Fighting Irish Lion-Tamers

Brady Quinn broke out with a 25-for-36 effort and three TDs while the ferocious Irish defense kept consistent with another outstanding effort as Notre Dame easily dispatched the Penn State Nittany Lions, 41-17. The score doesn't accurately reflect the rout as JoePa's team added two touchdowns late in the game to take the sting off the beating:

Brady Quinn and the Notre Dame offense were as good as advertised in Week 2.

After an unimpressive opening game, Quinn, Jeff Samardzija and Co. returned to their fantastic form of last season in a 41-17 victory over No. 19 Penn State on Saturday.

Quinn, the Heisman-hyped quarterback, was 12-of-16 passing for 150 yards and two touchdowns in the second quarter alone as fourth-ranked Notre Dame opened a 20-0 lead. The defense and special teams chipped in, too, breaking the game open in the third quarter by scoring one touchdown and setting up another as the Fighting Irish cruised. The game was essentially over at halftime.

"What I liked was the first half was meticulous," Irish coach Charlie Weis said. "We had it about 19 minutes out of the 30 minutes. That's not just offense. That's offense and defense."

Quinn mixed it up well. Four receivers had five or more receptions, with all four having more than 55 yards. Quinn's three touchdowns also went to three different receivers. He has Samardzija as a big target, but he also sent seven to Darius Walker, allowing him to add 72 receiving yards to his 56 rushing, while tight end John Carlson rolled up the most receiving yardage with 98.

The Irish defense played tough, but perhaps Travis Thomas may be the toughest of the unit. He played both sides of the ball, forcing a fumble that got returned for a TD in the third quarter. He also had three rushes for 44 yards, including one bruising TD. The defense allowed Penn State to move the ball, but they kept the Nittany Lions out of the end zone until long after the game was decided. Penn State actually had more first downs than the Irish and rushed for more yardage -- the Irish only gained 14 more yards overall -- but the Irish D got three turnovers while their O never coughed it up once.

After this, no one should doubt Notre Dame's place in the #2 position behind Ohio State, who beat Texas rather convincingly this evening. I doubt that even Penn State fan and longtime CQ reader Monkei will argue that ranking this week.

Bikinis For Freedom!

Meet the woman who drives Pakistanis crazy -- although not like you'd think:

Mariyah Moten entered a beauty contest at a Chinese resort, representing Pakistan (and rather nicely, I'd say). She won an award for the attracting the most photographers at the resort in Beihai. She entered herself as a Pakistani, although she moved out of the country eight years ago to live in the US. For some reason, Pakistanis find her loyalty to them infuriating:

Stunning Mariyah Moten, 22, won the 'Best in Media' title - for being the most photographed and interviewed contestant - at the pageant in the Chinese resort of Beihai.

But furious Pakistani authorities say she did not have permission to represent the country, where many women only go out in public covered in a veil.

They are now threatening the model, who grew up in Pakistan but holds a US passport after she moved there eight years ago, with restrictions on entering her homeland.

"We have asked our missions in Washington and Beijing to investigate this because it is against our policy, culture and religion," senior Culture Ministry official Abdul Hafeez Chaudhry said. "She is an American passport holder. She is an American national of Pakistani origin, so how did she get entry as a Pakistani?"

A woman in a bikini is enough to create an international diplomatic kerfuffle for the Pakistanis. They're going to deny her access to her country of origin for posing in swimwear. That tell you all you need to know about women's rights and the level of reason in that country.

Don't worry, Mr. Chaudry. America will gladly take credit for Moten.

Northern Alliance Radio On The Air ... For Now

The NARN retreats to the studio this week after our successful State Fair run the last two weekends -- but be careful who you tell. We understand that broadcast outlets that dare to criticize Democrats run the risk of getting their FCC licenses pulled. Nonetheless, we've already gone on the air today from the Undisclosed Bunker and will remain on until 5 pm CT at AM 1280 The Patriot -- or until they shut us down. You can listen on the Internet stream if you're not in the Twin Cities, and you can call us at 651-289-4488 to join the conversation, even if you have to disguise your voice and call on cell phones while changing locations.

The Fraters gang is already on. Mitch and I start our broadcast at 1 pm CT, and the Final Word with King and Mike take the final two hours, starting at 3 pm CT. Be sure to tune in!

Searchable Phase II Reports

Earlier, I noted that CQ reader Harrison Colter provided me with searchable versions of the Phase II documents released by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence yesterday. I'm now hosting these documents for others to use as reference:

Phase II - Overall Accuracy
Phase II - Iraqi National Congress intelligence

Hopefully this will make it easier for all of us to peruse the actual data, rather than relying on the politically-charged conclusions from all sides.

Blogger In Fight For His Life

Michael van der Galien writes about his Liberty and Justice co-blogger Isaac Schrodinger and his legal fight to avoid deportation from Canada to Pakistan. Isaac is a Muslim apostate; he has provided a consistent critical voice against radical Islam, seeing the dangers of its totalitarian nature.

Now, however, Canada has started deportation hearings [not quite -- see update below] against Schrodinger, and he is trying to claim refugee status. He's having a difficult time convincing Canadian authorities of the danger he faces if compulsorily returned to his native Lahore. Their immigration office is not convinced that Isaac will suffer any harm if deported, and he's frantically trying to assemble evidence. If you have any objective reporting on the fate of apostates in Pakistan, now would be a good time to contact Isaac or Michael at Liberty and Justice.

I think we understand Isaac's danger, even if Canadian authorities do not. If you cannot provide any evidence, at least give Isaac your support. (via The Moderate Voice)

UPDATE: Minor update from Isaac -- his final hearing on refugee status is scheduled for early 2007, at which point Canada can start deportation hearings if he fails to convince them to let him stay. So far, they appear difficult to convince, but he isn't facing deportation .... yet.

Phase II Report: Saddam Retained Banned Missiles, Biological Stocks

Thanks to the genius of CQ reader Harrison Colter, I now have searchable PDFs of the Phase II reports. The new copies have already paid dividends. In the overall report on pre-war intel accuracy, two of the conclusions of the report seem to have gotten lost in the mainstream media coverage. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has concluded that Saddam Hussein maintained his stocks of biological material intended to create weapons as well as missiles banned by the cease-fire in 1991. In fact, as the report states, Saddam never accepted the missile-range restrictions and intentionally developed missiles to violate them.

These conclusions, numbers 4 and 8, appear on pages 54 through 58:

Although Iraq no longer had a large scale BW production capability after 1996, Iraq did retain an inherent dual-use BW capability. Iraq retained technical B W know-how through scientists who were involved in the pre- 199 1 B W program, as well as civilian facilities and equipment that could be bent to a BW purpose. Iraq also retained some BW-related seed stocks until after Operation Iraqi Freedom; and conducted BW-applicable research after 1996, but the ISG judged that the research was not conducted for the purposes of a BW program.

The ISG assessed that Iraq could have re-established an “elementary” BW program within a few weeks to months, but would have faced great difficulty in re-establishing an effective BW agent production capability. In addition, the ISG found no evidence that Iraq had plans after 1996 for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. The ISG found undeclared covert laboratories used by the Iraqi Intelligence Service for research in BW agents until the mid-l 990s. While uncertain of the laboratories’ purpose, the ISG noted that the work probably included development of poisons for assassination. The ISG found no “conclusive links” between these labs and a BW effort despite speculation and rumor of a possible BW role. Thus, while the Intelligence Community correctly identified many Iraqi dual-use BW capabilities, it incorrectly judged that they represented an active BW program.

This points out one of the difficult aspects of intelligence work, especially when dealing with a police state like Saddam's Iraq. Intel agencies have to take all of the information they have and then analyze it against all of the possible scenarios. Before 9/11 and before any indication that we faced an enemy determined to kill us through terrorism on a massive scale, the context of the analysis concerned whether Iraq on its own could present a threat to American security. Even if they had biological weapons, in a pre-9/11 world, we would have assumed that they had no means to deploy them against us. However, after 9/11, we had to assume that biologicals could get deployed against us clandestinely -- and Saddam had openly supported terrorist groups throughout the 1990s. If he had these weapons, he had the means to deliver them.

This is the critical point that gets lost when people talk about false and/or misleading intelligence. They forget that intelligence estimates are never, ever like courtroom indictments. They are, at best, educated estimates of enemy capability and intent. While misreading worst-case scenarios can cause policy errors, ignoring threats until a courtroom threshold of proof comes along causes 9/11, the USS Cole, and two bombed embassies in Africa.

In the case of Saddam's missiles, which certainly had the capability to threaten American forces and our allies, the pre-war intelligence proved mostly correct:

Postwar findings of the ISG confirm the Intelligence Community’s assessment that Iraq developed the Al Samud II and Al Fat’h (formerly Ababil- 100) missiles with procurements prohibited by UN sanctions, or subject to UN verification, and the missile ranges exceeded 150&m, in violation of UN prohibitions. The ISG found numerous instances where Iraq disregarded UN prohibitions and sought to improve its missile capabilities. The ISG found that Saddam did not consider ballistic missiles to be WMD and he never accepted the missile range restrictions imposed by the UN, although in late February 2003, he ultimately acquiesced to UN demands that the Al Samud II inventory be destroyed. Additionally, flight test data recovered by the ISG confirm that both the Al Samud II and the Al Fat’h had ranges in excess of 150~km. These findings support the Intelligence Community’s assessment that Iraq was developing and testing SRBMs which were capable of flying beyond the UN-administered 150~km range limit. The ISG’s interviews, site visits, and exploitation of documents indicate that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its Scud-type ballistic missiles in 1991. One Iraqi document, which had never been provided to the UN, showed the disposition, by serial number, of all 819 Scud missiles imported from Russia.

This shows rather clearly that Saddam continually and purposefully violated the missile restrictions of the cease-fire and the UN resolutions. These missiles on their own would have caused havoc in the region. However, combined with the biological efforts that the CIA and other intel services reported, they created a serious WMD threat. Even before 9/11, the US had over 40,000 military personnel in the region enforcing the sanctions on Iraq that our allies busily undermined, all of whom were deployed in areas where these missiles could have reached.

I'll continue to plow through these documents, but we can already see that the mainstream media has missed some significant details in its zeal to publish whatever will cause the greatest controversy.

French Military Turns Pacifist On Shores Of Lebanon

When Israel agreed to lift the air and sea blockade of Lebanon two days ago, the UN promised that the forces replacing them would interdict arms intended to resupply their enemy, Hezbollah. France, which will provide substantial forces in controlling sea access to Lebanon, now says its military will not use force to stop anything:

France announced on Friday that the international naval force designated to patrol Lebanon's territorial waters would not be authorized to employ force to stop ships from entering or leaving Lebanon.

A spokesman for the French defense ministry said that the international craft would only provide assistance for Lebanese ships, and would not interfere with other nations' boats, Israel Radio reported.

Earlier Friday, Israel began to remove its naval blockade of Lebanon, imposed almost two months after Hizbullah launched its cross-border raid and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers.

Maj.-Gen. Alain Pellegrini, the French commander of UNIFIL, said government officials informed him Friday afternoon that the blockade was being lifted. Government spokeswoman Miri Eisin said she didn't have immediate confirmation that the final order had been given to lift the siege, but said earlier Friday that the blockade would be ended within hours.

Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema, meeting with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, announced that a multinational task force, commanded by an Italian admiral, had begun patrolling Lebanese territorial waters.

One has to ask why France and Italy even bothered to show up. Relying on the Lebanese is what started this war in the first place. The Siniora government never bothered to make an attempt at compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which required them to disarm Hezbollah. They were either unwilling or unable, or a combination of both, to make that common-sense move; they stood by and watched Hezbollah add to their arsenals.

Now the UN forces propose to do the same thing all over again. France sent a military force to the Mediterranean coast of Lebanon to essentially do nothing but observe boats going in and out of the harbor. They may just as well have sent a regatta crowd to Tyre and fired up a few barbeques. Perhaps the French believe that a simple finger-wagging and a vicious tongue-lashing will force arms merchants to flee from Lebanon, with French scolding ringing in their ears?

This is another example of the UN's betrayal of Israel during this cease-fire process. At every step, the UN has promised to provide the security Israel requires in order to get the IDF to withdraw, only to see the component forces declare openly that they have no intention of fulfilling the mission. And of all the nations complicit in this disaster, France has been the most perfidious. They insisted on setting the terms of the cease-fire, and then have consistently reneged on support. It proves yet again that the only thing worse that having France arrayed against you is having them allied with you.

Phase II 'Accuracy' Report Proves Joe Wilson A Liar

The Senate Select Commitee on Intelligence Phase II reports may take some time to process, reading the source data rather than just relying on the conclusions, but I've found one interesting nugget already. In the WMD accuracy report, a significant passage demonstrates the falsity of one leftist talking point (page 16, emphases mine):

On February 4, 2003, the U.S. government provided copies of the Niger uranium documents to the IAEA with talking points which stated, "two streams of reporting suggest Iraq has attempted to acquire uranium from Niger. We cannot confirm these reports and have questions regarding specific claims. Nonetheless, we are concerned that these reports may indicate Baghdad has attempted to secure an unreported source of uranium yellowcake for a nuclear weapons program." The two streams of reporting refer to the intelligence reports from the foreign intelligence service and a CIA intelligence report reflecting the findings of a former Ambassador's visit to Niger.

This confirms what we read in the previous SSCI report: Joe Wilson told the CIA that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Niger, and the CIA included that data in its assessment of Iraqi nuclear-weapons development. It corroborated rather than contradicted CIA intel on Saddam's WMD ambitions. That flies in the face of Wilson's assertions since May 2003, when he apparently decided he needed to cover his ass after American troops came up empty on nukes.

In fact, when one reads pages 11-16, it becomes apparent that almost the entire American intelligence community believed that Saddam continued to pursue nukes right up until we invaded in March 2003 -- especially the CIA. They argued that the aluminum tubes had to be intended for a nuclear program and that no other explanation could be possible. The INR (State) and Department of Energy quibbled; the former believed that the intel could not provide a "compelling" case for reconstitution, while the latter believed that the case was compelling without the tubes, which it questioned. The CIA not only did not question the nature of the tubes, it provided a counteranalysis when the IAEA argued against their interpretation:

["]We judge that Iraq would use any suitable tubes rather than try to procure perfect ones." The paper reiterated the CIA's assessment that the tubes' special material, dimensions, precise manufacturing tolerances, high cost, and the involvement of senior Iraqi leaders indicated the tubes were most likely for gas centrifuges to enrich uranium.

Over and over again, the CIA and the rest of the American intelligence community told the Bush administration what it had told the Clinton administration -- that Saddam was busily reconstituting his nuclear-weapons programs. Even the INR judged that the evidence could have demonstrated a limited reconstitution effort. Joe Wilson's report fed into that narrative by showing that Iraq had actively sought sources for yellowcake uranium after the IAEA and UNSCOM had locked up their own supplies.

Rather than showing that Bush lied about the intel he was given, this shows that the White House relied on a broad consensus among military and civilian intelligence services to determine that Saddam Hussein was pursuing nukes. The only liar uncovered in the beginning of the Phase II report is Joe Wilson.

UPDATE: I've posted links to this a number of times, but apparently people still forget about the previous SSCI report:

[Wilson's] intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(REDACTED) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

Wilson has claimed that this misrepresented his report, but this latest document shows that the CIA had in fact heard exactly this from Wilson:

On February 27,2003, the CIA responded to a January 29,2003 letter from Senator Carl Levin which asked the CIA to detail “what the U.S. IC knows about Saddam Hussein seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The CIA’s response was almost identical to the points passed to the IAEA in early February, saying “two streams of reporting suggest Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger.” The response said the CIA believes the government of Niger’s assurances that it did not contract with Iraq but said, “nonetheless, we question, based on a second source, whether Baghdad may have been probing Niger for access to yellowcake in the 1999 time frame.” The CIA’s response left out the sentence, “we cannot confirm these reports and have questions regarding some specific claims,” that had been included in the U.S. government’s IAEA brief.

The Phase II Reports

I spent my lunch break in a teleconference regarding the release of two reports from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- the so-called Phase II reports. These came from further investigations by the SSCI into the differences between pre-war intel and post-war findings, and specifically focused on two areas of inquiry. The first covered the general accuracy of pre-war intel on WMD and Iraqi connections to al-Qaeda. The second report analyzes the information given to American intelligence by the Iraqi National Congress, headed at the time by Ahmed Chalabi, who currently serves in Iraq's National Assembly.

This telecon was "on background" and involved senior Republican staffers on the Hill, and it was pretty strange. For one thing, I found it less than enlightening. They covered the data in very broad strokes, basically giving us a quick rundown of what they saw would create the most controversy -- but didn't provide much in specific data until afterwards by e-mail. What we did find out was how angry they were over the hijacking of the process. I think their anger may be well justified, from what we have read in the reports.

The main controversy appears to come in the second report regarding the INC. This report wound up getting a series of conclusions added through Democratic insistence that reportedly doesn't really match up with the data in the report. Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe sided with the Democrats, giving them enough of a majority to win out. This prompted a series of "additional views" by Chairman Pat Roberts and other members of the SSCI, apart and together. It turns the report into a partisan squabble, which given the atmosphere in the past decade or more, surprises no one.

The report on general intel also has created controversy. AJ Strata and Thomas Jocelyn have outlined major omissions in the data regarding the lack of further evidence for Iraq/AQ ties. More to the point, AJ shows where the report openly states that the committee didn't really pursue questions of Iraq's links to terrorism outside of the scope of their mission, ie, comparing pre-war intel to post-war intel, an exercise that doesn't lend itself to the same level of certainty as the WMD question. He also notes this passage in the report that the media skipped in its reporting:

The Committee examined the assessments from the Intelligence Community on the topics discussed in the NIE produced prior to and following the NIE. In most cases, the opinions of the community and individual agencies did not change following the publication of the NIE or following the 2002-2003 United Nations’ inspections in Iraq. The community judgement did change pertaining to the intended use of the Iraq’s UAVs. Specifically, the NIE judgement that Iraq’s attempts to procure U.S. mapping software for its UAVs that was useless outside the U.S., “strongly suggests that Iraq is investigating the use of these UAVs for missions targeting the United States.” A change was made to the UAV judgements in a new NIE published in January 2003 titled Nontraditional Threats to the US Homeland Through 2007.

The procurement of mapping software for the US in a program for ultralight aircraft is more than just suggestive of terror plotting; no other explanation would make sense. Unless Saddam and his boys decided that they wanted to retire from the hectic life of genocidal tyrants and take up ultralight aviation as a hobby in America, the combination clearly describes a potential delivery mechanism for some kind of attack -- probably an anthrax or other airborne biological attack. AJ explains the details.

I would suggest that people refrain from jumping to the conclusions of either party in this instance and instead do the unthinkable: read the reports for yourselves. I'll be working on them this weekend and attempting to analyze the conclusions of all parties in light of the data. In these unfortunate times, we cannot rely on our representatives to honestly and forthrightly present the data and reach realistic conclusions.

Addendum: It would be a lot easier to do that with searchable copies of these reports in PDF format. The versions on the SSCI site are scans of the printed versions.

CQ On The Air

I'll be on the air with Lars Larson at 6:30 PM Central, about thirty minutes from now. Lars and I will be discussing the spate of 9/11 retrospectives and the Macalester College debate on Monday evening, as well as United 93 and Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against The West, and other topics. Be sure to tune in on your local radio station or listen on the Internet stream from his website. You can also call the show while I'm on at 866-HEY-LARS.

House And Senate Reach Agreement On Federal Spending Database

It looks like momentum has built for the reformers for openness in government, especially appropriations. One day after Senator Bill Frist pushed through S.2590, the Coburn-Obama bill establishing a on-line, comprehensive, searchable database for all federal spending, the two chambers of Congress have agreed on a final version of the bill. House Majority Whip John Boehner has agreed to schedule a vote next week, according to this release from Senator Tom Coburn's office:

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.), U.S. Senators Tom Coburn (Okla.), Barack Obama (Ill.), and Tom Carper (Del.), and Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis (Va.) today announced that they have reached agreement on legislation to increase accountability and transparency by establishing a public database to track federal grants and contracts.

House Majority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) announced he plans to schedule the agreed-upon language for House floor consideration next week.

"This process has focused on enhancing the accountability and transparency in the federal budget process," Blunt, Boehner, and Davis said. "The federal government awards approximately $300 billion in grants to roughly 30,000 different organizations. Each year, roughly one million contracts exceed the $25,000 reporting threshold. We need to be sure that money is spent wisely. Our legislation creates a transparent system for reviewing these expenditures so that Congress, the press, and the American public have the information they need to conduct proper oversight of the use of our tax dollars. The package we've agreed to move requires the Administration to establish searchable databases for both grants and contracts."

"I'm pleased that the House leadership agreed with us that all federal spending should be accessible through this website. It doesn't matter if it's a grant, an earmark, or a contract, this legislation will allow the public to know how their tax dollars are being spent," said Sen. Obama

"This bill is a small but significant step toward changing the culture in Washington. Only by fostering a culture of openness, transparency and accountability will Congress come together to address the mounting fiscal challenges that threaten our future prosperity. The group that deserves credit for passing this bill, however, is not Congress, but the army of bloggers and concerned citizens who told Congress that transparency is a just demand for all citizens, not a special privilege for political insiders. Their remarkable effort demonstrates that our system of government does work when the people take the reins of government and demand change," Dr. Coburn said.

"I'm pleased that we've been able to work out an agreement to let this important legislation move to a vote in the House," said Sen. Carper. "If we're going to hold the federal government accountable for its performance, then we need to empower the public with basic information about who's receiving federal dollars and what's being done with them. This bill will shed some much-needed light on the activities of most federal agencies, allowing the public to decide for themselves whether their tax dollars are well spent."

On June 21, the House unanimously passed HR 5060, the Blunt-Davis grants database bill. The Senate unanimously passed S 2590, the Coburn-Obama grants and contracts database bill, yesterday.

So what does this mean? It avoids the potentially lengthy conference process, which would have been hard-pressed to complete their work before the end of this session. Assuming the House passes the bill with the modified language next week, the Senate will have to just give it one more voice vote before it goes to the President for approval. If I recall correctly, this would go immediately to a floor vote, if one is required at all.

Many people had hands in this effort. When the President signs the bill, we will all high-five each other, and deservedly so. Until then, we need to make sure we maintain our focus and our pressure to ensure that the bill does not get overlooked in the busy legislative schedule before the election.

The Retrospectives Begin

As we get closer to the fifth anniversary of 9/11, expect to see more retrospectives about the event and its aftermath. Yesterday we received the DVD for United 93, the special two-disc edition, in the mail. Because we had seen it before and I wanted to catch the Pittsburgh game, we decided to watch the movie itself over the weekend. However, we did watch the documentary on the bonus disk, "Chasing Planes", which retells the efforts made by air traffic controllers and the military to defend the nation from a threat none of them had ever imagined. It uses clips from the movie (mostly where the principals played themselves), but also features fascinating and chilling interviews with the controllers and pilots. It's excellent, well worth the small additional cost of the two-disk edition.

Also, I'd like to remind people that the Minnesota premiere of Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against The West comes this evening at the Oak Street Cinema comes this evening. It will play twice a night through the 15th. I reviewed the film on August 30th, and I highly recommend it, especially for those who may not grasp the hatred that fuels islamist terrorism. It's well produced and a good reminder of what we face in this conflict.

Cantwell Provided $11 Million To Lobbyist/Advisor's Clients

Senator Maria Cantwell, running in a tight race for re-election in Washington, provided millions of dollars in federal spending to clients of a lobbyist that also serves as an advisor on her campaign. The AP reports that Cantwell's former campaign manager, Ron Dotzauer, represents clients who got $9.6 million in earmarks on a dam project and another client that received $2 million for biotechnology efforts:

Cantwell, a Democrat who is in a tight re-election race, has reported for years that former campaign manager Ron Dotzauer owes her between $15,000 and $50,000 for a personal loan predating her first Senate election in 2000. Dotzauer now runs a lobbying firm.

The loan was still listed as outstanding on the financial disclosure report Cantwell filed in May. The senator's office said Dotzauer continues to advise informally Cantwell's campaign as an unpaid adviser.

Since last fall, Cantwell has helped persuade Senate appropriators to set aside $9.6 million — known as "earmarks" in congressional parlance — for a dam project benefiting two clients of Dotzauer's firm and $2 million more for the biotechnology company Inologic also represented by his firm.

The existence of the personal loan suggests something other than normal lobbyist relations. First, it's strange to have a registered lobbyist acting in any sort of capacity in an election campaign. It's not illegal, but it certainly makes Cantwell look indebted to Dotzauer for her political survival. Of course, we now find out that Dotzauer's in debt to Cantwell financially, which makes Cantwell's earmarks look like attempts to give Doztauer enough money to pay her back.

In a political environment that already has too many ties to lobbyists, Cantwell has managed to find new ways to make lobbyist relations even more incestuous than usual.

How much money did Dotzauer's firm make on these lobbying efforts? Strategies 360 billed Puget Sound Energy $20,000 in 2005 for pushing the dam project. They made more than ten times that amount representing the Cacade Water Alliance over a period of years, collecting $220,000. The two companies got an earmark specific to their project at Lake Tapps worth $1.5 million, quite a return on their investment, as well as an additional $8.1 million in federal money for the dam project overall, which will have indirect benefits for the two companies. Strategies 360 also billed Inologic $150,000 for lobbying Cantwell and Patty Murray to secure a $2 million earmark for an anti-radiation drug, money that came from the defense appropriation.

For less that $400,000, Dotzauer delivered $11 million in earmarks to firms while serving as an advisor and a debtor to Maria Cantwell. That may be a good investment for Dotzauer's clients, but Washington voters should question whether they want a Senator who literally takes her political cues from lobbyists. They should also question whether Cantwell expected to get her money back by funneling federal contracts to a man who owed her a substantial amount of money.

Monkey Festing?

Just a couple of weeks after Democrats went into high dudgeon over the poor treatment given one of their oppo researchers at a George Allen event and claiming Allen is a closet racist, the James Webb campaign has pulled much the same kind of boner. Staffers have organized a protest at an Allen event celebrating ethnicity that they have termed "Monkey Fest":

Imagine: You are on the road looking for a quick place to grab a bite to eat and up ahead of you – just past the stop light are a dozen furry and yellow-peeled creatures – a gathering of monkeys, gorillas, and bananas. They are dead serious about their message: “Racism is NOT a family value.” But they are having a great time monkeying around with yellow balloons and bananas to give away. You think to yourself: “Perfect! A free snack!” as you pull over, park, and join them.

That’s right, we’re having a Monkey Fest and we hope you WILL join us. The special occasion is the Fairfax County GOP’s Ethnic Rally this Saturday, September 9th, 2006.

(Details further down) Allen and three other Republican candidates will be attending the event. We, Mac (the Monkey) and Anna (Banana) will be there, but much more exciting will be the opportunity to hang out with Patch Adams (clown doctor activist) who will be “Gorilla”! We will have 9 monkey face masks to share – first come, first serve and plenty of our favorite yellow snacks, balloons, and stickers. We encourage you to bring your own monkey outfits, masks, and signs.

So the Webb staffers have decided to set up a counter-event to a Republican ethnic rally, after accusing them of racism .... and the geniuses involved decide to dress up like monkeys in protest? At an event that will draw people celebrating varying ethnic backgrounds, including people of color?

This sounds like a cute joke gone very bad. In general, I think counter-events to normal political events make little sense and generally paint the opposition as strident and a little obsessed. In this case, it makes them look like something else entirely. Perhaps to underscore their point, they'll start handing out copies of Uncle Tom's Cabin and have Jane Hamsher come out and do minstrel-show caricatures for the people who attend Allen's event. That should reinforce their arguments about Allen's latent racism, right?

The organizers of the ethnic rally beg to differ. Puneet Ahluwaliah, Harold Pyon, Dr. Rene Alvir, and Raul Danny Vargas have sent a letter to Webb's campaign demanding that they end this event before it starts:

Unfortunately, it has come to our attention that paid members of your campaign are openly mocking our rally and advocating its disruption on the Raising Kaine website, run by two of your staffers, Lowell Feld and Josh Chernila. One of the posts this morning on Raising Kaine reads, “I expect to see people there who belong to one ethnic group, all dressed in ethnic clothing, speaking the same ethnic language with the same ethnic hairdo.” To date, this offensive post has only received positive feedback on the website.

In addition, Lowell Feld of your campaign suggests on Raising Kaine that those in attendance at the event Saturday will be White, Caucasian, Anglo, Saxon, Celtic, French, English, German, Irish, Scots-Irish. We resent this statement and its implication that only Caucasians would attend a Republican rally. While all these groups will be present and welcome Saturday, our rally will also include Afghan Americans, African Americans, Bolivian Americans, Chinese Americans, Colombian Americans, Cuban Americans, Filipino Americans, Indian Americans, Iranian Americans, Korean Americans, Pakistani Americans, Peruvian Americans, Puerto Rican Americans, Salvadoran Americans, Taiwanese Americans, Vietnamese Americans and more.

Small wonder that the first comment on the Raising Kaine site is from Josh Chernilla, Webb's grassroots coordinator. His message? "Please get in touch with me. I need to talk with you." I'll bet he does.

Armitage 'Fesses Up

Richard Armitage finally confesses to his role as the leaker who revealed Valerie Plame's name and status to two different reporters. He claims that he could not speak out until Patrick Fitzgerald released him from his pledge to remain silent -- and said George Bush wanted it that way:

Expressing regret for his actions and apologies to his administration colleagues, Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, confirmed Thursday that he was the primary source who first told a columnist about the intelligence officer at the center of the C.I.A. leak case.

“It was a terrible error on my part,” Mr. Armitage said in an interview, discussing his conversations with reporters. He added: “There wasn’t a day when I didn’t feel like I had let down the president, the secretary of state, my colleagues, my family and the Wilsons. I value my ability to keep state secrets. This was bad, and I really felt badly about this.”

Mr. Armitage also confirmed what had long been speculated — that he was the anonymous government official who talked to Bob Woodward, the Washington Post editor and reporter, about the Central Intelligence Agency officer, Valerie Wilson, in June 2003. It is the first known conversation between an administration official and a journalist about her. ...

He expressed irritation over assertions in some editorials and blogs that, by his silence, he had been disloyal to the Bush administration, saying he had followed President Bush’s repeated instruction that administration officials cooperate with the Fitzgerald inquiry. “I felt like I was doing exactly what he wanted,” he said.

Oh, please. I'm sure somewhere in his imagination, Armitage has convinced himself that Bush really wanted people to spend the last three years calling him a liar and accusing him of abuses of power, but only if he's suffered some brain damage in the intervening period. Armitage can make all the rhetorical defenses he likes, but the record clearly shows that he stood by, silent, while his colleagues endured false vilification, and he did it knowing that Fitzgerald knew from the moment he took over the investigation that Armitage had confessed.

No excuses he can make now will wipe away the three years the nation wasted on this witch hunt. The same must be said about Colin Powell, who knew from the first moments that his right-hand man leaked the information. Both men sat closed-mouthed while Fitzgerald ran amok. All either had to do to end the spectacle was simply tell the truth, publicly and irrevocably. Revealing one's own grand jury testimony is not illegal, nor in the case of this runaway prosecution, would it be unethical.

At least the New York Times finally figured out what Armitage's confession means:

The confirmation of Mr. Armitage’s role, long the subject of news media speculation, showed that the initial leak of Ms. Wilson’s identity did not originate from the White House as part of a concerted political attack against her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had criticized the administration over the Iraq war. Rather it was divulged by a senior State Department official who was not regarded as a close political ally of Mr. Cheney or other presidential aides involved in the underlying issues in the case.

The only remaining scandal is the Fitzgerald investigation, especially since Armitage was the source for both Novak and Woodward. Perhaps the Times can pursue an investigation into that travesty with the same vigor it demanded into the non-existent conspiracy to out Plame.

UPDATE: Amok, not amuck. Thanks, Brant!

Bibi Says Bush Will Cowboy Up On Iran

Benjamin Netanyahu paid a visit to New York, hoping to build support in America for a bid to replace Ehud Olmert as Israel's Prime Minister. As part of that effort, he gave a speech last night in which he told the audience that George Bush has just about run out of patience with international diplomacy regarding the Iranian nuclear program:

Benjamin Netanyahu, as part of an American tour repositioning himself for a return to the Israeli premiership, told an audience in New York today that President Bush is preparing to ditch the United Nations to take on Iran alone and that American politicians of all parties would do well to stop squabbling about Iraq and join the president in focusing on threat from Tehran.

The former prime minister, who leads the right of center Likud Party in opposition to the current government, went on to tell lunch guests of the Hudson Institute that another war between Hezbollah and Israel is inevitable and that a shift in Israeli politics is about to take place with his return to power and a return to the principles that guided thinking in Jerusalem until the Oslo Accords.

Largely ignored in the coverage of Mr. Bush's speech Tuesday on the war on terror, Mr. Netanyahu told his audience more than once, was Mr. Bush's statement that "the world's free nations will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon." Not that the "United Nations won't allow," said Mr. Netanyahu, but that the "free nations" of the world won't allow. Mr. Netanyahu called it a sign that on the Iranian problem the president was preparing to stop working through the United Nations and instead work with whoever would join him.

Netanyahu is correct when he says it was overlooked; hardly anyone included that in their analyses, including me. It doesn't surprise me to see Netanyahu make the point, because he has long warned of the encroaching hegemony of the mullahcracy in the region. The fact that he came to America to make that point shows that he sees a need for more focus and strength on Iran by Americans.

Of course, this redounds to Israel's benefit, as Netanyahu freely admits. The threat to Israel represents just the leading edge of the Iranian political strategy. Not for nothing does Ahmadinejad refer to Israel as the "little Satan," and the Iranian leader made the connection between Israel and the US explicit with his conference on a world without both.

Unfortunately, Netanyahu is probably also correct about the amount of company we have in seriously addressing the threat. He counts Israel and Britain as the only Western nations taking it seriously. Recent polls show that the French electorate also thinks it rises to the level of military intervention if all other efforts fail to end the nuclear efforts of Teheran. However, while the Security Council nations show some backbone in issuing resolutions, they appear to have no stomach for any other kind of confrontation with the mullahs.

Daniel Freedman has extensive reporting of Netanyahu's remarks for the New York Sun. Be sure to read the entire article.

The Da Vinnie Code

Italian investigators have called the FBI to unlock the mysteries of the Bible. Is this the Da Vinci Code? Opus Dei? More like omerta and the Da Vinnie Code:

Italian officials have handed to the FBI a Bible that belonged to suspected Mafia kingpin Bernardo Provenzano to see whether it contains a secret code.

Provenzano, 73, was captured in Sicily in April after 43 years on the run.

The Bible found in his isolated hut contained dots, arrows and notations and investigators want to know if it is a code that will unlock other messages. ...

Prosecutors say Provenzano constantly refers to the book, found in the hut close to his birthplace in Corleone where he was caught.

The FBI has to be somewhat amused by the task, but it's no joke in Italy, where they have fought a deadly battle against the Mob. Provenzano made his reputation as a fearsome murderer before rising to the level of capo. The Italians need to show that they can convict such men, especially those of high rank within the Mafia. If they cannot, organized crime will regain the cachet it developed over centuries of subversion.

One has to smile at the irony, though. Provenzano used the Bible to communicate hidden messages and code. Like the Da Vinci Code believers, however, Provenzano apparently couldn't read the real message of the Good Book that was right before his eyes.

Steelers Give Daunte Deja Vu

The Pittsburgh Steelers managed to win convincingly against the Miami Dolphins, despite the sudden unavailability of Big Ben Roethlisberger a few days ago to appendicitis. Charlie Batch came off the bench in his hometown to deliver a big win for the Steelers, 28-17. Batch threw three TDs and defensive back Joey Porter scored another as the team clicked on most cylinders:

The Pittsburgh Steelers needed two big plays from unlikely sources to pull out a season-opening victory behind their backup quarterback. Maybe Miami Dolphins coach Nick Saban should be flagged for a costly delay, too.

Tight end Heath Miller chugged his way down the Steelers' sideline on an 87-yard touchdown pass play midway through the fourth quarter, fill-in QB Charlie Batch's third scoring pass of the game, and the Super Bowl champions beat the Dolphins 28-17 Thursday night in the NFL's first game of the season. ...

Miami had a chance to come back, but new quarterback Daunte Culpepper was intercepted on consecutive series, with linebacker Joey Porter scoring on a 42-yard return with about three minutes left. Porter was so excited, he ran to the sideline and kissed coach Bill Cowher on the cheek the Steelers' first known sideline kiss since Cowher planted one on Kordell Stewart during a 1997 comeback victory in Baltimore.

Batch and the Steelers running game looked sharp. Batch tossed for 209 yards on a 15-for-25 clip, while Willie Parker ran inside and outside for 115 yards on 29 carries. Hines Ward looked tough over the middle, as usual, and the Steelers offensive line allowed three sacks, two of which came when Batch held onto the ball too long. The only misfires came on a goal-line fumble by Batch that allowed a 14-point turnaround and briefly gave the Dolphins the lead, and on kick coverages that broke down more than once.

Except for the one long drive following the Batch fumble, the Dolphins looked out of sync. This was Daunte Culpepper's debut with Miami, and for most of the game the Steelers had him looking very tentative. He went 18-for-37 with two costly interceptions, both in the fourth quarter, as he reverted to his old habit of putting the ball up for grabs. The last interception produced the Porter TD, the last score of the game and the end of any hopes of comebacks. Especially in the fourth quarter, he looked very much like the QB the Vikings decided to dump after seven years.

If the Steelers can fix their kick coverages and get Big Ben back in the lineup soon, they are going to have a terrific season. Parker proved again that he can be the workhorse for the best running game in the NFL, and Batch proved again that he can win off the bench when needed. This team looks pretty scary, especially for its conference rivals.

UPDATE: Changed the wording of Roethlisberger's absence from "loss" to "unavailability". As CQ reader Kim pointed out in an e-mail, I made it sound like he died. In fact, I thought he'd pop a stitch when the refs didn't throw a flag after Zach Thomas hit Batch during a feet-first slide.

Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory

After the story broke on the artistic license taken by ABC in its upcoming miniseries on the 9/11 attacks, Clinton administration officials and Democrats in general had a good case for protesting. After all, Republicans had bitterly criticized CBS for its miniseries, "The Reagans", when it proved overly dramatized and factually inaccurate, eventually getting it pulled to another Viacom outlet (Showtime). However, not content with merely reasonably protesting questionable script choices, the Democrats in Congress have issued a thinly-veiled threat against ABC's broadcast license:

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events. ...

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

The Democrats do not do subtlety, or do not do it successfully. They plan on using the power of the federal government to demand political changes to a program before it airs, a dangerous precedent and a completely different problem than what existed before. Presumably, this would become yet another fruit of their takeover of the House should they succeed in the midterms. It makes an excellent argument for extended Republican control.

If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it -- and in this case, they had a point. They can organize protests and boycotts, letter-writing campaigns and so on. What they cannot do is to threaten a broadcast license for political differences, regardless of the situation. It violates the spirit of free speech and makes the Democrats look like Big Brother.

Many people have pointed out that conservatives protested the factual deficiencies in "The Reagans" three years ago and wonder why they suddenly consider criticism invalid. The Democrats also appear to have completely changed their position as well. This is what they said about conservative criticism of CBS three years ago, and without a Republican threat against their broadcast license:

"No, there are no First Amendment violations here. The RNC protested the content of a program, which is its right, and CBS voluntarily pulled that program off the air, which is its right.

"But the decision makes it very easy to imagine a future where representatives for the Bush administration have the power to disapprove of any content that touches politics, policy, or history — including news programs."

It's certainly easy to imagine it now -- the Democrats have delivered it. Welcome to the Enforced Perspective Party. It's a staggeringly dumb political mistake, and if it's not withdrawn quickly, will do real damage to the Democrats for years.

See also Stephen Spruiell and Hot Air for more.

Coburn-Obama Federal Spending Database Passes -- Unanimously!

The Senate has busted through the holds put on by members and passed S2590, the Coburn-Obama bill establishing the federal spending database we have demanded. Bill Frist announces it at his VOLPAC blog:

Tonight I’m proud to report that the Senate unanimously passed S. 2590, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006.

The passage of this legislation is a triumph for transparency in government, for fiscal discipline, and for the bipartisan citizen journalism of the blogosphere.

Without the efforts of ordinary Americans empowered by the Internet, including many hardworking members of the iFrist Volunteers, this legislation might easily have been successfully obstructed. Instead, the unprecedented synergy between online grassroots activists and Senate leadership provides a new model for participatory democracy in action.

The bill now goes to the House, where their version exempts contractors from the database. We need to pressure House leadership to accept the Senate version as soon as possible and put this legislation in front of President Bush.

Earlier today, The Hill reported on the multiple holds put on S2590 and the extraordinary efforts of the blogosphere to unmask those Senators applying the delaying tactic. I wrote a post for the Heritage Foundation Policy Blog that the best strategy for fellow Porkbusters would be to focus more on pressing forward with the vote regardless of holds:

[A]ctivists would be better served by channeling their energies into demanding immediate action on the bill now despite the holds. Frist has already gone on record saying that he will take all action necessary to get S.2590 passed before the election. The Hill notes that Minority Leader Harry Reid, who has offered public support for the bill, has not made any similar commitment to pushing against procedural obstacles. To see if Reid is indeed serious about increasing the transparency of federal spending, activists might ask him for a signal against the three-card monty of holds in which senators from both caucuses have engaged.

UPDATE: Bridgett Wagner at Heritage Foundation shares with us her favorite quote, by Sam Adams: "It does not take a majority to prevail . . . but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” That seems very appropriate in this instance.

How I Will Spend 9/11

As we approach the fifth anniversary of 9/11, many people wonder how best to spend the day in remembrance of the attacks that killed almost 3,000 of our fellow Americans, almost all of them civilians. Some will spend the day in prayer, while others will watch the several retrospectives on the attacks that will be featured on television. Others may prefer to ignore the event and avoid the controversy and hype.

I'll be doing something different. I have been invited to a panel discussion at Macalester College in Saint Paul on Monday evening on the Iraq war. The debate is sponsored by Democracy for America, which has invited three other speakers to debate the war. The speakers include Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, Univ. of St. Thomas Peace and Justice Studies professor; Phil Steger, Friends for a Nonviolent World director; and Lou Ellingson. Swift Boat retired Navy captain and small business owner. Lou supported John Kerry in the last presidential election and spoke about his own experiences as a Swift Boat commander. In other words, I'm going to be very much on my own in defending the war policy, which I knew when I accepted the invitation.

So why did I agree to this appearance? Actually, I ask myself that more and more as the date approaches, but I felt that I owed some effort to defend the positions I've taken publicly in a forum, even one that has the potential to be as hostile as this might be. The people at DFA have been great, very encouraging and very polite, and I'm working from the assumption that the evening will feature sharp but polite disagreement on policy and refrain from personal attacks; I know I won't indulge them, and I think CQ readers know that from my writings here. If we're going to change minds, we have to talk to people who disagree with us, even if it seems unlikely to have the effect we want.

In a larger sense, this seems the perfect way to honor our loss on 9/11. America is the home of honest and free political debate, and if we want to prevail against fascism secular or religious, we have to retain the courage to speak out even in potentially hostile climates.

If any CQ readers want to lend some support, the panel discussion will take place at Macalester College's Weyerhaeuser Memorial Chapel, at 1600 Grand Avenue in Saint Paul, at 7 pm. Click here for a map to the campus. It's open to the public free of charge, but given the timing, turnout may be somewhat low. I'd be glad to meet CQ readers at the event.

Even Europeans Recognize Iran's Stall Strategy

A confidential memo between European nations spells out how Iran has manipulated diplomatic maneuvers in order to stall for time to continue its uranium enrichment. The goal, according to this analysis, is to create a rift within the Security Council and a resultant breakdown of Western stamina:

Key European nations warn that Iran is trying to weaken international opposition to its contentious nuclear program by stalling on giving a clear response to terms set by six world powers for negotiations, according to a confidential document obtained Thursday.

"The Iranian goal obviously is to split the international community," said the document, drawn up by Britain, France and Germany, and made available to The Associated Press ahead of a key meeting of the five U.N. Security Council nations plus Germany. ...

Diplomats familiar with the document said it was drawn up by Britain, France and Germany, which are among the six nations that made the June incentives offer, to inform other nations of the substance of Iran's counteroffer and share the Western view that it was inadequate.

"The reply is along the lines of previous Iranian statements in that typically it neither accepts nor rejects outright" the six-power proposal, said the document sent to dozens of capitals last week.

By hinting that it is prepared to resume suspension of uranium enrichment, the document says, Iran's goal "obviously is to split the international community and draw us into a process of talks about talks, on Iranian terms, while making no commitments of its own while continuing with its enrichment programme."

While this recognition of Iranian intransigence will garner some respect for the Europeans, the main question remains what they intend to do about it. Europeans have given little public support for a sanctions regime against Iran. If they take the problem seriously, and this memo indicates that they do, it's almost certain that they have not established the political support within their own electorates to apply tough sanctions against a key trading partner. This means that their next action will likely be a proposal for another warning and another waste of several weeks before they can build the support necessary to stick with sanctions.

Of course, the last time we partnered on sanctions against a rogue nation in the Middle East, the Europeans hardly demonstrated the kind of faithfulness that such an action requires to have any effect at all. France and Germany sold war materiel to Saddam Hussein, along with Russia, undermining the so-called "box" that supposedly contained the genocidal tyrant. In fact, the two EU powers helped stuff Saddam's pockets with billions of dollars, allowing him to manipulate it to extend his grip on power rather than loosen it.

Even if they intend on following through on sanctions this time, that resolve will get tested by Russia and China, both of whom have so far refused to agree to sanction Iran. China needs Iranian energy, while Russia simply wants the money. Will Europe stand fast even with Russia and China undermining sanctions? Or will they use that as an excuse to throw their hands up and surrender to Iranian nuclear ambitions?

We will know more after today. The six nations that promulgated the incentive package for Teheran meet today in Berlin to discuss their options. If they want to demonstrate some resolve against Iran's provocations, the time is upon them. If they do not meet the challenge, we will know that the international community will have once again abdicated their responsibility -- and freed the US to pursue its own solutions to the problem.

A Clue About World Oil Prices

Americans have demanded answers to questions about the rapid rise of gasoline prices over the past two years, and even with market forces finally working our favor recently, still remain skeptical about their influence on prices at the pump. Analysts understand that the rapid growth of the Chinese economy have permanently changed the oil markets, but even the experts may not wholly understand how much of that impact could have been avoided through better efficiencies. Der Spiegel takes a look at the challenges that China presents to enery markets:

China's economy is expanding at an average rate of nine percent every year. Economic planners in Beijing recently discovered that their economy is actually 17 percent larger than they had previously thought. That's as if the Chinese had accidentally discovered an economic surplus the size of Turkey's Gross Domestic Product.

The consequence is that China is getting even hungrier for energy. But it's not just consuming natural resources to produce the many cheap products it exports to Western industrial nations. With growing prosperity, consumer demand is rising as well: Every year, millions of Chinese migrate from their villages to the large cities on the wealthy east coast. Many move into apartment blocks built from concrete and steel. Shanghai already has 4,000 skyscrapers -- twice as many as Manhattan -- and the new buildings are equipped with new refrigerators, new stoves, new air conditioning systems -- all of which were, of course, produced using natural resources and which themselves consume energy.

While China is responsible for only four percent of the world's overall economic output, it's already consuming 13.6 percent of the world's energy.

That figure represents something other than high productivity, however. Der Spiegel calls China "The Great Squanderer," and for good reason. Their inefficient use of energy costs them seven times the amount of energy expended per dollar of GDP than the Japanese economy. This creates an enormous and mostly wasteful demand for energy to feed their rapidly-growing economy, and to keep ahead of the expectations of the traditionally poor Chinese.

China has many grand plans for energy production, but most of them will take years to reach fruition. They have recently completed a wind farm of 167 turbines, which will hardly put a dent in their demand for electricity even in the region of the wind farm. Beijing has grand plans for a series of cutting-edge nuclear power plants, and given the West's indefensible rejection of this source, China has N-plant builders lining up to do business with them. However, even with the ambitious programs the Chinese envision, nuclear generation will only provide four percent of their energy needs at the end of the 14 years to complete the project. Hydroelectric power from proposed dams is even further away.

The only options the Chinese have in the near term is to use oil, either domestically produced or imported from abroad. Beijing has had some success in oil exploration, having found a substantial oil reserve ironically in an area where Muslim Uighers live, as well as natural gas. It won't be enough to give them anything close to energy independence, and so China must do what the US does: buy abroad.

However, while the majority of our imports come from our own hemisphere -- Canada and Mexico export more oil to the US than Saudi Arabia, with Venezuela at #4 -- China has to look closer to home. We played a part in that lack of choice, having squeezed the Chinese out of major plays in Canada. Now China looks towards Iran, especially since the US buys nothing from the Islamic Republic. This creates more international complications than just a hike in oil prices, as we see now with the lack of fortitude on China's behalf on Iran's nuclear ambitions. China cannot afford to do without Iranian oil for very long, not unless someone finds another source that can deliver on levels that meet China's requirements.

All of this figures into the price of oil on the open market, a commodity like any other, subject to the psychology of futures trading. As the situation in Iran develops, traders have figured into the price any potential market disruption that Iranian sanctions might impose, just as they did with the potential for hurricane damage. In the long term, we can see that the prices will not come down much even if the Middle East suddenly transformed into an oasis of peace and harmony. The rapid economic rise of China combined with its gross inefficiences have ensured that oil will not revert back to its former status as a cheap commodity for many years, if at all.

A Rumor A Day Keeps The Fringies Away

Does anyone else get the distinct feeling that we're seeing a whispering campaign getting started against Joe Lieberman? Two days ago, Insight reported the all-but-unbelievable allegation that the Republicans sent millions of dollars into Joe Lieberman's campaign -- in the middle of a brutal midterm campaign where the GOP's control of Congress is in real danger. Today, the gossip du jour in Connecticut has Lieberman replacing Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon:

Since Senator Joseph I. Lieberman lost last month’s Democratic primary in Connecticut, a rumor has gained new life — particularly among his liberal critics — that President Bush might nominate him to replace Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, should Mr. Rumsfeld be ousted as many Democrats have demanded.

Mr. Lieberman, now running as an independent, has denied any interest in the job, and the White House has said it stands behind Mr. Rumsfeld. But that did not stop Ned Lamont, the primary victor, from alluding to the rumor on Wednesday to criticize Mr. Lieberman’s support for the war in Iraq.

“It doesn’t matter if Donald Rumsfeld retires and somebody who thinks just like him goes into place,” Mr. Lamont said at a Sperling Breakfast here, named for the journalist who started the gatherings years ago.

If people want to really play Conspiracy Theory, we can combine the two stories into one narrative. Karl Rove -- you have to have Karl at the heart of any great Conspiracy Theory these days -- funneled millions of dollars into Lieberman's campaign to ensure his victory, disregarding a number of tight races where Republicans could actually gain seats at the expense of Democrats. Once Lieberman gets elected, Rumsfeld will resign, allowing George Bush to appoint Lieberman -- and a Republican governor could name a Republican successor. (Jodi Rell leads her Democratic opponent by thirty points in the race for governor.) Presto! Karl delivers a Senate seat to the GOP!

Don't be surprised if that theory gets floated, if it hasn't already made its way around the 'sphere.

Meanwhile, back at planet Reality, the whispering campaign seems designed to attack Lieberman as a Republican straw man. Anyone who has followed Lieberman's career and studied his voting record would scoff at this notion. To the GOP, it makes little difference whether Lamont or Lieberman holds the seat. The votes upcoming in the Senate will not have much impact on the war effort, and on everything else Lamont is a Lieberman clone.

However, the effort has an obvious benefit to Ned Lamont, as these rumors and innuendo play into that image of Lieberman as a Republican dupe. It's not surprising to see Lamont giving the gossip more legs, although it does seem somewhat disappointing. It shows that if the efforts to spread these rumors don't originate with his campaign, it certainly fits within his electoral strategy.

Lamont will certainly keep the fringies away from Lieberman with these tactics. However, those may be the only voters that stick with him if Lamont continues to campaign this way.

Border Security To Get Push Before Elections

After the New York Times reported two days ago that Republican leadership in Congress would drop immigration reform from their legislative agenda in the remainder of this session in favor of national security issues, I predicted that border security would remain, detached from the broader effort at immigration reform. Today, the Washington Times confirms this, as House Republicans have gotten support from key GOP Senators to pursue the issue in terms of national security:

House Republicans will make a final push to get border-security legislation on President Bush's desk before November's elections, senior aides told The Washington Times yesterday.

Top Republicans are planning a series of tough new border-security measures that they hope can get through the Senate, which in the past has opposed border-security legislation unless it has included a guest-worker program and grants citizenship rights to the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens already here.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, said yesterday it would be "next to impossible" to approve such comprehensive immigration reform, but several key senators said they are willing to consider a border-security-only approach.

"If our only options are a half a loaf or no loaf, then I'd be inclined to take half a loaf," said Sen. John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who for years has been a leading advocate of comprehensive immigration reform that secures the borders.

As I noted, this will put Democrats on the spot and highlight yet another difference between them and the GOP for these midterms. For House Republicans, it also expresses once again their preferred approach to the immigration question altogether, as they have resisted the comprehensive reform approach of John McCain and the Democrats in the Senate. They have consistently demanded that border security get approached as a national-security issue, not as an immigration issue, as the 9/11 Commission recommended.

The entire Democratic caucus in the Senate will oppose this effort, and they will not be alone. Senators such as Arlen Specter and the gentle-ladies from Maine will also want border security tied to immigration liberalization and a program to normalize the 12 milllion illegal immigrants already in the country. They understand that border security has to remain on the table to get conservatives to acquiesce to normalization, because without it normalization will get laughed out of both chambers of Congress.

John McCain will provide the key. He championed the linkage between the two in the Senate, and he may well stick with that tactic. However, if he continues to block border security, he will make his relationship with the conservatives in the GOP even worse than they are now, and he knows it. If McCain pursues a legislative agenda at odds with conservatives on national security, they will flock to Rudy Giuliani's side in 2008 if a conservative candidate does not effectively compete for the nomination. They know that even with his more liberal views on social issues, Giuliani would not leave the borders unsecured for political advantage.

The GOP will not ignore border security in this session; bank on that.

Spending Updates At The Heritage Blog

The Heritage Foundation Policy Blog has two new posts this week on federal spending and entitlement reform, written by yours truly. Pork Proportionality looks at an article in The Hill which looks at the allocation of earmarks in conjunction with elections and the risk involved in the campaigns. For practiced skeptics, this will not provide any shock, but perhaps the direct correlation will surprise some.

In the second, Medicare Shell Games, I point out how Congress and the White House decided to show a savings in the Medicare program this fiscal year. Hint: the end of the fiscal year comes in four weeks. It also has some great links to Heritage recommendations by Dr. Robert Moffitt for entitlement reform.

Be sure to read both, and keep your eye on the Heritage blog now that Congress has returned from vacation.

Rightroots Expands The Slate

The Rightroots initiative has added new candidates to the slate of Republican candidates whose races have critical import for control of Congress in the midterm elections. The group has added Michael Bouchard, a candidate for Debbie Stabenow's Senate seat in Michigan, as well as Ralph Norman (SC-05) and Andrea Lane Zinga (IL-17) in the House. We hope to have the same success in raising funds for their contests as we have with our original eighteen candidates. Robert Bluey introduces the candidates at Human Events:

All three are locked in races they can win, but they need your help.

In the case of Bouchard and Norman, they're both challenging incumbent Democrats whose liberal views have led them astray. In Michigan, Sen. Debbie Stabenow has earned the nickname "Do Nothing Debbie." She has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 11% -- far from the mainstream in Michigan. Spratt, meanwhile, has a lifetime ACU rating of 25%. We're left asking ourselves how this liberal can still possibly be representing a district in conservative South Carolina.

Andrea Lane Zinga is running for an open seat being vacated by retiring Rep. Lane Evans (D.). Not only is she keeping pace with Democrat Phil Hare, but she's also embraced new media, featuring a blog on her campaign website.

In fact, we're challenging our readers to add 100 more donations of any amount to our candidate before September 20. Now more than ever we need to show our resolve in supporting the candidates who will deliver on our agenda for national security, economic growth, and responsible government. We want Republican leadership to continue to guide Congress during this war on Islamic terror.

Be sure to visit the Rightroots page and help elect Republicans in these key midterm races.

Also posting:

Right Wing News
Wizbang!
Mary Katherine Ham

Wonder Why It's Been A Quiet Five Years On The Home Front?

George Bush gave a long-overdue speech on the American efforts to use intelligence and captured terrorists to keep the US homeland safe from attack. He announced the transition of detained high-value terrorists from secret holding facilities to Guantanamo Bay in preparation for military tribunals, once Congress approves the legal framework for such a process, and related the myriad links discovered through their interrogation:

Within months of September 11, 2001, we captured a man named Abu Zubaydah. We believed that Zubaydah was a senior terrorist leader and a trusted associate of Osama bin Laden. Our intelligence community believes he had run a terrorist camp in Afghanistan where some of the 9/11 hijackers trained and that he helped smuggle Al Qaeda leaders out of Afghanistan after coalition forces arrived to liberate that country. ...

During questioning, he, at first, disclosed what he thought was nominal information and then stopped all cooperation. Well, in fact, the nominal information he gave us turned out to be quite important. For example, Zubaydah disclosed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or KSM, was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and used the alias Mukhtar. This was a vital piece of the puzzle that helped our intelligence community pursue KSM.

Zubaydah also provided information that helped stop a terrorist attack being planned for inside the United States, an attack about which we had no previous information. Zubaydah told us that Al Qaeda operatives were planning to launch an attack in the United States and provided physical descriptions of the operatives and information on their general location. Based on the information he provided, the operatives were detained; one, while traveling to the United States.

In fact, the capture and the various interrogations revealed a string of operations and terrorist connections that, by my count from the speech, stopped over half a dozen attacks in the United States, and perhaps more than that. The interrogations also revealed a number of people involved in the 9/11 attack itself, a fact we knew from the footnotes of the 9/11 report. Zubaydah's interrogation also uncovered a plot to acquire and use anthrax against Americans, which could have led to hundreds of deaths or more.

Bush insisted that the interrogation methods used did not constitute torture and had approval from the Department of Justice and the CIA's attorneys. He explicitly stated that he did not authorize torture and pledged he never would. However, the methods still cannot be revealed, as Bush said, for obvious reasons -- the terrorists could prepare their operatives to resist our specific means of interrogation.

So why reveal the program now and transfer the detainees from the CIA to the DoD? For one thing, the CIA apparently feels that these plotters have been tapped out in terms of operational intelligence. Also, with the Hamdan decision, he cannot set up secret military commissions to try them. The court tasked Congress with establishing the tribunals for all non-POWs in custody -- POWs don't get trials or courts-martial except for crimes they commit while in custody -- and Bush has to wait on Congress to act.

He obviously does not want to wait long. He has already promulgated some rules of evidence and procedure to Congress, and the Hill has found much with which they disagree. The White House wants to use coerced testimony under certain circumstances as well as keep secret data away from the defendants, although not their lawyers, to protect intel methods and sources. Even some Republicans have differences with the Bush administration on the proposal, notably John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham, although McCain told reporters that the differences were not all that profound and would probably get resolved quickly.

Graham, as usual, managed to misunderstand the entire exercise:

Graham, R-S.C., said withholding evidence from an alleged war criminal would set a dangerous precedent other nations could follow. "Would I be comfortable with (an American servicemember) going to jail with evidence they never saw? No," Graham said.

Graham seems to be pursuing a reputation for the GOP caucus' biggest dolt. POWs do not get tried for their actions during wartime under the Geneva Conventions. If an American POW got put on trial at all, it would violate those conventions under any circumstances and regardless of the evidentiary procedures used. If they got caught out of uniform spying during wartime, they'd most likely get shot, but at any rate would not fall under the protection of the Geneva Conventions -- and most of the people with whom we'd likely go to war have little love for fair trials for anyone, let alone American servicemen. The argument for reflexive treatment has yet to be borne out in any conflict we have fought anyway.

The speech should remind people like Graham that we aren't fighting against an honorable enemy, one that fights under the rules of war set by sovereign nations. They want to kill civilians, and their efforts land them far outside the scope of the American justice system. We need to continue vigorously gathering intelligence from captured terrorists, and then make a determination on their guilt and damage to the US in a way that doesn't harm our ability to capture others. Treat them humanely, but don't treat them as American residents or even as POWs.

Congress has a tough task facing them, and the more they forget that these terrorists should not be placed on the same plane as the civilians they target for their war, the more political risk they will face. No one wants to go into an election having argued for Miranda rights for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. They can't risk a stall tactic, either; the families of 9/11 have been promised a trial for those masterminds that slaughtered 3,000 Americans, including their loved ones, and they will not sit idly by while politicians demand better conditions for these terrorists. If Congress doesn't deliver something soon, those who obstructed the process will pay dearly at the ballot box this November.

Germans Plan For Success, Which Gets Hezbollah Objection

Hezbollah has objected to the deployment of German troops in the sub-Litani region, the German magazine Expatica reports, because Germany intends to fulfill the literal mandate of UNSCR 1701. Hezbollah expressed "reservations" over German intentions to search vehicles entering its area for arms:

The Shiite Hezbollah militia has expressed "reservations" about Germany's involvement in the multinational UN force deploying for Lebanon, owing to German demands that its troops be allowed to stop and search boats bound for the country.

"Our reservations are regarding the German demand to search boats as they enter Lebanon," Hezbollah member of parliament Hussein Haj Hassan told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa on Tuesday. "Such a demand stands against the sovereignty of Lebanon."

Hezbollah "is not against the German government and has great respect for the German people," Haj Hassan stressed, "but they want the German government to review its stand towards Lebanon." Haj Hassan additionally accused Berlin of bias towards Israel's policies in the region.

Translation: Germany will interfere with Hezbollah's plans to re-arm itself. That stands against the sovereignty of Lebanon, as the UN Security Council has noted officially on two occasions. Hezbollah cares much less about Lebanese sovereignty than it does about its own ability to provoke war against Israel from its positions on the other side of the Blue Line, and those boats carry the necessary munitions to act on behalf of their paymasters in Teheran and Damascus. This objection shows clearly that Hezbollah wants to exploit the cease-fire to reload, not to make peace.

Angela Merkel will no doubt receive a correction from Kofi Annan regarding the literal reading of Security Council resolutions. If it requires positive action against terrorists and tinpot totalitarians, these resolutions are to be read symbolically, or not at all. (via It Shines For All)

Iran War Resolution Still Distant Option

The White House and senior Republican leadership in Congress have little enthusiasm for a war resolution at this time targeting Iran, the New York Sun reports this morning. After a suggestion by William Kristol that such a piece of legislation would put more pressure on Teheran to comply with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the Bush administration and Congress distanced themselves from any such talk:

As Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns prepares for a meeting with the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council in Berlin tomorrow to discuss imposing tough sanctions on Iran, neither the Bush administration nor some of the most hawkish Republicans in Congress are yet willing to consider military force if those sanctions fail to halt Iran's nuclear program.

The idea of putting a war resolution against the Islamic Republic to Congress was floated Monday on Fox News by the editor of the Weekly Standard, William Kristol. A resolution authorizing force against Iran for its defiance of a U.N. deadline to end uranium enrichment, as well as against Sudan for stepping up its military offensive in Darfur, would be a sufficiently "credible threat," Mr. Kristol said. "And that would be something, if you did it in the next week or two, that could shake up the election," he added.

Yesterday, however, the proposal received a lukewarm reaction at the White House and from two pro-Bush administration senators.

"As the president has emphasized throughout, we are seeking a diplomatic solution to the problem with the Iranian regime. The president could not have stated it more emphatically on numerous occasions," a spokesman for the National Security Council, Frederick Jones, said.

Another administration official who requested anonymity called the idea "ludicrous" and added, "That's not even a consideration."

Aides for Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum made it clear that they do not see the war option as a viable choice at the present. Both Senators promoted the escalation of support for internal democratization activists and hoped to build momentum for regime change from within Iran. Santorum had proposed legislation making those funds and resources more abundantly available two years ago, but the White House opposed it then, and Condoleezza Rice's overtures to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this spring shelved such approaches while diplomacy played out.

As far as war planning goes, all people need to know is that Iran is not Iraq. Iraq consists of mostly flat and open country except in the north, where the Kurds made natural allies for our military operations. It's also less than a third of the size of Iran, which is dominated by mountainous terrain. Any war on Iran would take many times the number of American troops and would require a massive build-up in the region. It would hardly come as a surprise, and it would probably not outrace the Iranians in their quest for nuclear weapons.

At best, such a resolution would be a big bluff, providing authority for little more than air strikes that might damage Iran's nuclear program but would also likely turn their population against us. And the last thing we need in that region is to issue more empty threats.

The political situation in Iran is far different than it was in Iraq, and there is much greater hope that an internal movement could collapse the mullahcracy. Ahmadinejad and the Guardian Council do not exercise the same kind of oppression that Saddam Hussein did on Iraqis. The Iranians would not stand for it, and the mullahs have to tread carefully to maintain their power, which is why they stage elections for the Assembly and the presidency, even though they retain veto power over all that either do. (They may have forgotten this, as my post below notes.)

If the US could help Iranian democracy activists gain momentum, especially starting with the trade unions and university professors, the Iranians themselves could overthrow the mullahcracy and replace it with a much more rational government. Iran's history is not one of radicalism, with the exception of the last thirty years, but of educated, Western-looking sophisticates. They may not replace the mullahs with a carbon-copy Western democracy, but any rational form of representative government will make a huge difference.

In the end, nuclear weapons come as an end result of science and technology, and when a nation has enough of both, they can make WMD to their hearts' content. The real difference is in the nature of the government controlling the weapons. As long as the mullahs control Iran, we will never have security from Islamists regardless of whether they openly pursue nuclear weapons or not. We need to enable the vast and moderate Iranian population to take power back from the fanatics. It's the only means of assuring our security.

Iran Purges Its Intellegentsia

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has engaged on a campaign to purge moderates and secular thinkers from its universities. The move comes in contrast to Ahmadinejad's challenge to George Bush for an open and uncensored debate, and shows the real inclinations of the mullahcracy:

Iran's hard-line president urged students Tuesday to push for a purge of liberal and secular university teachers, another sign of his determination to strengthen Islamic fundamentalism in the country.

With his call echoing the rhetoric of the nation's 1979 Islamic revolution, Ahmadinejad appears determined to remake Iran by reviving the fundamentalist goals pursued under the republic's late founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Iran still has strong moderate factions, and since taking office a year ago Ahmadinejad has moved to replace pragmatic veterans in the government and diplomatic corps with former military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners. His administration also has launched crackdowns on independent journalists, Web sites and bloggers.

Speaking to a group of students Tuesday, Ahmadinejad called on them to pressure his administration to keep driving out moderate instructors, a process that began earlier this year.

Ahmadinejad has already begun this process. Over the past year since his election, he has caused the dismissal of dozens of tenured professors, supposedly as a response to the demands from a radicalized student body. He put a cleric in charge of Teheran University for the first time, attempting to underscore his dedication to radical Islamist principles.

His call to the students is no accident, nor is his focus on the universities. The popular revolution in which Ahmadinejad participated started with the students, and Ahmadinejad wants to leverage the connection for greater popular support. The mantle of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini would bolster his image among the hardliners and perhaps demoralize reformers enough to silence them.

His new mission reveals the manner in which Ahmadinejad and the mullahs intend to rule Iran. They want to return to the heady days of the revolution, when Iranians gladly complied with the harsh religious dictates in their happiness to have removed the Shah and to fulfill the promise of an Islamic paradise. The reality of isolation and radicalism have tempered their enthusiasm to the point where the ruling mullahs must now issue correctives to the gains secularism have made in Iran. Dissent will not be tolerated; the totalitarian and fascistic nature of radical Islamism has been revealed.

Will the West notice? Or will they continue to insist that Ahmadinejad can be a rational partner for peace and stability in the region?

Even The Gray Lady Has Run Out Of Patience

The unmasking of Richard Armitage as the source for the leak of Valerie Plame's identity has brought about a hail of recriminations on independent prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Most people now understand the entire exercise as a waste of time and an example of prosecutorial malfeasance, given that the culprit confessed on the fifth day of a three-year investigation. Now even the New York Times editorial board -- which has some responsibility for stirring up the political firestorm that resulted in Fitzgerald's appointment -- says that the time has come for Fitzgerald to either show his cards or fold:

It’s conceivable that Patrick Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor, has evidence that suggests the information in the memo was used in some illegal manner. Or his investigators may have learned something troubling about the second, unknown, source cited in Mr. Novak’s column, or about some other illegal activity. But whatever it is needs to be made public. The Armitage story is mainly a reminder that this investigation has gone on too long. ...

It’s time for Mr. Fitzgerald to provide answers or admit that this investigation has run its course. Otherwise, he risks being lumped in with the special prosecutor who spent a decade investigating the former Clinton cabinet member Henry Cisneros, and wound up with nothing more than his conviction that he had yet to get to the bottom of things.

Well, it's a start, as is the Gray Lady's avoidance of Joe Wilson's lies in this latest editorial. For the first time in memory, it states that Plame did get Wilson his assignment, which they have not admitted until now, and they also stop themselves from claiming that Wilson found no evidence of an Iraqi attempt to buy uranium. Presumably, someone at the Times finally read the SSCI report from two years ago.

Armitage's role in providing the information to Novak has sucked the life out of the Times' jeremiad against Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. It has begun to dawn on the editors that the failure to indict either man on any charges, let alone anything related to the actual revelation of Plame's identity, strongly suggests that their assumptions about vendettas and conspiracies have been exposed as baseless. It also may occur to them that their lack of support for Judith Miller may reflect badly on them. Small wonder that they want Fitzgerald to come clean and get this story buried as quickly as possible.

The Times scolds Fitzgerald for his lack of response, but they still have not taken responsibility for their own role in this witch hunt. These men and women led the public charge for the investigation to be wrested from the DoJ and assigned to a special prosecutor accountable to no one except a panel of judges, also accountable to no one but themselves. They reversed their own stand on special prosecutors taken during the Clinton administration and demanded this appointment, and they made sure enough Democratic politicians spoke up to get it. Now that the case has utterly collapsed, the Gray Lady acts like a prim schoolmarm, wagging her finger at little Patrick for mischief she thoroughly endorsed.

As I said, it's a start for the New York Times. Let's hope it's an end for Fitzgerald, his witch hunt, and the entire notion of special prosecutors.

Will Pakistani-Afghan Pact Spell The Taliban's End?

The Times of London reports that a new pact between Pakistan and Afghanistan regarding border security will force the Taliban to run for cover. Pervez Musharraf will travel to Kabul for the first time in two years to seal the treaty and to coordinate the implementation of the new border protocols:

Kabul and Islamabad have been blaming each other for allowing Islamic militants to cross the 1,500-mile (2,400km) frontier and attack security forces. Yesterday Pakistan took a big step towards ending the fighting in the lawless Waziristan region when it signed a peace deal with tribal leaders. The agreement commits local militants to halt attacks on both sides of the border.

In return Pakistan will reduce its military presence and compensate tribesmen whose relatives have been killed or whose properties have been damaged.

A key provision of the deal is that tribesmen will expel foreign fighters from the area. The region is believed to be a haven for al-Qaeda fighters and members of the former Taleban regime in Afghanistan. Without a base in Pakistan their operations could be seriously disrupted.

ABC News reports that the deal means significantly less than the Times assumes. Led by former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, ABC's The Blotter analyzes this as a complete surrender. An inside source in the Pakistani government underscores this analysis by noting that Osama bin Laden could live peacefully in Pakistan under the agreement, as long as he remained peaceful.

However, it does appear that the two agreements add up to something other than an abject surrender. It seems more likely that Hamid Karzai would reject any such sanctuary for Taliban fighters, not embrace it and embrace Musharraf after allowing that to develop. After all, a free reign in Waziristan would allow the Islamists to gather their strength and attack in force. Karzai does not want Musharraf's friendship so desperately that he would commit suicide for it, nor does Musharraf have any particular love of the radicals that have twice tried to assassinate him.

Musharraf wants to visit Karzai to put a coordinated plan for security in the cross-border region. That makes it look much more like Musharraf bought the cooperation of local tribes in an effort to flush out the foreign fighters exploiting the territory. That deal did include compensation -- the region has a tradition of blood money -- for lost relatives in earlier fighting. Musharraf wants the tribes out of the way so that the combined forces of Pakistan and Afghanistan -- which means Pakistan and NATO -- can attack the Taliban and their foreign terrorist supporters.

This could be a key development in Afghanistan's efforts to secure its borders and gain control of its nation. Musharraf may have many poor qualities, but thus far he has not surrendered to the Islamist terrorists. He understands that their survival decreases the odds of his own. His trip to Kabul has to have more in play than just a photo op.

UPDATE: Two breaking stories this morning tend to support the Times of London's analysis over that of Dick Clarke and ABC. The Pakistanis "vehemently" deny that Osama bin Laden could live in peace in Pakistan:

"This is absolutely fabricated, absurd. I never said this," Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan told The Associated Press, referring to an ABC News broadcast aired hours earlier.

The ABC report cited Sultan as saying in a telephone interview that al-Qaida chief bin Laden "would not be taken into custody" if found, "as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen."

The recorded comments of Sultan were included in the report, but it was not immediately clear whether he understood that bin Laden was the specific subject of discussion at that point in the interview. Sultan told the AP by telephone early Wednesday that "what they are saying on Osama is absolutely fabricated."

"Pakistan is committed to its policy on the war on terror and Osama, caught anywhere in Pakistan, would be brought to justice," he said.

That sounded rather strange, since Osama had ordered the attempted assassinations on Musharraf earlier. The BBC also reports this morning that the agenda for Musharraf and Karzai has joint efforts against the Taliban at the top of the list. It sounds like the Pakistanis have not "carved out a sanctuary", as Clarke suggests, but have bought off the tribal chiefs in Waziristan in order to flush out the foreign fighters. We'll see what develops.

UPDATE: The estimable Bill Roggio has a much less optimistic take on the situation -- and as always, is well worth the read.

GOP Spent Millions ... On Lieberman? Doubt It!

I know the White House would prefer to see Joe Lieberman beat Ned Lamont in the Connecticut general election, but the story reported by Insight Magazine seems pretty far-fetched. Yesterday evening, the online publication asserted that the White House has funneled millions of dollars in Republican contributions to Lieberman's independent re-election bid:

The White House funneled millions of dollars through major Republican Party contributors to Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s primary campaign in a failed effort to ensure the support of the former Democrat for the Bush administration.

A senior GOP source said the money was part of Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove's strategy to maintain a Republican majority in the Senate in November. The source said Mr. Rove, together with Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, directed leading pro-Bush contributors to donate millions of dollars to Mr. Lieberman's campaign for re-election in Connecticut in an attempt that he would be a "Republican-leaning" senator.

"Joe [Lieberman] took the money but said he would not play ball," the source said. "That doesn't mean that this was a wasted investment." ...

The source said that under Mr. Rove's direction, the GOP has abandoned its Senate candidate in Connecticut, Alan Schlesinger, who has dropped to about five percent in the polls. Mr. Schlesinger has failed to win the support of any national Republican and has virtually no contact with the White House.

First, let's take the story at face value. Assuming it's true, it would be incredibly damaging to both Lieberman and the White House. As Joe Gandelman notes in his TMV post, one can hardly shake the source of campaign contributions while taking the money. Lieberman could claim every day that millions of Republic dollars would have no influence on his politics, but who would believe him? If NARAL dumped a million dollars into Rick Santorum's campaign, would anyone believe that a deal had not been cut?

It would also prove embarrassing to the White House, although less so than Lieberman. In a year where the Republicans look to take a beating at the polls, why would the GOP sink so much money into a candidate with almost no dfference between him and his challenger, except on the war? That money could go elsewhere -- say, here in Minnesota or in Maryland -- where a real gain in a seat could take place.

In fact, this story makes almost no sense whatsoever. It comes to Insight, which is hardly a liberal publication, through a single source, which they claim as "senior" within the GOP. It offers no on-the-record sources or any data whatsoever to substantiate the allegation. The only source that does go on the record is Alan Schlesinger, the hapless and hopeless Republican candidate in the race against Lieberman and Lamont, who complains about his abandonment by the White House and national GOP.

It's true that George Bush has declined to endorse Schlesinger, who has lied about gambling debts and marginalized himself from the beginning of this race. However, the White House and the GOP have played the Lieberman-Lamont race up just enough to get the Democrats to waste resources and energy in Connecticut, allowing the GOP to apply its resources elsewhere. The Republicans would hardly waste any more than a few thousand dollars just to keep the temperature high in the race.

The GOP faces a tough midterm election, and they need to funnel resources into key races to hold onto real majorities in both chambers. Millions of dollars will buy a lot of advertising on local television and radio for these campaigns. The RNC simply cannot afford to toss away that kind of cash to bolster a Democrat with a more liberal voting record than Harry Reid, even if he is a supporter of the war in Iraq.

And say what you will about Karl Rove, but he can count, and he can tell the difference between a Democrat and a Republican (except in Rhode Island). Karl isn't about to send a few million to Lieberman no matter how much he likes him.

I'd suspect that this single source has another agenda regarding Lieberman, Lamont, and Schlesinger. It sounds like someone who isn't happy with the level of support Schlesinger has received from the White House and the RNC, and who now wants to kneecap Lieberman with allegations of Republican co-option. His list of contributors can be easily accessed at Opensecrets.org. Interestingly, the site has no such list for Lamont.

Terrorism Prevention Act

Please excuse the appearance of sketch notes here earlier; I was playing around with some tools and it posted my notes rather than saving them as a draft.

Earlier, John Aravosis wrote that Republicans blocked anti-terrorism legislation in 1996 that would have enabled the Clinton administration to stop 9/11. As the basis of this allegation, John points to a single CNN story about Bill Clinton's frustration with the actions of Congress in negotiating an expansion of power for the government. Aravosis excises this one particular passage to show that Republicans blocked the expansion of wiretap powers:

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the [Clinton] White House wants. Some they're not going to get." ....[Hatch] also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

Be careful when one sees ellipses in the middle of a quote. Orrin Hatch actually referred to the Clinton fixation on adding taggants to all explosive materials, down to the gunpowder used to manufacture ammunition for guns. This is what CNN actually has Hatch saying:

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

As one can see, the particular issue at hand was the efforts by the Clinton administration to expand so-called terrorism legislation to force ammunition manufacturers to add chemicals that would add a new dimension to ballistics and forensics in criminal investigations. Whether or not one supports that as an option to assist in solving crimes, it would have little application to terrorism as we knew it then or now. It would have had no value in the Oklahoma City bombing, for instance, nor in the 9/11 attacks.

And as far as wiretaps go, Congress had already expanded the government's ability to tap communications. The Senate had passed S.735 three months earlier, the Terrorism Prevention Act. It granted new powers for intercepting communications. For instance, it removed the requirement to get a wiretap order to access banking records, allowing a grand jury subpoena instead. It also granted more power to use wiretaps for immigration violations, a key in tracking international terrorists. The Senate passed the bill on April 17 and it became law, according to the government's Thomas site. Only eight Senators voted against it -- seven of them Democrats (Byrd, Kennedy, Pell, Feingold, Mosely-Braun, Simon, and Moynihan). The only Republican vote in opposition came from Oregon's Mark Hatfield, who regularly cast votes on the liberal end of the GOP caucus.

Of course, Byrd, Kennedy, and Feingold form the current leadership of the Senate Democratic caucus, and Feingold wants to run for President.

The legislation that Clinton championed never did make it to a floor vote in the Senate. That bill, the Aviation Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1996 (HR 3953), only mentions wiretaps in relation to boosting penalties for wiretap disclosures. This is true in its original introduced version as well as the version sent to the Senate. Section 202 made the penalties harsher for revealing the contents of a government wiretap, but did nothing to expand the legal scope of such wiretaps, as did the earlier bill. It also added terrorist attacks as RICO violations, a rather tepid response to catastrophic attacks and completely ineffective at terrorism prevention.

While HR 3953 lacked any expansion of wiretap authority, it did have a long section dedicated to the requirement to add taggants to black powder (Section 205). If terrorists used black powder for their attacks, I'm sure this would have been useful ... but they don't. It also adds a National Commission on Terrorism, which has the duties one would have assumed that the NSC and the FBI would have performed on their own. Of course, the Clinton administration spent its time building the wall between law enforcement and intelligence collection so that they couldn't share information or "connect dots" to prevent terrorism, but as the text of this bill demonstrates, the Clinton administration was more concerned about prosecuting terrorists than in catching them before they attacked.

John Aravosis is a talented blogger and a pretty good guy, but he's not just barking up the wrong tree, he's in an entirely different forest. His post shows that the Democrats used terrorism as a hobby horse to attack gun owners. The Republicans delivered a better bill months earlier, but nothing they did could overcome the insistence of Janet Reno and Jamie Gorelick to separate law enforcement and intelligence operations. If John wants to use this episode to highlight the differences between Republicans and Democrats, I'm happy to oblige.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!

UPDATE II: A commenter points out this amendment offered by Joe Lieberman as the missing wiretap expansion. There are a couple of problems with this explanation. First, the amendment (S1200) came on S.735, which had long passed (April 2006) before this CNN story that John uses to show GOP intransigence on wiretaps. Second, the amendment never specified that it applied to international communications; in fact, the emergency authority would have applied to all communications, much broader than the current NSA program the Left abhors. It also applied a very broad definition of terrorism, which is what constitutes most of Hatch's objection.

S1200 got tabled on a 52-28 vote on May 26, 1995, more than a year before Clinton's complaint on CNN. Democrats such as Robert Byrd and Harry Reid voted to table it, by the way. Clearly, this is not the legislation Clinton wanted passed in his July 1996 press conference; it was the legislation I noted in the post.

The Hill Plays Grab-Ass With S2590

When we started the day, the Coburn/Obama bill to establish a searchable database for the federal budget, a great new tool to keep appropriations above board and to establish accountability for how our money is spent, had no holds and looked ready to receive a vote by unanimous consent. By the end of the day, two politicians from each side had placed holds on the legislation, one from each party. No one knows who the Democrat is, but the Republican is rumored to be Ted Stevens, who had just released his previous hold after an avalanche of criticism.

Bill Frist has made it clear that the bill will receive a vote this month, regardless of how many holds it receives:

My Democrat colleagues have not yet cleared this legislation ... but I'm confident that they will do so promptly or pay the consequences of continued obstruction.

Now is the time to act on S. 2590. And we will act this September to pass this bill and bring the bright light of public scrutiny to the federal budget.

Update from Senator Frist: As soon as I blogged this, I received word that a Republican Senator has not cleared the bill. Let me be clear, hold or no hold, I will bring this legislation to the floor for a vote in September.

Let's once again revisit what holds mean. A hold is just a tip-off to caucus leadership that they intend to object when a bill is introduced to the Senate floor. It's supposed to be used to slow the process enough to allow all members to review the material in detail, but often it's used for petty revenge against a bill's sponsors.

However petty and maddening these holds are, they cannot stop legislation from coming to the floor. As many Senators who have holds can object and deny unanimous consent -- but it can only stop the bill once. After that, the bill will have to face as many as three cloture motions, which will take six legislative days to complete, but after that the bill must come to the floor for a vote.

At this point, it makes no difference whether there are one hold or a dozen. Any number will invoke the need for cloture, and a multiplicity will not make it any worse. Of course, we can still hold them accountable for their holds -- and we hope the Senate leadership will reveal the gameplayers if they do not cease.

Blackout Days

We are now 60 days from the midterm elections, a key date for anyone hoping to exercise free political speech in the world's first free and democratic republic. America has entered the John McCain-Russ Feingold blackout period, where the federal government must enforce a ban on any third-party political advertising that has the temerity to mention incumbent politicians by name:

Something almost without precedent in America will happen Thursday. That’s the day when McCain-Feingold — aka the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 — will officially silence broadcast advertising that contains criticism of members of Congress seeking re-election in November. Before 2006, American election campaigns traditionally began in earnest after Labor Day. Unless McCain-Feingold is repealed, Labor Day will henceforth mark the point in the campaign when congressional incumbents can sit back and cruise, free of those pesky negative TV and radio spots. It is the most effective incumbent protection act possible, short of abolishing the elections themselves.

How can this possibly be, you ask? McCain-Feingold — named after the law’s main advocates, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. — bans all broadcast political advocacy advertising that mentions candidates by name, beginning 60 days before the election. President Bush signed and the U.S. Supreme Court shockingly upheld McCain-Feingold three years ago. Earlier this week, the Federal Election Commission, decided against allowing an exemption to the ban that would have allowed some highly restricted advocacy ads by groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO.

Be thankful I can even mention this. It took an FEC action to exempt me and my fellow bloggers from this ban, which does not apply to media outlets. Otherwise, I would have to refrain from telling readers that John McCain, Russ Feingold, Christopher Shays, Marty Meehan, and every politician who voted for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act had passed the worst restriction on free speech since the Sedition Act during World War I. And let's not forget that George Bush signed the legislation into law and that the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of restricting political speech to protect incumbents.

If you feel just a little less free today, this is the reason why.

Prosecutors Get Tough On Stewart Sentencing

The AP reports on a brief submitted by prosecutors arguing for a long prison sentence for convicted terrorist enabler Lynne Stewart. They dismiss defense claims that Stewart mistakenly crossed the line from zealous defender to an unwitting accomplice who deserves no jail time for her error:

Stewart's "egregious, flagrant abuse of her profession, abuse that amounted to material support to a terrorist group, deserves to be severely punished," prosecutors wrote in a document submitted Thursday to a judge.

Her lawyers have argued that Stewart should receive no prison time, arguing that a harsh sentence would frighten other lawyers from representing notorious clients and that Stewart's three decades of distinguished work for indigent clients should speak louder than a single serious mistake.

The prosecutors see it differently.

"Stewart did not walk a fine line of zealous advocacy and accidentally fall over it; she marched across it and into a criminal conspiracy," Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew S. Dember wrote. "The government obviously did not prosecute Stewart because she is a zealous advocate, but rather for blatantly and repeatedly violating the law."

Dember wrote that Stewart's "conduct was not isolated to one single event; rather, it showed a pattern of purposeful and willful conduct, in which she played a central role in repeated fraudulent attempts to pass messages to and from Abdel-Rahman."

The prosecution notes that Stewart lied to investigators on at least two occasions. She told them that Sheok Abdel Rahman's prison allowed him to issue press releases as a cover for her own statements on his behalf when she had known it to be forbidden. Stewart also denied knowing a figure of international terrorism when questioned, and then reversed herself when under oath. Both incidents show that Stewart knowingly violated the law on behalf of the spiritual leader of the Islamist cell that attacked the World Trade Center in 1993.

Prosecutors seek a 30-year sentence for Stewart's crimes. At 65, that would be a life sentence, especially since convicts of federal crimes must serve 85% of their sentences before parole eligibility. Given that her crime allowed Rahman's rescission of a cease-fire to get transmitted to his operatives abroad in 2000, which then resulted in terror attacks that cost others' lives, it seems a fitting end for Stewart and her cohorts. Her sentencing hearing comes next month -- twenty months after her conviction. (via The Corner)

Syria Doubles Down With Another Assassination Attempt

A roadside bomb has seriously injured the lead investigator into the assassination of Rafik Hariri and killed four of his bodyguards near the seaside city of Sidon in Lebanon. The remote-controlled bomb seems very similar to the means used to assassinate Hariri:

A bomb blast near the southern Lebanese city of Sidon has seriously wounded a senior intelligence officer and killed four of his aides and bodyguards. Officials said Samir Shehadeh's was hit by a remote-controlled bomb as he drove past the village of Rmeileh.

Col Shehadeh was an investigator into the killing of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri in early 2005. ...

The bombing comes two weeks before the UN chief investigator is to submit a report on his latest findings in the Hariri investigation to the UN.

Shehadeh had an inkling of an attack. The bomb actually hit the car in which he would normally ride, but instead had a decoy in his place. The force of the blast sent shrapnel flying in all directions, however, and Shehadeh had to be rushed to a hospital. The BBC does not give any indication of his prognosis except to state that his condition is "serious".

This attack points back to Syria, which faces international embarrassment when Lebanon starts a tribunal to try the case against the suspects it has in custody. Shehadeh led the investigation, arresting four pro-Syrian Lebanese generals as complicit in the political assassination. No doubt Shehadeh would play an important part in prosecuting those responsible for Hariri's death, if he survives to see the trial.

The only people who benefit from this attack are Syria's leadership and those Lebanese collaborators who enabled their deadly grip on Lebanon. Only Syria or its toady, Hassan Nasrallah, have the sophistication to carry out this kind of assassination attempt. Syria keeps emphasizing its position as the author of all misery in Lebanon, and perhaps the attempted murder will refocus the Lebanese on the true threat to their national sovereignty and identity.

Immigration Rallies Do Not Increase Voter Registrations

The AP decided to take a look at the prediction that immigration rallies this spring would inspire hundreds of thousands to register as voters in time for the upcoming midterm elections, if not the earlier primaries. Despite this conventional wisdom getting repeated endlessly in political analyses, they only found this to be true in Los Angeles -- and on a much smaller scale than predicted:

Immigration protests that drew hundreds of thousands of flag-waving demonstrators to the nation's streets in the spring promised a potent political legacy -- a surge of new Hispanic voters.

"Today we march, tomorrow we vote," they proclaimed.

But an Associated Press review of voter registration figures from Chicago, Denver, Houston, Atlanta and other major urban areas that had large rallies found no sign of a new voter boom that could sway elections. There was a rise in Los Angeles, where 500,000 protested in March, but it was more of a trickle than a torrent.

Protest organizers -- principally unions, Hispanic advocacy groups and the Catholic Church -- acknowledge it has been hard to translate street activism into voting clout, though they insist they can reach their goal of 1 million new voters by 2008.

"I was anticipating a huge jump in registration. I didn't see it," said Jess Cervantes, a veteran California political operative whose company analyzes Hispanic voting trends. "When you have an emotional response, it takes time to evolve."

That's exactly incorrect. Movements based on emotion tend to decay rapidly; leaders of such movements have to keep their followers in crisis mode to keep them motivated. The evolution of emotional response is the counterreaction of reason, not momentum of disreason. We need no better model for this than the American resolve on 9/12/01. The unity of rage and demand for vengeance was mind-boggling for a country that nearly tore itself apart over 600 votes in Florida less than a year earlier. As the months and years passed, however, people put the experience into the broader context of their own political beliefs, which has led to the return of partisanship that we have seen since the Afghanistan phase of the war.

The truth lies elsewhere. The rallies inspired hundreds of thousands to take to the streets, but even their organizers admit that a good percentage of the protestors had no legal right to be in the country. Those people cannot legally register to vote, and since their continued presence in the US depends on staying out of sight of the authorities, most would not be tempted to risk deportation by registering their existence with the government. Most of the rest are experienced political activists -- who registered to vote long ago.

The immigration rallies succeeded in pressuring independents and Democrats into favoring more liberal solutions to reform and border security. The numbers of the protestors made sure that their message got heard in Washington DC. The existing votes they represent had enough of an impact to ensure that success. However, their composition almost guaranteed that they would have little impact on voter registrations, and the emotional nature of their argument ensured that it would dissipate shortly after the last flyer hit the wastebasket.

Nine Terror Suspects Arrested In Denmark

In what appears to be a new front in the war on terror, Denmark has arrested nine suspected terrorists in Odense after tracking them for "some time":

Danish police have arrested nine suspected terrorists, the country's security intelligence service says.

The suspects, believed to be all men under the age of 30, were picked up during overnight raids in Odense, Denmark's third largest city.

The men had been under surveillance for some time and were detained on suspicion of planning terror acts. ...

He said the suspects "had acquired material ... to build explosives in connection with the preparation of a terror act".

The Danish security services had no clear indication of a target or a timeframe for their attack. However, it wouldn't be too difficult to imagine why terrorists have decided to add Denmark as another theater of operations. After all, the controversy over the editorial cartoons depicting Mohammed began in Denmark, touching off riots around the Islamic world and even angry protests in the streets of Western cities.

In the intervening seven months, the heat may have dissipated but the supposed insult has not been forgotten. Kofi Annan made an oblique reference to it this weekend in Iran at the exhibition of a series of editorial cartoons mocking the Holocaust that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sponsored in the wake of the Danish publications. He cautioned against all speech that might give offense -- after which the Iranians scheduled a Holocaust denial convention in Teheran.

The "some time" timeframe mentioned by the BBC almost certainly goes back to February or shortly thereafter. The aggregation of materiel by the terrorists within Denmark establishes their intent to strike within the country. The targets probably included the newspapers that published the cartoons, although knowing the Islamist strategic thinking, they probably also planned to target transportation and/or economic sites as well. The Danes, who refused to force the newspapers to withdraw the cartoons, prepared themselves to defend their liberty instead. It's a good lesson for all Western nations tempted to march the dhimmi trail rather than stand up for their freedom.

The Democrats Write A Letter

Yesterday, the Democrats released an open letter to George Bush demanding a change in policy for Iraq and the war on terror. The letter takes five paragraphs to get to the point, and even then doesn't do much more than present general goals rather than any clear changes to current policy:

Therefore, we urge you once again to consider changes to your Iraq policy. We propose a new direction, which would include: (1) transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection; (2) beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year; (3) working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources; and (4) convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort. These proposals were outlined in our July 30th letter and are consistent with the "U.S. Policy in Iraq Act" you signed into law last year.

We also think there is one additional measure you can take immediately to demonstrate that you recognize the problems your policies have created in Iraq and elsewhere -consider changing the civilian leadership at the Defense Department. From the failure to deploy sufficient numbers of troops at the start of the war or to adequately equip them, to the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, to disbanding the Iraqi military, to the failure to plan for the post-war occupation, the Administration's mistakes have taken a toll on our troops and our security. It is unacceptable to dismiss the concerns of military personnel and their families when they are affected by the consequences of these failures, as the Secretary of Defense recently did in Alaska by suggesting that volunteers should not complain about having their deployments extended. While a change in your Iraq policy will best advance our chances for success, we do not believe the current civilian leadership at the Department of Defense is suited to implement and oversee such a change in policy.

They want Donald Rumsfeld's head on a pike outside the White House, but they can't even gin up the courage to use his name in their letter. They're not the only people calling for Rumsfeld's resignation, but their argument here is just plain silly. Rumsfeld can be blamed for some of the above, but making him personally responsible for the actions of a handful of soldiers in Abu Ghraib just reduces this to grandstanding. Rumsfeld didn't order people to mistreat Iraqi prisoners; the unit in Abu Ghraib had poor discipline, as their sexual relationships within the unit pretty clearly demonstrated. They're tugging at headlines, playing for the crowd, and making a great argument as to why their advice shouldn't be heeded.

Not that they really offer much advice in the letter anyway. They want to begin a "phased redeployment" by the end of the year -- and it's already September. That leaves a short time frame for this retreat to occur -- and note that the Democrats still can't bring themselves to use the right term. When one leaves the theater while engaged with an enemy, that is a retreat, not a phased redeployment. The Democrats want a retreat.

They also want the US to dictate changes in the Iraqi constitution, an odd demand from one democracy to another. Democrats demand a "fair sharing of power and resources", but the Iraqi elections did just that. The Iraqis wrote their constitution, and the Iraqis voted to implement it. The Iraqis, except for terrorists and insurgents, seem satisfied with its division of power and resources. If not, they have a National Assembly to correct any defects they find.

Why would Democrats insist that the US government interfere with such an arrangement?

Next they want an "international conference" -- to preserve Iraq's sovereignty! In other words, they want to convene an international commission to force Iraq to obey its dictates. What nations would have to attend this conference to satisfy Democratic demands? Well, it won't be Eritrea and Trinidad and Tobago. They will want Iraq's neighbors to sit in judgment of the work done by a freely elected Iraqi government, nations such as Iran and Syria. Just to clarify, these are the nations that support terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and Iran is currently the nation defying the United Nations on nuclear weapons.

That's who Democrats see as the keys to Iraqi sovereignty. Not the Iraqis, and not the United States. Iran and Syria.

This letter gives the perfect reason why Democrats can't be trusted with national security -- anyone's national security. They want the Middle East to dismember Iraq with our blessing instead of against our opposition. They want the peace of surrender ... or phased redeployment.

Will The GOP Dump Immigration Reform

Republicans have shelved their efforts on immigration reform, the New York Times reoprts, preferring to focus on national security in the legislative session preceding the midterm elections. The move comes as a summer series of hearings did nothing to bridge the differences between the two chambers of Congress on the issue:

As they prepare for a critical pre-election legislative stretch, Congressional Republican leaders have all but abandoned a broad overhaul of immigration laws and instead will concentrate on national security issues they believe play to their political strength.

With Congress reconvening Tuesday after an August break, Republicans in the House and Senate say they will focus on Pentagon and domestic security spending bills, port security legislation and measures that would authorize the administration’s terror surveillance program and create military tribunals to try terror suspects.

“We Republicans believe that we have no choice in the war against terror and the only way to do it is to continue to take them head-on whether it is in Iraq or elsewhere,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the majority leader.

A final decision on what do about immigration policy awaits a meeting this week of senior Republicans. But key lawmakers and aides who set the Congressional agenda say they now believe it would be politically risky to try to advance an immigration measure that would showcase party divisions and need to be completed in the 19 days Congress is scheduled to meet before breaking for the election.

As I reported here last week, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist intends to focus on those issues which he believes will demonstrate the differences between Republicans and Democrats. He and the House leadership want to force a series of votes that can be used effectively to argue for a return of GOP leadership. However, he did state that border security would be a component of that effort:

I want to do port security, I want to address the Bolton nomination, I want to address the Hamdan decision on these security issues, I want to address the Specter-FISA compromise. That right there – I’ve only got 15 legislative days, so you can imagine the challenge. ...

We need real clarification on a range of issues of what are the differences between Democrats and Republicans. I’d march down the list: prevailing versus cutting and running, strong border protection versus porous borders, tax cuts versus tax hikes, affordable health care versus predatory trial lawyers driving up costs, energy independence versus energy dependence, common-sense judges versus activist judges.

Floor time I’m going to spend on security. I’ve probably been in 75 meetings in the last three weeks like we just did, where it’s not hard-core politics but just listening to people, and everything keeps gravitating back to that.

Arlen Specter warned of "justifiable anger" if Congress does nothing to resolve the immigration problem. However, Frist and Denny Hastert have probably concluded that no bill works better for keeping conservatives in the tent than a bad bill, especially the McCain-Kennedy bill that sets up another amnesty program.

Frist may try fielding a border-security bill along the lines of what the House has approved as a step towards resolving immigration; at least his answer in our interview suggests that approach. Democrats would certainly oppose any attempt to divorce border security from immigration reform -- and perhaps a few Republicans not running for re-election -- giving voters another issue on which to judge national-security bona fides. If Democrats are forced to vote against border security, or more likely to filibuster it, it will provide Republicans with a powerful talking point for the midterms.

For that reason, although the Times may have it technically right, I suspect that Frist has a plan to force a vote on strengthening the border. We already know that Congress has deadlocked on the issue so badly that a conference committee would hardly be able to move. I'd expect Frist to try to move the House bill to the Senate floor and let the chips fall where they may. With an overwhelming majority of voters wanting the southern border secured, the issue is a natural winner for the GOP.

Israel Considering Arab Initiative

The Jerusalem Post reports that the Israelis have come back to the stalled Arab Initiative, a comprehensive peace plan sponsored by the Saudis four years ago. The Saudis apparently intend on raising the plan again at an upcoming summit in Cairo, and the Israelis will watch with interest how it develops:

Israel will be watching a meeting of the foreign ministers of Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia scheduled for Tuesday in Cairo with "interest, but little expectation," senior diplomatic officials said Monday.

The meeting, which is also likely to include the PLO's foreign minister Farouk Kaddoumi, is expected to discuss an Arab League peace initiative that will likely be presented at the UN later this month.

UN Secretary of State Kofi Annan said in Damascus Friday that the Arab League has called on the UN Security Council to formally recognize "the need to reactivate the Middle Eastern peace process and establish a mechanism for us to proceed on all tracks." The details of the plan are sketchy, but it is believed that it will be based on the Saudi initiative from 2002, involve the UN Security Council, and call for an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on the principle of land for peace.

The Saudi initiative, adopted at the Arab Summit in Beirut in March 2002, calls on Arab states to "normalize relations" with Israel in return for the establishment of a Palestinian state following an Israeli withdrawal to the Green Line, and a solution to the issue of Palestinian refugees in accordance with UN Resolution 194. This resolution called on Israel to allow the return of Palestinian refugees and compensate those who don't want to do so.

Israel rejected the Saudi peace plan, and for good reason. It required Israel to recognize the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees, a condition that would mean the end of the Israeli state. It would bring a flood of hostile Palestinians into Israel's borders, granting them citizenship and the vote. The result would not just be a wresting of political control from the Jews, but also allow terrorists inside their borders behind all of their defenses.

It also required Israel to set their borders to their 1967 status and eliminate the West Bank settlements. Those conditions could be palatable, if it meant a final settlement and a guarantee of normal diplomatic relations with all Muslim states -- and no further terrorist attacks. Any peace would almost certainly move Israel back to the Green Line. The settlements will be a huge political problem for Israel, but it's hard to see how they can expect a two-state solution to work while Israeli settlements remain in Palestinian territory.

Ehud Olmert has recognized the futility of the previous Israeli strategy, giving up on the "realignment" plan he wanted to implement and which the White House had supported. He told the Knesset that the plan had been shelved. Any withdrawal from Palestinian lands will not come unilaterally, which will probably please the Palestinians and the Israelis, neither of whom really bought into the unilateral Gaza withdrawal. Sharon made his point with that effort: the Palestinians revealed themselves as singularly incapable of self-government there. Israel knows better than to make that point twice now.

Will Israel accept a modified Arab Initiative, one that forgoes the laughable requirement of national suicide? Olmert would love to find a way to peace, but the question is whether the Arabs can deliver it. They may have more incentive to do so now, with the rise of an Iranian -- and non-Arab -- hegemon in the region. Whether Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan can force Syria into a peace agreement and stop the funding and supply of terrorist groups in the region remains very much an open question.

NATO Presses Advantage Against Taliban

The new offensive against the Taliban remnants in Afghanistan, Operation Medusa, has dealt a severe blow to the forces of Mullah Omar. Over 200 Taliban fighters have died in the fighting, while NATO has only suffered four combat deaths:

More than 200 Taliban fighters have been killed in a major Nato offensive in southern Afghanistan, along with four Canadian troops.

Operation Medusa, launched by alliance and Afghan forces in the Panjwai district of Kandahar province, involved hundreds of troops, backed by warplanes and helicopter gunships.

A Nato spokesman said: "Reports indicate that more than 200 Taliban fighters have been killed since Operation Medusa began early on Saturday morning."

He added that Afghan soldiers had captured more than 80 other Taliban.

The Canadians have fought with tremendous courage and energy in this NATO effort. The attempted revival of the Taliban has necessitated such efforts, five years after their loss of Afghanistan in the American-led response to 9/11. Omar and his followers have built up their resources an an attempt to push NATO out of the region and seize power from the elected assembly, but thus far have nothing to show from their latest strategies.

Afghanistan's situation is more fragile than the Iraqis, but for some reason gets much less attention. The Iraqi government has built a formidable security force that will, with seasoning, control all corners of Iraq, assuming that the Americans don't lose their composure and bug out. They have already taken over one province and allowed the Coalition to completely withdraw, and are about to add another. By contrast, the Afghanistan government really only controls Kabul and parts of Kandahar, and have to rely on tribal connections to keep the rest of the country from spiralling out of Hamid Karzai's orbit.

We had better start paying more attention to Afghanistan if we want it to stabilize. That would put a great deal more pressure on Iran and distract them from their mischief in Iraq, if Karzai could gain control of the whole nation. With Iran practically begging for confrontation from the West, the Afghanistan frontier becomes that much more strategic for the West, and we need to ensure that it remains friendly.

Tourists Shot, One Dead, In Jordan Attack

A British tourist died today and five other tourists seriously wounded when a Jordanian gunmen opened fire, reportedly shouting Allahu Akbar! ("God is great!) as he attacked:

A gunman has shot dead a British tourist in the center of Amman and wounded five tourists and a Jordanian tourist police officer, Jordanian officials said.

The casualties included the British man who died, two other wounded Britons and the Jordanian, Jordanian government spokesman Nasser Judeh said. One Dutch person, an Australian and a New Zealander were also wounded.

Police and intelligence sources said four of the tourists are women and the Dutch citizen is a man. ...

"This is a cowardly terrorist attack, which we regret took place on Jordanian soil," Interior Minister Eid al-Fayez told reporters at the scene, according to The Associated Press. "This operation is considered a terrorist act unless the man is found to be deranged," he said.

Well, to some of us, Islamist terrorists already have demonstrable derangement -- a fanatical hatred for non-Muslims and an impulse to force Islam upon the world by force. Under any definition, that's pretty deranged. The question is whether his motivation was Islamist fervor or just run-of-the-mill schizophrenia.

The Times of London reported the Allahu Akbar! shout in its report on the attack. As Michelle Malkin notes, the Times also rushed to give the unidentified Jordanian a ready-made excuse for shooting unarmed civilians:

Rana Sabbagh-Gargour, Times Correspondent in Amman, said that the attack came amid rising antagonism towards the West.

"There is mounting frustration on the streets of the Arab world with the West, especially with the United States and Europe, over its perceived bias on the Middle Eastern conflict, Iraq and Lebanon," she said. "It is putting pressure on moderate Arab governments to revisit their politics and limiting their ability to manoeuvre."

And the dhimmitude continues. Note that the Times of London quotes as its source for its West-hatred ... the Times of London.

Big Ben Out For The Opener

Big Ben Roethlisberger, the youngest quarterback to win a Super Bowl, will miss the season opener this Thursday night after appendicitis caused him to have his third major surgery this summer:

Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger had an emergency appendectomy after becoming ill before practice Sunday and will miss Thursday night's season opener against Miami.

Coach Bill Cowher is not certain how long Roethlisberger will be out following the quarterback's third operation in 10 months -- and second in 2½ months. Roethlisberger began having pain and was vomiting Sunday morning, and was taken to UPMC Presbyterian for surgery after being examined by the team's medical staff. ...

The appendix attack is yet another medical setback for Roethlisberger, who nearly died in a June 12 motorcycle accident only to make a remarkably fast recovery. He missed no practice time during training camp and played better in the preseason than he did a year ago before leading the Steelers to their first Super Bowl victory in 26 years.

Roethlisberger missed four games last season because of two knee injuries, one that required surgery, and injured his right thumb late in the season. He later said he broke it, though the Steelers never have confirmed that, but he missed no playing time because of that injury.

It was not immediately known if the motorcycle accident might have caused any internal damage that subsequently resulted in the appendix attack. All of Roethlisberger's known injuries from the crash -- a broken nose, orbital bones and upper and lower jaw, damaged teeth and a concussion -- were to his head.

Usually appendectomies involve laparascopic surgery, which allows for minimal injury to the abdominal wall and a faster healing process. Of course, contact sports make the risk greater for herniation and internal bleeding, and given the smashmouth style of football the Steelers play, that seems to be an even greater consideration. Hines Ward had the same operation two summers ago and missed two exhibition games, but made it back for the opener. It seems likely that Big Ben will miss more than just one game.

Fortunately, the Steelers have Charlie Batch on the sidelines. Batch did well in two appearances last year, winning both while Roethlisberger recovered from injuries. Batch has plenty of experience as a starting QB with the hapless Detroit Lions, and has had another year to learn the Steelers' system. He won't have the same physical presence of Big Ben, which will definitely have an impact, but he's got better mobility and may complicate opposing defenses' plans for the Steelers.

The Steelers are also talking to Tommy Maddox about returning for 2006. Maddox got cut after a series of unimpressive appearances, and he sulked his way out of a White House appearance after the Super Bowl. He may or may not decide to come back as a hard-luck alternative, but he does know the system and could contribute if needed.

Most of all, we need Big Ben to fully recover if we're going to make another run at the championship. They need to keep him on the sidelines until he's healed completely. Hopefully, Charlie will make that decision a little easier for Bill Cowher.

UPDATE: The Steelers do not have Antwaan Randle-El, who went to the Redskins this off-season. Too bad; I love watching him play, and he was one of my favorite Steelers. I hope he does well against everyone but Pittsburgh, should the two teams meet.

Losing The House?

The New York Times paints a pretty depressing picture for the GOP in the upcoming midterms, but has little data on which to base its analysis. The article by Robin Toner and Kate Zernike seems long on anecdotes and short on actual polling:

After a year of political turmoil, Republicans enter the fall campaign with their control of the House in serious jeopardy, the possibility of major losses in the Senate, and a national mood so unsettled that districts once considered safely Republican are now competitive, analysts and strategists in both parties say.

Sixty-five days before the election, the signs of Republican vulnerability are widespread.

Indiana, which President Bush carried by 21 percentage points in 2004, now has three Republican House incumbents in fiercely contested races. Around the country, some of the most senior Republicans are facing their stiffest challenges in years, including Representative E. Clay Shaw Jr. of Florida, the veteran Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee; Representative Nancy L. Johnson of Connecticut, a state increasingly symbolic of this year’s political unrest; and Representative Deborah Pryce of Ohio, the No. 4 Republican in the House.

Two independent political analysts have, in recent weeks, forecast a narrow Democratic takeover of the House, if current political conditions persist. Stuart Rothenberg, who had predicted Democratic gains of 8 to 12 seats in the House, now projects 15 to 20. Democrats need 15 to regain the majority. Charles Cook, the other analyst, said: “If nothing changes, I think the House will turn. The key is, if nothing changes.”

Plenty will change between now and November, but the question is what will change and in which direction. The polling has continued to change, but not in the manner in which the Times describes. Rasmussen notes a seven-point improvement for the GOP in the generic Congressional ballot, with only an eight-point gap. USA Today/Gallup shows a two-point gap, a nine-point improvement for Republicans and a dead heat that would indicate almost no change in House composition at all. Pew Research shows a decline in the gap over the summer, as does Hotline, which shows the race at a complete dead heat.

These numbers do not get mentioned in the Times article. The only numbers produced by Toner and Zernicke are the numbers for general dissatisfaction in America's direction, which have approached the lows set in 1994, when the Republicans took control of the House. However, while the number does have some correlation to political movement, it isn't a direct correlation. That number includes many conservatives who feel that the Bush administration and the GOP majority in Congress have not upheld conservative principles during their tenure. Those voters will not support Democrats in November. They may stay home, but that's probably less likely considering the impact on national security that these elections will have.

The only solid numbers used by the Times are prices of gasoline, but even then they manage to be somewhat misleading. Gas prices have actually fallen well ahead of their normal drop-off point, Labor Day, down significantly from a couple of months ago. Now that the family-vacation season has concluded, prices will fall even farther. If significant resources do not get clobbered by hurricanes in the Gulf Coast this season, prices will fall even further. Democrats relying on commodity pricing to gain political traction may be building their houses on sand.

Midterm elections always prove trying for the party in power, especially when one controls both houses of Congress and the White House. No one ever thought that this election would be a cakewalk, especially with the situation in Iraq providing even more dissonance than usual. The GOP will have a tough time holding onto both chambers of Congress. The picture does not look as bleak as it did two months ago, however, and the Times should have done better research for its analysis than that presented here.

Sarkozy To Fight The 60's Mentality In France

In a potentially transformative development, popular French politician Nicolas Sarkozy has declared that he will break with the culture of entitlement and the legacy of the 1960s in his upcoming election against Socialist Segolene Royal for the presidency:

The battle to be the next French President heated up yesterday when Nicolas Sarkozy, the centre-right favourite, set out his manifesto for a revolution to restore basic values that would win the confidence of a younger generation that distrusts him.

M Sarkozy, 51, the Interior Minister and leader of the Union for a Popular Majority (UMP), President Chirac’s party, blamed the Sixties generation for squandering France’s heritage and creating a sense of entitlement and despair among the young. He would, he promised, create a new, better-educated France of hard workers and entrepreneurs.

M Sarkozy staged what was effectively the launch of his campaign for the elections next April at a weekend conference of young party activists in Marseilles. On Friday Dominique de Villepin, the Prime Minister and M Sarkozy’s biggest rival, gave his blessing — without enthusiasm — to “cher Nicolas”, whose candidacy for the UMP now appears certain. An Ipsos poll yesterday indicated that 45 per cent of French people want M Sarkozy to stand for the UMP, with only 8 per cent supporting M de Villepin and 3 per cent in favour of M Chirac running for a third term.

A French politician railing against the entitlement mentality would have done so only to commit political suicide, even just a few months ago. The first hint of change came three years ago, when a young woman named Sabine Herold first appeared as a speaker at anti-union rallies in 2003. Earlier this year she announced her intention to run for the National Assembly as a way of building momentum for French libertarianism. Now Sarkozy, one of the most prominent national politicians in France, appears to have taken up her banner of entrepeneurialism and reduced government interference.

Why has this occurred? Perhaps it comes naturally from his opposition, the Socialist nominee Royal. Sarkozy may have decided that he needed a clearer delineation between Royal and himself. However, the weeks of riots that took place earlier this year, first with Muslim youth in the ghettoes and then with students regarding employment contracts, may have convinced more French than just Sarkozy that the 1960s have turned into a plague on the French body politic, and not just in terms of economics.

The French will have a real choice to make this fall, if Sarkozy means what he says, and that choice will be between French renewal and complete French collapse. Voters finally have an opportunity to choose libertarianism without the racial bigotry of Jean Le Pen to muddy the waters. Sabine Herold may have been the harbinger of the movement, but Sarkozy can be its deliverer. French politics have finally become interesting.

Annan's Humiliating Adventure In Islamaland

Kofi Annan just got the clearest diplomatic humiliation since perhaps Neville Chamberlain, according to the AP. The UN Secretary-General traveled to Iran to ask Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to please stop issuing provocative Holocaust denials and to suspend uranium enrichment. Ahmadinejad responded with a handshake, a smile, and a newly-scheduled conference of Holocaust deniers:

The U.N. chief got little satisfaction Sunday at the close of his trip to Tehran, snubbed by Iran's leader over international demands to stop enriching uranium and ignored in warnings not to incite hatred by questioning the Holocaust.

In a provocative move on the final day of Kofi Annan's two-day visit, Iran announced it would host a conference to examine what it called exaggerations about the Holocaust, during which more than 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis. ...

"On the nuclear issue, the president reaffirmed to me Iran's preparedness and determination to negotiate" a solution to the nuclear confrontation, Annan said at the news conference.

However, Ahmadinejad "reiterated that he did not accept suspension before negotiations," the U.N. chief said, conveying Iran's rejection of a condition set by the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany.

The Iranians appear to take particular pleasure in the humiliation of Annan. We'd share that pleasure for anything that exposes the uselessness of the corrupt and incompetent Annan, but the Iranian response is unsettling. Annan has made it clear that he doesn't want any confrontation and has spent his life avoiding it, to the world's detriment. One would have expected the Iranians to exploit this, rather than just commit a flat-out humiliation of Annan.

It's one thing to defy the US and the UK, and even the UN Security Council. Making a fool out of a reliably pacifist world leader of Annan's significance is quite another. Either Iran no longer sees the need to appear cooperative, or they see Annan's usefulness as a shill at an end. Given Annan's still-considerable influence among the Third World, I'd have to conclude that Ahmadinejad has something up his sleeve that allows him enough confidence to be openly defiant of all.

Casey: Social Security Just Fine

Robert Casey Jr took on Rick Santorum in a debate for the upcoming general election, and the Democratic challenger shows that he has more studying to do before the big final. Even Tim Russert couldn't believe Casey's prescription for Social Security's ills was to "do nothing":

"I don't think you're talking about a crisis," the Democrat said during an hourlong debate yesterday on NBC's "Meet the Press." Mr. Casey said the program -- raided for years by federal lawmakers to pay for other government programs -- will fix itself.

"So [we'll have] double the people on Social Security and Medicare, and life expectancy approaches 80. And the solution is 'do nothing'?" moderator Tim Russert asked.

Mr. Casey suggested reinstating the estate tax and then hoping for a booming economy to "grow" the program out of the peril that actuarial tables and demographics predict.

"You want to grow the economy by increasing taxes?" scoffed Mr. Santorum, sitting next to him. "So, he's saying we have to grow the economy so we're going to take more out of it. That's a great way to grow the economy."

That's easily one of the most incoherent statements on entitlement reform we've heard since George Bush attempted Social Security reform in 2005. Democrats have offered three different reactions at different times to this effort, trying to scare people into thinking change was an unreasonable Republican push to strip seniors of their benefits. They have pretended that the problem doesn't exist; they have pledged to raise taxes to cover the shortfall; and they have minimized the pending economic disaster by saying that the economy will grow enough to cover the shortfall.

Casey is the first Democrat in my experience to offer all three at the same time. It's as though he had all of the Democratic talking points in front of him at the podium and decided to use the shotgun approach and hoped to hit the bulls-eye. He hit another part of the bull on this question, and Russert rightly called him on it.

Social Security will run out of funds before most of us reach the point where we can start receiving benefits. That's why the crisis is upon us now; the vast majority of Americans keep sending contributions to a Ponzi scheme that will have paid off its last recipient, under the rules today, well before our turn comes up. Increasing longevity, escalations of benefits, and the baby boom have brought us from sixteen workers per Social Security recipient to less than three workers per recipient today. Once the generation of Bill Clinton and George Bush start getting benefits -- and that starts next year -- the find will undergo a rapid decline.

The time to fix Social Security is now, when we can leverage a fund that still technically operates in the black and when we can still provide stable benefits to current recipients as part of that reform. Politicians like Bob Casey want to pretend that nothing's wrong with ballooning entitlements until the bill comes due -- and then he wants to stick us with it. Casey needs to ditch the talking points and start doing some of his own thinking, or he needs to find another line of work.

The Last Day At The Fair

The Northern Alliance Radio Network will be making our last appearance today at the Minnesota State Fair this afternoon from noon to 4 Central Time. As always, we will broadcast live from the AM 1280 The Patriot booth. We expect visits from local politicians and Mitch's new taste sensation on a stick: deep-fried White Castle sliders. Actually, if he follows through on that, we also expect to meet a few of the EMTs that have worked diligently during the Great Minnesota Get-Together.

Be sure to listen to our broadcast on The Patriot or on its Internet stream -- and if you're in town, stop by our booth and say hello! We're at the curve of Judson Street, just south of the Horticulture building, between the motorcycle booth and the corn-dog booth.

The American Lord Haw Haw

The release of a new video from Ayman al-Zawahiri has caused a minor sensation with its inclusion of Adam Gadahn, an American convert to al-Qaeda jihadism, demanding the conversion of America to Islam. The video shows Gadahn, now called Azzam the American, speaking in American patois and counseling surrender to the terrorist group:

It was the second time Gadahn appeared in the same video with al-Zawahri. In a July 7 video marking the one-year anniversary of the terror attack on London commuters, Gadahn appeared briefly, saying no Muslim should "shed tears" for Westerners killed by al-Qaida attacks.

But Saturday's video — and the length of Gadahn's speech — suggested al-Qaida has found in him someone who can directly address the American people in idiom they are familiar with. ...

Gadahn delivered a lecture on Islam and the "errors" in Christianity and Judaism. He also said the United States is losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and told U.S. soldiers they are fighting President Bush's "crusades."

"Instead of killing yourself for Bush ... why not surrender to the truth (of Islam), escape from the unbelieving army and join the winning side. Time is running out so make the right choice before it's too late," he said. ...

"You know that if you die as an unbeliever in battle against the Muslims you're going straight to Hell without passing 'Go,'" Gadahn said on the video, addressing American soldiers. "You know you're considered by Bush and his bunch of warmongers as nothing more than expendable cannon fodder ... You know they couldn't care less about your safety and well-being."

"We send a special invitation (to convert to Islam) to all of you fighting Bush's crusader pipedream in Afghanistan, Iraq and wherever else 'W' has sent you to die. You know the war can't be won," he said, using Bush's nickname.

Gadahn also urged other Americans to convert to Islam.

"It is time for the unbelievers to discard these incoherent and illogical beliefs," he said. "Isn't it the time for the Christians, Jews, Buddhists and atheists to cast off the cloak of the spiritual darkness which enshrouds them and emerge into the light of Islam?"

None of this should surprise anyone. Gadahn has followed a long and sad tradition of betrayal that has accompanied each foreign war we have ever fought, starting with our own Revolution. Gadahn has cast himself in the role of Lord Haw Haw, the Irish-American William Joyce, who spent World War II trying to convince the British of the inevitability of Nazi global domination.

As I recall, that war didn't work out well for the Nazis, their ideology, or for Lord Haw Haw, either -- who got hanged for his treason. He remained defiant to the end, blaming the Jews for his predicament and scratching swastikas on his cell wall. Joyce is buried in an unmarked grave and is remembered for his ridiculous and pathetic diatribes as well as his mental instablity.

Gadahn will meet the same fate. His broadcasts clearly amount to a classical definition of treason. If we get our hands on him, he will wind up scratching crescents on walls and blaming Jews for his misery, too. That's all that fanatical haters can do -- find people to kill, or find people to blame.

I advise Americans to approach Gadahn as the British did Joyce in the 1940s: with contempt and ridicule. His videos may make him feel powerful and influential, but in reality he is nothing more than an American-born pet of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. He's nothing special at all; even JRR Tolkien had a Mouth of Sauron in Lord of the Rings, and Gadahn fits the role to a T.

The Futility Of Applying Reason To Insanity

With the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks fast approaching, the government has busied itself with answering questions raised by conspiracy theorists who fervently believe that the World Trade Center towers had help in their destruction. The State Department and the National Institue of Stantards and Technology both released reports this week proving once again that when big airplanes loaded with jet fuel plow into skyscrapers, it tends to destroy the buildings:

The official narrative of the attacks has been attacked as little more than a cover story by an assortment of radio hosts, academics, amateur filmmakers and others who have spread their arguments on the Internet and cable television in America and abroad. As a motive, they suggest that the Bush administration wanted to use the attacks to justify military action in the Middle East.

Most elaborately, they propose that the collapse of the World Trade Center was actually caused by explosive charges secretly planted in the buildings, rather than by the destructive force of the airliners that thundered into the towers and set them ablaze.

The government reports and officials say the demolition argument is utterly implausible on a number of grounds. Indeed, few proponents of the explosives theory are willing to venture explanations of how daunting logistical problems would be overcome, such as planting thousands of pounds of explosives in busy office towers.

Nevertheless, federal officials say they moved to affirm the conventional history of the day because of the persistence of what they call “alternative theories.” On Wednesday, the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued a seven-page study based on its earlier 10,000-page report on how and why the trade center collapsed. The full report, released a year ago, and the new study, in a question and answer format, are available online at http://wtc.nist.gov.

Perhaps the most disturbing fact in this report comes from recent polling, which shows the American public to be almost as susceptible to conspiracy theories as the Arabs. Scripps Survey Research Center reported that over a third of us believe that the US government either participated in the 9/11 attacks or deliberately allowed them to happen. Sixteen percent said that the towers came down because government agents had secretly planted explosives in them prior to 9/11. That means one in every six adults believe that the government conspired to kill 3,000 Americans -- and potentially as many as 25,000, given the normal occupancy of the towers.

Of course, this falls hard on reality even with a cursory glance. As the NYT points out, it would take many thousands of explosives to bring the towers down by design, especially if one rejects the science behind the heat of jet-fuel fires and its effect on steel girders. When exactly were these explosives planted, and how did they get planted with no one's notice? And if the building was primed for demolition in this manner, how did the explosives keep from detonating at impact, or at least in the heat of the jet-fuel fire? For that matter, why design a demolition from the top down when building demolitions always take place from the ground up?

The State Department report can be found at this link. It debunks a wider range of conspiracy theories, such as the allegation that the Pentagon did not get hit by a plane, 4,000 Jews did not show up for work on 9/11 in New York City, and that al-Qaeda didn't conduct the 9/11 attacks. They have plenty of ammunition from which to work, some of which is so determinative that it reveals countertheories as the products of fevered imaginations. It's hard to explain, for instance, why the black box of American 77 was found in the rubble of the Pentagon, as well as the DNA of passengers and crew, if it didn't crash there. Eyewitnesses saw passengers in the windows of the jet just before its crash, and as the site wryly notes, "Missiles don’t have windows or carry passengers."

And yet over a third of us believe the government took part in the attacks, and half of those believe that the buildings were wired for demolition.

As I wrote a couple of days ago in relation to the nut who thinks Stephen King killed John Lennon, one cannot counter insanity and paranoia with sweet reason. King himself tried to do so with Steve Lightfoot, the paranoid who has pursued him for over twenty years, and his effort got paid off by Lightfoot's insistence that King's kind message constituted a death threat in code. Reason doesn't enter into it. Mental illness does not respond to reason, and this impulse reflects a sickness that all of the scientific studies and review of facts will never cure. It's a belief that all evil begins in America and that everything wrong in the world has its source in Washington DC -- combined with an unhealthy dose of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Don't expect a cure for this insanity any time soon. If anything, these reports act as a vaccine for the unafflicted -- and a warning for those who may be tempted to stare into the abyss.

UPDATE: Rick Moran at Right Wing Nuthouse applauds the government's efforts to respond to the conspiracy nuts, but deplores the need for it:

Not content with letting the moonbats, the freaks, the paranoids, and the ignoramuses who spout 9/11 conspiracy theories get away with their nonsensical idiocies any longer, the government released two separate reports debunking several major claims of the 9/11 fantasists in an effort to keep the record of that horrible day from being hijacked by crazies.

And as a bonus, in the process of answering the reports, two major 9/11 conspiracists have revealed themselves to be laughable, hopelessly moronic nutcases. ...

The fact that it took a dozen people two months to condense the evidence for the tower’s collapse down to 7 pages should make you angry. This waste of time and resources is the direct result of people who should (or actually do) know better but whose ignorance and inability to grasp reality (or who choose to believe otherwise for political purposes) have infected the gullible, the shallow thinkers, and out and out loons who have spread their laughable theories on the internet and elsewhere.

Rick also does what I should have done -- praise New York Times reporter Jim Dwyer for his excellent riposte to the conspiracy theorists.

Lebanon Unity Dissolving?

The war in Lebanon has fractured what little unity existed in the post-Syrian government in Beirut. While political differences got submerged in the fighting, they have returned with even more vigor after the catastrophe in the sub-Litani region. Various factions now threaten to contest for power in or out of the political system:

But now, two weeks into a shaky cease-fire between Hezbollah guerrillas and Israel, some of the big names of Lebanese politics are moving back onto the political stage. The result has been an open round of bitter political infighting and backbiting. Figures from various factions have attacked one another in newspapers and on talk shows.

The most vociferous has been General Aoun, who called this week for the resignation of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and his cabinet. ...

Mr. Siniora refused to resign, saying: “Let these politicians rest. The government is staying, staying, staying.” In almost the same breath, he claimed Arab nationalist credentials by vowing, “Lebanon will be the last Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel.”

General Aoun struck back, telling the daily As Safir that “Siniora will pay the price of his stubbornness” and accusing the prime minister of working with “foreign countries” against Lebanon’s interests.

“This will happen very soon; he will not have time to pack his things because he will be forced to leave quickly,” General Aoun said, adding that he had warned of “dangerous repercussions” if the government did not resign.

“Now we will choose the appropriate time to achieve the desired change in our own way,” he asserted, setting off another round of recriminations between the March 14 group and his supporters.

This has been coming for a long time, ever since the March 14 group declined to confront Hezbollah. One cannot abide a state within a state and maintain stability in government. The UN Security Council recognized this and issued Resolution 1559, an order to disarm Hezbollah and transform it into a political party, which it then refused to do anything to implement. The Siniora government declined to ask for assistance in complying with the resolution, and we wound up with the war Hezbollah provoked.

Aoun clearly stated that he will take extra-legal action to remove Siniora from office. That would likely precipitate another civil war, a not-uncommon result from the collapse of a foreign occupation as recriminations fly between cooperators and resisters. A civil war would strengthen Hezbollah and Syria, allowing them to increase their influence in Lebanon to an even greater degree than what they enjoy now.

The only development that could stop another civil war would be a new popular movement for nationalism such as the one led by the son of the assassinated Rafik Hariri. Saad Hariri, however, has kept a low profile since the outbreak of the war. He escaped into Saudi Arabia for the duration and only recently returned to Lebanon. No one knows what that trip has done to his political standing, but neither Hariri nor his well-known associate, Walid Jumblatt, have made public appearances for weeks -- and that sounds as if they have little influence left to exert.

We warned at the outset of the Lebanon conflict that the war should have been directed at Syria rather than Lebanon if one wanted to eliminate the Hezbollah threat, and that Israel risked destabilizing a potential partner for security with its invasion. The Israelis took a calculated risk and reaped some benefits from their fight, but not enough to free Lebanon from its divisiveness and its endemic disunity. Now it appears the "good guys" may have ridden into the Lebanese sunset, and all of the other choices for power look like varying degrees of the same problem.

AQ #2 In Iraq Busted

Iraqi forces working independently captured al-Qaeda in Iraq's second in command this week, the Iraqi national-security minister announced this morning. Hamed Jumaa Faris Juri al-Saaydi and twenty of his closest friends found themselves in custody after a raid in Baqubah:

"We now think al-Qaeda in Iraq is suffering a great deal and disintegrating," [Mowaffak al-] Rubaie said in a news conference at the U.S.-controlled Green Zone that was broadcast live across the Middle East. "The al-Qaeda organization is suffering from a leadership crisis."

Saaydi, also known as Abu Humam or Abu Rana, ordered the February attack on the golden-domed Shiite shrine in Samara that ignited the ongoing ferocious wave of sectarian killings, Rubaie said. He accused Saaydi of trying to spark a civil war between Iraq's Sunnis and Shiite Muslims.

Rubaie said Iraqi forces had been tracking Saaydi's movements since the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the No. 1 leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, three months ago. Saaydi was hiding inside a home surrounded by women and children whom he was using as a "human shield," Rubaie said.

American forces provided support for the operation, but the raid apparently was conducted and led by the Iraqis. The city of Baqubah has been known for its terrorist infiltration, and this raid suggests that the Iraqis have begun to break the AQ grip on the region. It also demonstrates the increasing effectiveness of the Iraqi security forces.

The AQ organization will continue its efforts, of course, but the capture of the man who targeted the Golden Mosque in Samara may take a lot of the sting out of the sectarian bitterness that erupted afterwards. It's another step towards peace and security -- not the final step nor even close to it, but another step in the right direction.

A Narrow Escape

Notre Dame started its 2006 campaign with a near-stumble against Georgia Tech, a team regarded as a test for the pre-season #2 team in college football. The Fighting Irish escaped with a 14-10 win and likely a lower ranking:

The best thing you can say about Notre Dame's game against Georgia Tech is that it's over. And if the Fighting Irish don't figure how to play more like the No. 2-ranked team in the country rather than something from the Also Receiving Votes agate, then they can pucker up and kiss the Holy Trinity of college football goodbye.

We're speaking, of course, of the national championship, the Heisman Trophy, and Lee Corso wearing your mascot's headgear near Cardinals Stadium come Jan. 8. Notre Dame remains in the team picture for all three, but only because ND's 14-10 victory came in the first week of the season, not the last. ...

There's no nice way to say it: for the first 30 minutes of this game, Tech turned ND into a bumblin' wreck. The Yellow Jackets left bee stings all over the Fighting Irish's ranking, quarterback Brady Quinn's Heisman hype, and coach Charlie Weis' reputation as an offensive mastermind.

Tech led, 10-7, and had a first-half shutout until Quinn scored on a quarterback draw with 11 seconds remaining and no timeouts left. It was the lowest first-half point total during Weis' 13-game tenure and it produced the usual panic from visiting Golden Domers.

I didn't get a chance to see the opener, as I spent the evening at the movies with the family, but after reading this I'm glad I missed it. I would have definitely joined the panic, and I was 1500 miles away from Georgia Tech.

The Irish have this maddening habit of playing up or down to the level of their opponents, and they also have spent the last few seasons coming out of the gate very slowly -- both in games and in seasons. They tend to finish stronger than they start in both perspectives, but it isn't easy to overcome the handicap they give away.

The upside is, of course, that the Irish won the game and that their second half appeared somewhat better than the first. The defense tossed a shutout in the second half on the road, an impressive feat against a skilled opponent. Brady Quinn managed to put up some decent numbers and show some leadership in rallying the team. Darius Walker ran for 99 yards -- not great, but not bad at all. The Irish have plenty on which to build.

They'd better build fast. The legendary Joe Paterno and his Penn State Nittany Lions pay a visit to Touchdown Jesus next week, followed by Michigan and then a road game at their bete noir, Michigan State. It's a grinder of a schedule, and what's worse is that CQ commenter Monkei will be on my backside this entire week about the Penn State game.

Let's go, Irish. Don't make a Monkei out of us.

Will Hillary Pass On Presidential Race?

The Times of London joins a growing number of media outlets that report on Hillary Clinton's supposed reluctance to run for President, in 2008 or anytime else. The Democrats share this reluctance based on consistently high negatives in polling and want her to stay in the Senate -- but another Clinton wants to live in the White House again:

FRIENDS of Hillary Clinton have been whispering the unthinkable. Despite her status as the runaway frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic nomination for president, some of her closest advisers say she might opt out of the White House race and seek to lead her party in the Senate.

The former first lady longs to return to the White House with husband Bill as consort. Only last week she told television viewers America would be led by a woman one day. “Stay tuned,” she said.

First, however, she has to win the election. Some Democratic party elders — the American equivalent of the Tories’ “men in grey suits” — say Clinton may back out of the race of her own volition. ...

Her final decision is likely to be made next spring. One close friend of the Clintons said: “There is no way she won’t run for president.” According to a member of “Hillaryland”, her close-knit inner-circle, she would be letting herself and her supporters down if she declined to take a shot at the White House.

Others are not so sure. If she balks at the presidency, “she can win a huge amount of goodwill by donating her money to colleagues in the Senate,” another associate said.

Like the other articles, the Times relies on anonymously-sourced gossip for its story. That doesn't make the gossip false -- most political stories about politicians' future plans get anonymously sourced -- but it doesn't make it reliable, either. One might say that the number and increasing frequency of these stories gives the rumors more credibility, but it also could mean that certain people in Democratic circles have started a whispering campaign to get her to withdraw from the race.

Who might do that? Oh, maybe staffers for Al Gore, John Kerry, Mark Warner, and so on.

The most laughable part of the article is the suggestion that Hillary would pass on the presidential run because she wants to dedicate herself to bipartisanship in the Senate. Someone seems to forget that Hillary coined the term "vast right-wing conspiracy" and spent years telling people that her husband's woes sprang from Republicans out to get him. They have mistaken her studied centrism for bipartisanship; her whole Senate voting record has been calculated to draw down the high negatives that still plague her, and any alliances with Republican Senators have aimed for that purpose. That's not necessarily bad, but it doesn't come from a love of bipartisanship. Even Bill was more bipartisan that Hillary.

No one raises $33 million for a Senate race in which she runs effectively unopposed. (Quick: name her Republican challenger without checking Google.) She's building a war chest for a presidential run, and she will continue to build it, because she has planned this campaign for six years. The only reason she ran for the Senate at all was to capture the White House; she could have made a fortune on the lecture circuit otherwise.

She's running. She may well fulfill the predictions of the prognosticators by winning the primary and losing the general election; if she wins the nomination, she almost certainly will lose, if just for the reason that people will want a President without the last name of Clinton or Bush for the first time in twenty years. Make no mistake, though, that she will somehow turn herself into a lifer in the Senate.

I will offer one more possibility for her withdrawal. If another Democrat looked too good to lose in the general election, she might be tempted to sit down -- for the promise of a Supreme Court appointment.