Yesterday I wrote that concern about the homosexual lobby imposing its agenda on the nation by judicial fiat inclined me, albeit reluctantly, toward a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. This story exemplifies my concerns.
A marvelous story from Iraq. So-called insurgents, more accurately referred to as terrorists, threatened residents in a small village with violent reprisals if they voted in Sunday’s election. The villagers chose to participate in the election anyway, and when the terrorists came round to exact the promised revenge, the villagers met force with force, killing 5 of the terrorists, wounding 8 others, and destroying their cars.
Source: OpinionJournal
The State of the Union Address was good. I liked the larger themes woven through the speech, but disliked the concessions to liberalism that were apparent in the details. The federal government should be much concerned with national security and balanced budgets, but has no business meddling with the cost of health care or education, or the training of lawyers.
Several issues raised during the speech caught my attention.
“America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government. I welcome the bipartisan enthusiasm for spending discipline. I will send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent, and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009.”
Not good enough! Borrowing money from future generations should be limited to financing critical initiatives that benefit those generations. For example, financing the war against terrorism is of benefit to future generations because without national security we will not prosper and the America that is left to those generations will be less than the America of today. Borrowing money to finance education or subsidize farming, for example, benefits specific Americans today but ultimately harms future generations by reducing our national ability and inclination to compete for economic gain. While Democrats may seem enthusiastic about spending discipline, listen carefully and it quickly becomes apparent that their enthusiasm is for tax increases, military decreases, and income redistribution. We need to reduce spending and reduce the size and scope of the federal government in a manner more aggressive than that proposed by the President.
“Year after year, Americans are burdened by an archaic, incoherent federal tax code. I've appointed a bipartisan panel to examine the tax code from top to bottom. And when their recommendations are delivered, you and I will work together to give this nation a tax code that is pro-growth, easy to understand, and fair to all.”
Our system of taxation is an abomination, and anyone who opposes changing it either is a knee-biter, or makes his living as a tax consultant. We need change, and I for one believe we need it this month, before I have to file my 2004 tax returns.
“It is time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs Americans will not take, that rejects amnesty, that tells us who is entering and leaving our country, and that closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists.”
If we won’t defend our borders and our national identity, why don’t we just give up and call ourselves French? A temporary guest worker program will not address the problem of illegal immigration, will not prevent future calls of amnesty for illegal aliens, and will not increase border security. A temporary guest worker program will further erode the rule of law, and will further distort market dynamics. If we enforce existing immigration laws, the demand for labor will increase resulting in higher wages and higher prices; when wages and prices increase the market will react- with increases in willing workers, decreases in interested consumers, or both. If we enforce existing immigration laws we de facto address security concerns.
“One of America's most important institutions, a symbol of the trust between generations, is also in need of wise and effective reform. Social Security was a great moral success of the 20th century, and we must honor its great purposes in this new century. The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy, and so we must join together to strengthen and save Social Security.”
Remember how President Clinton triangulated Republican proposals on welfare reform to great political benefit. This issue provides a similar opportunity for President Bush and the Republican Party. The actuarial crisis in Social Security is apparent to every American. By confronting the problem the President is forcing the anything-but-Bush Democrats to oppose popular and necessary reforms. The Republican Party is positioned to become the party that saved Social Security for today’s young workers and for future generations. This issue, more than any other has the potential to stamp Republican on the executive and legislative branches of the government, for years to come.
“Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.”
I am reluctant about amending the Constitution, but the more I think and read about the strategy adopted by the homosexual lobby, the more an amendment seems necessary to prevent yet another special interest group from imposing its agenda by judicial fiat. The homosexual lobby is not going to take no for an answer- not when the no comes from a state referendum, court, or legislature, or even when it comes from the congress. The only means available for the majority to protect their values are Constitutional.
During a Meet the Press interview on Sunday, John Kerry told Tim Russert that he will sign a Form 180 releasing all of his military records for public scrutiny.
“RUSSERT: Many people who've been criticizing you have said, Senator, if you would just do one thing and that is sign Form 180, which would allow historians and journalists complete access to all your military records.
Thus far, you have gotten the records, released them through your campaign. They say you should not be the filter. Sign Form 180 and let historians...
KERRY: I'd be happy to put the records out. We put all the records out that I had been sent by the military. Then, at the last moment, they sent some more stuff, which had some things that weren't even relevant to the record.
So when we get -- I'm going to sit down with them and make sure that they are clear and I am clear as to what is in the record and what isn't in the record, and we'll put it out. I have no problem with that.
RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?
KERRY: But everything, Tim...
RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?
KERRY: Yes, I will. But everything that we put in it, Tim -- everything we put in -- I mean, everything that was out was a full documentation of all of the medical records, all of the fitness reports.
And I'd call on those who have challenged me, let's see their records. I want to see the records of each of those people who have put up a challenge, because some of them have some serious questions in them...”
Better late than never! Not providing unhindered access to all of his military records during the Presidential campaign fueled public doubts about Kerry’s assertions that the campaign against him by fellow swift boat veterans amounted to lies and distortions. If the issues were clear-cut, why not let voters parse the documents for themselves? If Kerry does sign a Form 180, the world may at last learn, among other things, whether he wrote his own action reports, whether the basis for his Purple Hearts accords with the recollections of his contemporaries, and whether his original discharge from the Navy was honorable or dishonorable.
Will someone please confront the Senator with the proper paperwork?
Signs of trouble for Kim Jong Il as reported by the Times of London.
Successful elections in Iraq yesterday made obvious winners of the people of that country, and the Bush and Blair administrations. The clear losers from the advancing cause of freedom and democracy in the Near East were Islamism, the Western powers- especially France and Germany, and the leeches in the United Nations that actively opposed the liberation of Iraq.
It is impossible not to delight in the disappointment tangible in the words of the New York Times this morning, to wit: “At least for now, the large turnout appeared to vindicate the strategy to hold elections sooner rather than later…”
At least for now? Appeared to vindicate?
I take this to mean that while the Times has not determined how best to turn yet another step toward representative government in Iraq into a vicious attack on the Bush administration, it reserves the right to do so- just as soon as it can figure out how to proceed.
In the meantime, in Iraq where there had been only darkness, the sun rises.
Harry Reid has put his other foot in his mouth, and perhaps demonstrated that he is unfit to lead the Senate Democrats.
Writing in OpinionJournal, James Taranto today reported remarks made by Reid, the incoming Senate Minority Leader, during an interview for the CNN television program, “Inside Politics.” An excerpt of the interview follows:
“Henry: When you were asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether or not you could support Justice Thomas to be chief justice you said quote, "I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written." Could you name one of those opinions that you think is poorly written?
Reid: Oh sure, that's easy to do. You take the Hillside Dairy case. In that case you had a dissent written by Scalia and a dissent written by Thomas. There--it's like looking at an eighth-grade dissertation compared to somebody who just graduated from Harvard.
Scalia's is well reasoned. He doesn't want to turn stare decisis precedent on its head. That's what Thomas wants to do. So yes, I think he has written a very poor opinion there and he's written other opinions that are not very good.”
Taranto noted that the Hillside Dairy case is “…a 2003 case about California milk regulation,” and provided his readers with the complete text of the Thomas opinion:
“I join Parts I and III of the Court's opinion and respectfully dissent from Part II, which holds that §144 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 7 U.S.C. §7254, "does not clearly express an intent to insulate California's pricing and pooling laws from a Commerce Clause challenge.” Ante, at 6-7. Although I agree that the Court of Appeals erred in its statutory analysis, I nevertheless would affirm its judgment on this claim because "[t]he negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution, makes little sense, and has proved virtually unworkable in application," Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 564, 610 (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting), and, consequently, cannot serve as a basis for striking down a state statute.”
Noting that the opinion is hardly written at the eighth-grade level, Taranto went on to make the even more important observation, “… there was no Scalia dissent. Scalia joined the court's majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, as did every other justice except Thomas, and he dissented only from Part II.
Will Reid apologize to Thomas and Scalia, and more importantly, will he explain the basis for his unfounded loathing of Thomas in terms that are not racist and that do conform to reality and the rules of logic?
I noticed on Instapundit yesterday afternoon that National Public Radio corrected its reporting about which I commented yesterday morning. Apparently, what Marines found in Fallujah were sarin gas testing kits, not sarin gas proper.
I was pleased to hear on National Public Radio this morning that soldiers have discovered vials of sarin gas amongst weapons and munitions captured during the liberation of Fallujah. There was some expectation that terrorists who controlled the city had such weapons, as soldiers involved in operation Phantom Fury were instructed to carry gas masks into combat.
Will John Kerry now retract his campaign statements about WMDs?
Yasir Arafat's death last night brings to the Holy Land a possiblity for peace between Israel and the Palestinians that did not exist while he lived. The Palestinian people, the Muslim world, and the media will ignore the blood on Arafat's hands in hopes of creating a nationalist hero from a mass murderer. They will overlook the stolen election, the disastorous second intifada, the graft and embezzlement, the exploitation of power, and countless decisions depriving Palestinians of peace and an autonmous state. Their rewriting of history will fail- the trail of blood and money is too telling. Moreso, if peace progresses between Israel and the Palestinians after Arafat's death, it will evidence the fact that peace was not possible while he lived. Good riddance and R.I.P.
Did Arlen Specter promise to oppose President Bush's judical nominees in exchange for newspaper endorsements? All the more reason why he should not chair the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Yasir Arafat is dead or alive- it is unclear which. Either way he has little if any value to add to the pursuit of peaceful coexistence between Israel and the Palestinian people. President Clinton presented Arafat with the opportunity to forsake violence with an act of peacemaking and statesmanship that would have resulted in an autonomous Palestinian state. At Camp David in 1990, Clinton wrung from Israeli leadership unprecedented concessions on every Palestinian demand save for the right of return, and for a moment it seemed as though peace was within reach of the Holy Land.
Alas, Arafat wanted no compromises. Rather than continuing negotiations, he began the second intifada, gambling that Israel could be bloodied into complete submission. That decision has resulted in death and misery for Jews and Palestinians- disproportionately for the latter. The intifada backfired, failing to produce the totality of concessions that Arafat envisioned, resulting instead in a security wall partitioning Jews and Palestinians and defining borders (even if temporary) less generous than those previously offered.
Arafat’s survival in the aftermath of the disastrous intifada has had only one benefit, preventing open civil war between Palestinians, which is no consolation when one considers that he might well have accomplished a lasting peace with Israel. Arafat uses traditional Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism to direct the focus of Palestinian Islamists including Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades away from each other and firmly on Israel. While apportioning misery to all around him through divide and conquer schemes, Arafat has amassed a stolen fortune that Forbes Magazine last year estimated at $300 million.
Arafat was the principal roadblock for President Bush’s Roadmap for Peace. With Arafat’s death, the President, newly reelected, with a mandate to wage war on Islamism, will have an opening for change in the Middle East not seen since Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat asked President Carter to finance what became the Israel Egypt Peace Treaty. Demonstrating American commitment to a Palestinian state in coexistence with Israel through aggressive peacemaking could be the best way to move the hearts and minds of Muslims round the world.
While peace in the Holy Land may be possible as a result of Arafat’s death, the path to peace will be treacherous. In a power vacuum, Palestinian Islamists could divide the focus of their hatred between Israel and each other, and Iran and Syria could use the chaos to engage the ancient feud between Shiites and Sunnis. At the same time, any American progress in brokering peace could result in a new front in the war on terror, as the permanent presence of a Jewish state on land coveted by Islam is a threat to Islamic dogma.
To counter Islamist aversion to peace, the President should engage a statesman on par with James Baker to press an aggressive new roadmap for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. He should throw the weight of America behind free and fair elections based upon the Palestinian Constitution. In the event moderate leadership, committed to peace, emerges from the elections, America and Israel should embrace it.
Most of all, the President should challenge the Islamic world to compare and contrast their circumstances and leadership today with the circumstances and leadership they might hope for in the future. He can demonstrate through American resolve and results in Afghanistan and Iraq that replacing tyranny and corruption with self-rule is the best way for Palestinians, and Muslims, to realize pluralism, democracy, and freedom.
Some Palestinians seem to think that Israel should join them in mourning the death of Yasir Arafat. ABC News reported today that when Arafat’s death was announced prematurely, ““… several dozen Jewish demonstrators gathered in a downtown Jerusalem square to celebrate, singing, dancing, distributing sweets and declaring that one of the greatest enemies of the Jewish people was “on his way to hell.”” Responding to the celebrations, Saeb Erekat, a Palestinian lawmaker, told CNN, “I hope the Israeli public will show sensitivities. I've seen some Israelis dancing in the streets, hugging each other… I think it's alien… I cannot describe my feelings. It's heartbreaking to see Israelis hugging and kissing in such circumstances.”
This is rather like telling Americans not to celebrate the death of Osama bin Laden.
Erekat is obviously a prat, but one wonders if he remembers the Palestinians who took great pains to demonstrate their sensitivity by publicly celebrating the murder of thousands of civilians by Muslims who flew hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center towers on November 11, 2001? Is he aware of the posters, music, and street rallies celebrating successful terrorist strikes against Israel that dominate Palestinian public life? Surely he is not oblivious to the hundreds of Israeli deaths attributable to organizations funded and directed by Yasser Arafat.
There are many reasons to celebrate Arafat’s death. He is a bigot, a racist, a mass-murderer, and a terrorist with the distinction of having invented airplane hijacking. He is insatiable in his love of money- stealing more than $300 million from the impoverished Palestinian people, and he is shameless in his lust for power- rigging his own election and undermining every effort at constitutional power sharing. The biggest reason of all for celebrating his death is that Arafat is the single biggest roadblock, both to peace in the Holy Land, and to an autonomous state for the Palestinian people.
There is only one reason not to celebrate Arafat’s death; doing so lowers the celebrant to the despicable level of animalistic brutality at which Arafat has lived most of his life, and to which he has dragged much of Palestinian society.
The election results are good news for America. President Bush was reelected with a majority of the popular vote, conservatives won almost every in-play congressional contest of importance, and voter initiatives affirming marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman passed in every state in which they were on the ballot. The leftist assault on public morality is imperiled. The Democrat strategy of usurping legislative perogatives through judicial fiat is neutered by a Republican President and a strengthened Republican Senate majority. The Supreme Court is safe and with it the Constitution and our democracy.
Voters turned out in record numbers and a majority of them said no to the politics of hatred and recrimination that inflated Democrat rhetoric since the disputed election of 2000. The biggest losers yesterday were not defeated politicians, but left-wing operatives like Michael Moore, George Soros, Terry McAuliffe, Dan Rather, and the New York Times, who tried to win an election by turning Americans against each other.
John Kerry was disingenuous on so many issues during the election, but he had the good grace and patriotic sense to leave the Ohio results unchallenged. His concession speech addressed the need for Americans to come together and that is what we must now do.
"The man CBS News touted as the "unimpeachable source" of explosive documents about President Bush's National Guard service turns out to be a former Guard officer with a history of self-described mental problems who has denounced Bush as a liar with "demonic personality shortcomings." So wrote the Washington Post this morning in the first paragraph of their report on CBS's awkward retreat from a report by Dan Rather that used forgeries to score political points against the President.
In a statement issued yesterday, Rather conceded that, "We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism."
Rather and CBS have not explained how, for ten days, they could defend as legitimate, documents that do not survive simple scrutiny. I have no training in the identification of forgeries, but five minutes spent reading a graphical analysis of the forgeries that the Post published on the weekend is sufficient to raise reasonable doubts in my simple mind. That CBS, with ample resources at its disposal and a professional code of conduct calling for their use, failed to uncover the forgeries before foisting them on the American people is evidence of gross professional misconduct. That Dan Rather for ten days denied the obvious failings in his work is a sign of gross personal misconduct.
No excuses, fire Dan Rather.
On Friday last week, Opinion Journal published an editorial by Archbishop John Meyers of the Newark Archdiocese. Meyers expanded on a recent statement from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger on whether Catholic politicians who support abortion should receive the Eucharist. Ratzinger concluded that such Catholics should not present themselves for Holy Communion. His statement included a coda extending his reasoning to the question of Catholic voters who support pro-abortion politicians. Lacking "proportionate reasons" a Catholic must not support a pro-abortion politician.
Meyers proceeded to define proportionate reasoning and demonstrate that in this election no proportionate reasons exist for a Catholic to support a pro-abortion politician. He wrote: "... for a Catholic citizen to vote for a candidate who supports abortion and embryo-destructive research, one of the following circumstances would have to obtain: either (a) both candidates would have to be in favor of embryo killing on roughly an equal scale or (b) the candidate with the superior position on abortion and embryo-destructive research would have to be a supporter of objective evils of a gravity and magnitude beyond that of 1.3 million yearly abortions plus the killing that would take place if public funds were made available for embryo-destructive research."
Meyers described the moral imperative for opposing pro-abortion politicians: "Abortion and embryo-destructive research are... intrinsic and grave evils; no Catholic may legitimately support them. In the context of contemporary American social life, abortion and embryo-destructive research are disproportionate evils. They are the gravest human rights abuses of our domestic politics and what slavery was to the time of Lincoln. Catholics are called by the Gospel of Life to protect the victims of these human rights abuses. They may not legitimately abandon the victims by supporting those who would further their victimization."
Worth reading.
The Washington Post yesterday provided a "how we got here" account of Dan Rather's appalling promotion of forged documents as proof that George Bush did not fulfill his National Guard obligations. The article provides insight into the journalistic failures at CBS that prevented proper scrutiny of the documents. The article also demonstrates the arrogance of a news organization that still seems not to understand that its errors and subsequent denials have for good reason become the real story- eclipsing by far its allegations about the President having received special treatment thirty years ago.
The closing paragraphs of the article stated that, "As they continue their investigation into whether they were hoaxed, CBS officials have begun shifting their public focus from the memos themselves to their underlying allegations about the president." The Post quoted Josh Howard, a 60 Minutes executive as complaining that, "So much of this debate has focused on the documents, and no one has really challenged the story. It's been frustrating to us to see all this reduced to a debate over little 'th's."
That CBS executives view questions about their network's use of forged documents in a story attacking the President as little more than a debate over th's is a clear indication that they do not take journalism seriously. For this reason, viewers can not take CBS seriously. To begin to regain viewer trust under such circumstances requires that CBS fire both those responsible for failing to detect the forgeries and those who have insisted that the forgeries are not a story unto themselves. In other words, CBS must fire Dan Rather.
I probably should not mention this until after Dan Rather breaks the story, but ABC News today posted an interview with Walter Staudt, the retired Colonel who admitted George Bush to the National Guard. In a 60 Minutes report, Rather relied on what are now generally considered forged documents to suggest that Bush received special treatment during his National Guard service. One of the questionable documents alleged that Staudt pressured Jerry Jillian to "sugar coat" a review of Bush's performance. Staudt told ABC, "I never pressured anybody about George Bush because I had no reason to."
Rather's main storyline was that Bush gained entry into the National Guard as a result of pressure exerted by friends of the Bush family. In the ABC interview Staudt denied this allegation: "He didn't use political influence to get into the Air National Guard... I don't know how they would know that, because I was the one who did it and I was the one who was there and I didn't talk to any of them." Staudt added that Bush, "... was highly qualified," and that he "... passed all the scrutiny and tests he was given."
Of course, the ABC interview with Staudt didn't really call into question the assertions in Rather's forged documents because Rather has not yet broken the story about the forgery. I for one can not wait until he does so.
Special thanks to John Vecchione for the tip.
I am so excited I probably won't be able to sleep tonight. Dan Rather confessed that he would like to break the story about his use of forged documents in a 60 Minutes expose on George Bush's record of service in the National Guard. The Washington Post today quoted Rather: "If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story... Any time I'm wrong, I want to be right out front and say, "Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong.""
I can not contain my excitement. Any moment now Rather will scoop the media (the Post included) by reporting that he allowed liberal bias to override his professional obligations as a journalist when he rushed to publish forged documents that substantiated his beliefs about the President's military record with verifying that the documents were authentic.
Of course, until Rather does break the story, the story doesn't exist. This explains why if you click on the links below you will be redirected to the story that has not yet, but soon will be broken by Rather.
Burkett: I "Reassembled Bush Guard Files
Captain's Quarters, September 16, 2004
He Just Doesn't Get It
Daimnation, September 16, 2004
There's Something About Mary Mapes
Michelle Malkin, September 16, 2004
Kinkos Tapes and Criminal Statutes
INDC, September 16, 2004
CBS Guard Documents Traced to Texas Kinkos
Washington Post, September 15, 2004
For the Record
Boston Globe, September 15, 2004
Fire Dan Rather
Vodka Pundit (and Andrew Sullivan), September 15, 2004
Changing the Subject
Vodka Pundit, September 15, 2004
Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers
Washington Post, September 14, 2004
It's Over Dan
Daimnation, September 14, 2004
Expert Cited by CBS Say's He Didn't Authenticate Papers
Washington Post, September 13, 2004
Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush
Washington Post, September 10, 2004
Pajamas
Instapundit, September 10, 2004
CBS Internal Memo
Armies of Liberation, September 10, 2004
Oh yes, I can not wait until Rather breaks this story!
John Kerry contends that Iraq, pre-liberation, did not support terrorism. He is wrong, of course, as Stephen Hayes demonstrated in a Weekly Standard article today. Hayes demolished the Kerry campaign assertion that, "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war," by comparing it with quotations from authorative government sources. Were he not a politician, Kerry might be embarrassed by his misrepresentations.
CIA Analysis, January 2003: Iraqi Support for Terrorism, (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report): "Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism."
CIA Analysis, January 2003--Iraqi Support for Terrorism, (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report): "Iraq continues to be a safehaven, transit point, or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel and other allies."
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 315): "The CIA provided 78 reports, from multiple sources, [redacted] documenting instances in which the Iraqi regime either trained operatives for attacks or dispatched them to carry out attacks."
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316): "Iraq continued to participate in terrorist attacks throughout the 1990s."
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316): "From 1996 to 2003, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] focused its terrorist activities on western interests, particularly against the U.S. and Israel."
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316): "Throughout 2002, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] was becoming increasingly aggressive in planning attacks against U.S. interests. The CIA provided eight reports to support this assessment."
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 331): "Twelve reports received [redacted] from sources that the CIA described as having varying reliability, cited Iraq or Iraqi national involvement in al Qaeda's [chemical, biological, nuclear] CBW efforts."
The 9/11 Commission Report (p. 66): "In March 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq Intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden."
George Bush accepted the Republican nomination for the presidency tonight. His acceptance speech, which follows, was excellent in every respect.
Address to the Republican National Convention
September 2, 2004
President George W. Bush
Mr. Chairman, delegates, fellow citizens: I am honored by your support, and I accept your nomination for President of the United States.
When I said those words four years ago, none of us could have envisioned what these years would bring. In the heart of this great city, we saw tragedy arrive on a quiet morning. We saw the bravery of rescuers grow with danger. We learned of passengers on a doomed plane who died with a courage that frightened their killers. We have seen a shaken economy rise to its feet. And we have seen Americans in uniform storming mountain strongholds, and charging through sandstorms, and liberating millions, with acts of valor that would make the men of Normandy proud.
Since 2001, Americans have been given hills to climb, and found the strength to climb them. Now, because we have made the hard journey, we can see the valley below. Now, because we have faced challenges with resolve, we have historic goals within our reach, and greatness in our future. We will build a safer world and a more hopeful America and nothing will hold us back.
In the work we have done, and the work we will do, I am fortunate to have a superb Vice President. I have counted on Dick Cheney's calm and steady judgment in difficult days, and I am honored to have him at my side.
I am grateful to share my walk in life with Laura Bush. Americans have come to see the goodness and kindness and strength I first saw 26 years ago, and we love our First Lady.
I am a fortunate father of two spirited, intelligent, and lovely young women. I am blessed with a sister and brothers who are also my closest friends. And I will always be the proud and grateful son of George and Barbara Bush.
My father served eight years at the side of another great American Ronald Reagan. His spirit of optimism and goodwill and decency are in this hall, and in our hearts, and will always define our party.
Two months from today, voters will make a choice based on the records we have built, the convictions we hold, and the vision that guides us forward. A presidential election is a contest for the future. Tonight I will tell you where I stand, what I believe, and where I will lead this country in the next four years.
I believe every child can learn, and every school must teach so we passed the most important federal education reform in history. Because we acted, children are making sustained progress in reading and math, America's schools are getting better, and nothing will hold us back.
I believe we have a moral responsibility to honor America's seniors so I brought Republicans and Democrats together to strengthen Medicare. Now seniors are getting immediate help buying medicine. Soon every senior will be able to get prescription drug coverage, and nothing will hold us back.
I believe in the energy and innovative spirit of America's workers, entrepreneurs, farmers, and ranchers so we unleashed that energy with the largest tax relief in a generation. Because we acted, our economy is growing again, and creating jobs, and nothing will hold us back.
I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch.
I am running for President with a clear and positive plan to build a safer world, and a more hopeful America. I am running with a compassionate conservative philosophy: that government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives. I believe this Nation wants steady, consistent, principled leadership and that is why, with your help, we will win this election.
The story of America is the story of expanding liberty: an ever-widening circle, constantly growing to reach further and include more. Our Nation's founding commitment is still our deepest commitment: In our world, and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom.
The times in which we live and work are changing dramatically. The workers of our parents' generation typically had one job, one skill, one career often with one company that provided health care and a pension. And most of those workers were men. Today, workers change jobs, even careers, many times during their lives, and in one of the most dramatic shifts our society has seen, two-thirds of all Moms also work outside the home.
This changed world can be a time of great opportunity for all Americans to earn a better living, support your family, and have a rewarding career. And government must take your side. Many of our most fundamental systems the tax code, health coverage, pension plans, worker training were created for the world of yesterday, not tomorrow. We will transform these systems so that all citizens are equipped, prepared and thus truly free to make your own choices and pursue your own dreams.
My plan begins with providing the security and opportunity of a growing economy. We now compete in a global market that provides new buyers for our goods, but new competition for our workers. To create more jobs in America, America must be the best place in the world to do business. To create jobs, my plan will encourage investment and expansion by restraining federal spending, reducing regulation, and making tax relief permanent. To create jobs, we will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy. To create jobs, we will expand trade and level the playing field to sell American goods and services across the globe. And we must protect small business owners and workers from the explosion of frivolous lawsuits that threaten jobs across America.
Another drag on our economy is the current tax code, which is a complicated mess filled with special interest loopholes, saddling our people with more than six billion hours of paperwork and headache every year. The American people deserve and our economic future demands a simpler, fairer, pro-growth system. In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code.
Another priority in a new term will be to help workers take advantage of the expanding economy to find better, higher-paying jobs. In this time of change, many workers want to go back to school to learn different or higher-level skills. So we will double the number of people served by our principal job training program and increase funding for community colleges. I know that with the right skills, American workers can compete with anyone, anywhere in the world.
In this time of change, opportunity in some communities is more distant than in others. To stand with workers in poor communities and those that have lost manufacturing, textile, and other jobs we will create American opportunity zones. In these areas, we'll provide tax relief and other incentives to attract new business, and improve housing and job training to bring hope and work throughout all of America.
As I've traveled the country, I've met many workers and small business owners who have told me they are worried they cannot afford health care. More than half of the uninsured are small business employees and their families. In a new term, we must allow small firms to join together to purchase insurance at the discounts available to big companies. We will offer a tax credit to encourage small businesses and their employees to set up health savings accounts, and provide direct help for low-income Americans to purchase them. These accounts give workers the security of insurance against major illness, the opportunity to save tax-free for routine health expenses, and the freedom of knowing you can take your account with you whenever you change jobs. And we will provide low-income Americans with better access to health care: In a new term, I will ensure every poor county in America has a community or rural health center.
As I have traveled our country, I have met too many good doctors, especially OB-GYNS, who are being forced out of practice because of the high cost of lawsuits. To make health care more affordable and accessible, we must pass medical liability reform now. And in all we do to improve health care in America, we will make sure that health decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by bureaucrats in Washington, DC.
In this time of change, government must take the side of working families. In a new term, we will change outdated labor laws to offer comp-time and flex-time. Our laws should never stand in the way of a more family-friendly workplace.
Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security, and dignity, and independence.
Thanks to our policies, homeownership in America is at an all-time high. Tonight we set a new goal: seven million more affordable homes in the next 10 years so more American families will be able to open the door and say welcome to my home.
In an ownership society, more people will own their health plans, and have the confidence of owning a piece of their retirement. We will always keep the promise of Social Security for our older workers. With the huge Baby Boom generation approaching retirement, many of our children and grandchildren understandably worry whether Social Security will be there when they need it. We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account a nest egg you can call your own, and government can never take away.
In all these proposals, we seek to provide not just a government program, but a path a path to greater opportunity, more freedom, and more control over your own life.
This path begins with our youngest Americans. To build a more hopeful America, we must help our children reach as far as their vision and character can take them. Tonight, I remind every parent and every teacher, I say to every child: No matter what your circumstance, no matter where you live your school will be the path to the promise of America.
We are transforming our schools by raising standards and focusing on results. We are insisting on accountability, empowering parents and teachers, and making sure that local people are in charge of their schools. By testing every child, we are identifying those who need help and we're providing a record level of funding to get them that help. In northeast Georgia, Gainesville Elementary School is mostly Hispanic and 90 percent poor and this year 90 percent of its students passed state tests in reading and math. The principal expresses the philosophy of his school this way: "We don't focus on what we can't do at this school; we focus on what we can do; we do whatever it takes to get kids across the finish line." This principal is challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations, and that is the spirit of our education reform, and the commitment of our
country: No dejaremos a ning n ni o atr s. We will leave no child behind.
We are making progress and there is more to do. In this time of change, most new jobs are filled by people with at least two years of college, yet only about one in four students gets there. In our high schools, we will fund early intervention programs to help students at risk. We will place a new focus on math and science. As we make progress, we will require a rigorous exam before graduation. By raising performance in our high schools, and expanding Pell grants for low and middle income families, we will help more Americans start their career with a college diploma.
America's children must also have a healthy start in life. In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the government's health insurance programs. We will not allow a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these children and the health care they need.
Anyone who wants more details on my agenda can find them online. The web address is not very imaginative, but it's easy to remember: GeorgeWBush.com.
These changing times can be exciting times of expanded opportunity. And here, you face a choice. My opponent's policies are dramatically different from ours. Senator Kerry opposed Medicare reform and health savings accounts. After supporting my education reforms, he now wants to dilute them. He opposes legal and medical liability reform. He opposed reducing the marriage penalty, opposed doubling the child credit, and opposed lowering income taxes for all who pay them. To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for he's proposed more than two trillion dollars in new federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts. To pay for that spending, he is running on a platform of increasing taxes and that's the kind of promise a politician usually keeps.
His policies of tax and spend of expanding government rather than expanding opportunity are the policies of the past. We are on the path to the future and we are not turning back.
In this world of change, some things do not change: the values we try to live by, the institutions that give our lives meaning and purpose. Our society rests on a foundation of responsibility and character and family commitment.
Because family and work are sources of stability and dignity, I support welfare reform that strengthens family and requires work. Because a caring society will value its weakest members, we must make a place for the unborn child. Because religious charities provide a safety net of mercy and compassion, our government must never discriminate against them. Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges. And I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law.
My opponent recently announced that he is the candidate of "conservative values," which must have come as a surprise to a lot of his supporters. Now, there are some problems with this claim. If you say the heart and soul of America is found in Hollywood, I'm afraid you are not the candidate of conservative values. If you voted against the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act, which President Clinton signed, you are not the candidate of conservative values. If you gave a speech, as my opponent did, calling the Reagan presidency eight years of "moral darkness," then you may be a lot of things, but the candidate of conservative values is not one of them.
This election will also determine how America responds to the continuing danger of terrorism and you know where I stand. Three days after September 11th, I stood where Americans died, in the ruins of the Twin Towers. Workers in hard hats were shouting to me, "Whatever it takes." A fellow grabbed me by the arm and he said, "Do not let me down." Since that day, I wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country. I will never relent in defending America whatever it takes.
So we have fought the terrorists across the earth not for pride, not for power, but because the lives of our citizens are at stake. Our strategy is clear. We have tripled funding for homeland security and trained half a million first responders, because we are determined to protect our homeland. We are transforming our military and reforming and strengthening our intelligence services. We are staying on the offensive striking terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home. And we are working to advance liberty in the broader Middle East, because freedom will bring a future of hope, and the peace we all want. And we will prevail.
Our strategy is succeeding. Four years ago, Afghanistan was the home base of al-Qaida, Pakistan was a transit point for terrorist groups, Saudi Arabia was fertile ground for terrorist fundraising, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons, Iraq was a gathering threat, and al-Qaida was largely unchallenged as it planned attacks. Today, the government of a free Afghanistan is fighting terror, Pakistan is capturing terrorist leaders, Saudi Arabia is making raids and arrests, Libya is dismantling its weapons programs, the army of a free Iraq is fighting for freedom, and more than three-quarters of al-Qaida's key members and associates have been detained or killed. We have led, many have joined, and America and the world are safer.
This progress involved careful diplomacy, clear moral purpose, and some tough decisions. And the toughest came on Iraq. We knew Saddam Hussein's record of aggression and support for terror. We knew his long history of pursuing, even using, weapons of mass destruction. And we know that September 11th requires our country to think differently: We must, and we will, confront threats to America before it is too late.
In Saddam Hussein, we saw a threat. Members of both political parties, including my opponent and his running mate, saw the threat, and voted to authorize the use of force. We went to the United Nations Security Council, which passed a unanimous resolution demanding the dictator disarm, or face serious consequences. Leaders in the Middle East urged him to comply. After more than a decade of diplomacy, we gave Saddam Hussein another chance, a final chance, to meet his responsibilities to the civilized world. He again refused, and I faced the kind of decision that comes only to the Oval Office a decision no president would ask for, but must be prepared to make. Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time.
Because we acted to defend our country, the murderous regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are history, more than 50 million people have been liberated, and democracy is coming to the broader Middle East. In Afghanistan, terrorists have done everything they can to intimidate people yet more than 10 million citizens have registered to vote in the October presidential election a resounding endorsement of democracy. Despite ongoing acts of violence, Iraq now has a strong Prime Minister, a national council, and national elections are scheduled for January. Our Nation is standing with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, because when America gives its word, America must keep its word. As importantly, we are serving a vital and historic cause that will make our country safer. Free societies in the Middle East will be hopeful societies, which no longer feed resentments and breed violence for export. Free governments in the Middle East will fight terrorists instead of harboring them, and that helps us keep the peace. So our mission in Afghanistan and Iraq is clear: We will help new leaders to train their armies, and move toward elections, and get on the path of stability and democracy as quickly as possible. And then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.
Our troops know the historic importance of our work. One Army Specialist wrote home: "We are transforming a once sick society into a hopeful place The various terrorist enemies we are facing in Iraq," he continued, "are really aiming at you back in the United States. This is a test of will for our country. We soldiers of yours are doing great and scoring victories in confronting the evil terrorists."
That young man is right our men and women in uniform are doing a superb job for America. Tonight I want to speak to all of them and to their families: You are involved in a struggle of historic proportion. Because of your service and sacrifice, we are defeating the terrorists where they live and plan, and making America safer. Because of you, women in Afghanistan are no longer shot in a sports stadium. Because of you, the people of Iraq no longer fear being executed and left in mass graves. Because of you, the world is more just and will be more peaceful. We owe you our thanks, and we owe you something more. We will give you all the resources, all the tools, and all the support you need for victory.
Again, my opponent and I have different approaches. I proposed, and the Congress overwhelmingly passed, 87 billion dollars in funding needed by our troops doing battle in Afghanistan and Iraq. My opponent and his running mate voted against this money for bullets, and fuel, and vehicles, and body armor. When asked to explain his vote, the Senator said, "I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it." Then he said he was "proud" of that vote. Then, when pressed, he said it was a "complicated" matter. There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat.
Our allies also know the historic importance of our work. About 40 nations stand beside us in Afghanistan, and some 30 in Iraq. And I deeply appreciate the courage and wise counsel of leaders like Prime Minister Howard, and President Kwasniewski, and Prime Minister Berlusconi and, of course, Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Again, my opponent takes a different approach. In the midst of war, he has called America's allies, quote, a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed." That would be nations like Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, El Salvador, Australia, and others allies that deserve the respect of all Americans, not the scorn of a politician. I respect every soldier, from every country, who serves beside us in the hard work of history. America is grateful, and America will not forget.
The people we have freed won't forget either. Not long ago, seven Iraqi men came to see me in the Oval Office. They had "X"s branded into their foreheads, and their right hands had been cut off, by Saddam Hussein's secret police, the sadistic punishment for imaginary crimes. During our emotional visit one of the Iraqi men used his new prosthetic hand to slowly write out, in Arabic, a prayer for God to bless America. I am proud that our country remains the hope of the oppressed, and the greatest force for good on this earth.
Others understand the historic importance of our work. The terrorists know. They know that a vibrant, successful democracy at the heart of the Middle East will discredit their radical ideology of hate. They know that men and women with hope, and purpose, and dignity do not strap bombs on their bodies and kill the innocent. The terrorists are fighting freedom with all their cunning and cruelty because freedom is their greatest fear and they should be afraid, because freedom is on the march.
I believe in the transformational power of liberty: The wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom. As the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq seize the moment, their example will send a message of hope throughout a vital region. Palestinians will hear the message that democracy and reform are within their reach, and so is peace with our good friend Israel. Young women across the Middle East will hear the message that their day of equality and justice is coming. Young men will hear the message that national progress and dignity are found in liberty, not tyranny and terror. Reformers, and political prisoners, and exiles will hear the message that their dream of freedom cannot be denied forever. And as freedom advances heart by heart, and nation by nation America will be more secure and the world more peaceful.
America has done this kind of work before and there have always been doubters. In 1946, 18 months after the fall of Berlin to allied forces, a journalist wrote in the New York Times, "Germany is a land in an acute stage of economic, political and moral crisis. [European] capitals are frightened. In every [military] headquarters, one meets alarmed officials doing their utmost to deal with the consequences of the occupation policy that they admit has failed." End quote. Maybe that same person's still around, writing editorials. Fortunately, we had a resolute president named Truman, who with the American people persevered, knowing that a new democracy at the center of Europe would lead to stability and peace. And because that generation of Americans held firm in the cause of liberty, we live in a better and safer world today.
The progress we and our friends and allies seek in the broader Middle East will not come easily, or all at once. Yet Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of liberty to transform lives and nations. That power brought settlers on perilous journeys, inspired colonies to rebellion, ended the sin of slavery, and set our Nation against the tyrannies of the 20th century. We were honored to aid the rise of democracy in Germany and Japan and Nicaragua and Central Europe and the Baltics and that noble story goes on. I believe that America is called to lead the cause of freedom in a new century. I believe that millions in the Middle East plead in silence for their liberty. I believe that given the chance, they will embrace the most honorable form of government ever devised by man. I believe all these things because freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world.
This moment in the life of our country will be remembered. Generations will know if we kept our faith and kept our word. Generations will know if we seized this moment, and used it to build a future of safety and peace. The freedom of many, and the future security of our Nation, now depend on us. And tonight, my fellow Americans, I ask you to stand with me.
In the last four years, you and I have come to know each other. Even when we don't agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand. You may have noticed I have a few flaws, too. People sometimes have to correct my English I knew I had a problem when Arnold Schwarzenegger started doing it. Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called "walking." Now and then I come across as a little too blunt and for that we can all thank the white-haired lady sitting right up there.
One thing I have learned about the presidency is that whatever shortcomings you have, people are going to notice them and whatever strengths you have, you're going to need them. These four years have brought moments I could not foresee and will not forget. I have tried to comfort Americans who lost the most on September 11th people who showed me a picture or told me a story, so I would know how much was taken from them. I have learned first-hand that ordering Americans into battle is the hardest decision, even when it is right. I have returned the salute of wounded soldiers, some with a very tough road ahead, who say they were just doing their job. I've held the children of the fallen, who are told their dad or mom is a hero, but would rather just have their dad or mom.
And I have met with parents and wives and husbands who have received a folded flag, and said a final goodbye to a soldier they loved. I am awed that so many have used those meetings to say that I am in their prayers to offer encouragement to me. Where does strength like that come from? How can people so burdened with sorrow also feel such pride? It is because they know their loved one was last seen doing good. Because they know that liberty was precious to the one they lost. And in those military families, I have seen the character of a great nation: decent, and idealistic, and strong.
The world saw that spirit three miles from here, when the people of this city faced peril together, and lifted a flag over the ruins, and defied the enemy with their courage. My fellow Americans, for as long as our country stands, people will look to the resurrection of New York City and they will say: Here buildings fell, and here a nation rose.
We see America's character in our military, which finds a way or makes one. We see it in our veterans, who are supporting military families in their days of worry. We see it in our young people, who have found heroes once again. We see that character in workers and entrepreneurs, who are renewing our economy with their effort and optimism. And all of this has confirmed one belief beyond doubt: Having come this far, our tested and confident Nation can achieve anything.
To everything we know there is a season a time for sadness, a time for struggle, a time for rebuilding. And now we have reached a time for hope. This young century will be liberty's century. By promoting liberty abroad, we will build a safer world. By encouraging liberty at home, we will build a more hopeful America. Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom. This is the everlasting dream of America and tonight, in this place, that dream is renewed. Now we go forward grateful for our freedom, faithful to our cause, and confident in the future of the greatest nation on earth.
God bless you, and may God continue to bless America.
Zell Miller was on fire and on target in his keynote address to the Republican Convention tonight. Worth reading, but even better if you can listen to it.
Address to the Republican National Convention
September 1, 2004
Senator Zell Miller
Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.
Along with all the other members of our close-knit family -- they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.
And I know that's how you feel about your family also.
Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.
Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.
And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?
The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.
There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is
George Bush.
In the summer of 1940, I was an eight-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley.
Our country was not yet at war but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.
President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."
In 1940 Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.
And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man.
He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.
And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.
Shortly before Wilkie died he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom", he would prefer the latter.
Where are such statesmen today?
Where is the bi-partisanship in this country when we need it most?
Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief.
What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?
I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.
It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.
Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.
Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.
And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.
Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.
Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.
Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.
Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.
For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.
No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.
But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.
They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.
It is not their patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.
They were wrong.
They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.
They were wrong.
And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.
Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.
Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.
The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40% of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.
The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.
The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.
The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.
I could go on and on and on: Against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel, Against the Aegis air-defense cruiser, Against the Strategic Defense Initiative, Against the Trident missile, against, against, against.
This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?
U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?
Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.
Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.
Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.
Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide.
John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.
That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.
Free for how long?
For more than twenty years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure. As a war protestor, Kerry blamed our military.
As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far-away.
George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.
John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.
No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.
George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.
From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.
I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man.
I am moved by the respect he shows the First Lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.
I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.
He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.
I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.
The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.
This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.
The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.
Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted, self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.
In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.
Thank you.
God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.
Arnold Schwarzenegger was great tonight.
Address to the Republican National Convention
August 31, 2004
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Thank you.
What a greeting! This is like winning an Oscar! ...As if I would know!
Speaking of acting, one of my movies was called "True Lies." It's what the Democrats should have called their convention.
My fellow Americans, this is an amazing moment for me. To think that a once-scrawny boy from Austria could grow up to become Governor of California and stand in Madison Square Garden to speak on behalf of the President of the United States that is an immigrant's dream. It is the American dream.
I was born in Europe ...and I've traveled all over the world. I can tell you that there is no place, no country, more compassionate more generous more accepting and more welcoming than the United States of America.
As long as I live, I will never forget that day 21 years ago when I raised my hand and took the oath of citizenship.
Do you know how proud I was? I was so proud that I walked around with an American flag around my shoulders all day long.
Tonight, I want to talk about why I'm even more proud to be an American -why I'm proud to be a Republican and why I believe this country is in good hands.
When I was a boy, the Soviets occupied part of Austria. I saw their tanks in the streets .I saw communism with my own eyes. I remember the fear we had when we had to cross into the Soviet sector. Growing up, we were told, "Don't look the soldiers in the eye. Look straight ahead." It was a common belief that Soviet soldiers could take a man out of his own car and ship him off to the Soviet Union as slave labor.
My family didn't have a car -- but one day we were in my uncle's car. It was near dark as we came to a Soviet checkpoint. I was a little boy, I wasn't an action hero back then, and I remember how scared I was that the soldiers would pull my father or my uncle out of the car, and I'd never see him again. My family and so many others lived in fear of the Soviet boot. Today, the world no longer fears the Soviet Union and it is because of the United States of America!
As a kid I saw the socialist country that Austria became after the Soviets left. I love Austria and I love the Austrian people - but I always knew America was the place for me.
In school, when the teacher would talk about America, I would daydream about coming here. I would sit for hours watching American movies transfixed by my heroes like John Wayne. Everything about America seemed so big to me so open, so possible.
I finally arrived here in 1968. I had empty pockets, but I was full of dreams. The presidential campaign was in full swing. I remember watching the Nixon and Humphrey presidential race on TV. A friend who spoke German and English, translated for me. I heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism which is what I had just left. But then I heard Nixon speak. He was talking about free enterprise, getting government off your back, lowering taxes, and strengthening the military. Listening to Nixon speak sounded more like a breath of fresh air.
I said to my friend, "What party is he?" My friend said, "He's a Republican." I said, "Then I am a Republican!" And I've been a Republican ever since! And trust me, in my wife's family, that's no small achievement! I'm proud to belong to the party of Abraham Lincoln, the party of Teddy Roosevelt, the party of Ronald Reagan and the party of George W. Bush.
To my fellow immigrants listening tonight, I want you to know how welcome you are in this party. We Republicans admire your ambition. We encourage your dreams. We believe in your future. One thing I learned about America is that if you work hard and play by the rules, this country is truly open to you. You can achieve anything.
Everything I have my career my success my family I owe to America. In this country, it doesn't make any difference where you were born. It doesn't make any difference who your parents were. It doesn't make any difference if, like me, you couldn't even speak English until you were in your twenties.
America gave me opportunities, and my immigrant dreams came true. I want other people to get the same chances I did, the same opportunities. And I believe they can. That's why I believe in this country, that's why I believe in this party and that's why I believe in this President.
Now, many of you out there tonight are "Republican" like me in your hearts and in your beliefs. Maybe you're from Guatemala. Maybe you're from the Philippines. Maybe Europe or the Ivory Coast. Maybe you live in Ohio Pennsylvania or New Mexico. And maybe just maybe you don't agree with this party on every single issue. I say to you tonight I believe that's not only okay that's what's great about this country. Here we can respectfully disagree and still be patriotic still be American and still be good Republicans
My fellow immigrants, my fellow Americans how do you know if you are a Republican? I'll tell you how.
If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government...then you are a Republican! If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group... then you are a Republican! If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does... then you are a Republican! If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children ... then you are a Republican! If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope of democracy in the world ... then you are a Republican! And, ladies and gentlemen ...if you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism ... then you are a Republican!
There is another way you can tell you're a Republican. You have faith in free enterprise, faith in the resourcefulness of the American people ...and faith in the U.S. economy. To those critics who are so pessimistic about our economy, I say: Don't be economic girlie men!
The U.S. economy remains the envy of the world. We have the highest economic growth of any of the world's major industrialized nations. Don't you remember the pessimism of twenty years ago when the critics said Japan and Germany were overtaking the U.S.? Ridiculous!
Now they say India and China are overtaking us. Don't you believe it! We may hit a few BUMPS -- but America always moves ahead! That's what Americans do!
We move prosperity ahead. We move freedom ahead. We move people ahead. Under President Bush, and Vice President Cheney, America's economy is moving ahead in spite of a recession they inherited and in spite of the attack on our homeland.
Now, the other party says there are two Americas. Don't believe that either. I've visited our troops in Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia, Germany, and all over the world. I've visited our troops in California, where they train before they go overseas. And I've visited our military hospitals. And I can tell you this: Our young men and women in uniform do not believe there are two Americas!
They believe we are one America and they are fighting for it! We are one America - and President Bush is defending it with all his heart and soul!
That's what I admire most about the President. He's a man of perseverance.
He's a man of inner strength. He is a leader who doesn't flinch, doesn't waiver, does not back down. My fellow Americans, make no mistake about it terrorism is more insidious than communism, because it yearns to destroy not just the individual but the entire international order.
The President didn't go into Iraq because the polls told him it was popular. As a matter of fact, the polls said just the opposite. But leadership isn't about polls. It's about making decisions you think are right and then standing behind those decisions. That's why America is safer with George W. Bush as President.
He knows you don't reason with terrorists. You defeat them. He knows you can't reason with people blinded by hate. They hate the power of the individual. They hate the progress of women. They hate the religious freedom of others. They hate the liberating breeze of democracy. But, ladies and gentlemen, their hate is no match for America's decency.
We're the America that sends out Peace Corps volunteers to teach village children.
We're the America that sends out missionaries and doctors to raise up the poor and the sick. We're the America that gives more than any other country, to fight AIDS in Africa and the developing world. And we're the America that fights not for imperialism but for human rights and democracy.
You know, When the Germans brought down the Berlin Wall America's determination helped wield the sledgehammers. When that lone, young Chinese man stood in front of those tanks in Tiananmen Square America's hopes stood with him. And when
Nelson Mandela smiled in election victory after all those years in prison America celebrated, too.
We are still the lamp lighting the world especially for those who struggle. No matter in what labor camp they slave no matter in what injustice they're trapped -- they hear our call ... they see our light ... and they feel the pull of our freedom. They come here as I did because they believe. They believe in US.
They come because their hearts say to them, as mine did, "If only I can get to America." Someone once wrote -"There are those who say that freedom is nothing but a dream." They are right. It's the American dream.
No matter the nationality, no matter the religion, no matter the ethnic background, America brings out the best in people. And as Governor of the great state of California -- I see the best in Americans every day ... our police, our firefighters our nurses, doctors and teachers our parents.
And what about the extraordinary men and women who have volunteered to fight for the United States of America! I have such great respect for them and their heroic families.
Let me tell you about the sacrifice and commitment I've seen firsthand. In one of the military hospitals I visited, I met a young guy who was in bad shape. He'd lost a leg had a hole in his stomach ... his shoulder had been shot through.
I could tell there was no way he could ever return to combat. But when I asked him, "When do you think you'll get out of the hospital?" He said, "Sir, in three weeks." And do you know what he said to me then? He said he was going to get a new leg ... and get some therapy ... and then he was going back to Iraq to serve alongside his buddies! He grinned at me and said, "Arnold ... I'll be back!"
Ladies and gentlemen, America is back! back from the attack on our homeland- back from the attack on our economy back from the attack on our way of life. We're back because of the perseverance, character and leadership of the 43rd President of the United States George W. Bush.
My fellow Americans ...I want you to know that I believe with all my heart that America remains "the great idea" that inspires the world. It's a privilege to be born here. It's an honor to become a citizen here. It's a gift to raise your family here to vote here and to live here.
Our president George W. Bush has worked hard to protect and preserve the American dream for all of us. That's why I say ... send - him - back to Washington for four more years!
Thank you, America -- and God bless you all!
Rudy Giuliani was brilliant in his address to the Republican Convention tonight.
Address to the Republican National Convention
August 30, 2004
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani
Welcome to the capital of the World.
New York was the first capital of our great nation. It was here in 1789 in lower Manhattan that George Washington took the oath of office as the first President of the United States.
It was here in 2001 in lower Manhattan that President George W. Bush stood amid the fallen towers of the World Trade Center and said to the barbaric terrorists who attacked us, "They will hear from us."
They have heard from us!
They heard from us in Afghanistan and we removed the Taliban.
They heard from us in Iraq and we ended Saddam Hussein's reign of terror.
They heard from us in Libya and without firing a shot Qadhafi abandoned weapons of mass destruction.
They are hearing from us in nations that are now more reluctant to sponsor terrorists.
So long as George Bush is President, is there any doubt they will continue to hear from us until we defeat global terrorism.
We owe that much and more to those loved ones and heroes we lost on September 11th.
The families of some of those we lost on September 11th are here with us. To them, and all those families affected by September 11th, we recognize the sacrifices your loved ones and you have made. You are in our prayers and we are in your debt.
This is the first Republican Convention ever held in New York City.
It makes a statement that New York City and America are open for business and stronger than ever.
We're not going to let the threat of terrorism stop us from leading our lives.
From the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, to President George W. Bush our party's great contribution is to expand freedom in our own land and all over the world.
And our party is at its best when it makes certain that we have a powerful national defense in a still very dangerous world.
I don't believe we're right about everything and Democrats are wrong about everything.
Neither party has a monopoly on virtue.
But I do believe that there are times in our history when our ideas are more necessary and important for what we are facing.
There are times when leadership is the most important.
On September 11, this city and our nation faced the worst attack in our history.
On that day, we had to confront reality. For me, standing below the north tower and looking up and seeing the flames of hell and then realizing that I was actually seeing a man a human being jumping from the 101st or 102nd floor drove home to me that we were facing something beyond anything we had ever faced before.
We had to concentrate all of our energy, faith and hope to get through those first hours and days.
And I will always remember that moment as we escaped the building we were trapped in at 75 Barclay Street and realized that things outside might be even worse than they were inside the building.
We did the best we could to communicate a message of calm and hope, as we stood on the pavement seeing a massive cloud rushing through the cavernous streets of lower Manhattan.
Our people were so brave in their response.
At the time, we believed we would be attacked many more times that day and in the days that followed. Spontaneously, I grabbed the arm of then Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and said to Bernie, "Thank God George Bush is our President."
And I say it again tonight, "Thank God George Bush is our President."
On September 11, George W. Bush had been President less than eight months. This new President, Vice President, and new administration were faced with the worst crisis in our history.
President Bush's response in keeping us unified and in turning the ship of state around from being solely on defense against terrorism to being on offense as well and for his holding us together.
For that and then his determined effort to defeat global terrorism, no matter what happens in this election, President George W. Bush already has earned a place in our history as a great American President.
But let's not wait for history to present the correct view of our President. Let us write our own history.
We need George Bush now more than ever.
The horror, the shock and the devastation of those attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and over the skies of Pennsylvania lifted a cloud from our eyes.
We stood face to face with those people and forces who hijacked not just airplanes but a religion and turned it into a creed of terrorism dedicated to eradicating us and our way of life.
Terrorism did not start on September 11, 2001. It had been festering for many years.
And the world had created a response to it that allowed it to succeed. The attack on the Israeli team at the Munich Olympics was in 1972. And the pattern had already begun.
The three surviving terrorists were arrested and within two months released by the German government.
Action like this became the rule, not the exception.
Terrorists came to learn they could attack and often not face consequences.
In 1985, terrorists attacked the Achille Lauro and murdered an American citizen who was in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer.
They marked him for murder solely because he was Jewish.
Some of those terrorist were released and some of the remaining terrorists allowed to escape by the Italian government because of fear of reprisals.
So terrorists learned they could intimidate the world community and too often the response, particularly in Europe, was "accommodation, appeasement and compromise."
And worse the terrorists also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously, almost in direct proportion to the barbarity of the attack.
Terrorist acts became a ticket to the international bargaining table.
How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize when he was supporting a terrorist plague in the Middle East that undermined any chance of peace?
Before September 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of the world much like our observing
Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate ourselves to peaceful co-existence with the Soviet Union through mutually assured destruction.
President Bush decided that we could no longer be just on defense against global terrorism but we must also be on offense.
On September 20, 2001, President Bush stood before a joint session of Congress, a still grieving and shocked nation and a confused world and he did change the direction of our ship of state.
He dedicated America under his leadership to destroying global terrorism.
The President announced the Bush Doctrine when he said: "Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there.
It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."
And since September 11th President Bush has remained rock solid.
It doesn't matter how he is demonized.
It doesn't matter what the media does to ridicule him or misinterpret him or defeat him.
They ridiculed Winston Churchill. They belittled Ronald Reagan.
But like President Bush, they were optimists; leaders must be optimists. Their vision was beyond the present and set on a future of real peace and true freedom.
Some call it stubbornness. I call it principled leadership.
President Bush has the courage of his convictions.
In choosing a President, we really don't choose a Republican or Democrat, a conservative or liberal.
We choose a leader.
And in times of danger, as we are now in, Americans should put leadership at the core of their decision.
There are many qualities that make a great leader but having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader.
Winston Churchill saw the dangers of Hitler while his opponents characterized him as a war-mongering gadfly.
Ronald Reagan saw and described the Soviet Union as "the evil empire" while world opinion accepted it as inevitable and belittled Ronald Reagan's intelligence.
President Bush sees world terrorism for the evil that it is.
John Kerry has no such clear, precise and consistent vision.
This is not a personal criticism of John Kerry.
I respect him for his service to our nation.
But it is important to see the contrast in approach between the two men;
President Bush, a leader who is willing to stick with difficult decisions even as public opinion shifts, and John Kerry, whose record in elected office suggests a man who changes his position often even on important issues.
When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, John Kerry voted against the Persian Gulf War. Later he said he actually supported the war.
Then in 2002, as he was calculating his run for President, he voted for the war in Iraq.
And then just 9 months later, he voted against an $87 billion supplemental budget to fund the war and support our troops.
He even, at one point, declared himself an anti-war candidate. Now, he says he's pro-war. At this rate, with 64 days left, he still has time to change his position at least three or four more times.
My point about John Kerry being inconsistent is best described in his own words when he said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
Maybe this explains John Edwards' need for two Americas - - one where John Kerry can vote for something and another where he can vote against the same thing.
Yes, people in public office at times do change their minds, I've done that, or they realize they are wrong or circumstances change.
But John Kerry has made it the rule to change his position, rather than the exception. In October, 2003, he told an Arab-American Institute in Detroit that a security barrier separating Israel from the Palestinian Territories was a "barrier to peace."
A few months later, he took exactly the opposite position. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post he said, "Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self defense."
The contrasts are dramatic. They involve very different views of how to deal with terrorism.
President Bush will make certain that we are combatting terrorism at the source, beyond our shores, so we can reduce the risk of having to confront it in the streets of New York.
John Kerry's record of inconsistent positions on combatting terrorism gives us no confidence he'll pursue such a determined course.
President Bush will not allow countries that appear to have ignored the lessons of history and failed for over thirty years to stand up to terrorists, to dissuade us from what is necessary for our defense.
He will not let them set our agenda. Under President Bush, America will lead rather than follow.
John Kerry's claim that certain foreign leaders who opposed our removal of Saddam Hussein prefer him, raises the risk that he would accommodate his position to their viewpoint.
It would hardly be the first time he changed his position on matters of war and peace.
I remember the days following September 11th when we were no longer Democrats or Republicans, but Americans determined to do all we could to help the victims, to rebuild our city and nation and to disable our enemies.
I remember President Bush coming here on September 14, 2001 and lifting the morale of our rescue workers by talking with them and embracing them and staying with them much longer than originally planned.
In fact, if you promise to keep it just between us so I don't get in trouble it was my opinion that the Secret Service was concerned about the President remaining so long in that area.
With buildings still unstable, with fires raging below ground of 2000 degrees or more, there was good reason for concern.
Well the President remained there and talked to everyone, the firefighters, the police officers, the healthcare workers, the clergy, but the people who spent the most time with him were our construction workers.
Now New York construction workers are very special people. I'm sure this is true all over but I know the ones here the best. They were real heroes along with many others that day, volunteering immediately. And they're big, real big. Their arms are bigger than my legs and their opinions are even bigger than their arms.
Now each one of them would engage the President and I imagine like his cabinet give him advice.
They were advising him in their own words on exactly what he should do with the terrorists. Of course I can't repeat their exact language.
But one of them really went into great detail and upon conclusion of his remarks President Bush said in a rather loud voice, "I agree."
At this point the guy just beamed and all his buddies turned toward him in amazement.
The guy just lost it.
So he reached over, embraced the President and began hugging him enthusiastically.
A Secret Service agent standing next to me looked at the President and the guy and instead of extracting the President from this bear hug, he turned toward me and put his finger in my face and said, "If this guy hurts the President, Giuliani you're finished."
Meekly, and this is the moral of the story, I responded, "but it would be out of love."
I also remember the heart wrenching visit President Bush made to the families of our firefighters and police officers at the Javits Center.
I remember receiving all the help, assistance and support from the President and even more than we asked.
For that I will be eternally grateful to President Bush.
And I remember the support being bi-partisan and actually standing hand in hand Republicans and Democrats, here in New York and all over the nation.
During a Boston Red Sox game there was a sign held up saying Boston loves New York.
I saw a Chicago police officer sent here by Mayor Daley directing traffic in Manhattan.
I'm not sure where he sent the cars, they are probably still riding around the Bronx, but it was very reassuring to know how much support we had.
And as we look beyond this election and elections do accentuate differences let's make sure we rekindle that spirit that we are one one America united to end the threat of global terrorism.
Certainly President Bush will keep us focused on that goal. When President Bush announced his commitment to ending global terrorism, he understood - - I understood, we all understood - - it was critical to remove the pillars of support for the global terrorist movement.
In any plan to destroy global terrorism, removing Saddam Hussein needed to be accomplished.
Frankly, I believed then and I believe now that Saddam Hussein, who supported global terrorism, slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people, permitted horrific atrocities against women, and used weapons of mass destruction, was himself a weapon of mass destruction.
But the reasons for removing Saddam Hussein were based on issues even broader than just the presence of weapons of mass destruction.
To liberate people, give them a chance for accountable, decent government and rid the world of a pillar of support for global terrorism is something for which all those involved from President Bush to the brave men and women of our armed forces should be proud.
President Bush has also focused on the correct long-term answer for the violence and hatred emerging from the Middle East. The hatred and anger in the Middle East arises from the lack of accountable governments.
Rather than trying to grant more freedom, create more income, improve education and basic health care, these governments deflect their own failures by pointing to America and Israel and other external scapegoats.
But blaming these scapegoats does not improve the life of a single person in the Arab world. It does not relieve the plight of even one woman in Iran.
It does not give a decent living to a single soul in Syria. It certainly does not stop the slaughter of African Christians in the Sudan.
The changes necessary in the Middle East involve encouraging accountable, lawful governments that can be role models.
This has also been an important part of the Bush Doctrine and the President's vision for the future.
Have faith in the power of freedom.
People who live in freedom always prevail over people who live in oppression. That's the story of the Old Testament. That's the story of World War II and the Cold War.
That's the story of the firefighters and police officers and rescue workers who courageously saved thousands of lives on September 11, 2001.
President Bush is the leader we need for the next four years because he sees beyond today and tomorrow. He has a vision of a peaceful Middle East and, therefore, a safer world. We will see an end to global terrorism. I can see it. I believe it. I know it will happen.
It may seem a long way off. It may even seem idealistic.
But it may not be as far away and idealistic as it seems.
Look how quickly the Berlin Wall was torn down, the Iron Curtain ripped open and the Soviet Union disintegrated because of the power of the pent-up demand for freedom.
When it catches hold there is nothing more powerful than freedom. Give it some hope, and it will overwhelm dictators, and even defeat terrorists. That is what we have done and must continue to do in Iraq.
That is what the Republican Party does best when we are at our best, we extend freedom.
It's our mission. And it's the long-term answer to ending global terrorism. Governments that are free and accountable.
We have won many battles at home and abroad but as President Bush told us on September 20, 2001 it will take a long-term determined effort to prevail.
The war on terrorism will not be won in a single battle. There will be no dramatic surrender. There will be no crumbling of a massive wall.
But we will know it. We'll know it as accountable governments continue to develop in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.
We'll know it as terrorist attacks throughout the world decrease and then end.
And then, God willing, we'll all be able on a future anniversary of September 11th.
To say to our fallen brothers and sisters. To our heroes of the worst attack in our history and to our heroes who have sacrificed their lives in the war on terror.
We will say to them we have done all that we could with our lives that were spared to make your sacrifices build a world of real peace and true freedom.
We will make certain in the words of President Bush that they have heard from us.
That they have heard from us a message of peace through free, accountable, lawful and decent governments giving people hope for a future for themselves and their children.
God bless each one we have lost, here and abroad, and their families.
God bless all those defending our freedom.
God bless America.
The weekend witnessed an assault by the mainstream media against Swiftboat Veterans for Truth and their varied allegations about the conduct of John Kerry while in Vietnam and upon his return to the United States. Lengthy articles in the Washington Post and the Washington Times took the "Swiftees" to task for supposedly impugning the record of a war hero. Never mind the fact that the Post and Times have not published lengthy exposes about the political nastiness that masquerades as MoveOn.org.
Leftist hypocrisy has surely climaxed with hostile scrutiny of financial contributors to the Swiftees. Bob Perry is a long time friend and supporter of President Bush. His $100,000 donation that helped Swifttees get started has been singled out as though it were the root of all evil. In Democrat circles, a citizen who seeks to give voice to his political opinions by donating to 527 organizations is a pariah- if his opinions are conservative that is. If the citizen happens to be George Soros and the amounts donated happen to exceed $15 million, all given to leftist attack groups, well, then he is a public benefactor of the highest order.
National Review today published an excellent analysis by Victor Davis Hanson of President Bush's announcement of troop withdrawals from Europe. Hanson argued that the withdrawal of troops no longer needed in Europe will force the nations and peoples of Europe to reenter the world as it exists today- a world that very much demands the defense of freedom by those who enjoy it.
Hanson wrote: "... we had created an unhealthy passive-aggressiveness in Europe that clinicians might identify as a classic symptom of dependency. Europe — now larger and more populous than the United States — has reduced defense investment to subsidize a variety of social expenditures found nowhere in the world. So insular had its utopians become under the aegis of NATO's subsidized protection that it was increasingly convinced that the ubiquitous United States was the world's rogue nation, the last impediment to a 35-hour work week, cradle-to-grave subsidies, and wind power the world over."
He continued: "The real significance of Bush's decision will be felt inside Europe itself. Our gradual departure will bring slow reckoning to the nations of Europe, not just in places like Poland, worried about 10 percent of old Germany inside its borders, but also and especially in the west among nations like Denmark and Holland. Their no-nonsense leaders have ignored the mob's cheap antics and treasured the idea that real Americans in uniform were always nearby, whose sanctity meant their own security, and whose imperilment guaranteed that a $600 billion military would immediately rush to stand side-by-side on their ramparts. So their concerns — as bilateral partners — must be addressed."
He added: "Gut-check time is approaching. In places like Brussels, Berlin, and Oslo, in the next half-century citizens will slowly decide who wishes and does not wish to be an ally of the United States of America. Some will prefer opportunistic neutrality and thus go the Swedish and Swiss route. Others in their folly may ape French and Spanish bellicosity, and think isolating the U.S., selling weapons to the Middle East, or going on maneuvers with the Chinese might work. Still more may prefer to remain staunch friends like the Poles and Italians, realizing that, for all the leftist slurs about unilateralism, never in the history of civilization has such a powerful country as the United States sought advice and cooperation from weaker friends about the wisdom, efficacy, and consequences of using its vast military. But this is no parlor game any more. Islamic fascism, scary former Soviet republics, rogue Middle Eastern nuclear states, an ever more proud and muscular China thirsty for oil — these and more specters are all out there and waiting, waiting, waiting..."
Worth reading.
Writing in the Weekly Standard today, William Kristol quoted remarks made by John Kerry on the subject of troop withdrawals from Korea and Europe before and after the recent announcement by President Bush that such withdrawals will be implemented, to document yet another Kerry flip-flop:
"On Monday, during a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, President Bush announced that he intends to modify the configuration of American forces in both South Korea and Europe. On Wednesday, Sen. Kerry, speaking before the same audience, sharply criticized the president's decision.
Appearing on ABC's This Week on August 1, however, Sen. Kerry responded to a question by host George Stephanopoulos on Iraq. Stephanopoulos asked Kerry whether, as president, he could "promise that American troops will be home by the end of your first term?" Kerry's answer:
"I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops. . . . I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has very little imagination."
Apparently, Sen. Kerry wanted to appeal to the "get-the-boys-back-home" sentiment in the country when he spoke on This Week. Yesterday, addressing a convention of veterans, Kerry was busy burnishing his credentials as a hawk by suggesting that cutting our forces in Korea "is clearly the wrong signal to send" at this time.""
Kerry's comments raise the legitimate question, does he believe in anything other than a politics of convenience.
The New York Times today reported that Alex Ho, a candidate with the Democratic Party of Hong Kong, was arrested in Dongguan on charges of soliciting prostitution. Ho has been sentenced without due process to six months detention, a period of time sufficient to disqualify him from participating in a local council election he was likely to win.
According the government controlled New China News Agency, "... Ho and a 25-year-old woman were found naked in a room at the Huiyuan Hyatt Hotel at 5 a.m." The Times noted that, "... mainland authorities are supposed to notify Hong Kong officials promptly of the arrest of a Hong Kong citizen, no such notification had been received about Mr. Ho."
According to Fred Li, a senior member of the Democratic Party, Ho was, "... held without access to a lawyer or to family members until he signed a confession that he had hired the prostitute..." Li continued, "... Mr. Ho initially refused to sign, but did so when told he would be released ... if he signed, and when threatened with prosecution for rape if he did not sign." Ho was not released, but instead was sentenced to a period of detention corresponding to government political objectives.
Prostitution, while illegal, is common in China. Were laws against it strictly enforced, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would lack untainted leadership in sufficient numbers to continue imposing itself on the Chinese people. The motive for the detention of Alex Ho is not prostitution, it is found in this statement by Times: "Democrats delivered a sharp setback to pro-Beijing candidates in neighborhood elections last November, and polls have suggested they will do well in the Council elections." Lacking a legitimate means to impose themselve on Hong Kong, the thugs who rule the CCP resort to bullying, which is their first instinct.
From an article by David Tubbs and Robert George in City Journal:
"It is often remarked that marriage tends to "civilize" sexuality—particularly male sexuality. Although the complete picture is more complex than that, there is truth in this remark. But there is no magic in a word. Redefining marriage means abolishing it and shifting the label to a new institution—one for which there are no grounds of principle for sexual exclusivity or monogamy. Thus redefined, marriage won't function to civilize anybody. If marriage is redefined out of existence, our entire society will be harmed, but the harm will be distributed unequally. In the libertine utopia of "sexual freedom," women and children will suffer the most."
Worth reading.
On a subject the media do not want to cover, this website is worth visting: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
National Review today published an excellent article by Donna Hughes on the effect of Islamization in Sudan. Even as the media and the Western world raise awareness of the horrific crimes committed by the Sudanese government against non-Arab citizens, nothing is done to stop the genocide. Governments and politicians who in the aftermath of the Rwanda genocide vowed never again to tolerate such crimes against humanity can only be bothered to pass resolutions- toothless threats. Kofi Annan talks. The Arab world is silent. The Islamic nations are silent. America and Britain are preoccupied. The French don't care. In the meantime, innocents suffer and die, or if less lucky are enslaved by Islamic bigotry and Arab racism.
In an article in Opinion Journal today, Claudia Rosset pressured the United Nations to release to the public all documents relating to the Oil for Fraud program. Rosett noted that the U.N. has some 15 million relevant documents in hand and collects more each day. The Oil for Fraud investigation headed by Paul Volker is not expected to release a report in the near future- the overwhelming volume of reading material is a critical obstruction. Rosset proposed the cleanising effect of daylight on the documentation and she is right- let free journalists investigate and the truth will come out. Then again, the truth is what Kofi Annan wants least of all.
This campaign advertisement, Kerry on Kerry, demolishes the pretense that John Kerry has a principled approach to the liberation of Iraq. Using his own words, the advertisement proves that Kerry has tailored his message about Iraq to suit his his political needs without respect for truth or principle.
An interesting case that raises questions about religious liberties and religious discrimination was reported by the Miami Herald yesterday:
"A woman is suing her former employer, a telecommunications firm with Muslim workers and clients, claiming she was fired because she ate pork products in the company lunchroom. Pork is unclean, according to Islamic beliefs, and Rising Star Telecommunications CEO Kujaatele Kweli said his company has a policy against openly eating or preparing the meat. But the attorney for Lina Morales, an administrative assistant fired in March 2003, said the company admits there is no written policy against pork. And when Morales complained she was being disciplined for a policy of which she was unaware, she was fired for insubordination."
A Central Florida news station, Local 6, reported that, "Morales, who is Catholic, was warned about eating pizza with meat the Muslim faith considered "unclean. She was then fired for eating a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich, according to the report." Local 6 quoted Kweli as saying, "Our point of view is to respect the laws of the land and the laws of the land as I understand it is to the accommodate people's right to practice their religions if you can."
The practice of religion (or atheism for that matter) is a critical freedom- inseparable from freedom of conscience- and much worth protecting. The state, however, has a compelling interest in commerical workplaces free from discrimination. It is one thing for a religious organization, a church or charity for example, to create a workplace that does not contradict religious beliefs. It is altogether another thing for a commercial enterprise dominated by a religious group to impose beliefs and practices on employees of differing or no faith. In the former case, employees accept the religious mission of their employer as a fact of employment, in the latter case there is no such mission and no such consent- there is only discrimination.
Having said as much, any matter imposing secular standards over and above religious practice is not to be dismissed lightly- regardless of the religion in question. Recent court decisions in California and in other jurisdictions have held, for example, that charities of the Catholic Church must include contraception and abortion amongst health benefits offered to employees. This, despite the Church's irreconcileable moral and dogmatic opposition to the "benefits." What the court decides in one case will take hold in others.
Kweli confuses religious liberty with religious discrimination and Rising Star Telecommunications is in clear violation of employment law. Friends of the First Amendment should not rush to celebrate a likely victory, however, because the precedents established when courts impose secular norms too often impact religious liberty in future disputes.
Update: Tom at Redhunter also addressed this story today.
The New York Times today reported on efforts in Canada to allow Muslims to apply Sharia in disputes over property, inheritance, marriage and divorce. The Times is late in reporting on the establishment of the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice in Canada. In “Justice Canadian Style,” responding to an April 28 article in the Washington Post addressing the same subject, I argued that Sharia is the antithesis of civil justice.
The Times report is distinguished from that of the Post by quotations that boggle the mind and reasoning that demands comment. For example, in introducing what would seem to be a Canadian multicultural ideal, the Times wrote, “The late Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau dreamed of a Canada in which distinctive customs and identities could live side by side in harmony. Turning nationalism on its head, there would be no dominant Canadian identity, no melting pot, no official culture.
The Times continued, “H. Donald Forbes, a political science professor at the University of Toronto, said he cannot be sure how Mr. Trudeau would have responded to the idea of Shariah tribunals, “but I think he would go along.” He added that as long as the arbitration is voluntary, Mr. Trudeau would probably have concluded that “this kind of meaningful accommodation was in the spirit of multiculturalism.””
No dominant national identity? Is this not a recipe for balkanization? While common sense does exist in parts of Canada, Daimnation is proof, one can not be faulted for wondering whether Canadian common sense is destined to be overwhelmed by a people disinclined toward self preservation.
The Times did provide evidence that not all Muslims in Canada support the option of Sharia: “…some Canadian Muslim women - who say Muslim law is already applied behind closed doors - say efforts to apply it openly… would represent a dangerous precedent.” The Times quoted Homa Arjomand, an Iranian born counselor for battered women, “Here in Canada, girls are segregated from boys at private Islamic elementary schools, then forced into arranged marriages through Shariah at the age of 13, 14 or 15 to men over twice their age. How much choice do these women have?”
The Times dismissed Arjomand’s concern by noting that, “… the Ontario government has appointed Marion Boyd, a feminist activist and former provincial cabinet member to review the 1991 arbitration law.” The Times then cited an example of coexistence between religious and secular law: “It would not be the first time laws have changed to balance religion and secular rights. A group of Canadian Jewish women pressed the federal government in 1990 to enact a law to help Jewish women seeking a religious divorce against recalcitrant husbands who under Orthodox rules have the upper hand in such cases.”
This might be encouraging if Jewish law compared to Sharia like plowshares compare to plowshares, but the accurate comparison is of plowshares to swords. Jews have history as proof of the Torah's adaptability to host cultures. Islam has no similar record. Instead, Islam and Sharia, invented to authenticate a conquest, demand ascendancy.
The Times quoted Boyd: "How do we honor two commitments, to multiculturalism and equity to the rule of law, that often seem to come into conflict? We have been struggling a bit. There really are conflicting values."
There really are conflicting values? Ms. Boyd just realized this? The Muslim women she is to protect- pressed by their culture into the arms of Sharia- should worry.
Update: Jane at Armies of Liberation also addressed this story today.
Arab News Daily on Sunday published an editorial by Jane at Armies of Liberation, an occasional visitor to this site, addressing John Kerry's approach to national security. This quote sums it up, "John Kerry offers ... little global vision beyond restoring alliances in Europe."
Underplayed or hidden altogether by the New York Times and Washington Post is polling data indicating that John Kerry and John Edwards have benefited not at all from the recent Democrat convention. CNN reported yesterday that an opinion poll taken at the weekend found Kerry to be, “… running slightly ahead of Bush among registered voters but slightly behind among likely voters. … In each case, the difference between the two men was less than the margin of error, making the results a statistical tie.”
When Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton and Al Gore enjoyed sizeable surges in polling data following their conventions, the surges were front page news in the established media. One can not help but wonder why surging Democrats are a story to be reported while sputtering Democrats are no story at all. The silence couldn't possibly be purposeful... could it?
Media bias aside, a post convention bounce may not be necessary to win elections, but the lack of any bounce must worry Democrats. It is logical to expect that nearly a week of unfiltered campaigning would result in at least a minimal surge at the polls. That is, if the message of the campaign has any resonance with undecided voters. Lacking clear positive indications in polling numbers, it is appropriate to question whether Kerry's message falls flat.
The Washington Times yesterday provided details about the Syrian musicians whose behavior on a flight between Detroit and Los Angeles on June 29 raised suspicions of group bomb making drills. The Times reported that 13 of the 14 musicians were traveling on expired visas and noted that the fourteenth musician is a United States citizen. This lapse in security is especially troubling because Syria is designated by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Gabrielle, who called the article to my attention, noted that when enforced, immigration law can be a tool for addressing security concerns:
"Regardless of whether or not these Syrians were genuine musicians, we should not be letting ANYONE travel on expired visas. If you let innocent foreigners get away with it, then pretty soon malicious people take advantage of that fact to do the same. And then the law enforcement who questioned them after the "suspicious" flight didn't even NOTICE that they were traveling on expired visas?! The whole point of abolishing INS and moving immigration functions into the Department of Homeland Security was PRECISELY to drive home to law enforcement the fact that immigration violations can be an indirect tool for addressing security problems!"
Another day remains in the Democrat convention, already I am tired of clichéd references to “Kerry’s Week” or “Kerry’s Moment.” Surely someone somewhere can concoct a better way to describe the hyping of expectations that will culminate when John Kerry formally accepts the Democrat nomination for the presidency. Clichés aside, the convention is providing Kerry with a week of controlled media exposure during which he is portrayed in terms far different than what is indicated by his record.
In a legislative body bloated with liberals who define charitable giving as taking money from one group of citizens and giving it to another, Kerry stands out as among the most liberal senators of all, but his charitable inclinations seem to stop at his own wallet. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Noemie Emery documented how Kerry has spent wealth acquired by two marriages, and how in between those marriages he gave negligible amounts to charity: “… a possible insight into his priorities could be inferred from his tax records for the year 1993 … in which he earned $130,345 and gave exactly $175 to charity, while indulging in an $8,600 Italian-made mountain bike for himself.”
Kerry’s charitable giving is a valid subject for public scrutiny because as a left-wing liberal his political agenda emphasizes ‘giving’ in the form of tax redistributions. One could reasonably expect above average charity from the so-called compassionate left. Emery demonstrated that this is not the case with Kerry: “According to the Boston Globe, between 1990 and 1995… Kerry earned a total of $724,042 and gave $4,869 to charity, or a grand total of 0.7 percent… In this six-year span between his two marriages, the most Kerry ever gave to charity was $2,039 in 1994. Two years, he gave nothing at all.”
Kerry is also portrayed as a man of Catholic faith, with stress on his upbringing in the Church, his years as an altar boy, and the constant presence of a St. Christopher medal around his neck, but his record in public life does not align with his profession of faith. Worse than the contradiction between his generosity with other people’s money and stinginess with his own, Kerry seeks the mantle of the Church even as he panders for the endorsement of pro-abortion groups that are antithetical to Catholic tradition and teaching. Choosing words carefully- it is not my place to question Kerry’s place in the mystical body of Christ- I am hard pressed to believe that Christ would share Kerry’s convictions regarding abortion. There is a special place of worship for Catholics who favor abortion- it is called the Episcopal Church. Kerry could demonstrate personal integrity and align his faith and politics by joining it.
Kerry’s combat record and claim of unwavering support for national security is also emphasized. The gap between claim and reality is evident in his voting record which is remarkable for its near perfect opposition to spending on defense and intelligence programs. Barbara Comstock wrote in National Review that Kerry, “… voted against funding the MX missile, the Patriot missile, the Apache helicopter, the Blackhawk helicopter, the B-1 Bomber, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and just about every significant weapons system used in the war on terrorism…” As has been much remarked, he opposed $87 billion in funding for troops deployed in Iraq- troops he voted to send to Iraq in the first place. In the years before and after the 9/11 attacks, he supported every effort by senate Democrats to slash funding for intelligence programs even as he now lashes out at flawed intelligence gathering. Comstock wrote, “In September 1995, two years after the first World Trade Center attack, Senator Kerry proposed cutting $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. Kerry included the cuts in a laundry list of government expenditures that… described as “pointless, wasteful, antiquated, or just plain silly.” Comstock continued, “Kerry's 1995 proposal was no aberration. In 1994 Kerry twice pushed to cut $1 billion from the budgets of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and from Tactical Intelligence, and advocated freezing their budgets. When the bill got stuck in committee, Kerry proposed it as an amendment to another bill.” According to Comstock, “… during the eight years Kerry served on the Intelligence Committee, he proposed budget cuts at least three times. So how many times during his eight-year tenure on the Intelligence Committee did he propose legislation to increase funding for human intelligence or to reform the intelligence community? You guessed it: zilch, zero.” This is not a confidence inspiring record and it certainly does not support the claim that Kerry is strong on national defense.
Emery documented the arrogance for which Kerry is famous amongst Bostonians: ““One of the surest ways to get the phones ringing on any Massachusetts talk-radio show is to ask people to call in and tell their John Kerry stories,” says Howie Carr, the Boston Herald columnist and radio host. “The phone lines are soon filled, and most of the stories have a common theme: The junior senator pulling rank on one of his constituents, breaking in line, demanding to pay less (or nothing), or ducking out before the bill arrives. The tales often have one other common thread. Most end with Sen. Kerry inquiring of the lesser mortal: ‘Do you know who I am?’”
From his record we do know who John Kerry is- a Massachusetts limousine liberal. The better question is, does John Kerry know who John Kerry is?
When one of the most liberal men I know agrees with the most conservative man I know, a rethink is necessary.
Words to cheer from the convention speech given by the worst LIVING president in modern times:
"My name is Jimmy Carter, and I am not running for president."
Words to cheer from the convention speech given by the worst president in modern times:
"My name is Jimmy Carter, and I am not running for president."
The Arab News Daily concluded from the report issued by the congressional commission investigating 9/11: "Unfortunately the fact that they [Americans] have now shared in the terror that has long afflicted the rest of the world has not yet helped them understand the basic injustices on which terrorism feeds and thrives such as the atrocity of Palestine. No committee is needed to tell us who is behind the terrorism Palestinians are suffering every day."
As Armies of Liberation succinctly put it, "What a load of trash coming from the official English language newspaper of Saudi Arabia." Americans understand, commission report or not, that terrorism feeds on the doctrines of Islamism and that Saudi Arabia, the world's dominant exporter of the hateful Wahabbist strain of Islamism, is very much responsible for the rise of international Islamist terror. We also understand that most of the murderers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabians.
Much more than a congressional report, however, will be necessary to end the hatred that so blinds Saudi Arabia. Nothing short of a reformation in Islam will open the eyes of the Arab world to simple facts: Yasser Arafat, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Saudi Arabia stand between Palestinians and peaceful coexistence with Israel. Islamism will not abide by a two state solution between Israel and Palestine and the Arab world cares not a whit for the Palestinians as human beings, finding them much more useful as an excuse for anti-Semitism.
The New York Times continued spinning Trousergate yesterday as little more than partisan character assassination. The Times report contained stale news reworded to implicate the Bush-Cheney reelection effort in a campaign of nastiness. In the meantime, the Washington Post and the Daily News actually worked the story and found sources that seem to corroborate the points I outlined in “The Times Spins Sandy Berger.”
- Berger characterized as "inadvertant" his taking classified documents from a secure reading room, not once but twice.
From the Post: "Berger, his attorney Lanny Breuer said, checked his office and realized for the first time that he had walked out -- unintentionally, he says -- with important papers relating to the Clinton administration's efforts to combat terrorism."
- The documents that Berger removed would seem to include all of the existing copies (in draft or final version) of a particular report.
From the Post: "The documents that Berger has acknowledged taking -- some of which remain missing -- are different drafts of a January 2000 "after-action review" of how the government responded to terrorism plots at the turn of the millennium. The document was written by White House anti-terrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke, at Berger's direction when he was in government… Archives employees determined that that draft and all four or five other versions of the millennium memo had disappeared from the files, this source said."
- Berger characterized as "inadvertant" his destruction of certain of those classified documents.
From the Post: "Despite searching his home and office, Berger could not find [the missing documents]."
- Berger knowingly snuck his notes about those classified documents out of the secure reading room in his pant and jacket pockets.
From the Post: "Sources have told The Washington Post, and other news organizations, that Berger was witnessed stuffing papers into his clothing. Through attorneys and spokesmen, Berger has denied doing that."
From the Daily News: "… archives monitors told the FBI that Berger was observed stuffing his socks with handwritten notes about files he reviewed that were going to the 9/11 panel. It is prohibited to make notes about the secret files and leave with them without special approval. "Stuffed socks and pockets is real," the senior law enforcement official said. "The [theft] was reported by the guards.""
- Berger characterized as voluntary, his return of the documents.
From the Post: "As his attorneys tell it, Berger had no idea in October that documents were missing from the Archives, or that archivists suspected him in the disappearance. It was not until two days later, on Saturday, Oct. 4, that he was contacted by Archives employees who said that they were concerned about missing files, from his September and October visits. This call -- in Berger's version of the chronology, which is disputed in essential respects by a government official with knowledge of the investigation -- was made with a tone of concern, but not accusation.
Berger, his attorney Lanny Breuer said, checked his office and realized for the first time that he had walked out -- unintentionally, he says -- with important papers relating to the Clinton administration's efforts to combat terrorism.
Berger alerted Archives employees that evening to what he had found. The classified documents were sensitive enough that employees arrived on a Sunday morning to pick them up.
Several days later, after he had retained Breuer as counsel, Berger volunteered that he had also taken 40 to 50 pages of notes during three visits to the Archives beginning in July, the lawyer said. Berger turned the notes over to the Archives. He has acknowledged through attorneys that he knowingly did not show these papers to Archives officials for review before leaving -- a violation of Archives rules, but not one that he perceived as a serious security lapse.
By then, however, Archives officials had served notice that there were other documents missing. Despite searching his home and office, Berger could not find them. By January, the FBI had been brought in, and Berger found himself in a criminal investigation -- one that he chose not to tell Kerry's campaign about until this week…
… A government official with knowledge of the investigation said Archives employees took action promptly after noticing a missing document in September. This official said an Archives employee called former White House deputy counsel Bruce Lindsey, who is former president Bill Clinton's liaison to the National Archives. The Archives employee said documents were missing and would have to be returned.
Under this version of events -- which Breuer denied -- documents were returned the following day from Berger's office to the Archives. Not included in these papers, the government official said, were any drafts of the document at the center of this week's controversy."
- The National Archives indicates that the documents were missed, that a trap was set, and that he was subsequently caught.
From the Post: "The government source said the Archives employees were deferential toward Berger, given his prominence, but were worried when he returned to view more documents on Oct. 2. They devised a coding system and marked the documents they knew Berger was interested in canvassing, and watched him carefully. They knew he was interested in all the versions of the millennium review, some of which bore handwritten notes from Clinton-era officials who had reviewed them. At one point an Archives employee even handed Berger a coded draft and asked whether he was sure he had seen it."
- The FBI is investigating the matter and has searched Berger's house.
From the Post: "By January, the FBI had been brought in, and Berger found himself in a criminal investigation -- one that he chose not to tell Kerry's campaign about until this week."
I remain baffled as to why a man in Berger’s position would jeopardize his reputation. I can only conclude that the stakes were sufficiently high- that or there really is a vast right-wing conspiracy.
With thanks to John Vecchione, following is an excerpt published by AsiaNews.it from an interview with Monsignor Rabban Al Qas, Chaldaean bishop of Amadiyah in northern Iraq:
"The Western press has been unjust towards Iraq. It has focused only on the dark side, on terrorism, killings, car bombs, the cruel images of decapitation. Some went as far as saying violence was justified because it was aimed at the occupiers. Unfortunately, ordinary people are the ones who paid a high price, Muslims and Christians working for the Americans or finding themselves at the wrong place at the wrong time when some car explodes. The so-called “resistance” hardly ever kills Americans. No! Opposition should mean defending the rights of the people, not killing them. If you strike and kill fellow countrymen and women, you are not a resistance fighter, you are but a destroyer, a bearer of death.
The press has been backward-looking focusing on the negative side of the situation, never talking about the positive things the former provisional council did and the present interim government is doing. No one showed that, despite the political upheaval, the uncertainties and lack of security, schools reopened. Whether primary, high and secondary schools, or universities, the normal academic year ended as one would expect.
Under Saddam there was only poverty. Now the economy is slowly reviving thanks to what the government and the Americans are doing. New building sites are opening, new construction is going on. All this in spite of terrorist attacks. How many people paid in blood their commitment to rebuild Iraq? Italians, Japanese, French, Americans, Koreans . . . No one talks about power plants restarting, oil wells reopening, agricultural programmes being launched, roads being rebuilt. . . that were once filled with potholes.
What can one say about the press and freedom of the press? There are at least 150 daily newspapers in the country. And what about demonstrations? Under Saddam, they were banned . . ."
Daimnation noticed, via Little Green Footballs, twisted logic remarkable even by the standards of the New York Times editorial page. The Times wrote, "[Arafat] is, after all, a democratically elected leader, though the term he won in 1996 was never meant to be this long."
Responded Daimnation, "You know what that's normally called? It's called "not being a democratically elected leader.""
It's also called intellectually dishonesty.
Scandal was the word most used yesterday to describe news that Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor to former President Clinton, and a formal policy advisor to John Kerry, removed and destroyed classified materials from a secure government reading room while preparing to testify before the 9/11 Commission. You wouldn’t have guessed as much from reading the New York Times yesterday morrning, but there are many reasons to suspect that Berger's behavior was anything but inadvertant.
Yesterday morning, before the scandal had gained momentum, the Times quoted Berger as saying, "… I inadvertently took a few documents from the archives." The Times wrote, “Mr. Berger removed at least two versions of a memorandum assessing how the government handled intelligence and security issues before the millennium celebrations in 1999, his lawyer, Lanny A. Breuer, said. He also removed notes he took about classified documents…”
I read this article and extended the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Berger. I suspect that most readers concluded as I did, that Berger went to the library, did some research and accidentally tucked confidential library materials in to his papers as he was leaving. A simple mistake… or so I thought. Times readers may not have known that while they absorbed the (purposely?) truncated and incomplete version of the story that appeared online yesterday, other media, notably the Blogsphere, were posting important details about what clearly is a scandal.
InstaPundit, for example, referenced an Associated Press report that Berger “inadvertently” took documents on more than one occasion: “… [National] Archives staff first raised concerns with Berger during an Oct. 2 review of documents that at least one copy of the post-millennium report he had reviewed earlier was missing. Berger was given a second copy that day… Officials familiar with the investigation said Archive staff specially marked the documents and when the new copy and others disappeared, Archive officials called Clinton attorney Bruce Lindsey to raise concerns.”
VodkaPundit also referenced an Associated Press report that Berger removed notes on the classified documents from the secured environment by tucking them into his clothing: “Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed handwritten notes he had made while reading classified anti-terror documents at the archives by sticking them in his jacket and pants.”
This morning the Times reported, albeit reluctantly, that there may be more to the story than can be explained as “inadvertent” behavior. It spent the better part of the first page of the article portraying Berger as a victim of Republican opportunism. It wrote that Republicans accused [Berger] … of stashing the material in his clothing” and noted that Berger’s attorney had characterized this accusation as ““ridiculous” and politically inspired.” Not until the second page, and well toward the end of the article did the Times mention that Berger, “… put in his jacket and pants pockets handwritten notes that he had made during his review of the documents.”
How can the Times justify reporting a sanitized version of the story yesterday when troubling details were readily available from news bureaus and on the Internet? What, if not bias, explains the Times obvious attempt today to paper over the sinister details of an emerging scandal that hurts the Democrat party’s chances in the November elections. Imagine if Condaleeza Rice was discovered to have removed classified materials from a secure government reading room. Would the Times pull punches?
I am unable to explain why Berger would purposely steal and destroy classified documents. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the details of the story demand otherwise.
- Berger characterized as "inadvertant" his taking of classified documents from a secure reading room, not once but twice.
- The documents that Berger removed would seem to include all of the existing copies (in draft or final version) of a particular report.
- Berger characterized as "inadvertant" his destruction of certain of those classified documents.
- Berger knowingly snuck his notes about those classified documents out of the secure reading room in his pant and jacket pockets.
- Berger characterized as voluntary, his return of the documents, but the National Archives indicates that the documents were missed, that a trap was set, and that he was subsequently caught.
- The FBI is investigating the matter and has searched Berger's house.
A pattern emerges from these facts- whether or not the Times likes it- the pattern has nothing to do with inadvertant behavior
In "Spineless Philippines Sucker Punch Iraq" I wrote, "Americans of good conscience can add the Philippines to the growing list of countries whose exports should be avoided to the maximum extent possible. As the Philippines do not actually export anything of value- the lifestyle impact will be nil." It ocurred to me this afternoon that the Philippines do export one lifestyle enhancing product, San Miguel beer. I drank a fair amount of it in Hong Kong and while it isn't often seen on menus in Washington, D.C., I regret removing it from the realm of my consideration.
The New York Times today reported that Jiang Yanyong, the doctor who exposed China’s cover-up of a rural SARS epidemic was released from custody. He had been detained by the Chinese Communist Party for writing a letter to party leaders asking for an honest reassessment of the massacre in Tiananmen Square. Because Yanyong had the temerity to demand that the CCP take responsibility for its actions, he was held for seven weeks and subjected to “study sessions” (a euphemism for brainwashing). The septuagenarian is ‘free’ now, which for dissidents in China means under house arrest and prevented from speaking publicly.
“So. The Coalition has lost 50 humanitarian workers in Iraq, and an al Qaeda-affiliated group has six million dollars in cash. It's time to recognize a new coalition, one initiated by the new Spanish government. We'll call it the Coalition of the Prostrate. Give a lukewarm welcome to the Philippines as the newest member of the club.”
So commented Vodka Pundit in response to reporting by The Daily Tribune via Michelle Malkin that the Philippine government, in order to secure safe release for truck driver Angelo de la Cruz, not only agreed an early withdrawal of it’s humanitarian workers in Iraq, but also agreed to pay $6 million in ransom to the Islamists who kidnapped him.
This sucker punch to Iraq- losing humanitarian workers while Islamists pocket an enormous sum of money with which to purchase weapons to turn against the Iraqi people- has a positive side. Americans of good conscience can add the Philippines to the growing list of countries whose exports should be avoided to the maximum extent possible. As the Philippines do not actually export anything of value- the lifestyle impact will be nil.
The New York Times today published an article on the security threat posed by Western converts to Islam. The Times wrote that converts are not easily identifiable by immigration and customs officials, a fact likely to be leveraged by Islamists planning terrorist attacks: "Converts will be used for striking more and more by jihadist circles," said Jean-Luc Marret, a terrorism expert at the Strategic Research Foundation, in Paris. "They have been used in the past for proselytism, logistics or support, and they are operationally useful now."
The Times reported that many new converts are social losers who first encounter Islam in prison. In France for example, the prison population is more than fifty percent Muslim. The Times wrote, “Antoine Sfeir, a French scholar who is writing a book on the trend, said a small number of converts, many of them disaffected and often troubled young people, saw the current wave of Islamic terrorism as "a kind of combat against the rich, powerful, by the poor men of the planet."
The Times notes that, “Only a small fraction of Western Islamic converts sympathize with terrorism, and even fewer become engaged in terrorist activity.” While true, the small numbers who do sympathize with Islamism are cause for concern in open Western societies struggling with issues of profiling and security.
Allah Is In The House has brilliantly captured the Kerry-Edward's policy approach to Iraq and the Middle East should we be so unfortunate as to see them in office.
On July 6, Arab News Daily published an article by Linda Heard titled, "America's Growing Culture of Hate." I analyzed her article in a July 7 posting titled, "Pot Meet Kettle, The Hypocrisy of Islamic Journalism." I posted Linda's response to my analysis yesterday as "Linda Heard Responds." Following is my response to her response.
Linda-
Firstly, thank you for your email and apologies for my delayed response.
It did not escape my attention that your article was written about events in the United States. Most of my response dealt with the events you described as contributing to a culture of hatred toward Muslims in the United States. I tried to distinguish between what could reasonably be considered hateful behavior (e.g., vandalism and threatened or actual violence), and what is rightly characterized as the exercise of free speech (e.g., Doctor Laura’s radio program). Your response provides a laundry list of anecdotal evidence for what you conclude is the beginnings of a “mass paranoia” toward Islam. I beg to differ. The United States is coming to grips with a serious national security threat that is attributable to Islam and Islamism. While the threat predates 9/11, it was brought into sharp focus by that day’s mass murder of thousands of innocents by 19 Muslim men. Need I remind you that while so many in New York and Washington suffered from the 9/11 attacks, many Muslims celebrated the carnage and death by dancing in streets round the world. Americans did not respond to 9/11 with violent rampages against Muslims living in the United States. There was an increase in threats and vandalism but appreciably little actual violence (I think there were two actual deaths- one of them a Sikh- in a country of 250 million people). Indeed, one can document vastly more violence and murders perpetrated by Muslims against Christians in countries like Pakistan, Sudan, and Indonesia in the twelve months following 9/11 than were perpetrated by Americans against Muslims in the United States. Are you planning to publish in Arab News Daily an article about the Islamic culture of hatred for Christians and Jews? I won’t hold my breath.
Since the 9/11 attacks, Americans have gone to war against terrorism and have taken steps to secure our borders against terrorist infiltration and to identify internal terrorists. These security imperatives have resulted in occasional and regrettable errors- they have also resulted in the successful preemption of terrorist strikes. The successes by far outweigh the inconvenience to those wrongfully questioned. Before you respond that I have the luxury of not being one of the inconvenienced few, let me clearly state that every American is inconvenienced as a result of Islamist terror. I used to be able to leave my home twenty-five minutes in advance of a shuttle flight- without having purchased a ticket- and in that time drive to the airport, park, purchase a ticket, and board the flight without having to hurry. This scenario is but a fantasy in the aftermath of 9/11 when passing through security can take an hour. Whenever I find myself waiting in an airport security line, I feel angry about the imposition and I think about the underlying reason why the line exists in the first place. It isn’t because we have a problem with grandmothers from Minnesota sneaking shoe bombs onto airplanes; it isn’t because Buddhist monks have been hiding box cutters under their saffron robes; it isn’t because Christians have been attempting to fly airplanes into the Grand Mosque in Mecca; and it isn’t because Zoroastrians have been preaching bigotry and world domination in Friday sermons. It is because nineteen Muslims, with support from a dispersed network of Islamist organizations (themselves financed by Muslims around the world), murdered thousands of innocents in the clearest possible declaration of war against Western civilization.
I conceded above that wrongful questioning and detention is regrettable in America. It is important to note that wrongful questioning and detainment are standard operating procedures in the world’s Islamic republics. Having said as much, consider just a few of the reasons why Americans are understandably suspicious about Islam’s claim to be a religion of peace.
- Have you heard of Daniel Pearl, the American news reporter who was murdered by Muslims in Pakistan?
- Have you heard of Paul Johnson, the American contractor who was murdered by Muslims in Saudi Arabia?
- Have you heard of Fabrizio Quattrocci, the Italian contractor who was murdered by Muslims in Iraq?
- Have you heard of Kim Sun Il, the South Korean contractor who was murdered by Muslims in Iraq?
- Have you heard of Keith Maupin, the American Army specialist who was murdered by Muslims in Iraq?
- Have you heard of Nick Berg, the American contractor who was murdered by Muslims in Iraq?
- Have you heard of Richard Reid, the British Muslim who attempted to blow up a passenger airplane headed for America?
- Have you heard of Ramzi Yousef, Mohammed Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima and Ahmad Ajaj, the Muslims who murdered six people in the first World Trade Center attack?
- Have you heard of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the Muslim cleric who preached hatred at mosques in Brooklyn and Jersey City, masterminded the first World Trade Center attack and the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane, and planned to assassinate Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak?
I could add much to this list, but a story that came to my attention today will serve as a much better illustration of the problem the United States faces. The Womens Wall Street Journal recently posted a horrifying article by Annie Jacobsen titled, “Terror in the Skies, Again?” It recounted events that occurred during a flight between Detroit and Los Angeles where 14 Middle Eastern men seem to have conducted an in-flight practice session in collective bomb making. Passengers on the flight were terrified by the obviously suspicious conduct of the Middle Eastern men but all felt uncomfortable confronting them because they did not want to be considered racist. That is the true state of racial consciousness in America- better to die when the plane explodes than confront terrorists in the act of making a bomb. What is more, the article addressed the legal measure taken by the United States specifically to preclude security officials, including air marshals, from treating Middle Eastern and Asian people differently regardless of circumstance:
In researching her article, Jacobsen found a February 8, 2004 report in The Observer that the “...[United States] Transportation Security Administration issued an urgent memo detailing new threats to aviation and warning that terrorists in teams of five might be planning suicide missions to hijack commercial airliners, possibly using common items...such as cameras, modified as weapons.” She continued, “...Components of IEDs [improvised explosive devices] can be smuggled on to an aircraft, concealed in either clothing or personal carry-on items... and assembled on board. In many cases of suspicious passenger activity, incidents have taken place in the aircraft's forward lavatory.” Jacobsen asked the question, “Since the FBI issued a warning to the airline industry to be wary of groups of five men on a plane who might be trying to build bombs in the bathroom, shouldn't a group of 14 Middle Eastern men be screened before boarding a flight?” Her answer: “Apparently not. Due to [American] rules against discrimination, it can't be done. During the 9/11 hearings last April, 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman stated that ...it was the policy (before 9/11) and I believe remains the policy today to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory.” Jacobsen concluded, “So even if Northwest Airlines searched two of the men on board my Northwest flight, they couldn't search the other 12 because they would have already filled a government-imposed quota.”
America and the Western world bend over backwards to avoid bigotry and intolerance. Don’t believe it? How many people immigrate (a different proposition from expatriation, which is temporary) from the West to Islamic republics? Basically none, I think. Care to guess why? The answer has much to do with the institutionalization of bigotry and intolerance in most Islamic republics. We aren’t perfect -- no one is -- but living as a minority in America and the Western world is vastly better than living as a minority in any Islamic republic and most of the non-Western world. Since 9/11, the American people have behaved splendidly toward Muslims living in the United States—true, there have been random acts of violence and discrimination, but we work to bring the perpetrators to justice under existing laws. So conscious are we of the taint of racism that we have created policies that jeopardize the lives of our people by giving the benefit of the doubt to the obviously suspicious activities of Middle Eastern men as noted in Jacobsen’s story above. I am not enthusiastic about racial profiling. I have Muslim friends and colleagues who do not deserve to be singled out on the basis of race or religion. I suspect, however, that the only way to maximize the safety of all Americans is through the systematic use of profiling. You will no doubt call this hatred; I call it prudence.
Finally, I must address your ludicrous contention that “Islam is extremely tolerant of other religions.” The extreme religious tolerance to which you allude no doubt explains why Saudi Arabia forbids Christians and Jews from building churches and synagogues, arrests Christians and Jews who display their faith in public, and executes Muslims who convert from Islam to Christianity or Judaism. That same extreme tolerance must be at work when Muslims in Sudan capture and sell Christians and animists into slavery. Of course, extreme tolerance can be credited when Muslims in Egypt persecute the Coptic Christian minority in their midst. I would be remiss if I failed to credit extreme tolerance as the driving force behind the slaughter of Christians by Muslims in East Timor. You will probably also agree that extreme religious tolerance on the part of the Islamic world is the very reason why the population of Christians and Jews in Islamic countries has dwindled to nearly nothing. Yes, it is the extreme religious tolerance enshrined in Islam that leads Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims to run like hell in the face of an Islamic majority.
In fact, Islam is not tolerant of Christians, Jews or any other non-Muslim religion in theological or historical terms. The Koran does label Jews, Christians and Muslims as “peoples of the book” but this has no more meaning than if they were labeled “peoples of the planet Tattooine.” In practice, today and throughout Islamic history, Christians, Jews and all non-Muslims have been ill-treated in Muslim lands. Surahs in the Koran are designated by Islamic scholars to be either Mecca surahs or Medina surahs. Those in the former category are characterized by a more tolerant tone toward Christians and Jews while surrahs in the latter category are remarkable for there intolerance of Christians and Jews. This internal contradiction is resolved by “Allah” through the doctrine of abrogation, which holds that when a contradiction exists between surahs, the later surah abrogates the earlier surah. In practice and in fact, this means that niceties such as labeling Jews, Christians and Muslims “people of the book” are abrogated by verses such as:
- “In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.” (Women – 4:101)
- “O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?” (Women – 4:144)
- “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is one of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.” (The Table Spread – 5:51)
- “O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred steadfast they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.” (Spoils of War – 8:65)
- “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah not the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until the pay the tribute readily, being brought low.” (Repentance – 9:29)
- “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s-end.” (Repentance – 9:73)
- “O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto him).” (Repentance – 9:123)
These verses would be dismissible as mere theological footnotes had they not served as signposts for Islamic behavior toward non-Muslims throughout Islamic history. Islamic theology is the driving force in Islamic history, and as a result Islamic history is filled with violent jihadist conquest and sword-point conversion of Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims. The conquests of what are today Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, India, Turkey, Greece, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Portugal and Spain, amongst others, were motivated by Islam and featured unrestrained and cruel violence toward Christians, Jews and other non-Muslim conquered peoples. Once conquered, non-Muslims were subjected to dhimmitude, a contract of servitude and third-class subsistence that allowed them perilous survival solely at the whim of their Muslim neighbors. Dhimmi were not allowed to build new churches or synagogues, or repair existing ones. Dhimmi were not allowed to worship in public. Dhimmi were required to pay a tax for the privilege of retaining their faith- in India after the Mughal invasion this tax approximated one year’s earnings for the average man. Dhimmi were required to dress distinctively so as to be immediately distinguishable from Muslims—shades of later Nazi treatment of the Jews. Dhimmi were not allowed to construct buildings that were higher than those of their Muslim neighbors. Dhimmi were in all ways treated as inferior to Muslims under the law-- a fact often exploited by Muslims to steal dhimmi property. In other words, dhimmitude was, and is, a purposeful and practical means of destroying non-Muslim populations through attrition. Dhimmitude is decidedly not tolerant. As with the Koranic verses cited above, the contract of the dhimmi would be dismissable as a historical footnote were not elements of dhimmitude evident in Islamic societies around the world. Worse, the Islamist rhetoric that today emanates from so-called extremist movements demands the literal enforcement of dhimmitude against non-Muslim peoples. Their rhetoric is supported financially and otherwise by Islamic governments in countries including Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Sudan and by theological movements, chief among them Wahhabism.
I have Muslim friends who are dear to me. I find in them wonderful tolerance, humor and an openness to inquiry and discussion. They characterize what is best about human beings and what is-- without a doubt --the norm for Muslim people. One might describe them as defying the doctrine of abrogation because they are animated by the spirit of the Mecca surahs more than the Medina surrahs. Having said as much, when one scrutinizes the literal theology and the actual history of Islam, one stretches to explain it in the context of the tolerance that characterizes my Muslim friends and Muslims the world over. In fact, the actions and the rhetoric of Islamists and far too many Islamic governments are closer to a holistic reading of Islam, with reverence for the doctrine of abrogation and the Medina surahs, which is to say, not at all tolerant of non-Muslims.
You stated that the America you are reading about in the media is not the America you once knew and loved. Is the Islam of history and of recent headlines the Islam you presumably know and love today?
*Koranic quotations are taken from a translation by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, published in first edition by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc. in 2000.
Linda Heard was kind enough to respond to my posting, "Pot Meet Kettle, The Hypocrisy of Islamic Journalism," which analyzed her article, "America's Growing Culture of Hate" published in Arab News Daily. I will post a response to her response tomorrow.
From: Linda Heard
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 12:45 AM
To: Publius
It may have escaped your notice but the article I wrote was specifically confined to trends in the "democratic" and "free" U.S. which wants to share its "values" with the rest of the planet, so why would I include the Arab world?
You see the Arab nations don't purport to be other than they are, but I must point out, in any case, that Islam is extremely tolerant of other religions. Indeed, it considers the believers in Islam, Judaism and Christianity as all 'peoples of the book'.
There are so many well-documented stories coming out of the U.S. right now that to many of us on the outside this is beginning to sound like mass paranoia.
Have you heard about the poor Nepalese man, recently written about in the NYT, who was jailed for three months for just taking photographs of a well-known landmark building, which just happened to house an FBI office? He was on his way back home and merely wanted snaps to show his family in Nepal. When the FBI man who initially arrested ran checks, he realised his mistake but it was too late. The man was already in the unforgiving and unrelenting system. Still the Nepali was deported.
Have you heard about the four Indian Catholic nuns with valid green cards who were recently offloaded off an aeroplane by the captain ( just because of the colour of their skin ) who later made up a story that they had been asking awkward questions of the crew when they hadn't even communicated with the crew?
Have you heard about the American convert, mother of three children formerly married to an Iranian, who suddenly found her house running with FBI and IRS. They held a gun to the head of her 10 year old son, ransacked the place and took away her Qu'ran and prayer books, saying they were investigating her taxes!!!
And just recently I read a story in the Guardian about a British journalist married to an American who travelled to the U.S. as she had done tens of times before. This time was different however. All of a sudden when she was asked what she did for a living and honestly answered 'journalist' she was taken off, put in a cell, and left without food. She asked for a cup of tea and was told this wasn't allowed. The people she encountered during this detention were rude and threatening. Many hours later she was deported back to England. Her crime? Not obtaining a media visa, which had never been required of her before.
Did you hear about the Syrian-born Canadian, who when transiting through the U.S., was interrogated and sent to Syria where he was persona non grata and ended up in jail?
I don't know what is going on in your country, but whatever it is, it doesn't sound like the America I once knew and loved. Sorry!
Linda Heard
More on Michael Moore's "Farenheit 911" lies.
Writing in the New York Times yesterday, William Safire characterized "Oil For Fraud" as, "the largest financial rip-off in history." National Review today published Claudia Rosett's recent testimony before Congress on the subject. Both are worth reading.
Wu Chuntao and Chen Guidi are authors of a bestselling book about corruption in rural China. "An Investigation of China's Peasantry" documents the real stories of peasants in rural China who fought against corrupt local politicians and lost their lives in the process. The New York Times today described one such story of a farmer, "... named Ding Zuoming, and his decade-long campaign to enforce central government directives limiting taxes and fees. Although the Beijing authorities reviewed and approved his complaints, the local police found an excuse to arrest him, the book says. They beat him to death in custody."
The book is unusual in China because it provides the names of the corrupt politicians and of witnesses to their corruption. The Times reported that the book's government-owned publisher was ordered to cease publication by propaganda authorities at about the time its popular appeal became apparent. The Times also wrote that senior leaders in the Chinese Communist Party seem to be backing a libel suit filed against the authors. Chinese justice being an oxymoron, party support for a lawsuit usually means that the defendants are certain to lose.
The Times quoted Chen Xiwen, a government policy maker and, "... the man considered China's foremost rural policy expert," as saying, "My impression is that the book shows how illegal fees and tax policies can lead to some terrible incidents, like injuries and even death... The main incidents to my knowledge are basically factual, and the central government has already done some reports on these matters." Xiwen told the Times that, "... he had bought two copies [of the book], one for the office and the other to keep at home." He added that, "If it were really as bad as they say, then every peasant would be protesting constantly."
The last comment defies comprehension. After reading a book about individual peasants who were killed for fighting corruption, the foremost rural policy expert in the CCP commented that if it were really so bad there would be mass protests. Of course, the last time China experienced mass protest was in 1989, and despite violent efforts to erase the memory from history, the world and the Chinese people remember that on June 4, the CCP massacred thousands in Tiananmen Square. Xiwen is obtuse or a coward. In either case his chilling message is that to protest individually is deadly and to mass protest is deadly- but to not protest at all is a sign that things are basically well.
Major decisions made by the Bush administration and military commanders in the war against terror that I question include the conduct of battle at Tora Bora and the pullback and eventual withdrawal of troops from Fallujah (yes, there are other smaller decisions that merit rethinking but Tora Bora and Fallujah have bitten back). In both cases, the United States chose not to fully engage the enemy- instead providing air and logistical support for proxies who were to assume responsibility for combat.
It is thought by many that Tora Bora represented our best chance to capture or kill Osam bin Laden (I am not counting the opportunities squandered by Bill Clinton and his inept security team). Instead, our fighting allies in Tora Bora allowed many al Qaeda soldiers- among whom may have been bin Laden- to escape and fight another day. In Fallujah, complex political and cultural considerations placed responsibility for policing the city in local hands- a solution that has resulted in a breeding ground for terror.
The New York Times today reported that Fallujah has become a safe haven for Islamists, former Baathists, and other disaffected rabble seeking to end Iraq's march toward representative government. Rather than pressing into the city at the height of the conflict, America reached agreement with Fallujah locals allowing an Iraqi militia to police the city and precluding an American presence. The utter ineffectiveness of the Iraqi militia created a vacum that was filled by so-called insurgents who have reached critical mass and now control the city. The Times wrote that Iraqi official, "... say the government in Falluja has been effectively replaced by a group of insurgent leaders, many of them Islamist extremists, who dominate most decisions affecting the city." It continued, "Former members of the Baath Party are using the city as a base to regroup, and recently held a meeting to plot a strategy to return to power."
An uncontrollable Fallujah that exports terror to the rest of the country poses a grave threat to the new government of Iraq. I do not pretend to have a comrehensive understanding of Iraqi culture and politics, and I do have confidence in the new Iraqi government's capabilities in this regard. Nonetheless, a brokered solution seems remote. At some point, hopefully sooner than later, the new government will have to deal with the problem. It is wishful thinking to expect that an Iraqi force of sufficient size and competence will exist any time soon. This leaves the First Marine Expeditionary Force, which is perfectly capable of completing the job- if allowed to do so.
There was bitterness and anger amongst the Marines when they were pulled back and eventually withdrawn- anger because their comrades died in a battle they were not allowed to finish. The Times quoted Gunnery Sgt. Mark Kline, a Marine serving in the vicinity of Fallujah, "The 10 marines that died - those were wasted lives, because we didn't finish the job," he said. "Falluja is a time bomb." The Times continued, "Like most of his comrades, Sergeant Kline said he was convinced that the quiet in Falluja is a fake peace that will have to be dealt with soon enough."
One hopes that this time around America and Iraq will let the Marines be Marines. If so, Islamists the world over will take note of our resolve. If so, the job in Fallujah will be finished and significant numbers of Islamists and terrorists will not live to fight another day.
The Arab News Daily yesterday published an article by Linda Heard that twists all reality to argue that a culture of hatred against Muslims is growing in America. Heard's rant seems to be based entirely on press releases issued by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)- a poor choice of sourcing. It is well documented, by Anti-CAIR for example, that CAIR, originally funded by Saudi Arabia for the purpose of spreading Islam in America, has Islamist sympathies and a ferocious intolerance for those who question the supposedly peaceful nature of Islam.
In the opening paragraph of her article, Heard mentions "radio talk show host Jay Severin who... claimed that Muslims want to take over America even if it takes centuries, adding “I’ve got an idea. Let’s all kill Muslims”. Heard writes, "Amazingly Severin is still in his job, although he has been forced to apologize on air." I haven't the faintest idea who Jay Severin is, but the latter quotation, "Let's all kill Muslims" is intolerable regardless of context. But what of his first assertion that, "Muslims want to take over America even if it takes centuries?" Heard's source for the quotations is CAIR, which includes Omar Ahmad and Ibraham Hooper amongst its founders and executive members. Ahmad once said, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, 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." Hooper has been quoted as saying, "" 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." Severin would seem to be right- these are hardly the sentiments of people committed to integrating into American pluralistic society.
Given the appalling record of human rights violations in every Islamic republic round the world, Americans are well advised to fight the import of Islamism- not through violent reprisals against Muslims in the United States but through intellectual clarity. Most Muslims in America are committed to pluralism and tolerance. Those Muslims who would impose Islamic law on America, however, are a threat to our freedom. We can see examples of the intolerance they favor in the violent bigotry and racism that permeates society in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Sudan. Agents of Islamism, CAIR included, should be challenged and discredited in their every attempt to spread their flavor of Islam. This is free speech, not hatred.
While it is legitimate to question the content and tone of public discourse about Islam in America, foreign based news organizations that do so should pay equal or greater attention to the content and tone of discourse regarding non-Islamic faiths in their own countries- more often than not the need for such introspection can not be underestimated. Islam and Islamic republics have little or no tolerance for public questioning and often are purposeful exporters of the intolerance practiced within their borders. This may explain why Heard is carrying water for CAIR and Saudi Arabia. America is a country where Muslims can build mosques, worship, and evangelize with the same legal and social protections enjoyed by all members of society. Contrast this with condition of religious minorities in Saudi Arabia where, for example, Christians may not build churches or worship in public, and converts from Islam to Christianity are punished as apostates under the law.
Americans cherish and make good use of the First Amendment right to speak freely. It is unfortunate and inevitable that random acts of hatred occur in diverse societies. Heard mentions a few such acts including threats and vandalism (there are lots more) but she does not mention that when they occur in America we apply the law against the perpetrators. Most of her article, however, attempts to label as hatred the free exercise of speech by assorted talk radio hosts and the Islamic scholar, Daniel Pipes, whom CAIR obsessively attacks and attempts to discredit. The free exercise of speech is not to be confused with hatred- questioning Islamic history and practice is not hateful.
Toward the end of her article, Heard mindlessly repeats the assertion that Islam is a peaceful religion. She would make better use of her time by exploring the basis for the perception in America and the West that Islam is not a religion of peace. She does not mention the fact that Islam has bloody borders. She does not mention the fact that Islam has at its theological root intolerance for non-Muslims. She does not mention the fact that countries where Islamic law prevails have, with few historical exceptions, always codified intolerance. She does not mention the undiluted hatred that spews from minbars throughout the Islamic world during Friday sermons. Finally, she ignores the fact that Saudi Arabia, the country from which the Arab News Daily originated, has institutionalized hatred as both social contract and compulsory religion, and is the world’s largest exporter of bigotry and intolerance.
John Kerry today selected as his Vice Presidential running mate, John Edwards from North Carolina. Edwards has many laudable qualities, most important among them is that he came late to politics. What better than a self-made man who pursues politics out of conviction, and what worse than the high-school class president type, who goes to college and law school in order to run for political office (think Clinton and Kerry). Edwards is likable and eloquent. He will add much, but not enough to the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Edwards will not deliver southern states for the Democrats, but may have an important impact in swing states like Pennsylvania. The Kerry/Edwards paring should result in very entertaining debates- particulary between Edwards and Vice President Cheney. But the most interesting result of the Edwards nomination is that it places him on a collision course with the political ambitions of Hillary Clinton. Win or lose, Edwards will emerge at some point in the future with a strong claim to a party nomination that Hillary believes is hers by right. The drama!
What could be more satisfying than Saddam Hussein in the dock. There is much cause for optimism in the war against terrorism- Iraq has taken another step toward representative government and Hussein another step toward accountability for crimes against humanity. Both give hope to Muslims around the world and both give great pause to islamists and despots.
The government of Israel is proceeding with planning and construction of a security wall to prevent Palestinian islamists from entering Israel and detonating explosives amidst Israeli citizens. The wall will eventually stretch some 425 miles separating Palestinians from Israel along an imposed boundary. The imposition of such a boundary, absent a peaceful settlement of the land dispute between Israelis and Palestinians is unfortunate but necessary. Israel has made good faith efforts in the past several years to peacefully resolve the dispute and establish a legitimate Palestinian state. The Palestinians, or more specifically Palestinian leadership, have not responded in kind. Ehud Barach in a deal brokered by former President Bill Clinton offered Yasir Arafat approximately 98% of the land demanded by Palestinians- an offer that was met by Arafat’s walking away from the negotiating table and initiating the second intifada- a wave of bloody violence by Palestinian islamists against Israelis. The highly effective result of the second intifada and Arafat’s clear demonstration of bad faith in negotiations is the security wall.
The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Israel’s High Court acted on petitions filed by Palestinian villages and, “ordered that changes be made to the route of [the wall] to minimize hardships to Palestinians living in the area.” The Post today reported that Ariel Sharon, Israel’s Prime Minister, was, “prepared to move [the wall] closer to Israel where possible to avoid trapping Palestinians in fenced-in enclaves.” This is how the law should work, and this is why Israel occupies the moral high ground in the dispute. The elected Israeli government, with legal institutions that treat Palestinians and Israelis as equal under the law in such matters contrasts dramatically with the Arafat’s self-imposed government and legal vigilantism. For example, the New York Times today reported that a Palestinian accused of collaborating with Israel was machine gunned to death by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which is part of Arafat's Fatah movement. The Times wrote:
“Militants had hustled Daraghmeh into the square before assembled townsfolk and told them: “This man, as you know ... gave information to Israel on the whereabouts of our fighters. What should his sentence be?”
“Execution!” roared the crowd.
The militants gunned down Daraghmeh seconds later and residents both young and old cheered and chanted around his prone, bloodied corpse.”
Sadly, the Palestinian people suffer more from their self-proclaimed leaders and the disingenuous Arabs and Muslims who “support” them than from Israel. Were Arafat the least inclined to lead his people to statehood, the issue would be resolved and Palestinians would today control their destiny. Instead, Arafat continues to loot the Palestinian people, padding his net worth estimated in hundreds of millions of dollars, and islamist organizations and the Muslim world use them as an excuse to continue the violent bigotry and racism that permeates Islam and is rooted firmly in traditions stretching back through time and empire to Muhammad himself.
The New York Times this morning reported that hundreds of thousands of people marched in Hong Kong today to protest China’s subversion of the Basic Law and refusal to allow full representative government. The protests were a continuation of efforts by Hong Kong’s besieged democracy movement to demonstrate popular support for a legislature selected by and beholden to the governed rather than sock puppets of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Freedom in Hong Kong has been substantially curtailed and often threatened by the CCP and its thugs, most recently with the arbitrary and illegal rewriting of the Basic Law to preclude open elections in 2007, but also in attempts to legislate “anti-subversion” statutes, and in death threats to democracy friendly talk show hosts and activists.
The fight for freedom will not die despite the CCP’s efforts to crush it by jackboot or intrigue. In 1989 the CCP massacred hundreds of people in Tiananmen Square- it has since sought to erase all memory of the incident. Freedom and democracy have taken root amongst the Chinese people, and Tiananmen Square is openly remembered in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Voters there will not surrender the franchise to mass murdering kleptocrats masquerading as communists- not without a fight.
Michael Ledeen on the pressure that the prospect of democracy in Iraq is creating in Islamic republics, and Iran's race to create a nuclear bomb. Worth reading.
It is reported, but not conclusively verified, that Keith Maupin, an Army specialist was murdered by Islamists today. I pray for his soul, and for the comfort and solace of his family and friends. His sacrifice is noted- he will not be forgotten.
I have been on holiday, seeing good friends marry in San Francisco, and enjoying stellar weather in the city by the Bay. (This is an excuse for not having blogged recently.) I woke early this morning to learn that the handover in Iraq occured two days earlier than planned in order to thwart the violent intentions of the Islamist terrorists in that country. I have been filled with a sense of optimism about what remains a good possibility in Iraq- a second representative government in the Middle East (Israel being the first). This, despite the media having done their best to downplay the great importance of what has occurred. The New York Times conceded that the handover was two days early, but it's coverage was peppered with questions about, "how much control [the new] government will exercise, particularly over the 160,000 troops from the United States, Britain and other countries that will remain here, or even over Iraq's own army and police." No amount of media cyncism will kill my buzz. Congratulations to Iraq on a first small step toward a great future.
Michael Moore has established a "war room" to counter attacks against "Farenheit 9/11." In interviews Moore promised legal action against anyone who "slanders" his work by questioning its accuracy or integrity. Christopher Hitchens, who posseses acumen and integrity Moore can only dream about, has taken up the challenge in a devastating review of the movie. One can only wish that Moore would have the temerity to put Hitchens on the stand and attack his movie review- an intellectual bloodbath would ensue and only Hitchens would standing at the end. For lack of courtroom drama, read the review and feel sorry for poor, fat, stupid, obnoxious Michael Moore.
The publication of Bill Clinton's autobiography has occasioned all manner of comment on its accuracy and inaccuracy. Of course, the issue about which most people are curious is the disgraced former President's literary treatment of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. While Lewinsky and her blue dress will always be the primary memory people associate with Clinton, there were many other women.
The Washington Times today published an article discussing the women Clinton neglected to mention, or underplayed in his autobiography. They include:
"- Dolly Kyle Browning, a real estate lawyer and Clinton high school classmate who said she had an off-and-on-again romance with Mr. Clinton for 30 years.
- Sally Perdue, a former Miss Arkansas who said she had a four-month affair with him in 1983.
- Connie Hamzy, a self-proclaimed rock-and-roll groupie, who said Mr. Clinton propositioned her in 1984 while she was sunbathing by a Little Rock hotel pool.
- Juanita Broaddrick, a gubernatorial campaign volunteer who said Mr. Clinton raped her during a nursing-home-operators convention in Little Rock in April 1978.
- Bobbie Ann Williams, a one-time Little Rock prostitute who said Mr. Clinton fathered a child by her when he was the governor of Arkansas.
- Eileen Wellstone, an English woman who said Mr. Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near Oxford University where Mr. Clinton was a student in 1969.
- Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, D.C., political fund-raiser who said Mr. Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a 1991 campaign trip, pinned her against the wall and put his hand under her dress.
- Christy Zercher, an airline flight attendant on Mr. Clinton's 1992 campaign plane, who said Mr. Clinton exposed himself and grabbed her breasts.
- Lencola Sullivan, a former Miss Arkansas and fourth runner-up in the Miss America pageant.
- Elizabeth Ward, a former Miss Arkansas and Miss America.
- Susie Whitacre, press aide to Mr. Clinton when he was governor."
Opinion Journal on Monday published a speech delivered by Anne Bayefsky to a United Nations conference on Confronting Anti-Semitism: Education for Tolerance and Understanding. The speech is compelling and a must read.
You wouldn’t know it from reading the front pages of the New York Times or the Washington Post, but questions about the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda linger. The Times did its best on Thursday last week to spin conclusions presented by the 911 Commission as consistent with what will be in the Commission’s final report. As often happens at the Times, news that is ignored by the journalistic staff is broken by William Safire or David Brooks writing from the editorial page. A case in point is Safire’s editorial today, which correctly characterized the nature of the findings presented last week. Safire wrote, “The basis for the hoo-ha was not a judgment of the panel of commissioners appointed to investigate the 9/11 attacks… it was an interim report of the commission's runaway staff… the staff's sweeping conclusion was soon disavowed by both commission chairman Tom Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton.”
Meanwhile, the Washington Times reported this morning on new information about ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. Former Navy Secretary John Lehman, speaking on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday, said that evidence suggests an officer of Saddam Hussien's Fedayeen militia was a "very prominent member of al Qaeda." That Lehman conceded that the evidence for this link requires substantiation does not make the story less than newsworthy. Is the Times ignoring a story because it is contrary to the reality the Times seeks to create?
Finally, what of cryptic suggestions by Vladimir Putin last week that Russian intelligence services received information that after 911 and before the liberation of Iraq, Saddam Hussien was planning terrorist strikes against the United States. This would seem to be worthy of investigation, but the Times and the Post are silent. Demosphia last week wrote an interesting take on the Putin story.
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, better known as the 9-11 Commission, yesterday released conclusions about the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. The New York Times this morning reported that the Commission’s conclusions “weakened the already spotty scorecard on Mr. Bush's justifications for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein.”
The Times characterized Mr. Bush’s scorecard as follows: “Banned biological and chemical weapons: none yet found. Percentage of Iraqis who view American-led forces as liberators: 2, according to a poll commissioned last month by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Number of possible Al Qaeda associates known to have been in Iraq in recent years: one, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose links to the terrorist group and Mr. Hussein's government remain sketchy.”
No banned biological or chemical weapons have been found? The Times is lying. It has reported on the discovery of a sarin gas shell improvised as roadside bomb in Iraq, and on briefings given to the United Nations Security Council about the export from Iraq of dual-use equipment capable of creating weapons of mass destruction.
On the second point, public opinion polling in Iraq means little at this stage in that country’s liberation. Recall that public opinion in countries behind the iron curtain fluctuated for years after the defeat of Soviet communism, and that some in those countries still have lingering fondness for the old tyranny.
As to the Times’s third point, the number of al Qaeda associates in a country is no absolute indicator of al Qaeda’s links into the country. Reporting on the same subject, the Washington Post wrote that bin Laden, “”explored possible cooperation with Iraq” while in Sudan through 1996,” and those contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda continued “after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996.”
Characteristically, the Times sought to spin the Commission’s findings in a manner helpful to John Kerry’s presidential campaign. Toward the end of the article it assured readers that, “Mr. Bush would be dogged through the rest of the campaign by questions about whether the war was necessary, justified and sufficiently well planned.” Remember when economic news was its front page priority? Now that the economy is moving firmly in the direction of growth and recovery, much to the President’s political benefit, the Times hopes of a Kerry presidency require spinning Iraq.
Michael Novak provided much needed clarity on the subject of politics and the eucharist in National Review yesterday.
He wrote, "in Catholic teaching every person must follow the verdict of his or her own conscience, even if that means breaking communion with the teaching of the Church. The Church is for free women and men, not for slaves. But this freedom, in those few matters that are as important as the taking of innocent life in abortion, does confront the legislator with a choice: either to remain in communion or to leave."
Worth reading.
The Washington Post this morning editorialized against President Bush’s denial of funding to non governmental organizations sympathetic to abortion. The Post took exception to what it characterized as the Bush administration’s decision to minimize funding for and participation in international conferences where pro abortion groups hold sway. It also complained about the denial of funding for groups that while not specifically focused on abortion nonetheless team with pro abortion groups in delivery of services. The Post opined that, “the attempt to deny conference platforms to groups that oppose the administration's view is inimical both to free speech and to scientific inquiry.”
This is moral relativity and sloppy thinking taken to a new extreme. The Post conceded the administration’s right to a pro life position: “Abortion will always be an agonizing issue, and the right balance between abstinence and contraception is a fair subject for debate.” At the same time, the Post argued that the administration must not translate its position into policy: “canceling grants that would have been used to allow delegates from developing countries to attend, is to drag the battles over abortion and conservative values into forums where they have no place.”
Only an idiot would argue that denying funds to pro abortion groups threatens free speech. In fact, it is the Post’s argument that poses the greater threat to free speech. If an administration must fund the very groups that oppose its policy positions, then the voice of the people who elected the administration will be neutered.
By John Julian Vecchione
I just read Father Andrew Greeley's unhinged analysis of the present moment on RealClearPolitics' website. In it, Father Greeley compares the present liberation of Iraq with Hitler's aggression in search of Lebensraum. Father Greeley also attacks the "neo-cons" for driving us into this war: a war approved by both houses of Congress and entered only after 17 different U.N resolutions on Saddam Hussein.
The good prelate mentions nothing about our more than 35 nation allies (who have lost men during the war), nor the sarin and mustard gas canisters found in Iraq, or the completely illegal missiles, or the funding of terrorists, hiding of Abu Nidal and other terrorists in Baghdad, the mass graves, corrupt oil for food starvation technique, the wars of aggression by Saddam Hussein against his neighbors or the assassination attempt against an ex-President of the United States. Nor does he address the Al Queda links detailed by Stephen Hayes in his new book.
Father Greeley, a man of the Left, uses the Big Lie, effectively. Rather than seeing the removal of Saddam's fascist regime as a pure good, like the removal of Mussolini's and Hitler's, Father Coughlin compares George Bush to the latter dictator. Worse yet, Father Greeley publishes this in and from Berlin! Just as the notorious Father Coughlin accused FDR of truckling to the Jews and getting America involved in an unnecessary war, Father Greeley hurls the "neocon" epithet and for good measure blames Bush's Protestantism for the war. Yes, the aggressive Jews and the blinkered Protestants always combining to lay waste to innocent middle-eastern mass killers. I will not even go into the counter historical nonsense Father Cough...Greeley pedals as a lead up to his slanders.
The final matter however is his paean to John Kerry. A man who voted for the war, says it was necessary and he would change only how it was conducted (for instance with his vote it would be conducted without the 87 billion dollars needed support the troops). Now, personally I think John Kerry is lying to preserve his political viability, but Greeley, who supports him, must as well. Otherwise, how is the prosecution of the Iraq war, which John Kerry says he would have done, and would continue, Hitleresque under George Bush and Homeric under John Kerry? How does the Marshal Plan to rebuild Europe and the Berlin airlift to preserve it from Stalinism lauded by Greeley differ in kind from the aid now give to Iraq and the military efforts to prevent Iran and Syria from conquering it?
Worse, he adds fuel to anti-Americanism in Germany, a country America has no cause to look to for moral uplift, and where anti-intellectual leftist pap like this does not have to be imported. Germany used all of its diplomatic, economic and military might in the 40's to support mass murdering dictatorships against America, and it uses all of its diplomatic, economic and military resources to support a mass murdering dictatorship against America today. It had a media savvy priestly anti-American admirer then, and evidently it has one today.
Father Greeley should stick to frothy, racy, novels set in Chicago, and forgo any analysis of geopolitics. He embarrasses his faith (and mine); his country, his city, and his publisher.
Paul Krugman proved he cares not a whit for truthfulness when he joined the “I told you so” chorus upon the collapse of Enron. Having been on Enron’s payroll as a special advisor, and having written positive things about Enron prior to the company’s collapse, he owed his readers a disclaimer before lashing out at the hand that fed him. His compensation by Enron was not self-reported, however, and when it came to light he was slow to acknowledge and quick to dismiss the conflict of interest.
While ethics and truth may be good for the common man, Krugman does not allow them to guide his intellectual path. As a result, much of his writing demonstrates a twisted view of reality. Donald Luskin and the Krugman Truth Squad have done wonderful work exposing Krugman’s lies and distortions. Krugman’s distortion of Ronald Reagan’s economic accomplishments was published in the New York Times on Tuesday. A more dishonest hack job is hard to imagine. Luskin demolishes Krugman point by point in his latest piece, published yesterday in National Review. Worth reading!
The Wall Street Journal today published an editorial by Paul Wolfowitz that makes the case for optimism about prospects for Iraq. Wolfowitz opined at length about steps the United States will take to secure the liberation of Iraq after the Coalition Provisional Authority transfers power to the Interim Iraqi Government on June 30. The steps include creating security forces to support the political transition of power, rebuilding the civil infrastructure, increasing international support for the transition to democracy, and realizing constitutional self-government by the end of 2005.
While the media marches to the drumbeat of terror by emphasizing the latest Islamist atrocities, the people of Iraq look beyond the headlines for hope. Wolfowitz wrote about successes the media ignores- successes that create momentum that favors democracy. He wrote about newly constituted security forces that are giving Iraqis confidence in the United States promise of self-government. He wrote about the increased availability of government health and education services funded by oil revenues.
Wolfowitz emphasized the gratitude of the Iraqi people for their liberation. He wrote that Iyad Allawi, the new president interrupted his Arabic introduction of the new government, saying, “I would like to say this in English. I would like to thank the coalition led by the United States for the sacrifices they have provided in the process of the liberation of Iraq.”
The media, leftists in America and Europe, and elitists in the United Nations will not recognize the liberation of Iraq as a success. They long to see America fail. They cling to the hope that the Iraqi people are so hostile to America that they would rather lose liberty than see America succeed. In fact, many Iraqis have died to preserve freedom. Wolfowitz quoted an Iraqi blogger named Omar: “We cannot . . . protect every single person, including our leaders and the higher officials who make favorite targets for the terrorists--but we can make their attempts go in vain by making our leadership replaceable.”
Omar may be an Iraqi “Patrick Henry”. His is the ultimate refutation of the Islamist definition of a martyr as a murderer who dies while killing innocents. There is no stronger response to Islamist depravity than a people willing to be killed in order to preserve liberty. Omar is in effect saying, “Give me liberty or give me death.” If the Iraqi people embrace this cry, their freedom is assured.
The New York Times today reported that equipment and materials that might have been used by Saddam Hussein in illicit weapons programs have been shipped abroad since the liberation of Iraq. The Times report resulted from a closed door briefing of the United Nations Security Council by its Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMVIC). Demetrius Perricos, acting executive chairman of UNMVIC told the Security Council that equipment and materials bearing tags place by U.N. weapons inspectors had been discovered for sale in countries neighboring Iraq. The “dual use” equipment and materials had commercial applications as well as the potential for use in weapons programs.
Hasn’t the Times insisted of late that the lack of physical evidence means that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Didn’t the Times recently apologize for its journalistic failure to expose the errors in President Bush’s assertion that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to create weapons and was using it? I am confused. If there was no weapons making capacity, and there were no weapons to find, why isn’t the Times, in the aftermath of its mea culpa, exposing the errors that are being fed to the Security Council.
In a previous entry, I referenced an essay on torture by Marc Bowden that appeared in the October edition of The Atlantic Monthly. Bowden applied some of his thinking about torture to the Abu Ghraib scandal in an article published by the Atlantic in its current issue. Bowden was unable to conclude whether the abuse was systematic, or a result of a lack of supervision. While he reiterated that circumstances can sometimes require coercive action, he argued (correctly I think) that in most of the Abu Ghraib cases such circumstances were not present. He argued for thorough investigation and punishment of the responsible parties. He also argued that the scandal has caused great harm to the American initiative in the Middle East.
On this day fifteen years ago, students and workers protesting corruption and lack of government accountablity were massacred in Tiananmen Square. To date, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) denies the massacre and allows no public or private discussion of the blood on its hands. The New York Times this morning reported on steps taken by the butchers of Beijing to silence those who would keep alive public memory of Tiananmen Square. The Washington Post this morning reported on years of harrassment and oppression endured by those listed on the CCP's "Most Wanted" list after Tiananmen Square.
In an editorial this morning, the Wall Street Journal reasoned that the CCP seeks economic prosperity to justify its sole possession of political power in China. The Journal wondered whether success in creating a middle class will ultimately mean the end to one party rule in China. There is a record of democracy growing out of middle class prosperity and this pattern may prove prophetic for China. Speculation about the future, however, does nothing for ordinary people who today hunger and thirst for freedom. The Chinese people can be sated with consumerism, but they will not be free. Prosperity has no meaning without freedom to pursue objective truth.
The CCP has a pattern of its own. Abuses are denied and overlooked until those who profited from them are dead, at which point the CCP uses the cathartic effect of public acknowledgement of the past to bolster the reputation of current leaders. There is no objective truth in this pattern because ultimately, it is the CCP and not individual leaders that must be held accountable. Until this happens, until one-party rule is ended, until the Chinese people are free, Tiananmen Square should shape every thought about China.
Never forget Tiananmen Square.
The Governing Council appointed by the United States after liberating Iraq replaced itself yesterday with a caretaker government that will assume transitional sovereignty on June 30. The Governing Council, an initial step in the transition to representative government in Iraq, was charged with selecting leaders broadly characteristic of Iraqi society for roles in the caretaker government. When it assumes transitional sovereignty, the caretaker government- itself but a step in the transition to representative democracy- will move Iraq toward a parliament of sorts, and elections. Following elections, the Iraqi people will freely govern themselves.
There is much to celebrate, though you would not know it by reading the New York Times. The liberation of Iraq is bearing ripe fruit despite determined efforts by Islamists to make it whither on the vine, and western journalists to see it doing so. A government in the Middle East has voluntarily transferred power to another government! What seems commonplace in America is remarkable in a region where only Israel has a representative government, and where Israel is portrayed as evil by neighboring governments who themselves would not dream of elections.
While much work and many months remain before an Iraqi government is capable of full sovereignty, the transfer of power must have horrified Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. In February of this year he wrote a letter to al Qaeda insurgents in Iraq stating, “If, god forbid, the government is successful and takes control of the country, we just have to pack up and go somewhere else again, where we can raise the flag again or die, if god chooses us.”
It is obvious what Zarqawi has to lose. The pessimism of the Times is less easily explained. Success in Iraq is success for President Bush in his bid for reelection. While the Times may claim the mantle of unbiased journalism, their reporting betrays their Democrat loyalties. Rather than focusing on the peaceful transition of power, they focus on the continuing presence and influence of the United States in Iraq. The Times quoted an unnamed diplomat at the United Nations calling the transition “… a charade.” The Times also quoted a European diplomat who said, "It's clear that not only the U.S., but also the U.N., have ambitions for Iraq that are lower and lower by the day."
No doubt, al-Zarqawi would agree.
The dream of freedom lives on in Hong Kong despite efforts by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its thugs to silence peaceful protest and public expression. The New York Times this morning reported on a march for democracy that drew thousands in Hong Kong yesterday. The Times article mentioned difficulties encountered by march organizers in obtaining permits and insurance for the march, and it noted that the march comes at a time when several talk show radio hosts have been threatened to such an extent that they left Hong Kong and have since refused public comment. Yesterday’s march and preparations for the annual June 4 commemoration of the Tiananmen Square massacre, come at a time when the Chinese Communist Party has illegally rewritten the Basic Law to end hopes of representative government in Hong Kong.
The Washington Post this morning reported on CCP dynamics that fuel intolerance for freedom. A struggle for power between former president, Jiang Zemin, and current President, Hu Jintao, has CCP members competing for the hardest line on Hong Kong and Taiwan. It is a sign of sick minds and bad times when being despotic is seen as proof of patriotism. The only thing that hard line positioning proves is that the CCP is out for itself and not for the Chinese people.
The people of China are prevented from discussing the truth about Tiananmen Square because doing so calls into question the legitimacy of a government that slaughtered its citizens for fear of losing power. This de-linking of the occurrence of an event and the ability of a people to discuss the event is the hallmark of tyranny. The butchers of Beijing seek to impose a similar de-linking in Hong Kong, and ultimately in Taiwan. They must not succeed- the fate of freedom is a common thread that binds all of the world's people. Remember Tiananmen Square! Never forget Tiananmen Square!
From The Edge of England's Sword, refreshing candor on the Abu Ghraib scandal:
"I have recently been thinking about the scene in A Few Good Men, where Tom Cruise says he wants the TRUTH and Jack Nicholson yells back "you can't handle the truth". I was hoping for a Nicholson style outbreak when Rumsfield et al were being questioned by the Senate. I want him to yell it at every pontificating journalist and opinionista. Hell, I want to yell it from the roof tops. The truth is war is a hard, messy, deadly affair. It is not a romantic game of bravery and daring. It is a hard slog, that is trying at the best of times and wrenching and torturous and terrifying most of the time."
There may be scandal in the photographs- there is certainly scandal in their publication. If taken for gratuitous personal use by our soldiers, there is no excusing the photographs. If taken for purposes of intimidation to gain cooperation and information from hardened Baathists, the strategy behind the photographs can be explained and excused. That the photographs circulated freely amongst the soldiers who took them points toward the former explanation. That Jeremy Spivits testified that freelance violence by soldiers guarding the prisoners was common in reinforces this explanation.
It would seem that Military Intelligence operated in Abu Ghraib with insufficient firewalls, and that soldiers guarding prisoners operated with insufficient guidance and supervision. In the combination of these oversights, abuse was almost predictable. The soldiers implicated must and no doubt will be punished. More importantly, the soldiers must not be sacrificed to save the careers of officers in the chain of command who are ultimately responsible for the scandal.
On the subject of torture, Mark Bowden wrote an excellent essay for The Atlantic Monthly examining the subject- its uses, its impact on torturer and torturee, and its effectiveness in gaining information. (I hasten to credit Gabrielle for suggesting that I read the article.) Bowden concluded that some level of torture can be a necessary evil to protect civilization, and he suggested a method (with which I disagree) for judicial regulation of mild torture under extreme circumstances.
Later in the article, Bowden described an interview with Alistair Hodgett and Alexandra Arriaga of Amnesty International, who oppose torture in any circumstances:
"I showed the two an article I had torn from that day's New York Times, which described the controversy over a tragic kidnapping case in Frankfurt, Germany. On September 27 of last year a Frankfurt law student kidnapped an eleven-year-old boy named Jakob von Metzler, whose smiling face appeared in a box alongside the story. The kidnapper had covered Jakob's mouth and nose with duct tape, wrapped the boy in plastic, and hidden him in a wooded area near a lake. The police captured the suspect when he tried to pick up ransom money, but the suspect wouldn't reveal where he had left the boy, who the police thought might still be alive. So the deputy police chief of Frankfurt, Wolfgang Daschner, told his subordinates to threaten the suspect with torture. According to the suspect, he was told that a "specialist" was being flown in who would "inflict pain on me of the sort I had never experienced." The suspect promptly told the police where he'd hidden Jakob, who, sadly, was found dead. The newspaper said that Daschner was under fire from Amnesty International, among other groups, for threatening torture."
""Under these circumstances," I asked, "do you honestly think it was wrong to even threaten torture?""
"Hodgett and Arriaga squirmed in their chairs. "We recognize that there are difficult situations," said Arriaga, who is the group's director of government relations. "But we are opposed to torture under any and all circumstances, and threatening torture is inflicting mental pain. So we would be against it.""
There you have it... by the standard of Amnesty International the life of every human being could be at stake, and the threat of torture would not be acceptable. It goes without saying that, in Amnesty International's opinion (an opinion shared by the Ted Kennedy wing of the Democrat party), saving the lives of a few good men serving America in Iraq would not be reason enough to man-handle Islamist thugs. Idealism is sometimes to be admired, but not when it is reduced to the level of silliness, and certainly not when the lives of decent people are at stake.
National Review this morning published an article by Nir Boms on human rights activism and the imprisonment of Aktham Naeesah in Syria. One can only hope that the government of Syria soon joins that of Sadaam Hussein in the dustbin of history.
As reported in the Washington Post, the Government of Sudan was reelected to the United Nations Human Rights Commission on May 4. Three days later, Human Rights Watch released a lengthy report documenting sponsorship of and participation in genocide by the government of Sudan. The report provides a snapshot of the systematic efforts of the ethnic-Arab government to eliminate ethnic-African Christians, animists and Muslims from southern regions of the country.
According to the report, an historic conflict was reignited, “… in February 2003, when two rebel groups… demanded an end to chronic economic marginalization and sought power-sharing within the Arab-ruled Sudanese state. They also sought government action to end the abuses of their rivals, Arab pastoralists who were driven onto African farmlands by drought and desertification—and who had a nomadic tradition of armed militias.”
The report continues, “The government has responded to this armed and political threat by targeting the civilian populations from which the rebels were drawn. It brazenly engaged in ethnic manipulation by organizing a military and political partnership with some Arab nomads comprising the Janjaweed; armed, trained, and organized them; and provided effective impunity for all crimes committed.” (Details of the atrocities can be read here).
The Sudanese government and the Janjaweed militia use murder, rape, pillaging and destruction to accomplish the removal of an unwanted ethnic rival. The reports states that, “With rare exceptions, the countryside is now emptied of its original Masalit and Fur inhabitants. Everything that can sustain and succour life – livestock, food stores, wells and pumps, blankets and clothing – has been looted or destroyed. Villages have been torched not randomly, but systematically – often not once, but twice
The report characterizes the response from the international community as having been, “slow to exert all possible pressure on the Sudanese government to reverse the ethnic cleansing and end the associated crimes against humanity it has carried out.” The world has known for years about the brutal campaign by Sudanese Arabs against black Africans, just as it has known for years about the enslavement by Sudanese Muslims of Christians and animists. To call their response "slow" is to give the international community credit it does not deserve. The United Nations and it's collective members have been more active in opposing the liberation of Iraq than they have been in supporting the liberation of black, Christian and animist Sudanese.
Who is more depraved, the Arab Muslims who terrorize Sudan, or the elitists in the U.N. who protect and coddle them?
The Washington Post reported yesterday that 48 Democrat congressmen have written to Cardinal McCarrick, head of a U.S. bishop's task force charged with determining how the Church should respond to Catholic politicians who consistently take public positions in opposition to Church doctrine. The letter warns McCarrick that a decision to withhold the Eucharist from politicians who support abortion and other clearly anti-Catholic public policies could turn opinion against the Church.
The Post quotes the letter: "For many years Catholics were denied public office by voters who feared that they would take direction from the Pope... While that type of paranoid anti-Catholicism seems to be a thing of the past, attempts by Church leaders today to influence votes by the threat of withholding a sacrament will revive latent anti-Catholic prejudice, which so many of us have worked so hard to overcome."
The Democrat signatories to the letter are suggesting that bishops who faithfully teach the Magesterium of the Church are responsible for any backlash against the Church. Blending in with secular culture by betraying the Church and her teachings on the sanctity of human life is no way to overcome "latent anti-Catholic prejudice." If ignoring and diluting doctrine is the Democrat solution for anti-Catholic bigotry, then give me bigotry.
Domenico Bettinelli has an interesting interpretation. He considers the offer of a meeting with McCarrick to be a sign that the Church will blink: “What the letter did was provide a convenient escape hatch for McCarrick and his task force where they can say that they have no choice but to recommend that such sanctions not be used, lest Catholics be forcibly ejected from public life by the shadowy hordes of anti-Catholics bigots waiting in the wings."
Bettinelli continues, “Most of the anti-Catholic bigots I know of are listed on the Democrat Party’s web site as affiliated groups. Maybe the Catholic Democrats should be re-thinking their party affiliation if that’s what they’re really afraid of.”
Opinion Journal today published Claudia Rosett's latest report on the Oil For Fraud scandal and efforts by the United Nations to prevent damaging information about the scandal from seeing daylight.
Rosett writes about a leaked internal audit report (accessible here), one of more than fifty prepared for U.N. review, implicating Cotecna, a Swiss firm, in gross misconduct related to the Oil For Fraud program. Cotecna employed the son of Secretary General Kofi Annan at the time it was awarded a contract, and while the report does not reference Kojo Annan, it does provide detail about the U.N.'s total failure to address contractural and procedural issues that were self evidently "inappropriate."
The report reveals systematic incompetence and mismanagement by the U.N., which if part of a pattern might well be characterized as willful. This leads to the question, what of the other forty-nine internal audit reports? Rosett writes that the reports have been turned over to an internal U.N. audit conducted by Paul Volcker, but that Volcker lacks subpoena power and authority to publish his findings beyond an audience of one- namely Kofi Annan. Can you say coverup?
In the New York Times this morning, William Safire commented on the relative silence among what he calls "defeatists" about the discovery of sarin gas, a weapon of mass destruction, in Iraq. Worth reading.
The Washington Times this morning reported that the long arm of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) extends even to journalists in Hong Kong. The Times writes that two talk show hosts known for questioning the mainland government have resigned their positions and that one of them has left Hong Kong. Their actions result from death threats and attempted bribery by CCP sympathisers in Hong Kong and China. Shameful and predictable behavior from a government and political party comprised of thugs and bullies.
For all of the print it has dedicated to ridiculing President Bush for failing to find weapons of mass destruction following the liberation of Iraq, the New York Times was hypocritically quiet in reporting yesterday that terrorists in Baghdad attempted to detonate an artillery shell filled with sarin gas. Prior to the American led liberation of Iraq, Saddam Hussein assured the United Nations that all of the hundreds of tons of Sarin and other chemical and biological weapons manufactured by his orders had been destroyed.
The sarin filled artillery shell may have been the sole and accidental survivor of a Baathist policy of weapons destruction- that is how the Times has chosen to spin the story. Lacking other significant weapons evidence, it is not an unreasonable conclusion. That is, unless one has consistently refused to extend the benefit of the doubt in other cases. The Times has established a reputation for concluding in all cases involving the Bush administration, that where there is smoke there is fire. For example, the Times has argued: that prisoner abuse in Abhu Graib is evidence of a policy of torture driven by the White House; that lack of evidence of weapons of mass destruction is proof that the President lied about his motives for liberating Iraq; and, that existence of oil in Iraq is proof that the war is all about oil.
Because of its pattern of hypocrisy, the Times lack of follow through on the discovery of the sarin filled artillery shell can only be seen as an effort to hush evidence inconvenient to its long running storyline that the President is not up to his job. One prays that more sarin is not found, but if the story is buried and another sarin shell surfaces we will know it was the Times that was not up to its job.
Friday's article in National Review by Victor Davis Hanson must be read for it's excellent job characterizing the successful tenure of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, and the pathetic partisanship of leftists calling for his resignation.
On Rumsfeld's accomplishments, Hanson writes:
"Rumsfeld and Meyers have presided over two amazingly successful wars. In an aggregate of 11 weeks, and at the tragic cost of 700 combat dead, the American military defeated the two worst regimes in the Middle East and stayed on to implant democratic change where no such idea has ever existed. Had anyone envisioned, say in 1999, that the United States could do such a thing — that Saddam Hussein and Mullah Omar would both be out of power, and that governing councils would be there in their place — he would have been dismissed as unhinged."
On the Democrat witchhunt, he writes:
"Very liberal people in Washington are calling for heads to roll in lieu of court proceedings and cross-examinations. Much of the angst that sent senators to the capitol steps microphones derives from their own surprise and the sensationalism of the pictures — images that put these media-savvy legislators first to shame, then to the recognition that this is an election year in which bottled piety is at a premium. They know that there is little to be gained from reminding Americans that there are now thousands of brave soldiers fighting horrific enemies in a professional and highly successful manner. The last one to damn the fewest receives the least air time. In this context, the behavior of Senator Kennedy the last few months is the real metaphor of our times."
As ever, Hanson is spot on.
The Washington Post this morning published an editorial by the only living President with arguably no foreign policy successes to call his own. For hundreds of days, Jimmy Carter did nothing about Americans held hostage in Iran before underlining his ineptitude with a failed rescue mission. His response to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the Olympics. He is a friend, advisor and occasional speechwriter for terrorist and American-killer, Yasir Arafat. And of course, he continually claims credit for a peace that was largely agreed to by the leaders of Israel and Egypt before they approached him for American purchase of that peace.
A newspaper with a steady grip on reality would not provide a podium for the President who afflicted Americans with the “Misery Index” but the Post has a questionable grip on reality, and a long standing love affair with our most inept President in modern times. With the space provided, Carter presumes to lecture America on human rights. He opines that our response to terrorist attacks on September 11 has endangered human rights throughout the world by muting respect for international norms and obligations. He writes, "... U.S. policies are giving license to abusive governments and even established democracies to stamp out legitimate dissent and reverse decades of progress toward freedom, with many leaders retreating from previous human rights commitments."
Carter provides dubious examples of American backsliding on human rights. He mentions the Patriot Act of course- the villain of choice for every leftist in America. He also mentions the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and other foreign prisons. Most revealing of Carter's moral obtuseness is his anger over, "Civilians and soldiers arbitrarily detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without access to legal counsel or being charged with any crime." From a man who has befriended and defended Fidel Castro in spite of the Castro government’s record of disdain for human beings, from a man who has whitewashed conditions for political dissidents in Cuba, we have the assertion that men captured on battlefields in Afghanistan are being held “arbitrarily.” As though firing a loaded weapon at Americans on a battlefield is insufficient proof of hostile intent.
Carter has an excuse for his inanities- he is a fool. The Post, on the other hand, has no excuse for publishing him.
So much that is depressing is in the news this week. It is refreshing to read reports such as this one from the BBC about succesful elections in the world's largest democracy. That contention and disagreement can yield to public decision making in countries with traditions dramatically different from those of the West provides hope for people who can only dream of voting for their leaders.
From National Review, an article by Erick Stakelbeck putting American abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib into Islamic and Islamist perspective. Stakelbeck provides a shameful litany of the sort of atrocities committed by Muslims of various stripes against prisoners and military and political opponents. While loudly condemning America for abusive practices, the Islamic world looks the other way, or even cheers, when Muslims commit far worse atrocities against non-Muslims. For example, Palestinians danced in the streets in celebration of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center. This is all the more reason for America to investigate and understand what happened in Abu Ghraib, and to punish those responsible for any abuse. We must show the high road to a lost people.
National Review today published an article by Paul Marshall analyzing recent and ongoing elections in Indonesia. Marshall notes that while a majority of voters favor Indonesia's brand of tolerant Islam, they are fragmented into competing parties, which concentrates political power in the hands of political parties inclined toward Islamism, or the sort of intolerant Islam exported by so many Middle Eastern countries. Worth reading.
After a weekend of partisanship masquerading as concern for the national defense, it is refreshing to have the televised temper tantrums of Joe Biden and company placed in context by reason and logic as in William Safire's column in the New York Times this morning. Much work remains in determining the extent of prisoner abuse in Iraq, uncovering the policies or lack of policies responsible for the abuse, and identifying the parties responsible for the abuse. This serious matter was under investigation before photographs reached the media, and it continues to be taken quite seriously. I am confident that justice will be served and lessons learned. None of which requires or is enhanced by the early resignation of Rumsfeld. Calls for the Secretary of Defense to resign are intended by leftists to embarrass the administration, discredit the liberation of Iraq, and weaken the President's bid for reelection. I concede the possibility that information may surface in the weeks to come that would require Rumsfeld to resign, but we have no such information to date. In the meantime, the Iraq front is too important in the war on terrorism to be used a political football.
Stories of imprisoned Iraqis abused by their American guards have dominated media headlines for several days. The stories, which seem certain to be true, are disappointing. While we should wait for details to emerge from the official investigation before drawing conclusions, we must emphasize that America will not stand for abusive behavior.
Americans are no less susceptible to original sin than any other people. We are, however, privileged to live in a country with a culture that defines as wrong, the sort of prisoner abuse that seems to have occurred in Iraq. We are not immune from such acts of abuse- under combat circumstances no one is immune from such behavior- but our Judeo-Christian heritage provides us with proper context for reacting to such abuse when it occurs.
In Fallujah several weeks ago, Americans were killed and their bodies desecrated to much public celebration. The Iraqis responsible for this contemptible behavior roam freely. A small number of our soldiers have let down the cause of freedom by treating Iraqis as though they were beneath contempt. We can be proud that an investigation will reveal the extent of their wrongdoing, and we can be certain that those responsible will be punished. This is the difference between them and us, a difference that allows for hope that they may someday be like us.
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."
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 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.
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.
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.
The tragedy in Iraq today is well reported in the New York Times. I am sickened by the hatred of people who find pride and victory in parading and hanging the charred and dismembered corpses of those they call enemies. America is horrified by such base behavior, and rightly so, but we will not falter in our determination to free Iraq.
From the war’s beginning, the Democrat party and the anti-war movement have used derogatory language to describe contracting companies working in Iraq. The strategy has been to portray contracting as an arena for political favors, and contractors as price gauging corporate behemoths. In fact, the dead so horribly abused by Iraqis today, were contractors. They were working for money, but also for American national security and a better life for the Iraqi people. They paid the ultimate price, and more. The next time John Kerry thinks of deriding Bechtel or Halliburton or any other contracting company working in Iraq, he would do well to remember that those companies are represented on the ground in Iraq by Americans who, like our military, are subject to attack from hatred’s foot soldiers.
The horror in Falluja today underscores the importance of liberating Iraq. Falluja is a Baathist stronghold for people who would take power and rule in the manner of Saddam Hussein, a man who killed more Muslims than any other in history. Would you expect civilized behavior from his supporters? We were right going into Iraq to deliver a people from such monsters, and we are right to stay the course.
The Washington Post today reports that the Chinese government has issued a White Paper describing 2003 as, “... a year of great, landmark significance for progress in human rights in the country.” The White Paper is in response to a United States proposal for a resolution from the United Nations Human Rights Commission condemning Chinese disregard for human rights.
The Post writes that the White Paper draws attention to Chinese constitutional amendments “... offering specific guarantees that the state must respect human rights and legally obtained private property.” The Post adds that the White Paper accords great significance to the amendments as “... further confirming the prominent status of human rights protection in China's legal system."
The practical effect of that newly prominent status for human rights was captured today in an article in the New York Times: “At least three family members of people gunned down by the Chinese military during the crackdown on dissent in Beijing on June 4, 1989, have been detained, as the authorities seek to prevent protests connected with the 15th anniversary of the massacre, relatives said Monday.”
The arrests of citizens demanding accountability from their government for murdering students in Tiananmen Square would seem unnecessary in a country that gives prominent status to human rights, but the contradiction between word and deed is explained by the self-serving nature of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
That the White Paper trumpets protections for private property is not surprising at a time when the CCP has opened membership to capitalists. The CCP does not stand for communism (if it ever did) but rather for lining the pockets of party officials. Minus its long discredited communist mission, the CCP is a jack-boot in search of a willing foot. Drawing the upwardly mobile into their embrace allows party leaders to siphon profits from private enterprise while corrupting and controlling competent businessmen who might otherwise champion representative government.
According to the Post, Chinese leaders, “repeatedly have said conditions in China require slow, careful movement toward human rights standards as understood in the West.” The Post quotes Premier Wen Jiabao as saying, “Economic development and the need for stability for now must enjoy the highest priority.” This is doublespeak for policies that enrich party leaders, encourage corrupt business practices, and disenfranchise common people.
The Washington Post on March 26 reported that China has hinted that it will prevent the people of Hong Kong from electing all of their leadership in 2007 in spite of the Basic Law. Hong Kong may be the world’s most magnificent city. It has both the stability and the economic development that are supposedly Jiabao’s highest priority. Nonetheless, he and the Chinese government oppose free elections in Hong Kong.
Also noted in the Washington Post on March 26, China continues to threaten military action against Taiwan should that nation declare sovereignty. Taiwan, like Hong Kong, has both the stability and the economic development that Jiabao claims to prize. Still, he and the Chinese government maintain that the Taiwanese must be crushed like the students in Tiananmen Square if they declare themselves free.
Hong Kong and Taiwan prove that the Chinese people can combine freedom and prosperity in stable societies without need of the CCP. Their success in doing so is the strongest possible argument that the CCP is a problem, not a solution. Political freedoms and human rights are necessary preconditions for stability and prosperity in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and they are necessary for stability and prosperity in China. That the mainland has jack-boot stability but little and uneven prosperity is the inevitable result of a self-serving government that defines human rights in terms of its own interests.
Remember Tiananmen Square!
I am late to do so, but I want to challenge Colbert King’s silly rant in Saturday’s Washington Post. King connects three headline dominating stories relating to the liberation of Iraq- military casualties, Richard Clarke, and Iraqi ingratitude- to argue that our presence in Iraq is for nothing. In fact, it is King’s reasoning that amounts to nothing.
King begins with an emotional description of a young girl weeping on the coffin of Jason Ford, her uncle who was killed in action in Iraq. He notes that the, “… heartbreaking funeral service has been replicated more than 560 times across the country since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq a year ago. There are thousands more members of the U.S. armed forces who must now live out their years with broken bodies. And America, because of Iraq, will soon be $100 billion poorer”. He quotes Irene Ford, the dead soldier's stepmother, "Why are our children dying? What is the reason for this young boy to lose his life?"
King then introduces Clarke, taking care to distance himself from the ego and self-promotion that he admits lace the pages of Clarke’s book. He nonetheless gives his imprimatur to Clarke’s argument that the liberation of Iraq was tangential, unnecessary and, “invigorated the radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide and also blew the chance to strike a deadly blow against al Qaeda.” King continues, “By that reckoning, Jason Ford and other American men and women in service to their country died in Iraq for no good reason." He asserts, "That damning judgment answers Irene Ford’s bitter questions.”
King writes, “What have we bought with the tremendous investment of American blood and treasure in Iraq? We have exchanged Hussein and his Baath Party thugs for today's identity politics being practiced by the Shiite Muslim majority, the minority Sunni Muslims and the Kurds. Even as our troops come under rocket attacks, we are busy sprucing up the Iraqi nation with jobs and public works projects that are the envy of America's cities.” As though to clinch the argument, King laments that American lives have been lost to liberate, “the likes of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, now the most important Shiite cleric in Iraq, who, despite our great sacrifices for his country, won't stoop to give American proconsul L. Paul Bremer or any other American a five-minute audience”.
Neither King nor Clarke, makes a compelling argument against the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq. If the Iraq front is tangential in the war against terrorism, why are Islamists filtering into that country and taking time to attack our troops with rockets? If the liberation of Iraq is unnecessary in the war against terrorism, why aren’t the Islamists directing all resources away from Iraq and into the necessary fronts in the war? That King and Clarke do not recognize the threat that a free Iraq poses to the Islamist agenda does mean that the threat doesn’t exist. A more telling indicator that we are on the right track is that Islamists resist our objectives in Iraq.
King expects of a democratic process in Iraq something different from our experience in America. Think about it, King is a liberal Deputy Editor of the Editorial Page of the liberal Washington Post, and he is complaining about identity politics. Would King dare argue that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, NOW and CAIR are unworthy of democratic freedom? Identity politics is nothing more than factionalism, a problem that was considered by the framers of the Constitution and addressed repeatedly in the Federalist Papers. That factionalism rears its ugly head in Iraq is neither a surprise, nor a good reason to deny the Iraqi people freedom.
Most absurdly, King expresses the belief that we are in Iraq for the sake of gratitude. That he uses the militant language of an Ayatollah to argue against liberation of the Iraqi people is as revealing of his thickheaded approach to that country as it is of his ignorance of Islam. The United States spends billions of dollars on social welfare programs, the recipients of which are statistically more likely than non-recipients to engage in criminal behavior. Has King ever argued that such ingratitude should result in an end to social welfare and democratic freedom? It is antithetical to the teaching of Islam that Christian intervention is necessary for the freedom and prosperity of an Islamic country. Muslim clerics are the last people from whom to expect expressions of credit or adulation directed toward the United States. Freedom’s trumpet sounds through the daily interaction of our soldiers with Iraqi civilians. Those civilians do have gratitude for our efforts, a gratitude born of hope.
The United States is liberating Iraq. The job is not complete and the work continues. Jason Ford did not die in vain, but for a just and important cause. More soldiers will be killed in Iraq and other fronts in the war against terrorism as Islamist’s seek to thwart any example of freedom in the Islamic world. The liberation of Iraq and the establishment of a representative government in that country will build momentum for governmental reform throughout the Middle East.
Before Colbert King questions the merits of Iraqi freedom or the price paid for such freedom by brave American soldiers, he should consider the 300,000 political prisoners executed by Hussein in his last ten years in power. Instead of sharing with his audience the venomous words of a Grand Ayatollah, he could share the grief and regret of Iraqis who survive Hussein's victims... that the United States did not act sooner.
From the New York Times, William Safire continues to work the Kofi-Gate story, pressing for a proper investigation of corrupt practices in the United Nations administered Oil For Food Program. Safire does a nice job explaining why the major powers are less than enthusiastic about such an investigation. The French and Russian governments are opposed because their own companies and people participated in the kick-backs and fraud. Sadly, the United States resists (or so Safire explains) to prevent the U.N. retaliating by refusing to recognize a future Iraqi government. Consider the previous sentence; after supporting Saddam Hussein and looting Iraq, the U.N. now threatens to withhold recognition if the new Iraqi government seeks justice. Why does the United States participate in the U.N.?
The Wall Street Journal has made available online, Fouad Ajami's insightful analysis of Muslim migration and assimilation problems in Europe. Ajami provides context for what is a continuation of the historical clash between Europe and the Arab world, and characterizes the current problem as "The Moor's Last Laugh". This, in reference to what history has referred to as the Moor's Last Sigh, issued by the Boabdil, the last Muslim king of Granada, as he left his domain for good. Ajami does not propose solutions, but gives a compelling outline of a deeply entrenched problem.
Richard Clarke continues to dominate the news. His kiss-and-tell book, timed to coincide with his testimony before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (better known as the “9/11 Commission”) will continue to see use as campaign fuel by Democrat partisans who seek to discredit President Bush.
I have not read Clarke’s book, and I do not intend to- I have many more important books to read. I view with great skepticism any man who publicly turns on those with whom he has served. There is a time and a place for memoirs about public service- the time and place are always after the administration in which the writer served has left office. As well, there is a time and a place for whistle blowing, but Clarke is not blowing a whistle so much as arguing policy differences. His publication of a book that attacks former colleagues, the release of which was timed to maximize the commercial advantage of his public testimony is bad form.
I listened to Clarke’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission and could not help but regret that he chose the low road on his way out of the Bush administration. His depth and breadth of experience in multiple administrations could provide the country with valuable anti-terror insight- too bad he was overshadowed by a partisan storm of his own making.
Clarke made one objectionable statement, echoing a Democrat sentiment that is a cliché, “… the reason I am strident in my criticism of the President of the United States is because by invading Iraq -- something I was not asked about by the commission, it's something I chose write about a lot in the book -- by invading Iraq the President of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism.”
Democrats often assert that the liberation of Iraq has increased Arab hostility toward the United States and swelled the ranks of terrorist organizations. They reason that this is a setback in the war on terror. In fact, the liberation of Iraq, which is ongoing, is a necessary battle in the campaign for victory over Islamism. By freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny, rebuilding their infrastructure, helping them to install a representative government, and then pulling back as they take first steps as a free people, the United States will demonstrate a commitment to freedom for all people. This demonstration of commitment will not go unnoticed by Muslims, most of who live under varying degrees of tyranny.
What I have just described will not happen without significant setbacks. Iraq is a volatile combination of Shiite, Sunni and Kurd with much enmity between these groups. The Islamists understand the high stakes in play in the Iraq front and exploit religious and ethnic hatred for recruiting and operations. Nonetheless, if the United States stays the course, stability and prosperity will begin to fill the political and economic vacuum that is public life in Iraq today. In so doing, the Iraqi people will see and seize upon the opportunity of a better life for their children.
Clarke’s assertion that the liberation of Iraq undermines the war against terrorism is premised on the idea that no one in the Islamic world will notice or care that the United States, in ending Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror, has saved the lives of approximately ten thousand Iraqi political prisoners each year going forward. In fact, when it becomes impossible for hatred’s foot soldiers to insist that the United States is a permanent occupier of Iraq and is stealing Iraqi oil (in other words, when sovereignty is fully in the hands of Iraqis) our liberation of Iraq will begin to drive a wedge between Islamists and moderate Muslims throughout the world.
In the long term, the liberation of Iraq will prove invaluable in the war against terrorism. If the United States stays the course, continued diplomatic, economic and military pressure on multiple fronts, covert and overt, will result in change as radical as that in Iraq, in countries including Iran, Syria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, etc. Each of these fronts will create circumstances that can be construed as setbacks in the war against terrorism, but war is about overcoming setbacks. Each of these fronts will benefit from the perception, held by ordinary Muslims as a result of our freeing Iraq, that the United States will act in their interests too.
From the nationalist movement that gave the world the "spiritual leadership" of Sheik Ahmad Yassin comes the latest terror bomber. As reported by the Guardian, "The Israeli army said yesterday that Hassam Mohammed Hufni Abdo, a 14-year-old Palestinian boy who tried to kill soldiers at a West Bank checkpoint with a belt of explosives strapped to his body, would have been the youngest Palestinian suicide bomber." Consider the perversion of one's human nature necessary for one to intimidate a 14 year old boy into an act of suicide and murder. Would you negotiate with such people?
The New York Times this morning ran a predictably slanted discussion of Israel's execution yesterday of Sheik Ahmed Yassin under the title, "Wave of Anger Rolls Across Arab World". No surprise there- a wave of anger rolls across the Arab world whenever Israel asserts its right of soveriegnty and security.
The Times wrote about regional leaders "... criticizing Israel for ratcheting up the violence at a time when the first tentative steps toward peace were being taken in almost four years." Never mind that the last set of tentative steps toward peace (following the Dayton Accords) were shattered by an intifada that was engineered by Yassin and his fellow bigots. The Times prefers the delusion that Yassin would reverse course on a lifetime of bigotry and support peace and coexistence with Israel.
The Times also wrote that "...the heads of important Islamic institutions in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere deplored the Israeli slaying of one of their own, and gave their approval for acts of revenge. None failed to point out that Sheik Yassin was a crippled man confined to a wheelchair who was killed just as he finished the dawn prayers." The Times did not add that ALL failed to point out that Yassin was a mass murderer responsible for planning and exhorting the death and injury of countless Israeli civilians.
In fact, the whole of the Times article betrays both anti-Israel bias and gross ignorance of Middle East affairs. For example, the Times writes, "... no Arab leader is likely to have shared any great affinity with the sheik's extremist Hamas movement..." No explanation is forthcoming from the Times as to why the Arab leaders it claims have no affinity with Hamas, have in fact funded Hamas through the years. The closing paragraph of the article quotes Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's "most important Shiite cleric" as chastising Israel and calling for "...Arab and Islamic unity and "liberation of the usurped land."" One wishes the Times would take a moment to compare Sistani's statement with the Hamas Charter, note that both call for the destruction of Israel on behalf of Islam, and then dare report that no Arab leaders have an affinity with Hamas.
Finally, the Times writes, "Analysts suggested that by killing Sheik Yassin, Israel risks pushing Hamas into becoming an even more radical organization and diminishing what is already weak support for any peace negotiations." Hamas exists to destroy Israel. With this in mind, one wonders what the so-called analysts have in mind when they predict increased radicalism- perhaps an amendment to the Hamas Charter demanding the destruction of Israel, not once but twice.
Sheikh Ahmad Yassin is dead, and the world is better without him. The so-called “Spiritual Leader” of the hate brigade, Hamas, was eviscerated this morning by missiles launched from Israeli helicopters. In response, Arabs took to the streets of the Middle East threatening to open the gates of hell against Israel. As if Israel is not already under siege by forces of bigotry and racism.
Pity the Palestinian people. Not for the death of Yassin, but for their lack of leaders, spiritual or otherwise, capable of bringing about peaceful coexistence with Israel. The gist of Yassin’s leadership is found in the decidedly unspiritual words of the Hamas Covenant of 1988, “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” This language and the leadership that brings it to life use Palestinians and the cause of Palestinian nationalism as a means to an end in the larger game of Islamic triumphalism.
Yassin and his foul ilk would, through Jihad, force upon the Jews of Israel choices consistent with Sharia and Islamic history: death; conversion to Islam; or dhimmitude. For the closed minded Islamist, this sort of choice represents not a step down from representative democracy, but a step up to divine justice. For thinking human beings everywhere, however, the choice proffered by Hamas is a step toward slavery.
Israel has a moral obligation to negotiate a peace that involves living side-by-side with a Palestinian state. In reaching for this objective, however, Israel is not obligated to coddle mass murderers who would do all in their power to prevent a two state solution. Palestinians too, have a moral obligation to negotiate a peace that involves living side-by-side with Israel. The death of Yassin is little more than the clearing of a piece of human excrement from the path to meaningful negotiation between Israelis and Palestinians.
While looking for Internet citations on Yasir Arafat's comparison of the Oslo Accords with the Treaty of Hudaibiya for use in my discussion of Islamist Expedience, I came across an interesting controversy involving Congressman Jim Saxton and the Council on Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Saxton made reference to Islamic expediency and the Treaty of Hudaibiya in a 1998 internet article. CAIR responded with outrage and initiated a campaign to force an apology. The CAIR press release is interesting for it's scrubbed-for-Western-consumption interpretation of the circumstances surrounding the Treaty of Hudaibiya and the conquest of Mecca. Read the CAIR materials but keep in mind that Bernard Lewis, the preeminent living scholar of the Middle East, holds that an oft used doctrine of expediency grew out of the traditional (i.e. not-scrubbed-for-Western-consumption) Islamic understanding of the Treaty of Hudaibiya.
Perhaps more revealing of the truth, is CAIR's failure to demand an apology from Yasir Arafat for his reference to Islamic expediency and the Treaty of Hudaibiya.
On Wednesday, an Islamist group claiming links to Al Qaeda released a letter instructing terrorists in Spain to stop operations. The letter was received and published by the London based Arab news daily, al-Hayat, and is referenced in an online report by Reuters.
Citing the recent Spanish vote for a change of government, and the campaign promise of the incoming Socialist party to withdraw Spanish troops from the Iraqi front, the letter states that, “… the leadership has decided to stop all operations within the Spanish territories... until we know the intentions of the new government that has promised to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq." The letter also urges, “… all the brigades present in European lands: Stop all operations."
The letter has been much analyzed by the media in the context of Spanish and European politics and the dilemma posed by Spanish participation in the liberation of Iraq. To withdraw troops in the aftermath of the March 11 train bombings may be construed as rewarding terror. On the other hand, the incoming Socialist party campaigned on exactly that promise for months before the Madrid attacks and is understandably reluctant to stand down from it. This dilemma reveals the shrewdness of Islamist planners in manipulating the anti-war position of opposition political parties in those countries counted amongst the “Coalition of the Willing”.
The media has not, to my knowledge, analyzed the language used by the Islamists in the letter, specifically, the reference to the “Spanish territories” and the offer of a “truce.” There is no proof of a connection between the authors of the letter and the sponsors of the train bombings; however, the language in the letter is every bit as purposeful as the planning that went into the bombing.
Referring to Spain as a territory is a subtle reference to Islamic doctrine, which divides the world into two parts, Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (the House of War). Dar al-Islam refers to the land of the Muslims under the historical Caliphate and is defined in the most expansive terms. Any land that has been ruled by Muslims is considered an irrevocable part of Dar al-Islam. Spain, for example, is considered Dar al-Islam, as are Portugal, India and Israel. Describing Spain as a “territory” carries the semantic implication that Islam has a claim to governance over Spanish people and lands.
The concept of “truce” also has specific meaning in Islamic history and doctrine. A story central to the Koran and the life of Muhammad involves his entering into a truce with the tribes of Mecca in 628 AD. In the Treaty of Hudaibiya, Muhammad agreed that he would refrain from attacking Mecca in exchange for pilgrimage access to holy sites in the city. He later broke the truce and conquered the city, establishing a precedent that was used by the Caliphs to justify entering into and breaking treaties according to the needs of Islam.
One might think understanding Islamist language and the history from which it is derived a waste of time, but such an understanding is critical in the war against terror. Islam is both a religion of conquest and a highly codified religion. Islamist leaders today are well versed in the details of their faith. They understand the roots and doctrine of Islam and are faithful in pressing their interpretation of both in the active service of Jihad.
For example, the Western media often mention the first demand of the early fatwahs issued by Osama bin Laden- that the American military presence be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia. Rarely mentioned are the other demands contained in the fatwahs, namely, that Muslims reconquer Dar al-Islam and that they then engage in Jihad to Islamicize the whole of the world. When bin Laden issued his early fatwahs he lacked the international notoriety that followed with the World Trade Center attack on 11 September 2001. We now know he will not recoil from murder, but do we take seriously his stated objectives.
In another example, documented by Commentary Magazine (subsciption necessary), Yasir Arafat, in a private meeting with South African Muslim leaders, defended entering into the Oslo Accords as an act of expediency comparable to the Treaty of Hudaibiya. Arafat’s response demonstrates that he and other Muslim leaders understand the precedent established in the Treaty of Hudaibiya and believe it valid even today. In hindsight, the incitement and manipulation of the second Intifadah is predictable from a man who entered the Oslo Accords out of Islamic expediency.
The West must understand the language and history of Islam in order to appreciate Islamist objectives and anticipate Islamist tactics. Perhaps of greater importance, to accept Islamic semantics without argument is the beginning of dhimmitude.
The internationalists who infest the Democrat party and the governments of Old Europe, China and Russia have long argued against United States intervention in Iraq. Throughout the past year's liberation of that country, they have insisted that only the United Nations has the moral authority to guide the direction of Iraq. It is predictable, therefore, that they are silent about evidence of massive corruption in the United Nation's oversight of the so called "Oil For Food" program.
Building on a story by Claudia Rosett in National Review, William Safire draws attention to the scandal in the New York Times this morning- a $2.3 billion scandal that involves Kojo Annan, son of the U.N. Secretary General, and Benon Sevan, the man personally selected by the Secretary General to oversee the Oil For Food program. Safire opines,
"Under the U.N. bureaucracy's nose- and I suspect, in some cases, with its collusion- nearly three-quarters of the suppliers jacked up their prices to pay the 10 percent kickback. These included European manufacturers, Arab trade brokers, Russian factories and Chinese state-owned companies. Corruption's take- out of the mouths of hungry Iraqi children- was estimated... at $2.3 billion."
Kojo Annan is associated with a Swiss consultancy that was, coincidentally of course, awarded the Oil For Food administrative contract. No word from the consultancy as to whether the younger Annan received compensation for the contract award, and of course our moral superiors at the U.N. insist the award was merit based. Safire notes that the Wall Street Journal has obtained, "a document in Arabic that suggests Sevan received an allocation of 1.8 million barrels of oil." This, after Sevan denied receiving oil or oil related monies.
The people of Iraq wait for an honest audit of the whole proceeding- I hope they aren't holding their collective breath. In the meantime, the U.N. refuses to list the companies that benefited from the Oil For Food program. I expect that they are domiciled in exactly those countries whose sanctimonious leaders are so angered by the liberation of Iraq, a liberation they vehemently opposed.
The train bombings in Madrid demonstrate anew the rotten fruit of Islamism. Not that further demonstration was needed- God fearing people the world over have seen enough of the death and destruction that result from Islamist teachings to know that Satan fills terrorist hearts.
The Spanish people, lead by Jose Maria Aznar, have been brothers-in-arms in the war on terror. We in America thank them for their bravery and perseverance. We honor the Spanish soldiers serving in Iraq, and we mourn the Spanish dead in Madrid. God rest their souls.
There is some evidence that the outgoing Popular Party manipulated facts relating to the bombing in an attempt to pin early blame on the Basque separatist movement, and thereby gain votes. To be clear, there is no excuse for politicizing tragedy. If true, such conduct merits a change in government. When Bill Clinton disgraced the Presidency by lying and obstructing justice, no amount of good that might result from his continuing in office could overcome the damage he had done to the United States. Despite the assertions of his supporters, and his managing to survive impeachment proceedings, a thriving stock market was no penance for his perfidy. Some political acts are so base that a change in office is required. This was true with Clinton, and if the allegations of spin and manipulation bear out, it also true with the Spanish Popular party.
The Spanish people found themselves grappling with much more than domestic politics and policy direction, however, and the war on terror is the worse for their decision. From the Islamist perspective, the incoming Socialist government with its promise to withdraw troop support from the Iraq front is the exact result sought from the train bombings. The lesson that resonates is that terror can manipulate Western elections to the benefit of Islamists.
It is an old lesson. Osama bin Laden believed the West incapable of sustained military response when faced with body counts, a belief he came to by watching America’s muted reaction to terrorism, for example: withdrawing from Lebanon in 1983 after 243 marines were murdered in a barracks bombing, and withdrawing from Somalia after 18 soldiers were killed in Mogadishu. Al Qaeda planned and executed two attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. America’s response to the first attack in 1993, which killed 6 people but failed to destroy the building, was negligible. This reinforced the Islamist belief that America was weak and vulnerable.
The temerity of the West in responding to terrorism also reinforced the Islamist belief that Allah sanctions their depravity. Muslims take seriously the Koran’s claims to be a literal dictation from Allah. Islamists approach recent history by emphasizing the theological triumphalism that pervades the Koran. In the Koran, Allah tells Mohammed that his military victories result from doing Allah’s work. In other words, one finds the voice and approval of Allah in military victory. Islamists argue that the current ascendancy of dar al-Harb (the House of War) over dar al-Islam (the House of Islam) indicates that Muslims, in seeking coexistence with the West, have ceased to do Allah’s will. Islamists reason that dar al-Islam will again be ascendant when Muslims take seriously the obligation to Jihad. Islamists view Western temerity as a Koranic proof, reasoning that that unavenged or under avenged terrorist strikes demonstrate Allah’s approval of Jihad.
Should the incoming Socialist government make good on its promise and withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq, Islamists will have further reason to conclude as with previous terrorist attacks, that the West is weak and vulnerable, and that Allah favors Jihad.
The train bombings in Madrid demonstrate anew the rotten fruit of Islamism. Not that further demonstration was needed- God fearing people the world over have seen enough of the death and destruction that result from Islamist teachings to know that Satan fills terrorist hearts.
The Spanish people, lead by Jose Maria Aznar, have been brothers-in-arms in the war on terror. We in America thank them for their bravery and perseverance. We honor the Spanish soldiers serving in Iraq, and we mourn the Spanish dead in Madrid. God rest their souls.
There is some evidence that the outgoing Popular Party manipulated facts relating to the bombing in an attempt to pin early blame on the Basque separatist movement, and thereby gain votes. To be clear, there is no excuse for politicizing tragedy. If true, such conduct merits a change in government. When Bill Clinton disgraced the Presidency by lying and obstructing justice, no amount of good that might result from his continuing in office could overcome the damage he had done to the United States. Despite the assertions of his supporters, and his managing to survive impeachment proceedings, a thriving stock market was no penance for his perfidy. Some political acts are so base that a change in office is required. This was true with Clinton, and if the allegations of spin and manipulation bear out, it also true with the Spanish Popular party.
The Spanish people found themselves grappling with much more than domestic politics and policy direction, however, and the war on terror is the worse for their decision. From the Islamist perspective, the incoming Socialist government with its promise to withdraw troop support from the Iraq front is the exact result sought from the train bombings. The lesson that resonates is that terror can manipulate Western elections to the benefit of Islamists.
It is an old lesson. Osama bin Laden believed the West incapable of sustained military response when faced with body counts, a belief he came to by watching America’s muted reaction to terrorism, for example: withdrawing from Lebanon in 1983 after 243 marines were murdered in a barracks bombing, and withdrawing from Somalia after 18 soldiers were killed in Mogadishu. Al Qaeda planned and executed two attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. America’s response to the first attack in 1993, which killed 6 people but failed to destroy the building, was negligible. This reinforced the Islamist belief that America was weak and vulnerable.
The temerity of the West in responding to terrorism also reinforced the Islamist belief that Allah sanctions their depravity. Muslims take seriously the Koran’s claims to be a literal dictation from Allah. Islamists approach recent history by emphasizing the theological triumphalism that pervades the Koran. In the Koran, Allah tells Mohammed that his military victories result from doing Allah’s work. In other words, one finds the voice and approval of Allah in military victory. Islamists argue that the current ascendancy of dar al-Harb (the House of War) over dar al-Islam (the House of Islam) indicates that Muslims, in seeking coexistence with the West, have ceased to do Allah’s will. Islamists reason that dar al-Islam will again be ascendant when Muslims take seriously the obligation to Jihad. Islamists view Western temerity as a Koranic proof, reasoning that that unavenged or under avenged terrorist strikes demonstrate Allah’s approval of Jihad.
Should the incoming Socialist government make good on its promise and withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq, Islamists will have further reason to conclude as with previous terrorist attacks, that the West is weak and vulnerable, and that Allah favors Jihad.
Speaking on Meet The Press this morning, Howard Dean bore witness to his moral blindness. In lashing out against the war that liberated Iraq, Dean characterized Saddam Hussein as, "...a pathetic old man who we'd been containing for 12 years by overflights". Dean added, "We had sanctions on him that were paralyzing him."
What Dean failed to explain is how a supposedly pathetic old man, contained by overflights and paralyzed by sanctions, could be responsible for what Human Rights Watch characterized in a 2002 policy paper as, "... a vast number of crimes that constitute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity." Human Rights Watch continued, "The victims of such crimes include up to 290,000 persons who have been 'disappeared' since the late 1970s, many of whom are believed to have been killed."
If Saddam Hussein seems pathetic in photographs that emerged from his capture, it is because President Bush led the liberation of Iraq that forced Hussein to hide in "spider holes" for months on end. The moral vision of Bush makes possible the moral blindness of Dean, John Kerry (the candidate for whom Dean was campaigning on Meet the Press) and the Democrat party.
Dean also failed to explain how Uday and Qusay, the sadistic sons of Saddam Hussein and the presumed heirs to his reign of terror, fit into his theory of a pathetic and paralyzed Iraq from which we had no worries.
Dean's remarks reveal an ignorance of international affairs and a callousness toward the hundreds of thousands who have died at the hands of a mass murderer. Needless to say, were either Dean or Kerry occupant of the White House at the time of the World Trade Center attack, Hussein would still be in the business of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity and no one would be calling him pathetic, old or paralyzed.
Dean's mouth lost him the Democrat party nomination, it now ends his hope of being seen as a serious person.
Little detail has emerged regarding the alleged Kerry scandal. It is interesting to note that major American media outlets, notably the New York Times and the Washington Post, have nothing to say on the subject, while British media sources have begun digging into the controversy. The Sun published an article this morning that identifies the woman as Alex Polier, age 24, and quotes her father calling Kerry a "sleazeball".
Referring to the scandal on the Don Imus radio program this morning, Kerry said, "Well, there is nothing to report, so there is nothing to talk about. I'm not worried about it." Parse this statement carefully (after all we do live in the post-Clinton era) and you will find that while it sounds like a denial, it denies nothing.
There is still an insufficiency of facts and it is premature to draw conclusions. If the rumors of Kerry having an adulterous affair with an intern prove true, however, one hopes that the Democrat party will spare America the ordeal of another pants-around-his-knees President whose every sentence requires parsing.
Dominating alternative media sources today, but predictably ignored by the establishment, was the rumor of an adultery scandal involving John Kerry. The story broke on the Drudge Report with a minimum of information and the assertion that details would be forthcoming from larger news venues. A number of blogs and talk radio shows rode the story obsessively throughout the day adding the dreaded "I" word, the assertion that the affair continued until Kerry decided to run for President, and that he pressured the woman to leave the country. Given the dearth of hard journalism it is too early for conclusions about the future of the Kerry campaign or his suitability to lead the country. Conclusions must, when possible, be reached after facts are gathered and reported.
I used to listen to National Public Radio (every morning and evening) for useful serious information; I now listen to NPR infrequently for insight into the liberal world perspective. What was once a left-leaning journalistic organization, capable of breaking news stories, and providing hard analysis of current events, has in the past five years become nothing more than a radio magazine spouting politically correct multi cultural pap. NPR today does not break news and provides only biased analysis of current events. What is worse, the programming is dominated by mindless and meaningless listener essays and music reviews on so called 'progressive' and 'world' music. I rather suspect that NPR management in the past decade made a conscious decision to attract a younger listening audience. In other words, the content has been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.
I mention NPR in the context of the Kerry rumor because driving home last night I was hopeful that "All Things Considered" would provide some context to the story. Silly of me to think that NPR would grapple with an unpleasant story that could adversely affect the Democrat frontrunner. NPR's editorial 'restraint' raises a larger question, at what point does a story making rounds in the alternative media become a story in its own right? I expect that the Drudge Report was visited by more people yesterday than read the New York Times and Washington Post combined. Is that not a story?
A business opportunity led me to Manhattan this afternoon and while there I took time to visit ‘Ground Zero’. A once vibrant public space with two beautiful towers pointing to the heavens is now a great construction site. The only remnant of the old World Trade Center on view at Ground Zero is a cross of steel girders that was found standing in spite of the Islamist tantrum.
I reflected on memories from when the ‘Twin Towers’ still stood: with my family looking out over the city from the observation deck; seeing Joe Torre sign books in the subway station below; and with my friend Patrick trying to jump upward as one of the cavernous elevators began rapidly ascending. I miss those times, and I regret that bigots and murderers have taken the place where they occurred from me.
Since that dark day in September 2001, I have read much about Islam. I have studied the Koran as well as apologetic and exegetical works. I have read the passages in the Koran that counsel tolerance and love, and I have learned about the Islamic doctrine of abrogation that cancels those passages in favor of intolerance and bigotry. I have read and listened to arguments that Islam promotes a fundamental equality for all people, and I have studied enough of history, ‘dhimmitude’, and current events to see that this claim is false. I have met Muslims around the world, I have Muslim friends, I have learned that the vast majority of them are not Islamists and wish to live peacefully with their neighbors regardless of the literal teachings of their faith.
Ground Zero is an Islamic problem. The terrorists who flew passenger planes into the Twin Towers acted out of belief in the literal teachings of Islam. These teachings cannot be denied or ignored, but rather must be confronted and consigned to what President Bush called the "dustbin of history". The intolerance for discussion, debate and disagreement throughout the Islamic world prevents the intellectual encounter necessary to end Islamic bigotry and violence. Only when Muslims are literate and have freedom of conscience, and when Muslim governments respect free speech and free press, will the Islamic world be empowered to move beyond fundamentalism.
It surprised me that the cross of steel girders is displayed at Ground Zero. Secularists work hard to rid the public square of all reference to religion. Humanists argue for a re-writing of history so that all the great accomplishments of the Christian West are read as having occurred in spite of the Church, not because of it. The marginally intellectual types who lead American society are so often incapable of historical or theological distinctions. Multiculturalism and political correctness mandate a belief in the view the Judeo-Christian tradition is no better than any other tradition, and Christianity is no different in its fundamentals than Islam. To see the cross in public display at Ground Zero is to believe that God still animates America in spite of her elite class.
The plaza between the Twin Towers held a wonderful Fritz Koenig sculpture that combined an obvious image of the globe with a more abstract image of Atlas. A portion of the sculpture survived the World Trade Center attack. Early in her history, Christianity claimed the heritage of Greece, and synthesized its myths and philosophies, such that today, post-Renaissance and post-Reformation, the image of Atlas has metaphorical meaning in the West. It is fitting that a stubborn cross and a sculpture of Atlas survived the World Trade Center attack, as if to say that Christendom will continue to hold aloft the ideal of human rights for all of the world in spite of an intolerant and aggressive Islam so desperately in need of renaissance and reformation.
God bless all who were murdered on 11 September 2001 and God speed the war against terror.
In an editorial published Saturday in the Washington Post, Colbert King criticized Mayor Anthony William’s recent assertion that Washington, D.C. is “stronger than ever”. King interpreted the Mayor’s comments as meaning that, “The city's treasury is in the black, the financial control board is gone, the Washington real estate market is hot, hot, hot and the people who live off our town are making money once again.” Taking the Mayor to task, King wrote of recent and much-publicized instances of gun violence and family abuse including a fourteen year old boy stopped by police while driving a car in possession of a semiautomatic handgun and a submachine gun, and six children abandoned to conditions of squalor and starvation by their mother.
Reading King, one might conclude that his black and white portrait adequately captures the current state of Washington, D.C. It does not.
Washington today is a better place to live than at any point in the past fifteen years. For the first time in my memory, street sweepers clean neighborhoods twice weekly, streets and sidewalks are repaired, trees are replaced, parks are refurbished and made both safe and accessible… in short the government is responding to broad citizen needs.
This does not detract from the human tragedies to which King calls attention. He is correct in asserting that the “…collapsed state of black family life in our city..” correlates with “dysfunctional homes and the chaos in our public schools and on our streets”. The collapse in black family life, however, is not a new phenomenon in Washington, or elsewhere.
King neglected to mention that frequent violence in Washington occurs in spite of strict gun control laws; that poor black families subsist in servitude to welfare programs; and that school reform has been on the agenda of every city council in recent memory. He implies that the interests of business and development are juxtaposed to those of the black family; but he does not connect the liberal plantation run by the Democrat party to the collapsed state of the black family.
Almost to a man, black and Democrat leaders have opposed the most important effort to improve chances for upward mobility amongst black people in Washington. Al Sharpton, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton worked to defeat the city's recently passed school voucher program. A program that empowers parents to seek education for their children beyond the confines of the liberal plantation.
Mayor William's support was critical to passage of the school voucher program.
President Bush today appointed a bipartisan panel to examine the sources, use and interpretation of intelligence relating to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The President's action addresses a months long effort by partisan Democrats to diminish the liberation of Iraq by calling into question the motives and actions of administration officials that drove that liberation.
There is a compelling argument for the examination of intelligence methods and practices, and a panel may well be the proper tool for the task. John McCain, who is a member of the panel, has made such a case. The Democrats, however, have not made the argument in compelling terms. Instead, they have argued for the creation of a panel from an obvious partisan perspective, emphasizing their belief that the President and his administration purposely lied to the American people in order to get the United States into a war with Iraq.
It is characteristic of Democrat politicians to use panels and commissions selectively and for partisan purposes. Curiously, the Democrats are not calling for a panel to inquire into their collusion with liberal special interest groups to prevent confirmation of a number the President's judicial nominations. This collusion, as documented by Byron York on National Review Online among others, included delaying confirmation proceedings for certain nominees to prevent the nominees from being seated in time to hear certain cases. One example involved Senator Kennedy (sometimes referred to as the 'conscience of the Democrats'" and the University of Michigan affirmative action case. The Democrats have requested an inquiry into the matter, not to examine their own improprieties, but to determine how memos revealing their improprieties came into the hands of Republican staffers.
I was wrong about Howard Dean when I predicted his withdrawal this week. He made a 'win or out' vow this afternoon, regarding the Wisconsin primary on 17 February. It strikes me that a more important contest for him is the Washington caucus on 7 February. Washington is a liberal state, and internet savvy, a combination that was supposed to bode well for Dean. If he loses fails to win in Washington, and finishes poorly in the other states that precede Wisconsin (Michigan, Maine, Tennessee, Virginia, D.C., and Nevada), not only will the wind be against his sails, he'll lack men to man the oars.
John Kerry enters the Presidential primaries today in pole position. Kerry will win every state but South Carolina and will, in the week to come, sharpen his arguments against John Edward's candidacy. Edwards will carry South Carolina and will spin the victory as proof of his campaign's momentum. It will be interesting to see whether Edwards takes a more combative approach to campaigning against Kerry in what, tomorrow, will be a two horse race.
In the meantime, Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman and Wesley Clark will battle for the ignominious third place. By weeks end, Lieberman, Clark and Kucinech will withdraw. Lieberman's message will be sorely missed and the Democrat party would do well to ponder it as the primaries progress. Dean will straggle into the next round, leveraging his fading campaign network to validate a claim on the keynote address at the Democrat Convention.
Al Sharpton has no intention of winning, and no acumen for the job. His is a campaign of self-promotion and race baiting. The former, because every day in the national spotlight increases his power over black America, and the latter because he has nothing else to say.
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.
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.