Northern Alliance Radio Goes National!

Great news for all of you who have asked when the Northern Alliance Radio Network will be heard outside of the Twin Cities -- Hugh Hewitt has graciously asked us to fill in for him on his nationwide show on the Salem Radio Network on Tuesday, April 13th, and Wednesday, April 14th! We're not sure why Hugh has entrusted us with the smartest listenership in radio for two full nights; we suspect that a member or two of the gang at Fraters Libertas may have uncovered some deep, dark secret from the Lord High Commissioner's past. However it happened, we're delighted to step in from our cozy little studio here at AM 1280 The Patriot. The air times and stations will be the same (3-6 PM Pacific) -- just tune into Hugh's show and we'll be there. Monday, Mark Larson will fill in for Hugh.

If you do not get the Hugh Hewitt show in your area, the first thing you need to do is to call a local talk-radio station and demand that they get the show. After that, go to the on-line feed from here and tune us in. Hugh's web site can direct you to other Internet feeds as well.

While we're celebrating our opportunity to temporarily replace Hugh, you may want to know what the competition is doing. Via Drudge, it turns out that Air America, the new liberal talk-radio network, is busy kicking more minority voices off the air for that diverse crew of Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo, Kathryn Lampher, and so on:

The Mercury News, citing a company press release, said the new radio network would air on two stations that currently offer Asian-language programming -- San Francisco's KVTO-AM 1400 and San Jose's KVVN-AM 1430. The Air American programming will be broadcast in English, but neither the radio network nor the two stations have said when the change would occur or what the future held for the stations' employees. KVTO general manger Harvey Stone could not be reached for comment.

Both stations are owned by Inner City Broadcasting Corp., which also owns Air American Radio's New York flagship station, WLIB-AM 1190. Inner City sparked controversy when it displaced WLIB's black-themed talk format to make room for Air American's format.

Sounds like FrankenNet should be calling itself Error America instead. Do these people have any clue whatsoever?

August 6, 2001 PDB Declassified

Finally, after all of the shouting, the Presidential Daily Briefing from August 6, 2001 for which 9/11 commissioners Richard Ben-Veniste and Bob Kerrey showboated demands for declassification has been released. And guess what -- it's exactly as Condoleezza Rice and the Bush Administration has characterized it -- a document giving a brief history of al-Qaeda operations, their desire to attack the US, and ongoing investigations of their efforts, just like I had earlier posted:

Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [deleted text] service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told [deleted text] service at the same time that Bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.

Ressam says Bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

AI Qaeda members — including same who are U.S. citizens — have resided in and traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two Al Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar' Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

That's it; no planes flying into buildings, just a suggestion that bin Laden may have planned a hijacking to free Omar abd al-Rahman, who currently resides in a federal prison for the first World Trade Center bombing. It describes 70 "ongoing" FBI investigations related to bin Laden.

What in God's name in this report gave any specific warning that coordinated hijackings would turn planes into guided missiles? Nothing. There is absolutely nothing in this PDB that could have prevented 9/11, and Ben-Veniste and Kerrey knew it -- because they had already read it. Why did Ben-Veniste and Kerrey demand its declassification? Because they thought they wouldn't get it, and wanted to suggest that the Bush administration was covering up something.

Ben-Veniste and Kerrey bluffed, and today their bluff got called. Game over. They've been exposed as political hacks, and should withdraw immediately from the commission, or else the commission should disband.

California Yankee also has this. I suspect the blogosphere will be erupting

UPDATE: Not surprisingly, Power Line asks, "This is it?"

The Reign of Spain Stayed Mainly Off The Plane

According to the Miami Herald (via Drudge), the Crown Prince of Spain and his fiancée were furious at the prospect of going through airport-screening procedures at Miami International Airport and may turn their search into an diplomatic breach between Spain and the US:

Members of the prince's entourage called the required inspection of their private belongings an ''insult'' and ''humiliating'' -- sparking a diplomatic flap that has the United States and Spain on the brink of a protocol war. Crowning it off, Iberia Airlines, the prince's carrier of choice, is suggesting it might pull out of the airport, according to two sources close to the international incident. ...

''We're your allies!'' one member of the royal delegation shouted in Spanish to inspectors at a particularly tense moment.

But according to Lauren Stover, spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration in Miami, the screeners were only doing their jobs. The mandates of the Department of Homeland Security following Sept. 11 require that all commercial airline passengers be screened -- even the princely ones.

In order to prepare for the transportation of diplomats through commercial flights, the State Department requires 72 hours notice to set up private security procedures. However, Prince Felipe's entourage only gave the US six hours notice of his flight, far too short to make the arrangements. Instead, the Prince and Letizia Ortiz, a well-known Spanish TV personality, had to go through the same screening given to all commercial passengers in the US -- and they felt insulted at being treated like commoners, a fact underscored by the tabloidish writing of Luisa Yanez, the Herald reporter.

The mayor of Miami, Alex Panelas, tripped over himself in his attempt to smooth the ruffled royal feathers and to save the Iberia Airlines concession to MIA:

Mayor Penelas, calling the brouhaha a ''lamentable situation,'' immediately sent a letter of apology to the the royal family and pointed out those doing the screening were federal employees. ''The facts I have received thus far indicate an apparent disregard for protocol and disrespect of His Highness and his delegation. . . . I have called upon our County Manager to conduct a complete investigation into this matter,'' Penelas wrote in a letter dated Thursday.

Excuse me, but no. Screeners immediately took the Prince and his group to a private lounge to conduct the screening, which certainly makes me think that they were treated as well as could be expected under the circumstances. As a TSA spokesperson noted, had something happened to that flight and they had just allowed the Spanish delegation to board without screening, then the Spaniards would be singing a different tune, and rightly so.

Security procedures exist to protect all travelers. If the Spaniards couldn't call ahead as required to set up the special screening, then they should have just allowed TSA to do their jobs as quickly as possible. After listening to the 9/11 Commission talk all week about the lack of security for this country, especially at airports, the last person with whom I'll sympathize is a spoiled Spanish brat who couldn't follow procedures and feels himself above the rules.

Let Iberia pull out of Miami. I'm certain Delta, United, or American would be happy to pick up their routes.

Feds Throw MLB A Curveball, Union Whiffs

IRS agents raided a drug-testing lab on Thursday where results and samples of steroid tests performed on major-league baseball players were being held:

Federal authorities probing an alleged steroid distribution ring have seized the results and samples of drug tests on selected major league baseball players from a drug-testing lab, a spokesman for the lab said Friday. Internal Revenue Service agents served a search warrant to obtain "documentation and specimens" from a Quest Diagnostics lab in Las Vegas, Quest spokesman Gary Samuels said.

Samuels would not say whether IRS agents took the drug-test results or specimen of Barry Bonds, but said the agents took materials consistent with a federal subpoena that had sought test results and specimens from the San Francisco Giants' slugger and fewer than a dozen other players. Among them were New York Yankees Gary Sheffield and Jason Giambi.

The raid occurred Thursday, shortly after the Major League Baseball Players Association filed a motion in a San Francisco court seeking to squash that subpoena.

The federal grand jury has already issued several indictments in the case of a group that created a new performance-enhancing compound designed specifically to elude tests by sports leagues. After having come across the information almost accidentally, the grand jury was convened, and as part of their investigation, they subpoenaed the test results and samples. The MLB Players' Association objected, arguing that under the terms of their labor agreement, those results were to remain secret.

Apparently, the MLBPA struck out.

Now, the question will be if the players tested will eventually be named and their results made public. It promises to create an embarassement for MLB, but one that both owners and players have brought upon themselves. For several years now, we have seen athletes bulk up beyond recognition, cracking home runs at a rate not seen at any time in the sport. Despite the obvious influence of performance-enhancing chemicals in the game, the MLBPA has steadfastly refused to allow anything resembling a credible testing program -- which exists in most other major sports -- giving the impression that it knows some athletes have a lot to hide.

Now that they have been tied into a criminal investigation, the MLBPA may want to rethink their position. If the clean players can't stand up for themselves and force a change in the system, then perhaps there aren't enough clean players in the game anymore. What does that say about the national pastime?

Northern Alliance Radio On The Air!

Don't forget that we're on the air this afternoon on AM 1280 The Patriot -- and we'll have big news during the show!

The Spectre of Alar Returns

The US has issued an advisory on a specific type of tuna and its higher-than-desired mercury levels, and as usual, the American public moves towards full panic mode:

When Joseph Ugalde, 38, a San Francisco marketing executive, goes out for lunch, he orders the Chinese chicken salad, the turkey avocado sandwich or sometimes the chicken pesto melt. But as of last month, one thing he will not order is tuna fish. No tuna salads. No tuna sandwiches. No tuna melts. "I loved tuna melts," Mr. Ugalde said somewhat wistfully. "Or I did."

Now, however, Mr. Ugalde is boycotting tuna, which he used to eat once or twice a week, because of federal advisories about mercury in it. ...

Consumers like Mr. Ugalde are the tuna industry's nightmare as they react to a federal warning about the mercury content in albacore tuna. More than $1.5 billion worth of canned tuna is sold in the United States each year. A staple of school lunches, dieters' meal plans and office workers' brown bags, canned tuna accounts for 20 percent of the seafood consumed in this country.

That statistic suggests why the industry lobbied hard for four years to keep a federal warning about mercury off cans of albacore tuna. In that period, consumption of all types of tuna in the United States has dropped by over 15 percent, and tuna has been displaced by shrimp as the most popular seafood in the country.

The only kind of tuna affected by the advisory -- white albacore -- isn't even the most common or even the least expensive tuna available, and the advisory only applies to young children and pregnant women, or those women trying to get pregnant. In fact, white albacore is still safe for everyone if intake is limited to six ounces a week, which the article indicates would comprise two meals. That hasn't stopped the American public from dropping tuna and seafood in general from their diets, despite warnings from health advisors that seafood continues to be one of the healthiest sources of protein available.

Health professionals are worried that the advisory's message is being heard all wrong in a country plagued by obesity and heart problems.

"The message of fish being good has been lost," said Eric Rimm, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, "and people are learning more about the hypothetical scare of a contaminant than they are of the well-documented benefits of coronary disease reduction. The dangers of the tuna fish is not well documented compared to the potential dangers for a 50-year-old male or female who are at much higher risk of coronary death."

In other words, people are focusing on the minor threat and missing the major sources of illness, such as lack of exercise, the voracious consumption of sugary foods, and an overindulgence in high-fat fast foods. They're missing the Starburst for the Star-Kist. It's a symptom of Headline America, where people think they're well-informed because they watch CNN Headline News and they scan the newspaper every day, instead of actually reading all the way through the articles.

Fifteen years ago, headlines about the agricultural agent Alar (especially a 60 Minutes report) caused a widespread panic about apples grown using it. People quit buying apples and apple products, a major crop in the US and a staple of a healthy diet, and Hollywood weighed in with a campaign to ban it led by Meryl Streep. Later, it was determined that you'd have to eat thousands of apples a day to get anywhere near a toxic level of exposure to the chemical in Alar. But it was far too late -- Uniroyal pulled Alar off the market well before that was finally reported.

Nor does this tendency to panic involve just foodstuffs. Dow Corning went bankrupt after facing billions of dollars in lawsuits over its silicone breast implants, with plaintiffs alleging that ruptured implants caused all sorts of autoimmune disease. Subsequent testing demonstrated no such thing, but by that time, again, it was too late; the product was no longer available. Nor does panic require legal action. Thirty years ago, Johnny Carson noted a news story about the shortage of government supplies, including toilet paper. Never mind that this was just a procurement issue, and that it had nothing to do with commercially available TP sold in supermarkets. His little joke about a toilet-paper shortage, in the time of the first gas crisis, sent consumers to raiding their local grocery stores, and it wasn't until days later -- when manufacturers had to bring TV crews into their facilities to prove they were doing just fine -- that it finally abated.

Somewhere along the line, the American public lost their critical-thinking capability. A joke on late-night TV causes us to squeeze as much Charmin as possible. A report on a specific type of tuna threatens a collapse of seafood sales. A few hundred militants grab guns and RPGs and it's the Tet Offensive or the Battle of the Bulge all over again. We may be the jumpiest nation on Earth, and we need to get a grip on ourselves so that we can focus on the actual threats to our health and our security instead of turning into Chicken Littles every time the wind shifts.

CNN: PDB Contained No Actionable Items

Although CNN's headline, "Key document warned of possible al Qaeda scenarios," and its lead paragraph imply something else, the August 6th PDB in fact contains no items regarding hijackers using planes as missiles, nor does it sketch any scenarios that went unresponded:

CNN confirmed highlights of the classified August 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing, or PDB, which is expected to be declassified and released in the next several days. ... Sources aware of the PDB say much of the intelligence is uncorroborated, and none of it is related to the eventual September 11 terrorist plot [emph mine].

To get that last nugget of information that I bolded, you have to read down to the penultimate paragraph. Prior to that, CNN emphasizes al-Qaeda's intent to strike the US -- but who would be surprised to learn that Islamofascists who had already blown up two of our embassies, committed a suicide attack on one of our warships, and had already tried to blow up the World Trade Center wanted to attack us on our homeland? If that intention was a surprise to anyone, they would have had to have been in a coma since 1979.

What's remarkable from the list of issues in the PDB, as reported by CNN, is that for each threat, the administration took steps to counter it:

-- An intelligence report received in May 2001 indicating al Qaeda was attempting to send operatives to the United States through Canada to carry out an attack using explosives. This information had been passed on to intelligence and law enforcement agencies;

-- Al Qaeda had been considering ways to hijack American planes to win the release of operatives who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999 [and the FAA had already been warned of potential hijacking threats -- Ed];

-- Osama bin Laden was set on striking the US as early as 1997 through early 2001;

-- Some intelligence suggested suspected al Qaeda operatives were traveling to and from the United States, were U.S. citizens, and may have had a support network in the U.S.;

-- At least 70 FBI investigations were underway in 2001 [emph mine]regarding possible al Qaeda cells/terrorist-related operations in the U.S.

So, rather than the portrait of malignant neglect emanating from Richard Ben-Veniste's fever swamp or the evil complicity coming from Howard Dean's, the fact is that the PDB demonstrates that the President was responding vigorously to those threats that were known at the time. No wonder Ben-Veniste wanted to cut off Condi Rice at the title of the briefing, and now we can see that his demand for declassification was nothing more than bluff.

Let's quit chasing our tail. The failure of 9/11 was an intelligence failure, brought on by the handcuffing of our agents over the information-sharing paranoia of the American people on the right and left, collection methods, relationships with informants and infiltrators, and cash. It wasn't George Bush's fault, it wasn't Bill Clinton's fault, it wasn't even Jimmy Carter's fault, although every president before 9/11 going back to Carter could have done a lot more to fight Islamofascist terror than they did. Let's remove the bureaucratic shackles, free our intelligence services to enable them to protect America, and quit conducting gotcha sessions on live TV.

Because until we focus on winning instead of playing dueling book tours, we will lose this war, and the next time millions of Americans will be dead in the streets.

Now Where Did I Put My ...

Have you ever had a feeling that you forgot something? Did you ever leave the house and suddenly remember that your wallet was on the dresser instead in your pants pocket? Surely most of us have walked away from our desks at the office and left the report we were supposed to bring to the meeting.

If so, then this may sound familiar, even if the stakes are somewhat higher:

A federal air marshal accidentally left her gun in a restroom at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, an airport spokeswoman said Friday. A passenger found the semiautomatic handgun Thursday and notified an airport employee. The employee then told airport police, who secured the weapon, said the spokeswoman, Pat Smith.

"They later found it belonged to a federal air marshal who apparently was using the restroom and put it up on the shelf while she was washing her hands and forgot about it," Smith said.

A spokesman for the federal Air Marshal Service conjectured that the absent-minded agent would probably be suspended. I would certainly hope so. A gun, especially one that has already passed security check stations, isn't the same as a report for a meeting or a wallet. All it would have taken is a little bad luck, and that foolish brain fade could have cost hundreds of people their lives had it gotten on board a plane in the wrong hands.

An "oops, sorry" simply doesn't cut it any more.

Jim Croce Revisited

If I could make days last forever,
if words could make wishes come true,
I'd save every day like a treasure and then,
again, I would spend them with you...

Jim Croce died in a plane crash more than 30 years ago just as his long-delayed career started to finally flower. Croce was one of the last folk-music singer/songwriters to become popular in 1972, as pop tastes were already changing to more synthesis and production. He barely had time to score two hit singles, "You Don't Mess Around With Jim" and "Bad Bad Leroy Brown" before being killed, along with his musical partner Maury Muehlheisen.

By any logic, Croce should have been a footnote in musical history, but a strange thing happened: people suddenly couldn't get enough of him. A string of hits followed, most poignantly "Time in a Bottle", which talked about the precious moments in life and how soon and suddenly they pass. The hits ran out three years after his death, when the small catalogue of his recordings was finally exhausted.

Now Ingrid and A.J. Croce, his wife and son and a fine musician on his own, have regained the rights to the Croce catalog and have produced a DVD of what film can be found of Jim Croce, along with a re-release of his first album, recorded under fairly primitive conditions but which will be a treasure to fans of his music:

During a three-hour session at a Delaware studio, Croce and his friends laid down 11 tracks, almost all on the first take. The sound is raw: There's an echo to Croce's voice, breathing from the ensemble -- even street sounds because the studio windows were left open because of the heat, Ingrid Croce says.

"There were no overdubs," she says. "What you hear in 'Facets' is exactly what you get." ...

A bonus disc titled "Jim & Ingrid Too" features a smoother Croce voice partnered with his wife. (The couple met when Ingrid auditioned with her band at the radio station where he worked.) The seven tracks also have little production effects, but show off the couple's natural knack as a duo.

I bought a copy of "Jim & Ingrid Too" twenty years ago when I found it at a garage sale, and I still have it today. It's very much a product of its time, with sweet vocals and a bit too much earnestness about society -- and undeniable talent. That album is one of the main reasons I still own a functioning turntable.

My first experience with Jim Croce came more than twenty-five years ago when my cousin Cris (who reads this blog) bought me the definitive Croce album at the time, "Photographs and Memories," which showcased Croce's skills as storyteller, musician, songwriter, and singer. With one exception -- "I Got a Name" -- he wrote every song on the album, and in fact most of his recordings were of his own compositions. He could play honky-tonk rock and switch immediately to heartwrenching ballads. Like the Carpenters, the easy accessibility of his music has led people to underestimate his contribution, especially when all that people recall of him is "Leroy Brown".

For me, Croce's songs, wise-cracking yet identifiable characters, and gentle wisdom became emotional guideposts. I played his music so often I could recite all of his lyrics by heart. When I moved to Phoenix at 29 knowing no one, the song "New York's Not My Home" never went far out of mind. I have other favorite artists, such as Eric Clapton and the Cowboy Junkies, but none with the emotional tie I have to Jim Croce and his music.

I have done my best to find out as much as possible about him, especially earlier on. Every time I went to a record store, especially the rare-record boutiques, I'd browse through to see if there were any Croce albums that I hadn't yet bought. In college, when I discovered the microfilm vault at the library, I spent hours searching for news articles on Croce, and found only a scant few. Despite all the talk about one, it still hasn't been published. I even went to Croce's in San Diego to see the memorabilia and to have an excellent meal. (If you ever get to San Diego, it's definitely worth your while to try it.)

Since a biography has never been written, the DVD and the materials described in the article will be the best that fans can get. Hopefully, the new releases will give more people an opportunity to hear the fullness of Jim Croce's work and to re-evaluate his contribution to music, which held so much promise -- and was cut short all too soon.

But there never seems to be enough time
to do the things that you want to do
once you find them ...

Poll: What's Your Opinion of the 9/11 Commission?

You know my opinion of the 9/11 Commission -- now I'd like to know yours. Below is a poll that I believe gives four fair options on how people view their performance. Please vote -- I'll keep this open for at least several days to get a fair view of CQ readers.

Keep checking back!

Note: Sorry about the funky spacing -- I can't figure out why the poll does that ...

Hostaging: What It Reveals About the Enemy

The world reacted in disgust and anger yesterday when Islamofascist insurgents released video of helpless Japanese civilians kidnapped by the "Mujahideen Brigades" that was broadcast by al-Jazeera, naturally:

Iraqi gunmen took three Japanese civilians captive yesterday and threatened to burn them alive unless Tokyo withdrew its forces, sharply raising the stakes in the uprising that has swept central and southern Iraq.

As coalition troops fought house-to-house to subdue the town of Fallujah, having earlier lost control of several towns, the insurgents opened up a new front with a rash of kidnappings.

First and foremost, the act of kidnapping civilians and holding them hostage should be recognized for what it is: desperation. Yes, the uprising caught Coalition troops by surprise, mostly if not entirely second-line units. However, that's not who the terrorists will be facing now, and they know it. That's why the city elders in Fallujah are trying to negotiate a surrender before the Marines complete their sweep through the city. They've already taken back Kut with little trouble:

U.S. troops fanned out across Kut, southeast of Baghdad, after meeting little resistance in the city, witnesses said, in a major foray by the American military into the south, where U.S. allies have struggled to deal with the uprising by the al-Mahdi Army, led by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

The Marines aren't "struggling" at all; they're methodically implementing a sophisticated plan to reduce the resistance in each town. Hostaging is proof of this. The Japanese civilians, and others who have been similarly kidnapped, are insurance policies, bargaining chips for al-Sadr's "army" and a way to try putting pressure on Washington to end the offensive without wiping them out. Note that the kidnappings started when the terrorists found out that hiding in mosques wasn't going to save them from getting killed.

In short, al-Sadr and his gang of thugs are cowards. They started out this fight by attacking peacekeeping units that clearly were not battle-ready, and as soon as the fighting started in earnest with front-line units retreated into mosques for cover. As soon as that strategy failed, they started capturing civilians and threatening to slit their throats or burn them alive. These actions always, always indicate desperation and demoralization, and this situation is no different.

However, you will not find anything resembling a rational response from the mainstream media. Instead, we get hysterical accounts about how al-Sadr represents a "sudden" indication that Iraq is falling apart. There's nothing sudden about it at all. Moqtada al-Sadr has been threatening to do this for months, and when the Coalition took away his recruitment newspaper, it finally came to a head.

Most hilariously, American media outlets almost immediately began analogizing this small eruption with the Tet Offensive in 1968. What most people in the media still don't know was that the Tet Offensive was a catastrophe for the North Vietnamese, which General Giap admits in his memoirs. Their losses were close to 10-1. In fact, if it hadn't been for the American media misunderstanding the situation and portraying it as a giant setback, the Vietnam War may well have ended before we landed on the moon:

After the first few hours of panic, the South Vietnamese troops reacted fiercely. They did the bulk of the fighting and took some 6,000 casualties. Vietcong units not only did not reach a single one of their objectives -- except when they arrived by taxi at the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, blew their way through the wall into the compound and guns blazing made it into the lobby before they were wiped out by U.S. Marines -- but they lost some 50,000 killed and at least that many wounded. Giap had thrown some 70,000 troops into a strategic gamble that was also designed to overwhelm 13 of the 16 provincial capitals and trigger a popular uprising. But Tet was an unmitigated military disaster for Hanoi and its Vietcong troops in South Vietnam. Yet that was not the way it was reported in U.S. and other media around the world. It was television's first war. And some 50 million Americans at home saw the carnage of dead bodies in the rubble, and dazed Americans running around.

As the late veteran war reporter Peter Braestrup documented in "Big Story" -- a massive, two-volume study of how Tet was covered by American reporters -- the Vietcong offensive was depicted as a military disaster for the United States. By the time the facts emerged a week or two later from RAND Corp interrogations of prisoners and defectors, the damage had been done. Conventional media wisdom had been set in concrete. Public opinion perceptions in the United States changed accordingly.

And al-Sadr and his "army" hardly represents a force anywhere near equivalent to the North Vietnamese or the Viet Cong; they're cowards and terrorists with slightly better luck. The press needs to get some perspective and calm down. We have the best fighting men in the world in Iraq with orders to win this time. Let's let them do their job.

Note: I've cross-posted this at Oh, That Liberal Media as well. And welcome to Instapundit readers!

UPDATE: McQ at QandO has some good insight on modern urban-warfare issues.

UPDATE II: Here's an example of media hysteria ... here's another ... here's one from last September ... here's one from Australia, featuring Joe Biden making the equivalency ... another here, a bit out of the mainstream ... one from October 2003 (remember the vaunted Ramadan Offensive -- a couple of car bombs?) ... here's one from Asia ... Here's one from Editor and Publisher, for crying out loud ...

Strangest Damn Sports Columnist, Period

As some of you know, the Los Angeles Dodgers have been my favorite sports team since the Captain was just a small cabin boy. My dad took me to games at Dodger Stadium, one of the few temples of baseball, back when Wes Parker played first base, and I went to several games a year there until I moved to Minnesoooooooota in 1997. We're talking 30 years of bleeding Dodger blue, people.

So one of the ongoing symptoms of this chronic disease is that I read the Los Angeles Times on line every day to catch up with any news from the Blue Crew and to find any hope at all that we'll win our first playoff game since 1988. Now that the season has started, I aim for the LAT Sports section with a laser focus, as Dick Clarke would say on his American Grandstand tour. These days, the Times employs a certain T.J. Simers as a sports columnist. Today, Simers' column shows two good reasons the LAT may want to start taking resumes.

Last things first. At the end of today's column, Simers shares this e-mail from a reader with his response for which, had I been his editor, I would have fired him:

TODAY'S LAST word comes in e-mail from Carlos Morales:

"As you may or may not know, the Dodgers won it in the 11th [Wednesday night]. Glad you left in the ninth and weren't able to see it happen. I just happened to see your column and noticed you only wrote up until the ninth inning. Jerk! If you're so negative toward the Dodgers, why even bother going to the game? Oh wait, you probably get paid to go."

Not enough to stay 11 innings.

It's bad enough that a significant percentage of LA fans leave the game before it's over (the same contingent, I suspect, that show up around the third inning). Sportswriters are paid to be there -- it's their job! Especially a sports columnist, who gets paid more and has to produce less in real news. If a sportswriter isn't interested enough in a game to stick around through extra innings, which means it's a tie game and doubly exciting, then why be a sportswriter at all?

In Simers' case, the answer would be to start family feuds in the LAT's sports pages. In the first two segments of this column, Simers takes the opportunity to humiliate his daughter and her husband by referring to him as the Grocery Bagger, insulting his family, and sharing with his audience their sexual habits:

The daughter who got married says she wants to get pregnant now, which raises the question of why she married the Grocery Store Bagger.

I mean, I can't imagine going near the guy.

The Bagger tells me, "Practice makes perfect," and that's certainly more than what I wanted to know ...

Us too, T.J. And I don't think the idea of your daughter getting married is for you to imagine going near him. If that's your standard, you need serious help.

You just know that every time Shaq steps to the free-throw line, one of the Bagger's weird relatives is going to want to know, "Why doesn't the Big Guy shoot free throws better?" Or "Doesn't the Big Guy practice?" And then without waiting for an answer, you know they're going to tell you what they think, making it the fifth time in five meetings with the same weird relatives they're going to tell you the same thing.

The daughter got married. I didn't get married to the Bagger's parents or any of his weird relatives. I don't see any reason why we have to talk when we get together.

After reading this column, the Bagger's parents are probably hoping that Simers' daughter doesn't reproduce either, for entirely different reasons.

So to recap, the Times has a sportswriter who leaves games before they're over and who spends the first half of his columns obsessing about his daughter's sex life, ragging about her husband and her in-laws, and displaying seriously anti-social tendencies. Either they need to fire Simers or put him in charge of their election-year coverage.

What's Next, Shooting Santa?

From time to time, a story comes across the wire that makes one wonder if humans can survive without cerebrums. By all evidence, it's not only theoretically possible, but occasionally can be verified. For instance, the people in charge of the Easter celebration at Glassport Assembly of God in Glassport, PA, either provide living proof of this theory or try very hard to avoid thinking things all the way through:

A church trying to teach about the crucifixion of Jesus performed an Easter show with actors whipping the Easter bunny and breaking eggs, upsetting several parents and young children. People who attended Saturday's performance at Glassport's memorial stadium quoted performers as saying, "There is no Easter bunny," and described the show as being a demonstration of how Jesus was crucified.

I don't know to which orientation or denomination the Glassport church belongs; some fundamentalist churches feel strongly about traditions such as the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus distracting children from the center of the faith, Jesus Christ. Usually they exclude any reference to them at their celebrations. Sometimes they go so far as to make it a teaching opportunity for the children in their congregations. All that is fine.

But when they have an audience of young children for an Easter celebration and then subject her to a mock whipping, they've lost their minds, if they had brains to start.

Patty Bickerton, the youth minister at Glassport Assembly of God, said the performance wasn't meant to be offensive. Bickerton portrayed the Easter rabbit and said she tried to act with a tone of irreverence. "The program was for all ages, not just the kids. We wanted to convey that Easter is not just about the Easter bunny, it is about Jesus Christ," Bickerton said. ...

Melissa Salzmann, who brought her 4-year-old son J.T., said the program was inappropriate for young children. "He was crying and asking me why the bunny was being whipped," Salzmann said.

Okay ... let's do a reality check. You have a congregation comprised of all ages. You have an Easter program. Do you think some small children may be in attendance? And if you answer that in the affirmative, do you make sure your program is appropriate for (a) all ages, or (b) for those who can define "irreverence"?

Besides, is irreverence really appropriate for an Easter celebration?

And if you think that was bad, check out the rest of the show:

Performers broke eggs meant for an Easter egg hunt and also portrayed a drunken man and a self-mutilating woman, said Jennifer Norelli-Burke, another parent who saw the show in Glassport, a community about 10 miles southeast of Pittsburgh. "It was very disturbing," Norelli-Burke said. "I could not believe what I saw. It wasn't anything I was expecting."

Next time I throw an Easter party, I'll have to check my list for a bullwhip, a drunk (Elder? Saint Paul? JB?), and a Gothette with an Exacto knife, although I'll have to re-read the Gospels to make sure I understand their biblical context. My son's in-laws are inviting us over for this Sunday's celebrations, and right now I'm sure they're relieved that we're not hosting it this year. Watch out for the Easter egg hunt, though -- the egg-stomp sounds like a fun new tradition.

Of course, I hate hardboiled eggs, anyway, but I wouldn't flog the Bunny who brought them, for Pete's sake.

Rice's 9/11 Testimony

I just finished listening to Dr. Condi Rice's testimony to the 9/11 Commission -- as much as I could catch at my office -- and I'm equal parts disappointed and ticked off.

First, I can't tell you how irritating it is to have a live audience at these hearings, and even over the radio you could tell which commissioner was playing to them -- Richard Ben-Veniste. This shouldn't be the forum for one-liners and zingers, but certain members of this commission have decided that it's suddenly appropriate to deliver them, along with long speeches, to witnesses. Further, the questioning seemed to go far afield when former Senator Bob Kerrey started his "questioning" by blasting the military strategy being used currently in Iraq. What?? When did the 9/11 Commission suddenly become the Joint Armed Services Committee? It was a political cheap shot, in a morning full of them, all designed (despite Kerrey's demurral) to pander to the microphones and the live audience in attendance.

Dr. Rice's performance, furthermore, was a mild disappointment. She seemed flustered on several occasions, especially when the commissioners talked over her answers, and was too repetitive. She missed several opportunities to correct the record (see Rocket Man's excellent live blog for more detail), although she did catch a number of others. It may just be a case of unrealistic expectations; I expected more confidence and power from her than perhaps she's capable of delivering under these circumstances.

I'll post more later, but my overall take on this morning is that of profound disappointment with the entire 9/11 Commission process.

UPDATE: Eric in Waco thinks I may have been too harsh on Condi, and perhaps he's right; one disadvantage of experiencing it via radio rather than television, I suppose. Rocket Man thinks she did pretty well also, but not as well as he'd hoped, either. I'll say this: I never got the impression that she was hiding anything or being insincere, and I also never got the impression that she was blame-shifting to previous administrations or personnel. She took the correct historical approach, which is that our inadequate response to Islamofascist terror goes back many years, over administrations from both parties.

As far as the Commission itself, they didn't impress me one bit. Kerrey couldn't even get Rice's name straight. I understand mixing up the name once while discussing someone else's testimony, but he referred to her at least a half-dozen times as "Dr. Clarke." Review of intelligence data is all about detail, and here we have someone who can't even keep a witness's name straight when they're sitting in front of him -- and it's not like Condoleezza Rice is obscure or unknown. His complaint that she was trying to filibuster him, in my mind, was a classic case of projection, as he kept barking out long-winded questions and cutting off her answers with pithy little one-liners. Ben-Veniste did much the same thing.

All in all, it underscored this commission's true mandate, as revealed by the questioning of Commissioner Roemer:

Doesn't that beg that there should have been more accountability? That there should have been a resignation or two? That there should have been you or the president saying to the rest of the administration, somehow, somewhere, that this was not done well enough?

Will someone please explain to me what that question has to do with understanding the reasons behind the intelligence and policy failures that led to 9/11? It's only slightly less relevant than Kerrey's monologue on military strategy for the Iraq occupation. If resignations were necessary, it would be up to the President to ask for them.

This commission intends on getting someone's butt in their briefcase before the end, and that's the only reason why this grandstanding has been put on for public display. Had this commission wanted to take their job seriously, they would have eschewed public testimony and worked behind the scenes to review the data necessary. The testimony could easily have been released in transcript form at the end. Instead, they allowed it to dissolve into political high theater, and now have poisoned the process so much that we will inevitably wind up with two radically different reports, one majority and one minority, that will seek to cast as much blame on the other side, instead of reaching solutions for the issues that caused the failures to occur.

As I posted before, it's very disappointing.

Power Line Live-Blogging Rice Testimony

My colleague Hindrocket at Power Line will be live-blogging today's Condoleezza Rice testimony before the 9/11 Commission. I'll be listening but unable to blog until lunchtime (since I do have to work). Be sure to keep up with Rocket Man's excellent commentary as the news unfolds, both for his opinion and his ability to put it into the broader context.

(Updated with proper link)

Not One Dollar to Arafat

You have to admire the chutzpah of the Palestinians. After killing three of our envoys in Gaza last year and chanting "Death to America" on any occasion they can find, they turn around and hit us up for cash:

The Palestinians expect a large aid package from the United States and other donor countries to help rebuild the Gaza Strip after an Israeli withdrawal, the Palestinian foreign minister said Thursday. ...

In the event of a Gaza withdrawal, "the Americans should be ready with the World Bank and other donors to make massive economic support for the Palestinian Authority," Shaath said in interview with Israel Radio. He did not give a sum.

The Palestinians, already heavily dependent on international aid, are hoping for more money to help rebuild an economy shattered in more than three years of fighting with Israel. Shaath said the funds were needed for "relief, reconstruction, economic activities, labor and job creation, and others."

Shaath was quoted as saying he is aware of American expectations that in return for the aid, the Palestinians crack down on militant groups and arrest those behind the bombing of an U.S. convoy in Gaza in October.

The US has already paid our millions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority since Oslo -- money that supported the same structure that runs Yasser Arafat's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a suicide-bombing terrorist apparatus that has claimed the lives of Israeli citizens by the score. This demand differs in no way from a mob protection scheme; pay us and there won't be trouble. What, you were surprised by that pizza-parlor bombing? Pay us more and we'll make sure it doesn't happen again. A bus blew up? Well, that was some other outfit; pay us more and we'll reason with them.

I have an answer for that. In the words of Michael Corleone in Godfather Part II: "This is my offer: nothing. Not one dollar." As long as Arafat and his terrorist henchmen Abu Smith, Abu Jones, and Abu Whatever are in charge, you don't get one thin dime from the American taxpayer. When you hand over the people who killed our envoys, when you arrest the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists, when you lock up the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and when the bombings stop in Israel and everywhere else -- then we'll talk. Until then, you get nothing. Zilch. Zippo.

We should be done rewarding murderers for taking a short break.

The Folly of "Peacekeepers"

Over the past twenty years or so, we have seen the emergence of a new philosophy of military deployment called "peacekeeping". The theory is that if you can negotiate a cessation of open hostilities, you can inject soldiers from a third party or outside coalition to keep people separated long enough to reach a peaceful accommodation. This notion sprngs from a serious misreading of the military standoffs in Korea and Cold War Europe, and in almost every instance it's been used, it has led to either disaster or quagmire.

Governments that send troops to be "peacekeepers" inevitably sell this idea to their constituencies like this:

Coalition governments could tell their nervous publics that the troops were in Iraq on humanitarian missions — repairing roads, digging wells, providing security and generally helping a shattered people recover from decades of war and tyranny. ... Japan's government sold the mission to a skeptical public by calling it a humanitarian mission.

The problem comes when the people you're keeping separated decide that they want to duke it out for a while, or when people get tired of having third parties around at all. If countries deploy troops with no intention of having them take action when attacks start, they become little more than armed witnesses -- in other words, useless. The philosophy only works when the nations contributing those troops have the political will to actually return fire and take control of a situation militarily, as is true in Korea and was true in Cold War Europe.

When troops have no authority to engage, as we have seen a number of times over the past ten years, all they do is make the situation worse than it was before. The UN's peacekeeping force made Srebrenica a "safe zone" and encouraged Bosnian Muslims to locate their for their own protection. Yet when the Serbs attacked Srebrenica (since all their enemies were conveniently now in one place), the Dutch contingent stood by and did nothing to stop them. Earlier this year, despite thousands of "peacekeepers" in Kosovo, the Albianians went wild, burning churches that had stood for hundreds of years and attacking Serbian residents, while the troops stationed there did little to contain the violence.

This isn't peacekeeping; it's demonstrating weakness, and it gets people killed.

Unfortunately, it's happening again in Iraq, as international troop contributors in the Coalition did not sufficiently plan for the peacekeeping mission to actually require them to keep the peace. It's not just about digging wells and turning on the electricity; it's about demonstrating the will to fire your rifle at provocateurs who want to make trouble, sometimes on a small scale, sometimes on a larger one. Now that al-Sadr has attacked Coalition forces, we see those units that were prepared for the real mission, and those that weren't:

On Wednesday, Ukrainian troops abandoned the strategic town of Kut, evacuating about 20 American, British, Polish and other civilian officials of the U.S.-led occupation authority after mortar and infantry attacks by al-Sadr's militia, the al-Mahdi Army. ...

Elsewhere, the Spanish military watched as al-Sadr's gunmen seized control of the holy Shiite city of Najaf, including police stations and the Imam Ali Shrine. Spanish officials have turned to local tribal and religious leaders to see if they can negotiate an end to the takeover.

Italian troops and paramilitary police battled Shiite gunmen early Tuesday for control of bridges across the Euphrates River in Nasiriyah. Fifteen Iraqis were killed and 12 Italians were slightly wounded, Italian authorities said.

Even before the flare-up, South Korea (news - web sites) backed out of sending its 3,600 troops to Kirkuk because of possible conflict in an area coveted by rival ethnic groups. The South Koreans are considering two Kurdish cities which are among the most peaceful in the country. ...

Since the trouble started, the nearly 500 Japanese soldiers have been holed up in their camp near Samawah, ceasing all humanitarian activities until order is restored.

All this happened because political pressure on both Bush and Blair forced them to bring countries that weren't prepared to actually fight into the Coalition, unlike Italy, Poland, or Australia, for instance. You can't blame this on a failure to get UNSC sanction, either, although you can see where the UN approach originates. The reason we didn't want the UN in charge is because all forces in Iraq would be working under the Kosovo/Srebrenica rules of engagement. This demonstrates why Bush and Blair have insisted on a "vital" but not central role for the UN; in order to make the mission successful, the ROEs cannot come from the historically inept UN "peacekeeping" command.

American commanders recently requested more troops; I suspect that they want to replace some of the international units with more reliable deployments. We should allow those Coalition partners who won't take action on the ground to withdraw as graciously as possible and be happy with their support in material and politics instead.

UPDATE: Of course, bone-headed decisions like this don't help at all:

Two cousins of a Kosovo Liberation Army soldier shot dead by British peacekeepers in 1999 won a landmark compensation claim yesterday. ... The two were in a car with another cousin, Fahri Bici, in Pristina on July 2 1999, when he fired an AK-47 into the air during a demonstration to celebrate a Nato ceasefire between the KLA and the Serbs. Soldiers of the Parachute Regiment ordered the car to stop, and opened fire when it did not. Fahri Bici and another Kosovan Albanian were killed, and Mohamet Bici was shot in the jaw.

An investigation by the Royal Military Police cleared the three soldiers of wrongdoing. But yesterday Mr Justice Elias dismissed arguments from the MoD that the soldiers were acting in self-defence, or that they were covered by "combat immunity".

UPDATE II: Updated to add Poland to those who understood the actual mission in Iraq, although they seem to have gone wobbly this week. (Hat tip to Bithead.)

Kerry: Terrorists Have "Legitimate Voice"

John Kerry continues his quest towards self-destruction today in an NPR interview this morning, as he described a radical Islamist currently attacking American troops in Iraq as a "legitimate voice" who shouldn't necessarily be arrested if encountered:

In an interview broadcast Wednesday morning, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry defended terrorist Shiite imam Moqtada al-Sadr as a "legitimate voice" in Iraq, despite that fact that he's led an uprising that has killed nearly 20 American GIs in the last two days.

Speaking of al-Sadr's newspaper, which was shut down by coalition forces last week after it urged violence against U.S. troops, Kerry complained to National Public Radio, "They shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq."

Never mind that this "legitimate voice" used that newspaper to call for an armed revolt against the Coalition and the Iraqi provisional government. John Kerry isn't concerned with that. John Kerry sounds more concerned with Moqtada al-Sadr's ability to express himself than he is with the lives of American soldiers, even as al-Sadr and his gang of thugs are killing Marines at this very moment.

After making that mistake -- and he clearly recognized it, as he tried to back away from the word "legitimate" -- NPR asked if Kerry supported al-Sadr's arrest. Given the shooting going on in Kufa, NPR pitched Kerry a softball, which he then proceeded to whiff:

"Not if it’s an isolated act without the other kinds of steps necessary to change the dynamics on the ground in Iraq," Kerry told NPR, in quotes first reported by the New York Sun.

John Kerry continues to demonstrate his complete inability to take a position on almost any issue. He can't even bring himself to support arresting a terrorist who has sworn to kill Americans, engaged in a shooting battle with US Marines. Not only does Kerry want to return to a law-enforcement strategy to fight terror, he doesn't even want to arrest terrorists that he finds as a result of law-enforcement action. Unbelievable.

Two questions: Does America want to elect a man to the Presidency who displays this callous of a nature to our troops when they're under fire?

Does America want to elect a man to the Presidency who is so incompetent that he can't keep his foot out of his mouth when NPR practically gift-wrapped its interview questions?

UPDATE: Reader Bitter Mastermind (in Comments) says that the NewsMax article is inaccurate and has provided a link to the transcript. I can't check it out from here, but I encourage you to do so. I'll update this as I find out more.

UPDATE II: I still haven't read a transcript, mostly because NPR doesn't offer one without coughing up $18 for it. Hugh Hewitt has a good take on it; as always, I encourage you to check out what he says. I'd include some news reports on the interview, but so far, I haven't found any beyond the NewsMax article.

UPDATE III: I found this LA Times article to provide some background for the current debate. The whole al-Sadr situation has been a growing danger for months, and shutting down al-Sadr's newspaper wasn't just about what he was printing in it:

The occupation administration has had an ongoing battle with Sadr that extends far beyond the pages of his newspaper.

Sadr, who is in his early 30s, has routinely denounced the occupation in his Friday sermons and has sought to raise his own militia, the Mehdi Army. Initially a ragged collection of unemployed youths, it has become increasingly organized, and Sadr now has militias operating in several southern cities, including Nasiriya, as well as Baghdad's Sadr City, home to more than 1 million Shiites. U.S. officials have been closely tracking Sadr's efforts to expand the corps.

The coalition has also forced government officials and security forces in the city of Najaf to shut down an illegal court convened by Sadr and a private prison where he was believed to be torturing some of the people sentenced by his court.

Last week, U.S. civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer III met with Najaf's governor and police chief to urge them to investigate reports that Sadr had continued to operate the court underground.

Under these circumstances, shutting down al-Sadr's means of communicating to an expanding organization makes sense, especially since they had warned al-Sadr several times to knock it off. Allowing him to publish a newspaper that recruited people for his own personal militia is suicidal, not an endorsement of freedom of speech.

Unfortunately, this is one "nuance" that escaped Kerry, who found it easier to sympathize with al-Sadr and his right to expression. Even up to two days ago, this conversation would be rather unremarkable. But after al-Sadr started shooting at Marines, the time for nuanced approaches was over. The only message American politicians should send after the shooting starts is that anyone who attacks Americans will pay a deep price. Kerry had an opportunity here -- two of them, in fact -- to support troops under fire, and he blew it by defending the guy responsible for killing Americans. That's not just unacceptable, it's plain stupid.

UPDATE IV: Power Line also has more background on al-Sadr. The notion that he represented a "legitimate voice" in a society that wants to work towards freedom of expression looks more and more ludicrous. Kerry's "recent days" qualifier either points out his cluelessness or his willingness to toss BS in order to hoodwink voters.

Captain's Caption Contest Winners!

Once again, we have picked the winners of the Captain's Caption Contest, and once again, it was a lot tougher than Kerry looks with his little flower ornamentation:

Here then are the most notable posts. Just remember, there are no losers -- heck, even Kerry looks happy! However, I suppose looks can be deceiving, as a number of you picked a similar theme for your entries ...

Captain's Award -- Ted:

And after the sunuvabitch knocked me down I took the flower away as revenge, and hung it from my belt like a scalp!

Meanest girl scout I've ever seen...

You Have the Conn, You SOB #1 -- Flipper:

So then that son-of-a-bitch Dean pushed me out of the plane, right over San Francisco! On the bright side, I think I earned a few votes while I was there.

You Have the Conn, You SOB #2 -- Pat Curley:

Daisy? What daisy? Oh, that son-of-a-bitch Secret Service agent hosed me again!

You Have the Conn, You SOB #3 -- Jim S:

John Kerry attributed the strong March jobs report to the hiring of 308,000 temporary workers to make yellow plastic flowers.

Report to Sick Bay, You SOB (On the Double) -- James:

Well, Bill called and said that the mistletoe was a little tacky, so I thought.....

Captain's Sailing Song Special Award -- Purple Raider:

(to the tune of Eve of Destruction):

My leathery face, it is expanding
Wrinkles flaring, Botox fading
I need another treatment, but not from Dean,
I don't believe my hair, the hair weave's looking mean,
And Denny K's tin hat is Looking Green,
And I'll tell you over and over and over again my friend,
Ah you don't believe that I'm a Nam Vet.

As usual, the comments will remain open on this post to dispute the final selections, disparage the judge (moi), or post new entries to impress your friends and strike fear in the hearts of your enemies. The next contest will be posted on Friday, and we'll have Bill from INDC Journal, a good new blog, as our guest judge. Remember, if you want to guest judge, drop me an e-mail and find a good picture for the contest.

UPDATE: Hey, I get to be a guest judge now! Be sure to see Bill's caption contest going on at INDC Journal and get your entries in. (I wish I'd seen this picture first! Arrrrr ...)

UPDATE II: Welcome to all Hugh Hewitt readers! A new caption contest starts every Friday, and so far John Kerry keeps providing us plenty of material ...

9/11 Commission "Reconsidering" Clarke Testimony: Washington Times

Thanks to the Washington Times' publication of the national-security report submitted to Congress in December 2000 by the Clinton administration, the Times reports that the 9/11 Commission will be "reconsidering" testimony from former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, whose claim that al-Qaeda was the previous administration's top focus was undercut by the report's anemic approach to terror (via Power Line):

The September 11 commission will look at the discrepancy between the testimony of Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered the threat of al Qaeda "urgent" and its final national-security report to Congress, which gave the terror organization scant mention.

Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States, said commission members are familiar with an article in yesterday's editions of The Washington Times, which showed that President Clinton's final public document on national security never referred to al Qaeda by name and mentioned Osama bin Laden just four times. ...

The Clinton document consistently characterized terrorist attacks against Americans and U.S. interests as "crimes" and outlined how it was using diplomatic and economic pressure to bring the "perpetrators to justice." The use of military force "should be selective and limited, reflecting the importance of the interests at stake," the document said.

Although the Clinton administration pledged in the report to retaliate militarily for the al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole in October 2000, no operation was carried out.

The problem with Clarke is that in his haste to do political damage to the administration that reduced his authority, he will inevitably wind up doing more damage to the previous administration by focusing on their feckless approach to terrorism specifically, and foreign policy in general. However, given the prevailing wisdom of the day, the Clinton NSS really isn't that remarkable for being bad or good; it just demonstrates a lack of imagination that could easily be applied to both sides of the political spectrum prior to 9/11. The key difference is that one side seems to have woken up since then a bit more than the other -- and Clarke desperately wants people to believe that he set the alarm clock a bit earlier than the record shows.

My analyses of the report itself can be found here, here, here, here, and here.

And You Thought US Schools Were Tough

The London Telegraph reports on two teachers who have been given pensions due to abuse they suffered at the hands of their elementary-school students and, in one case, the parents:

Jo Redmond, a mother of five children, said she struggled on for as long as she could "as a matter of professional pride" despite being spat on, kicked, punched and cut by a makeshift weapon of glass strapped to two pencils.

Mrs Redmond, 51, said she was "devastated" to be forced to give up her job through ill health after being diagnosed as suffering from psychological as well as physical injury which had destroyed her confidence.

Redmond finally left her job after being hit in the face with a carton of orange juice and losing a tooth, being spat and urinated on, and getting hit with a fire extinguisher, breaking her wrist. Another man left teaching for much the same reasons, although his final straw came from a parent:

Phil Baker, 55, the former deputy head teacher of Headlands Comprehensive in Swindon, left the job suffering from post traumatic stress disorder while the father who lunged at him, breaking a door, was given a conditional discharge by magistrates and ordered to pay £100 compensation for damage to the door.

Much is made of older British schools in films, where corporal punishment was delivered by pinch-faced bespectacled schoolmarms and imperious headmasters. It would seem that the pendulum has swung a bit too far back the other direction. Just as in the US, if the community does not allow schools to provide order in the classrooms, no one will get an education and few teachers will be around to try it.

NYT: Sadr's Forces Bring Knives To a Gunfight

Thanks to some rather unfortunate circumstances, a New York Times reporter and photographer got an unplanned up-close-and-personal look at Moktada al-Sadr's militia, which has started an insurrection challenging American and Iraqi authority in Kufa. The quality of military discipline left journalist John Burns a bit shy of impressed:

If Moktada al-Sadr has chosen a grand mosque in this Euphrates River town for a last stand against American troops, as many of his militiamen have claimed in recent days, he appears to be relying more on the will of God than anything like military discipline to protect him.

Many hundreds of militiamen in the black outfits of Mr. Sadr's Mahdi Army were visible on Tuesday on roads approaching the golden-domed mosque and inside the sprawling compound leading to the inner sanctuary. But they seemed unmarshaled, at least to the layman's eye — more milling about than militant.

Burns and his photographer planned to attend an announced press conference by al-Sadr and wound up being kidnapped. After several hours, they were released, after their captors finally were convinced that Burns and his associate weren't Coalition special forces -- minus some of their equipment, including their satellite phones. In the intervening time, Burns got a pretty good look at the paramilitary force that wants to pit itself against the US Marine Corps, and wasn't too impressed.

Some of the militiamen were in their 50's and 60's, but most were young, some no more than 12 or 13. Weapons training among them appeared virtually nonexistent; Kalashnikovs with loaded magazines and safety catches off were nonchalantly waved in the air. ... One man of about 25 thrust a long-bladed knife into an imaginary belly, telling his companions, "This is what I will do to the American infidels when they enter here."

A great plan, if he lives long enough to actually get that close to one. "Bringing a knife to a gunfight" is an old proverb describing a pseudo-fatal cluelessness. In this case, with this description of what appears to be no more than a casually organized mob, the pseudo- part of that description may not apply.

Read the whole article. John Burns has regularly provided a rational and fair picture of the Iraq war and occupation; it's good to know he's back to relative safety.

Jeb Paints Himself Gray

Florida Governor Jeb Bush may need new glasses. Apparently, when he read about former California Governor Gray Davis' decision to approve a bill authorizing illegal immigrants to receive state drivers' licenses, Jeb must have thought that made Gray more popular with his constituents:

Gov. Jeb Bush endorsed a bill on Monday to allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses.

Under the bill, illegal immigrants seeking licenses would be fingerprinted and required to show identification like an employee card, said Senator Rudolfo Garcia Jr., a Hialeah Republican and a sponsor of the bill.

The brief article goes on to assure people that illegals would have to also prove they own or lease a car, and get a background check from their consulate proving that they have no criminal record -- even though their status in Florida gives them a de facto criminal status. Anyway, if they could do all that, why didn't they just get a visa before coming to the US in the first place?

More importantly, Jeb doesn't give any good reason why people who come here illegally should be given identification by a government that should be prosecuting them rather than enabling their illegal status to be more convenient. The only justification he offers is "they're here anyway," a philosophy that may be a slippery slope for the Republican governor. Does he plan to support abortion on the basis that women will get them anyway? Does he support the decriminalization of now-illegal drugs because people will use them anyway?

Jeb, buddy ... you see that buffed-out guy at the Governors' Association -- the one with the tan and the accent? That ain't Gray Davis, pal. Why don't you mosey on up to him and ask him where Gray went -- and why.

Captain's Caption Contest #5!

It's that time again, and now we have a song to go along with our weekly Caption Contests:

If you're going to I - da - ho,
Be sure to show
A flower in the snow ...

Lame? You bet! That's why I need you to make up a better caption than this one. Put the winning caption to this Flower Power Kerry photo and win the respect and envy of your peers in the blogosphere. The contest will be open until Tuesday at 6 PM CT, when the winning entries will be hermetically sealed in a mayonnaise jar and placed on Funk & Wagnall's doorstep ... or something like that. Remember, the only losers are the ones that don't get submitted!

BUMP 4/3: Hey, it's the Birthday Bump! I'm 41 today. How's that for a nice, round number? ...

BUMP 4/4: Today will probably be a light posting day, so make sure you put some captions on this entry! I'll likely be back to it late tonight, but for the moment I'm playing with a new video-capture device -- the Pinnacle Movie Box -- and later I'll be going out with the family to celebrate the birthday ...

UPDATE 4/6: In all the hubbub about the Clinton report, I forgot to close off comments! They're closed now -- I'll be picking the winners tonight or tomorrow morning ....

Clinton Report: Its Conclusions and Mine

Perhaps the most striking feature of the December 2000 national-security report's conclusion is its banality. It starts out by mouthing platitudes about how the world holds the US in high regard, relying on us as a "catalyst of coalitions" -- as if forming coalitions alone have any merit without an indication as to whether they contribute to success, or mire us in paralysis of endless debate and resolution issuance. Nothing specific about terrorism or even missile defence or any other strategic policy discussed in the report makes it into the conclusion. Instead, it closes with a recommendation to remain engaged globally and a warning to avoid our isolationist impulses, for our own good as well as that of the world.

It makes an oddly bureaucratic, bland ending to what actually is an interesting and well-written report. The report represents Clinton foreign-policy objectives fairly well -- and that's why this report reveals Richard Clarke as a partisan hack in his testimony to the 9/11 panel. In the Clinton administration's own words, terrorism, while a concern, hardly occupied a central place in its national-security strategy, as Clarke described. Clarke talked about how the previous administration had a laser-like focus on al-Qaeda, and yet that name never appears in this report, and Afghanistan -- where Clarke knew AQ to have come under the protection of the Taliban -- gets less than 300 words' worth of mention in the document's 45,000 words. The most prominent national-security effort presented to Congress in this report was national missile defense, the same program that former Clinton national-security aides say distracted Bush and his team from Islamofascist terror. Even when Islamist terror and its state support was mentioned, specifically regarding Iran, the Clinton team recommended entering into a dialogue "without preconditions" in order to normalize relations between the two countries.

In historical context, this may be understandable, although terribly myopic in hindsight. There will be much to learn from a careful review of this document, made so obsolete by four airplanes on September 11th. But it does provide a clear rebuttal to Richard Clarke's book and his testimony that the current administration reversed a superior counterterrorism policy from the previous one.

Clinton Report: Regional Priorities

Section 3 of the national-security report submitted to Congress in December 2000 deals with regional issues and strategies for confronting them individually as well as integrating approaches across regions. Interestingly, for an administration that Richard Clarke said was focused on al-Qaeda as the greatest threat to American security, the report leaves the two regions most closely associated with Islamofascist terror to last. The structure of Section 3 is shown in the table of contents:

Europe and Eurasia
East Asia and the Pacific
The Western Hemisphere
Middle East, North Africa, Southwest and South Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa

The first topic takes up over a third of Section 3 and covers a number of different state-on-state or ethnic-centered conflicts, mostly in Southeastern Europe, and reviews the Balkans in depth. After talking about the primary goal of the European strategy was to accomplish the complete integration of Europe into a democratic organization of nations, it mentions terrorism in passing:

Our second goal is to work with our allies and partners across the Atlantic to meet the global challenges no nation can meet alone. This means working together to consolidate this region's historic transition in favor of democracy and free markets; supporting peace efforts in troubled areas both within and outside the region; tackling global threats such as the potential use and continued proliferation of NBC weapons, terrorism, drug trafficking, international organized crime, environmental, problems, or health crises; mass uncontrolled migration of refugees, and building a more open world economy without barriers to transatlantic trade and investment.

As you can easily read, terrorism certainly gets its mention in the middle of a laundry list of issues that the US monitored in Europe. The next mention of terrorism comes in the report's review of Russia, noting that the means of the Russian government in confronting Chechnyan separatists were not effective in protecting its citizens from "terrorism and lawlessness". The strategic goals in the East Asia/Pacific region get the same laundry list in its second paragraph:

Our security strategy in East Asia and the Pacific encompasses a broad range of potential threats, and includes the following priorities: deterring aggression and promoting peaceful resolution of crises; promoting access to and the security of sea lines of communication in cooperation with our allies and partners; actively promoting our nonproliferation goals and safeguarding nuclear technology; strengthening both active and passive counterproliferation capabilities of key allies; combating the spread of transnational threats, including drug-trafficking, piracy, terrorism and the spread of AIDS; fostering bilateral and multilateral security cooperation, with a particular emphasis on combating transnational threats and enhancing future cooperation in peacekeeping operations; and promoting regional dialogue through bilateral talks and multilateral fora.

No serious discussion of terrorism takes place until you read all the way down to about the three-quarter mark and start reading about the Middle East, North Africa, Southwest, and South Asia region. There is one paragraph -- one -- about North Africa, despite the connections between al-Qaeda and terrorists in Morocco and Algeria. The only nation mentioned is Libya. Despite the claims of Madeline Albright, Libya as described in this report wasn't about to cough up its WMDs, and in fact this report gives no indication that Gaddafi was even interested in discussing better relations with the West other than the lifting of those sanctions regarding the Lockerbie bombing.

In regard to Iraq, which comes first in the section on Southwest Asia, the report discusses a long-forgotten "omnibus" UNSC resolution 1284, which gave Saddam Hussein yet another opportunity to thumb his nose at the UN. It "strengthened" the oil-for-food program which has now been revealed as a tremendously corrupt program that funded kickbacks to Saddam and bribes to foreign officials who were supposed to be keep containment on Iraq. In light of the scandal at the UN, this passage captures perfectly the folly of our twelve-year quagmire in Iraq -- and it even recognizes that the strategy will inevitably fail:

In December 1999, the United Nations Security Council passed UNSCR 1284, a new omnibus resolution on Iraq. The United States supports Resolution 1284 because it buttresses the containment of Iraq while maximizing relief for the Iraqi people. The resolution expands the humanitarian aspects of the oil-for-food program to ensure the well being of the Iraqi people. It provides for a robust new inspection and monitoring regime that would finish the work begun by UNSCOM. It would allow for a suspension of the economic sanctions in return for full Iraqi cooperation with UN arms inspections and Iraqi fulfillment of key disarmament tasks. This resolution would also lock in the Security Council's control over Iraqi finances to ensure that Saddam Hussein is never again able to disburse Iraq's resources as he would like.

Although Iraq continues to refuse to implement any of the requirements of Resolution 1284[emph mine], the United States and other members of the Security Council have already begun to implement those sections of the resolution intended to improve the humanitarian situation of the Iraqi populace. ... Nevertheless, we consistently maintain that sanctions on Iraq can only be lifted after it has met its obligations to the international community in full. Saddam's actions over the past decade lead us to conclude that his regime will never comply with the obligations contained in the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. For this reason, we actively support those who seek to bring a new democratic government to power in Baghdad. We recognize that this may be a slow and difficult process, but we believe it is the only solution to the problem of Saddam's regime.

Iran attracts attention for its terror ties, but three of the four paragraphs dedicated to discussing the Islamic Republic are dedicated to discussing the "positive changes in Iran," and winds up recommending initiating a dialogue with the mullahs "without preconditions" -- an eye-popping strategy for dealing with a country it describes as a state sponsor of terrorism!

Afghanistan gets two brief mentions in the regional report. In the opening paragraph, the only issue associated with the Taliban is the opium trade, despite Richard Clarke's contention that the administration's primary focus was terrorism. Four paragraphs later, Afghanistan gets one solitary paragraph at the end of the South Asia section:

Afghanistan remains a serious threat to U.S. worldwide interests because of the Taliban's continued sheltering of international terrorists and its increasing export of illicit drugs. Afghanistan remains the primary safehaven for terrorists threatening the United States, including Usama bin Ladin. The United Nations and the United States have levied sanctions against the Taliban for harboring Usama bin Ladin and other terrorists, and will continue to pressure the Taliban until it complies with international requests to bring bin Ladin to justice. The United States remains concerned about those countries, including Pakistan, that support the Taliban and allow it to continue to harbor such radical elements. We are engaged in energetic diplomatic efforts, including through the United Nations and with Russia and other concerned countries, to address these concerns on an urgent basis.

Again, as I wrote when I pointed out this passage in my first post on the subject, there is no indication that the terrorists sheltered by the Taliban represented a clear and present danger to the US, nor does this report propose any solutions other than multilateral diplomatic pressure, primarily relying on Russia. There is one additional mention of the Taliban and terrorists in the subsection titled Promoting Democracy and Human Rights, but it clearly demonstrates that the US was not prepared to consider a military solution to the Taliban's continuing refusal to deport the terrorists:

Respect for human rights also requires rejection of terrorism. If the nations in the region are to safeguard their own citizens from the threat of terror, they cannot tolerate acts of indiscriminate violence against civilians, nor can they offer refuge to those who commit such acts. We will continue to enforce UNSC sanctions against the Taliban for harboring terrorists such as Usama bin Ladin and look for other ways to pressure the Taliban to end its support for such groups.

More to come ...

Clinton Report: Protecting the Homeland

Another interesting subsection of Part 2 of the Clinton national-security report is titled Protecting the Homeland. Remember when George Bush was criticized for using the term "homeland" in national security planning? Pundits associated the word with Nazi Germany and claimed that it promoted a "sacred earth" notion that went against everything that American principles represented. Apparently, we know now where that term originated.

Under that heading, the report details the strategy for protecting US territory in this order:

1. National Missile Defense
2. Countering Foreign Intelligence Collection
3. Combating Terrorism
4. Domestic Preparedness Against WMDs
5. Critical Infrastructure Protection
6. National Security Emergency Preparedness
7. Fighting Drug Trafficking and Other Int'l Crime

Again, national missile defense appears to be the primary concern of the Clinton administration's national-security strategy, while terrorism is addressed third, after NMD and foreign espionage. In fact, it was Bill Clinton who made it our national policy in 1999 to pursue an NMD solution:

On July 23, 1999, President Clinton signed H.R. 4, the "National Missile Defense Act of 1999," stating that it is the policy of the United States to deploy an effective NMD system as soon as technologically possible. ... In August 1999, President Clinton decided that the initial NMD architecture would include: 100 ground-based interceptors deployed in Alaska, one ABM radar in Alaska, and five upgraded early warning radar. This approach is the fastest, most affordable, and most technologically mature approach to fielding an NMD system capable of protecting all 50 states against projected emerging threats.

In September 2000, Clinton decided that we had nothing yet to implement but determined that continuing development of an NMD system was still critical to our national-security strategy:

The Clinton Administration is committed to the development of a limited National Missile Defense (NMD) system designed to counter the emerging ballistic missile threat from states that threaten international peace and security. On September 1, 2000, the President announced that while the technology for NMD was promising, the system as a whole is not yet proven, and thus he was not prepared to proceed with the deployment of a limited NMD system. The President has instead asked the Secretary of Defense to continue a robust program of development and testing. The Administration recognizes the relationship among the ABM Treaty, strategic stability, and the START process, and is committed to working with Russia on any modifications to the ABM Treaty required to deploy a limited NMD. An NMD system, if deployed, would be part of a larger strategy to preserve and enhance peace and security.

So much for Condi Rice and George Bush being distracted by an unproven NMD concept; the impetus for that effort likely came directly from Richard Clarke himself, continuing the strategy of the previous administration.

After NMD but before terrorism, the report details American vulnerability to foreign espionage:

As the rapidity of global technological change accelerates and the gap with some nations has widened, these countries' foreign intelligence agencies are stepping up their efforts to collect classified or sensitive information on U.S. weapons systems, U.S. intelligence collection methods, emerging technologies with military applications, and related technical methods. Such information enables potential adversaries to counter U.S. political and military objectives, develop sophisticated weapons more quickly and efficiently, and develop countermeasures against U.S. weapons and related technical methods. Intelligence collection against U.S. economic, commercial, and proprietary information enables foreign states and corporations to obtain shortcuts to industrial development and improve their competitiveness against U.S. corporations in global markets. ...

Increased threats to our cyber security and the inadvertent or deliberate disclosure of sensitive information underscore the necessity for the National Security Community to have reliable, timely, and trusted information available to those who both need it and are authorized to have it. During the last five years we have established a set of security countermeasures policies, practices, procedures, and programs for a rational, fair, forward looking, and cost-effective security system. More needs to be done, however, and efforts will continue in providing a better synchronized, integrated and interoperable programs for personnel security, physical security, technical security, operational security, education and awareness, information assurance, classification management, industrial security, and counterintelligence.

Only after this does the report go into the specifics of combating terrorism on the homeland, and what it says points to the conclusion that terrorism was considered primarily a law-enforcement issue:

Our strategy requires us to both prevent and, if necessary, respond to terrorism. Prevention -- which includes intelligence collection, breaking up cells, and limiting the movement, planning, and organization of terrorists -- entails more unknowns and its effectiveness will never be fully proven or appreciated, but it is certainly the preferable path. For example, as a result of the quiet cooperation with some of our allies and among federal authorities, agencies, and local law enforcement, planned terrorist attacks within the United States and against U.S. interests abroad during the millennium celebration were thwarted. A major aspect of our prevention efforts is bolstering the political will and security capabilities of those states that are on the front lines to terrorist threats and that are disproportionately impacted by the expanding threat. This coalition of nations is imperative to the international effort to contain and fight the terrorism that threatens American interests. ...

When terrorism occurs, despite our best efforts, we can neither forget the crime nor ever give up on bringing its perpetrators to justice. We make no concessions to terrorists. Since 1993, a dozen terrorist fugitives have been apprehended overseas and rendered, formally or informally, to the United States to answer for their crimes. These include the perpetrators of the World Trade Center bombing, the attack outside CIA headquarters, and an attack on a Pan Am flight more than 18 years ago. In 1998, the U.S. Armed Forces carried out strikes against a chemical weapons target and an active terrorist base operated by Usama bin Ladin, whose terror network had carried out bombings of American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and planned still other attacks against Americans. We will likewise pursue the criminals responsible for the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

This paragraph never mentions al-Qaeda by name, even though it was submitted just a month or two before Condi Rice's supposed ignorance of AQ's existence made such an impression on Richard Clarke. But the acknowledgement that bin Ladin's "network" was responsible for the series of attacks on American assets begs the question of what action was being taken, or even contemplated, against it after 1998. It's also worded in such a way as to make it read as though the 1998 attack effectively stopped it from being a threat to American interests. No further mention of bin Ladin is made in Section 2 of the report, which details the strategies used to counter threats to American interests.

Just to be clear, the prioritization given in this report is, in historical context, eminently defensible. In fact, it's so defensible that the incoming Bush administration followed its recommendations for the first few months it was in office and getting its own personnel in place. However, it directly contradicts assertions made from Clinton's national-security team -- specifically, Richard Clarke and Madeline Albright -- who have tried their best to claim that they had al-Qaeda in the headlights and counterterrorism was Job 1 during their tenure.

More to come ....

Clinton Report: Pre-emption and Reorganization?

Before the 9/11 Commission questioned Richard Clarke, who as the terrorism "czar" of the Clinton administration prepared this national-security report to Congress, opposition to George Bush from both former members of the prior administration and some members of Congress focused on Bush's strategy of pre-emption -- stopping threats militarily before they became "imminent". Vast amount of energy and debate has gone into whether Bush declared Iraq an imminent threat explicitly (he didn't) or implicitly. Based on this, Bush's opponents have declared the military action in Iraq a violation of international law.

However, this report to Congress clearly indicated that the previous administration felt differently. For instance, under the subheading Preparing for an Uncertain Future, the administration made the following suggestions:

In addition, preventative diplomacy, often undergirded by the deterrence of our full military capabilities, may help contain or resolve problems before they erupt into crises or contingency operations.

You can read this as either a subtle endorsement of pre-emptive military action or simply an intention of issuing empty threats. It seems a particular folly to rely on our "full military capabilities" to "resolve problems" before they become so acute that they become active crises, if you're not going to do anything with those military capabilities than show them off. Therefore, it would appear that the strategy envisioned by the Clinton administration foresaw the use of those military capabilities to stop problems before they became imminent threats -- precisely what Bush argued in support of military action in Iraq. However, you can also argue that the history of the Clinton administration demonstrated that on those rare occasions where military action was taken, it fell far below the "full military capabilities" they had at hand.

In Section II, this idea is fleshed out a bit more, although the section regarding military action for counterterrorism purposes comes fifth:

We must continue to improve our program to combat terrorism in the areas of antiterrorism, counterterrorism, consequence management, and intelligence support to deter terrorism. We will deter terrorism through the increased antiterrorism readiness of our installations and forward forces, enhanced training and awareness of military personnel, and the development of comprehensive theater engagement plans. In counterterrorism, because terrorist organizations may not be deterred by traditional means, we must ensure a robust capability to accurately attribute the source of attacks against the United States or its citizens, and to respond effectively and decisively to protect our national interests. U.S. armed forces possess a tailored range of options to respond to terrorism directed at U.S. citizens, interests, and property. In the event of a terrorist incident, our consequence management ability to significantly mitigate injury and damage may likely deter future attacks. Finally, we will continue to improve the timeliness and accuracy of intelligence support to commanders, which will also enhance our ability to deter terrorism.

This is the entire military strategy for counterterrorism, as reported to Congress in December 2000. Note that the bolded section (my emphasis) still envisions the military option in only a reactive mode, and then only when we can "prove" from where an attack originated. Not only would this have not prevented 9/11, it's doubtful that we would have invaded Afghanistan afterwards using this strategy and criteria.

But later in Section II, under the heading Combating Terrorism, the report concedes that law-enforcement may not be enough to prevent attacks -- which should have been obvious after the series of attacks the US had suffered throughout the 1990s:

Whenever possible, we use law enforcement, diplomatic, and economic tools to wage the fight against terrorism. But there have been, and will be, times when those tools are not enough. As long as terrorists continue to target American citizens, we reserve the right to act in self-defense by striking at their bases and those who sponsor, assist, or actively support them, as we have done over the years in different countries. ... However, it is not only the response capabilities that need significant resources. It is our preventive efforts, such as active diplomatic and military engagement, political pressure, economic sanctions, and bolstering allies' political and security capabilities, that also require strong financial support in order to squeeze terrorists before they act.

Since pre-emption against groups targeting the US was therefore justified, why didn't the Clinton administration go after Afghanistan? The language here is almost exactly the same as Bush stated after 9/11: "we reserve the right to act in self-defense by striking at their bases and those who sponsor, assist, or actively support them." So what stopped them? Apparently, they didn't feel the threat was strong enough to build support for such an action, either diplomatically or militarily -- which makes their claim that they considered al-Qaeda the most critical national-security threat laughable.

Another curious part of this summary of the opening section recalls the criticisms of Donald Rumsfeld in his modernization efforts of the US military to make them more mobile and agile to respond to issues like asymmetrical threats. That issue died in the aftermath of the breathtakingly fast fall of Baghdad, but it's worth remembering all the criticism when paired up with this assertion in the report:

Meeting this widening array of new threats to our security will require us to transform our capabilities and organizations. Within our military, this transformation has taken several forms: focused science and technology efforts; concept development and experimentation by the Services, combatant commands, and the Joint Staff; robust processes to implement change; and new approaches to foster a culture of bold innovation and dynamic leadership.

It sounds as if Rumsfeld followed this prescription fairly closely, and it calls into question why the Clinton administration hadn't acted on its own recommendation before leaving office.

More to come ...

Note: This post has been updated several times for clarity and context.

Clinton Report: Identifying the Threats

During the day today, I will be reviewing the national-security report that the outgoing Clinton administration submitted to Congress in December 2000, when certain members of his team claim that they handed the incoming Bush administration a comprehensive strategy to deal with terrorism. In fact, their report belies the notion that anyone took al-Qaeda as a specific threat, and it demonstrates that they focused on state-on-state threats much more seriously -- as could reasonably be expected, under the circumstances.

For instance, in the first section of the report, under the subheading Responding to Threats and Crises, the report addresses the major themes of international threats against the United States, and its first statement regards unfriendly states:

The persistence of major interstate conflict has required us to maintain the means for countering potential regional aggressors. Long-standing tensions and territorial division on the Korean peninsula and territorial ambitions in the Persian Gulf currently define the main tenets of this requirement. For the foreseeable future, the United States, preferably in concert with allies, must have the capability to deter -- and if that fails, to defeat -- large-scale, cross-border aggression in two distant theaters in overlapping time frames.

In fact, international terrorism isn't specified until the third paragraph of this subsection. What gets better billing than terrorism? Interestingly enough, national missile defense -- an initiative that Democrats now deride as a distraction and a provocation to "allies" like Russia:

As a result, defense of the homeland against WMD terrorism has taken on a new importance, making coordinated Federal, state, and local government efforts imperative. The Domestic Preparedness Program has received significant resources to address immediate threats to our security. Ongoing efforts on National Missile Defense are developing the capability to defend the fifty states against a limited missile attack from states that threaten international peace and security. Prevention remains our first line of defense to lessen the availability of weapons of mass destruction being sought by such aggressor nations. To that end, we continue to work with Russia to control possible leakage of former Soviet nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons materials and expertise to proliferant states.

We are also vigorously pursuing a strengthening of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions, the Missile Technology Control Regime, and entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty at the earliest possible time. Other persistent threats to our security in peacetime include international terrorism, drug trafficking, other organized crime, and environmental degradation. The United States has made great strides in restructuring its national security apparatus to address new threats with diplomatic, economic, and military tools.

Also note that the Clinton administration saw no potential dissonance between pursuing missile defense as a national-security policy and maintaining a strategic relationship with Russia. Also, the report calls for a coordination between law-enforcement and intelligence services that the Patriot Act finally enabled -- and yet, the broadsides against the Patriot Act continue to be fired by the same people who claim that the Bush administration fumbled the grand strategy left to them by the preceding administration.

More to come ...

UPDATE: Welcome, all Instapundit readers! I've updated the second block-quote to include the paragraph for better context. Keep checking back today and tomorrow as I will continue to post about this subject.

UPDATE II: Welcome to Best of the Web readers as well. I've written more about this report here and here, and will be adding more this evening.

Washington Times: No Mention of AQ in Clinton Wrap-Up

The Washington Times has unearthed the final national security report from the Clinton administration to Congress, written in December 2000, and has discovered that it never mentions al-Qaeda and only mentions Osama bin Laden four times (via Drudge):

The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.

The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "ignored" it.

The Clinton document, titled "A National Security Strategy for a Global Age," is dated December 2000 and is the final official assessment of national security policy and strategy by the Clinton team. The document is publicly available, though no U.S. media outlets have examined it in the context of Mr. Clarke's testimony and new book.

In fact, not only does this document belie the Clarkean notion of a "high priority" given to fighting al-Qaeda by any means necessary, it specifically boasts about the success of the Clinton administration's law-enforcement policy. The report lists the number of terrorists apprehended and brought back to the US "to answer for their crimes." The total number of terrorists it reports as arrested: twelve, including the several who were captured and/or arrested for the first World Trade Center bombing, the man who shot two CIA employees outside of its headquarters in Langley and an attacker from an incident that occurred in the 80s.

This, then, is the result of eight years of counterterrorism efforts by the Clinton administration as led by Richard Clarke: twelve arrests. Only twelve arrests, after WTC I, Khobar Towers, the two embassy bombings in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. That isn't even the number of terrorists who died staging 9/11. No wonder al-Qaeda felt free to escalate their attacks against the US.

Even more curious is the contention from the Washington Times that this document has been in the public domain during the entire time that Clarke was testifying that he had given a high priority to al-Qaeda, and yet none of the mainstream media -- especially the ones who had headline-gathering interviews celebrating Clarke and his new novel -- ever saw fit to research and report it. There is an adage which instructs (in paraphrase), "Never assign to conspiracy what can be explained by simple laziness," but this seems beyond a simple lack of effort when the scope of the publicity given to Clarke and the gravity of the issue is considered. This is the best American journalists can do?

Just a cursory reading of the document, available here, demonstrates the sheer ludicrousness of the notion of Clintonian prescience regarding al-Qaeda, as well as other hot-spot issues. Here's the report on Afghanistan in its entirety:

Afghanistan remains a serious threat to U.S. worldwide interests because of the Taliban's continued sheltering of international terrorists and its increasing export of illicit drugs. Afghanistan remains the primary safehaven for terrorists threatening the United States, including Usama bin Ladin. The United Nations and the United States have levied sanctions against the Taliban for harboring Usama bin Ladin and other terrorists, and will continue to pressure the Taliban until it complies with international requests to bring bin Ladin to justice. The United States remains concerned about those countries, including Pakistan, that support the Taliban and allow it to continue to harbor such radical elements. We are engaged in energetic diplomatic efforts, including through the United Nations and with Russia and other concerned countries, to address these concerns on an urgent basis.

Here's the report on North Korea; does it sound like they had been well on the way to full WMD disarmament, as Madeline Albright repeatedly stated over the past few years?

Beyond fully implementing the Agreed Framework, we seek to eliminate North Korea's indigenous and export missile program and their weapons of mass destruction through a step-by-step process. Based on U.S.-North Korean discussions, North Korea has undertaken to refrain from flight testing long-range missiles of any kind as we move toward more normal relations. Working closely with our ROK and Japanese allies, we will improve relations with North Korea on the basis of it moving forward on the missile and WMD agendas, and we will take necessary measures in the other direction if the North chooses to go down a different path.

In fact, the report contains a trove of information that rebuts the myriad accusations of former Clinton advisors that the Bush administration has acted like a bull in a carefully crafted china shop. Iraq policy is described as primarily that of "containment", speaking of an almost-forgotten UNSC resolution 1284 which was supposed to tighten controls on the oil-for-food program that we now know was rife with corruption. It also relies heavily on an UNSCOM-like inspection process that never took place. Libya is only mentioned for its willingness to cough up the Lockerbie suspects; not a word is mentioned about any initiative to voluntarily give up its WMD programs. In fact, the report states that the official policy on Libya was "to block its efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction."

It took me ten minutes to review this document to reveal, in hindsight to be fair, how clueless the previous administration had been on terrorism and foreign policy in general. Too bad American journalists couldn't be bothered to spend the time.

Sami al-Arian: Snitch for Feds?

The case against former professor Sami al-Arian turned a bit more strange yesterday when the US government revealed in a court motion that al-Arian had briefly worked as an FBI informant:

Federal prosecutors say a former professor accused of financing terrorism was briefly an FBI informant, according to court documents. The disclosure came in the government's response to efforts by lawyers for Sami Al-Arian to obtain the taped conversations the former University of South Florida professor had with congressmen and top aides in the Bush and Clinton administrations.

His status as an informant, apparently confirmed by both sides now in these court motions, raises some uncomfortable questions for the FBI and some government officials. First, Congress will want to know why the FBI felt it necessary to tape conversations between their members and al-Arian. Did the FBI suspect one or more of them of aiding and abetting terrorist organizations? Next, the 9/11 Commission may be interested to hear about al-Arian's bugged contacts with Clinton and Bush "top aides". Did the FBI suspect a mole in the executive branch, and if so, did they ever find one?

The FBI also needs to answer for its selection of al-Arian as an informant while he raised funds for terrorist groups right under their nose. It appears that al-Arian was no run-of-the-mill tipster during his brief relationship with the feds; if he allowed himself to be bugged for certain meetings, then the level of interaction was fairly high. Moreover, part of the evaluation of intelligence data comes from researching the source rather carefully. Why didn't their background checks reveal al-Arian's ties to Islamic Jihad earlier?

With all of the news coming from Fallujah, this story slipped below the radar, but if we are to make sure that terrorists don't get a toehold here in the US, we need answers to these questions.

The Voice of Reason

Up to now, I have studiously avoided the Kos controversy for a number of reasons. One, I thought that other bloggers already had a good handle on the situation, and I didn't think that a me-tooism would be much of an addition. For another, I wanted to see how the situation developed before writing about it. Lastly, and most importantly, I have a friend working for a security contractor in Iraq and didn't think I could write dispassionately enough about my reaction to Kos' post.

For the three of you in the blogosphere who haven't heard, Markos Zuniga -- the blogger who runs the phenomenally successful left-wing blog, The Daily Kos -- posted his reaction to the horrific deaths and disgusting aftermath of four Blackwater Security contractors in Falluja last week. Scorning the men as mercenaries, Kos said: "Screw them." He figured they got what they deserved.

The blogosphere blew up at the insult, as well they should; Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit linked to the post and the reactions, and it mushroomed from there. Kos' advertisers were contacted, and a number of them withdrew, including several Democratic politicians running for office -- the most well-known of which was John Kerry. Zuniga, who had been a very effective fundraiser for Democrats, suddenly found himself persona non grata in some circles as people actively avoided associations with him and his blog.

Now, Reason has an article posted on its site titled "Outrage Kabuki" by Julian Sanchez which analyzes the response of the blogosphere:

The scope of the backlash should be at least a bit surprising in a medium where calls to "raze Fallujah" are uncritically linked alongside some of the strongest denunciations of Kos, where wishing for pro-Palestinian activist Rachel Corrie, crushed by an Israeli bulldozer last year, to "burn in hell" is fairly standard stuff. Even in the notoriously bilious world of talk radio, frequently at least as offensive as the more virulent blogs, only rarely does an off-color comment provoke such a firestorm, despite reaching a far wider audience.

Sanchez makes a good point. Without naming the blogs myself -- some of which are on my blogroll -- outrageous statements are the lingua franca of the political blogosphere. While I heartily agreed with the passionate response to Kos' sneering insults, and have no problem with the market approach of protesting to advertisers, some bloggers just have no room to complain. A quick review of their own writings (leaving out commenters) will reveal exhortations to annihilate some group of people, such as the Palestinians or the Iranians, or a specific city like Falluja in the aftermath of the attack. Put into context, it's hard to differentiate between the vitriol on the left or right -- except in this case, the vitriol was aimed at Americans.

What separates Kos from most of the rest of us is the commercial nature of his site, and his association with the power structure of the Left. Had a fringe site posted the same commentary, few would have noticed and most of those wouldn't have bothered to do much more than use it as an example of the bankruptcy of the Left. Instead, and rightly so, Kos became a test example of how far the Left would go in associating itself in hate speech -- which is exactly what that was.

Read the whole article. Reason questions the effect this episode will have on the freewheeling nature of the blogosphere, and I think they may have a point, at least regarding those few bloggers who make it into mainstream politics or journalism.

An Teanga Beo -- The Living Tongue

I mentioned a couple of days ago that I spent Saturday in an Irish-language workshop, and it occurred to me that some of you (okay, all four of you) may be scratching your heads and wondering what the heck I was talking about. I don't believe many people know that Irish Gaelic, known as Gaeilge (GWAYL-gyuh), is in fact a living language spoken fluently by at least 100,000 people in Ireland alone, with a million more who have a lesser command of it. Gaeilge has a rich history, both spoken and literary, stretching far past English; it has existed for at least 2,500 years, and is the oldest surviving language of Western Europe.

To give you an example, here's the Nicene Creed in Irish, as printed in a missalette I purchased at the workshop:

Creidim in aon Dia amháin, an tAthair uilechumhachtach, a rinne neamh agus talamh agus an uile ní sofheicthe agus dofheicthe. Agus in aon Tiarna amháin, Íosa Críost, Aonmhac Dé, an té a rugadh ón Athair sula raibh aon saol ann. Dia ó Dhia, solas ó sholas, fíor-Dhia ó fhíor-Dhia; an té a gineadh agus nach ndearnadh, agus atá d'aonsubstaint leis an Athair; is tríd a rinneadh an uile ní. Ar ár son-na an cine daonna, agus ar son ár slánaithe, thuirling sé ó neamh. Ionchollaíodh le chumhacht an Spioraid Naoimh é i mbroinn na Maighdine Muire agus ghlac sé nádúr daonna. Céasadh ar an gcrois é freisin ar ár son; d'fhulaing sé páis faoi Phontius Píoláit agus adhlacadh é. D'aiséirigh an treas lá de reir na scrioptúr; chuaigh suas ar neamh; tá ina shuí ar dheis an Athar. Tiocfaidh sé an athuair faoi ghlóir le breithiúnas a thabhairt ar bheo agus ar mhairbh, agus ní bheidh deireadh lena ríocht. Creidim sa Spiorad Naomh, Tiarna agus bronntóir na beatha, an té a ghluaiseann ón Athair agus ón Mac. Tugtar dó adhradh agus glóir mar aon leis an Athair agus leis an Mac: ba é a labhair trí na fáithe. Creidim san aon Eaglais naofa, chaitliceach, aspalda. Admhaím an t-aon bhaisteadh amháin chun maithiúnas na bpeacaí. Agus táim ag súil le haiséirí na marbh agus le beatha an tsaoil atá le teacht. Amen.

Well, it ain't "Top of the Morning," is it? It's a beautiful language, but difficult to learn, let alone master. I've been studying Gaeilge for three years; the workshop was my third anniversary. I'm not quite conversational, and in fact have backslid somewhat since I started blogging, but I can usually get the sense of what I'm reading, even if I can't translate conversational Irish quickly enough to be effective.

The workshop last Saturday was presented by Gaeltacht Minnesota, which has given free weekly Irish-language lessons for over twenty years. I'm now the orientation instructor, so if you live in the area and want to join up, I'll be the first instructor you get ... and then you'll go to someone who actually knows what they're doing. Our web site has a number of links to other resources as well. If you have any interest in the language but don't live in the area, you can check with Daltaí to find Irish-language support in your area.

If that doesn't work out for you, you can buy your own materials at Irish Books and Media, a great mail-order service that handles the largest inventory of Irish language materials in the country. I recommend the book and tape set called Learning Irish by Micheál Ó Siadhail (Connemara dialect), or Teach Yourself Irish. It's not impossible to learn writting Irish on your own, although learning to speak it is another issue entirely.

In the meantime, beannacht agus sláinte dhaoibh -- blessings and health to you all!

The Myth of Decompensation

Normally I don't even bother to read Bob Herbert in the New York Times' op-ed section, as he routinely bases his screeds on half-truths or sometimes flat-out lies, which the NYT rarely if ever corrects. However, this morning I had the misfortune of popping it up accidentally and reminding myself why I avoid him. Today's fractured fairy tale involves the recent gains in productivity and Herbert's assertion that employers are screwing labor in tandem:

American workers have been remarkably productive in recent years, but they are getting fewer and fewer of the benefits of this increased productivity. While the economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, has been strong for some time now, ordinary workers have gotten little more than the back of the hand from employers who have pocketed an unprecedented share of the cash from this burst of economic growth. ...

Andrew Sum, the center's director and lead author of the study, said: "This is the first time we've ever had a case where two years into a recovery, corporate profits got a larger share of the growth of national income than labor did. Normally labor gets about 65 percent and corporate profits about 15 to 18 percent. This time profits got 41 percent and labor [meaning all forms of employee compensation, including wages, benefits, salaries and the percentage of payroll taxes paid by employers] got 38 percent."

The study said: "In no other recovery from a post-World War II recession did corporate profits ever account for as much as 20 percent of the growth in national income. And at no time did corporate profits ever increase by a greater amount than labor compensation."

In other words, an awful lot of American workers have been had. Fleeced. Taken to the cleaners.

Before Herbert calls for the proletariat to rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie, it may be a good idea to see what Herbert and the study leaves out, at least as reported by Herbert, and that is the question of corporate ownership. Who exactly owns corporations? Stockholders, of course -- and thanks to 401(k)s and mutual funds, more Americans own stock than ever before. Most of that ownership comes through retirement accounts, which means that it represents a stable and long-term investment in the various corporations in their portfolios.

Herbert deliberately leaves out this key component of the economy in order to paint the current recovery as unfair to workers, but leaving out the increased value of their retirement accounts and stock holdings deliberately misrepresents the economic picture for American workers. Perhaps wages haven't increased very much, but that has more to do with market conditions in the still-soft labor pool rather than a deliberate plan to stick it to the rank and file.

Herbert also throws in some falsified statistics to bolster his argument:

And despite the growth of jobs in March that had the Bush crowd dancing in the White House halls last Friday, there has been no net increase in formal payroll employment since the end of the recession. We have lost jobs. There are fewer payroll jobs now than there were when the recession ended in November 2001.

Despite the sackcloth and ashes in the NYT's newsroom, that is simply not true. Civilian employment has increased since November 2001, although not as much as one would like. Perhaps this graph on civilian employment from the Bureau of Labor Statistics will help demonstrate how Herbert went off the rails here:

The BLS survey of civilian employment shows a total of 136.234 million people employed in November 2001, and 138.298 million people employed in March 2004. I'm no economist, but to me that looks like an increase of 2.064 million people employed. While total non-farm employment has dipped slightly since then -- by 0.323 million jobs -- it's equally true that non-farm employment has risen since Bush's full economic plan was finally implemented last summer.

There's nothing fun about a recession, and there hasn't been a recovery yet that happened overnight. However, what Herbert does in this column, and in general, is to take the negative parts out of context and then interpolate them into trends, and from trends into corporate conspiracies. I understand that the op-ed section exists as a forum for opinion and viewpoint, but you would think that the New York Times would be somewhat embarassed to have its columnist opine on economics while demonstrating little knowledge of the subject, and even less initiative to research it.

Kerry Flip-Flops on Education Reform

Who wrote these words about education reform?

"It bothers me," the reformer wrote, "that some Democrats have resisted the idea of making educational outcomes — the skills and knowledge our kids obtain from the educational system — as important as educational inputs — the adequate funding, the good facilities and the higher teacher pay we all want."

The answer? John Kerry, in his campaign book he published just last year. However, Kerry the Candidate has reversed course and now campaigns against No Child Left Behind because of its "punitive" provisions for schools that fail to raise educational outcomes. However, the Los Angeles Times' Ronald Brownstein -- who usually acts as a reliable spin doctor for the Democrats -- unspins Kerry on this issue:

After voting for President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, Kerry, during his race to the nomination, joined the mob of Democrats condemning the education reform law. ... [H]e reversed himself to insist that schools be judged not only on outputs — their success in improving student performance — but inputs as well, such as whether teachers and students show up regularly.

Kerry and other skeptics point to some legitimate problems in No Child Left Behind. But many education reformers worry that the changes he's demanding will do more to hide problems in the schools than to fix them. Put another way: His proposed revisions mostly favor the adults working in the school system over students and their parents.

Various denunciations of the NCLB Act have filled the campaign trail; it's vilified almost as often as the Patriot Act -- both of which Kerry voted to support while in the Senate. As Brownstein notes, Kerry's attitude on education reform changed when Howard Dean vaulted to the front of the pack during the run-up to the primaries and threatened to take all the union endorsements with him. Suddenly, Kerry had a lot less to say about "outputs" and ever since has criticized the act for the potential consequences for failing schools.

Calling the measure "punitive", though, certainly mischaracterizes the act, as Brownstein points out:

Kerry's clear intent is to loosen the standard so that fewer schools are identified as needing improvement, even if student test scores fail to rise. It's easy to see why teachers and administrators worried about their public image like that idea. It's more difficult to see how it helps parents or children.

The demand for loosening the accountability standard is based largely on the myth, now embraced by Kerry, that the law punishes schools designated as needing improvement.

In fact, schools face no changes until they have failed to raise student performance for at least two consecutive years. Even then, they are only required to develop an improvement plan and, more important, to allow parents to transfer their children to other public schools. If the school fails to improve student performance for three consecutive years, it must provide low-income parents stipends to obtain extra tutoring for their kids, often from respected providers like Sylvan Learning Center.

How exactly can this be construed as "punitive"? It focuses sanctions specifically on providing more options for parents and students for the first three years a school continues to fail to generate age-appropriate test results. Over a hundred thousand students in the nation's largest school districts get extra tutoring, thanks to those requirements. Now Kerry proposes to water down the evaluation standards by including silly measurements like teacher attendance, which would have eliminated the tutoring opportunity for most of those students. Aren't the teachers getting paid to show up for work? And who exactly is Kerry trying to help here?

Kerry has built a record of flip-flops that the Bush campaign has exploited very skillfully in the first month of the head-to-head campaign. When formerly reliable Democratic voices like Brownstein pull a fisking like this pointing out these inconsistencies, you know that Kerry's gone off the rails.

Dodgers Land Bradley, Hope He's Not Sheffield

The Los Angeles Dodgers, who have underachieved for several years and haven't won a playoff game since Orel Hershiser beat the A's in 1988, finally pulled the trigger on a major trade for a big-time hitter ... but somehow this sounds familiar:

If all goes well, Milton Bradley will be that long-awaited impact hitter, stirring a dormant Dodger offense to life and displaying his supreme talent for the hometown fans. If not, he'll be the guy who displaced an entire outfield on the eve of the season opener, a volatile personality injected into the clubhouse of a manager whose contract expires at the end of the season.

New owner Frank McCourt promised a big bat before the season started, and new General Manager Paul DePodesta delivered with 24 hours to spare, but only after the Cleveland Indians basically fired Bradley for misbehavior. The Dodgers gambled on him Sunday, trading their best outfield prospect for one of the most explosive players in the game, in every sense of the word.

New GM DePodesta had just been derided over the weekend by the LA Times' T.J. Simers as The Lightweight GM for failing to make a trade or a free-agent signing for the big bat the Dodgers needed this season (well, OK, that they need every season), but that was more than a little unfair; after all, McCourt hired him after the free-agent frenzy and most of the trading had been completed. The previous GM had the chance to trade for Richie Sexson, who would have been a better fit -- more on that in a minute -- but refused to give up Franklin Gutierrez, who got a lot more expendable in the new regime.

So how does a guy like Milton Bradley become available on the eve of Opening Day, considering that he hit .321 last year with a .421 OBP? Well ...

The Indians had made Bradley their cleanup hitter, but after he failed to run out a popup last Wednesday and subsequently argued with Manager Eric Wedge, they announced they would trade him. ... In February he was sentenced to three days in jail after failing to pull over as ordered by Ohio police last year. In 2001 he was taken to a hospital after refusing to leave a restaurant when drunk.

Great. It sounds like they traded for another immature prima donna with clubhouse issues. Didn't we go down this road with Gary Sheffield, who hit well but spent most of his LA career whining about his pay and accusing management of racism for not renogotiating his contract after his first couple of seasons with the club? Instead of Sexson, who played first base and had no "citizenship" issues, now we get Bradley, whose presence requires a major reshuffling of the lineup. Dave Roberts, the speedster who leads off for LA, moves from center to left, Juan Encarnacion moves from left to right, and Shawn Green moves from right to first base.

On the night before the opener.

If this works, of course, DePodesta is a genius, but even if it doesn't, this was the best deal he could get. And that's a pretty poor reflection on the previous ownership of a club that had the second-highest payroll in the league last year.

Pincus Spins

Walter Pincus puts on a ballet of spin in today's Washington Post, as he tries to wrap readers around the inherent contradictions in his analysis that a degraded al-Qaeda, an ineffectual Osama bin Laden, and the replacement of terrorist leadership with less-capable candidates is somehow bad news:

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has accelerated the spread of Osama bin Laden's anti-Americanism among once local Islamic militant movements, increasing danger to the United States as the al Qaeda network is becoming less able to mount attacks, according to senior intelligence officials at the CIA and State Department.

At the same time, the Sunni Triangle has become a training ground for foreign Islamic jihadists who are slipping into Iraq to join former Saddam Hussein loyalists to test themselves against U.S. and coalition forces, these officials say.

Translation: the attacks on al-Qaeda and their state sponsorship has made them increasingly unable to mount attacks on their own. In the meantime, would-be terrorists are flooding into a narrow geographical area in order to square off against the American military -- instead of dispersing themselves throughout the world, and specifically the US, to murder American civilians.

So far, sounds great to me.

After that, Pincus relates the usual blather about how American military action created anti-American feelings amongst Islamofascists, and how that hatred has pushed the groups to link up where they previously were more concerned with local leadership issues. I see. I was unaware that groups like Hezb' Allah and Islamic Jihad loved Americans before the fall of 2001. That must have been why they kept kidnapping them in Lebanon in the 1980s; they just couldn't spend enough quality time with Yanks before that. And even though ignoring bin Laden's previous provocations, like attacking Khobar Towers, the two American embassies in Africa, and the USS Cole obviously encouraged that string of increasingly aggressive attacks, Pincus somehow gets the impression that they really stopped liking us in October 2001, when we invaded Afghanistan.

Since attacks in East Africa, on the USS Cole, and on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda has lost its sanctuary in Afghanistan. Its once top-down control of terrorist operations now is in the hands of less experienced people.

That makes it less clear what roles al Qaeda played in recent bombings in Bali, Istanbul, Riyadh, Tunisia, Casablanca and Madrid. Authorities said that local extremists carried out these attacks, although Black said a possible al Qaeda leadership connection to Madrid is still under investigation.

More bad news -- al-Qaeda doesn't have its address any more in Afghanistan. How short-sighted we were to dislodge them! I guess Pincus argues that we were better off knowing where they were, so we could find them later on. You know, in case they did something really nasty, like discriminate against women and gays. [Oh, wait ... never mind.] As far as their role being less clear in the laundry list of car-bombings Pincus lists, it's only less clear if you don't accept their taking responsibility for almost every single one of them. Madrid, clearly, was not the work of "local extremists," as Basques generally don't chant in Arabic before blowing themselves up to avoid arrest.

That may be the single silliest paragraph published in the Washington Post this year.

Black and the senior intelligence analyst said it would be a mistake to believe the United States faces a monolithic terrorist threat. "Before Iraq, al Qaeda had some success with like-minded organizations conducting operations," the analyst said.

The only people who believe that are people who think all history began on 9/11/01. Besides, the real threat isn't the asymmetrical groups themselves, it's their financial and strategic support from terrorism-sponsoring states. That's why we've acted against states since then -- to impress upon them that supporting terrorists no longer carries zero risk.

As the United States and its allies have systematically captured and killed almost 70 percent of the al Qaeda leadership, bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, are on the run and unable to provide operational leadership. Bin Laden's effectiveness as a plotter of terrorist acts has been "greatly reduced," Black said.

Black told the House panel that bin Laden maintains some contact with the remaining leadership but command and control is handled by younger and less experienced leaders. Bin Laden, Black said, "spends most of his time trying to figure out, you know, how they're going to come for me and is this going to be the day."

Anyone want to guess why this was left to the bottom of the article? Anyone? Oh, come now ... let's not always see the same same hands. It's because Pincus wants to promote the view that taking an active approach to terrorism is ultimately futile, since other people will also hate us for taking al-Qaeda and its state sponsors out. Pincus keeps spinning, but he remains essentially in the same defeatist place, blaming the US for Islamofascist hatred. It's the Spanish impulse, and the events of the last week should have made clear how irrelevant those concerns are when people hate you not for what you do or say, but for the fact of your existence.

Guardian: Bush, Blair Agreed on Iraq War 9/20/01

Tomorrow's UK Guardian/Observer reports that George Bush and Tony Blair reached a personal accord nine days after 9/11 to go to war in Iraq, in a story that's bound to have electoral impact on both sides of the Atlantic:

According to Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to Washington, who was at the dinner when Blair became the first foreign leader to visit America after 11 September, Blair told Bush he should not get distracted from the war on terror's initial goal - dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Bush, claims Meyer, replied by saying: 'I agree with you, Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.' Regime change was already US policy.

It was clear, Meyer says, 'that when we did come back to Iraq it wouldn't be to discuss smarter sanctions'. Elsewhere in his interview, Meyer says Blair always believed it was unlikely that Saddam would be removed from power or give up his weapons of mass destruction without a war.

Faced with this prospect of a further war, he adds, Blair 'said nothing to demur'.

Vanity Fair will publish the entire interview in a 25,000-word feature article on the Iraq war in the May issue, and this testimony will make some headlines in the US. However, as many of us have been saying since that same time frame, the Iraq war was a necessary and logical choice for the second front in the war on terror, for myriad reasons. Chiefly, the decade-long quagmire in Iraq had damaged the West's credibility in dealing with obvious security threats such as Saddam, and that standoff kept a large amount of our armed forces pinned down in the failing campaign for containment. Not only that, but since most of those forces were based in Saudi Arabia, they provided a continuing provocation for terrorists and threatened the stability of the Saudi government. That's not even considering the intelligence that informed Western governments of Saddam's WMD arsenal and capacity and the connections between Saddam and terrorists in Palestine and other areas, or the strategic reasons behing eliminating the largest military threat in the region at the advent of the war on terror.

Bush will be able to deflect criticism by reminding people that the official US policy towards Iraq was regime change, a policy mandated by Congress in 1998, and that the terror attacks on 9/11 forced him to make that policy goal a high priority. In the aftermath of the Clarke debate, where even Democrat Bob Kerrey wondered aloud why we didn't just invade Afghanistan before 2001 if we knew al-Qaeda based itself there, it's hard to question why Bush considered action against Iraq to be such a high priority. Blair, on the other hand, may have a lot more trouble explaining his agreement to Bush's plan, mostly because he allowed people to believe that he was a late convert to the plan. It wasn't the only mistake Blair made, either.

It was no secret that the impetus for the Bush administration's return to the UN to seek that elusive 17th resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force was a combination of Tony Blair and a reluctant Congress. However, Vanity Fair's article will reveal that France tried to stop the Anglo-American initiative -- in order to avoid the breach that developed:

Vanity Fair also discloses that on 13 January, at a lunch around the mahogany table in Rice's White House office, President Chirac's top adviser, Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, and his Washington ambassador, Jean-David Levitte, made the US an offer it should have accepted. In the hope of avoiding an open breach between the two countries, they said that, if America was determined to go to war, it should not seek a second resolution, that the previous autumn's Resolution 1441 arguably provided sufficient legal cover, and that France would keep quiet if the administration went ahead.

But Bush had already promised Blair he would seek a second resolution and Blair feared he might lose Parliament's support without it. Meanwhile, the Foreign Office legal department was telling him that without a second resolution war would be illegal, a view that Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, seemed to share at that stage. When the White House sought Blair's opinion on the French overture, he balked.

And so it turns out, if this report is correct, that the French offered the Americans and the Brits a way to allow France to avoid any responsibility for the war -- and if accepted, France would not have blocked the Coalition's plans. Whether the French were sincere may be another question, as the French would renege on another verbal understanding with Powell and Bush in the days just after this incident. However, Blair's refusal to play along -- remaining more concerned with the "legal" justifications -- make him look a lot more Clintonesque than previously thought. At the same time, the Democrats in Congress pressured Bush to go back the UN one more time before taking action, and the combined fecklessness of Blair and Congress doomed the alliance.

If this report turns out to be true, you can expect it to be nothing more than a blip on the American electoral scene. As the Clarke testimony proved, Americans have already processed the Iraq war and are more interested in policy moving forward than in rehashing the decision-making process, and besides, Bush never hid his desire to comply with Congress' policy of regime change. Blair's been a bit too smart for his own good, and this revelation may wind up proving him to truly be the heir to David Lloyd-George, who won the war and wound up being chased out of office.