Clarkes should be apoligizing for his book
Richard Miniter:
...
"...One momentous Bush-era episode on which Mr. Clarke can shed some light is his decision to approve the flights of the bin Laden clan out of the U.S. in the days after 9/11, when all other flights were grounded. About this he doesn't say a word. The whole premise of 'Against All Enemies' is its value as an insider account. But Mr. Clarke was not a Bush insider. When he lost his right to brief the Cabinet, he also lost his ringside seat on presidential decision-making.
"Mr. Clarke's ire is largely directed at the Iraq war, but its preparation was left to others on the National Security Council. He left the White House almost a month before the war began. As for its justification, he acts as if there is none. He dismisses, as 'raw,' reports that show meetings between al Qaeda and the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, going back to 1993. The documented meeting between the head of the Mukhabarat and bin Laden in Khartoum, Sudan, in 1996--a meeting that challenged all the CIA's assumptions about 'secular' Iraq's distance from Islamist terrorism--should have set off alarm bells. It didn't.
"There is other evidence of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda that Mr. Clarke should have felt obliged to address. Just days before Mr. Clarke resigned, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations that bin Laden had met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization. In 1998, an aide to Saddam's son Uday defected and repeatedly told reporters that Iraq funded al Qaeda. South of Baghdad, satellite photos pinpointed a Boeing 707 parked at a camp where terrorists learned to take over planes. When U.S. forces captured the camp, its commander confirmed that al Qaeda had trained there as early as 1997. Mr. Clarke does not take up any of this.
"Curiously, about the Clinton years, where Mr. Clarke's testimony would be authoritative, he is circumspect. When I interviewed him a year ago, he thundered at the political appointees who blocked his plan to destroy bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan in the wake of the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole. Yet in his book he glosses over them. He has little of his former vitriol for Clinton-era bureaucrats who tried to stop the deployment of the Predator spy plane over Afghanistan. (It spotted bin Laden three times.)
"He fails to mention that President Clinton's three 'findings' on bin Laden, which would have allowed the U.S. to take action against him, were haggled over and lawyered to death. And he plays down the fact that the Treasury Department, worried about the effects on financial markets, obstructed efforts to cut off al Qaeda funding. He never notes that between 1993 and 1998 the FBI, under Mr. Clinton, paid an informant who turned out to be a double agent working on behalf of al Qaeda. In 1998, the Clinton administration alerted Pakistan to our imminent missile strikes in Afghanistan, despite the links between Pakistan's intelligence service and al Qaeda. Mr. Clarke excuses this decision--bin Laden managed to flee just before the strikes--as a diplomatic necessity.
...
"Or, better, 'Against All Evidence.' Mr. Clarke misstates a range of checkable facts. The 1993 U.S. death toll in Somalia was 18, not 17. He writes that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed became al Qaeda's 'chief operational leader' in 1995; in fact, he took over in November 2001. He writes (correctly) that Abdul Yasim, one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, fled to Iraq but adds the whopper that 'he was incarcerated by Saddam Hussein's regime.' An ABC News crew found Mr. Yasim working a government job in Iraq in 1997, and documents captured in 2003 revealed that the bomber had been on Saddam's payroll for years.
"Mr. Clarke gets the timing wrong of the plot to assassinate bin Laden in Sudan; it was 1994, not 1995, and was the work of Saudi intelligence, not Egypt. He dismisses Laurie Mylorie's argument that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Center blast as if there is nothing to it. Doesn't it matter that the bombers made hundreds of phone calls to Iraq in the weeks leading up to the event? That Ramzi Yousef, the lead bomber, entered the U.S. as a supposed refugee from Iraq? That he was known as 'Rasheed the Iraqi'?"
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Fighting hate
Belmont Club:
"One response to the Mogadishu-like mutilation of civilian contractors ambushed in Fallujah, in the heart of Iraq's Sunni triangle would be to pull American troops out entirely, an event eagerly awaited by some in the Shi'ite majority, the same ones who have been asking the US for permission to constitute and arm their militias. Just a month ago, 182 Shi'ite worshippers were massacred outside mosques in Karbalah and Baghdad on the holy day of the Ashura. Not a stone would be left on stone in the heartland of Iraq's former ruling elite, filled with men of whose sense of entitlement is only exceeded by the ignorance, were they not guarded by the US forces. (The Kurds might also like a shot at the thugs of Falluja--Prairiepundit.)
...
"But since it is Al Qaeda's policy to precipitate civil war in Iraq and America's goal to hold it together, the Sunnis in Fallujah will be safe from massive reprisal for the present, though the perpetrators of this recent outrage are living out their last hours. Yet even if the challenge can be met without destroying Fallujah it is uncertain whether it can be accomplished without destroying Fallujah's culture. In a wider sense the ritual dragging and meathook hangings, the passing out of sweets and cold drinks to celebrate the death of the infidel are things not confined to Sunni triangle. The West Bank festivities after September 11, the famous scene of Palestinian youths holding out their bloodstained hands in almost sexual ecstasy as they tear a Jew limb from limb, or troops pursuing Islamic rebels on a Philippine island seemingly littered with detached heads poses an existential problem for Western democracy. They are the 21st century equivalents of finding the crematoriums of Auschwitz and Dachau or being forced to watch, with unaverted eyes, the wholesale extermination of a Chinese city under the banner of the Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. They leave us wondering whether there are ideas on earth which cannot claim the protection of tolerance and democratic space."
Belmont Club:
"One response to the Mogadishu-like mutilation of civilian contractors ambushed in Fallujah, in the heart of Iraq's Sunni triangle would be to pull American troops out entirely, an event eagerly awaited by some in the Shi'ite majority, the same ones who have been asking the US for permission to constitute and arm their militias. Just a month ago, 182 Shi'ite worshippers were massacred outside mosques in Karbalah and Baghdad on the holy day of the Ashura. Not a stone would be left on stone in the heartland of Iraq's former ruling elite, filled with men of whose sense of entitlement is only exceeded by the ignorance, were they not guarded by the US forces. (The Kurds might also like a shot at the thugs of Falluja--Prairiepundit.)
...
"But since it is Al Qaeda's policy to precipitate civil war in Iraq and America's goal to hold it together, the Sunnis in Fallujah will be safe from massive reprisal for the present, though the perpetrators of this recent outrage are living out their last hours. Yet even if the challenge can be met without destroying Fallujah it is uncertain whether it can be accomplished without destroying Fallujah's culture. In a wider sense the ritual dragging and meathook hangings, the passing out of sweets and cold drinks to celebrate the death of the infidel are things not confined to Sunni triangle. The West Bank festivities after September 11, the famous scene of Palestinian youths holding out their bloodstained hands in almost sexual ecstasy as they tear a Jew limb from limb, or troops pursuing Islamic rebels on a Philippine island seemingly littered with detached heads poses an existential problem for Western democracy. They are the 21st century equivalents of finding the crematoriums of Auschwitz and Dachau or being forced to watch, with unaverted eyes, the wholesale extermination of a Chinese city under the banner of the Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. They leave us wondering whether there are ideas on earth which cannot claim the protection of tolerance and democratic space."
Iraqis in Falluja mutilate bodies of Americans civilian contractors
BBC:
"The US has condemned the killing and dismembering of four American civilian contractors in Iraq.
"The White House said it deplored the 'horrific attacks' but vowed the US would not be deflected from its mission to bring democracy to Iraq."
The US has already learned the price of shrinking in the face of muslim inhumanity. There will be no more retreats like the one in Mogudishu which is still costing American lives like the four killed today. The outrageous conduct is symptomatic of impotent rage. The bad guys are losing and having a hard time coming to grips with it. While it is tempting to treat Falluja the way the Romans dealt with Carthage, The city will probably be given the chance to turn over the bad guys first. The Marines may have to increase their force to space ratio in the city to the point where the insurgents will have no freedom to operate.
BBC:
"The US has condemned the killing and dismembering of four American civilian contractors in Iraq.
"The White House said it deplored the 'horrific attacks' but vowed the US would not be deflected from its mission to bring democracy to Iraq."
The US has already learned the price of shrinking in the face of muslim inhumanity. There will be no more retreats like the one in Mogudishu which is still costing American lives like the four killed today. The outrageous conduct is symptomatic of impotent rage. The bad guys are losing and having a hard time coming to grips with it. While it is tempting to treat Falluja the way the Romans dealt with Carthage, The city will probably be given the chance to turn over the bad guys first. The Marines may have to increase their force to space ratio in the city to the point where the insurgents will have no freedom to operate.
2 Saudi companies linked to al Qaeda also linked to Saudi intelligence
Chicago Tribune:
"Two private Saudi companies linked with suspected Al Qaeda cells here and in Indonesia also have connections to the Saudi Arabian intelligence agency and its longtime chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal, according to information assembled by German intelligence analysts.
"The Twaik Group and Rawasin Media Productions, both based in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, have served as fronts for the Saudi General Intelligence Directorate, according to an inquiry by Germany's foreign intelligence service, the BND.
...
"In the late 1990s both Twaik and Rawasin employed Reda Seyam, a 44-year-old Egyptian suspected by Indonesian authorities of having helped finance the Bali nightclub bombing. Germany's federal prosecutor is investigating Seyam on suspicion of supporting a foreign terrorist organization, namely Al Qaeda.
"The German inquiry also discovered that, during 1999 and 2000, Seyam took several flights from Saudi Arabia to destinations in Europe on aircraft operated by the Saudi General Intelligence Directorate, or GID.
"The Tribune reported last year that between 1995 and 1998, Twaik deposited more than $250,000 in bank accounts controlled by Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian-born Hamburg businessman and longtime Al Qaeda associate with close ties to the Sept. 11 hijackers during their years in the northern port city of Hamburg.
...
"No direct connection between Saudi money and the Sept. 11 plotters in Hamburg has been found, though investigators here and in the U.S. continue to search for one. A senior FBI official acknowledged recently that the agency still did not know the 'ultimate source' of the estimated $500,000 that financed the Sept. 11 hijackings.
...
"Muchyar Yara, the spokesman for the Indonesian State Intelligence Bureau, or BIN, at the time of Seyam's arrest, said investigators uncovered evidence indicating that Seyam was financing several suspected terrorists in Southeast Asia.
"Yara said that when agents searched Seyam's rented $4,000-a-month house, they recovered documents that included the names of suspected terrorists on Seyam's payroll.
"One of those names was Omar al-Farouq, believed by the U.S. to be a senior Al Qaeda representative in Southeast Asia. It was al-Farouq's capture in Indonesia in June 2002, Yara said, that led BIN to Seyam.
"Seyam's 'salary list,' Yara said, also included the name of Imam Samudra, a Balinese Islamic cleric sentenced to death last year after his conviction for masterminding the Bali attacks."
These are only brief excerpts from a lengthy interesting article. The Tribune has a good story that is important to anyone interested in who was behind the 9-11 attacks.
Chicago Tribune:
"Two private Saudi companies linked with suspected Al Qaeda cells here and in Indonesia also have connections to the Saudi Arabian intelligence agency and its longtime chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal, according to information assembled by German intelligence analysts.
"The Twaik Group and Rawasin Media Productions, both based in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, have served as fronts for the Saudi General Intelligence Directorate, according to an inquiry by Germany's foreign intelligence service, the BND.
...
"In the late 1990s both Twaik and Rawasin employed Reda Seyam, a 44-year-old Egyptian suspected by Indonesian authorities of having helped finance the Bali nightclub bombing. Germany's federal prosecutor is investigating Seyam on suspicion of supporting a foreign terrorist organization, namely Al Qaeda.
"The German inquiry also discovered that, during 1999 and 2000, Seyam took several flights from Saudi Arabia to destinations in Europe on aircraft operated by the Saudi General Intelligence Directorate, or GID.
"The Tribune reported last year that between 1995 and 1998, Twaik deposited more than $250,000 in bank accounts controlled by Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian-born Hamburg businessman and longtime Al Qaeda associate with close ties to the Sept. 11 hijackers during their years in the northern port city of Hamburg.
...
"No direct connection between Saudi money and the Sept. 11 plotters in Hamburg has been found, though investigators here and in the U.S. continue to search for one. A senior FBI official acknowledged recently that the agency still did not know the 'ultimate source' of the estimated $500,000 that financed the Sept. 11 hijackings.
...
"Muchyar Yara, the spokesman for the Indonesian State Intelligence Bureau, or BIN, at the time of Seyam's arrest, said investigators uncovered evidence indicating that Seyam was financing several suspected terrorists in Southeast Asia.
"Yara said that when agents searched Seyam's rented $4,000-a-month house, they recovered documents that included the names of suspected terrorists on Seyam's payroll.
"One of those names was Omar al-Farouq, believed by the U.S. to be a senior Al Qaeda representative in Southeast Asia. It was al-Farouq's capture in Indonesia in June 2002, Yara said, that led BIN to Seyam.
"Seyam's 'salary list,' Yara said, also included the name of Imam Samudra, a Balinese Islamic cleric sentenced to death last year after his conviction for masterminding the Bali attacks."
These are only brief excerpts from a lengthy interesting article. The Tribune has a good story that is important to anyone interested in who was behind the 9-11 attacks.
Euros stick head in sand on ethnic hatred of Jews
Telegraph:
...
"A study released by the EU's racism and xenophobia monitoring centre astounded experts by concluding that the wave of anti-Jewish persecution over the last two years stemmed from neo-Nazi or other racist groups.
" 'The largest group of the perpetrators of anti-Semitic activities appears to be young, disaffected white Europeans,' said a summary released to the European Parliament . 'A further source of anti-Semitism in some countries was young Muslims of North African or Asian extraction.
" 'Traditionally, anti-Semitic groups on the extreme Right played a part in stirring opinion,' it added.
"The headline findings contradict the body of the report. This says most of the 193 violent attacks on synagogues, Jewish schools, kosher shops, cemeteries and rabbis in France in 2002 - up from 32 in 2001 - were 'ascribed to youth from neighbourhoods sensitive to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, principally of North African descent.
" 'The percentage attributable to the extreme Right was only nine per cent in 2002,' it said.
...
"The EU suppressed a report last year by German academics concluding that Arab gangs were largely responsible for a sudden surge in the anti-Jewish violence, allegedly because the findings were politically unpalatable.
"Victor Weitzel, who wrote a large section of yesterday's far more detailed study, told The Telegraph that the latest findings had been consistently massaged by the EU watchdog to play down the role of North African youth. 'The European Union seems incapable of facing up to the truth on this,' he said. 'Everything is being tilted to ensure nice soft conclusions.
" 'When I told them that we need to monitor the inflammatory language being used by the Arab press in Europe, this was changed to the "minority press." ' "
Telegraph:
...
"A study released by the EU's racism and xenophobia monitoring centre astounded experts by concluding that the wave of anti-Jewish persecution over the last two years stemmed from neo-Nazi or other racist groups.
" 'The largest group of the perpetrators of anti-Semitic activities appears to be young, disaffected white Europeans,' said a summary released to the European Parliament . 'A further source of anti-Semitism in some countries was young Muslims of North African or Asian extraction.
" 'Traditionally, anti-Semitic groups on the extreme Right played a part in stirring opinion,' it added.
"The headline findings contradict the body of the report. This says most of the 193 violent attacks on synagogues, Jewish schools, kosher shops, cemeteries and rabbis in France in 2002 - up from 32 in 2001 - were 'ascribed to youth from neighbourhoods sensitive to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, principally of North African descent.
" 'The percentage attributable to the extreme Right was only nine per cent in 2002,' it said.
...
"The EU suppressed a report last year by German academics concluding that Arab gangs were largely responsible for a sudden surge in the anti-Jewish violence, allegedly because the findings were politically unpalatable.
"Victor Weitzel, who wrote a large section of yesterday's far more detailed study, told The Telegraph that the latest findings had been consistently massaged by the EU watchdog to play down the role of North African youth. 'The European Union seems incapable of facing up to the truth on this,' he said. 'Everything is being tilted to ensure nice soft conclusions.
" 'When I told them that we need to monitor the inflammatory language being used by the Arab press in Europe, this was changed to the "minority press." ' "
Freudian correction
Via Samizdata:
"A story headlined 'Syria seeks our help to woo US' in Saturday's Weekend Australian misquoted National Party senator Sandy Macdonald. The quote stated: "Syria is a country that has been a bastard state for nearly 40 years" but should have read "Syria is a country that has been a Baathist state for nearly 40 years." The Australian regrets any embarrassment caused by the error."
Via Samizdata:
"A story headlined 'Syria seeks our help to woo US' in Saturday's Weekend Australian misquoted National Party senator Sandy Macdonald. The quote stated: "Syria is a country that has been a bastard state for nearly 40 years" but should have read "Syria is a country that has been a Baathist state for nearly 40 years." The Australian regrets any embarrassment caused by the error."
Champs of campaign finance refore--evasion
Perry on Politics:
"The Boston Globe is reporting possible FEC violations at the Kerry camp. Since his campaign is very low on cash, he is having to rely on his friends to run ads for him, namely Bush-haters George Soros and MoveOn.org. According to the Globe:
'The Bush campaign and the Republican National Committee said they would file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission accusing Kerry and pro-Kerry groups of violating a campaign law that broadly bans the use of ''soft money'' corporate, union and unlimited individual donations to influence federal elections.
'In a highly unusual move, the Bush campaign and RNC plan to ask the FEC to dismiss the complaint immediately so they can file a federal lawsuit to block the activities and force the groups to pay for presidential ads and get-out-the-vote drives with limited donations from individuals rather than soft money. Usually complainants pursue FEC action before going to court, but it can take months or even years for the commission to resolve complaints.
'The GOP cited at least three factors it says prove coordination: links between people involved in some of the soft money groups and the Kerry campaign during the same election cycle; the timing of media buys in the same states and media markets; and TV stations receiving a Media Fund ad on Kerry's economic plan before Kerry publicly released the economic plan.' "
Perry on Politics:
"The Boston Globe is reporting possible FEC violations at the Kerry camp. Since his campaign is very low on cash, he is having to rely on his friends to run ads for him, namely Bush-haters George Soros and MoveOn.org. According to the Globe:
'The Bush campaign and the Republican National Committee said they would file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission accusing Kerry and pro-Kerry groups of violating a campaign law that broadly bans the use of ''soft money'' corporate, union and unlimited individual donations to influence federal elections.
'In a highly unusual move, the Bush campaign and RNC plan to ask the FEC to dismiss the complaint immediately so they can file a federal lawsuit to block the activities and force the groups to pay for presidential ads and get-out-the-vote drives with limited donations from individuals rather than soft money. Usually complainants pursue FEC action before going to court, but it can take months or even years for the commission to resolve complaints.
'The GOP cited at least three factors it says prove coordination: links between people involved in some of the soft money groups and the Kerry campaign during the same election cycle; the timing of media buys in the same states and media markets; and TV stations receiving a Media Fund ad on Kerry's economic plan before Kerry publicly released the economic plan.' "
Phillipines support for war on terror
Belmont Club:
"Dean Jorge Bocobo at Philippine Commentary has put together an impressive chronology of what it is like to be an American at the tender mercies of the Abu Sayaf, an Islamist group affiliated with the Al Qaeda. It also illustrates why the Belmont Club believes that 'punishment' attacks by Al Qaeda are wasted on countries like the Philippines. Whatever happens to Americans goes double for the locals, and any attempts by Robert Fisk, the BBC or any other agency to convince the islanders of the benignity of the Jihadis will be met, not with outrage, but by rolling-on-the-ground, knee-slapping, uncontrollable laughter. Current polls show that 90% of the Filipinos support the US War on Terror...."
Belmont Club:
"Dean Jorge Bocobo at Philippine Commentary has put together an impressive chronology of what it is like to be an American at the tender mercies of the Abu Sayaf, an Islamist group affiliated with the Al Qaeda. It also illustrates why the Belmont Club believes that 'punishment' attacks by Al Qaeda are wasted on countries like the Philippines. Whatever happens to Americans goes double for the locals, and any attempts by Robert Fisk, the BBC or any other agency to convince the islanders of the benignity of the Jihadis will be met, not with outrage, but by rolling-on-the-ground, knee-slapping, uncontrollable laughter. Current polls show that 90% of the Filipinos support the US War on Terror...."
I suddenly remembered what I knew all along
Gregg Easterbrook:
"...Richard Clarke's headline-making volume of self-praise might as well be titled, I've Suddenly Remembered I Knew It All Along. As yours truly noted yesterday (just scroll down), Clarke now claims he knew after September 11 it would be a colossal mistake to pursue Al Qaeda and attack Iraq simultaneously. I asked, Why didn't he say so at the time? Clarke left government about a month before the assault on Iraq began. This means he had plenty of time to speak out, as a private citizen, against the Iraq attack--and at that moment, an antiwar statement by the president's own counterterrorism advisor would have had tremendous impact worldwide. Instead in the month before the Iraq war began, Clarke did not oppose it. Suddenly in 2004 he has remembered his intense antiwar views--now that the political climate has shifted and suddenly remembering your intense antiwar views is a good way to sell a book.
"But maybe in the month before the Iraq war, Clarke had decided to hold his tongue and say nothing about his former job? Um, not exactly. As New Republic super-intern Anne O'Donnell points out, on resigning from the National Security Council in February 2003, one month prior to the attack on Iraq, Clarke quickly signed as an on-air consultant to ABC News. During the month before the war, Clarke made several appearances on national television. He spoke in great detail regarding Iraq, Saddam, terrorism intelligence, military tactics, even discussing by name individual Republican Guard divisions and U.S. plans for those divisions. So Clarke certainly wasn't holding his tongue, he was yakking nonstop. And yet by the most amazing and astonishing coincidence, Clarke apparently didn't mention any of the strongly-held antiwar views he has now suddenly remembered!"
Defeating asymetrical warfare
Clarke's postion that the US is too weak to fight al Qaeda and Iraq at the same time shows a lack of historical knowledge on a grand scale. The US is significantly stronger economically and militarily now than it was in 1941 when it was coming out of a depression. In World War II our major ally was the Brits. France was already defeated. We took and defeated two first rate powers Germany and Japan, both infinitely more powerful than al Qaeda or Iraq. To suggest that the US is not strong enough to to take on two second or third rate powers implies that the Clinton cuts in the military were more significant than even conservatives believe.
He also loses site of the opportunity to impose a strategic defeat on the terrorist by defeating the weak insurgency in Iraq. Terrorist use asymetrical warfare because they are too weak to use a more effective strategy. The insurgency in Iraq is especcially weak though occassionally deadly. It has shown no capacity to make militarily significant attacks. To be militarily significan, an attack must be able to effect the ability of the coalition to operate militarily. At this point the insurgents are mostly avoiding military targets and focusing on civilians and infrastructure. This undermines one of the other essential ingrediants of a successful insurgency, because it makes it less likely that the population will join them in a general uprising.
Gregg Easterbrook:
"...Richard Clarke's headline-making volume of self-praise might as well be titled, I've Suddenly Remembered I Knew It All Along. As yours truly noted yesterday (just scroll down), Clarke now claims he knew after September 11 it would be a colossal mistake to pursue Al Qaeda and attack Iraq simultaneously. I asked, Why didn't he say so at the time? Clarke left government about a month before the assault on Iraq began. This means he had plenty of time to speak out, as a private citizen, against the Iraq attack--and at that moment, an antiwar statement by the president's own counterterrorism advisor would have had tremendous impact worldwide. Instead in the month before the Iraq war began, Clarke did not oppose it. Suddenly in 2004 he has remembered his intense antiwar views--now that the political climate has shifted and suddenly remembering your intense antiwar views is a good way to sell a book.
"But maybe in the month before the Iraq war, Clarke had decided to hold his tongue and say nothing about his former job? Um, not exactly. As New Republic super-intern Anne O'Donnell points out, on resigning from the National Security Council in February 2003, one month prior to the attack on Iraq, Clarke quickly signed as an on-air consultant to ABC News. During the month before the war, Clarke made several appearances on national television. He spoke in great detail regarding Iraq, Saddam, terrorism intelligence, military tactics, even discussing by name individual Republican Guard divisions and U.S. plans for those divisions. So Clarke certainly wasn't holding his tongue, he was yakking nonstop. And yet by the most amazing and astonishing coincidence, Clarke apparently didn't mention any of the strongly-held antiwar views he has now suddenly remembered!"
Defeating asymetrical warfare
Clarke's postion that the US is too weak to fight al Qaeda and Iraq at the same time shows a lack of historical knowledge on a grand scale. The US is significantly stronger economically and militarily now than it was in 1941 when it was coming out of a depression. In World War II our major ally was the Brits. France was already defeated. We took and defeated two first rate powers Germany and Japan, both infinitely more powerful than al Qaeda or Iraq. To suggest that the US is not strong enough to to take on two second or third rate powers implies that the Clinton cuts in the military were more significant than even conservatives believe.
He also loses site of the opportunity to impose a strategic defeat on the terrorist by defeating the weak insurgency in Iraq. Terrorist use asymetrical warfare because they are too weak to use a more effective strategy. The insurgency in Iraq is especcially weak though occassionally deadly. It has shown no capacity to make militarily significant attacks. To be militarily significan, an attack must be able to effect the ability of the coalition to operate militarily. At this point the insurgents are mostly avoiding military targets and focusing on civilians and infrastructure. This undermines one of the other essential ingrediants of a successful insurgency, because it makes it less likely that the population will join them in a general uprising.
Minimum gas price laws--really
Walter Williams:
"A couple of weeks ago, heading down to George Mason University, I pulled into my favorite Wawa gasoline station just off the Bel Air, Md., exit on I-95 South. At each of the 20 gasoline pumps, there was a sign posted that Wawa would no longer dispense free coffee to its gasoline customers. Why? The station was warned that dispensing free coffee put it in violation of Maryland’s gasoline minimum-price law.
"Here’s my no-brainer question to you: Do you suppose that Maryland enacted its gasoline minimum-price law because irate customers complained to the state legislature that gasoline prices were too low? Even if you had just 1 ounce of brains, you’d correctly answer no. Then, the next question is just whose interest is served by, and just who lobbied for, Maryland’s gasoline minimum-price law? If you answered that it was probably Maryland’s independent gas-station owners, go to the head of the class."
Read the whole thing.
Walter Williams:
"A couple of weeks ago, heading down to George Mason University, I pulled into my favorite Wawa gasoline station just off the Bel Air, Md., exit on I-95 South. At each of the 20 gasoline pumps, there was a sign posted that Wawa would no longer dispense free coffee to its gasoline customers. Why? The station was warned that dispensing free coffee put it in violation of Maryland’s gasoline minimum-price law.
"Here’s my no-brainer question to you: Do you suppose that Maryland enacted its gasoline minimum-price law because irate customers complained to the state legislature that gasoline prices were too low? Even if you had just 1 ounce of brains, you’d correctly answer no. Then, the next question is just whose interest is served by, and just who lobbied for, Maryland’s gasoline minimum-price law? If you answered that it was probably Maryland’s independent gas-station owners, go to the head of the class."
Read the whole thing.
Bush attack fatigue
John Podhoretz:
" THIS week's national polls tell a fascinating and unexpected story. The president's approval ratings should have tanked owing to the conversion of the political news into the 'Richard Clarke Show.'
"Instead, according to the Pew poll, 'A week's worth of criticism of his pre-9/11 record on terrorism has had little impact on President Bush's support among voters.'
"Gallup's results say pretty much the same thing. And they also indicate that Bush has significantly improved his standing in relation to John Kerry. Indeed, the big story in the Gallup poll is that Bush's political advertising has helped cause Kerry's positive numbers to drop precipitously over the past few weeks.
"How can this be? It seemed inevitable that last week's 9/11 hearings and the media's relentless efforts to publicize Clarke's patently dishonest charges against the administration were going to hurt Bush badly. Something interesting is going on here - or rather, two interesting things are going on.
"The first might be called 'Bush Attack Fatigue.'
"The assaults against the president have been so constant for so many months - on every subject under the sun from his handling of the economy to the war in Iraq and now to the War on Terror - that a law of diminishing returns has set in. The people willing to believe the worst of George W. Bush have already gotten the message. The people who like him have tuned out the liberal criticism. And everybody else is just sick of the negativity.
...
" The second factor helping the president is the nature of the 9/11 hearings themselves. There's something about congressional inquiries that just get people's hackles up. The grandstanding of committee members, the discomfort of the witnesses and the way everybody drones on for hours make it all seem a bit unseemly."
John Podhoretz:
" THIS week's national polls tell a fascinating and unexpected story. The president's approval ratings should have tanked owing to the conversion of the political news into the 'Richard Clarke Show.'
"Instead, according to the Pew poll, 'A week's worth of criticism of his pre-9/11 record on terrorism has had little impact on President Bush's support among voters.'
"Gallup's results say pretty much the same thing. And they also indicate that Bush has significantly improved his standing in relation to John Kerry. Indeed, the big story in the Gallup poll is that Bush's political advertising has helped cause Kerry's positive numbers to drop precipitously over the past few weeks.
"How can this be? It seemed inevitable that last week's 9/11 hearings and the media's relentless efforts to publicize Clarke's patently dishonest charges against the administration were going to hurt Bush badly. Something interesting is going on here - or rather, two interesting things are going on.
"The first might be called 'Bush Attack Fatigue.'
"The assaults against the president have been so constant for so many months - on every subject under the sun from his handling of the economy to the war in Iraq and now to the War on Terror - that a law of diminishing returns has set in. The people willing to believe the worst of George W. Bush have already gotten the message. The people who like him have tuned out the liberal criticism. And everybody else is just sick of the negativity.
...
" The second factor helping the president is the nature of the 9/11 hearings themselves. There's something about congressional inquiries that just get people's hackles up. The grandstanding of committee members, the discomfort of the witnesses and the way everybody drones on for hours make it all seem a bit unseemly."
Clarke helped Bush?
Dick Morris:
...
" But what really happened was that the nation's focus was further diverted from the economy onto the issue of terrorism. Kerry is not about to close the huge gap Bush has opened up on this issue. No matter what negatives emerge on Bush's conduct in dealing with terrorism, it will still be the president's issue. So as damaging as the Clarke testimony was - and as hurtful as his book is - all it does is ratify terrorism and the response to 9/11 as major issues in the election.
...
" So what happened last week? Or last month? From March 4 through March 26, the Fox News poll reports that Kerry's negative rating has zoomed from 28 percent to 36 percent while his positives have dropped from 46 percent to 43 percent. Issues come and go. Bush's ratings will rise and fall as his conduct as president oscillates with events. But Kerry's negatives are forever. Without the power of the presidency to help him define himself, he lacks the tools to convert negatives into positives. He cannot act, as a president can, to change events and consequently recover lost ground. His negative ratings will never go down. They will only stay put or rise. When they get above 50 percent, Kerry will have no pulse.
"As always, the media focused obsessively on the Clarke testimony but ignored the air war raging above. Bush's attacks on Kerry's tax increases and his opposition to the Patriot Act and focus on the United Nations to the exclusion of unilateral U.S. action have damaged the Democrat.
"Kerry's rebuttals have been late and ineffective. To counter the charge that he plans to raise taxes by $900 billion, Kerry just says it ain't so and highlights his support for 'middle income' tax cuts. On Bush's charge that Kerry wanted to raise gas taxes by 50 cents per gallon, the Democrat makes no reply. And none of Bush's attacks on terrorism and homeland security get a word of rebuttal, just footage of Kerry on combat duty in Vietnam.
"Kerry says that he has learned the lessons of Mike Dukakis - to always answer negatives. But his lame performance so far indicates that he has much to learn. Bill Clinton's playbook was simple: Never go to sleep without answering every single negative that is out there. Answer, answer, answer, answer. But Kerry's inability to reply to the Bush attack is costing him dearly and may cost him the election."
Dick Morris:
...
" But what really happened was that the nation's focus was further diverted from the economy onto the issue of terrorism. Kerry is not about to close the huge gap Bush has opened up on this issue. No matter what negatives emerge on Bush's conduct in dealing with terrorism, it will still be the president's issue. So as damaging as the Clarke testimony was - and as hurtful as his book is - all it does is ratify terrorism and the response to 9/11 as major issues in the election.
...
" So what happened last week? Or last month? From March 4 through March 26, the Fox News poll reports that Kerry's negative rating has zoomed from 28 percent to 36 percent while his positives have dropped from 46 percent to 43 percent. Issues come and go. Bush's ratings will rise and fall as his conduct as president oscillates with events. But Kerry's negatives are forever. Without the power of the presidency to help him define himself, he lacks the tools to convert negatives into positives. He cannot act, as a president can, to change events and consequently recover lost ground. His negative ratings will never go down. They will only stay put or rise. When they get above 50 percent, Kerry will have no pulse.
"As always, the media focused obsessively on the Clarke testimony but ignored the air war raging above. Bush's attacks on Kerry's tax increases and his opposition to the Patriot Act and focus on the United Nations to the exclusion of unilateral U.S. action have damaged the Democrat.
"Kerry's rebuttals have been late and ineffective. To counter the charge that he plans to raise taxes by $900 billion, Kerry just says it ain't so and highlights his support for 'middle income' tax cuts. On Bush's charge that Kerry wanted to raise gas taxes by 50 cents per gallon, the Democrat makes no reply. And none of Bush's attacks on terrorism and homeland security get a word of rebuttal, just footage of Kerry on combat duty in Vietnam.
"Kerry says that he has learned the lessons of Mike Dukakis - to always answer negatives. But his lame performance so far indicates that he has much to learn. Bill Clinton's playbook was simple: Never go to sleep without answering every single negative that is out there. Answer, answer, answer, answer. But Kerry's inability to reply to the Bush attack is costing him dearly and may cost him the election."
German elites pick Kerry
Those crazy Germans who were ignorant enough to choose Gerhard Schroeder would also pick John Kerry over President Bush. No wonder they have double digit unemployment and a horrible economy.
Those crazy Germans who were ignorant enough to choose Gerhard Schroeder would also pick John Kerry over President Bush. No wonder they have double digit unemployment and a horrible economy.
Air America
The new liberal talk radio "network" has chose to use the name of a CIA business used for clandestined operations during the Vietnam War. The NY Times aricle on the operation suggest the network thinks it is humorous to imply that John Ashcroft uses the service of a dominatrix. Pretty insenitive humor about a man recovering from gallstone surgery.
The new liberal talk radio "network" has chose to use the name of a CIA business used for clandestined operations during the Vietnam War. The NY Times aricle on the operation suggest the network thinks it is humorous to imply that John Ashcroft uses the service of a dominatrix. Pretty insenitive humor about a man recovering from gallstone surgery.
The world's largest financial rip-off
William Safire:
"Never has there been a financial rip-off of the magnitude of the U.N. oil-for-food scandal.
"At least $5 billion in kickbacks went from corrupt contractors — mainly French and Russian — into the pockets of Saddam Hussein and his thugs. Some went to pay off his protectors in foreign governments and media, and we may soon see how much stuck to the fingers of U.N. bureaucrats as well.
"Responding to a harangue in this space on March 17, the spokesman for Kofi Annan confirmed that the secretary-general's soft-spoken son, Kojo, was on the payroll of Cotecna Inspections of Switzerland until December 1998. In that very month, the United Nations awarded Cotecna the contract to monitor and authenticate the goods shipped to Iraq.
"Prices were inflated to allow for 10 percent kickbacks, and the goods were often shoddy and unusable. As the lax Cotecna made a lot of corporate friends, Iraqi children suffered from rotted food and diluted medicines.
...
"...The money for the huge heist known as the Iraq-U.N. account passed exclusively through BNP Paribas. French companies led all the rest (what's French for "kickback"?), though Vladimir Putin's favorite Russian oligarchs insisted on sharing the wealth. That explains why Paris and Moscow were Saddam's main prewar defenders, and why their politicians and executives now want no inquiry they cannot control."
William Safire:
"Never has there been a financial rip-off of the magnitude of the U.N. oil-for-food scandal.
"At least $5 billion in kickbacks went from corrupt contractors — mainly French and Russian — into the pockets of Saddam Hussein and his thugs. Some went to pay off his protectors in foreign governments and media, and we may soon see how much stuck to the fingers of U.N. bureaucrats as well.
"Responding to a harangue in this space on March 17, the spokesman for Kofi Annan confirmed that the secretary-general's soft-spoken son, Kojo, was on the payroll of Cotecna Inspections of Switzerland until December 1998. In that very month, the United Nations awarded Cotecna the contract to monitor and authenticate the goods shipped to Iraq.
"Prices were inflated to allow for 10 percent kickbacks, and the goods were often shoddy and unusable. As the lax Cotecna made a lot of corporate friends, Iraqi children suffered from rotted food and diluted medicines.
...
"...The money for the huge heist known as the Iraq-U.N. account passed exclusively through BNP Paribas. French companies led all the rest (what's French for "kickback"?), though Vladimir Putin's favorite Russian oligarchs insisted on sharing the wealth. That explains why Paris and Moscow were Saddam's main prewar defenders, and why their politicians and executives now want no inquiry they cannot control."
Houston lawyer debated Kerry on Dick Cavitt show
Houston Chronical:
"As President Bush plunges into his race against Democrat John Kerry, he might want to get some debating tips from Houston attorney John E. O'Neill.
"In 1971, O'Neill squared off against Kerry on the Dick Cavett Show in a 90-minute, televised forum in which the two Vietnam War veterans sparred over the U.S. role in Southeast Asia.
"President Nixon and top aide Charles Colson had taken a keen interest in O'Neill as part of their effort to discredit Kerry and the anti-war movement, according to memos and tapes in the National Archives. A clean-cut Naval Academy graduate, O'Neill was viewed by Nixon's team as an effective messenger against Kerry, who was causing the administration headaches as the leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
"O'Neill, who clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist later in the 1970s, has largely steered clear of national politics since the Vietnam War era. He has focused on his law practice at the firm of Clements, O'Neill, Pierce, Wilson & Fulkerson.
"But now, O'Neill's past role as a Kerry adversary is in the public spotlight as the news media and others look to the Massachusetts senator's past to gain insight into how he might perform as president. And O'Neill, recovering from an operation in which he donated a kidney to his wife, is preparing for an onslaught of interviews with newspapers and TV networks eager for his impressions of Kerry.
"O'Neill, 58, is still angry at Kerry for claiming in testimony in 1971 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that U.S. soldiers committed war crimes by killing and maiming civilians in Vietnam."
Houston Chronical:
"As President Bush plunges into his race against Democrat John Kerry, he might want to get some debating tips from Houston attorney John E. O'Neill.
"In 1971, O'Neill squared off against Kerry on the Dick Cavett Show in a 90-minute, televised forum in which the two Vietnam War veterans sparred over the U.S. role in Southeast Asia.
"President Nixon and top aide Charles Colson had taken a keen interest in O'Neill as part of their effort to discredit Kerry and the anti-war movement, according to memos and tapes in the National Archives. A clean-cut Naval Academy graduate, O'Neill was viewed by Nixon's team as an effective messenger against Kerry, who was causing the administration headaches as the leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
"O'Neill, who clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist later in the 1970s, has largely steered clear of national politics since the Vietnam War era. He has focused on his law practice at the firm of Clements, O'Neill, Pierce, Wilson & Fulkerson.
"But now, O'Neill's past role as a Kerry adversary is in the public spotlight as the news media and others look to the Massachusetts senator's past to gain insight into how he might perform as president. And O'Neill, recovering from an operation in which he donated a kidney to his wife, is preparing for an onslaught of interviews with newspapers and TV networks eager for his impressions of Kerry.
"O'Neill, 58, is still angry at Kerry for claiming in testimony in 1971 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that U.S. soldiers committed war crimes by killing and maiming civilians in Vietnam."
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Bush ads effective
Dan Balz:
"Since the end of the Democratic primaries, attacks on John F. Kerry by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, backed by millions of dollars in negative ads, have wiped out the narrow lead Kerry enjoyed at the beginning of the month and damaged his public image.
"The senator from Massachusetts emerged from the primaries unscathed but still little known, a condition Bush's team set about to change with an aggressive plan to define the senator before he could define himself. A month later, more voters see Kerry as 'too liberal,' and a solid majority says he is someone who has changed his positions on issues for political reasons -- both charges leveled by the Bush campaign's daily attacks through ads and public statements.
...
"The Bush campaign has sought to change the political dynamics after two months of bad news and unified Democratic attacks. 'For six months, it was a one-way conversation, and then you had the final five or six weeks when Kerry was winning primaries that improved his image,' said Bush senior strategist Matthew Dowd. 'Right after March 3, a dialogue started about who is or who isn't John Kerry, and the president started advocating for himself. I think we're better positioned from that and Senator Kerry is worse positioned.'
"Bush's overall approval rating moved up to 53 percent in the CNN-USA Today-Gallup Poll, after dipping to 49 percent a month ago. Meanwhile, his favorable/unfavorable ratings, which strategists watch closely as leading indicators of voters' attitudes, held steady at about 57 percent favorable and 41 percent unfavorable. Kerry's favorable dipped from 60 percent to 53 percent over the past month, and his unfavorable rating rose from 26 percent to 36 percent."
Dan Balz:
"Since the end of the Democratic primaries, attacks on John F. Kerry by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, backed by millions of dollars in negative ads, have wiped out the narrow lead Kerry enjoyed at the beginning of the month and damaged his public image.
"The senator from Massachusetts emerged from the primaries unscathed but still little known, a condition Bush's team set about to change with an aggressive plan to define the senator before he could define himself. A month later, more voters see Kerry as 'too liberal,' and a solid majority says he is someone who has changed his positions on issues for political reasons -- both charges leveled by the Bush campaign's daily attacks through ads and public statements.
...
"The Bush campaign has sought to change the political dynamics after two months of bad news and unified Democratic attacks. 'For six months, it was a one-way conversation, and then you had the final five or six weeks when Kerry was winning primaries that improved his image,' said Bush senior strategist Matthew Dowd. 'Right after March 3, a dialogue started about who is or who isn't John Kerry, and the president started advocating for himself. I think we're better positioned from that and Senator Kerry is worse positioned.'
"Bush's overall approval rating moved up to 53 percent in the CNN-USA Today-Gallup Poll, after dipping to 49 percent a month ago. Meanwhile, his favorable/unfavorable ratings, which strategists watch closely as leading indicators of voters' attitudes, held steady at about 57 percent favorable and 41 percent unfavorable. Kerry's favorable dipped from 60 percent to 53 percent over the past month, and his unfavorable rating rose from 26 percent to 36 percent."
41 says media unfaair to 43
George H. W. Bush says he is upset with media.
"It is 'deeply offensive and contemptible' to hear 'elites and intellectuals on the campaign trail' dismiss progress in Iraq since last year's overthrow of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), the elder Bush said in a speech to the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association annual convention.
" 'There is something ignorant in the way they dismiss the overthrow of a brutal dictator and the sowing of the seeds of basic human freedom in that troubled part of the world,' he said.
"The former president appeared to fight back tears as he complained about media coverage of the younger Bush that he called 'something short of fair and balanced.' "
George H. W. Bush says he is upset with media.
"It is 'deeply offensive and contemptible' to hear 'elites and intellectuals on the campaign trail' dismiss progress in Iraq since last year's overthrow of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), the elder Bush said in a speech to the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association annual convention.
" 'There is something ignorant in the way they dismiss the overthrow of a brutal dictator and the sowing of the seeds of basic human freedom in that troubled part of the world,' he said.
"The former president appeared to fight back tears as he complained about media coverage of the younger Bush that he called 'something short of fair and balanced.' "
Kerry was wrong aboutthe communist threat
Peter Kirsanow:
"During his 1971 congressional testimony about the Vietnam War, a man who would one day seek the Democratic party's nomination in the 2004 presidential race was asked by a senator to assess the threat of Communism, not just to Indochina, but to world peace in general. The witness responded, 'I think it is bogus, totally artificial. There is no threat. The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands.'
"In the decade following the witness's testimony, the nonexistent threat resulted in the slaughter of 2,000,000 Cambodians; the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets; the internment of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese in reeducation camps; numerous civil wars and bloody insurgencies in Central Africa, South and Central America and Southeast Asia; the mass migration of hordes of starving refugees; the proliferation of state-sponsored terrorism; the 'disappearance' of hundreds of thousands of 'undesirables' and enemies of the state; the imprisonment and torture of countless dissidents; and the continued brutal subjugation of more than one-third of the world's population.
...
"And while Kerry dismisses the threats of Communism and terrorism as 'bogus' or 'exaggerated,' he sees fit to compare the threat of global warming to the threats of the Cold War. This kind of flippant analysis — from a presidential candidate, no less — would not be lightly tolerated in a society with a long memory."
Peter Kirsanow:
"During his 1971 congressional testimony about the Vietnam War, a man who would one day seek the Democratic party's nomination in the 2004 presidential race was asked by a senator to assess the threat of Communism, not just to Indochina, but to world peace in general. The witness responded, 'I think it is bogus, totally artificial. There is no threat. The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands.'
"In the decade following the witness's testimony, the nonexistent threat resulted in the slaughter of 2,000,000 Cambodians; the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets; the internment of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese in reeducation camps; numerous civil wars and bloody insurgencies in Central Africa, South and Central America and Southeast Asia; the mass migration of hordes of starving refugees; the proliferation of state-sponsored terrorism; the 'disappearance' of hundreds of thousands of 'undesirables' and enemies of the state; the imprisonment and torture of countless dissidents; and the continued brutal subjugation of more than one-third of the world's population.
...
"And while Kerry dismisses the threats of Communism and terrorism as 'bogus' or 'exaggerated,' he sees fit to compare the threat of global warming to the threats of the Cold War. This kind of flippant analysis — from a presidential candidate, no less — would not be lightly tolerated in a society with a long memory."
The Clark pitch
John O'Sullivan:
...
"Al-Qaida's attacks are treated as natural catastrophes such as an earthquake. They simply happen. If they succeed in destroying our homes, then the fault belongs to us for not installing anti-earthquake technology. Thus former anti-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke is widely praised for apologizing for the failure to prevent 9/11. Yet 9/11 was an act committed by radical Islamist terrorists who deliberately sought out the weak links in our defenses. Clarke had sought valiantly to prevent it -- that was the theme of his testimony -- but he admitted that his proposals would not have succeeded. So the net effect of his apology was to shift the blame from al-Qaida to others in government who might have been negligent in averting the terrorist threat. And the fickle finger of suspicion pointed to -- President Bush and everyone in his national security team except Clarke.
...
"If Osama is not the enemy, who is? Like Clarke, many in the media would like to pin the blame for 9/11 on the Bush administration. Democrats are tempted to go along with this theory. Yet this charge was never going to stick -- for a very simple reason. Bush had been in office only eight months when al-Qaida struck, whereas President Clinton had been in office for eight years during which the USS Cole and the World Trade Center were bombed. It strains credulity to suggest that Bush should have worked up a plan to destroy al-Qaida in less than a year when Clinton had failed to produce one in almost a decade.
"There was a ingenious but brief attempt to suggest that Clinton had handed Bush 'a plan' to do just that, which Bush had then cast aside negligently. If that had been so, it would have shown Clinton in a worse light than Bush -- postponing courageous action until the very moment when his successor arrived to risk the consequences. To be fair to Clinton, however, it was not true. There was no U.S. plan to attack al-Qaida in safe havens such as Afghanistan -- merely a set of lesser anti-terrorist policies that the Bush administration had then faithfully followed.
"This became clear as the week went on and the fine print in Clarke's testimony exonerated the Bush administration from advance culpability for Sept. 11. The attack then switched to Bush's post-9/11 supposed obsession with Iraq that diverted him from fighting al-Qaida. Clarke's little vignette -- in which Bush darkly suggested that he might try finding out if Iraq had a hand in 9/11 -- was held to be damning. How short memories are! The United States invaded Afghanistan, overturned the Taliban regime, killed or captured large numbers of terrorists, and sent bin Laden on his underground travels only two years ago. Iraq came later.
"How can we explain this eager suspicion of Bush against the evidence -- this drive to blame hidden enemies at home rather than declared ones abroad for the Pearl Harbors of our day? Since Pearl Harbor many Americans, especially the cultural elites and the left, have overcome patriotism. They like to think of themselves as citizens of the world above petty national prejudices. But in practice they are merely inverted patriots who tend to take the opposite side in any foreign quarrel.
"They cannot, of course, take bin Laden's side over 9/11. Their alienation does not bite quite so deep. So they react in two other ways. They side with France and Germany over how to handle the war on terror. And they seek reasons to blame America for attacks upon itself. Their ire is especially excited by a U.S. administration that strikes a patriotic note like the Bush administration. But they are a greater danger to the Democrats. For if the Democrats go along with the inverted patriots in their ranks, they will discover in November just how small is the number of voters they represent."
John O'Sullivan:
...
"Al-Qaida's attacks are treated as natural catastrophes such as an earthquake. They simply happen. If they succeed in destroying our homes, then the fault belongs to us for not installing anti-earthquake technology. Thus former anti-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke is widely praised for apologizing for the failure to prevent 9/11. Yet 9/11 was an act committed by radical Islamist terrorists who deliberately sought out the weak links in our defenses. Clarke had sought valiantly to prevent it -- that was the theme of his testimony -- but he admitted that his proposals would not have succeeded. So the net effect of his apology was to shift the blame from al-Qaida to others in government who might have been negligent in averting the terrorist threat. And the fickle finger of suspicion pointed to -- President Bush and everyone in his national security team except Clarke.
...
"If Osama is not the enemy, who is? Like Clarke, many in the media would like to pin the blame for 9/11 on the Bush administration. Democrats are tempted to go along with this theory. Yet this charge was never going to stick -- for a very simple reason. Bush had been in office only eight months when al-Qaida struck, whereas President Clinton had been in office for eight years during which the USS Cole and the World Trade Center were bombed. It strains credulity to suggest that Bush should have worked up a plan to destroy al-Qaida in less than a year when Clinton had failed to produce one in almost a decade.
"There was a ingenious but brief attempt to suggest that Clinton had handed Bush 'a plan' to do just that, which Bush had then cast aside negligently. If that had been so, it would have shown Clinton in a worse light than Bush -- postponing courageous action until the very moment when his successor arrived to risk the consequences. To be fair to Clinton, however, it was not true. There was no U.S. plan to attack al-Qaida in safe havens such as Afghanistan -- merely a set of lesser anti-terrorist policies that the Bush administration had then faithfully followed.
"This became clear as the week went on and the fine print in Clarke's testimony exonerated the Bush administration from advance culpability for Sept. 11. The attack then switched to Bush's post-9/11 supposed obsession with Iraq that diverted him from fighting al-Qaida. Clarke's little vignette -- in which Bush darkly suggested that he might try finding out if Iraq had a hand in 9/11 -- was held to be damning. How short memories are! The United States invaded Afghanistan, overturned the Taliban regime, killed or captured large numbers of terrorists, and sent bin Laden on his underground travels only two years ago. Iraq came later.
"How can we explain this eager suspicion of Bush against the evidence -- this drive to blame hidden enemies at home rather than declared ones abroad for the Pearl Harbors of our day? Since Pearl Harbor many Americans, especially the cultural elites and the left, have overcome patriotism. They like to think of themselves as citizens of the world above petty national prejudices. But in practice they are merely inverted patriots who tend to take the opposite side in any foreign quarrel.
"They cannot, of course, take bin Laden's side over 9/11. Their alienation does not bite quite so deep. So they react in two other ways. They side with France and Germany over how to handle the war on terror. And they seek reasons to blame America for attacks upon itself. Their ire is especially excited by a U.S. administration that strikes a patriotic note like the Bush administration. But they are a greater danger to the Democrats. For if the Democrats go along with the inverted patriots in their ranks, they will discover in November just how small is the number of voters they represent."
Clarke's al Qaeda-Iraq connection
Christopher Hitchens:
"Opposition to the Bush policy since Sept. 11, 2001, has taken one of four forms. There are those who continue to believe that there must have been some administration collusion in the planning and timing of the attacks. (I notice that yet another book alleging this has attracted endorsements from about half of The Nation's editorial board.) There are those who feel that America has antagonized the Muslim world enough already, and that the use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq only makes the enemy more angry. There are those who think that Iraq is 'a war too far' (to annex David Rieff's phrase) and a distraction from the hunt for al-Qaida as well as a dangerous exercise in pre-emption. And there are those who think that the Clinton administration would have done, indeed was doing, a superior job.
"...He has been exposed as wildly wrong in saying that Condoleezza Rice had never even heard of al-Qaida?an allegation that almost amounts to the dread charge of "character assassination"?and his operatic bow to the families of the victims is fine unless you think (as don't we all?) that one shouldn't appear to exploit Sept. 11 for partisan purposes....
"The Benjamin-Simon book contains a long account of the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and also a stern defense of Clinton's decision in August 1998 to hit the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan with cruise missiles. What is interesting is the strong Iraqi footprint that is to be found in both episodes. Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the makers of the bomb that exploded at the World Trade Center, was picked up by the FBI, questioned, and incredibly enough released pending further interrogation as a 'cooperative witness.' He went straight to Amman and thence to Baghdad, where he remained under Saddam Hussein's protection until last year. As Clarke told the Sept. 11 commission last week: "The Iraqi government didn't cooperate in turning him over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists." That's putting it mildly, when you recall that Abu Nidal's organization was a wing of the Baath Party, and that the late Abu Abbas of Klinghoffer fame was traveling on an Iraqi diplomatic passport. But, hold on a moment?doesn't every smart person know that there's no connection between Saddam Hussein and the world of terror?
"Ah, we meant to say no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Well, in that case, how do you explain the conviction, shared by Clarke and Benjamin and Simon, that Iraq was behind Bin Laden's deadly operation in Sudan? The Age of Sacred Terror justifies the Clinton strike on Khartoum on the grounds that 'Iraqi weapons-scientists' were linked to Bin Laden's factory and that the suggestive chemical EMPTA, detected at the site, was used only by Iraq to make VX nerve gas. At the time, Clarke defended the bombing in almost the same words, telling the press that he was 'sure' that 'intelligence existed linking bin Laden to Al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.' The U.N. arms inspector upon whom all three relied at the time, for corroborating evidence implicating Saddam, was a man who has since become famous: David Kay.
...
"To listen to Clarke now, you could almost imagine that the invasion of Afghanistan and eviction of the Taliban?the actual first response of the administration to Sept. 11?had not taken place. To listen to Clarke, also, you would suppose that any Iraqi connection to terrorism was sucked straight out of Rumsfeld's or Wolfowitz's thumb. One theory that does collapse completely is that of administration foreknowledge?the Bush people were evidently in no shape to take any quick advantage of the events and seemingly hadn't bothered to plant even one Iraqi among the mainly Saudi hijackers. But in my experience, dud theories die only to be replaced by new and even dumber ones. The current reigning favorite is that fighting al-Qaida in Iraq is a distraction from the fight against al-Qaida."
Christopher Hitchens:
"Opposition to the Bush policy since Sept. 11, 2001, has taken one of four forms. There are those who continue to believe that there must have been some administration collusion in the planning and timing of the attacks. (I notice that yet another book alleging this has attracted endorsements from about half of The Nation's editorial board.) There are those who feel that America has antagonized the Muslim world enough already, and that the use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq only makes the enemy more angry. There are those who think that Iraq is 'a war too far' (to annex David Rieff's phrase) and a distraction from the hunt for al-Qaida as well as a dangerous exercise in pre-emption. And there are those who think that the Clinton administration would have done, indeed was doing, a superior job.
"...He has been exposed as wildly wrong in saying that Condoleezza Rice had never even heard of al-Qaida?an allegation that almost amounts to the dread charge of "character assassination"?and his operatic bow to the families of the victims is fine unless you think (as don't we all?) that one shouldn't appear to exploit Sept. 11 for partisan purposes....
"The Benjamin-Simon book contains a long account of the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and also a stern defense of Clinton's decision in August 1998 to hit the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan with cruise missiles. What is interesting is the strong Iraqi footprint that is to be found in both episodes. Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the makers of the bomb that exploded at the World Trade Center, was picked up by the FBI, questioned, and incredibly enough released pending further interrogation as a 'cooperative witness.' He went straight to Amman and thence to Baghdad, where he remained under Saddam Hussein's protection until last year. As Clarke told the Sept. 11 commission last week: "The Iraqi government didn't cooperate in turning him over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists." That's putting it mildly, when you recall that Abu Nidal's organization was a wing of the Baath Party, and that the late Abu Abbas of Klinghoffer fame was traveling on an Iraqi diplomatic passport. But, hold on a moment?doesn't every smart person know that there's no connection between Saddam Hussein and the world of terror?
"Ah, we meant to say no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Well, in that case, how do you explain the conviction, shared by Clarke and Benjamin and Simon, that Iraq was behind Bin Laden's deadly operation in Sudan? The Age of Sacred Terror justifies the Clinton strike on Khartoum on the grounds that 'Iraqi weapons-scientists' were linked to Bin Laden's factory and that the suggestive chemical EMPTA, detected at the site, was used only by Iraq to make VX nerve gas. At the time, Clarke defended the bombing in almost the same words, telling the press that he was 'sure' that 'intelligence existed linking bin Laden to Al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.' The U.N. arms inspector upon whom all three relied at the time, for corroborating evidence implicating Saddam, was a man who has since become famous: David Kay.
...
"To listen to Clarke now, you could almost imagine that the invasion of Afghanistan and eviction of the Taliban?the actual first response of the administration to Sept. 11?had not taken place. To listen to Clarke, also, you would suppose that any Iraqi connection to terrorism was sucked straight out of Rumsfeld's or Wolfowitz's thumb. One theory that does collapse completely is that of administration foreknowledge?the Bush people were evidently in no shape to take any quick advantage of the events and seemingly hadn't bothered to plant even one Iraqi among the mainly Saudi hijackers. But in my experience, dud theories die only to be replaced by new and even dumber ones. The current reigning favorite is that fighting al-Qaida in Iraq is a distraction from the fight against al-Qaida."
Marines make their point
Strategy Page:
...
"The Marines have made their point in the Sunni Triangle ('don't mess with the Marines') and are now patrolling frequently and getting a friendly response from Sunni Arabs. The anti-government Sunnis, who thought the Marines might be an easier mark than the paratroopers they replaced, are now laying low and rethinking their tactics. Four days of fighting in Fallujah left dozens of anti-government Iraqis dead and many more wary of shooting it out with marines. The marines are out making contacts and collecting information so they can make raids on the anti-government forces. This worked for the paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne division, but the marines plan to try a tactic of working harder to establish contacts with less hostile Sunni Arab groups."
Strategy Page:
...
"The Marines have made their point in the Sunni Triangle ('don't mess with the Marines') and are now patrolling frequently and getting a friendly response from Sunni Arabs. The anti-government Sunnis, who thought the Marines might be an easier mark than the paratroopers they replaced, are now laying low and rethinking their tactics. Four days of fighting in Fallujah left dozens of anti-government Iraqis dead and many more wary of shooting it out with marines. The marines are out making contacts and collecting information so they can make raids on the anti-government forces. This worked for the paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne division, but the marines plan to try a tactic of working harder to establish contacts with less hostile Sunni Arab groups."
Pak attacks force communication
Strategy Page:
"The Pakistani army offensive along the Afghan border has greatly increased the amount of cell phone and radio use by al Qaeda and Taliban groups in the area. Normally, these electronic communications are used sparingly, because it is known that American and Pakistani electronic warfare units monitor all the conversations. But with Pakistani troops moving against al Qaeda and Taliban hideouts, the radios and satellite phones have to be used more often. It takes too long to send a messenger when the soldiers are coming down the valley to get you. Several interesting bits of information have come out of this. First, there was the amount of message traffic in foreign languages. Chechen, Arabic, Uzbek and other languages were heard. Then there were the reports of senior leaders being injured or killed. Today, there were reports of the Egyptian head of al Qaeda intelligence, Abdullah, was killed in the fighting. Abdullah took a major part in planning the 1998 bombings of American embassies in Africa. The radio and satellite phone traffic also provide location information, which means whoever is sending the messages is on the move. The terrorists have long since learned that using electronic communication may be fast, but it also tells the Americans what you are saying and where you are saying it from. The Pakistanis believe that by forcing the terrorists to move, the people from other parts of Pakistan, who assist the terrorists, may be revealed as some of the Taliban and al Qaeda flee the border region for safer areas. The Afghan side of the border is not safe, as it is patrolled by commandos, Special Forces and American infantry."
Strategy Page:
"The Pakistani army offensive along the Afghan border has greatly increased the amount of cell phone and radio use by al Qaeda and Taliban groups in the area. Normally, these electronic communications are used sparingly, because it is known that American and Pakistani electronic warfare units monitor all the conversations. But with Pakistani troops moving against al Qaeda and Taliban hideouts, the radios and satellite phones have to be used more often. It takes too long to send a messenger when the soldiers are coming down the valley to get you. Several interesting bits of information have come out of this. First, there was the amount of message traffic in foreign languages. Chechen, Arabic, Uzbek and other languages were heard. Then there were the reports of senior leaders being injured or killed. Today, there were reports of the Egyptian head of al Qaeda intelligence, Abdullah, was killed in the fighting. Abdullah took a major part in planning the 1998 bombings of American embassies in Africa. The radio and satellite phone traffic also provide location information, which means whoever is sending the messages is on the move. The terrorists have long since learned that using electronic communication may be fast, but it also tells the Americans what you are saying and where you are saying it from. The Pakistanis believe that by forcing the terrorists to move, the people from other parts of Pakistan, who assist the terrorists, may be revealed as some of the Taliban and al Qaeda flee the border region for safer areas. The Afghan side of the border is not safe, as it is patrolled by commandos, Special Forces and American infantry."
Al Qaeda's latest offensive
Belmont Club:
...
"The latest offensive shows the relative balance between offense and defense in the Global War on Terror. Like the kamikaze attacks of an earlier era, these Islamic bombers were probably tracked by intelligence until they could be engaged by the defenses, in much the same way the CAP and anti-aircraft shot down bogeys over Okinawa. In the case of Britain and the Philippines, the inbounds were splashed before they could deliver their ordnance. But in Uzbekistan the bogeys leaked through and killed 19 people.
"It also suggests that Al Qaeda has lost its organic capability to strike and must now rely on affiliates. The quality of the new affiliated Holy Warriors is markedly lower than the cadre led by Mohammed Atta. Here too, the analogy with the kamikazes may be apt. By 1945, the superlative aces of the Kido Butai had all been killed or crippled. Forced by logistical strangulation to cut back on training, the bogeys over Okinawa were largely piloted by novices who could only fly straight and level.
"The Islamist losses in both Britain and the Philippines are likely to be felt keenly by the Jihadis. The British appear to have rolled up a widely deployed network of sleepers; prized assets. The Philippines for its part took down a cell which contained core members of the Abu Sayaf, including the sadistic man who killed Guillermo Sobero, a simple tourist visiting the Islands, as he pleaded for his life. The plan to terrify America's allies into leaving Iraq appears to have failed for now despite the best efforts of the Jihadis. And for this paltry result they have paid in their dwindling seed corn. They must be now asking themselves how the British and Filipinos knew enough to foil their plans. Sleep well Osama."
As the war on terro becomes a war of attrition, the islamist attrition is beginning to show. Its impotence is exposed more and more. Killing civilians will not win a war unless you have the ability to do it on a much grander scale, and a much higher tempo. Oterwise it only shows the rightness of fighting the terrorist.
Belmont Club:
...
"The latest offensive shows the relative balance between offense and defense in the Global War on Terror. Like the kamikaze attacks of an earlier era, these Islamic bombers were probably tracked by intelligence until they could be engaged by the defenses, in much the same way the CAP and anti-aircraft shot down bogeys over Okinawa. In the case of Britain and the Philippines, the inbounds were splashed before they could deliver their ordnance. But in Uzbekistan the bogeys leaked through and killed 19 people.
"It also suggests that Al Qaeda has lost its organic capability to strike and must now rely on affiliates. The quality of the new affiliated Holy Warriors is markedly lower than the cadre led by Mohammed Atta. Here too, the analogy with the kamikazes may be apt. By 1945, the superlative aces of the Kido Butai had all been killed or crippled. Forced by logistical strangulation to cut back on training, the bogeys over Okinawa were largely piloted by novices who could only fly straight and level.
"The Islamist losses in both Britain and the Philippines are likely to be felt keenly by the Jihadis. The British appear to have rolled up a widely deployed network of sleepers; prized assets. The Philippines for its part took down a cell which contained core members of the Abu Sayaf, including the sadistic man who killed Guillermo Sobero, a simple tourist visiting the Islands, as he pleaded for his life. The plan to terrify America's allies into leaving Iraq appears to have failed for now despite the best efforts of the Jihadis. And for this paltry result they have paid in their dwindling seed corn. They must be now asking themselves how the British and Filipinos knew enough to foil their plans. Sleep well Osama."
As the war on terro becomes a war of attrition, the islamist attrition is beginning to show. Its impotence is exposed more and more. Killing civilians will not win a war unless you have the ability to do it on a much grander scale, and a much higher tempo. Oterwise it only shows the rightness of fighting the terrorist.
Brits bust bombers
Washington Post:
"Police arrested eight men Tuesday and seized a half ton of ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer compound that can be used to make bombs, in raids across London.
...
"The operation, with 700 officers raiding two dozen locations, resulted in the largest seizure of potential bomb-making material since the Irish Republican Army suspended its campaign in 1997."
Washington Post:
"Police arrested eight men Tuesday and seized a half ton of ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer compound that can be used to make bombs, in raids across London.
...
"The operation, with 700 officers raiding two dozen locations, resulted in the largest seizure of potential bomb-making material since the Irish Republican Army suspended its campaign in 1997."
Do we need more lae enforcement to defeat terrorism or Superman clarke?
Wesley Pruden:
...
"Only yesterday — no more than a fortnight ago — John Kerry and the Democratic acolytes in the dominant media were having a high old time making sport of the notion that terrorism is a grim threat to life as we have known it. Terrorists, if there really were any, could be dealt with as 'a law-enforcement problem.' Pretty soon the cops would relegate al Qaeda and the Ba'athists in Iraq, the train bombers in Madrid and Islamists everywhere else as merely fodder for another episode of 'Law & Order.' Carey Lowell, the dishiest of the succession of 'L&O' prosecutor babes, could have put Saddam Hussein in the jug all by herself. George W. was advised to please shut up about his terror-fighting credentials.
"But then along came Richard Clarke, who would have saved Western civ with very little muss and almost no fuss if only someone at the Bush White House had directed him to a telephone booth to change into his Superman duds. Overnight, with Mr. Clarke's smack on the president, the pundits and the correspondents discovered that those really were bad guys, and there were a lot of them and they were trying mightily to destroy us. That was George W. asleep at the wheel.
"A talent for recollection is not a characteristic of our present age, when the world is created anew with every fresh front page, so almost nobody remembers that on September 10 (in the way of a certain December 6), a president couldn't have led the nation into a war if evil men had sent an invitation engraved in American blood."
So if you are a Bush phobe you can take your choice of him being not tough enough or too tough. Most of the Bush phobes will fall into the too tough camp because they are pacifest at heart. But when you are phobic you are not going to reject any theory that attacks your bogeyman.
Wesley Pruden:
...
"Only yesterday — no more than a fortnight ago — John Kerry and the Democratic acolytes in the dominant media were having a high old time making sport of the notion that terrorism is a grim threat to life as we have known it. Terrorists, if there really were any, could be dealt with as 'a law-enforcement problem.' Pretty soon the cops would relegate al Qaeda and the Ba'athists in Iraq, the train bombers in Madrid and Islamists everywhere else as merely fodder for another episode of 'Law & Order.' Carey Lowell, the dishiest of the succession of 'L&O' prosecutor babes, could have put Saddam Hussein in the jug all by herself. George W. was advised to please shut up about his terror-fighting credentials.
"But then along came Richard Clarke, who would have saved Western civ with very little muss and almost no fuss if only someone at the Bush White House had directed him to a telephone booth to change into his Superman duds. Overnight, with Mr. Clarke's smack on the president, the pundits and the correspondents discovered that those really were bad guys, and there were a lot of them and they were trying mightily to destroy us. That was George W. asleep at the wheel.
"A talent for recollection is not a characteristic of our present age, when the world is created anew with every fresh front page, so almost nobody remembers that on September 10 (in the way of a certain December 6), a president couldn't have led the nation into a war if evil men had sent an invitation engraved in American blood."
So if you are a Bush phobe you can take your choice of him being not tough enough or too tough. Most of the Bush phobes will fall into the too tough camp because they are pacifest at heart. But when you are phobic you are not going to reject any theory that attacks your bogeyman.
Al Qaeda's other targets
Washington Times:
"Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al Qaeda's purported operations chief, has told U.S. interrogators that the group had been planning attacks on the Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago on the heels of the September 11, 2001, terror strikes.
"Those plans were aborted mainly because of the decisive U.S. response to the New York and Washington attacks, which disrupted the terrorist organization's plans so thoroughly that it could not proceed, according to transcripts of his conversations with interrogators.
"Mohammed told interrogators that he and Ramzi Yousuf, his nephew who was behind an earlier attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, had leafed through almanacs of American skyscrapers when planning the first operation.
" 'We were looking for symbols of economic might,' he told his captors.
"He specifically mentioned as potential targets the Library Tower in Los Angeles, which was 'blown up' in the film 'Independence Day,' and the Sears Tower in Chicago.
...
"According to the transcript, Mohammed has maintained that Zacarias Moussaoui, the French-Moroccan facing trial in the United States as the '20th hijacker,' had been sent to a flight school in Minnesota to train for a West Coast attack.
...
" 'Osama had said the second wave should focus on the West Coast,' he reportedly said.
"But the terrorists seem to have been surprised by the strength of the American reaction to the September 11 attacks.
" 'Afterwards, we never got time to catch our breath, we were immediately on the run,' Mohammed is quoted as saying.
"Al Qaeda's communications network was severely disrupted, he said. Operatives could no longer use satellite phones and had to rely on couriers, although they continued to use Internet chat rooms.
" 'Before September 11, we could dispatch operatives with the expectation of follow-up contact, but after October 7 [when U.S. bombing started in Afghanistan], that changed 180 degrees. There was no longer a war room ... and operatives had more autonomy.' "
Washington Times:
"Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al Qaeda's purported operations chief, has told U.S. interrogators that the group had been planning attacks on the Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago on the heels of the September 11, 2001, terror strikes.
"Those plans were aborted mainly because of the decisive U.S. response to the New York and Washington attacks, which disrupted the terrorist organization's plans so thoroughly that it could not proceed, according to transcripts of his conversations with interrogators.
"Mohammed told interrogators that he and Ramzi Yousuf, his nephew who was behind an earlier attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, had leafed through almanacs of American skyscrapers when planning the first operation.
" 'We were looking for symbols of economic might,' he told his captors.
"He specifically mentioned as potential targets the Library Tower in Los Angeles, which was 'blown up' in the film 'Independence Day,' and the Sears Tower in Chicago.
...
"According to the transcript, Mohammed has maintained that Zacarias Moussaoui, the French-Moroccan facing trial in the United States as the '20th hijacker,' had been sent to a flight school in Minnesota to train for a West Coast attack.
...
" 'Osama had said the second wave should focus on the West Coast,' he reportedly said.
"But the terrorists seem to have been surprised by the strength of the American reaction to the September 11 attacks.
" 'Afterwards, we never got time to catch our breath, we were immediately on the run,' Mohammed is quoted as saying.
"Al Qaeda's communications network was severely disrupted, he said. Operatives could no longer use satellite phones and had to rely on couriers, although they continued to use Internet chat rooms.
" 'Before September 11, we could dispatch operatives with the expectation of follow-up contact, but after October 7 [when U.S. bombing started in Afghanistan], that changed 180 degrees. There was no longer a war room ... and operatives had more autonomy.' "
Monday, March 29, 2004
Poll shows bush stronger against Kerry despite Dem-Clarke attack machine
CNN:
"Despite a week of negative headlines about how his administration handled the threat of terrorism before the attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush's political position against presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry has strengthened, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.
"The poll results suggest that the Bush campaign's attempts to paint Kerry as a tax-raising liberal who flip-flops on the issues has affected the race more than charges by former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke that Bush and his national security team didn't pay enough attention to al Qaeda in the months leading up to 9/11.
"Among likely voters surveyed, 51 percent said they would choose Bush for president, while 47 percent said they would vote for Kerry, within the margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
"Three weeks ago, as Kerry was cinching the Democratic nomination with a string of primary victories, he led the president by 8 points in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup among likely voters, 52 percent to 44 percent."
CNN:
"Despite a week of negative headlines about how his administration handled the threat of terrorism before the attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush's political position against presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry has strengthened, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.
"The poll results suggest that the Bush campaign's attempts to paint Kerry as a tax-raising liberal who flip-flops on the issues has affected the race more than charges by former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke that Bush and his national security team didn't pay enough attention to al Qaeda in the months leading up to 9/11.
"Among likely voters surveyed, 51 percent said they would choose Bush for president, while 47 percent said they would vote for Kerry, within the margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
"Three weeks ago, as Kerry was cinching the Democratic nomination with a string of primary victories, he led the president by 8 points in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup among likely voters, 52 percent to 44 percent."
How dare you?
David Frum:
...
"This administration came into office to discover that al Qaeda had been allowed to grow into a full-blown menace. It lost six precious weeks to the Florida recount – and then weeks after Inauguration Day to the go-slow confirmation procedures of a 50-50 Senate. As late as the summer of 2001, pitifully few of Bush’s own people had taken their jobs at State, Defense, and the NSC. Then it was hit by 9/11. And now, now the same people who allowed al Qaeda to grow up, who delayed the staffing of the administration, who did nothing when it was their turn to act, who said nothing when they could have spoken in advance of the attack – these same people accuse George Bush of doing too little? There’s a long answer to give folks like that – and also a short one. And the short one is: How dare you?"
David Frum:
...
"This administration came into office to discover that al Qaeda had been allowed to grow into a full-blown menace. It lost six precious weeks to the Florida recount – and then weeks after Inauguration Day to the go-slow confirmation procedures of a 50-50 Senate. As late as the summer of 2001, pitifully few of Bush’s own people had taken their jobs at State, Defense, and the NSC. Then it was hit by 9/11. And now, now the same people who allowed al Qaeda to grow up, who delayed the staffing of the administration, who did nothing when it was their turn to act, who said nothing when they could have spoken in advance of the attack – these same people accuse George Bush of doing too little? There’s a long answer to give folks like that – and also a short one. And the short one is: How dare you?"
The meaning of "ally"
Mark Steyn:
...
"...if Don Rumsfeld wants a light, mobile 21st-century military, the last place to base it is the Continent: given that the term 'ally' is now generally used in the post-modern meaning of "duplicitous obstructionist", it's not unlikely that any future Saddamesque scenario would see attempts to throw operational restraints around the use of US forces in Europe.
...
"What happens when a country becomes just as militant and aggressive about the virtues of "soft power" as it once was about old-fashioned hard power? Germany has a shrinking economy, an ageing and shrivelling population, and potentially catastrophic welfare liabilities. Yet the average German worker now puts in over 20 per cent fewer hours per year than his American counterpart, and no politician who wishes to remain electorally viable would propose closing the gap.
"Germany, like much of Europe, has a psychological investment in longer holidays, free healthcare, early retirement, unsustainable welfare programmes, decrepit military: the fact that these policies spell national suicide is less important than that they distinguish Europe from the less enlightened Americans."
Mark Steyn:
...
"...if Don Rumsfeld wants a light, mobile 21st-century military, the last place to base it is the Continent: given that the term 'ally' is now generally used in the post-modern meaning of "duplicitous obstructionist", it's not unlikely that any future Saddamesque scenario would see attempts to throw operational restraints around the use of US forces in Europe.
...
"What happens when a country becomes just as militant and aggressive about the virtues of "soft power" as it once was about old-fashioned hard power? Germany has a shrinking economy, an ageing and shrivelling population, and potentially catastrophic welfare liabilities. Yet the average German worker now puts in over 20 per cent fewer hours per year than his American counterpart, and no politician who wishes to remain electorally viable would propose closing the gap.
"Germany, like much of Europe, has a psychological investment in longer holidays, free healthcare, early retirement, unsustainable welfare programmes, decrepit military: the fact that these policies spell national suicide is less important than that they distinguish Europe from the less enlightened Americans."
The Richard Clarke reading list
Just One Minute has a somewhat exhaustive list of links to things Clarke has said over the last few years and the last few days. It is a great resource.
Just One Minute has a somewhat exhaustive list of links to things Clarke has said over the last few years and the last few days. It is a great resource.
The Hamas strategy
Alexander Rose:
"For those among us not wholly unsympathetic to Palestinian aspirations, the death of Sheikh Yassin was a terrible thing. This is not because his execution was an allegedly 'criminal act' by the Israelis, but because the Palestinian reaction to it demonstrates the poverty, folly, and futility of Hamas's grand strategy. The wild-eyed bellowing in the streets, the leadership's ferocious threats, its ungovernable rage, the panting adulation of a death-drunk cripple: Hamas is proving itself to be no Hezbollah, no IRA, no LTTE (the "Tamil Tigers" of Sri Lanka) ? all three fairly successful terrorist outfits.
"The most striking difference between them and Hamas is that the latter has displayed no obvious ability to think things through, to proceed to formulate a set of limited goals, and to then methodically achieve them by using a combination of violence, opportunism, and rational calculation. Clausewitz shrewdly dubbed this dynamic, shifting triangle a wunderliche dreifaltigheit, or wonderful trinity.
"There has to be some sort of balance between these elements for maximum effect: The untrammelled urge to kill must be tempered with a dose of cold reason even as the play of chance allows commanders to exploit unanticipated opportunities that can suddenly transform the strategic picture (such as Yassin's fatal habit of returning home from prayers along overly predictable routes). The essential principle here is that fighting must be a tool of policy, whereas for Hamas, the mere act of fighting is policy. Hamas can neither control its passions nor seize chance openings; all it can do is annihilate.
...
"One reason why Hamas has nurtured such a cult of blood, masochism, and sadism, is because it lacks a realizable agenda. Its objectives, being mostly concerned with exterminating every Jew in Israel and destroying their state, are self-evidently insatiable."
Alexander Rose:
"For those among us not wholly unsympathetic to Palestinian aspirations, the death of Sheikh Yassin was a terrible thing. This is not because his execution was an allegedly 'criminal act' by the Israelis, but because the Palestinian reaction to it demonstrates the poverty, folly, and futility of Hamas's grand strategy. The wild-eyed bellowing in the streets, the leadership's ferocious threats, its ungovernable rage, the panting adulation of a death-drunk cripple: Hamas is proving itself to be no Hezbollah, no IRA, no LTTE (the "Tamil Tigers" of Sri Lanka) ? all three fairly successful terrorist outfits.
"The most striking difference between them and Hamas is that the latter has displayed no obvious ability to think things through, to proceed to formulate a set of limited goals, and to then methodically achieve them by using a combination of violence, opportunism, and rational calculation. Clausewitz shrewdly dubbed this dynamic, shifting triangle a wunderliche dreifaltigheit, or wonderful trinity.
"There has to be some sort of balance between these elements for maximum effect: The untrammelled urge to kill must be tempered with a dose of cold reason even as the play of chance allows commanders to exploit unanticipated opportunities that can suddenly transform the strategic picture (such as Yassin's fatal habit of returning home from prayers along overly predictable routes). The essential principle here is that fighting must be a tool of policy, whereas for Hamas, the mere act of fighting is policy. Hamas can neither control its passions nor seize chance openings; all it can do is annihilate.
...
"One reason why Hamas has nurtured such a cult of blood, masochism, and sadism, is because it lacks a realizable agenda. Its objectives, being mostly concerned with exterminating every Jew in Israel and destroying their state, are self-evidently insatiable."
American Warlords
James Dunnigan:
"The U.S. Army Special Forces have gone back to their roots in Afghanistan. Using techniques developed and used with great success as far back as World War II, Special Forces A Teams are operating in remote Afghan valleys, and forming their own small armies by hiring local Afghans to help catch any Taliban or al Qaeda who might come through. U.S. troops have hired armed Afghans in the past, but from local warlords. This did not work too well. The warlord who supplied the troops had their own agendas. This included not getting any of their lads killed, and being open to bribery from the opposition. All of this is considered traditional in the Afghan scheme of things. A warlord becomes a warlord by having enough money to pay troops, some way to raise more money to keep paying them, and enough battlefield sense to keep down friendly casualties. Any warlord who misses too many payrolls, or gets too many of his guys killed, finds that no one wants to follow him anymore. A warlord without gunmen is no longer a warlord.
...
"When the Special Forces troops arrive, they sit down with the village elders and heads of the local families and arrange to hire the proper number of armed men from each clan, so no one is offended. And all the families now have another source of income. Along with the Special Forces comes access to American army civil affairs troops and more money for public works (repairing roads and bridges, digging wells, building schools). Locals are hired to help build the Special Forces compound, and work in it. The Special Forces often also bring along a detachment of soldiers or marines to help with security.
"The word quickly gets around that the Special Forces are operating in a particular valley. This attracts the local Taliban supporters. Attacks will be attempted on the compound the Special Forces are living in. The Special Forces expect this. Like any competent warlord, they deploy their troops to watch for intruders. The hired gunmen get more training, being taught how to 'fight like a Special Forces warrior.' This builds relationships with the younger locals, who are also being courted by the Taliban recruiters.
"But more importantly, the Special Forces spend a lot of time sitting around drinking tea. Chatting with their gunmen and other locals creates a familiarity that eventually leads to what they are really here for; information. The Afghans know they are being played, but they admire how the Special Forces do it by Afghan rules. Professionals are always admired, and in Afghanistan, professionals with guns, money and patience are particularly admired."
James Dunnigan:
"The U.S. Army Special Forces have gone back to their roots in Afghanistan. Using techniques developed and used with great success as far back as World War II, Special Forces A Teams are operating in remote Afghan valleys, and forming their own small armies by hiring local Afghans to help catch any Taliban or al Qaeda who might come through. U.S. troops have hired armed Afghans in the past, but from local warlords. This did not work too well. The warlord who supplied the troops had their own agendas. This included not getting any of their lads killed, and being open to bribery from the opposition. All of this is considered traditional in the Afghan scheme of things. A warlord becomes a warlord by having enough money to pay troops, some way to raise more money to keep paying them, and enough battlefield sense to keep down friendly casualties. Any warlord who misses too many payrolls, or gets too many of his guys killed, finds that no one wants to follow him anymore. A warlord without gunmen is no longer a warlord.
...
"When the Special Forces troops arrive, they sit down with the village elders and heads of the local families and arrange to hire the proper number of armed men from each clan, so no one is offended. And all the families now have another source of income. Along with the Special Forces comes access to American army civil affairs troops and more money for public works (repairing roads and bridges, digging wells, building schools). Locals are hired to help build the Special Forces compound, and work in it. The Special Forces often also bring along a detachment of soldiers or marines to help with security.
"The word quickly gets around that the Special Forces are operating in a particular valley. This attracts the local Taliban supporters. Attacks will be attempted on the compound the Special Forces are living in. The Special Forces expect this. Like any competent warlord, they deploy their troops to watch for intruders. The hired gunmen get more training, being taught how to 'fight like a Special Forces warrior.' This builds relationships with the younger locals, who are also being courted by the Taliban recruiters.
"But more importantly, the Special Forces spend a lot of time sitting around drinking tea. Chatting with their gunmen and other locals creates a familiarity that eventually leads to what they are really here for; information. The Afghans know they are being played, but they admire how the Special Forces do it by Afghan rules. Professionals are always admired, and in Afghanistan, professionals with guns, money and patience are particularly admired."
Hamas's logisical problem
Strategy Page:
"Israels attacks on the Palestinian terrorist groups key staff and infrastructure has seriously reduced the ability to launch successful terrorist attacks. Hamas has been humiliated by Israeli raids into Gaza, where superior Israeli training and tactics keep their casualties low while accomplishing their mission (capturing terrorist suspects or destroying terrorist workshops or supplies). As a result, Hamas, and other Palestinian terrorist groups, are turning more to foreign terrorist organizations. In particular, Hizbollah, which operates in Lebanon with the support of Syria and Iran, has been found providing increasing amounts of assistance. Israel, and the United States, has warned Syria and Iran to back off in supporting terrorism. Syria and Iran deny any involvement. The inability of Hamas to strike back quickly for the killing of their leader has put the Palestinian terrorists under pressure to at least spread rumors of really big future attacks. But the problem, as in any war, is one of logistics. The Israelis have been effectively attacking terrorist logistics for over a year. The losses of key technicians, organizers and supplies has made it increasingly difficult to launch terrorist attacks. There is no shortage of volunteers to be the bombers, but the critical bottleneck is the resources needed to get the bomber trained, and then moved through Israeli checkpoints to a target in Israeli occupied areas."
Strategy Page:
"Israels attacks on the Palestinian terrorist groups key staff and infrastructure has seriously reduced the ability to launch successful terrorist attacks. Hamas has been humiliated by Israeli raids into Gaza, where superior Israeli training and tactics keep their casualties low while accomplishing their mission (capturing terrorist suspects or destroying terrorist workshops or supplies). As a result, Hamas, and other Palestinian terrorist groups, are turning more to foreign terrorist organizations. In particular, Hizbollah, which operates in Lebanon with the support of Syria and Iran, has been found providing increasing amounts of assistance. Israel, and the United States, has warned Syria and Iran to back off in supporting terrorism. Syria and Iran deny any involvement. The inability of Hamas to strike back quickly for the killing of their leader has put the Palestinian terrorists under pressure to at least spread rumors of really big future attacks. But the problem, as in any war, is one of logistics. The Israelis have been effectively attacking terrorist logistics for over a year. The losses of key technicians, organizers and supplies has made it increasingly difficult to launch terrorist attacks. There is no shortage of volunteers to be the bombers, but the critical bottleneck is the resources needed to get the bomber trained, and then moved through Israeli checkpoints to a target in Israeli occupied areas."
Dick Cheney and Dick Clarke
Dick Cheney:
"He's taken advantage of the circumstances this week to promote himself and his book. I don't know the guy that well. I have had some dealings with him over the years, but judging based on what I've seen, I don't hold him in high regard."
Dick Cheney:
"He's taken advantage of the circumstances this week to promote himself and his book. I don't know the guy that well. I have had some dealings with him over the years, but judging based on what I've seen, I don't hold him in high regard."
The Kerry "boost"
Kaus Files:
...
"Senator Kerry's campaign got a boost yesterday with the news that the candidate would undergo elective shoulder surgery and be unable to campaign for four days while he recovers. ... Is it just a coincidence that Kerry's return to the campaign trail last Thursday corresponded precisely to the sharp reversal of his previously rising fortunes in the Rassmussen robo-tracking poll? ... Democrats demand more elective surgery for Kerry and more ambitious elective surgery for Kerry, with longer recuperation periods!..."
Kaus Files:
...
"Senator Kerry's campaign got a boost yesterday with the news that the candidate would undergo elective shoulder surgery and be unable to campaign for four days while he recovers. ... Is it just a coincidence that Kerry's return to the campaign trail last Thursday corresponded precisely to the sharp reversal of his previously rising fortunes in the Rassmussen robo-tracking poll? ... Democrats demand more elective surgery for Kerry and more ambitious elective surgery for Kerry, with longer recuperation periods!..."
Clarke's transformation
Robert Novak:
...
"Until the past week, Clarke was best known inside Washington as one of the most skilled manipulators ever of the national security bureaucracy. He is the hero of journalist Richard Miniter's 2003 book, 'Losing Bin Laden,' a scathing exposure of Clinton's anti-terrorism failings. Clarke was described as 'blunt, tough and unrelenting' in pursuing terrorist Ramzi Yousef, sought in the first World Trade Center bombing. 'Imagine what he could have accomplished if Clinton had publicly endorsed his efforts,' Miniter wrote.
"Clarke was not only the hero but also obviously a prime source of 'Losing Bin Laden.' Miniter for the first time revealed, directly quoting Clarke, the meeting of 'principals' (Cabinet-level officials) on Oct. 12, 2000, after the terrorist attack on the USS Cole. The vote was 7 to 1 against an attack on Osama bin Laden. Only Clarke wanted action.
"In his own book, Clarke quickly brushes off the Cole meeting that he described in detail to Miniter. Instead of complaining about Clinton's failure to come to grips with al Qaeda and bin Laden, Clarke recites what sounds like Democratic talking points...."
Robert Novak:
...
"Until the past week, Clarke was best known inside Washington as one of the most skilled manipulators ever of the national security bureaucracy. He is the hero of journalist Richard Miniter's 2003 book, 'Losing Bin Laden,' a scathing exposure of Clinton's anti-terrorism failings. Clarke was described as 'blunt, tough and unrelenting' in pursuing terrorist Ramzi Yousef, sought in the first World Trade Center bombing. 'Imagine what he could have accomplished if Clinton had publicly endorsed his efforts,' Miniter wrote.
"Clarke was not only the hero but also obviously a prime source of 'Losing Bin Laden.' Miniter for the first time revealed, directly quoting Clarke, the meeting of 'principals' (Cabinet-level officials) on Oct. 12, 2000, after the terrorist attack on the USS Cole. The vote was 7 to 1 against an attack on Osama bin Laden. Only Clarke wanted action.
"In his own book, Clarke quickly brushes off the Cole meeting that he described in detail to Miniter. Instead of complaining about Clinton's failure to come to grips with al Qaeda and bin Laden, Clarke recites what sounds like Democratic talking points...."
Post Vietnam Kerry
John Fund:
"John Kerry mentions his service in Vietnam so frequently that it has become a running joke on the campaign press plane. He seldom if ever mentions his postwar activities as a national coordinator and principal spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group he says he quit in 1971 because he was concerned about its radical agenda. One reason may be that a credibility gap has started to widen over his antiwar history, and he clearly doesn't want to discuss it at length. His campaign is issuing misleading and evasive statements on his antiwar service in a way that would do the Pentagon spinners of the Johnson and Nixon administrations proud.
"In fact, Mr. Kerry acts as if he can't remember much about the VVAW at all. This month his campaign several times said he "never, ever" attended a Kansas City meeting of antiwar leadership where members discussed and voted on an assassination plot against pro-war U.S. senators. Then, when confronted with FBI surveillance records of the meeting, the campaign acknowledged his presence as 'an historical footnote.' Mr. Kerry told a Boston radio station the whole story was 'such ancient history.' It was time to move on.
"Not so fast. Mr. Kerry's campaign has done more than contradict itself. It has been in full coverup mode. John Musgrave, one of the six witnesses who placed Mr. Kerry at the Kansas City meeting, says the head of Veterans for Kerry, John Hurley, called him twice and pressured him to change the story he had already told a Kansas City Star reporter about the 1971 meeting.
...
"...Jack Kelly, a respected military columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, believes many journalists are 'more interested in defeating President Bush than in providing readers with potentially important information which reflects poorly on Sen. John Kerry.'
...
"...He said that 200,000 Vietnamese a year were 'murdered by the United States of America.'
"A Kerry spokesman now distances the candidate from the word 'murdered,' saying he 'never suggested or believed and absolutely rejects the idea that the word applied to service of the American soldiers in Vietnam.' But as the New Hampshire Sunday News put it, if he wasn't saying U.S. soldiers murdered 200,000 people a year, then who in the world could he have meant? The USO?
"Mr. Kerry now says he was relying on the 'highly documented and highly disturbing' stories he heard at a Detroit conference funded by Jane Fonda. The Naval Investigative Service later found that some of the most grisly testimony there was given by false witnesses.
"Even Daniel Ellsberg, the famous leaker of the Pentagon Papers, rejected the argument that the most horrible U.S. atrocity in Vietnam, My Lai, was in any way a normal event. But Mr. Kerry spent over a year rehashing the Detroit hearsay allegations in speeches and on national television even though he had no personal knowledge of the events.
...
"Normally, one shouldn't make too much of Mr. Kerry's inability to recall in detail events of 33 years ago, even though they were the most formative of his political career. But he has "misremembered" a lot of key facts about the period. The circumstantial evidence indicates that he is desperate to avoid discussion of those days. ..."
John Fund:
"John Kerry mentions his service in Vietnam so frequently that it has become a running joke on the campaign press plane. He seldom if ever mentions his postwar activities as a national coordinator and principal spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group he says he quit in 1971 because he was concerned about its radical agenda. One reason may be that a credibility gap has started to widen over his antiwar history, and he clearly doesn't want to discuss it at length. His campaign is issuing misleading and evasive statements on his antiwar service in a way that would do the Pentagon spinners of the Johnson and Nixon administrations proud.
"In fact, Mr. Kerry acts as if he can't remember much about the VVAW at all. This month his campaign several times said he "never, ever" attended a Kansas City meeting of antiwar leadership where members discussed and voted on an assassination plot against pro-war U.S. senators. Then, when confronted with FBI surveillance records of the meeting, the campaign acknowledged his presence as 'an historical footnote.' Mr. Kerry told a Boston radio station the whole story was 'such ancient history.' It was time to move on.
"Not so fast. Mr. Kerry's campaign has done more than contradict itself. It has been in full coverup mode. John Musgrave, one of the six witnesses who placed Mr. Kerry at the Kansas City meeting, says the head of Veterans for Kerry, John Hurley, called him twice and pressured him to change the story he had already told a Kansas City Star reporter about the 1971 meeting.
...
"...Jack Kelly, a respected military columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, believes many journalists are 'more interested in defeating President Bush than in providing readers with potentially important information which reflects poorly on Sen. John Kerry.'
...
"...He said that 200,000 Vietnamese a year were 'murdered by the United States of America.'
"A Kerry spokesman now distances the candidate from the word 'murdered,' saying he 'never suggested or believed and absolutely rejects the idea that the word applied to service of the American soldiers in Vietnam.' But as the New Hampshire Sunday News put it, if he wasn't saying U.S. soldiers murdered 200,000 people a year, then who in the world could he have meant? The USO?
"Mr. Kerry now says he was relying on the 'highly documented and highly disturbing' stories he heard at a Detroit conference funded by Jane Fonda. The Naval Investigative Service later found that some of the most grisly testimony there was given by false witnesses.
"Even Daniel Ellsberg, the famous leaker of the Pentagon Papers, rejected the argument that the most horrible U.S. atrocity in Vietnam, My Lai, was in any way a normal event. But Mr. Kerry spent over a year rehashing the Detroit hearsay allegations in speeches and on national television even though he had no personal knowledge of the events.
...
"Normally, one shouldn't make too much of Mr. Kerry's inability to recall in detail events of 33 years ago, even though they were the most formative of his political career. But he has "misremembered" a lot of key facts about the period. The circumstantial evidence indicates that he is desperate to avoid discussion of those days. ..."
Jihadi discloses "root causes"
Richard Miniter:
...
"The grievances of Islamic terrorists are no secret — and poverty is not among them. Consider the revealing interrogation of the mastermind of the Bali bombing, Imam Samuda. 'I carry out jihad based on the following background and motives,' he said, listing 13 points: punishing America's allies, avenging the deaths of Muslims in Afghanistan, Australia's efforts to secure peace in East Timor, Hindu attacks on Muslims in Kashmir, Christian violence against Muslims in Ambon, Poso and elsewhere, the slaughter of Muslims in Bosnia, a duty to kill Jews and Christians, a desire to unite Muslims into a single, global state, a passage in the Koran (An Nisa, 74-76) to defend other Muslims, as a 'harsh reprimand' to the basing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, to make the West feel the pain that Muslims feel when loved ones die and 'to prove to Allah that we have done all we can' to fight oppressors. Exactly which of these motives involves poverty?
"Nor is Samuda alone. OsamabinLaden,Dr. Aymanal-Zawahiri,(al Qaeda's No. 2) and scores of other Islamist leaders have issued nearly identical lists of grievances. Even though the Muslims in Southeast Asia are among the poorest in the world, poverty is almost never mentioned in bin Laden'smanycommuniques, press releases and audio and video tapes. Sorry, al Qaeda is not an NGO.
"Poverty, by itself, does not cause terrorism. If it did, the poorest nations wouldbethelargest sourcesofterrorists. They're not. Chad, by most measures the poorest nation in the world, has supplied exactly zero terrorists to al Qaeda. Indeed, the poorest region in the world — sub-Saharan Africa — produces remarkably few terrorists. There are millions of poor Buddhists in Thailand and poor Christians in the Philippines, yet they do not bomb police stations.
"Even poor Muslims are usually not the source of al Qaeda's troops. Virtually all members of al Qaeda are educated, and many are middle class. Indeed, technical universities are the preferred recruiting grounds. Why? Terrorism is a complex ideology. According to captured documents, even the foot soldiers of terror are expected to master complex ideological tracts, including 'Milestones.' Killing oneself or noncombatants, especially Muslim civilians, is so unnatural that it requires indoctrination to do it. Deadly doctrines cannot be defeated by education and prosperity; those are precisely the things its best recruits have rejected.
...
"Poverty does not cause terrorism, but terrorism causes poverty — by disrupting what few services poor Muslims receive and by driving away investors and aid workers. This has not elicited even the smallest pangs of regret from al Qaeda. The best way to fight poverty is to fight terrorism first."
Richard Miniter:
...
"The grievances of Islamic terrorists are no secret — and poverty is not among them. Consider the revealing interrogation of the mastermind of the Bali bombing, Imam Samuda. 'I carry out jihad based on the following background and motives,' he said, listing 13 points: punishing America's allies, avenging the deaths of Muslims in Afghanistan, Australia's efforts to secure peace in East Timor, Hindu attacks on Muslims in Kashmir, Christian violence against Muslims in Ambon, Poso and elsewhere, the slaughter of Muslims in Bosnia, a duty to kill Jews and Christians, a desire to unite Muslims into a single, global state, a passage in the Koran (An Nisa, 74-76) to defend other Muslims, as a 'harsh reprimand' to the basing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, to make the West feel the pain that Muslims feel when loved ones die and 'to prove to Allah that we have done all we can' to fight oppressors. Exactly which of these motives involves poverty?
"Nor is Samuda alone. OsamabinLaden,Dr. Aymanal-Zawahiri,(al Qaeda's No. 2) and scores of other Islamist leaders have issued nearly identical lists of grievances. Even though the Muslims in Southeast Asia are among the poorest in the world, poverty is almost never mentioned in bin Laden'smanycommuniques, press releases and audio and video tapes. Sorry, al Qaeda is not an NGO.
"Poverty, by itself, does not cause terrorism. If it did, the poorest nations wouldbethelargest sourcesofterrorists. They're not. Chad, by most measures the poorest nation in the world, has supplied exactly zero terrorists to al Qaeda. Indeed, the poorest region in the world — sub-Saharan Africa — produces remarkably few terrorists. There are millions of poor Buddhists in Thailand and poor Christians in the Philippines, yet they do not bomb police stations.
"Even poor Muslims are usually not the source of al Qaeda's troops. Virtually all members of al Qaeda are educated, and many are middle class. Indeed, technical universities are the preferred recruiting grounds. Why? Terrorism is a complex ideology. According to captured documents, even the foot soldiers of terror are expected to master complex ideological tracts, including 'Milestones.' Killing oneself or noncombatants, especially Muslim civilians, is so unnatural that it requires indoctrination to do it. Deadly doctrines cannot be defeated by education and prosperity; those are precisely the things its best recruits have rejected.
...
"Poverty does not cause terrorism, but terrorism causes poverty — by disrupting what few services poor Muslims receive and by driving away investors and aid workers. This has not elicited even the smallest pangs of regret from al Qaeda. The best way to fight poverty is to fight terrorism first."
Disappointed doomsayers
Mark Steyn:
"Just under a year ago, Baghdad fell. A great day, or so you would think — especially after the idiotic predictions of how the city would be a new Stalingrad, with coalition troops fighting street to street for months on end.
"But, instead of even a moment of sheepish embarrassment, all the experts — the United Nations, the French, the world's media, the nongovernmental organizations and the left in general — simply galloped on to even more idiotic predictions of doom.
"On April 12 last year, I wrote a column mocking the global naysayers' latest Top 10 Quagmires Of The Week.
"If it seems cruel to dredge them up, I do so because, the current ballyhoo from Democrats would make you think the administration policy in this area has been a disaster. It hasn't. Indeed, for 2½ years now, the naysayers to the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice approach to the war on terror have been close to 100 percent wrong on everything.
...
"Here are 10 predictions of doom from the conventional wisdom of a year ago, followed by some of my comments at the time, and a note on how things have turned out:
"(1) 'Iraq's slide into violent anarchy' (The Guardian, April 11, 2003). Say what you like about Saddam Hussein, but he ran a tight ship, and you didn't have to nail down the furniture.
"I predicted: 'A year from now, Basra will have a lower crime rate than most London boroughs.'
"One year on: Almost. According to the BBC, Basra is booming and its citizens are flush with new spending power. Despite Saddam's decision to empty the prisons of petty criminals on the eve of the war, in February British authorities reported crime in the city has fallen by 70 percent.
"(2) 'The head of the World Food Program has warned that Iraq could spiral into a massive humanitarian disaster.' (The Australian, April 11, 2003)
"One year on: No humanitarian disaster. Indeed, no 'humanitarians.' The NGOs fled Iraq in August and nobody noticed, confirming what some of us have suspected since Afghanistan: The permanent floating crap game of the humanitarian lobby has a vastly inflated sense of its own importance and is prone to massive distortion in the cause of self-promotion.
...
"(7) 'Rather than reforming the Muslim world, the conquest of Iraq will inflame it.' (Jeffrey Simpson, Toronto Globe and Mail, April 10, 2003)
"I predicted: 'Despite the best efforts of Western doom-mongers to rouse the Arab street, its attitude will remain: Start the jihad without me.'
"One year on: In Iran and Syria, it's the thug regimes that are under pressure. In the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat is broke, and the suicide bombers have lost their sugar daddy. In Libya, Col. Moammar Gadhafi has thrown in the towel.
"(8) 'Looting is always unsavory. Let's hope the Americans don't pilfer the oil.' (Brenda Linane, the Age of Melbourne, April 11, 2003)
"One year on: The only folks pilfering the oil were those officials and cronies living high off the hog from the U.N.'s disgusting Oil-For-Food program, a sewer of corruption that ought to force the resignation of Kofi Annan."
Mark Steyn:
"Just under a year ago, Baghdad fell. A great day, or so you would think — especially after the idiotic predictions of how the city would be a new Stalingrad, with coalition troops fighting street to street for months on end.
"But, instead of even a moment of sheepish embarrassment, all the experts — the United Nations, the French, the world's media, the nongovernmental organizations and the left in general — simply galloped on to even more idiotic predictions of doom.
"On April 12 last year, I wrote a column mocking the global naysayers' latest Top 10 Quagmires Of The Week.
"If it seems cruel to dredge them up, I do so because, the current ballyhoo from Democrats would make you think the administration policy in this area has been a disaster. It hasn't. Indeed, for 2½ years now, the naysayers to the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice approach to the war on terror have been close to 100 percent wrong on everything.
...
"Here are 10 predictions of doom from the conventional wisdom of a year ago, followed by some of my comments at the time, and a note on how things have turned out:
"(1) 'Iraq's slide into violent anarchy' (The Guardian, April 11, 2003). Say what you like about Saddam Hussein, but he ran a tight ship, and you didn't have to nail down the furniture.
"I predicted: 'A year from now, Basra will have a lower crime rate than most London boroughs.'
"One year on: Almost. According to the BBC, Basra is booming and its citizens are flush with new spending power. Despite Saddam's decision to empty the prisons of petty criminals on the eve of the war, in February British authorities reported crime in the city has fallen by 70 percent.
"(2) 'The head of the World Food Program has warned that Iraq could spiral into a massive humanitarian disaster.' (The Australian, April 11, 2003)
"One year on: No humanitarian disaster. Indeed, no 'humanitarians.' The NGOs fled Iraq in August and nobody noticed, confirming what some of us have suspected since Afghanistan: The permanent floating crap game of the humanitarian lobby has a vastly inflated sense of its own importance and is prone to massive distortion in the cause of self-promotion.
...
"(7) 'Rather than reforming the Muslim world, the conquest of Iraq will inflame it.' (Jeffrey Simpson, Toronto Globe and Mail, April 10, 2003)
"I predicted: 'Despite the best efforts of Western doom-mongers to rouse the Arab street, its attitude will remain: Start the jihad without me.'
"One year on: In Iran and Syria, it's the thug regimes that are under pressure. In the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat is broke, and the suicide bombers have lost their sugar daddy. In Libya, Col. Moammar Gadhafi has thrown in the towel.
"(8) 'Looting is always unsavory. Let's hope the Americans don't pilfer the oil.' (Brenda Linane, the Age of Melbourne, April 11, 2003)
"One year on: The only folks pilfering the oil were those officials and cronies living high off the hog from the U.N.'s disgusting Oil-For-Food program, a sewer of corruption that ought to force the resignation of Kofi Annan."
The corrupt opposition to the war to liberate Iraq.
What the Safire excerpts reveal below is that much of the opposition to the war to liberate Iraq was not based on principal but on selfish corruption. That is what Kerry has tied himself to, by insisting that "diplomacy" would have overcome the resistance of France and Russia to the liberation of Iraq. By siding with the corrupt the liberals undermine their own case.
What the Safire excerpts reveal below is that much of the opposition to the war to liberate Iraq was not based on principal but on selfish corruption. That is what Kerry has tied himself to, by insisting that "diplomacy" would have overcome the resistance of France and Russia to the liberation of Iraq. By siding with the corrupt the liberals undermine their own case.
The world's biggest scandal
William Safire:
" Never has there been a financial rip-off of the magnitude of the U.N. oil-for-food scandal.
"At least $5 billion in kickbacks went from corrupt contractors — mainly French and Russian — into the pockets of Saddam and his thugs. Some went to pay off his protectors in foreign governments and media, and we may soon see how much stuck to the fingers of U.N. bureaucrats as well.
...
"To shift responsibility for the see-no-evil oversight, the U.N. spokesman noted that "details of all contracts were made available to the governments of all 15 Security Council members." All the details, including the regular 10 percent kickback to the tune of $5 billion in illegal surcharges? We'll see.
"To calm the belated uproar, Annan felt compelled to seek an 'independent high-level inquiry,' empowered by a Security Council resolution, as some of us called for.
"Nothing doing, said France's U.N. ambassador, Jean-Marc de la Sablière. The money for the huge heist known as the Iraq-U.N. account passed exclusively through BNP Paribas. French companies led all the rest (what's French for 'kickback'?), though Vladimir Putin's favorite Russian oligarchs insisted on sharing the wealth. That explains why Paris and Moscow were Saddam's main prewar defenders, and why their politicians and executives now want no inquiry they cannot control.
...
"If the secretary general appoints a Franco-Russian Whitewash Team, to whom can the world turn?
"1. The Iraqi government-in-formation. Spurred by Kurds who have been blowing the whistle on this superscam for five years, free Iraq has hired accountants and lawyers to sift through captured bills and contracts in Baghdad. Former spooks are freelancing usefully. Paul Bremer, our man in Baghdad, has placed a trove of additional half-corrupted tapes and damaged and damaging documents under seal to be turned over after June 30, Sovereignty Day.
"2. The House International Relations Committee's chairman, Henry Hyde, whose interviewers are in New York today, will hold initial hearings on April 21. Congress's investigative arm, the General Accounting Office, will testify about the scope of the chicanery that it estimates at $10 billion (including Saddam's clandestine oil smuggling to Syria and Jordan). It's a start that should awaken Senate Foreign Relations as well as Justice.
"3. The press, stimulated by U.N. stonewalling, is on the trail.
"Al Mada led the way. Already denying the feisty Iraq newspaper's findings are a former French interior minister, a pro-Saddam member of Britain's Parliament, Arab writers and a financier reportedly behind a Scott Ritter film. The Times, Wall Street Journal and Sunday Telegraph have been exposing the outline of what Newsday admits is "the most underreported story of the year." Among magazines, National Review is out front with no interest shown by The New Yorker and Newsweek."
William Safire:
" Never has there been a financial rip-off of the magnitude of the U.N. oil-for-food scandal.
"At least $5 billion in kickbacks went from corrupt contractors — mainly French and Russian — into the pockets of Saddam and his thugs. Some went to pay off his protectors in foreign governments and media, and we may soon see how much stuck to the fingers of U.N. bureaucrats as well.
...
"To shift responsibility for the see-no-evil oversight, the U.N. spokesman noted that "details of all contracts were made available to the governments of all 15 Security Council members." All the details, including the regular 10 percent kickback to the tune of $5 billion in illegal surcharges? We'll see.
"To calm the belated uproar, Annan felt compelled to seek an 'independent high-level inquiry,' empowered by a Security Council resolution, as some of us called for.
"Nothing doing, said France's U.N. ambassador, Jean-Marc de la Sablière. The money for the huge heist known as the Iraq-U.N. account passed exclusively through BNP Paribas. French companies led all the rest (what's French for 'kickback'?), though Vladimir Putin's favorite Russian oligarchs insisted on sharing the wealth. That explains why Paris and Moscow were Saddam's main prewar defenders, and why their politicians and executives now want no inquiry they cannot control.
...
"If the secretary general appoints a Franco-Russian Whitewash Team, to whom can the world turn?
"1. The Iraqi government-in-formation. Spurred by Kurds who have been blowing the whistle on this superscam for five years, free Iraq has hired accountants and lawyers to sift through captured bills and contracts in Baghdad. Former spooks are freelancing usefully. Paul Bremer, our man in Baghdad, has placed a trove of additional half-corrupted tapes and damaged and damaging documents under seal to be turned over after June 30, Sovereignty Day.
"2. The House International Relations Committee's chairman, Henry Hyde, whose interviewers are in New York today, will hold initial hearings on April 21. Congress's investigative arm, the General Accounting Office, will testify about the scope of the chicanery that it estimates at $10 billion (including Saddam's clandestine oil smuggling to Syria and Jordan). It's a start that should awaken Senate Foreign Relations as well as Justice.
"3. The press, stimulated by U.N. stonewalling, is on the trail.
"Al Mada led the way. Already denying the feisty Iraq newspaper's findings are a former French interior minister, a pro-Saddam member of Britain's Parliament, Arab writers and a financier reportedly behind a Scott Ritter film. The Times, Wall Street Journal and Sunday Telegraph have been exposing the outline of what Newsday admits is "the most underreported story of the year." Among magazines, National Review is out front with no interest shown by The New Yorker and Newsweek."
Sunday, March 28, 2004
The contradiction chief
Jack Kelly:
"We now know how Campaign 2004 will unfold: A Democrat will accuse President Bush of having started the Chicago fire, or poisoning Halloween candy or whatever. The news media will trumpet the charges, no matter how preposterous. When Bush aides deny the charges, and provide evidence refuting them, journalists will accuse Bush of making 'personal attacks.'
"Exhibit A for this pattern is the sordid saga of Richard Clarke, arguably the least credible whistleblower in American history. The counterterrorism chief in the Clinton administration who was held over by Bush charged in testimony before the 9/11 commission that Bush wasn't much concerned about waging war on terror before Sept. 11, and then tried to bully Clarke into falsely fingering Iraq for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
"Clarke's testimony is refuted not only by every other national security official who was around Bush during the period in question, but by Clarke himself, in a background briefing he gave reporters on Aug. 4, 2002; in interviews he gave to author Richard Miniter, PBS and The New Yorker magazine; in an e-mail he sent to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Sept. 15, 2001, and even by what he wrote in his own book.
...
"It's reasonable enough to argue that Bush could have done more to guard against terror, though it isn't clear what. What is incredible is to argue -- as Clarke did before the 9/11 commission -- that President Clinton was more concerned about al-Qaida than Bush was.
"Clarke told the commission that Clinton 'had no higher priority' than terrorism. But not even Clarke believes this. In his book, Clarke said that trying to obtain a Middle East peace agreement was more important to Clinton than retaliating for the attack on the USS Cole.
"Commissioner James Thompson asked Clarke which was true: What he said in the August 2002 briefing, or what he said in his book. 'Both,' Clarke replied. But it's not possible to reconcile the two. It's difficult even to reconcile what Clarke said in his book with the embellishments he's made in television interviews, said Time magazine's Romesh Ratnesar.
...
"The news media sometimes go to ludicrous lengths to blame Bush for the sins of his predecessor. A story on the MSNBC Web site March 24 took Bush to task for not having acted against al-Qaida in 1998, when Bush was governor of Texas. In a story that same day, the New York Daily News moved the attack on the USS Cole to 'early 2001,' during the Bush presidency, when in fact it happened on Oct. 12, 2000.
"Americans already have plenty of reasons to distrust the 'news' they are being given. They'll have plenty more before November."
Kelly hits a home run.
Jack Kelly:
"We now know how Campaign 2004 will unfold: A Democrat will accuse President Bush of having started the Chicago fire, or poisoning Halloween candy or whatever. The news media will trumpet the charges, no matter how preposterous. When Bush aides deny the charges, and provide evidence refuting them, journalists will accuse Bush of making 'personal attacks.'
"Exhibit A for this pattern is the sordid saga of Richard Clarke, arguably the least credible whistleblower in American history. The counterterrorism chief in the Clinton administration who was held over by Bush charged in testimony before the 9/11 commission that Bush wasn't much concerned about waging war on terror before Sept. 11, and then tried to bully Clarke into falsely fingering Iraq for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
"Clarke's testimony is refuted not only by every other national security official who was around Bush during the period in question, but by Clarke himself, in a background briefing he gave reporters on Aug. 4, 2002; in interviews he gave to author Richard Miniter, PBS and The New Yorker magazine; in an e-mail he sent to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Sept. 15, 2001, and even by what he wrote in his own book.
...
"It's reasonable enough to argue that Bush could have done more to guard against terror, though it isn't clear what. What is incredible is to argue -- as Clarke did before the 9/11 commission -- that President Clinton was more concerned about al-Qaida than Bush was.
"Clarke told the commission that Clinton 'had no higher priority' than terrorism. But not even Clarke believes this. In his book, Clarke said that trying to obtain a Middle East peace agreement was more important to Clinton than retaliating for the attack on the USS Cole.
"Commissioner James Thompson asked Clarke which was true: What he said in the August 2002 briefing, or what he said in his book. 'Both,' Clarke replied. But it's not possible to reconcile the two. It's difficult even to reconcile what Clarke said in his book with the embellishments he's made in television interviews, said Time magazine's Romesh Ratnesar.
...
"The news media sometimes go to ludicrous lengths to blame Bush for the sins of his predecessor. A story on the MSNBC Web site March 24 took Bush to task for not having acted against al-Qaida in 1998, when Bush was governor of Texas. In a story that same day, the New York Daily News moved the attack on the USS Cole to 'early 2001,' during the Bush presidency, when in fact it happened on Oct. 12, 2000.
"Americans already have plenty of reasons to distrust the 'news' they are being given. They'll have plenty more before November."
Kelly hits a home run.
Hamas leader says God has declared war against US
NY Times:
"The new Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi, called President Bush the enemy of Muslims and said today that God had declared war on the United States.
"Hamas has long said its battle is with Israel, and has directed its attacks, and most of its heated rhetoric, against the Jewish state. But since Israel's killing last week of Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the Islamic movement has issued bitter denunciations of the United States, though it has stopped short of saying it will strike at American targets."
You would think that God could find a better messenger if he decided to declare war. This nut case does not have the credibility to act as a spokesman for anything other than a death cult.
NY Times:
"The new Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi, called President Bush the enemy of Muslims and said today that God had declared war on the United States.
"Hamas has long said its battle is with Israel, and has directed its attacks, and most of its heated rhetoric, against the Jewish state. But since Israel's killing last week of Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the Islamic movement has issued bitter denunciations of the United States, though it has stopped short of saying it will strike at American targets."
You would think that God could find a better messenger if he decided to declare war. This nut case does not have the credibility to act as a spokesman for anything other than a death cult.
Kerry calls for new witness for 9-11 Commission
Scrappleface parody:
"Presumptive Democrat presidential nominee John Forbes Kerry today said that Usama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leaders of al Qaeda, should testify before the bipartisan commission investigating the 9/11 terror attacks.
...
" 'We're asking U.S. officials how 9/11 could have been allowed to happen,' said Mr. Kerry. 'It seems that Mr. bin Laden and Mr. al-Zawahiri would have first-hand information that would be relevant to the committee's proceedings.' "
Scrappleface parody:
"Presumptive Democrat presidential nominee John Forbes Kerry today said that Usama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leaders of al Qaeda, should testify before the bipartisan commission investigating the 9/11 terror attacks.
...
" 'We're asking U.S. officials how 9/11 could have been allowed to happen,' said Mr. Kerry. 'It seems that Mr. bin Laden and Mr. al-Zawahiri would have first-hand information that would be relevant to the committee's proceedings.' "
Clarke tried to mislead commission on his 2000 vote
Real Clear Politics:
"Sunday on Meet the Press:
"Russert: Did you vote for George Bush in 2000?
"Clarke: No I did not.
"Russert: Did you vote for Al Gore?
"Clarke: Yes I did.
"Wednesday Before the 9/11 Commission: Clarke:
"Let me talk about partisanship here, since you raise it. I've been accused of being a member of John Kerry's campaign team several times this week, including by the White House. So let's just lay that one to bed. I'm not working for the Kerry campaign. Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000. And I asked for a Republican ballot. "
"RCP: Clarke's statement before the 9/11 Commission was designed to leave the impression that he voted for George Bush in 2000, thereby innoculating himself against charges of partisanship. Turns out it was just another well played effort at misleading the public."
Deceitful conduct Mr. Clarke. What else were you trying to deceive us about?
Real Clear Politics:
"Sunday on Meet the Press:
"Russert: Did you vote for George Bush in 2000?
"Clarke: No I did not.
"Russert: Did you vote for Al Gore?
"Clarke: Yes I did.
"Wednesday Before the 9/11 Commission: Clarke:
"Let me talk about partisanship here, since you raise it. I've been accused of being a member of John Kerry's campaign team several times this week, including by the White House. So let's just lay that one to bed. I'm not working for the Kerry campaign. Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000. And I asked for a Republican ballot. "
"RCP: Clarke's statement before the 9/11 Commission was designed to leave the impression that he voted for George Bush in 2000, thereby innoculating himself against charges of partisanship. Turns out it was just another well played effort at misleading the public."
Deceitful conduct Mr. Clarke. What else were you trying to deceive us about?
Murdering Vietnamese
Manchester Union Leader Editorial:
" BACK IN 1971, John Kerry said that 200,000 Vietnamese a year were 'murdered by the United States of America.' Now he says he didn?t mean 'murdered' and wasn?t referring to U.S. soldiers. Well then, what in the world did he mean?
"After accessing transcripts of testimony Kerry gave to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, The Boston Globe reported Kerry?s ?murdered? comment last Thursday. The paper also reported that Kerry claimed to have flown to Paris and 'talked with both delegations at the peace talks,' clearly giving the impression that he was in some way involved in the Paris peace negotiations.
"Now Kerry says his Paris trip was a private affair with his wife, and he only met the Vietnamese for a few minutes. But back in 1971 he wanted people to think the trip was of some significance. The claim is reminiscent of Kerry?s more recent boasts that he has talked with world leaders who want Bush out of office and that he had a close friend in Massachusetts who heard on good authority that Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was kidnapped. Kerry has a habit of claiming that he is privy to inside information, then backing off when questioned about such boasts.
"But back to his charge that the United States was murdering 200,000 Vietnamese a year. Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan told the Globe that Kerry 'never suggested or believed and absolutely rejects the idea that the word applied to service of the American soldiers in Vietnam.' If he wasn?t referring to the United States military, then who in the world could he have meant? The USO?
"Either the 1971 John Kerry was lying, or the 2004 John Kerry is lying ? or both. We think both."
Manchester Union Leader Editorial:
" BACK IN 1971, John Kerry said that 200,000 Vietnamese a year were 'murdered by the United States of America.' Now he says he didn?t mean 'murdered' and wasn?t referring to U.S. soldiers. Well then, what in the world did he mean?
"After accessing transcripts of testimony Kerry gave to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, The Boston Globe reported Kerry?s ?murdered? comment last Thursday. The paper also reported that Kerry claimed to have flown to Paris and 'talked with both delegations at the peace talks,' clearly giving the impression that he was in some way involved in the Paris peace negotiations.
"Now Kerry says his Paris trip was a private affair with his wife, and he only met the Vietnamese for a few minutes. But back in 1971 he wanted people to think the trip was of some significance. The claim is reminiscent of Kerry?s more recent boasts that he has talked with world leaders who want Bush out of office and that he had a close friend in Massachusetts who heard on good authority that Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was kidnapped. Kerry has a habit of claiming that he is privy to inside information, then backing off when questioned about such boasts.
"But back to his charge that the United States was murdering 200,000 Vietnamese a year. Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan told the Globe that Kerry 'never suggested or believed and absolutely rejects the idea that the word applied to service of the American soldiers in Vietnam.' If he wasn?t referring to the United States military, then who in the world could he have meant? The USO?
"Either the 1971 John Kerry was lying, or the 2004 John Kerry is lying ? or both. We think both."
Hastert says Kerry has to change position on energy to save jobs
CNS News
"A ranking Republican congressman is calling on Democrat John Kerry to change his position on the energy bill before the Senate.
"Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) Friday said the Energy Conference Report would create jobs.
" 'Michigan voters need to know where Senator Kerry stands when it comes to jobs in their state and across America,' Hastert said in a statement.
"He said voters must know if Kerry plans to continue to push for higher CAFE' standards - 'a proposal to kill more than 100,000 UAW jobs.' "
CNS News
"A ranking Republican congressman is calling on Democrat John Kerry to change his position on the energy bill before the Senate.
"Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) Friday said the Energy Conference Report would create jobs.
" 'Michigan voters need to know where Senator Kerry stands when it comes to jobs in their state and across America,' Hastert said in a statement.
"He said voters must know if Kerry plans to continue to push for higher CAFE' standards - 'a proposal to kill more than 100,000 UAW jobs.' "
Another Hamas nutcase thinks god is on his side
USA Today:
"The new leader of the militant group Hamas on Sunday called President Bush the enemy of Islam and said that 'God declared war' against Bush, the United States and Israel.
"In a speech at Gaza's Islamic University, Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi said he was not surprised that the United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel's assassination on Monday of Hamas spiritual leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin.
" 'We knew that Bush is the enemy of God, the enemy of Islam and Muslims. America declared war against God. Sharon declared war against God and God declared war against America, Bush and Sharon,' Rantisi said. 'The war of God continues against them and I can see the victory coming up from the land of Palestine by the hand of Hamas.' "
If god is on his side why is he doing so badly? An all powerful god would not be backing a group of losers like Hamas.
USA Today:
"The new leader of the militant group Hamas on Sunday called President Bush the enemy of Islam and said that 'God declared war' against Bush, the United States and Israel.
"In a speech at Gaza's Islamic University, Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi said he was not surprised that the United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel's assassination on Monday of Hamas spiritual leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin.
" 'We knew that Bush is the enemy of God, the enemy of Islam and Muslims. America declared war against God. Sharon declared war against God and God declared war against America, Bush and Sharon,' Rantisi said. 'The war of God continues against them and I can see the victory coming up from the land of Palestine by the hand of Hamas.' "
If god is on his side why is he doing so badly? An all powerful god would not be backing a group of losers like Hamas.
Hamas threatens more muder
The leader of Hamas has threatened "an earthquack of revenge." He does not say how that will be different from the genocide Hamas was already advocating.
"Mashaal, who heads Hamas' political bureau, also criticized the United States for vetoing a U.N. Security Council resolution Friday condemning Israel for killing Yassin, but said his group will not attack U.S. targets in the Middle East.
"He warned, however, that 'America's bias' toward Israel and its occupation of Iraq were creating enemies for it throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds.
Mashael is based in Syria which has assured the US that there are no terrorist office.
The leader of Hamas has threatened "an earthquack of revenge." He does not say how that will be different from the genocide Hamas was already advocating.
"Mashaal, who heads Hamas' political bureau, also criticized the United States for vetoing a U.N. Security Council resolution Friday condemning Israel for killing Yassin, but said his group will not attack U.S. targets in the Middle East.
"He warned, however, that 'America's bias' toward Israel and its occupation of Iraq were creating enemies for it throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds.
Mashael is based in Syria which has assured the US that there are no terrorist office.
Illusions outside the US
Amir Tahiri:
...
"The Arabs are not alone in deluding themselves that a Democrat at the White House will let them do as they please. Kerry's claim that several foreign leaders told him they need him to beat Bush is not as fanciful as the Republicans pretend. Some 'old Europe' politicians, including France's President Jacques Chirac, also hope a President Kerry will dance to their tune - not only on Iraq, but also on issues such as the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court.
"Dominique de Villepin, France's foreign minister, makes no secret of his belief that the Bush presidency has been an 'aberration' and that a Democratic president will 'lift the fog of war.'
"What the outside world must understand is that most Americans now believe that they are threatened by enemies who can strike in the very heart of the United States. But the average American's reaction is quite different from that of the Spaniards who changed their votes because of the 3/11 terrorist attacks on Madrid. Few Americans are prepared to turn the other cheek for Osama bin Laden and societies that have helped breed, raise and finance him. Nor would they share the 'old Europe' illusion that one can change the nature of a man-eater by feeding him vegetables and cuddling him.
"Sens. Kerry and Kennedy may be 'sincere friends of the Arabs,' as the Saudi media suggest. It is also quite possible that de Villepin told Kerry 'you've got to beat Bush for all of us.' But the problem that Arabs and some in the 'old Europe' have is that they do not yet understand that, for a majority of Americans, the War on Terror is a real war - not a pose that can be altered with a change of administration."
Amir Tahiri:
...
"The Arabs are not alone in deluding themselves that a Democrat at the White House will let them do as they please. Kerry's claim that several foreign leaders told him they need him to beat Bush is not as fanciful as the Republicans pretend. Some 'old Europe' politicians, including France's President Jacques Chirac, also hope a President Kerry will dance to their tune - not only on Iraq, but also on issues such as the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court.
"Dominique de Villepin, France's foreign minister, makes no secret of his belief that the Bush presidency has been an 'aberration' and that a Democratic president will 'lift the fog of war.'
"What the outside world must understand is that most Americans now believe that they are threatened by enemies who can strike in the very heart of the United States. But the average American's reaction is quite different from that of the Spaniards who changed their votes because of the 3/11 terrorist attacks on Madrid. Few Americans are prepared to turn the other cheek for Osama bin Laden and societies that have helped breed, raise and finance him. Nor would they share the 'old Europe' illusion that one can change the nature of a man-eater by feeding him vegetables and cuddling him.
"Sens. Kerry and Kennedy may be 'sincere friends of the Arabs,' as the Saudi media suggest. It is also quite possible that de Villepin told Kerry 'you've got to beat Bush for all of us.' But the problem that Arabs and some in the 'old Europe' have is that they do not yet understand that, for a majority of Americans, the War on Terror is a real war - not a pose that can be altered with a change of administration."
Exploiting failure
Jim Hoagland:
...
"Clarke is 'stunning continuity' in human form. He led White House counterterror teams for both administrations and worked in others as well. He in fact had the greatest bureaucratic responsibility of any single individual to prevent 9/11. He now exploits his failure in a brilliant marketing campaign of media synergy: Clarke's kiss-and-tell memoir is published by the same conglomerate (Viacom) that owns the television network that promoted the book so relentlessly last weekend.
"Clarke is a clever operator. His blanket apology to the families of 9/11 victims at the opening of his testimony did not lead to his accepting responsibility for any specific planning or operational failures that he then identified. These failures unerringly turned out to be the fault of others. Challenged repeatedly on why he did not warn the nation publicly or Congress privately of Bush's glaring deficiencies, he finally slipped into candor to note: 'It is a question of politics.'
"Clarke's litany led a parade of 'what ifs?' and 'if onlys' through the hearings. If only the CIA had alerted Clarke that al Qaeda operatives were in America. If only the CIA had armed the Predator drone and taken responsibility for using it earlier. "
Jim Hoagland:
...
"Clarke is 'stunning continuity' in human form. He led White House counterterror teams for both administrations and worked in others as well. He in fact had the greatest bureaucratic responsibility of any single individual to prevent 9/11. He now exploits his failure in a brilliant marketing campaign of media synergy: Clarke's kiss-and-tell memoir is published by the same conglomerate (Viacom) that owns the television network that promoted the book so relentlessly last weekend.
"Clarke is a clever operator. His blanket apology to the families of 9/11 victims at the opening of his testimony did not lead to his accepting responsibility for any specific planning or operational failures that he then identified. These failures unerringly turned out to be the fault of others. Challenged repeatedly on why he did not warn the nation publicly or Congress privately of Bush's glaring deficiencies, he finally slipped into candor to note: 'It is a question of politics.'
"Clarke's litany led a parade of 'what ifs?' and 'if onlys' through the hearings. If only the CIA had alerted Clarke that al Qaeda operatives were in America. If only the CIA had armed the Predator drone and taken responsibility for using it earlier. "
Saturday, March 27, 2004
Hizballah admits ties with Hamas
The leader of Hisballah in Lebanon has told the new Hamas murderer in charge that Hizballah is at his service.
In order to achieve peace in the middle east both organizations must be destroyed.
The leader of Hisballah in Lebanon has told the new Hamas murderer in charge that Hizballah is at his service.
In order to achieve peace in the middle east both organizations must be destroyed.
"You can't escape and you can't hide ... the coalition will find you and bring you to justice,"
US Marines left a message for the bad guys in Fallujah. The leaflets were left behind after a punitive sweep through the town which followed an attack on a humvee with a rocket propelled grenade.
"Residents angrily vowed revenge, saying Friday's casualties were caused by Marine reprisals for an insurgent strike on a supply convoy that took out a Humvee with a rocket-propelled grenade. 'For each one who is killed, we will get 10 American soldiers,' said Abu Mujahid, 35, taunting the fresh Marine forces as 'cartoon characters.'
So for the tally is "cartoon characters" lost one and bad guys lost betwen 7 and 15 depending on which story you read. It will take more than bluster to get the Marines out of town. There may be many more black mourning banners in town before it is over.
The Marines had another message for the town and area, "Those who seek to impede the freedom, prosperity and progress of the al Anbar residents are being physically challenged. Among those, some have chosen to fight. Having elected their fate, they are being engaged and destroyed."
US Marines left a message for the bad guys in Fallujah. The leaflets were left behind after a punitive sweep through the town which followed an attack on a humvee with a rocket propelled grenade.
"Residents angrily vowed revenge, saying Friday's casualties were caused by Marine reprisals for an insurgent strike on a supply convoy that took out a Humvee with a rocket-propelled grenade. 'For each one who is killed, we will get 10 American soldiers,' said Abu Mujahid, 35, taunting the fresh Marine forces as 'cartoon characters.'
So for the tally is "cartoon characters" lost one and bad guys lost betwen 7 and 15 depending on which story you read. It will take more than bluster to get the Marines out of town. There may be many more black mourning banners in town before it is over.
The Marines had another message for the town and area, "Those who seek to impede the freedom, prosperity and progress of the al Anbar residents are being physically challenged. Among those, some have chosen to fight. Having elected their fate, they are being engaged and destroyed."
Friedman in fantasyland
Thomas Froedman:
"I have a confession to make: I am the foreign affairs columnist for The New York Times and I didn't listen to one second of the 9/11 hearings and I didn't read one story in the paper about them. Not one second. Not one story.
"Lord knows, it's not out of indifference to 9/11. It's because I made up my mind about that event a long time ago: It was not a failure of intelligence, it was a failure of imagination. We could have had perfect intelligence on all the key pieces of 9/11, but the fact is we lacked ? for the very best of reasons ? people with evil enough imaginations to put those pieces together and realize that 19 young men were going to hijack four airplanes for suicide attacks against our national symbols and kill as many innocent civilians as they could, for no stated reason at all."
The column goes downhill from there with a litany of liberal fantsies ending with a Kerry McCain ticket. The world would not be a better place with Tom's fantasies, because none of them have much to do with the real world.
The McCain on the ticket would not be a "national unity" ticket because his constituency has always been in the Democrat party. Most Republicans would view him as a traitor who betrayed the party and his ideals for a chance to carry a bucket of warm spit for Kerry. For some reasons people like Friedman and Chris Mathews just do not get this point. It is unlikely he would pull more than a fraction of Republican votes but the reaction among Republicans would make the Dem's Florida tantrum look like a picnic.
Thomas Froedman:
"I have a confession to make: I am the foreign affairs columnist for The New York Times and I didn't listen to one second of the 9/11 hearings and I didn't read one story in the paper about them. Not one second. Not one story.
"Lord knows, it's not out of indifference to 9/11. It's because I made up my mind about that event a long time ago: It was not a failure of intelligence, it was a failure of imagination. We could have had perfect intelligence on all the key pieces of 9/11, but the fact is we lacked ? for the very best of reasons ? people with evil enough imaginations to put those pieces together and realize that 19 young men were going to hijack four airplanes for suicide attacks against our national symbols and kill as many innocent civilians as they could, for no stated reason at all."
The column goes downhill from there with a litany of liberal fantsies ending with a Kerry McCain ticket. The world would not be a better place with Tom's fantasies, because none of them have much to do with the real world.
The McCain on the ticket would not be a "national unity" ticket because his constituency has always been in the Democrat party. Most Republicans would view him as a traitor who betrayed the party and his ideals for a chance to carry a bucket of warm spit for Kerry. For some reasons people like Friedman and Chris Mathews just do not get this point. It is unlikely he would pull more than a fraction of Republican votes but the reaction among Republicans would make the Dem's Florida tantrum look like a picnic.
A failure of nerve
Edwrd Luttwak:
...
"A final irony: the best opportunity to get Osama bin Laden was in February 1999. Members of the ruling family of the United Arab Emirates had flown into Kahandaron a hunting trip. Bin Laden arrived and set up camp next to them. He was monitored as he socialised with them for several days. The UAE was almost certainly giving him money.
"An American attack on the camp was opposed by none other than Richard Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism adviser, who was concerned about the UAE visitors (even though they were funding bin Laden). This was because Clarke himself had just been to the UAE, where he had received elaborate Arab hospitality and fulsome promises of co-operation. Mr Clarke is in no position to criticise George Bush for his failure to act against terrorism."
Edwrd Luttwak:
...
"A final irony: the best opportunity to get Osama bin Laden was in February 1999. Members of the ruling family of the United Arab Emirates had flown into Kahandaron a hunting trip. Bin Laden arrived and set up camp next to them. He was monitored as he socialised with them for several days. The UAE was almost certainly giving him money.
"An American attack on the camp was opposed by none other than Richard Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism adviser, who was concerned about the UAE visitors (even though they were funding bin Laden). This was because Clarke himself had just been to the UAE, where he had received elaborate Arab hospitality and fulsome promises of co-operation. Mr Clarke is in no position to criticise George Bush for his failure to act against terrorism."
Clarke's work of fiction
Mark Steyn:
"In January 2002, the Enron story broke and the media turned their attention to the critical question: how can we pin this on Bush? As I wrote in this space that weekend: 'Short answer: You can't.'
"So Enron retreated to the business pages, and, after a while, the media and the Democrats came up with an even better wheeze: how can we pin September 11 on Bush? Same answer: you can't. But that doesn't stop them every month or so from taking a wild ride on defective vehicles for their crazy scheme.
"The latest is a mid-level bureaucrat called Richard Clarke, and by the time you read this his 15 minutes should be just about up. Mr Clarke was Bill Clinton's terrorism guy for eight years and George W Bush's for a somewhat briefer period, and he has now written a book called If Only They'd Listened to Me - whoops, sorry, that should be Against All Enemies: Inside the White House's War on Terror - What Really Happened (Because They Didn't Listen to Me).
"Having served both the 42nd and 43rd Presidents, Clarke was supposed to be the most authoritative proponent to advance the Democrats' agreed timeline of the last decade - to whit, from January 1993 to January 2001, Bill Clinton focused like a laser on crafting a brilliant plan to destroy al-Qa'eda, but, alas, just as he had dotted every 'i', crossed every 't' and sent the intern to the photocopier, his eight years was up, so Bill gave it to the new guy as he was showing him the Oval Office - 'That carpet under the desk could use replacing. Oh, and here's my brilliant plan to destroy al-Qa'eda, which you guys really need to implement right away.'
...
"Yessir, for eight years the Clinton administration was relentless in its commitment: no sooner did al-Qa'eda bomb the World Trade Center first time round, or blow up an American embassy, or a barracks, or a warship, or turn an entire nation into a terrorist training camp, than the Clinton team would redouble their determination to sit down and talk through the options for a couple more years. Then Bush took over and suddenly the superbly successful fight against terror all went to hell.
...
"As for Clarke's beef with Bush, that's simple. For eight years, he had pottered away on the terrorism brief undisturbed. The new President took it away from him and adopted the strategy outlined by Condoleezza Rice in that Detroit radio interview, months before the self-regarding Mr Clarke claims he brought her up to speed on who bin Laden was: 'We really need a stronger policy of holding the states accountable that support him,' Dr Rice told WJR. 'Terrorists who are just operating out there without basis and without state support are a lot less dangerous than ones that find safe haven, as bin Laden does sometimes in places like Afghanistan or Sudan.' "
Mark Steyn:
"In January 2002, the Enron story broke and the media turned their attention to the critical question: how can we pin this on Bush? As I wrote in this space that weekend: 'Short answer: You can't.'
"So Enron retreated to the business pages, and, after a while, the media and the Democrats came up with an even better wheeze: how can we pin September 11 on Bush? Same answer: you can't. But that doesn't stop them every month or so from taking a wild ride on defective vehicles for their crazy scheme.
"The latest is a mid-level bureaucrat called Richard Clarke, and by the time you read this his 15 minutes should be just about up. Mr Clarke was Bill Clinton's terrorism guy for eight years and George W Bush's for a somewhat briefer period, and he has now written a book called If Only They'd Listened to Me - whoops, sorry, that should be Against All Enemies: Inside the White House's War on Terror - What Really Happened (Because They Didn't Listen to Me).
"Having served both the 42nd and 43rd Presidents, Clarke was supposed to be the most authoritative proponent to advance the Democrats' agreed timeline of the last decade - to whit, from January 1993 to January 2001, Bill Clinton focused like a laser on crafting a brilliant plan to destroy al-Qa'eda, but, alas, just as he had dotted every 'i', crossed every 't' and sent the intern to the photocopier, his eight years was up, so Bill gave it to the new guy as he was showing him the Oval Office - 'That carpet under the desk could use replacing. Oh, and here's my brilliant plan to destroy al-Qa'eda, which you guys really need to implement right away.'
...
"Yessir, for eight years the Clinton administration was relentless in its commitment: no sooner did al-Qa'eda bomb the World Trade Center first time round, or blow up an American embassy, or a barracks, or a warship, or turn an entire nation into a terrorist training camp, than the Clinton team would redouble their determination to sit down and talk through the options for a couple more years. Then Bush took over and suddenly the superbly successful fight against terror all went to hell.
...
"As for Clarke's beef with Bush, that's simple. For eight years, he had pottered away on the terrorism brief undisturbed. The new President took it away from him and adopted the strategy outlined by Condoleezza Rice in that Detroit radio interview, months before the self-regarding Mr Clarke claims he brought her up to speed on who bin Laden was: 'We really need a stronger policy of holding the states accountable that support him,' Dr Rice told WJR. 'Terrorists who are just operating out there without basis and without state support are a lot less dangerous than ones that find safe haven, as bin Laden does sometimes in places like Afghanistan or Sudan.' "
Christopher Says letter to National Committee on Terrorist Attacks
Via Vodkapundit:
"To the Commission:
"As Chairman of the House Government Reform Committee's National Security Subcommittee, I want to provide some information relevant to testimony today by Mr. Richard Clarke.
"Before September 11, 2001, we held twenty hearings and two formal briefings on terrorism issues. Mr. Clarke was of little help in our oversight. When he brief the Subcommittee, his answers were both evasive and derisive. He said a comprehensive threat assessment, as recommended by GAO, was too difficult.
"Mr. Clark said it would be 'silly' to try to articulate a national strategy. In lieu of a threat assessment or strategy, he offered a laundry list of terrorist groups, as if the fight against global terrorism were nothing more than a hunt for common criminals.
"Clark was part of the problem before September 11 because he took too narrow a view of the terrorism threat. His approach was reactive and limited to swatting at the visible elements of al Qe'ada, not the hidden global network and its state sponsors.
"The blind spots and vulnerabilities that contributed to the September 11, 2001 tragedy were apparent to many throughout the years Mr. Clarke was in a position to do something about them. Three national commissions ? Bremer, Gilmore, and Hart-Rudman ? had concluded the U.S. needed a comprehensive threat assessment, a national strategy and a plan to reorganize the federal response to the new strategic menace of terrorism.
"Yet no truly national strategy to combat terrorism was ever produced during Mr. Clarke's tenure. Instead, several presidential directives and a Justice Department five-year law enforcement plan were clumsily lashed together and called a strategy.
"After his uninformative briefing, we wrote to Mr. Clarke asking for written answers to specific questions: Why was there no threat assessment? When would there be a strategy? Who was responsible for coordinating federal spending and the federal response? We never got a satisfactory answer. A copy of our letter to Mr. Clarke is enclosed.
"On January 22, 2001, the Subcommittee wrote to Dr. Condoleeza Rice to express our concerns about Mr. Clarke's narrow view of the terrorist threat and the urgency of mounting a strategic response. A copy of that letter is enclosed as well.
"I hope the Commission finds this information useful."
Why wasn't Shays invided to testify?
Via Vodkapundit:
"To the Commission:
"As Chairman of the House Government Reform Committee's National Security Subcommittee, I want to provide some information relevant to testimony today by Mr. Richard Clarke.
"Before September 11, 2001, we held twenty hearings and two formal briefings on terrorism issues. Mr. Clarke was of little help in our oversight. When he brief the Subcommittee, his answers were both evasive and derisive. He said a comprehensive threat assessment, as recommended by GAO, was too difficult.
"Mr. Clark said it would be 'silly' to try to articulate a national strategy. In lieu of a threat assessment or strategy, he offered a laundry list of terrorist groups, as if the fight against global terrorism were nothing more than a hunt for common criminals.
"Clark was part of the problem before September 11 because he took too narrow a view of the terrorism threat. His approach was reactive and limited to swatting at the visible elements of al Qe'ada, not the hidden global network and its state sponsors.
"The blind spots and vulnerabilities that contributed to the September 11, 2001 tragedy were apparent to many throughout the years Mr. Clarke was in a position to do something about them. Three national commissions ? Bremer, Gilmore, and Hart-Rudman ? had concluded the U.S. needed a comprehensive threat assessment, a national strategy and a plan to reorganize the federal response to the new strategic menace of terrorism.
"Yet no truly national strategy to combat terrorism was ever produced during Mr. Clarke's tenure. Instead, several presidential directives and a Justice Department five-year law enforcement plan were clumsily lashed together and called a strategy.
"After his uninformative briefing, we wrote to Mr. Clarke asking for written answers to specific questions: Why was there no threat assessment? When would there be a strategy? Who was responsible for coordinating federal spending and the federal response? We never got a satisfactory answer. A copy of our letter to Mr. Clarke is enclosed.
"On January 22, 2001, the Subcommittee wrote to Dr. Condoleeza Rice to express our concerns about Mr. Clarke's narrow view of the terrorist threat and the urgency of mounting a strategic response. A copy of that letter is enclosed as well.
"I hope the Commission finds this information useful."
Why wasn't Shays invided to testify?
Europe renews its ethnic hatred of Jews
LA Times:
"The crimes seem lifted from a Nazi-era scrapbook: a rabbi beaten with a beer bottle, swastikas painted over Stars of David, a gasoline bomb hurled at a synagogue. But they appear in police blotters across Europe today, disturbing omens of new strains of anti-Semitism.
"Intolerance toward Jews is changing. Traditional anti-Semitism is coinciding with leftist opposition to Israel's response to the Palestinian intifada. And attacks on Jewish institutions in France, the Netherlands and elsewhere suggest that a burgeoning population of frustrated Muslim men is transplanting Middle East animosities into Europe."
LA Times:
"The crimes seem lifted from a Nazi-era scrapbook: a rabbi beaten with a beer bottle, swastikas painted over Stars of David, a gasoline bomb hurled at a synagogue. But they appear in police blotters across Europe today, disturbing omens of new strains of anti-Semitism.
"Intolerance toward Jews is changing. Traditional anti-Semitism is coinciding with leftist opposition to Israel's response to the Palestinian intifada. And attacks on Jewish institutions in France, the Netherlands and elsewhere suggest that a burgeoning population of frustrated Muslim men is transplanting Middle East animosities into Europe."
Iran sets up committe in charge of concealing nukes
LA Times:
"Senior Iranian officials are overseeing efforts to conceal key elements of the country's nuclear program from international inspectors, according to Western diplomats and an intelligence report.
"If the cover-up is confirmed, it would bolster the U.S. assertion that Iran is trying to hide a secret nuclear weapons program.
"Iran set up a committee late last year to coordinate the concealment efforts after international inspectors uncovered evidence that the Islamic Republic had tried to hide aspects of its nuclear program, including secret research on advanced centrifuges that can produce weapons-grade uranium, according to the diplomats.
"A diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the committee's most pressing tasks include trying to hide nuclear evidence at nearly 300 locations around the country. The committee is said to be composed mainly of senior officials of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran who report to high-ranking government officials."
Read the whole thing.
LA Times:
"Senior Iranian officials are overseeing efforts to conceal key elements of the country's nuclear program from international inspectors, according to Western diplomats and an intelligence report.
"If the cover-up is confirmed, it would bolster the U.S. assertion that Iran is trying to hide a secret nuclear weapons program.
"Iran set up a committee late last year to coordinate the concealment efforts after international inspectors uncovered evidence that the Islamic Republic had tried to hide aspects of its nuclear program, including secret research on advanced centrifuges that can produce weapons-grade uranium, according to the diplomats.
"A diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the committee's most pressing tasks include trying to hide nuclear evidence at nearly 300 locations around the country. The committee is said to be composed mainly of senior officials of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran who report to high-ranking government officials."
Read the whole thing.
Hillary's kind of hawk
Terrence P. Jeffrey:
"Reading former National Security Council aide Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies--Inside America's Terror War, one half expects the omnipresent author to describe himself showing up in Philadelphia in 1776 to draft the original version of the Declaration of Independence--only to have it hopelessly rewritten by right-wing dolts like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin.
"By Clarke's account (see page 2 and page 6), he played a key role in many of the most significant national security crises of the last quarter-century. Things went well when his advice was heeded; disaster ensued when it was not.
"The place one would not expect to find Clarke--from reading his book, anyway--is in a voting booth in 2000 pulling the lever for a Republican presidential candidate. But, testifying last week before the national commission probing the September 11 terrorist attacks, Clarke says he did just that.
...
"In Against All Enemies, hagiographies of hallowed leftists are followed by demonizations of accursed conservatives.
...
"Partisans of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry may ludicrously persist in portraying this man who reached the apex of his career in the Clinton White House as a Republican hawk. But, in his book, Clarke himself vividly paints his vision for a Blame-America-First Aquarian Age--that age that might have been, he suggests, if only a Clinton had ruled again.
"Drawing a contrast with George W. Bush's aggressive approach to the war on terror, Clark says: 'Others (Clinton, the first Bush, Carter, Ford) might have tried to understand the phenomenon of terrorism, what led 15 Saudis and four others to commit suicide to kill Americans. Others might have tried to build a world consensus to address the root causes, while using the moment to force what had been lethargic or doubting governments to arrest known terrorists and close front organizations. One can imagine Clinton trying one more time to force an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, going to Saudi Arabia and addressing the Muslim people in a moving appeal for religious tolerance . . .'
"Yeah, right, Dick. Then all of us 'Republicans' could have sat down with Bill, Hillary and Osama bin Laden and sung endless choruses of Give Peace a Chance."
Terrence P. Jeffrey:
"Reading former National Security Council aide Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies--Inside America's Terror War, one half expects the omnipresent author to describe himself showing up in Philadelphia in 1776 to draft the original version of the Declaration of Independence--only to have it hopelessly rewritten by right-wing dolts like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin.
"By Clarke's account (see page 2 and page 6), he played a key role in many of the most significant national security crises of the last quarter-century. Things went well when his advice was heeded; disaster ensued when it was not.
"The place one would not expect to find Clarke--from reading his book, anyway--is in a voting booth in 2000 pulling the lever for a Republican presidential candidate. But, testifying last week before the national commission probing the September 11 terrorist attacks, Clarke says he did just that.
...
"In Against All Enemies, hagiographies of hallowed leftists are followed by demonizations of accursed conservatives.
...
"Partisans of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry may ludicrously persist in portraying this man who reached the apex of his career in the Clinton White House as a Republican hawk. But, in his book, Clarke himself vividly paints his vision for a Blame-America-First Aquarian Age--that age that might have been, he suggests, if only a Clinton had ruled again.
"Drawing a contrast with George W. Bush's aggressive approach to the war on terror, Clark says: 'Others (Clinton, the first Bush, Carter, Ford) might have tried to understand the phenomenon of terrorism, what led 15 Saudis and four others to commit suicide to kill Americans. Others might have tried to build a world consensus to address the root causes, while using the moment to force what had been lethargic or doubting governments to arrest known terrorists and close front organizations. One can imagine Clinton trying one more time to force an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, going to Saudi Arabia and addressing the Muslim people in a moving appeal for religious tolerance . . .'
"Yeah, right, Dick. Then all of us 'Republicans' could have sat down with Bill, Hillary and Osama bin Laden and sung endless choruses of Give Peace a Chance."
Comparison of McCain and Kerry voting record on defense issues
Human Events has a side by side comparison of Kerry's weak record on defense with McCain's strong record. In looking at the votes it is hard tigure what McCain was talking about when he said Kerry was not weak on defense. Check it out.
Human Events has a side by side comparison of Kerry's weak record on defense with McCain's strong record. In looking at the votes it is hard tigure what McCain was talking about when he said Kerry was not weak on defense. Check it out.
Who would have thought it
Report: Rantissi despises Sharon
"Newly installed Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip Abed el Aziz Rantissi expressed his hatred for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the German Der Spiegel newspaper, reported Army Radio Saturday."
Of course he hated him before he was even elected. He hates all Jews living is Israel. He hates him because Sharon resist Hamas's goal of destroying Israel. Hamas has been making a maximum effort to kill as many Israelis as it can by what ever means. Any suggestion that Hamas can increase its already maximum effort is nonsensical rhetoric.
Report: Rantissi despises Sharon
"Newly installed Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip Abed el Aziz Rantissi expressed his hatred for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the German Der Spiegel newspaper, reported Army Radio Saturday."
Of course he hated him before he was even elected. He hates all Jews living is Israel. He hates him because Sharon resist Hamas's goal of destroying Israel. Hamas has been making a maximum effort to kill as many Israelis as it can by what ever means. Any suggestion that Hamas can increase its already maximum effort is nonsensical rhetoric.
What is the big deal about killing a killer?
David Pryce Jones:
" 'Blood will have blood' is the grim observation Shakespeare puts into the mouth of Macbeth. Unlike that character, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin did not kill in person, but he organized murder, a great deal of it. He strove all his life to make a reality of the mind-set of the Muslim Brotherhood, in which good Muslims everywhere at last assert their deserved supremacy over irredeemably bad Christians and Jews. Compromise is excluded. The only available options are victory or martyrdom.
"An unlikely figure with several severe physical disabilities, wheelchair bound all his adult years, Yassin nonetheless founded Hamas and thereby gave himself responsibility for the Palestine sector of the wider Islamist struggle. Palestine, he believed, was a land exclusively reserved by God for Muslims. With a consistency that has to be acknowledged, he rejected the existence of Israel in any shape or form and led jihad to eliminate it. His specialty was the recruiting and dispatching of suicide bombers. He wanted to kill Jews and didn't mind how many Muslims died in the process. Israel, he prophesied in a recent interview, would finally collapse in 2007. For him, then, peace meant war, and so he was the victim of his own violence. Blood will have blood.
...
"Both Christians and Muslims, in other words, are defending themselves with the very same measures and moral values as Israelis. What, then, explains the uproar of indignation and condemnation released by the killing of Yassin? Can British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw really believe that his description of Yassin as 'an old man in a wheelchair' is a necessary or sufficient definition? The EU foreign ministers in collective session have declared that the killing 'undermines the concept of the rule of law.' Did that concept have any meaning either for Yassin or for those who attacked the Madrid railway station? Will observance of the concept be enough to thwart further terror attacks anywhere in Europe?
"Beyond the usual humbug of diplomatic discourse, there seems to be an anxiety to pretend to Arabs and Muslims that all is well when evidently it is not. It is as if Arabs and Muslims were children who mustn't hear the truth; that assorted Islamists are destabilizing Islamic countries and dragging them by the scruff of the neck into suicidal wars with the neighbors.
...
"The Arab and Muslim world is caught between a past that will not release its grip and a future not quite able to come to birth. Sheikh Yassin had no solution to this dilemma. His inhuman passion could only ensure that blood will have blood. Everyone, Palestinians first and foremost, is better off without him."
Percy Foreman, a legendary criminal defense lawyer in Texas was successful using a strategy that said the victim deserved to die. Certainly Yasin deserved several deaths. The gates of hell that Palestinians claimed were opened by his killing, were only opened to receive him.
David Pryce Jones:
" 'Blood will have blood' is the grim observation Shakespeare puts into the mouth of Macbeth. Unlike that character, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin did not kill in person, but he organized murder, a great deal of it. He strove all his life to make a reality of the mind-set of the Muslim Brotherhood, in which good Muslims everywhere at last assert their deserved supremacy over irredeemably bad Christians and Jews. Compromise is excluded. The only available options are victory or martyrdom.
"An unlikely figure with several severe physical disabilities, wheelchair bound all his adult years, Yassin nonetheless founded Hamas and thereby gave himself responsibility for the Palestine sector of the wider Islamist struggle. Palestine, he believed, was a land exclusively reserved by God for Muslims. With a consistency that has to be acknowledged, he rejected the existence of Israel in any shape or form and led jihad to eliminate it. His specialty was the recruiting and dispatching of suicide bombers. He wanted to kill Jews and didn't mind how many Muslims died in the process. Israel, he prophesied in a recent interview, would finally collapse in 2007. For him, then, peace meant war, and so he was the victim of his own violence. Blood will have blood.
...
"Both Christians and Muslims, in other words, are defending themselves with the very same measures and moral values as Israelis. What, then, explains the uproar of indignation and condemnation released by the killing of Yassin? Can British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw really believe that his description of Yassin as 'an old man in a wheelchair' is a necessary or sufficient definition? The EU foreign ministers in collective session have declared that the killing 'undermines the concept of the rule of law.' Did that concept have any meaning either for Yassin or for those who attacked the Madrid railway station? Will observance of the concept be enough to thwart further terror attacks anywhere in Europe?
"Beyond the usual humbug of diplomatic discourse, there seems to be an anxiety to pretend to Arabs and Muslims that all is well when evidently it is not. It is as if Arabs and Muslims were children who mustn't hear the truth; that assorted Islamists are destabilizing Islamic countries and dragging them by the scruff of the neck into suicidal wars with the neighbors.
...
"The Arab and Muslim world is caught between a past that will not release its grip and a future not quite able to come to birth. Sheikh Yassin had no solution to this dilemma. His inhuman passion could only ensure that blood will have blood. Everyone, Palestinians first and foremost, is better off without him."
Percy Foreman, a legendary criminal defense lawyer in Texas was successful using a strategy that said the victim deserved to die. Certainly Yasin deserved several deaths. The gates of hell that Palestinians claimed were opened by his killing, were only opened to receive him.
Study shows Kerry most negative
NY Post:
" John Kerry - more than any other Democrat - attacked President Bush in TV ads during the presidential primary season, a new nonpartisan study found.
"The survey of television advertising found that 78 percent of Kerry's primary commercials - and all of his general-election ads so far - were critical of Bush.
...
"While Kerry's criticism was almost exclusively directed at Bush, other Democrats, such as Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt, used their ads to attack their party rivals.
"On the other hand, Bush's ads have been largely positive, according to the study. He attacked Kerry, his likely opponent, only 27 percent of the time.
" 'John Kerry has spent millions of campaign dollars attacking this president,' said Kevin Madden, a spokesman for the Bush campaign. 'It's clear John Kerry doesn't have an agenda for America. All he has is anger.' "
NY Post:
" John Kerry - more than any other Democrat - attacked President Bush in TV ads during the presidential primary season, a new nonpartisan study found.
"The survey of television advertising found that 78 percent of Kerry's primary commercials - and all of his general-election ads so far - were critical of Bush.
...
"While Kerry's criticism was almost exclusively directed at Bush, other Democrats, such as Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt, used their ads to attack their party rivals.
"On the other hand, Bush's ads have been largely positive, according to the study. He attacked Kerry, his likely opponent, only 27 percent of the time.
" 'John Kerry has spent millions of campaign dollars attacking this president,' said Kevin Madden, a spokesman for the Bush campaign. 'It's clear John Kerry doesn't have an agenda for America. All he has is anger.' "
Dick Clarke spinning his bad record
David Brooks:
"Warren Bass, Michael Hurley and Alexis Albion are not exactly household names. But they are a few of the authors of the outstanding interim reports released by the 9/11 commission this week. In clear, substantive and credible prose, these staff reports describe the errors successive administrations made leading up to the terror attacks. More than that, they describe the ambiguities and constraints policy makers wrestled with.
"But, of course, these reports were eclipsed. This was the week the Richard Clarke circus came to town.
"It should be said that Clarke used to be capable of the sort of balanced analysis contained in these reports. Indeed, he was a major source for them. But that was the old Richard Clarke. That was the Richard Clarke who could weigh the pros and cons of the Clinton and Bush terror strategies. That was the Clarke who expressed frustration at the glacial pace of the pre-9/11 antiterror policy process, but who also, in 2001, sent out e-mail praising the White House for alerting agencies to a possible attack, and who praised the Bush team for 'vigorously' pursuing the Clinton strategy while deciding to quintuple the C.I.A.'s anti-Qaeda budget.
"But that wonky Richard Clarke doesn't become a prime-time media sensation or sell hundreds of thousands of books. Because in this country, we speak only one language when it comes to public affairs, the language of partisan warfare. So out goes Mr. Wonk. Clarke turns himself into an anti-Bush attack machine, and we get a case study of how serious bipartisan concern gets turned into a week of civil war.
"Compared with the commission reports, Clarke's book, 'Against All Enemies,' is as subtle as an episode of the Power Rangers. See Dick Clarke courageously take control of the government in the middle of the terror attacks! See him heroically lead a teleconference! Behold his White House conversations! Everything he says is farsighted and brave! Everything the Bushies say is incorrect. And he remembers it all perfectly!"
David Brooks:
"Warren Bass, Michael Hurley and Alexis Albion are not exactly household names. But they are a few of the authors of the outstanding interim reports released by the 9/11 commission this week. In clear, substantive and credible prose, these staff reports describe the errors successive administrations made leading up to the terror attacks. More than that, they describe the ambiguities and constraints policy makers wrestled with.
"But, of course, these reports were eclipsed. This was the week the Richard Clarke circus came to town.
"It should be said that Clarke used to be capable of the sort of balanced analysis contained in these reports. Indeed, he was a major source for them. But that was the old Richard Clarke. That was the Richard Clarke who could weigh the pros and cons of the Clinton and Bush terror strategies. That was the Clarke who expressed frustration at the glacial pace of the pre-9/11 antiterror policy process, but who also, in 2001, sent out e-mail praising the White House for alerting agencies to a possible attack, and who praised the Bush team for 'vigorously' pursuing the Clinton strategy while deciding to quintuple the C.I.A.'s anti-Qaeda budget.
"But that wonky Richard Clarke doesn't become a prime-time media sensation or sell hundreds of thousands of books. Because in this country, we speak only one language when it comes to public affairs, the language of partisan warfare. So out goes Mr. Wonk. Clarke turns himself into an anti-Bush attack machine, and we get a case study of how serious bipartisan concern gets turned into a week of civil war.
"Compared with the commission reports, Clarke's book, 'Against All Enemies,' is as subtle as an episode of the Power Rangers. See Dick Clarke courageously take control of the government in the middle of the terror attacks! See him heroically lead a teleconference! Behold his White House conversations! Everything he says is farsighted and brave! Everything the Bushies say is incorrect. And he remembers it all perfectly!"
Dems appear to be coordinating ads with outside groups in violation of campaing finance laws
NY Times:
" Senator John Kerry's advertising campaign is so closely complemented by those of two major liberal groups running commercials against President Bush that Republicans are accusing the Democrats of trying to evade campaign finance laws.
"An analysis of advertising data provided by Republicans, Democrats and an independent group shows a striking synchronicity between the advertising campaigns of Mr. Kerry and Moveon.org and the Media Fund, which flatly deny any illegal consultations. They have been advertising in the same 17 swing states, in most of the same markets while almost uniformly ignoring others.
"In mid-March, while Mr. Kerry advertised slightly more in the morning, the groups advertised slightly more at night. At other times of day, the two groups and the Kerry campaign together matched Mr. Bush's advertising nearly spot for spot, in a couple of cases exceeding it. That level of correlation has delighted Democrats, who acknowledge that the groups have gone a long way in helping Mr. Kerry to meet the advertising onslaught of Mr. Bush, whose campaign has raised far more money.
"Officials of the two groups say that they do not need to speak to the Kerry campaign to join it in answering the Bush campaign. But such help is becoming a focal point in what is widely expected to be a legal battle with Republicans and some advocates of election reform over what legitimate role the groups, which are called 527 committees for the section of the tax code that created them, should be allowed to play. "
NY Times:
" Senator John Kerry's advertising campaign is so closely complemented by those of two major liberal groups running commercials against President Bush that Republicans are accusing the Democrats of trying to evade campaign finance laws.
"An analysis of advertising data provided by Republicans, Democrats and an independent group shows a striking synchronicity between the advertising campaigns of Mr. Kerry and Moveon.org and the Media Fund, which flatly deny any illegal consultations. They have been advertising in the same 17 swing states, in most of the same markets while almost uniformly ignoring others.
"In mid-March, while Mr. Kerry advertised slightly more in the morning, the groups advertised slightly more at night. At other times of day, the two groups and the Kerry campaign together matched Mr. Bush's advertising nearly spot for spot, in a couple of cases exceeding it. That level of correlation has delighted Democrats, who acknowledge that the groups have gone a long way in helping Mr. Kerry to meet the advertising onslaught of Mr. Bush, whose campaign has raised far more money.
"Officials of the two groups say that they do not need to speak to the Kerry campaign to join it in answering the Bush campaign. But such help is becoming a focal point in what is widely expected to be a legal battle with Republicans and some advocates of election reform over what legitimate role the groups, which are called 527 committees for the section of the tax code that created them, should be allowed to play. "
Senate Dems threaten to thwart democracy again
NY Times:
"Senate Democrats, turning up the heat in their long-simmering feud with President Bush over judicial nominations, vowed on Friday to block all new federal court appointments unless the White House promises to stop installing judges while Congress is in recess."
If they do this the Republicans should Use the "nuclear" option and vote to ignor the Dems unconstitutional use of the filibuster in judicial nominations.
NY Times:
"Senate Democrats, turning up the heat in their long-simmering feud with President Bush over judicial nominations, vowed on Friday to block all new federal court appointments unless the White House promises to stop installing judges while Congress is in recess."
If they do this the Republicans should Use the "nuclear" option and vote to ignor the Dems unconstitutional use of the filibuster in judicial nominations.
Friday, March 26, 2004
Iraqi intelligence penetration of Egyptian oficials and journalist
DEBKAfiles:
...
" The documents spelled out in detail how Farhan Hassan, Iraq’s deputy ambassador to the Arab League in Cairo, turned his office into a center of espionage and recruiting post for Iraqi agents in Egypt, the United States and the Gulf.
"At the end of the meeting, according to DEBKA-Net-Weekly ’s intelligence sources, Mubarak ordered his security forces to start rounding up all the Egyptians listed in the documents as agents of Hassan’s Iraqi network. Some 120 people were picked in the first wave.
"The package also contained Hassan’s reports to Baghdad. Under the codename 'Number 3' attested to his ranking in the Iraqi hierarchy, he filed directly to Saddam Hussein.
"Number 3 described in detail how he bought the loyalty of 'several prominent Egyptian journalists,' among them popular columnist Sayid Nasser, who were willing to publish articles shooting Saddam’s propaganda line. One report outlined Hassan’s steps for the recruitment of Shuwaike Abu Zayad, the wife of one of Egypt’s top diplomats. She passed to Number 3 all the Egyptian foreign ministry’s top-secret cables and documents.
"As expectations of a US invasion of Iraq mounted in 2002, Mrs. Abu Zayad handed the Iraqis the ministry’s secret computer codes. Iraqi intelligence then tapped in from Baghdad and downloaded document after document, including the secrets of US-Egyptian military cooperation and transcripts of conversations between Mubarak and the past and present US defense secretaries, William Cohen and Donald Rumsfeld. The Iraqis also read all the secret reports and documents pertaining to the annual US-Egyptian 'Bright Star' military maneuvers.
"Number 3 was particular fond of boasting to Saddam that he had recruited about 20 Egyptian generals who had been transferred to the reserves and farmed out to administrative jobs in Egypt’s military industries. They positively gushed with information on their former units and new jobs.
...
" Number 3 performed many more services for his master in Baghdad. They included:
"1. Thwarting special operations mounted by the Iraqi opposition in Washington and London. In the US capital, according to one of the documents, Hassan recruited Najib Salhi, an Iraqi general and former commander of Iraq’s 4th Division who defected to the United States. The general’s people collected information in Washington on the activities of Iraqi opposition figures, including Mohammed Chalabi, now a senior member of the Iraqi Governing Council.
"2. Using Iraq’s Arab League office in Cairo to recruit agents from Eastern Europe. The documents are chock full of the names of Russian and Czech diplomats who served Iraqi intelligence. Number 3 was able to pass along to Baghdad volumes of secret cables and military reports that Moscow sent to or received from its embassies in the Middle East and Gulf.
"3. Running a large number of import-export companies registered in Cairo. They were used as fronts for information, goods and money sought by Iraq.
"4. Overseeing operations at the Qatar-based al-Jazeera, the biggest and most influential Arab satellite television in the world. Hassan got first look at intelligence gathered by the station and paid its staffers to tout the Iraqi line...."
DEBKAfiles:
...
" The documents spelled out in detail how Farhan Hassan, Iraq’s deputy ambassador to the Arab League in Cairo, turned his office into a center of espionage and recruiting post for Iraqi agents in Egypt, the United States and the Gulf.
"At the end of the meeting, according to DEBKA-Net-Weekly ’s intelligence sources, Mubarak ordered his security forces to start rounding up all the Egyptians listed in the documents as agents of Hassan’s Iraqi network. Some 120 people were picked in the first wave.
"The package also contained Hassan’s reports to Baghdad. Under the codename 'Number 3' attested to his ranking in the Iraqi hierarchy, he filed directly to Saddam Hussein.
"Number 3 described in detail how he bought the loyalty of 'several prominent Egyptian journalists,' among them popular columnist Sayid Nasser, who were willing to publish articles shooting Saddam’s propaganda line. One report outlined Hassan’s steps for the recruitment of Shuwaike Abu Zayad, the wife of one of Egypt’s top diplomats. She passed to Number 3 all the Egyptian foreign ministry’s top-secret cables and documents.
"As expectations of a US invasion of Iraq mounted in 2002, Mrs. Abu Zayad handed the Iraqis the ministry’s secret computer codes. Iraqi intelligence then tapped in from Baghdad and downloaded document after document, including the secrets of US-Egyptian military cooperation and transcripts of conversations between Mubarak and the past and present US defense secretaries, William Cohen and Donald Rumsfeld. The Iraqis also read all the secret reports and documents pertaining to the annual US-Egyptian 'Bright Star' military maneuvers.
"Number 3 was particular fond of boasting to Saddam that he had recruited about 20 Egyptian generals who had been transferred to the reserves and farmed out to administrative jobs in Egypt’s military industries. They positively gushed with information on their former units and new jobs.
...
" Number 3 performed many more services for his master in Baghdad. They included:
"1. Thwarting special operations mounted by the Iraqi opposition in Washington and London. In the US capital, according to one of the documents, Hassan recruited Najib Salhi, an Iraqi general and former commander of Iraq’s 4th Division who defected to the United States. The general’s people collected information in Washington on the activities of Iraqi opposition figures, including Mohammed Chalabi, now a senior member of the Iraqi Governing Council.
"2. Using Iraq’s Arab League office in Cairo to recruit agents from Eastern Europe. The documents are chock full of the names of Russian and Czech diplomats who served Iraqi intelligence. Number 3 was able to pass along to Baghdad volumes of secret cables and military reports that Moscow sent to or received from its embassies in the Middle East and Gulf.
"3. Running a large number of import-export companies registered in Cairo. They were used as fronts for information, goods and money sought by Iraq.
"4. Overseeing operations at the Qatar-based al-Jazeera, the biggest and most influential Arab satellite television in the world. Hassan got first look at intelligence gathered by the station and paid its staffers to tout the Iraqi line...."
Earlier Clark testimony under oath inconsistant with what he said this week
DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent:
"Key Republicans in Congress sought Friday to declassify two-year-old testimony by former White House aide Richard Clarke, suggesting he may have lied this week when he faulted President Bush's handling of the war on terror.
" 'Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath,' Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in a speech on the Senate floor.
"The Tennessee Republican said he hopes Clarke's testimony in July 2002 before the House and Senate intelligence committees can be declassified. Then, he said, it can be compared with the account the former aide provided in his nationally televised appearance Wednesday before the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "
DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent:
"Key Republicans in Congress sought Friday to declassify two-year-old testimony by former White House aide Richard Clarke, suggesting he may have lied this week when he faulted President Bush's handling of the war on terror.
" 'Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath,' Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in a speech on the Senate floor.
"The Tennessee Republican said he hopes Clarke's testimony in July 2002 before the House and Senate intelligence committees can be declassified. Then, he said, it can be compared with the account the former aide provided in his nationally televised appearance Wednesday before the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "
Versaltil critics
Opinion Journal:
"Give President Bush's critics credit for versatility. Having spent months assailing him for doing too much after 9/11--Iraq, the Patriot Act, the 'pre-emption' doctrine--they have now turned on a dime to allege that he did too little before it. This contradiction is Mr. Bush's opportunity to rise above the ankle biting and explain to the American public what a President is elected to do.
...
"This is the real lesson emerging from the 9/11 Commission hearings if you listen above the partisan din. In their eagerness to insist that Mr. Bush should have acted more pre-emptively before 9/11, the critics are rebutting their own case against the President's aggressive antiterror policy ever since. The implication of their critique is that Mr. Bush didn't repudiate the failed strategy of the Clinton years fast enough.
...
"The idea that every President would have toppled the Taliban after 9/11 is also wishful thinking. The press at the time was full of hand-wringing about the dangers. The establishment consensus, even so soon after 9/11, was that the U.S. could end up bogged down in Kabul like the British and Soviets. President Bush is the one who took the risk of using force to rout the Taliban and the al Qaeda camps they were protecting.
"All of this is what we ought to be debating this election year, not how selective Dick Clarke's memory is. Even if everything Mr. Clarke says is true--and he's already contradicted himself numerous times--it is beside the point. What matters is which strategy against terrorism the U.S. should pursue now and for the next four years."
Opinion Journal:
"Give President Bush's critics credit for versatility. Having spent months assailing him for doing too much after 9/11--Iraq, the Patriot Act, the 'pre-emption' doctrine--they have now turned on a dime to allege that he did too little before it. This contradiction is Mr. Bush's opportunity to rise above the ankle biting and explain to the American public what a President is elected to do.
...
"This is the real lesson emerging from the 9/11 Commission hearings if you listen above the partisan din. In their eagerness to insist that Mr. Bush should have acted more pre-emptively before 9/11, the critics are rebutting their own case against the President's aggressive antiterror policy ever since. The implication of their critique is that Mr. Bush didn't repudiate the failed strategy of the Clinton years fast enough.
...
"The idea that every President would have toppled the Taliban after 9/11 is also wishful thinking. The press at the time was full of hand-wringing about the dangers. The establishment consensus, even so soon after 9/11, was that the U.S. could end up bogged down in Kabul like the British and Soviets. President Bush is the one who took the risk of using force to rout the Taliban and the al Qaeda camps they were protecting.
"All of this is what we ought to be debating this election year, not how selective Dick Clarke's memory is. Even if everything Mr. Clarke says is true--and he's already contradicted himself numerous times--it is beside the point. What matters is which strategy against terrorism the U.S. should pursue now and for the next four years."
Israel's new mini drones
Haaretz:
"The Israel Defense Forces is equipping its forces with a new range of spy drones small enough to fit in a soldier's backpack, including one that weighs less than a can of soda, the army said Thursday."
Haaretz:
"The Israel Defense Forces is equipping its forces with a new range of spy drones small enough to fit in a soldier's backpack, including one that weighs less than a can of soda, the army said Thursday."
The need for a war on the left
Belmont Club:
"The possible electoral defeat of President Bush by John Kerry raises the question of whether the Global War on Terror ultimately requires a war on the Left. That is to say whether a political defeat of the Left is a prerequisite for stamping out worldwide terrorism. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many in the Left, at least, believes that the GWOT is a war on them. America, not Osama Bin Laden is the putative enemy, and their fire is directed accordingly. Conversely, many conservatives are conditioned by the sight of a de facto alliance between the Left and Islamism to think that both parties are on the same side of the fence. But must it necessarily be so?
"Answers in the affirmative normally rest on the presumption that the Left is engaged in a protracted Gramscian program of Western civilizational suicide in which Islam serves as a convenient means of attaining quietus. For those who truly subscribe to this theory, it is the Left not Islam which is Western civilization's strategic enemy. The inevitable implication of this concept is that the principal battlefield in the Global War on Terror is not Iraq or Afghanistan, but the newsrooms of the major Western cities. Supporters of this idea will point to the fact that the stunning military successes of the War on Terror were easily overturned in Spain by the cynical actuations of the Socialist Party. If President Bush is defeated by John Kerry the case will be made. The Left will have fixed him as the man responsible for 9/11 in the same way that Vietnam is now described as 'Nixon's War,' proving once again that the lie is mightier than the sword.
...
"...the Left desires, not a Gramscian extinction but power above anything else. The power to regulate all aspects of human existence, all human relations, all cultural attitudes, all state authority. And while the Left might make temporary alliance with the Jihadis, the attainment of ultimate power requires an eventual liquidation of the Jihad. There is only room for one scorpion in a bottle. In this context, the assertions by Eurosocialists and John Kerry that they will be more effective in fighting terrorism are meant to be taken literally, however ludicrous that may appear at first glance.
"Yet in either case, the liquidation of conservatism, with its backward notions of natural law, national sovereignty and the like, is the first order of business. For both Osama and the Western Left, the defeat of President George Bush is the priority event after which all things are subsidiary. The question of which survivor will prevail as they struggle over the grave of their common foe is only of academic interest. One answer is that it will not matter: that a existence under a Western jackboot is little to be preferred to life under smelly cloths.
"There remains a third answer. That the existence of these two great religious totalitarianisms -- one secular only in name and the other religious only in dissimulation -- is required for their mutual defeat. It relies on the observation that both the Left and Islamism react together to produce an extremely toxic combination which neither could have achieved alone. It takes some reflection to remember just how far both the notions of Islamism and Leftism have moved since September 11. The former was an unknown towards which the man in the street would have been indifferent while the latter was a kind of eccentricity, rough yet without danger. Neither will be again. Both have mutated in interaction or perhaps have become that which they really were.
"Both are struggling for the space in which conservatism can never go and for the prize which no sane man ever covets: the dominion of souls. Without their mutual presence either could have occupied a kind of cultural sanctuary in which they would brood, proof against interference from people with simple day jobs. Together they guarantee that their places of safety, every media outlet, every school and every place of worship will be transformed into arenas of unparalleled ferocity -- to the possible benefit of the world. Is the Global War on Terror necessarily against the Left? We shall see. We shall see."
Belmont Club:
"The possible electoral defeat of President Bush by John Kerry raises the question of whether the Global War on Terror ultimately requires a war on the Left. That is to say whether a political defeat of the Left is a prerequisite for stamping out worldwide terrorism. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many in the Left, at least, believes that the GWOT is a war on them. America, not Osama Bin Laden is the putative enemy, and their fire is directed accordingly. Conversely, many conservatives are conditioned by the sight of a de facto alliance between the Left and Islamism to think that both parties are on the same side of the fence. But must it necessarily be so?
"Answers in the affirmative normally rest on the presumption that the Left is engaged in a protracted Gramscian program of Western civilizational suicide in which Islam serves as a convenient means of attaining quietus. For those who truly subscribe to this theory, it is the Left not Islam which is Western civilization's strategic enemy. The inevitable implication of this concept is that the principal battlefield in the Global War on Terror is not Iraq or Afghanistan, but the newsrooms of the major Western cities. Supporters of this idea will point to the fact that the stunning military successes of the War on Terror were easily overturned in Spain by the cynical actuations of the Socialist Party. If President Bush is defeated by John Kerry the case will be made. The Left will have fixed him as the man responsible for 9/11 in the same way that Vietnam is now described as 'Nixon's War,' proving once again that the lie is mightier than the sword.
...
"...the Left desires, not a Gramscian extinction but power above anything else. The power to regulate all aspects of human existence, all human relations, all cultural attitudes, all state authority. And while the Left might make temporary alliance with the Jihadis, the attainment of ultimate power requires an eventual liquidation of the Jihad. There is only room for one scorpion in a bottle. In this context, the assertions by Eurosocialists and John Kerry that they will be more effective in fighting terrorism are meant to be taken literally, however ludicrous that may appear at first glance.
"Yet in either case, the liquidation of conservatism, with its backward notions of natural law, national sovereignty and the like, is the first order of business. For both Osama and the Western Left, the defeat of President George Bush is the priority event after which all things are subsidiary. The question of which survivor will prevail as they struggle over the grave of their common foe is only of academic interest. One answer is that it will not matter: that a existence under a Western jackboot is little to be preferred to life under smelly cloths.
"There remains a third answer. That the existence of these two great religious totalitarianisms -- one secular only in name and the other religious only in dissimulation -- is required for their mutual defeat. It relies on the observation that both the Left and Islamism react together to produce an extremely toxic combination which neither could have achieved alone. It takes some reflection to remember just how far both the notions of Islamism and Leftism have moved since September 11. The former was an unknown towards which the man in the street would have been indifferent while the latter was a kind of eccentricity, rough yet without danger. Neither will be again. Both have mutated in interaction or perhaps have become that which they really were.
"Both are struggling for the space in which conservatism can never go and for the prize which no sane man ever covets: the dominion of souls. Without their mutual presence either could have occupied a kind of cultural sanctuary in which they would brood, proof against interference from people with simple day jobs. Together they guarantee that their places of safety, every media outlet, every school and every place of worship will be transformed into arenas of unparalleled ferocity -- to the possible benefit of the world. Is the Global War on Terror necessarily against the Left? We shall see. We shall see."
Al Qaeda hearingsLileks:
"So if Al Qaeda had failed on 9/11, do you think OBL and the rest of the merry band would be sitting around a table in Kabul holding hearings about who was to blame? I tend to think they would have moved on.
"I tend to think they have moved on.
"It’s interesting how this Clarke thing plays out. When I said yesterday that Clarke should have expected some push-back, I should have been more clearer. I meant that he must have known his contradictory statements would be made public, quickly, and these remarks, combined with his exquisitely timed book and PR push, would have an impact on his credibility. But he’s obviously smarter than I will ever be; he expected that the climate was right for his contradictions to be explained away or ignored."
Read the whole thing. He decimates the bias coverage.
"So if Al Qaeda had failed on 9/11, do you think OBL and the rest of the merry band would be sitting around a table in Kabul holding hearings about who was to blame? I tend to think they would have moved on.
"I tend to think they have moved on.
"It’s interesting how this Clarke thing plays out. When I said yesterday that Clarke should have expected some push-back, I should have been more clearer. I meant that he must have known his contradictory statements would be made public, quickly, and these remarks, combined with his exquisitely timed book and PR push, would have an impact on his credibility. But he’s obviously smarter than I will ever be; he expected that the climate was right for his contradictions to be explained away or ignored."
Read the whole thing. He decimates the bias coverage.
Finishing the war
Victor Davis Hanson:
...
"President Musharraf is targeted by assassins. Synagogues are blown apart. Suicide murderers try to reach a chemical dump in Ashdod in hopes of gassing Jews to the pleasure of much of the Arab world and the indifference of Europe. Indeed, Palestinian murderers apologize for gunning down an Arab jogger in Jerusalem — for the colossal mistake of thinking that he was Jewish. The world yawns, but is then outraged because Israelis take out a mass-murderer during a time of war. We are witnessing a grand struggle between those who create things and those who can only destroy them, between those who are confident and build civilizations and those who have failed and turned vicious.
...
"We should remember that this war of barbarism against civilization is global and connected. Poor Mr. Villepin may ignore that his country's appeasement and profit-making in Iraq were helpful to Saddam Hussein's state-sponsored terrorism and he may believe that things are worse in Baghdad now. But he will learn that past French double-dealing, flamboyant anti-Americanism, and obsequiousness to Iranian theocrats will win him no reprieve from these purveyors of a new Dark Age. The extremists will be just as likely to murder French children over banning headscarves as they would have had three Gallic divisions fought in Iraq.
"The Spanish may think that bin Laden's past fury over the Reconquista and the Crusades was silly while the present anger over Spaniards in Iraq is logical. But they too will soon learn that appeasement wins them temporary quiet from enemies and general disappointment from friends — not a permanent pardon from terrorist attacks. If they believe al Qaeda is a rational interlocutor, they should assume that the U.S. withdrawal from Saudi Arabia and cessation of the embargo of Iraq — replaced by massive American aid — have met bin Laden's original 1998 demands and that peace is at hand.
"What is our enemies' ultimate agenda? Judge them by what they say and then do: Any who champion women are targeted. Those who are Jews should die. Expressing tolerance for other religions is a capital crime. Secular law and government are a betrayal. Apostasy from Islam justifies murder. Hypocrisy does not matter — whether that means using a hated Western computer or flocking to a despised Western capital. This craziness is actually an agenda of sorts, proclaiming to the wretched, 'Purge yourself of the modern West (sort of) and fool yourself into thinking that you will have power, honor, and wealth as never before.'
...
"While Ted Kennedy and John Kerry pontificate about losing the war on terror, al Qaeda is nearly finished. What we have been seeing lately are its tentacles flapping about in search of prey, after the head has been smashed — still for a time lethal, but without lasting strength. We should remember that perhaps the bloodiest month for Americans in the European theater of World War II was not during 1943 and 1944 amid the invasions of North Africa, Sicily, Italy, or Normandy, but rather in January 1945, a mere five months before the close of the war, when GIs fought back the last bitter German offensive.
...
"Instead, a much better measure than the week's explosions is a systematic examination of al Qaeda's position, then and now.
"The terrorists have been routed from their sanctuary of Afghanistan and cannot come back as long as the United States and its allies are determined to stay the course. They are being slowly drawn and quartered inside Pakistan, where the Musharraf government has finally agreed to begin to close down its frontier border sanctuary. Terrorists' ties with rogue regimes like Saddam Hussein's and Khaddafi's Libya are now cut. Saudi, Syrian, and Iranian subsidies and sanctuaries of old are now under scrutiny. Reformists in all of those countries are organizing.
"The United States has imposed a global crackdown on terrorist funding, and muscled suspect regimes like Yemen and Jordan into deporting or jailing jihadists and their sympathizers. Pakistan and India are talking, which is bad news for the fundamentalists in Kashmir and the badlands along the Afghan border. The Palestinian killers have brought only misery to their people and now a wall — ensuring that their constituents will soon have a chance to enjoy from Mr. Arafat the same good government that the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and the Iranian clerics extended to their similarly isolated people.
"But perhaps the worst development for the fundamentalists has been a radical change of attitude in the United States. No longer do we say to autocrats 'pump oil, and keep out communists — and do what you want with your own people.'
...
"The problem is not 'getting the message out,' but having the intellectual courage to tell the truth and not to be browbeaten by faux intellectuals who talk monotonously of mythical pipelines and Zionist aggression. The fact is, beneath the hype, Iraqis will soon appreciate American help and idealism far more than French perfidy. It is never wrong to be on the side of freedom — never."
Victor Davis Hanson:
...
"President Musharraf is targeted by assassins. Synagogues are blown apart. Suicide murderers try to reach a chemical dump in Ashdod in hopes of gassing Jews to the pleasure of much of the Arab world and the indifference of Europe. Indeed, Palestinian murderers apologize for gunning down an Arab jogger in Jerusalem — for the colossal mistake of thinking that he was Jewish. The world yawns, but is then outraged because Israelis take out a mass-murderer during a time of war. We are witnessing a grand struggle between those who create things and those who can only destroy them, between those who are confident and build civilizations and those who have failed and turned vicious.
...
"We should remember that this war of barbarism against civilization is global and connected. Poor Mr. Villepin may ignore that his country's appeasement and profit-making in Iraq were helpful to Saddam Hussein's state-sponsored terrorism and he may believe that things are worse in Baghdad now. But he will learn that past French double-dealing, flamboyant anti-Americanism, and obsequiousness to Iranian theocrats will win him no reprieve from these purveyors of a new Dark Age. The extremists will be just as likely to murder French children over banning headscarves as they would have had three Gallic divisions fought in Iraq.
"The Spanish may think that bin Laden's past fury over the Reconquista and the Crusades was silly while the present anger over Spaniards in Iraq is logical. But they too will soon learn that appeasement wins them temporary quiet from enemies and general disappointment from friends — not a permanent pardon from terrorist attacks. If they believe al Qaeda is a rational interlocutor, they should assume that the U.S. withdrawal from Saudi Arabia and cessation of the embargo of Iraq — replaced by massive American aid — have met bin Laden's original 1998 demands and that peace is at hand.
"What is our enemies' ultimate agenda? Judge them by what they say and then do: Any who champion women are targeted. Those who are Jews should die. Expressing tolerance for other religions is a capital crime. Secular law and government are a betrayal. Apostasy from Islam justifies murder. Hypocrisy does not matter — whether that means using a hated Western computer or flocking to a despised Western capital. This craziness is actually an agenda of sorts, proclaiming to the wretched, 'Purge yourself of the modern West (sort of) and fool yourself into thinking that you will have power, honor, and wealth as never before.'
...
"While Ted Kennedy and John Kerry pontificate about losing the war on terror, al Qaeda is nearly finished. What we have been seeing lately are its tentacles flapping about in search of prey, after the head has been smashed — still for a time lethal, but without lasting strength. We should remember that perhaps the bloodiest month for Americans in the European theater of World War II was not during 1943 and 1944 amid the invasions of North Africa, Sicily, Italy, or Normandy, but rather in January 1945, a mere five months before the close of the war, when GIs fought back the last bitter German offensive.
...
"Instead, a much better measure than the week's explosions is a systematic examination of al Qaeda's position, then and now.
"The terrorists have been routed from their sanctuary of Afghanistan and cannot come back as long as the United States and its allies are determined to stay the course. They are being slowly drawn and quartered inside Pakistan, where the Musharraf government has finally agreed to begin to close down its frontier border sanctuary. Terrorists' ties with rogue regimes like Saddam Hussein's and Khaddafi's Libya are now cut. Saudi, Syrian, and Iranian subsidies and sanctuaries of old are now under scrutiny. Reformists in all of those countries are organizing.
"The United States has imposed a global crackdown on terrorist funding, and muscled suspect regimes like Yemen and Jordan into deporting or jailing jihadists and their sympathizers. Pakistan and India are talking, which is bad news for the fundamentalists in Kashmir and the badlands along the Afghan border. The Palestinian killers have brought only misery to their people and now a wall — ensuring that their constituents will soon have a chance to enjoy from Mr. Arafat the same good government that the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and the Iranian clerics extended to their similarly isolated people.
"But perhaps the worst development for the fundamentalists has been a radical change of attitude in the United States. No longer do we say to autocrats 'pump oil, and keep out communists — and do what you want with your own people.'
...
"The problem is not 'getting the message out,' but having the intellectual courage to tell the truth and not to be browbeaten by faux intellectuals who talk monotonously of mythical pipelines and Zionist aggression. The fact is, beneath the hype, Iraqis will soon appreciate American help and idealism far more than French perfidy. It is never wrong to be on the side of freedom — never."
Clarke ignors his own words showing connection between Iraq and al Qaeda
Deroy Murdock:
...
" 'There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda ever,' Clarke declared March 21 on CBS' 60 Minutes. Because Baathist Iraq and al Qaeda colluded less than, say, Iceland and the Cosa Nostra, the theory goes, President Bush squandered American time, treasure, and blood by hunting Saddam Hussein rather than Osama bin Laden.
"This view totally overlooks extensive connections between Baghdad and bin Laden. Just ask Richard Clarke.
"On Wednesday, he told the September 11 Commission about Abdul Rahman Yasin, the al Qaeda operative indicted who federal prosecutors indicted for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that rocked the World Trade Center, killed six, and injured 1,042 people on February 26, 1993.
" 'He was an Iraqi,' Clarke observed. 'Therefore, when the explosion took place, and he fled the United States, he went back to Iraq.' While Clarke believes Baghdad did not orchestrate that attack, he concedes that Hussein embraced this assassin.
" 'The Iraqi government,' Clarke continued, 'didn't cooperate in turning him over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists.'
" 'Last week, Day One confirmed he [Yasin] is in Baghdad,' ABC correspondent Sheila MacVicar reported June 27, 1994. 'Just a few days ago, he was seen at [his father's] house by ABC News. Neighbors told us Yasin comes and goes freely.'
"Vice President Dick Cheney told National Public Radio last January 22: 'We've discovered since [Iraq's liberation] documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary.'
"WorldNetDaily.com excavated on Tuesday a January 23, 1999, Washington Post article in which Clarke defended the Clinton administration's August 20, 1998, cruise-missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. That mission avenged al Qaeda's demolition of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that August 7, which killed 224 individuals and injured more than 5,000. The Post quoted Clarke as 'sure' that Iraqi experts there produced a powdered VX nerve gas component. According to the Post, Clarke 'said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.'
...
" Washington Times Pentagon correspondents Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough reported March 19 on a 20-page, Arabic-language document from the Iraqi Intelligence Service. Stamped 'top secret,' it lists IIS 'collaborators,' among them, 'the Saudi Osama bin Laden.' It says he is a 'Saudi businessman and is in charge of the Saudi opposition in Afghanistan...And he is in good relationship with our section in Syria.' Signed 'Jabar,' the 1993 record seemed authentic to an American official who reviewed it.
" 'Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad,' CIA Director George Tenet concluded in an October 7, 2002 letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee. 'Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al-Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links with terrorists will increase, even absent US military action.'
"Perhaps all of this made Richard Clarke state: 'There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda ever.' "
Deroy Murdock:
...
" 'There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda ever,' Clarke declared March 21 on CBS' 60 Minutes. Because Baathist Iraq and al Qaeda colluded less than, say, Iceland and the Cosa Nostra, the theory goes, President Bush squandered American time, treasure, and blood by hunting Saddam Hussein rather than Osama bin Laden.
"This view totally overlooks extensive connections between Baghdad and bin Laden. Just ask Richard Clarke.
"On Wednesday, he told the September 11 Commission about Abdul Rahman Yasin, the al Qaeda operative indicted who federal prosecutors indicted for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that rocked the World Trade Center, killed six, and injured 1,042 people on February 26, 1993.
" 'He was an Iraqi,' Clarke observed. 'Therefore, when the explosion took place, and he fled the United States, he went back to Iraq.' While Clarke believes Baghdad did not orchestrate that attack, he concedes that Hussein embraced this assassin.
" 'The Iraqi government,' Clarke continued, 'didn't cooperate in turning him over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists.'
" 'Last week, Day One confirmed he [Yasin] is in Baghdad,' ABC correspondent Sheila MacVicar reported June 27, 1994. 'Just a few days ago, he was seen at [his father's] house by ABC News. Neighbors told us Yasin comes and goes freely.'
"Vice President Dick Cheney told National Public Radio last January 22: 'We've discovered since [Iraq's liberation] documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary.'
"WorldNetDaily.com excavated on Tuesday a January 23, 1999, Washington Post article in which Clarke defended the Clinton administration's August 20, 1998, cruise-missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. That mission avenged al Qaeda's demolition of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that August 7, which killed 224 individuals and injured more than 5,000. The Post quoted Clarke as 'sure' that Iraqi experts there produced a powdered VX nerve gas component. According to the Post, Clarke 'said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.'
...
" Washington Times Pentagon correspondents Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough reported March 19 on a 20-page, Arabic-language document from the Iraqi Intelligence Service. Stamped 'top secret,' it lists IIS 'collaborators,' among them, 'the Saudi Osama bin Laden.' It says he is a 'Saudi businessman and is in charge of the Saudi opposition in Afghanistan...And he is in good relationship with our section in Syria.' Signed 'Jabar,' the 1993 record seemed authentic to an American official who reviewed it.
" 'Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad,' CIA Director George Tenet concluded in an October 7, 2002 letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee. 'Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al-Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links with terrorists will increase, even absent US military action.'
"Perhaps all of this made Richard Clarke state: 'There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda ever.' "
WaPo tries to cover for Clarke by claiming Rice is inconsistant
Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank missed teh story about the substantive contradictions in Dick Clarke's testimony and focused on minor inconsistancies in Condi Rice's response.
It is one of the more blantant pieces of media bias on the Clarke story. One no doubt that will not be trumpted by media critic Howard Kurtz who still is having trouble with Fox News revealing the truth about Clarke's past inconsistant statements. These guys miss the fact that Clarke's inconsistancies go to the heart of his charges against the Bush administration. But since they are really on his side, that is not surprising. Milbank has lost all objectivity when it comes to writing about President Bush. He needs to be given an opinion column or moved to another beat.
Mike Allen another WaPo writer was assigned a story about the White House counterattack, that ignors the substance of the charges an focuses on the fact that the White House is resisting being slimed by Clarke. It appears that the Post has an agenda to defend Clarke and attack the White House.
Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank missed teh story about the substantive contradictions in Dick Clarke's testimony and focused on minor inconsistancies in Condi Rice's response.
It is one of the more blantant pieces of media bias on the Clarke story. One no doubt that will not be trumpted by media critic Howard Kurtz who still is having trouble with Fox News revealing the truth about Clarke's past inconsistant statements. These guys miss the fact that Clarke's inconsistancies go to the heart of his charges against the Bush administration. But since they are really on his side, that is not surprising. Milbank has lost all objectivity when it comes to writing about President Bush. He needs to be given an opinion column or moved to another beat.
Mike Allen another WaPo writer was assigned a story about the White House counterattack, that ignors the substance of the charges an focuses on the fact that the White House is resisting being slimed by Clarke. It appears that the Post has an agenda to defend Clarke and attack the White House.
A political chameleon
Washington Times Editorial:
...
"The emerging picture of Dick Clarke is one of a political chameleon and an impetuous man who is starved for attention after years of toiling anonymously in government bureaucracies. He points to his service in Republican administrations, and says he was a registered Republican in 2000 (credentials that make it easier to peddle a book bashing a Republican president). But a survey by Insight magazine, a sister publication of the Washington Times, found that his only political contributions in the last decade went to Democrats. T. Irene Sanders, executive director of a research group called the Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy, described an odd encounter with Mr. Clarke several months ago, after he spoke at a luncheon on cyberspace security (see adjacent letter to the editor,). When she asked him a technical question he could not answer, he responded that they should write a book together, boasting that his publisher, Free Press, does a good job of obtaining publicity for authors.
"But Mr. Clarke's enormous capacity for self-promotion and taking liberties with the facts may be catching up with him. Time magazine's online edition yesterday published a blistering review of his book and his endless television appearances. Mr. Clarke, the magazine concluded, has become so shrill in disparaging President Bush that he 'undermines a serious conversation about 9/11.' Time also criticized 'the polemical, partisan mean-spiritedness that lies at the heart of Clarke's book, and to an even greater degree, his television appearances flacking it.' We wholeheartedly agree."
Washington Times Editorial:
...
"The emerging picture of Dick Clarke is one of a political chameleon and an impetuous man who is starved for attention after years of toiling anonymously in government bureaucracies. He points to his service in Republican administrations, and says he was a registered Republican in 2000 (credentials that make it easier to peddle a book bashing a Republican president). But a survey by Insight magazine, a sister publication of the Washington Times, found that his only political contributions in the last decade went to Democrats. T. Irene Sanders, executive director of a research group called the Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy, described an odd encounter with Mr. Clarke several months ago, after he spoke at a luncheon on cyberspace security (see adjacent letter to the editor,). When she asked him a technical question he could not answer, he responded that they should write a book together, boasting that his publisher, Free Press, does a good job of obtaining publicity for authors.
"But Mr. Clarke's enormous capacity for self-promotion and taking liberties with the facts may be catching up with him. Time magazine's online edition yesterday published a blistering review of his book and his endless television appearances. Mr. Clarke, the magazine concluded, has become so shrill in disparaging President Bush that he 'undermines a serious conversation about 9/11.' Time also criticized 'the polemical, partisan mean-spiritedness that lies at the heart of Clarke's book, and to an even greater degree, his television appearances flacking it.' We wholeheartedly agree."
Another Clarke Error
Inside the Ring:
...
"Former counterterror czar Richard Clarke said during an interview on CBS' '60 Minutes' he never saw a single intelligence report linking al Qaeda to Baghdad.
"Military sources to whom we've spoken say the statement is ridiculous. There are lists of intelligence reports linking al Qaeda operatives to Saddam Hussein's regime.
"But don't take the word of confidential sources. Look at what William S. Cohen, the secretary of defense in the Clinton administration and Mr. Clarke's colleague, told the September 11 commission this week. Mr. Cohen was defending his decision to order a cruise missile attack on the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, where bin Laden lived until 1996.
" 'You had a plant that was built under the following circumstances,' Mr. Cohen testified. 'You had a manager that went to Baghdad. You had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least, the corporation; and you had traces of EMPTA [a precursor to VX gas]. And you did what? You did nothing? Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense? And the answer is pretty clear.' "
Inside the Ring:
...
"Former counterterror czar Richard Clarke said during an interview on CBS' '60 Minutes' he never saw a single intelligence report linking al Qaeda to Baghdad.
"Military sources to whom we've spoken say the statement is ridiculous. There are lists of intelligence reports linking al Qaeda operatives to Saddam Hussein's regime.
"But don't take the word of confidential sources. Look at what William S. Cohen, the secretary of defense in the Clinton administration and Mr. Clarke's colleague, told the September 11 commission this week. Mr. Cohen was defending his decision to order a cruise missile attack on the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, where bin Laden lived until 1996.
" 'You had a plant that was built under the following circumstances,' Mr. Cohen testified. 'You had a manager that went to Baghdad. You had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least, the corporation; and you had traces of EMPTA [a precursor to VX gas]. And you did what? You did nothing? Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense? And the answer is pretty clear.' "
2004 Chutzpah of the Year Award
Charles Krauthammer:
"It is only March but the 2004 Chutzpah of the Year Award can be safely given out. It goes to Richard Clarke, now making himself famous by blaming the Bush administration for 9/11 — after Clarke had spent eight years in charge of counterterrorism for a Clinton administration that did nothing.
"The 1990s were al-Qaida's springtime: Blissfully unmolested in Afghanistan, it trained, indoctrinated, armed and — most fatally — planned. For the United States, this was a catastrophic lapse, and in a March 2002 interview on PBS' Frontline, Clarke admitted as such: 'I believe that had we destroyed the terrorist camps in Afghanistan earlier, that the conveyor belt that was producing terrorists sending them out around the world would have been destroyed.' Instead, 'now we have to hunt (them) down country by country.'
"What should we have done during those lost years? Clarke answered: 'Blow up the camps and take out their sanctuary. Eliminate their safe haven, eliminate their infrastructure. ... That's ... the one thing in retrospect I wish had happened.'
"It did not. And who was president? Clinton. Who was the Clinton administration's top counterterrorism official? Clarke. He now says that no one followed his advice. Why did he not speak out then? And if the issue was as critical to the nation as he now tells us, why didn't he resign in protest?
"Clinton had one justification after another for going on the offensive: American blood spilled in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the embassy bombings of 1998, the undeniable act of war in the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Response: A single, transparently useless, cruise missile attack on empty Afghan tents, plus a (mistaken!) attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.
"As Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen testified, three times the CIA was ready with plans to assassinate Osama. Every time, President Clinton stood them down, because 'We're not quite sure.'
"We're not quite sure — a fitting epitaph for the Clinton antiterrorism policy. They were also not quite sure about taking Osama when Sudan offered him up on a silver platter in 1996. The Clinton people turned Sudan down, citing legal reasons.
"...if the Clarke of 2002 was telling the truth, then the Clarke of this week — the one who told the 9/11 commission under oath that "fighting terrorism in general and fighting al-Qaida, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration — certainly (there was) no higher priority" — is a liar.
"Second, he becomes not just a perjurer but a partisan perjurer. He savages Bush for not having made al-Qaida his top national security priority, but he refuses even to call a 'mistake' Clinton's staggering dereliction in putting Yasser Arafat and Yugoslavia(!) above fighting al-Qaida.
"Clarke gives Clinton a pass and instead concentrates his ire on Bush. For what? For not having pre-emptively attacked Afghanistan? On what grounds — increased terrorist chatter in June and July 2001?
...
"Clarke is clearly an angry man, angry that Condoleezza Rice demoted him, angry that he was denied a coveted bureaucratic job by the Bush administration. Angry and unreliable. He told the commission to disregard what he said in his 2002 briefing because he was, in effect, spinning. 'I've done it for several presidents,' he said. He's still at it, doing it now for himself."
Charles Krauthammer:
"It is only March but the 2004 Chutzpah of the Year Award can be safely given out. It goes to Richard Clarke, now making himself famous by blaming the Bush administration for 9/11 — after Clarke had spent eight years in charge of counterterrorism for a Clinton administration that did nothing.
"The 1990s were al-Qaida's springtime: Blissfully unmolested in Afghanistan, it trained, indoctrinated, armed and — most fatally — planned. For the United States, this was a catastrophic lapse, and in a March 2002 interview on PBS' Frontline, Clarke admitted as such: 'I believe that had we destroyed the terrorist camps in Afghanistan earlier, that the conveyor belt that was producing terrorists sending them out around the world would have been destroyed.' Instead, 'now we have to hunt (them) down country by country.'
"What should we have done during those lost years? Clarke answered: 'Blow up the camps and take out their sanctuary. Eliminate their safe haven, eliminate their infrastructure. ... That's ... the one thing in retrospect I wish had happened.'
"It did not. And who was president? Clinton. Who was the Clinton administration's top counterterrorism official? Clarke. He now says that no one followed his advice. Why did he not speak out then? And if the issue was as critical to the nation as he now tells us, why didn't he resign in protest?
"Clinton had one justification after another for going on the offensive: American blood spilled in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the embassy bombings of 1998, the undeniable act of war in the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Response: A single, transparently useless, cruise missile attack on empty Afghan tents, plus a (mistaken!) attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.
"As Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen testified, three times the CIA was ready with plans to assassinate Osama. Every time, President Clinton stood them down, because 'We're not quite sure.'
"We're not quite sure — a fitting epitaph for the Clinton antiterrorism policy. They were also not quite sure about taking Osama when Sudan offered him up on a silver platter in 1996. The Clinton people turned Sudan down, citing legal reasons.
"...if the Clarke of 2002 was telling the truth, then the Clarke of this week — the one who told the 9/11 commission under oath that "fighting terrorism in general and fighting al-Qaida, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration — certainly (there was) no higher priority" — is a liar.
"Second, he becomes not just a perjurer but a partisan perjurer. He savages Bush for not having made al-Qaida his top national security priority, but he refuses even to call a 'mistake' Clinton's staggering dereliction in putting Yasser Arafat and Yugoslavia(!) above fighting al-Qaida.
"Clarke gives Clinton a pass and instead concentrates his ire on Bush. For what? For not having pre-emptively attacked Afghanistan? On what grounds — increased terrorist chatter in June and July 2001?
...
"Clarke is clearly an angry man, angry that Condoleezza Rice demoted him, angry that he was denied a coveted bureaucratic job by the Bush administration. Angry and unreliable. He told the commission to disregard what he said in his 2002 briefing because he was, in effect, spinning. 'I've done it for several presidents,' he said. He's still at it, doing it now for himself."
Thursday, March 25, 2004
The difficulty of finding someone to surrender to
Belmont Club:
...
"But the lack of a centralized Jihadi command and control system, despite the pretensions of Osama Bin Laden, means that there is ultimately no one the appeasers can surrender to. The inability of the Palestinians to unite under Hamas or Fatah, indeed the inability of Hamas to unite itself, as evidenced by its recent power struggles, illustrates how civilization will be dealing with a succession of banditti who keep boiling out of the stews of dysfunctional Islamic societies. The recent threats by the "Servants of Allah, the Powerful and Wise" against the French Railway system probably comes from a group that has no direct operational connection to either Hamas, Hezbollah or Al Qaeda proper. But they don't need to. All they need know is that violence brings the press, the press brings the French government, and the French government brings money. It also illustrates why the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists would be insusceptible to solution by negotiation or even surrender. There will always be someone with a bomb who will not get the word, some punk who will let it off to gratify his ego and some reporter willing to convey the boast to his burned and blackened victims."
Belmont Club:
...
"But the lack of a centralized Jihadi command and control system, despite the pretensions of Osama Bin Laden, means that there is ultimately no one the appeasers can surrender to. The inability of the Palestinians to unite under Hamas or Fatah, indeed the inability of Hamas to unite itself, as evidenced by its recent power struggles, illustrates how civilization will be dealing with a succession of banditti who keep boiling out of the stews of dysfunctional Islamic societies. The recent threats by the "Servants of Allah, the Powerful and Wise" against the French Railway system probably comes from a group that has no direct operational connection to either Hamas, Hezbollah or Al Qaeda proper. But they don't need to. All they need know is that violence brings the press, the press brings the French government, and the French government brings money. It also illustrates why the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists would be insusceptible to solution by negotiation or even surrender. There will always be someone with a bomb who will not get the word, some punk who will let it off to gratify his ego and some reporter willing to convey the boast to his burned and blackened victims."
Strutting his stuff in front of the tape recorder again
An undead Ayman al-Zawawhri is upset about Pakistan trying to capture his sorry but and has asked the Paks to overthrow President Musharraf. This comes after a few failed attempts to murder the President.
"Musharraf seeks to stab the Islamic resistance in Afghanistan in the back," he said.
This statement is totally false. Musharraf has ordered his army to kill or capture these guys. There is no back stabbing here. This is a head on confrontation witht he people who have been trying to kill him. It is typical of these weasals that they seem affronted when anyone fights back. I guess that is the way it is when you think you are on a mission from God. They still have not noticed that God is not on their side. When you declare a holy war and lose that should be a hint.
Memo to Times of London, the DNA test probably did not match.
An undead Ayman al-Zawawhri is upset about Pakistan trying to capture his sorry but and has asked the Paks to overthrow President Musharraf. This comes after a few failed attempts to murder the President.
"Musharraf seeks to stab the Islamic resistance in Afghanistan in the back," he said.
This statement is totally false. Musharraf has ordered his army to kill or capture these guys. There is no back stabbing here. This is a head on confrontation witht he people who have been trying to kill him. It is typical of these weasals that they seem affronted when anyone fights back. I guess that is the way it is when you think you are on a mission from God. They still have not noticed that God is not on their side. When you declare a holy war and lose that should be a hint.
Memo to Times of London, the DNA test probably did not match.
Liberal media and Clarke
Much of the liberal media is deeply invested in clarkes wild tales about the pre 9-11 "war" on terror. They so want Bush to lose that they will believe anything they think may produce that result. Even Howard Kurtz, the media critic ofthe Washington Post seemed upset with Fox News for letting the truth about Clarke slip out. They along with Senator Kerrey act as if it is unfair to confront the man who has made outrageous allegations against the President with his prior inconsistant statements. Are they not interested in the whole truth?
There is nothing remotely unethical about the White House agreeing to release the reporters from any confidentiality agreements. Clarke himself says he was acting at the request of the President in giving the back grounder. The real question is why the other five journalist, who were all told about the release from the confideniality agreement at the same time were not as interested in getting the truth out as Jim Angle of Fox News. As Jack Nicholoson said in "A Few Good Men" maybe they can't handle the truth.
But their coverup for Clarke is not working. Fox has a wide audience, and to compete CNN also published some of the inconsistancies. Blogs and other publications have also jumped on the inconsistancies. Many are linked below. Clarke appears so intent on smearing the President and Condi Rice that he gave testimony that was inconsistant with his own book. He is strting to act like a real skunk trying to throw stink at anyone who disputes his changing versions of events.
Much of the liberal media is deeply invested in clarkes wild tales about the pre 9-11 "war" on terror. They so want Bush to lose that they will believe anything they think may produce that result. Even Howard Kurtz, the media critic ofthe Washington Post seemed upset with Fox News for letting the truth about Clarke slip out. They along with Senator Kerrey act as if it is unfair to confront the man who has made outrageous allegations against the President with his prior inconsistant statements. Are they not interested in the whole truth?
There is nothing remotely unethical about the White House agreeing to release the reporters from any confidentiality agreements. Clarke himself says he was acting at the request of the President in giving the back grounder. The real question is why the other five journalist, who were all told about the release from the confideniality agreement at the same time were not as interested in getting the truth out as Jim Angle of Fox News. As Jack Nicholoson said in "A Few Good Men" maybe they can't handle the truth.
But their coverup for Clarke is not working. Fox has a wide audience, and to compete CNN also published some of the inconsistancies. Blogs and other publications have also jumped on the inconsistancies. Many are linked below. Clarke appears so intent on smearing the President and Condi Rice that he gave testimony that was inconsistant with his own book. He is strting to act like a real skunk trying to throw stink at anyone who disputes his changing versions of events.
Goss says clarke public testimony contradicts what he told his committee
Via Instapundit:
"UPDATE: Roll Call notes that more people are questioning Clarke's truthfulness. Here's an excerpt that's not on the free page:
" 'House Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss (R-Fla.) said Wednesday that former White House anti-terror czar Richard Clarke, the author of a new book critical of President Bush?s handling of the al Qaeda threat before Sept. 11, 2001, may have lied in testimony to his committee, and said he plans to explore whether Congressional action on the matter is warranted.
" 'Clarke?s 'testimony to our committee is 180 degrees out of line with what he is saying in his book,' Goss said. 'He?s either lying in his book or he lied to our committee. It?s one or the other.' "
Via Instapundit:
"UPDATE: Roll Call notes that more people are questioning Clarke's truthfulness. Here's an excerpt that's not on the free page:
" 'House Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss (R-Fla.) said Wednesday that former White House anti-terror czar Richard Clarke, the author of a new book critical of President Bush?s handling of the al Qaeda threat before Sept. 11, 2001, may have lied in testimony to his committee, and said he plans to explore whether Congressional action on the matter is warranted.
" 'Clarke?s 'testimony to our committee is 180 degrees out of line with what he is saying in his book,' Goss said. 'He?s either lying in his book or he lied to our committee. It?s one or the other.' "
Clarke at war with himself
ROMESH RATNESAR, Time:
...
"... The accounts of high-level conversations and meetings given by Clarke in various television appearances, beginning with the 60 Minutes interview, differ in significant respects from the recollections of a former top counterterrorism official who participated in the same conversations and meetings: Richard Clarke. In several cases, the version of events provided by Clarke this week include details and embellishments that do not appear in his new book, Against All Enemies. While the discrepancies do not, on their own, discredit Clarke's larger arguments, they do raise questions about whether Clarke's eagerness to publicize his story and rip the Bush Administration have clouded his memory of the facts.
"Perhaps Clarke's most explosive charge is that on Sept. 12, President Bush instructed him to look into the possibility that Iraq had a hand in the hijackings. Here's how Clarke recounted the meeting on 60 Minutes: 'The President dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this'.....the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said, "Iraq did this." ' After Clarke protested that 'there's no connection,' Bush came back to him and said 'Iraq, Saddam ? find out if there's a connection." Clarke says Bush made the point 'in a very intimidating way.' The next day, interviewed on PBS' The NewsHour, Clarke sexed up the story even more. 'What happened was the President, with his finger in my face, saying, 'Iraq, a memo on Iraq and al-Qaeda, a memo on Iraq and the attacks.' Very vigorous, very intimidating.' Several interviewers pushed Clarke on this point, asking whether it was all that surprising that the President would want him to investigate all possible perpetrators of the attacks. Clarke responded, 'It would have been irresponsible for the president not to come to me and say, Dick, I don't want you to assume it was al-Qaeda. I'd like you to look at every possibility to see if maybe it was al-Qaeda with somebody else, in a very calm way, with all possibilities open. That's not what happened.'
"How does this square with the account of the same meeting provided in Clarke's book? In that version, Clarke finds the President wandering alone in the Situation Room on Sept. 12, 'looking like he wanted something to do.' Clarke writes that Bush 'grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room' ? an impetuous move, perhaps, but hardly the image that Clarke depicted on television, of the President dragging in unwitting staffers by their shirt-collars. The Bush in these pages sounds more ruminative than intimidating: 'I know you have a lot to do and all, but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way.' When Clarke responds by saying that 'al-Qaeda did this,' Bush says, 'I know, I know, but see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred.....' Again Clarke protests, after which Bush says 'testily,' 'Look into Iraq, Saddam.'
"Nowhere do we see the President pointing fingers at or even sounding particularly 'vigorous' toward Clarke and his deputies. Despite Clarke's contention that Bush wanted proof of Iraqi involvement at any cost, it's just as possible that Bush wanted Clark to find disculpatory evidence in order to discredit the idea peddled by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that Baghdad had a hand in 9/11. In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush rejected Wolfowitz's attempts to make Iraq the first front in the war on terror. And if the President of the United States spoke 'testily' 24 hours after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, well, can you blame him?
...
"In a few other instances, Clarke's televised comments seem designed to disparage the President and his aides at all cost, omitting any of the inconvenient details ? some of which appear in the pages of his book ? that might suggest the White House took al-Qaeda seriously before Sept. 11. Bush, Clarke says, 'never thought [al-Qaeda] was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his national security advisor to hold a cabinet-level meeting on the subject.' This has been a constant refrain in Clarke's public statements ? that Bush's failure to call a 'Principal's Meeting' of his cabinet to discuss terrorism until the week before Sept. 11 showed a lack of interest in al-Qaeda. While it is technically true that the White House did not hold a Cabinet-level meeting on al-Qaeda until Sept. 4, the charge is still misleading, since Bush, as early as April 2001, had instructed Rice to draft a strategy for rolling back al-Qaeda and killing bin Laden, saying he was tired of 'swatting flies' ?, a line Clarke does include in his book. Rice's response was to task a committee of deputies to study the U.S.'s options for rolling back the Taliban; the group ultimately concluded that the U.S. should increase its support to the Northern Alliance and pressure on Pakistan to cooperate in a campaign to remove the Taliban. It was essentially the same plan Clarke had drafted during the Clinton Administration. As his book details, the plan was scuttled by intransigence at the CIA and the Pentagon, neither of which Clinton wanted to confront head-on.
"While Clarke claims that he is 'an independent' not driven by partisan motives, it's hard not to read some passages in his book as anything but shrill broadsides. In his descriptions of Bush aides, he discerns their true ideological beliefs not in their words but in their body language: 'As I briefed Rice on al-Qaeda, her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before.' When the cabinet met to discuss al-Qaeda on Sept. 4, Rumsfeld 'looked distracted throughout the session.' As for the President, Clarke doesn't even try to read Bush's body language; he just makes the encounters up. 'I have a disturbing image of him sitting by a warm White House fireplace drawing a dozen red Xs on the faces of the former al-Qaeda corporate board.....while the new clones of al-Qaeda....are recruiting thousands whose names we will never know, whose faces will never be on President Bush's little charts, not until it is again too late.' Clarke conjured up this chilling scene again on 60 Minutes. Only in this version he also manages to read Bush's mind, and 'he's thinking that he's got most of them and therefore he's taken care of the problem.' The only things missing are the black winged chair and white cat.
"Leaving aside the fact that Bush never fails to insist that the terror threat is as great today as it was on 9/11, these passages reveal the polemical, partisan mean-spiritedness that lies at the heart of Clarke's book, and to an even greater degree, his television appearances flacking it. That's a shame, since many of his contentions ? about the years of political and intelligence missteps that led to 9/11, the failure of two Administrations to destroy al-Qaeda and the potentially disastrous consequences of the U.S. invasion of Iraq ? deserve a wide and serious airing. From now on, the country would be best served if Clarke lets the facts speak for themselves."
Clarke has done serious damage to his crdibility with his book and his public pronouncements. That mainstream publications like Time recognize it is important. The glee of left wing media types will be short lived as yet another "inside account" fails in the glare of truth.
ROMESH RATNESAR, Time:
...
"... The accounts of high-level conversations and meetings given by Clarke in various television appearances, beginning with the 60 Minutes interview, differ in significant respects from the recollections of a former top counterterrorism official who participated in the same conversations and meetings: Richard Clarke. In several cases, the version of events provided by Clarke this week include details and embellishments that do not appear in his new book, Against All Enemies. While the discrepancies do not, on their own, discredit Clarke's larger arguments, they do raise questions about whether Clarke's eagerness to publicize his story and rip the Bush Administration have clouded his memory of the facts.
"Perhaps Clarke's most explosive charge is that on Sept. 12, President Bush instructed him to look into the possibility that Iraq had a hand in the hijackings. Here's how Clarke recounted the meeting on 60 Minutes: 'The President dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this'.....the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said, "Iraq did this." ' After Clarke protested that 'there's no connection,' Bush came back to him and said 'Iraq, Saddam ? find out if there's a connection." Clarke says Bush made the point 'in a very intimidating way.' The next day, interviewed on PBS' The NewsHour, Clarke sexed up the story even more. 'What happened was the President, with his finger in my face, saying, 'Iraq, a memo on Iraq and al-Qaeda, a memo on Iraq and the attacks.' Very vigorous, very intimidating.' Several interviewers pushed Clarke on this point, asking whether it was all that surprising that the President would want him to investigate all possible perpetrators of the attacks. Clarke responded, 'It would have been irresponsible for the president not to come to me and say, Dick, I don't want you to assume it was al-Qaeda. I'd like you to look at every possibility to see if maybe it was al-Qaeda with somebody else, in a very calm way, with all possibilities open. That's not what happened.'
"How does this square with the account of the same meeting provided in Clarke's book? In that version, Clarke finds the President wandering alone in the Situation Room on Sept. 12, 'looking like he wanted something to do.' Clarke writes that Bush 'grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room' ? an impetuous move, perhaps, but hardly the image that Clarke depicted on television, of the President dragging in unwitting staffers by their shirt-collars. The Bush in these pages sounds more ruminative than intimidating: 'I know you have a lot to do and all, but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way.' When Clarke responds by saying that 'al-Qaeda did this,' Bush says, 'I know, I know, but see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred.....' Again Clarke protests, after which Bush says 'testily,' 'Look into Iraq, Saddam.'
"Nowhere do we see the President pointing fingers at or even sounding particularly 'vigorous' toward Clarke and his deputies. Despite Clarke's contention that Bush wanted proof of Iraqi involvement at any cost, it's just as possible that Bush wanted Clark to find disculpatory evidence in order to discredit the idea peddled by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that Baghdad had a hand in 9/11. In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush rejected Wolfowitz's attempts to make Iraq the first front in the war on terror. And if the President of the United States spoke 'testily' 24 hours after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, well, can you blame him?
...
"In a few other instances, Clarke's televised comments seem designed to disparage the President and his aides at all cost, omitting any of the inconvenient details ? some of which appear in the pages of his book ? that might suggest the White House took al-Qaeda seriously before Sept. 11. Bush, Clarke says, 'never thought [al-Qaeda] was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his national security advisor to hold a cabinet-level meeting on the subject.' This has been a constant refrain in Clarke's public statements ? that Bush's failure to call a 'Principal's Meeting' of his cabinet to discuss terrorism until the week before Sept. 11 showed a lack of interest in al-Qaeda. While it is technically true that the White House did not hold a Cabinet-level meeting on al-Qaeda until Sept. 4, the charge is still misleading, since Bush, as early as April 2001, had instructed Rice to draft a strategy for rolling back al-Qaeda and killing bin Laden, saying he was tired of 'swatting flies' ?, a line Clarke does include in his book. Rice's response was to task a committee of deputies to study the U.S.'s options for rolling back the Taliban; the group ultimately concluded that the U.S. should increase its support to the Northern Alliance and pressure on Pakistan to cooperate in a campaign to remove the Taliban. It was essentially the same plan Clarke had drafted during the Clinton Administration. As his book details, the plan was scuttled by intransigence at the CIA and the Pentagon, neither of which Clinton wanted to confront head-on.
"While Clarke claims that he is 'an independent' not driven by partisan motives, it's hard not to read some passages in his book as anything but shrill broadsides. In his descriptions of Bush aides, he discerns their true ideological beliefs not in their words but in their body language: 'As I briefed Rice on al-Qaeda, her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before.' When the cabinet met to discuss al-Qaeda on Sept. 4, Rumsfeld 'looked distracted throughout the session.' As for the President, Clarke doesn't even try to read Bush's body language; he just makes the encounters up. 'I have a disturbing image of him sitting by a warm White House fireplace drawing a dozen red Xs on the faces of the former al-Qaeda corporate board.....while the new clones of al-Qaeda....are recruiting thousands whose names we will never know, whose faces will never be on President Bush's little charts, not until it is again too late.' Clarke conjured up this chilling scene again on 60 Minutes. Only in this version he also manages to read Bush's mind, and 'he's thinking that he's got most of them and therefore he's taken care of the problem.' The only things missing are the black winged chair and white cat.
"Leaving aside the fact that Bush never fails to insist that the terror threat is as great today as it was on 9/11, these passages reveal the polemical, partisan mean-spiritedness that lies at the heart of Clarke's book, and to an even greater degree, his television appearances flacking it. That's a shame, since many of his contentions ? about the years of political and intelligence missteps that led to 9/11, the failure of two Administrations to destroy al-Qaeda and the potentially disastrous consequences of the U.S. invasion of Iraq ? deserve a wide and serious airing. From now on, the country would be best served if Clarke lets the facts speak for themselves."
Clarke has done serious damage to his crdibility with his book and his public pronouncements. That mainstream publications like Time recognize it is important. The glee of left wing media types will be short lived as yet another "inside account" fails in the glare of truth.
Europe's claim that Yassin attack illegal is off base
Lee A. Casey & David B. Rivkin Jr.:
...
"Hamas, of course, is not merely a group of ordinary combatants. Because of its irregular organization and illegal tactics, its members are in fact unprivileged or unlawful combatants. Under the traditional laws of war, based on centuries of state practice, such individuals are fully subject to attack, just like lawful combatants. But, if captured, they do not merit the rights and privileges of prisoners of war (hence the non-POW status of the U.S.'s Guantanamo Bay detainees) and can be subject to prosecution in military courts. Hamas is, as a matter of law, in precisely the same position as al Qaeda.
"By now it is no secret that Europe views the situation differently. Leaving aside the Old World's growing consensus that the war on terror should be treated as a criminal law-enforcement matter ? a recipe for disaster and defeat ? most European states have accepted the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions. Like the 1949 Geneva Conventions (to which both the United States and Israel are parties), this instrument preserved the classification of unlawful combatant. But it also can be interpreted to provide new and extraordinarily beneficial advantages to such groups. In particular, under one of Protocol I's provisions, irregular or guerilla fighters can arguably be attacked only when they are themselves attacking. At all other times, they must be treated as part of the civilian population.
"Of course, this absurd rule disadvantages the lawful armed forces of sovereign states (as it was designed to do), by giving the practitioners of asymmetric warfare incalculable advantages, since lawful combatants can still be attacked at any time. It also allows them to benefit from their own violations of otherwise applicable legal norms, such as the requirement that combatants clearly distinguish themselves from the civilian population and carry their arms openly. Protocol I was relentlessly promoted by third-world governments ? not a few of which had started out as guerilla movements ? and was embraced (whether from guilt, fatigue, or absentmindedness) by the former imperialists of Western Europe.
"Fortunately for the American people, Ronald Reagan was paying attention, and rejected Protocol I outright, making clear that the advantages it provided to irregular and unlawful combatants were entirely unacceptable to the United States. Fortunately for the citizens of Israel (although not for Hamas), Jerusalem also refused to ratify Protocol I. Thus while European states may not be permitted to target a known terrorist in the context of an armed conflict, it remains entirely lawful for both Israel and the United States to do so. The next time Europe's leaders jump to condemn Israel for such actions, they would do well to keep this in mind."
Lee A. Casey & David B. Rivkin Jr.:
...
"Hamas, of course, is not merely a group of ordinary combatants. Because of its irregular organization and illegal tactics, its members are in fact unprivileged or unlawful combatants. Under the traditional laws of war, based on centuries of state practice, such individuals are fully subject to attack, just like lawful combatants. But, if captured, they do not merit the rights and privileges of prisoners of war (hence the non-POW status of the U.S.'s Guantanamo Bay detainees) and can be subject to prosecution in military courts. Hamas is, as a matter of law, in precisely the same position as al Qaeda.
"By now it is no secret that Europe views the situation differently. Leaving aside the Old World's growing consensus that the war on terror should be treated as a criminal law-enforcement matter ? a recipe for disaster and defeat ? most European states have accepted the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions. Like the 1949 Geneva Conventions (to which both the United States and Israel are parties), this instrument preserved the classification of unlawful combatant. But it also can be interpreted to provide new and extraordinarily beneficial advantages to such groups. In particular, under one of Protocol I's provisions, irregular or guerilla fighters can arguably be attacked only when they are themselves attacking. At all other times, they must be treated as part of the civilian population.
"Of course, this absurd rule disadvantages the lawful armed forces of sovereign states (as it was designed to do), by giving the practitioners of asymmetric warfare incalculable advantages, since lawful combatants can still be attacked at any time. It also allows them to benefit from their own violations of otherwise applicable legal norms, such as the requirement that combatants clearly distinguish themselves from the civilian population and carry their arms openly. Protocol I was relentlessly promoted by third-world governments ? not a few of which had started out as guerilla movements ? and was embraced (whether from guilt, fatigue, or absentmindedness) by the former imperialists of Western Europe.
"Fortunately for the American people, Ronald Reagan was paying attention, and rejected Protocol I outright, making clear that the advantages it provided to irregular and unlawful combatants were entirely unacceptable to the United States. Fortunately for the citizens of Israel (although not for Hamas), Jerusalem also refused to ratify Protocol I. Thus while European states may not be permitted to target a known terrorist in the context of an armed conflict, it remains entirely lawful for both Israel and the United States to do so. The next time Europe's leaders jump to condemn Israel for such actions, they would do well to keep this in mind."
Misreading facial expressions
Ann Coulter:
...
"Sean Hannity has been playing a radio interview that Dr. Rice gave to David Newman on WJR in Detroit back in October 2000, in which she discusses al-Qaida in great detail. This was months before chair-warmer Clarke claims her "facial expression" indicated she had never heard of the terrorist organization.
"But in deference to our liberal friends, let's leave aside the facts for now. Just months before Clarke was interpreting Dr. Rice's 'facial expression,' al-Qaida had bombed the USS Cole. Two years before that, al-Qaida bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In fact, al-Qaida or their allies had been responsible for a half dozen attacks on U.S. interests since Clinton had become president. (Paper-pusher Clarke was doing one heck of a job, wasn't he?) In the year 2000 alone, Lexis-Nexis lists 280 items mentioning al-Qaida.
"By the end of 2000, anyone who read the paper had heard of al-Qaida. It is literally insane to imagine that Condoleezza Rice had not. For Pete's sake, even the New York Times knew about al-Qaida.
"Rice had been a political science professor at Stanford University, a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, and a senior fellow of the Institute for International Studies. She had written three books and numerous articles on foreign policy. She worked for the first Bush administration in a variety of national security positions.
"All this was while Clarke was presiding over six unanswered al-Qaida attacks on American interests and fretting about the looming Y2K emergency. But chair-warmer Clarke claims that on the basis of Rice's 'facial expression' he could tell she was not familiar with the term 'al-Qaida.'
"Isn't that just like a liberal? The chair-warmer describes Bush as a cowboy and Rumsfeld as his gunslinger – but the black chick is a dummy. Maybe even as dumb as Clarence Thomas! Perhaps someday liberals could map out the relative intelligence of various black government officials for us.
"Did Clarke have the vaguest notion of Rice's background and education? Or did he think Dr. Rice was cleaning the Old Executive Office Building at night before the president chose her – not him – to be national security adviser? If a Republican ever claimed the 'facial expression' on Maxine Waters – a woman whose face is no stranger to confusion or befuddlement – left the 'impression' that she didn't understand quantum physics, he'd be in prison for committing a hate crime."
Ann Coulter:
...
"Sean Hannity has been playing a radio interview that Dr. Rice gave to David Newman on WJR in Detroit back in October 2000, in which she discusses al-Qaida in great detail. This was months before chair-warmer Clarke claims her "facial expression" indicated she had never heard of the terrorist organization.
"But in deference to our liberal friends, let's leave aside the facts for now. Just months before Clarke was interpreting Dr. Rice's 'facial expression,' al-Qaida had bombed the USS Cole. Two years before that, al-Qaida bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In fact, al-Qaida or their allies had been responsible for a half dozen attacks on U.S. interests since Clinton had become president. (Paper-pusher Clarke was doing one heck of a job, wasn't he?) In the year 2000 alone, Lexis-Nexis lists 280 items mentioning al-Qaida.
"By the end of 2000, anyone who read the paper had heard of al-Qaida. It is literally insane to imagine that Condoleezza Rice had not. For Pete's sake, even the New York Times knew about al-Qaida.
"Rice had been a political science professor at Stanford University, a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, and a senior fellow of the Institute for International Studies. She had written three books and numerous articles on foreign policy. She worked for the first Bush administration in a variety of national security positions.
"All this was while Clarke was presiding over six unanswered al-Qaida attacks on American interests and fretting about the looming Y2K emergency. But chair-warmer Clarke claims that on the basis of Rice's 'facial expression' he could tell she was not familiar with the term 'al-Qaida.'
"Isn't that just like a liberal? The chair-warmer describes Bush as a cowboy and Rumsfeld as his gunslinger – but the black chick is a dummy. Maybe even as dumb as Clarence Thomas! Perhaps someday liberals could map out the relative intelligence of various black government officials for us.
"Did Clarke have the vaguest notion of Rice's background and education? Or did he think Dr. Rice was cleaning the Old Executive Office Building at night before the president chose her – not him – to be national security adviser? If a Republican ever claimed the 'facial expression' on Maxine Waters – a woman whose face is no stranger to confusion or befuddlement – left the 'impression' that she didn't understand quantum physics, he'd be in prison for committing a hate crime."
Moral bankruptcy
Melanie Phillips:
"Another ripe example of twisted thinking, this time from Anatole Kaletsky in the Times. He has decided that, far from being in opposition to each other, democracy and terrorism are going hand in hand. He cites two examples to support this thesis. The first is the election of an appeasement government in Spain. The second is the killing of Sheikh Yassin. Kaletsky opines:
" 'Israel claims the right to engage in extra-judicial assassinations, to kill civilians at random and to blow up or bulldoze Palestinian houses because it is defending the only genuine democracy in the Middle East. In a sense this is true. Ariel Sharon does have a democratic mandate for his state terrorism, since Israeli voters have repeatedly rejected the alternative policy of negotiation. In the same way US politicians of all stripes ? including fundamentalist Christians and others in no way beholden to the Jewish lobby ? use democracy to justifying backing Israel and refraining from criticism in the most egregious cases, such as this week?s killing of Yassin. This killing will surely unleash another cycle of terror, just as Sharon?s provocative campaign in the Israeli elections four years ago did.'
"What a vicious and ignorant paragraph. Israel does not 'engage in extra-judicial assassinations'. It kills terrorist leaders as a means of self defence against armed hostilities being mounted against it, as states are expressly permitted to do by Article 51 of the UN Charter. It does not 'kill civilians at random', but uses precision attacks against terrorists (which do unfortunately kill others, but this toll is kept to the minimum) and house-to-house operations with an attrition rate to its own soldiers which no other country would sustain, precisely to minimise civilian loss of life. It is its terrorist enemy which, by contrast, deliberately targets civilians, a fact which Kaletsky omits. It bulldozes Palestinian houses to eradicate the factories of terror, and to deter further death production. It does not claim to do all these things 'because it is defending the only genuine democracy in the Middle East' but because it wishes to protect its citizens from explicitly genocidal mass murder. Israeli voters have not 'repeatedly rejected the alternative policy of negotiation'. That policy has repeatedly failed because the Palestinians respond to negotiation with mass murder. Ariel Sharon was brought to power by the shattering blow to Israeli voters of the rejection of the offer of a nascent Palestinian state made by Ehud Barak at Camp David and Taba.
"As for the 'egregious' killing of Yassin ( and note the swipe en passant at the Jewish lobby) presumably Kaletsky would rather Israel had responded to the attempt to blow up the chemical works at Ashdod and kill hundreds, maybe thousands of Israelis by standing by passively until Hamas achieved its purpose. For in Kaletsky's grotesquely disordered moral universe, Israel's attempts at self-defence are to be equated with the Spanish appeasers because both are likely to produce more terror. The logic of that is that Israel must never defend itself by attacking its enemies to prevent even more bloodshed. But then, given how he misrepresents all Israel's attempts at self-defence, it would appear that for Kaletsky, Israel must never defend itself at all."
Why war is difficult
As Clausewitz points out one of the reasons war is so hard is because it takes place in a dynamic environment. Unlike scientific endeavors dealing with materials that have no ability to fight back, in war both sides are dealing with enemies who will constantly be responding and attempting to achieve their goal. This does not change when one side refrains. The other side will continue trying to achieve its objective. That is why the "cycle of violence" argument is so ignorant. But it is a persistant argument of pacifist who know nothing of the history fo warfare.
Melanie Phillips:
"Another ripe example of twisted thinking, this time from Anatole Kaletsky in the Times. He has decided that, far from being in opposition to each other, democracy and terrorism are going hand in hand. He cites two examples to support this thesis. The first is the election of an appeasement government in Spain. The second is the killing of Sheikh Yassin. Kaletsky opines:
" 'Israel claims the right to engage in extra-judicial assassinations, to kill civilians at random and to blow up or bulldoze Palestinian houses because it is defending the only genuine democracy in the Middle East. In a sense this is true. Ariel Sharon does have a democratic mandate for his state terrorism, since Israeli voters have repeatedly rejected the alternative policy of negotiation. In the same way US politicians of all stripes ? including fundamentalist Christians and others in no way beholden to the Jewish lobby ? use democracy to justifying backing Israel and refraining from criticism in the most egregious cases, such as this week?s killing of Yassin. This killing will surely unleash another cycle of terror, just as Sharon?s provocative campaign in the Israeli elections four years ago did.'
"What a vicious and ignorant paragraph. Israel does not 'engage in extra-judicial assassinations'. It kills terrorist leaders as a means of self defence against armed hostilities being mounted against it, as states are expressly permitted to do by Article 51 of the UN Charter. It does not 'kill civilians at random', but uses precision attacks against terrorists (which do unfortunately kill others, but this toll is kept to the minimum) and house-to-house operations with an attrition rate to its own soldiers which no other country would sustain, precisely to minimise civilian loss of life. It is its terrorist enemy which, by contrast, deliberately targets civilians, a fact which Kaletsky omits. It bulldozes Palestinian houses to eradicate the factories of terror, and to deter further death production. It does not claim to do all these things 'because it is defending the only genuine democracy in the Middle East' but because it wishes to protect its citizens from explicitly genocidal mass murder. Israeli voters have not 'repeatedly rejected the alternative policy of negotiation'. That policy has repeatedly failed because the Palestinians respond to negotiation with mass murder. Ariel Sharon was brought to power by the shattering blow to Israeli voters of the rejection of the offer of a nascent Palestinian state made by Ehud Barak at Camp David and Taba.
"As for the 'egregious' killing of Yassin ( and note the swipe en passant at the Jewish lobby) presumably Kaletsky would rather Israel had responded to the attempt to blow up the chemical works at Ashdod and kill hundreds, maybe thousands of Israelis by standing by passively until Hamas achieved its purpose. For in Kaletsky's grotesquely disordered moral universe, Israel's attempts at self-defence are to be equated with the Spanish appeasers because both are likely to produce more terror. The logic of that is that Israel must never defend itself by attacking its enemies to prevent even more bloodshed. But then, given how he misrepresents all Israel's attempts at self-defence, it would appear that for Kaletsky, Israel must never defend itself at all."
Why war is difficult
As Clausewitz points out one of the reasons war is so hard is because it takes place in a dynamic environment. Unlike scientific endeavors dealing with materials that have no ability to fight back, in war both sides are dealing with enemies who will constantly be responding and attempting to achieve their goal. This does not change when one side refrains. The other side will continue trying to achieve its objective. That is why the "cycle of violence" argument is so ignorant. But it is a persistant argument of pacifist who know nothing of the history fo warfare.
Clarke's collapse
Rich Lowry:
" DEAN Acheson famously titled his memoir of his years as secretary of state after World War II 'Present at the Creation.' Anyone close to Richard Clarke these last few days could write a memoir called 'Present at the Self-Immolation.' Rarely has a former public servant with such a sterling reputation shot it all away so quickly.
"If Clarke is ever hired in another administration, it should be as Dishonesty Czar. Even by the standard of the host of recent anti-Bush books, Clarke's 'Against All Enemies' distinguishes itself for its pathetically misleading and incomplete account of the facts.
"For evidence of this, look no further than Clarke's August 2002 briefing for reporters while he was still at the National Security Council.
"In that briefing, first reported by Fox News, Clarke portrayed Bush as an anti-terror stalwart.
"Was he merely parroting talking points given to him by the Bush team? That's the explanation he offered at yesterday's hearing. But he can't get off the hook so easily.
"At the very least, what he said in August 2002 must have been factual. Otherwise, Clarke has revealed himself to be an opportunist who will lie at the direction of his superiors.
"So, if what Clarke said was true (and no one has contradicted it), why didn't he include it in his book?
...
" This is just the beginning of the contradictions and mistakes.
"* In his testimony yesterday, Clarke said that the Clinton administration had 'no higher priority' than fighting terror. No. In his own book, he says trying to force a Middle East peace agreement was more important to Clinton than retaliating for the attack against USS Cole.
"* Clarke says in his book that Bush asked him to look into a possible Iraq connection to 9/11 in an "intimidating" way. No. Two other witnesses say there was nothing intimidating about Bush's manner.
* Clarke says Condi Rice appeared as if she hadn't heard of al Qaeda before he mentioned it to her in early 2001. No. Rice made public statements in late 2000 noting the threat from bin Laden.
"Given all of this, it's hard to believe that anyone takes Richard Clarke seriously - including himself."
Rich Lowry:
" DEAN Acheson famously titled his memoir of his years as secretary of state after World War II 'Present at the Creation.' Anyone close to Richard Clarke these last few days could write a memoir called 'Present at the Self-Immolation.' Rarely has a former public servant with such a sterling reputation shot it all away so quickly.
"If Clarke is ever hired in another administration, it should be as Dishonesty Czar. Even by the standard of the host of recent anti-Bush books, Clarke's 'Against All Enemies' distinguishes itself for its pathetically misleading and incomplete account of the facts.
"For evidence of this, look no further than Clarke's August 2002 briefing for reporters while he was still at the National Security Council.
"In that briefing, first reported by Fox News, Clarke portrayed Bush as an anti-terror stalwart.
"Was he merely parroting talking points given to him by the Bush team? That's the explanation he offered at yesterday's hearing. But he can't get off the hook so easily.
"At the very least, what he said in August 2002 must have been factual. Otherwise, Clarke has revealed himself to be an opportunist who will lie at the direction of his superiors.
"So, if what Clarke said was true (and no one has contradicted it), why didn't he include it in his book?
...
" This is just the beginning of the contradictions and mistakes.
"* In his testimony yesterday, Clarke said that the Clinton administration had 'no higher priority' than fighting terror. No. In his own book, he says trying to force a Middle East peace agreement was more important to Clinton than retaliating for the attack against USS Cole.
"* Clarke says in his book that Bush asked him to look into a possible Iraq connection to 9/11 in an "intimidating" way. No. Two other witnesses say there was nothing intimidating about Bush's manner.
* Clarke says Condi Rice appeared as if she hadn't heard of al Qaeda before he mentioned it to her in early 2001. No. Rice made public statements in late 2000 noting the threat from bin Laden.
"Given all of this, it's hard to believe that anyone takes Richard Clarke seriously - including himself."
Rice responds
NY Post:
" National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice yesterday responded fiercely to Richard Clarke's charges that fighting terror was not a top priority for President Bush - noting that the former White House aide's allegations are contradicted by his own earlier words.
"She also called his remarks about her 'arrogant at its extreme.'
" 'He needs to get his stories straight,' Rice said.
"To knock down Clarke's story, Rice revealed that in an e-mail to her on Sept. 15, 2001, Clarke detailed meetings from June and July of that year about preparations being made to prepare for the possibility of a 'spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack.'
" 'Thus, the White House did insure that domestic law-enforcement . . . knew that [his office] believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming and it could be in the U.S.,' Clarke's e-mail said.
...
" It was important to note such meetings had taken place, he added in another e-mail released by Rice:
" 'When the era of national unity begins to crack in the near future, it is possible that some will start asking questions, like did the White House do a good job of making sure that intelligence about terrorist threats got to the FAA and other domestic law-enforcement authorities.'
"Rice also blasted Clarke for suggesting she hadn't heard of al Qaeda when he mentioned the terrorist network to her in early 2001."
NY Post:
" National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice yesterday responded fiercely to Richard Clarke's charges that fighting terror was not a top priority for President Bush - noting that the former White House aide's allegations are contradicted by his own earlier words.
"She also called his remarks about her 'arrogant at its extreme.'
" 'He needs to get his stories straight,' Rice said.
"To knock down Clarke's story, Rice revealed that in an e-mail to her on Sept. 15, 2001, Clarke detailed meetings from June and July of that year about preparations being made to prepare for the possibility of a 'spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack.'
" 'Thus, the White House did insure that domestic law-enforcement . . . knew that [his office] believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming and it could be in the U.S.,' Clarke's e-mail said.
...
" It was important to note such meetings had taken place, he added in another e-mail released by Rice:
" 'When the era of national unity begins to crack in the near future, it is possible that some will start asking questions, like did the White House do a good job of making sure that intelligence about terrorist threats got to the FAA and other domestic law-enforcement authorities.'
"Rice also blasted Clarke for suggesting she hadn't heard of al Qaeda when he mentioned the terrorist network to her in early 2001."
Al Qaeda and Spain
Thomas Friedman:
"There is nothing more important for the future of Western democracies than the question of whether, in the wake of the Madrid bombings, the new Spanish government will go ahead with its plan to withdraw Spanish forces from Iraq — unless the U.N. assumes control of the occupation forces there by June 30. If Spain goes ahead, every terrorist in the world will celebrate, and every democracy will be a little more endangered. I so hope Spain's incoming prime minister, José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero, reconsiders this decision.
...
"If Mr. Zapatero goes through with his troop withdrawal from Iraq, Islamist terrorists will attribute it to the Madrid bombing. This big picture will absolutely encourage them to try this tactic, perfected in Israel and now imported to Spain, in other European or U.S. elections — to tilt the vote one way or another.
...
"If the European Union was thinking long-term, it would hold an emergency meeting and announce that each E.U. country would be sending 100 men to stand alongside the 1,300 Spanish soldiers in Iraq to help protect the Iraqi people as they try to organize their first democratic election — free of intimidation by terrorists.
"That is a big picture that would make Al Qaeda weep."
Thomas Friedman:
"There is nothing more important for the future of Western democracies than the question of whether, in the wake of the Madrid bombings, the new Spanish government will go ahead with its plan to withdraw Spanish forces from Iraq — unless the U.N. assumes control of the occupation forces there by June 30. If Spain goes ahead, every terrorist in the world will celebrate, and every democracy will be a little more endangered. I so hope Spain's incoming prime minister, José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero, reconsiders this decision.
...
"If Mr. Zapatero goes through with his troop withdrawal from Iraq, Islamist terrorists will attribute it to the Madrid bombing. This big picture will absolutely encourage them to try this tactic, perfected in Israel and now imported to Spain, in other European or U.S. elections — to tilt the vote one way or another.
...
"If the European Union was thinking long-term, it would hold an emergency meeting and announce that each E.U. country would be sending 100 men to stand alongside the 1,300 Spanish soldiers in Iraq to help protect the Iraqi people as they try to organize their first democratic election — free of intimidation by terrorists.
"That is a big picture that would make Al Qaeda weep."
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
The plaece to find the good news for Jews
Rabbi Ben Tzion Krasnianski:
"In the late 1930s, a Jew is traveling on the subway reading a Yiddish newspaper. Suddenly, to his dismay, he spots a friend of his sitting just opposite him, reading the notoriously anti-Semitic Der Sturmer. He glares at his friend in anger: 'How could you read that Nazi rag?'
"Unabashed, the friend looks up at him. 'So what are you reading, the Yiddish paper? And what do you read there? In America Jews are assimilating. In Palestine, the Arabs are rioting and killing Jews. In Germany, they've taken away all our rights. 'I read this magazine, Der Sturmer. It says Jews are controlling the media. They run the economy. They own the banks. They're in control of the universe. If you want good news and a fresh perspective, go to the anti-Semites!' "
Rabbi Ben Tzion Krasnianski:
"In the late 1930s, a Jew is traveling on the subway reading a Yiddish newspaper. Suddenly, to his dismay, he spots a friend of his sitting just opposite him, reading the notoriously anti-Semitic Der Sturmer. He glares at his friend in anger: 'How could you read that Nazi rag?'
"Unabashed, the friend looks up at him. 'So what are you reading, the Yiddish paper? And what do you read there? In America Jews are assimilating. In Palestine, the Arabs are rioting and killing Jews. In Germany, they've taken away all our rights. 'I read this magazine, Der Sturmer. It says Jews are controlling the media. They run the economy. They own the banks. They're in control of the universe. If you want good news and a fresh perspective, go to the anti-Semites!' "
Anger at betrayel of Clarke
Richard Clarke has been hanging out at Harvard long enough to convince himself that he is a "new patriot." He has also convinced himself tht he is just a victim of the "Republican attack machine."
He is wrong on both points. He is under assualt because he is trying to help the Democrat attack machine destroy something that is good. In eight years of failure he finds virtue. In eight months of trying to come up with a better policy he finds a lack of urgency. The man was clearly a failure in his real job. Now he is trying to profit from that failure by attacking those who picked up the pieces, literally, and went on to do something about the problem he was not able to deal with. He is trying to help the incompetent Democrats regain power so they can put their failed policies back in place.
Democrats today are in much the same place they were when their failed Vietnam strategy was exposed. They are flailing around trying to find someone else to blame. These guys never understood why their policy failed in Vietnam, because they were never willing to accept responsibility for their failure. They were always looking for a scapegoat. That is one thing that has still not changed about liberal Democrats. It is always easier to blame someone else than accept responsibility/
Recently John Kerry showed his ignorance about the Vietnam War, which he will not hesitate to tell you he "fought" in, by calling it "Nixon's War." Really. The war started by Democrats John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson was "Nixon's War." Of course, Kerry would never acknowledge that even after Nixon became President, Liberal Democrats in congress still prevented the implementation of an effective strategy. That had a hissy fit whenever Nixon attempted anything that might lead to a victory. Liberal democrats were intent on protecting communist sanctuaries in Cambodia, Laos and North Vietnam.
Kerry's latest ad shows him in his own home tape walking around in the "jungle" of Vietnam. He is not seen on his Swift boat where he was stationed, but walking around in the jungle like he was a real soldier on patrol. How many times did he do that when no cameras were around?
Richard Clarke has been hanging out at Harvard long enough to convince himself that he is a "new patriot." He has also convinced himself tht he is just a victim of the "Republican attack machine."
He is wrong on both points. He is under assualt because he is trying to help the Democrat attack machine destroy something that is good. In eight years of failure he finds virtue. In eight months of trying to come up with a better policy he finds a lack of urgency. The man was clearly a failure in his real job. Now he is trying to profit from that failure by attacking those who picked up the pieces, literally, and went on to do something about the problem he was not able to deal with. He is trying to help the incompetent Democrats regain power so they can put their failed policies back in place.
Democrats today are in much the same place they were when their failed Vietnam strategy was exposed. They are flailing around trying to find someone else to blame. These guys never understood why their policy failed in Vietnam, because they were never willing to accept responsibility for their failure. They were always looking for a scapegoat. That is one thing that has still not changed about liberal Democrats. It is always easier to blame someone else than accept responsibility/
Recently John Kerry showed his ignorance about the Vietnam War, which he will not hesitate to tell you he "fought" in, by calling it "Nixon's War." Really. The war started by Democrats John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson was "Nixon's War." Of course, Kerry would never acknowledge that even after Nixon became President, Liberal Democrats in congress still prevented the implementation of an effective strategy. That had a hissy fit whenever Nixon attempted anything that might lead to a victory. Liberal democrats were intent on protecting communist sanctuaries in Cambodia, Laos and North Vietnam.
Kerry's latest ad shows him in his own home tape walking around in the "jungle" of Vietnam. He is not seen on his Swift boat where he was stationed, but walking around in the jungle like he was a real soldier on patrol. How many times did he do that when no cameras were around?
The Profits of war
The Mudville Gazette:
"Has anyone considered that Clarke now stands to make a tidy cash profit from 911? That his professional failures contributed as much as any American's to the events of that day? Given the information that has come to light he can hardly be accused of 'trying to set the record straight.' Clearly he has other motives. If not an outright campaign year attack on the administration, then what (besides the personal profit motive) compels this man?
"Further, (and this speaks to Clarke's book and much of the current 'investigation' into the events leading to 911) to obscure an investigation of this magnitude, to detour (or de-rail) an inquiry of this importance for political gain, seems reprehensible at best and more likely criminal. This is not 'politics at its worst' - this is the absolute failure of our system, and it's inexcusable. The pre-911 failures may have been monumental blunders (made by many) but there was no malicious intent on the part of anyone not expecting a reward of 72 virgins.
"Can the same be said of our current events?
"I'm reminded of the studies of the structural soundness of the World Trade Center. Did builders cut corners? Did Asbestos-phobia lead to the fall of the towers?
"No, planes full of fanatics and innocent victims flew into them and gravity did the rest.
"But there is much money to be made from the tragedy of September 11, and certainly easier ways to do it than to drill into the sands of Iraq....
...
"What else can a failed 'terrorism expert' do in this day of a near-fully realized Global War on Terror?
"Which brings us back to our point. Political capital is capital after all. Political profit is profit. And war profiteering is thriving in the halls of congress today. "
The Mudville Gazette:
"Has anyone considered that Clarke now stands to make a tidy cash profit from 911? That his professional failures contributed as much as any American's to the events of that day? Given the information that has come to light he can hardly be accused of 'trying to set the record straight.' Clearly he has other motives. If not an outright campaign year attack on the administration, then what (besides the personal profit motive) compels this man?
"Further, (and this speaks to Clarke's book and much of the current 'investigation' into the events leading to 911) to obscure an investigation of this magnitude, to detour (or de-rail) an inquiry of this importance for political gain, seems reprehensible at best and more likely criminal. This is not 'politics at its worst' - this is the absolute failure of our system, and it's inexcusable. The pre-911 failures may have been monumental blunders (made by many) but there was no malicious intent on the part of anyone not expecting a reward of 72 virgins.
"Can the same be said of our current events?
"I'm reminded of the studies of the structural soundness of the World Trade Center. Did builders cut corners? Did Asbestos-phobia lead to the fall of the towers?
"No, planes full of fanatics and innocent victims flew into them and gravity did the rest.
"But there is much money to be made from the tragedy of September 11, and certainly easier ways to do it than to drill into the sands of Iraq....
...
"What else can a failed 'terrorism expert' do in this day of a near-fully realized Global War on Terror?
"Which brings us back to our point. Political capital is capital after all. Political profit is profit. And war profiteering is thriving in the halls of congress today. "
This guy is working for rove
Instapundit:
"This guy's working for Rove. By the time he's done imploding, Bush will have discredited the media and all his critics.
"The other possibility is that Clarke held an important national security job for years while being dumb as a post, so dumb that he would write a book making explosive accusations against the White House while knowing -- or forgetting? -- that all sorts of contradictory evidence was on the record and bound to come out. Otherwise, wouldn't he at least have tried to explain this stuff up front?
"As I've said before, I think there's a lot to complain about regarding pre-9/11 antiterror policy, by both Clinton and Bush. And a lot of people probably should have been fired. But Clarke is now saying that his real problem is with the invasion of Iraq, even as he focuses on pre-9/11 events.
"A useful critique would be nice, but Clarke seems to be producing incoherent grandstanding."
Instapundit:
"This guy's working for Rove. By the time he's done imploding, Bush will have discredited the media and all his critics.
"The other possibility is that Clarke held an important national security job for years while being dumb as a post, so dumb that he would write a book making explosive accusations against the White House while knowing -- or forgetting? -- that all sorts of contradictory evidence was on the record and bound to come out. Otherwise, wouldn't he at least have tried to explain this stuff up front?
"As I've said before, I think there's a lot to complain about regarding pre-9/11 antiterror policy, by both Clinton and Bush. And a lot of people probably should have been fired. But Clarke is now saying that his real problem is with the invasion of Iraq, even as he focuses on pre-9/11 events.
"A useful critique would be nice, but Clarke seems to be producing incoherent grandstanding."
Clarke's point by rebuttal of his book
USA Today:
...
"Rice, in a meeting with reporters, released a Sept. 15, 2001, e-mail Clarke sent to her that said: 'When the era of national unity begins to crack in the near future, it is possible that some will start asking questions like did the White House do a good job of making sure that intelligence about terrorist threats got to the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and other domestic law enforcement authorities.'
"He attached an earlier memo from before Sept. 11 in which Clarke warned such agencies that 'a spectacular al-Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future.'
" 'Thus, the White House did insure that domestic law enforcement ... knew that (his office) believed that a major al-Qaeda attack was coming and it could be in the U.S.,' Clarke's e-mail said.
"She suggested that e-mail was self-serving, and conflicted with other more recent assertions by Clarke.
"Earlier, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan, referring to Clarke's White House briefing, said that Clarke 'in his own words, provides a point-by-point rebuttal of what he now asserts. This shatters the cornerstone of Mr. Clarke's assertions.' "
USA Today:
...
"Rice, in a meeting with reporters, released a Sept. 15, 2001, e-mail Clarke sent to her that said: 'When the era of national unity begins to crack in the near future, it is possible that some will start asking questions like did the White House do a good job of making sure that intelligence about terrorist threats got to the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and other domestic law enforcement authorities.'
"He attached an earlier memo from before Sept. 11 in which Clarke warned such agencies that 'a spectacular al-Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future.'
" 'Thus, the White House did insure that domestic law enforcement ... knew that (his office) believed that a major al-Qaeda attack was coming and it could be in the U.S.,' Clarke's e-mail said.
"She suggested that e-mail was self-serving, and conflicted with other more recent assertions by Clarke.
"Earlier, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan, referring to Clarke's White House briefing, said that Clarke 'in his own words, provides a point-by-point rebuttal of what he now asserts. This shatters the cornerstone of Mr. Clarke's assertions.' "
Clarke's breakdown
Michael Young, Reason:
...
"This is where Clarke's allegations, and those of critics who see a disconnect between Al Qaeda and Iraq, are misleading. Iraq always was essential to the anti-terrorism battle precisely because victory there was regarded as necessary to transform societies from where terrorists, spawned by suffocating regimes, had emerged. One can disagree with the practicability of such a strategy, but it is difficult to fault its logic.
"...Sept. 11 went beyond Al Qaeda and reflected a more fundamental problem in the Arab world: the existence of regimes allowing or directing resentment toward the outside, particularly against the West, to cover up for their own asphyxiation of liberties.
"Lest some find this argument—that autocracy breeds terrorism—deceptive, it is worth recalling it was one that America's most vociferous critics floated after Sept. 11. But that was before they realized that such an opinion placed them in the same boat as Bush administration hawks. Once they did, they preferred to backtrack, on the assumption that anti-Americanism is always more rewarding than consistency."
Michael Young, Reason:
...
"This is where Clarke's allegations, and those of critics who see a disconnect between Al Qaeda and Iraq, are misleading. Iraq always was essential to the anti-terrorism battle precisely because victory there was regarded as necessary to transform societies from where terrorists, spawned by suffocating regimes, had emerged. One can disagree with the practicability of such a strategy, but it is difficult to fault its logic.
"...Sept. 11 went beyond Al Qaeda and reflected a more fundamental problem in the Arab world: the existence of regimes allowing or directing resentment toward the outside, particularly against the West, to cover up for their own asphyxiation of liberties.
"Lest some find this argument—that autocracy breeds terrorism—deceptive, it is worth recalling it was one that America's most vociferous critics floated after Sept. 11. But that was before they realized that such an opinion placed them in the same boat as Bush administration hawks. Once they did, they preferred to backtrack, on the assumption that anti-Americanism is always more rewarding than consistency."
Condi Rice unloads on Clarke
Condi Rice on Hannity and Combs takes on Richard Clarke's absurbe allegations. She is clearly angry about the scurrilous allegations of Clarke. For anyone to argue that the Clinton administration was more interested in fighting terrorism than the Bush administration is enough to anger anyone with a brain. If the Clinton administration was so interested in fighting terrorism, why were they so inept? From 93 on repeated attacks by al Qaeda were either unanswered or the subject of pop and posture attacks that accomplished nothing. As President Bush told Richard Clarke in March of 2001, he wanted a more comprehensive strategy to not just roll back al Qaeda, but to destroy it. Clearly Clarke was not the person to develop that strategy.
Condi Rice on Hannity and Combs takes on Richard Clarke's absurbe allegations. She is clearly angry about the scurrilous allegations of Clarke. For anyone to argue that the Clinton administration was more interested in fighting terrorism than the Bush administration is enough to anger anyone with a brain. If the Clinton administration was so interested in fighting terrorism, why were they so inept? From 93 on repeated attacks by al Qaeda were either unanswered or the subject of pop and posture attacks that accomplished nothing. As President Bush told Richard Clarke in March of 2001, he wanted a more comprehensive strategy to not just roll back al Qaeda, but to destroy it. Clearly Clarke was not the person to develop that strategy.
Bob Kerrey, weak on defense
Bob Kerrey tried to come to Richard Clarke's defense today by implying that there was something unethical about Fox releasing the transcript of Clarke's back ground briefing on the administrations approach to al Qaeda prior to 9-11. Kerrey was totally offbase. The original briefing had been restricted at the request of the NSC, not clarke. When approached by Fox News with a request to release the material the NSC agreed. Kerrey's weak defense of the treacherous Clarke is exposed as nothing more than trying to cover for a bad witness. Kerrey owes Fox News and apology.
Clarke's book sale tour will probably continue with liberal media types who want to believe his bile. But now the truth is out even if the partisan media will not repeat it, the truth is out.
Bob Kerrey tried to come to Richard Clarke's defense today by implying that there was something unethical about Fox releasing the transcript of Clarke's back ground briefing on the administrations approach to al Qaeda prior to 9-11. Kerrey was totally offbase. The original briefing had been restricted at the request of the NSC, not clarke. When approached by Fox News with a request to release the material the NSC agreed. Kerrey's weak defense of the treacherous Clarke is exposed as nothing more than trying to cover for a bad witness. Kerrey owes Fox News and apology.
Clarke's book sale tour will probably continue with liberal media types who want to believe his bile. But now the truth is out even if the partisan media will not repeat it, the truth is out.
The Kerry style
Marc Cooper:
...
"Even during his Super Tuesday national victory speech, virtually claiming the Blue mantle, Kerry still seemed to be rambling, groping for an overarching theme. As Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe says: 'Kerry can come up with sentences that have a dozen subordinate clauses in them that you couldn’t diagram on five blackboards.'
"The problem is not just stylistic. Kerry’s looping oratory is clearly a symptom of excessive processing, of a basic ambiguity that blurs his political soul. Even as he speaks, Kerry is simultaneously second-guessing the reactions of his audience, correcting, updating and re-charting his course, sometimes several times, in one given response.
"Kerry argues that Bush will fight the election around national security and taunts him to 'Bring It On.' But the Bush campaign isn’t so stupid as to bet the White House solely on a direct challenge to war-hero Kerry’s military credentials. Instead, the president has already hinted his attack will focus on Kerry’s 'uncertainty' — that the Massachusetts senator has been for the war and against it, for the Patriot Act and against it, for NAFTA and against it, for the tax cut and against it, for gay marriage and against it.
"How on target does that sound?"
Marc Cooper:
...
"Even during his Super Tuesday national victory speech, virtually claiming the Blue mantle, Kerry still seemed to be rambling, groping for an overarching theme. As Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe says: 'Kerry can come up with sentences that have a dozen subordinate clauses in them that you couldn’t diagram on five blackboards.'
"The problem is not just stylistic. Kerry’s looping oratory is clearly a symptom of excessive processing, of a basic ambiguity that blurs his political soul. Even as he speaks, Kerry is simultaneously second-guessing the reactions of his audience, correcting, updating and re-charting his course, sometimes several times, in one given response.
"Kerry argues that Bush will fight the election around national security and taunts him to 'Bring It On.' But the Bush campaign isn’t so stupid as to bet the White House solely on a direct challenge to war-hero Kerry’s military credentials. Instead, the president has already hinted his attack will focus on Kerry’s 'uncertainty' — that the Massachusetts senator has been for the war and against it, for the Patriot Act and against it, for NAFTA and against it, for the tax cut and against it, for gay marriage and against it.
"How on target does that sound?"
Hamas denys link with al Qaeda
Straight Times:
"A senior Hamas leader denied yesterday that his movement had any connection with Al-Qaeda, even though both groups called for attacks on Israeli allies after the assassination of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
...
"He said Hamas 'concentrated their activities on the occupied territories in Palestine'.
"But he added: 'I expect every Islamic movement everywhere is going to make retaliation for the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.' "
It sounds like he is trying to have it both ways. He is telling al Qaeda and other terrorist to go for it while denying association. He needs to be told that any attack on the US that is associated with Hamas will be met with devastating retaliation.
Straight Times:
"A senior Hamas leader denied yesterday that his movement had any connection with Al-Qaeda, even though both groups called for attacks on Israeli allies after the assassination of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
...
"He said Hamas 'concentrated their activities on the occupied territories in Palestine'.
"But he added: 'I expect every Islamic movement everywhere is going to make retaliation for the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.' "
It sounds like he is trying to have it both ways. He is telling al Qaeda and other terrorist to go for it while denying association. He needs to be told that any attack on the US that is associated with Hamas will be met with devastating retaliation.
"gutless, lying weasel"
NY Post:
" DON Imus called CBS's Lesley Stahl a 'gutless, lying weasel' yesterday for abruptly canceling an interview during which Imus planned to hammer her about conflict-of-interest allegations.
" 'I realize it's a little late in your life, honey, to start gettin' honest, but just say "I don't want to appear on the program . . . because I heard what he said earlier this morning," ' Imus railed.
"Imus had promised listeners he'd ask Stahl why she and '60 Minutes' didn't disclose that the new book by Sunday night's controversial guest - former terrorism official Richard Clarke - was released by Simon & Schuster.
" Both the publisher and CBS - as well as Imus's station, WFAN - are owned by media giant Viacom.
...
" Imus yesterday accused Stahl of being 'one of the more dishonest members of the media' for allegedly going too easy on Clarke, who's been characterized as a disgruntled former employee by Bush administration officials.
" 'She did everything but slip her tongue in his ear,' said sidekick Bernard McGuirk.
" 'No wonder Fox [News Channel] is killing people - because people hate these people,' said Imus."
NY Post:
" DON Imus called CBS's Lesley Stahl a 'gutless, lying weasel' yesterday for abruptly canceling an interview during which Imus planned to hammer her about conflict-of-interest allegations.
" 'I realize it's a little late in your life, honey, to start gettin' honest, but just say "I don't want to appear on the program . . . because I heard what he said earlier this morning," ' Imus railed.
"Imus had promised listeners he'd ask Stahl why she and '60 Minutes' didn't disclose that the new book by Sunday night's controversial guest - former terrorism official Richard Clarke - was released by Simon & Schuster.
" Both the publisher and CBS - as well as Imus's station, WFAN - are owned by media giant Viacom.
...
" Imus yesterday accused Stahl of being 'one of the more dishonest members of the media' for allegedly going too easy on Clarke, who's been characterized as a disgruntled former employee by Bush administration officials.
" 'She did everything but slip her tongue in his ear,' said sidekick Bernard McGuirk.
" 'No wonder Fox [News Channel] is killing people - because people hate these people,' said Imus."
Dumb questions from the Press in Iraq
Fred Barnes:
...
"Just because a Brit works for the American media, he doesn't need to shrink from sticking a hostile statement in a question. So the Brit working for ABC News here declared, 'There was no terrorism in Iraq before the United States and the coalition came to Iraq.' Really? The official flared at this one, noting Saddam's Iraq was the home of state terrorism. If you're doubtful, the official said, just check out the mass graves at Hilla and Halabja."
The ignorance in that question is beyond belief. Before the US liberation the terrorist were in the goverment of Iraq. The government was terrorizing its own people. It was throwing kids in jail, putting people into plastic shredders, torturing people, cutting off tongues, raping wives and children of opponents. Yes, there was no terrorism in Iraq before the war. Really.
Fred Barnes:
...
"Just because a Brit works for the American media, he doesn't need to shrink from sticking a hostile statement in a question. So the Brit working for ABC News here declared, 'There was no terrorism in Iraq before the United States and the coalition came to Iraq.' Really? The official flared at this one, noting Saddam's Iraq was the home of state terrorism. If you're doubtful, the official said, just check out the mass graves at Hilla and Halabja."
The ignorance in that question is beyond belief. Before the US liberation the terrorist were in the goverment of Iraq. The government was terrorizing its own people. It was throwing kids in jail, putting people into plastic shredders, torturing people, cutting off tongues, raping wives and children of opponents. Yes, there was no terrorism in Iraq before the war. Really.
Clarke before selling out tothe dark side
Fox News:
"The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.
"RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
...
" And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
"And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
"So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
...
" Over the course of the summer ? last point ? they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
"And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
...
" QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the ? general animus against the foreign policy?
"CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.
"JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
"CLARKE: All of that's correct.
...
" QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...
"CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.
"QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?
"CLARKE: There was no new plan.
"QUESTION: No new strategy ? I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...
"CLARKE: Plan, strategy ? there was no, nothing new.
...
" ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...
"CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed ? began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.
"QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?
"CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.
...
" ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no ? one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?
"CLARKE: You got it. That's right.
...
" QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?
"CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination."
Fox News:
"The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.
"RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
...
" And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
"And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
"So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
...
" Over the course of the summer ? last point ? they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
"And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
...
" QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the ? general animus against the foreign policy?
"CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.
"JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
"CLARKE: All of that's correct.
...
" QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...
"CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.
"QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?
"CLARKE: There was no new plan.
"QUESTION: No new strategy ? I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...
"CLARKE: Plan, strategy ? there was no, nothing new.
...
" ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...
"CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed ? began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.
"QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?
"CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.
...
" ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no ? one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?
"CLARKE: You got it. That's right.
...
" QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?
"CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination."
How the left undermines the war against the Islamist
David Horowitz has an almost book length description of the lefts undermining of national security before 9-11. It is worth the read.
David Horowitz has an almost book length description of the lefts undermining of national security before 9-11. It is worth the read.
Blaming the Jews
Victor Davis Hanson:
...
"Middle men, market manipulators, and secret smart guys who trafficked in inside breaks and shady deals?all these right-wing farmers used to swear pulled the strings of the American fruit market. When I asked my mother if this could possibly all be true, she would sigh, and say, 'No, no, no. You see when people fail, or when they are angry, or they become afraid and confused, they always blame those who are different or successful or confident. And often that means Jewish people, most of whom our neighbors have never met.'
"And then I grew old, and learned that it wasn't any more reactionary men of the soil who evoked the Jews to explain why they were not listened to, or felt weak, or were frustrated, but rather often very liberal, and self-acclaimed progressives. Instead of Shylock fruit merchants, the new sneaky Jew was the neoconservative?with a funny-sounding name like Wolfowitz or Perle who, due to some sinister genius, had hoodwinked red-blooded Americans into fighting and dying for the Likud party in Israel. Not 9-11, not Saddam Hussein's horrific record of genocide, not some systematic effort to end rogue states and terrorist havens, and not an idealism to bring consensual government to the landscape of the Middle East explained why we went to Iraq. No, it was once again the Jews.
"When I was young, my mother and father also lectured me about the paranoid style in American politics. ?There will always be someone like a McCarthy waving papers and shouting conspiracies,? they preached. At the time, inasmuch as they were agrarian conservative Democrats in a sea of reactionary Republicans, I think they were telling me to watch out for phraseology from our politicians like 'cooked up,' 'treason,' 'traitor'-and especially to be on the look-out when they screamed and frothed, and made all sorts of scary allusions like 'some leaders have told me in private' or 'the greatest example of (fill in the purported travesty) in American history.'
"And then I grew old and listened to Howard Dean quote al Qaeda's about killing Spaniards as proof of our blunders and ponder the 'theory' that George Bush knew in advance of 9-11; and Ted Kennedy refer to cabalistic meetings in Texas; and Al Gore scream, veins bulging and hair tossed, about the administration's treasonous war; and the Democratic National Chairman alleging that a President was AWOL while in the military; and John Kerry hinting at unnamed foreign leaders contacting him in secret?the conspiracists Chomsky, Gore Vidal, or Michael Moore no doubt all grinning off-stage.
...
"The world has changed. What was once liberal is now illiberal, and the old progressivism has become mean-spirited and opportunistic. What was once idealistic is seen as calculating. When I read about the 'Jews' now, it is almost always negative and emanates either from the European left or the so-called liberal university here in the United States. Israel, still democratic and still attacked by autocracies, is now hated rather than respected, not for what it has done, but for what it is. The world snored, for example, this week when suicide bombers were foiled in their attempts at getting at a chemical weapons dump so that they might once more gas Jews. Neither Kofi Annan nor Desmond Tutu, for all their recent media appearances, said a word when Palestinians apologized for murdering a jogger in Jerusalem on the mistaken impression that the poor Arab was a 'Jew.'
"When I turn on the TV and see some wild-eyed crazy-like public figure ranting, it is not a John Bircher frothing about pure drinking water and statesmen of dual loyalties, but prominent Democratic politicians like an Al Gore or Howard Dean screaming to the point of exhaustion, alluding to the end of America as we have known it, and citing a 'betrayal' of the United States. Secret meetings, stealthy friendships, and contorted past relationships?the purported exegesis of all this intrigue and plotting now comes out on NPR and in the New York Review of Books, not garish 1950 pulp newspapers printed in pink.
...
"Most Democrats we saw this year?Howard Dean, Al Gore, John Kerry, Terry McAuliff, and John Edwards?either grew up in aristocratic bounty or are themselves multimillionaires. Does this matter??only in the sense of sincerity and consistency. When Republican grandees talk of the glories of the free market you know what you get; when very liberal grandees talk of its evils, you have only the assurance that what they advocate and whom they champion most certainly will have little to do with the lives they themselves will live. And the message is no longer one of guaranteed equality of opportunity but of forced equality of results?as long as we accept that such a utopia applies for everyone else outside the world of corporate Ketchup money, astronomical trial lawyer fees, inherited Kennedy capital, Park-Avenue bond security, Sun Valley, and prep-school privilege.
"I don't know quite how they did it, but the Democrats' candidate looks as at home snowboarding at a ritzy ski resort as George Bush does at a NASCAR rally. And when I hear anti-Semitism, hatred of Israel, warning about Jews in government, fury about foreign aid, visceral hatred and rude exclamations, sinister conspiracy theories, and racial separatism it usually has come far more often from someone on the Left than Right and from one educated and affluent rather than poor and ignorant."
Victor Davis Hanson:
...
"Middle men, market manipulators, and secret smart guys who trafficked in inside breaks and shady deals?all these right-wing farmers used to swear pulled the strings of the American fruit market. When I asked my mother if this could possibly all be true, she would sigh, and say, 'No, no, no. You see when people fail, or when they are angry, or they become afraid and confused, they always blame those who are different or successful or confident. And often that means Jewish people, most of whom our neighbors have never met.'
"And then I grew old, and learned that it wasn't any more reactionary men of the soil who evoked the Jews to explain why they were not listened to, or felt weak, or were frustrated, but rather often very liberal, and self-acclaimed progressives. Instead of Shylock fruit merchants, the new sneaky Jew was the neoconservative?with a funny-sounding name like Wolfowitz or Perle who, due to some sinister genius, had hoodwinked red-blooded Americans into fighting and dying for the Likud party in Israel. Not 9-11, not Saddam Hussein's horrific record of genocide, not some systematic effort to end rogue states and terrorist havens, and not an idealism to bring consensual government to the landscape of the Middle East explained why we went to Iraq. No, it was once again the Jews.
"When I was young, my mother and father also lectured me about the paranoid style in American politics. ?There will always be someone like a McCarthy waving papers and shouting conspiracies,? they preached. At the time, inasmuch as they were agrarian conservative Democrats in a sea of reactionary Republicans, I think they were telling me to watch out for phraseology from our politicians like 'cooked up,' 'treason,' 'traitor'-and especially to be on the look-out when they screamed and frothed, and made all sorts of scary allusions like 'some leaders have told me in private' or 'the greatest example of (fill in the purported travesty) in American history.'
"And then I grew old and listened to Howard Dean quote al Qaeda's about killing Spaniards as proof of our blunders and ponder the 'theory' that George Bush knew in advance of 9-11; and Ted Kennedy refer to cabalistic meetings in Texas; and Al Gore scream, veins bulging and hair tossed, about the administration's treasonous war; and the Democratic National Chairman alleging that a President was AWOL while in the military; and John Kerry hinting at unnamed foreign leaders contacting him in secret?the conspiracists Chomsky, Gore Vidal, or Michael Moore no doubt all grinning off-stage.
...
"The world has changed. What was once liberal is now illiberal, and the old progressivism has become mean-spirited and opportunistic. What was once idealistic is seen as calculating. When I read about the 'Jews' now, it is almost always negative and emanates either from the European left or the so-called liberal university here in the United States. Israel, still democratic and still attacked by autocracies, is now hated rather than respected, not for what it has done, but for what it is. The world snored, for example, this week when suicide bombers were foiled in their attempts at getting at a chemical weapons dump so that they might once more gas Jews. Neither Kofi Annan nor Desmond Tutu, for all their recent media appearances, said a word when Palestinians apologized for murdering a jogger in Jerusalem on the mistaken impression that the poor Arab was a 'Jew.'
"When I turn on the TV and see some wild-eyed crazy-like public figure ranting, it is not a John Bircher frothing about pure drinking water and statesmen of dual loyalties, but prominent Democratic politicians like an Al Gore or Howard Dean screaming to the point of exhaustion, alluding to the end of America as we have known it, and citing a 'betrayal' of the United States. Secret meetings, stealthy friendships, and contorted past relationships?the purported exegesis of all this intrigue and plotting now comes out on NPR and in the New York Review of Books, not garish 1950 pulp newspapers printed in pink.
...
"Most Democrats we saw this year?Howard Dean, Al Gore, John Kerry, Terry McAuliff, and John Edwards?either grew up in aristocratic bounty or are themselves multimillionaires. Does this matter??only in the sense of sincerity and consistency. When Republican grandees talk of the glories of the free market you know what you get; when very liberal grandees talk of its evils, you have only the assurance that what they advocate and whom they champion most certainly will have little to do with the lives they themselves will live. And the message is no longer one of guaranteed equality of opportunity but of forced equality of results?as long as we accept that such a utopia applies for everyone else outside the world of corporate Ketchup money, astronomical trial lawyer fees, inherited Kennedy capital, Park-Avenue bond security, Sun Valley, and prep-school privilege.
"I don't know quite how they did it, but the Democrats' candidate looks as at home snowboarding at a ritzy ski resort as George Bush does at a NASCAR rally. And when I hear anti-Semitism, hatred of Israel, warning about Jews in government, fury about foreign aid, visceral hatred and rude exclamations, sinister conspiracy theories, and racial separatism it usually has come far more often from someone on the Left than Right and from one educated and affluent rather than poor and ignorant."
Buffy get it right
Letter to Jonah Goldberg in The Corner:
"mr. goldberg,
"you may have already heard or thought of this. whenever i hear about hamas vowing revenge for the killing of one of their leaders, and the concerns over more radicals joining the fight, i can't help but think of an exchange from buffy the vampire slayer.
"buffy has just embarrassed a vampire in a fight:
"Buffy: Wow, that was really funny-looking! Could you do it again?
"Vampire: I'll kill you for that.
"Buffy: For that? What were you trying to kill me for before?
"then again, perhaps you haven't. my thoughts seem to be more simple than most.
"cordially,"
Letter to Jonah Goldberg in The Corner:
"mr. goldberg,
"you may have already heard or thought of this. whenever i hear about hamas vowing revenge for the killing of one of their leaders, and the concerns over more radicals joining the fight, i can't help but think of an exchange from buffy the vampire slayer.
"buffy has just embarrassed a vampire in a fight:
"Buffy: Wow, that was really funny-looking! Could you do it again?
"Vampire: I'll kill you for that.
"Buffy: For that? What were you trying to kill me for before?
"then again, perhaps you haven't. my thoughts seem to be more simple than most.
"cordially,"
The failure to unilaterally preempt al Qaeda?
Cliff May:
"The Bush administration is now being harshly criticized for (1) its policies of preemption and unilateralism and for (2) not unilaterally preempting the Taliban and al Qaeda immediately after coming into office in January 2001.
"Needless to say, it will be a challenge for the White House to refute both criticisms simultaneously.
"Richard Clarke, a long-time terrorism adviser, is leading the attack against the president, claiming that the Bush administration 'squandered the opportunity to eliminate al Qaeda.'
"What's curious is that Clarke does not make the same charge regarding the Clinton administration. It was during that administration, you'll recall, that al Qaeda was founded, that it declared war on America, bombed two of our embassies in Africa, and attacked the USS Cole.
...
"By contrast, what could President Bush have done between January and September of 2001? By that point, the terrorists had made their plans and were living in the U.S. Even if President Bush had launched a unilateral, preemptive attack against the Taliban and al Qaeda, the 9/11 suicide terrorists might have proceeded to fulfill their missions. Indeed, some would have said that 9/11 was in reprisal for the assaults on al Qaeda and the Taliban.
"And who would have supported a preemptive attack in Afghanistan prior to 9/11? Not those who oppose preemption now. Not those who say President Bush was wrong to strike Saddam Hussein before being certain not just of his intentions, but also of his capabilities. Not Jacques Chirac or Vladimir Putin."
Cliff May:
"The Bush administration is now being harshly criticized for (1) its policies of preemption and unilateralism and for (2) not unilaterally preempting the Taliban and al Qaeda immediately after coming into office in January 2001.
"Needless to say, it will be a challenge for the White House to refute both criticisms simultaneously.
"Richard Clarke, a long-time terrorism adviser, is leading the attack against the president, claiming that the Bush administration 'squandered the opportunity to eliminate al Qaeda.'
"What's curious is that Clarke does not make the same charge regarding the Clinton administration. It was during that administration, you'll recall, that al Qaeda was founded, that it declared war on America, bombed two of our embassies in Africa, and attacked the USS Cole.
...
"By contrast, what could President Bush have done between January and September of 2001? By that point, the terrorists had made their plans and were living in the U.S. Even if President Bush had launched a unilateral, preemptive attack against the Taliban and al Qaeda, the 9/11 suicide terrorists might have proceeded to fulfill their missions. Indeed, some would have said that 9/11 was in reprisal for the assaults on al Qaeda and the Taliban.
"And who would have supported a preemptive attack in Afghanistan prior to 9/11? Not those who oppose preemption now. Not those who say President Bush was wrong to strike Saddam Hussein before being certain not just of his intentions, but also of his capabilities. Not Jacques Chirac or Vladimir Putin."
Mass murderer as hero
Joel Mowbrey:
...
"It’s impossible to fathom the profound depravity of a society that could hail as a hero a mass murderer....
"But such is the sorry state of Palestinian society, where everything from the law to children’s textbooks is geared toward the realizing the goal of driving the Jews into the sea.
"Although the Palestinian Authority recognizes the crime of murder, it does not apply to those who slaughter Jews. In nearly eight years since Oslo, there is no record of anyone prosecuted by the Palestinian Authority serving a full sentence for conspiring, planning, or masterminding the murder of Jews.
...
"What PA dictator Yasser Arafat and the likes of Sheikh Yassin have carefully cultivated over the years is not a culture of death, but a cult of death. Palestinians are placed on the indoctrination assembly line at a very young age, feeding a terrorist complex that depends on a steady stream of fresh young, mindless bodies to become human bombs.
...
"Legitimate questions can be raised about Israel’s targeted killing of Sheikh Yassin. But a much more important one is what it says about both hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and supposedly mainstream Muslim groups in the US that a mass murderer is hailed as a 'religious leader.' "
Joel Mowbrey:
...
"It’s impossible to fathom the profound depravity of a society that could hail as a hero a mass murderer....
"But such is the sorry state of Palestinian society, where everything from the law to children’s textbooks is geared toward the realizing the goal of driving the Jews into the sea.
"Although the Palestinian Authority recognizes the crime of murder, it does not apply to those who slaughter Jews. In nearly eight years since Oslo, there is no record of anyone prosecuted by the Palestinian Authority serving a full sentence for conspiring, planning, or masterminding the murder of Jews.
...
"What PA dictator Yasser Arafat and the likes of Sheikh Yassin have carefully cultivated over the years is not a culture of death, but a cult of death. Palestinians are placed on the indoctrination assembly line at a very young age, feeding a terrorist complex that depends on a steady stream of fresh young, mindless bodies to become human bombs.
...
"Legitimate questions can be raised about Israel’s targeted killing of Sheikh Yassin. But a much more important one is what it says about both hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and supposedly mainstream Muslim groups in the US that a mass murderer is hailed as a 'religious leader.' "
Blowout
Dick Morris:
" THE Bush ads are working: Two weeks ago, the Washington Post poll showed Sen. John Kerry ahead of President Bush by 11 points, and the Gallup Poll had him up by 8, while more recent polls reflect a dead heat between the two.
"Zogby (March 21) has Kerry up by only 48-46, and Rasmussen (March 20) has it Bush 46, Kerry 45.
"Interestingly, the new surveys don't show Bush gain ing so much as they show Kerry dropping. In the odd configurations of political strategy, that is good news for the Republicans.
"If Bush were simply gaining because of good news or a bump from the recent focus on terrorism, he could go down as easily as he went up. Let the news turn bad, and Bush would go back to the low ratings of a few weeks ago.
"But with the gap closing because of Kerry's drop, the impact is likely to last a lot longer. The fact is that 6 to 9 percent of Americans were voting for the Democrat two weeks ago and now are undecided. The doubts that Bush's ads are raising about Kerry are not going to go away; they will grow as the ads continue and the facts pile up.
" The polls are starting to reflect the effectiveness of Bush's ads, which depict Kerry explaining his ultra-liberal record to the voters. This Democrat, who escaped scrutiny by posing as the un-Dean in the primary, is now being revealed as the leftist he is.
...
" In the next round of attack ads, Bush should focus on Kerry's previous support for a 50 cent increase in the gasoline tax. Remember, it was the gas tax, more than any other issue, that cost the Democrats control of Congress in 1994. With pump prices closing in on $2 a gallon, Americans will not look kindly on someone who proposes to add another half-dollar per gallon.
"Kerry's two gaffes - on foreign leaders with whom he allegedly spoke and on his flip-flop on the money for the war - were not unforced errors: They were fumbles caused by the aggressive pressure of the Bush campaign.
"This Democrat is not ready to run for president, and the more the Republicans press him, the more he will self-destruct. His campaign advisers are hoping that a few hours extra sleep on his ski trip will restore his political judgment, but they ignore the fact that he never had a lot to begin with."
Dick Morris:
" THE Bush ads are working: Two weeks ago, the Washington Post poll showed Sen. John Kerry ahead of President Bush by 11 points, and the Gallup Poll had him up by 8, while more recent polls reflect a dead heat between the two.
"Zogby (March 21) has Kerry up by only 48-46, and Rasmussen (March 20) has it Bush 46, Kerry 45.
"Interestingly, the new surveys don't show Bush gain ing so much as they show Kerry dropping. In the odd configurations of political strategy, that is good news for the Republicans.
"If Bush were simply gaining because of good news or a bump from the recent focus on terrorism, he could go down as easily as he went up. Let the news turn bad, and Bush would go back to the low ratings of a few weeks ago.
"But with the gap closing because of Kerry's drop, the impact is likely to last a lot longer. The fact is that 6 to 9 percent of Americans were voting for the Democrat two weeks ago and now are undecided. The doubts that Bush's ads are raising about Kerry are not going to go away; they will grow as the ads continue and the facts pile up.
" The polls are starting to reflect the effectiveness of Bush's ads, which depict Kerry explaining his ultra-liberal record to the voters. This Democrat, who escaped scrutiny by posing as the un-Dean in the primary, is now being revealed as the leftist he is.
...
" In the next round of attack ads, Bush should focus on Kerry's previous support for a 50 cent increase in the gasoline tax. Remember, it was the gas tax, more than any other issue, that cost the Democrats control of Congress in 1994. With pump prices closing in on $2 a gallon, Americans will not look kindly on someone who proposes to add another half-dollar per gallon.
"Kerry's two gaffes - on foreign leaders with whom he allegedly spoke and on his flip-flop on the money for the war - were not unforced errors: They were fumbles caused by the aggressive pressure of the Bush campaign.
"This Democrat is not ready to run for president, and the more the Republicans press him, the more he will self-destruct. His campaign advisers are hoping that a few hours extra sleep on his ski trip will restore his political judgment, but they ignore the fact that he never had a lot to begin with."
Why Clinton did not act
Peter D. Feaver, professor of political science and public policy at Duke University, answers the 9-11 commissions question of why the Clinton administration took no decesive action against bin Laden et.al.
" Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright's consistent response was simple: 'You have to go back to the pre-9/11 mindset.' By this she meant that before Sept. 11, stronger military action was politically impossible; thus the blame for the Clinton administration's failures to act preemptively against al Qaeda rests on everyone, not specifically on the commander in chief.
"Defenders of the Clinton administration have twinned this claim -- 'We can't be blamed, because no one wanted us to take stronger military action' -- with its post-9/11 obverse assertion: President Bush doesn't deserve any credit for toppling the Taliban and ending al Qaeda's sanctuary, because after Sept. 11 anyone would have done this. In the words of Bush's most recent and surprising critic, former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke: 'Any leader whom one can imagine as president on September 11 would have declared a 'war on terrorism' and would have ended the Afghan sanctuary by invading.'
"But the first claim is only partly true, and because it is, the second claim is almost certainly false.
"Albright is partly correct; there was a pre-9/11 mindset that shaped Clinton-era responses. The mind-set was 'counterterrorism as law-enforcement.' The role of the military was at best a supporting one. Moreover, because the uniformed military themselves opposed a military role, the law enforcement mind-set was reinforced by Clinton's pathological civil-military relations. Even if President Clinton wanted to conduct military operations against al Qaeda, he was simply too weak a commander in chief to prevail over a military that wanted nothing to do with a war in Afghanistan.
"The Clinton record on military operations was clear: frequent resort to low-risk cruise-missile strikes and high-level bombings, but shunning any form of decisive operations involving ground troops in areas of high risk. The Clinton White House was the most casualty phobic administration in modern times, and this fear of body bags was not lost on Osama bin Laden. Indeed, al Qaeda rhetoric regularly 'proved' that the Americans were vulnerable to terrorism by invoking the hasty cut-and-run after 18 Army soldiers died in the 1993 'Black Hawk Down' events in Somalia -- a strategy developed and implemented, ironically enough, by the same Richard Clarke who torments the Bush team today.
...
" While most of the recent media attention has focused on early internal debates about Iraqi involvement, in fact the early public debate about 9/11 was over whether Bush was rash in declaring 'war' on the terrorists. Most experts and pundits -- especially among our allies -- still clung to the 'counterterrorism as law enforcement' mind-set. And viewed from that frame, it was foolhardy to declare war.
"For starters, declaring war seemed to elevate the terrorists to co-combatants, rather than leaving them as criminals to be dealt with by police dragnet. The decision to invade Afghanistan was even more controversial. Suddenly armchair experts were quoting Kipling and ruminating on how the Afghans had twice defeated reigning military powers, first the British Empire and then the Soviet Empire.
"The risky approach ordered by Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, which relied heavily on Special Forces and air power, was especially subject to criticism. As late as Nov. 4, 2001, the dean of academic security studies experts, John Mearsheimer, was warning in an opinion piece that 'neither the current bombing campaign nor the deployment of American ground forces to Afghanistan offers good military options for dealing with the Taliban and al Qaeda. A better approach would emphasize ground-level diplomacy, with open wallets, among Pashtun leaders in central and southern Afghanistan.' Viewed in hindsight, the Bush-Rumsfeld military plan looked brilliant, but at the time it was highly controversial and decidedly risky.
"Would a less stubborn commander in chief have pursued the risky war plan that ultimately toppled the Taliban and put al Qaeda on the run? The record of the '90s suggests otherwise. A White House that cut and ran after the death of 18 soldiers probably would not have had the stomach for the possible casualties. A White House that could not prevail over military objections to using ground troops in Kosovo would have had a hard time overcoming institutional military objections. A White House that ordered retaliation in the form of a night-time strike on an empty intelligence building would not have backed Operation Enduring Freedom.
" Before Sept. 11, Clinton defenders say, we did not have irrefutable proof of the casus belli of al Qaeda-Taliban complicity, there was no international consensus on the need to invade Afghanistan, and it would have been politically risky for the United States to act in the face of military objections. The same could be said about the invasion of Iraq after Sept. 11. In other words, determined commanders in chief have the mind-set and the resolve to act in spite of the political climate and military resistance."
It is also clear that the Kerry mindset is still stuck in the Clinton '90's.
Peter D. Feaver, professor of political science and public policy at Duke University, answers the 9-11 commissions question of why the Clinton administration took no decesive action against bin Laden et.al.
" Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright's consistent response was simple: 'You have to go back to the pre-9/11 mindset.' By this she meant that before Sept. 11, stronger military action was politically impossible; thus the blame for the Clinton administration's failures to act preemptively against al Qaeda rests on everyone, not specifically on the commander in chief.
"Defenders of the Clinton administration have twinned this claim -- 'We can't be blamed, because no one wanted us to take stronger military action' -- with its post-9/11 obverse assertion: President Bush doesn't deserve any credit for toppling the Taliban and ending al Qaeda's sanctuary, because after Sept. 11 anyone would have done this. In the words of Bush's most recent and surprising critic, former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke: 'Any leader whom one can imagine as president on September 11 would have declared a 'war on terrorism' and would have ended the Afghan sanctuary by invading.'
"But the first claim is only partly true, and because it is, the second claim is almost certainly false.
"Albright is partly correct; there was a pre-9/11 mindset that shaped Clinton-era responses. The mind-set was 'counterterrorism as law-enforcement.' The role of the military was at best a supporting one. Moreover, because the uniformed military themselves opposed a military role, the law enforcement mind-set was reinforced by Clinton's pathological civil-military relations. Even if President Clinton wanted to conduct military operations against al Qaeda, he was simply too weak a commander in chief to prevail over a military that wanted nothing to do with a war in Afghanistan.
"The Clinton record on military operations was clear: frequent resort to low-risk cruise-missile strikes and high-level bombings, but shunning any form of decisive operations involving ground troops in areas of high risk. The Clinton White House was the most casualty phobic administration in modern times, and this fear of body bags was not lost on Osama bin Laden. Indeed, al Qaeda rhetoric regularly 'proved' that the Americans were vulnerable to terrorism by invoking the hasty cut-and-run after 18 Army soldiers died in the 1993 'Black Hawk Down' events in Somalia -- a strategy developed and implemented, ironically enough, by the same Richard Clarke who torments the Bush team today.
...
" While most of the recent media attention has focused on early internal debates about Iraqi involvement, in fact the early public debate about 9/11 was over whether Bush was rash in declaring 'war' on the terrorists. Most experts and pundits -- especially among our allies -- still clung to the 'counterterrorism as law enforcement' mind-set. And viewed from that frame, it was foolhardy to declare war.
"For starters, declaring war seemed to elevate the terrorists to co-combatants, rather than leaving them as criminals to be dealt with by police dragnet. The decision to invade Afghanistan was even more controversial. Suddenly armchair experts were quoting Kipling and ruminating on how the Afghans had twice defeated reigning military powers, first the British Empire and then the Soviet Empire.
"The risky approach ordered by Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, which relied heavily on Special Forces and air power, was especially subject to criticism. As late as Nov. 4, 2001, the dean of academic security studies experts, John Mearsheimer, was warning in an opinion piece that 'neither the current bombing campaign nor the deployment of American ground forces to Afghanistan offers good military options for dealing with the Taliban and al Qaeda. A better approach would emphasize ground-level diplomacy, with open wallets, among Pashtun leaders in central and southern Afghanistan.' Viewed in hindsight, the Bush-Rumsfeld military plan looked brilliant, but at the time it was highly controversial and decidedly risky.
"Would a less stubborn commander in chief have pursued the risky war plan that ultimately toppled the Taliban and put al Qaeda on the run? The record of the '90s suggests otherwise. A White House that cut and ran after the death of 18 soldiers probably would not have had the stomach for the possible casualties. A White House that could not prevail over military objections to using ground troops in Kosovo would have had a hard time overcoming institutional military objections. A White House that ordered retaliation in the form of a night-time strike on an empty intelligence building would not have backed Operation Enduring Freedom.
" Before Sept. 11, Clinton defenders say, we did not have irrefutable proof of the casus belli of al Qaeda-Taliban complicity, there was no international consensus on the need to invade Afghanistan, and it would have been politically risky for the United States to act in the face of military objections. The same could be said about the invasion of Iraq after Sept. 11. In other words, determined commanders in chief have the mind-set and the resolve to act in spite of the political climate and military resistance."
It is also clear that the Kerry mindset is still stuck in the Clinton '90's.
Clarke v. Clarke
Greg Pierce:
"Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism official promoting a book critical of the Bush administration, insists Saddam Hussein had no connection to al Qaeda. But in 1999, he defended President Clinton's attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant by revealing that the United States was 'sure' it manufactured chemical-warfare materials produced by Iraqi experts in cooperation with Osama bin Laden, WorldNetDaily.com reports.
"Mr. Clarke told The Washington Post in a Jan. 23, 1999, story that U.S. intelligence officials had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, which was hit with Tomahawk cruise missiles in retaliation for bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7, 1998, embassy bombings in Africa.
"The sample contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, which when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas, Mr. Clarke said.
"Mr. Clarke told the newspaper that the United States did not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it.
" 'But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve-gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan,' the newspaper reported."
Greg Pierce:
"Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism official promoting a book critical of the Bush administration, insists Saddam Hussein had no connection to al Qaeda. But in 1999, he defended President Clinton's attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant by revealing that the United States was 'sure' it manufactured chemical-warfare materials produced by Iraqi experts in cooperation with Osama bin Laden, WorldNetDaily.com reports.
"Mr. Clarke told The Washington Post in a Jan. 23, 1999, story that U.S. intelligence officials had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, which was hit with Tomahawk cruise missiles in retaliation for bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7, 1998, embassy bombings in Africa.
"The sample contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, which when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas, Mr. Clarke said.
"Mr. Clarke told the newspaper that the United States did not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it.
" 'But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve-gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan,' the newspaper reported."
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
The former Soviet fleet rusts in Russia
BBC:
"The decline of Russia's armed services has been unmistakeable for more than a decade, but it is the crisis in the navy that has been most conspicuous of all.
"The declaration from the navy commander-in-chief that the nuclear cruiser Peter the Great is too dangerous to be at sea is only the latest in a string of problems.
"The sinking of the Kursk submarine during exercises in 2000, was Russia's worst peacetime military disaster, leading to the death of 118 sailors.
"It was followed by the death of nine more men last year when another submarine, K-159, sank as it was being towed to a scrapyard."
Read the whole thing.
The incident graphically illustrated the depth of the navy's problems - Russia is decommissioning warships so fast it does not have the resources to scrap them.
BBC:
"The decline of Russia's armed services has been unmistakeable for more than a decade, but it is the crisis in the navy that has been most conspicuous of all.
"The declaration from the navy commander-in-chief that the nuclear cruiser Peter the Great is too dangerous to be at sea is only the latest in a string of problems.
"The sinking of the Kursk submarine during exercises in 2000, was Russia's worst peacetime military disaster, leading to the death of 118 sailors.
"It was followed by the death of nine more men last year when another submarine, K-159, sank as it was being towed to a scrapyard."
Read the whole thing.
The incident graphically illustrated the depth of the navy's problems - Russia is decommissioning warships so fast it does not have the resources to scrap them.
Eve of destruction
BBC:
"The Israeli government has threatened more strikes on Palestinian militant leaders, a day after it killed Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, founder of Hamas.
"Public Security Minister Tzachi Hanegbi said: 'Everyone is in our sights.'
...
"His killing sparked widespread international condemnation and fury among Palestinians but the Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz said their policy of 'liquidating terrorists' would continue.
" Mr Mofaz, who says Hamas attacks have claimed 377 Israeli lives, described the group as a 'strategic enemy of Israel' that should be destroyed."
Hamas actually must be destroyed if teh Palestinians are to have any hope of a state next to Israel. Since Hamas rejects the existance of the state of Israel, its leaders should not be surprised to find the feeling is mutual.
BBC:
"The Israeli government has threatened more strikes on Palestinian militant leaders, a day after it killed Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, founder of Hamas.
"Public Security Minister Tzachi Hanegbi said: 'Everyone is in our sights.'
...
"His killing sparked widespread international condemnation and fury among Palestinians but the Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz said their policy of 'liquidating terrorists' would continue.
" Mr Mofaz, who says Hamas attacks have claimed 377 Israeli lives, described the group as a 'strategic enemy of Israel' that should be destroyed."
Hamas actually must be destroyed if teh Palestinians are to have any hope of a state next to Israel. Since Hamas rejects the existance of the state of Israel, its leaders should not be surprised to find the feeling is mutual.
Hamas "leadership"
Belmont Club:
...
"With Yassin's death the problem can only get worse. Organizations like Al Qaeda and Hamas are in many respects indistinguishable from protection rackets and derive a large part of their income from the control of certain territories. Analogous organizations like the Communist New People's Army in the Philippines, (officially a terrorist organization but headquartered in the Netherlands), for example, charge all public officials in the Philippines a 'permit to campaign' -- a few hundred thousand dollars for the privilege of standing for office under a constitution they don't recognize. Internal factions within that Communist organization regularly assassinate each other over the partition of their stipend from the Euroleft. The same kind of competition for turf is bound to plague Hamas. The frenzy in the Gaza strip tonight probably has less to do with the preparations to strike back at Israel then a frantic attempt to locate the secret bank account numbers that Sheik Yassin may have had in his possession.
"The Israeli strike against the terrorist top tier exploits the weakness inherent in terrorist organizations which are unstable alliances based on a delicate balance of internal intimidation. None of them, the Palestinian Authority included, are either transparent or accountable. They are exceptionally vulnerable to changes in their leadership. They can stand the loss of any number of teenage fighters or youthful suicide bombers without much damage but are rocked -- as Yassin's death illustrates -- by death at the top. Twenty million Soviet casualties in World War 2 were a statistic, but the death of Stalin marked the end of an epoch. Had the Israeli missile simply incinerated a 19-year old Hamas illiterate foot soldier it would have been another day in Gaza, hardly worth the notice of the press, but since its target was the terrorist leadership the moral calculus elevated it to a sacrilege. Yet it does not alter the fact that the foreign offices of Europe will be scratching their heads tonight to see who the letters of condolence to Hamas should be addressed to. Perhaps they should wait until a new leader climbs to the pinnacle of the bloody pole before bowing at his feet."
Belmont Club:
...
"With Yassin's death the problem can only get worse. Organizations like Al Qaeda and Hamas are in many respects indistinguishable from protection rackets and derive a large part of their income from the control of certain territories. Analogous organizations like the Communist New People's Army in the Philippines, (officially a terrorist organization but headquartered in the Netherlands), for example, charge all public officials in the Philippines a 'permit to campaign' -- a few hundred thousand dollars for the privilege of standing for office under a constitution they don't recognize. Internal factions within that Communist organization regularly assassinate each other over the partition of their stipend from the Euroleft. The same kind of competition for turf is bound to plague Hamas. The frenzy in the Gaza strip tonight probably has less to do with the preparations to strike back at Israel then a frantic attempt to locate the secret bank account numbers that Sheik Yassin may have had in his possession.
"The Israeli strike against the terrorist top tier exploits the weakness inherent in terrorist organizations which are unstable alliances based on a delicate balance of internal intimidation. None of them, the Palestinian Authority included, are either transparent or accountable. They are exceptionally vulnerable to changes in their leadership. They can stand the loss of any number of teenage fighters or youthful suicide bombers without much damage but are rocked -- as Yassin's death illustrates -- by death at the top. Twenty million Soviet casualties in World War 2 were a statistic, but the death of Stalin marked the end of an epoch. Had the Israeli missile simply incinerated a 19-year old Hamas illiterate foot soldier it would have been another day in Gaza, hardly worth the notice of the press, but since its target was the terrorist leadership the moral calculus elevated it to a sacrilege. Yet it does not alter the fact that the foreign offices of Europe will be scratching their heads tonight to see who the letters of condolence to Hamas should be addressed to. Perhaps they should wait until a new leader climbs to the pinnacle of the bloody pole before bowing at his feet."
The BBC and the murderous sheik
Melanie Phillips quotes from Michael Gove whose Times piece is not directly available:
" 'Yesterday, the BBC correspondent, Zubeida Malik, described Sheikh Yassin on The World At One as ?polite, charming and witty, a deeply religious man?. On the same programme the Arab journalist Abdul Bari-Atwan, editor of the influential newspaper Al-Quds, memorialised him as ?a moderate man in his way?. Some people in the BBC may consider it witty to call for the elimination of the Jewish people from their homeland. Others might consider it the charming hallmark of a deeply religious man to recruit, incite and inspire young men to kill civilians. And clearly it is no bar to success in Arab journalism to define as ?moderate? someone who thought the Jews started both world wars and continue to run the globe through their manipulation of the media and the all-powerful Rotary International. I may therefore risk putting myself out on a limb in the media community saying this, but I?m afraid I find the ambition to wipe Israel off the map repellent, the worship of death indefensible and efforts made to halt Hamas?s uncompromising campaign of terror completely understandable.'
"It is the mark of how deeply our society has sunk into a moral morass that Gove's fine polemic is not only necessary but throws into such dismaying relief the corrupted response of so many in the media and political life."
Melanie Phillips quotes from Michael Gove whose Times piece is not directly available:
" 'Yesterday, the BBC correspondent, Zubeida Malik, described Sheikh Yassin on The World At One as ?polite, charming and witty, a deeply religious man?. On the same programme the Arab journalist Abdul Bari-Atwan, editor of the influential newspaper Al-Quds, memorialised him as ?a moderate man in his way?. Some people in the BBC may consider it witty to call for the elimination of the Jewish people from their homeland. Others might consider it the charming hallmark of a deeply religious man to recruit, incite and inspire young men to kill civilians. And clearly it is no bar to success in Arab journalism to define as ?moderate? someone who thought the Jews started both world wars and continue to run the globe through their manipulation of the media and the all-powerful Rotary International. I may therefore risk putting myself out on a limb in the media community saying this, but I?m afraid I find the ambition to wipe Israel off the map repellent, the worship of death indefensible and efforts made to halt Hamas?s uncompromising campaign of terror completely understandable.'
"It is the mark of how deeply our society has sunk into a moral morass that Gove's fine polemic is not only necessary but throws into such dismaying relief the corrupted response of so many in the media and political life."
Review of Clark's book
John Podhoretz:
...
" What Clarke reveals in "Against All Enemies" is that - not to put too fine a point on it - he is a self-regarding buffoon. But his solipsistic silliness won't give pause to the Democrat-media desperation to rewrite recent history in an effort to delude voters that the 9/11 attacks were the fault of George W. Bush's inattention.
"They were not Bush's fault, and they were not caused by his inattention. Nor were they Clinton's fault. They were the fault of Osama bin Laden, who attacked and killed 3,000 Americans and would happily have seen that number read 30,000 or 50,000.
"We need to remember this, and we are in danger of forgetting it in the raging partisan kerfuffle. "
John Podhoretz:
...
" What Clarke reveals in "Against All Enemies" is that - not to put too fine a point on it - he is a self-regarding buffoon. But his solipsistic silliness won't give pause to the Democrat-media desperation to rewrite recent history in an effort to delude voters that the 9/11 attacks were the fault of George W. Bush's inattention.
"They were not Bush's fault, and they were not caused by his inattention. Nor were they Clinton's fault. They were the fault of Osama bin Laden, who attacked and killed 3,000 Americans and would happily have seen that number read 30,000 or 50,000.
"We need to remember this, and we are in danger of forgetting it in the raging partisan kerfuffle. "
Politicized intelligence . . .
Mansoor Ijaz:
...
"Mr. Clarke's premise that Bush national security officials neither understood nor cared to know anything about al Qaeda is simply untrue. I know because on multiple occasions from June until late August 2001, I personally briefed Stephen J. Hadley, deputy national security adviser to President Bush, and members of his South Asia, Near East and East Africa staff at the National Security Council on precisely what had gone wrong during the Clinton years to unearth the extent of the dangers posed by al Qaeda. Some of the briefings were in the presence of former members of the Clinton administration's national security team to ensure complete transparency.
"Far from being disinterested, the Bush White House was eager to avoid making the same mistakes of the previous administration and wanted creative new inputs for how to combat al Qaeda's growing threat.
"Mr. Clarke's role figured in two key areas of the debriefings — Sudan's offer to share terrorism data on al Qaeda and bin Laden in 1997, and a serious effort by senior members of the Abu Dhabi royal family to gain bin Laden's extradition from Afghanistan in early 2000.
"• Fall 1997: Sudan's offer is accepted by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, then rejected by Mr. Clarke and Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel 'Sandy' Berger.
...
"U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by al Qaeda 10 months later. Files with detailed data on three of the embassy bombers were among the casualties of Mr. Clarke's decision to recommend missile attacks on an empty Khartoum pharmaceutical plant rather than get Sudan's data out almost a year earlier to begin unraveling al Qaeda's network.
"To this day, neither Mr. Berger nor Mr. Clarke has explained to the American people why a deliberative decision of the U.S. government, made by interagency review, was overturned in such cavalier fashion by a small clique of Clinton advisers in the face of Sudan's unconditional April 1997 offer to cooperate on terrorism issues....
"• Spring 2000: Abu Dhabi's offer to get bin Laden out of Afghanistan falls flat.
"In late 1999, after a barrage of threats from al Qaeda's senior leadership against the Abu Dhabi royal family, a senior family member approached the Taliban foreign minister and Mullah Omar to discuss mechanisms for getting bin Laden out of Afghanistan. Mr. Clarke, who enjoyed close relations with the Abu Dhabi family, was brought into the loop early to prevent separation between Washington and Abu Dhabi on such a sensitive matter.
"While Mr. Clarke was skeptical of the idea at first, he played ball long enough to understand the real intentions of the Taliban regime. Smart enough, except when the deal got real.
"As the strategy started taking shape in earnest — a personal request from President Clinton to Sheikh Zayed, Abu Dhabi's ruler, seeking help to get bin Laden coupled with a $5 billion pan-Arab Afghan Development Fund that would be offered in return for bin Laden taking residence under house arrest in Abu Dhabi, with the possibility of extraditing him later to the United States — Mr. Clarke again scuttled the deal by opting instead for the militaristic solution. He pushed for armed CIA predator drones to hunt bin Laden in the remote mountains of northeastern Afghanistan.
...
"Mr. Clarke's selective memory serves no interest but his own agenda. He personifies the politicizing of intelligence by pointing fingers during the political high season for failures that not only occurred on his watch but also were due partly to his grand vision he would one day personally authorize a drone operation to kill bin Laden."
Mansoor Ijaz:
...
"Mr. Clarke's premise that Bush national security officials neither understood nor cared to know anything about al Qaeda is simply untrue. I know because on multiple occasions from June until late August 2001, I personally briefed Stephen J. Hadley, deputy national security adviser to President Bush, and members of his South Asia, Near East and East Africa staff at the National Security Council on precisely what had gone wrong during the Clinton years to unearth the extent of the dangers posed by al Qaeda. Some of the briefings were in the presence of former members of the Clinton administration's national security team to ensure complete transparency.
"Far from being disinterested, the Bush White House was eager to avoid making the same mistakes of the previous administration and wanted creative new inputs for how to combat al Qaeda's growing threat.
"Mr. Clarke's role figured in two key areas of the debriefings — Sudan's offer to share terrorism data on al Qaeda and bin Laden in 1997, and a serious effort by senior members of the Abu Dhabi royal family to gain bin Laden's extradition from Afghanistan in early 2000.
"• Fall 1997: Sudan's offer is accepted by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, then rejected by Mr. Clarke and Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel 'Sandy' Berger.
...
"U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by al Qaeda 10 months later. Files with detailed data on three of the embassy bombers were among the casualties of Mr. Clarke's decision to recommend missile attacks on an empty Khartoum pharmaceutical plant rather than get Sudan's data out almost a year earlier to begin unraveling al Qaeda's network.
"To this day, neither Mr. Berger nor Mr. Clarke has explained to the American people why a deliberative decision of the U.S. government, made by interagency review, was overturned in such cavalier fashion by a small clique of Clinton advisers in the face of Sudan's unconditional April 1997 offer to cooperate on terrorism issues....
"• Spring 2000: Abu Dhabi's offer to get bin Laden out of Afghanistan falls flat.
"In late 1999, after a barrage of threats from al Qaeda's senior leadership against the Abu Dhabi royal family, a senior family member approached the Taliban foreign minister and Mullah Omar to discuss mechanisms for getting bin Laden out of Afghanistan. Mr. Clarke, who enjoyed close relations with the Abu Dhabi family, was brought into the loop early to prevent separation between Washington and Abu Dhabi on such a sensitive matter.
"While Mr. Clarke was skeptical of the idea at first, he played ball long enough to understand the real intentions of the Taliban regime. Smart enough, except when the deal got real.
"As the strategy started taking shape in earnest — a personal request from President Clinton to Sheikh Zayed, Abu Dhabi's ruler, seeking help to get bin Laden coupled with a $5 billion pan-Arab Afghan Development Fund that would be offered in return for bin Laden taking residence under house arrest in Abu Dhabi, with the possibility of extraditing him later to the United States — Mr. Clarke again scuttled the deal by opting instead for the militaristic solution. He pushed for armed CIA predator drones to hunt bin Laden in the remote mountains of northeastern Afghanistan.
...
"Mr. Clarke's selective memory serves no interest but his own agenda. He personifies the politicizing of intelligence by pointing fingers during the political high season for failures that not only occurred on his watch but also were due partly to his grand vision he would one day personally authorize a drone operation to kill bin Laden."
Shreaks for the shiek
Wesley Pruden:
"Sheik Ahmed Yassin, good riddance. No R.I.P. for this gravestone. The ghosts of hundreds of Jews would tell you that he lived only too long.
"This is what nearly everyone is thinking this morning, but few want to say so. Speaking ill of the dead is not a Judeo-Christian thing to do, even when we're glad that the old scoundrel is at last with Ol' Scratch.
"The sheik was buried yesterday amidst a riotous explosion of gunfire, weeping and wailing, and with military honors. Thousands of Palestinian students of the mortician's gruesome arts crowded close to his open coffin carried over the heads of the mourners, pressing in to inspect what was left of him. The military rites mocked the honor of real soldiers, who in other cultures and other traditions do not demonstrate manly valor by killing children.
"The Europeans, who never see a terrorist they can't make excuses for, are as noisy as a tree full of magpies this morning, eager to cluck-cluck, point with faux piety and view with manufactured alarm the slaying of the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, who plotted the murder of hundreds of innocents. Some spirit. Some leader...."
Wesley Pruden:
"Sheik Ahmed Yassin, good riddance. No R.I.P. for this gravestone. The ghosts of hundreds of Jews would tell you that he lived only too long.
"This is what nearly everyone is thinking this morning, but few want to say so. Speaking ill of the dead is not a Judeo-Christian thing to do, even when we're glad that the old scoundrel is at last with Ol' Scratch.
"The sheik was buried yesterday amidst a riotous explosion of gunfire, weeping and wailing, and with military honors. Thousands of Palestinian students of the mortician's gruesome arts crowded close to his open coffin carried over the heads of the mourners, pressing in to inspect what was left of him. The military rites mocked the honor of real soldiers, who in other cultures and other traditions do not demonstrate manly valor by killing children.
"The Europeans, who never see a terrorist they can't make excuses for, are as noisy as a tree full of magpies this morning, eager to cluck-cluck, point with faux piety and view with manufactured alarm the slaying of the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, who plotted the murder of hundreds of innocents. Some spirit. Some leader...."
Monday, March 22, 2004
Outsourcing foreign policy
Thomas Sowell:
"Spain's decision to turn tail and run, in response to a terrorist bombing, not only tells terrorists how to get their way in the future, it should also tell us about the dangers of outsourcing our foreign policy to our allies or to the United Nations, as so many on the left want us to do.
"In an age of international terrorist networks, perhaps about to be supplied with nuclear bombs by North Korea, foreign policy is a matter of life and death on a scale almost unimaginable. In this grim context, it is all but unbelievable that anyone would want to put the fate of this country in the hands of a grossly ineffective United Nations or in the hands of allies who can flee from the fight without notice.
"The sheer repetition of words -- the mantra of 'the international community' and the anathema of 'unilateral action' -- has become a substitute for examining the hard realities and the track record of those to whom we are supposed to defer when it comes to a mortal threat in a nuclear age.
...
"The so-called 'international community' that the left has so long envisioned consists in reality of disunited nations, too many of whom are short-sighted enough to cooperate with terrorists in hopes of deflecting their wrath toward someone else.
...
"With North Korea threatening to become a supplier of nuclear weapons to international terrorist networks, we have a storm gathering that could dwarf even the unspeakable horrors of World War II. National unity at a time like this is absolutely crucial -- and yet it is being blithely thrown away by petty politicians panting to regain political power at all costs, and even boasting of foreign support."
Thomas Sowell:
"Spain's decision to turn tail and run, in response to a terrorist bombing, not only tells terrorists how to get their way in the future, it should also tell us about the dangers of outsourcing our foreign policy to our allies or to the United Nations, as so many on the left want us to do.
"In an age of international terrorist networks, perhaps about to be supplied with nuclear bombs by North Korea, foreign policy is a matter of life and death on a scale almost unimaginable. In this grim context, it is all but unbelievable that anyone would want to put the fate of this country in the hands of a grossly ineffective United Nations or in the hands of allies who can flee from the fight without notice.
"The sheer repetition of words -- the mantra of 'the international community' and the anathema of 'unilateral action' -- has become a substitute for examining the hard realities and the track record of those to whom we are supposed to defer when it comes to a mortal threat in a nuclear age.
...
"The so-called 'international community' that the left has so long envisioned consists in reality of disunited nations, too many of whom are short-sighted enough to cooperate with terrorists in hopes of deflecting their wrath toward someone else.
...
"With North Korea threatening to become a supplier of nuclear weapons to international terrorist networks, we have a storm gathering that could dwarf even the unspeakable horrors of World War II. National unity at a time like this is absolutely crucial -- and yet it is being blithely thrown away by petty politicians panting to regain political power at all costs, and even boasting of foreign support."
Liqudating terrorist reduces terrorism
That Liberal Media:
"A dangerous terrorist has been neutralized today, yet the media seems more interested in broadcasting the threats made by his minions:
" 'Israel killed Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin in a helicopter missile strike outside a Gaza City mosque Monday, prompting threats of unprecedented revenge by Palestinian militants against Israel and the United States.'
"Yes, but there's nothing new about these 'threats of unprecedented revenge.' Every time Israel takes a shot at a Hamas leader, the media reports on Hamas's threats of 'unprecedented revenge,' even though there is no evidence for the bizarre implication that the liquidation of terrorists should lead to an increase in terrorism.
"In fact, a numerical analysis shows that the frequency of Hamas terror fatalities has actually declined since Israel started liquidating Hamas leaders. So why does the media both amplify Hamas' ineffectual threats and also accuse Israel of 'fueling a cycle of violence'?"
Since the stated goal of Hamas is genocide agaisnt all Jews in Israel, it is hard to imagine that they could ramp up their objectives.
That Liberal Media:
"A dangerous terrorist has been neutralized today, yet the media seems more interested in broadcasting the threats made by his minions:
" 'Israel killed Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin in a helicopter missile strike outside a Gaza City mosque Monday, prompting threats of unprecedented revenge by Palestinian militants against Israel and the United States.'
"Yes, but there's nothing new about these 'threats of unprecedented revenge.' Every time Israel takes a shot at a Hamas leader, the media reports on Hamas's threats of 'unprecedented revenge,' even though there is no evidence for the bizarre implication that the liquidation of terrorists should lead to an increase in terrorism.
"In fact, a numerical analysis shows that the frequency of Hamas terror fatalities has actually declined since Israel started liquidating Hamas leaders. So why does the media both amplify Hamas' ineffectual threats and also accuse Israel of 'fueling a cycle of violence'?"
Since the stated goal of Hamas is genocide agaisnt all Jews in Israel, it is hard to imagine that they could ramp up their objectives.
An unconvincing book
Rich Lowry:
"It seems one of the least plausible criticisms of a president who's often portrayed as one of the world's greatest warmongers since Caesar Augustus -- that George Bush has been too weak on the War on Terror. But with the release of former Clinton and Bush counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke's new book, 'Against All Enemies,' Bush critics have, to use a favorite Clarke phrase, 'gone to battle stations' to try to make the charge stick.
"Clarke's book reads like a typical just-out-of-government memoir, a genre usually premised on the idea that if only the author's advice had been heeded, the world would be better off. Clarke adds a dash of tendentious partisanship in insisting that President Clinton was an anti-terror stalwart even though he rejected Clarke's most important ideas, and that Bush was too soft even though he took Clarke's ideas a step further.
...
"After 9/11, Clarke complains about a Bush obsession with Iraq. Clarke says that the president said to him, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' The conspiracy-theorizing about Iraq has thus dwindled down to this: Bush wanted to know whether Iraq was involved in Sept. 11 or not. The alleged obsession with Iraq in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11 lasted all of six days, as Bush approved targeting Afghanistan on Sept. 17.
"The invasion of Iraq two years later angers Clark most now. On '60 Minutes,' he blamed the Madrid train attacks on the U.S. invasion. Has it slipped his mind that al-Qaida attacked U.S. targets throughout the 1990s and carried out Sept. 11 well before the United States toppled Saddam Hussein? These attacks occurred even though Clinton spent eight years trying to force a settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
...
"When they don't argue that Bush is too soft on the War on Terror, the critics argue that he is too tough. In other words, they'll grasp at anything, very much including this weak and unconvincing book."
Rich Lowry:
"It seems one of the least plausible criticisms of a president who's often portrayed as one of the world's greatest warmongers since Caesar Augustus -- that George Bush has been too weak on the War on Terror. But with the release of former Clinton and Bush counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke's new book, 'Against All Enemies,' Bush critics have, to use a favorite Clarke phrase, 'gone to battle stations' to try to make the charge stick.
"Clarke's book reads like a typical just-out-of-government memoir, a genre usually premised on the idea that if only the author's advice had been heeded, the world would be better off. Clarke adds a dash of tendentious partisanship in insisting that President Clinton was an anti-terror stalwart even though he rejected Clarke's most important ideas, and that Bush was too soft even though he took Clarke's ideas a step further.
...
"After 9/11, Clarke complains about a Bush obsession with Iraq. Clarke says that the president said to him, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' The conspiracy-theorizing about Iraq has thus dwindled down to this: Bush wanted to know whether Iraq was involved in Sept. 11 or not. The alleged obsession with Iraq in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11 lasted all of six days, as Bush approved targeting Afghanistan on Sept. 17.
"The invasion of Iraq two years later angers Clark most now. On '60 Minutes,' he blamed the Madrid train attacks on the U.S. invasion. Has it slipped his mind that al-Qaida attacked U.S. targets throughout the 1990s and carried out Sept. 11 well before the United States toppled Saddam Hussein? These attacks occurred even though Clinton spent eight years trying to force a settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
...
"When they don't argue that Bush is too soft on the War on Terror, the critics argue that he is too tough. In other words, they'll grasp at anything, very much including this weak and unconvincing book."
Neville again
Mark Steyn:
"A neighbour of mine refuses to let her boy play with 'militaristic' toys. So when a friend gave the l'il tyke a plastic sword and shield, mom mulled it over and then took away the former and allowed him to keep the latter. And for a while, on my drive down to town, I'd pass Junior in the yard playing with his shield, mastering the art of cowering more effectively against unseen blows.
"That's how the 'peace' crowd thinks the West should fight terrorism: eschew the sword, but keep the shield if you absolutely have to....
...
"For more than a week now, American friends have asked me why 3/11 wasn't 9/11. I think it comes down to those two words you find on Holocaust memorials all over Europe: 'Never again.' Fine-sounding, but claptrap. The never-again scenario comes round again every year. This very minute in North Korea there are entire families interned in concentration camps. Concentration camps with gas chambers. Think Kim Jong-Il's worried that the civilised world might mean something by those two words? Ha-ha.
"...'Never again' has evolved to mean precisely the kind of passivity that enabled the Holocaust first time round. 'Neville again' would be a better slogan."
Mark Steyn:
"A neighbour of mine refuses to let her boy play with 'militaristic' toys. So when a friend gave the l'il tyke a plastic sword and shield, mom mulled it over and then took away the former and allowed him to keep the latter. And for a while, on my drive down to town, I'd pass Junior in the yard playing with his shield, mastering the art of cowering more effectively against unseen blows.
"That's how the 'peace' crowd thinks the West should fight terrorism: eschew the sword, but keep the shield if you absolutely have to....
...
"For more than a week now, American friends have asked me why 3/11 wasn't 9/11. I think it comes down to those two words you find on Holocaust memorials all over Europe: 'Never again.' Fine-sounding, but claptrap. The never-again scenario comes round again every year. This very minute in North Korea there are entire families interned in concentration camps. Concentration camps with gas chambers. Think Kim Jong-Il's worried that the civilised world might mean something by those two words? Ha-ha.
"...'Never again' has evolved to mean precisely the kind of passivity that enabled the Holocaust first time round. 'Neville again' would be a better slogan."
Bin Laden withdraws support
Scrappleface parody:
"Religious philosopher Usama bin Laden today announced that although he had been among the unnamed foreign leaders who support John Forbes Kerry's election as U.S. president, he has withdrawn his support.
" 'At first, I was an anyone-but-Bush man,' said Mr. bin Laden on an audiotape aired by al Jazeera TV. 'But the more I hear about Kerry's strategy of nuanced engagement, the more I like Bush. At least I know where I stand with the Great Satan from Texas.'
"Mr. bin Laden said he was concerned that his emissaries would be 'tied up for years in fruitless talks with the Kerry administration.'
" 'Next thing you know, al Qaeda will be chairing the U.N. Human Rights Commission,' he said. 'We don't have time for that kind of nonsense.' "
Scrappleface parody:
"Religious philosopher Usama bin Laden today announced that although he had been among the unnamed foreign leaders who support John Forbes Kerry's election as U.S. president, he has withdrawn his support.
" 'At first, I was an anyone-but-Bush man,' said Mr. bin Laden on an audiotape aired by al Jazeera TV. 'But the more I hear about Kerry's strategy of nuanced engagement, the more I like Bush. At least I know where I stand with the Great Satan from Texas.'
"Mr. bin Laden said he was concerned that his emissaries would be 'tied up for years in fruitless talks with the Kerry administration.'
" 'Next thing you know, al Qaeda will be chairing the U.N. Human Rights Commission,' he said. 'We don't have time for that kind of nonsense.' "
Two and half years after 9-11 EU threatens economic sanctions against countries helping terrorist
The Scotsman:
"EU foreign ministers today threatened to withdraw economic support for countries if they fall short in the fight against terrorism.
"The ministers endorsed a draft declaration which called counter-terrorism 'a key element of political dialogue' with other countries, and officials said aid and trade could be affected if the fight against terrorism was considered insufficient.
"The declaration, agreed in Brussels, says the EU would add counter-terrorism concerns into 'all relevant external assistance programs.' "
Does this include Iran's support for Hizballah? How about Hamas?
The Scotsman:
"EU foreign ministers today threatened to withdraw economic support for countries if they fall short in the fight against terrorism.
"The ministers endorsed a draft declaration which called counter-terrorism 'a key element of political dialogue' with other countries, and officials said aid and trade could be affected if the fight against terrorism was considered insufficient.
"The declaration, agreed in Brussels, says the EU would add counter-terrorism concerns into 'all relevant external assistance programs.' "
Does this include Iran's support for Hizballah? How about Hamas?
A good war
David Horowitz:
"It's the first anniversray of the war and in London the anti-war, anti-West, anti-American left marked the day by draping a banner from Big Ben saying, 'Time for Truth.' And it is. The truth is that as wars go, this is one that Americans and all freedom-loving people can be proud of. Three weeks for a war that liberates 25 million people, closes down prisons for 4-12 year olds, shuts down the plastic shredders for human beings, takes down the regime whose victims are buried in mass graves, kills thousands of terrorist and deprives their survivors of a friendly weapons-supplying regime, is as good as it gets. The fact that the political left, including the Democratic Party has made the man responsible for this great victory their number one target tells us more about what they really believe and what is really important to them than they probably want us to know.
"The Democratic Party left knows better than to attack so noble and useful a war head on. (Did I forget to mention that we now have a military presence on the borders of two terrorist states -- Syria and Iran -- and that a third, Libya, has gotten several messages: 1) don't mess with the United States while a Republican is in the White House, and 2) better to get rid of those chemical and nuclear wmd programs and play economic ball with the West? The Democrats are attacking the reasons for the war -- or as they would prefer it -- the pretext for the war. But how can you attack the reasons for the war without attacking the war itself?..."
As Jack Nicholson's character said in "A Few Good Men," "You (in this case the protesters) can't handle the truth."
David Horowitz:
"It's the first anniversray of the war and in London the anti-war, anti-West, anti-American left marked the day by draping a banner from Big Ben saying, 'Time for Truth.' And it is. The truth is that as wars go, this is one that Americans and all freedom-loving people can be proud of. Three weeks for a war that liberates 25 million people, closes down prisons for 4-12 year olds, shuts down the plastic shredders for human beings, takes down the regime whose victims are buried in mass graves, kills thousands of terrorist and deprives their survivors of a friendly weapons-supplying regime, is as good as it gets. The fact that the political left, including the Democratic Party has made the man responsible for this great victory their number one target tells us more about what they really believe and what is really important to them than they probably want us to know.
"The Democratic Party left knows better than to attack so noble and useful a war head on. (Did I forget to mention that we now have a military presence on the borders of two terrorist states -- Syria and Iran -- and that a third, Libya, has gotten several messages: 1) don't mess with the United States while a Republican is in the White House, and 2) better to get rid of those chemical and nuclear wmd programs and play economic ball with the West? The Democrats are attacking the reasons for the war -- or as they would prefer it -- the pretext for the war. But how can you attack the reasons for the war without attacking the war itself?..."
As Jack Nicholson's character said in "A Few Good Men," "You (in this case the protesters) can't handle the truth."
Gaming for the next war
Strategy Page:
...
"Setting up wargames of recent operations can be enormously useful. Take the Iraq campaign of 2003 as an example. The world was amazed at the speed with which three American divisions rushed into Iraq, bulled their way through sporadic opposition and shot their way into Baghdad and conquered the city, all within three weeks. The troops who were there would tell you that it wasn't as easy as it looked. And the officers running the wargames later would be looking at what little changes might have made a big difference, one way or another. What if the Iraqis had used their troops more effectively (better training, tactics and/or leadership)? What if the Iraqis had some better weapons (anti-tank missiles that can penetrate the thinner top armor of American M-1 tanks)? What if the American advance had been slower, or faster (actually, that was possible, but not a whole lot faster.) What if the Turks had allowed the 4th Infantry Division to advance on Baghdad from the north? What if the American troops had some different weapons?
"These 'what ifs?' are also played out for the operations after Saddam's government was run out of business. Irregular warfare can be wargamed as well. Both the Iraqi and Afghan operations are constantly wargamed to see what new equipment or tactics might work better to end the fighting and save American lives. The wargaming allows Americans to look at the situation from the enemy's perspective. When you are wargaming operations that are still going on, every new bit of information on the enemy enables you to make the wargame version of the enemy more accurate, and predictable. This kind of wargaming of the 1991 Gulf War convinced many U.S. officers that a faster invasion of Iraq, a 21st century version of the World War II 'blitzkrieg' ('lightning war'), would work against the Iraqis. This was not an easy conclusion to reach, because World War II practitioners of blitzkrieg (now called 'shock and awe'), found that a properly prepared (mentally, if not in terms of better equipment and troops) opponent, could trip up a blitzkrieg offensive and inflict large casualties on the fast moving attacker. But lots of wargaming, and knowledge gained in 1991 about how the Iraqis operated, convinced the American generals that the Iraqis could be successfully blitzed. This proved to be the case. But thoughtful officers will replay the 2003 campaign many times, tweaking this element or that, to better understand what a future foe might have done to trip up another such offensive."
...
Strategy Page:
...
"Setting up wargames of recent operations can be enormously useful. Take the Iraq campaign of 2003 as an example. The world was amazed at the speed with which three American divisions rushed into Iraq, bulled their way through sporadic opposition and shot their way into Baghdad and conquered the city, all within three weeks. The troops who were there would tell you that it wasn't as easy as it looked. And the officers running the wargames later would be looking at what little changes might have made a big difference, one way or another. What if the Iraqis had used their troops more effectively (better training, tactics and/or leadership)? What if the Iraqis had some better weapons (anti-tank missiles that can penetrate the thinner top armor of American M-1 tanks)? What if the American advance had been slower, or faster (actually, that was possible, but not a whole lot faster.) What if the Turks had allowed the 4th Infantry Division to advance on Baghdad from the north? What if the American troops had some different weapons?
"These 'what ifs?' are also played out for the operations after Saddam's government was run out of business. Irregular warfare can be wargamed as well. Both the Iraqi and Afghan operations are constantly wargamed to see what new equipment or tactics might work better to end the fighting and save American lives. The wargaming allows Americans to look at the situation from the enemy's perspective. When you are wargaming operations that are still going on, every new bit of information on the enemy enables you to make the wargame version of the enemy more accurate, and predictable. This kind of wargaming of the 1991 Gulf War convinced many U.S. officers that a faster invasion of Iraq, a 21st century version of the World War II 'blitzkrieg' ('lightning war'), would work against the Iraqis. This was not an easy conclusion to reach, because World War II practitioners of blitzkrieg (now called 'shock and awe'), found that a properly prepared (mentally, if not in terms of better equipment and troops) opponent, could trip up a blitzkrieg offensive and inflict large casualties on the fast moving attacker. But lots of wargaming, and knowledge gained in 1991 about how the Iraqis operated, convinced the American generals that the Iraqis could be successfully blitzed. This proved to be the case. But thoughtful officers will replay the 2003 campaign many times, tweaking this element or that, to better understand what a future foe might have done to trip up another such offensive."
...
Europe's strategic dillemma
Belmont Club:
"The death of Hamas big Sheik Yassin at the hands of the Israeli Defense Forces highlights the strategic problem of Europe. The war is spreading and is becoming increasingly difficult to sit out. The Al Qaeda attack on the Madrid train, the renewed unrest in Kosovo, the unrest in Iran and Syria and developments in Iraq -- added to the probability of escalating conflict in Israel -- make it increasingly difficult to benefit from hanging back. Historically, France's "independent" strategy was based on being able to tilt the balance in an inconclusive struggle in a bipolar world, in the process extracting the maximum benefit for itself. This worked during the Cold War where it could play both ends against the middle, selling its support to the highest bidder, behavior that could be justified as 'realpolitik' and hard-nosed maneuvering in the the national interest.
"However, the struggle against terrorism now threatens to become a fight to the finish instead of a Cold War ballet of competition circumscribed by deterrence. Since Jihadistan has shown no inclination to settle for less than total victory, it invariably led to symmetrical American goals. September 11 proved that terrorism could not be contained. It had to be finished. A prescient European foreign policy would have realized on September 12 that this conflict structure would inevitably lead to a widening war, one that would engulf Europe's own borders. But it did not grasp the implications of the struggle in time. It is now terribly vulnerable to the tides of conflict that lap against its frontiers.
"Fully knowing that it cannot strike with much effect at the IDF, Hamas may now be tempted to hit at Europe and through them to pressure Israel. Why not? It worked in Madrid and from now one anyone may be tempted to ring Europe's bell for whatever reason. But worse yet for Europe, the descent of the war on terror into a death match, as exemplified by the struggle between Israel and the Palestinian terrorist groups means that there will be but one victor and one loser at the end of the day. With each passing moment the odds lengthen that the EU or the UN can broker a negotiated settlement between Israel, India, Russia and USA on the one hand, and the Jihadis on the other. There will be no Congress of Vienna at which French palaver can work its wonders, only unconditional surrender by one side or the other. A zero-sum conflict guarantees that Europe will not be on the winning side. Whoever the victor, Europe will be despised and whether America or Jihadistan triumphs, Europe will have played the wrong hand.
"Before this is over the world will have had a bellyful of war. Each morning's unbearable news will cast the net wider. Neither the man commuting to work in Central Madrid nor the peace marchers in costume on Market Street can escape being combatants. Leftist sympathies, whether in Israel, America or Europe will prove no armor against car bomb fragments. War was Osama Bin Laden's goal in attacking the United States on September 11. He hoped to force America into fruitless but ineffectual reprisals against the Islamic world, then offer a hudna at intervals while he prepared his next blow. George Bush's counterstroke, which history will either judge as an act of supreme folly or genius, was to go beyond Afghanistan into Iraq. In a worthy riposte to Osama's, he escalated the struggle to the point where it was mutually mortal. If the fall of the Twin Towers was a gauntlet in America's face, the fall of Baghdad was a glove shoved down the Islamist's throat. Both Bin Laden and Bush have made compromise impossible. If the jihadis believed they could control the tempo of the conflict they were misinformed; American forces in the Arab heartland have forced a zugzwang to compel the game to the bitter end."
Of course, compromise was never possible, because the religious biggots responsible for the jihad will not quit until everyone on earth is the "right kind" of muslim or all the jihadist are dead.
Belmont Club:
"The death of Hamas big Sheik Yassin at the hands of the Israeli Defense Forces highlights the strategic problem of Europe. The war is spreading and is becoming increasingly difficult to sit out. The Al Qaeda attack on the Madrid train, the renewed unrest in Kosovo, the unrest in Iran and Syria and developments in Iraq -- added to the probability of escalating conflict in Israel -- make it increasingly difficult to benefit from hanging back. Historically, France's "independent" strategy was based on being able to tilt the balance in an inconclusive struggle in a bipolar world, in the process extracting the maximum benefit for itself. This worked during the Cold War where it could play both ends against the middle, selling its support to the highest bidder, behavior that could be justified as 'realpolitik' and hard-nosed maneuvering in the the national interest.
"However, the struggle against terrorism now threatens to become a fight to the finish instead of a Cold War ballet of competition circumscribed by deterrence. Since Jihadistan has shown no inclination to settle for less than total victory, it invariably led to symmetrical American goals. September 11 proved that terrorism could not be contained. It had to be finished. A prescient European foreign policy would have realized on September 12 that this conflict structure would inevitably lead to a widening war, one that would engulf Europe's own borders. But it did not grasp the implications of the struggle in time. It is now terribly vulnerable to the tides of conflict that lap against its frontiers.
"Fully knowing that it cannot strike with much effect at the IDF, Hamas may now be tempted to hit at Europe and through them to pressure Israel. Why not? It worked in Madrid and from now one anyone may be tempted to ring Europe's bell for whatever reason. But worse yet for Europe, the descent of the war on terror into a death match, as exemplified by the struggle between Israel and the Palestinian terrorist groups means that there will be but one victor and one loser at the end of the day. With each passing moment the odds lengthen that the EU or the UN can broker a negotiated settlement between Israel, India, Russia and USA on the one hand, and the Jihadis on the other. There will be no Congress of Vienna at which French palaver can work its wonders, only unconditional surrender by one side or the other. A zero-sum conflict guarantees that Europe will not be on the winning side. Whoever the victor, Europe will be despised and whether America or Jihadistan triumphs, Europe will have played the wrong hand.
"Before this is over the world will have had a bellyful of war. Each morning's unbearable news will cast the net wider. Neither the man commuting to work in Central Madrid nor the peace marchers in costume on Market Street can escape being combatants. Leftist sympathies, whether in Israel, America or Europe will prove no armor against car bomb fragments. War was Osama Bin Laden's goal in attacking the United States on September 11. He hoped to force America into fruitless but ineffectual reprisals against the Islamic world, then offer a hudna at intervals while he prepared his next blow. George Bush's counterstroke, which history will either judge as an act of supreme folly or genius, was to go beyond Afghanistan into Iraq. In a worthy riposte to Osama's, he escalated the struggle to the point where it was mutually mortal. If the fall of the Twin Towers was a gauntlet in America's face, the fall of Baghdad was a glove shoved down the Islamist's throat. Both Bin Laden and Bush have made compromise impossible. If the jihadis believed they could control the tempo of the conflict they were misinformed; American forces in the Arab heartland have forced a zugzwang to compel the game to the bitter end."
Of course, compromise was never possible, because the religious biggots responsible for the jihad will not quit until everyone on earth is the "right kind" of muslim or all the jihadist are dead.
The pro Saddam left
Lileks:
"Imagine if you woke from an operation and discovered that your tumor was gone. You’d think: I suppose that’s a good thing. But. You learned that the hospital might profit from the operation. You learned that the doctor who made the diagnosis had decided to ignore all the other doctors who believed the tumor could be discouraged if everyone protested the tumor in the strongest possible terms, and urged the tumor to relent. How would you feel? You’d be mad. You’d look up at the ceiling of your room and nurse your fury until you came to truly hate that butcher. And when he came by to see how you were doing, you’d have only one logical, sensible thing to say: YOU TOOK IT OUT FOR THE WRONG REASONS. PUT IT BACK!
"The other day a variety of people gathered in various cities to say, in essence, put it back. The Movement to Reinstall Saddam commemorated the first anniversary of the Iraq campaign by expressing their outrage at the loss of an ally in the war against America. These people are the fringe of the left; yes. They are the Klan with out the sheets. Worse: they don’t have the inbred moonshine-addled ah-pappy-hated-nigras-an-I-hate-‘em-too dense-as-a-neutron-star stupidity of your average Kluxer. They didn’t come to this level of stupidity naturally. They had to work at it. I’m sure you’ll find in these pictures people who have cool jobs in San Francisco, people who get grants, write code, run the coffee-frother at a funky bookstore, and have no problem marching alongside someone who spells Israel with swastika instead of an S.
...
" This has nothing to do with Iraq. This is all about the hard left’s worse nightmare. For years they have insisted that every occupant of the White House is a sawdust puppet whose limbs jerk to the strings of International Finance (cough Jews cough) and this satisfies the faithful; the President doesn’t have to be explicitly evil to be inherently evil. He’s the President. Say no more, nudge nudge. But Bushitler is explicitly evil. He attacked Afghanistan for that oil pipeline deal. He attacked Iraq for no reason whatsoever. It’s almost a godsend; finally, a homicidal maniac president who lives up to his advance. And the beauty of it, really, is that you can pinpoint the date when the mask came off. September 12, 2001. For some reason – Gaia knows what – he just decided to crank up the war machine and start killing brown people. Well, at least it’s all in the open now. Put on the old Crosby Stills and Nash albums. Tin soldiers and Nixon coming. It never changes. Us vs. them. Start printing the fliers. Contact the GLBT office in Kabul for a statement of solidarity with the protestors in Paris and London -
...
" These people want “freedom,” but only for themselves. Freedom to preen. Freedom to flatter themselves that they are somehow committing an act of bravery by Speaking Truth to Power. But they’re speaking Nonsense to Indifference. Pictures of Bush as Hitler sieg-heiling away would get them killed if this was truly the country they insist it is. Nothing will happen to them. They know it. They would be killed for doing this in Saddam’s Iraq, of course; they know that too. Doesn’t matter. Bush is worse than Saddam, in the macro sense. Saddam’s sins are an inconvenient obstacle; hard to defend the fellow, but you have to concentrate on the real villains here, the people who truly threaten progressive transnational peace and solidarity and justice and human rights and –
"What? Did we march on the first anniversary of Saddam gassing the Kurds?"
Lileks:
"Imagine if you woke from an operation and discovered that your tumor was gone. You’d think: I suppose that’s a good thing. But. You learned that the hospital might profit from the operation. You learned that the doctor who made the diagnosis had decided to ignore all the other doctors who believed the tumor could be discouraged if everyone protested the tumor in the strongest possible terms, and urged the tumor to relent. How would you feel? You’d be mad. You’d look up at the ceiling of your room and nurse your fury until you came to truly hate that butcher. And when he came by to see how you were doing, you’d have only one logical, sensible thing to say: YOU TOOK IT OUT FOR THE WRONG REASONS. PUT IT BACK!
"The other day a variety of people gathered in various cities to say, in essence, put it back. The Movement to Reinstall Saddam commemorated the first anniversary of the Iraq campaign by expressing their outrage at the loss of an ally in the war against America. These people are the fringe of the left; yes. They are the Klan with out the sheets. Worse: they don’t have the inbred moonshine-addled ah-pappy-hated-nigras-an-I-hate-‘em-too dense-as-a-neutron-star stupidity of your average Kluxer. They didn’t come to this level of stupidity naturally. They had to work at it. I’m sure you’ll find in these pictures people who have cool jobs in San Francisco, people who get grants, write code, run the coffee-frother at a funky bookstore, and have no problem marching alongside someone who spells Israel with swastika instead of an S.
...
" This has nothing to do with Iraq. This is all about the hard left’s worse nightmare. For years they have insisted that every occupant of the White House is a sawdust puppet whose limbs jerk to the strings of International Finance (cough Jews cough) and this satisfies the faithful; the President doesn’t have to be explicitly evil to be inherently evil. He’s the President. Say no more, nudge nudge. But Bushitler is explicitly evil. He attacked Afghanistan for that oil pipeline deal. He attacked Iraq for no reason whatsoever. It’s almost a godsend; finally, a homicidal maniac president who lives up to his advance. And the beauty of it, really, is that you can pinpoint the date when the mask came off. September 12, 2001. For some reason – Gaia knows what – he just decided to crank up the war machine and start killing brown people. Well, at least it’s all in the open now. Put on the old Crosby Stills and Nash albums. Tin soldiers and Nixon coming. It never changes. Us vs. them. Start printing the fliers. Contact the GLBT office in Kabul for a statement of solidarity with the protestors in Paris and London -
...
" These people want “freedom,” but only for themselves. Freedom to preen. Freedom to flatter themselves that they are somehow committing an act of bravery by Speaking Truth to Power. But they’re speaking Nonsense to Indifference. Pictures of Bush as Hitler sieg-heiling away would get them killed if this was truly the country they insist it is. Nothing will happen to them. They know it. They would be killed for doing this in Saddam’s Iraq, of course; they know that too. Doesn’t matter. Bush is worse than Saddam, in the macro sense. Saddam’s sins are an inconvenient obstacle; hard to defend the fellow, but you have to concentrate on the real villains here, the people who truly threaten progressive transnational peace and solidarity and justice and human rights and –
"What? Did we march on the first anniversary of Saddam gassing the Kurds?"
Kerry fight against arming the troops
J.D. Hayworth:
...
"Among the systems John Kerry said he wanted to cancel were the B-1 bomber, the Apache helicopter, the Patriot anti-missile system, the Aegis cruiser, the AV-8B Harrier jump jet, the F-15, the F-14 A and D models, the Phoenix air-to-air missile, and the Sparrow air-to-air missile. And those Tomahawk cruise missiles that have become the standoff weapon of choice? Kerry wanted to cut the program in half.
"That's what makes the recent charge by John Kerry that troops have had to buy their own body armor so hypocritical. Because if John Kerry had had his way, our troops would have had to buy their own tanks, their own fighter jets, their own missiles, their own helicopters, their own warships, their own...you get the idea. (For the record, according to the Pentagon, all troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have body armor.) {Prairiepundit: He is raising the body armor issue to deflect criticism for his vote. I doubt he ever raised the issue before he voted against the $87 billion.}
"His attack also ignores the fact that funding for additional body armor was contained in the $87 billion bill funding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that John Kerry voted against (after he voted for it, of course)."
J.D. Hayworth:
...
"Among the systems John Kerry said he wanted to cancel were the B-1 bomber, the Apache helicopter, the Patriot anti-missile system, the Aegis cruiser, the AV-8B Harrier jump jet, the F-15, the F-14 A and D models, the Phoenix air-to-air missile, and the Sparrow air-to-air missile. And those Tomahawk cruise missiles that have become the standoff weapon of choice? Kerry wanted to cut the program in half.
"That's what makes the recent charge by John Kerry that troops have had to buy their own body armor so hypocritical. Because if John Kerry had had his way, our troops would have had to buy their own tanks, their own fighter jets, their own missiles, their own helicopters, their own warships, their own...you get the idea. (For the record, according to the Pentagon, all troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have body armor.) {Prairiepundit: He is raising the body armor issue to deflect criticism for his vote. I doubt he ever raised the issue before he voted against the $87 billion.}
"His attack also ignores the fact that funding for additional body armor was contained in the $87 billion bill funding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that John Kerry voted against (after he voted for it, of course)."
The oil for security counsel votes program
Washington Times Editorial:
"Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry complains that President Bush pursued a unilateralist foreign policy that gave short shrift to the concerns of the United Nations and our allies when it came to taking military action against Saddam Hussein. But the mounting evidence of scandal that has been uncovered in the U.N. Oil For Food program suggests that there was never a serious possibility of getting Security Council support for military action because influential people in Russia and France were getting paid off by Saddam. After the fall of Baghdad last spring, France and Russia tried to delay the lifting of sanctions against Iraq and continue the Oil for Food program. That's because France and Russia profited from it: The Times of London calculated that French and Russian companies received $11 billion worth of business from Oil for Food between 1996 and 2003.
"Most disturbing are Iraqi records that suggest Benon Sevan, the executive director of the Oil for Food office, received a voucher for 11.5 million barrels of oil from Saddam's manipulation of the program — enough to yield a profit of between $575,000 and $3.5 million."
Washington Times Editorial:
"Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry complains that President Bush pursued a unilateralist foreign policy that gave short shrift to the concerns of the United Nations and our allies when it came to taking military action against Saddam Hussein. But the mounting evidence of scandal that has been uncovered in the U.N. Oil For Food program suggests that there was never a serious possibility of getting Security Council support for military action because influential people in Russia and France were getting paid off by Saddam. After the fall of Baghdad last spring, France and Russia tried to delay the lifting of sanctions against Iraq and continue the Oil for Food program. That's because France and Russia profited from it: The Times of London calculated that French and Russian companies received $11 billion worth of business from Oil for Food between 1996 and 2003.
"Most disturbing are Iraqi records that suggest Benon Sevan, the executive director of the Oil for Food office, received a voucher for 11.5 million barrels of oil from Saddam's manipulation of the program — enough to yield a profit of between $575,000 and $3.5 million."
Dem turnout third lowest on record
Donald Lambro:
"One of the best-kept political secrets of the Democratic primaries until now has been their low voter turnout, a potentially troubling development for the party's chances in November.
"Despite rah-rah news reports that an aroused and angry Democratic voter base was turning out in droves to choose their party's presidential nominee, Democratic turnout was, in the aggregate, the third-lowest on record.
...
"Democratic turnout (an estimated 10.3 million) made up 11.4 percent of eligible voters 'in the 20 states which held primaries through Super Tuesday, higher than the 9 percent which voted in the uncontested 1996 primaries and the virtually uncontested primaries in 2000 in which 10.1 percent of the eligible electorate voted,' Mr. Gans reports. 'But it was lower than the turnout for every other presidential primary season in these states and more than 50 percent lower than the primary turnouts of 1968 and 1972.'
...
"Surprisingly, Democratic turnout 'reached record lows' in some of the most intensely Democratic states in the country. In Connecticut and New York, it fell to 5.4 percent."
Donald Lambro:
"One of the best-kept political secrets of the Democratic primaries until now has been their low voter turnout, a potentially troubling development for the party's chances in November.
"Despite rah-rah news reports that an aroused and angry Democratic voter base was turning out in droves to choose their party's presidential nominee, Democratic turnout was, in the aggregate, the third-lowest on record.
...
"Democratic turnout (an estimated 10.3 million) made up 11.4 percent of eligible voters 'in the 20 states which held primaries through Super Tuesday, higher than the 9 percent which voted in the uncontested 1996 primaries and the virtually uncontested primaries in 2000 in which 10.1 percent of the eligible electorate voted,' Mr. Gans reports. 'But it was lower than the turnout for every other presidential primary season in these states and more than 50 percent lower than the primary turnouts of 1968 and 1972.'
...
"Surprisingly, Democratic turnout 'reached record lows' in some of the most intensely Democratic states in the country. In Connecticut and New York, it fell to 5.4 percent."
Demonstrate support by voting against
Mark Steyn:
...
"Ever since last summer, I've been mocking Sen. Kerry's tortured explanations of why his vote in favor of such-and-such in fact demonstrates his staunch opposition to it. As I wrote a couple of months back:
" 'His vote against the first Gulf war was, he says, a sign of his support for the first Gulf war. Whereas his vote in favor of the Iraq war was a sign of his opposition to the Iraq war. And his vote against funding America's troops in Iraq is a sign of his support for America's men and women in uniform. On the same principle, I think the best way voters this November can demonstrate their support for John Kerry is by voting against him.'
"Even I, though, would have balked at so crude and obvious a parody as this line some Kerry impersonator did on the radio the other day:
" 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.'
"Oh, hang on. That's apparently the real senator, explaining to an audience of veterans why he voted against funding the Iraqi reconstruction:
" 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.' Got that?
...
"Also nonoperative is the senator's go-ahead-punk bluster about foreign policy. For months, he has been droning in his stump speech that, if George W Bush wants to fight this election on national security, Mr. Kerry has three words for him: 'Bring it on.' So Mr. Bush brought it on — with a 30-second ad arguing that the senator is weak on defense.
"And suddenly the campaign is curled up on the floor in a fetal position whimpering it's just totally unfair making such a horrible personal attack. Watching him in New Hampshire, I always thought, when Mr. Kerry dares you to 'bring it on,' he couldn't quite bring it off. As all military strategists say, no plan survives first contact with the enemy. And so it proved."
Mark Steyn:
...
"Ever since last summer, I've been mocking Sen. Kerry's tortured explanations of why his vote in favor of such-and-such in fact demonstrates his staunch opposition to it. As I wrote a couple of months back:
" 'His vote against the first Gulf war was, he says, a sign of his support for the first Gulf war. Whereas his vote in favor of the Iraq war was a sign of his opposition to the Iraq war. And his vote against funding America's troops in Iraq is a sign of his support for America's men and women in uniform. On the same principle, I think the best way voters this November can demonstrate their support for John Kerry is by voting against him.'
"Even I, though, would have balked at so crude and obvious a parody as this line some Kerry impersonator did on the radio the other day:
" 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.'
"Oh, hang on. That's apparently the real senator, explaining to an audience of veterans why he voted against funding the Iraqi reconstruction:
" 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.' Got that?
...
"Also nonoperative is the senator's go-ahead-punk bluster about foreign policy. For months, he has been droning in his stump speech that, if George W Bush wants to fight this election on national security, Mr. Kerry has three words for him: 'Bring it on.' So Mr. Bush brought it on — with a 30-second ad arguing that the senator is weak on defense.
"And suddenly the campaign is curled up on the floor in a fetal position whimpering it's just totally unfair making such a horrible personal attack. Watching him in New Hampshire, I always thought, when Mr. Kerry dares you to 'bring it on,' he couldn't quite bring it off. As all military strategists say, no plan survives first contact with the enemy. And so it proved."
A pattern of fabrication
Washington Times:
"Republican campaigners, continuing to highlight Sen. John Kerry's statements that he had been endorsed by "foreign leaders," assert that this is part of a pattern of fabrications and exaggerations going back to his Massachusetts campaigns.
...
"The presidential campaign, getting under way earlier than ever, is shaping up as a contest between two candidates who question the other's honesty. The Bush campaign has broadcast a flurry of television commercials attempting to define Mr. Kerry as a liberal with a loose tongue, and the flurry will continue this week.
...
"Mr. Kerry told a press conference in June 1996 that he had 'introduced yesterday' legislation providing health care subsidies for children. He then began running TV ads touting the plan.
But the Boston Globe reported Oct. 2 of that year that Mr. Kerry had not introduced the bill until the night before — after the newspaper had called to ask about the legislation.
...
"The Boston Globe reported in 1996 that Mr. Kerry scolded Mr. Weld for breaking a personal spending cap that the two men had agreed to, even though Mr. Kerry had 'the only clear violation of the cap' by spending $1.7 million of his own money.
"In the face of questions by the paper, Mr. Kerry retreated from an assertion that his first Senate floor speech was made in defense of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision finding that abortion is a constitutional right. On another occasion, he disavowed a statement entered into the Congressional Record under his name that claimed an Irish heritage."
Washington Times:
"Republican campaigners, continuing to highlight Sen. John Kerry's statements that he had been endorsed by "foreign leaders," assert that this is part of a pattern of fabrications and exaggerations going back to his Massachusetts campaigns.
...
"The presidential campaign, getting under way earlier than ever, is shaping up as a contest between two candidates who question the other's honesty. The Bush campaign has broadcast a flurry of television commercials attempting to define Mr. Kerry as a liberal with a loose tongue, and the flurry will continue this week.
...
"Mr. Kerry told a press conference in June 1996 that he had 'introduced yesterday' legislation providing health care subsidies for children. He then began running TV ads touting the plan.
But the Boston Globe reported Oct. 2 of that year that Mr. Kerry had not introduced the bill until the night before — after the newspaper had called to ask about the legislation.
...
"The Boston Globe reported in 1996 that Mr. Kerry scolded Mr. Weld for breaking a personal spending cap that the two men had agreed to, even though Mr. Kerry had 'the only clear violation of the cap' by spending $1.7 million of his own money.
"In the face of questions by the paper, Mr. Kerry retreated from an assertion that his first Senate floor speech was made in defense of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision finding that abortion is a constitutional right. On another occasion, he disavowed a statement entered into the Congressional Record under his name that claimed an Irish heritage."
Who would have thought it
Headline from NY Times:
"One Crucial Issue in Pledge Case: What Does 'Under God' Mean?"
Headline from NY Times:
"One Crucial Issue in Pledge Case: What Does 'Under God' Mean?"
Sunday, March 21, 2004
The Dems 9-11 attack machine
Opinion Journal:
"It was always a terrible idea for the September 11 commission to drop its report in the middle of a Presidential election campaign, and we are now seeing why. That body is turning into a fiasco of partisanship and political score-settling.
"To be precise, Democrats are using the commission as a platform to assail the Bush Administration for fumbling the war on terror, implicitly blaming it even for 9/11. That's the clear message of the testimony to be offered this week to the commission by former Clinton officials, who conveniently leaked their opinions to the New York Times in advance. Conveniently, too, former anti-terror aide Richard Clarke has chosen this week to begin the media tour for his new book pushing the same anti-Bush theme. He's also scheduled to meet the commission this week.
...
"But Mr. Hamilton has to contend with his fellow Democrats, who include hyper-partisans Richard Ben-Veniste, Jamie Gorelick and Tim Roemer. These three caucus weekly, reporting back regularly to Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle for political fine-tuning.
"Ms. Gorelick has her own clear conflict of interest: As Janet Reno's deputy attorney general, she had a major law enforcement role in combatting the terror threat. Her Administration's decision to handle the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 as a mere 'law-enforcement' problem ought to be central to the commission's probe. She and Mr. Ben-Veniste also wouldn't mind being Attorney General in a Kerry Administration.
...
"As for Mr. Clarke, he is now flacking his book by blaming the Bush Administration for failing to capture Osama bin Laden while offering the novel sociological insight (in last week's Time magazine) that 'maybe we should be asking why the terrorists hate us.' We'd take Mr. Clarke's words more seriously if, as America's lead anti-terror official from 1998 through Mr. Bush's first two years, he had warned someone that al Qaeda might have a strategy to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings. He already knew that an Egyptian had flown one plane into the drink and that al Qaeda was interested in flight training. Why didn't Mr. Clarke connect those dots?
...
"Mr. Clarke lambastes the White House for seeking links between Iraq and 9/11, even as he himself asserts that he knew in the immediate aftermatch that there were no such links. How could he have known that? Mr. Clarke fails to mention that Abdul Rahman Yasin, the one conspirator from the 1993 WTC bombing still at large, had fled to Iraq and was harbored by Saddam Hussein for years. In our view, a U.S. President who failed to ask questions about Iraq and other state sponsors of terrorism in the wake of 9/11 would have been irresponsible.
"There is a profound contradiction at the heart of this 20-20 hindsight. On the one hand, the critics want to blame the Bush Administration for failing to prevent 9/11, but on the other they assail it for acting "pre-emptively" on a needless war in Iraq. Well, which do they really believe?
"We'd guess it is the latter because when these same critics held the reins of government they failed to do much against al Qaeda beyond fire cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away. Their boast that after 9/11 they would have toppled the Taliban, as well as increased pressure on Saddam Hussein, is impossible to credit. Their criticism now, in books and especially through the 9/11 Commission, is a case of blaming the Bush Administration in order to absolve themselves of any and all responsibility."
It is clear. Not only can Democrats not be trusted on matters of national security, they also cannot be trusted on inquiries into their past failures.
Opinion Journal:
"It was always a terrible idea for the September 11 commission to drop its report in the middle of a Presidential election campaign, and we are now seeing why. That body is turning into a fiasco of partisanship and political score-settling.
"To be precise, Democrats are using the commission as a platform to assail the Bush Administration for fumbling the war on terror, implicitly blaming it even for 9/11. That's the clear message of the testimony to be offered this week to the commission by former Clinton officials, who conveniently leaked their opinions to the New York Times in advance. Conveniently, too, former anti-terror aide Richard Clarke has chosen this week to begin the media tour for his new book pushing the same anti-Bush theme. He's also scheduled to meet the commission this week.
...
"But Mr. Hamilton has to contend with his fellow Democrats, who include hyper-partisans Richard Ben-Veniste, Jamie Gorelick and Tim Roemer. These three caucus weekly, reporting back regularly to Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle for political fine-tuning.
"Ms. Gorelick has her own clear conflict of interest: As Janet Reno's deputy attorney general, she had a major law enforcement role in combatting the terror threat. Her Administration's decision to handle the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 as a mere 'law-enforcement' problem ought to be central to the commission's probe. She and Mr. Ben-Veniste also wouldn't mind being Attorney General in a Kerry Administration.
...
"As for Mr. Clarke, he is now flacking his book by blaming the Bush Administration for failing to capture Osama bin Laden while offering the novel sociological insight (in last week's Time magazine) that 'maybe we should be asking why the terrorists hate us.' We'd take Mr. Clarke's words more seriously if, as America's lead anti-terror official from 1998 through Mr. Bush's first two years, he had warned someone that al Qaeda might have a strategy to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings. He already knew that an Egyptian had flown one plane into the drink and that al Qaeda was interested in flight training. Why didn't Mr. Clarke connect those dots?
...
"Mr. Clarke lambastes the White House for seeking links between Iraq and 9/11, even as he himself asserts that he knew in the immediate aftermatch that there were no such links. How could he have known that? Mr. Clarke fails to mention that Abdul Rahman Yasin, the one conspirator from the 1993 WTC bombing still at large, had fled to Iraq and was harbored by Saddam Hussein for years. In our view, a U.S. President who failed to ask questions about Iraq and other state sponsors of terrorism in the wake of 9/11 would have been irresponsible.
"There is a profound contradiction at the heart of this 20-20 hindsight. On the one hand, the critics want to blame the Bush Administration for failing to prevent 9/11, but on the other they assail it for acting "pre-emptively" on a needless war in Iraq. Well, which do they really believe?
"We'd guess it is the latter because when these same critics held the reins of government they failed to do much against al Qaeda beyond fire cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away. Their boast that after 9/11 they would have toppled the Taliban, as well as increased pressure on Saddam Hussein, is impossible to credit. Their criticism now, in books and especially through the 9/11 Commission, is a case of blaming the Bush Administration in order to absolve themselves of any and all responsibility."
It is clear. Not only can Democrats not be trusted on matters of national security, they also cannot be trusted on inquiries into their past failures.
Bush campaign sees trillion dollar shorfall in Kerry programs
John Kerry has proposed $1.7 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years and $700 billion in tax increase for the same period leaving a shorfall of $1 trillion.
John Kerry has proposed $1.7 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years and $700 billion in tax increase for the same period leaving a shorfall of $1 trillion.
NY Times story on welfare ignors economic recovery
NY Times:
"In a trend that has surprised many experts, the federal welfare rolls have declined over the last three years, even as unemployment, poverty and the number of food stamp recipients have surged in a weak economy.
"After Congress overhauled the nation's welfare system in 1996, the number of families receiving benefits dropped much faster than federal and state officials had expected. Even more remarkable, officials say, the rolls did not grow during the recession of 2001 or the sluggish economy since.
"In fact, in the last three years, the number of families on welfare has declined slightly, to two million, which is less than half the number receiving public assistance when President Bill Clinton signed the welfare law in August 1996."
Obviously the Times is disappointed the welfare rolls did not go up during the first three years of the Bush administration.
NY Times:
"In a trend that has surprised many experts, the federal welfare rolls have declined over the last three years, even as unemployment, poverty and the number of food stamp recipients have surged in a weak economy.
"After Congress overhauled the nation's welfare system in 1996, the number of families receiving benefits dropped much faster than federal and state officials had expected. Even more remarkable, officials say, the rolls did not grow during the recession of 2001 or the sluggish economy since.
"In fact, in the last three years, the number of families on welfare has declined slightly, to two million, which is less than half the number receiving public assistance when President Bill Clinton signed the welfare law in August 1996."
Obviously the Times is disappointed the welfare rolls did not go up during the first three years of the Bush administration.
Israelis get Hamas "spiritual" leader
NY Times:
"Israeli helicopter gunships fired missiles at Hamas' spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin as he left a mosque before dawn on Monday, killing the Hamas leader and at least two body guards, witnesses said.
"A Reuters reporter who rushed to the scene after hearing three loud explosions found the blown-up remains of Yassin's blood-soaked wheel-chair."
The man was responsible for the deaths of 100's of Israelis and had vowed to keep killing them until muslims ruled all of Israel.
NY Times:
"Israeli helicopter gunships fired missiles at Hamas' spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin as he left a mosque before dawn on Monday, killing the Hamas leader and at least two body guards, witnesses said.
"A Reuters reporter who rushed to the scene after hearing three loud explosions found the blown-up remains of Yassin's blood-soaked wheel-chair."
The man was responsible for the deaths of 100's of Israelis and had vowed to keep killing them until muslims ruled all of Israel.