Captain's Quarters -

The Times of London has new video of the 9/11 hijackers from more than a year prior to the attacks. Unlike other martyrdom videos that have been released, these tapes appear to have been less formal affairs. Without a soundtrack for some reason, no one can be sure what al-Qaeda's intent was in taking them, but they look more like home movies than anything produced for a specific purpose:

It is the first time that a videotape has appeared of Mohammed Atta — who flew an American Airlines plane into the north tower of the World Trade Center — at a training camp in Afghanistan. It fills in a significant gap in the timing of the build-up to the attacks on the United States.

Dates on the tape show Atta was filmed on January 18, 2000, together with Ziad Jarrah, the pilot of United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after the passengers apparently stormed the flight deck.

The Sunday Times has obtained a copy of the video through a previously tested channel. The tape has no soundtrack and a US source said lip readers had tried without success to decipher what was being said.

Despite the deadly tasks the men had been assigned, they appear in high spirits, laughing and smiling in front of the camera. Only when Atta, with an AK-47 propped on a wall beside him, reads a document marked in Arabic “the will”, does he become solemn. Both are well groomed, without the haggard appearance of the identity mugshots issued after September 11.

The tapes display dates in January 2000. The Times argues that this clarifies a problem in the 9/11 timeline regarding the whereabouts of the Hamburg cell leaders, but that isn't correct. The 9/11 report, in pages 166-167, describe very clearly the travels of Atta and Ziad Jarrah, both of whom can be seen in this tape. They left Germany in November 1999 for Afghanistan, and returned to Germany on January 31, 2000.

Whatever value is in these tapes lies in the behind-the-scenes look at the jihadis in their own environs. They look like they're having a good time at a retreat, full of smiles and laughter while planning the mass murder of tens of thousands (the Towers would normally have held more that 30,000 people). Unlike the photographs of Mohammed Attah and Ziad Jarrah released after the attack, these two project an air of relaxed joy. We see none of the dead look in Atta's eyes, nor the sharp figures that made his photo in particular seem so menacing. One can understand why he managed to hide himself in Western society so easily.

No one has been able to discern what the two men are saying on this tape. Apparently, AQ has issues with technical aptitude in its audio-visual department. The silence gives the video a disconcerting feel that mirrors our experience with the jihadis -- a disconnect, a sense that what they have to say is so alien to us they may as well remain silent. It also reminds the viewer that their voices have been silenced ... along with almost 3,000 others because of their bloodthirsty pursuit of a totalitarian vision.

Richard Clarke takes to the pages of the New York Times to deliver a lesson that everyone should have learned after 2004. The controversial former counterterrorism chief reminds Americans that we cannot secure the nation through blame games, and that the time has long since passed for us to exercise hindsight and start looking forward:

For most Americans the history is clear and well told in the 9/11 commission report: Almost 3,000 people were killed. In the years before that terrible day, the Clinton administration prevented some attacks and tried to destroy Al Qaeda and its leadership, but was unable to do so, in part because the institutional bureaucracy did not believe the magnitude of the threat.

As for the Bush administration, it deferred action on Al Qaeda until after 9/11, and then took a number of steps in response, including invading Iraq, but was also unable to destroy Al Qaeda or its leaders.

In short, both administrations failed.

All the finger-pointing and hunting for scapegoats last week won’t rectify those failures, or help us avoid future ones. Fortunately, unlike too many of our political leaders and pundits, most Americans are far more concerned about what we are doing now in the name of fighting terrorism than about petty partisan bickering about the past.

Unfortunately, Clarke uses this argument briefly to open an attack on the Bush administration's decision to go into Iraq, which is another form of the same impulse he decries. The Iraq invasion happened three years ago. We now have to fight the terrorists in front of us, in Iraq and elsewhere, and we need to focus on that task. How do we best ensure the survival of the democratic government in Iraq and defeat the terrorists who want to destroy it? That should also be our focus.

He also attacks Bush for pushing too hard to get broader powers to fight terrorism. This seems a rather strange argument, considering the success we have had in preventing another major attack. Clarke also plays the canard of Congress refusing to provide Clinton with anti-terrorism tools he requested, which is a reference to the Aviation Security and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, a measure that had a lot more to do with domestic investigation of gunpowder than international terrorism. In fact, Congress earlier that year had passed the Terrorism Prevention Act, which really did provide counterterrorism tools to the federal government. At any rate, the powers granted to the executive since 9/11 have come from Congress, and Congress can rescind or adjust them if it feels that the executive is abusing them.

However, for the most part, Clarke has it correct. We need to look at the status quo and decide what steps we need to take in today's situation to make the nation and our assets abroad safer. We need to end the partisan bickering over what happened before 9/11 and resolve to do better in the future.

Newsweek's Lally Weymouth conducts an intriguing interview with Abdullah Gul, Turkey's foreign minister, in which he warns Iraq and the US to curb Kurdish terrorists -- or Turkey will do it themselves. Gul has plenty to say on Iraq's internal security troubles, and issues a warning to America about withdrawing from Iraq:

Q. So, would Turkey invade northern Iraq to bring the PKK under control?

A. We will do whatever is necessary to fight this organization. I want to give the message that if our friends don't help us, we will do the job ourselves. ...

Q. In the United States many people believe the time has come to withdraw.

A. How can you leave a vacuum over there? Then, what will happen? All the neighbors of Iraq and the U.S. should work hand in hand with the Iraqi government and the different tribes in Iraq to bring stability. I think it is possible. There is no other way. You have to put things in order.

Q. Here people are asking, why doesn't Iraq split into three parts?

A. The neighboring countries will not accept this. That idea should be forgotten—it should not be an option. Those [who favor it] don't know Iraq or the region.

Gul also feels quite a bit more sanguine about Iran than the US does. He has spoken directly with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who sees the last offer as very positive. Gul says that the main problem is trust; neither Ahmadinejad nor the West want to make the first step. The Turk believes that if the West guarantees the last incentive package, Ahmadinejad will permanently suspend uranium enrichment. Of course, Gul and Turkey would prefer not to have to face a nuclear Iran, but Gul doesn't explain how to square his impressions with the speeches given by Ahmadinejad extolling the virtues of the annihilation of Israel, a feat that would require the nuclear weapons Gul says the Iranians would forswear.

We should remain concerned about the PKK and its activities. Freeing the Kurds from Saddam's grip always held the risk of expansionist impulses for the long-oppressed Kurds, and we have encouraged it tacitly in regards to Iran. The Kurds themselves see Turkey as their main problem and radicals have conducted terrorist attacks in th eastern portions of our putative ally. We cannot afford to have Turkey invading northern Iraq; it would set the entire country on fire and probably end the autonomy of the Kurds. That would douse the momentum that the Kurds started a few years ago into modernizing their terrirtory and engaging with the West.

Gul's warning on an American withdrawal should be considered very carefully here at home. The Turks did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and in the end balked at allowing the 4th Infantry Division to transit through their territory, which caused us no end of problems, especially in Anbar. They are just as clear about opposing a precipitate withdrawal. The Turks need to have us on the inside, bringing Iraqi security forces to the point where they can maintain stability and put an end to sectarian violence themselves. They also cannot afford to have supported yet another American administration that fails to complete its mission in Iraq. They had enough of that for the twelve years prior to OIF.

UPDATE: An anonymous CQ reminds us that Gul is a not-so-well-disguised Islamist himself, and he can hardly be described as an honest broker with Iran. Tigerhawk has more on a unilateral PKK cease-fire.

With Pervez Musharraf appearing to retreat in the war on terror and Hamid Karzai demanding results, the situation in Afghanistan and the Waziristan region appears to be inexplicably troublesome of late. Musharraf and Karzai have more trouble than just borders in this situation, though, and what we are now seeing may be a nationalist movement that has escaped Western attention until now. The Toronto Sun's Eric Margolis explains the problem, and Swaraaj Chauhan at The Moderate Voice produces an interesting map to underscore his point.

In order to understand the difficulties, Margolis argues, one has to understand the tribalism in play:

Tribal politics lie at the heart of their dispute. The 30 million Pashtuns (or Pathans), the world’s largest tribal society, are divided between Afghanistan and Pakistan by an artificial border, the Durand Line, drawn by divide-and-conquer British imperialists.

Pashtuns account for 50-60% of Afghanistan’s 30 million people. The Taliban is an organic part of the Pashtun people. The Western powers and Karzai are not just fighting “Taliban terrorists,” but a coalition of Pashtun tribes and other allied nationalist movements. In effect, most of the Pashtun people. ...

The other half of the divided Pashtuns live just across the Durand Line in Pakistan, comprising 15-20% of its population. Pashtuns occupy many senior posts in Pakistan’s military and intelligence services. Pashtuns, including anti-Western resistance fighters, never accepted and simply ignore the artificial border bifurcating their tribal homeland.

Washington keeps demanding Musharraf crack down on Pakistan’s pro-Taliban Pashtuns. But Washington fails to understand that too much pressure on these fierce warriors could quickly ignite a major historic threat to Pakistan’s national integrity: A Pashtun independence movement seeking to join the Pashtun of Afghanistan and Pakistan in a new state — Pashtunistan.

Take a look at Swaraaj's map:

What we're looking at is something similar to the Kurds to the West. The Pashtuns spread out over a wide geographical area, and would be the dominant ethnic group in the region if not for the political borders drawn during the British administration of an earlier age. The Taliban sprang out of the ultra-Islamist Pashtun tribal structure, and that tribal society has a great deal of influence in Pakistani politics as well. Their stronghold is in the mountainous border region, including Waziristan.

So how does that impact the war on terror and on radical Islamists? This map shows that the entire effort in Afghanistan is taking place on enemy territory regardless of which side of the border one sits. Kabul sits in Pashtun turf, making it more difficult to ensure its security.

This shows the difficulty facing both leaders. Taking on the Pashtuns means fighting a significant component of both nations, and up to 30 million members of a closed-off tribal society. Their loyalties are to themselves rather than any sense of nationhood as the borders are drawn, and their recent actions may hint at a broader nationalistic impulse. Given their footprint in the area, that will play out mostly in Afghanistan, but it could threaten Musharraf's power in Pakistan as well.

No wonder Musharraf cut a deal in Waziristan. He wants to mollify the Pashtuns in order to keep them from rising up and demanding an expression of nationalism within Pakistan. He doesn't want to lose Waziristan as well as Kashmir. And this is why Karzai is so unhappy; without Pakistani pressure on the Pashtuns in Waziristan, they will have secured their flank enough to put all of their energy to undermine Karzai.

The problem with the Islamists might just be the symptom here of a greater tribal/nationalist problem.

Ever wonder how caucuses in the House choose their leadership? In the Senate, it comes from seniority. In the House, they determine it like a multi-level marketing plan. As the New York Times reports, money talks ... loudly:

To move up the ladder in Congress, you must do more than win votes. You are, quite literally, expected to pay your dues.

If you are a rank-and-file member of the House, the amount is up to $100,000. If your ambitions are to preside over a powerful committee, the duty is $300,000. For a top party leader, the tally can climb beyond $600,000.

Make those checks payable to the Republican or Democratic Congressional campaign committees. ...

Four years after Congress tried to reduce the influence of money in politics by rewriting the rules of how campaigns are financed, Republicans and Democrats alike have found myriad replacements for the river of financial contributions known as soft money.

The practice of paying what the parties refer to as dues is not illegal, and it is not an entirely fresh notion by either party. This year, Democrats are hoping to glean about $33 million in dues from their House members, an amount that would be about one-third of their fund-raising goal. That makes the dues an important piece in the Democrats’ strategy to overtake the Republican majority.

Let's just make this perfectly clear. Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002 because John McCain, Russ Feingold, Christopher Shays, and Marty Meehan all told us that money has become too influential in politics. They forced us to give up the right to name names in political advertising in the last 60 days before an election. In exchange, the House selects its leadership on the basis of how much cash members can raise for the party.

Seems to me that Shays and Meehan forced us to pay for their addiction.

This tradition, which appears more in line with the Mafia than with competence, has its humorous moments. Nancy Pelosi takes this so seriously that she sent around a spreadsheet showing the assessments for each Democrat in the house and what they had contributed to party coffers. Predictably and understandably, this grandstanding upset a few members, including Maxine Waters, chief deputy whip for the Democrats, who has only kicked in less than 20% of her $250,000 assessment. Luis Gutierrez, ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, declared he would contribute nothing at all until Pelosi sent a dead fish wrapped in newspaper made a two-minute phone call. Gutierrez made his first dues payment shortly thereafter.

Rather than punish the electorate for the sins of the politicians, the BCRA contingent should have focused on the behavior of Congress first. If the Democrats and Republicans want to take the smell of cash out of politics, perhaps they would have been better suited getting the stink off of leadership assignments in the House.

The London Times asks if Kofi Annan has blood on his hands as he prepares to end his term as United Nations Secretary-General. Apparently the Times does not consider this a rhetorical question, as it provides a rather lengthy answer:

Srebrenica is rarely mentioned nowadays in Annan’s offices on the 38th floor of the UN secretariat building in New York. He steps down in December after a decade as secretary-general. His retirement will be marked by plaudits. But behind the honorifics and the accolades lies a darker story: of incompetence, mismanagement and worse. Annan was the head of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) between March 1993 and December 1996. The Srebrenica massacre of up to 8,000 men and boys and the slaughter of 800,000 people in Rwanda happened on his watch. In Bosnia and Rwanda, UN officials directed peacekeepers to stand back from the killing, their concern apparently to guard the UN’s status as a neutral observer. This was a shock to those who believed the UN was there to help them.

Annan’s term has also been marked by scandal: from the sexual abuse of women and children in the Congo by UN peacekeepers to the greatest financial scam in history, the UN-administered oil-for-food programme. Arguably, a trial of the UN would be more apt than a leaving party.

The charge sheet would include guarding its own interests over those it supposedly protects; endemic opacity and lack of accountability; obstructing investigations, promoting the inept and marginalising the dedicated. Such accusations can be made against many organisations. But the UN is different. It has a moral mission.

It was founded by the allies in 1945 to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights”. Its key documents – the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the genocide convention – are the most advanced formulation of human rights in history. And they have been flouted by UN member states for decades.

A more specific charge would be that, under the doctrine of command responsibility, the UN is guilty of war crimes. Broadly speaking, it has three principles: that a commander ordered atrocities to be carried out, that he failed to stop them, despite being able to, or failed to punish those responsible. The case rests on the second, that in Rwanda in 1994, in Srebrenica in 1995 and in Darfur since 2003, the UN knew war crimes were occurring or about to occur, but failed to stop them, despite having the means to do so.

It's hard to improve on this essay by the Times. Read the whole thing, and shake your head in wonder that anyone considers this organization the least bit credible.

My friend John from Power Line spent the better part of today cleaning up and re-editing the captured video from the al-Qaeda training facility. (I blogged about it this morning.) John's efforts can be viewed through this Power Line News link. Be sure to check it out -- if the earlier Times of London version gave you downloading headaches, John's version should play much more smoothly.

Russia appears to be on the verge of war with the former Soviet republic of Georgia after watching four of its citizens arrested on espionage allegations. Vladimir Putin put his forces in Georgia on high alert and instructed them to defend their bases, a major point of contention between the two nations. He also warned Georgia that it couldn't count on American support if hostilities broke out:

Infuriated by the arrests of four Russian officers on spying charges, Moscow has put its troops in Georgia on high alert and ordered them to "shoot to kill" to defend their bases in the former Soviet republic.

In his first public comments on the escalating crisis, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, yesterday accused Georgia of "state terrorism" and compared the arrests to the repressions of Stalin's secret police chief, Lavrenty Beria.

The commander of Russian military forces in Georgia, General Andrei Popov, said Russian law authorises the use of force to defend bases abroad from aggression. "We are ready to thwart any possible attempts to penetrate our facilities using all means, including shoot to kill," he said. Mr Putin held an urgent meeting with armed forces chiefs, top ministers and the heads of intelligence services to discuss Russia's response to the arrests.

"As a result of his meeting ... the president termed the actions of Georgia's leadership as an act of state terrorism with hostage taking," the Kremlin said in a statement. Mr Putin said on national television that the arrests were "a sign of the political legacy of Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria". A Georgian - like Stalin - Beria ran the feared NKVD secret police that purged millions of Soviet citizens in the 1930s and 1940s. In a clear reference to US support for Georgia, Mr Putin also warned Georgia not to count on foreign backing in the crisis. "These people think that under the roof of their foreign sponsors they can feel comfortable ... is it really so?" he said.

As often pointed out here, Putin has gone backwards on Russian reform, pushing towards a greater authoritarian role for the Russian government. He has also worked hard to increase Russian influence in the former republics, using charm and threats in equal balance to maintain power in the region. In Georgia, he has used both to maintain his military bases, a strategic necessity in the Caucasus where nationalist forces try to carve even more republics away from Russia.

Putin uses typically histrionic language, calling arrests "terrorism" and issuing "shoot to kill" orders. In truth, while no one knows for sure whether these suspects worked for Russian intelligence specifically, the notion that Russia actively spies on the West-leaning Georgian government is a very safe assumption. The hysterical nature of Putin's reaction demonstrates that Georgian counterespionage forces must have gotten the right men.

Will Putin press this enough to start a war in the Caucasus? One would think not. The Russian military has enough troubles in the area without starting a border war with Georgia. While the US and the West back Putin against Islamists in Chechnya, we would immediately change our position with regards to Russia if they attack Georgia. This is why Putin has made this much of a fuss. Nothing they have done has turned Georgia back to the Moscow sphere of influence, and a threat of war is Putin's last card.

The US needs to trump this card quickly. We cannot have Russia invading Georgia, or even think that it could do so, without serious consequences. The US needs to make clear to Putin that we will not stand idly by while Putin starts taking back the independent former republics by force. Whether that means military aid to Georgia or an effort to kick Russia out of the G-8 and economic marginalization should be options we keep open.

Think of it as the hangover after an awards celebration. In the aftermath of winning the Republican National Convention, the magnitude of the security preparations has dawned on state and local officials. Estimates of personnel go between 5,000 and 10,000 police officers, while the Twin Cities currently employ 1,400 combined:

Security will be the biggest concern -- and the biggest expense -- for the convention, with plans for as many as 10,000 officers to be deployed and $50 million to be spent to protect delegates, media and high-profile politicians.

"Everything we do is different after 9/11," said Rob Allen, a deputy chief with the Minneapolis Police Department. "A Twins playoff game, a Vikings game, a parade, all are different. You can't turn back the clock on how you do security."

Although the Twin Cities has attracted larger crowds -- such as at the 1992 Super Bowl -- it has never held an event with the importance, scrutiny or magnitude of a modern presidential convention. ...

This is probably the first time that a national political convention will be held in two cities, and that large geographical footprint will be one of the biggest security challenges of the event.

Obviously, officials in both cities will have to rely on outside help for staffing, while simultaneously providing all of the normal police services to Minnesota residents. Those will likely come from cities and counties from all over the Upper Midwest and perhaps beyond, and we will need every last one of those who volunteer. Boston used 5,000 police for the Democratic National Convention in a city with the same approximate size as Minneapolis and St. Paul, and in the end that number fell somewhat short of optimum. The lack of personnel forced the city to "lock down" venues.

In New York, I can tell you that the police kept a highly visible presence the entire convention. Large numbers of them could be seen at all times throughout the entire area where Madison Square Garden is located. Streets surrounding the venue were shut down and barricaded, and even foot traffic was curtailed. I got stuck at one such point, which turned out to be the high point of my travel day. That kind of security will no doubt get deployed by the Twin Cities, and it is personnel-intensive.

We have hosted high-visibility events before, such as the 1992 Super Bowl, but that was in a different era. National conventions for either party present very attractive terrorist targets, and the presence of the President (whom I assume will attend) makes it even more so. This will be on a much higher scale than 1992 or any of the presidential visits we often get. The cost will be enormous, although the Star-Tribune reports that the federal government will pick up most of the security tab through the Department of Homeland Security. It's a mighty challenge, and the Twin Cities will have to work with a wide range of police departments and sheriff's offices in order to meet it.

It came down to the end of the baseball season, but the two teams I follow both made the playoffs, which means I will have to watch some playoff games this year. For my favorite baseball team, the Los Angeles Dodgers, the wild card spot tasted even sweeter as they clinched it at the end of a San Francisco sweep. The Dodgers finished off their traditional rivals and got to celebrate on their turf:

Los Angeles beat San Francisco 4-3 in what might've been Barry Bonds' last game for the Giants, and ended up even in the standings with San Diego. The Padres held the tiebreaker based on head-to-head record and earned the West crown.

"We're looking forward to getting this thing started," Los Angeles manager Grady Little said. "What's taken place here started last year. Everything has been positive."

The Dodgers could have won the divisional championship had San Diego lost their final game. However, Trevor Hoffman held off the Arizona Diamondbacks 7-6 in Phoenix to clinch their second straight divisional title. That sends LA to New York to play the Mets in the first round, a selection that the Dodgers say they wanted. LA wouldn't mind avoiding the Padres, as they went 5-13 this year against their southern rivals.

The Minnesota Twins, meanwhile, came out of nowhere to steal their divisional title from the Detroit Tigers. They only led on the final day of the season as the lowly Kansas City Royals swept the Tigers in Detroit this weekend:

On the season's final day, Joe Mauer won a historic batting title, the Twins defeated the Chicago White Sox 5-1, and then the players settled in with about 35,000 of their fans for a little TV.

Together, they watched on the stadium's two JumboTrons as Kansas City finished a 10-8, 12-inning victory over Detroit that knocked the Tigers behind the Twins for the first time all season.

After coming from 12 games back, the Twins won their fourth American League Central title in five years, setting up a first-round playoff matchup with Oakland that starts Tuesday at the Metrodome.

Twelve games back? Twelve games back? We've seen an amazing comeback by the Twins this year. They managed to play themselves back into the wild-card slot, but no one expected the Tigers to collapse the way they did in September. Detroit will have a difficult task ahead of them, recovering from this blow in time to go on the road for their playoff series as the wild card.

Both teams improved themselves significantly from their 2005 seasons. Dare I hope for a Twin Cities-LA Series?

The Guardian reports that Western intelligence agencies have discovered a new source of jihadists in Afghanistan, and it comes as a bit of a surprise. The Sunni-based Taliban have apparently received a boost in personnel from the Shi'ites in Iran:

Knock-kneed with fear, the young prisoner perched on the edge of his chair in the windowless Afghan intelligence office. Eyes bloodshot and hands trembling, he blurted out his story.

Abdullah had reached the end of a pitifully short career as a Taliban fighter. He had been arrested hours earlier, just 10 days after signing up to the insurgency. But the 25-year-old with a soft face and a neat beard had something unusual that aroused the intelligence agents' curiosity.

"I come from Iran," he said in a quavering voice, wringing his hands nervously. "They told me the Americans had invaded Afghanistan and I should go and fight jihad. But I was cheated. Now I am very sorry that I ever left." ...

Military and diplomatic sources said they had received numerous reports of Iranians meeting tribal elders in Taliban-influenced areas, bringing offers of military or more often financial support for the fight against foreign forces. The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the meetings took place in Helmand province, where more than 3,000 British troops are based, and neighbouring Nimroz, a lawless desert province bordering eastern Iran.

Although the reports are hard to confirm due to security fears, officials say the direction of flow is unmistakable. "There's definitely an Iranian hand," insisted one western official, who said the phenomenon was being quietly monitored by western intelligence and militaries. A top-ranking Afghan military official said he had received similar information. "The Iranians were offering money and weapons. This is a very sensitive issue," he said.

This seems very strange indeed. Afghanistan, as the Guardian points out, is one of Iran's critical trading partners. They cooperate on drug interdiction and they have normal diplomatic relations. Even more to the point, the Taliban are radical Sunnis, the exact kind of Islamists the Iranians have opposed for a long time. Why would they suddenly want to bolster the Taliban and give the Sunnis back power on the Iranian doorstep?

It gets back to the tribal issues that Eric Margolis noted yesterday. Western intelligence believes that the jihadis come from the minority Baluchis in Iran, which have actively operated against the Iranian mullahcracy. They want to encourage the drug trade, and they want to encourage Sunni jihad. The Baluchis comprise a small area in Afghanistan, but they comprise almost all of western Pakistan, and it appears that their tribal area would reach significantly into Iran.

The captured terrorist believed himself to be an agent of the Iranian government. He attended a training camp in Iran, he told interrogators, and the main point seemed to be training Shi'ites to fight for a Shi'ite theocracy in Iraq. Most of his classmates went to Baghdad. Abdullah, though, went to Afghanistan, and he claims that the camp was run by Abdullah Shafi -- a former leader of Ansar al-Islam, the al-Qaeda group that should therefore be fighting for Sunni/Wahhabi domination.

If this information is on the level, it looks like the Islamists have either become very confused or less inclined to reject each other than in the past. It still doesn't look like an alliance, but perhaps Iran is willing to use whatever tools are at hand to disrupt the American effort to remake the region through democracy. After all, the only constant between the two are that Iraq and Afghanistan have democratically-elected governments, and Iran fears the effect that more secular democracies will have on the region.

The power of appropriators to shape legislation in all other areas of policy gets amplified through the use of pork-barrel politics, and John Murtha in particular has mastered this technique. The New York Times profiles Murtha and gets him on the record, bragging about his effectiveness in using pork to gain power:

Members have watched with envy as Mr. Murtha has used earmarks to remake Johnstown, Pa., an impoverished former steel town that now includes a Murtha highway, a Murtha airport and Murtha health centers. He has steered billions of dollars to his district over the years, including more than $80 million in the defense spending bill passed Friday, according to a preliminary tally.

Mr. Murtha’s patronage has transformed Johnstown into a national hub of the defense business, attracting giants like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. He even built one contractor from scratch. In 1988, Mr. Murtha asked the chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh to set up a nonprofit that could use Navy money to establish a Center for Excellence in Metalworking in Johnstown.

Since then, Mr. Murtha has delivered earmarks to the organization, now called Concurrent Technologies Corporation, for work like consulting on counterterrorism, designing ejection seats for pilots and developing software. The military and other federal agencies have paid Concurrent nearly a billion dollars in grants and contracts since 1999. In the most recent defense bill, Mr. Murtha inserted $1.3 million for Concurrent to research Army tank designs.

“It is Murtha’s pet rock,” said Stephen Gage, chief executive of an Ohio economic development organization that once worked with Concurrent.

Concurrent’s executives, in turn, have given more than $114,000 to the congressman’s campaigns over the last three elections, making it one of his biggest corporate donors. The organization pays about $500,000 a year to a lobbying firm, the PMA Group, whose executives and clients have given Mr. Murtha more than $1.2 million in donations since 1999.

It goes beyond the remaking of Johnstown, however. The power Murtha exercises affects more than just his own extensive use of earmarking; he uses the earmarks of others to twist arms on all kinds of legislation. Those who follow Murtha's advice on votes will see their earmarks sail through Appropriations, while those who oppose Murtha in either party will see their districts starve for federal funding.

Do you wonder why debate on bills seem to occur in inverse proportion to their cost? At least with defense bills, we can thank John Murtha. In the late 1980s, he created a new process for defense spending. Instead of having the bill go through weeks of debate, Murtha and the ranking Republican would simply lard the bill with so much pork spending that neither side could resist voting for the bill. No one wanted to debate the bill, because no one wanted to reveal the pork spending within it. The Republicans have continued this tradition, which is why the defense appropriation last week for $437 billion only endured 20 minutes of debate.

His power has even helped unseat members of his own party. Allyson Schwartz beat out a fellow Democrat for her seat after the reformer tangled with Murtha over pork-barrel spending. Schwartz learned from her predecessor's experience not to cross Murtha, and he has rewarded her complicity with millions of dollars in earmarks for her district to keep her seat safe. Not all of this largesse that Murtha offers assists in professional security for politicians; some, such as Paul Kanjorski, get earmarks for family. Murtha helped put $9.5 million in earmarks into the pockets of Kanjorski's nephews, who own a business that uses water jets for demolition work, which Kanjorski says is the only firm capable of doing the work.

The New York Times profile provides a clear look at the power and corruption that earmarks create on Capitol Hill. John Murtha should represent his own district in Congress, but thanks to his ability to appropriate funds, he controls large blocks of votes on all legislation. He uses the power of pork to play kingmaker. It's hard to see a better example of how pork corrupts the political system.

UPDATE: Veterans For Truth held a rally to retire John Murtha yesterday, and here are the pictures.

Condoleezza Rice will have a new tool in her pocket in the showdown with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. The Senate quietly passed a new Iran policy on Saturday, one which President Bush is expected to sign, that allows for sanctions on any business that supports Iran's nuclear or advanced weapons programs. When she travels to Cairo tomorrow, Rice intends on unveiling the implications of the new policy in an attempt to further isolate Teheran:

Bolstered by a new sanctions bill against Iran, Secretary of State Rice will press Arab foreign ministers tomorrow in Cairo to instruct banks in the region to cut ties to any entities contributing to Iran's nuclear program, support for terror, or pursuit of advanced conventional weapons.

If the gambit in Cairo succeeds, it will boost American efforts to punish Iran for its defiance of international resolutions on its nuclear program. In the last 18 months, the Bush administration has quietly succeeded in pressing four large European banks, including London-based HSBC, to stop doing business with Iran.

Indeed, when the Treasury Department announced earlier this month that Iran's Bank Saderat would be barred from American financial markets, three large Japanese banks also cut ties with the bank. Yesterday, the Iranian press announced that talks between Iran and Japan on a $2 billion deal to develop the Azadegan oil field had collapsed.

The Iran Freedom and Support Act, which the Senate passed Saturday and President Bush is expected to sign this week, threatens to bar from American financial markets all banks and companies that are found to be contributing to the Iranian nuclear project or its development of advanced weapons.

In fact, most of the audience in Cairo will not shed many tears over this new initiative. Most Gulf states already fear the threat of Iranian hegemony for a number of reasons. None of them want a non-Arab state dictating policy, nor do they want to kowtow to the Shi'ites. The new American policy will give them an excuse to do what they would probably want to do anyway, and this policy allows them to act in concert.

The new policy has already made a dent in Iranian economics, with the loss of the Japanese development deal on oil-field development. Iran will respond to the economic pressure by attempting to turn up the prices at the pumps. They convinced Venezuela and Nigeria to cut back production on Friday by 170,000 barrels a day. However, the same nations that want to see Teheran contained have the biggest production capability, and they could make up for any shortfalls by Iranian allies, if they want to keep pressure on the Iranians. Neither Venezuela nor Nigeria can afford to significantly reduce production for very long without some support from the rest of OPEC.

This, of course, reminds us that we need to move away from foreign oil as soon as possible.

The US appeared to have waited far too long to respond to Iranian stall tactics in the nuclear showdown. Bush's new efforts abroad to tighten the economic noose around the mullahs shows that the White House has gotten back into the game. Given the mediocre state of Iranian economics, which relies on oil for 80% of its income, the new push should have an immediate effect, and one noticeable to Iranian citizens. Perhaps this will motivate them to rethink their leadership.

One of the most jaw-droppingly dishonest ads that I have seen in years comes from the Patty Wetterling campaign in Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District. The ads have appeared on prime-time television throughout the state, and not only display dishonesty but sheer ignorance. Wetterling accuses Michelle Bachmann of wanting to raise taxes through an increase in the sales tax:

Michele Bachmann says she's for lowering taxes, and yet she supports replacing the income tax with a national sales tax," says Wetterling. Under a national sales tax, all taxable goods and services - including daily basics like milk, bread, groceries, clothing, new tires and prescription drugs - could cost 23% more.

Lower and middle-class Minnesotans would pay more taxes under this plan, up to $4,077 more per year," says Wetterling. "I find it incredible that Michele Bachmann wants to place a heavier burden on the people who can least afford to pay more for basic goods and services.

Yeah, well, that tells only half of the story. The 23% sales tax Bachmann suggested was a replacement for the federal income tax, not an additional tax. Bachmann hasn't even endorsed the Fair Tax Plan, which would replace the income tax and is designed to be revenue-neutral -- which means that taxpayers will pay no more and no less than they already do. In fact, the Fair Tax Plan has the ability to be far more progressive than the federal income tax, as it taxes consumption rather than income, and cannot easily be subverted through tax shelters and the like. Enforcement resources would be minimal, and a major headache for employers and employees alike would disappear.

Leaving out the Fair Tax Plan's elimination of the income tax and the fact that Bachmann didn't endorse it at all creates a falsehood so obvious that "lie" is not too strong a word. Eric Black at the Star Tribune has called the ad misleading, and Bachmann has demanded a retraction from Wetterling. So far, however, the Democrat continues to allow the spot to run and continues to mislead voters on her campaign website. That tells Minnesotans all they need to know about the Democrats in this state.

Note: Michele Bachmann is one of the many fine candidates to whom CQ readers can contribute at Rightroots. Be sure to make your donations now.

An earlier AP report on Bill Frist and comments he made on the status of Afghanistan had some Republicans reaching for their hemlock, but as it turns out, Frist claims that the report misquotes his remarks. Here's what the AP reported:

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan guerrilla war can never be won militarily and called for efforts to bring the Taliban and their supporters into the Afghan government.

The Tennessee Republican said he had learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated by military means.

"You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government," Frist said during a brief visit to a U.S. and Romanian military base in the southern Taliban stronghold of Qalat. "And if that's accomplished we'll be successful." ...

The senator said he had been warned to expect attacks in Afghanistan to increase. There appears to be an "unlimited flow" of Afghans and foreigners, he said, "willing to pick up arms and integrate themselves with the Taliban."

He said the only way to win in places like Qalat is to "assimilate people who call themselves Taliban into a larger, more representative government."

Frist, however, calls foul at his VOLPAC blog after I contacted his office this afternoon to get a confirmation of his remarks:

I’m currently overseas visiting our troops in Afghanistan, but I wanted to take a moment to address an Associated Press story titled, “Frist: Taliban Should Be in Afghan Gov’t.” The story badly distorts my remarks and takes them out of context.

First of all, let me make something clear: The Taliban is a murderous band of terrorists who’ve oppressed the people of Afghanistan with their hateful ideology long enough. America’s overthrow of the Taliban and support for responsible, democratic governance in Afghanistan is a great accomplishment that should not and will not be reversed.

Having discussed the situation with commanders on the ground, I believe that we cannot stabilize Afghanistan purely through military means. Our counter-insurgency strategy must win hearts and minds and persuade moderate Islamists potentially sympathetic to the Taliban to accept the legitimacy of the Afghan national government and democratic political processes.

National reconciliation is a necessary and an urgent priority … but America will never negotiate with terrorists or support their entry into Afghanistan’s government.

So what happened? I think that someone confused "Taliban" with "Taliban supporters" at some point, and whether that was Frist or the reporter will probably remain a point of contention between the two. At any rate, Bill Frist is not calling for the return of the Taliban and an end to democracy in Afghanistan.

However, it does bring up an important point about the eventual end game in Afghanistan. If we want a representative democracy in Afghanistan, it will probably be heavily influenced by the Pashtuns, who have a strong Islamist bent. They did, after all, push the Taliban into power. At some point, we have to find a way to convince these Islamists to buy into democracy, and we have to be willing to allow that democracy to develop its own laws and customs. Otherwise, we will have to prop up a strongman who can keep the Pashtuns oppressed, which will create an even greater Islamist impulse in Afghanistan.

I believe that is what Frist meant, however awkwardly it was put -- and Allahpundit at Hot Air has a point regarding that. In the end, that's just common sense. Democracy brings people the government they desire, in theory and in practice, and we need to convince the Pashtuns that such a structure will be responsive to their goals as well as those of the other tribal communities in Afghanistan. Only democracy protects the minority from the majority, and only representative government gives people the free expression of their political will. We certainly will not convince the Pashtuns to cooperate in a democracy if we outlaw their expression of policy within a constitutional framework.

A couple of local bloggers have tracked down one of the Democratic operatives responsible for stealing Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele's confidential credit report last year. My NARN colleague Michael Brodkorb found Katie Barge, late of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, now working for Media Matters:

Prior to founding Media Matters, David Brock met with a number of leading Democratic Party figures, including Senator Hillary Clinton, former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, and former Vice President Al Gore. Today, more than a few of the organization’s roughly 30 staff members are Democratic operatives. Among these are Media Matters’ chief communications strategist Dennis Yedwab, who is also the Director of Strategic Resources at Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Brock’s personal assistant, Mandy Vlasz, is a Democratic pollster and a veteran consultant to Democratic campaigns, including the 2000 Gore/Lieberman campaign. Katie Barge, the Director of Research at Media Matters, formerly presided over opposition research for Senator John Edwards’ unsuccessful 2004 presidential campaign.

Gary Gross recognized the name and tracked down what happened to Barge and Laura Weiner for their crime. It's not much, especially considering DSCC chair Chuck Schumer's crusade against identity theft. Be sure to read all of Gary's post. Culture of corruption, indeed.

A coroner's inquest in the UK concluded that two British soldiers, captured by Iraqis in March 2003, were executed by Saddam's officers after a few hours of torture. The finding confirms accusations made by Tony Blair during the operation:

IRAQI officers loyal to Saddam Hussain filmed their cold-blooded murder of two British bomb disposal officers who were captured after a roadside ambush.

An inquest was told that Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth, 36, and Sapper Luke Allsopp, 24, thought that they were being taken to hospital for treatment, but instead they were moved to a compound run by Saddam’s military intelligence.

The harrowing ordeal lasted for hours until Iraqi agents killed the pair. The soldiers were buried in a shallow grave.

The Geneva Conventions do not appear to have helped Allsopp and Cullingworth. Iraq entered into the covenant in 1956, and so operated under its strictures, at least in theory. Neither Iran nor Iraq bothered to fake compliance during their long war despite both having adopted the GC, and Saddam didn't worry too much about it in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The British soldiers were captured during open hostilities and in uniform, and should have received POW status. Instead, Saddam's officer corps decided to execute them, and to film their crime as well.

This shows yet again that many signatories to the GC rarely apply them during conflicts, preferring to fall back on their own brutal traditions. Treating the GC as some sort of talisman that will ward off the brutality of tyrants allows people to fall prey to a utopianism that simply does not exist in modern warfare between any nations except those in the West -- and since the advent of democracy, those nations do not war with each other. And even at that, Germany certainly qualified as a Western country during World War II and still dispensed with the GC in all but the thinnest veneer of appearances.

The coroner's finding and the film of the execution does bring up another question. Can Britain charge Saddam Hussein and the army officers in custody with war crimes? Saddam likely will not survive the trials he already faces with the Iraqis, but the British should consider formal charges against Saddam and his henchmen for this crime. If people want to invoke the GC to limit the options of Western nations in defending themselves, then the Western nations need to prosecute the enemies we face for violating them as well. If the British feel their invocation in this case would serve no purpose, then why abide by the GC at all?

An eleventh-hour offer to resolve the nuclear standoff has come from Iran's negotiators, the Jerusalem Post reports this morning. Picking up on a concept from early in the conflict, the deputy chief of Iran's nuclear agency suggested that another country handle uranium enrichment for Iran, only this time Mohammed Saeedi has proposed the French instead of the Russians:

A top Iranian nuclear official proposed Tuesday that France create a consortium to enrich Iran's uranium, in a bid to satisfy the international community's demands for outside oversight of Tehran's nuclear program.

"To be able to arrive at a solution, we have just had an idea. We propose that France create a consortium for the production in Iran of enriched uranium," Mohammad Saeedi, deputy chief of Iran's Atomic Energy Agency, told France-Info radio.

"That way France, through the companies Eurodif and Areva, could control in a tangible way our enrichment activities," he added. ...

Saeedi gave no other details of his proposal, which appeared to be an Iranian initiative. France, a permanent member of the Security Council, is among the countries leading the push to stop Iran's nuclear activities. A French Foreign Ministry spokesman would not comment on Saeedi's proposal early Tuesday.

It's difficult to know whether to take Saeedi seriously. France would make a logical partner, as it generates 75% of its electricity through nuclear energy. They have a market for nuclear generation and skilled deliverers as a result. France would certainly have the capability, and surely would have the willingness to do business with Teheran on such a project.

On the other hand, this looks like another attempt to stall Western sanctions. The US remains confident that Russia and China will join in any sanctions that result from further Iranian defiance, and Iran remains concerned enough to continue making cooperative noises while keeping its options wide open. American confidence has thus far been misplaced; Russia has openly said it will not vote for sanctions, and given its animosity to the same Western coalition that wants to detach Georgia from its sphere of influence, changing his mind seems a Herculean task. Without Russia, China will balk. Certainly Nicholas Burns knows all of this and remains optimistic, which either means that Burns knows where a few skeletons are buried or he's down to issuing optimistic assessments in the hope they come true.

However, one has to consider another element which could explain the Iranian suggestion. They played footise for months, even as long as two years, with the Russians on a similar deal. Iran awarded Russia the contract to build its reactor at Bushehr, but the project has suffered from many delays. Iran may question Russia's ability to complete the reactor, and thus their ability to keep it supplied with fuel. Given Russia's track record on nuclear power plants once in operation -- recall Chernobyl -- the Iranians may have decided that they'd like a better contractor for their nuclear energy program. France would be the logical choice, not only for its proven track record in the field but also because of its status as a major trading partner with Teheran.

This could be a significant development, but if so, it would have to come from someone higher up than Saeedi. When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he'll accept French enrichment in place of Iranian enrichment, then we can take this seriously enough to make a deal. Until then, it will look like just another stall tactic.

Hamas appears prepared to act as reasonably as ever, the Jerusalem Post reports. Egypt announced that Hamas had refused to accept a deal to free captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, even after the Mubarak government tried offering up to 1,100 Palestinian prisoners in exchange:

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit said on Monday that Israel had offered to release up to 1,000 prisoners in exchange for captured soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit, but Hamas had turned down the proposal.

"[There was] a deal that could have freed 900 to 1,000 prisoners, but sadly they have decided to keep holding him," he told Al-Arabiyeh Television.

Egypt has been mediating between Israel and Hamas over the release of Shalit, who was abducted at Kerem Shalom on the Gaza border on June 25.

Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz told Israel Radio on Sunday that the IDF might step up military operations in the Gaza Strip, to put pressure on Hamas to release Shalit and halt the firing of rockets at Israel.

Khaled Mashaal must think he has some advantage over Israel, an impression that an 1100-1 swap might certainly leave. He has to think that he will gain something, because he's passing up an opportunity to score big political points against Mahmoud Abbas. If Hamas can free 1,100 Palestinian prisoners with a single IDF soldier, their stock would certainly rise, and they can use all the support they can get as Hamas and Fatah appear ready again to start a civil war.

Does Mashaal think that he can get more prisoners out of Israeli jails? If so, he may miscalculate Israeli sentiment. Ehud Olmert has already seen his approval ratings drop through the floor and into the ground below. Further unrest and demands by Hamas terrorists will only strengthen the hand of Benjamin Netanyahu -- who will be very unlikely to agree to an 1100-1 swap, let alone anything more lopsided than that.

The Israelis have already signaled that they will escalate the war in Gaza if Shalit is not released soon. Egypt, which will have to deal with the refugee crisis that will spark, wants desperately to find some way to reduce tensions in Gaza. Unless the Israelis get Shalit back and an end to the missile attacks, they will not succeed. Egypt should put pressure on Bashar Assad in order to get their proxy Mashaal to accept some deal very soon, before the Israelis lose all patience.

With all of the international cries for the US to release the remaining prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, it may surprise some that not everyone wants to take back the terrorists we have detained for the past five years. The UK has rejected the return of nine British subjects at Guantanamo, objecting to American demands for ongoing security aimed at keeping the freed detainees from rejoining the jihad:

The United States has offered to return nearly all British residents held at Guantánamo Bay after months of secret talks in Washington, the Guardian has learned.

The British government has refused to accept the men, however, with senior officials saying they have no legal right to return. Documents obtained by the Guardian show US authorities are demanding that the detainees be kept under 24-hour surveillance if set free - restrictions that are dismissed by the British as unnecessary and unworkable.

Although all are accused of terrorist involvement, Britain says there is no intelligence to warrant the measures Washington wants, and it lacks the resources to implement them. "They do not pose a sufficient threat," said the head of counter-terrorism at the Home Office.

The possible security arrangements appear to have caused months of wrangling, but senior UK sources have told the Guardian the government is interested in accepting only one man - Bisher al-Rawi - who is now known to have helped MI5 keep watch on Abu Qatada, the London-based Muslim cleric and al-Qaida suspect who was subsequently arrested.

One of the reasons that we have held this prisoners for so long is to ensure that they do not return to the battlefield. Some of the released detainees have done so. While the Bush administration would dearly love to get rid of this international albatross, they do not want more repeats of Abdullah Mehsud, who the US released only to have him kidnap and kill two Chinese engineers in Pakistan.

In order to process these releases, then, the US wants guarantees of security from their countries of origin. Despite repeated calls for the release of these prisoners, none of the nations involved want to undertake the security steps necessary to keep them away from jihad. That leaves the US in the unenviable position of either continuing to detain them indefinitely, perhaps for life, or to set them completely free. Neither option provides a satisfying resolution, although if other countries continue to balk at cooperation, the detainees might find themselves in front of the military tribunals currently being constituted for the high-value prisoners, such as Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The British also have more problems with the detainees. They argue that since the men do not hold British citizenship -- apparently they were only residents -- they have no legal right to return to the UK. British authorities also worry that once inside the country, the UK will be unable to deport them. Accepting them apparently will establish some sort of de facto right to residency that the UK wants to avoid.

So now we have the situation where returning these detainees to their nations of origin will get blocked by Western nations who want nothing to do with them, while American courts will block the return of the others who would go back to Middle Eastern nations who might face harsh treatment back home. Everyone wants the Guantanamo prisoners released, but no one seems to be volunteering to properly host them.

The Washington Times' Tony Blankley has joined a small chorus of voices calling for the resignation of Denny Hastert as Speaker of the House:

The facts of the disgrace of Mark Foley, who was a Republican member of the House from a Florida district until he resigned last week, constitute a disgrace for every Republican member of Congress. Red flags emerged in late 2005, perhaps even earlier, in suggestive and wholly inappropriate e-mail messages to underage congressional pages. His aberrant, predatory -- and possibly criminal -- behavior was an open secret among the pages who were his prey. The evidence was strong enough long enough ago that the speaker should have relieved Mr. Foley of his committee responsibilities contingent on a full investigation to learn what had taken place, whether any laws had been violated and what action, up to and including prosecution, were warranted by the facts. This never happened.

Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, the Republican chairman of the House Page Board, said he learned about the Foley e-mail messages "in late 2005." Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the leader of the Republican majority, said he was informed of the e-mail messages earlier this year. On Friday, Mr. Hastert dissembled, to put it charitably, before conceding that he, too, learned about the e-mail messages sometime earlier this year. Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Hastert insisted that he learned of the most flagrant instant-message exchange from 2003 only last Friday, when it was reported by ABC News. This is irrelevant. The original e-mail messages were warning enough that a predator -- and, incredibly, the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children -- could be prowling the halls of Congress. The matter wasn't pursued aggressively. It was barely pursued at all. Moreover, all available evidence suggests that the Republican leadership did not share anything related to this matter with any Democrat. ...

House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance.

As I wrote earlier, the strange reluctance of Republicans to investigate the earlier e-mails combined with Hastert's clumsy attempts to distance himself from the scandal on Friday have compounded the scandal -- which by all rights should fall completely on Mark Foley himself. Hastert's staffers told the press on Friday that he hadn't known of a problem with Foley, forcing John Boehner to retract his statement that he himself had told Hastert of the issue. Only after Thomas Reynolds went public the next day did Hastert himself admit that he had known of the earlier e-mails.

But let's put that aside for the moment, and concentrate on what Hastert and the leadership say they did in response to Foley. Once they found out about the e-mails through the complaint of an underage page, all they did was ask Foley about it, and accepted his denials at face value. Incredibly, no one apparently ever asked any of Foley's former or current pages if they had noticed any inappropriate behavior from the Congressman. What kind of an investigation doesn't address the reality of patterns in allegedly predatory behavior? Foley's uncommon interest in young teenage boys had become parlor talk among the pages, but either Hastert didn't want to find that out or deliberately avoided it. Hastert apparently made the decision not to follow procedures and refer the matter to the Page Board, the bipartisan committee that oversees pages, and that looks very clearly like a cover-up.

And someone has to explain why Foley retained his position on the Caucus for Missing and Exploited Children. No one saw a problem with this?

Even ascribing the best of intentions to Hastert and the other members of leadership, personal friendship with Foley doesn't excuse that level of incompetence. Furthermore, when the scandal broke, Hastert should have immediately explained his involvement in the earlier complaint, rather than wait for it to dribble out. That's what leadership means: controlling a situation and providing an example rather than allowing events to control you and your party. All Hastert needed to do was to come out on Friday and said, "We had a complaint about suggestive e-mails this winter, and we relied on Mark Foley's word that nothing more untoward had occurred. In hindsight, that was a mistake, but we wanted to honor the wishes of the parents and not make a public spectacle of the situation." It wouldn't have explained the earlier incompetence, but at least it would have dampened the firestorm that erupted around the changing stories of House leadership.

I can't agree with Blankley's suggestion for a new, interim Speaker. Henry Hyde is a fine Congressman, but if he thinks that the author of Clinton's impeachment will serve as a symbol of bipartisan cooperation, he's mistaken. The GOP needs to find a reformer for the short-term position, someone whose reputation for clean government will be beyond reproach. However, Blankley's call for new leadership in some form is one that the Republicans should heed.

UPDATE: Brendan Miniter doesn't go as far as Tony Blankley, but he's on the same wavelength:

Here's what we know so far: Late last year, when informed that there might be something amiss, the speaker's office referred the issue to Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois. He heads the committee in charge of the page program, and he took a look at the few emails that had surfaced. Mr. Shimkus was concerned enough by what he saw to confront Mr. Foley and tell him to cut off all direct contact with underage pages. The Florida congressman apparently spun a story that he was only mentoring the boy who had received the emails. And, looking over messages asking for a picture and what the page wanted for his birthday, Mr. Shimkus apparently bought it. But the question that will haunt Republicans now is, if the evidence was compelling enough to confront Mr. Foley, why wasn't it also compelling enough to dig deeper?

We also know that Mr. Foley, an active campaigner and prolific fund-raiser, flirted with the idea of running for Senate this year (spurred on by some Republicans who considered him a stronger candidate than Rep. Katherine Harris, who still carried baggage from the 2000 election). He inexplicably withdrew from consideration several months ago. When ambitious politicians suddenly decide not to climb to a higher rung on the political ladder, there's usually a good reason. Since Mr. Shimkus was already aware of concerns of Mr. Foley's emails to congressional pages, it's fair to ask another question to which Republicans may prefer not to find an answer: After Mr. Foley folded up his Senate ambitions, why didn't Mr. Shimkus or anyone else considered the possibility that there was more to those emails than Mr. Foley let on?

Other voices: Hugh Hewitt disagrees; be sure to read his whole post. OTB agrees, as does La Shawn Barber.

UPDATE: Dafydd ab Hugh disagrees as well, and at length. Be sure to read all of my old co-blogger's post.

Brian Riedl at the Heritage Foundation has taken a look at the growth in federal spending, and sounds the alarm in a new analysis. Riedl points out the shell game played by Congress in this session that has allowed spending to increase at the highest rate in sixteen years:

Federal spending in 2006 is set to rise 9 percent, the largest increase since 1990 and enough to earn Congress near failing grades from the Heritage Foundation’s third quarter report card.[1] Most families facing steep new expenses would cut back on additional spending. However, the Senate is preparing to bust fiscal year (FY) 2007 discretionary spending caps by at least $32 billion to:

1. Reimburse the Pentagon for the $9 billion raided from its budget earlier this year and given to domestic programs, as well as fund additional defense and border security programs ($26.8 billion in total);
2. Fund another massive farm subsidy bailout despite high subsidy levels and a booming farm economy ($4.2 billion); and
3. Reimburse NASA for funds that lawmakers had diverted into parochial pork projects ($1.0 billion).

And in addition, lawmakers have promised $2 billion to $3 billion more for the labor, health, and education programs. Senators classify much of this new spending as “emergency” so that it does not technically count against the budget caps. But this spending is foreseeable—and often the predictable result of budget gimmickry—and so is not an “emergency.” For the sake of taxpayers, Congress needs to set its budgetary priorities, make tough choices, and offset any increases.

I wrote about this yesterday at the Heritage Foundation's Policy Blog, looking at the connection between this analysis and the story from yesterday's New York Times regarding how pork-barrel politics railroads spending bills through the House. It shows that the true cost of pork amounts to more than just the sum of all the earmarks -- much, much more. Be sure to read it and to bookmark the Policy Blog.