President Bush and Vice President Cheney testified before a closed-door session of the September 11 Commission yesterday. By prior agreement between the White House and the Commission, the content of yesterday’s meeting was not released to the public. What did become public, however, is that the session went at least forty minutes longer than planned- a clear concession by the President and the Vice President to what was described by leftist partisans on the Commission as an urgent need to spend as much time as possible with them.
For weeks, Democrats on and off the Commission criticized the initial White House offer of time-limited testimony by the President and Vice President as insufficient to meet the needs of the Commission and the American people. This criticism was nothing more than crass partisanship, as demonstrated by Bob Kerrey and Lee Hamilton, both Democrat members of the Commission, who left long before yesterday’s testimony ended. More important for Kerrey than listening to the President’s testimony was a scheduled meeting with Senator Pete Domenici. For Hamilton, it was more important to introduce the Prime Minister of Canada (our appeasement minded neighbor) to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Prior to their testimony, the “Hate Bush” crowd argued that the President insisted on testifying with the Vice President out of a need for coaching. The Washington Times this morning reported that during his testimony, “…Mr. Bush never consulted with Mr. Cheney or White House Counsel Albert Gonzales before answering a question.” This was not good enough for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who after the fact still insisted, "The whole process would have been better served if the president had gone in alone and the vice president had gone in alone. It really begs the question of why they had to go in hand in hand…”
Had Bush and Cheney testified separately, partisans on and off the Commission (Pelosi amongst them) would have seized the opportunity to allege differences between their statements to generate additional avenues for inquiry, and more importantly headlines questioning the administration’s credibility. By testifying with Cheney, the President gave the “Hate Bush” crowd fuel to argue that he is not sharp enough to testify on his own, but he also deprived Democrats of an opportunity for future partisan attacks.
It is a shame that Pelosi and her fellow Democrats do not understand the damage their ruthless partisanship does to the Commission’s work. After yesterday’s testimony, Pelosi said not a word about Kerry and Hamilton leaving early, what she described as “… this very important commission meeting which is so important to the American people.” She chose instead to recycle insinuations that Bush is not up to the job.
The Washington Times reports this morning that audits of the Oil For Fraud program were conducted by the United Nations, and that the results of the audits were reviewed by Benon Sevan, the U.N. official in charge of the program. Sevan was appointed to the position by Kofi Annan and his name appears on an oil ministry list discovered by a Baghdad newspaper, of some 270 recipients of oil vouchers- in effect cash payments- from Saddam Hussein’s government.
Even more troubling than U.N. participation in the exploitation of the Iraqi people is the emerging pattern of cover-up. According to the Times, “Joseph A. Christoff, director of international affairs and trade at the General Accounting Office, told a House hearing that U.N. auditors had refused to release the internal audits to GAO investigators probing the scandal that poured an estimated $10.1 billion from secret oil sales and inflated contracts into Saddam's coffers under the U.N. program.”
The United States funds 22 percent of the U.N. budget. Our participation in the U.N. is questionable to begin with, but if we can not expect transparency and accountability for our money, then we should immediately withhold our contribution.
The Washington Times this morning reports that newly released Justice Department memos indicate that Jamie Gorelick, a member of the September 11 Commission, was quite involved in the creation of a policy that constructed a virtual “wall” between law enforcement and intelligence operations. The wall impeded government agencies from sharing information that might have prevented the 9-11 attacks. The Commission has questioned a number of people involved in decisions leading to implementation of the wall policy. That Gorelick has not been asked to testify is an affront to what is supposed to be as a non-partisan investigation. That she actually sits on the Commission is a clear conflict of interest and an insult to government accountability.
The Times writes, “Asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer earlier this month about whether she had written a memo helping establish the wall, she replied: "No, and again, I would refer you back to what others on the commission have said. The wall was a creature of statute. It's existed since the mid 1980s. And while it's too lengthy to go into, basically the policy that was put out in the mid-'90s, which I didn't sign, wasn't my policy by the way…”
Bill Clinton would be proud of such word parsing. The question is not whether the wall policy belonged to Gorelick, or whether she signed it in an official capacity. The question is whether she argued for the policy and defended it in an official capacity. If the answer to the latter question is yes, then she must resign from the Commission and testify. In fact, the answer is yes. A U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, in a June 19, 1995 memo written to Gorelick, described law enforcement problems resulting from the wall policy and recommended changes. Deputy Director Michael Vatis rejected the proposed changes in a formal memo, but the Times reports that Gorelick sent a handwritten note to Attorney General Jane Reno saying, “"I have reviewed and concur in the Vatis/Garland recommendations for the reasons set forth in the Vatis memo."
Gorelick must resign.
The Washington Post yesterday reported that Canada will allow the creation of an Islamic arbitration system based upon Sharia. This is but another step toward the balkinization of our northern neighbor. Have you doubts? Consider this quote about Sharia from the Post, "It's something nobody can change and we must follow," said Almad, who came to Canada from Somalia, then engulfed by war, more than 12 years ago. "We come to Canada and we become lost . . . We need our own court and we need our own law," she said, her voice strong and certain. "That's what I believe." There is of course the option of returning to Somalia for the benefits of Islam... but then political correctness rules such suggestions out of bounds. Far better, in the name of diversity, to deprive Canadians and immigrants to Canada of fundamental human rights.
The Post does quote a number of sources who question the vulnerability of women under such a system, but Ayesha Adam, a mediator in the proposed Sharia system puts those fears to rest, "Islamic belief does not allow women to be treated badly," she said. "Islamic law is based on equality, fairness and justice." She continued, "I don't see how people just take out something from a particular part of the Koran and not look at it holistically." For a Muslim mediator, Adam is uninformed, or she is willfully overlooking Koranic teaching and Islamic tradition regarding the relationship between women and men, and their rights with respect to each other. Consider the following verses from the Koran:
"Women shall with justice have rights similar to those exercised against them, although men have a status above women. God is mighty and wise." (II.282)
"A male shall inherit twice as much as a female." (IV:11)
"Men are in charge of women because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property. So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever high exalted, great." (IV:34)
"[Forbidden to you] are married women, except those whom you own as slaves." (IV:24)
"Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields from whichever side you please." (II:223)
It would be convenient for Adam if these verses were considered archaic under Islamic law and tradition. They are not. The current practice of Islamic law in every country where sharia is enforced applies these verses literally. Slaves are traded in the Sudan today because of sharia. Women are second class citizens in every Islamic republic because of sharia. Religious minorities have suffered under Islam for more than a thousand years, and they continue to do so in every Islamic republic because of sharia. An abritration process that derives from such verses is irreconcileable with human rights. A country that would subject it's citizens to such a process is lost.
The Guardian this morning reported that KCNA, North Korea's state-run news agency claims that among the casualties in the recent train collision in that country are "heroes" who died while rescuing portrats of Kim Jong-il and Kim Il-sung. "In one of the stories of the dead told by KCNA ... Han Jong-suk, 56, a teacher, saved the lives of seven children but died rescuing pictures of Kim Jong-il and his late father, Kim Il-sung." The Guardian continues, "Two other of the dead, Choe Yong-il and Jon Tong-sik, were on a lunch break but rushed back to work on hearing the explosion... They were buried under the collapsing building to die a heroic death when they were trying to come out with portraits of President Kim Il-sung and leader Kim Jong-il." All very much like the serial rape victim who rushes into a collapsing building to rescue her rapist. Big Brother would be proud.
Living in Dupont Circle, the hub of what passes for alternative lifestyles in Washington, D.C. I am accustomed to heavy traffic in political protest. Leftist marches on Washington are invariably preceded by warm-up and warm-down protests, teach-ins and concerts in Dupont Circle. I always feel special in my neighborhood because I am the counter-culture. This feeling is amplified when the Circle and surrounding area is overrun by political correctness, as was the case the weekend past with the pro-abortion march.
My girlfriend saw a placard intended for the march that read, “Stop the War on Women.” When she told me about it I knew immediately what it meant. The war against women is being fought in unisex bathrooms across the country. Or so at least I am led to believe by one of that gender’s less flattering representatives. On Saturday evening I went to dinner with my girlfriend at a nice local restaurant called Firefly (4 stars for décor, 3 ½ stars for food and 1 star for unisex bathrooms). I was leaving the bathroom when an animated woman close to my mother’s age put her face in front of mine and shouted, “Put the seat down!” I was taken off guard and said, “What?” Again shouting, she said, “Did you put the seat down? Put the seat down!” The hallway in which this woman stood conspiring against males with two of her friends is quiet and afforded her no view of the toilet I was leaving, so she had no call for raising her voice. I stepped in close to her to make sure she realized her shouting wasn’t at all intimidating. I stood still, and she paused, now unsure what to do. In a quiet, measured voice I said, “Can you say please?” Again, she paused, and then stammered, “Please.” I always thought there was a reason why such women are referred to as “feminazis” but I never suspected it had to do with toilet seats. Even life in Dupont Circle has left me unprepared for the odd accosting by a menopausal woman over the issue of a toilet seat, but life with my mother and father has not. When in doubt, be polite.
The march was disingenuous to say the least. A gathering of people celebrating infanticide under the euphemistic label, “March For Women’s Lives” could not be farther from the truth. Polemics notwithstanding, motherhood and the health and welfare of children do not threaten the livelihood of women. While the mainstream media was rhapsodic about the large turnout, it said little about the march’s having been several times re-labeled by it’s single issue pro-abortion organizers who found difficulty attracting large numbers when their cause was explicitly defined. The media was also quiet in noting (if at all) that some of the crowd resulted from the march having been timed to coincide with meetings of the International Monetary Fund. IMF protesters weren’t the only supplementary forces drawn from marginally aligned groups. Organizations that logically should be opposed to pro-abortion politics were encouraged to participate. The National Education Association, an organization that apparently does not always side with the children it claims to educate, officially co-sponsored the march with monies derived from compulsory union dues.
The women on stage represented the spectrum of hate-Bush partisanship that passes for politics in Democrat circles. Theirs was not to reason, not speak in paragraphs, but to exhort with coarse and often vulgar slogans. With so much political trash talking and so little civil discourse my feminazi friend from Firefly must have felt quite at home at the March For Women's Lies.
Surprise, surprise! The Chinese government continues to smother democracy in Hong Kong. The New York Times today wrote, “Beijing.. forbade the introduction here of universal suffrage in elections for the chief executive in 2007 and the legislature in 2008, and imposed further limits on the legislature in an attempt to silence democratic sentiment.” Communism, the “ism” responsible for more death and social destruction than any other human force in history will not abide the sharing of power with common people. One only wishes that the Chinese communists would shut up about “One Country, Two Systems.” Hong Kong does not have a separate governmental system and will not have one so long as party functionaries in Beijing twist and distort the Basic Law to suit their commercial and totalitarian interests.
The New York Times this morning reported on radicalization amongst young Muslims living in Europe. The Times and its many sources sought to reinforce the oft-repeated fallacy that Islamism derives from Western policy. In fact, Islamism derives from core teachings in the Koran and the Hadiths. While Islamism may not necessarily be the inevitable result of Islamic teaching and practice, its popularity is fueled by the total failure of Muslim countries to provide their citizens with human rights and basic standards of living.
Hatred and anti-Semitism, which are also derived from core Islamic teachings, are documented by the Times, as in the dismissal by Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammad of members of Parliament who seek his deportation, "There is no case against me but they are Jewish, they have been calling for that for years." He added, “Our Muslim brothers from abroad will come one day and conquer here and then we will live under Islam in dignity.”
The Times article describes an Islamist movement stretching across Europe, using Western free speech and immigration protections as cover behind which to overthrow European pluralism and democracy. The Times article builds on an April 20 report in the Evening Standard about Islamism amongst young Muslims in London. A quote at the beginning of that article sets the tone, "As far as I'm concerned, when they bomb London, the bigger the better," says Abdul Haq… "I know it's going to happen because Sheikh bin Laden said so. Like Bali, like Turkey, like Madrid - I pray for it, I look forward to the day."
Do the militants represent the mainstream, and are they accepted in mosques? The Standard article quotes Muhammad Sulaiman, president of a large mosque, who “…insists that Sayful Islam and his crew are not welcome at the mosque. He cannot prevent them praying there, but he will never give them a platform. "I've told Sayful to bugger off and ejected him many times," he says brusquely.
But Sayful and his friends laugh at the idea that they are local pariahs. "The mosques say one thing to the public, and something else to us. Let's just say that the face you see and the face we see are two different faces," says Abdul Haq. "Believe me," adds Musa, "behind closed doors, there are no moderate Muslims."
Pat Tillman declined a multi-million dollar contract with the Arizona Cardinals of the National Football League to join the United States Army after the Islamist attack on September 11. In doing so, he shunned publicity, insisting that he was no more special than any other man in uniform. He was right; every soldier fighting in the war against terrorism is a hero.
Tillman was killed in combat in Afghanistan today, fighting for things about which he cared deeply enough- country, duty, honor and freedom- to sacrifice the immense rewards he had reaped and was poised to continue reaping at the pinnacle of secular American society. He recognized that his achievements were possible because America secures life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all of her citizens, and that this patrimony requires defending if it is to be passed on to future generations.
Fabrizio Quattrocchi went to Iraq as a contractor to an American security company to earn sufficient money to marry and set up home in Italy. Earlier this month he was kidnapped, forced to dig his own grave, and then shot in the neck by Islamists. Quattrochi too is a hero. To the last moment, he defied his murderers who filmed what they hoped would be a means of humiliating and intimidating the Italian people. Instead, Quattrocchi tried to remove the hood placed over his head, and his last words were audible on the videotape, “Now I'll show you how an Italian dies.”
Al Jazeera, the Islamist mouthpiece that masquerades as a news station, refused to broadcast the kidnappers tape of the execution claiming that it was too bloody. In fact, al Jazeera does not back away from airing any footage that advances the Islamist cause. In this case, al Jazeera chose not to broadcast a Western hero defying Islamist bigots even unto death because doing shows Islamism as the bullies game that it is.
While liberals in the Western world oppose the war against terrorism in terms that sound moral, but really boil down to a concern for material convenience, Tillman and Quattrocchi demonstrated that life becomes moral when we struggle for freedom. A prosperous life is good, but not at the price of enslavement. A peaceful death is good, but not at the price of humiliation. There are times when good men are confronted by evil and the only moral response is action and defiance. We live in such times- Islamism is an objective evil. Tillman and Quattrocchi are heroes because in living and dying, they answered the moral call for action and defiance. In living and in dying the made the world a better place, they shall not be forgotten.
MEMRI yesterday published an interesting collection of Middle East reviews on Mel Gibson's film, "The Passion of Christ."
Despite an alarming conflict of interest, Jamie Gorelick intends to continue serving on the September 11 Commission. The Washington Times this morning reported that she will even contribute to sections of the Commission's final report dealing with the "wall" of separation between intelligence agencies. For the record, that wall is considered a major reason why the United States did not thwart 9/11, and Gorelick was instrumental in it's establisment. While she recused herself from directly questioning former Attorney General Janet Reno and former FBI Director Louis Freeh, she took her partisan battle over the issue to the pages of the Washington Post. That, apparently was a warmup exercise for writing the final report. Recusal has no meaning while she remains on the Commission; she should resign.
The New York Times this morning reported that three car bombs were detonated in front of police stations in Basra, Iraq killing 68 people including 23 children. One could be forgiven for concluding that Islam has a problem with violence, were it not for the reassuring words of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah who yesterday, according to the Arab News Daily, pronounced Islam, “a religion of peace and moderation.”
In his inaugural address to an international conference on Islam and terrorism held in Riyadh, Abdullah said, “Islam condemns all forms of terrorism and we must strive to correct wrong perceptions about our religion.” If the Basra attacks didn’t leave Abdullah second-guessing his use of the words “peace” and “moderation” in a sentence with the word “Islam”, an attack in Riyadh today may have done the trick. According to the Times, the headquarters of Saudi Arabia’s police force in Riyadh was shredded by two car bombs this morning, killing an estimated 10 people.
If Abdullah is sincere about wanting to correct perceptions about Islam, he might start with the hearts and minds of Muslims around the world. If he truly believed that Islam is a religion of peace, he would seek to end the continual exhortations to hatred and violence, which pass for Friday sermons in so many mosques. If he truly believes that Islam is a religion of moderation, he would seek an end to the imposition on Saudi citizens of Wahibism, the most extreme and intolerant form of Islam.
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates and publishes Friday sermons from around the Islamic world. In one example, Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris, an employee of the Palestinian Authority, gave a sermon in Gaza on March 12, 2004 that overwhelms with hatred. He said, “The Jews … disseminate their venom in the Arab countries, because they cannot live in the Middle East like a cancer, spreading in this land, unless they spark the fire of civil strife and war among the Arabs and the Muslims.” He continued, “… we must learn the lesson of the Prophet with regard to the Jews of Al-Madina, whom he expelled. His strategic choice was: 'Fight them, Allah will torture them [at your hands]' and also, 'Make ready against them [all] the force and horsemen that you can.'" Can Abdullah influence a Friday sermon given by a Palestinian in Gaza? He can if MEMRI is correct in it's documentation of the $4 billion dollars given by the Saudi royal family to Palestinians between 1998 and 2003.
MEMRI has excerpted portions of what was once a Web page published by the Saudi Embassy in London. On the subject of religious freedom, the page said, “Anyone in Saudi Arabia is entitled to his own beliefs and practices. But Saudi Arabia cannot allow the public practice of any religion which contradicts Islam.” The United States Department of State clarifies the Saudi position toward the private practice of religions other than Islam in an International Religious Freedom Report: “The [Saudi] Government has stated publicly that its policy is to protect the right of non-Muslims to worship privately; however, it does not provide explicit guidelines for determining what constitutes private worship, which makes distinctions between public and private worship unclear.” This may sound moderate, but the State Department continues, “In early 2002 in the eastern city of Abqaiq, 2 Filipino Christian residents were arrested and imprisoned in Dammam for conducting a Roman Catholic prayer group in their home. In April 2002, the 2 Filipinos were sentenced to 150 lashes and deportation following a 30-day jail sentence, allegedly for their religious beliefs." Saudi Arabia is even more extreme in dealing with Muslim apostates. Amnesty International documents the execution of a Saudi Shi'a for smuggling a Bible into the country.
Peace and moderation for Muslims around the world will begin at exactly the moment that their governments embrace reforms leading to democracy and pluralism. Don't hold your breath waiting. To the extent that Abdullah and the Saudi royal family are unwilling to cede power, they will refuse to moderate Islam. The dead and wounded in Basra and Riyahd today demonstrate that an extreme Islam is not a peaceful Islam.
The Washington Post carries an editorial this morning arguing that calls for Jamie Gorelick to resign from the September 11 Commission because of her role in creating a wall between intelligence gathering functions are overblown. The Post reasons that Gorelick is one of many commissioners with a conflict of interest, and explains that she has recused herself from discussion of "the wall". The Post then takes a few clumsy swings at Attorney General John Ashcroft (one of its favorite targets) who in testimony before the Commission asserted that the wall was the "single greatest structural cause for the September 11th problem." The Post concludes that the wall was merely a contributor to the problem and that Gorelick's involvement in its creation was minimal.
The purpose of the Commission is to investigate all contributory factors leading to September 11, and that would include the wall. Ashcroft made available to the public a memorandum from Gorelick showing that she was quite involved in the wall's creation. With this in mind, Gorelick should be in front of the Commission, not hiding behind it. As if to add insult to injury, Gorelick, despite recusing herself from Commission discussions of the wall, wrote an editorial carried in Sunday's Washington Post laying the foundation for much of the Post editorial's reasoning.
Writing in National Review yesterday, Andrew McCarthy drilled into the Gorelick's and the Post's assertions that the impact of the wall was minor and that her role in its creation was minimal. McCarthy gets it right- the wall was a serious problem and Gorelick was central to the policy making that created it. What is more, her editorial, published in the nation's political paper of record, mocks the Commission and the very concept of recusal.
For the sake of truth and propriety, Gorelick should resign from, and testify before, the Commission.
John Kerry has made much of the argument that the United Nations must participate in the liberation of Iraq to give that liberation moral credibility. The idea that liberation of a people, any people, gains moral credibility when endorsed by a human bureaucracy is an affront to God who endowed all men with inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When arguments to the contrary are fronted by "Post Christian" men of privilege, living comfortably and safely in Western countries, rest assured they (if not the people they represent) have lost their way.
That John Kerry looks to the U.N. for moral credibility in Iraq is surreal; it is rather like looking to France for qualities of national heroism. William Safire demonstrates why this is so in today's New York Times, with an editorial that continues his effort to prevent the "Oil For Fraud" program from dying the quiet death so desired by Kofi Annan and his kleptocratic supporters in the U.N. Oil For Fraud was a cash cow for U.N. functionaries, for Annan's son, and for corporations and governments that happen to be French or Russian. Sadly, Safire again reports that the United States government is more comfortable looking the other way than exposing U.N. corpulence.
In Commentary Magazine, and National Review today, Claudia Rosett writes on the same issue from a slightly different perspective. Rosett speculates that al Qaeda may have profited from the Oil For Fraud program. She writes of financial transaction records that have seen daylight and public scrutiny, that indicate a number of al Qaeda front men and institutions were chosen by Saddam Hussein to process the booty resulting from under priced oil contracts.
Where the looters put the loot is not now known, and only will be if the U.N., France, Russia and other profiteers are held to account. President Bush should be leading the call for accountability on behalf of the Iraqi people instead of following the State Department’s lead in currying favor with the U.N. Of course, we should not expect such leadership from John Kerry- he is neither stupid, nor principled enough come out for the people of Iraq against his own political interests.
More from the K Street boys. Following is a response from Sparky to Spanky's previous message.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sparky
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 5:05 PM
To: Spanky
Subject: RE: Curious
I don't think quoting state department speeches if very helpful where human rights are concerned. The striped-pants boys don't mind if you kill a couple of thousand of your own people discreetly as long as you hold your liquor and use the right salad fork at state dinners. The President has always included the humanitarian argument in his key speeches, stating in the State of the Union:
"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.) And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
There are other statements by the President in the same vein. This speaks directly to your counterfactual assertion that the administration, rather than State (which is always the weak reed in upholding American values abroad) has provided :"no sense anywhere in that speech that the purpose of war in Iraq is to free the Iraqi people, to stop the torture and killing of innocents." There is no question the administration and everyone else thought Saddam had operational WMD's but it is also true that Iraq posed a unique chance, because of U.N. violations, the fact that he had violated the ceasefire terms of the First Gulf War, location and the relatively cosmopolitan nature of the place to transform the middle east. That is what we are trying to do.
Afghanistan was not enough because Afghanistan did not serve as a rally point for the Middle East as Saddam has. It was a great terror haven but it did not have oil and the prestige of having survived the First Gulf War. Moreover, the unorthodox tactics used there allowed opponants to argue that it was not a good indicator of American power in a shooting war.
Of course its sad to see soldiers die (and I think we have too many women too close to combat) but your scheme of "declaring victory" and leaving is foolishness. There were journalists and opponants of the Bush administration yearning to yell quagmire during the sandstorm a week or so into the war. As I said before our troops will have to be there a while. In the brief days we have had this correspondence the baby-mulluh has been isolated and is a figure of ridicule in Al Najaf. That city has celebrated a major Shia religious holiday without incident and Falluja is being reduced and seranaded.
That "false coalition" John Kerry would disband has produced a hero who died like a Roman of the ancient times, Fabrizio Quatrrocchi (From Naples, my Daddy notes with pride), the British, Japanese and Poles have stood like a stone wall and again the forces of dissolution have been thwarted. So far, so good.
From the New York Times this morning, a report on censorship in China. The opening paragraphs tell the story:
“Before his high-profile visit to China last week, Vice President Dick Cheney insisted that Beijing leaders allow him to speak, live and uncensored, to the Chinese people.
After weeks of intensive negotiations, Mr. Cheney was granted that measure of openness — but not one millimeter more.
Anyone who tuned into CCTV-4, China's all-news television channel, at shortly after 10 a.m. last Thursday could have watched Mr. Cheney deliver an address to students at Fudan University in Shanghai. A State Department linguist provided simultaneous interpretation.
The broadcast, however, received no advance billing in the Chinese news media and was not repeated. And authorities promptly plastered leading web sites with a "full text" of the vice president's remarks, including his answers to questions after the speech, that struck out references to political freedom, Taiwan, North Korea and other issues that propaganda officials considered sensitive.”
As a measure of the Chinese government’s dishonesty, this incident is revealing. Referring to a censored transcript of a foreign dignitary’s speech as the “full text” shows the lengths to which the Chinese Communist Party will go to preserve power. It also shows that despite successive “reform” movements, the CCP remains as self-serving today as it was during the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward or any other pre-reform human rights debacle.
The lies and doublespeak that go for official policy in China are best captured in another quote from the Times story, “An editor at the People's Daily website involved with preparing the transcript denied that any censorship had occurred. The editor, who declined to be identified, said missing sentences or sections are attributable solely to the speed with which the transcript was prepared.”
Hong Kong and Taiwan do not fear informed citizens. With unhindered access to western news reports like this one, why would their citizens ever trust the Chinese government?
From the Guardian this morning, an excellent article about the imprisonment, by the Chinese government, of three editors of the Southern Metropolitan Daily. In late 2002 the newspaper published a number of investigative reports that exposed corruption, mismanagement and cover-up by Chinese government officials in their handling of the Sars epidemic. The Daily's investigative work resulted in policy changes and the dismissal of central and regional government officials. While it is always laudable to challenge one party rule, it is not often wise to do so. The newspapermen found this out when Communist Party leaders arrested them on clearly contrived charges. If their sentences hold, the editors will spend the next 11 or 12 years contemplating free speech restrictions under one party rule.
Now, why would the people of Taiwan ever link their sovereignty to the mainland?
My legal eagle friends were at it again yesterday. Following is a response from Spanky to Sparky's final message the previous day.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sparky
To: Spanky
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Curious
Here is the Powell Speech to the UN. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm Yes, killing and torturing his own people is mentioned in very brief passing, but merely as an argument for why Saddam is so dangerous. There is no sense anywhere in that speech that the purpose of war in Iraq is to free the Iraqi people, to stop the torture and killing of innocents.
I think that it is important to make distinctions between the pre-war justifications because actually, I don't disagree with you that the war has achieved some good things, and I also don't disagree with you now that the goal is to win the war (I mean, once you start the fight, regardless of how fool hardy that might be, you had damn well better win it). The issues for Democrats like me are really two fold: 1) from a military standpoint, what is the most expeditious way to victory, which will cost the least in terms of dollars (not that I want to deny the troops money or support -- just how do we make it short, sweet, and to the point) and human life, and 2) from a political standpoint, did this president and this administration lie to the country? Using your analogy, I think that if in 1939 FDR had said "we are going to war because there might be some secondary benefits like discovering nuclear power," people would have thought he was insane.
Didn't the Afghan invasion prove that our military kicks ass, and that no one should mess with us?
In your last paragraph, you lump everything together just like the Bush people do. I don't disagree that the invasion of Afghanistan was well warranted, that the toppling of the Taliban was good, that dispersing Al Quaeda from it's hideouts was good, that the Afghani people are better off, that relations with Pakistan are improved, that unemployment is low and that inflation is nearly zero. Yet all of that would be the case even without the invasion of and war with Iraq. The war needs to stand on its on merits, and the cost in human life must be weighed against the benefits directly associated with the war.
So, culling out your own benefits, it cost us almost 700 dead and several thousand wounded to get Saddam in custody, lift sanctions on Iraq, and possibly institute a democratic regime there. You may see that as acceptable, Mr. Spock, but it sure was sad watching that poor family in Wisconsin accept the flag from their dead daughter's coffin earlier this morning. Yes, freedom comes with sacrifice, but it is the duty of this president, now that we are in this dogfight, to win and to get us the hell out of this growing quagmire. And it is simply too facile to say "we are turning over authority on June 30th, and we might have to throw in more troops."
Two good friends of mine, high power Washington attorney types, spent the better part of yesterday afternoon sparring over President Bush's conduct of the war against terrorism. While their respective law firms may miss out on some billable hours, the public square is the better for their exchange. They manage to cover the liberal and conservative perspectives on the subject in a comprehensive manner. The question is, who won the exchange?
Note: Minor edits in the following exchange are solely to protect the authors' confidentiality.
-----Original Message-----
From: Spanky
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 2:49 PM
To: Sparky
Subject: Curious
... I am not trying to "bait the bear," but I have been trying to determine all day what intelligent conservatives like yourself thought of the news conference last night, particularly the Q and A session. The closest that I have come to finding any comment was Andrew Sullivan's anemic "this was a great performance and he should do more," without any real analysis of why Bush did such a good job.
I think that you can probably guess what [our] liberal trial lawyer feminist …household thought.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sparky
To: 'Spanky'
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 3:30 PM
Subject: RE: Curious
I loved it. I felt that he made more than a dozen points Americans, the terrorists and the world needed to hear from the President: 1. We ain't going anywhere; 2. He would have gone to war with Iraq even without WMD because of the threat Saddam posed to world peace and human rights; 3. the people we are fighting do not represent Iraqi opinion or its future; 4. it isn't going to be easy but it must be done; 5. The Iraq war is just one theatre in a wider conflict; 6. Iraq is key to transforming the nature of the region that produces attacks on the U.S.; 7. whatever the commanders on the ground need they will get; 8. consensual government is possible in Arab nations.(I'm not sure this is true but if it’s not there is no solution to our problems short of imperialism old school); 9. the Iraqi people will begin to control their own destiny on June 30 and no amount of violence will stop that; 10. the troops in the field are waging a battle worth fighting for the U.S.; 11. Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqis; 12. he is in constant contact with our allies (Japan, U.K. etc..); and, 13. the Iraq war has helped get cooperation on other fronts of the terror war from Pakistan on the selling of nuclear secrets and Libya on WMD, and Japan on Korea. 14. IF YOU WANT AN APOLOGY TALK TO OSAMA (or Clinton).
For years interviewers tried to get Truman to second guess dropping both bombs on Japan and he steadfastly refused to say anything but that he slept well that night. Good for him and good for Bush. I mean I wish he'd said "I made a mistake in not firing George Tenet and by keeping on a failed NSC staff (Clarke) of the previous administration. I wanted to keep them on for continuity and to avoid a loss of institutional memory, and it was a mistake. I should have shaken up every one of those institutions. Tonight they are all fired. I also made a mistake in reaching out to Democrats like Ted Kennedy who in his blind partisanship, has repaid that courtesy by telling falsehoods to the American people and undermining our war effort and endangering the lives of the men fighting in the field. I also think we have been to kind to those causing the disturbances in Falluja and Najaf, there will be no cease fires, any further attacks on free Iraqis or coalition forces will be met by utter destruction." I don't think that is what the jackals were looking for however. It is amazing to me that no one asked any question about whether we had been to soft in our use of force.
As you know because of my place of birth and profession I would prefer a more glib, facile and aggressive response to the jackals of the press but the key thing for me is that I think to most Americans he will seem more real, in control and sincere than John Kerry does when they eventually go head to head. The memo from that terrorist Al Sawari where he said they have to stop the handover of sovereignty because once that happens they are dead is an accurate analysis. Nothing is certain but I think if the hand off goes through on June 30 a host of Iraqis will have a stake in the success of the Iraqi project. After that, the violent sheiks and old Baathists are in huge trouble. It could all end in tears as everything can but I think it is less likely under this guy because he won't quit.
-----Original Message-----
From: Spanky
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 3:58 PM
To: Sparky
Subject: Re: Curious
Interesting. But it isn't troubling to you in the least that Bush: 1) can't remember the entirety of a question while he is in the middle of answering it; 2) can't bring to mind the names of major world leaders who are more imminent threats to the U.S. than Saddam was; 3) can't conjure up one single mistake or thing that he might have done differently without the benefit of Rove, Uncle Dick, Condi, or Andy putting the words right into his mouth; 4) can't admit any mistakes, ever; 5) can't answer a pretty direct question about why he and Uncle Dick aren't going to speak separately with the 9/11 Commission; 6) can't (or didn't) offer ANY sort of concrete plan about what or how the US is going to do about Iraq going forward, other than that we are going to hand over sovereignty in a little over 2 1/2 months to some as yet unknown entity, and that we are destined to throw even MORE troops into Iraq; 7) sucks the @#*# of a known terrorist like Quaddifi (who basically paid off the US and the Lockerbie families because GUESS WHAT . . . ECONOMIC SANCTIONS CRIPPLED LIBYA, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME) by holding him up as a shining example of how we can reform terrorists and murderers.
I could go on. But more fundamentally, how is it that someone as intelligent as you isn't just blatantly offended by such gross ignorance and stupidity. Last night for me, it wasn't even so much about what he said (or didn't say) -- I was just cringing as a halfway intelligent person because he is just SUCH a moron. It's just downright embarrassing.
Also, I know that "jackals of the press" is one of your trademark beliefs, but if you have a problem with what wasn't asked, maybe you should call your friends at Fox News or the Washington Times (who got their turn, as you might recall) and ask why even they didn't serve up the kind of softball question that you are "amazed" that no one asked.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sparky
To: 'Spanky'
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:08 PM
Subject: RE: Curious
I don't think my question was softball. Most Americans want to use more force in Iraq. Why doesn't the press reflect that. Next, I know why he didn't answer a number of those questions. He is using the old Eisenhower gambit of appearing not to be clear on the question. Reporters thought Ike was out of it too. Quadaffi just happened to cave to sanctions now? I would admit to no mistakes at a press conference either because that is the headline the next day. The press is unfair and it can't expect fair answers. They are speaking together so that there is no perceived daylight between them. He can't say that but I do wish they'd presented something better. And of course we aren't saying who is getting power on June 30. We are negotiating and arguing in country with a myriad of forces. I'm sure when you are negotiating settlements you tell everybody exactly what you will settle for and where you are ultimately going at the very beginning so as to get the best deal for your clients? Does that make you a moron?
-----Original Message-----
From: Spanky
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:18 PM
To: Sparky
Subject: Re: Curious
You think most Americans want to use more force in Iraq? That's not what public opinion polls say, so I'm curious where that comes from. My understanding is that more than half of Americans disagree with Bush's Iraq policy, and just want to get the hell out of there, to stop spending money there, and to stop the deaths of Americans.
It is one thing to pretend not be clear on questions, and quite another to be truly out of it. You may believe it was the former, but I don't think anyone can feign the "deer in the headlights" look quite so masterfully.
Quadaffi's negotiations were started well before the Iraq war.
You yourself enumerated plenty of "mistakes" that Bush could have identified, which would have made very nice headlines for your side.
That's one way to spin the issue of the handover. Another way to look at it is that as the New York Times notes (after the jump in its off-lead) that the U.N. team that arrived in Iraq last week has made almost no progress in hammering out who or what exactly will inherit the sovereignty the U.S. means to transfer on June 30. "Even meeting with some of the key leaders has been a logistical nightmare," the paper writes. Both the Los Angeles Times’s lead and a separate front-page New York Times story about the military dangers of Iraq's political sclerosis quote administrator L. Paul Bremer's response on NBC yesterday when he was asked who'll be taking over in two and a half months. "Well, that's a good question," he said, "and it's an important part of the ongoing crisis we have here now." (from Slate).
If I went to the table to negotiate and there was no one sitting across from me, that would make me a moron.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sparky
To: 'Spanky'
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: Curious
The polls state that Americans are not averse to more force and in fact would use more. They want the killing of Americans to stop. The dissatisfaction with Bush's Iraq policy is about 50% but a lot of that is the "we're not killing enough of them variety." Nor do a majority of Americans want to pull out. I am quite content to wait and see what happens on June 30 and hope for the best. Also, I am very happy with the "Bush is a moron" chant coming back. It has always presaged a catastrophic Democratic defeat.
Suppose the New York Times stories on massive American casualties and an nightmarish humanitarian disaster also came true? (I thought taking Iraq would cost 2 to 5,000 American lives and was way off). The exit strategy is victory. We are still in ,Germany and Japan and Korea (and Bosnia) but the nature of that commitment has changed. It will be the same in Iraq. I also note almost complete silence on the 20% of Iraqis who without question love America and are making a success of self-government already in Kurdistan. The Arab areas also have a majority view that the Americans should leave as soon as possible but not immediately. The Baathist heartland and the cities infiltrated by Iranians (Najaf, etc.) are the only outliers. That is where the deaths and the press go but that is not what is happening in Iraq. Armed men who see their days numbered are fighting. If Iraqis were against us we would be having a lot more problems.
-----Original Message-----
From: Spanky
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:47 PM
To: Sparky
Subject: Re: Curious
Oh, I see. We have to start bombing Cambodia, and that will make things all better.
What polls are you looking at? http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=11260
Remember, I predicted a long time ago that Bush was going to win again, and that I was very depressed by it. That doesn't make him any less of a complete moron.
We are working on that 2,000 to 5,000 casualties -- up to 686 dead so far, and another 3,466 wounded. But what's a few hundred American soldiers dead, when we expected thousands? A victory, I say!
----- Original Message -----
From: Sparky
To: 'Spanky'
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: Curious
Victories are judged by outcomes. Getting rid of Saddam with all the benefits that flow from that is easily worth the cost. We are still losing men in Afghanistan but getting rid of the Taliban and an Al Queda safe haven was also worth it. The days of casualty-less victories are over. Iran, Syria, North Korea all have to topple and Saudi Arabia has to reform or die. It is a 30-year war at least and what happens in Iraq matters.
-----Original Message-----
From: Spanky
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 5:17 PM
To: Sparky
Subject: Re: Curious
Well, I agree with you that the war on Afghanistan was worth the cost.
Just what exactly are the benefits that have flowed from those nearly 700 dead, the 3,500 wounded (which might actually be a gross understatement of the wounded -- there are plenty of estimates that the wounded count is more like 11,000 to 22,000), and the $110 billion-plus spent to date on the war? And are you really saying that we need to go in, on the offensive (and quite possibly the military offensive) and take out Iran, Syria, North Korea, and maybe even Saudi Arabia?
----- Original Message -----
From: Sparky
To: 'Spanky'
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 5:41 PM
Subject: RE: Curious
Those regimes have to go one way or another. I don't think it will require military intervention depending on how Iraq goes but yes, they have to go. Advantages gained: 1. US out of Saudi Arabia; Christian army no longer defends the Moslem holy places; 2. No chance of Saddam escaping from the "box" that was leaking like a sieve; 3. No more chance of Saddam serving as a rally point or causing trouble at critical juncture; 4. No more Iraqi's buying WMD's on black market; 5. chance for Turkish-style democracy in Mid-East; 6. defunding of suicide bombers and other terrorists in Mid-East (no more 25k bounty for Israeli bombings that kill Americans); 7. Libyan cave in; 8. unraveling of Pakistani nuke market; 9. destabilization of Syrian regime; 10. destabilization of Iranian regime; 11. release of Iraqi oil onto world markets; 12. no more mass killings in Iraq; 13. American military on border of Iran and Syria; 14. Iraqi pressure off of moderate state Jordan and US ally Kuwait; 15. Iran surrounded by two American allied nations Iraq and Afghanistan; 16. revitalization of southern marshes reversing enormous environmental damage to the region; 17. increase in GNP of Iraq, Jordan and Turkey from new free flow of goods reinforcing rule of law in Moslem states; 18. demonstration American power capable of toppling entrenched regime always salutary lesson for the wicked; 19. free Iraqi newspapers and broadcasts; 20. killing of American killing terrorist Abu Nidal; 21. destruction of Al Queda allied Ansar Anselem; 21. increased Saudi cooperation in killing and handing over terrorists; 22. revelation of Oil for Fraud program and highly compromised bribes in U.N., France and Arab press; and, 23. end of starvation and deprivation of Saddam’s enemies within Iraq.
-----Original Message-----
From: Spanky
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 6:10 PM
To: Sparky
Subject: Re: Curious
Now wait a minute . . . let's separate what has actually been accomplished from what may in the future come to pass. 1) Yes, the U.S. military is out of Saudi Arabia, which is a good thing. 2) No question that Saddam isn't going anywhere. 3) No question that Saddam won't cause any more trouble, but he could still be seen as a rallying point (i.e. holy Islamic martyr). 4) You mean, no more Iraq government officials buying WMD's on the black market -- of course, since there weren't any found, I guess they weren't buying any previously, so that isn't much of an achievement. 5) That of course remains to be seen. Since there has never been a democracy in Iraq, it seems unlikely that one will flourish there now. 6) Yes, suicide bombers have been defunded, but not eliminated. 7) Libya didn't cave in because of Iraq. I defy you to give me any hard evidence of a connection. 8) I don’t think that the Pakistani nuke market has completely unraveled yet, and I think that it has a lot more to do with the improved relations with Pakistan that were necessitated by the Afghanistan invasion. 9) So the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 is just window dressing, unnecessary diplomatic and economic sanctions that are really superfluous in light of the Iraq war? 10) There are at least some arguments that a destabilized Iran is more dangerous to us than Iraq was. 11) Bought any gas lately? Big benefit! 12) Yes, there are no more mass killings in Iraq. But if I hear one more Republican spin this war as some humanitarian mission to save innocent Iraqis, I think I am going to puke. You know darn well that is post hac rationalization! 13) I thought the goal was to get the American military out of there as soon as possible? 14) Yes, pressure on Jordan and Kuwait is gone. 15) It remains to be seen what Iraq will end up being, so don't count this as an achievement of the war. 16) Yes, this war was all about the environment. That is just unbelievable… ! How can you say that with a straight face? 17) Not yet, my friend. 18) Yes, we have a bigger #@*# than all other nations. Big deal. 19) Oh great -- now there will be Iraqi "jackals of the press." You kill me! 20) Yes, we got one. But Bin Laden is still at large. 21) See #20. 21 [sic]) Not because of Iraq -- we got increased Saudi cooperation because of the bombings in Riyadh. 22) Ah yes, Kofi Annan's son's little dodge . . . we had to go to war to find that out? 23) You're just repeating yourself, and that is another post hac rationalization.
If all this great stuff was going to transpire by taking out Saddam, why wasn't that included in Colin Powell's case to the UN? Maybe a few more members of the Security Council would have been convinced that war was the right way to go. You know and I know that at least half of this is just after the fact make weight.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sparky
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 6:34 PM
To: 'Spanky'
Subject: RE: Curious
The humanitarian element was stressed in every Bush speech to Congress and to the U.N. The fact that Saddam was killing and torturing his own people in large numbers was part of the rationale every time and is not post hac rationalization, it may not be a Cheney reason but it is a Bush reason. It is also a reason that helps us in Iraq. Also, you asked me what the benefits were not whether we said them ahead of time. One of the benefits to entering WWII was discovering nuclear power but nobody said that before hand. The revitalization of the southern marshes is a big deal and it was a side benefit but a benefit it is. On Libya we just disagree. That 15 years of defiance suddenly becomes peaches and cream is very telling to me. I agree Afghanistan had an effect on Pakistan but I also know that the unraveling of that connection was done with intelligence gathered in Libya and Iraq.
Also, my goal is not to get the U.S. out as soon as possible; it is to win. If we have to stay in some capacity to do so as we have stayed to stabilize a host of other allies so be it. Also, the argument that democracy can't prosper there because it never has would mean democracy can't prosper anywhere cause most of the world has never had it. Finally, I can't believe you of all people believe No. 18 isn't important in world affairs. The ability and will to take over a country of 27 million at a cost of less than 1000 American lives is awe inspiring and will be noted well. Brinkmanship with this President and this country is not going to be done lightly.
In short, if you told America two and a half years ago that by now Afghanistan would have a friendly government and Al Queda had been dispersed from its hideouts. Saddam would be in American custody, sanctions lifted on that country, a possible democratic regime being fostered, riots against the Iranian mullahs, better relations between India and Pakistan and an increase in the well being of the 50 million in Iraq, Afghanistan and the surrounding countries, and American unemployment at 5.6% and inflation virtually zero and the policies chosen by the Bush administration to accomplish all of this cost less than 1/3 the number of people we lost on September 11 people would think you were mad. Yet that is what we have. It is a miracle, and that you can't see it is unbelievable to me.
The New York Times this morning reported that Yasser Arafat issued a statement threatening regional instability if the United States supports Israeli annexation of parts of the West Bank. In the statement, “Arafat told the United States… it would kill all hope of peace in the Middle East if it gave assurances to Israel on keeping West Bank settlements.” Arafat did not warn about a continuation of violence in Israel and the Palestinian territories, but of continual violence in the Middle East. He clearly linked American policy towards Israel with Middle Eastern policy towards America, and he threatened collective action against America by the tyrants of the Middle East.
Arafat also stated, “This deal which Sharon is seeking will take place at the expense of the Palestinian people and without the knowledge of the Palestinian people's legitimate leadership.” It is true that the Israeli plan will take place at the expense of the Palestinian people, and for that reason the plan may be ill advised, but the plan is less troubling for the Palestinian people than Arafat’s assertion that there exists “legitimate” Palestinian leadership.
Doubtless, Arafat had himself in mind as the legitimate leader of the Palestinian people, which brings his statement full-circle to it’s fraudulent starting point. Arafat is neither legitimate nor a leader. He is rather, a murderous thug who has prevented the Palestinian people from freely electing leaders, stolen what Forbes Magazine estimates at close to half a billion dollars in Palestinian aid money, intimidated and killed all who have threatened his exclusive hold on the Palestinian Authority, and in general, prevented the formation of truly legitimate Palestinian leaders. In doing so, Arafat himself has killed the possibility of peace between Israel and the Palestinian people. He has done so at every opportunity. Arafat's latest threats amount to nothing new. While he is in power, regardless of Israeli actions, there will be no peace and the Palestinian people will suffer.
Responding to partisanship in the 9/11 Commission, the White House has declassified the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) from August 6, 2001. Democrats have latched on to this memorandum as though it were proof of any number of theories: from the tame- that President Bush should have recognized the urgent need for immediate action against al Qaeda; to the absurd- that the President and his advisers might have pieced together the 9/11 plot; to the insulting- that the President and his advisors knew exactly what was coming and did nothing.
The 9/11 Commission is a marvelous example of why America is great. In so many countries round the world, a catastrophe like the terrorist destruction of the World Trade Center would result in a cover-up. In the United States we have a commission sponsored by both parties in the government with a charter for rigorous, and to the extent possible, transparent inquiry. America will benefit through greater security resulting from the exercise of opening files and searching memories.
The Commission is also an example of the partisan sickness that pervades the public square in America today. Rather than focusing on why terrorists were able to penetrate airport security, overcome flight crews and destroy so much that we held dear, partisans on the Commission use their positions to blame the current administration. Rather than focusing on what might be done to prevent future attacks, certain Commission members think only of what might be done to foster an outcome they favor in the November elections.
Neither the Clinton nor the Bush administration could reasonably be expected to have anticipated the 9/11 attacks. To suggest otherwise is to deflect blame for terrorism away from Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the Islamists where it properly belongs.
Both administrations, but especially the Clinton administration passed on opportunities to strike forcefully against terrorism. Bill Clinton had eight years, during which time al Qaeda was operative and growing, to act forcefully against bin Laden. The strongest action he took was a missile launch timed, coincidentally we are we told, to disrupt his impeachment trial.
The PDB that was highlighted by the Commission is used by partisans and the media to question President Bush’s stewardship of national security during his first eight months in office. They point to the PDB as proof of negligence on the part of the President in failing to secure domestic and international security. But consider the evidentiary points made in the PDB:
- The millennium bombing plot of 1999 is suggested to be the work of al Queda
- A Bin Laden television interview in 1998 is mentioned.
- A clandestine source claimed in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell operated in New York.
- A foreign intelligence service sourced quotation paraphrases Bin Ladin as threatening the U.S. in 1998.
- Abu Zubaydah, a bin Ladin lieutenant, is said to have been planning terrorist attacks in 1998.
- The attack on the U.S. embassy in Kenya in 1998 is mentioned.
- The attack on the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania in 1998 is mentioned.
- A Bin Ladin television interview in 1997 is mentioned.
- The arrest and deportation of terrorists in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1997 for planning attacks are mentioned..
- A senior terrorist liviong in California in the mid-1990s is mentioned.
- Terrorists were surveilling U.S. Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1993.
All of this presumably corroborated evidence dates from between 1993 and 1999. Not only does the so-called “smoking gun” evidence predate the Bush administration, it was between 2 and 8 years old at the time President Bush read the PDB. None of the evidence cited is substantial enough to have warranted putting the nation on military footing before 9/11, let alone creating a Homeland Security Administration, developing a preemptive defense doctrine, invading Afghanistan and massively disrupting the air transport industry.
The PDB mentions an uncorroborated report of planning by bin Laden to hijack an airplane for the purpose of ransom: “We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (redacted portion) ... service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.”
It continues, “… FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”
Finally, the PDB closes by mentioning that, “The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.”
With one uncorroborated report of planning for a conventional hijacking and possible attacks on government buildings, and the reassurance that some 70 FBI field investigations were underway, had President Bush on the basis of the PDB called for the tangible steps taken after 9/11- creation of a Homeland Security Administration, development of a preemptive defense doctrine, invasion of Afghanistan and massive disruption of the air transport industry- his two-faced critics (without benefit of hindsight) would not have joined him in defending America, rather, they would have sought his impeachment.
An April 6, report by Daniel Pipes calls attention to a lawsuit filed by the Council On American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) against Anti-CAIR, a website run by Andrew Whitehead, a college student and retired Naval enlistee. His alleged crime according to CAIR- libelous defamation. CAIR's Motion For Judgment takes issue with the following statements from Anti-CAIR press releases:
"a. Let there be no doubt that CAIR is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia law in America. ACAIR, August 13, 2003, Press Release.
b. [CAIR is an] …organization founded by Hamas supporters which seeks to overthrow Constitutional government in the United States and replace it with an Islamist theocracy using our own Constitution as protection… ACAIR, July 4, 2003, Press Release.
c. ACAIR reminds our readers that CAIR was started by Hamas members and is supported by terrorist supporting individuals, groups and countries. ACAIR, June 14, 2003, Press Release.
d. Why oppose CAIR? CAIR has proven links to, and was founded by, Islamic terrorists. CAIR is not in the United States to promote the civil rights of Muslims. CAIR is here to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States and convert our country into an Islamic theocracy along the lines of Iran. In addition, CAIR has managed, through the adroit manipulation of the popular media, to present itself as the ‘moderate' face of Islam in the United States. CAIR succeeded to the point that the majority of its members are not aware that CAIR actively supports terrorists and terrorist supporting groups and nations. In addition, CAIR receives direct funding from Islamic terrorists supporting countries. ACAIR, May 29, 2003, Press Release.
e. CAIR has proven leaks to, and was founded by, Islamic terrorists. ACAIR, May 29, 2003, Press Release.
f. CAIR is a fundamentalist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Constitution and the installation of an Islamic theocracy in America. ACAIR, April 16, 2003, Press Release.”
For these statements CAIR seeks $1 million in compensatory damages, $350,000 in punitive damages, and legal fees and interest.
GO ANTI-CAIR! You must be doing something right if hatred's soldiers are coming after you.
CAIR marches to the beat of Islamism, has an Islamist agenda for the United States, and is funded by people and organizations tied to Islamism and terrorism. Anti-CAIR links to a September 24, 2003, Front Page article describing CAIR’s participation in a nebulous network of seemingly benign organizations funded by Islamists that make use of American legal protections to push an agenda that is antithetical to the Constitution. In addition, Anti-CAIR's website quotes CAIR leadership, and links to discusions of the quotes, to illustrate CAIR's real agenda.
" Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant...The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth,"
Omar Ahmad, Co-founder of CAIR
"I am in support of the Hamas movement."
Nihad Awad, Executive Director of CAIR
"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."
Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR Spokesperson
A minimum of background reading on Islam and Islamism (not necessarily the same thing) and an acquaintance with current events is all that one needs to parse these quotes and draw the proper conclusions about CAIR. Islamism is facism. Where Islam governs, religious pluralism suffocates and non-Muslims suffer. One need only look to Iran and Saudi Arabia for proof. Islamism is antithetical to the Constitution because Islamism demands an end to much of the Bill of Rights. To argue for Islamism through education is to argue for an end to the American experiement. Finally, Hamas is both Islamist and terrorist; anyone who supports Hamas supports Islamism and terror.
Anti-CAIR expects to form a legal defense fund to counter CAIR's deep Islamist pockets. Support the fight against CAIR's legal jihad.
Clear Channel, the media company that broadcasts Howard Stern, has decided to terminate his program in the face of FCC fines totaling $495,000. The New York Times yesterday quoted a statement posted by Stern on his website: "It is pretty shocking that governmental interference into our rights and free speech takes place in the U.S. It's hard to reconcile this with the 'land of the free' and the 'home of the brave."'
One hopes that minus his day job, Stern doesn’t take up a second career in the law. On second thought, perhaps he should go to law school; he might learn that free speech is not an unlimited right. It would be shocking if the government did not interfere with an assertion of unlimited free speech rights, shouting fire in a crowded theater for example, or burning a cross in a black family's front yard. To the extent that Stern broadcasts on public radio spectrum, he is beholden to standards of public decency, and defining those standards is the job of the government.
That Stern doesn't get this is obscene.
The Washington Times reports that a lawyer for the Senate Judiciary Committee, once party to the University of Michigan Affirmative Action case, urged Senator Ted Kennedy to manipulate the confirmation process in order to obtain a desired outcome in the Michigan case. What is the purpose of the Senate Ethics Committee if not to investigate such corrupt practices.
The New York Times this morning has additional reporting on Tuesday's rewriting of the Basic Law by the Chinese government. There is nothing new in the reporting, but the Times does state in clear terms what drove the ruling: "Chinese leaders are especially nervous about the threat democracy poses to their one-party system after Taiwan voters re-elected Chen Shui-bian as president last month." As though a pesky desire for freedom in Taiwan weren't enough, Beijing also has to deal with people who for inexplicable reasons assert a human right to self-governance in Hong Kong. The Times writes, "... the ruling on Tuesday seemed tailored to ensure that the territory not fall under the control of people the Communist Party considers dangerous or disloyal." Democracy threatens one-party rule and disloyalty is dangerous- this neatly summarizes politics in China.
The Washington Post today reported that, “The Chinese government ruled… that it alone has the power to initiate political reform in Hong Kong.” What the Chinese government really meant, but did not say, is that it alone has the power and the will to crush political freedom in Hong Kong.
No amount of verbal contortions or doublespeak by Tung Chee-hwa, China’s appointed Chief Executive of Hong Kong, or members of the Standing Committee in Beijing, can disguise the latest Chinese tyranny. The ruling is a fait accompli, preventing democracy in 2007.
Hong Kong’s Basic Law permits changes in the electoral system in 2007, and democracy advocates would use this power in conjunction with an almost certain majority in the Legislature to provide for full democratic elections. The ruling from Beijing provides the Standing Committee, which is appointed by the Chinese government, with new powers to approve any proposed changes before they go into effect.
On Sunday- Easter Sunday- people desiring the basic right to freely elect their own government will march for freedom in Hong Kong. My heart will be with them.
The Times of London (subscription necessary) reported this morning that the conclusions of a recent study presented to the Royal Economic Society indicate that government efforts to promote what we in America call “safe-sex” amongst teenagers have resulted in an increase in sexual activity and sexually transmitted diseases. The Times wrote, “Expanding contraceptive services and providing the morning-after pill free to teenagers have encouraged sexual behaviour rather than reducing it… sexual activity and sexually transmitted diseases have risen fastest in those areas where the Government’s policy has been most actively pursued.”
The Times quoted David Paton, the author of the study: “When you introduce policies that seem obvious, it is important to factor in the possibility that the policies may actually cause people to change how they behave. In this case, it appears that some measures aimed at reducing teenage pregnancy rates induced changes in teenage behaviour that were large enough not only to negate the intended impact on conceptions, but to have an adverse impact on another important area of sexual health — sexually transmitted infections.”
Deftly avoiding responding to the results of the study, Ann Weyman of the Family Planning Association told the Times, “… of course, if you start looking for more infections you will find them.” Distorting logic as only a proponent of big wasteful government spending can, she continued, “We want to see young people delaying having sex until they are able to make responsible decisions. I don’t think this research helps to achieve any of those aims.”
Islamists in Spain smell blood. Encouraged by Spanish voter’s apparent shift toward appeasement in the election immediately following the Madrid train bombings, Islamists have been preparing for another round of attacks in that country. When will Spain and the old Europe realize that they can not buy peace?
Over the weekend Spanish police surrounded an apartment rented to men they suspected in the train bombings. Rather than give themselves up, the Arabs, including the alleged ringleader of the train bombings blew up themselves and much of the apartment building. Spanish investigators recovered hundreds of copper detonators said to match those used in the train bombings and some 22 pounds of explosives. The Washington Post this morning quoted Spanish Interior Minister Angel Acebes as believing “the suspects were preparing to attack again.”
The New York Times this morning reported that the Spanish government received a letter from a man claiming to represent al Qaeda. The letter states that, “European Al Qaeda operatives had demonstrated their strength on March 11 and with an unexploded bomb on rail tracks last Friday. It said its truce with Spain was over, unless Spanish soldiers were withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. If those demands are not met, the letter said, Spain will be converted into "an inferno and your blood will flow like rivers."”
The hint of a continuing Islamist assault despite Spain’s having run into the arms of a socialist government promising to withdraw from Iraq teaches one lesson- a lesson Europe should have learned in 1938. Appeasement is to evil, the sweetest of fruits.
From the New York Times this morning, a left-leaning and disingenuous report on relations between the Catholic Church and politicians- specifically politicians who veer from Church teaching on politicized issues. John Kerry dominates the article because he is the Democrat standard bearer and a Catholic who publicly deviates from important Church teachings.
Using Kerry’s record as an example, the Times categorizes issues subject to political consideration as either, “social justice issues, including immigration, poverty, health care and the death penalty,” or, “litmus issues, like abortion and stem cell research, that animate Church conservatives and many in the hierarchy.” This language, no doubt carefully crafted by the Times, gives the impression that Kerry and other Catholics in the Democrat party (the Times does not use the word "liberal") are concerned with social justice, whereas those in the Church who oppose Kerry are conservatives and clerics concerned only with litmus tests and political games.
In fact, abortion and stem cell research are, for the Church, social justice issues as much as poverty, health care and the death penalty. Were the Times to report truthfully, its readers would learn that at its root, the theology that animates Church teachings on poverty, health care and the death penalty also drive Church teachings on abortion and stem cell research. Namely, that all human life is sanctified by God.
The Times writes, “Like many American Catholics, Mr. Kerry does not adhere to some [C]hurch positions yet describes himself as, in his words, "a believing and practicing Catholic."” In other words, Kerry and the Times assert that some teachings of the Church are legitimate subjects for debate because many American Catholics do not adhere to them. Dissent from, or ignorance of Church teachings, are not logical arguments for the invalidity of those teachings. In fact, the teachings of the Church today are consistent and in unbroken faith with the teachings of Jesus Christ two thousand years ago, and with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit ever since. If many American Catholics do not adhere to those teachings, it is they, not the Church, who are in need of conscience formation.
The Times quotes Pensacola-Tallahassee Bishop John Ricard as saying, “"A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals." Contrast this clear and straightforward position with that of Kerry, who according to the Times, “… has responded to questions about his adherence to church teachings by proclaiming his belief in the separation of church and state…” Belief in the separation of church and state is axiomatic in America. Kerry’s statement is a non-answer. Voting out of Catholic conviction does not create a Catholic state church. Here, as in so many other areas of his life (e.g., “I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”), Kerry wants to have it both ways. In private a Catholic, in public a liberal, just don’t ask him to reconcile the two.
Is the Church justified in withholding sacraments from politicians like Kerry who lead the country in directions opposite of important Church teachings? The Times implies that the answer to this question is no, that abortion and embryonic stem cell research are merely conservative litmus test issues. To agree with the Times, and with John Kerry’s position on abortion, one must believe that Jesus Christ would have no problems with the use of abortion as a contraceptive in the third trimester- this is laughable. Abortion and embryonic stem cell research are not litmus tests but theological issues touching on the sanctity of human life.
The Church has both New Testament precedent and moral urgency supporting any move to withhold sacraments from public leaders like Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle who proclaim themselves Catholic in political campaigns but do not live their faith through their votes on critical social justice issues like abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
The Washington Post today reports on what it characterizes as a problem, "Only 27 percent of young D.C. residents who entered college in fall of 1998 did so at a District institution, the largest rate of collegiate "out migration" for any U.S. state or territory..." Setting aside the fact that the District of Columbia is neither a state or a territory, what the Post considers a problem is nothing to complain about.
The Post reports that leaders of the District's universities have issues with the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant program, " ...a popular but costly four-year-old federal initiative that allows city students to attend colleges across the country at in-state or discounted tuition rates." The university leaders are unhappy because while, "... the program offers eligible students $2,500 a year to attend private universities in the District... it provides more incentive for students to go elsewhere."
I am not sure whether it is an April Fool's joke or not, but the Post also laments that, "... the District does not offer students aid to attend UDC or the kinds of financial aid programs found in most other states."
It is astonishing that anyone would complain about a program that allows students in a city notorious for poor education standards, to attend colleges across the country at in-state tuition rates. Who cares whether large numbers of District students attend college in the city. What matters is that they get an education. What matters is whether, having done so, they return to live and work in the District. What should be heralded as a competitive advantage in attracting families to live in the District, becomes for Post and so-called University leaders a pointless exercise in District-centrism.
As to the Post's attempt at April Foolery, the second best thing the District could do for students is not offer financial aid to attend UDC- the best thing it could do would be to shut UDC down altogether.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today issued a carefully worded statement that is more important for what it does not say, than for what it does. In the statement, CAIR condemned the mutilation of the Americans murdered in Iraq yesterday. What CAIR did not condemn, however, was the murder of the Americans. In other words, from CAIR’s perspective, it is acceptable for Muslims in Falluja to kill Americans so long as they do not mutilate the corpses.
Here is the statement from CAIR’s website:
“… CAIR today condemned the mutilation of those killed in Iraq on Wednesday. Four American civilian contractors were ambushed in their SUV's, burned, mutilated, dragged through the streets and then hung from a bridge spanning the Euphrates River, according to news reports.
CAIR said the mutilations violated both Islamic and international norms of conduct during times of war and called on all parties to the conflict to respect the sanctity of the dead and the sensitivities of their families.
The Washington-based Islamic civil rights and advocacy group cited a tradition of the Prophet Muhammad that prohibits mutilating bodies (Hadith 654.3).
In another tradition, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "Do not kill women or children, or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place." (Al-Muwatta, Vol. 21, Hadith 9)”
The New York Times reported today, between statements from Falluja residents expressing pride in the murders and shame over the mutilation that the contractors were in Iraq to provide security for food convoys. In other words, Americans were murdered while helping to feed Iraqis, and CAIR doesn't see fit to condemn their deaths.
Of course, it is not surprising that CAIR’s sentiments with respect to the American dead are in agreement with those of Iraqis in a city known for it’s support of Saddam Hussein. CAIR was founded with Saudi petro-dollars and is inspired by Wahibist bigotry. Far better, as far as CAIR is concerned, that Iraqis live in fear of the Butcher of Bagdhad than free as a result of intervention by the Christian West.
The important thing from the American perspective, which should never be confused with the Islamic-American perspective voiced by CAIR, is that we recognize and make public CAIR's unspoken message of bigotry and intolerance.