unity government with the Palestinian leadership, as Hamas is interested in playing an active role in the new Palestinian government and participating in national decisions.
He did not reject the possibility that Hamas would stop terror attacks against Israel during negotiations. However, a truce with Israel, Yusef said, would be dependant on an end of the Israeli occupation of the territories, release of security prisoners and "elimination of Israeli violence." When asked which borders "occupation" was referring to, he said the borders of 1967, not 1948.
It cannot be emphasized enough how important and relevant is that last sentence. The issue of 1948 borders is, of course, an issue of existence. Before 1948 Israel did not exist. Thus, Yusef would be breaking with Hamas tradition by defining "occupation" as 1967 borders instead of 1948 borders because it's the first time I've read a Hamas extremist acknowledging Israel's right to exist.
Here's more:
Senior Hamas members in the Gaza Strip and abroad have not yet reacted to Yusef's declarations.
Security sources in Gaza have said that the Palestinian Authority has put together a security plan that will attempt to put an end to the illegal carrying of weapons on the Palestinian street.
Nabil Abu Rudeineh, who served as Arafat's spokesman for the past decade, also recently came out against the prevalent trend of illegally bearing arms. In an interview with al-Jazeera, Rudeineh said, "Both the Fatah and Hamas need to understand that this phenomenon will harm the Palestinians rather than strengthen them."
One must doubt whether the Palestinian leadership, both governmental and militia, will be able to stop this monster they've created in any short period of time. After years and decades of teaching hate how will the average young Hamas member react to being told he is no longer allowed to carry his AK-47 in public? How will he react to news of a 10-year ceasefire, or that "occupation" is now defined by 1967 borders (as opposed to 1948)? Probably not good. But at least it's a start.
Here's more amazing news:
Meanwhile, according to London based pan-Arab newspaper a-Sharak al-Awsat, the Palestinian Authority leadership has instructed its media to halt all incendiary broadcasts against Israel, especially songs and video clips directly calling on audiences to continue the Intifada.
The newspaper claimed that the order was given less than 24 hours after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon demanded that the Palestinians stop incitement against Israel if they want to renew negotiations, Army Radio reported. Sharon made the statements in a speech to the Likud faction a week and a half ago.
At the same time, PA sources are reportedly assembling a collection of statements made by Israeli politicians, military officers and rabbis which discriminate against Palestinians to prove that Israel is guilty of incitement and sedition as well, Army Radio reported.
Well, fine. Either way, any Israeli incitement is nothing compared to Palestinian, which commonly refers to Israelis as pigs and monkeys.
The human rights activist running for PA president is Mustafa Barghouti. He supports the two-state solution and "will demand total and complete reform, fight any form of corruption, mismanagement, and consolidate the rule of law."
Barghouti said he would try to establish an independent judiciary system and build strong institutions.
Barghouti said Palestinians should resist Israeli occupation in a peaceful way, and that militants made a "grave mistake" when they carried out shooting and bombing attacks in Israel during the past four years of fighting. Barghouti called for an immediate resumption of negotiations with Israel.
Well, deeds not words, right? Saying one will cease violence and guaranteeing that every member of your group does so are two different things. Likewise, there's more then just one terror group. Just because Hamas ceases violence doesn't mean that Islamic Jihad or the al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade will also do so. Still, at least they're talking about it.
This is the story of a military veteran whistleblower. He spoke out against someone he thought was dangerous for the nation, talked to local newspapers, and appeared on talk shows. In return, he was vilified by reporters, threatened by a political operative, fired by his company, and now he's broke.
His name is Steve Gardner. He's also known as "The 10th Brother," as in Band of Brothers. He's one of two members of Sen. John Kerry's 12 Vietnam swift boat crew members who refused to stand with Kerry at the Democratic Convention.
...Gardner told this story and others to radio stations and he wrote a piece for the local paper. Then, he says, he received a phone call from John Hurley, the veterans organizer for Kerry's campaign. Hurley, Gardner says, asked him to come out for Kerry. He told Hurley to leave him alone and that he'd never be for Kerry. It was then Gardner says, he was threatened with, "You better watch your step. We can look into your finances."
Next, Gardner said he received a call from Douglas Brinkley, the author of Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War. Brinkley told Gardner he was calling only to "fact check" the book -- which was already in print. "I told him that the guy in the book is not the same guy I served with. I told him Kerry was a coward. He would patrol the middle of the river. The canals were dangerous. He wouldn't go there unless he had another boat pushing him."
Days later, Brinkley called again, warning Gardner to expect some calls. It seems Brinkley had used the "fact checking" conversation to write an inflammatory article about Gardner for Time.com. The article, implying that Gardner was politically motivated, appeared under the headline "The 10th Brother."
Twenty-four hours later, Gardner got an e-mail from his company, Millennium Information Services, informing him that his services would no longer be necessary. He was laid off in an e-mail -- by the same man who only days before had congratulated him for his exemplary work in a territory which covered North and South Carolina. The e-mail stated that his position was being eliminated. Since then, he's seen the company advertising for his old position. Gardner doesn't have the money to sue to get the job back.
"I'm broke. I've been hurt every way I can be hurt. I have no money in the bank but am doing little bits here and there to pay the bills," he said.
All the millions of dollars raised by Gardner and his fellow Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and all the proceeds from John O'Neill's book, Unfit for Command, go to families of veterans, POWs and MIAs. And, even though Gardner is broke and jobless for speaking out, the husband and father of three says he'd do it all over again. He says it wasn't for politics. It was for America.
-- Mary Laney
The Bush administration is overhauling it's economic team, including the Commerce and Treasury secretaries; of the five top economic positions only budget director Josh Bolten will remain.
I've never been thrilled with Bush's economic team. They often talk big on fiscally conservative ideals but rarely follow through. The Washington Post leaks that it is likely Bush will tap replacements who are more skilled at convincing Congress to pass their sale. But is this a good thing?
One senior administration official said Treasury Secretary John W. Snow can stay as long as he wants, provided it is not very long. He might stay as long as six months into the term, officials said. Friends say Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. is one possibility to replace him. Bolten also could move over.
But Republican officials said Bush is also considering well-known officials from outside, including New York Gov. George E. Pataki (R). Conservatives are pushing for former senator Phil Gramm, a Republican from Texas.
Also under consideration is John J. Mack, who stepped down in June as co-chief executive of Credit Suisse Group. Mack has also been considered to lead a bipartisan commission on changing the tax system that Bush will appoint to develop recommendations for the Treasury secretary.
...Bush aides, who have been debating what parts of his legislative package to send to Capitol Hill first, will start with measures to restrict medical malpractice claims and other lawsuits. Bush will then try to advance his initiative on Social Security, after which will come proposed changes in the tax laws. In the next month or two, Bush plans to name a commission to make recommendations on the tax code that could eliminate some loopholes and even replace the income tax with a sales tax or value-added tax.
... But aides said Bush will almost certainly go outside the government for some substitutions for his economic team, which some Republicans viewed as a weak link during a campaign that was run on the president's image and national security credentials.
Administration officials would not spell out all the reasons for the changes, but one clue came from the roiling frustration expressed by a senior Republican congressional aide who is eager to help Bush but has found his legislative operation clumsy over the past four years.
"They need people who have not been drinking the Kool-Aid and are going to come up here and say breathlessly, 'This is what the president wants to do, and isn't it great?' " the aide said. "They
need someone like a former senator or former member or former governor who can come up here and say, 'This is going to be hard. There's going to be blood on the floor, but it's going to be worth it.'"
Why my skepticism over this? It's just more bold talk, even from the insiders asking for Bush to throw them a bone by recruiting a Congressional insider. Tort reform, Social Security and tax reform - each one alone is a grandiose effort for one 4-year administration, together they seem far fetched. Worse, the move has the potential to do the opposite and add complexity. Let's be honest here, the Senate Republicans have hardly been true to standing conservative policies,
especially in the realm of economics. If Bush taps someone who is a little too in tune with the Congress he risks making legislative compromises that will water down any true reformation.
PORTLAND -- On one of the biggest shopping day of the year, a small group of mostly younger activists stood outside a local mall Friday urging shoppers to take part in a 24-hour moratorium on consumer spending. While thousands of Portlanders celebrated the spirit of the season by watching a parade and browsing downtown stores in Oregon's business capital, a dozen and a half self-proclaimed "culture jammers" were celebrating "Buy Nothing Day," hoping to throw a wrench into what they say is society's blind habit of consumerism.
... "It's a consumer fast. You basically make a pledge with yourself to not buy anything for 24 hours," said 62-year-old Kalle Lasn, editor-in-chief of Vancouver, British Columbia-based Adbusters Magazine, who founded Buy Nothing Day in 1992.
... "We realize that everyone is a consumer but we are giving them some alternatives," said 15-year-old McKenzie Debuk, of Portland.
Um, you mean like unemployment and poverty..?
Well I can excuse a bunch of kids for this ignorance because at that age because even the smart ones are morons. But a 62-year-old?! If there’s one thing that ticks me off in this world it’s a mature adult that doesn’t understand the laws of basic economics. I’m not even talking Laffer Curve here. I’m talking basic stuff. You buy things you keep people employed.
And such hypocrisy – buy nothing... except the Magazine that employs you? But then again socialism and hypocrisy are synonyms.
The Deputy Director of CIA, John McLaughlin, penned a defensive commentary that took exception to criticisms that the agency was "dysfunctional" and had become "risk-averse." These were both obvious shots at Sen. John McCain who, among others, used that word to describe the agency just last week.
What is less clear is whether McLaughlin, who penned the column to begin fostering a "thoughtful and well-informed debate" on intelligence matters, aimed the barb at his current boss, the new CIA Director Porter Goss. Like McCain, Goss has previously used the word "dysfunctional" to describe problems at CIA.
[McLaughlin:] But dismissing the agency as "dysfunctional" is way out of line. This is an organization that, during the six months of seemingly deadlocked debate over "intelligence reform," has worked with its intelligence-community and foreign partners to take down about a dozen important terrorists who were plotting against our country and its allies. Despite waves of harsh criticism, the agency has never once lost its focus or its drive to protect the U.S. homeland and American interests abroad.
..."Risk-averse" is another charge now casually hurled at the agency by pundits and commentators. Risk-averse? Tell it to the CIA officers who flew into hostile Afghanistan ahead of U.S. troops just 16 days after Sept. 11 and linked up with Afghan contacts developed years before. Tell it to the scores of CIA operations officers and analysts located with American troops throughout Iraq. Tell it to the CIA officers living side by side with foreign partners in remote and dangerous areas elsewhere, determined to deny sanctuary to terrorists. Or tell it to the analysts who daily put their reputations on the line by making difficult judgment calls with incomplete information on some of the most highly charged issues of our time.
This is bait and switch, people.
When critics accuse the CIA of being risk averse they're not talking about the field operatives - they're talking about the career manager bureaucrats at CIA, they're talking about... John McLaughlin.
One finds it difficult to agree with McLaughlin's citation that CIA field operatives in Afghanistan is proof the agency is not risk averse when those very operatives had to call home and debate with CIA managers and lawyers on whether or not it was lawful to fire a Predator-launched missile at a figure suspected to be bin Laden. By the time those operatives got their answer the figure was long gone. The incident was leaked to the media, made it to the public and embarrassed the military and administration just days into the War in Afghanistan. From that day forward Def. Sec. Donald Rumsfeld effectively allowed Special Operators, not the CIA, to guide missions so that these incidents could be avoided in the future.
The success of Rummy's model is evident: Learning from that early mistake the 9-11 Commission has recommended that "Lead responsibility for directing and executing paramilitary operations, whether clandestine or covert, should shift to the Defense Department," specifically Special Operations Command. Meaning: the 9-11 Commission didn't trust that CIA legalese wouldn't get in the way again so they've recommended total control of search and destroy to the military.
Likewise, one cannot argue that the CIA isn't risk averse when we're having to increase our human intelligence (spies) by 50% under presidential order, or when the CIA admitted that before the War in Iraq they hadn't had a single human asset in Iraq since 1996.
On the charge of "dysfunctional," the very fact that McLaughlin finds himself in the uncomfortable position of criticizing parties that have deemed the CIA as such, including his boss and the 9-11 Commission, is proof the charge is true.
Nobody doubts that CIA officers aren't as dedicated or deserve as much respect as those in the military. But it seems obvious to all except the defensive career CIA managers that serious problems still exist in the CIA. McLaughlin claims he points "no fingers" - perhaps it was time he started and did so in his own agency.
First there was Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn rule." Then came the smug media highlighting an apparent absurdity with "We had to destroy a village to save it." Recently the conventional wisdom has focused on the metaphor of mercury to terrorists - haven't heard that one? Keep reading, because Victor Davis Hanson crushes all of these bad metaphors with a tap of the keyboard. Here's much of it:
The Pottery Barn image doesn't work for a variety of reasons. First, Saddam's Iraq was not a pristine, upscale shop. It was, rather, a trash heap of broken shards — its power, water, sewage, and garbage all fractured and scattered in pieces; its people both brutalized and often brutalizers as a result of three decades of institutionalized mass murder; its leadership a choice between Soviet-era killers and Dark Age jihadists.
...Third, the peeved naïf of the metaphor is left shelling out money for something that is permanently ruined. But we are mending the ware that others smashed, hoping to ensure that what we leave behind is far better than what was there when we arrived.
[On mercury] Military pros like this one. We supposedly broke the thermometer of Iraq during the invasion. Thus we are now faced with droplets of leaky mercury that split apart as quickly as we try to corral them — in an endless and futile exercise of trying to capture what cannot even be grasped. Thus, Fallujah is subdued, only to see Mosul erupt in some perpetual succession of violence, the terrorists nearly elemental in their uncanny ability to resist being collected and disposed of.
Two things are wrong with this smug metaphor. First, once mercury is out of its container, its original utility vanishes. One cannot take one's temperature with mercury beads that have scattered all over the floor — anymore than terrorist pockets can reform into some central command to recreate Saddam's reign of terror. The likes of Zarqawi really do have computers, written orders, ATM cards, safe houses, and weapons depots; they don't float on carpets above the sands of Iraq. Thus, the cleansing of Fallujah was a terrible setback for them all.
Second, scattered mercury bits soon become so small that they literally separate into oblivion and are forgotten about. So too with the terrorists: Crush their nests in Fallujah, shut down the borders, raid the mosques, warn Syria and Iran of a reckoning to come for their export of terrorism, hit outbreaks hard elsewhere, and by the January elections once-emboldened Wahhabi and Baathist killers will reluctantly join a Kurdish and Shiite government rather than be crushed between the hammer of Iraqi democratic militias and American air and ground power.
For all the talks of virgins, paradise, and beautiful suicides, most of those who survived American firepower in Fallujah chose to run, hide, or be captured. After all, suicide is for young zealots, not pudgy men to whom life has become altogether too dear with its money, fame, and women in the here and now. In short, far from "there is no military solution," the truth in Iraq is rather that there is no political solution without a military victory and humiliation of the terrorists.
GregNews exclusive reporting here.
And, yeah, so I'm not very good at PhotoShop.
We should have seen this one coming: Yassir Arafat dies and Palestinian Presidential candidate Mahmoud Abbas simply transforms into another Arafat. Are we right back where we started? Possibly. Too early to tell. But, from early reports it appears that Abbas has cast aside his moderate positions of the past few years and adopted Arafat’s more stubborn demands – shall we say unsurpassable obstacles – regarding a Palestinian state. Abbas, if you don’t remember, resigned his post as prime minister of “Palestine,” a state that does not yet exist, because he found President Arafat’s meddling too unbearable. In addition to being the president elect (as usual in Arab “democratic” politics he has no competition so we may as well call him that) Abbas is the head of Arafat’s Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a member of the Central Committee, and second in command of the Fatah Movement (basically a terrorist group).
In other words, Abbas is the man. The only guy who could stand in his way of defacto ruler of the Palestinians is Marwan Barghouti, currently serving five life terms in an Israeli prison for terrorist acts. Beyond that there’s the usual suspects in Hamas, but so many of them have been killed by Israeli missiles of late that it’s doubtful they could organize a true uniting leadership presence. We should have realized that Abbas would not stay reasonable because to do so is 1) dangerous to his health and 2) could bring challenges to his leadership.
But, in reality, it’s not that Abbas is betraying his roots – rather, he’s returning to them. Abbas was a founder of the al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigades, the extremist terrorist group created by Arafat to compete via suicide bombings with Hamas for popularity amongst the Palestinian people. Abbas is less known for being a Holocaust denier – his 1982 doctoral dissertation argued that perhaps “even less than a million” died during the Nazi Holocaust. Where a Holocaust deniers is a person who believes that Israel has no right to exist is usually not far behind. And this is the crux of the matter.
RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - Palestinian presidential favorite Mahmoud Abbas vowed on Tuesday never to give up the late Yasser Arafat's bedrock demand that Israel recognize a "right of return" of Palestinian refugees. The issue was a key factor in the collapse of peace talks in 2000. President Bush last April publicly embraced Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's position that refugees be allowed into any new Palestinian state but not into Israel.
"We promise that we will not rest until the right of return of our people is achieved and the tragedy of our diaspora ends," Abbas told a session of parliament held to mourn Arafat, who died of an undisclosed illness in France on Nov. 11. "We will stick to Palestinian steadfastness in support of the dream you (Arafat) lived for and you promised to your people," said Abbas in an apparent effort to build credibility among hard-liners and the weighty refugee constituency. Abbas, 69, as a boy was among hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who left or were forced out by Israel's 1948 creation.
(That last line, by the way, is pure anti-Israeli Reuters. On the contrary, Israel’s declaration of independence urged “the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions.” For the record, Arabs serve in the Israeli government and military today – how many Arab governments and militaries could say the same about allowing Jewish service in their states?)
Besides the demand of “right of return” Abbas also desires total control of Jerusalem. But it is the “right of return” that most troubles Israelis. Should Israel ever concede this point it would defeat the purpose of becoming a Jewish homeland – one, we should add, where for the first time in history Jews don’t have to worry about their own government exterminating them – because millions of Palestinians could become citizens, and through “democracy” legislate the Jews into second-class citizen status or worse, in time, into the death camps again. Considering recent history one wonders if such a plight could be halted in time. The UN sure wouldn’t protect them. Indeed, the international community remains silent even during the most wicked of genocides, whether Srebrenica, Rwanda or, currently, Sudan.
Abbas, like many Arab leaders, occasionally lets down his guard to reveal his true self. In July 2002 Abbas remarked to Arab media (but not Western media) a disconcerting statement close to affirming the 1974 PLO “stages plan” – which seeks statehood only as a launching pad from which to later destroy Israel.
"Before we went to Camp David, I met with officials from one of the Islamic organizations. They asked me, 'Where are you headed, and why?' I told them we are going to extract [from Israel's hands] the implementation of [U.N. Security Council Resolutions] 242 and 338. If we succeed, we will return [from Camp David] with our achievement and you will have to be committed to it and agree to it until we finish establishing our national plan – after which you can stage a military coup against us to seize the PA, or get what you want through elections… But now you cannot do whatever you want. They were satisfied with this position."
It could be interpreted that Abbas was telling the most radical of Palestinians to support the two-state solution of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace only until it is achieved, and then they will be free, through violence or elections, to push a more extremist agenda of removing Israel from the map. All the easier, of course, with the “right of return” in place.
This is the new leader of the Palestinian people.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
As Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis succinctly remarked a week ago as long as the Palestinians do not view Israeli existence as legitimate there will never be peace in the region. While this is certainly true the US president, like it or not, must at least try to broker peace. President Bush met with some allied resistance with his 2002 determination that the US and Israelis would no longer work with Yassir Arafat do to his corrupt and dubious agenda. But now that Abbas has simply put on Arafat’s shoes Bush will find it difficult to do the same with him, at least for a while.
So what should Bush do? His recent acceptance of Israeli hard-liner Natan Sharansky could be a telling sign. According to the Washington Post Bush invited Sharansky to discuss the author’s latest book, “The Case for Democracy.” Sharansky absolutely opposes the “right of return” and capitulation of Jerusalem. He also opposed Ariel Sharon’s unilateral pullout from Gaza, making his position to the right of Sharon’s. Nonetheless Sharansky provides some interesting input to the problem. Call it the Reagan approach:
Sharansky's ideas are clear: no concessions, funds or legitimacy for the Palestinians unless they adopt democracy, but a modern-day Marshall Plan for the Palestinians if they embrace democratic ways. The same hard line that worked for Ronald Reagan against the Soviet Union, Sharansky argues in his book, would work for Israel against the Palestinians.
In his book, Sharansky echoes many of Bush's favorite lines, talking of the need for "moral clarity" in fighting evil. Likening the fight against terrorism to the struggle with Nazism and communism, he described a world "divided between those who are prepared to confront evil and those who are willing to appease it" -- a common Bush dichotomy. "I am convinced that all peoples desire to be free," Sharansky writes. "I am convinced that freedom anywhere will make the world safer everywhere. And I am convinced that democratic nations, led by the United States, have a critical role to play in expanding freedom around the globe."
Just as Bush justifies the Iraq war by talking of it as a catalyst for democratization in the Middle East, Sharansky argues that while dictators keep power by spreading fear and hatred, democracies are inherently peaceful. "When a free people governs itself, the chances of a war being fought against other free peoples is removed almost entirely," he writes.
[Co-author] Dermer points out that Sharansky is different from other Israeli hawks because he is willing to engage the Palestinians in talks and give them land under certain conditions. Arafat's death, which came just before the Bush-Sharansky meeting, and the approaching Palestinian elections could provide those conditions. "This creates an opportunity," Dermer said, but he warned that his co-author "is somebody who constantly lowers expectations" -- yet another thing the dissident and the president have in common.
I like this guy already. Should he become influential the media will, no doubt, paint him as some uncompromising s.o.b. who will make peace more difficult to attain. But you can't have peace unless all parties want it, and that's yet to be proved. Make the stakes high either way. Let the Palestinians know that if they choose war they will reap heavy costs. But also let them know that if they take control of their militants and choose peace the reward will be unprecidented.
Brandon Miniter opined in yesterday's Wall Street Journal that we can thank the founding fathers for creating a House of Representatives that was most responsive to the people. Miniter argues that were it not for the House the recent attempt to reform intelligence by "stampede" would have concluded successfully unsuccessful. Now, we have a chance for a bill that really does rework our intelligence community.
The Senate picked up these recommendations--including provisions to allow the new national intelligence director to pull money and personnel away from the Pentagon's intelligence agencies. Under the Senate's plan, the National Counter Terrorism Center would also have "operational control"--meaning the new intelligence czar could order soldiers and CIA operatives, for example, to carry out missions overseas without any input from the director of the CIA or the secretary of defense.
The problems here are obvious. The intelligence czar, who was expected to occupy office space within the CIA, would likely end up draining intelligence resources away from the military to meet the needs of the CIA, FBI and other civilian spy agencies. That could leave soldiers in the field without the critical, real-time intelligence they need to fight on the modern battlefield--what House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter calls the soldiers' "lifeline." To use a current example, if this was already in place, soldiers fighting in Fallujah might not have had the satellite linkups they needed to study the changing battlefield. Money and technology aside, the military also feared the intelligence director would pull essential personnel away from military duties--something explicitly within his power under the Senate's plan.
More disturbing was the proposal to give the intelligence czar the ability to move personnel out of combat support units. Not only would that break into the military's chain of command; it's the kind of bureaucratic micromanagement that is likely to cause operations to fail and maybe get soldiers killed--a concern Mr. Hunter expressed to me. An example I heard kicked around while walking the halls of Congress last week was Operation Desert One--Jimmy Carter's failed covert mission to rescue Americans held hostages in Iran in which eight American servicemen were killed in a helicopter crash.
Miniter also points out that the reaction by Congressional leaders like Jane Harman to the House's bill block was both predictable and irresponsible. In "talking down" our power these leaders mislead "our enemies into believing that an attack could damage the political party that is most vigorously pursuing the war on terror."
But since when do Democrats choose the nation's well being over their attempts to harm their political opponents?
Should states continue to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens? Should we tighten our asylum system that terrorists exploited to such deadly effect? Have we ensured the military chain of command is not broken in our intelligence restructuring?
These are just a few questions which House Rep. James Sensenbrenner and Duncan Hunter ask in their USA Today commentary. The questions the gentlemen ask are very similar to Sensenbrenner's press release from yesterday, but bear repeating.
Sensenbrenner's criticism of the Senate is well-founded. For example:
The House also sought to address asylum abuse, especially loopholes that terrorists use. The mastermind of the first World Trade Center attack and an Egyptian immigrant who killed two people at the Los Angeles airport in 2002 exploited our asylum system to remain in the U.S. Yet the Senate wants to study asylum abuse and not take action.
Right. What's to study? These Senate leaders have had three years to study the asylum issue.
According to www.genocide.org, since the end of World War II and the founding of the United Nations, over 81 million people have been killed in racial, religious, and political genocides across the world. This number is 1350% greater than all those killed in the Nazi death camps. But now, instead of innocents dying under the swastika, they are perishing under the blue flag of the UN and its farcical peacekeeping missions. Just within the past few years hundreds of civilians where slaughtered in Srebrenica, Bosnia, within eyeshot of 600 Dutch UN peacekeepers who felt they were not authorized to interfere. And in Rwanda, millions were killed in ethnic cleansing campaigns conducted under the nose of another UN peacekeeping mission led by now UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. Just what does the UN think "preventing genocide" means? It is obvious that the United Nations has not only failed in its mission to prevent genocide, but has actually acted as its enabler, leading to the bloodiest 60 years in history.
...The problem with the United Nations is it wants all the power of a World Parliament but will assume none of the responsibility associated with such power. In effect, the goal of the UN is to dictate world peace on its terms, not facilitate it in a spirit of freedom and democracy. An international body dedicated to the debate of ideas and opening avenues of diplomacy is a wonderful idea, but it will never work so long as the international body feels no accountability to the sovereign nations which compose it or the people of the world it claims to protect. After billions of dollars and countless lives lost on an idea that does not work, the United States should lead the charge to replace this fatally flawed institution with an international body that might offer the world a real hope for freedom, democracy, and prosperity.
-- Justin Darr
Don't be fooled by Dan Rather's retirement from CBS coming so close on the heels of an election where the network's head anchor was so clearly biased he tried to pass off forged documents as legitimate. Rather may no longer be heading CBS nightly news (effective March) but he'll be keeping his post at 60 Minutes:
Rather will continue to work full-time at CBS News as a correspondent for both editions of 60 Minutes, as well as on other assignments for the news division. His last broadcast as anchor will be March 9, the 24th anniversary of when he assumed the position from Walter Cronkite.
Rather, 73, has come under fire for his 60 Minutes report on President Bush's service in the National Guard during the Vietnam War. The report relied on documents that cast Mr. Bush's service in a negative light. Critics charged that the documents were forgeries, and CBS News was unable to vouch for their authenticity. An independent panel is now investigating the matter.
But not so much fire that Rather won't lose his position at 60 Minutes - the scene of the crime.
Monday Congress dropped from a $338 billion spending bill a Bush request to fund research into a new generation of bunker-busting nuclear weapons, earning praise from a variety of liberal arms-control groups who must prefer to keep the US open to nuclear attack. Just brilliant.
Dropping the programs was praised by arms-control advocates and some members of Congress who tried unsuccessfully for several years to kill them. These opponents argued that such research by the United States could trigger a new arms race, and that the existence of lower-yield weapons -- sometimes called "mini-nukes" -- would ultimately increase the likelihood of war.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) described Saturday's result as "a consequential victory for those of us who believe the United States sends the wrong signal to the rest of the world by reopening the nuclear door."
President Bush's fiscal 2005 budget contained $27 million to continue research on modifying two existing warheads for the earth-penetrator, or "bunker-buster," role, and it projected nearly $500 million over the next five years should a weapon be approved.
These are the same incorrect and backwards arguments that liberals used unsuccessfully during the Reagan years. But, then as now, having superior military force is the only thing that keeps the enemy at bay. They'll never learn.
Meanwhile, despite the fact that the US hasn't updated it's nuclear capabilities in decades, North Korea and Iran are both actively pursuing nuclear capability - and have been for for the better part of a decade. Likewise, Bush's initiative for bunker-buster warheads wasn't around when both India and Pakistan went nuclear in the mid-1990s (indeed during the very peak of feel-good, back-slapping nuclear nonproliferation treaty signings). So it would seem to the reasonable person that both America's friends and enemies alike are going to pursue nuclear weapons no matter how many worthless paper treaties Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton get them to sign.
Indeed, those who wish the US never receives a payload of nuclear explosives better hope and pray that we always stay one step ahead in the technological race - both offensive weapons and defensive missiles shields - because the closer that gap of superior weaponry comes between our enemies and us the more likely those emboldened enemies will use nukes on us.
One final note: leave it to the liberal media to never mention such obvious arguments in their "objective" reporting. Yeah, objectively liberally biased. And in this case, dangerous too.
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Raising doubts about its commitment to dispel international distrust, Iran is producing significant quantities of a gas that can be used to make nuclear arms just days before it must stop all work related to uranium enrichment, diplomats said Friday.
Iran recently started producing uranium hexafluoride at its gas-processing facilities in the central city of Isfahan, the diplomats told The Associated Press.
When introduced into centrifuges and spun, the substance can be enriched to varying degrees. Low-grade enriched uranium is used in nuclear power plants. Highly enriched uranium forms the core of nuclear warheads.
But of course! And Iran was doing this while simultaneously signing what we were told was a groundbreaking deal of cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation between Iran and Europe. But while the liberals are shaking hands and making snide remarks about "that cowboy" Bush Iran is tearing that deal into shreds.
So you go right on yapping your trap about how dangerous Bush is, Sen. Feinstein.
Let there be no mistake, those of you who don’t believe in this war: the Ba’ath regime were the Nazis of the second half of the 20th century. I saw what the murderous, brutal regime of Saddam Hussein wrought on that country through his party and their Fedayeen henchmen. They raped, murdered, tortured, extorted and terrorized those in that country for 35 years. There are mass graves throughout Iraq only now being discovered. 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, out of Camp Pendleton, liberated a prison in Iraq populated entirely by children. The Ba’athists brutalized the weakest among them, and killed the strongest.
...The analogy is simple. For years, you have watched the same large, violent man come home every night, and you have listened to his yelling and the crying and the screams of children and the noise of breaking glass, and you have always known that he was beating his wife and his children. Everyone on the block has known it. You ask, cajole, threaten and beg him to stop, on behalf of the rest of the neighborhood. Nothing works. After listening to it for 13 years, you finally gather up the biggest, meanest guys you can find, you go over to his house, and you kick the door down. You punch him in the face and drag him away. The house is a mess, the family poor and abused — but now there is hope. You did the right thing.
Stan Coerr, Lt. Col in the Marine Corps Reserve. Lt. Col. Coerr flies a SuperCobra attack helicopter pilot and acts as a Forward Air Controller.
I made this point in Monday’s GregNews, but I think it bears repeating with the continued vocal second-guessing that we did not invade Iraq with enough troops. The arrogance of the proponents for “more troops” bothers me greatly – as though “more troops” were a self-evident truth they have long armchair quarterbacked this war with no more second thought than any Sunday couch potato utters to his buddies when it’s obvious to go for a two-point conversion. But war is a little more complicated.
The common Iraqi now views the foreign insurgent as the intrusive force because the US did not take that role by invading with an overwhelming force of soldiers and support. In an insurgent war these little political victories mean much more than body counts or physical presence. Had we fought Vietnam with such a strategy instead of just adding more troops (half a million in all) that outcome may have been different.
A Knight-Ridder report from 10 days ago emphasizes this point succinctly – the insurgency has no popular support. They may do damage, but they are starving to death, and they are starving to death because we did not fight this insurgent war with the last war’s tactics.
Once admired as comrades in an anti-American struggle, foreign fighters have become reviled as the reason U.S. missiles are flattening homes and turning Iraq's City of Mosques into a killing field. Their promises of protection were unfulfilled, angry residents said, with immigrant rebels moving on to other outposts and leaving besieged locals to face a superpower alone. The fact that Iraqis are turning away from foreign terrorists, however, doesn't necessarily mean that they're turning toward the United States and Iraq's U.S.-backed interim government.
"We didn't want the occupation and we didn't want the terrorists, and now we have both," said a Fallujah construction worker who gave his name as only Abu Ehab, 30. "I didn't think the Arabs would be so vicious, and I never thought the Americans would be so unmerciful."
... Fallujah residents, most of them now displaced by the fighting, said there were hundreds of non-Iraqi Arabs in town before the offensive began on Monday. However, they added, the ties of brotherhood had mostly unraveled and the remaining foreign fighters had tried to intimidate residents into staying as human shields. A rebel-allied cleric who goes by the name Sheik Rafaa told Knight Ridder that Iraqi rebels were so infuriated by the disappearance of their foreign allies that one cell had "executed 20 Arab fighters because they left an area they promised to defend."
Other residents said foreign militants wore out their welcome months ago, when they imposed a Taliban-like interpretation of Islamic law that included public floggings for suspects accused of drinking alcohol or refusing to grow beards. Women who failed to cover their hair or remove their makeup were subjected to public humiliation. Those accused of spying for Americans were executed on the spot, residents said.
… Indeed, al Zarqawi loyalists won favor during the first U.S. invasion of Fallujah, an April offensive that ended with Marines withdrawing and installing an Iraqi proxy force. Foreign fighters took credit for the outcome and invited more outsiders into the city, residents said. "When the Marines stepped back in April, the foreigners grew stronger, so they persuaded their friends to come and help them hold the victory," said Ali Jarallah, 32, a Fallujah resident now living in a cramped camp with other displaced locals.
But then came the wave of foreign hostage-takings, many ending with gruesome beheadings broadcast for the world to see. Zarqawi also claimed responsibility for massive bombings that spilled the blood of hundreds of innocent Iraqis. Aghast, Fallujah residents began drawing distinctions between their own fighters, who favored mainly military and police targets, and foreigners encouraged by the fear they inspired through spectacular attacks. When the military build-up for Operation Dawn began, local tribes and Iraqi fighters wanted to negotiate with the U.S.-backed Iraqi government. In several interviews, Iraqi rebels, negotiators and residents insisted that it was the foreign elements who scotched a peaceful settlement.
Fighting an insurgency is about divide and conquer. As the article emphasizes just because the foreigners are no longer welcome doesn’t mean that local insurgents, who are not necessarily religious extremists, doesn’t mean that they put down their arms and accept the new rule of the Iraqi government. But you certainly don’t want to give foreign insurgents an opportunity to become accepted by the population by creating an overwhelming Western physical presence. Our goal is not to hold territory. We’ll let the Iraqis do that. Our goal is to become the insurgent to the insurgent. Many domestic insurgents are fighting because they do not trust us to deliver the democracy and economic strength we have promised. Thus, if we can whittle the insurgency down to one that is strictly home-grown it is more likely that we can defeat them through political and economic achievements.
Our failure in this war, if the armchair quarterbacks would take a moment to separate themselves from the group-think mentality, was not in invading with too few troops, it was in not always being aggressive enough. It was, as this article describes above, pulling our punches into Fallujah last April.
Bravo to the House Republicans for refusing to rubber stamp a weak and lackluster intelligence bill. The point of this exercise is to actually prevent another 9-11, not just let politicians cover their butts without actually doing anything. Sadly, like the Democratic Party at whole, the Senate Republicans and even the Bush team are willing to overlook our illegal immigration issues because their desire to coddle the minority and immigrant voting blocs. I’m hardly one of those on the anti-immigrant right. There can be some compromises made to ensure simple-stupid security, for example, say, oh I don’t know, perhaps not allowing someone to so easily bend and break our immigration laws.
Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin decided on Monday to nip in the bud any media reports that seek to spin House blockage as strictly one of monetary concern:
"A key issue in the negotiations was whether or not drivers licenses should be issued to illegal aliens. Realizing that the 19 9/11 hijackers had 63 validly-issued U.S. drivers licenses, the 9/11 Commission wisely recommended, 'The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers licenses. Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft.' (Report, p. 390) Regrettably, the Senate thus far has been hell-bent on ensuring illegal aliens can receive drivers licenses, regardless of the security concerns.
"At the outset, House Republicans said that we would evaluate the merits of the provisions based on whether they enhanced the security of the American people. Unfortunately, the Senate has refused to consider many of the provisions, tagging them as 'extraneous' or 'controversial.'
"We must consider these provisions in order to be faithful to those who lost loved ones on 9/11 and to the work of the 9/11 Commission. I will continue to negotiate with the House and Senate conferees to enact a good bill, but not one that fails to learn from the tragedy of 9/11."
We have the same problem in the Senate that we have with our CIA, FBI, State Department and Immigration department - political correctness and noncontroversy still trump national security.
Our failures on 9-11 were of our own making. That is, the hijackers were not successful because of amazing feats or beating impossible odds. They were successful because they exploited large and obvious loopholes in our security systems.
It's ironic that the same day Sensenbrenner was reminding Americans why their government failed a resourceful FBI agent who was stymied the summer before 9-11 by bureaucracy was doing the same:
PHOENIX — The Phoenix FBI agent who warned that Osama bin Laden was using flight schools to train terrorists two months before the Sept. 11 attacks said Saturday that "they are going to try and hit us again."
In his first interview since his now famous memo was written, Ken Williams told The Arizona Republic that Americans must reclaim the sense of unity and purpose that gripped the nation three years ago to thwart the next terrorist attack. ..."I don't consider myself a whistle-blower. I take exception to that word," he said. "If you look at the world prior to 9/11, we were prevented from doing certain things. We were victimized by our own restraints." ...Prior to the attacks, Williams said there was a deep concern over racial profiling — or targeting a class of people for investigation because of ethnicity — that stopped some from acting on his recommendations.
Yet here is our Senate, trying to pass an intelligence bill that would not close the same immigration loopholes which 9-11 hijackers exploited.
[NY Times] Fighting raged in the rubble of Falluja. Two marines were killed and four wounded in an ambush on Friday in which an insurgent deceived the Americans by waving a white flag, military officials said Saturday.
It's not the first time and it won't be the last, but either way rest assured that our mainstream media won't be making headlines out of these cowardly and inhumane insurgent tactics. No, our media only has time to cover the individual mistakes of a few US soldiers, not the daily atrocities of our enemy.
The more preparations the Iraqi and coalition forces make for January elections the more difficult it will be for insurgents to disrupt them. This is true both in terms of military and political achievements. The goal of the civil sector should be to register as many Iraqis and create as many polling places as possible. If the insurgents are going to strike on election day make it both difficult for them to do so and the effect as harmless to the overall voting process as possible. The military goal should be to infiltrate and eradicate as many known insurgent strongholds as possible. The more insurgents we kill or capture, the more weapons caches we find, the more force we bring to bear the more difficult it will be for insurgents to organize an effective disruption of election day.
Despite the skeptical (and somewhat unbelievable) comments by Iraq’s neighbors the Iraqi officials seem much more upbeat. This is important. Coalition forces can achieve military goals to make the elections secure, but it is up to the Iraqis – primarily – to ensure the organization and flow of the election at a local level.
Political parties, candidates and voters started registering this week for elections planned by the end of January for the National Assembly.
"It is a completely new experience for us to have a democratic and free exercise in Iraq," says Talal Madhat Serri, a leader of the Assembly for Iraq party.
There now are at least 150 political parties that represent every niche of the population, from communists to prisoners. Only 40 to 50 will meet party registration requirements, says Abdul Hussein Hindawi, chairman of the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq. Among the requirements for parties participating: a minimum 500 members.
...Another potential obstacle: Parts of the country, including Fallujah, 40 miles west of Baghdad, are under militant control or domination. United Nations officials, who are advising the Iraqi electoral commission, worry that people in those regions won't get to vote. "To be already speculating about big parts of the country not being able to take part in the process certainly doesn't help the process or its credibility," says Carlos Valenzuela, the U.N.'s chief election adviser in Iraq.
Mohammed Ali, an aide to interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, says even people in restive areas will want to vote. "If anything, people (in those areas) will be more determined to participate in the election, regardless of circumstances," Ali says. "January 2005 is like a holy date on the calendar."
Yeah, well leave it to a United Nations delegate to be defeatist but I’d put my money on Allawi’s sentiments – if you open the polling places they will come. And they will vote. Remember, we heard all this worrywart naysaying from the UN and other elitist factions about elections in Afghanistan – and they were wrong. Very wrong. Afghans voted in droves and there was no violence. While it might be too tall an order to expect a violence free election day in Iraq there is every reason to expect high voter turnout.
Paris — Major economic powers agreed on Sunday to write off billions of dollars of debt for Iraq in a deal that marked a significant step in U.S. efforts to help put the Iraqi economy back on its feet. Under the agreement, the Paris Club of 19 creditor nations will write off 80 percent of the $42 billion that Iraq owes them, the group's chairman, Jean-Pierre Jouyet said. The Paris Club includes the United States, Japan, Russia and European nations. Iraq owes an additional $80 billion to various Arab governments.
I’m a little late in reporting this news but it’s significant is big. Pressure is now on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Iraq’s two biggest creditors, to follow suit. Russia announced on Monday that it will cut a thus far undisclosed portion of Iraq’s $3.5 billion debt. Debt reduction or forgiveness is key in spreading economic recovery throughout Iraq. Get the economy booming and it’s that much more difficult for Jihadists to make the Iraqi youth share their warped cause.
Oct. 31, BAGHDAD, Iraq - As of this morning I have been back in Iraq for one week. It seems the obvious time to evaluate the changes from the last time I was here... As I expected, it was not a total war zone with massive explosions and burning vehicles everywhere as commonly portrayed in the press. It was typical Baghdad, only the traffic was even worse. The economy must be doing much better over here, for the streets are jammed with cars of every description, with many of them newer and better condition than when I left in May. As compared to 18 months ago when I first arrived, the traffic has increased a hundredfold... The power is on just about everywhere, especially since the summer air conditioning season is about over. We provide more power now than prewar levels, but there are so many more users now, with so many more appliances, that we still cannot keep up with the ever-increasing demand. Satellite dishes top every apartment building, something unheard of in prewar Iraq.
It’s not all roses, of course, but Lt. Col. Victor Zillmer’s point, that Iraq is in much better condition than when he left it at the end of his first tour of duty, is noted... except in the mainstream media, which is too preoccupied with the killing of one Iraqi insurgent than any positive reports from the region. (Thanks to Nat Chrenkoff for the link. Once again, if you haven’t checked out his “Good News From Iraq” series you should).
[ITN]Britain's security services thwarted a September 11-style attack on targets including Canary Wharf and Heathrow Airport, according to reports. The plot is said to have involved pilots being trained to fly into target buildings including London's famous financial centre and the world's busiest airport. It is one of four or five al-Qaeda planned attacks, since 9/11, that have come to nothing, after the authorities intervened, reports claim.
One of the political detriments of fighting the war on terror is that the government can rarely make public successfully thwarting major terrorist attacks because to do so allows the terrorists to identify where and how they failed, learn from their mistakes, and then apply them for future attempts. This is likely as much detail as you’ll hear the British government report.
Isn't it humorous that Arab ministers are expressing concern over potential violence and boycotts in Iraq's January elections when these leaders countries don't have elections themselves?
Violence and boycotts could yet stop promised Iraqi elections going ahead on time, Arab ministers said, despite Baghdad's confident assertion the landmark vote would be held on January 30.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit, hosting the conference in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh said the meeting would be deciding whether the vote could be held on time, adding that "the question needs to be re-examined".
"The debates that will take place ... are very important because they will look at the question of the elections and decide on whether they can take place on the date envisaged or whether it needs more reflection."
Jordanian Foreign Minister Hani Mulki, asked if the election date was not over-optimistic given the relentless violence in Iraq said: "Dates are not sacred. What is sacred is the process."
Arab statesmen in surrounding countries aren't fearful that the Iraqi elections will have problems. They worry that the election won't have problems. If Iraq gets its first democratic election off without major problems then it puts that much more pressure on the Arab states to follow suit, renovate their political process and establish elections in their own countries.
BAGHDAD, Nov. 21 -- Senior U.S. military commanders in Iraq say it is increasingly likely they will need a further increase in combat forces to put down remaining areas of resistance in the country. Convinced that the recent battle for Fallujah has significantly weakened insurgent ranks, commanders here have devised plans to press the offensive into neighborhoods where rebels have either taken refuge after fleeing Fallujah or were already deeply entrenched.
"What's important is to keep the pressure on these guys now that we've taken Fallujah from them," a high-ranking U.S. military commander said, speaking on condition he not be named because of the sensitivity of the deliberations on adding more troops. "We're in the pursuit phase. We have to stay after these guys so they don't get their feet set."
This is routinely where I would comment "here we go again," but in this case the requests are coming from the senior military leadership, not just an anonymous private or sergeant. I've only advocated the addition of troops - specifically Marines, Rangers and Spec. Ops types to be utilized for aggressive action (not just defensive posture) - on the conditions that the upper command was asking for them and/or that Iraqi forces were not pulling up the slack. That second condition has been the biggest and most surprising failure to date.
What slays me about this, however, is that the usual chorus of pundits are citing today's news as though "more troops" have always been a self-evident truth, and did so even when senior military leadership like CENTCOM's Gen. John Abazaid and Gen. Tommy Franks had always stated they had enough "boots on the ground."
It's all too easy to shout "more troops" without ever stopping to consider that there would have been unforeseen dangers and disadvantages had we followed that formula - for starters, any element of surprise that led to the quick toppling of Baghdad and the protection of Iraq's oil wells could have been lost. More troops would also have led to more American troop deaths (perhaps that 1000 would be 2000 by now) because more convoys and support roles mean more roadside bombs and checkpoint car bombs killing them.
Most importantly, a visible and large foreign invasion force might have aided the insurgents in winning hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. The more troops the more combat support the more intrusive we become in the lives of the Iraqi. Critics of this Rumsfeldian argument say that the lack of coalition troops created a vacuum that insurgents filled. While this may be true, however, it created an unintended consequence for them - the common Iraqi now views the insurgents as more the intrusive force rather than the coalition force. The insurgents have never won popular will because of this rule: in an unconventional war victory is defined in political and popular terms, not military victories or body counts.
Thus when it comes to troop amounts, especially when fighting an unconventional war, there is a point of diminishing returns. The "more troops" advocates will never concede this point, however.
Finally, the "more troops" argument would have been moot, of course, had the Iraqi forces been able or willing to step into more aggressive action. They're getting better but it's not nearly quick enough to defend the gains we've made in Fallujah and Mosul the past couple of weeks.
So bottom line: if Abazaid and other senior commanders, including the colonels in the field say they need more troops (for offense) to ensure success of the Fallujah and Mosul operations then give them what they request.
When Bush was allegedly acting unilaterally (Iraq), he was denounced for not being multilateral. When he was multilateral (North Korea), he was denounced for not being unilateral. When Europeans are excluded, that's bad (again, allegedly Iraq); when Europeans are allowed to take the lead (Iran), that's bad, too. When Bush "outsourced" the war in Afghanistan by using non-American troops, that was a monumental mistake, according to Kerry and others. When we
didn't outsource the war in Iraq, that was a monumental mistake as well. And so on.
-- Jonah Goldberg
This is why it's pointless to try and please the media intelligensia or find some moderate stance - it never works and you'll be just as criticized. Appointing moderates and Democrats like Colin Powell or Norman Mineta won Bush nothing.
From the same Goldberg commentary:
Or consider the wailing from all quarters about the proposed replacement of Colin Powell with Condoleezza Rice. Editorial boards across the country have been wringing their hands over the fact that President Bush is replacing his "dissenting" secretary of state with a Bush "loyalist." The San Francisco Chronicle warns of the dangers of "groupthink." The Washington Post, New York Times, Dallas Morning News, The New Republic, and countless others fret that replacing
Powell with Rice signals that Bush's new secretary of state will — gasp! — actually agree with the president's foreign policy! "The president and vice president are dispatching their toadies to the
agencies to quell dissent," Maureen Dowd writes with her usual restraint.
I guess I need to reread my Federalist Papers. I thought that the separation of powers referred to the separation of the different branches of government — not separation of the president's political appointees. I didn't know that the president was obliged to appoint cabinet secretaries and agency heads who disagree with him on the very policies they've been asked to implement. The editors of the New York Times are actually aghast that Porter Goss has informed the
bureaucracy that they are there to serve the commander-in-chief.
House Republicans blocked the passage of the long awaited intelligence overhaul bill, which was crafted in wake of recommendations by the 9-11 Commission. The House majority reportedly were concerned over both the avoidance of matters of illegal immigration and the shift of budgetary control from the Defense Department to the new national intelligence advisor post and Central Intelligence Agency.
The blockade caused the expected vocal outcry from any Congressional leader wanting to get their mug on television for a sound bite, but one must wonder if the failure to pass the bill was all that bad of a thing.
What is in this bill will not affect our security tomorrow so much as how it affects our security 20 years from now. Many in Congress were using this bill as a way to shift the attention of their constituents away from the reality that their record on national security and intelligence was awful in the years leading up to 9-11. That’s why they wanted so badly to pass this bill before the November election. But what was good for their careers isn’t necessarily good for the rest of us. One finds it hard to believe that the bill’s language is all that much different than what they were trying to hurry through Congress right before the election. It’s not going to kill anyone to take a second and third look at this bill to ensure that it’s really worth its mustard.
On top of that Americans should be troubled that monetary control might be shifted to a post that strongly favors the CIA when the agency has exercised such partisan behavior of late.
Case in point is Michael Scheuer, the just retired CIA officer who for the last few years led the CIA’s Bin Laden unit until he wrote a book, surprise, bashing the Bush administration. Today on Meet The Press Scheuer continued his obnoxious sales pitch, even going so far as to call Osama bin Laden “a great man,” “admirable” and “remarkable.”
With adjectives of such praise maybe it’s not surprising then that Scheuer never captured or killed bin Laden while he was in charge, because at some point you have to wonder if Scheuer, a top CIA official, was just another apologist more concerned with “understanding” bin Laden’s grievances. But should not be the concern of a CIA to care – what is the agency’s concern should be killing or capturing terrorists. Scheuer was careful to explain that his praise was meant in objective terms – that bin Laden was a “great man” in the sense that he changed the course of history. That’s certainly accurate, but using “admirable” to define bin Laden? That’s pathetic. It’s also frightening language for a man who once headed the CIA’s bin Laden unit.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you see him as a very formidable enemy?
MR. SCHEUER: Tremendously formidable enemy, sir, an admirable man. If he was on our side, he would be dining at the White House. He would be a freedom fighter, a resistance fighter. It's--and again, that's not to praise him, but it is to say that until we take the measure of the man and the power of his words, we're very much going to be on the short end of the stick.
Well that’s the darn point, isn’t it? Bin Laden wasn’t a freedom fighter because in order to be one you must fight on the side of freedom? Perhaps Tim Russert could have dropped his liberal bias long enough to ask Scheuer how it is that a man who protected the draconian regime of the Taliban, and fought alongside them and fought to protect their rule, could ever be called a fighter for “freedom”? Bin Laden fought and fights to prevent the spread of liberal democracy, to prevent the spread of secular rule, to prevent women from going to school, having driver’s licenses or showing their face in public – this is a “freedom fighter”?
Boy, if that’s the conventional wisdom of our CIA you have to start wondering who the enemy really is!
Worse, Scheuer parrots bin Laden’s list of grievances as though he were a member of al Qaeda! This guy, who was once in charge of finding bin Laden, would really have us discontinue support of liberally democratic regimes in Israel and India, among other places, simply to avoid further conflict with Islamic extremists. Talk about capitulation and appeasement!
MR. RUSSERT: I want to read something else from your book. "The military is now America's only tool and will remain so while current policies are in place. No public diplomacy, presidential praise for Islam, or politically correct debate masking the reality that many of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims hate us for actions, not values, will get America out of this war."
"Actions, not values." What are the actions that created this hatred in the Muslim world?
MR. SCHEUER: Our foreign policy, sir, about six items that bin Laden has isolated. I think if has a genius, that's one of them. He has created an agenda that appeals to Muslims whether they are fundamentalists or liberals or moderates. Our unqualified support for Israel is one. Our ability to keep oil prices low, enough for Western consumers, is another. Our presence on the Arabian Peninsula certainly is another. Our military presence in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, in Yemen, in the Philippines, in other Muslim countries is a fourth. Our support for governments that are widely viewed as suppressing Muslims--Russia and Chechnya, for example, the Indians in Kashmir, the Chinese in Western China. But perhaps most of all, our policy of supporting what bin Laden and I think much of the Muslim world regards as tyrannical governments from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, whether it's the Al Sauds, the Kuwaitis, the Egyptian government, the Algerian government. He's focused Muslims on those policies and it is a very resonant agenda.
Scheuer would have you believe that Osama bin Laden’s extremists target the US solely because of our foreign policy, primarily Israel, and if we just sold them out everything would be peachy keen. This runs contrary to the words of al Qaeda’s Yussuf al-Ayyeri who labeled American style democracy a threat “far more dangerous to Islam” than all prior forms of government because it would "make Muslims love this world, forget the next world and abandon jihad." That’s pretty darn cut and dry as to why they hate us. Although it’s often cited their end goal is not about policy. It’s not by accident that in every single region in which al Qaeda is using violence they are doing so against established or forming liberal democracies – The Philippines, Indonesia, Israel, Afghanistan, India, Iraq, the US, Spain, to name a few. But Spain, Iraq, Indonesia or the Philippines don’t give unequivocal support to Israel, as Scheuer argues the US is doing. And Pakistan wars with it’s extremists because the current president seeks to create a more secular society, not because of its foreign policy. And if this is strictly about foreign policy than perhaps Mr. Scheuer can explain why Australia’s citizens were attacked in Bali before the war in Iraq or why they attempted to bomb Spain’s high court after Spain removed its troops from Iraq?
Or, if you rather, take Sudan – an Islamic government has slaughtered 70,000 people because they are Christians and animists demanding a say in government, a more representative and liberal government. But Scheuer would have us believe that the extremists ruling Sudan or fighting to rule other countries speak for all Muslims, or at least should be able to, and most despicable of all, that such a cowardly shift in our policy is the right thing to do.
Thank God this punk is no longer in the CIA. And Mr. Porter Goss, please by all means keep purging the Scheuers out of that agency.
As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam. (a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.
It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions...
(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you. (a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest. We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached. (b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:
(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives? ...
-- Osama bin Laden, November 2002
Yes, it is true that bin Laden cites long lists of American foreign policy as reasons for his Jihad against us. But always at the core of his grievances is the very basic fact that we are not believers of his form of Islam and he considers this the most wicked of all of our sins. Thus, short of every American and Westerner adopting his form of value and belief system bin Laden’s al Qaeda will never stop warring with us.
Bin Laden may cite our support of Israel, among other things, as an impetus to attack us, but at the end of the day, even were we to sell out Israel and remove our presence from all “Muslim lands” – again, as defined by them – they would still attack us because we are a secular, liberally constitutional democracy who dares separate mosque from state and put our laws above the laws of his interpretation of Allah.
SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) - President Bush stepped into the middle of a confrontation and pulled his lead Secret Service agent away from Chilean security officials who barred his bodyguards from entering an elegant dinner for 21 world leaders Saturday night.
Several Chilean and American agents got into a pushing and shoving match outside the cultural center where the dinner was held. The incident happened after Bush and his wife, Laura, had just posed for pictures on a red carpet with the host of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, Chilean President Ricardo Lagos and his wife, Luisa Duran.
As Bush stepped inside, Chilean agents closed ranks at the door, blocking the president's agents from following. Stopping for more pictures, Bush noticed the fracas and turned back. He reached through the dispute and pulled his agent from the scrum and into the building.
First, all I have to say is: What a man.
I can’t imagine any US president breaking up a scuffle between his security guards and others. Conceivably it’s dangerous as well. Which brings me to the next comment – who the hell were these guys to try and prevent Bush’s guards from entering the building? Maybe it was just a misunderstanding but the very next night the Chilean government refused to allow medal detectors at a state dinner, forcing the Bush people to modify the event to something much more intimate. One finds it hard to believe that the first incident was an accident given Chile’s stubborn and inexplicable blocking of a security feature as basic as medal detectors. One can’t enter a courthouse or airplane with such basic security – this is a presidential visit, and the security is for the protection of both American and Chilean diplomats.
Is the rest of the world really willing to play these childish, petty games with our government simply because they don’t like how our election turned out. Because if this keeps up and we lose patience they may find our tit-for-tat replies a little more serious than for what they’ve gambled.
