Calame: Times Lied About Timing Of NSA Article

The New York Times' public editor, Byron Calame, publishes a startling admision from Bill Keller regarding the publication delay of the most explosive story in his short reign as managing editor. Earlier, when Keller told people that the NSA surveillance story got delayed from December 2004 based on requests from the White House, speculation circulated that the story had actually gotten shelved before the presidential election. Now Calame confirms that Keller lied about the publication history of the Lichtblau/Risen effort:

THE NEW YORK TIMES’S Dec. 16 article that disclosed the Bush administration’s warrantless eavesdropping has led to an important public debate about the once-secret program. And the decision to write about the program in the face of White House pressure deserved even more praise than I gave it in a January column, which focused on the paper’s inadequate explanation of why it had “delayed publication for a year.”

The article, written by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, has been honored with a Pulitzer and other journalistic prizes. But contradictory post-publication comments by Times editors and others about just how long the article was held have left me increasingly concerned about one key question: Did The Times mislead readers by stating that any delay in publication came after the Nov. 2, 2004, presidential election?

In my January column, in which I refused to rely on anonymous sources, I noted that I was left “puzzled” by the election question. But I have now learned from Bill Keller, the executive editor, that The Times delayed publication of drafts of the eavesdropping article before the 2004 election. This revelation confirms what anonymous sources had told other publications such as The Los Angeles Times and The New York Observer in December.

In fact, the Keller/Calame interview seems very strange indeed. Keller refused to answer this question in January, and in fact refused to answer any of Calame's questions regarding the timing of the publication. Calame followed up this week, and despite Keller's insistence that the story was now "old news", agreed to sit down with his public editor -- and then confessed he had lied all along.

Left-wing pundits and bloggers have insisted that Keller spiked the story to keep George Bush in office. Keller, however, has a different take on his decision. He insists that the news would have likely helped Bush rather than hurt him, and the public support for this program after its delayed revelation last December supports that analysis. John Kerry and the Democrats had castigated Bush for the lack of visible effort to find and track terrorists, and the program's exposure would have forced Kerry to recant and suddenly argue that Bush had been too enthusiastic about fighting terrorism, a tough pirouette to execute in a grueling presidential campaign.

In the end, the final version of the story got prepared just days before the election, and Keller argues that a release at that point would have been "unfair" to all parties. It took several weeks for all of the political dust to settle once the article did come out. He may have a point, but then two related events took place: he delayed the release for over a year, and then Keller lied about the timing when he published it.

Calame asked Keller why he lied, although Calame didn't quite put it that way. Keller says he used "inelegant" wording in his description, but clearly Keller wanted to keep that information secret. Besides, Keller's job as editor depends on his use of words and the judgement of what and how to communicate. It's clear that Keller wanted to keep people from learning that he had the chance to publish this before the election, and he deliberately did not. Why lie? He depends on the Left for his readership, and his reluctance to publish the article when Bush was vulnerable will likely lose his readership.

Keller has destroyed what's left of his paper's credibility. He lied to everyone about the timing of this publication, baldly and publicly. It also damages the credibility of everyone associated with this story. After all, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau certainly knew that the story was ready before the November 2nd election -- and yet they chose to play along with Keller's lies that the decision to spike it was in December 2004 rather than October and November.

The Paper of Record managed to utterly destroy the trust it still had left with readers across the political spectrum with this story.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! And you may want to ask yourself this, as one CQ commenter did -- what else has the Times lied about?

The Pakistan Problem, And The Return Of FISA

The revelation of the massive terrorist plot on British airlines shows that Islamofascist terror has once again centered in Pakistan, and that the Pakistani government may or may not be up to the task of confronting it. The ISI cooperated in this instance, but Western intelligence has little faith that they will remain consistent in this effort:

U.S. and European officials described Pakistan yesterday as the hub of a plot to down transatlantic flights, saying the young British men allegedly behind the planned attacks drew financial and logistical support from sponsors operating in Karachi and Lahore.

At least 17 suspects in British custody for the aviation plot have family ties to Pakistan, and several had traveled there in recent months to seek instructions and confer with unknown conspirators, intelligence officials said yesterday, discussing several elements of the investigation on the condition of anonymity.

Pakistan's government, portraying itself as a reliable ally against terrorism, said it had made at least seven arrests connected to the plot but insisted that the conspiracy was centered in neighboring Afghanistan. Two of the men in custody there were British citizens. ...

U.S. intelligence analysts say they believe that the principal remaining leadership of al-Qaeda is hiding in Pakistan. Despite increased cooperation between the Islamabad government and Western powers since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, they say, the number of extremists inside the country may be on the rise and elements of Pakistan's intelligence services remain sympathetic to their cause.

On Friday, the British government portrayed Pakistan's cooperation as vital in undoing the alleged bombing conspiracy, but some U.S. officials said that five years after the Sept. 11 attacks, they are far from countering, or even understanding, the level of threat emanating from Pakistan's lawless regions and bustling cities.

Two intelligence sources suggested that Pakistan had replaced Afghanistan as a center for terrorist activities and expressed frustration with the attempts of Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to exert control over huge swaths of territory.

The diplomatic dance between George Bush and Pervez Musharraf has always had its share of controversy. Musharraf provided almost the only diplomatic recognition to the Taliban during their years of oppressive rule in Afghanistan. He carefully dealt with radical Islamists until Osama bin Laden twice tried to assassinate him, but the coordination between Pakistan and the terrorists groups -- especially in their mutual efforts in the Kashmir -- left the ISI compromised.

This case shows that Pakistan can provide key assistance in the effort against terrorism, at least when it doesn't threaten the ISI's friends. As the Post's intelligence source tells them, the region has cleared considerably of the Islamofascist impulse, even in Pakistan, but Musharraf's failure to control the north and east of his country makes it hard to trust Pakistan for consistent efforts to defeat terrorism.

One other unrelated point comes up in this Post report. Dafna Linzer describes the frantic efforts of the British and American intelligence agencies to run down a number of leads just before the UK arrested the conspirators. The efforts led to a run on FISA warrants:

In the days before the alleged airliner bombing plot was exposed, more than 200 FBI agents followed up leads inside the United States looking for potential connections to British and Pakistani suspects. The investigation was so large, officials said, that it brought a significant surge in warrants for searches and surveillance from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret panel that oversees most clandestine surveillance.

One official estimated that scores of secret U.S. warrants were dedicated solely to the London plot. The government usually averages a few dozen a week for all counterintelligence investigations, according to federal statistics.

The purpose of the recent warrants included monitoring telephone calls that some of the London suspects made to the United States, two sources said.

Earlier, I warned about making assumptions about the nature of the surveillance that caught these terrorists. This clearly sounds as though the NSA program that caused so much controversy did not play a part in this investigation. If Linzer has this correct, it instead showed that the FISA court provided a high level of cooperation to intelligence services, and that the sudden and rather overwhelming demand for warrants did not fatally compromise the efforts to stop the attack.

Does this mean the expedited process used by the Bush administration under its interpretation of Article II of the Constitution is never needed? No, but it does suggest that getting a FISA warrant may not be all that difficult now. It also indicates that terrorists cannot keep themselves from using systems that they know we have penetrated rather thoroughly.

Most of all, though, it shows that we need robust systems of surveillance to protect us from these lunatics. We succeeded in this case and saved thousands of lives, quite literally. Whatever we did right, we need to keep doing it in the future.

Northern Alliance Radio At The County Fair

Mitch and I will be broadcasting from the Dakota County Fair today in our return to the 1-3 pm CT time slot on the Northern Alliance Radio Network. Brian, Chad, and John will be broadcasting from the air-conditioned bunker at their normal time of 11 am - 1 pm CT, but then again, they won't get food on sticks! King, meanwhile, is taking today off to cook up his new show which starts next week at 3 pm, when Michael Broadkorb joins him for NARN 3 - The Revenge Of The Sith. (Did I get that title right?)

Be sure to come out to the fair to see us today, and bring plenty of food on sticks. Mitch can never get enough.

UPDATE: We had a great time at the fair. It's much more relaxed than the state fair, which we will do on both weekends, four shows in all. In our last segment, we got surprised by two Marine sergeants who came to our booth on a tram to tell us about their pull-up contest. We found out that the two will also be at the state fair, as the Marine Corps will sponsor the NARN, and they plan to have a pull-up contest there as well. They were great fun in the last segment, and we'll get them to do some air time with us at the state fair.

Best line: when we asked them what happens to the losers in the contest, one replied, "We send them to the Navy." I suspect SwabJockey will have something to say abou that ...

As the FM and I checked out the fair after the show, we went by the booth and watched as they tried to encourage teenagers to get up and try some pullups, and their enthusiasm drew a pretty decent crowd. We walked on after a few minutes, but one of the men we interviewed chased me down and gave me a cap and t-shirt as a gift. He gave me a set for Mitch, too, but I'll let you know if I remember to give them up.

Nasrallah Endorses Cease Fire ... Sort Of

Hassan Nasrallah has made a less-than-enthusiastic endorsement of the UN Security Council cease-fire resolution, promising to argue for modifications in the Lebanese Cabinet meeting taking place in hours to formulate an answer to Turtle Bay. Nasrallah objects to the arms embargo placed on Hezbollah, and vows to continue his "jihadic" responsibilities towards Israel:

Hizbullah Leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said on Saturday that if a UN-endorsed agreement were reached that would end the hostilities, then his organization would abide by it.

In a televised speech on Hizbullah-run al-Manar television, he said that he would allow for the deployment of the Lebanese army, augmented by UNIFIL forces, to deploy in southern Lebanon.

Still, he said he had some reservations against the resolution, but noted he would bring those up at the Lebanese cabinet meeting that would be convened on Saturday evening. His strongest reservation was against the arms embargo that the cease-fire agreement called for. ...

He warned that his organization would continue to "exercise its right" to defend the country from "Israeli aggression." He noted that the Israeli military activity continued, under American approval, in order to gain territorial accomplishments before the cease-fire would go into effect.

In such a case, Nasrallah said, Hizbullah would not cease its actions against "the Zionist enemy." We will continue to "fulfill our national and jihadic obligations."

I think the mousetrap has been set. The UNSC will not agree to modifications by either party, and if Hezbollah continues to attack Israel as Nasrallah promises, the next efforts will not end at the Litani. Further, if anyone breaks the arms embargo, then the game is back on.

We'll see.

Does Chafee Equal Lieberman For The GOP?

Now that the left wing of the Democratic Party has kneecapped Joe Lieberman, a staunch liberal but a hawk on Iraq, some have accused the conservatives of the GOP of committing a similar mistake with Lincoln Chafee, the liberal Senator from Rhode Island. The fiscal conservatives at the Club for Growth have supported Chafee's primary opponent Steven Laffey in a bit to unseat the incumbent, and it appears that Chafee may be in danger of losing his re-election bid before November:

Fresh off their first victory over a Republican incumbent, GOP conservatives seeking party purity on taxes and spending are focused on ousting moderate Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

The Club for Growth and its 36,000 members spent around $1 million to help challenger Tim Walberg unseat first-term Rep. Joe Schwarz in Michigan's Republican primary on Tuesday. The win came despite Schwarz's support from President Bush and the National Rifle Association. ...

This year, the group's top priority is defeating Chafee, who angered many Republicans by voting against President Bush's tax cuts and then casting a write-in vote for the president's father in the last election. The Club has helped Cranston, R.I., Mayor Stephen Laffey raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to unseat Chafee, and polls show the two Republicans running even a month before the Sept. 12 primary.

The prospect of a Laffey win worries national Republicans, who consider Chafee the party's best bet for holding the seat in a heavily Democratic state. Polls show Laffey trailing far behind the leading Democratic candidate, former Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse.

The Club's Web site says that's fine: "It wouldn't be much of a loss if a new Democrat senator were elected, as he would vote much the same as Chafee does now."

Centrist Joe Gandelman at the always-interesting The Moderate Voice says the Republicans are about to go over the same cliff as the Democrats did in Connecticut:

The Lieberman loss and the Chafee battle are likely to mean politicos of both parties are going to be far more careful in the future about adhering to strictly party lines. Some will argue this would be a welcome development for American politics — that party choices would be clearly delineated. Others will argue that it will mean less give and take — less political horse-trading — since politicos of both parties wouldn't want to be seen as partisan turncoats.

It's a good point, and one that the GOP and conservatives should keep in mind whenever attempting a primary fight against an established Republican incumbent. This weapon cuts both ways, and losing a seat in the Senate or House has some serious implications for policy and national security. We should remember to make sure that we do not make the perfect the enemy of the good. I'd rather have a Republican who votes with me 70% of the time than a Democrat who votes with me 30% of the time, all other things being equal.

In this case, however, the comparison between Connecticut and Rhode Island races does not wash. Lieberman';s voting record showed that he solidly supported his party on its agenda and policy. He consistenly voted in the middle of his Senate caucus. In the Poole reports for the last three sessions, at least 15 Democrats voted more conservatively than Lieberman in each. The notion that a politician whose voting record remained almost dead center of his caucus could be out of touch with the Democratic mainstream is laughable on its face.

Chafee presents a much different picture. In the last three sessions that comprises his entire last term of office, Chafee has consistently been the outlier of the GOP caucus. In two sessions, he managed to vote less with his caucus than a Democrat (Ben Nelson this session, Zell Miller in the 107th). Chafee can be described very reasonably as outside the mainstream of Republican thought.

Does that make it a good idea to target Chafee and potentially lose the seat to the Democrats? Chafee has up to now caucused with the Republicans to ensure GOP control of the Senate. He could have pulled a Jim Jeffords in the 107th but declined. That being said, Chafee has consistently created friction within the caucus, first by refusing to support George Bush's re-election campaign (when Chafee was not running for office and risked little), and then by joining the Gang of 14 to undermine presidential prerogative in judicial nominations. He has set the table for Republican activist opposition and seems to have almost invited it.

I'm supporting Laffey and even sent a contribution to his campaign. I hope he wins the primary. If he doesn't, it's hard to imagine a Democrat that would vote with the Republicans much less than Chafee. In this case, the primary challenge is warranted and the risk is small.

Of course, we also won't see blackface and DDOS attacks in this election, either.

UPDATE: FreePA takes issue with the 70-30 argument above and makes the point that one should always vote one's principles. I agree with that, but one also has to keep in mind the risks and rewards of changing horses because of one particular issue. I would certainly agree that Pat Toomey made a better candidate than Arlen Specter, especially given Specter's efforts to prove FreePA's argument over the past two years.

New Security Plan Gets First Big Win

American troops captured 60 suspect al-Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad today in the first big test of the new security plan for the Iraqi capital. The cell specialized in bomb-making and had planned attacks in the near future, according to CENTCOM:

A statement by the U.S. military said the arrests in Baghdad were made Friday in Arab Jabour, a southern neighborhood of the capital and a stronghold of Sunni insurgents. The 60 detained men are believed associated with a senior Iraqi al-Qaida leader in a cell that "specializes in bomb making," the statement said.

"The group has been reported to be planning and conducting training for future attacks," it said. "Multiple forms of credible intelligence led the assault force to the location, later determined to be a funeral gathering, where the suspects were detained."

Women and children at the funeral were separated from the men and the arrests were made without incident, the statement said without giving any details.

It's good news, and sorely needed. The rise in violence in the capital and its environs had created an intolerable sectarian tension that would result in an all-out civil war, if not effectively addressed. The US and the Maliki government finally recognized this and implemented a new force-heavy plan to disarm and capture renegade militias and assorted terrorists, especially the remnants of the Zarqawi network.

Will it be enough? Hopefully, yes. The US cannot allow Iraq to descend into Somali-style street fighting, turning the center of the Middle East into a failed state ripe for terrorist control. The danger of that comes from a lack of aggressive confrontation of the Moqtada al-Sadrs of the region, who have continually tested American resolve since the early days of liberation. When we stopped responding to Sadr's provocations and those of other sectarian gang lords, they grew increasingly bold. The proper response, an escalation of troop strength and more liberal rules of engagement, did not have the political support necessary here in the US -- and the Bush administration's insistence on showing drawdowns initially kept them from pursuing it.

Now with the Iraqis taking control of the quieter provinces, the departing troops can get deployed into Baghdad to quell the violence there. It had better work, or the Iraqi government will find itself hard-pressed to remain in business.

Where's -- And Who's -- Raul-do, Day 12

The continuing disappearance of the Castro Boys would have put them on milk cartons in any other region, but Cuba continues to insist that all is well and that we stop looking behind the green curtain. Granma, the regime's media mouthpiece, even reports that Fidel has returned to work on a part-time basis from his hospital room, walking and talking and recovering nicely, even though Cuba has yet to show any footage of its Commandante and his little brother still hasn't made a public appearance since having presidential powers transferred to him almost two weeks ago.

So what kind of man is Raul, anyway, besides apparently suffering from almost-terminal shyness? CQ reader Matt C refers us to an explanation and history of Dear Placeholder in The Week Magazine. The leader of Cuban's armed forces comes across as a complete creation of his brother, a man who learned cruelty at the feet of the master -- but who has learned to embrace it since. He may have better connections to the Cuban military than Fidel, which means that a coup would be very unlikely while Raul is still alive.

Here are a few excerpts of The Week's profile:

[W]hile he lacks Fidel’s ability to inspire, he very much shares his belief in Cuba’s communist revolution, and has spent his life loyally managing his brother’s regime from behind the scenes. “If the Cuban Revolution can be considered an ongoing drama,” an exiled Cuban intelligence officer told author Brian Latell in his 2005 book After Fidel, “then Fidel must be thought of as its director and Raúl its producer.” ...

Raúl was very instrumental in turning Cuba into the Western hemisphere’s first Marxist state. It was Raúl who first befriended the guerrilla leader Ernesto “Che” Guevara in 1955 and brought him into Cuba’s revolutionary camp. He also enlisted the support of Soviet KGB agent Nikolai Leonov, whom he had met during his Eastern Bloc travels. After the revolution of 1959, Raúl was able to use this contact to arrange crucial Soviet economic and military support. When he visited Moscow in July 1962, he personally secured the deployment of medium-range ballistic missiles—an action that precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis three months later and brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. ...

Raúl has a lot of blood on his hands. In November 1956, Fidel tested him by demanding that he murder a fellow rebel whose loyalty was in question; Raúl did so without hesitating. After Batista fell, Raúl presided over the execution of 100 of Batista’s military officers, personally participating in some of the firing squads. Over the years, he has played a major role in the regime’s ruthless persecution of dissidents and homosexuals. But in 1989, when Fidel ordered him to kill his best friend, Gen. Arnaldo Ochoa, Raúl broke down and wept. Their sister Juanita (who had a falling out with Fidel and went into exile) blames Fidel for turning Raúl from a mild and generous boy into a “hard, even grim” strongman.

Read the entire primer. If Raul still lives, he is more than capable of continuing the current regime while his brother recuperates. Even if Fidel dies, his strong alliances within the Cuban military would likely keep him from facing the firing squads of a new revolutionary government. In fact, the Castro grip on power may have more of Raul's hand than Fidel's even under normal circumstances, from this profile's perspective. If Raul is gone, however, all bets are off.

A Response To Paul

Paul Mirengoff, a true gentleman and a friend, responds to my criticism that he unfairly criticized George Bush for agreeing to the Security Council resolution, rightly noting that I did not explain myself in much detail. Paul politely restates his case and attempts to interpret my thin line of argument. In fairness, I'll provide a better explanation and hope that makes for a better argument.

The overriding question of how to end the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict is to understand Israel's goals and realistic expectations of military action in Lebanon. Many argue that Israel should destroy Hezbollah and kill all the terrorists in Lebanon, and that the military effort should not cease short of this goal.. Anything less would be a defeat for Israel and a victory for the terrorists, who will use this to celebrate a triumph over the IDF. That argument serves as a satifactory emotional position, but it ignores reality, and it's this unrealistic expectation that leads people to blame Bush for the American efforts at the UN.

Could Israel actually have destroyed Hezbollah? The answer is almost certainly no. Hezbollah enjoys some limited popular support among the Shi'ite minority in Lebanon, which gives it support and recruits. They are not limited to just the sub-Litani area of Lebanon, however, and they can travel and live anywhere within Lebanon they wish. In fact, all anyone has to recall to recognize the futulity of such a goal is that Israel occupied half of Lebanon for eighteen years, and Hezbollah followed them all the way to the border when Israel finally withdrew. Even with a generational occupation, Israel could not dislodge or destroy Hezbollah.

Hezbollah gets support from other sources, much more critical support which Israel's military offensive only tangentially touched. If one wants to destroy Hezbollah or at least render them toothless, attacking Lebanon is a waste of time. The real target for that mission would be Damascus, not Beirut. Syria runs Hezbollah in partnership with Iran, and Syria provides all their lines of communication for resupply and political support, and after the end of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, provide the only direct land link to Arab aid. Israel did not want to engage Syria, for a variety of reasons, and so the idea that they intended to destroy Hezbollah from the outset seems suspect at best.

In fact, Israel made clear what they wanted from their war from its beginning. It wanted their soldiers returned and the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah and move them out of the sub-Litani region. The Israelis want an end to Hezbollah's capability to shower rockets down on their cities. Those goals fit within Israeli political reality, which will abolutely reject another long occupation of Lebanon, considered by many as their Viet Nam. These limited goals may have made some of their international supporters despair, but the Olmert government does not want to fight the combined armies of Arabia again unless absolutely necessary, and that time has not yet come.

In this context, George Bush delivered the best deal he could to meet those goals. He fought the UN to a stalemate while allowing Israel a free hand to conduct military missions against Hezbollah positions and leadership, creating some diplomatic backlash against the US as a result. When France tried to weasel its way into the good graces of the Arab states supporting Hezbollah, Bush made sure they did so by themselves, and then forced them back. In the end, the resolution calls for the solution that Israel wanted all along, and it commits the UN to provide enough forces to at least have a chance of successful implementation. Bush also made sure that the Israelis did not have to leave Lebanon until that force replaced them despite loud calls for immediate withdrawal, allowing Israel to protect its retreat.

My point, therefore, was that George Bush could hardly be blamed for delivering almost everything Israel wanted out of this war, and doing so with unanimous UN Security Council approval. In fact, the result should be seen as something of a diplomatic accomplishment. Israel set the goals, and we delivered. If the result is unsatisfactory, then I believe it is unfair to blame George Bush for demanding a war that Israel did not want to wage.

Now It's Time To Play Beat The Clock

Neither Israel nor Lebanon acted urgently to ratify the UN Security Council cease-fire resolution, putting off consideration from both Cabinets until Sunday. Israel used the time to push forward on its military goals, trying to accomplish as much as possible before the cease-fire comes into effect:

Israel staged wide-ranging airstrikes and sent commandos into the Hezbollah heartland Saturday while the U.N. raced to begin enforcing its new cease-fire blueprint and stop combat. Airstrikes killed at least 19 people, including 15 in one Lebanese village.

Israel also blasted a highway near Lebanon's last open border crossing to Syria as it kept up its full-scale campaign against Hezbollah militants. Long columns of Israeli tanks, troops and armored personnel carriers streamed over the border.

Some people may ask why Israel bothers to do this, considering it has already agreed to the cease-fire, at least provisionally until its Cabinet meets. The answer is found in the terms of the resolution, which allows Israel to withdraw in parallel to the deployment of the Lebanese Army and the bolstered UNIFIL forces. Israel wants to place the IDF in position to meet these forces and withdraw as a coordinated effort. If that did not happen, the vacuum left behind would almost certainly create opportunities for Hezbollah to mobilize and strike at the Israeli forces.

The more obvious answer, though, is that Israel has a short window of time to degrade Hezbollah capabilities while in theater, and they want to take advantage of it. It could be argued that they had plenty of time to do this before, and that criticism is valid indeed. They still have time left, though, and the Israelis apparently intend to make the most of it. Now that they know the terms of the cease-fire, they need to ensure that their position at the end of the conflict allows for the greatest possible chance of success for the Lebanese Army to control the buffer zone.

All of this assumes that the cease-fire even gets implemented, an open question given Hassan Nasrallah's influence on Beirut. The third strategic issue is the ground position if the resolution never gets implemented. The IDF needs to make sure that they control strategic points within southern Lebanon in order to roll out their massive offensive if it becomes necessary. That's why the IDF attacked communication lines going in and out of Lebanon this morning; they want to make sure that resupply is blocked until the very last moment.

The Israelis have fought an almost diffident war until now. This last burst will remind Lebanon of the true capabilities of the IDF, in case they're tempted to allow Hezbollah to continue its war.

At Least It Wasn't Blackface

The saga of Ned Lamont and his clueless campaign continues this evening, as his top aide prepares an apology to a town that voted heavily for Joe Lieberman. After the election results came into campaign headquarters, Tom Swan referred to Waterbury in particularly unpleasant terms:

Democrat Ned Lamont's campaign manager said he would apologize to the mayor of Waterbury for describing the city that backed his opponent, Sen. Joe Lieberman, as a place "where the forces of slime meet the forces of evil."

Tom Swan said the comment made Tuesday, after the city voted heavily for Lieberman in the Democratic Senate primary, was in the context of a broader discussion of state politics in which former Mayor Philip A. Giordano was the "slime" and former Gov. John G. Rowland was the "evil."

Doesn't this sound like a Lamont excuse? After all, Swan's boss was the one who said that he didn't know anything about blogs and bloggers after Jane Hamsher -- the woman who had directed Ned in one of his Internet video ads -- posted a photoshopped picture of Joe Lieberman in blackface at the Huffington Post. Now Swan wants Waterbury residents to know that his comment about them serving as a juncture between slime and evil had nothing to do with their support for Lieberman. Oh, no -- he thinks that way about Waterbury regardless of how residents voted on Tuesday.

Somehow, I don't think they're going to feel much better about Lamont after that explanation.

Rasmussen will report that Lieberman has a five-point lead over Lamont in the upcoming three-way race, as I noted earlier. Even more telling, Lamont's positives have dropped down to just 50%, well below Lieberman's, perhaps in part because of his late campaign stumbles. I'd guess that his positives might be in the single digits in Waterbury at this point.

UPDATE: I'm thinking that the residents of Waterbury may be recalling Bill Murray's line from Ghostbusters: "Hey, I'm a voter. Aren't you supposed to lie to me and kiss my butt?"

UPDATE II: Thanks to Mojo in the comments for the correct quote; I'd left off the "lie to me" part.

You're Kind And Good Looking, Too ... Boss

Southern California has a population density almost unrivalled in America. It serves as the home of the entertainment industry, which has far-reaching cultural and political influence. Immigration issues have brought local activists on both sides to national prominence. The region produces power brokers that have global impact. It makes sense, then, that the Los Angeles Times would produce a list of the area's most powerful people for its West Magazine publication.

And perhaps considering the fragile economic conditions at Southern California's biggest newspaper, a little sucking up to the brass comes as no surprise. Listed third in the "Other 90" section (sorted alphabetically) is Dean Baquet, the new boss of the writers who drafted the list:

Yeah, we know what some will say: How self-serving to put your boss on the list. But Baquet, who won a Pulitzer Prize in Chicago and served as the New York Times' national editor before coming to L.A. in 2000, sets the agenda for the most powerful media voice in the region. With resources shrinking, how well Baquet weathers budget pressures from long-distance owner Tribune Co. will go a long way toward determining how robust that voice remains.

Since when is the Los Angeles Times the "most powerful media voice in the region"? Their circulation figures alone belie that description. The LAT has lost subscribers steadily over the last several years, and the reason Baquet works there at all is because the Tribune Company needed someone to stop the bleeding. Local television news reaches more people than the Times, and its own poor journalistic performance has assured the paper of has-been status. Baquet has his work cut out for him just in rescuing this shell of a media voice, let alone have time to broker power in the region or anywhere else.

The writers may have understood that, because they hedged their bets. Two entries above Baquet, they listed the man to whom their resumes will go when the Times goes belly-up:

N. Christian Anderson III Publisher and CEO, Orange County Register; 56, Coto de Caza

It's tough to admit it, but Anderson, a virtual lifer at Orange County's leading newspaper, first as editor and then as publisher, waged a block-by-block newspaper war with the L.A. Times on its home front until Tribune Co. bought The Times and all but waved the white flag. It's impossible to "out-local the locals," Anderson said then. In proving his point, he has solidified O.C.'s separate identity in Southern California.

As a long-time subscriber to the Register when I lived in Orange County -- where we never called it "The OC" -- I have an abiding fondness for the Randian libertarian publication. I read it as a kid when it was the Santa Ana Register, and it has developed into a well-respected broadsheet over the years. However, with all due respect to Mr. Anderson, he's hardly in the top 100 either.

He does run a better newspaper than the one Baquet got saddled with, though, and I suspect they may start hiring sooner than the Times. This lip-lock on the posteriors of both men look much more like an effort at career security than journalism.

The Mixed Bag Cease Fire

It appears that Ehud Olmert has accepted in principle the cease-fire proposal offered by the US and France, who apparently recovered somewhat from the swoon it experienced over Arab criticism of the original proposal. The UN Security Council meets shortly to debate the offer and vote on its adoption, and it is expected to pass without opposition. Some have hailed this as a breakthrough, while others see it as an unmitigated disaster. The truth is that the proposal gives both sides something while attempting to find what everyone understands will be the eventual outcome of any protracted war, given the reluctance of Israel to attempt another twenty-year occupation of Lebanon.

And it holds an ace in the hole for Israel, which many seem to have missed.

Let's look at the resolution itself, covered in detail by the Jerusalem Post and also by The Corner. The points adopted in this proposal say nothing of an immediate withdrawal by Israel, nor does it link the war to the issue of Lebanese criminals in Israeli prisons, the motivation for starting the war in the first place. Nasrallah got skunked on the one action he hoped to accomplish, and the resulting prisoner swaps will likey involve only those captured during the war. It also explicitly puts the blame for the war on Hezbollah -- and excludes it from any other legitimation in the document.

In fact, the resolution requires Hezbollah to cease all hostilities, while it only requires Israel to cease offensive operations. Until Hezbollah stops launching rockets at Israel, the IDF has a free hand to take responsive action to stop them and take out their launch capabilities. In effect, it says that Israel can continue the fight until Hezbollah stops attacking them.

The resolution also demands the end of military support for Hezbollah and the exercise of sovereignty over southern Lebanon by the Lebanese government. That demand is not new, and had the Lebanese complied with it last year, this war would never have taken place. The Siniora government will have to control the territory south of the Litani, and according to this agreement, everywhere else in Lebanon, too.

There's plenty to dislike here, too. The agreement makes several flattering references to the seven-point plan put forth by Fuad Siniora, a list of grievances and goals he could easily have copied from a Hezbollah web site. Most egregiously, it continues the UNIFIL force as the conductor for the Lebanese Army, despite its decades-long record of incompetence and outright collaboration with Hezbollah. The UN will deploy a much larger UNIFIL force than in the past, up to 15,000 troops, matching the Lebanese Army contingent. It will also have a mandate for force in order to ensure compliance, although given the lack of will shown in UNIFIL and other UN forces in the past, one has to chuckle inwardly at the suggestion.

Some hoped for a crushing defeat of Hezbollah, especially its command structure, starting with Hassan Nasrallah. Unfortunately, the Israelis dithered too much in its military strategy. In retrospect, the air campaign was a mistake, and the IDF should have been allowed to adopt a massive incursion strategy instead. The threat of such an incursion gained Israel plenty of concessions in this document, but Olmert could have won most of his objectives had he not paid so much attention to the diplomatic tut-tutting adopted towards Israel but not the terrorists it faced.

In any event, an outright victory was very unlikely. Hezbollah remains very popular among the Shi'ite Muslims in Lebanon, a significant portion of the nation. At worst they would have melted into the towns and villages and simply returned later. The best Israel could achieve was to have the Lebanese government take responsibility for the south and hold it militarily to keep terrorists from conducting unfettered attacks on the border. If this agreement gets properly implemented -- a very large If -- then Israel will have achieved those goals without having to conduct another generational occupation of Lebanon.

Lastly, by agreeing to this cease-fire, Olmert puts pressure on Siniora to do the same and to put Hezbollah in a box. If Siniora refuses, then Olmert orders the incursion. If Nasrallah refuses to accede to Siniora's demand to disarm and withdraw as required by this proposal, Olmert can claim that the Lebanese government is hostage to Nasrallah and act to liberate it. Olmert will have worked the appeasers into a position where they will have endorsed further military action by the collapse of their own peace plan.

Everything hinges on Nasrallah. If he accepts the terms and allows Siniora to dislodge them from southern Lebanon, Hezbollah is finished regardless of their public claims. Their raison d'etre is the defense of the southern border against Israel -- and if the Lebanese Army takes that responsibility, then their militia serves no purpose in the middle of Lebanon. If Nasrallah balks, then Israel will have a green light and a wide window to finish the job, and they will have lost very little in the hours it will take for the gambit to play to its conclusion.

UPDATE: John Podhoretz and I agree. Power Line does not. And I predict that Nasrallah will make the entire debate moot by continuing his attacks after Israel adopts it on Sunday.

UPDATE II: Rick Moran is thoroughly dejected. Hot Air's Allahpundit is rounding up news, and probably blog reactions soon. Keep an eye on TMV, which has been almost unanimous in its support for Israel from conservative and liberal co-bloggers alike.

One other point is worth mentioning. The Power Line post suggests that the Bush administration didn't want to take the heat for more fighting in Lebanon, which I think is an unfair shot at the White House. Bush and his team made sure that they would not allow the UN to win the war for Hezbollah, and this document at least shows that effort, regardless of its implementation. It's really not our job to hold umbrellas for Israel, and they certainly didn't show too much enthusiasm for fighting the kind of war the post suggests in any case.

UPDATE III: The UN Security Council passed it unanimously a few minutes ago.

UPDATE IV: Paul Mirengoff responds to my criticism, and I respond back here.

Lamont Support Dropping

If the netroots plan on riding Ned Lamont all the way to the Senate floor, the independent campaign of Joe Lieberman has an unpleasant surprise waiting for them. According to a new Rasmussen poll, Lieberman has a lead over Lamont in a three-way race. Lieberman also has better favorability ratings than Lamont by a significant margin. Their previous survey, taken shortly before the election, showed the two men tied in a three-way race. Rasmussen will have the specific numbers out shortly (at this link), but the trends have reversed themselves in the last days of the primaries -- and Connecticut voters have changed their minds about Lamont.

We saw this in the close finish between the two men. Polling had indicated that Lamont had opened a substantial gap on Lieberman; in the end, it came to less than four points. The Lamont campaign stumbled badly in the last hours on the blackface photograph used by one of its key Internet supporters and their response ("I know nothing of these blogs"), as well as Lamont's purchase of Wal-Mart stock before his finger-wagging at the corporate giant for their business practices.

Keep an eye on Rasmussen, especially the internals. It's still early, but it looks like Lamont has lost the momentum in Connecticut.

Washington Editorials On Bombing Plot: The Serious And The Silly

Two editorials in Washington newspapers show the difference between serious thinking and silly whining in the aftermath of the bombing plot discovery in Britain yesterday. While the Washington Examiner argues that some profiling should be considered along with the massive inconvenience to all travelers with the new security rules placed in effect yesterday, the Washington Post complains about first-class passengers paying for expedited service.

The Examiner wonders when American airports will get serious regarding the specific threats we face:

A key to their ability to crack the conspiracy was the ability to sneak and peek — that is, to enter suspected plotters’ homes covertly to gather information. U.S. law enforcement officials are not permitted to carry out such operations, except as provided under Section 213 of the Patriot Act. The ACLU is doing everything in its power to hamper or otherwise force the repeal of part or all of that law.

Second, scan the many news photos of the long lines of frustrated travelers Thursday, and it is impossible not to notice how few match the typical terrorist profile — natives of or descended from families that came from or still live in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or another Middle Eastern, Asian or African nation with a Muslim majority or significant Muslim minority.

We recognize that the vast majority of Muslims do not share the Jihadist obsessions with killing Americans, Brits and other Westerners. But there is one undeniable fact about the 1993 World Trace Center bombers, the Sept. 11 murderers, the Madrid bombers, the London subway bombers and the present liquid bomb plotters — all are clearly identifiable as being from Muslim nations. We’ve yet to see bombers who look even remotely like a gray-haired governess from Southampton, a harried middle-aged U.S. sales executive from Los Angeles or a haggard dad and mom with kids in tow returning home to Atlanta.

There is no room left for the blind politically correct procedures that ignore this reality — our enemy is nearly always a young to middle-aged man from a Muslim nation or culture, and it is madness not to focus mainly on those who most readily match the known profile. If preventing another Sept. 11 horror means delaying all travelers from such nations, well, then so be it.

One interesting facet of terrorism recently has been the rise of the home-grown jihadi. In Canada's Toronto cell and in yesterday's bombing plot, the majority of the suspects had domestic nationality and citizenship. Terrorist organizations have plotted to grow these cells from within for two purposes. First, they want to stymie security procedures they assumed would target Arabs and Muslims, perhaps not realizing the allergic reaction some would have to even the hint of such restrictions. Second, they want to force Western governments to slowly reject Muslims, so that more of them can be radicalized into opposition with the West and recruited into the ranks of the terrorists. We haven't seen much to suggest they have succeeded in any measure on either goal.

However, the Examiner has a point about foreign nationals and heightened security. Currently, the TSA operates under a bizarre rule that restricts them from conducting random searches of more than two passengers on any flight with Arabic surnames. The screeners appear to go out of their way to ensure that a broad spectrum of people get attention for these routine spot-checks, infamously shaking down an octagenarian Medal of Honor winner in one incident. These efforts waste time and resources. We have seen enough of these plots to understand that the consistent profile is that of young Muslim men, and if the authorities would finally acknowledge this as reality and start providing tougher screening for those who meet the profile, the rest of us would complain much less about the security restrictions on everyone else.

In contrast, the Post wastes ink and pixels complaining about the unfairness of the free market in its editorial today:

Most air travelers took the beefed-up security -- and the occasionally interminable waits that followed -- in stride. First- and business-class passengers in most airports, on the other hand, didn't have to. As usual, higher-class passengers skipped most of the security queues at hubs such as Dulles and Los Angeles international airports. That's hardly fair.

We understand why travelers in first class and business get preferential treatment in airline baggage lines; it's one of the perks they pay for. Checked baggage handling is a service that airlines elect to provide, and they can administer it however they see fit. But does the same logic extend to an official public service? When security alerts like yesterday's bring hassle and delay, it shouldn't be only the travelers with coach seats who have to sacrifice their time to ensure the safety of American aviation.

This complaint is so silly it beggars belief. First-class passengers pay a lot more money that other travelers, and they do so to get better and faster service. Anyone who wants to pay first-class fares can get the same level of service. The pricing determines the value of the service. If the only expedited service provided for high-cost fares was a chance to check bags a little more quickly than others, it's doubtful anyone would pay for them. If the Post expects "fairness" in flights, then they may as well complain about premium-rate flyers boarding first, having more legroom, or getting better food.

Customers with first-class tickets still have to pass through the same security procedures as the rest of us. No one gets a pass from the rules and regulations. They get a preferred spot in line because they paid for it. And that's all it is -- not a Get Out Of Jail Free card, not a pass on the metal detector, or anything else.

The exposure of this massive plot and its use of hard-to-detect technology and tactics provides us with critical information about the terrorist threat, and we have lessons to learn from it. Bitching about the privileges of first class doesn't advance airport security, but it does provide an outlet for a little class-warfare impulse among newspaper editorial boards.

A US Connection To British Airline Plot?

A British Muslim's concern about an acquaintance in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings in London led authorities to uncover the massive plot against the UK's airline industry, the Washington Post reports this morning. The tip led investigators to Pakistan and back, and perhaps to the US:

It all began with a tip: In the aftermath of the July 7, 2005, suicide bombings on London's transit system, British authorities received a call from a worried member of the Muslim community, reporting general suspicions about an acquaintance.

From that vague but vital piece of information, according to a senior European intelligence official, British authorities opened the investigation into what they said turned out to be a well-coordinated and long-planned plot to bomb multiple transatlantic flights heading toward the United States -- an assault designed to rival the scope and lethality of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackings. ...

A law enforcement bulletin issued Thursday by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI described the conspiracy as "international in scope" but said there was no evidence that the plotters or any accomplices had set foot in the United States. "This plot appears to have been well planned and well advanced and in the final stages of preparation," the bulletin stated.

One U.S. intelligence source, however, said some of the British suspects arrested had made calls to the United States.

This last bit of information sounds intriguing. The question of American ties did come up yesterday, but the parameters of the plot appeared to indicate against it. The plan obviously intended to destroy the airplanes rather than use them as guided missiles, such as was done on 9/11. The flights involved mostly American carriers and American destinations, but it seems more likely that the terrorists would have detonated their explosives over the Atlantic rather than inside American borders, in order to cover the evidence that would reveal their tactics.

The terrorists would not have needed assistance from America in order to accomplish this. In fact, extraneous communication into the US would have increased the chances of exposure, and would have been avoided under rational leadership -- which I admit is a stretch. For those reasons, the initial statement of DHS and the FBI made sense. If Craig Whitlock and Dafna Linzer's source is correct, however, it points to a wider scope for this plot.

If the terrorists needed to make several calls into the US, then that points to some coordination, either logistically or operationally. It's hard to see what kind of logistical support they would have needed from the US. They got their money from Karachi, and if they needed assistance with the technology of the explosives, one assumes their Pakistani connections would have supplied it. Operational coordination strongly suggests that the plot had an American phase that has not yet been explained.

People have forgotten, or perhaps never knew, that the 9/11 attacks had a second phase overseas that never launched. Almost exactly a year ago, I wrote about the case of Mohammed Afroze, who received a seven-year sentence for his plot to kill Indians on 9/11. He led a cell of terrorists who planned to board several international flights and attack the Indian Parliament, Rialto Towers in Melbourne, and the House of Commons and Tower Bridge in London. The plot only failed after Afroze and his fellow terrorists lost their nerve at Heathrow and fled.

Al-Qaeda has tried making a global statement before. Perhaps they were trying to do so again.

Yesterday's