Hastert Knew While Foley Flew

Well, well, well. It appears the Republicans actually can make the Foley controversy worse. As if it wasn't bad enough that John Boehner knew about Foley's track record of sexual harassment of his underage pages, now it turns out that Speaker Denny Hastert lied about what he knew and when he knew it. Roll Call reports that Thomas Reynolds (R-NY), the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, told Hastert about Foley's predatory actions in late winter or early spring of this year:

National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) issued a statement Saturday in which he said that he had informed Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) of allegations of improper contacts between then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and at least one former male page, contradicting earlier statements from Hastert.'

GOP sources said Reynolds told Hastert earlier in 2006, shortly after the February GOP leadership elections. Hastert's response to Reynolds' warning remains unclear.

Hastert's staff insisted Friday night that he was not told of the Foley allegations and are scrambling to respond to Reynolds' statement.

I cannot tell CQ readers how disgusted I am with Speaker Hastert. Reynolds is no fringe nutcase; he's the man Hastert trusted to run the midterm re-elections of the Republican caucus. He has no reason to lie, but Hastert apparently did. This also calls into question Boehner's earlier reversal, when he denied saying that he informed Hastert after Hastert denied knowing of Foley's activities.

Hastert should have been a man from the beginning and admit that he knew about Foley. Now he has destroyed any credibility left in his Speakership, and he has only compounded the embarrassment for the GOP caucus. Foley's actions reflect on Foley alone, but thanks to Hastert and perhaps Boehner, the aftermath will reflect on all Republicans in the House.

Republicans have to act swiftly to remove the stench of Foleygate from the party. They need to demand the resignation of Hastert as Speaker, as well as Boehner as Majority Leader if he lied to protect Hastert. Allowing Foley off the hook was a mistake in judgment, but this is a betrayal of those who trusted Hastert to lead the House with dignity, honesty, and integrity.

CLARIFICATION: When I say resign, I mean from their leadership positions. Neither committed a crime, and their constituents should judge whether they should continue to represent them.

UPDATE: CQ readers seem to have misunderstood what this post concerns. Here's what Hastert's office was saying yesterday:

The resignation rocked the Capitol, and especially Foley's GOP colleagues, as lawmakers were rushing to adjourn for at least six weeks. House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of inappropriate "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he then told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Boehner later contacted The Post and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert.

It was not immediately clear what actions Hastert took. His spokesman had said earlier that the speaker did not know of the sexually charged online exchanges between Foley and the boy.

Today, Reynolds' statement demolishes Hastert's denial. Hastert lied about his knowledge of the case. It doesn't make any difference if Hastert got Foley to resign, or whether some news outlets sat on the story. He bald-faced lied, and he apparently got Boehner to retract his statement that Boehner had informed him of Foley's inappropriate behavior in the spring. Hastert tried to cover his own butt by hiding the truth, and it appears Boehner tried to help him do it.

Also, this isn't a "dirty trick". The timing might have been manipulated, but a dirty trick involves false allegations. No one framed Foley -- he did this to himself.

UPDATE II: Another article from yesterday that reflects that Hastert's office denied knowing anything of the Foley allegations. Ron Bonjean, Hastert's spokesman, made it clear that Hastert knew nothing of the earlier allegations, and bear in mind that this was when people were asking about how the Republicans could have failed to inform the Page Board of the allegations.

UPDATE III: One last update, and then I'm moving on. I am not so much angry about the decision made by GOP leadership that the evidence and the demands of the parents to drop the issue left them little to do about Foley other than chastise him. I think they should have at least informed the Page Board, since that is the procedure, but that's a simple error in judgment. I'm not claiming that Hastert knew about the IMs months ago, because apparently no one but a few Democratic operatives knew about that until last week.

What makes me angry and disappointed is the denial by Hastert that he knew anything about Foley's issues on Friday. Recall that Majority Leader John Boehner had already told the press that he told Hastert about the earlier e-mails months ago, and after Hastert's statement, Boehner had to retract that. Only after Reynolds released his statement did Hastert acknowledge that he knew about Foley's earlier issues. It's the dishonesty and the butt-covering that I find unacceptable in a House Speaker, who is two heartbeats away from the Presidency.

Northern Alliance Radio Network On The Air

We're back on the air with the Northern Alliance Radio Network this afternoon. Mitch and I will go from 1-3 pm at AM 1280 The Patriot, and we'll be discussing a wide range of topics. We're looking into the border-fence bill, the new legislation for terrorist detention, interrogation, and trial, and the announcement that the Twin Cities will host the 2008 Republican National Convention. Since I blogged at the RNC in 2004, I'll have a few stories to tell about what we can expect in 2008. We also will cover the Mark Foley scandal, but we're disappointed that we forgot to bring the proper bumber music. Mitch and I wanted to use "Uncle Ernie" by the Who, "Aqualung" by Jethro Tull, "Young Girl" by Gary Puckett & The Union Gap, "Baby Talks Dirty" by The Knack, and a number of others. If you have any suggestions, please post them in the comments.

Be sure to tune in if you're in the Twin Cities or listen to our live feed at the station's link. You can join the conversation at 651-289-4488. Hope to have you with us!

Has Pakistan Changed Sides?

Yesterday I noted the increase in cross-border attacks in Afghanistan in the three weeks since Pervez Musharraf signed a peace deal with the tribal chiefs in Waziristan and released thousands of captured Islamists. Today, the government of India now says that the train bombings in Mumbai this past July had the support of Pakistan's ISI:

Mumbai police Commissioner A.N. Roy said an intensive investigation that included using truth serum on suspects revealed that Pakistan's top spy agency had ''masterminded'' the bombings.

Roy said Pakistan's Directorate of Inter Services Intelligence, or ISI, began planning the attacks in March and later provided training to those who carried out the bombings in Bahawalpur, Pakistan.

''The terror plot was ISI sponsored and executed by Lashkar-e-Tayyaba operatives with help from the Students Islamic Movement of India,'' Roy said at a news conference to announce the completion of the investigation.

Lashkar is a Pakistan-based Islamic militant group, while the Students Islamic Movement of India, or SIMI, is a banned Islamic group.

So far 15 people have been arrested, including 11 Pakistanis, Roy said, adding that three Indians were still on the run and another Pakistani was killed in one of the blasts.

Many people wondered about the connections between the ISI and the two Islamist groups. The ISI was instrumental in assisting the Taliban to power in the 1990s and has always had Islamist sympathies. If India has evidence of the connections it alleges, one has to conclude that either the ISI has gone rogue or Musharraf's surrender was worse than first imagined.

The Bush administration has taken the right first steps, which is to call Musharraf into conference with Hamid Karzai and attempt to force Musharraf to act responsibly about his own border. If that works, then perhaps Musharraf can address the unhelpful elements in the ISI. If it does not, then perhaps the American military can start respecting the Pakistani border much less in the future.

We refrained from pursuing terrorists into Pakistan for three reasons. First, it's sovereign territory, and we didn't want a war with Pakistan. Second, Musharraf assured us that he would pursue them himself, and for the first few years, he did. Lastly, any American incursions into Waziristan would have destabilized Musharraf and eliminated the assistance he provided us against the terrorists. Now that the second and third reasons no longer apply, it seems likely that we will not care anywhere near as much about Pakistani sovereignty or Musharraf's status in Pakistan.

Keith Ellison On The Hotseat

Keith Ellison, the DFL's candidate in MN-05, has a couple of problems in the local blogs this morning. First, our NARN partner Michael Brodkorb finds a photo of Ellison leading a march against police brutality in 1998, holding what looks like several copies of the Nation of Islam's Final Call:

Brodkorb alleges that Ellison was distributing these copies at the event, which puts lie to Ellison's insistence that he had no affiliation with the Nation of Islam or Louis Farrakhan after the Million Man March in 1995. MN Publius, who like Brodkorb does paid political work, defends Ellison by claiming that the picture doesn't show Ellison distributing the copies of Final Call. I'm on the fence in that respect. Sometimes I pick up a copy of the Star Tribune, especially when dining out where no Internet connection exists, and I'd hate to be photographed doing that. On the other hand, I don't usually pick up more than one copy and then display it while I'm marching down the street at a protest.

I'll call that one a draw. However, Power Line -- which has done marvelous work on Ellison -- notes an Insight News article on Ellison's run for the state legislature in 1998 that establishes his support for the Nation of Islam in the same time frame:

Ellison-Muhammed, who says his affiliation with the Nation of Islam doesn't mean he isn't running to represent all the people in the district, feels the critical issues on the table include criminal justice, education, and economic development. ...

His solution? To use organizations that are already set up for community safety to contribute significantly to securing the neighborhood. Ellison-Muhammed would support legislation that bolsters patrol groups like Mission of Peace, the Nation of Islam, M.A.R.C.H Inc., AMAN, and SALAAM. ...

Anticipating possible criticism for his NOI affiliation, Ellison-Muhammed says he is aware that not everyone appreciates what the Nation does and feels there is a propaganda war being waged against its leader, Minister Louis Farrakhan.

MN Publius argues that Ellison has never been a member of the Nation of Islam. In fact, Jon-David's direct quote is "Keith was never a member of the Nation of Islam, and has never had anything to do with Louis Farrakhan." This is patently false, and the Insight News article proves it. The article specifically goes into his connection to Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam as a way to assure Minnesotans that Ellison's ties do not threaten Jewish voters, although Ellison takes the opportunity to declare that critics have victimized Farrakhan for pointing out his many anti-Semitic rants.

Ellison has lied and continues to lie about his ties to the Nation of Islam. At one point, he proposed having Farrakhan's organization patrol the streets of Minneapolis in place of the police, and this wasn't during his days as a U of M law student -- it was during his political career. Ellison's lies should concern voters in the Fifth Congressional District, and have them consider their alternatives to Ellison's radicalism.

A Perspective On Democratic Outrage Over Mark Foley

The Republican leadership in the House has plenty for which to answer over their laissez-faire treatment of Mark Foley when allegations of improper contact with underage pages first came to their attention. Despite knowing of Foley's "inappropriate" behavior this spring, Majority Leader John Boehner did nothing about it, after hearing that the parents of the page wanted the matter dropped. Regardless, the actions of Foley reflected badly on the GOP and the House, and action should have been taken at the time to punish Foley. Surely, the Republicans could at least have removed him from the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.

However, Democratic protestations on this matter seem rather hypocritical, given the history of their party and page scandals:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who introduced a privileged resolution friday night to require an ethics probe, criticized Republican leaders, who she said, "have known of the egregious behavior of Congressman Mark Foley, yet were prepared to adjourn tonight without an Ethics Committee investigation."

"The investigation must determine when Mr. Foley sent the inappropriate emails, who knew of them, whether there was a pattern of inappropriate activity by Mr. Foley with pages or former pages, when the Republican leadership was notified, and what corrective action was taken once officials learned of any improper activity," she added.

This is true, and Pelosi is right to demand an ethics probe, to which John Boehner immediately agreed and the House supported unanimously. However, let's please recall the case of Gerry Studds and his sexual relationship with a 17-year-old page in 1983. This didn't involve a few e-mails and explicit instant messaging; Studds started a sexual relationship with a minor, and then announced in a press conference that people should mind their own business about his private life. The House censured Studds (he turned his back on them as the censure was read), but the Democrats endorsed Studds for five subsequent elections. The only reason he no longer serves in the House is because he retired. He didn't even lose his chair on the House Merchant Marine and Fishing Committee until 1995, when the Republicans took over and abolished the committee.

I agree that the Republicans have some 'splaining to do. However, Democrats hardly covered themselves in glory when running the show for the last decade they controlled Congress in a situation that was objectively more serious than Foley's pathetic cyber-sex efforts.

NOTE: Daniel Crane (R-IL) also got censured at the same time for a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old female page, and apologized to the House. He got defeated in his re-election bid.

Border Fence Passes Senate

In the end, the border fence bill passed the Senate by a wide margin, 80-19, belying the canard that the only option for any border security to get through Congress was through comprehensive immigration reform. Facing the midterm elections, eighty Senators could not find any excuse with which to explain why America continues to leave our southern border practically undefended in a time of war:

The Senate gave final approval last night to legislation authorizing the construction of 700 miles of double-layered fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border, shelving President Bush's vision of a comprehensive overhaul of U.S. immigration laws in favor of a vast barrier.

The measure was pushed hard by House Republican leaders, who badly wanted to pass a piece of legislation that would make good on their promises to get tough on illegal immigrants, despite warnings from critics that a multibillion-dollar fence would do little to address the underlying economic, social and law enforcement problems, or to prevent others from slipping across the border. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) surprised many advocates of a more comprehensive approach to immigration problems when he took up the House bill last week.

But in Congress's rush to recess last night for the fall political campaigns, the fence bill passed easily, 80 to 19, with 26 Democrats joining 54 Republicans in support. One Republican, Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.); one independent, Sen. James M. Jeffords (Vt.); and 17 Democrats opposed the bill. The president has indicated that he will sign it.

Mexico's foreign affairs secretary, Luis Ernesto Derbez, told reporters in Mexico City yesterday that his country plans to send a letter strongly condemning the measure in an effort to dissuade Bush from signing the bill.

They also passed an addition to the Homeland Security budget appropriating $1.2 billion for the new barrier. The next session of Congress will have to find the rest of the estimate $6 billion it will take to complete the project, so foes of illegal immigration still have more work to do over the next two years that the barrier will get built. Advocates of normalization will still have some leverage in which to press their policies as well. The fight over immigration reform is far from over.

More interesting is the vote taken yesterday on the bill. The final tally of opposition comprises seventeen Democrats, one Republican (Lincoln Chafee, natch), and the lone independent, Jim Jeffords. Almost all of the Democratic leadership voted against this bill: Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Patrick Leahy, and Carl Levin all opposed it. Even Joe Lieberman voted against it, although he shouldn't expect much appreciation from the netroots for that. Maria Cantwell voted against it even though she's facing a significant challenge to her seat in these mid-terms, and expect Mike McGavick to use that in upcoming ads.

But look who voted for the bill -- after trying to filibuster it. The Washington Times makes a comparison between votes on the passage of the bill and those on cloture, and sees a few that switched:

Eight Democratic senators who supported the bill last night switched their position from the previous day, when they voted to block the fence. They are Sens. Barbara Boxer of California, Thomas Carper of Delaware, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Barack Obama of Illinois and Charles E. Schumer of New York.

Many of the Democrats who joined Republicans on the vote either face close elections this November or represent mostly conservative states.

But for the most part, Democrats opposed the measure.

No, most of them supported the measure (27-17), even if reluctant to do so. Why did these eight switch their votes? For Hillary especially, it is an admission of how popular a border barrier has become. She cannot hope to run for President while having gone on record against the passage of the bill. She's hoping to avoid discussion about her vote to block the bill from ever coming to the floor -- a reverse of Kerry's "I was for the bill before I was against it" fumble from 2004. The rest smelled the coffee after the collapse of the cloture vote (71-28).

This is why I predicted that Bill Frist would press the advantage this month on the border bill. While Americans might be ambivalent about what to do with the illegal immigrants already in the US, most agree that the easy migration routes should get secured in some fashion. The party that finally takes this seriously after decades of politically-correct dithering would get a boost at the polls out of that voter dissatisfaction. Frist harvested this low-hanging fruit, and observers in places like the New York Times failed to recognize it. (That link comes from Mickey Kaus, who pays me a very nice compliment in his excellent post on the border bill, as did Instapundit.)

Foley's Folly (Updated)

Sometimes people say that politics make them feel unclean, but this story will amplify that exponentially. Rep. Mark Foley, a Republican from Florida with an almost-assured re-election bid, has resigned from Congress after harrassing a teen-age intern. His abrupt departure leaves his organization bereft of its chair -- the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children:

Saying he was "deeply sorry," Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) resigned from Congress today, hours after ABC News questioned him about sexually explicit internet messages with current and former congressional pages under the age of 18.

A spokesman for Foley, the chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, said the congressman submitted his resignation in a letter late this afternoon to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. ...

They say he used the screen name Maf54 on these messages provided to ABC News.

Maf54: You in your boxers, too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.

Another message:

Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.

And this one:

Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.

The language gets much more graphic, too graphic to be broadcast, and at one point the congressman appears to be describing Internet sex.

I'm not sure why this happens, but every generation or so we have to have a Congressional scandal involving interns and pages. This time, it's Foley's turn to embarrass his constituents. Apparently Foley had a habit of sending sexually explicit messages to his staffers. ABC has a dialog from 2003 that certifies Foley as quite the pervert, engaging in a sex chat that shows an obsession with a high-schooler's masturbatory habits.

Eeeeesh. And this guy chaired a caucus on exploited children?

UPDATE: A couple of points to note about this story. First and least importantly, the impact on the election seems lighter than first thought. According to USA Today, the withdrawal of Foley from the ballot will not keep the GOP off the ballot in November:

Florida law will not allow Republicans to put another name on the ballot in Foley's district. Gregory Langowski, executive director of the Palm Beach County Republican Party, said that normally a special election would be held, but there isn't enough time for that. The state GOP is looking into the situation.

However, state law will allow Republicans to "designate a replacement candidate. All votes that go to Foley will count for the 'GOP-designated' candidate." That interpretation is based on language in Florida's election laws. There, it is stated that in a case such as this, "the ballots shall not be changed," but "ballots cast for the former party nominee will be counted for the person designated by the political party."

Foley won the district 68%-32% two years ago over Democrat Jeff Fisher. A poll this month had Foley under 50%, according to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). Democrats were closely watching the contest even before Foley's resignation.

Great. Now if the Republicans can get Floridians to cast their votes for a disgraced sex obsessive, at least in name, they should hold onto the seat. At least if people want to support the GOP, their votes will count towards their eventual replacement even if the name of the candidate doesn't appear on the ballot.

More concerning are reports that the Republican leadership knew of Foley's extracurricular activities before his exposure, so to speak. Apparently, they took his denials at face value and dropped the investigation at the request of the parents involved:

Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., who sponsored the page from his district, told reporters that he learned of the e-mails from a reporter some months ago and passed on the information to Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Republican campaign organization.

Alexander said he did not pursue the matter further because "his parents said they didn't want me to do anything."

Carl Forti, a spokesman for the GOP campaign organization, said Reynolds learned from Alexander that the parents did not want to pursue the matter. Forti said, however, that the matter did go before the House Page Board — the three lawmakers and two House officials who oversee the pages.

Shimkus, who avoided reporters for hours, worked out his statement with Speaker Dennis Hastert's office. He said he promptly investigated what he thought were non-explicit message exchanges.

"It has become clear to me today, based on information I only now have learned, that Congressman Foley was not honest about his conduct," Shimkus said.

Obviously this was a huge mistake. One might have thought that someone could have checked his e-mail, although it looks like Foley was at least smart enough to avoid using his Congressional account. The board instructed him to cease all contact with the one page involved at the time and to refrain from inappropriate behavior with interns in the future. Without any endorsement from the parents, it would have been difficult to proceed, but one would think that someone would have suggested that the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children could find new leadership. It's an embarrassment the Republicans could have done without in this election.

The Incredible Lamery At Wonkette

It's almost too pathetic to post a response, but the Wonkette benchwarmers really have no clue about weblogs, photoshops, or criticism -- and their latest attack on Michelle Malkin exposes them as wanna-bes. Michelle penned a cultural critique about the potential effect of trashy chic on young girls, as exemplified by Bratz dolls and the recent restyling of Charlotte Church. Rather than actually responding with any intellectual criticism, Wonkette instead posted a picture that supposedly depicts Michelle in a bikini in 1992 -- as if that has anything to do with her critique of Charlotte Church.

As if that wasn't bad enough, they failed to realize that the picture was a pretty obvious photoshop. Note for instance the size of Michelle's head in proportion to the rest of the body:

Now, I've met Michelle Malkin and spent time at her house. In fact, I've seen her standing next to a fridge a couple of times, and I can tell you that Michelle is significantly shorter than the woman in this photograph. She's a little shorter than the First Mate, who gives up at least six inches to any standard-sized refrigerator. Anyone with half a brain and the ability to do about ten seconds of Googling could have figured that much out.

Besides, I have the original photograph:

I was a lot wilder before I married the First Mate. (I was in better shape, too.)

Confronted with their rather stupid error, did the bloggers at Wonkette offer an apology? Of course not. They posted more photoshopped pictures, none of which had even a passing relationship with their original, puerile point. They seem insistent on acting like middle-school adolescents with Mommy's Internet connection ... which describes Wonkette on any given day.

I'm not sure what it is about Michelle's success that drives the Left nuts, but the result reflects much more on them than it does on Michelle. (Allahpundit has a few choice words as well.)

UPDATE: Apparently, Gawker's doubling down. Probably not smart in a legal sense to offer doctored photographs to give someone a false reputation as a slut. Seems to me that a smart lawyer could get a pretty decent payday off of his 30% with that case.

UPDATE II: It seems I've bumped the Miss World photographs off of Power Line. Maybe I could win Miss Egregiality!

Has Frist Made The Case For 2008?

Senator Bill Frist will retire from Congress at the end of the year, and he's widely rumored to be considering a run for the Presidency in 2008. Last year, Frist had plenty of critics, including me, for failing to get judicial nominations or much of the original agenda through the Senate. Now, however, Frist appears to be firing on all cylinders. He has pushed through the detainee bill, a border barrier, and the on-line federal budget database, among other accomplishments. Some of these bills appeared to have little chance of avoiding filibusters and delaying tactics, but the tall Tennessean worked some magic, or twisted some arms, to get real accomplishments out of this session.

Here's a question for CQ readers: has Frist's valediction made the case for a 2008 run at the Presidency?

Oberstar Fails The Pork Test

The House has considered a new Coast Guard appropriation (HR 5681), but they did so under a suspension of the rules. This parliamentary manuever allows Representatives to undermine the new rule just created that forces them to identify their earmarks in the Congressional Record. Sure enough, sources on the Hill tells me that some shenanigans occurred with the Coast Guard Authorization Act, and section 405 confirms it. The addition to HR 5681 authorizes a multimillion-dollar research program at the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute, a joint project of the Universities of Minnesota and Wisconsin. The bill requires Congress to fund a study for the following purposes:

(K) identify ways to improve the integration of the Great Lakes marine transportation system into the national transportation system;

(L) examine the potential of expanded operations on the Great Lakes marine transportation system;

(M) identify ways to include intelligent transportation applications into the Great Lakes marine transportation system;

(N) analyze the effects and impacts of aging infrastructure and port corrosion on the Great Lakes marine transportation system;

(O) establish and maintain a model Great Lakes marine transportation system database; and

(P) identify market opportunities for, and impediments to, the use of United States-flag vessels in trade with Canada on the Great Lakes

All of this research will cost American taxpayers $11.5 million dollars over five years (2007-11). Sources on the Hill tell me that the secret earmarker -- the man who saw his opportunity for secrecy when the rules got suspended -- was none other than Minnesota's James Oberstar. The Democrat has represented MN-08 for 32 years, and his district includes Duluth and the shore of Lake Superior, where the GLMRI operates. Most recently, Oberstar interacted with the Coast Guard by blocking their use of the Great Lakes for firing exercises. Apparently he does not have a problem using the Coast Guard for pork-barrel exercises.

UPDATE: Please take a look at the GLMRI site. It has no links to any publications, nor to a mission statement, no contacts, and while the Research link does take readers to a fresh page, it has nothing to list. Despite the lack of action at GLMRI -- apparently they haven't had a board meeting in almost a year -- Oberstar wants to give them $11.5 million for a federal study of Great Lakes commerce and the rust problem on its shipping.

UPDATE II AND BUMP: Andy at Club For Growth, who first alerted me to this story, says he will have video this morning of the House debate, featuring Oberstar and Jeff Flake, who is angry about the end-run around the new earmark rule. Keep an eye on his site for that interesting confrontation.

Also, it's well worth mentioning that former Senator Rod Grams has come out of retirement to run against James Oberstar in MN-08. Fans of open government might want to lend some support.

Stabenow In Trouble? Maybe

The Democrats have salivated over the historic trend of midterms, hoping to gain enough seats in both chambers of Congress to wrest control away from the Republicans. However, a series of polls shows that their hopes in the Senate may come to naught as they may prove unable to hold the seats they already have. The latest to show weakness is Debbie Stabenow in Michigan, where anti-incumbent fervor and a lackluster record have threatened her first-term seat:

The fever among voters to throw incumbents out of office -- furiously stoked by Democrats in Washington -- might backfire in this state, where Republicans are riding a surge of voter discontent.

With Democrats holding both Senate seats and the governor's mansion, Michigan is suffering the worst economy of any state in the nation. The state's unemployment rate is nearly twice the national average of 4.7 percent, and the auto industry is losing jobs by the tens of thousands. A recent job fair offering factory work for $10 an hour with no benefits drew 4,000 applicants.

"They're Democrats, but they want jobs," John Katinsky said of his neighbors in this hard-hit town downriver from Detroit.

Much of the discontent is being directed at Sen. Debbie Stabenow, the first-term senator who is trying to fend off a challenge from Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard. "Only one state in America has lost jobs for three straight years and that's Michigan," Mr. Bouchard says. "That needs to change, and it's going to change by starting with the leadership."

The Washington Times reports that Bouchard has been buoyed by polling that shows Stabenow unable to breach the 50% mark, usually considered a sign that an incumbent seat is in play. Rasmussen, however, shows Stabenow with 51% at the end of August, which may have changed somewhat after the campaigns kicked into gear in gear. Real Clear Politics, now with its excellent interface and association with Time Magazine, shows more recent polling that still indicates that Bouchard has a long way to go.

If Bouchard -- a Rightroots candidate -- can make this a competitive race down the stretch, it will tax Democratic fundraising that they would prefer to use in takeaway races. It will add to the Democratic woes in New Jersey and Maryland, where Democratic seats are at serious risk of falling to the GOP. Michael Steele led in the SurveyUSA poll by a point, but the RCP aggregate shows him a few points back. Thomas Kean has done even better against incumbent Democrat Robert Menendez in the Garden State, where the RCP aggregate and most polling put him ahead but within the margin of error.

The Democrats cannot afford to lose any of these seats if they hope to win control of the upper chamber in November. If they cannot hold back the Republican challenges, they will have to put their efforts into defense in these states.

NOTE: Don't forget to visit the Rightroots web site and contribute to the key races that can help the Republicans retain control of Congress. We've raised over $123,000 so far, and we need to keep pushing to get support to the races that count. Michael Steele, Mike Bouchard, and Thomas Kean are all on our spotlight list, so you can help them directly and immediately.

Did The Washington Post Miss Its Own Story Yesterday?

The Washington Post editorial board attempts to recap the mudslinging in the George Allen-James Webb race for Allen's Senate seat, but while announcing that it considers allegations of decades-old use of racial epithets germane, it fails to account for all of the accusations in the contest. This seems rather odd, since the Post slams Allen for his alleged use of the N-word but never mentions the allegations reported yesterday about Webb's use of it and purported race-based assaults on Watts residents. What's odd about that? That story got reported ... by the Washington Post:

DID REPUBLICAN Sen. George Allen use racial slurs years ago? Did his Democratic challenger, James Webb? Does it matter, in a race between two candidates with long public records and substantial differences on Iraq, health care, the economy and other critical issues?

Yes, it does matter. Mr. Allen said he does not recall having used what newspapers delicately call "the N-word." But at least a half-dozen people, including ones with upstanding reputations and no evident political agendas, have now told journalists that he did. The stories they have recounted about Mr. Allen's behavior raise disturbing questions about his character and credibility.

In the wake of the furor over the senator's reported comments, Mr. Webb would not deny that he had employed the ugly term. He said he has never used it as a slur but added to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, "I don't think that there's anyone who grew up around the South that hasn't had the word pass through their lips at one time in their life."

First, let's dispense with the canard that the allegations came from people without a political axe to grind. The only three that have made the allegations public are Ken Shelton, Christopher Taylor, and Larry Sabato. Both Shelton and Taylor have openly stated that they want to see Webb elected. Sabato has no first-person knowledge of Allen's supposed use of the epithet, and still hasn't explained why he didn't mention Allen's purported racism when he moderated Allen's debate in the 2000 election. Everyone else making the allegations have made them anonymously, as if Allen was some sort of John Gotti instead of a public official, and those teammates of Allen who have gone on the record have all said that he didn't use that kind of language or show that kind of animus.

Second, the Post gives an incomplete picture of allegations of Webb's use of the epithet. John Hawkins notes its use in Webb's fiction, as an example, but the Post published this rather damning story from one of Webb's former acquaintances:

Webb's comments to the Times-Dispatch prompted Allen campaign officials to direct a reporter to Dan Cragg, a former acquaintance of Webb's, who said Webb used the word while describing his own behavior during his freshman year at the University of Southern California in the early 1960s. Webb later transferred to the U.S. Naval Academy.

Cragg, 67, who lives in Fairfax County, said on Wednesday that Webb described taking drives through the black neighborhood of Watts, where he and members of his ROTC unit used racial epithets and pointed fake guns at blacks to scare them.

"They would hop into their cars, and would go down to Watts with these buddies of his," Cragg said Webb told him. "They would take the rifles down there. They would call then [epithets], point the rifles at them, pull the triggers and then drive off laughing. One night, some guys caught them and beat . . . them. And that was the end of that."

The Post found this newsworhy enough to print one day, but not enough to include in its one-sided indictment of Allen the next. Not only is that unfair, it's rather revealing of the paper's bias in this race. The omission of the allegations of anti-Semitism coming from the Webb campaign, starting in the primary and crescendoing in the general election (which the Post has also covered) makes this editorial even more suspicious.

Does any of this matter? No, it doesn't, and the Post should know better. When one starts down this path, then elections become nothing more than a series of gotcha games where only the private investigators benefit. Instead of looking at issues that matter to Virginians, the campaigns start interviewing college buddies to find out whether someone got drunk or made stupid statements about race, women, or Elvis Presley. What's next -- a list of tasteless jokes told in middle school by each of the candidates?

George Allen just introduced a measure intended to benefit black farmers who missed a deadline for a settlement of a discrimination lawsuit against the Department of Agriculture. The Post could have talked about that, or about policy initiatives of both candidates, and demanded an end to the mudslinging in Virginia. Instead the editors chose to paint a one-sided picture of the controversy, ignoring even their own reporting, in order to kneecap a candidate they want to see defeated. I'm disappointed -- the Post's editors usually show more integrity than they did today.

Columbia Dean Abruptly Leaves After Invite Cancellation

The Dean of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University has abruptly left her position after her invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got cancelled by University president Lee Bollinger. Lisa Anderson resigned from her position, and the big question on campus is if Bollinger's intervention caused it or whether the exposure of her politics drove the decision:

The big question at Columbia University this week is whether the tensions between President Lee Bollinger and the dean of the School of International and Public Affairs, Lisa Anderson, led Ms. Anderson to step down.

The press office at the university confirmed yesterday that the dean, who has come under criticism for siding with anti-Israel factions on campus and for taking a junket to Saudi Arabia paid for by the regime in Riyadh, is leaving the post she has held for 10 years. Professors at SIPA said Ms. Anderson circulated an e-mail message at the end of the summer announcing her resignation, effective at the end of the academic year. It cited her desire to get back to teaching and research.

However, speculation is spreading on campus as to whether Ms. Anderson is stepping down because of tensions with Mr. Bollinger in the wake of his abrupt decision to overrule Ms. Anderson's plan to welcome the Iranian president to the World Leaders Forum on campus. Ms. Anderson's offer of hospitality to a leader who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map and who has denied the Holocaust drew criticism on campus from professors and students alike.

The Ahmadinejad invitation was not just a one-off, as it turns out. Anderson also invited rehabilitated Libyan dictator Col. Moammar Gaddafi to speak at Columbia earlier this year. Gaddafi, who has ruled the North African nation for decades by force, lectured Columbia students on democracy and proclaimed Libya "the only democracy on the planet". That, along with her paid junket to Saudi Arabia and her apparent anti-Israeli stance, had to have heads scratching at the university and among its alumni.

Some question whether Anderson left on her own volition. A political science professor told the New York Sun's Eliana Johnson that he believes Bollinger pushed her out. That seems unlikely. Bollinger's cancellation of Ahmadinejad's visit was predicated not on outrage over the selection of speaker but over a more technical point about the nature of the venue. Bollinger said publicly that Anderson could invite Ahmadinejad to a function sponsored solely by Anderson's school rather than at the university-wide Leadership Forum. That doesn't sound as if Bollinger cared enough about the ludicrous nature of having the genocide-threatening Iranian president speak at Columbia to fire someone over it.

It does, however, look like exposure of the invitation made a difference in this case. Ms. Anderson will undoubtedly find somewhere else to teach, and hopefully the Great Dictators Lecture Series will come to an end at Columbia.

And Some People Think A Fence Is Bad

The Greeks have reportedly found a new method to deal with their illegal immigration problem, according to Der Spiegel. When interdicting boats that carry illegal immigrants on the Aegean, the Greek Coast Guard simply returns them to the sea -- but minus their boats. According to Turkish authorities, six people drowned and three remain missing when the Greeks threw 40 illegals into the water:

Greek authorities have denied knowledge of an alleged incident in which Greek officials threw illegal immigrants into the Aegean Sea off the coast of Turkey. On Tuesday morning, some 31 illegals were plucked out of the sea near the Turkish coastal city of Izmir. They claimed that the Greek Coast Guard had thrown them into the water. They did so, said one survivor, "without even asking if we could swim," according to Turkey's state-owned Anatolia news agency. Six people have reportedly drowned; three are missing.

Greek officials denied the charges in general terms. "We never throw people into the sea," said Haris Bournias, a Greek Coast Guard commander on the island of Chios. Turkey's coastline is a major transit area for illegal immigrants trying to reach Europe, and Bournias said smugglers regularly set immigrants adrift in little boats without lights. "Many people drown that way in the straits," said Bournias, and in fact early reports in the Turkish media claimed the survivors had washed ashore after their boat sank off the Turkish coast. ...

According to reports, the survivors included Palestinians, Lebanese, Tunisians, Iraqis and one Algerian. Residents on the coast of Izmir had called the Turkish Coast Guard on Tuesday morning after being awakened by barking dogs and cries for help. The suvivors claimed that they had set off from Izmir province in a boat and landed on Chios. But they were captured by uniformed Greeks who placed them on a Coast Guard ship that carried them back toward Izmir, where they were tossed into the sea. "Two of our friends drowned in front of our eyes," Muhammedi Alti, a Lebanese national, told the Anatolia news agency. "I still can't believe what we have lived through ... We had thought that human rights would be more valuable in Europe."

It's important to remember that the Greeks have denied this story and no international observers have independently corroborated it. However, the Greeks and Turks have an ongoing diplomatic feud over illegal immigration. The Greek border is the threshold for impoverished immigrants hoping to exploit Western economies for a better life. The Greeks want to keep their nation from being used as a conduit for illegal immigration, especially considering the security risks. They supposedly have a reciprocal agreement to return border crossers, but the Greeks say that the Turks have only agreed on 1400 cases -- out of over 22,000.

Any familiarity between this border and our southern border with Mexico is strictly coincidental, of course.

If the Greek Coast Guard really did what the Turks allege, they have committed a serious crime. Regardless of the security and economic problems that border-runners create, they cannot simply throw people into the sea to drown. If the Turks have lied -- and one hopes that turns out to be the case -- then these accusations will only backfire on them. The world's attention will turn to the Greek-Turk border as a potential gap in European security, and the Turks will come under greater pressure to secure it.

As far as our border is concerned, it looks like the Senate will vote on the border barier today. Bill Frist successfully limited debate on the bill yesterday, The US will get its border barrier, and far from turning America into Berlin, it will stop most of the unimpeded flow over the southern border that leaves us all vulnerable to more than just poor people looking for work.

Musharraf Deal In Waziristan Prompting More Attacks

The deal between Pervez Musharraf and the tribal leaders of Waziristan looks more and more like a surrender rather than a partnership against terror. The British newspaper The Guardian reports that American military sources indicate that attacks from Islamists in the border regions have more than doubled since the deal was announced:

Taliban attacks along Afghanistan's southeastern border have more than doubled in the three weeks since a controversial deal between Pakistan and pro-Taliban militants, the US military said yesterday.

Pakistan's military ruler, Pervez Musharraf, had promised the agreement with militants in North Waziristan would help to bring peace to Afghanistan. But early indications suggest the pact is having the opposite effect, creating a safe haven for the Taliban to regroup and launch fresh cross-border offensives against western and Afghan troops.

A US military spokesman, Colonel John Paradis, said US soldiers had reported a "twofold, in some cases threefold" increase in attacks along the border since the deal was signed on September 5, "especially in the south-east areas across from North Waziristan".

This is the result of Musharraf's deal with the tribal leaders, a deal that he probably couldn't avoid in any case. He had tried for years to use the Pakistani military to bring the Waziris under his thumb, and instead they thumbed their noses at him. After losing several hundred troops in largely unsuccessful efforts in the mountainous region, Musharraf decided to try enlisting their support instead.

It hasn't worked. Musharraf released thousands of pro-Islamist prisoners, to the consternation of the US, and that had the predictable effect of strengthening the Islamists in the region. When information came out that Mullah Omar blessed the deal, it surprised few but underscored the extent of Musharraf's capitulation. Now the newly-energized Islamists can traverse the border region with little concern for security on the Pakistani side.

Hamid Karzai cannot abide the constant infiltration on his borders, and he has a right to be angry. The Pakistani refusal to police their own border puts a lot more pressure on his own security forces and the NATO coalition trying to protect Afghanistan's first democratic republic. Since Pakistan's intelligence services helped create and support the Taliban in its previous incarnation, Karzai and his government have plenty of reason to believe that the Pakistani retreat may have more sinister motivations and implications, and that suspicion has created a great deal of tension between Karzai and Musharraf.

President Bush has tried to remain optimistic about Musharraf's efforts. However, the results speak for themselves, and we need to proceed with a more realistic understanding of Pakistan's stance. Perhaps this would be a good time to start pressing for the return of Pakistani democracy.

Senate Approves Detainee Bill By Wide Margin

The Senate got bipartisan support for the passage of the White House's comprehensive terrorist prosecution bill this evening, putting an emphatic stamp on a victory for the Bush administration. In the end, the bill garnered 65 votes and Bill Frist fought off attempts to bury the bill in amendments:

The Senate on Thursday endorsed President Bush's plans to prosecute and interrogate terror suspects, all but sealing congressional approval for legislation that Republicans intend to use on the campaign trail to assert their toughness on terrorism.

The 65-34 vote means the bill could reach the president's desk by week's end. The House passed nearly identical legislation on Wednesday and was expected to approve the Senate bill on Friday, sending it on to the White House.

The bill would create military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects. It also would prohibit blatant abuses of detainees but grant the president flexibility to decide what interrogation techniques are legally permissible.

The White House and its supporters have called the measure crucial in the anti-terror fight, but some Democrats said it left the door open to abuse, violating the U.S. Constitution in the name of protecting Americans.

Frist predicted that the bill would get a significant number of Democratic votes, but most people thought that the tally would be closer. Democratic Party leadership had blasted the bill in recent days, claiming that the elimination of habeas corpus for foreign terrorists captured abroad would mean the end of civil liberties in America. Equally objectionable, the Democrats said, was the language that the bill used to comply with the Supreme Court's insistence on adhering to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

In the end, though, only a third of the Senate stood with the Democratic Party's leadership. That should give Democrats some pause about the direction their party has taken since 9/11, and perhaps voters should consider this as well.

UPDATE AND BUMP: The vote has been posted at the Senate site. The only Republican to vote against the bill was, predictably, Lincoln Chafee. Despite throwing some smoke earlier, Arlen Specter voted for the measure. Twelve Democrats voted for the bill, including Joe Lieberman, and that should keep the netroots chattering for the next few days. Other Democrats crossing the aisle are:

Carper - DE
Johnson - SD
Landrieu - LA
Lautenberg - NJ
Menendez - NJ
Ben Nelson - NE
Bill Nelson - FL
Pryor - AR
Rockefeller - WV
Salazar - CO
Stabenow - MI

This is an interesting list. The red-state Democrats are all represented, and some from other states are in tight re-election campaigns. Carper, Lautenberg, and Rockefeller don't qualify as such, and their support seems very telling. Rockefeller and Lautenberg has spent a lot of time criticizing the Bush administration on the war, and Rockefeller has been very aggressive. Their assent to the bill sends a quiet but noticeable message about the stakes involved.

Their support means that the United States will not change 200+ years of history and treat captured enemies as citizens. We will not suddenly decide that foreign terrorists captured abroad now should have the same rights as the American citizens and residents they try mightily to murder in large numbers. We will not shy away from using the successful methods used to prevent eight separate attacks on our country by eschewing the kinds of techniques our own Special Forces troops endure during their training.

Twelve Democrats voted for common sense, tradition, and successful national-security programs during a time of war ... only twelve Democrats.

UPDATE II: For those who haven't heard about SERE training for American and British Special Forces, here is a detailed description:

Like, for example, there is a secret place not so far from one of our best ally's capitals, where male prisoners are stripped naked and chained to splintery wood pallets. They are kept for days in stress positions, hosed down with freezing water, deprived of sleep and warmth, and regularly interrogated by female guards who mock the size of their genitals and impugn their manhood. What secret place is this? It's where the best of the SAS and what used to be called the 14 Intelligence Company go for their capture survival training.

In one secret location right here in the United States, there is a prison camp run by federal authorities where the inmates are regularly waterboarded, stripped and hosed down with cold water, kept in stress positions, deprived of sleep, and denied food and water. Where is it? It is in Virginia, at a location where CIA undercover operatives are trained in how to withstand coercive interrogation methods.

There is another U.S. facility where humiliation, mortification, shame, and embarrassment are the least of the nasty things that can happen. Denizens at this facility get so hypothermic they actually urinate on one another to keep warm. Where? At the Naval installation in Coronado where SEALs go through their BUD/S training ordeal.

If it's good enough for our troops, it's good enough for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, and the like.

UPDATE III: Here are the Geneva Conventions, for anyone who wants to peruse them. Nandrews in the comments wants to know where it states that noncombatants do not get the protections of the GC. The Society of Professional Journalists' GC site has a handy alphabetical guide to the conventions. Under "combatant status", the SPJ notes:

Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2) ...

Convention III offers a wide range of protections to combatants who have become prisoners of war. (Convention III, Art. 4)

For example, captured combatants cannot be punished for acts of war except in the cases where the enemy's own soldiers would also be punished, and to the same extent. (Convention III, Art. 87) ...

However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

Unlawful combatants are not afforded the protections given under Part III of Convention III, and for good reason. The entire point of the Geneva Conventions is to protect civilians. The rights afforded uniformed combatants and denied to all others are intended to motivate forces to distinguish themselves from civilians so that civilians do not get put at unnecessary risk by warfare. Terrorists undermine these rules of war by deliberately hiding among civilians and targeting them for their attacks. Giving terrorists the same rights as uniformed combatants under the GC not only doesn't act to protect our troops, it legitimizes terrorist attacks on civilians.

For most people, this is common knowledge. Others have to have it spelled out for them.

Join The Jihad, Take The Dirt Nap

The leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, released an audiotape that tries to recruit more radical Muslims to the Iraqi jihad. In doing so, Zarqawi's replacement shows why the US considers Iraq a central ground for the war on terror and how effective our effort there has been against the terrorists. Unbidden and apparently thinking it an attraction, Masri told his followers that the US-led Coalition has killed over 4,000 terrorists in Iraq:

Al-Qaida in Iraq's leader, in a chilling audiotape released Thursday, called for nuclear scientists to join his group's holy war and urged insurgents to kidnap Westerners so they could be traded for a blind Egyptian sheik who is serving a life sentence in a U.S. prison.

The fugitive terror chief said experts in the fields of "chemistry, physics, electronics, media and all other sciences — especially nuclear scientists and explosives experts" should join his group's jihad, or holy war, against the West.

"We are in dire need of you," said the speaker, who identified himself as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir — also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri. "The field of jihad can satisfy your scientific ambitions, and the large American bases (in Iraq) are good places to test your unconventional weapons, whether biological or dirty, as they call them."

They're in "dire need" of recruits, no doubt, because of the death toll. It's hard to fight effectively when over 4,000 of your forces have been killed by the enemy. That doesn't count the terrorists captured by the US and other Coalition forces in Iraq, nor does it count those captured in Afghanistan.

His message, as well as his plea for scientists and weapons experts, reek of desperation. AQ failed to stop three elections. It failed to stop the adoption of a constitution created and supported by the Iraqi assembly and electorate. It has failed to dislodge the Coalition which has nurtured the Iraqi democracy, and it has failed to stop the creation of an Iraqi security force that will stand on its own against the foreign terrorists. He needs a Hail Mary, if you'll pardon the expression, and only WMD can gain him any hope of victory now. In the meantime, he wants to attract all of the suicidal Muslims he can find to serve as cannon fodder ... and it sounds as if he is having a great deal of trouble convincing them to do so.

The NIE was correct. If we fight and prevail in Iraq, these terrorists will have been completely discredited. We have engaged them in Iraq and have all but wiped them out. The only way to beat the Islamists is to fight them where they stand, and we have done that in Iraq -- and even Masri has to admit it.

Twin Cities Nod A Bipartisan Win

How did the Twin Cities land the Republican National Convention for 2008? It took a bipartisan effort that predicated itself on a gentleman's agreement: all Minnesota politicians would support bids for both conventions, and whichever party chose first would get unanimous support. The combination worked better than anyone could have hoped, as the Twin Cities made both short lists. However, in the end, Howard Dean's inability to make a decision cost the Democrats the spot:

On an October day last year, Tom Mason, who served as Gov. Tim Pawlenty's chief of staff, finished breakfast at St. Paul's Downtowner with Pawlenty and visiting Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman and offered Mehlman a lift.

While he drove, Mason listened as Mehlman raved about Minnesota's beauty, its fall weather and its political value as a swing state and thought "Gee, we might have a shot at long last."

Mason's next call was to Jeff Larson, a low-profile but highly connected political operative with ties to the White House and the RNC. ...

But with St. Paul and Minneapolis both led by Democratic mayors, Mason and Larson knew they'd never pull it off without help from the other side. Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak had reached the same conclusion after a breakfast meeting with Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean in January.

This is a story that reflects well on everyone in Minnesota. Old rivals put aside differences and allied together for both efforts, and in the end, the result means that everyone won. Some officials put the economic benefit for a national convention as high as $150 million, with thousands of people flying in and out of the Twin Cities, staying in hotels, eating in restaurants, not to mention the use of the Xcel Center and such.

At the end, though, Rybak tried his best to get the Democrats to pull the trigger first. After hearing that the GOP had decided to go with the Twin Cities, Rybak called his party chair and warned him that the Democrats had to act fast if they wanted to get the nod. Dean couldn't get the DNC to make the decision, and the Republicans held the field. This doesn't necessarily mean that the Democrats couldn't also meet here, but it's unlikely, and that means they have given the GOP a golden opportunity to sweep the Upper Midwest in 2008.

Of course, we're looking forward to seeing everyone here in 2008. You'll love the Xcel Center and Minnesota hospitality. Even our Democrats look forward to seeing you!

'Is That Too Much To Ask?'

My fellow Examiner Blog-boarder Lorie Byrd pens a critique of the media in its recent coverage of war-related stories. She points out examples of bias and incompetent reporting in the stories about the Clinton-Wallace interview and the NIE release, and wonders why reporters cannot perform simple research when reaching unsupported conclusions:

The first story that got a lot of attention this week was the Fox News Sunday interview with Bill Clinton. News anchor Chris Wallace asked Clinton the question, “Why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and al-Qaida out of business when you were president?”

For that, he was attacked by a visibly angry, finger-pointing Clinton, and later by some on the left, for conducting a “conservative hit job.”

It is understandable that the theatrics of the interview got lots of attention, although none of the networks showed the most unhinged clips.

What was focused on by few, however, was the content of Clinton’s remarks, including the demonstrably false statements he made during the interview. DNA does not apply in this case, but surely those reporting on this story have heard of a LexisNexis or Google search. Few, if any, thought to do either one, though.

Bloggers know how to do research, and those who follow the blogosphere got all the context they needed to deconstruct Clinton's arguments. The same is true with the NIE, which the New York Times misrepresented in its initial reporting. Lorie wonders when the national media will finally catch up with its readers and start to rebuild its damaged credibility. Be sure to read all of Lorie's article.

The Big Apple Becomes The Recipe Police

Everyone understands by now that trans-fatty acids create an avoidable health risk for people who ingest them on a regular basis. It causes heart disease, among other problems, and the Food and Drug Administration acted to ensure that Americans could track the amount of trans fats in their food by requiring manufacturers to reveal the amounts of trans fats on labels. That requirement pressured the manufacturers to find ways to reduce trans fats in their products, fearful of the market reaction when consumers became more informed of the composition of the food.

However, New York City decided that consumers and food preparers couldn't be trusted to make their own decisions. The health board imposed trans-fat limits on restaurants in the Big Apple, transforming the debate from health to politics:

City health officials maintained on Tuesday that they could not have suggested more strongly a year ago that restaurants voluntarily cut trans fats from their menus. The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which is overseen by the Board of Health, said it had sent out mass mailings and trained thousands of restaurant operators in the perils of trans fats — but to no avail.

About half of the city’s 20,000 restaurants still serve trans fats in quantities that pose a public health risk, the department said.

Its proposed restriction is described on the department’s Web site, nyc.gov/health, which also provides instructions on how people can submit their comments on the proposal in writing, or attend a public hearing on Oct. 30. After the public feedback, the Board of Health, which is made up of mayoral appointees who can enact the proposal without the consent of other city agencies, is to take final vote in December.

This is what happens when people make the mistake of transforming what should be a personal decision into a government diktat. In the first case, trans fats are not a public health hazard. The risk is incurred personally, not publicly, and it's taken by adults making their own decisions about their food intake. Public health risks should be defined as to be limited to that which affects the public outside their control, such as epidemics, pollution, and the like.

Otherwise, we will start seeing all sorts of new prohibitions in New York City. Alcohol in anything but the most moderate amounts are a private health risk, and the results of inebriation have a lot more public impact than the ingestion of a Krispy Kreme doughnut. Does the health board plan to prohibit the sale of alcohol in restaurants as well?

Beware the government that takes these kinds of personal choices away from citizens in the name of protecting them. It will not be long before the next health fad strikes NYC's consciousness, and the precedent will now exist for them to dictate food recipes to address any concern. For instance, I have a friend whose son has a severe peanut allergy, which literally could kill him in a few minutes. Some restaurants have warning signs for people so that those with this potentially deadly allergy can avoid exposure. Will New York ban peanuts and peanut products in restaurants? After all, peanuts can kill, and apparently people can't be trusted to make their own decisions on food intake.

This kind of government intervention will go beyond food preparation if left unchecked. The impulse to remove choice for the good of the people is not limited to health concerns. New Yorkers should balk at these new laws that treat them as imbeciles not because eating trans fats doesn't pose a risk, but to limit the reach of a government that is intent on eliminating their personal freedoms. Disclosure of the personal risk should be sufficient for adults to act in their own interests. Declaring the personal public sets a precedent that will eventually eliminate all distinctions between the two.

As A General, He Makes A Passable Cleric

Moqtada al-Sadr has never shown himself to be much of a military genius. One of his first forays into the war in Iraq got scathing reviews from John Burns in April 2004, who got an unplanned visit with his forces. Now Sabrina Tavernise reports for the New York Times that Sadr has lost command over a significant portion of his Mahdi Army and can no longer impose his discipline on it:

The radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr has lost control of portions of his Mahdi Army militia that are splintering off into freelance death squads and criminal gangs, a senior coalition intelligence official said Wednesday.

The question of how tightly Mr. Sadr holds the militia, one of the largest armed groups in Iraq, is of critical importance to American and Iraqi officials. Seeking to ease the sectarian violence raging across the country, they have pressed him to join the political process and curb his fighters, who see themselves as defenders of Shiism — and often as agents of vengeance against Sunnis.

But as Mr. Sadr has taken a more active role in the government, as many as a third of his militiamen have grown frustrated with the constraints of compromise and have broken off, often selling their services to the highest bidders, said the official, who spoke to reporters in Baghdad on condition of anonymity because he was not permitted to speak publicly on intelligence issues.

“When Sadr says you can’t do this, for whatever political reason, that’s when they start to go rogue,” the official said. “Frankly, at that point, they start to become very open to alternative sources of sponsorship.” The official said that opened the door to control by Iran.

Sadr has never covered himself in glory on the battlefield, and this demonstrates that his strength may be largely illusory. Some Shi'ites like his ability to attack Sunnis, but it appears now that he may be getting too much credit. The Mahdi Army has a weak command structure and the operations it conducts look more like free-lancing as a rule. Under those circumstances, the surprise isn't that some have spun off their own operations, but that he could wield much power at all.

Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has more respect and devotion from the Shi'ites than Sadr. Sadr has political power, but only because Sistani refused to enter into electoral politics. Sadr's weak position prompted him to align with Iran -- which would have been natural in any case -- but it has brought unintended consequences. The Sunnis have realized that Iran would have too much power with Sadr in control, and now they want the Americans to stick around. Sistani would have counseled self-sufficiency and independence from Iran, but Sadr argues for Teheran's influence.

Once again, we see that Sadr has a bigger reputation than he's due. Whether his Shi'ite allies who reject Iran see this, we don't know. If they do, they may start arranging for a one-way ticket to his 72 virgins.

Uptick For George Allen

Despite the mudslinging in the Virginia Senate race, or perhaps because of it, George Allen actually gained traction against his challenger Jim Webb in the latest Survey USA polling. Real Clear Politics' John McIntyre notes that Allen now leads Webb by five points, 49-44, a slight uptick from two weeks ago (48-45) and two weeks before that. It shows that Virginia voters have more sophistication than the perpetrators of the smear campaign against Allen calculated.

I'll continue to keep an eye on developments in the Allen/Webb campaign, but hopefully this will convince the mudslingers that they're wasting their time.

UPDATE: I managed to miss this Washington Post article when I first posted this, but this seems likely to end the entire N-word mudslinging:

Webb's comments to the Times-Dispatch prompted Allen campaign officials to direct a reporter to Dan Cragg, a former acquaintance of Webb's, who said Webb used the word while describing his own behavior during his freshman year at the University of Southern California in the early 1960s. Webb later transferred to the U.S. Naval Academy.

Cragg, 67, who lives in Fairfax County, said on Wednesday that Webb described taking drives through the black neighborhood of Watts, where he and members of his ROTC unit used racial epithets and pointed fake guns at blacks to scare them.

"They would hop into their cars, and would go down to Watts with these buddies of his," Cragg said Webb told him. "They would take the rifles down there. They would call then [epithets], point the rifles at them, pull the triggers and then drive off laughing. One night, some guys caught them and beat . . . them. And that was the end of that."

Is this relevant? It's as relevant as conversations Allen purportedly had with his football teammates thirty years ago ... which is to say, not relevant at all. It's as relevant as Webb's inclusion of the N-word in his published fiction, which he lists on his CV for political office.

But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Webb told people yesterday that he never used the N-word as an insult directed at people, and if what Cragg says is true, then Webb lied. Webb refused to answer whether he's ever used the word at all, and since it's in his novel, one can understand his reluctance.

As for me, I'd much rather talk about the issues that face the Senate over the next six years instead of conversations long since dead involving both candidates. Let's stop the mudslinging and debate the real issues.

New Offensive Brewing In Gaza

The London Telegraph reports that Palestinian militants have acquired tons of explosives and perhaps even advanced missiles, preparing for a showdown with the IDF they expect to come if Gilad Shalit is not freed soon. The terrorists want to emulate Hezbollah's attack against the Israelis and have upgraded their weapons systems with that in mind:

Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip are rearming and retraining for an imminent military showdown with the Israeli army, intelligence sources disclosed yesterday.

Yuval Diskin, the head of Israel's intelligence service Shin Bet, said 19 tons of explosives had been smuggled into Gaza in the past year. Other senior Israeli officials indicated that Palestinian fighters were acquiring more effective weapons. ...

Brigadier General Shalom Harari, a military intelligence officer, said yesterday that Israeli forces might "go into Gaza in a big way" unless Cpl Shalit is freed. Accusing Iran of being behind the new weapons drive, he said Teheran had found willing partners in Palestinian fighters. ...

While Palestinian groups have boasted of a home-grown anti-tank missile known as the Batar, intelligence officials in Israel dismissed it. But they revealed that militants have replaced the RPG7, the standard rocket propelled grenade, with upgraded versions that can pierce Merkava tanks. "They want to bring in weapons that 'break the equation' of our military superiority," said one intelligence official. "They want to be able to attack symbols of our power like the Merkava tank, the Apache helicopter, offshore missile boats and armoured bulldozers."

In particular, the officials said, Palestinian militants have a "real appetite" to adopt Hizbollah tactics from the war in Lebanon, when Russian-built Kornet missiles proved deadly against tanks on the battlefield while longer-range Katyushas were directed at towns inside Israel.

Well, it's no secret that the Palestinians have been itching for this fight for some time. They got one when they kidnapped Shalit and killed two other soldiers in their tunneling incursion earlier this summer, then sat back as the IDF dismantled Gaza searching for Shalit. Now they want another round against the IDF after believing the hype from the Hezbollah War that pre-empted their own.

Best of luck, fellas. The quaint notion that Hassan Nasrallah won anything in that war was belied by the hiding places from which he issued his triumphal announcements. Nasrallah couldn't even attend his own victory party without the Israelis commenting with some amusement that they probably wouldn't shoot him with a number of innocent bystanders attending the rally.

Those kind of victories Israel can abide.

However, if the Palestinians do not return Shalit, they will get the war they want. The IDF learned a few things in the sub-Litani region as well, and hopefully so did Ehud Olmert. If Gaza starts launching sophisticated new missiles at Ashkelon, the Israelis will have plenty of reason and opportunity to roll right back into Gaza to have their little war. They're going to find out that 19 tons of explosives don't go nearly as far in war as it does in terrorist attacks.

House Sends Detainee Bill To Senate

The controversial legislation that establishes military tribunals and the rules for trying captured terrorists passed the House yesterday afternoon, on a somewhat bipartisan vote. It now heads to the Senate for debate, but so far it appears to have enough support to pass:

The House this afternoon approved a new approach to interrogating and trying terror suspects and the Senate opened debate on the legislation, as Congress sought to create a system that could wring information from terrorists and bring them to justice in a way that meets court scrutiny.

Despite serious objections from some Democrats and a few Republicans, the legislation appeared headed to approval, delivering Republicans and President Bush one of the accomplishments on national security they hoped to achieve before the election. The bill passed the House by a vote of 253 to 168.

“The time to act is now,” said Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, as he opened the Senate debate after reaching an agreement with Democrats to limit efforts the alter the bill and bring it to a vote as early as Thursday.

Backers of the measure said the legislation — sought by President Bush after the Supreme Court in June struck down the administration’s system for trying detainees — would guarantee terror suspects adequate rights while not hindering the interrogators who seek information from them. ...

Leading Democrats said the bill would allow the Bush administration to detain suspects indefinitely without offering them any appeal in court and could result in government-sanctioned mistreatment of detainees. They predicted it would be again thrown out by the Supreme Court, leaving the United States remaining without a system to try terrorists after a wait that has already extended five years beyond the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The House version got more support than I would have predicted. It passed 253-168, with 34 Democrats joining all but 7 Republicans in approval. Only 12 failed to cast a vote on HR 6166, and one of them was Bob Ney, who just pled guilty to corruption charges and has not participated in Congress of late. One of the Democrats supporting the bill was Colln Peterson of Minnesota.

Most Democrats opposed the bill and most will do so in the Senate during the upcoming debate, and they will have some Republicans for company. Arlen Specter has already said that he has serious objections to the bill, although he did say that it had substantially improved since its first drafts. The concessions came from White House negotiations with John McCain and Lindsay Graham, among others, but whether it attracts any significant cross-aisle support remains to be seen. Most of the objections of Democrats come from the interrogation techniques it still allows, while Specter complained about evidentiary and procedural rules for the tribunals.

We have been kept safe by the use of strenuous interrogations that have yielded information that saved hundreds or thousands of American lives. I don't believe we should torture people, but techniques such as sleep deprivation and cold rooms simply don't qualify. Even waterboarding, to which McCain objects so vociferously, causes no damage other than panic and is used in training our own pilots. No one has suggested that the military tortures its officers through the use of this training. If it's good enough for our own men and women in uniform, then it should be good enough for the terrorists.

I'm with Duncan Hunter, who pointed out that these terrorists are not analogous to criminals in our civil justice system. They have explicitly made war against the United States and as such have waived any benefits of our system of justice. The sole aim of these tribunals should only be to ensure that no mistake of identity has been made. We owe them nothing, and our goal should be efficiency. If they have representation and we have basic rules of due process, that's better than the societies from which they came and towards which they persevere in their terrorism.

Note: The New York Times has an interesting method of reporting this story. Note that they have three quotes in opposition to the bill and only one in support of it.

Why Doesn't Page Six Take A Big Whiff Itself?

Let's make one point clear at the beginning of this post: I cannot stand Keith Olbermann. I couldn't stand his pretentious, egotistical sportscasting when I first saw him in Los Angeles, and thought he only improved marginally at ESPN's SportsCenter. He has long since jumped the shark regarding reason and rationality and uses his MS-NBC gig as a venting mechanism for both his ego and his hatreds. Unless one partakes of the most poisonous political Kool-Aid, he's unwatchable.

All that being said, Olbermann is human, and a feigned terrorist attack on him goes waaaaaay beyond the pale. As if that wasn't bad enough, the New York Post's Page Six belittles him for checking with a doctor to be sure (emphases mine):

MSNBC loudmouth Keith Olbermann flipped out when he opened his home mail yesterday. The acerbic host of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" was terrified when he opened a suspicious-looking letter with a California postmark and a batch of white powder poured out. A note inside warned Olbermann, who's a frequent critic of President Bush's policies, that it was payback for some of his on-air shtick. The caustic commentator panicked and frantically called 911 at about 12:30 a.m., sources told The Post's Philip Messing. An NYPD HazMat unit rushed to Olbermann's pad on Central Park South, but preliminary tests indicated the substance was harmless soap powder. However, that wasn't enough to satisfy Olbermann, who insisted on a checkup. He asked to be taken to St. Luke's Hospital, where doctors looked him over and sent him home. Whether they gave him a lollipop on the way out isn't known. Olbermann had no comment.

This is appalling, and it's inexcusable.

If I opened up an envelope and found white powder inside, I'd damned sure call 911. I don't call that "panic", I call it common sense. If I dialed 911, I'd dial it fast, and perhaps even frantically, considering that my family could have been exposed to a deadly chemical or biological attack. And even if preliminary tests indicated that it was 99 44/100th percent pure Ivory Soap, I think I'd be smart enough to have a doctor run a few tests on me just to be sure.

And if Paula Froelich didn't have the exact same reaction if it happened to her, I'd eat my hat.

I don't know what Froelich was thinking when she wrote this piece. Olbermann has surely slammed the Post on a number of occasions, perhaps even in personal ways. That doesn't excuse Froelich from belittling someone who had good cause to be frightened, especially considering the level of animosity he provokes. The anthrax attacks in 2001 went to media offices, something Froelich fails to mention in her schoolground rant.

Being partisan is one thing. Being inhuman is something else entirely.

UPDATE: It's even more despicable than I first thought. Hugh Hewitt reminded me that one of the media outlets hit by the September 2001 anthrax attacks was -- the New York Post:

A second case of cutaneous (skin) anthrax has been confirmed at the New York Post, sources told CNN Wednesday. The victim is a mailroom worker.

The sources said the anthrax apparently came from the same letter that infected Post editorial assistant Johanna Huden.

It was postmarked September 18 at Trenton, New Jersey, with block-style lettering similar to anthrax-tainted letters sent to NBC Anchor Tom Brokaw in New York and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in Washington. It had no return address.

The mailroom worker was wearing gloves but contracted it on his forearm, the sources said.

Rick Moran, my long-lost brother, wouldn't wish this on his worst enemy, and tries to remind people that the US is not a banana republic. He says Froelich should get fired; the Post at least owes Olbermann an apology.

UPDATE II: Patterico agrees with Rick and I. A family reunion? If so, count Ed Driscoll in. Also, Joe Gandelman has a roundup of blogger reactions.

UPDATE III: I have to say I'm pretty amused by the notion that this was a big publicity stunt by Olbermann. How is that supposed to work? Olbermann never said a word about it until after the Page Six article; according to Olbermann, he was asked to keep it quiet by investigators, and he did. Now people want us to believe that he committed this big stunt -- including, by the way, a false police report and 911 call -- but then kept his mouth shut hoping that the New York Post would become his publicist.

I understand why people dislike Keith Olbermann, but this is really ridiculous. Publicity stunts usually involve the seeking of publicity.

Also, someone questioned the part of the Page Six report about hazmat suits being worn by the responders. If it turns out to be false, then that reflects on Page Six and not Olbermann, who after all didn't report the incident in the media.

Party Time In The Twin Cities!

I decided to do a little lunch-time blogging, which I normally avoid these days, and it turns out I picked the right moment for it. The AP reports that the Republican Party has selected the Twin Cities for its 2008 national convention:

The four-day event will be held at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, Minn., home of the National Hockey League's Minnesota Wild.

By choosing the Twin Cities for 2008, the GOP will ensure plenty of news converge in media markets in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa _ all battleground states in the 2004 election and ones expected to be competitive in the next presidential race.

Minnesota had been seen by some as an unlikely host, with just 10 electoral votes and the nation's longest streak of voting for Democratic presidential candidates.

In 2004, Democrat John Kerry won the state 51 percent to 48 percent. The last Republican to win a presidential race in the state was Richard Nixon in 1972 and the last national convention happened in when the GOP backed President Benjamin Harrison in an unsuccessful re-election bid.

But Minnesota's national image as a traditional Democratic bastion has become outdated and the state was a hard-fought battleground in 2004 and 2000. Republicans hope to court voters in a region Republican and Democratic strategists alike say will play a critical role in winning the White House in 2008.

This is a smart move, and not just because it will take place about 20 minutes from my house. Minnesota has been turning purple for the last few elections, and our neighbor Wisconsin even more so. This selection will motivate the state GOP even more than before and will have an impact throughout the entire Upper Midwest. Iowa barely went to the GOP in 2004, and Wisconsin barely went to the Democrats.

Norm Coleman will run for re-election in 2008, and he's expected to square off against Al Franken for the Democrats. Regardless of his opponent, though, the Democrats will work hard to take the seat from the GOP, especially if Mark Kennedy can beat Amy Klobuchar this November. It will also spotlight Governor Tim Pawlenty, who has built a solid approval rating and demonstrated an ability to work across party lines to get things done -- even if it has irritated Republicans here. Having the GOP at the Xcel Center will also remind people that Norm Coleman got that facility built and helped energize the economy of Saint Paul.

Needless to say, my fellow bloggers will be delighted to have the convention in our back yard. I had a great time in New York in 2004, and we'll have fun showing off our state capital to bloggers from around the country. The only way this could get better is if the Democrats decide to show up here as well.

What a great piece of lunchtime news!

Egypt Loses Patience With Hamas

Egypt sent a "strongly-worded letter" to Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal after seeing its attempts to resolve the Gaza crisis come to naught. The letter demands that Mashaal release kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, and Hamas to form a unity government with Mahmoud Abbas:

Egypt has demanded that Hamas immediately release kidnapped IDF soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit to avoid a worsening crisis in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian officials and Arab diplomats said.

The Egyptian demand came in a "strongly worded letter" from Egypt's powerful intelligence chief Omar Suleiman to the Syrian-based Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, the officials said Tuesday.

The letter also demanded Hamas cooperate fully with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in forming a national unity government, a step that has been stalled by the Hamas' refusal to form an administration that recognizes Israel.

The message reflected increasing impatience with Hamas by Egypt, which has been mediating for months, trying to reach a deal on a prisoner swap for Shalit, who is being held by Hamas-allied militants in Gaza.

Egypt wants an end to the Gaza situation for fairly obvious reasons. One, Gaza's border with Egypt has become the focal point of escape attempts by Palestinians, a migration that Egypt would prefer to stop. Secondly, the escalation in violence in Gaza fires up the radical Islamists in Hosni Mubarak's country, a constituency that threatens to undermine his rule. It also puts pressure on his normalized relations with Israel and the aid that generates from the US.

This underscores a split in the region that has accelerated of late. Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait have moved significantly towards the center and away from their more radical neighbors. They want continued trade with the West and a reasonable plan for peace in the Palestinian territories. Syria and Iran want confrontation, the latter in a millenial fashion. Saudi Arabia leans towards the moderates, depending on the time of day, and the rest have decided to wait and see. Even Pakistan, whose military dwarfs almost all of them, wants to recognize Israel when the time is right (via It Shines For All).

If Hamas transforms itself away from terrorism, then the split may soon disappear, but don't count on that happening. If not, which seems much more likely, then Hamas will soon see a large portion of its political support disappear, and in the case of Egypt, that will have an immediate impact on Gazans. Mashaal had better consider his next steps very carefully.

The View From The Western Street

Max Boot turns the tables on a hackneyed concept that has bedeviled the West whenever discussing strategies to fight terror. Instead of writing another warning about the "Arab street", Boot warns Muslims about their relative silence in the age of Islamist terrorism and its effect on the "Western street". He writes in the Los Angeles Times that unless moderate Muslims start taking a much more active role against Islamism, the West will have no choice but to conclude that Islam is incompatible with peace:

EVER SINCE 9/11, a dark view of Islam has been gaining currency on what might be called the Western street. This view holds that, contrary to the protestations of our political leaders — who claim that acts of terrorism are being carried out by a minority of extremists — the real problem lies with Islam itself. In this interpretation, Islam is not a religion of peace but of war, and its 1.2 billion adherents will never rest until all of humanity is either converted, subjugated or simply annihilated.

Is the war on terrorism really a "clash of civilizations"? The overreaction to Pope Benedict XVI's relatively innocuous remarks at the University of Regensburg on Sept. 12 would seem to lend weight to this alarming notion. ...

Muslim spokesmen claim that these are unconscionable slurs. Yet, while demanding respect for their own religion, too many Muslims accord too little respect to competing faiths or even to competing brands of their own faith.

Where are the demonstrations in the Muslim street when the president of Iran denies the Holocaust and calls for the destruction of Israel? Or when Palestinian kidnappers force two Western journalists to convert to Islam at gunpoint? Or when Sunni terrorists in Iraq bomb Shiite mosques and slaughter hundreds of worshipers? All too many Islamic leaders prefer to harp on the supposed sins of the "infidels," however exaggerated or even fictionalized (no, the CIA didn't bomb the World Trade Center to create an excuse for invading Afghanistan), rather than focusing on the problems within their own umma (community).

Boot focuses on an aspect of the war on terror that too often gets dismissed in a drizzle of political correctness. People rush to excuse Muslims from the war by emphasizing that Islam is a "religion of peace", a phrase that finds so much repetition that some are now tempted to put it into title caps and stick a trademark notation on it. This comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the faith; it does not value peace as much as it values submission, and even its prophet insisted that his mandate included gaining that submission by force.

As Boot points out, though, that does not translate to every Muslim being a fanatic and a purveyor of violence in pursuit of religion. Islam had its Golden Age at the height of its expansion. Muslims allowed people of other faiths to live relatively unmolested, certainly more so than did the Christians of the same era, although they still had to submit to the authority of Islam, at least publicly. Upon capturing Jerusalem, the Crusaders committed a ghastly genocide, killing almost all of the non-Christians in the city. When Saladin recaptured the city, he refrained from returning the favor.

Since then, the two cultures have moved in opposite directions. While Christianity eventually reformed itself, Islam grew more moribund. The Renaissance and Reformation allowed Christendom to pursue scientific and political reforms that greatly expanded the knowledge of man and the liberty of the individual. Islam, which had led scientific progress for an age, grew hidebound and refused to look past the Qur'an for answers, an impulse that continues to this day. Islam has never experienced a Reformation, nor Arab cultures a Renaissance, and the difference has created the "clash of civilizations" of which Huntingdon warned the West.

The West has to demand that Reformation, and we have to quit relying on passive-aggressive PC platitudes to do it. The Pope's Regensburg speech, the Danish Prophet cartoons, and the Mozart opera cancellation all comprise symptoms of the same disease. Until Muslims publicly demand freedom of speech and thought, then the West will consider them complicit with the Islamist impulse to smother freedom and liberty under a wave of violence and intimidation. After five years, we should have realized that repeating mantras like "religion of peace" does not transform submission into tolerance. If we want tolerance, we have to be more straightforward in demanding it.

Russia Rejects Putin Power Extension

In a setback to a movement attempting to get Vladimir Putin a de facto lifetime term as the ruler of Russia, its top election authority has barred a referendum eliminating term limits for the presidency. This appears to put an end to the draft-Putin efforts started by those who appreciate Putin's rollback of democracy:

Russia's top election authority on Wednesday threw out a call for a people's poll that would clear the way for President Vladimir Putin to stay on in power, making it more likely he will step down as he plans in 2008.

Putin has said repeatedly he will abide by the constitution that restricts a head of state to serving two consecutive four-year terms in power at any one time, and go in 2008.

But this has not stopped supporters from urging the 53-year-old Putin to stay on and in the latest such move a group from a southern Russian region formally sought a referendum to get the two-term rule scrapped.

Rejecting the move, Russia's election chief Alexander Veshnyakov said: "None of the members of the Central Election Commission, none of the experts, have any doubts that the question in its present form cannot be used for a referendum."

Supporters of the referendum want Putin to remain in office to "continue the reforms which have begun", among which are the state's seizure of private oil companies and the elimination of direct elections for regional governors. Putin's fans might call these "reforms", but to the rest of the world it looks much more like a dangerous consolidation of power. The former KGB leader has worked to re-establish an authoritarian government in Moscow, and only term limits will force him to relinquish the reins.

The Central Election Commission's decision will meet with stiff resistance. Putin remains popular; estimates of his support have varied from 59% to 70%, making the temptation for the referendum all the more irresistible. While Putin has declared that he will not press to change the law limiting his term in office, he has certainly allowed the impression that he would respond to a popular demand for an extension. He is a young man in political terms -- especially given Russia's late-20th-century history -- and even out of office will overshadow any potential successor, especially if Putin hand-picks him.

The CEC showed courage in adhering to their constitution. Whether it stops Putin remains to be seen. If he leaves office willingly, it's only because he has secured his grip on power through more covert means.

The Real NIE Revelations

The Bush administration's decision to declassify the conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate yesterday revealed two truths about politics and the intelligence community, neither of which appear very complimentary. First, the Democrats allowed themselves to get outfoxed on national security yet again by allowing themselves to get hysterical and seriously misrepresent the conclusions of the NIE. As the Washington Post reports, Democrats made a lot of extraordinary claims about the NIE, which the report itself doesn't support:

President Bush took the extraordinary step of releasing portions of the classified report, which was completed in April, to counter assertions made after information from the document was leaked to media outlets over the weekend. Reports based on those leaks said the report blames the war in Iraq for worsening the global terrorist threat -- an interpretation that the administration calls a distortion of its contents.

Speaking at a White House news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Bush angrily called the leak a political act intended to affect the upcoming midterm elections. "Somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes," he said. ...

For the third straight day, Democrats sought to draw attention to the issue with news conferences and political maneuvers. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) moved to put the House into secret session to discuss the intelligence estimate, but the motion was defeated along party lines.

"With such a devastating and authoritative analysis of the Bush administration's failures in Iraq, the president and the Republican-controlled Congress now have a choice to make," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.). "Will they stubbornly follow a failed stay-the-course strategy that America's intelligence community has concluded makes America less safe, or will they finally admit their mistakes and change course?"

In fact, the NIE doesn't offer any conclusions about successes or failures at present or in the past regarding Iraq. The actual conclusions of the intelligence community about Iraq take up one paragraph and one bullet point in the four-page document, and both do not assess the success or failure of the Coalition. It does, however, point out the consequences of both in the future:

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

• The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

It also lists the Iraq "jihad" as one of four main factors that fuel the spread of jihadism across the region, but note the other three:

Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq "jihad"; (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims - all of which jihadists exploit.

Factors one and three are directly impacted by the American forward policy of engagement that led to factor two. The "neocon" impulse to use democratization as a method to reform the area addresses both of these factors. Self-government allows Arabs to determine their own foreign-policy goals and gives Arabs the tools to eliminate corruption and injustice, or at least to greatly reduce it from Ba'athist levels of the past. Democratization also brings political reforms and a free market that resolves many of the oppressive triggers for radicalization by giving individual Arabs the freedom to create and own their own property and to protect it.

This is why we have to endure the Iraqi "jihad" until we succeed. The insurgency will collapse when Iraqis grow strong enough to defend themselves and rebuild their infrastructure in peace. In fact, no other strategy could possibly address factors one and three. Even if we packed up and walked out of Iraq, those factors would still exist -- as they have for decades -- and the fourth factor would remain from our economic engagement with the oppressive regimes that control the region. We have an opportunity to address all four factors by prevailing in Iraq.

What do the Democrats offer? Withdrawal from the one theater in which we face our terrorist enemy and the one place that has to replace a missing tyrant. If we continue our resolve, we can firm up a democracy as Saddam's replacement and begin to address the factors that drive jihadism. As the NIE concludes, a victory in Iraq would seriously damage the radical Islamist movement, perhaps even mortally. We have no chance to strike a blow against them by retreating. Democrats have badly misrepresented this report and offer the one solution guaranteed to result in making the problem worse -- as the NIE also concludes.

Fat Lady Sings For Berlin Opera That Depicts Mohammed

How does the West lose the war against radical Islamists? One small surrender at a time. The lastest retreat comes from Germany's Deutsche Oper Berlin, which cancelled a performance of a Mozart opera due to its depiction of the decapitated heads of Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed. Guess which one caused the furor (via The Moderate Voice):

The Deutsche Oper Berlin yesterday said it had decided "with great regret" to cancel a planned production of Mozart's Idomeneo after city security officials warned of an "incalculable risk" because of scenes dealing with Islam, as well as other religions.

Kirsten Harms, the director of the Deutsche Oper, said that the Berlin state police had warned of a possible - but not certain - threat and that she decided it would be in the best interest of the safety of the opera house, its employees and patrons to cancel the production.

After its premiere in 2003, the production by Hans Neuenfels drew widespread criticism over a scene in which King Idomeneo presents the severed heads not only of the Greek god of the sea, Poseidon, but also of Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed.

We should note that Mozart didn't write the scene with the decapitated heads; that is a modern adaptation, although considering the predilection of modern radical Islamists in methods of executing hostages, perhaps not an outrageous one. It should also be noted that the decision to shut down the production did not come from the German government or even the city's leaders, but from the opera house director. In fact, the German government condemned the decision.

Nevertheless, the decision highlights the lack of fortitude and excessive sensitivity shown to Muslims, and by artists who would normally scream at any attempt by Western churches to even criticize their staging. No one suggested that showing a severed head of Jesus should get banned by the Deutsche Oper Berlin, or Buddha, or Poseidon, although one doubts many Greeks would care about the latter. Had the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury demanded that Harms shut the doors rather than show Jesus beheaded, all of Europe would have arisen in righteous indignation -- and rightfully so.

So why shut the doors when Mohammed gets the Zarqawi treatment? Because Muslims kill people for this kind of speech. That's the only reason why -- and Harms' actions only embolden them to intimidate other artists into submission.

What does this portend for European artists? Theo Van Gogh could probably explain it to you, except that a Muslim assassinated him for filming a powerful criticism of radical Islam and its treatment of women. Ayaan Hirsi Ali could also inform you, but death threats from radical Islamists have kept the screenwriter of Van Gogh's film in hiding. Salman Rushdie has explained it many times over, but one can find him only because the Muslim death squads appear to have lost interest in collecting on Ayatollah Khomeini's hit contract on the Muslim author and critic.

This is the slow slide into dhimmitude. Radical Islamists demand that we treat Islam and Mohammed as sacred and above criticism as part of our agreement to live under their forbearance. We comply, and we endorse their supremacy through violence and intimidation. It isn't about sensitivity; it's about standing up for freedom and liberty and the right to speak our minds on any topic. My cultural sensitivity ends at the point where I have to refrain from honest criticism because of a threat on my life. That kind of impulse is exactly the kind that most needs criticism, but fewer of us appear capable of resisting.

Welcome to the ummah, and I hope you brought your jizya.

The Washington Post Fact-Checks A Useless Debate

Last week I wrote about the futility of the debate about who did what regarding terrorism before 9/11. All sides have once again dragged out their shibboleths all over again, and once again the debate has done nothing to make the nation safer -- but it has at least prompted a fact-checking exercise at the Washington Post. Granted, it comes at the end of the article, but at least someone bothered to do it in a rational manner:

And Jay Carson, a spokesman for Bill Clinton, rejected Rice's contention: "Every single fact that President Clinton stated in his interview is backed up by the historical record -- including the 9/11 commission report. Everything President Clinton said was flatly correct."

Some of Clinton's statements on Fox have drawn scrutiny. He said that after the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, "I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan." The Sept. 11 commission, though, found no plans for an invasion of Afghanistan or for an operation to topple the Taliban, just more limited options such as plans for attacks with cruise missiles or Special Forces. And nothing in the panel's report indicated that a lack of basing rights in Uzbekistan prevented a military response.

Clinton also asserted that the Bush administration "didn't have a single meeting about bin Laden for the nine months after I left office." In fact, the Bush team held several meetings on terrorism through the interagency group known as the deputies committee and one on Sept. 4, 2001, through the principals committee composed of Cabinet officers. What Clinton may have been referring to was counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke's frustration that the principals disregarded his urgent calls to meet sooner because of a months-long policy review.

Rice came under fire for her assertion that "we were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaeda" by Clinton's team. In fact, Clarke sent Rice an al-Qaeda memo on Jan. 25, 2001, along with a strategy to "roll back" the terrorist network, but the Bush team decided to conduct the policy review.

Like I said on Friday: George Bush and Bill Clinton can join a club of five administrations that failed to adequately address the rise of radical Islamism and its root causes in the Middle East and North Africa prior to 9/11. While Clinton ignored a series of attacks on American interests, so did Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. George H. W. Bush helped to provoke the Islamists by basing troops in Saudi Arabia for the Gulf War and then failing to end it quickly by toppling Saddam, forcing the US to keep its troops in the "holy land" of Islam for over a dozen years.

Nothing we have debated has changed any of these facts. Nor, I want to re-emphasize, does it change the fact that the American public would never have agreed to a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan to oust Osama bin Laden before 9/11. Most Americans didn't realize the threat, and while one can perhaps blame the Clinton administration for that, we have since seen the lack of support an invasion attracts minus an outright attack on the United States -- and Saddam Hussein had been firing at our pilots for years prior to March 2003.

Clinton overreacted, and badly, against Chris Wallace, and he told a few whoppers to get the heat off. The Post catches him today in a couple of those. Michael Scheuer, no great fan of the Bush administration, caught him in a few more. For the life of me, I don't see why Clinton -- along with everyone else -- just doesn't admit the obvious. None of them did enough to stop Osama bin Laden before 9/11, and all of them wish now that they had really understood the threat. Placing one another on some sort of hierarchy of futility to prove themselves slightly a lesser failure by comparison would be hilarious if it didn't involves thousands of dead Americans.

We have now had a week of this debate. Does anyone feel any safer because of it?

Comment Policy Change (Updated And Bumped)

Due to some complaints I have received over the past few weeks, I am making a small change to the comment policy. Commenters will have a one-hour restriction on posts, which means that after a comment from a specific IP address gets accepted, it will take one hour before another comment from that same IP address will be accepted. I'm hoping that this will reduce some of the "comment bombing" seen recently on some threads, where one person posts three or four lengthy remarks within a few minutes of each other. Eliminating that will, I hope, make the threads easier to read and produce a better level of debate.

I hope this poses little inconvenience for CQ readers and addresses everyone's concerns in a fair and equitable manner. We've got the best comment threads in the blogosphere, I think, and I want to make sure they stay that way.

UPDATE: I didn't make this clear, but that is one hour for comments on any thread; the only way to control comments is blog-wide.

UPDATE II and BUMP: OK, I listen to my readers. One hour is too long. I've reduced it to 15 minutes, and I'll just remind everyone that brevity is the soul of wit. If I start seeing "Wall-O-Comments" from some commenters, I reserve the right to either reduce or delete posts. Let's see how the 15-minute rule works out for everyone ...

Deer In The Headlights

The stories accusing George Allen of using the N-word continue to look stranger and stranger. Yesterday's revelation that Larry Sabato, Virginia's most well-known political scientist, joined another former Allen classmate, Christopher Taylor, in publicly accusing Allen of using the racial epithet. However, these sourcings have also begun to look rather peculiar. Now Sabato appears to be backing away from his first-person claim, telling Chris Matthews that he was relaying information from other sources and declining to identify them:

Sabato, who made his comments during an interview on Chris Matthews' "Hardball" program on MSNBC, later declined to specifically identify his sources.

"My sources are former classmates who came to me with stories that matched up," Sabato said late Monday night. "I never solicited them. They came to me during the past few months."

Initially, Sabato's claims suggested that Allen used the word around Sabato himself, but the two never spent any time together in college or afterwards, Allen's campaign insisted. In fact, Sabato spent his time after college working for the Democratic Party. Now he feels perfectly comfortable confirming rumors from unidentified sources ... with rumors from other unidentified sources.

Taylor, on the other hand, does insist that he heard the epithet first-hand when he visited Allen's residence in the early 80s. He said that Allen told him that only black people ate the turtles at the pond, but used the N-word to do so. Allen's ex-wife recalls Taylor's visit and completely rejects his story, which seems pretty substantial coming from a former spouse:

The Allen camp released a statement from Allen's first wife refuting Taylor's story. Anne Waddell, who was married to Allen from 1980 to 1984, said she recalled Taylor coming to their home to buy a puppy.

"I can say with absolute certainty that his recollection that George said anything at all that could be considered racially insensitive is completely false," she said. "He would never utter such a word."

Waddell said, "I was the one who fished for the turtles in our pond because they were eating the young goslings. The person who ate the turtles was our neighbor."

The Hampton Times also notes that Taylor also is a political activist who wants to see Allen defeated.

The original source, Ken Shelton, also claimed that Allen put a deer head into the mailbox of Virginia African-Americans while in college, a story repeated by The New Republic's Ryan Lizza in an article helpfully titled "Pond Scum". That sounds like such an outlandish story that one would have difficulty believing that someone could make it up. Fortunately, there was no need to do so. Earlier this year, a North Carolina teenager put deer parts in mailboxes in Hoke County, a story which got good regional coverage:

Every day in the past, Evelyn Matthews has gone outside her home to get her mail, hoping for something good. But when she opened the mailbox and peeked inside one day this week, something else peeked out back at her. She was standing face to face with a deer head.

"It was scary," said Matthews. "When you see two eyes looking at you, it's really frightening."

She ran for help and warned her neighbors -- and for good reason. They found deer parts in their mailbox.

Either this is quite the coincidence, or dismembering deers and mailing them to neighbors has the same allure in the South as cow-tipping does here in the Midwest. It certainly sounds like Shelton might have lifted this story and attributed it to Allen as a means of strengthening his allegations against the Senator.

One thing is certain: the only first-hand sources that have gone on the record have political axes to grind against Allen and their stories have fallen apart under close scrutiny. It's a smear campaign, a character assassination in slow motion, and one that should shame James Webb and his campaign. They have yet to distance themselves from these attacks, and one has to conclude that they have no desire to do so.

UPDATE: People in the comments claim that Sabato didn't make any first-person claims about Allen's use of the epithet. Not true:

"I'm simply going to stay with what I know is the case and the fact is he did use the n-word, whether he's denying it or not," Sabato said.

Also, as has been pointed out in numerous other places, Sabato moderated a debate between Allen and Democratic candidate Charles Robb in 2000. Why didn't Sabato mention this issue during the debate, or indeed in the entire 2000 campaign?

Pam Wolf For State Senate

I will be spending the evening supporting Pam Wolf for the Minnesota State Senate. The event starts at 7 pm at Blainbrook Hall, 12000 Highway 65, in Blaine, where I will be joined by David Strom from the Taxpayer's Leage of Minnesota, one of my good friends. Pam's a terrific candidate and a fine Minnesotan, a teacher who wants to teach a little fiscal discipline to the politicians in Saint Paul.

I was supposed to spend an afternoon golfing at a fundraiser this summer -- and if you've ever seen me play, you know it would take all afternoon and most of the evening. Unfortunately, my back injury prevented me from joining Pam like I did in 2004, but it also prevented me from demonstrating why a small ball can ruin a day at the park. I swapped that appearance with tonight's, so I hope you can join us to support a great candidate on her second (and triumphal) effort at representing SD-51. If not, please go to Pam's website and give a donation for her campaign.

Rice Strikes Back

Condoleezza Rice stepped out of character for just a moment yesterday and responded forcefully to allegations Bill Clinton made during his Fox News Sunday interview with Chris Wallace. The New York Post reports that the Secretary of State allowed herself a rare moment of anger when defending herself against Clinton's attacks on the Bush administration:

Rice hammered Clinton, who leveled his charges in a contentious weekend interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel, for his claims that the Bush administration "did not try" to kill Osama bin Laden in the eight months they controlled the White House before the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.

The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice responded during the hourlong session.

Read the entire piece. I offer it not to get involved in the partisan ping-pong battle in the blogosphere, but in order to point out that Rice's appearance seems more political than anything she's done since her latest confirmation hearing. She has tried to remain outside the realm of partisan politics since that appearance in Congress, and to a large extent she's succeeded. Her focus has even quieted down the Draft Condi movement for 2008 that sprang up after Bush won re-election. No one has talked about Cheney resigning in favor of Rice in months -- thankfully.

That may change for a while, perhaps in conjunction with the midterms. While that rumor deserves to die a short but painful death, the brief emergence of Rice as a political player may get some Republicans thinking about a VP slot for her in 2008.

The Secret Suspenders

Iran has agreed in principle to suspend its uranium-enrichment program while negotiating with the West over the future of their nuclear program, but there's a new catch. According to the Washington Times, Iran has insisted that the suspension be kept secret:

Iran is close to an agreement that would include a suspension of uranium enrichment but wants the deal to include a provision that the temporary halt be kept secret, according to Bush administration officials. ...

Many U.S. officials are opposing the agreement as a further concession to Iran, which continues to defy a United Nations' call for a complete halt to uranium enrichment. A Security Council resolution had given Iran until Aug. 31 to stop its enrichment program or face the imposition of international sanctions. Tehran ignored the deadline, but diplomacy has continued.

Some in the State Department are supporting the deal, which they view as a step toward achieving a complete halt to uranium enrichment.

However, other officials said that keeping any suspension secret would be difficult and that it would drag the United States into further negotiations with Iran.

Is this the Animal House suspension? Did Dean Wormer advise Ali Larijani to put their uranium-enrichment program on double secret suspension? If a uranium-enrichment program freezes in a forest and no one is around to see it, does it make a noise later when strapped to a Shahab-3 missile?

Bill Gertz reports that the Iranians want to save a little face if they have to back down from their loudly-stated "no freeze" position, especially at home. It makes sense to give them a face-saving way out -- if that includes verification. Without verification, the secrecy turns into nothing more than a convenient way to claim that further enrichment didn't violate any agreements.

Assuming we can verify the suspension of enrichment for negotiations, whether we accept this condition depends in large part what we hope to gain from the talks. Do we want to simply have Iran give up its ambitions for nuclear weapons? If so, then we should allow them out of their political corner at home to give them the freedom to make a deal to verifiably end their pursuit of the bomb. If we want to hold Iran up as an example to future proliferators, then this becomes much more difficult, as we will have set a precedent (in public, at least) for continued enrichment activities as a bargaining chip and pressure point for negotiations.

If we believe that Iran will continue to pursue the bomb regardless of the outcome of negotiations, then we should pass on the Dean Wormer approach. They entered into the non-proliferation treaty in public; they deceived the IAEA and violated the NPT; they have made repeated public statements about their desire to wipe Israel off the map. A request for secrecy at this point seems out of order, to say the least.

Time To Release The NIE

The National Intelligence Estimate leak to the New York Times has given the Democrats yet another election-time club with which to beat Republicans, the Washington Post reports. The selective quotes have made their way into campaign speeches criticizing the Iraq War, and they hope to use them to maximum effect in their fading hopes of capturing either chamber of Congress:

A classified National Intelligence Estimate, completed in April but disclosed in news reports over the weekend, offers the U.S. intelligence community's first formal evaluation of global trends in terrorism since the April 2003 invasion of Iraq. U.S. officials said the report concludes that the Iraq war has fueled the growth of Islamic extremism and terror groups, but White House officials responded that the reports reflected a selective and distorted interpretation of the study.

Democratic lawmakers said the NIE finding undermines Bush's frequent claim that the toppling of Saddam Hussein's government has made the world more secure and confirms the need for a major change in strategy in Iraq. The findings were featured prominently at a hearing Senate Democrats held yesterday to review the conduct of the war and were cited by several retired generals offering harsh critiques of the administration's preparation for the Iraq war.

"The report underscores that the longer Bush and his enablers . . . keep us in Iraq, the more we undermine our own security," said Democrat Paul Hodes, who is seeking to oust incumbent Rep. Charles Bass (R-N.H.).

However, the usefulness of the report will only last as long as the larger context of the report remains hidden from the public. Already we have seen pushback from members of the intelligence community that object to the lack of that context in the New York Times. Spook86 at In From The Cold, a blogger and former intel worker with ties to the community, posted more quotes from the NIE that cast the report into a different light:

Or how about this statement, which--in part--reflects the impact of increased pressure on the terrorists: "A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse." Hmm...doesn't sound much like Al Qaida's pre-9-11 game plan.

The report also notes the importance of the War in Iraq as a make or break point for the terrorists: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight." It's called a ripple effect.

More support for the defeating the enemy on his home turf: "Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq." President Bush and senior administration officials have made this argument many times--and it's been consistently dismissed by the "experts" at the WaPo and Times.

And, some indication that the "growing" jihad may be pursuing the wrong course: "There is evidence that violent tactics are backfiring...their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar'a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims." Seems to contradict MSM accounts of a jihadist tsunami with ever-increasing support in the global Islamic community..

The estimate also affirms the wisdom of sowing democracy in the Middle East: "Progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances jihadists exploit." As I recall, this the core of our strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Obviously, the Times has not played this straight. They have taken selected quotes from the NIE to build a political case against the war. Spook86 may have done the same for the other side, but then again, Spook86 does not pretend to be objectively reporting the facts. Clearly the report has more nuance than the Times presentation indicated.

The only solution to the problem is to declassify the NIE after redacting information about sources and methodology. We need to know the full context of all these remarks in order to know and understand the real conclusions of the intelligence community, not just a handful of disgruntled bureaucrats with Bill Keller on their speed-dial. Let's see the entire report and then debate its contents. Democrats and Republicans should both call for that kind of openness.

Otherwise, just remember that the use of selective quotes from a classified document really tells us almost nothing about the document itself or the war on terror in general. Even those quotes which the Times reported and Democratic politicians heft onto the hustings mean little, as I explained over the weekend; no one should be surprised that Islamists fight back when challenged. It's more than we can expect from the Times, which uses its reach to report on only one side of an issue, apparently afraid to reveal anything in a classified document that might undermine its opposition to the Iraq War.

Taliban Assassinates Womens-Rights Campaigner

Taliban assassins shot and killed one of Afghanistan's leading reformers for womens' rights , Safia Ama Jan. It isn't as if Jan was sunbathing at the time, either -- they shot her through her burka on her way to her job as Kandahar's Womens' Affairs director:

Suspected Taliban gunmen shot dead a leading women's rights campaigner in Kandahar yesterday in the latest assassination of a government official in the restive southern provinces.

Women's Affairs director, Safia Ama Jan, was killed on the city outskirts as she left for work yesterday morning. The assailants shot her four times in the head, through a burka, before fleeing.

Ms Ama Jan, 56, has been an advocate for women's rights in Kandahar, the former Taliban headquarters, since the fundamentalists were ousted five years ago. Her murder appeared to mark a return to a strategy of intimidation and assassination after the defeat of Taliban fighters at the hands of a Nato force in western Kandahar this month.

Relatives described Ms Ama Jan as religious and a champion of women's education for more than three decades. She stayed in Afghanistan under the Taliban to give secret classes to local girls at home.

I doubt you will read much more today in the media about Jan's murder. The American press doesn't discuss Afghanistan much anymore anyway, except to report bad news in the border regions. The Guardian reminds us that the Taliban pretty much shot its load as a military force and now have to return to their roots as assassins to influence events in Afghanistan.

Jan reveals the Taliban and their Islamist ilk for the cowards and oppressors they are. She did not enter beauty contests or convert to Christianity, two of the myriad reasons why the Taliban might choose to kill a woman. Jan even wore the burqa even after the Taliban fled from power. She modeled Muslim modesty and lived her life in a devout manner -- but she refused to allow her fellow Afghani women to live in the darkness of ignorance. She dared to educate girls instead of leaving them as chattel to be bartered by Islamist men for their own purposes.

For these modest goals, the Taliban sentenced Jan to death. The radical Islamists fear freedom and education, especially when it comes to women in Islamic society. They are, in fact, cowards of the worst order, and their entire philosophy is based on that cowardice. They must win through intimidation, because radical Islam will never win through free choice. It will never live peacefully with other forms of government, Muslim or not, and it must be confronted and beaten wherever it raises its head.

Brits Take Out Osama Protege

Omar al-Farouq had quite an adventurous career as an al-Qaeda terrorist. He had joined AQ in the heady days of the early 1990s, training in Aghanistan and eventually rising in the organization until Osama bin Laden handpicked him to run the AQ network in Southeast Asia. Captured by the Americans in 2002, he escaped last year and fulfilled American expectations by running to Iraq. The adventure came to an end yesterday in Basra:

BRITISH troops shot dead one of al-Qaeda’s most elusive fugitives yesterday after his extraordinary flight from a US prison in Afghanistan to a luxury villa in the southern Iraqi city of Basra.

Omar al-Farouk, 35, was handpicked by Osama bin Laden to run al-Qaeda’s network in South-East Asia and was captured in June 2002, weeks before he allegedly planned to bomb eight American embassies across the region.

The Kuwaiti-born terror suspect was groomed at an Afghan camp and sent to Indonesia, where he was arrested while hiding in a mosque. Al-Farouk was flown to one of America’s most secure detention centres at Bagram airbase on the outskirts of Kabul. But he and three fellow al-Qaeda suspects picked the locks and escaped across a minefield in July last year.

He later appeared on an Arab television channel taunting his US captors and vowing to carry out terror attacks in America. Major Charlie Burbridge, a British military spokesman, told The Times that the military had spent several days planning the raid after a tip-off from US Intelligence last week that al-Farouk was in Iraq.

I guess Farouk will never get that opportunity to kill Americans, thanks to the British. US intelligence services coordinated with the large unit of the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment -- 250 troops -- to surround the villa in which Farouk secreted himself. They tried to arrest him, but Farouk opened fire on the Brits, a rather suicidal move on his part.

Not that we lost much of an intel opportunity, as it turns out. Farouk had no trappings of an active terrorist; he left behind no al-Qaeda literature, nor any weapons or organizing material. For the man who once planned a coordinated attack on American embassies to "celebrate" the first anniversary of 9/11, his world ended with a bang that seems much more like a whimper.

However, the death of Farouk in Basra points up another problem, according to the Times of London. AQ terrorists have begun transiting out of Afghanistan and into Iraq, presumably to escape the troubles along the Afghan/Pakistan border. Two intelligence sources in the region told CBS that AQ has decided to "scale down" its leadership structure in their former home. Whether they intend on staying in Iraq hasn't been determined, but Basra seems a strange destination for AQ. The Wahhabist terrorists would hardly blend into the Shi'ite region; Farouk managed to find one of the areas where the Shi'ite militias rarely patrol.

If they try getting into the Anbar region or Baghdad, they may prove once again that the fight against terrorism in the region has centered on Iraq. The AQ move may be intended on ensuring that the terrorists do not allow the Americans to succeed in the theater.

Swift Program Auditor Found No Abuses

The independent auditing company hired by the government to review the intel program that gathered data from the Swift banking concern found no abuses. The New York Times buried the lede at the seventh paragraph -- the end of the seventh paragraph -- in a story that focuses on European complaints about the legality of the program even while they decline to end it:

The program, started by the Bush administration weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, allows analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency and other American intelligence agencies to search for possible terrorist financing activity among millions of largely international financial transactions that are processed by a banking cooperative known as Swift that is based in Belgium.

The European Union panel will not call for the program to be stopped, officials said. But it is expected to recommend that additional safeguards be put in place to check how financial data are shared with American intelligence officials. For the last three years, a Washington consulting firm, Booz Allen Hamilton, has audited the program, but Mr. Schaar said his panel would recommend that an outside auditor from Europe be brought in to protect against abuses. ...

The Bush administration has strongly defended the effectiveness and legality of the once-secret program as a tool in fighting terrorism, and it sharply criticized The New York Times for disclosing the arrangement in June. Although one government intelligence analyst was removed from the Swift team for conducting improper searches, officials at the Treasury Department and Booz Allen say they have not found any broader instances of abuse in the program.

Critics, including many privacy advocates and some banking industry executives, have questioned the propriety of giving American intelligence officials broad access, without court orders, to sensitive data.

The Swift program actually helped catch al-Qaeda terrorists, ending the career of the senior AQ leader in the Philippines as one example. It broke no laws and it worked, but the Times insisted on neutralizing it by sticking it on the front page of their paper. The original report never even bothered to allege any systemic abuses, and the one person discovered to have improperly searched the records had been dismissed.

Booz Allen came to the program to provide an independent look at the intel program and gave it a clean bill of health. That prompted the ACLU to attack Booz Allen as a government stooge dependent on federal contracts and run by former intel officers. However, they have produced no evidence for such allegations, and Booz Allen rejects them out of hand. It's hard to figure what would satisfy the program's attackers; certainly an investigation by a government inspector would hardly suffice, and Booz Allen has a sterling reputation.

The Times has been proven wrong yet again, no matter how they spin this. Even their own report here mentions that they cannot find any legal analysts that are willing to call the program illegal -- but you have to go to paragraph 14 to find that out.

Line-Item Veto Presser To Pressure The Senate

Now that we have won major battles on the federal spending database and the new House rules on identifying earmarkers, we still have one more effort to shepherd to victory. The group Citizens Against Government Waste will hold a press conference this week in order to put pressure on the Senate to pass the line-item veto bill passed by the House last June. The Senate version, S.2381, has been stalled since May, and with the legislative session winding down, time may start running out for the new line-item veto.

I wrote about this for the Heritage Foundation Policy Blog today. Some feel the new approach taken by the line-item veto is too weak to overcome all of the excessive spending in Congress, but I argue that even a little bit helps:

The question about the line-item veto isn’t whether it would do damage to the Constitution, it’s whether it would get used. This administration has been the most reluctant in American history to veto legislation, although it has used the threat of veto. The Senate probably takes this proposal less seriously considering this track record and may have thought to put more effort into the other reforms as a result.

The White House already can simply choose not to spend the monies appropriated by Congress, especially the earmarks in conference and committee reports. In fact, the line-item veto won’t apply to such earmarks—only those line items listed in the official budget. And nothing will get trimmed if the White House refuses to challenge Congress on spending, an effort sadly lacking in this particular administration over the past six years. But, President Bush’s support for the line-item veto indicates that he wants to change that in his final two years in office as evidenced by the hard push OMB Director Portman and other administration officials are making for this change

While some may object to this version of the line-item veto as doing too little, it’s important not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Be sure to read the whole thing, and check out the links to Brian Riedl's important work on the subject.

'A Rather Hyperactive Imagination'

The campaign for Senate in Virginia has descended into one of the most mud-filled dirty contests in recent history. Not since the nomination of Clarence Thomas has a political campaign stooped as low as have the supporters of Jim Webb against incumbent George Allen. Ken Shelton, one of Allen's long-time critics and once a college-football teammate of Allen, suddenly recalled -- after several years of opposing Allen politically -- that Allen regularly used a particularly vile racial epithet during his years at the University of Virginia:

"Allen said he came to Virginia because he wanted to play football in a place where 'blacks knew their place,'" said Dr. Ken Shelton, a white radiologist in North Carolina who played tight end for the University of Virginia football team when Allen was quarterback. "He used the N-word on a regular basis back then."

A second white teammate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he feared retribution from the Allen campaign, separately claimed that Allen used the word "n****r" [redacted by CQ] to describe blacks. "It was so common with George when he was among his white friends. This is the terminology he used," the teammate said.

A third white teammate contacted separately, who also spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of being attacked by the Virginia senator, said he too remembers Allen using the word "n****r," though he said he could not recall a specific conversation in which Allen used the term. "My impression of him was that he was a racist," the third teammate said.

Allegations this explosive would require responsible publications to get more than one source on the record. Michael Scherer and Salon failed to find even one other source to go public, nor did they reveal that Shelton's political activities put him in opposition to Allen. Instead, they used Shelton and two supposedly frightened and anonymous UV alums to publish these scurrilous charges.

Scherer mentions that other teammates didn't recall Allen as racist, but that glosses over what they had to day in response to these charges. Jon Henke, Allen's New Media coordinator, manages to do what Scherer couldn't be bothered to accomplish -- to get several of them on the record. Not only do they expose this story as a nasty falsehood, they expose Shelton as a liar about how he got his team nickname. Shelton claims Allen called him "Wizard" because a Klan leader had the same last name, but their teammates recall that Shelton had the nickname before Allen ever arrived, and it had nothing to do with the Klan:

Joe Gieck, 35-year UVA trainer: “I seem to recall that Ken Shelton got the ‘Wizard’ nickname for his pass catching ability and before George Allen came to the University of Virginia.”

George Korte, UVA linebacker ‘70-’73: “Ken Shelton received his nickname because of his ability as a tight end to magically get open and catch the football not because he shared someone’s last name.”

Charlie Hale, UVA center ‘70-’73: I have always known him by the nickname, ‘Wizard’. I have always thought the name came from his ability to catch passes … or his ability to somehow get open in the field. Personally I believe that he was a true ‘Wizard’ because he always had the ability to sneak out after curfew and never get caught.”

Doug Jones, UVA defensive back ‘71-’74 and roomate of Ken Shelton: “I was on the University of Virginia football team with George Allen for the 1972 and 1973 seasons. During that time I never heard George Allen use any racially disparaging word nor did I ever witness or hear about him acting in a racially insensitive manner.”

George Korte, UVA linebacker ‘70-’73: “Contrary to Ken Shelton, I have kept up with George Allen the past thirty-five years. During this time, I have never known or heard him use racial epithets to describe blacks either in public or private. … George Allen did not use racial epithets or demonstrate racist attitudes towards blacks in the early 1970s."

Charlie Hale, UVA center ‘70-’73: ““During the 34 years I have known George Allen I have never heard him use racial slurs or derogatory language to describe a person or group of persons.”

It appears that the Democrats and their political allies in the activist and media communities will do anything to derail Allen's re-election, including making stories up about his racism. Not content to leave well enough alone after the "macaca" incident, which Allen handled poorly, they have sunk to using lies and innuendo in an attempt to damage him. And just like the Anita Hill episode, where the supposed outrages occurred far in the past, the mere allegation of his using the N-word will stick with him like glue.

It's an outrage, and Salon for one owes us a big explanation for the fact-deficient reporting of Scherer. Putting out this kind of clumsy and obvious hit piece so close to the election reveals Salon as nothing more than a shill for the Democratic Party and Scherer as its character assassin. One has to wonder what Webb's allies have planned next, after their attacks on Allen's mother and grandparents and this disgusting smear attempt.

What's On My Desk (At The Moment)

I have a number of books piling up on my desk these days, begging to be read. I'm in the middle of Conservatives Betrayed by Richard Viguerie, but I'm taking a long time finishing it due to other projects. I'm hoping to finish it soon and then contact the author for a brief chat on behalf of CQ readers. It's a good read, and I'd recommend it to disaffected conservatives, although I'm not in complete agreement with his conclusions.

I just received Max Boot's new book, War Made New, this weekend. Max is a favorite columnist and a CQ reader, so I hear. I'm looking forward to reading the history of technology in warfare and the impact it's had on world history. It focuses on 1500 forward, so I presume the use of the longbow as the first effective surface-to-surface missile attack may not be covered.

Andrew Sullivan's The Conservative Soul arrived last week, but I understand that a significant print error exists in the pre-release copies. I'm supposed to get another version soon. I've flipped through it briefly but I'll wait for the corrected edition before commenting. Needless to say, Andrew writes well and provocatively, but that doesn't necessarily equate to correctly.

On deck: David Limbaugh's Bankrupt and H. W. Crocker's Don't Tread On Me.

Jules Crittendon: AP Plays For The Other Side

Jules Crittendon, the excellent Boston Herald columnist, wrote a fiery piece yesterday about the AP and its engagement with terrorists. Crittendon wonders when the AP decided to become a propaganda shill for al-Qaeda and the Islamists and laments the betrayal of its long and lustrous history in pioneering objectivity in journalism:

The AP was, in fact, a pioneer in balanced coverage. The concept was born with the AP in 1848 and tempered in the Civil War. The AP served newspapers of different stripes and had to keep politics out of it. ...

I look at the AP copy I see nightly. The president of the United States gives a speech. The AP grants him a couple of fragmentary quotes before allowing his failed 2004 challenger and other opponents several full paragraphs to denounce him.

There is the bizarre work of Charles J. Hanley, an AP apologist for Saddam Hussein. He dismisses evidence of weapons programs and reports on the deep frustration Saddam felt when he could not convince the world of his good intentions, in those years when he was murdering his own people and playing a hard-nosed game of cat-and-mouse with U.N. weapons inspectors that led to their removal.

Last week, the AP gave us a lengthy series on the U.S. detention of terrorism suspects. The AP’s opinion was evident. Bilal Hussein was the poster boy. The salient fact that Hussein was captured with an al-Qaeda leader was buried. Al-Qaeda has killed and abducted dozens of journalists, Iraqi, American and European. Mainly Iraqi. I wonder: What’s so special about this particular Iraqi journalist that he could associate freely with al-Qaeda?

Michelle Malkin noted that special relationship in two posts last week, required reading for this topic.

Pope Benedict Demands Reciprocity

Pope Benedict XVI met with envoys from several Muslim nations today, greeting them warmly and emphasizing the need for dialogue between the faiths. He did not offer another apology for his remarks at Regensburg two weeks ago, but he did remind the envoys that they have not fulfilled their responsibilities in ensuring freedom of religious practice for Christians:

Pope Benedict XVI told Muslim diplomats Monday that ''our future'' depends on dialogue between Christians and Muslims, an attempt to ease relations strained by his recent remarks about Islam and violence.

The pontiff quoted from his predecessor, John Paul II, who had close relations with the Muslim world, when he described the need for ''reciprocity in all fields,'' including religious freedom. Benedict spoke in French to a roomful of diplomats from 21 countries and the Arab League in his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo in the Alban Hills near Rome.

After his five-minute speech in a salon in the papal palace, Benedict greeted each envoy individually, clasping their hands warmly and chatting for a few moments with every one.

''The circumstances which have given risen to our gathering are well known,'' Benedict said, referring to his remarks on Islam in a Sept. 12 speech at Regensburg, Germany. He did not address those remarks at length. ...

Benedict cited John Paul II's statement that ''Respect and dialogue require reciprocity in all spheres,'' particularly religious freedom, a major issue for the Vatican in Saudi Arabia and other countries where non-Muslims cannot worship openly.

The Pope took exactly the right path in this meeting. He needs to ensure that paths to dialogue remain open and friendly between the Vatican and the various Muslim nations. However, the pontiff needs to start demanding a few points of his own, which he appears ready to do, in order to secure the rights of Christian minorities to practice their faith without interference.

These Muslim leaders that expressed such outrage over the Regensburg speech have little room for complaint. Human Rights Watch reported last year that the "Saudi religious police have continued to arrest and deport Christians for conducting private religious services. Saudi religious police continue to raid private homes where they suspect such services are taking place."

Egypt, Freedom House reports, "has done little to protect Egypt's ancient Christian community, by far the largest religious minority in the Middle East, and sometimes attacks them itself. No one was punished for the massacre of 21 Copts in the village of El-Kosheh four years ago. On March 23, the Coptic pope, Shenouda III, publicly condemned the escalating forced conversion of Christian girls, a major step since it is arguably illegal for him to criticize the government and he has previously been under house arrest for three years for doing so. In November 2003, security officials arrested 21 converts to Christianity, tortured several of them, and one died in custody."

Many other examples abound, and those outraged Muslim leaders should perhaps stop worrying about 600-year-old dialogues and tend to their own failings . Pope Benedict has remained steadfast on this point, and he should press the point by talking about the oppression of Christians in these countries more openly. If the Muslims want to stop people from talking about forced conversions, then perhaps they can be shamed into preventing them in the first place.

UNIFIL Bigger But Just As Ineffective

The expanded UNIFIL force tasked to implement UN Security Council resolution 1701 has almost no mandate to do so and has received no leadership from the UN, the New York Times reports this morning. The force commander believes that he can do nothing unless authorized by the Lebanese Army -- and so nothing they do:

One month after a United Nations Security Council resolution ended a 34-day war between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia, members of the international force sent to help keep the peace say their mission is defined more by what they cannot do than by what they can.

They say they cannot set up checkpoints, search cars, homes or businesses or detain suspects. If they see a truck transporting missiles, for example, they say they can not stop it. They cannot do any of this, they say, because under their interpretation of the Security Council resolution that deployed them, they must first be authorized to take such action by the Lebanese Army.

The job of the United Nations force, and commanders in the field repeat this like a mantra, is to respect Lebanese sovereignty by supporting the Lebanese Army. They will only do what the Lebanese authorities ask.

The Security Council resolution, known as 1701, was seen at the time as the best way to halt the war, partly by giving Israel assurances that Lebanon’s southern border would be policed by a robust international force to prevent Hezbollah militants from attacking. When the resolution was approved, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, one of its principal architects, said the force’s deployment would help “protect the Lebanese people and prevent armed groups such as Hezbollah from destabilizing the area.”

But the resolution’s diplomatic language skirted a fundamental question: what kind of policing power would be given to the international force? The resolution leaves open the possibility that the Lebanese Army would grant such policing power, but the force’s commanders say that so far, at least, that has not happened.

We have returned to the same UNIFIL we have known for the past 28 years. Prior to the war this summer, UNIFIL did nothing but observe while Hezbollah built fortified positions adjacent to their own, and did nothing when they saw the terrorists launch attacks on Israel. These attacks violated the Blue Line the UN sent them to defend, but the UN never gave them orders to use force in that defense.

Now we have the same kind of force operating in the vacuum of UN military leadership. The UNSC sent an additional 5,000 troops -- which is supposed to swell to 15,000 at some point -- but failed to send them any orders that would allow them to operate independently. They do not want to be viewed as an "occupier", so they do nothing that would even hint at enforcement of the cease-fire that convinced Israel to end its military operation against Hezbollah. They will not even stop vehicles that openly carry prohibited weapons across the border -- which gives Hezbollah the opportunity to replenish its armaments and threatens the Lebanese sovereignty that UNIFIL supposedly protects with its laissez-faire strategy.

None of this comes as a great surprise. The UN followed its cease-fire resolution with an number of statements explaining why it wouldn't bother enforcing it in the region, except of course as it applied to Israel. The most egregious example of this is the status of the captured Israeli soldiers, whom the resolution required to be returned unconditionally. Hezbollah has refused to do so unless the Israelis release hundreds of Palestinian criminals, and the UN has washed its hands of the issue.

The UN has pushed itself far out on a limb with this limp effort in the sub-Litani region. If the Israelis eject Olmert from office, which seems very likely, the UN will have to deal with Benjamin Netanyahu. And Bibi will view 1701 in an entirely new and critical light, especially if Hezbollah doesn't cough up its prisoners. UNIFIL might find itself in the middle of a shooting war, one they could have avoided by ensuring compliance with the cease-fire its own leadership imposed on both parties but only enforced on the Israelis.

McCain Can't Keep His Mouth Shut

During the negotiations over the legislation intended to authorize CIA detentions and interrogations of terrorists, officials in all agencies and in Congress took pains to avoid specifying the kinds of techniques approved or forbidden by the competing proposals. The CIA and the White House explicitly told reporters that revealing those techniques could allow terrorists to prepare for future interrogations. So it probably surprised everyone when John McCain decided to reveal the limits within the compromise legislation on national television yesterday:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) named three measures that he said would no longer be allowed under a provision barring techniques that cause serious mental or physical suffering by U.S. detainees: extreme sleep deprivation, forced hypothermia and "waterboarding," which simulates drowning. He also said other "extreme measures" would be banned.

McCain's remarks were unusual because public officials involved in the lengthy public debate about U.S. interrogation practices have rarely made specific references to the CIA's actions, choosing instead to make general claims about the need for rough interrogations or a desire to stop abusive behavior.

"It's clear we have to have the high moral ground," said McCain, a former POW tortured by prison guards in Vietnam, on CBS's "Face The Nation." "I am confident that some of the abuses that were reportedly committed in the past will be prohibited in the future."

Bill Frist missed McCain's appearance on CBS. He told ABC's "This Week" that "no responsible person" would list the specific techniques allowed and disallowed in a public forum. Unfortunately, his colleague didn't get that memo.

What kind of damage could this do? Islamists who watch American media will note the exceptions McCain listed and tell their operatives that they will not need to prepare for waterboarding and can prepare for less rigorous techniques. While it isn't quite the same thing as telling them all of the approved techniques, it gives another edge to the Islamists -- an edge we didn't need to give them.

Serious and responsible people would understand this. Apparently, John McCain doesn't qualify as either.

Palestinian Situation Crumbling

Mahmoud Abbas says he will try once more to get Hamas into a unity government that will abide by the agreements signed with Israel, but several militias threatened open rebellion to any government that offers official recognition of Israel. The developments leave the Palestinian Authority with almost no mandate and no chance to convince the West to restart aid to the territories:

Four Palestinian armed groups on Sunday threatened to target any Palestinian government that recognizes Israel's right to exist and attacked Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas for "succumbing" to US pressure.

The latest threat came as Abbas was preparing to travel to the Gaza Strip for another round of talks with PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh over the formation of a joint Hamas-Fatah government.

Abbas is demanding that the political program of the proposed government recognize Israel and honor all previous agreements signed between the Palestinians and Israel. Hamas leaders have rejected Abbas's demand, saying they would never join a government that recognizes Israel and the Oslo Accords.

PA officials told The Jerusalem Post that Abbas was scheduled to arrive in the Gaza Strip on Monday to resume talks with Hamas's Haniyeh about the possibility of forming a unity government. According to the officials, this would be Abbas's final attempt to persuade Hamas to change its policies before he dissolves the Hamas-led government and calls early elections.

Elections may be the best option now for Abbas. The terrorist-led assembly has melted down the Palestinian economy and cut off all aid from Western governments with their hard-line refusals to engage Israel on a two-state solution. Even if Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh could agree to Abbas' demands, the rank and file of Hamas would probably revolt and start taking their orders from Khaled Mashaal in Damascus.

Palestinians have to make the decision about whether they want to engage Israel in peace or annihilation. They elected Hamas instead of the somewhat more moderate Fatah early this year, sending Israel and the world the message that they wanted war. That choice destroyed their economy, and when Hamas refused to stop the missile attacks from Gaza and kidnapped Gilad Shalit instead, that choice brought them a more intense war than they have seen in years.

Do they still want war? An election would answer that question. If they reject Hamas and elect Fatah, they might intend on a peaceful coexistence. However, the best solution for Palestinians would be to reject all of these terrorist-based political parties and start forming another based on rational thinking and realistic expectations. If they did that and elected leaders who really worked for peace, then Israel would gladly start negotiating an end to the occupation.

The choice is theirs. Abbas should dissolve the PA government and force Palestinians to tell the world whether they want to act responsibly or whether they want total war. It would provide another moment of clarity in the ongoing meltdown in the territories.

The October Surprise Meme Arises Again

At one time, paranoid conspiracists comprised only the lunatic fringe of American politics. Yesterday, former Senator Gary Hart reminded us of why Democrats have managed to lose three straight elections that they should have won by announcing that the Bush administration would attack Iran in order to win the midterm elections:

It should come as no surprise if the Bush Administration undertakes a preemptive war against Iran sometime before the November election.

Were these more normal times, this would be a stunning possibility, quickly dismissed by thoughtful people as dangerous, unprovoked, and out of keeping with our national character. But we do not live in normal times.

And we do not have a government much concerned with our national character. If anything, our current Administration is out to remake our national character into something it has never been.

Hart has it exactly backwards: we have an opposition party that has transformed itself into something completely outside the national character -- which is why voters haven't trusted them with power since 2000. This is nothing new. Recall 2004, when Madeline Albright and Teresa Kerry told people that the Bush administration had already captured Osama bin Laden and would announce it right before the presidential elections. Recall also that John Kerry told people that George Bush was secretly planning to reinstate the draft after the presidential election, which would have been more of a November surprise, even though the only people proposing it were Democrats Charles Rangel and Fritz Hollings. (In fact, Democrats insisted on considering a draft in 2005.)

Alos, let's not forget the Howard Dean theory on 9/11 -- that the Bush administration had advance knowledge of it but allowed it to happen in order to gain politically from the war, saying it was an "interesting theory" during his presidential run in 2003-4. The Democrats responded to this conspiracy-mongering by putting Dean in charge of their party.

Now we have yet another mainstream Democratic figure pushing through another October Surprise theory, and it's even more ridiculous than the Osama rumor. For one thing, it ignores military logistics completely, a pretty embarrassing exposure of Democratic fecklessness on defense. Since we are about six weeks ahead of the midterms, the US would have to have already started mobilizing for the war; in fact, they would have had to do so weeks ago. Hart blithely notes that bombers and missile ships would have to be repositioned, but gives no context of the logistical efforts necessary to make that happen.

The paranoid fantasy also hinges on the notion that the Bush administration wants to go to war with Iran, when nothing the administration has done even hints at it. If anything, Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have sounded much more hysterical alarms at the risk posed by Iran, accusing the Bush administration of "outsourcing" the efforts to contain the nuclear threat by working with the EU-3. Bush has tried patiently to work through the UN Security Council and the Europeans to get Iran back into compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He even approved the offer of a wide-ranging package of incentives that would supply Iran with nuclear power, and he and Condoleezza Rice have allowed Iran to shrug off at least two deadlines for responses to the package with no consequences whatsoever.

There is also the problem of declaring war without going to Congress. Hart's explanation of how Bush will unilaterally decide to attack Iran sounds much like the kind of announcements we heard from Bill Clinton when he launched missiles at Iraq at two points in his presidency. However, the situation is much different than with Iraq. Clinton had authorization to enforce the terms of the 1991 cease-fire, and in the case of the first strike, responded to an attempt by the Iraqis to assassinate George H. W. Bush. The White House has no authorization to attack Iran nor any cease-fire to enforce. Bush would have to get Congress to authorize a strike on Iran, unless Iran launched an attack on the US. With the nutcases in Congress already spewing rhetoric about impeachment, Bush will not be inclined to hand them a case for it just before the midterms.

The entire notion of an October Surprise has gripped the Democrats ever since Jimmy Carter got the boot in 1980. Every election, they claim the Republicans have a nasty trick about to drop on the electorate -- and every time they wind up with egg on their face. Perhaps the eeeeeevil mastermind Karl Rove has launched the same October Surprise each time: the collapse and exposure of their paranoid fantasies, showing that they have no business leading this nation. (via The Moderate Voice)

NIE: Ending 12-Year Iraqi Quagmire Made Terrorism Worse

The new National Intelligence Estimate will report that the Iraq War has amplified Islamist movements and created a new generation of jihadists, according to the New York Times, which saw an advance copy of the summary and spoke to several sources involved in its creation. (The Washington Post also reports on it here.) Mark Mazetti explains how the various intelligence agencies have concluded that our efforts to topple Saddam have inspired even more radicalism, but strangely absent from this report is how Islamist expansion managed to exponentially grow in the twelve years that we attempted to resolve the Iraq quagmire peacefully:

A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

It's a fascinating article, and one CQ readers should read in its entirety. It makes the classic logical fallacy of confusing correlation with causation, and the basic premise can easily be dismissed with a reminder of some basic facts.

First and foremost, Islamist radicalism didn't just start expanding in 2003. The most massive expansion of Islamist radicalism came after the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, when the Islamists defeated one of the world's superpowers. Shortly afterwards, the staging of American forces in Saudi Arabia to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait created the most significant impulse for the expansion of organized Islamist radicalism and led directly to the formation of al-Qaeda. It put the US in Wahhabi jihadist crosshairs for the first time.

So should we have allowed Saddam to invest Kuwait rather than risk amplifying the Islamist impulse? Some might argue for that in hindsight, but it would have put all of our allies and trading partners at risk in the region, as Saddam would not likely have stopped with his "19th Province". It does mean that we should have gone all the way to Baghdad then and there, removing Saddam and doing what we're doing now twelve years earlier. We could have worked with a less-radicalized Shi'ite majority and an Iraqi population more inclined to trust American resolve -- and we would have left Saudi Arabia years before 2003.

Unfortunately, we decided to allow Saddam to survive, and then got caught up in a 12-year war that only occasionally looked like peace. We had to keep tens of thousands of forces staged in Saudi Arabia, the action that prompted al-Qaeda's formation and mission in the first place, for a dozen years while we allowed Saddam to continually defy both the cease-fire agreement and sixteen UN Security Council resolutions. Either we had to acknowledge defeat in that war and retreat from the region after 9/11, or we had to end that twelve-year war in order to prosecute the war on terror in the region where terrorists lived.

Did that make Islamists more angry? Yes, I'm sure it did, and it probably did give them a great propaganda tool for recruitment. However, here's the crux of the problem: no matter what we do to fight the Islamists and to establish liberal thinking in opposition to them, they're going to get motivated because of it. Even an abject surrender and a return to isolationism will not work, because their victory over us will be an even greater motivational force for Islamist expansion.

We had to conclude the Iraq war in order to fight radical Islamist terrorists. We could not afford to allow Saddam to escape the noose -- which our erstwhile allies on the Security Council tried through the corruption of the Oil-For-Food program -- and to have his miltary on our flank in the region. When the planes flew into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11, that truth finally dawned on Washington DC -- that the long quagmire in Iraq had seriously endangered the US in the region and beyond, and that we had to end the one war as a part of the new war that terrorist had thrust upon us.

To put it bluntly, fighting terrorists and upsetting their plans for regional domination will make them mad. Creating opportunities for liberalizing democratic structures to thrive in their back yard will give them enough resentment among Islamists to recruit more terrorists. If we don't already know that much, then we haven't paid much attention. When George Bush warned us that this would be a long war, this is exactly what he meant. The only way to win this war is to give the people in the region better options than Islamic totalitarianism, and a success in Iraq will go a long way towards that goal.

Iraq As Switzerland?

Sunni legislators in Iraq's National Assembly have agreed to allow debate on a proposal to restructure Iraq into three semi-autonomous cantons along federalist principles, a proposal that they have opposed since the formation of the new republic in 2003. The other factions agreed to set up a constitutional amendment committee in order to get the Sunnis to retreat on federalism:

Iraq's fractious ethnic and religious parliamentary groups agreed Sunday to open debate on a contentious Shiite-proposed draft legislation that will allow the creation of federal regions in Iraq, politicians said. ...

The deal opens the way for Iraq's Shiites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds to move ahead politically and break a two-week political deadlock that threatened to further sour relations between the communities. If left unresolved, the deadlock could have further shaken Iraq's fragile democracy and led to more sectarian violence.

The federalism bill calls for setting up a system to allow the creation of autonomous regions in the predominantly Shiite south, much like the self-ruling Kurdish region in northern Iraq. Sunni Arabs have said they fear the legislation will split Iraq apart and fuel sectarian bloodshed.

The Kurdish north and Shiite south hold Iraq's oil fields, while the predominantly Sunni Arab areas are mostly desert.

Sunni Arabs say that before the bill can be passed, parliament must make headway to amend the constitution — a key demand they made when they agreed to join Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government.

One of the amendments they seek would weaken the ability to set up self-ruling cantons.

The suggestion to turn Iraq's government into one that resembles the canton system of Switzerland is not new, of course, Some American politicians have gone further than that, suggesting that Iraq simply be split into three nations of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'ites. That proposal would lead to disaster in the region, as the Turks would almost immediately have to deal with renewed Kurdish separatism and the Sunnis would starve without oil revenue. The Shi'ite state would eventually fall into Iran's orbit.

All of these outcomes could arise from this suggestion, too, and Iraqis will have plenty of difficulties avoiding them. Two issues present themselves almost at the start: oil revenue and security, both internal and external. One would presume that the Sunnis would insist on a revenue-sharing system if they allowed the Kurds and the Shi'ites to form semi-autonomous states, but it would remain to be seen whether that agreement would hold up after federalism gets applied. The federal government would have to retain control of the oil fields and their sales; otherwise, the potential for conflict over accounting appears high, especially given the level of mistrust between the three factions.

Internal and external security will be tougher to resolve. Will all three cantons support the new Iraqi Army? Right now, the Sunnis are underrepresented in the force, although one presumes that recruiting has picked up in the Sunni regions over the last year. More importantly, what happens when the cantons create their own security forces? The Shi'ites have the Mahdi Army, which would presumably get converted to an official canton police force if Moqtada al-Sadr winds up running the Shi'ite state. The Kurds have their peshmerga, and the Sunnis will no doubt use their own militias as official security forces. What happens along the borders of these new cantons, especially if the borders are disputed? It seems like a great way to ensure that the mechanisms of civil war will not just survive but to thrive.

The separation of the three factions into their own regions may help alleviate the violence and destruction seen in Iraq at the moment. It could solve it altogether. However, it seems more likely to simply postpone it -- and to give it the means to turn much more explosive later.

Remembering Sgt. Paul Smith

Derek Brigham of Freedom Dogs has arranged for a Minnesota Organization of Bloggers blogburst in memory of Sgt. Paul Smith, the first Medal of Honor recipient in the global war on terror. I wrote about Sgt, Smith when his heroism in battle first got him nominated for the posthumous award in May 2004, and again earlier this year for Memorial Day. Today is Sgt. Smith's birthday, and thanks to his actions in protecting his men, more than 100 of them will see their next birthdays.

Here again is the story of Sgt. Paul Smith's heroic actions:

The President of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress, March 3, 1863, has awarded in the name of Congress the Medal of Honor to

Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith
United States Army

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:

Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on 4 April 2003. On that day, Sergeant First Class Smith was engaged in the construction of a prisoner of war holding area when his Task Force was violently attacked by a company-sized enemy force. Realizing the vulnerability of over 100 fellow soldiers, Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers. As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers. Sergeant First Class Smith’s extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division “Rock of the Marne,” and the United States Army.

I also want to remind Minnesotans that we have an opportunity to thank our own heroes who have returned from their tours of duty. Next Saturday, September 30, the Minnesotan's Military Appreciation Fund will stage a parade led by Eagan's own Col. Joe Repya. The Elder has the details:

Join MMAF for an entertaining day in honor of Minnesota's military personnel, at home and overseas. In addition to remembering our deployed friends and neighbors, this event will be a special "welcome back" for all returned troops, especially those injured overseas, capped with a day at the ballpark with the Minnesota Twins.

Military personnel, their families and Scouts are Free!

I had lunch with Col. Repya on Friday -- actually, CQ readers paid for it, so thank you! -- and he has a surprise for everyone who shows up to the parade. Check out his new convertible that his wonderful wife allowed him to buy on his return from Iraq earlier this month. I won't spoil it, but all I can tell you is that I wouldn't mind driving it when people cut in front of me in traffic. Fortunately for Minnesotans, Col. Repya has a little more discipline ...

Also blogging for Sgt. Paul Smith in the MOB: Andy, Matt, Brian.

BUMPED: Into Sunday. Also, Mitch has a great post about how Smith's platoon may not have liked him much as a leader before the war, because he spent all of his time making sure they would survive it.