Israel completed a prisoner swap with Hezbollah yesterday, freeing 400 terrorists in exchange for an Israeli businessman and the bodies of three dead Israeli soldiers. What was Israel thinking?
In the weeks and months to come, many of the freed terrorists will recommence exactly those activities for which they were captured and held in the first place. Innocents will die- the casualties possibly outnumbering the one living and three dead that Israel netted in the swap.
More disturbing is the precedent established yesterday. An article in the Washington Post this morning quoted Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the leader of Hamas, as saying, "his group is making every effort to seize Israeli soldiers as bargaining chips for the release of Palestinians in Israeli jails."
The maxim is old, but not tired: Do not negotiate with terrorists!
Someday China is going to be a wonderful place to live. The Chinese people are already wonderful, but the ruling class that passes for their government are jerks to the last man.
An article from the BBC this morning discusses the lengths to which the ruling party will go to stifle Chinese access to the internet. Encouragingly, the article notes that, "No matter how sophisticated its technology there is no way the government can fully control the internet...". According to Liu Qing, a dissident and former prisoner who now lives in exile and chairs Human Rights in China, "People in China now understand a lot more about what's going on than when I was there in the '70s and '80s. Then, the only contact we had with the outside world was through meeting the very occasional foreigner or somehow getting hold of a foreign paper or magazine."
George Orwell illustrated the importance to tyrannies of control over information in his novel, '1984'. One hopes that through the internet the Chinese people will continue to increase their understanding of the world as it actually is, in contrast with the world as their political masters would have it. In so doing, the Chinese people can hope to free themselves.
Al-Mada, one of the many independent daily newspapers created as a result of the climate of freedom in liberated Iraq, published an article on 25 January 2004 describing the defeated Ba'athist regime's "politics of the open wallet". The Al-Mada Article, in translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), lists individuals, corporations and political parties that allegedly received vouchers for barrels of crude oil- the vouchers could be sold in world markets for an immediate profit. In addition to illustrating one of the many ways that Saddam Hussein contravened sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council, the article reveals the sort of money-greasing that eased the way for global support in spite of his atrocities. And the support was global, spanning nearly thirty countries.
Many of those listed come as no surprise, disgraced British Member of Parliament George Galloway and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, to name two examples. In testament to the sort of corruption that continues to keep the people of the Middle East in bondage to tyrants, the list details countless payments to politicians and ministers, and to their children. Of greatest concern is the allegation of payments to a host of left wing political parties in countries round the world.
While the contents of the article require verification, its allegations fit into a pattern that has become increasingly obvious since the liberation of Iraq. So many on the left who urged moderation and negotiation rather than liberation profited handsomely for doing so.
Listening to the Democrat candidates for President on the radio last night, my girlfriend commented on how much she dislikes politicians because they all sound the same (there Gabrielle, I mentioned you). In this instance, the front runners were promising to change Washington if elected President, and presenting themselves as political outsiders.
A quick Google search using "Wesley Clark" and "Washington outsider" yields a number of search results. One result links to a CNN report from 27 January 2004 that quotes Clark as saying, "I'm an outsider. I'm not part of the problem in Washington. I've never taken money from a lobbyist. I've never cut a deal for votes".
My particular interest in General Clark was driven by an article in this morning's Washington Post providing a rather detailed history of his lobbying on behalf of a number of technology companies, and the considerable money he was paid for his efforts. The article also mentions how Clark used Washington connections- Colin Powell for example- in his job search after leaving the Army.
None of the activities reported in the Washington Post article are illegal. In fact, if one parses the final three sentences of his quotation above (and we have learned the importance of parsing in this post-Clinton world), one could conclude that they are not inconsistent with his lobbying and job search activities. But the first sentence, "I'm an outsider." is so obviously untrue as to be laughable.
From this morning's Washington Post, more information about how Pakistani scientists sold nuclear weapons technology to Iran and Libya using a network of middlemen from Western countries.
"Abdul Qadeer Khan, considered the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, and Mohammed Farooq provided the help -- including blueprints for equipment used to enrich uranium -- both directly and through a black market based in the Persian Gulf emirate of Dubai, the officials said.
The middlemen, from South Africa, Germany, the Netherlands, Sri Lanka and elsewhere, allegedly also offered the Pakistani scientists' services to Syria and Iraq. But the deals apparently never materialized, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
In return for the scientists' assistance in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Iran channeled millions of dollars to foreign bank accounts allegedly controlled by the two men..."
The investigation, which began late last year, is likely to gain momentum for at least two reasons, Libya's newly cooperative attitude, and the desire of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to limit the influence and activities of extreme elements in his government and security and military organizations. Neither of these reasons would exist without the preemptive policy embraced and implemented by President George Bush.
Last night I had the opportunity to attend a production of "The Crucible" by the Tapestry Theatre Company. I studied the play in college but had forgotten how adept Arthur Miller is at packing meaning into character and plot. With the limited budget of a community playhouse (scenery and costumes were lacking), Tapestry did a fine job conveying the emotional dilemmas of the major characters, as well as the horror of communal madness. Elizabeth Williams and Greg McCay were particularly commendable as Elizabeth and John Proctor (Personal disclosure: Elizabeth Williams is my girlfriends roommate.), and Teddy Gron made for a solid Giles Corey.
New Hampshire's primary results are in. I predicted John Kerry and John Edwards in a 1 - 2 finish. I stand corrected. Kerry finished first with a very strong 39%. Howard Dean placed second with 26%. Wesley Clark and Edwards finished third and fourth, well off the pace. The results augur continued momentum for Kerry going into multi-state contests on February 3 and 7. Second place and 26% of the vote is an enormous disappointment for Dean after spending so much money and time in New Hampshire. The same can be said of Clark's campaign, which skipped the Iowa caucuses to prepare for New Hampshire. I am convinced that Dean and Clark will be sidelined by February 7. In Dean's case, he will not overcome his Iowa stumble, but will command sufficient numbers of delegates to influence the Democrat convention. In Clark's case, the more exposure people have to him, the less likeable he is. In the meantime, Edwards has little margin for error if he is to remain a stalking horse. All signs point toward a Kerry nomination, but it remains for him to survive the sort of front runner scrutiny that brought down Howard Dean.
With the New Hampshire Primary looming, the options that remain for the Democrat Party do not inspire confidence. Joe Lieberman, the only candidate for serious people, is moribund in the polls. Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, the scariest and most entertaining candidates, are fading fast. Likely to finish first and second are John Kerry and John Edwards. Setting aside their excellent given names, both are running away from the defining actions of American foreign policy in the past ten years. The liberation of Iraq and the doctrine of preemptive defense have demonstrated American resolve to defeat Islamic fascism and are delivering results. Libya has opened its weapons program to inspection, a globally disbursed market for the tools and expertise necessary to create nuclear weapons has been uncovered, massive numbers of Al Qaeda operatives are dead or in custody. Despite these successes Kerry and Edwards insist that the only legitimate way to pursue national defense is with a permission slip from the United Nations. They will make a two man race of the remaining primaries but how either candidacy can inspire foreign policy confidence is left to the liberal imagination.
Today is the 31st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that has resulted in the murder of more than 40 million Americans. The annual March For Life on the capitol Mall attracted more than 100 thousand people committed to overturning the decision. Especially heartening was the massive participation of young people from so many religious backgrounds.
From President Bush's State of the Union Address last night:
"From the beginning, America has sought international support for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."
Howard Dean's rapid fade in the Iowa Caucus is good for America. His shrill campaign, fueled by the self-righteousness of so many liberal simpletons, ultimately degrades the public square. Dean is not a serious candidate; his objection to the liberation of the Iraqi people, despite the critical nexus of United States national interest and human rights imperative rules him out of serious consideration. The nail in Dean's political coffin is his so called 'I Have A Scream' speech- a suitable epitaph for the politics of anger.